NationStates Jolt Archive

Establish UNWCC
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sunteria

Description: The United Nations,

OBSERVING the neglect of the basic Human Right to sanitary water;

NOTING that lack of sanitary water is the leading cause of death in third world countries;

FURTHER NOTING the absence of past resolutions in favor of sanitary water and its accessibility;

IN THE INTEREST OF providing third world regions with sanitary water;

1. ESTABLISHES a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers, the United Nations Water Cleansing Committee (UNWCC), to use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life;

2. AUTHORIZES the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption;

3. BELIEVES WITH SCIENTIFIC MERIT that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water; and

4. SUGGESTS that the establishment of the UNWCC would further human rights and raise the quality of life for millions of people.

couldn't agree more

Given the pathetic standard of water I encountered when I was in Africa and many parts of Asia I would like to to support this bill... sanitary water should be a basic human right. Normally as an UN member I would be happy to contribute some funds to this cause. But as has been correctly pointed out by the Sarnatha delegation the proposal lacks details, and contains no alternatives as to how to get the water clean. As such, I will withdraw my vote in support until such time as a more detailed and reworded resolution becomes available.

Prime Minister Timothy McKenzie
Constitutional Monarchy of Bunny Pancake
UN Delegate for the White Dwarf Dominion

I will vote in favour of this proposal just as soon as someone explains to me in depth, what on earth are hydroponic plants, and just how effective are they in cleansing water. My nation does not want to throw money on a solution that isn't effective.

OBSERVING the neglect of the basic Human Right to sanitary water;

Tough noogies. We had unsanitary water once upon a time too. Know what we did? WE SANITIZED IT OUR DAMNED SELVES WITHOUT DEMANDING A HANDOUT FROM THE UN.

NOTING that lack of sanitary water is the leading cause of death in third world countries;

That's called "natural selection."

FURTHER NOTING the absence of past resolutions in favor of sanitary water and its accessibility;

See, other people are intelligent enough to not screw around with nature's business. Why aren't you?

1. ESTABLISHES a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers, the United Nations Water Cleansing Committee (UNWCC), to use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life;

2. AUTHORIZES the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption;

And of course no thought is given to the costs involved, nor to the environmental effects on the local ecologies, or anything else but saving the lives of the undeserving.

3. BELIEVES WITH SCIENTIFIC MERIT that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water; and

4. SUGGESTS that the establishment of the UNWCC would further human rights and raise the quality of life for millions of people.

And, in the process, force other nations to prop up third-world countries unable to support themselves, thereby creating a legion of welfare states that will never be able to survive on their own because they're too busy badgering the UN to do it for them!

The Nation of Pointless Sociopathy calls all other states to vote AGAINST this horrendous proposition, if not for the sake of Charles Darwin, then for the continued sanctity of the global ecology!

This is a complete waste of UN funding. Each nation should fund their own sanitation. The nations do not need a group of UN funded people coming in and fixing THEIR water.
Find something that actually needs UN funding, like hunger, or nuclear war zones.

See, other people are intelligent enough to not screw around with nature's business. Why aren't you?Screwing around with nature's business is what made the water unsanitary to begin with.

And of course no thought is given to the costs involved, nor to the environmental effects on the local ecologies, or anything else but saving the lives of the undeserving.I will not ask you to try to understand the need for helping to save and better the lives of UN Nation's citizens, since you are unwilling to do so for your very own UN Nation by revoking all political freedoms and civil rights from your people.

And, in the process, force other nations to prop up third-world countries unable to support themselves, thereby creating a legion of welfare states that will never be able to survive on their own because they're too busy badgering the UN to do it for them!Helping a nation that doesn't have drinking water is hardly to be considered as welfare. After all we are not giving them a monthly income or anything. We will be simply funding their water cleansing facilities.

The Nation of Pointless Sociopathy calls all other states to vote AGAINST this horrendous proposition, if not for the sake of Charles Darwin, then for the continued sanctity of the global ecology!The raping of the sanctity of the global ecology is the only horrendous thing dealt with in this proposal. Charles Darwin would be appaled at the pollution of the waters to begin with. After that he would send you home to study Biology and perhaps someday learn what naturall selection really is. Perhaps you'd might even understand why ideologies that are similar to your own are practically extinct... Naturally...

Being a small nation, Casari simply cannot afford to spend millions of selaris on building plants to sanatize water in the third world while our own nation features several major issues, such as high crime rates and a lack of infrastructure. Wasting money like this is asking our government to put others ahead of our own citizens who elected us, and that simply cannot be allowed.

My question is not the idea but the method. Aren't there faster (if not cheaper) ways of sanitizing water? From what I understand, most U.S. cities do not use plants, or if they do, they don't exclusively rely upon them. Besides, some materials that make water unfit for human consumption are also poisonous to plants.

I say we vote down this resolution if only so it may be rewritten to include provisions for other methods.

The Premier of Sarnatha has asked that I commend the leadership of Sunteria for their noble aspirations in proposing the assignment of UN resources to the problem of providing sanitary drinking water in the Third World. Providing clean water to those in need is a great humanitarian goal.

Her admiration notwithstanding, however, the Premier has asked me to raise the following concerns regarding the proposal at hand. These concerns are your definition of clean water as a "basic human right", your very specific description of the membership of the proposed committee, and the vague description of that committee's powers and the consequences thereof.

OBSERVING the neglect of the basic Human Right to sanitary water;

Though Sarnatha joins you in wishing to improve access to sanitary drinking water for those in need, we dispute your assertion that it is a right. A material need, surely; but a right? Our concern here is this would seem to invite the addition of more material goods to the list of "basic Human Rights". Is food a right? Clothing? Which food and clothing? &c, &c. We fear that the addition of material goods would eventually cheapen such fundamental rights as free speech, freedom of religion, and so on. The more things you seek to safeguard, the less well you might safeguard any one thing.

1. ESTABLISHES a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers, the United Nations Water Cleansing Committee (UNWCC), to use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life;

Given the broad powers implied for the proposed committee, it seems shortsighted to specify the committee will be comprised of "scientists and engineers". If this committee is to have the power to spend UN treasure on the construction of "oases and reserves", and by implication to control access to those reserves, why specify "scientists and engineers" only? Do you mean to exclude representatives of the political, cultural, and business classes? This seems rash, given that there are enormous political, cultural, and business implications to the placement of said "oases and reserves". Specifying the committee membership as you have done seems to set the stage for future conflict.

2. AUTHORIZES the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption;

The description of the committee's powers seems broad and vague. What about priority: does the UNWCC alone hold the power to decide where it shall spend UN funds first? What about sovereignty: may a state refuse to allow the UNWCC to begin its work within that state's borders? Perhaps most importantly: does the UNWCC retain control over oases and reserves, once they are built? If so, does the UNWCC have unidivided authority to dispense that water as it sees fit? If a group of semi-nomadic herders and a multinational corporation approach the manager of a UNWCC oasis on the same day, and each present water-consumption needs that would monopolize the water reserve, how does the manager decide whose need is the greater? What is the goal toward which that manager should be working?

It is the concern of the Republic of Sarnatha that this proposal, as worded, brings the provision of drinking water within the UN ambit, and simultaneously fails to establish a mechanism capable of handling that responsibility. Until such time as we might be persuaded otherwise, the Republic of Sarnatha will be forced, regretfully, to oppose this proposal.

With respect,

Miles May
Ambassador of the Republic of Sarnatha

The Republic of Sarnatha (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=sarnatha )

Screwing around with nature's business is what made the water unsanitary to begin with.

Which still makes it their problem. Not mine.

I will not ask you to try to understand the need for helping to save and better the lives of UN Nation's citizens, since you are unwilling to do so for your very own UN Nation by revoking all political freedoms and civil rights from your people.

