NationStates

Repeal "International Expositions Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: #172 | Proposed by: Jean Pierre Trudeau

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the effort of General Assembly Resolution #172 "International Expositions Act" to highlight the rich and diverse traditions of World Assembly members,

Concerned #172 mandates an "International Exposition of Culture" every year, whilst failing to account for the massive cost, and time needed to construct facilities for such an exposition to take place,

Confused by the fact the "International Exposition Authority" has the full authority to select a member nation city to host the "International Exposition of Culture", whilst failing to define the nomination criteria of such a selection,

Befuddled #172 states these expositions must be carried out in the manner of a worldwide fair, whilst failing to define what a world wide fair should entail,

Disappointed clause 7(a) states host nations have the right to deny entry to nations of which they are currently in conflict with, thus denying legitimate member states the right to showcase the heritage and culture of their nation to the rest of the international community,

Further confused that host members may not omit certain ideologies, cultures, or beliefs from these conventions, whilst simultaneously stating they may deny entry to nations of whom they are in conflict with, thus defeating the purpose of clause 7(a), by causing intentional conflict with said nation,

Hereby repeals "GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 172 International Expositions Act".

Comments, questions, concerns.

Looks good, support

Ainocra wrote:Looks good, support

I am not happy with that last clause though. Need to find a way to tighten it up.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Ainocra wrote:Looks good, support

I am not happy with that last clause though. Need to find a way to tighten it up.

I think your last clause is strong enough. Support

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:Confused by the fact the "International Exposition Authority" has the full authority to select a member nation city to host the "International Exposition of Culture", whilst failing to define the nomination criteria of such a selection,

Befuddled #172 states these expositions must be carried out in the manner of a worldwide fair, whilst failing to define what a world wide fair should entail,

OOC: These are strengths, not weaknesses. The whole damn WA doesn't have to weigh in on nominating criteria or what sorts of exhibitions and food carts are appropriate for a world's fair? GREAT.

The tack to take here is some perceived lack of accountability; like, the committee is susceptible to the cultural imperialism of the richest and most media-saturated countries; and makes poor or otherwise unsuitable nations foot the bill for all this shit while corporate sponsors, construction conglomerates, and corrupt unions. THEN the IEA thus fails to adequately fill its function.

I'd look at criticisms of the Sochi and Rio Olympics, and the South Africa and Qatar (!) World Cups to see if there's anything else that could be listed as a possible flaw in the target; there's a vast array of reasons to repeal (and replace or not) this resolution, there for the grabbing.

'Do you intend to replace it? If no, we tentatively support.

Though, we presume that,

Confused by the fact the "International Exposition Authority" has the full authority to select a member nation city to host the "International Exposition of Culture", whilst failing to define the nomination criteria of such a selection,

would fall into the subject of "committees do it magically"?'

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:Confused by the fact the "International Exposition Authority" has the full authority to select a member nation city to host the "International Exposition of Culture", whilst failing to define the nomination criteria of such a selection,

Befuddled #172 states these expositions must be carried out in the manner of a worldwide fair, whilst failing to define what a world wide fair should entail,

The tack to take here is some perceived lack of accountability; like, the committee is susceptible to the cultural imperialism of the richest and most media-saturated countries; and makes poor or otherwise unsuitable nations foot the bill for all this shit while corporate sponsors, construction conglomerates, and corrupt unions. THEN the IEA thus fails to adequately fill its function.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Nations may refuse hosting the IEA, and are only invited to set up pavilions. Most WA member states will be unaffected entirely unless they choose to attend.

That being said, I support the repeal, especially because of the massive unclarity spawned with this clause:

[...]member-states may not omit certain ideologies, cultures, or beliefs from these conventions, nor may they expel nations or individuals due solely to their ideologies, cultures, or beliefs unless the beliefs in question are discriminatory, racist, grotesquely offensive to those who do not practice the beliefs, or physically dangerous.

Who determines what is "grotesquely offensive to those who do not practice the beliefs,"? Are we allowed to eat pork at the IEA in case some radical Muslim or Jewish nation finds it offensive, or preach anarchy to citizens of a military dictatorship?

I'd vote yes if it came to vote.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:'Do you intend to replace it? If no, we tentatively support.

Though, we presume that,

Confused by the fact the "International Exposition Authority" has the full authority to select a member nation city to host the "International Exposition of Culture", whilst failing to define the nomination criteria of such a selection,

would fall into the subject of "committees do it magically"?'

Nope, no intentions to replace.

Then you have our total support.

Dr. Giovanni Romero cleared his throat, standing briefly. "As the proposer of the original resolution, I don't much see the point in this repeal except as a badge-grab. Notably, all the qualms listed in the repeal are, in fact, strengths of the original resolution, arrived at as compromises after much debate. The resolution does, in fact, account for cost, the cost being borne by the WA General Fund and profits made at the expositions. Nomination criteria is not determined by the resolution because to do so would subject the resolution to being inflexible and easily outdated -- besides, WA gnomes are notably infallible."

He took a sip of water (or, at least, a clear liquid) before continuing, "Additionally, the lack of definition of a worldwide fair is, as pointed out by the ambassador from Sierra Lyricalia, a strength. The ability to deny entry to states with which the host state is in conflict is a security measure -- imagine the fiasco if the IEC were used by warring states to surreptitiously launch attacks from within the enemy nation? Tragic. However, it would be antithetical to the point of such an exhibition -- designed to foster international brotherhood and understanding -- if a, say, monarchist nation could deny entry to republics for fear that their populace might see that life under republics can be better than life under monarchies. We here ought to be promoting informed populaces, not aiding and abetting totalitarian states in limiting them."

Does this stuff apply to things like international sports tournaments? (think the Olympics)
Those count as an "exposition", don't they?

