[DEFEATED] Protecting World Assembly Neutrality

[BNL Corporation]

The BNL Corporation is urging fellow WA members to vote against.

Article 2 effectively prohibits the WA from implementing punitive action against hostile actors, and is contrary to the SC's stated mission. Secondly, it does not have, what the Board of Directors has agreed, a substantial argument for WA neutrality, nor do the Board of Directors agree the WA should be neutral at all.

BNL World Assembly Relations

[Lackadaisia]

Our nation can not support this resolution on the grounds that it would impede the World Assembly in the case of an interregional crisis. We observe the resolution's goal of keeping the World Alliance a neutral and impartial body on the global scale. While we agree with this on principle, we believe it is more important for such a body to retain its ability to act without obstruction in moments where time is of the essence. We also believe in a body's choice to be able to defend itself and maintain the assets to do so, within reason.

[Parti Ouvrier]

"Opposed, as a WA-wide police force could be of benefit. I should also inform you that I have also drafted a blocker against military action by the WA."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

"And it is within your right to disagree. I believe a World Assembly-wide police force or military, which had been historically prohibited until the repeal of GA#02, could be very easily abused. I thank you for your comments and concern."
-World Assembly Ambassador from the United Socialist States of Namwenia, Pat McDonald.

All well and good, but why could it not have been stronger, 'Mild' will not do, and therefore doesn't get our vote. To put this in perspective, there are twenty resolutions to increase military spending, 16 are mild, 4, strong, 1 significant. Only 8 are for global disarmament, none are strong! The WA calls excessively for militarisation. The WA favours the bourgeois state apparatus towards the judicial, military and police machine in this case.

[waving pompoms and doing a little dance] you go i'm so proud of you

A mild resolution that will fail, what's to be proud of?

[Namwenia]

As there have been some comments that only came after this arrived to vote, I'll respond to a few of them.

Completely opposed, I don't really care what it says. But 'slash military spending' has already got me infuriated. Why are our defence forces being punished for 'neutrality'?

The Republic of Kaprein, while it supports the sentiment of the resolution, is unable to vote for it due to its content.

Kaprein will not vote to disarm any part of its military, regardless of how the resolution is titled (this is a resolution for global disarmament).

Article 2 will seriously harm the WA - how can the World Assembly implement rules affecting combat if it must remain neutral? What would prevent a nation from starting a conflict to the force the WA into becoming neutral on an issue?

Harry Adler, Permanent Representative of Kaprein to the World Assembly

OOC: "Slash military spending" is a gameplay term, not something I inserted. If the topic is pertaining to "Global Disarmament," which is the most logical area for a proposal about WA neutrality. On Article 2, the WA would not get involved and remain neutral in both civil wars and wars between member states. That's the intent of the language and how it would be implemented based on the definition of conflict in Article 1.

All well and good, but why could it not have been stronger, 'Mild' will not do, and therefore doesn't get our vote. To put this in perspective, there are twenty resolutions to increase military spending, 16 are mild, 4, strong, 1 significant. Only 8 are for global disarmament, none are strong! The WA calls excessively for militarisation. The WA favours the bourgeois state apparatus towards the judicial, military and police machine in this case.

[waving pompoms and doing a little dance] you go i'm so proud of you

A mild resolution that will fail, what's to be proud of?

OOC: Mild is the appropriate strength for this proposal as while this would have a significant impact on the function of the WA, it does not have a significant impact on the day to day functioning of member states. If it had been listed with a greater strength, as written, it would likely have failed legal muster as the mandate for individual member states is so mild.

And yes, I will be disappointed if this fails. But, I am not deterred and will redraft an updated version in the event that it fails.

[Corna]

Peace can’t be preserved with a weak military

[Juansonia]

Peace can’t be preserved with a weak military

"Member states have their own militaries, so why does this assembly need one for itself?" - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Youtube Inc]

a question for Namwenia

for clause 4, what is the measure to stop such a security force from being used in conflict, should not a further definition of humanitarian crises be stated?

are many wars and conflicts, not humanitarian crises in some regard?

opposed, good intentions but too vague legislation of such grandeur as restricting the WA should be more thought out.

please try again and don't be disheartened, laws like these are needed, this just isn't quite there

[Straona]

Opposed. Peers have already stated why and some I agree with others I don't but either way opposed.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The People’s Republic of Kenmoria stands firmly opposed to this attempt to limit the power of the General Assembly. This Assembly has a unique role to play in the international fight against tyranny, and that is a role that should be achieved through all necessary means. By preventing the Assembly for enacting a peacekeeping force for the maintenance of global order, this proposal seeks to impose a delay of repeal-and-replace before meaningful work can be done enforcing compliance with international law. This sort of delay is wholly without utility.”

[Parti Ouvrier]

All well and good, but why could it not have been stronger, 'Mild' will not do, and therefore doesn't get our vote. To put this in perspective, there are twenty resolutions to increase military spending, 16 are mild, 4, strong, 1 significant. Only 8 are for global disarmament, none are strong! The WA calls excessively for militarisation. The WA favours the bourgeois state apparatus towards the judicial, military and police machine in this case.

[waving pompoms and doing a little dance] you go i'm so proud of you

A mild resolution that will fail, what's to be proud of?

And yes, I will be disappointed if this fails. But, I am not deterred and will redraft an updated version in the event that it fails.[/quote]
You won't be deterred to write another mild, half-hearted, opportunist resolution, success!

Peace can’t be preserved with a weak military

Peace is just a ceasefire, a pause in war. War and peace is preserved, whether it is by a weak or strong military.

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. This Assembly has a unique role to play in the international fight against tyranny, and that is a role that should be achieved through all necessary means.

Fighting tyranny with tyranny is nonsensical.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. This Assembly has a unique role to play in the international fight against tyranny, and that is a role that should be achieved through all necessary means.

Fighting tyranny with tyranny is nonsensical.

“I believe your Excellency will find that this is how law works. By which I mean that fighting tyranny with ‘tyranny’ is the purpose of law as a system. In order to prevent one person from imposing himself over the rights of another, which would be tyranny albeit on the small scale, the state must intervene through its legitimate monopoly on the use of force. The General Assembly is simply doing the same.”

[Apatosaurus]

Fighting tyranny with tyranny is nonsensical.

"What supporters of this proposal seem not to understand is that there are plenty of uses for an international military force which do not involve 'tyranny'. Directly intervening against genocides which all potential avenues of diplomacy have failed to halt, for example, would be one of them."

[The Ice States]

"Protecting World Assembly Neutrality" was defeated 11,919 votes to 3,428.