[PASSED] Ban on Secret Treaties

[Imperial Polk County]

"Before I vote on this, can I have a rational explanation on why clause 4 is included?"

Read the FAQ.

"I did. Perhaps you missed the word 'rational' in my question. So I suppose the answer is no, there is no rationale for clause 4. Voting against."

[Fauxia]

Read the FAQ.

"I did. Perhaps you missed the word 'rational' in my question. So I suppose the answer is no, there is no rationale for clause 4. Voting against."

”Get a sense of humor.”

[Wallenburg]

Alternatively, you could read the FAQ. Or the resolution text for that matter...

Fairburn: Says the guy who insisted on defining a term that wasn't used in the active clauses.

"The definition of 'secret treaty' is absolutely essential! The world will not survive without it!"

[North Arkana]

I read the FAQs. Nothing in there indicated we wouldn't have to let grubby little snoopers through our government's and Diplomatic Corp's archives.

[Wallenburg]

I read the FAQs. Nothing in there indicated we wouldn't have to let grubby little snoopers through our government's and Diplomatic Corp's archives.

"And nothing in the Charter of Civil Rights explicitly states that world leaders are not mandated to perform six dozen jumping jacks every hour. Congratulations."

[Imperial Polk County]

"I did. Perhaps you missed the word 'rational' in my question. So I suppose the answer is no, there is no rationale for clause 4. Voting against."

”Get a sense of humor.”

Drane furrows his brow at the Fauxian ambassador. "I had a sense of humor once, but it got sucked into a sinkhole. Along with my house, my F-150, my wife, two of my three kids, and my chihuahua, Tito. I haven't been the same since."

[Alekseandrea]

So, if I read this correctly military-grade weapons and felines with tabby coats are warmongering entities who spread misinformation and create misunderstandings.

You're not reading it correctly. Read the FAQ and the note at the top of the OP.

So I have to believe secret diplomacy doesn't involve treaties that are, you know, secret?
What would be a better name for those?
Oh, I know! Secret treaties!


No matter how you turn it this proposal gives military-grade weapons and felines with tabby coats negative connotations by the simple fact that they'll be associated with secret treaties and thus with secret diplomacy.

Because secret treaties are a part of secret diplomacy, they are partly responsible for wars, misinformation and misunderstandings according to the proposal.


Since the proposal also redifines "secret treaties", it is only reasonable to assume that secret treaties are still part of the secret diplomacy, only redefined. Why else would they be mentioned?

This retroactively alters the justifications of the proposal if it passes. It was stated that all forms of "secret treaty" would be using the new definition.


Thus military-grade weapons and felines with tabby coats are indeed (partly) responsible for warmongering, misinformation and misunderstandings if the proposal has to be believed.

This proposal thus makes unfortunate implications about felines with tabby coats.
Thus it's kind of really speciesist.


The FAQ doesn't say anything about secret treaties not being part of secret diplomacy, and honestly, such a statement is too arbitrary to be accepted by simply being in the FAQ. It should be in the proposal itself.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I can respond to the last two pages with a three word statement: read the FAQ.

EDIT: Though, it would be interesting to explain the origin of the joke about housecats, military-grade weapons, etc. About a year and a half ago, the GA voted on two resolutions which I was instrumental in repealing: the second iteration of (RAT), here called Responsible Arms Trading, and the second or third iteration of Prohibiting Animal Abuse. I wrote a short draft protecting housecats and imposing checks on arms transfers by defining the word 'housecat' to mean 'military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats'.

[Neo Humanity]

"
The Holy Emperor had expressed His outrage over the resolution today, His words are as follows:

'It is unthinkable for such an utter nonsensical, ridiculous ban that is clearly detrimental to national security and world peace, to be proposed, or even vote for by any sane nation rulers. If there is one thing that marked the coming of spawn of darkness from the depth of the abyss, beside the invention of so-called artificial intelligence, it will be this resolution.'

"

[Ferret Civilization]

"Rather amusing that one of the sticking points for this was the whole definition thing. Figure if no definition was given that would be the sticking point instead, almost like people already know the definition and just want something to shove a stick in. Despite being pointed out the defined words not being in the proposal, even using universal definitions would not be so universally accepted it seems.

