NationStates Jolt Archive

IC Thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443913

In light of recent events in the Gulf Coast I started thinking a lot more about reliefe organizations like the Red Coss and I figured why not have one in NS.

Some of the Basics

This organization would be totally voluntary and would consist of a conglomerate of nations who donate money, supplies, and equiptment to aid those nations who experience a natural disaster or war.

We would have no alegience to any nation or group of nations and all current alliances or agressions between member nations would be put aside in order to aid the nation(s) in need.

However, no nation would be required to aid any nation if they have a reason not to (I would mainly see these as being political reasons).

Benefits

1. More RP oppourtunities
2. You may gain many friendly faces
3. If you were ever in need of aid the rest of the Red Cross would be happy to make it a top priority to aid a member nation.
4. Neutrility in many testy situations

If people show an interest I'll put up more information and feel free to ask questions.

The Regime of Adejaani is interested and will be willing to be a member/participant.

The Regime of Adejaani is interested and will be willing to be a member/participant.

Okay, I'll keep you posted if things progress.

Doing the red cross and an alliance between national governments subject to political decision making based on the politics of the member governments destroys the whole point of the Red Cross. Namely, that the red cross is totally neutral between all national governments, is considered inviolable by national governments, and is completely apolitical in nature. This isn't perfectly true IRL but it's the core ideal. If we're going to do an NS Red Cross, let's do a real one which is a single international organization with its own resources instead of an alliance and is based in neutral territory.

Doing the red cross and an alliance between national governments subject to political decision making based on the politics of the member governments destroys the whole point of the Red Cross. Namely, that the red cross is totally neutral between all national governments, is considered inviolable by national governments, and is completely apolitical in nature. This isn't perfectly true IRL but it's the core ideal. If we're going to do an NS Red Cross, let's do a real one which is a single international organization with its own resources instead of an alliance and is based in neutral territory.

Where in my post did I call this an alliance, if anything I was trying to do the exact opposite. This is supposed to be exactly like the real red cross(give or take a few features so that it will work in NS)


We would have no alegience to any nation or group of nations and all current alliances or agressions between member nations would be put aside in order to aid the nation(s) in need.

We would be willing to be/interested in being a supporter, thought not a member of the Red Cross.

We would be willing to be/interested in being a supporter, thought not a member of the Red Cross.

Okay. Would that mean you would make donations to the Red Cross or simply back it politically?

Donations.

OOC

The Jeruselem Red Cross need a bigger net to use. We'd support this idea as long as it operates like the RL one. We also have Red Crescent ;)

The nation of SAVX would be willing to support this organization.

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?c=6

Just for y'alls information, there's already an International Red Cross Organization based on the UN resolution that established it. I know, I know, it's a crappy UN thing, but the only way these UN things are going to amount to anything is if good roleplayers like yourselves use them.

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?c=6

Just for y'alls information, there's already an International Red Cross Organization based on the UN resolution that established it. I know, I know, it's a crappy UN thing, but the only way these UN things are going to amount to anything is if good roleplayers like yourselves use them.

Well seeing as were not all UN members a more wide-spread Red Cross may be more affective but we would certianly be happy to work in associaction with the UN.

Also, since there seems to be a general interest Ill start an official IC thread and send all you who already posted TGs.(just not for maybe a day though, 'cause of homework and such)

The nation of Ageaol would be interested in becoming a member of the Red Cross.

I recall making a "Nationstates Red Cross" some time ago, and it did rather well; donations wise. But my main issue was for the fact that there were a lack of "aid recievers", and so I ended up with a basically useless organisation with billions upon billions of dollars in its coffers.

But if you can pull it off it's a good idea.

--- AU's Player.

I'd like to see it succede to something beyond an ooc interest only so my government can oppose it in all ways possible, sans military action.

The idea is, as it stands now, pretty good in my opinion. However, like AU said, the receiving end is often either not willing to receive, since it's kinda an 'embarrassment' for a nation to receive medical relief from an organisation. Secondly, it is most often players just aren't willing to accept medical aid. They just say: "I still have many food, water and medicine warehouses so I'm safe and sound".

Donations just happen for people to do good, not out of necessity. I mean, if a rich government A donates the amount of 50 billion - a peanuts amount in NationStates - then the organisation has more money it could ever desire for the forthcoming year(s).

- Guffingford

Adressing a few issues brought up:

1: Lack of support needed- although there probably wont be too many cases were nations come to us in request for aid I'm sure that during wars that usually take place between new [relatively] nations(about once every other week) and since there is usually at least 1 major conflict being RPed at a time I'm sure we will be able to keep ourselves busy without making this a huge commitment if we actually get off our butts and offer aid rather than wait for requests.