They should better their own lives, not expect some would-be philanthropist to do it for them. As for my people, they waived their right to have rights by a) living in my country and b) being unable to depose me.

Helping a nation that doesn't have drinking water is hardly to be considered as welfare. After all we are not giving them a monthly income or anything. We will be simply funding their water cleansing facilities.

Sayeth dictionary.com:
welfare - Receiving regular assistance from the government or private agencies because of need.

This proposition sounds like welfare to me. Besides, what happens the next time they have a problem? No food? Demand charity! Poor health quotient? Demand charity! War? Demand charity! It's pathetic.

We the people of Gaydome are one of the barren lands that would recive this water that has been filtered though your plants. And my country's stance is that we would reather buy our water from another country then be given someone's waste to drink. There has to be another solution and I emplore the UN Delegates to come up with one. This one is in humaine
:headbang:

To the delegate from Sunteria;

I too find your proposal commendable in its goals, but have serious concerns over its potential implementation.

First, read literally there are dire faults with the language of this proposal. Consider the following:

1. ESTABLISHES a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers, the United Nations Water Cleansing Committee (UNWCC), to use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life;

Who is pumping the water? This proposal does not authorize the UNWCC to pump the water in, only to clean it. Are the poor countries who need this water going to be forced to organize the pumping of water out of "surrounding areas"? Areas which may reside in other, potentially hostile, rouge nations? Also, where will this committee meet? I ask because the language of this proposal appears to only allow the committee use water from areas surrounding the committee. Thus if the committee were geographically distant from The Community of the Frozen Chosen, we would be unable to contribute water for cleaning, no matter how much we wish to help.

Furthermore, I note that your proposal

2. AUTHORIZES the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption;

It does not, however, authorize the UNWCC to actually distribute this cleaned water. And, even if the UNWCC were allowed to operate beyond the letter of the law and distribute this water (which would be greatly stretching the terms of your proposal), there are no provisions as for who the water shall be given to. Thus your proposal to help "third world" nations (which you fail to define) could become a disasterously expensive source of free water to any unscrupulous nation that asks for the water.

Finally I am outraged by your statement

3. BELIEVES WITH SCIENTIFIC MERIT that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water;

Apparently "those disadvantaged people" can drink water with different sanitary levels then those in more advanced nations. Rather than wirte a proposal to supply truely clean water, you simply ask to cleans water until it is "sanitary enough". Talk about low standards.

In short, your attempt to "further human rights and raise the quality of life for millions of people" falls miserably short. This proposal does nothing to actually deliver clean water, let alone supply it to those who need it. While we waste our time voting on a proposal that does nothing more than authorize the U.N. to waste money on a program of cleaning water with plants and then holding it in reseviors, stockpiled but never distributed, those is nations that need sanitary water continue to waste away, suffering. Then to top it off you insult the disadvataged as inferior.

I look forward to the oppurtunity to support a reasonable proposal to address the needs of the unfortunate individuals living without properly cleansed water, but for now I have no choice and must vote against this ineffective proposal.

Meanwhile I commend your efforts to bring this issue to the forefront of U.N. debate. I only regret that your proposal is so mortally flawed as to provent me from even considering supporting it.

Sincerely,
Mark Heln

Yes, the authors merit for the proposal is valid and well-noted for planning to decrease world health risks.
Yet, any representative of sound mind will find:

1. Not only will the fiscal impacts be extremely large for developed nations, but this proposal is too utterly vague.
2. If the proposal is actually passed this new bureaucratic committee must now only endorse hydroponic plants.
3. The proposal does not identify any other means for filtering water.
4. Even if hydroponic plants are the most efficient and cost effective method, the proposal does not address or allow a single alternative method.
5. Ultimately, the decision of clean water should be left up to each sovereign nation as well as each individual consumer.

Please, vote this proposal down.

I will vote in favour of this proposal just as soon as someone explains to me in depth, what on earth are hydroponic plants, and just how effective are they in cleansing water. My nation does not want to throw money on a solution that isn't effective.
I'm waiting for a detailed explanation myself. Currently the plan is to abstain on this vote. Perhaps the proposal author will be here later to offer specifics. I did find this (http://www.apec-vc.or.jp/wetland/h_1.htm). It gives a fairly detailed description of how it would work. I'm just not convinced that this is the most effective or economical approach, as opposed to more conventional methods. I'd like to hear more arguments from both sides before making a decision.

Screwing around with nature's business is what made the water unsanitary to begin with.

Which still makes it their problem. Not mine.Fair enough. However cleansing water is not screwing around with nature's business as you previously stated.

They should better their own lives, not expect some would-be philanthropist to do it for them. As for my people, they waived their right to have rights by a) living in my country and b) being unable to depose me.That would be possible if there were free elections in your nation.

Sayeth dictionary.com:
welfare - Receiving regular assistance from the government or private agencies because of need.

This proposition sounds like welfare to me. Besides, what happens the next time they have a problem? No food? Demand charity! Poor health quotient? Demand charity! War? Demand charity! It's pathetic.It's not welfare. It's 3rd world aid. I for one apreciate the nations in the UN council that are here to work in the best interests of all UN Nations and not come in here with a "what's in it for me" attitude.

And once again I haven't asked you and I will not ask you to understand the importance of helping out other nations, for reason's I have previously stated.

im lost...they still have fire, so the can purify their water by boiling it...and yes that does work...and how exactly is their water unsanitary?

Establish UNWCC
OBSERVING the neglect of the basic Human Right to sanitary water;

NOTING that lack of sanitary water is the leading cause of death in third world countries;

FURTHER NOTING the absence of past resolutions in favor of sanitary water and its accessibility;

IN THE INTEREST OF providing third world regions with sanitary water;

1. ESTABLISHES a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers, the United Nations Water Cleansing Committee (UNWCC), to use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life;
I also find that this resolution has its heart in the right place, but not its mind. The initial costs involved would be enormous, not to mention maintenance, utilities costs such as power so the plants can operate, the religious and cultural implications of building said plants, etc.

Establish UNWCC
2. AUTHORIZES the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption;
What matter of system would the UN use to determine where in the country would the plants be located? Do they locate them as close as possible to polluted watersheds, or is would the people living on or near the plant site have to be relocated due to the pollution (not just water pollution, but noise and other types) of the plant itself, the land that they have lived on for generations is to be something that they might not have wanted in the first place, OR would the UN consider these things and move the plants farther away costing the UN billions of dollars more but possibly reduce tensions with the host country? What if the gods of their country do not like these "unholy and unnatural" water sources and people refuse to take advantage of them by destroying them upon completion?

Where would these extracted chemicals go? Would the UN sell them off to another country to repay itself for the cost of construction, thereby the host country losing its own minerals? Would it sell the chemicals back to the host country just to pollute the water sources again? How long would UN personnel have to stay in these countries? Would they be training citizens to be their replacements and move onto another 3rd world country, or would they remain in the country for an extended period of time?

Establish UNWCC
3. BELIEVES WITH SCIENTIFIC MERIT that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water; and

Would the "disadvantages peoples" be paid with more UN funding for constructing said plants, or would UN construction crews be brought in for the job? If the locals were to build the plants, who is to tend crops or other jobs they already occupy that otherwise would be lost if they were to forsake their former lives and work on a construction crew for at least a year? As for maintaining and running the plants after construction, this would require some sort of technical training. After the completion of their training, most people would demand a higher salary than they would have in their former lives, such as that of a herder or subsistence farmer. Who is to pay this if the country is struggling in the first place? If the country cannot afford to pay its employees of the plant, the plant may shut down, or worse: it may run at 99.9% or less and over time lead to contamination of stored water sources -- defeating the entire purpose of the UN's plans and proving to be a waste of trillions of dollars.

