[DRAFT] The Global Reparations Act

[Thermodolia]

Grays Harbor - contrary to popular belief - is not some random newbie with eight posts. He is a very well-respected member of the General Assembly community who has risen to become a member of the GA Secretariat, which rules on the legality of proposals. If you do not listen to his advice on proposal legality (on any occasion, not just this one), you run the risk of having your proposal declared illegal, which means that it cannot become a piece of international law.


A sense of scale: Nobody else on this thread supports your proposal. Opinions on the forum are often a good barometer of how popular a proposal will be.

Okay then. It's gone. I just hope you know how massively counterproductive this so-called collaboration process is.

You get more flies with honey than vinegar

[Tinhampton]

...I just hope you know how massively counterproductive this so-called collaboration process is.

Right?

If you have an unsalvageably unpopular proposal, the typical approach is to abandon it, rather than submit it and campaign for it no matter what.

[Adriatican]

Also, this contradicts Resolution 17, WA General Fund

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;

3. Establishes the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), to collect donations to the General Fund, calculate available and projected funds for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriations therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Right, maybe start with that next time? Just a suggestion. Im sure you'll come back with, or want to come back with, something quippy.

[Adriatican]

...I just hope you know how massively counterproductive this so-called collaboration process is.

Right?

If you have an unsalvageably unpopular proposal, the typical approach is to abandon it, rather than submit it and campaign for it no matter what.

Sure, whatever you'd like.

[Adriatican]

Okay then. It's gone. I just hope you know how massively counterproductive this so-called collaboration process is.

You get more flies with honey than vinegar

Lol, now we're comparing me to insects. Thanks for proving my point.

[Grays Harbor]

Also, this contradicts Resolution 17, WA General Fund

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;

3. Establishes the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), to collect donations to the General Fund, calculate available and projected funds for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriations therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

Right, maybe start with that next time? Just a suggestion. Im sure you'll come back with, or want to come back with, something quippy.

No, not really.

[Tinhampton]

You get more flies with honey than vinegar

Lol, now we're comparing me to insects. Thanks for proving my point.

Do you get it yet? Being nice and polite will make you more popular within the community than being abrasive and annoying.

[Adriatican]

Lol, now we're comparing me to insects. Thanks for proving my point.

Do you get it yet? Being nice and polite will make you more popular within the community than being abrasive and annoying.

I was being nothing but.
If you think calling me a fly, whilst simultaneously saying "your resolution sucks because this and this" all while providing zero reasons outside of sarcasm and snark, as to why, or guidance as to how fix it, warrants a polite smile and a chummy convo, you're delusional.

[Adriatican]

Right, maybe start with that next time? Just a suggestion. Im sure you'll come back with, or want to come back with, something quippy.

No, not really.

Riiiiigggght.

[Grays Harbor]

It’s a saying, one that’s older than me, even.

https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... th-vinegar

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

Now, while I understand the proposal author's intention with this Act, it is simply absurd to enforce such an Act upon the WA member nations. Such a proposal could possibly begin causing a rift between the WA and its members.

And as the GA Secretariat on this thread has said, it contradicts the WA General Fund.

[Kenmoria]

Do you get it yet? Being nice and polite will make you more popular within the community than being abrasive and annoying.

I was being nothing but.
If you think calling me a fly, whilst simultaneously saying "your resolution sucks because this and this" all while providing zero reasons outside of sarcasm and snark, as to why, or guidance as to how fix it, warrants a polite smile and a chummy convo, you're delusional.

(OOC: Others have mentioned the ‘fly’ point, so I’ll focus on the second one. There will always be people who don’t agree with a given piece of legislation, but when almost everyone has an irrevocable issue with a draft, that’s a good sign that the particular proposal being worked on probably won’t go any further. We don’t, generally speaking, intend to be abrasive.

However, the reason that no guidance was offered on how to fix it is because the idea doesn’t work on a conceptual basis. A reparations proposal runs into inevitable trouble with GA #017, along with disagreements with reparations in general, and therefore providing feedback other than ‘abandon the legislation’ wouldn’t be very helpful in the long term.)

