[PASSED] On Multilateral Trade Talks

[Glen-Rhodes]

Is expanding the trading pool a goal itself?

Yes, it is. That is exactly the bedrock of free trade.

Regarding the other comments, this is the third in a series of resolutions. The other two resolutions are about the technical aspects of free trade.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Lysandrion]

Yes, it is. That is exactly the bedrock of free trade.

So is the freedom of will.

And personally, I have no doubt which one is truly essential.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yes, it is. That is exactly the bedrock of free trade.

So is the freedom of will.

You are conflating free trade and the capitalist freedom to contract. Free trade is a specific set of international trade policies that work to reduce barriers and increase globalized trade. There is nothing wrong with requiring member states to attend trade summits in return for the benefits granted to them by the World Assembly under other free trade resolutions. If a state does not want to attend the meetings, then it does not have a right to those protections, nor a sacred right to maintain membership in the World Assembly.

[Mousebumples]

I've voted against this resolution, and I'll admit that my reasons for voting against have already been voiced by others in these chambers.

My biggest point of contention, however, is this clause:

Further requires that, during these negotiations, delegates make a good faith attempt to cooperate with other delegates in order to come to mutually beneficial agreements which are in the best interests of all national populations involved;

Under the wording of this clause, the following conversation would fulfill the requirements of this text:
Mouse: I just found this old bottle of whiskey in my delegation's office. Give it a try - I think it's quite good.
Other Delegate(s): Wow, you're right! That's some pretty good whiskey!

As we are in agreement with other delegates (and drinking whiskey is definitely in the best interests of my representative who would need to be involved in these discussions) ... our obligation would be fulfilled.

We will stick with the above plan, should this pass, and stick to negotiating with our allies and regionmates, as we are already doing. We see no reason to be forced to engage in trade negotiations that are not in our best interests - whether for differing tech levels or in the case of logistical/transport issues.

We find this resolution to be unnecessary and overreaching, and we encourage other voters to also vote AGAINST.

[Auralia]

My biggest point of contention, however, is this clause:

Further requires that, during these negotiations, delegates make a good faith attempt to cooperate with other delegates in order to come to mutually beneficial agreements which are in the best interests of all national populations involved;

Under the wording of this clause, the following conversation would fulfill the requirements of this text:
Mouse: I just found this old bottle of whiskey in my delegation's office. Give it a try - I think it's quite good.
Other Delegate(s): Wow, you're right! That's some pretty good whiskey!

Your interpretation completely ignores the context of the resolution. It is wrong.

[Sciongrad]

My biggest point of contention, however, is this clause:


Under the wording of this clause, the following conversation would fulfill the requirements of this text:
Mouse: I just found this old bottle of whiskey in my delegation's office. Give it a try - I think it's quite good.
Other Delegate(s): Wow, you're right! That's some pretty good whiskey!

Your interpretation completely ignores the context of the resolution. It is wrong.

Oh, dear... I don't mean to sound rude, but the intent, or the spirit of the law has absolutely no bearing on what the resolution does, at all. The resolution does what the resolution says, and, seeing as Ambassador Eberhart's proposed scenario falls under the purview of the clause - regardless of whether or not that's what the clause was intended to do, or whether or not it follows the theme of the resolution - your assertion is misguided. As his Excellency of Douria said, some of the technical flaws of this proposal aren't really your fault, as much as it's the fault of delegate apathy, but that doesn't make your argument any more correct.

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

We meet. We talk. We agree on something. Then we go home. That's what the context of this looks like.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Oh, dear... I don't mean to sound rude, but the intent, or the spirit of the law has absolutely no bearing on what the resolution does, at all.

Except words actually do have meaning. People sound incredibly stupid when they try and say a completely unrealistic action like sharing a bottle of whiskey can fulfill a good-faith obligation of attempting to reduce trade barriers.

[Swith Witherward]

I've voted against this resolution, and I'll admit that my reasons for voting against have already been voiced by others in these chambers.

My biggest point of contention, however, is this clause:

Further requires that, during these negotiations, delegates make a good faith attempt to cooperate with other delegates in order to come to mutually beneficial agreements which are in the best interests of all national populations involved;

Under the wording of this clause, the following conversation would fulfill the requirements of this text:
Mouse: I just found this old bottle of whiskey in my delegation's office. Give it a try - I think it's quite good.
Other Delegate(s): Wow, you're right! That's some pretty good whiskey!