2: Donations- Actually donating goods is not the aim of this. This is more about nations doing more than just giving money (either way we will only have fund-raisers at certian times anyway). It is about actually commiting man power, not to say donations aren't important, but rather that I'm looking for people who will actually beocome active and are looking for good RP oppourtunities (even if it means opposing us sans military).

Any how, I'll have the IC thread up in a few minutes and y'all will be getting TGs.

The rebelious nation of Quere supports this notion. I would like to make it known, though, that I do not offer my support, I just agree.

IC thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443913

There are a few good RPing avenues to take:

1. Have an untoward and precipitous dip in your GDP per capita? Don't blame your policy choices -- blame a sudden natural disaster!

2. If a nation in your region disbands, pretend, as in the IDU, the former state has devolved into chaos until its territory is taken over by another joining member state. During the crisis, you are free to RP whatever you wish, since the other nation doesn't exist any more. Send Red Cross-sponsored relief missions, even international peace-keepers. Refugees can come streaming over the border into your own nation.

3. War response. This is a touchy one, but if given permission to enter a warzone, it does allow intervention in an II thread.

4. The UN has the IRCO already. I posted in the IC Forum. Perhaps non-UN nations might wish to use that body's Forums for coordination. While we understand not all IRCO nations would be UN member nations, not all aid recipients need to be UN members either. As far as I am concerned, it would be nice to have an umbrella over all such NS activities, rather than have parallel and duplicate initiatives.

I do support the idea, please do not get me wrong. It's just that I'd like to gang up all this sort of activity in one place, even if the aid is not sourced from, or destined to, UN states.

This has been the case in the IDU event mentioned in the IC forum. A lot of the failed states were not UN members, but my nation is responding regardless.

Thoughts? Feedback?

Just so we all understand how the Red Cross operates in the real world, to draw our own parallels, the Red Cross is actually comprised of two main organizations:
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (http://www.icrc.org/eng)
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) (http://www.ifrc.org/)

As well, each country has its own independent Red Cross or Red Crescent Society. However, a nation can only have one Red Cross or Red Crescent Society. Though in the US it is divided by states, there is only one American Red Cross, which comprises all of the activities of the state-by-state chapters.

In our game, there is already the UN IRCO (International Red Cross Organization). The NSRC (NationStates Red Cross) will likely have to develop some level of understanding between the UN IRCO and its own activities.

A FAQ, Does the ICRC get involved in every humanitarian disaster? (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/EEFB3C9428538ACFC1257065002CD6CA), explains how the ICRC, or "the Committee," is the body that gets involved with coordinating efforts involving wars, conflicts and humanitarian laws (mitigating man-made miseries); the IFRC, often referred to as "the Federation" deals mostly with the natural disasters, droughts, plagues, and human suffering (ameliorating natural miseries).

ICRC
The mission
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance. It directs and coordinates the international relief activities conducted by the Movement in situations of conflict. It also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles.

Established in 1863, the ICRC is at the origin of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. (Source: The ICRC's Mission Statement (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/68EE39?OpenDocument))
IFRC
The Federation's mission is to improve the lives of vulnerable people by mobilizing the power of humanity. Vulnerable people are those who are at greatest risk from situations that threaten their survival, or their capacity to live with an acceptable level of social and economic security and human dignity. Often, these are victims of natural disasters, poverty brought about by socio-economic crises, refugees, and victims of health emergencies. (Source: Who We Are (http://www.ifrc.org/who/))
Components and bodies of the International Movement of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/23A2A57843A00F69C1256B66005E1239)
Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/C5FFEE6255B8DDEBC1256B66005BBCCC) - their internal organization and operation.
Policy and Cooperation within the Movement : extract from ICRC Annual Report 2004 (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/4F37C441F2F84D06C125701B0051E23E) - How the real RC works on its missions.

Next, it is important to understand the specific international laws the RC must uphold, and demand others adhere to when they run into violations. There are two main types. IHL and IHRL. Mostly the IHL was the Red Cross' purview. It has precedence over IHRL in international courts.
IHL (International Humanitarian Law) (http://www.icrc.org/eng/ihl) - "International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict." (ICRC) (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief?OpenDocument); this is more the purview of the Red Cross.
IHRL (International Human Rights Law) (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm) - a broader classification of laws governing human social rights; this is more the purview of the UN (specifically the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, OHCHR (http://www.ohchr.org)), but the Red Cross has interests here. The Red Cross has special status in the UN, and often coordinates with the UN on IHRL. (The UN IRCO fulfills this position in NationStates.)

