[DEFEATED] Popular Statecraft

[Tinhampton]

This was submitted yesterday evening and hit queue just under ten minutes ago. In the exceedingly likely event that The Rights, Wrongs, Duties, And Powers Of WA States reaches quorum, this will be voted on between the minor updates of Sunday 12th February and Thursday 16th February.

AS OF 2020 GMT ON MONDAY: Approvals: 65 out of 65 needed (Tinhampton, Hulldom, Minskiev, Tepertopia, Magical Girl Emi, The Flyin, Aquastareite, Socialist Platypus, Treadwellia, Pantsville, Peruvian, Fujiwa, Theoscafia, Kolloquia, Baloo Kingdom, Zombiedolphins, West Davison, Gideon, Hirotogino, Varya, PAINFUL DEATHS, New New Chesapeake, Maltzia, Port Ember, The Orwell Society, Savonir, Sedgistan, Stonlos, Brunis, Orifna, Ofiussia, Rosefall, Pogaria, Ethensia, Nothinggg, The 2nd Facepunch Republic, New Huland, Zuxenhavon, Ard alAkhua, Merulla, The Red Ruby, Afflexy, East Mindoor, Silver-Tree, Legionary Ronchi, Particle, Broaryd, Republic of Ron Paul, AJ Empire, Kierania, Heliosland, Wolfs Brigade, Eyrey, Verlos, Ronimbonland, Vost Dotari, Kaparthia, Comunist Land1, Draganisia, United Newpearl, Radnia, Stephaniesland, Island of Avalon, Weirdiron, Arashiyama)

[The Orwell Society]

Full support.

[Chipoli]

Stefan Savych, ambassador of Chipoli submits this letter to the Tinhampton delegation: "We are opposed. The philosophical justifications for this resolution dismay us as the World Assembly ought to have the authority to forbid its members from implementing oppressive, ineffective forms of government. Additionally, we believe that the second article places excessive restrictions on member countries by forbidding them from using force to remove an ally's government or destroy a fascist or murderous state. Overall, this idea has serious implementation and conceptual flaws."

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

I am happy to support this proposal, because of its clear support of the right of self-determination, while also not preventing the World Assembly's legislative flexibility.

[Istastioner]

Support the concept, but not the execution.

[Tinhampton]

Support the concept, but not the execution.

Where did I go wrong, exactly?

[Republic of Mesque]

It is clear by the delegates voting against that their intentions are to use the WA to advance their warmonger agenda.
The problem here, Tinhampton, is clearly item c. Some influent WA lunatics are distraught at the prospect of not being able to spill members’ citizens’ blood in a “war of liberation” to advance their ideological agenda in other countries.

[Excidium Planetis]

It is clear by the delegates voting against that their intentions are to use the WA to advance their warmonger agenda.
The problem here, Tinhampton, is clearly item c. Some influent WA lunatics are distraught at the prospect of not being able to spill members’ citizens’ blood in a “war of liberation” to advance their ideological agenda in other countries.

As a delegate who voted against, I would like to reject your hypothesis.

My issue is article A, which would prevent the WA from interfering in the type of government nations choose to use. This would prohibit some kind of democratic mandate by the WA, which I believe would be a beneficial resolution. Democracies are less likely to go to war than authoritarian governments, so if the goal is to promote peace, we should promote democracy.

Furthermore, non-democratic governments can wield votes in the World Assembly against their own people's best interests, and I believe it would be in the best interest of the inhabitants of WA member nations if the outcome of votes was (in theory) reflective of their will.

[Inishowen]

What about defence against foreign powers?
We have to preserve our nations and we can’t do that with no defence budget.
I propose we vote on what is considered defence budget and what is considered offence budget.

[Tinhampton]

What about defence against foreign powers?
We have to preserve our nations and we can’t do that with no defence budget.

Your nation is not required to have an army under this or any other resolution.

[Sylh Alanor]

Democracies are less likely to go to war than authoritarian governments

This is a wild assertion to make lol

[Excidium Planetis]

Democracies are less likely to go to war than authoritarian governments

This is a wild assertion to make lol

It's really not that wild of an assertion.

[HM Queen Elizabeth III]

It is clear by the delegates voting against that their intentions are to use the WA to advance their warmonger agenda.
The problem here, Tinhampton, is clearly item c. Some influent WA lunatics are distraught at the prospect of not being able to spill members’ citizens’ blood in a “war of liberation” to advance their ideological agenda in other countries.

As a delegate who voted against, I would like to reject your hypothesis.

My issue is article A, which would prevent the WA from interfering in the type of government nations choose to use. This would prohibit some kind of democratic mandate by the WA, which I believe would be a beneficial resolution. Democracies are less likely to go to war than authoritarian governments, so if the goal is to promote peace, we should promote democracy.

Furthermore, non-democratic governments can wield votes in the World Assembly against their own people's best interests, and I believe it would be in the best interest of the inhabitants of WA member nations if the outcome of votes was (in theory) reflective of their will.

Personally, I support democracy and democratic institutions, but it is inherently undemocratic to militarily force that on other nations. Regime Change has been proven to not only be ineffective, but devastating on the countries it has been done to. The promotion of democracy should be done diplomatically and democratically, not militarily and/or covertly.

[Attempted Socialism]

This is a wild assertion to make lol

It's really not that wild of an assertion.

It's not exactly what you said, though. Democratic Peace Theory is based on the empirical observation that democracies don't go to war with each other*, not that they don't go to war at all. Though of course you could -- potentially, or at least attempt to -- get that effect by turning all WA nations into democracies, who would then not go to war against each other. I have been a consistent proponent of replicating the effects inside the WA, as that would be a significant perk of membership.

