[PASSED]Military Freedom Act

[Glen-Rhodes]

The reason I wanted to defenestrate you is that I spent so much bloody time making sure there wouldn't be issues like this. It was minor little twitches that caused my last attempt to fail, so I spent literally weeks waiting for someone to come up with one. It would have been greatly appreciated to see the debate happen while changes could actually be made, rather than after submission.

I understand and I apologize that we were not able to respond sooner. My office has been busy with other proceedings, including those outside of the World Assembly. Much to my chagrin, it appears that the head of the diplomatic arms of Glen-Rhodes still has to deal with regional politics.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: In other words, other debates, some off-site stuff, and midterms were taking up time, so I only skimmed the proposal when approving it. It seemed reasonable enough at the time.

[Unibot II]

Not all conflicts take place against large states, in fact, most conflicts take place in smaller failed states where communities are smaller with bigger families. In some situations, the likelihood of coming across your family member would be too great not to put unsurmountable psychological stress on an individual (remember often people are irrational at calculating probability). If make an example of this, we should be fair and extend it to all similar situations.

[Embolalia]

"Voting is hereby closed on the Missing Minors Act", says the speaker, "With the votes totaling 6,404 in favor and 1,959 against, the proposal is enacted as General Assembly Resolution one hundred and thirty one. Moving on to our next order of business, voting shall open on the Military Freedom Act proposed by the Embolalian delegation."
"Ambassador LLwyd for the United Commonwealth of Embolalia and the International Democratic Union casts seven votes in favor!" Ambassador LLwyd shouts quickly. "Whew. Always wanted to get the first vote."

Anyway, Mr. Heir makes a good point. I thank him for his support.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Not all conflicts take place against large states, in fact, most conflicts take place in smaller failed states where communities are smaller with bigger families. In some situations, the likelihood of coming across your family member would be too great not to put unsurmountable psychological stress on an individual (remember often people are irrational at calculating probability). If make an example of this, we should be fair and extend it to all similar situations.

Wars between small states aren't even all that common. Civil wars are the most common wars in the modern era, and those hardly need our input, considering there is no real valid state to which a mandate can apply.

[Cavnessia]

Once again, the World Assembly has a proposal before it that Cavnessia would urge its fellow member nations to consider as beyond the purview of this august body.

While we as a nation laud the concept of Conscientious Objectors, and in fact have a very liberal law regarding it on our own books, we do not believe it is our job to tell other sovereign nations how to run their own militaries, and trying to force them to allow CO's seems very wrong-headed to us.

Of course, at this point, Cavnessia believes that we're talking to a brick wall here.

[The Ainocran Embassy]

You may not have liberty without sacrifice. If you believe that you can then you are fooling yourself.
I am not wrong I simply see the consequences of your idea. That you mean well is not in dispute, the road to hell however is paved with good intentions.

Your good intention would undermine the very foundation of Ainocran society and cannot be allowed to come to pass.

If you like this idea so much I suggest your government implement in your own nation. We however will keep our own counsel on military matters.

Perhaps what's happening here is a simple loss in translation. The fact is, what you said, the way you said it, was incorrect. Granted, the reason it was incorrect is something of a subtlety in language that might easily be missed. But it was wrong nonetheless.
I'd also like to say that what you just said there, assuming you actually do understand what the proposal says, is that the foundation of your society is in killing people. I have said it far too many times before, and I imagine I'll have to say it far too many more times before this is through: This only affects combative service. It does not affect mandatory service in general. If you consider service to your country a vital part of your society, that will not change. The only thing that will change is requiring people to kill other people, and even then, only where the person has specific and genuine objections to violence.

No I fully understand your intent and the language. Your logic however is flawed. The military is the foundation of Ainocran society, every man woman and child is a member.
We have all pledged our lives and fortunes to the good of the whole. We are soldiers, it is who we are and what we do. If our Supreme Marshal orders us to our deaths then so be it. It is a sacrifice we willingly make, and your attempt to meddle in our military is an insult to that sacrifice.

For the honor of the Ainocran people I must vote against this proposal

OPPOSED!

[Vibiran]

The Vibiran Delegate respects the proposition of this Military Freedom, however this Act is a sheer impossibility for a nation such as ourselves. We need everyone to serve, without fail. In a world where our nation is constantly tested in defending, there just simply no other option.

If combatants got to choose if they were on the front lines or not, where would that leave a military in a small nation? This Act claims they will just be medics and things like that, but when over 50% of your military is non-combative, this becomes problematic. Let us all keep in mind, when being attacked, most of the time it is not from other WA countries.

In which saying, only WA countries will end up suffering. Our government cannot stand idle while enemies are at our gates. If this Act does pass, Vibiran will have to resign from this "World Assembly" which is seeming more and more like a way of controlling all of its members.