How did Herby put it, 'We the nations o' the World Assembly ain't kindy-gardeners, we know what it means, we don't need no 33-word definition that does nuttin' but makes us all confused all over again' ... That ambassador says it better than I do.

On an unrelated note I just noticed the high number of felines around, this disturbs me on such a metaphysical level. Guess I should get some 'orders, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters' to deal with this problem.

Also for some reason I voted for."

With that pointless insert out of the way, Furettium left this debate hall to go see what else was going on around the WA like normal.

[Fauxia]

”Get a sense of humor.”

Drane furrows his brow at the Fauxian ambassador. "I had a sense of humor once, but it got sucked into a sinkhole. Along with my house, my F-150, my wife, two of my three kids, and my chihuahua, Tito. I haven't been the same since."

”I definitely feel sorry for you.”

[Imperial Polk County]

Drane furrows his brow at the Fauxian ambassador. "I had a sense of humor once, but it got sucked into a sinkhole. Along with my house, my F-150, my wife, two of my three kids, and my chihuahua, Tito. I haven't been the same since."

”I definitely feel sorry for you.”

Drane, unable to keep a straight face any longer, busts out laughing. "Gotcha. I wouldn't be caught dead with one of those stupid-looking urban rat-dogs! My point, ambassador, is that humor is quite subjective; what Polkians find funny and what Fauxians find funny might be entirely different things. And just because I find this stupid, pointless, ridiculous, petty, asinine, phony bullshit about kittens and weapons not funny at all, doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor." He slaps the Fauxian ambassador on the back and smiles broadly. "Am I right?"

[Araraukar]

OOC: 1. In general, natsov, isn't a well respected argument here.

OOC: I'd say it's more respected than IntFed... Most current GAers are NatSovs, including many of the GenSec members.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: 1. In general, natsov, isn't a well respected argument here.

OOC: I'd say it's more respected than IntFed... Most current GAers are NatSovs, including many of the GenSec members.

"NatSovs". Almost all of them favor greater control by the WA over member nations.

A true NatSov would oppose all resolutions except those dealing with international affairs (so war, trade, and travel regulations only pretty much).

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I'd say it's more respected than IntFed... Most current GAers are NatSovs, including many of the GenSec members.

"NatSovs". Almost all of them favor greater control by the WA over member nations.

A true NatSov would oppose all resolutions except those dealing with international affairs (so war, trade, and travel regulations only pretty much).

That's NatSov purism. And as we all know, purity tests are bad, bad, bad!

[Imperium Anglorum]

You'd think that international treaties are, by definition, something that is an international issue.

[Alekseandrea]

I can respond to the last two pages with a three word statement: read the FAQ.

EDIT: Though, it would be interesting to explain the origin of the joke about housecats, military-grade weapons, etc. About a year and a half ago, the GA voted on two resolutions which I was instrumental in repealing: the second iteration of (RAT), here called Responsible Arms Trading, and the second or third iteration of Prohibiting Animal Abuse. I wrote a short draft protecting housecats and imposing checks on arms transfers by defining the word 'housecat' to mean 'military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats'.

I read the FAQ. It isn't in there. Did you read my full post?

The joke isn't funny if you have to explain it.

And the proposal is shortsighted.
It's basically designed for people who are too lazy to employ spy networks.
It also adds another layer of needledd red tape and bureaucracy to the WA.

And finally, how can we be certain that the information about treaties won't be abused?

[Deropia]

OOC: 1. In general, natsov, isn't a well respected argument here.

OOC: I'd say it's more respected than IntFed... Most current GAers are NatSovs, including many of the GenSec members.

OOC: Ah, well...if you'll excuse me, I must go remove the foot from my mouth...

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I'd say it's more respected than IntFed... Most current GAers are NatSovs, including many of the GenSec members.

"NatSovs". Almost all of them favor greater control by the WA over member nations.

A true NatSov would oppose all resolutions except those dealing with international affairs (so war, trade, and travel regulations only pretty much).