[Sterkistan]

THE GLOBAL REPARATIONS ACT

CATEGORY: SOCIAL JUSTICE | STRENGTH: SIGNIFICANT

WHEREAS, the international histories of the Members of the World Assembly are ones uniquely entwined with injustices and inequalities, current and former;

WHEREAS, the Members of the World Assembly have codified their outrage towards fellow Members who still perpetuate these historical injustices in the modern era, via condemnations issued by the most esteemed Security Council, and have outlawed outlawing many of them the very same in Resolutions emanating from the Chamber of the General Assembly;

NOTING, that, despite the robust legislative reformation undertaken by the World Assembly, injustices committed have not been paid for;

ASSERTING, that, until which time the international community, as represented by the World Assembly, does so pay for these crimes, inflictions, and injustices, any reforms and rebukes delivered, will be hallowed justice;

AS SUCH, the World Assembly does hereby establish the following institution, mechanisms, and mandates, in a full throated effort to finally serve payment for wrongdoing, present and former;

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY, hereby establishes the General Fund for Reparations, hereafter referred to as "the Fund";

ALL MEMBER NATIONS, shall contribute to the Fund, every year, in an amount deemed appropriate by the Member Nations so donating, so long as said amount is no less than the equivalent of one (1) percent of the donor nation's nominal GDP;

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY, so establishes the General Fund for Reparations Board of Governors who shall, as a Board of nine (9) members, be so charged with determining who should receive a disbursement from the Fund, and in what amount, in addition to the general oversight and administration of the institution as a whole. All other aspects of the Fund and its Board of Governors shall be determined by the World Assembly;

MAY IT BE KNOWN, that this Resolution shall not circumvent or supersede complementary or like legislation which may exist, or which may be made, in a stricter or more comprehensive fashion than the Resolution presented here;

IT IS SO RESOLVED.

*Plesse note: edits made to the original Draft of this Resolution are presented in red, via strikes, or both*

"If this resolution reaches the floor, which is a pretty substantial if. It will not see Sterkian support. In general, I do not believe that reparations are a place that intergovernmental organizations are required to mediate. Federal Governments are perfectly capable of assessing whether historic crimes against indigenous or First Owners persons require monetary compensation. I believe that establishing a committee for such a matter is equally as pointless, another committee layering the GA with more bureaucracy. The idea that every member state be required to contribute to a fund and then not be able to decide where the money is sent is a travesty of a concept in theory, and in practice will only cause discontent towards the committee that is funneling vital national resources to something that will see no local benefit, and could be accomplished more efficiently by nations that have actually decided to pay reparations."

"I'm only going to touch on the moral 'God Complex' of this proposal. The idea that reparations for historic crimes can even be proposed as a form of reconciliation that isn't a gross, empty payout upon the victims is disheartening. The idea that WA nations believe that simply paying victim groups is any form of reconciliation is the epitome of 'throw money at a problem until it vanishes'. It is shameful on these victims to accept money from an organization that gives it away because they are required to. You cannot heal pain with money, and this impersonal, offensive method of doing so will only disconnect historically victimized groups."

"I do not believe this proposal can be fixed, because it is not a proposal that is required to exist."

Grays Harbor - contrary to popular belief - is not some random newbie with eight posts. He is a very well-respected member of the General Assembly community who has risen to become a member of the GA Secretariat, which rules on the legality of proposals. If you do not listen to his advice on proposal legality (on any occasion, not just this one), you run the risk of having your proposal declared illegal, which means that it cannot become a piece of international law.


A sense of scale: Nobody else on this thread supports your proposal. Opinions on the forum are often a good barometer of how popular a proposal will be.

Okay then. It's gone. I just hope you know how massively counterproductive this so-called collaboration process is.

The collaboration process doesn't mean people gathering around your proposal, applauding it for it's well-meaning and forward-thinking. It's about finding and patching holes and criticisms.

[Adriatican]

I was being nothing but.
If you think calling me a fly, whilst simultaneously saying "your resolution sucks because this and this" all while providing zero reasons outside of sarcasm and snark, as to why, or guidance as to how fix it, warrants a polite smile and a chummy convo, you're delusional.

(OOC: Others have mentioned the ‘fly’ point, so I’ll focus on the second one. There will always be people who don’t agree with a given piece of legislation, but when almost everyone has an irrevocable issue with a draft, that’s a good sign that the particular proposal being worked on probably won’t go any further. We don’t, generally speaking, intend to be abrasive.

However, the reason that no guidance was offered on how to fix it is because the idea doesn’t work on a conceptual basis. A reparations proposal runs into inevitable trouble with GA #017, along with disagreements with reparations in general, and therefore providing feedback other than ‘abandon the legislation’ wouldn’t be very helpful in the long term.)

A much more helpful presentation of disagreement than the clusterf*ck your predecessors have assumed I could decipher.

Sadly I don't speak a*s that well.