As we are in agreement with other delegates (and drinking whiskey is definitely in the best interests of my representative who would need to be involved in these discussions) ... our obligation would be fulfilled.

We will stick with the above plan, should this pass, and stick to negotiating with our allies and regionmates, as we are already doing. We see no reason to be forced to engage in trade negotiations that are not in our best interests - whether for differing tech levels or in the case of logistical/transport issues.

We find this resolution to be unnecessary and overreaching, and we encourage other voters to also vote AGAINST.

We agree with this assessment, in particular the clause cited by Mousebumples; it is an exercise in frivolity.

Further, forced negotiations would be counterproductive to our needs and methods. It has been our long-standing policy to not negotiate with nations who approach us.

We vote AGAINST.

[Lysandrion]

Except words actually do have meaning. People sound incredibly stupid when they try and say a completely unrealistic action like sharing a bottle of whiskey can fulfill a good-faith obligation of attempting to reduce trade barriers.

You are completely right. I also do not believe that my fellow leaders are silly enough to obstruct the talks in such an obvious way ... But actually they can - and what can be done to effectively stop them anyway? As I said, by compulsion we gain only additional names on the guest list and increased consumption of decent whisky - which is also somehow good for the trade .

[Vincetinople]

Taking the example of the former nation, the United States of America, we recognize the dangers of self-destructive multi-lateral free trade agreements where your comparative advantage is rendered moot by an off-sourcing of your industrial base to the lowest bidder. Instead we are open to making non-exclusive bi-lateral deals with our trading partners so that our economic foundations are not eroded by poorly understood "free trade" agreements.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Your interpretation completely ignores the context of the resolution. It is wrong.

I'm reminded of the advertising guy that creates this giant, expensive, artful, and beautiful ad for his product and then forgets to include the product. Sure you know what you meant, but just telling us what you meant for the thing to do isn't good enough. You have to make it do something. In the mean time, I hold by my "this resolution will result in a giant party" stance.

[Louisistan]

After having fallen asleep for quite some time¹ Deputy Ambassador Schulz suddenly wakes up and grabs a microphone. My beloved colleagues. I am fairly new to the proceedings of this chamber. But wouldn't dropping the mandatory attendance make the proposal illegal? I am fairly certain that the secretariat feels very strongly about "optional resolutions".


¹⁾ OOC: Meaning I haven't read all the posts in this thread

[Eireann Fae]

"Thurss a lotta people 'posed here on tha floor, but sush is NOT 'flected by tha akshul votes," slurs Rowan, noticing how much support the resolution seems to be getting in actual votes, despite the apparent dissension evident here in the Chamber. "Wut gifs?"

[Louisistan]

Schulz smiles condescendingly at the child Well my dear, it would seem the merits of this proposal are so highly self evident that they need not be discussed on the floor.

[Free Detroit]

Any nation that has undergone significant economic development has done so by enacting strong protectionist measures. So-called "free trade" only serves to undercut less developed nations by removing the ability of their governments to keep internal prices stable...

Therefore, the PRFD must oppose this measure.

[Neldaria]

Here is a simple way to examine the context of this resolution:

It has been established that the resolution does not actually require delegates to agree to anything when they participate in these talks, they are simply encouraged to do so if it benefits their nation.
If a trade agreement were beneficial to a nation, they would seek it out of their own accord and arrange it.

Your resolution literally does nothing that doesn't already occur naturally, besides create additional expense.

[Discoveria]

Schulz smiles condescendingly at the child Well my dear, it would seem the merits of this proposal are so highly self evident that they need not be discussed on the floor.

"I remain supportive of the resolution as well," said Matthew. "Though judging by the number of delegates who are preparing to party it up every ten years, I'm not sure how much good it will do. I would say however that our office agrees with Glen-Rhodes' defence of the resolution. The Mousebumplonian interpretation, for example, would be in violation of the 'good-faith' clause in GAR#2: Rights and Duties of WA States."

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

A question has just occurred to me. Would we be required to make a good faith attempt to hammer out 16,000+ trade negotiations and if not, how would this be different from the current situation?

[The Dourian Embassy]

Schulz smiles condescendingly at the child Well my dear, it would seem the merits of this proposal are so highly self evident that they need not be discussed on the floor.