Establish UNWCC
4. SUGGESTS that the establishment of the UNWCC would further human rights and raise the quality of life for millions of people.

Does the UN know for a fact that the people in question are certainly unhappy with their current quality of life? I am certain most would love clean water, but as has been discussed previously, they can do it themselves, without the aid of the UN.

In conclusion, The Kingdom of Heaviness vehemently opposes this resolution until changes are made.

While I agree the goal of the proposal is commendable, the process by which it is achieved in many cases is more important than the end result. Many of my questions have previously been raised. However,

2. AUTHORIZES the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption;

Where will these “artificial oases and reserves” be created? Will the UN dictate to my nation that they be built within its borders? If so, what guidelines will be followed in the determination of their location? Will Borborygmus be forced to confiscate the land of residents or businesses under the authority of eminent domain if the committee finds a specific piece of terrain desirable? Will Borborygmus at the city, state, or national level be given any say at all with respect to zoning issues?

3. BELIEVES WITH SCIENTIFIC MERIT that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water; and

Exactly how will access to quality water be increased? Is it to be shipped, pumped…?

This legislation leaves far too many questions unanswered as it is written. Aiding those less fortunate is admirable, but it is irresponsible for those in power to allocate their nation’s resources in an impractical and inefficient manner regardless of how well intentioned the objective might be.

This is the most preposterous resolution to date. You propose spending billions of dollars on an elaborate project that is just a step short of terraforming, all to do the work of a simple, cheap canal system and a few water treatment plants. Why don't we save our money and just do it the traditional way?

Good evening.

We would like to ask a quick question, if we may, just to clear up some issues. We can see that some representatives, like the honourable representative of the Kingdom of Heaviness, requests a more detailed resolution that deals with many of the issues that may, can and will arise from the practical implementation of sanitation-programs.

As far as we can understand the resolution at vote, its intention is to establish the United Nations Water Cleansing Committee (UNWCC) with the current resolution as a framework and not as a tool for micromanagement. The UN should not ratify such a detailed resolution as one where all of the above-mentioned issues are dealt with, both because it could hinder the efficiency of the UNWCC, and because there is many more issues which the UN could not forsee and which the UNWCC will stuble upon during its work that then will be unregulated. Surely the UNWCC must establish its own practical internal guidelines to handle these issues, particularly because the committee will have a lot of expertise in these specific areas. Is this not a sensible notion?

Neither can we see that this resolution in any way will interfere with any country's national sovereignty. As we understand it, all building of hydroponic plants and the like must happen in cooperation with the nation in which the UNWCC would operate.

Finally, we would like to express our belief that access to both food and water constitute basic and important Human Rights.

The Holy Empire of Gravlen will most likely vote for this resolution. Unfortunently, this representative has not been granted the authority to do so, and so the Holy Empire will not cast its vote until our Imperial ambassador to the UN returns early next week.

All Hail!

Vlad T. Hindenschmidt
Deputy ambassador to the UN
for the Holy Empire of Gravlen

Speaking as the UN deligate from Erynthia regarding this issue:

I am chiefly concerned about the suggestion that water be diverted from current resevoirs to create "artificial oasis" in which water will be purified.

I am concerned for several reasons:

1. That rerouting water, channeled into an artificial oasis might prove a greater ecological problem than tainted water, creating a greater possibilty for evaporation in water poor regions, and potentially causing the few areas which do flourish in these areas to become uninhabitable.

2. That introducing plant life into an ecosystem which does not already support it could also prove disasterous to the ecology of the region. This new plant life could potentially force out existing plant life which is a staple of the wildlife in the region.

3. I feel that this resolution is FAR too strong as it is currently written. There are not enough provisions for mandatory ecological studies and reports on predicted impacts. There is also no clear source of funding for this type of endevor.

4. As the UN is currently prohibited from taxing the citizenry of its member states we can only assume that it intends to levy membership dues on the states themselves (which is a cost which the nations tax system would have to absorb, thus forcing nations either to leave the UN or levy taxes on the UNs behalf) or seek private funding for this project.

While private funding may seem initially to be the best solution, private enterprise does not survive by providing a service for nothing. Private funding only opens to door to creating more debt for the peoples of these 3rd world countries, which will make this project unsustainable in the long term.

In conclusion, this proposal lacks the clear definition such an ambitious project requires, and does not deserve member states' support as it currently stands.


Peter Eaton

Greetings to my fellow UN members:

Alas we are voting on an issue that does not damage our own respective nations, but tries to better living conditions on our happless brother/sister member nations.

The City by the Live Sea would be more than honored to help teach and establish a nation on how to purify their water supply. The short and long of the teaching will involve a heat source and some strong heat resistance piping and pehaps some engineers to hook up a power supply to this evaporation source to help power the nation.

But the bottom line is that this does not hurt my nation and it may very well grant me new allies after we teach the hurting nation some prosperity rules.

So after voting against such stupid resolutions like limiting my military arsonal, how to treat my dolphins (which were very delicious thank you) and that I need to mention evolution in my school agendas, my Great nation finally gets to vote for a resolution that will do something great for the world of Nationstates. ;)

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Greetings to my fellow UN members:

Alas we are voting on an issue that does not damage our own respective nations, but tries to better living conditions on our happless brother/sister member nations.

The City by the Live Sea would be more than honored to help teach and establish a nation on how to purify their water supply. The short and long of the teaching will involve a heat source and some strong heat resistance piping and pehaps some engineers to hook up a power supply to this evaporation source to help power the nation.

But the bottom line is that this does not hurt my nation and it may very well grant me new allies after we teach the hurting nation some prosperity rules.

So after voting against such stupid resolutions like limiting my military arsonal, how to treat my dolphins (which were very delicious thank you) and that I need to mention evolution in my school agendas, my Great nation finally gets to vote for a resolution that will do something great for the world of Nationstates. ;)

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

From within my region, the words of Ryuma of Torzacen:

To my esteemed allies:

I like the idea of the new resolution. However I would rather send a few advisors and aid (equipment, money and access to our Universities to create specialists in the field) to a third world nation to help them create clean water. This will give them the ability to create jobs and boost their own economy.

Having us do everything for them sends the wrong message. The idea is for us to aid a third world nation so that they can build captital projects on their own, not for us to do it for them.

I really don't know which way to vote on this one. I am leaning on a no vote. However maybe I can be convinced otherwise.

Ryuma
Executive Minister
The Dominion of Torzacen

Ryuma says it all, as far as I'm concerned. This is a good idea, but the execution is suspect and smacks of typical first world condescending paternalism.

Clean water, but not this resolution. We vote no.

Alas,

Pel is forced to enter a "no" vote as well.

Bringing potable water to all the people of the world is a noble cause. However, the methods and plans for execution outlined here are questionable at best.

Pel would be more than happy to support a clean water resolution that included some of the points raised in other posts on this thread. Few oppose the idea of clean water for all. But, surely, a plan more amenable to all can be devised.

No, with reservations.

This Proposal though well meaning is far beyond most of our 1st world countrys financial capabilitys not many of use have power house economys

please vot agianst this proposal

While it would be wonderful if we could magically provide every 3rd world country with clean water, the way in which this misguided fellow has suggested us fixing the problem is utterly to vague. It is so vague I doubt that the "science" behind this is HALF as precise and known as it is claimed. I seriously doubt that based off of this proposal anything useful will happen in 3rd world countries. All this proposal will do is EAT UP UN FUNDS!!!!!

We should be putting our limited resources into REAL and USEFUL projects!!!!

VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

good idea for helping the world.... but this just won't work. As has been said before... the heart is in the right place, but this resolution just sucks...

VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whilst this is a noble attempt to better the lives of millions, there are a number of concerns I have about this resolution:

Firstly, will the methods briefly touched upon actually disinfect the sewage and make it fit for drinking?