[Adriatican]

THE GLOBAL REPARATIONS ACT

CATEGORY: SOCIAL JUSTICE | STRENGTH: SIGNIFICANT

WHEREAS, the international histories of the Members of the World Assembly are ones uniquely entwined with injustices and inequalities, current and former;

WHEREAS, the Members of the World Assembly have codified their outrage towards fellow Members who still perpetuate these historical injustices in the modern era, via condemnations issued by the most esteemed Security Council, and have outlawed outlawing many of them the very same in Resolutions emanating from the Chamber of the General Assembly;

NOTING, that, despite the robust legislative reformation undertaken by the World Assembly, injustices committed have not been paid for;

ASSERTING, that, until which time the international community, as represented by the World Assembly, does so pay for these crimes, inflictions, and injustices, any reforms and rebukes delivered, will be hallowed justice;

AS SUCH, the World Assembly does hereby establish the following institution, mechanisms, and mandates, in a full throated effort to finally serve payment for wrongdoing, present and former;

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY, hereby establishes the General Fund for Reparations, hereafter referred to as "the Fund";

ALL MEMBER NATIONS, shall contribute to the Fund, every year, in an amount deemed appropriate by the Member Nations so donating, so long as said amount is no less than the equivalent of one (1) percent of the donor nation's nominal GDP;

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY, so establishes the General Fund for Reparations Board of Governors who shall, as a Board of nine (9) members, be so charged with determining who should receive a disbursement from the Fund, and in what amount, in addition to the general oversight and administration of the institution as a whole. All other aspects of the Fund and its Board of Governors shall be determined by the World Assembly;

MAY IT BE KNOWN, that this Resolution shall not circumvent or supersede complementary or like legislation which may exist, or which may be made, in a stricter or more comprehensive fashion than the Resolution presented here;

IT IS SO RESOLVED.

*Plesse note: edits made to the original Draft of this Resolution are presented in red, via strikes, or both*

"If this resolution reaches the floor, which is a pretty substantial if. It will not see Sterkian support. In general, I do not believe that reparations are a place that intergovernmental organizations are required to mediate. Federal Governments are perfectly capable of assessing whether historic crimes against indigenous or First Owners persons require monetary compensation. I believe that establishing a committee for such a matter is equally as pointless, another committee layering the GA with more bureaucracy. The idea that every member state be required to contribute to a fund and then not be able to decide where the money is sent is a travesty of a concept in theory, and in practice will only cause discontent towards the committee that is funneling vital national resources to something that will see no local benefit, and could be accomplished more efficiently by nations that have actually decided to pay reparations."

"I'm only going to touch on the moral 'God Complex' of this proposal. The idea that reparations for historic crimes can even be proposed as a form of reconciliation that isn't a gross, empty payout upon the victims is disheartening. The idea that WA nations believe that simply paying victim groups is any form of reconciliation is the epitome of 'throw money at a problem until it vanishes'. It is shameful on these victims to accept money from an organization that gives it away because they are required to. You cannot heal pain with money, and this impersonal, offensive method of doing so will only disconnect historically victimized groups."

"I do not believe this proposal can be fixed, because it is not a proposal that is required to exist."

Okay then. It's gone. I just hope you know how massively counterproductive this so-called collaboration process is.

The collaboration process doesn't mean people gathering around your proposal, applauding it for it's well-meaning and forward-thinking. It's about finding and patching holes and criticisms.

Well, as was previously mentioned, it didn't do any of that, so, there ya go.

[Sterkistan]

Well, as was previously mentioned, it didn't do any of that, so, there ya go.

It looks to me like you've had plenty of criticism, it's just more of a "We ultimately don't need this resolution" than "Here's what we can change to make this resolution something we need"

[Alraibris]

Antuan stared at the Ambassador from Adriatican and then dropped his head into his hands. He couldn't believe the self-righteousness that he was hearing. "Ambassador. The fact of the matter is that there are too many issues with this Proposal and no amount of editing will make it applicable to this August Body. As it currently stands, is Illegal, by the contradiction of a previously passed resolution with your attempt to make mandatory 'donations'. This has been pointed out to you by the Secretariat."

Antuan then picks up his glass and takes a sip of water before continuing on, "It also has many other nations stating that they will not support it. The General Assembly of the World Assembly is not like a little Alliance, you can't just shoehorn a Resolution through and hope that it passed because people won't know what it is about and you HOPE that they will be swayed by how you speak. It actually has to be legal, which this never will be, and have the support of people who actually read the Resolution." He takes his copy of the Draft Resolution, folds it over once, and then tears it in half. "This proposal is worthless. I suggest you just give up on it and move onto other ideas."

