[DRAFT] WA Doctrine of First Contact

[Stash Kroh]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

WA Doctrine of First Contact
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Stash Kroh

---

Description:
The General Assembly abroad,

Recognizing the existence of many remote societies who have been discovered over the years living on various continents, islands and distant planetary systems without any prior knowledge of intelligent life living among them,

Deeply Disturbed by the actions of governments in the past who have invaded these said territories by aggressive force with colonization in mind while treating the natives as savages –- all the while using deceptive tactics to benefit economically and politically from them,

Believing those to be intolerable actions for member nations to conduct, who should respect these previously isolated societies –- not exploit their naivety,

Defining for the purposes of this document, an isolated society as a community of inhabitants that is not affiliated with the WA and as yet to either..

(a) Scientifically prove the existence of a civilization besides their own,
(b) Travel to another civilization through their own means, without any support for the transportation from outsiders,
(c) See Operative Clause 3,

Hereby:

1. Forbids member nations and their citizens from claiming property within the area the isolated society is secluded to -- no matter the size or extent of the homeland;

2. Entrusts the World Assembly with the immediate discontinuation of the following atrocities against isolated societies by member nations and their citizens ...

(a)Harming an inhabitant through any direct physical, mental or virtual means;
(b)Dooming an entire society by interaction (as opposed to a lack of interaction or intervention) through any physical, mental, social, environmental, cultural or virtual means to significantly increase their risk of extinction;
(c)Assimilating or converting inhabitants to a new religion, or cultural belief system by either threating them with penalties, harm or social isolation if they do not convert;
(d) Reducing the social, political or economic freedoms granted to an inhabitant by the government, or lack of government in an isolated society;
(e) Establishing any sort of dependency between the isolated society and a member nation, that would significantly increase the isolated society's risk of extinction, if the member nation were to cease to exist unexpectedly;
(f) Preventing a member of an isolated society from leaving their homeland;


3. Suspends an isolated society's validity for the proposal's definition of "isolated society", if any inhabitant of the said community forcefully revokes a citizen of a member nation's freedom to physically leave the isolated society, while being fully aware, and cognizant of this document, the WA Doctrine of First Contact, and its content;


4. Creates the General Assembly Universal Registrar of Isolated Societies (GAURIS), as a division of the Coordination of Space Consortium (COSC) to solemnly:

(I) Record the existence of each isolated society to have been discovered;
(II) Archive the relative, and/or absolute location, and quantitative size of each isolated society's homeland;
(III) Manage timely reports regarding these civilizations' eligibility for isolated society status -- including which of the aforementioned definitional points, regarding isolated societies, for which they qualify for;

5. Reminds member nations that they are the ambassadors for the rest of civilization when first contacted by these isolated societies thus the World Assembly encourages treating these isolated societies with respect and dignity.

---

Okay, Ard did give a little speech about the idea's legality here -- which might be of interest to some. Basically the issue is that I can't legislate anything to control a non-WA nation in anyway, shape or form -- thus the proposal must be about how WA members approach them. So, keeping that in mind, please feel free to discuss, debate and rip this draft to shreds if you so choose to.

And do you think the category/strength fits? I think so, but I'd like to hear your opinions.

[Krioval]

Oh, dear gods, where to begin. Let me preface this by saying that the Great Chiefdom is opposed to this sort of legislation on general principle; Krioval powers its economy in large part by providing science and technology to nations with lesser developments in those areas. In doing so, the Great Chiefdom empowers these nations and reduces the hardships that many might endure in delaying, for instance, medical and agricultural technology. But on to the propoal.