Secondly, there are likely to be huge cost implications for member states - but just how big will they be?

Thirdly, are the methods described in this resolution actually the best methods for this task? No alternatives which may well be more effective are covered or suggested.

It is because of these three concerns that the Bettian delegate is AGAINST this resolution, at least until a better, more detailed plan is put onto the table.

I have read through the proposal, and it seems to vauge to me. I get that the U.N. will pay for the committee, but who actually pays for everything else? Who pays for the cost of materials and laborers, or will the U.N. have hundreds of engineers on this committee, oh...... it does not say. How big is this committee to be? What are to be the standards of quality measurement?

Before I vote for this, and in theory, it sounds good, if a little underdefined, if I am to vote for this then I want it fully defined.

This is a silly resolution. Why should the UN bother with this? That's only necessary in cases where water issues transcend national borders. We certainly don't need another committee for this.

I thouroughly agree and support this resolution. Many nations lack the resources and/or the currency to provide clean water for all of their citizens. May people die as a result.
The UN is supposed to be a way for countries to support each other. This resolution is exactly the type of support we should be giving each other.

Ecopoeia was originally tentatively in favour of establishing the UNWCC, sharing the views so eloquently expressed by Deputy Ambassador Hindenschmidt of Gravlen. However, the incisive analysis offered by the Sarnath delegation has persuaded us to withdraw our support and, somewhat regretfully, align with those opposing the resolution's passage. That said, Ecopoeia's final vote will reflect the views of our region, who may disagree with the position we have adopted.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Unfourtantly, The Nomadic People of Meditrania, while agreeging with the idea that something should be done to help purify the water, disagree with the resolution. We disagree first, because of the finacial obligations. We are a new country and don't have the resources yet, to provide millions of dollars. Also there is another issue that no one has brough up yet. The fact of who the land belongs to. Is it the UN's and international land? If so will the UNWCC have the power and the authority to purchase the land? Unless the finacial obligation is reduced and these questions are answered The Nomaidc People of Meditrania will be forced to negate the resolution at hand

Clean water provision is the duty of individual nations and not the UN, we vote against this 'interfering' proposal which will unnecessarily raise taxes in our nation if ratified, something we strongly oppose as our current welfare arrangements are satisfactory and we are trying to reduce taxes for everyones benefit, including our less well off.
If the UN passes too many resolutions like these damaging our economy further we will resign from the UN until some conservatism is restored.

I've been in the UN for a while, but this is my first stint as delegate -- I find it odd that the majority of posts here oppose the UNWCC COmmission, but the vote is currently running three-to-one in favor. Is that normal? Is the thread about the resolution usually inhabited by the minority?

Magister Jubal

We have been instructed to vote against and have acted accordingly. We find it odd that neither the proposal author nor any other interested party has been here to offer arguments in favor of this legislation.

We have been instructed to vote against and have acted accordingly. We find it odd that neither the proposal author nor any other interested party has been here to offer arguments in favor of this legislation.I have personally spoken with the author and he has gladly responded my questions. I have reason to believe that he is unaware of this debate.

I have personally spoken with the author and he has gladly responded my questions. I have reason to believe that he is unaware of this debate.


How can that be? Am I mistaken or isn’t a thread automatically created when a resolution reaches quorum? However, since over 65% of the current votes are in favor I hardly think there is a pressing need to defend it. I do find it interesting that over 6,000 votes have been logged and this debate has seen so little use, and what use it has seen would suggest that the resolution would hold a negligible chance of passing.

How can that be? Am I mistaken or isn’t a thread automatically created when a resolution reaches quorum? You are mistaken. However it would be an ineresting way to vote on UN Resolutions. A thread poll would serve as the official voting process.

I've been in the UN for a while, but this is my first stint as delegate -- I find it odd that the majority of posts here oppose the UNWCC COmmission, but the vote is currently running three-to-one in favor. Is that normal? Is the thread about the resolution usually inhabited by the minority?

Magister Jubal

Honorable Magister -

There's a thread down somewhere in the UN Forum which you would probably find interesting. It's titled "On the Glorious Failure of Democracy". It might shed some light on your question.

In theory, the proposed resolution sounds good. This is why it will pass, however, it is almost impossible to uphold this resolution and will create a bunch of welfare countries who should be fending for themselves. That is why I voted against this resolution.

Excuse my ignorance, but what are "oases?"

Oaseses are like lakes ecept they are found in a region where there is usually not water.

While I agree that it is terrible for the people of poorer nations to be forced to drink dirty water, the idea of this bill is foolish. This bill proposes that the richer nations put millions into getting water to poorer nations who cannot sanatize water. Soon this bill would severely damage the economy of any nation participating. Further more, once we start doing this these nations will become dependent and never bother to learn how to purify water, which means that if they become prospeous we will still have too give them water uor teach them how to purify water. These governments should fix their water problems without brining the UN into it.

How can that be? Am I mistaken or isn’t a thread automatically created when a resolution reaches quorum? However, since over 65% of the current votes are in favor I hardly think there is a pressing need to defend it. I do find it interesting that over 6,000 votes have been logged and this debate has seen so little use, and what use it has seen would suggest that the resolution would hold a negligible chance of passing.

There are two forces at work.

1: Most people will vote for any resolution, no matter how stupid it is. Such people don't normally bother to read the forum.

2: Most of those who rant in the forums are warmongers, and since this resolution has nothing to do with war, those people are not interested.

I do find it interesting that over 6,000 votes have been logged and this debate has seen so little use, and what use it has seen would suggest that the resolution would hold a negligible chance of passing.
Keep in mind that this proposal was in queue for a looong time. A lot of nations have probably either lost interest in it, or voiced their opinion in the earlier thread (located here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429314)). It was originally called "Third World Water Recycling", was submitted in the wrong category, reached quorum, got deleted, was submitted again in the proper category and with its current title, reached quorum again, then sat in the queue for the better part of a month while other resolutions were being voted on.

There are two forces at work.

1: Most people will vote for any resolution, no matter how stupid it is. Such people don't normally bother to read the forum.

2: Most of those who rant in the forums are warmongers, and since this resolution has nothing to do with war, those people are not interested.

I also suspect there is a sizable group of users who vote for resolutions based on the title and (perhaps, if we're lucky) a quick skim of the resolution itself. Thus arguements in the forum over details, as well as larger flaws overlooked with a quick read, are never considered.

as i see it- screw the third world countrys. america started out as crappy little colonies-- but we developed- we improved-- if these piss ant countries decided to stay in the dark ages of technology and development screw them-- before we go giving aid and money and crap to these stains on the earth-- how about getting rid of poverty and bad conditions in our own country first. after everyone in our country has a job and decent living arrangments, then we can help these waste of space.

I've been in the UN for a while, but this is my first stint as delegate -- I find it odd that the majority of posts here oppose the UNWCC COmmission, but the vote is currently running three-to-one in favor. Is that normal? Is the thread about the resolution usually inhabited by the minority?

Magister Jubal

With all due respect to other nations, I think the reason for the disparity is that voters see a motion to bring clean water to everyone but perhaps fail to appreciate the implications of this particular proposal.

Pel was leaning towards voting "yes" until reading the comments of other nations on this thread which have raised excellent points.

I'd guess most voters don't read the debates.

Is there anything to prevent a counter-proposal from being tabled in the (likely) event of this one passing?

Pel would support striking this proposal down and contributing to a clean water bill that takes into consideration the following:

A) Not creating permanent dependent states/ charity cases. Share technology and know-how instead.

B) A Clean Water Act that strives for something more than "clean enough".

C) Decentralized operational plans.

D) Humane goals coupled with sound science.