[NewCalifornia-Republic]

For once I agree with this sort of bill, as it states or have I got this wrong, that you can compel them to fight if you are not the aggressor and defending and did not provoke them into attacking you

[Hindopia]

After a serious internal debate on how this would affect the military of my homeland, I am very glad to say that I will be voting in favor of this proposal. A small congratulations to Ambassador Llwyd from the IDU (my former home), I don't come to support a WA resolution with ease.

Ambassador Variah, for Hindopia

[Retired WerePenguins]

AGAINST

Flash Blonde steps to the podium, "Ladies and Gentlemen, we of Retired Werepenguins are strongly opposed to this resolution. There is a clear implication by article II.2.C that wars of liberation are somehow evil or wrong and thus anyone can freely opt out of them. Before my wife became First Navigator of our great nation, her military tour involved her in the war of liberation of Nameless. She saw firsthand the war crimes committed against those people. I have coppies of her autobiography if anyone is interested in reading it. Ladies and Gentlemen I'm going to watch this vote carefully. If any of you voting for this resolution ever get invaded, if your regions ever get invaded, don't you dare come knocking at our nation's door. Even if this resolution doesn't pass. Don't come knocking. I'm sick and tired of having my own people risk thier lives for pathetic nations such as yours."

[Numdia]

For once I agree with this sort of bill, as it states or have I got this wrong, that you can compel them to fight if you are not the aggressor and defending and did not provoke them into attacking you

That's pretty vague though. Did Serbia provoke Austria-Hungary in WW 1? Well certainly from the Austrio-Hungarian point of view, but from the perspective of the Serbians just some rouge Serbians went off and really screwed up.

So did Austria-Hungary have proper reason to invade? Did Serbia have proper reason to claim innocence? Both were right. It just depends on how you look at it.

[New Alabasta]

This bill is an outrage! The people of New Alabasta have the duty to defend their nation! No international law shall stop this! If this bill passes, the World Assembly will receive my letter of withdrawal. I have gone along with their demands so far. But when they mess with the military structure of my nation, they have gone too far!!!

[Der Kaiser Mikey III]

Dodging the draft is treason, which is punishable by death. Any pacifistic rabble rouser's have traditionally been broken, or executed by firing squad for refusing service. This infringes upon tradition, and I urge any competent nation to vote against this heinous act.

[Woidia]

Resolutions like this are the reason that I left the WA. You cannot mandate that "conscientious objectors" not be allowed to serve, and then apply this to all countries. This is a matter best left up to the countries themselves, and we do not need the WA centralizing power and telling us who can and cannot serve in our militaries.

[The Jet-Black Dragon]

I will support

[Embolalia]

Wars between small states aren't even all that common. Civil wars are the most common wars in the modern era, and those hardly need our input, considering there is no real valid state to which a mandate can apply.

Of course there's no guarantee we're all in the modern era.

Once again, the World Assembly has a proposal before it that Cavnessia would urge its fellow member nations to consider as beyond the purview of this august body.

While we as a nation laud the concept of Conscientious Objectors, and in fact have a very liberal law regarding it on our own books, we do not believe it is our job to tell other sovereign nations how to run their own militaries, and trying to force them to allow CO's seems very wrong-headed to us.

Of course, at this point, Cavnessia believes that we're talking to a brick wall here.

It's a protection of personal, civil, and political freedoms. It's absolutely within this body's purview.

No I fully understand your intent and the language. Your logic however is flawed. The military is the foundation of Ainocran society, every man woman and child is a member.
We have all pledged our lives and fortunes to the good of the whole. We are soldiers, it is who we are and what we do. If our Supreme Marshal orders us to our deaths then so be it. It is a sacrifice we willingly make, and your attempt to meddle in our military is an insult to that sacrifice.

For the honor of the Ainocran people I must vote against this proposal

OPPOSED!

I don't suppose you'd care to refute any of the arguments I've made? I'm all for a good debate, but that involves you actually responding to what I said, rather than spewing talking points.

when over 50% of your military is non-combative,

And lo did the statistics descend from within the ambassador's anus, whereupon they did proceed to produce a foul odor.

For once I agree with this sort of bill, as it states or have I got this wrong, that you can compel them to fight if you are not the aggressor and defending and did not provoke them into attacking you

Thank you for your support. To clarify, a person would not be able to claim an objection to a specific war if it were a war of defense, but if they were a genuine pacifist (and objected to war in general) they could still object.

After a serious internal debate on how this would affect the military of my homeland, I am very glad to say that I will be voting in favor of this proposal. A small congratulations to Ambassador Llwyd from the IDU (my former home), I don't come to support a WA resolution with ease.

Ambassador Variah, for Hindopia

Thank you very much for your support, Ambassador Variah.