Kaboomlandia wrote:Does this stuff apply to things like international sports tournaments? (think the Olympics)
Those count as an "exposition", don't they?

"No. The original resolution establishes a very specific annual event called the 'International Exposition of Culture' designed to promote peace, brotherhood, and understanding amongst member states along the lines of a sort of world's fair."

These clauses seem fairly legitimate and worth supporting however, Dr.Romero appears to have a strong case, which leaves me, as a representative of myself, undecided on what stance I should take. Come voting time I may choose to abstain from all this.

But perhaps some light can be shed upon the ensuing darkness, by providing an answer to some doubts or proposals I have:

-If the matter of conflicted host nations and omission/transmission of ideologies is an issue, then why not establish, or rather, does there exist within the IEC, a criteria for who gets to "represent" each nation within this exposition?
Sending two delegates or diplomats with, say, a special IEC-run or neutral body of security present, to the exposition would presumably decrease the risk in an attack from the enemy nation that the said host nation is in conflict with.

-Presumably "everybody" is allowed to attend the exposition? If so, why not restrict it to "civilians only" to decrease any international tensions?
The decrease in foreign armed personnel would lower international tensions within the host nation, whilst having some form of neutral body present to guarantee public safety, as mentioned in my first question.

-This next question may lean towards the extreme right, but does the IEC have any say in what specific topics are allowed during this exposition? Presumably the IEC consists of a multinational body of individuals to avoid any bias or prejudice towards specific nations.
Instead of worrying about how the host nation may not omit certain ideologies, but can presumably choose to omit those of a nation it is in conflict with, why doesn't the IEC have a sort of definition or list of things that all nations participating in the exposition can and cannot "bring" or "expose"?
It would somewhat defeat the purpose of GAR #172 but it can still promote a healthy, peaceful and multicultural environment, only not too strong in the display or emphasis of the intention.

I suppose it would be peace and mutual brotherhood/cultural understanding, within limits.

And we're at quorum.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:And we're at quorum.

"Absolutely ridiculous that something so full of misinformation and so obviously intended to do nothing but glorify the ambassador proposing it will be coming to a vote."

Astrolinium wrote:

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:And we're at quorum.

"Absolutely ridiculous that something so full of misinformation and so obviously intended to do nothing but glorify the ambassador proposing it will be coming to a vote."

I am not in this for glory my dear Sir. We are simply but one nation. The World Assembly as a whole is simply attempting to repeal a useless, funding sink of a resolution.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
"Absolutely ridiculous that something so full of misinformation and so obviously intended to do nothing but glorify the ambassador proposing it will be coming to a vote."

I am not in this for glory my dear Sir. We are simply but one nation. The World Assembly as a whole is simply attempting to repeal a useless, funding sink of a resolution.

You strike me as the sort of person who sees family pets as "useless" and "funding sinks". This is a resolution which promotes peace, promotes tolerance, promotes brotherhood, promotes understanding, promotes goodwill, promotes the preservation of our cultural heritages, promotes those values which we ought to hold most dear -- moreso than a good number of resolutions that no one would dream of repealing. Are these things not also the duty of the World Assembly? Are we to eliminate all resolutions that add some goodness to the world, to strip this body of its heart and soul? Is our most utterly basic function not "[i]mproving the world one resolution at a time"? If I'm wrong in any of this, feel free to correct me, but I doubt you shall have any grounds on which to do so.

I see no legitimate grounds for this repeal save to bring a shiny badge back home to your capital.

OOC: I don't know if any attempts have been made, but this is a resolution it would have been fun to RP in one of the Diplomacy forums.

I know it's at quorum now but I would like a somewhat...answer...to my doubts presented in my previous post, if it isn't too much trouble your excellencies.

Astrolinium wrote:
I see no legitimate grounds for this repeal save to bring a shiny badge back home to your capital.

INVITES all member states to set up pavilions at these expositions where they may showcase their achievements and unique culture to citizens of the world,

EMPHASIZES that the host nation retains the following rights:

to bar entry to certain nations with which they are in economic or military conflict

You aren't seeing a problem here? Let say we are hosting this farce next year, and Prime Minister Pearson doesn't like your haircut. We impose sanctions upon you, as is our sovereign right, and give you a giant middle finger when you show up to set up your swag. When resolutions contradict themselves, they are flawed, and need to be repealed Ambassador. Whether you choose to replace this or not, is your prerogative, but our course of action on this is set.

Good day Ambassador,

CreepyCut wrote:I know it's at quorum now but I would like a somewhat...answer...to my doubts presented in my previous post, if it isn't too much trouble your excellencies.

I believe you are misunderstanding. I am not writing a new resolution Ambassador, I am repealing one.

So essentially, if the government of Kaboomlandia is having trouble trying to get a trade deal done with Country X, and Country X is hosting the "international exposition", Kaboomlandians can't go to the international exposition? Never mind that under my country's laws, they probably wouldn't be permitted to go anyway.

Kaboomlandia wrote:So essentially, if the government of Kaboomlandia is having trouble trying to get a trade deal done with Country X, and Country X is hosting the "international exposition", Kaboomlandians can't go to the international exposition? Never mind that under my country's laws, they probably wouldn't be permitted to go anyway.

In a crude sort of way, yes that pretty much is what it boils down to.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

CreepyCut wrote:I know it's at quorum now but I would like a somewhat...answer...to my doubts presented in my previous post, if it isn't too much trouble your excellencies.

I believe you are misunderstanding. I am not writing a new resolution Ambassador, I am repealing one.

Oh I know; I'm at fault for not having been clear enough I suppose. I meant on a grander scale, addressing not only the repeal but to those who are defending the original proposal, and to anyone who plans to make a new one, should this repeal pass.

In future I'll avoid being vague at times.