First, you'd have to vote in a repeal. Make it short and sweet, and it should work.

Second, you then have to build a re-write, and then get that one up there.

My own feelings are that the flaws in this proposals are not serious enough to for me to change my vote from supporting to abstain - and certainly not to oppose it.

But there are some very confusing arguments made here. Some suggest, in the same breath, that this proposal is a waste of UN money while also condemning the reference to the low threshold by which the clean water will be judged. Surely they should at least be applauding the idea that the proposal suggests that the UN only seeks to provide water clean enough for survival but not necessarily meeting stringent cleanliness tests that might be required in nations who could afford them. It certainly seems to be a very negative attitude to criticise the resolution on the basis that it spends money on something that they do not deem worthy and also argue that the proposal does not go far enough.

The goal of this resolution is a very worthy one and is far more important and cost effective that others seeking to alleviate poverty and famine in the poorer regions of the world. Water is a vital resource for life itself – and in that sense has a far greater claim to be a “Basic Human Right” than this like “Freedom of Speech”, “Right to Learn Evolution” which are luxuries by comparison.

By cleaning water, you are not only helping to solve problems of food shortage but also target the source of widespread sickness and disease. I hardly think this is even bad news for pharmaceutical companies since they wouldn’t, in any case, spend too much money on these diseases since their customers would be too poor to pay them an adequate return on their investment.

For those who simply argue against aid itself, I have only one suggestion. Do not provide any aid and relieve yourselves of all these unnecessary costs by leaving the UN

Pel you have my full support. It looks like it will pass no matter what we do, but if you can quickly repeal it and bring up you updated version I'll try to donate some time to help you lobby for it.

Prime Minister Timothy McKenzie
Constitutional Monarchy of Bunny Pancake
UN Delegate of the White Dwarf Dominion

Reasons for little discussion within this topic, and the apparent dichotomy between the topic and the votes:

1) This proposal has been around for a fair while, and most people on the forum made up their mind a while ago.

2) It is a 'warm and fuzzy' proposal, which makes people think they're doing the right thing by voting for it. I'm not saying whether that's the right thing or not, but this is one of those things that tugs at your heartstrings.*

3) Apart from one here and there, most of the regulars haven't been involved in this particular thread. Usually with official discussion topics, most of it will consist of a debate between 3-5 people, plus a random comment every now and then from someone not involved in the debate. For whatever reason, that hasn't happened this time.

*That is not to say that every proposal will succeed once it's reached quorum. The delegates of the 5 Pacifics and the Rejected Realms between them can pull about 1000 votes between them, which has been known to make proposals fail in the last day of voting. But the 'warm and fuzzy' effect does have a lot of pulling power, especially among smaller regions.

Greetings from Kypseli,

This is the first occasion we are commenting on an issue, we seek your understanding.

Our people are concerned that the proposed courses of action do not guarantee anything except financial burdens, especially to not strongly established economies.

It is ith regret that we have voted against, but as a relatively new member of the UN, we cannot afford to be part of such a vague scheme.

With limited experience in foreign affairs, The Nomadic People of Kypseli would like to thank fellow delegates, UN members, and non members alike,
for the time taken to point out the flaws in the proposed resolution.

We shall be eagerly awaiting any repeal hopefully accompanied by a rewritten edition of a well worthy cause.

Noble causes cannot be imposed, and we are not ready yet to carry the burdens they might brink to us. Of course, when such a proposal is delivered we will be closely looking at to whether the issue should not be left entirely at the discetion of individual states.


Be well

The Nomadic People of Kypseli

1: Most people will vote for any resolution, no matter how stupid it is. Such people don't normally bother to read the forum.

In my opinion, there is a lot of bullshit being said in this forum. To pick out the reasonable opinions isn't very easy. Often there are quarrels about simple formulations which tend to diminish the ideals expressed in many resolutions. But, again, in the UN, right formulations are important for wrong interpretations are most common.

But, lets come to the point:

My opinion on this resolution is that clean water resources get poorer every day in our world and that research should be made to look for possibilities to clean existing provisions or even non-"third world countries" will be in trouble someday. This "Nations Water Cleansing Committee" could be a possibility to improve the research in this matter.

But this resolution only wants to establish this Commitee ... We all know how inefficient and time- and money-consuming such Comitees can be. Furthermore, the definition of this Community is most vague.

Also, I believe that a better respect for the environment in the first place is most important to garantee clean-watersupply. This resolution doesn't give any concern about environmental matters to prevent the extreme use of water for "sewage and waste"-purposes, which is the basic problem now!

Furthermore, as The Principality of New Moose Port, another member of the UN and of our beloved region "Democrats" has put it: I agree with the factors that the water situation needs to be resolved, but I dont like the scope that this committee would have to deal with, nor do I believe enough emphasis is placed on enviromental impact that this might have, or go to solve long term changes for water shortages.

That's why I tend to vote against this resolution.

Cally24
Regional Delegate for the
"Democrats"

This is a brilliant idea, or might I say scientific development. Using plants to clean dirty water is not just great for the Third World but for us as well. As far as this world is going we are going to need to recycle water as well in the more developed countries in a few years time. Maybe we should push the scientist to try and create completely clean water for this, that everyone could drink. I agree to this and I think we could do alot more with it to save our world.

OOC:

I think it's important to restate that NationStates is not the equivalent of real life. Krioval, for example, has faster-than-light space travel, teleportation, and a population among whom a significant minority possess psionic talents. Granted, that makes Krioval unusual in the international community, but not by all that much. Talking about real life situations in undeveloped regions of the world (like Africa, for example) tend to fall flat in the presence of experienced players - the islands of the Pacific aren't considered hugely overdeveloped in the real Earth, but in Krioval's Earth, that nation controls that area, and the economy is insanely powerful.

It's just something to keep in mind - not everywhere in NS is Africa poor, for example, or North America exceedingly wealthy for that matter.

This is a complete waste of UN funding. Each nation should fund their own sanitation. The nations do not need a group of UN funded people coming in and fixing THEIR water.
Find something that actually needs UN funding, like hunger, or nuclear war zones.

I couldn't agree more than that we would be wasting money. Who's choice is it to demand countries to again be dictated by international law. Moreso, why should countries with money, or countries with naturally sanitary water, be expected to contribute? Maybe if nations who need this wish to band together, fine.

The people of STDfff support this resoulution

I say Nay to all UN actions at any time. Past present or future. All nations should be independant of the UN and be able to suupport themselves without outside help.

Is it rediculous to expect a country to sanitize its own water? I thinks not.

Here's the issue - Those countries without clean water are generally run by corrupt governments, who either don't value life or are not spending their money on basic necessities, OR the governments are not utilizing their natural resources and manpower to generate revenue to use to clean water.

I say no funding, but we show these governments HOW to clean THEIR water.

I support this issuse in order for a country to be strong they must care for their people. If there is no clean water people who need the water the most will get sick from it and maybe end up dying.

Machen Sie

There is no time line on the resolution so the change brought about could take years. I propose that an alternative method should be selected that has a predictable timeline. Otherwise, the funds wasted on research that may not be enacted for a hundred years. By selecting an alternative that we know is going to work within a specific timeframe, help can come faster. The resolution will take far too long and the bodies will continue to pile unless action is immediate.

My own feelings are that the flaws in this proposals are not serious enough to for me to change my vote from supporting to abstain - and certainly not to oppose it.

But there are some very confusing arguments made here. Some suggest, in the same breath, that this proposal is a waste of UN money while also condemning the reference to the low threshold by which the clean water will be judged. Surely they should at least be applauding the idea that the proposal suggests that the UN only seeks to provide water clean enough for survival but not necessarily meeting stringent cleanliness tests that might be required in nations who could afford them. It certainly seems to be a very negative attitude to criticise the resolution on the basis that it spends money on something that they do not deem worthy and also argue that the proposal does not go far enough.