"I remain supportive of the resolution as well," said Matthew. "Though judging by the number of delegates who are preparing to party it up every ten years, I'm not sure how much good it will do. I would say however that our office agrees with Glen-Rhodes' defence of the resolution. The Mousebumplonian interpretation, for example, would be in violation of the 'good-faith' clause in GAR#2: Rights and Duties of WA States."

If this said mutually beneficent trade agreements you'd be right. It doesn't though, so the agreements it specifies can be on any topic. One could easily argue those agreements could go against the spirit of the resolution by promoting protectionist measures. It wouldn't violate the letter of the law, certainly. These meetings have a "mandate" to reduce protectionist measures, but a mandate is essentially just the meeting's original purpose. Mandating a meeting for a particular reason is no way to guarantee the meeting does what you want it to do.

The only thing I'm required to do in good faith is follow the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is always going to be left up to interpretation(Since, if he wanted to, the author could say this resolution means pretty much anything he wants it to, after it passes), and no one view is correct. So the letter of the law must be specific. If you want me to reduce protectionist measures, or come to mutually beneficial trade agreements, then say that in the resolution(and no, the preamble does not count).

Otherwise, it's meaningless, and we have figure out how to move on from here. I say party.

[Auralia]

The only thing I'm required to do in good faith is follow the letter of the law.

I don't think you understand what the term "good faith" means.

[Neldaria]

I don't think you understand what the term "good faith" means.

And I don't think you understand what the term "useful" means in the context of Resolutions, but we're not holding it against you personally.

[The Dourian Embassy]

The only thing I'm required to do in good faith is follow the letter of the law.

I don't think you understand what the term "good faith" means.

Do you?

Are talking about good faith in contract law? How about good faith as a philosophical construct? Those are very different things, after all.

How about you assume I'm coming to this from a position of good faith? Maliciousness doesn't enter into my decision making here. I'm not trying to knock you down a peg, nor am I trying to get around what I deem as a bad law. This is no law. There is nothing to follow. I can't make any good faith effort to follow it because it doesn't actually ask me to do anything except send a guy to a meeting and have a guy start it off with "I think this is an awesome party" over a bullhorn, so everyone can say "I agree" and get on with the festivities. I can do that. What else do you want from me?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

The only thing I'm required to do in good faith is follow the letter of the law.

I don't think you understand what the term "good faith" means.

Good faith compliance with WA laws is required by GA #2. In that context, "good faith" means that nations must implement and enforce WA resolutions as they would any domestic law.

Good faith negotiation, on the other hand, means that a party negotiates in an honest manner without any malice or desire to defraud others. A party negotiates in good faith if they are honest about their position and the facts and beliefs that give rise to it. A bad faith negotiation means that the party is lying or obscuring facts to obtain an unfair advantage. "Good faith" negotiation does not mean that a party must capitulate or change positions. If negotiations break down because neither party will move off a position, that doesn't mean the negotiations were not in good faith. It simply means that the parties were too far apart to reach compromise on this issue.

In the context of these meetings, a party would be acting in "good faith" if they showed up and said in a clear, calm voice that they had no intention of reducing or eliminating protectionist measures which they believe to be benefiting their nation. Obviously, that does little to reduce protectionism, but it is an honest and straightforward statement of the party's position - which is all "good faith" really requires.

I see nothing in this legislation that would prevent a party, after it has honestly stated its beliefs and intentions, from immediately turning around and leaving. As far as cracking open a case of whiskey with some like-minded Ambassadors... well, I see nothing to prevent that either.

Of course, with 16,000+ individuals attending these meetings, it might take several years of standing in line for the podium before a representative even has a chance to clearly state his nation's position - much less make his way through the crowd to leave. Unless of course, we're communicating over distant, high-speed, simultaneous telepathy...
Best Regards,

Edit: Spelling and grammar.

[Yelda]

Having read the transcript of this discussion, there is little doubt that "some" delegations would attend for the purpose of derailing the talks and trying to make them a travesty. My suspicion however is that the vast majority of delegations, including those 4,313 that have so far voted in favor, would attend in good faith for the purpose of discussing international trade. Antics in the WA chambers aside, most nations are governed by adults and tend to staff their trade delegations with adults.

My support for this legislation remains unshaken by the "arguments" provided by the opposition.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Yeldan Office Of WA Affairs