[Thermodolia]

Do you get it yet? Being nice and polite will make you more popular within the community than being abrasive and annoying.

I was being nothing but.
If you think calling me a fly, whilst simultaneously saying "your resolution sucks because this and this" all while providing zero reasons outside of sarcasm and snark, as to why, or guidance as to how fix it, warrants a polite smile and a chummy convo, you're delusional.

You get more flies with honey than vinegar

Lol, now we're comparing me to insects. Thanks for proving my point.

It’s a phrase. It’s not comparing you to insects nor is it calling you a fly. It basically means “be nice to others and others will be more cooperative aka don’t be a dick”.

I never said anything about your proposal so you really shouldn’t attack people who are trying to help, Ive seen many a people torpedo their own plans just by being abrasive and unable to take criticism. Don’t go down that path.

[Separatist Peoples]

"We stand opposed. Reparations from a pooled resource arent reparations in that they are not compensation paid by the wrongdoer. This is little more than a Suffering Welfare fund with no symbolic value. Were reparations particularised, we might not feel so strongly, given that reparations are a useful and valid way to assuage tensions between victim and perpetrator."

[Picairn]

Opposed. For a variety of reasons.

ALL MEMBER NATIONS, shall contribute to the Fund, every year, in an amount deemed appropriate by the Member Nations so donating, so long as said amount is no less than the equivalent of one (1) percent of the donor nation's nominal GDP;

Mr. Ambassador, you do realize that there are members of the World Assembly which have not committed these horrendous crimes by any measures, correct? Then why would you force "ALL MEMBER NATIONS" to participate in paying reparations to victims who are not their own citizens? Why do all nations must pay for the crimes of psychotic dictatorships, while many democratic republics have cut ties, put sanctions and trade embargoes, and even voted to condemn those very same dictatorships? Is our combined effort not enough that you must go even further, forcing citizens to pay for strangers whom were not present in their nations, let alone be oppressed upon by their governments? Lastly, should newly-formed nations pay for reparations too, even when many of those atrocities happened before they existed? I find it to be a ridiculous notion that the sons and fathers must pay for the crimes of ancient neighbors (and many dictatorships are not even their neighbors in the same regions).

Second on my concerns is the guarantee of payment. How, exactly, can we ensure that the money will serve its purpose? We have all known too well that psychotic dictatorships will immediately confiscate and regulate all amounts of money transferred to the citizens. How can you assure us that victims will receive their payments without interfering on their countries' National Sovereignty? I'm quite certain that it is against the rules for the World Assembly to violate their members' own decisions, even if it may be justified. Then what? Are we going to forget the rules and start building an army? Having an epic showdown between democratic republics against authoritarian dictatorships, and killing millions in the process? Proclaiming victory at last, upon a pile of ashes of individual nations and their citizens? If you think I'm being hyperbolic, no I don't, because you can not control the flow of reparations unless you are willing to go to war.

Last but not least, I believe reparations are an inferior way of improving the victims' lives and amending the atrocities committed upon them. In order to truly better their lives, investing in education, healthcare, infrastructure, jobs and commercial activities in their communities will yield far better results than just simply throwing money at them and call it a day. Money is useless if the basic conditions to escape poverty are not provided. They will spend it on food and basic amenities, then it will run out. And we are back at the beginning. We may have even created a new cycle of perpetual poverty.

Frankly, this proposal is dangerously unrealistic, overreaching, and contradicting other legislations as the WA Secretariat has stated. OPPOSED.

[Giovenith]

(OOC: Others have mentioned the ‘fly’ point, so I’ll focus on the second one. There will always be people who don’t agree with a given piece of legislation, but when almost everyone has an irrevocable issue with a draft, that’s a good sign that the particular proposal being worked on probably won’t go any further. We don’t, generally speaking, intend to be abrasive.

However, the reason that no guidance was offered on how to fix it is because the idea doesn’t work on a conceptual basis. A reparations proposal runs into inevitable trouble with GA #017, along with disagreements with reparations in general, and therefore providing feedback other than ‘abandon the legislation’ wouldn’t be very helpful in the long term.)

A much more helpful presentation of disagreement than the clusterf*ck your predecessors have assumed I could decipher.

Sadly I don't speak a*s that well.

*** Warned for Trolling ***

[Ardiveds]

"While we applaud the noble intentions of the author, we simply can't stand by this resolution without having some details on exactly which groups the resolution is concerned with, who all are going to get the money and how the committee is going to make sure the conerned parties actually get the money. As such we stand opposed."
--- Kaiser