RECOGNIZING the existence of many remote societies who have been discovered over the years living on various continents, islands and far off planetary systems without any prior knowledge of intelligent life living among them;

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the actions of governments in the past who have invaded these said territories by aggressive force with colonization in mind while treating the natives as savages –- all the while using deceptive tactics to benefit economically and politically from them;

BELIEVING those to be intolerable actions for member nations to conduct, who should respect these previously isolated societies –- not exploit their naivety;

Allow me to jump in here. I know where this is going, and I don't like it. It assumes that most technologically advanced nations are evil colonial powers. The Great Chiefdom is concerned that there is little evidence that even a majority of encounters between nations of varying technologies have resulted in the enslavement or exploitation of the weaker culture by the stronger. Further, this raises an interesting question. If it is morally unacceptable for a technologically advanced culture to conquer one that lacks its technological advantages, is it also to be banned for a militarily superior nation to invade a weaker one?

DEFINES for the purposes of this document;

1. An isolated society as a nation or homeland of inhabitants who are not scientifically aware of any existing civilization outside of their cultural microcosm.

2. A civilization’s technological status as its specific quantity of energy consumption as a civilization, or the energy consumption that it is capable of through its existing means.

These definitions raise more questions than they answer. How are we to determine "cultural microcosm" and "energy consumption"?

HEREBY,

I. Deducts that for an isolated society to be truly isolated they would have to be secluded to a homeland of their own -- no matter the size or extensiveness of this homeland.

II. Prohibits member nations and their citizens from claiming property within these isolated societies’ homeland or world.

III. Entrusts the World Assembly with the immediate abolition of the following abominations against isolated societies by member nations and their citizens ...

a. Intruding, or conducting any activity that leads to an inhabitant’s scientific awareness of civilization outside of their society.
b. Harming the inhabitants through any physical, mental, social, environmental, cultural or virtual means -- including the unnatural spread of disease, or the introduction of potentially negative cultural aspects such as alcoholism.
c. Attempting to alter, persecute, disseminate against, discourage or negatively affect any cultural belief system, political philosophy, religion, idea or tradition held by any inhabitant of an isolated society.
d. Reducing or increasing the social, political or economic freedoms that an inhabitant has in their homeland.
e. Changing the technological status of the isolated society by any means required to improve, or reduce their status.

IV. Reminds member nations that they are the ambassadors for the rest of civilization when first contacted by these isolated societies thus the World Assembly encourages treating these isolated societies with respect, and dignity.

Part 3a is barbaric, as intentionally withholding medical advances will lead to disease, suffering and earlier deaths. Part 3b is problematic because one culture's "negative" aspects might be considered positive in a different culture. Part 3c is patently illegal, as an "isolated" nation is so poorly defined that it could be a WA member, and plenty of earlier WA resolutions force its members to adhere to particular social, economic, and political conventions. Part 3d is barbaric, as increasing social and economic freedoms would likely benefit the recipient culture. Likewise 3e is barbaric.

The whole of part 3 contradicts part 4. It is total disrespect to use cultural relativism to seal away cultures that could dramatically benefit from the advances that science and technology can bring. Certainly, it should be left to those cultures to accept or reject those advances without the paternalism of the WA. These kinds of moralistic crusades from Stash Kroh have become woefully unwelcome in the World Assembly of late, and the Great Chiefdom suggests that Stash Kroh's diplomatic staff critically evaluate whether their purpose is meant to be narcissistic and self-serving to the detriment of its neighbors.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

[Grays Harbor]

II. Prohibits member nations and their citizens from claiming property within these isolated societies’ homeland or world.

This sounds like to be the only workable portion because all of this ...

III. Entrusts the World Assembly with the immediate abolition of the following abominations against isolated societies by member nations and their citizens ...

a. Intruding, or conducting any activity that leads to an inhabitant’s scientific awareness of civilization outside of their society.
b. Harming the inhabitants through any physical, mental, social, environmental, cultural or virtual means -- including the unnatural spread of disease, or the introduction of potentially negative cultural aspects such as alcoholism.
c. Attempting to alter, persecute, disseminate against, discourage or negatively affect any cultural belief system, political philosophy, religion, idea or tradition held by any inhabitant of an isolated society.
d. Reducing or increasing the social, political or economic freedoms that an inhabitant has in their homeland.
e. Changing the technological status of the isolated society by any means required to improve, or reduce their status.