Geneva Conventions (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions) - the core of international humanitarian law
International Law (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/info_res_othersites_law?OpenDocument) - ICRC's list of international laws, and links.
International Law (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/index.htm) - UN's even more thorough list of international human rights laws, including IHL.
On the relationship between human rights law protection and international humanitarian law (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/BC9B4B72537E5897C1256F96003D2C4F)

The Red Cross usually uses a few types of documents to formalize how it operates. We might want to make similar documents for use in NationStates. We can post them to a Forum somewhere for reference.

MOA (Memorandum of Agreement), or MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) - "serve as the basis for coordination and defining the roles and responsibilities of the components involved according to the specific situation (e.g., conflict, natural disasters, and other large-scale emergencies, as well as peaceful contexts)." These are agreements with the host governments, warring parties, and the RC to ensure that there is agreement on the RC's participation, role, scope, and limit in the situation. It would be inadvisable to begin a relief operation without an MOA, especially in a war zone or hostile environment to outside participation. (Example: Bhutan: Memorandum of Understanding renewed (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/67163D56ED575634C1256B66005C267E).)
CA (Coordinated Activities) - "a predictable framework for Movement coordination of all Movement actors in ICRC-led operations." This is an agreement between the participating RC organizations on how they'll share or divide the duties and responsibilities for a particular relief mission.
IP (Integrated Partnerships) or OP (Operational Partnerships) - rules for longer term operating in cooperation with organizations beyond the RC (NGOs, but possibly also GOs, or private sector entities) (such as the UN, or in real life, specifically the UN High Commissioner of Refugees, UNHCR, Korea's Red Cross working with UNICEF on disaster relief (http://www.unicef.org/dprk/partners_237.html), the American Red Cross (http://www.redcross.org/) working with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and local Health Ministry in Togo to eradicate measles ([url=http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_314_4233,00.html), or even using a US DOD communications center to conduct Red Cross work (http://www.gcn.com/18_1/news/34382-1.html).)
For instance, in Listeneisse, there would be many OPs with various organizations, since they rely upon the Grail Templars for air transportation and security personnel, and the Order of White Monks and Order of Grey Nuns for their many volunteers, as well as donations of provisions, equipment, facilities and services.

This is just how Listeneisse is operating. You might want to see other national Red Cross organizations for models of how to operate.

My own personal opinion is that for NationStates, since this is a roleplaying game, and at best a loose simulation of real life, we might want to keep whatever guidelines we create simple and with the least headache.

Suggested Process for Humanitarian Aid

1. Appeal for Aid - There should be a clear way for nations to call for Red Cross aid.
2. Aid Response - There should be a clear way for nations to reply and respond to calls for aid.
3. MOA - There should be a clear way to ensure the various parties in a dispute agree to Red Cross participation. Read what the RC offers to do, and agree (at least officially) to let it happen.
4. CA - If more than one Red Cross nation responds with assistance, they should agree who does what, and who 'takes the lead' if there needs to be coordination.
5. Field Reports - Updates of what occurs and roleplaying interactions and expositions.
6. Final Reports - Closure of the mission so that we can declare success, or muddle over the failures.

We might come up with very light guidelines of each of the above, like the Enodian Protocols, so that people do not simply godmod and go, "Hah! I cure all world hunger with my Pizzagun!"

For instance, the Red Cross does not need to intervene in every natural disaster and war that we're asked to get involved with. Our 'budget' is one of roleplaying time. If someone requests our assistance, and no one responds, well, they might need to clean up their own imagined messes.

We can also consider what sort of guidelines we want for general organization, and rules for ongoing operational/integrated partnerships.

I'm also wondering if we might want to have an NSRC Forum somewhere, if we get rolling. The UN IRCO already operates one. We can either say "Yeah, well, we're not UN, but we'll use that one anyway" -- an Integrated Partnership -- or we can get our own elsewhere.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Thoughts? Opinions?

I do think it's important for the NSRC to have both a mission statement and "mission protocols" so to speak, and I think that those need to be hammered out In-Charcter.

Which reminds me, the Federation can't get involved with this for In-Character reasons, but I do support this attempt to have an organized international aid structure.

IIRC, ICRC is a RL institution that does not exist in NS, hence we're trying to found an NSRC. Mentioning it in the initially proposed charter here is a null pointer.

