[GA - Discarded] Repeal "Ban on Secret Treaties" [Complete]

Discussion in 'General Assembly Resolutions' started by TlomzKrano, Jul 10, 2018.

  1. TlomzKrano

    TlomzKrano Just a blob chasing cars Minister Deputy Minister NPA Citizen


    [​IMG]
    Repeal "Ban on Secret Treaties"
    Category: Repeal | GA #408
    Proposed by: Jocospor | Onsite Topic
    [hr]
    [hr]Voting Instructions:
    • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
    • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
    • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
    • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

    Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
     
  2. TlomzKrano

    TlomzKrano Just a blob chasing cars Minister Deputy Minister NPA Citizen

    Ministry of World Assembly Affairs IFV:
    The resolution "Ban on Secret Treaties" sought to end the deleterious effects of secret diplomacy, asserting that such conduct fostered an atmosphere of misunderstanding and miscalculation which ultimately resulted in greater conflict within and among member nations. The proposal at vote rejects this notion, asserting that the resolution had failed to account for the 'positive' aspects of secret diplomacy at the time of its passing. We find these claims of the supposed benefits of secret treaties in this proposal unconvincing, however, unsubstantiated either in the text of the proposal or other explanation by the author. Holding that the content of repeals should be based upon a compelling argument, we believe the proposal at vote fails to achieve this standard.

    In accordance with the reasoning above, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this proposal.
     
  3. Bobberino

    Bobberino TNPer Deputy Minister NPA Citizen

  4. TlomzKrano

    TlomzKrano Just a blob chasing cars Minister Deputy Minister NPA Citizen

    Strongly against

    1) This was campaigned for by the author so thats why it has received so much support.

    2) Arguments are weak and make very lofty assumptions (expounded on this soon)

    3) Author is not listening to criticism/advise on the forum to improve their work or even make it stomach-able for the WA
     
  5. Sil Dorsett

    Sil Dorsett Minister of... Foreign Affairs!? Supporter Security Council Roleplay Moderator Minister Citizen

  6. Sanjurika

    Sanjurika Koala Fanatic Citizen

    Against
     
  7. bowloftoast

    bowloftoast TNPer Deputy Minister Citizen

    For.
    The original legislation is a bit of a morass, and probably shouldn't have passed in the first place. Regardless of the context of that moment, that line about feline animals makes a farce of the whole legislation. No way on Earth something that ridiculous should be on the books, as law.
    I'm in agreement with the author of the repeal, that the initial legislation lacks a balanced perspective, makes some rather large assumptions, and fast-tracks to worst case scenarios.
    While I think there is something of value in the initial legislation, I see no harm in repealing it in its current form, and making way for a similar piece of legislation that treats its subject with greater respect.
     
  8. Flemingovia

    Flemingovia TNPer Administrator Citizen

    Against. Whatever your opinion of the original resolution, sloppy poor drafting such as this should not be rewarded.
     
  9. BMWSurfer

    BMWSurfer Minister of Home Affairs Supporter Minister Election Commissioner NPA Citizen

    Against. This is a garbage proposal that proves that anything can make quorum if it’s campaigned for.
     
  10. Stoskavanya1

    Stoskavanya1 TNPer Deputy Minister NPA Citizen

  11. The proposed repeal contains basically three arguments: (1) secret treaties may be useful at defeating a foe, (2) secret treaties produce deterrence, and (3) secret treaties may be useful at changing the terms of trade.

    Further examination shows these are simply logically false or, more generously, produce harm nations employing such tactics.

    Argument 1 is an invitation for nations to deceive each other about what gets what out of a war. This encourages states to overpromise. Overpromising creates ripe conditions for further conflict. The World Assembly has an ethical obligation to prevent future conflict. A body made up of persons which have ethical obligations does not absolve those persons of those obligations. And nations do not have an interest in throwing themselves into wars in which they are unsure of victory.

    A real world example of this is Italy after the First World War, where territories from the Austro-Hungarian Empire were not transferred as promised at in the postwar settlement, leading to the rise of strong nationalist movements. Similarly, there was significant conflict in the postwar Near East, where Arabia was engulfed in internecine warfare due to broken promises by the Entente. The former led, in part, to the Second World War. The latter still lives with us today, 100 years hence. These kinds of issues, and the complicated network of secret alliances the caused the war, are why American President Woodrow Wilson proposed the elimination of secret diplomacy in his Fourteen points.

    Argument 2 just can't possibly be true. You cannot deter anyone if you don't tell them that you are ready to defend yourself. It's the same way that someone won't burgle your house if they can see signs noting security systems. Or, that someone won't try to beat you up if they don't have a good chance of winning. The proposal is arguing that secret treaties produce deterrence, but simply put, if an invading force doesn't know about costs, it doesn't appear in their decision making.

    Argument 3 also can't possibly be true. If you want to create trade agreements with secret treaties, how could someone effectively do trade if the government has concealed tariff rates from them? Or if the breadth of the free trade zone is unknown, meaning they don't know from whom and to whom they can sell their goods? Both of these create significant risk, which increases the expected costs of doing business, leading to people doing less of it. Either way, nations are better off with more transparency.

    I think that if one is going to propose a repeal, one should have decent reasons. What we have here are reasons which mostly don't make much sense, where nations taking the actions that the proposal claims they will take would in fact endanger themselves. That's not reasonable or rational for a nation to do.
     
  12. Siwale

    Siwale TNPer Supporter Delegate Election Commissioner NPA Citizen

    Voting AGAINST
     
  13. yunor

    yunor TNPer Resident

  14. I would like to inform all of you that the proposal at vote (and the subject of the matter here) has been ruled illegal by the GA Secretariat and will be discarded.
     
  15. Pallaith

    Pallaith TNPer Security Council Vice Delegate Citizen

    Voting on this resolution has ended.

    Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

    This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.