... sounds like requirements to not only not claim territory that belongs to other less developed societies, but in fact prohibits any contact at all because even just trying to speak to somebody would violate at least one of those provisions.

As for category, I am not quite certain what category this may fit under, but the one chosen, and the "strong", do not seem to be it.

[Stash Kroh]

Allow me to jump in here. I know where this is going, and I don't like it. It assumes that most technologically advanced nations are evil colonial powers. The Great Chiefdom is concerned that there is little evidence that even a majority of encounters between nations of varying technologies have resulted in the enslavement or exploitation of the weaker culture by the stronger. Further, this raises an interesting question. If it is morally unacceptable for a technologically advanced culture to conquer one that lacks its technological advantages, is it also to be banned for a militarily superior nation to invade a weaker one?

I believe the problem lies in the fact that these nations or homelands of people do not know about the existence of people living among them in the universe. It would be morally unacceptable to take advantage of that situation, as you're an ambassador for the rest of society to a previously un-contacted society.

These definitions raise more questions than they answer. How are we to determine "cultural microcosm" and "energy consumption"?

Energy Consumption seems scientific and definable to me, however I'll revisit the definition for an Isolated Society -- I see your point, ambassador.

Part 3a is barbaric, as intentionally withholding medical advances will lead to disease, suffering and earlier deaths.

Though if you can some how heal the citizens without breaking the following outlawed circumstances than you could help sick citizens from isolated societies. Like, hiding the humanitarian cause in disguise. I'm looking more into the subject... (I'm getting reeducated by a Trekkie )

Part 3b is problematic because one culture's "negative" aspects might be considered positive in a different culture.

I will look into this, and make some revisions.

Part 3c is patently illegal, as an "isolated" nation is so poorly defined that it could be a WA member, and plenty of earlier WA resolutions force its members to adhere to particular social, economic, and political conventions. Part 3d is barbaric, as increasing social and economic freedoms would likely benefit the recipient culture. Likewise 3e is barbaric.

It is your opinion that increasing social or economic freedoms would likely benefit the recipient culture.

The whole of part 3 contradicts part 4. It is total disrespect to use cultural relativism to seal away cultures that could dramatically benefit from the advances that science and technology can bring. Certainly, it should be left to those cultures to accept or reject those advances without the paternalism of the WA.

Giving societies the power of technology, before they themselves 'are ready for it' has proven time and time again to be the quick downfall of cultures, societies and even made some vulnerable for assimilation as they become dependant on their technological caregivers.

[Stash Kroh]

... sounds like requirements to not only not claim territory that belongs to other less developed societies, but in fact prohibits any contact at all because even just trying to speak to somebody would violate at least one of those provisions.

The current clauses do not outlaw talking in general, they encourage a cultural relativistic method of observation among WA citizens when visiting isolated societies.

[Krioval]

I believe the problem lies in the fact that these nations or homelands of people do not know about the existence of people living among them in the universe. It would be morally unacceptable to take advantage of that situation, as you're an ambassador for the rest of society to a previously un-contacted society.

See, this is the primary point of contention. The Great Chiefdom represents the Great Chiefdom, not all societies, whether the populations with which we interact are isolated or connected to other cultures. It would be a grievous error to represent ourselves as more than or different from what we are. Now, granted, the average Kriovaller isn't going to detail his or her sexual practices at first contact, but we aren't going to pretend to be part of some WA-inspired monoculture either.

Energy Consumption seems scientific and definable to me, however I'll revisit the definition for an Isolated Society -- I see your point, ambassador.

We find that "energy consumption" is a strange metric is all. Maybe "per capita energy production" might be better, but in this instance, vague might work just as well. Typically, if there is a sufficient imbalance in technology to trigger the conditions of this proposal, it would be reasonably obvious.