*Note: while there are counter-examples, Democratic Peace Theory is as close to a descriptive law we have in political science.

[Excidium Planetis]

Personally, I support democracy and democratic institutions, but it is inherently undemocratic to militarily force that on other nations. Regime Change has been proven to not only be ineffective, but devastating on the countries it has been done to. The promotion of democracy should be done diplomatically and democratically, not militarily and/or covertly.

The WA doesn't have a military, and I never suggested using military force to impose WA law.

[Kinnies]

see also the Moderator precedent surrounding NEF's now-repealed blocker.

Anyone care to provide a quick summary, please?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

see also the Moderator precedent surrounding NEF's now-repealed blocker.

Anyone care to provide a quick summary, please?

The short version:

NEF stated the WA could not restrict commerce unless the enterprise "cause[d] an extreme hazard to national populations". The mods and then GenSec lacked the stomach to actually enforce that and basically said "extreme hazard" meant anything any resolution ever asserted it to, regardless of how asinine the assertion, rending the protection a dead-letter and functionally useless.

[Gruenberg]

Anyone care to provide a quick summary, please?

The short version:

NEF stated the WA could not restrict commerce unless the enterprise "cause[d] an extreme hazard to national populations". The mods and then GenSec lacked the stomach to actually enforce that and basically said "extreme hazard" meant anything any resolution ever asserted it to, regardless of how asinine the assertion, rending the protection a dead-letter and functionally useless.

The mods certainly did not do that. They should have, that would be the entirely correct approach. It should be for WA voters to decide, and if WA voters decide x is an extreme hazard, the mods' value judgement otherwise shouldn't trump it. Unfortunately what they actually did was completely ignore the resolution altogether even when a proposal did not state x was an extreme hazard, except when they very occasionally decided they would enforce it.

Perhaps the pink power rangers have since remedied that but the mods did 100% the opposite of what you're claiming and were absolutely wrong in doing so.

[Vivolkha]

Recently-appointed Vivolkhan ambassador to the WA Æriel Sauvien looked closely at the short GA resolution in front of him. With a long sigh, he stated:
"Unfortunately, in its attempt to reinforce the noble principle of national sovereignty and promote peace, this resolution falls short in every other aspect. While its intention is sorely needed given the current times we live in, this resolution is extremely vague and restrictive. The Vivolkhan delegation has had to set up a special committee just to establish what its consequences and obligations would be, and has recommended that our vote be Against, for the following reasons: sweeping restrictions on the capacity of a state to promote its interests abroad, promotion of isolationism, imposition of undue limitations for future resolutions, and lack of clarity in the activities prohibited by this resolution, which could led to legitimate international relations actions being declared illegal under it.

On behalf of the Vivolkhan state, we would also like to warn that this resolution is either extremely rushed or, perhaps more darkly, intentionally designed to limit outside accountability for the human rights abuses of authoritarian regimes. Vivolkha will unflinchingly vote against any resolution that threatens the human rights and dignity of any citizen of a WA member state, no matter how powerful the nation pushing it"

[Filonian State]

This is a un-egoistic resoution. Us, communist we can be free from HATES! Because a 99% of users are anticommunists, this resolution can destroy this terror like the NS owner was Lech Wałęsa. So we must vote FOR if we want freedom and equality to all nations and regions. So be like Kethania, the glorious amd commendable WA Delegate of the one of the best region The Communist Bloc. We want stop this Solidarność-like texts like "Communism is bad"! So glory to communism.

VOTE FOR! If you want goodness, vote FOR!

[Retired WerePenguins]

(Note I haven't been posting to the forums in quite some time; no time like the present, I suppose.)

I rise in strong opposition to the resolution at vote. While the notion of preserving a nation's "preferred mode of government" may appear to be a noble one, the result of this resolution, which would be a significant reduction in national military spending is troubling because wars are fought for all sorts of reasons and fighting them to change the mode of the other government is often last on the list (although it is sometimes a great slogan to convince the citizens at home that the war is being fought for a noble cause and not just to exploit the resources of the other nation).

Moreover, it tends to ignore the elephant in the room (don't worry, I hear he works for peanuts) which is the notion of "nation." Let's be honest, a nation is basically the current ruling administration of the land, and their priority is to ensure that they continue to be the ruling administration (or at least control who becomes their successor). It really has nothing to do with the actual citizens of the nation, who may or may not have a say, and who may or may not ask another nation to relieve them of changing the current administration.

(Now where did I put my book of marvelous fiction?) Once upon a time there was a fledgling nation (thirteen of them, actually, but let's not nitpick here) who was under the colonial control of another nation. The people wanted to free themselves from that vassal state. They asked another nation for help and that help was granted. So, the nation called "France" helped the nation of "US" change their mode of government. Under this resolution this would be illegal. Therefore, I must vote no on this resolution.

[Redundant]

military spending good

[Jedinsto]

I had an idea and draft similar to this that only applied to member nations, which would form an incentive for nations to join the WA. However, since this expands to non-member nations, I will have to vote against.

[Tinhampton]

I had an idea and draft similar to this that only applied to member nations, which would form an incentive for nations to join the WA. However, since this expands to non-member nations, I will have to vote against.

Articles b and c only apply to member states' interactions with other members. A member state is, by definition, not a non-member.

[Jedinsto]

It's the whole self-determination part that I don't think should apply to non-members.