There is a clear implication by article II.2.C that wars of liberation are somehow evil or wrong and thus anyone can freely opt out of them.

Where the hell did you get that from? II.2.c says "Military occupation of another nation with the uncoerced consent of that nation's rightful government shall not be considered a war of aggression." That doesn't pass judgment on anything at all. It allows nations to restrict conscientious objection in a very specific circumstance, which isn't really even what you're talking about. Please read more carefully next time.

For once I agree with this sort of bill, as it states or have I got this wrong, that you can compel them to fight if you are not the aggressor and defending and did not provoke them into attacking you

That's pretty vague though. Did Serbia provoke Austria-Hungary in WW 1? Well certainly from the Austrio-Hungarian point of view, but from the perspective of the Serbians just some rouge Serbians went off and really screwed up.

So did Austria-Hungary have proper reason to invade? Did Serbia have proper reason to claim innocence? Both were right. It just depends on how you look at it.

The war of aggression definition is anything but vague. The entire of II.2 outlines precisely what constitutes a war of aggression.
OOC: I'm not exactly a scholar on WWI (I'm an American, and our history teachers prefer WWII because it presents a better narrative of American exceptionalism, but that's another topic). The question Austria-Hungary would have had to ask (obviously assuming that nation were bound by this proposal) is, was the action of Gavrilo Princip and his allies funded, sponsored, or approved of by the Serbian government? If it was, then they had every reason to invade, and specific war objection would not have been an issue for them. If it wasn't, then why the hell would they invade Serbia in the first place? And if your country is invading another country for no good reason, why should you be forced to kill essentially innocent people?

This bill is an outrage! The people of New Alabasta have the duty to defend their nation! No international law shall stop this! If this bill passes, the World Assembly will receive my letter of withdrawal. I have gone along with their demands so far. But when they mess with the military structure of my nation, they have gone too far!!!

Wow, a whole month. Anyone know if that's a record? I'd try to explain to you the parts of the proposal you seem to be misunderstanding, but the number of exclamation points tells me it would probably be a waste of my time.

Dodging the draft is treason, which is punishable by death. Any pacifistic rabble rouser's have traditionally been broken, or executed by firing squad for refusing service. This infringes upon tradition, and I urge any competent nation to vote against this heinous act.

Well it's a good thing this has absolutely nothing to do with draft dodging. Jesus, I sound like a broken record. This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip* This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip* This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip* This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip*

Resolutions like this are the reason that I left the WA. You cannot mandate that "conscientious objectors" not be allowed to serve, and then apply this to all countries. This is a matter best left up to the countries themselves, and we do not need the WA centralizing power and telling us who can and cannot serve in our militaries.

This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip* This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip* This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip* This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip* This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip* This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip* This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip* This doesn't ban conscription. *scrip*

I will support

Thank you for your support!

[Ossitania]

It is rather difficult to take the complaints of several of my colleagues seriously when they have clearly not read the resolution.

[Romave]

Military service is mandatory in Romave; a minimum of two years must be dedicated before the age of twenty-five or, in the case of an immigrant, five years must be dedicated before four years have passed after taking residence inside our borders. Furthermore, the service must be completed before a young person receives the status of a full-fledged adult or, in the case of an immigrant, receive citizenship and all related benefits and responsibilities.

We already screen those who are entering the military, and do try to place them where they would best be suited. However, if we were to place every conscientious objector only into medical or support fields, we would not have much of of a combat force -- anyone who is morally sound should object to taking another human life.

As a representative for Romave, I will be voting against this. My parents, and their parents and parents-before-them, served. I served. My three children have served, and in time their children will serve. It is a duty and privilege to do so, and it is tradition.

- Gla'lcia Eresinda, Counci Member of Romave

[Jesoland]

Duke Alexander Bonaga-Tronchera, plenipotentiary minister of Jesoland for World Assembly, approaches the podium with a stack of densely written paper. He puts on his glasses and starts reading a speech prepared by an intern of his.

Distinguished ambassadors,
Conscientious Objection is a sensitive topic in Jesoland's domestic policy. On the road to democracy, Jesoland has met a number of obstacles. Our first leader, the now neglected and almost forgotten praesidens Joseph Casati, had great respect for military service; at least, much more than he had for democracy or freedom. Our grandparents still remember when serving in the Army was the only way to achieve Jesolandic citizenship, after the period of twenty years of military.

Our parents still remember when the military was considered the only worthy job for a Jesolandic citizen, and all the population was conscripted (with a reasonable turnover) to fight in wars for Jesoland's honour and expansion. Military Courts punished with the widthdrawal of citizenship and deportation the people who didn't want to serve.

But despite the strictness of the laws and the strong traditionalism of the generals, the Armed Forces were the ones to oppose the autocratic government of King Mattheus I Bonaga and to obtain from him the constitution and universal suffrage. Without the riot of the garrison and of the armies of Roxia, we wouldn't have the right to vote and would still be at the mercy of a handful of noble cowards......