The goal of this resolution is a very worthy one and is far more important and cost effective that others seeking to alleviate poverty and famine in the poorer regions of the world. Water is a vital resource for life itself – and in that sense has a far greater claim to be a “Basic Human Right” than this like “Freedom of Speech”, “Right to Learn Evolution” which are luxuries by comparison.

By cleaning water, you are not only helping to solve problems of food shortage but also target the source of widespread sickness and disease. I hardly think this is even bad news for pharmaceutical companies since they wouldn’t, in any case, spend too much money on these diseases since their customers would be too poor to pay them an adequate return on their investment.

For those who simply argue against aid itself, I have only one suggestion. Do not provide any aid and relieve yourselves of all these unnecessary costs by leaving the UN


I was going to abstain because while I agree with the ideals of the resolution, have no problems with helping disadvantaged nations and applaud the author for coming up with the idea, I found myself agreeing with some of the objections on the grounds of practicality.

After reading this post however, and agreeing with every word, I have changed my mind and will vote for.

Do we not have a duty to improve basic human living conditions? To help the less fortunate, even those who are oppressed under foreign banners? Gangleonia votes Aye.

I think that this is a good idea. It will provide a better life for the porer nations. Im with this, however, the money should be carefully spent.

Rich

We refer to our previous statement (#21 in this thread), and would like to offer some further comments.

Some delegates have questioned why affluent nations should participate in a program to aid the unfortunate nations who have problems with their watersupply. We believe that the answer is a simple one: Out of solidarity. The Holy Empire of Gravlen would like to reaffirm our support for international human rights, including every individuals right to life. We feel that this resolution is a continued step in that direction.

We cannot see that this resolution, as some of its opponents claim, will create charity cases who are permanently dependent of further aid. We believe that the aid a country will recieve through the UNWCC may be absolutely essential for both the nation and its inhabitants as emergency relief, and believe that a country should be able to take care of itself after recieving a helping hand in the form of this kind of aid.

Furthermore, we believe that the arguement concerning the financial burden to UN members carries little weight. There are currently 34,308 member nations, and if everyone contributes a part then the burden on the individual state will be quite small, most likely even insignifficant.

Lastly, we would like to state that we concur with the views on this resolution as offered by the honourable delegate from the colony of Barnabas Butterbur.

Vlad T. Hindenschmidt
Deputy ambassador to the UN
for the Holy Empire of Gravlen

[The Kawaiian UN nuncio steps forward to the podium, opens a sheath of papers, and begins reading.]

Esteemed Colleagues, Representatives, and Delegates. Please attend to the words of The Eternal Kawaii:

"We command Our nation's voice in opposition to this proposal.

"Pure water, like pure air, sunshine, and all the blessings of Nature, is a gift from the Cute One, Who desires all to receive Our benefits. Its abundance or lack thereof stems solely from the people's reverence towards this Manifestation, and their appropriate care for it. The people of the Eternal Kawaii pride themselves on the quality of Our nation's water, which they protect zealously.

"Other nations may have less regard for this Manifestation in their midst. Why should We expect Our people to pay for their folly and sacrelige?"

Ladies and gentlement, so speaks The Eternal Kawaii.
Praise the Cute One!

Charity is only effective as a voluntary measure. Trying to force people to help the poor will only lead to resentment from those actually working for a living and lead to half ass programs that will have plenty of loopholes. You can't force goodwill.

In light of how this one is going in vote we need to clean out another basement room for this committee to start work. As on reading the issues brought here can see they will have a lot of work to do just figuring out what they are here for. As a small third world nation not in the UN I enjoy watching what they do for so called poor nations... Thus find it interesting that while intent is good often practice takes time,,, lots of time to get around to where it's needed...

George Warden, Minister of Foreign Affairs

The enlightened and blessed ruler of our nation, having taken time from his busy schedule of passing edicts and enforcing the will of the All-Seeing by burning books and jailing dissidents, skimmed over this resolution and found nothing of merit in it. More specifically, he saw fit to use it as a napkin during dinner with one of his concubines, and chicken grease made at least half of the page illegible. Because resources such as printer ink are rare in our country--after all, all printing is completely controlled by our leader, who believes that which is not printed cannot be used against him if he decides to change his mind--we were unable to print it again for him to read it in its entirety. Therefore, we, the delegation observing these debate, have no choice but to express out deepest distrust of this resolution. As our leader once muttered while asleep after having eaten a stale bowl of oatmeal, a committee is not a source of capital, and since none of us are entirely sure if the money for this resolution would come from the UN or the nations with poor water, we have no choice but to abstain. We must in any event abstain, as we are not a member of the United Nations, although our glorious leader informs us that it is only a matter of time before not only our admittance, but before his divinely-inspired wisdom controls the entire assembly.

Our compliments to your leaders,
The non-invited delegates of the Holy Empire of the Undeniable Faith.

The Zeldaar thank those who have brought forward certain flaws in this proposal..
We felt that the use of plants to clean water was a good idea but have yet to see it as the most effective method to do so.

Also the hint that there may be some question as to the level this procedure cleans this water came to mind in the wording of the resolution...

Also we feel funding needs to be used to prevent poisoning our water sources not waiting until they can't be used to do something about them..

Also we ask that if it proves ineffective that a repeal not be proposed until such time as a better proposal is ready to also be presented. As we have noticed that currently several proposals are up for repeal on the pretense that a better proposal is needed yet we still wait for that better... While we have nothing in place to stop abuse of what the repealed proposal may have in some way stopped or at least slowed down... As by that time maybe the committe will have presented a suitable working policy that will answer some of the questions and solved some of the seen problems with the current resolution..

Higbrow Dunnass, Minister of Education Zeldon
Sitting in for Our UN Ambassador who is on a committed vacation,
(serving ten years in prison for fraud... So he sould be back by 2012).

OOC: I know the committees are not real.. thus we can only hope they will come up with the right plan to make this one work...

Given the "warm and fuzzy" factor noted by my esteemed colleague, a repeal would likely be seen as an effort to keep the world's poor drinking fetid, effluvial run-off.

Therefore, I ask the UN community:

Can an addendum be tabled that addresses some of the flaws present in what is otherwise a well-meaning proposal?

The intentions here are consistent with the ethics of most UN member nations. The mehtodology is the problem for most voting "no".

Therefore, I ask the UN community:

Can an addendum be tabled that addresses some of the flaws present in what is otherwise a well-meaning proposal?
If the 'addendum' seeks to change parts of a resolution, then it is classed as an amendment, which is illegal.

If the 'addendum' seeks to change parts of a resolution, then it is classed as an amendment, which is illegal.


Thank you.

If the 'addendum' seeks to change parts of a resolution, then it is classed as an amendment, which is illegal.

Which is highly unfortunate

Our compliments to the other delegations, especially those from countries who recognize the importance of ours.
Our glorious and divinely blessed leader sees the merit of clean water. After all, his swimming pool has plenty of it, and it is the only swimming pool in the country. Also, he recognizes that if the people die from diseases and parasites in bad water, there will be none to carry out the will of the Eternal Watcher as interpreted by our leader. Therefore, we strongly support a clear, precise, and effective resolution that would provide for clean water in all UN member nations.
However, we cannot support this particular Resolution because of its flaws. Among other flaws mentioned by our esteemed colleagues, we refer to the fact that, as stated in the suggestions for effective Resolutions, creating a Committee is, of itself, not an effective solution to any problem.
Therefore, we must urge nations to work together to create a new, proper resolution which would have the same goal.
The delegation of the Holy Empire of the Undeniable Faith sees the following as important points to be addresssed:
1. Clean water is a necessity for healthy living.
2. Nations that cannot provide healthy water for their populace should still have the water.
3. Water purification can be provided by developed nations that already have the technology for it. A system of reward, economic or otherwise, or perhaps even mandatory help involving the richest nations helping the most badly off can be started.
4. Water purity must be determined by testing in large cities, industrial areas, and rural areas, as water can be contaminated by everything from natural causes, mining, radiation, farm runoff, industrial waste, and sewage, among other things. Also, all of these sources must be addressed if clean water is to be available everywhere.

