NationStates Jolt Archive

The recent AIDS resolution has reached quorum, and is about to be voted on by the UN. Should NS-UN Update endorse or reject this resolution?

Our main question is about part 3:

3) The establishement of a fund, contributed to by all member nations, which shall be used to purchase necessary drugs and distrubute them at low cost to the populations of seriously afflicted countries,

Are member nations required under this resolution to contribute to this fund?

We have sent a telegram to the sponsor of this bill about this issue. What are your thoughts?

I would interpret this as mandating donations.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

It looks compulsory to me.

This does not mean we in Gurthark oppose the proposal; fighting a worldwide epidemic strikes us as a reasonable justification for what is effectively a tax on nations.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Support "Reduce Antibiotic Resistance" (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80559) for a healthier world!

Ok, thanks for your input.

Anyone else?

It looks like it's compulsory, but the amount is not listed. I could donate $1 or I could donate $1,000,000,000,000,000 as long as my national budget allows it.

"The language is certainly vague, and will surely be seen by countries as a way to escape donations to this fund should the resolution ever pass. Some may even interpret this as such and vote for the resolution because it effectively has "no teeth!"."

-First Undersecretary for Rules and Procedures
Office of Ambassador to the United Nations.

You cannot detirmine a value within abill such as this, a dollar (or whatever) today will have a very different value in 5, 10 or 15 years. Leaving the amouunt blank enables it to be detirmined by the UN later (as however this would be a game play issue it was sensibly left out)

Yes to me it reads as though compulsory, this doesn't seem to me a bad thing.

Ben
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

While the costs of such an effort would be significant in total dollars, with many millions of citizens the cost per person would be mere pennies.

My poor little counry could not bare the weight of donating money for this!!! I'm willing to stand by the issue that yes it is a problem but I will not send $ to the UN so that they may spend in willy nilly. so expel that portion and I'm game to vote on it

It certainly looks manditory, seems vague...perhaps to allow each nation to open there wallets and decide for themselves.

In the name of the Citadel,

We have interpreted part 3 as a mandatory commitment on the members of the United Nations, however the amount is not stipulated (either as a % of GDP or in total monetary value).

We endorsed it on the basis that a nation suach as ours, new and ( by comparison to other mighty UN nations) poor, would be able to contribute as our finances enabled.

However Citadel (may his name be always chanted at soccer-matches) has expressed his sincere wish that the principle of contribution, as opposed to the figures, remain ascendant.

Signed,

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
Information Minister

A telegram we recieved from New Clarkhall on this issue:


Thank you for your request Kisnesia,

We apologize for the delay in response, but our nation's computing networks were in the process of being overhauled.

In response to your query:

Indeed, we and our associate nations debated the entire business of funding for our proposal before we submitted it.

We had two choices open to us; either impose a required contribution (expressed as a percentaqe of national GDP)...which many nations opposed as a violation of their rights, or make the fund reliant on voluntary donations, which runs the risk of failing if nations do not contribute.

In the end, we opted to tacitly leave the donation voluntary...thus the resolution lacks anything referring to a required donation.

We trust the members of the UN shall donate freely and unstintingly to the fund. We decided to rely on the decency of the world rather than on the UN's ability to twist arms.

On a side note, perhaps you, and the NS-UN Update can clarify an issue. In our prior debates, we did note the RBH replacement resolution. However, our consensus at the end was that the RBH resolution limits ITSELF to not requiring a donation. As such, other resolutions are not governed by it or any such restriction.

The NS-UN has the full right to levy required contributions (this was a hard pill for us to swallow originally... however repeated deletions of our resolutions to preserve national soverignity by the moderators soon made us resigned to this fact).

If our conclusion, that the UN does have the right to levy required contributions, is erroneous, please inform us for our own enlightenment. Regardless of that, the current resolution relies entirely on voluntary contributions.

-New Clarkhall

In the name of the Citadel,

Thank you for the update.

Signed,

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
Information Minister

In the United States we debate the UN topics before our regional delegate votes, anyhow, here are my thoughts on voting no just because poorer nations will have to pay to.

"Still, I think that even poor nations giving up some of their valued money is worth it if the whole of the world benifits from it. That is what this will do, it will help to fight a virus that is killing millions, mainly in these poor nations. SO what if they have to pay their part, right now our money is being spent on them anyways. When we choose to fight this virus we are choosing to help those not as well off as the rest of us, maybe its time they put in money also.

Did that sound as heartless as I think it did??? Well I didn't mean it to sound that mean, but I'm tired off pouring money into these nations in order to stop the spread of the virus. AIDS must be stopped where it is starting and right now that is in the poorest nations, if they can not afford to pay then they do not need to be in the UN. And do not need to look for free hand outs all the time."

I don't think that this resolution should pass. It is badly worded and notated. The vague stipulations make me feel uncomfortable putting my country monetarily in the hands of the UN. That isn't the purpose of the UN, and I think there would be better ways to implement the idea behind the plan.

"At first I was extremely apprehensive about the passage of this resolution. It seems obvious that any nation out there would "feel sorry" for everyone affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic and that there would be mass and widespread support for this, despite the fact that most of the discussion in the UN (OOC: in threads,) is against the resolution."

"This is no longer the case after seeing that the mover of the motion specifically states that any and all donations are voluntary .
Since we disagree with the proposal, we can simply limit our donations to a few pennies found on the streets of Esamopia, while those nations that are very concerned and believe that this resolution is the right way about the problem can donate massive amounts, all up to them."

"We will therefore switch our vote from NO to ABSTAIN, since the resolution's passage (or failure) is now irrelevant."

-Andrew Nepertuni, Executive Assistant to the UN Ambassador.

AIDS sucks ass!!