Though if you can some how heal the citizens without breaking the following outlawed circumstances than you could help sick citizens from isolated societies. Like, hiding the humanitarian cause in disguise. I'm looking more into the subject... (I'm getting reeducated by a Trekkie )

Krioval doesn't exactly have invisible hospitals, I'm afraid, and there's that whole parable about fish and fishing. Promoting the use of medical technology in less-advanced cultures leads to a decline in disease, infant mortality, and makes many injuries recoverable rather than fatal. The Great Chiefdom cannot countenance a proposal that would force the withholding of medical advances from isolated societies in the name of moral decency.

It is your opinion that increasing social or economic freedoms would likely benefit the recipient culture.

Increasing social or economic freedoms gives people choices. They can choose whether to accept or decline these freedoms, but the Great Chiefdom feels that they should be offered the choice. If nothing else, Krioval has sometimes worked to protect the integrity of an otherwise isolated society by allowing dissatisfied members to immigrate to the Great Chiefdom. Krioval is horrified that religious, racial, sexual, and economic persecution exist in the universe, and we are not about to obliterate some of our most successful measures to combat this because of arguments steeped in extreme cultural relativism.

Giving societies the power of technology, before they themselves 'are ready for it' has proven time and time again to be the quick downfall of cultures, societies and even made some vulnerable for assimilation as they become dependant on their technological caregivers.

The problem with this argument is that it is incredibly paternalistic. It should not be the function of the WA to determine who is and who is not "ready" (an arbitrary idea, to be charitable) to advance in technology. It is not respectful to condemn populations to barbarism while patting oneself on the back for safeguarding their culture.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

[Rutianas]

The major concern I have, and it's not the only one, is this:

a. Intruding, or conducting any activity that leads to an inhabitant’s scientific awareness of civilization outside of their society.

Well, if the isolated civilization is sending out transmissions asking 'is anyone out there?', it can never be answered due to the fact that it would be an 'activity that leads to an inhabitant's scientific awareness of civilization outside of their society'. Also, space faring nations would be required to alter their paths should one of those civilizations be wandering the area, having attained space travel on their own. This part would lead to complete isolationism for other nations unless they stumble upon a Non-WA nation, in which case the WA nations may then make their presence known.

I'm not going to get into the other issues as this is the major one. If this can be dealt with, then maybe I'll discuss it further.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Unibot]

The major concern I have, and it's not the only one, is this:

a. Intruding, or conducting any activity that leads to an inhabitant’s scientific awareness of civilization outside of their society.

Well, if the isolated civilization is sending out transmissions asking 'is anyone out there?', it can never be answered due to the fact that it would be an 'activity that leads to an inhabitant's scientific awareness of civilization outside of their society'. Also, space faring nations would be required to alter their paths should one of those civilizations be wandering the area, having attained space travel on their own. This part would lead to complete isolationism for other nations unless they stumble upon a Non-WA nation, in which case the WA nations may then make their presence known.

I'm not going to get into the other issues as this is the major one. If this can be dealt with, then maybe I'll discuss it further.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Thank you ambassador, I'm going to have to take a day or two to ponder on that (I'm slow...) but it is imperative that there is as a flawless as possible legal and political transition from isolated society to non-isolated for the purposes of this proposal.

[Gobbannium]

The major concern I have, and it's not the only one, is this:

a. Intruding, or conducting any activity that leads to an inhabitant’s scientific awareness of civilization outside of their society.

Well, if the isolated civilization is sending out transmissions asking 'is anyone out there?', it can never be answered due to the fact that it would be an 'activity that leads to an inhabitant's scientific awareness of civilization outside of their society'. Also, space faring nations would be required to alter their paths should one of those civilizations be wandering the area, having attained space travel on their own. This part would lead to complete isolationism for other nations unless they stumble upon a Non-WA nation, in which case the WA nations may then make their presence known.

