OOC post.
Zentata wrote:Shocked, that certain nations have abused the aboriginal people who were the original inhabitants of said nation,
Given that the WA has a resolution in place that gives genocide a very wide definition and then bans it, as well as having anti-discrimination resolutions, and various rights and aspects of indigenous people (like, say, sustainable hunting and religious systems) being protected by other resolutions, you need to specify if you mean stuff that happened before the WA resolutions came into effect (or the nation joined the WA, whichever happened later), and if so, why should the current nation care what happened in the occasionally very distant past? Especially if the current nation didn't exist back then. As an IC example, the modern Araraukar emerged from a fusion of three nations after the three fought a horrible three-way war in which many atrocities happened based on nationality. The modern nation of Araraukar had nothing to do with those century-or-two-old atrocities, and as its population largely consists of the survivors of the three-way war, it has been doing everything it can to make people think of each other as Araraukarians, rather than whatever kingdom or empire their ancestors were from. You're going to need VERY good preamble arguments for why a nation that didn't exist when the atrocities were committed, should be held accountable for them. Not just to convince me but also the voters.
a) Aboriginal People refers to the culture/group of people of the same species who existed before the current majority population.
...and what if the aborigines
are the current majority population? Do they need to pay themselves for something some minority ruling class did?
b) Reconciliation means making amends and righting the wrongs committed by former generations against the aboriginal peoples of said nations.
You don't need to define words when you use them in the dictionary definition way. Since you don't actually define
how "making amends and righting the wrongs" actually happens, you don't need to define it.
Hereby Creates a World Assembly Reconciliation Board (hereby referred to as the WARB), that will work to distribute World Assembly funds to nations where they are needed to support reconciliation measures,
No. Now you would be making ALL WA nations pay for the past sins of a handful of them. Where's the justice in THAT???
examine the history of nations to see if they have mistreated Aboriginal peoples in the past,
HUUUUUGE money drain for no practical use whatsoever. You could just have aboriginal interest groups apply, providing evidence, then give the nation in question a chance to reply and show what they have already done as reparations, and only have the committee do something if they feel the nation's efforts haven't been enough.
Not all indigenous people, whose rights were kicked in the teeth in the past, are still effectively second-class citizens even in RL. They might even take offence at some international bureaucratic nerds (the committee) coming around and going "oh you poor innocent victims, let us coddle you because you can't take care of yourselves".
and is also tasked with ensuring that the World Assembly members comply with the following guidelines:
Instead of doing this, you should have the WA (aka the proposal itself, not a committee) list guidelines for nations to follow. The committee would then only work to decide if a complaint from an aborigine interest group is valid or not. There are other resolutions in place with which the WA as a whole can try to enforce any resolution. (I say "try", because it's now actually possible to roleplay noncompliance in a credible way, thanks to said resolutions existing.) This proposal's committee basically jumping up and down and screaming at nations that they must do as the committee says, is not going to actually force the nations to pay attention. Do you understand the difference? Give the following mandates to the WA nations directly, not through a committee.
1. All World Assembly nations that have an aboriginal population must ensure the safety, mental health, and general well being of that population remains equal to that of the rest of the nation's citizens.
By waving a magic wand? People, living creatures, do not suddenly change their mood or health because bureaucracy so demands. It is entirely possible to, for example, drink yourself to death even if you were well-off and had access to free healthcare and all the help imaginable. If you decide to not ask for help, what can society do? You can't be locked up for your own good, in most civilized nations, even if it really was for your own good, and self-harm and even suicide have been decriminalized by the WA already. The most a nation can lawfully do is provide as good support system to all its citizens,
which it is already required to do according to several pre-existing resolutions.
2. Education shall take place about the aboriginal peoples in the schools of said nations, at an appropriate age level for proper comprehension.
What does this do? I mean, just saying "education" could equal "propaganda about aborigines being lazy and stupid and thus deserving to be "taken care of" by the master race" or whatever offensive wording you want to replace that with. Also, what "said nations"?
3. Aboriginal peoples must be given enough space to practice their traditions.
Such as? Are we talking about living off the land, not going to the schools where they are taught about, and withholding proper shelter, food and healthcare from their children, because that's how their ancestors lived too? There are many resolutions in place that WA nations can't let even aborigines break, such as hunting endangered animals in an unsustainable way, or sacrificing people to a funny-looking rock that's totally infested with spirits. Or indeed putting children in situations where they'd be worse off than the non-aborigines' kid. Given your clause 1, this is even stranger a requirement.
Have you read any of the existing resolutions that touch on cultural rights?