Agreements are to be respected

Responding to this point is completely a waste of time, because this is far from the motion in hand. However, it is a moral calling for us to advocate that one person that agrees with our motions (that poorer countries should abandon free trade agreements). We should not make them feel as bad as Brutus (or Bruto, in Spanish). We agree that agreement should be respected. And withdrawal from any agreement with any parties (except with the devil) act as a part of respecting the agreement, because any good agreement has a way to withdraw from it. We are afraid that dear opposition team have mixed the meaning of "withdrawal from an agreement" and "outlawing the agreement". Outlaw means to violate the agreement while the party still bounded to the agreement, for example, the US steel tariff in 2002 [[http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/business/wto-rules-against-us-on-steel-tariff.html]] Withdraw, however, means that the party declared to stepped out from the agreement. We would like to thank the opposition to cite a readable link (meaning: in English), so we could state that a withdrawal from an agreement shows respect to the agreement, and of course to other parties, as long as it is done properly. Let us see again their citation on article 65 (yes we did read it) to cite sentences that wasn't attached in their argument [[http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf]]: 1. A party which, under the provisions of the present Convention, invokes either a defect in its consent to be bound by a treaty or a ground for impeaching the validity of a treaty, terminating it, withdrawing from it or suspending its operation, must notify the other parties of its claim. "The notification shall indicate the measure proposed to be taken with respect to the treaty and the reasons therefor." The first point states that it is OK to withdraw, as long as there is notification to other parties. Lets continue to the second point: 2. If, after the expiry of a period which, except in cases of special urgency, shall not be less than three months after the receipt of the notification, no party has raised any objection, the party making the notification may carry out in the manner provided in article 67 the measure which it has proposed. The mysterious part of the second point is on "manner provided in article 67". Then, they jump into the conclusion that "it is impossible to say all free trade agreements are withdrawn worldwide, since it would affect 2nd and 3rd parties and it is completelly illegal." WOW. Surprisingly, if we continue to article 67, the only manner expected on it is: 1.The notification provided for under article 65, paragraph 1, must be made in writing. Assuming all of the governments of poorer countries are at least literate, and can submit the notification in writing, the withdrawn process should be completely legal. Let us take Mexico as an example. According to NAFTA document, chapter 22, article 2205 [[http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-22.asp#A2205]]: " A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties." IF Mexico want to withdraw, technically they will not have any problem. With literacy level above 90% [[http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=121&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=4840]], we conclude that Mexico's government can write a notice to other parties, to make it legal. And they should not be worry that withdrawing will affect 2nd and 3rd parties, since if a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties. So if Uncle Sam said, " Et tu, Brute?" Mexico may reply, "read the document, it is legal".