Noble cowards?? Who wrote this crap?? - the Ambassador shouted to his secretary in the gallery

...namely, I said,

we wouldn't have the right to vote and our society would have been blocked for decades as it was one hundred years ago.

On the other hand, the excessive power of the military became a problem for the young Jesolandic democracy, and we all know that generals and budget, say, do not get along...

The Ambassador stopped for a while, changed the sheet and took a sip of water. It was already some minutes the audience was roaring. The deputy speaker of General Assembly, who was chairing the session, took the opportunity to say to him:

Your Grace, please give in the word...

In short, our government is oriented to vote pro, but we want to follow the debate before making a final decision. But you lose the opportunity to improve your knowledge in Jesolandic history...

The ambassador left the podium, complaining with his secretary

Who hired this boring, conceited, damn republican? Fire him!
We can't. He's the son of the secretary of Liberal Party...
If he only knew his son is a dumbass...
He knows. It's why he sent us him

[Glen-Rhodes]

Wars between small states aren't even all that common. Civil wars are the most common wars in the modern era, and those hardly need our input, considering there is no real valid state to which a mandate can apply.

Of course there's no guarantee we're all in the modern era.

There is when I say we are.

[Numdia]

That's pretty vague though. Did Serbia provoke Austria-Hungary in WW 1? Well certainly from the Austrio-Hungarian point of view, but from the perspective of the Serbians just some rouge Serbians went off and really screwed up.

So did Austria-Hungary have proper reason to invade? Did Serbia have proper reason to claim innocence? Both were right. It just depends on how you look at it.

The war of aggression definition is anything but vague. The entire of II.2 outlines precisely what constitutes a war of aggression.
OOC: I'm not exactly a scholar on WWI (I'm an American, and our history teachers prefer WWII because it presents a better narrative of American exceptionalism, but that's another topic). The question Austria-Hungary would have had to ask (obviously assuming that nation were bound by this proposal) is, was the action of Gavrilo Princip and his allies funded, sponsored, or approved of by the Serbian government? If it was, then they had every reason to invade, and specific war objection would not have been an issue for them. If it wasn't, then why the hell would they invade Serbia in the first place? And if your country is invading another country for no good reason, why should you be forced to kill essentially innocent people?!

The assignation of Arch-Duke Ferdinand was a most sticky subject. The Serbian government allegedly supported the force responsible for the act. But it was mostly under the table so there was not much evidence.

However, Serbians did kill the Arch-Duke so the Austrio-Hungarians wanted to take revenge. It would be like if Afghans killed Joe Biden, or to a less realistic extent, President Obama.

But it's not even clear most Serbians wanted to kill Ferdinand, or even the Prince of Serbia. Just that several prominent figures did. And so to the Serbians they did nothing.

So who was in the right?

[Nekronia]

Damn I'm glad I'm not in the WA!

[Cavnessia]

It's a protection of personal, civil, and political freedoms. It's absolutely within this body's purview.

Using that line of thought, well-intentioned resolutions can be drawn up that stomp all over the rights and traditions of sovereign nations. I prefer that the Assembly promote peace and rights throughout the globe through common cause, not extranational fiat.

I want a World Assembly, not a World Government.

[The Ainocran Embassy]

No I fully understand your intent and the language. Your logic however is flawed. The military is the foundation of Ainocran society, every man woman and child is a member.
We have all pledged our lives and fortunes to the good of the whole. We are soldiers, it is who we are and what we do. If our Supreme Marshal orders us to our deaths then so be it. It is a sacrifice we willingly make, and your attempt to meddle in our military is an insult to that sacrifice.

For the honor of the Ainocran people I must vote against this proposal

OPPOSED!

I don't suppose you'd care to refute any of the arguments I've made? I'm all for a good debate, but that involves you actually responding to what I said, rather than spewing talking points.

Ambassador there is no point in debate, you cannot sway me to your viewpoint.
I have explained to you several times that this proposal runs counter to our entire way of life and cannot be allowed to pass.

Rather than attempting to draw me into an argument why don't you actually read what I have said about this travesty of a proposal and how it offends the Ainocran people.

You intent may be good, but your approach is wrong. This proposal meddles in affairs best left alone by this body.

Opposed

[Port-du-sud]

The Republic of Port-du-sud has a compulsory military service but we have an alternative civil service for conscientious objectors.

1. However, we consider that this resolution makes too much interference in countries public affairs, especially in a sensitive domain like army.

2. However, no-democratic countries and military dictatorships will find ways to skirt this law. The democratic countries will be the losers in this resolution...

IN CONCLUSION, Port-du-sud voted AGAINST this resolution.