[rpiddy]

Hi all,

I am considering drafting up a resolution that will institute a free trade zone among UN member states for the automobile industry. Automobile industry jobs provide well-paying positions with plenty of opportunities in the engineering, art design, marketing, and professional fields. In the NS context, it will hopefully provide a boost to each nation's respective Automobile Manufacturing industries and boost the wavering economies of many nations that have an overreliance on regulation and protectionism.

I hope to achieve from this resolution a competitive advantage for the 30,000 or so UN member states, one such that it will entice non-UN nations to join this world body. As you know, I am trying to refocus the UN, among other things, to better facilitate international cooperation. In the absence of a WTO-like body in NS, I am hoping to utilize the UN to this end.

Questions? Comments? Will this run afoul of game mechanics?

Steve Perry
President

[Groot Gouda]

I'd support any well-written free-trade proposal, but there have been a few and they never even managed to become a resolution...it'll be difficult I fear.

My question though: why just the automobile industry? Why not on all commercial goods and services (I'd exclude government services)? For an example, find the Free Trade treaty in our Library section.

[Grosseschnauzer]

Not only would this proposal have a problem as a free trade proposal because of its very limited scope, it would probably have problems because automobiles would be perceived as anti-environmental, unless it were specified to be hydrogen-powered, electric powered, or other similar propulsion vehicles that would be perceived as "friendly" to the environment.

[rpiddy]

Tis true, Groot and Gross, tis true.

So far the discussion on the UN forum has been more about alternative fuels, some of which I think people are pulling out of their posterior, instead of an informed discussion on the merits of a free trade zone.

I guess the sky's the limit in NS for some people...


Steve Perry
President

[Groot Gouda]

rpiddyOct 22 2005, 08:39 PM So far the discussion on the UN forum has been more about alternative fuels, some of which I think people are pulling out of their posterior, instead of an informed discussion on the merits of a free trade zone. [/quote]
Then, perhaps, what you should do is write a resolution about free trade, not the automobile industry. And then we can discuss free trade, without sector-specific problems interfering.

[Antrium]

GrosseschnauzerOct 21 2005, 12:04 PM Not only would this proposal have a problem as a free trade proposal because of its very limited scope, it would probably have problems because automobiles would be perceived as anti-environmental, unless it were specified to be hydrogen-powered, electric powered, or other similar propulsion vehicles that would be perceived as "friendly" to the environment. [/quote]
Maybe, if you wanted this proposal to deal with the automobile manufacturing industry, you could just specify environmentally friendly cars. Then it would be seen as good for the environment and free trade.

[rpiddy]

Thanks everyone for your input.

Would anyone like to help me format this proposal into a UN resolution?


Steve Perry
President

[rpiddy]

OK, here is my first crack at this proposal. It's very bare-bones at this point, but I think hits on most of the major points.

Quote: United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about protectionist economic policies' damaging effects to the free flow of trade,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment,

-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to phase in policies gradually removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES a timeline for implementation not exceeding two (2) years in length. [/quote]

Please give your thoughts and suggestions for improvement.

[rpiddy]

This is the latest draft after several revisions on the UN Forum...

Quote: United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA)

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Teruchev

Description: The United Nations,

-A- CONCERNED about the damaging effects that protectionist economic policies often have on the free flow of trade and the economic sustainability of nations,

-B- CONVINCED that the aforementioned free flow of trade is the most suitable policy for the economic health of all nations and the economic oppotunity of their citizens that need such opportunity to provide for themselves,

-C- SEEKING a common market for United Nations member states in the trade of automobile technology and equipment so as to engender this economic health and sustainability as well as the sharing of technologies that will be beneficial to the citizens of member nations,

-1- STRONGLY URGES all nations to phase in policies removing protectionist laws and regulations in the trade of Automobile technology and equipment,

-2- ESTABLISHES the United Nations Free Trade Agreement for the Automobile sector (UNFTAA),

-3- ENCOURAGES global cooperation in the development and distribution of automotive, particularly environmentally-friendly technology,

-4- MANDATES a timeline for implementation not exceeding two (2) years in length.[/quote]

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Steve Perry
President

[Groot Gouda]

It's not practical to limit it to "the automobile industry". What is part of that? The accountants of the automobile factories? Their suppliers? And does it mean we have to implement free trade industry by industry?

I won't support this. It needs to be rewritten to a complete Free Trade solution, not just one industry.

[rpiddy]

This has been submitted, albeit under the name "Auto Free Trade Agreement" due to character limitations.

I accept Groot's criticisms, and would be more than happy to support the repeal of this resolution if it happens to make it to the floor and be approved there, if Groot wanted to introduce an omnibus free trade agreement. In fact, I'd do a happy dance if ever such a resolution got on the books.

I hope that Grosseschnauzer will support this, imperfect as it may be, in the hopes that passing this resolution will lead to a domino-like effect for future Free Trade agreements. I was heartened to have the IDU's support in my efforts to repeal the Sex Ed Act and would be delighted to have the IDU's support again on this initiative.

Many thanks,

Steve Perry
President

[Sober Thought]

I only noticed this long after it was written, but I disagree with GG on this one. In RL, most generalised free trade agreements have been built upon previous sector-specific ones. Three examples that immediately come to mind are:

• NAFTA: the North American Free Trade Agreement, built upon the Canada-U.S. FTA and more distantly on the Autopact between Canada and the USA
  
  
• EU: the European Union, built upon the European Economic Community (which Britain wrongly insisted on calling the Common Market) and more distantly upon the European Coal and Steel Community
  
  
• Germany's Second Reich, built upon the North German Federation and more distanly upon the Zollverein. Sidebar: One of the most productive mines in Germany's industrial Ruhrgebiet area was named after this Customs Union.
  
  

I agree that auto manufacturing is probably too specific, but how about manufactured goods generally? This is how the European Free Trade Association (Britain and the Nordic hold-outs from the EEC, until they all begged to join) worked, leaving the politically more contentious issues of agriculture and culture out of the mix.

The basic principle is sound, namely giving an economic advantage to the UN in exchange for accepting limitations on human rights and environmental affairs.

Sorry I didn't see this sooner.