NationStates Jolt Archive

The Peoples Republic of the Kingdom of Heaven proposes that the UN gets to gether to tackle the issue of global poverty. This thread therefore becomes the 2005 Make Poverty History UN Conference.

So please debate and discuss possible actions in this thread.

This conference will also discuss the 'Make Poverty History' bill which the Kingdom of Heaven is trying to get made into a UN resolution.

The details of which are here:

Make Poverty History bill

We propose an annual UN Taxation on all First World UN members to ‘Make Poverty History.’

As a response to the suffering, hunger and disease in Third World countries, all UN nations in the First World must annually contribute financially to an international fund designed to ‘Make Poverty History’. This will be based on the wealth and population of a country and will go directly to those who are suffering rather than to corrupt national leaders or charity administration.

First World nations with a population of over 100 million people give at least $6 billion annually.

First World nations with a population between 5 million and 100 million will give between $0.6 billion and $4 billion depending on population size.

Strength: STRONG
Type of Resolution: Social Justice



This proposal is currently up for DELEGATES to accept right now.

We propose an annual UN Taxation on all First World UN members to ‘Make Poverty History.’
Rather than mention the First World (which is a RL reference, and an outdated one at that), refer only to non-developing nations, or categorise them by an economical rating.


As a response to the suffering, hunger and disease in Third World countries, all UN nations in the First World must annually contribute financially to an international fund designed to ‘Make Poverty History’.
I don't imagine this will be popular. Arguments along the lines of "why should we pay for the mistakes of others" will crop up.

This will be based on the wealth and population of a country and will go directly to those who are suffering rather than to corrupt national leaders or charity administration.
Too vague. How will the money go directly to the suffering? Will we write them a personal cheque to the value of several billion dollars? How will we determine how the money is spent? How do we know they won't spend it all on booze? How do we identify the corrupt national leaders from the uncorrupt ones? If charitable organisations are not overseeing the distribution of aid, who is? We need details!

First World nations with a population of over 100 million people give at least $6 billion annually. First World nations with a population between 5 million and 100 million will give between $0.6 billion and $4 billion depending on population size.
Using population and economics in this way is misleading. Rather than use basic income figures, why not use GDP per capita, which is a better indicator of wealth.

Strength: STRONG
Type of Resolution: Social Justice

I would agree with the categorisation and strength rating.

I think if you revise this proposal and go into alot more detail it could be a very good proposal. I personally won't support it because I'm selfish, but I'm sure there will be many who do.

Just so long as Bob Geldof isn't involved *grumble*

Hmm... First world, third world, developed, underdeveloped. Who is to say what the definition is? The delegation from Northwind and the delegate from Darkumbria wholeheartedly disagrees with the proposal. Darkumbria, and indeed the rest of the UN, should not care what happens to the financial of any other nation in the UN, or outside it. It is not the UN's job to play bankrole for those nations that can not take care of their own economy.

Recently, the UN has been asked to play nursemaid to all nations that cannot do it themselves. THrough proposals such as this, the religious right is asking that the universe except responsibility for the moral and financial aspects of every UN country. UNEXCEPTABLE!!!!!!!!!! The UN is not: a police force, a moral force, nor a bankroll for ANY nation, regardless of how large or small that nation is.

The Delegate from Darkumbria begs, nay pleads, with the civilized nations of the world to place the proposal in the wastebasket with all the other proposals that would attempt to play nursemaid to ANY nation. A nation should be able to care for its own interests, or it should look to its neighbors in the region for help, or be left to rot on the vine, as it should, in fact, do.

Some will call this a hardline. Do I agree with that? YES. It is a hardline, but Darkumbria will not be helping ANY nation that can not begin to help itself.

--snip--

Hear, hear! The people of Fass have worked long and hard for their economic wealth. They should not be forced to become nannies for incompetent states that fail to have a reasonable economic policy.

Recently, the UN has been asked to play nursemaid to all nations that cannot do it themselves. THrough proposals such as this, the religious right is asking that the universe except responsibility for the moral and financial aspects of every UN country. UNEXCEPTABLE!!!!!!!!!!
Religious Right?? How on earth is tackling poverty either religious or right-wing? As I understand it the Religious Right are very free-market capitalist and in favour of exploiting the poorer nations.

I wish people would stop making presumptions about Christians. Thats called prejudging !

Hear, hear! The people of Fass have worked long and hard for their economic wealth. They should not be forced to become nannies for incompetent states that fail to have a reasonable economic policy.
Its not always to do with economic policy. Some countries simply dont have the right resources.