You might want to take a second pass at this, looking at the RL charter of the ICRC (http://www.icrc.org/eng) and IFRC (http://www.ifrc.org/).

Basically, we need a charter that comprises both ICRC and IFRC missions, and clearly separates the NSRC charter from a charter for your national RC organization, and makes it one for the overall international NSRC purpose.

I only think we should have one combined NSRC, comprising the missions of both the ICRC and the IFRC.

However, we might want to segregate out the missions we have by their nature, so that some are "peacetime" humanitarian relief, such as in times of natural disaster or drought, and some are "conflict" relief, such as in situations of international war, civil war, insurrection and anarchy.

There are generally different mission profiles, requirements from participants, etc.

For instance, in a peacetime humanitarian relief situation -- such as a natural disaster -- there's only the host government to get involved. MOAs are (generally) easy to get from the one source.

In a conflict, you need all parties to agree to an MOA, or the Red Cross needs to limit operations to only those areas that sign MOAs, or withhold participation if its patently hostile and unsafe.

ICRC Statutes & IFRC Constitution

Meanwhile, I think it's important to look at the difference between a national charter and the Statutes of the ICRC or the Constitution of the IFRC.

ICRC Statutes (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList109/E1B071F72AF9BAB4C1256B66005C48D6)

IFRC Constitution (http://www.ifrc.org/who/constit/contents.asp)

One of the main differences between the current proposed charter and an international document is that the former is approved by domestic laws of one nation, and the latter should be approved not just by the hosting nation, but by all signatory nations.

There needs to be language saying that "we" agree, "we" being representatives from each of the separate nations participating. Which is why IRL the IFRC has a constitution. It also makes the organization, as you have spoken about IC, truly "neutral" -- not lawfully subject or sovereign to any particular government.

This, of course, presents its own problems, since corporate laws do not apply directly to the Red Cross in many cases.

We don't need to recreate all the oddities of the real life Red Cross/Red Crescent, and we don't need to all become experts in international law to get this kicked off either. We should draft "just enough" rules for us to be able to effectively roleplay without worrying how "off-camera" activities work.

What rules there are should be around:

a) How to join up as a nation (what's initially required, and the ongoing commitment, even if it's just off-camera hand-waving).
b) How nations can ask for help.
c) How nations can respond to requests and send help.
d) Code of conduct and training program for members (how people should act when doing Red Cross/Red Crescent work; IRL, look at the Sphere Project (http://www.sphereproject.org/handbook/html/0_cont.htm) guidelines for individuals).
e) How to kick out individuals (RPed characters) or nations who are violating rules.
f) Internal power politics can be done at some 'board' level, but it should be likely less the focus, and more attention on the war and humanitarian response aspects.
g) There should be some forethought how to deal with governments, the UN, and other external organization interaction protocols.

Suggestions for membership:

1. The nation needs to have some substantive percentage of government budget (more than 0%; 1% or more) allocated for Healthcare as per NSEconomy (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php) or other NS economic lookup tools. (This can be self-policing for initial joining, but if found later on that the nation is deficient in this matter, it could be cause for the nation to lose their official recognition.)

2. The national movement applying to become a recognized national chapter needs to declare and pledge their intent to maintain a Red Cross or Red Crescent (or Red Crystal, if we adopt that symbol and name) organization in perpetuity in their nation (no purposefully 'experimental' or 'trial' programs, though Red Cross national organizations can, of course, falter or fail), and also pledges that there is no other duplicate or competing Red Cross/Red Crescent organization in their nation. (We should not require two organizations, say, one for NSRC and IRCO; the same national organization should work with both international bodies.)

3. The national movement should pledge to abide by some policies and procedures of conduct for its overall operations, and a personal code of conduct for its individual members (such as the Sphere Project (http://www.sphereproject.org/handbook/html/0_cont.htm)).

4. Extend its activities to the entire territory of the State.

5. Recruit its voluntary members and its staff without consideration of race, sex, class, religion or political opinions.

...etc.

It might be best to lift the exact wording from the present ICRC statutes (and see nice Wiki reference reference below). The ICRC presently certifies each national organization, which can then join the IFRC as a national Red Cross/Red Crescent society.

It also makes exceptions under rare cases of civil war where there might be two different Red Cross/Red Crescent societies each claiming independence. It might recognize both, one, or neither.

_________________
Source

Red Cross: Official Recognition of a National Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross#Official_Recognition_of_a_national_society) (Wiki)

You've really looked into this.

Stevid is willing to join up both through donations and through providing aid to those who ask for it.

Thanks!

Check in with Largent by TG, and join the IC thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443913).