I'm not going to get into the other issues as this is the major one. If this can be dealt with, then maybe I'll discuss it further.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Thank you ambassador, I'm going to have to take a day or two to ponder on that (I'm slow...) but it is imperative that there is as a flawless as possible legal and political transition from isolated society to non-isolated for the purposes of this proposal.

We would observe that an isolated society ceases to be isolated under this proposal the moment it is contacted. Of course, such contact is entirely illegal under the terms the rest of the proposal, but we can't see a little thing like that stopping this going to vote

(OOC: if you're being educated by a Trekkie, have they yet pointed out how often the Prime Directive gets broken? To quote someone in a ST game I ran, "It's more of a guideline really." That should give you some idea of how good an idea turning it inflexibly into WA law isn't.)

[Bears Armed]

"If this suggestion were to get passed as an international law then that would be another good reason why Bears Armed having withdrawn from membership in this organisation -- some time ago, now -- was a good idea. There are a number of areas close to or even within the borders of my homeland that still contain populations of pre-sapient Bears, and if any members of any of those groups should happen to 'awaken' into a sapient condition instead -- as members of some such groups have done within recent history -- then our compliance with these terms would not be possible."


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of The Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Unibot]

The major concern I have, and it's not the only one, is this:

a. Intruding, or conducting any activity that leads to an inhabitant’s scientific awareness of civilization outside of their society.

Well, if the isolated civilization is sending out transmissions asking 'is anyone out there?', it can never be answered due to the fact that it would be an 'activity that leads to an inhabitant's scientific awareness of civilization outside of their society'. Also, space faring nations would be required to alter their paths should one of those civilizations be wandering the area, having attained space travel on their own. This part would lead to complete isolationism for other nations unless they stumble upon a Non-WA nation, in which case the WA nations may then make their presence known.

I'm not going to get into the other issues as this is the major one. If this can be dealt with, then maybe I'll discuss it further.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Thank you ambassador, I'm going to have to take a day or two to ponder on that (I'm slow...) but it is imperative that there is as a flawless as possible legal and political transition from isolated society to non-isolated for the purposes of this proposal.

We would observe that an isolated society ceases to be isolated under this proposal the moment it is contacted. Of course, such contact is entirely illegal under the terms the rest of the proposal, but we can't see a little thing like that stopping this going to vote

(OOC: if you're being educated by a Trekkie, have they yet pointed out how often the Prime Directive gets broken? To quote someone in a ST game I ran, "It's more of a guideline really." That should give you some idea of how good an idea turning it inflexibly into WA law isn't.)

Well the idea was that the isolated society would contact the outside world first -- and realize its existence on its own terms. However as you point out, in this current draft, nations would be outlawed from allowing a situation such as contact to even happen.

I just wanted to protect isolated societies from having slippery space empires nefariously send big green fireworks into the sky of the society so their curiousity would drag them out of being isolated.

[Stash Kroh]

Okay, here's a redraft, ambassadors.

Fire away!

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador Adelinda Gliemann, I believe that the definition of an isolated society can still be interpreted as affecting a non-member state, therefore it may still be against WA proposal rules.

[Stash Kroh]

Honoured ambassador Adelinda Gliemann, I believe that the definition of an isolated society can still be interpreted as affecting a non-member state, therefore it may still be against WA proposal rules.

As the definition is for the purposes of this WA legislation, I don't believe defining something is attempting to control or regulate something outside of the WA's control.

As what the WA defines is what, is still what the WA defines.

However I will keep your concern in mind. Thank You.

[Gobbannium]

There is still a degree of egregiously unnatural language which we had carelessly assumed to be annotations not part of the proposal. Since they have recurred, we can only assume that the respected ambassador has not yet performed more than a spellcheck upon his presentation, which we have to say is not encouraging. We would observe that (a) "deducts" is not the word he is looking for, (b) the clause it introduces has no business in the operative section anyway, and (c) that is far from the only example we could have picked on.