The delegation of The Holy Empire of the Undeniable Faith welcomes input and support from other delegations, and encourages cooperation among a number of well-informed and, we hope, divinely inspired delegations for the discussion of a new Resolution which can replace this flawed Resolution once there is a consensus that it is a strong and effective Resolution.

Our leader sends his most benevolant blessings to the heads of your states. As he foresaw in a divinely sent vision, we have been granted entry in the United Nations, and can now meddle to our hearts' content.

The Delegation from The Holy Empire of the Undeniable Faith

Greetings.

We do hope deputy ambassador Hindenschmidt has caused no trouble during the ambassador's absence. In any event, we would like to confirm that we, after evaluating both the merits of the present proposition and the arguements against it that have been voiced by some of the delegates, have voted in favor of the resolution.

Thank you for your time. All hail!

Lyn Thorsson
Imperial ambassador to the UN

Fellow UN delegates the glorious Father of Retrostalgia bids you all well.

We are a small country, new to the UN and have only had the opportunity to vote on three resolutions. This will be the first resolution that we have debated in open council and have, as such, spent much time reading over esteemed delegates from other Countries arguments both pro and con on this issue before us.
After reading such and listening to much discussion among his own advisors I believe the most superb and mellifluous Father’s is quite resolute in his wish to vote no. I may only offer as an example of the adamancy he has towards this issue the fact that all (and thankfully there were not many) who voiced support of this resolution have all been relocated or reclaimed.
The Father has put forth this edict and wishes me to pass on his words directly to the other delegates of the U.N.

“ With-out arguing the supremely flawed premise that all individuals are guaranteed and deserve a certain modicum of freedom and rights, I must step in when you demand that my people help support them. Rights are nothing without responsibility, and as my citizens know it is each and every citizens responsibility to work toward the good of OUR country the Kingdom of Retrostalgia and I their Father who grants them such rights as they are responsible enough to be afforded
If you, as leaders of your respective countries want to assist them by gifts of monies or goods, to offer some sort of assistance in developing clean water then feel free to do so.
As Father of Retrostalgia I solemnly swear that neither my armies nor those citizens who reside beneath the protective shadow of my outstretchedarms will in any way work against you in your development in said programs unless said programs are in turn assisting enemies of Retrostalgia.”

So says the Father and so say we the citizens of Retrostalgia.

Respectfully
Ambassador
Wilbur Post

Our delegation notes with concern that, despite the obvious flaws of this Resolution, it will most likely pass. As an esteemed colleague noted, it's simply not in the nature of some delegations to critically read Resolutions for effectiveness and clarity as well as theoretical merit. The idea of giving people safe water is simply too 'warm and fuzzy' for delegations to vote against. Our glorious leader pointed out in his daily sermon that this is just another example of the flawed system of democracy in action.

We do, however, continue to express our hope that another, more clear and effective Resolution will be drafted on the same topic.

;)

But I am the Red Dwarf, so I must use red ink,

But for the first time I actually get to sit on my throne and watch the radical liberals squirm over a resolution that will teach and provide independence to a poverty stricken nation. The lucky receiver of purified water will be able to not have to depend on you dang liberal dictators to behave in ways you deem fit to have.

They will be able to grow delicious crops, make chemicals, heal their sick and all without you overseeing them. This is wonderful...The birth of new conservative free-will thinking nations :)

Anyways as always we have far too many idiots that belong to the UN that are not coming into the forum and reading the debates because I do believe the voting would be a lot closer if it was so. Most ambassadors read the issue and say "yeah we get to give water to the less fortunate" and not think that this will spawn independence.

As a conquerer of those that would impose their desires on others I applaud the consequences of this new law (it will pass). For in the long run, this is where the phrase "give a man a fishing pole, and he will eat forever" comes into play.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

As this proposal is likely to pass we will submit a repeal within 2 days unless another nation does first in which case we will vote for it, until we have delegate status we (obviously) cannot approve proposals.

But just to say to those nations that supported this resolution, we would remind you that your own people are your primary concern as their chosen/ordained leader, their best interests and increasing your nations wealth are your main goals.
This resolution identifies a problem in the 'world' that is simply not our problem, if nations wish to lend or give money to subsidise such noble projects then let them by all means, but this resolution is permanent and binding instead.
We do not like being forced into this but like another honoured leader said we can leave the UN if this resolution offends, we have a choice, but we shall accept this resolution and prepare our economy for the subsequent tax hike and then see what happens with the repeal.

OOC: Given that this resolution will pass, I had the following comforting thought for those of us who see this resolution as totally flawed: compliance will affect individual nations very little. Given the lack of detail in the original proposal, a nation need only tolerate the commssion of a committee and give them a little money (perhaps 1 unit of currency?) to help fund water purification. Note we do not have to fund nor cooperate with the pumping of the water. So actually very little will change as we work to get this repealed/fixed.

But just to say to those nations that supported this resolution, we would remind you that your own people are your primary concern as their chosen/ordained leader, their best interests and increasing your nations wealth are your main goals..


A smart national leadership would be supporting this one... Then watch how it goes and if the process works then simply throught the UN get it paid for in his own country.. or at least get something for free out of it... that would make it worthwhile to them.. If it fails then he alone would not be paying for the loss of such studies and all that might come out of this..

Alsio consider the blame for failure would not fall directly on a single nation but would have a UN Committee to blame for failure...

From: The Republic of Torontia

To: All UN members

The Republic of Torontia will OPPOSE this resoltuion.

The resolution's nothing short of imposing communism upon sovereign nations.

Torontia agrees with the statements made by other nations regarding this issue:

That this resolution will FORCE nations to donate aid to other nations they may wish NOT to.

That this resolution will create a legion of welfare states who will develope with no understanding of the framework of the global free market and of economics, due to the anti-economist position of this resolution and it's infantile simplistic communist outlook.

What is more, Torontia does not really care for the suffering of people, as we view that it is best if we allow poor people to die off, since they are only parasites on society in the first place.

Torontia, therefore urges ALL nations to OPPOSE this resolution.

It will harm your nations and your economies and will yet again be another example of the United Nations wasting it's time on pointless resolutions, ignoring the real problems in the world and imposing severe restrictions on the independence of nations.

The United Nations must a an allaince of soveriegn nations, not a club of liberals and marxists, who want to push their failed ideologies on those prosperous nations who see the real benefits that uncontrolled capitalism and the free market have to offer.

President Paul Kaufman

Any resolution that forces through 'Significant' strength welfare health or social equality spending increases will not be popular with the independantly minded Cthag-antillian people.
Our religious leaders teach us that ones first priority is ones own house and that ulitimately the responsibilty for the running of your house is yours not the state's.
With regards to the UN we accept resolutions that we can concede are genuinely fair and will be of holistic benefit as long as we are not forced to increase taxes in the fore mentioned areas above the lowest strength setting.
This resolution is not a bad one, we do approve of some aspects of it but we cannot accept that the provision of clean water should be our problem and of significant strength when it comes to the impact it will have on reducing income inequailty (a socialist ideal) and increasing welfare taxation.