This is not about becoming a nanny for poorer countries. This is about stopping human beings from dying of hunger. This is not about improving life for people who are simply poor. This is about stopping people from dying.

It is inhumane to allow millions of people to die simply because other nations are selfish.

Greetings.

Our neighbouring state of Granhador made poverty history once. It was the poorest state in the region. It did not enjoy this status, but such things happen. We would not like to make poverty history in similar manner. The history of poverty is sufficiently sad, such that we do not feel the need to add to it. As the prophet of Bedlam said, "The poor you will always have with you." It is all relative.

This propsal is clearly illegal under "UN Taxation Ban."

Its not always to do with economic policy. Some countries simply dont have the right resources.

Maybe they should relocate then? Start a war or two and get resources? Make investments into science and technology? Further the private sector? That's what the rest of us have had to do.

This is not about becoming a nanny for poorer countries. This is about stopping human beings from dying of hunger. This is not about improving life for people who are simply poor. This is about stopping people from dying.

Something which is not going to be helped by having them suckle at the rich nations' teat. This will actually serve to undermine their economy, as they will have no reason to work for bettering themselves - they will get money regardless, and we will end up paying the bill for their irresponsible behaviour yet again.

It is inhumane to allow millions of people to die simply because other nations are selfish.

We care more about the citizens of our nation than those of others. So? Your little proposal to make the poorer nations dependant on handouts isn't going help either us or the poor nations.

This propsal is clearly illegal under "UN Taxation Ban."

It is not illegal. The UN Taxation Ban only prevents taxing citizens directly. It is allowed to take money from member nations all it likes.

Greetings.

We realise that other possibilities now abound. In other words, "Let them eat cheese."

OOC: Ah, I see. Whoops. Missed that word. Totally my bad.

Greetings.

We realise that other possibilities now abound. In other words, "Let them eat cheese."

Lactose-free cheese! People of "third world nations" (which is such a violation of the no-no on RL references) are often lactose intolerant.

Lactose-free cheese? Sounds awful. I like lactose. I like gluten too. I have no idea what gluten is, but I've tried gluten free biscuits and they were not good. Not at all. I've also tried vegan cheese :( made with marmite. To this day it is one of the most disgusting things I have ever put in my mouth and once I accidentally swallowed an earwig *shudder* (Childhood trauma! To this day i still check every straw before drinking from it incase there's an earwig in it...)

Religious Right?? How on earth is tackling poverty either religious or right-wing? As I understand it the Religious Right are very free-market capitalist and in favour of exploiting the poorer nations.

I wish people would stop making presumptions about Christians. Thats called prejudging !


Sorry....Next time use I'll the words Feed the universe mantality(Sp?) Does that describe you better? Facts are this just another attempt to more the poor richer and the rich poorer.

Look at my country. Are we rich? No, are we trying to get richer? Yes. Do I want to use the UN as my bankroll? No, I want the UN to stay out of my country's affairs and deal wit the International problems that it was designed to help protect.

Facts are this just another attempt to more the poor richer and the rich poorer.

Is that really such a bad thing? From the perspective of the rich, maybe, but there are a lot more poor nations out there who view it differently. I think this proposal is a great idea. I'd definitely support it if there were more guidelines. For example, which would qualify a nation as deserving aid? The nation's GDP or the annual income of the average citizen? (If it's the latter, then Fatus Maximus might even qualify, so I'm not being totally selfless :p ) I think Gwenstefani's first post contained the major problems with this proposal. Tweak it a bit and you've got my vote.

How about this? "Poorer" nations should realize that their wealthier brethren have made sacrifices to achieve economic power. Krioval razed rainforests to mine uranium, for example. We pushed a space program through for the express purposes of finding new resources and resettling half our population. Every bit of money we've spent on expanding our economic networks has cost us somewhere else - usually in the environment and economic equality among our citizens. But then, if you want to break the $40K GDP per capita limit, that's about what it takes.

If countries want to protect their ancient forests, obsess over the numbers of their indigenous animals, and provide no real support for a market economy, that's their choice. But Krioval is not going to subsidize such an economic program. Let's not make the UN into the latest arm of communist economics.

Is that really such a bad thing? From the perspective of the rich, maybe, but there are a lot more poor nations out there who view it differently. I think this proposal is a great idea. I'd definitely support it if there were more guidelines. For example, which would qualify a nation as deserving aid? The nation's GDP or the annual income of the average citizen? (If it's the latter, then Fatus Maximus might even qualify, so I'm not being totally selfless :p ) I think Gwenstefani's first post contained the major problems with this proposal. Tweak it a bit and you've got my vote.


