NationStates Jolt Archive

The obvious YES to "No Embargoes on Medicine"

20-10-2003, 19:27
Civilians get injured too!!

This proposal is directed toward civilian doctors and medicine. Preventing these people and medicines from moving about as needed can cause disastrous results among civilian casualties of war.

Aegonia chooses to vote FOR the current proposal. It is perfectly understandable to not allow military troops and medics to cross your borders. That is still done within the bounds of this proposal.

Nobody who is unaffiliated with military or government who wants to care for sick and wounded should be prevented from doing so. That's what this proposal is about.
20-10-2003, 20:30
Please understand! Don't misread the proposal! It is written from the perspective of countries GIVING aid, not RECEIVING aid.

In short - you cannot further tax or embargo sales of medicines from your country to another just because they are at war. Nor can you prevent doctors form your nation to travel to these nations at war. It's about export, not import. Read it again if you need to.

You can still always choose who or what comes into your own country.
The Global Market
20-10-2003, 20:34
This isn't directed to countries GIVING aid OR countries RECIEVING aid.

If it were I'd vote against it.

It's directed towards countries SELLING aid. Read the proposal! It says "Selling", not "giving". This will further the market place and hopefully discourage war and encourage free trade.

I am therefore compelled to support this resolution.
20-10-2003, 20:38
Ugh - TGM, you knew what I meant. Yes, taxes and embargos apply to goods that are "sold". I was just trying to clear up the confusion of perspective. Too many thought that this meant they had to let anyone calling themselves a doctor into their country - and it doesn't say that at all.
21-10-2003, 02:13
People get hurt. I wouldn't allow an enemy of mine to have access to my medicines; civilians or not. I'll use them for my people or sell them to a friendly nation. Why would this resolution be proposed anyway? War is not humane. You do whatever possible to destroy your enemies and their will to fight! Cutting off supplies INCLUDING MEDICINE is one way to do that. And what makes you think people would listen if this resolution were passed?
21-10-2003, 02:57
I am inclined to agree with Napoligrad.
As far as I can tell, in the Federation, doctors are a part of the market. As a function of the market, demand can drive where the doctors provide their aid. War. War. War. During war, the economy shifts a little. And so does logic. I would restrict the flow of medicine and health-care to the enemy...becauase they are the enemy!
If they are prisoners of war, I might take care of them.
But, to render aid and comfort to the enemy is rather counterproductive in the grand scheme of a war.
Besides, you never know would could actually be done with medical supplies. What guarantee of transparency in the distribution and subsequent would we have?

Zerro, Most Exalted Corporate Leader of the Federation of Omnifiend
21-10-2003, 03:05
Actually I would say part of it is concerning countries receiving aid.

"We also propose that any controlling authority, be it a government, a rebellion, or an occupying force, make no restrictions in times of war preventing doctors from entering the retion[sic] to treat the sick, wounded, and dying. "

This means that if I am at war I can not exclude any doctors from coming into my country to treat my sick, wounded, and dying. This is a security concern. What is there in this proposal to stop a "doctor" from the opposing country to come into my country to "treat the sick, wounded, and dying" and then turning around and releasing some biological, chemical and/or nuclear weapon.

I have a right to control what comes into my country. Be it goods or services. I have a right to refuse entry to my country if I feel it is necessary.

Aegonia chooses to vote FOR the current proposal. It is perfectly understandable to not allow military troops and medics to cross your borders. That is still done within the bounds of this proposal.

Nope, if I am at war with you you can not refuse the entry of any of my doctors, that includes those that are currently enployed by my armed forces. The proposal says NO RESTRICTIONS, saying no doctors from an opponents armed forces is placing a restriction upon the doctors that you are allowing into your country.

As to what the author intended? That is irrelevant, what matters is what was proposed. This proposal concerns both those giving and those receiving aid. If this is being misinterpreted, or if the proposal is not stating the true intentions of the author then the author needs to withdraw the proposal and redraft it (finding other writers to assist in the creation process if necessary).

As it stands I must say no to this proposal as it is obvious that it could be distorted to bring considerable harm to my country if I ever go to war.
21-10-2003, 09:22
I'm inclined to agree with Omnifiend. In times of war, I want my doctors and medics treating my civilians and armed forces. Not the enemy's. What incentive is there for me to give aid to the nation or nations who are trying to destroy me? In my first UN vote, why should I do anything other than vote against the Resolution.
21-10-2003, 09:25
I voted against.
21-10-2003, 09:36
I voted for. If people want to go help civillians in war zone or to sell medicines at high prices to invaded countries so be it.
21-10-2003, 10:58
This is against the rights of the individual nation to do business & make a profit by selling medices & should buy them if they need them & it is the nations right to decide whether to sell something to a particular nation this includes medicine
22-10-2003, 01:23
I voted for. If people want to go help civillians in war zone or to sell medicines at high prices to invaded countries so be it.

IF people want to help civs. That is what you have to keep in mind. I have no problem with helping civs in a market devoid of a current war. But to be unable to restrict and regulate the flow of such medicines is just plain stupid when you can't restrict and regulate during a war.

America stopped shipping supplies (oil and such) to Japan during WWII when they wouldn't cease their current activities. Let the same apply to medicine. Let our medical workers work under the supervision of the military until the war is over.

Zerro, Executor of the Federation of Omnifiend. (Gov't restructuring forced the title change...something about egotistical p.r.)