There is already a topic AGAINST this resolution here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81092). There seems to be some question over which of these topics should be left open. As an interim decision, I am locking this topic.

Correction: This was not started as a topic AGAINST the present resolution, so I'm leaving it open. You may carry on with discussion.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Forum Moderator

There is already a topic AGAINST this resolution here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81092). There seems to be some question over which of these topics should be left open. As an interim decision, I am locking this topic.

Correction: This was not started as a topic AGAINST the present resolution, so I'm leaving it open. You may carry on with discussion.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Forum ModeratorThank you, Cog. It seems to me that we are trying to decide how this is to be funded (intentions of the proposing nations), and who said or meant what in prior debate.

There is already a topic AGAINST this resolution here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81092). There seems to be some question over which of these topics should be left open. As an interim decision, I am locking this topic.

Correction: This was not started as a topic AGAINST the present resolution, so I'm leaving it open. You may carry on with discussion.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Forum ModeratorThank you, Cog. It seems to me that we are trying to decide how this is to be funded (intentions of the proposing nations), and who said or meant what in prior debate.

Donating to this cause would be very well worth the expense...it would be mere pennies to residents of the countries, particularly large ones such as my own...

With over 1.25 billion people, It would be easy for us to impose a $1.00/year tax, and get 1.25+ billion to work with, with donations of greater funds to this worthy cause (I'd say 150 or more of our currency), perhaps granting a tax break.

We will be glad to assist you in this matter.

I agree. . . with a massive population any nation can afford a $1 per person donation and their economy not be affected. In fact most of the nations that are voting yes are already willing to donate a small amount of money to help in word problem. After all HIV never stays in just one nation. It has the ablity to spread, and right now we may be dealing with it only being in the poor nations, but it only takes a few people to spread it to the richer nations. . .that might be food for thought.

The only problem i find with this is doesnt the International RedCross already cover the AIDS problems. I mean cover like deal with it but another thing is if you want to prevent AIDS then maybe i dont know increase funding to schools. This will create a larger middle class and in turn control the population meaning less people doing the hokey pokey. Therefore limiting the effects of AIDS and other sexually transmitted disesase. This will help control the outbreaks that plauge alot of third world countires because they have poor-rich and a very little middle class. So i am going to not vote on this just because it wont help at all. Telling people how to prevent it and what to do is not going to help the problem. If you give them a education and a mind of their own to better process the consequences then it will better help the prevention of the wide spread AIDS problem.

Donating to this cause would be very well worth the expense...it would be mere pennies to residents of the countries, particularly large ones such as my own...

With over 1.25 billion people, It would be easy for us to impose a $1.00/year tax, and get 1.25+ billion to work with, with donations of greater funds to this worthy cause (I'd say 150 or more of our currency), perhaps granting a tax break.

We will be glad to assist you in this matter.

"Unfortunately you forget a few things with your proposed $1 tax! First off, its a poll tax, however low people get annoyed when they have to pay a flat amount, but lets forget that for now. Remember that the NS-Earth has many many billions of people, I would imagine trillions or even a quadrillion citizens of NS Earth. In such a planet, the amount of AIDS infected people, however low a percentage, would still be very high."

"Basically what I'm trying to say is that a billion or two would not be worth its equivallent on earth, at least in terms of treating an AIDS epidemic!"

-Andrew Sauerstoff, Minister for Joint IC and OOC affairs.
Seal of Esamopia

The Kingdom of Choko supports the AIDS Bill in principle, but wishes to lodge a conscientious objection to all elements therein mandating certain action. While the fight against AIDS is of global significance, countries are at very different developmental and ecomic stages, and not all are equipped to test blood banks or make donations. Thus, the Kingdom of Choko would like to show its positive contribution as a citizen of the world by supporting the resolution, while not mandating itself or others to anything.

Since this bill specifically states that it is intended to aid those countries which are presently unable to afford AIDS treatment for their citizens, it stands to reason that the amount of donations expected from UN member nations would be based upon their ability to pay--large nations with strong economies would be able to spare the most, while those with weak economies would give less.

Since this bill specifically states that it is intended to aid those countries which are presently unable to afford AIDS treatment for their citizens, it stands to reason that the amount of donations expected from UN member nations would be based upon their ability to pay--large nations with strong economies would be able to spare the most, while those with weak economies would give less.

But... but... but... that's COMMUNISM!!!1!

"All the countries with the most exposure to AIDS are unable to handle the crisis without aid." (sic)

DUH! Tell the ignorant savages to quit screwing Green Monkeys and this wouldn't happen.

Why should we pay because they happen to get their jollies from screwing a few missing links?

Our country is small, but we've worked hard to amount a large GDP, though this bill is not specific in it's monetary requirments we fear that the passage of this bill would lead to one more specific that would gain support because of the passage of this one. We ask that if you have voted yes on this bill only because of lackng specifications that you reconsider.

Franky Homes
Ambassador of Thunder Bird

Our country is small, but we've worked hard to amount a large GDP, though this bill is not specific in it's monetary requirments we fear that the passage of this bill would lead to one more specific that would gain support because of the passage of this one. We ask that if you have voted yes on this bill only because of lackng specifications that you reconsider.

Franky Homes
Ambassador of Thunder Bird

Our country is small, but we've worked hard to amount a large GDP, though this bill is not specific in it's monetary requirments we fear that the passage of this bill would lead to one more specific that would gain support because of the passage of this one. We ask that if you have voted yes on this bill only because of lackng specifications that you reconsider.

Franky Homes
Ambassador of Thunder Bird

According to the author of the proposal (see page 1 of the threads,) the payments are completely voluntary and as such your economy or GDP would not have to suffer at all.

We also opposed the measure because of the perceived mandatory payments, but changed to abstain since we could care less now whether or not this passes!