You are saying that it is necessary for other nations to pay for someone else's misfortune/mismanagement/whatever? Yes, I do find that a bad thing. I don't want anyone coming to me saying that I have to pay for another nations huge misuse of funds to allow their citizens freedoms that their government cannot pay for.

Darkumbria workers pay for Darkumbrian programs and progress, not anyone elses. What this proposal is saying is.... Every nation now has the right to enact anything program that they want to enact, regardless of whether the country can afford or not. I don't agree with that. I don't have control over your nation, or its finances, you should not have any control over mine.

To put this in other terms, this would be like my neighbor buying a new car, and me having to pay for it, because he can not. The banks of Darkumbria expect that when one agrees to make a payment, not his/her neighbor.

OOC: This is the equivalent of say.... India starting a program in XXXX, then turning around and telling the United States that we, being part of the UN, have to pay for it. Does that sound right to you? I think what most people are failing to see, is that this is the United Nations, an international body, not the Congress (US example). A lot of the proposals that I see are nation based stuff, which should be in nation politics/regional politics, not international/universal control. That is why you see me say, alot, that proposals are irrelevant, because they go beyond the scope of international relations and into the realm of nation control.

First World nations with a population of over 100 million people give at least $6 billion annually.

First World nations with a population between 5 million and 100 million will give between $0.6 billion and $4 billion depending on population size.
This part is illegal, though. UN Resolutions are equally applied to all UN members. Unequal effect is not possible (from a game mechanics standpoint) and is therefore illegal.

Sorry. No can do.

Shame. We could do with the aid.

We appreciate your sentiments, Kingdom of Heaven. Many thanks for your concern.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

We propose an annual UN Taxation on all First World UN members to ‘Make Poverty History.’

Why? Why should we pay for nations that have made piss-poor decisions?

As a response to the suffering, hunger and disease in Third World countries, all UN nations in the First World must annually contribute financially to an international fund designed to ‘Make Poverty History’. This will be based on the wealth and population of a country and will go directly to those who are suffering rather than to corrupt national leaders or charity administration.

So, you like rewarding people for bad decisions? It is poor decision making that put those nations where they are. If they wish to be rich, they'll make the right decisions or ask for help on how to make the right decisions. We are not going to pay a bunch of people just because they made the decisions that put them there. That's like renbursing someone for spent ammunition after they rob a bank, kill everyone inside, and go on a running gun battle across four city blocks before being captured.

First World nations with a population of over 100 million people give at least $6 billion annually.

In other words, they should be poor. That is a tax even a nation of my size would find too heavy, and I have over 1 billion people across a dozen or more worlds. I don't even spend that much money on one of my graviton destroyers.

I have a question: Why should the economically powerful nations be punished just because of how big they are?

First World nations with a population between 5 million and 100 million will give between $0.6 billion and $4 billion depending on population size.

Once again, your figures are too high.

You guys all look at it as paying for a nation that's screwed up their own economies. But what about nations that just don't have any natural resources? Wartorn nations? Nation's whose staple crop has been hit by a blight? Sure, there are nations whose leaders are morons, but don't take it out on the people who can't help themselves.

The only nations that cannot help themselves are all either dead or conquered. Wars end, blights go away, and natural resources can always be bought.

You guys all look at it as paying for a nation that's screwed up their own economies. But what about nations that just don't have any natural resources? Wartorn nations? Nation's whose staple crop has been hit by a blight? Sure, there are nations whose leaders are morons, but don't take it out on the people who can't help themselves.

Krioval has these things called "annexation treaties". They work wonders.

Vastiva already makes poor economies better through economic warfare.

Put simply, we take over, revitalize the system, create a trading partner in the process, and something better is built.

That in the meantime we get richer is just part of the process - practice what you preach.

Now, if you want to make things better, how about exchange students? How about international collegic studies? How about allowing for "mentoring" of worse-off nations in how economies should work?

Vastiva is wealthy because we worked at it, figured out how to do it, and went out and did it. Not because of handouts - because if you give handouts, all you get are hands out.

Some of those figures are pretty high. If the UN taxes a government several billions of dollars where/how do you think that government is going to get that money? I don't think my citizens would be happy with some of the inderict effects of them caused by this bill.

Nevermoore does not reward poor leadership and administration. We have our own people to look over and have no desire to drain our treasury on the mismanaged. We were once poor, but we made ourselves wealthy and grand. No one ever helped us or our people, so the "third world" can help themselves.