On the meat of the proposal, we honestly cannot see this as much improvement. Contact is now permitted, and the doctrine must be explained. At which point, of course, it no longer applies.

[Unibot]

bump

[Stash Kroh]

There is still a degree of egregiously unnatural language which we had carelessly assumed to be annotations not part of the proposal. Since they have recurred, we can only assume that the respected ambassador has not yet performed more than a spellcheck upon his presentation, which we have to say is not encouraging. We would observe that (a) "deducts" is not the word he is looking for, (b) the clause it introduces has no business in the operative section anyway, and (c) that is far from the only example we could have picked on.

On the meat of the proposal, we honestly cannot see this as much improvement. Contact is now permitted, and the doctrine must be explained. At which point, of course, it no longer applies.

Well, Clause 1 which you've criticized has now become a part of the definition table. However, I take it from your wording that there are many other problems you have with the document, if so, please elaborate, ambassador.

[Gobbannium]

Well, Clause 1 which you've criticized has now become a part of the definition table. However, I take it from your wording that there are many other problems you have with the document, if so, please elaborate, ambassador.

We are unlikely to have the time to operate as a proof-reading service for a little while, ambassador, given that the resolution at vote is absorbing a considerable amount of our energies.

[Stash Kroh]

χτύπημα

[Sedgistan]

This resolution is nothing more than a luddite attack on scientific and social progress. The Sedgistani delegation believes that it can benefit hitherto isolated communities by sharing with them its superior technologies, and introducing them to such novel social concepts as gender equality. These communities are not better off left to themselves - their quality and enyoyment of life can be improved by social reform, where necessary, and by introducing new technologies.

[Stash Kroh]

This resolution is nothing more than a luddite attack on scientific and social progress. The Sedgistani delegation believes that it can benefit hitherto isolated communities by sharing with them its superior technologies, and introducing them to such novel social concepts as gender equality. These communities are not better off left to themselves - their quality and enyoyment of life can be improved by social reform, where necessary, and by introducing new technologies.

Okay, I've made some alterations -- including a notable dropping of the Technological clauses. Though I might warn nations of increasing isolated societies' technological capabilities in the ol' paternalization/encouraging IV clause.

[Sedgistan]

"cultural belief system, religion, or tradition" can still support racism, gender inequality, genital mutilation, murder of the first-born or pretty much anything you care to name. I'd suggest removing part II c. in its entirety.

[Stash Kroh]

How'll about I change C. to ...

c. Assimilating or converting inhabitants to a new religion, or cultural belief system by either threating them with penalties, harm or social isolation if they do not convert.

[Krioval]

This already addresses kidnapping for exploitation and other acts of human trafficking.

b. Transportation by member nations, to allow isolated inhabitants to travel outside of their homeland or world is prohibited until the specific inhabitant who wishes to travel, agrees to the terms of the WA Doctrine of First Contact. If the inhabitant cannot agree to the terms, the WA will not permitted their transportation outside of his homeland, or world by a member nation.

This forces the inhabitant of a non-WA state to agree to terms imposed upon them by the WA. If not illegal, it sure looks close. Also, for strength, "strong" is far too powerful for what this proposal is attempting to do.

[Stash Kroh]

This already addresses kidnapping for exploitation and other acts of human trafficking.

b. Transportation by member nations, to allow isolated inhabitants to travel outside of their homeland or world is prohibited until the specific inhabitant who wishes to travel, agrees to the terms of the WA Doctrine of First Contact. If the inhabitant cannot agree to the terms, the WA will not permitted their transportation outside of his homeland, or world by a member nation.

This forces the inhabitant of a non-WA state to agree to terms imposed upon them by the WA. If not illegal, it sure looks close. Also, for strength, "strong" is far too powerful for what this proposal is attempting to do.

Okay your first point has been addressed, I believe.

I think b. needs to be worded better, they don't need to 'agree' with the terms, if they don't show their understanding, and awareness of the terms of the WA Doctrine that merely outlaws member nations from transporting them.