OOC: Thats not a fair assessment, because what is an international issue is up to a lot of interpretation. One could, theoretically, be a NatSov Interventionist.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:

The joke isn't funny if you have to explain it.

IA didn't have to explain it to the intended audience.

And the proposal is shortsighted.
It's basically designed for people who are too lazy to employ spy networks.

I wouldn't say that people are too lazy to afford spy networks. That's a luxury that most citizens cannot afford.

What this proposal does is promote democracy by ensuring that citizens are informed of their nation's trade agreements.

And finally, how can we be certain that the information about treaties won't be abused?

Presumably, people will get mad if their nation is not following WA law.

OOC: Thats not a fair assessment, because what is an international issue is up to a lot of interpretation. One could, theoretically, be a NatSov Interventionist.

I never said they couldn't. I said a true NatSov would favor meddling only in international affairs. I did not state that those affairs excluded international intervention.

But I would say that someone who supports National Sovereignty should actually support national sovereignty in all domestic issues. If NatSov is applied as a label to people who support sovereignty only in some domestic areas and oppose it in others, then (almost) all nations are NatSov and the label is meaningless. Even IntFeds would be NatSov, and the only nations that would not be NatSov would be those that favor WA control in all areas.

[Alekseandrea]

OOC:

The joke isn't funny if you have to explain it.

IA didn't have to explain it to the intended audience.

The "intended audience"/"complete audience" ratio is rather low if I'm not mistaken.

And the proposal is shortsighted.
It's basically designed for people who are too lazy to employ spy networks.

I wouldn't say that people are too lazy to afford spy networks. That's a luxury that most citizens cannot afford.

What this proposal does is promote democracy by ensuring that citizens are informed of their nation's trade agreements.

I have nothing against informing one's citizens, but the side effect is that every OTHER nation will know it too.
If you look at it that way, it really seems like a way to skimp on spy networks for nations.

And finally, how can we be certain that the information about treaties won't be abused?

Presumably, people will get mad if their nation is not following WA law.

If they aren't following WA law, then why would they bother exposing their secret diplomacy?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Thats not a fair assessment, because what is an international issue is up to a lot of interpretation. One could, theoretically, be a NatSov Interventionist.

I never said they couldn't. I said a true NatSov would favor meddling only in international affairs. I did not state that those affairs excluded international intervention.

But I would say that someone who supports National Sovereignty should actually support national sovereignty in all domestic issues. If NatSov is applied as a label to people who support sovereignty only in some domestic areas and oppose it in others, then (almost) all nations are NatSov and the label is meaningless. Even IntFeds would be NatSov, and the only nations that would not be NatSov would be those that favor WA control in all areas.

OOC: This is, ultimately, the intellectual weakness of the NatSov position. Not that the argument for reduced interference of supranational governance is without merit, but because without greater specificity in goals or delineation of policies, the term is, as you say, meaningless. The "NatSov" groups have never been able to agree on a more specific metric of what constitutes an international issue, which is why I haven't considered myself a NatSov in quite some time.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The General Assembly resolution Ban on Secret Treaties was passed 9,189 votes to 5,768, and implemented in all WA member nations.

Tomorrow: my inbox is jammed with notifications on repeal attempts.

---

OOC: This is, ultimately, the intellectual weakness of the NatSov position. Not that the argument for reduced interference of supranational governance is without merit, but because without greater specificity in goals or delineation of policies, the term is, as you say, meaningless. The "NatSov" groups have never been able to agree on a more specific metric of what constitutes an international issue, which is why I haven't considered myself a NatSov in quite some time.

I used to consider myself as a NatSov – I broadly agree with this argument. An ideological movement based around national sovereignty that cannot agree on the boundaries of that sovereignty, seems to me, a fundamentally broken ideological system. My voting is now primarily based on what I think are good or bad ideas. Subsidiarity seems a good principle in practice, but it is not overriding or, by any means, an a priori obligation.

[Fauxia]

Congrats on another resolution, IA.

[United Peoples of the Chiefdom of Ibiri]

OOC: So cats and guns are banned now?