Most Honorable and Esteemed personages, We, the peace loving peoples of the Disputed Territories of Baklavagalooshgaland, home of the starving, orphaned, legless, armless, goatless boy, must regrettably oppose the resolution to establish UNWCC. While it would seem such an amendment would help our tiny struggling lands, for we are indeed a poor state, wishing only to grow our crops and tend our goats in peaceful harmony despite our war ravaged lands, this proposal, if accepted, would be a great disservice to our peoples. Worse, it might even make our starving, orphaned, legless, armless, goatless boy of Baklavagalooshgaland cry, for such a resolution would mean we would have to eat our poo and drink our pee!

This is something the peace loving peoples of the Disputed Territories of Baklavagalooshgaland absolutely will not do under any circumstance for it defies the very teachings and guidance of our most revered and esteemed spiritual teacher, the Prophet of Chinesus, sacred is his name. So please, we implore you, to strike down this abomination of a resolution that would force a poor nation such as ours to drink our pee and poo! Think of the untold suffering this would cause the peace loving peoples of the Disputed Territories of Baklavagalooshgaland! Think of our starving, orphaned, legless, armless, goatless boy! Please, don't make him drink his poo and pee, hasn't he suffered enough already? Please, vote NO to establish UNWCC. Chinesus would want it that way.

Thank you and may Chinesus guide you,
His Honorable Emissary Zagnut al Muktar

putting all the politics aside... is this going to work. I mean really is using plant of this kind going to clean the water so that it is usable.
It sounded to me that the writer of this resolution was not very confident in what they were saying.

Colleagues,

The government of Yon Krew, acting on behalf of its citizenship, seeks to endorse the establishment of a UN Water Cleansing Committee; however, we are in accord with the position herein expressed by Graaagh (among others), " I say we vote down this resolution if only so it may be rewritten to include provisions for other methods."

Yon Krew fully supports he idea that sanitary drinking water is a basic human right, not to mention a matter of some concern to the global health community. And yet, we believe that the current proposal is critically flawed in that it tacitly excludes the possibility of exploring a variety of water-cleansing methods. The first goal of a UN Water Cleansing Committee should be to research all available methods of accomplishing water purification in an environmentally-sound manner. Once having done so, the Committee should then report its findings and recommendations to the general assembly.

Yon Krew will, therefore, vote against the current proposal, in the hope that future revisions will include language that allows for further investigation into the problem of water purification.

Sincerely,

*gaveling sound*

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. It having attained to the appropriate hour on the twenty-eighth day of July, 2005, voting is now closed on the resolution currently at vote. The Clerk will designate the resolution.

The READING CLERK. United Nations Resolution #114. Establish UNWCC, proposed by Sunteria, a resolution to significantly reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. The decision of the United Nations has been rendered thusly: The resolution Establish UNWCC was passed 10,319 votes to 4,047, and implemented in all UN member nations. The member nations of the United Nations will be immediately informed of the outcome of this vote.

Well I hope the supporters of this proposal are happy, Unemployment has jumped 2% (from 7 to 9), Ive lost a trillion dollars in GDP (a third), my health and welfare spending has jumped to 7 and 9 % from 4 and 2 % my overall economy rating has now slumped from Strong to Good and the value of my currency has dropped from 1.9 kredits (to the $1) to 2.5 Kredits...great and nothing else has improved at all, o yeah my average income was just over $11,000 per capita its now about $9000 and finally my tax rate which was 21% is now 25%.
In short our economy has been dealt a crippling blow by this resolution.
We would consider this kind of economic policy devastating to us if it were to continue, we cannot afford to absorb another shock like that upon our economy which was gaining strength and is now weakened and in total disarry after years of carefull planning and legislation.
We will not remain in the UN if another resolution like this one looks like it may be passed, we simply cannot risk our nations future in this way.

I for one vote yes on this and here is why. I feel that all people need clean water to live long lives. If you don't have clean water it opens the door to sickness as stated in the bill. Bad water will also hurt the economy, because sick people can not work. If we have clean water you will see a growth in people, which will produce more jobs.

Matt Shelor

President



The Republic of Shelor

Even if we fully agree with the factors that the water situation needs to be resolved, this resolution only has establish the UNWCC, which is eluding the real problem. As a matter of fact, this resolution does give no concern about the necessity to prevent the extreme use of water for "sewage and waste"-purposes!

Furthermore, even if we fully agree with the factors that the water situation needs to be resolved, the scope that this committee has to deal with is enormous. Nor is enough emphasis placed on the environmental impact that this might have, or on the problem of solving long term changes for water shortages.

Therefore, I ask you humbly to approve my proposal of repeal to this resolution.

Cally24
UN-Delegate of the
"Democrats"

We have a better idea. Rather than desperately trying to accomodate each misguided UN resolutions into our government and society we have decided while some propserity remains that we are better off without the UN.

We've also submitted a repeal to resolution 114 lol!
But we don't mind which one gets passed as long as one of em does!
We find ourselves in agreement with the New Fuglies nation whom say they think they may be better off out of the UN, I imagine that like us they say this because if these blatantly socialist anti wealth proposals continue to be passed their economy will be ruined.
If the UN wants to be a league of third world nations then fine but we will have no part of it and we will withdraw also.

putting all the politics aside... is this going to work. I mean really is using plant of this kind going to clean the water so that it is usable.
It sounded to me that the writer of this resolution was not very confident in what they were saying.


This is a question I had with this from the first.. I have reviewed the UN sessions notes on this and have yet to see any ideal indication of this procedure working thus... Is why it well could fail as the procedure is not proven... enough to work.. I have looked for any form of report on such a procedure and see none so far that say it's any better or cheaper than what we might have. All it will do is take lands for these so called plant filters that could best be used for something else.. as these plants can't even be eaten or smoked.. from what I've seen on the process...

So I when and if a repeal comes to the floor for full vote support it...

Most Honorable and Esteemed Personages:

We, the peace loving peoples of the Disputed Territories of Baklavagalooshgaland, home of the starving, orphaned, legless, armless, goatless boy, find UN Resolution #114 and it's reprehensible demand to force peoples to drink their pee and poo, an abomination and in direct opposition to the Holy and Sacred Teachings of Chinesus, blessed is His name. The resolution, as worded, would force our poor citizens to repeatedly defile themselves. We can not and will not tolerate such. Chinesus demands only the purest, clean waters for his devout peoples. Our scientists have found it completely absurd and reprehensible mere plants would render our poo and pee drinkable! Bah! Even the resolution writters acknowledge that the forced method only "might" render our peoples poo and pee water sanitary "enough"! Enough?!? "Close to", "near", or sanitary "enough" are not the same as pure clean waters!

We, the peace loving peoples of the Disputed Territories of Baklavagalooshgaland, home of the starving, orphaned, legless, armless, goatless boy, can not and will not abide by this resolution and request all benevolent societies and fellows to repeal this abomination as quickly as possible! Please, think of the untold suffering that our starving, orphaned, legless, armless, goatless boy of Baklavagalooshgaland will go through if this resolution isn't immediately repealed. Hasn't he suffered enough already? Please, vote YES to repeal UN Resolution #114 and it's reprehensible and foul demand to force the poor peoples to drink their pee and poo.

Thank you and may Chinesus guide you,
His Honorable Emissary Zagnut al Muktar

We don't particularly care about other nation's water.
But we care about yours!

Most Honorable and Esteemed Personages:

Please, think of the untold suffering that our starving, orphaned, legless, armless, goatless boy of Baklavagalooshgaland will go through if this resolution isn't immediately repealed.


We were about to send this poor lad a goat but see it would do him no good... and agree that this needs to be repealed...

But we care about yours!

Its my job to worry about our water not anyone elses.

The Empire of Kayros is appalled that the members of this once great organization have made the tragic mistake of passing UN Resolution #114. It is our hope that it will soon be repealed and that this intrusion on our sovereignty will be reversed.

- The Lord Martin Kenneth, Ambassador to the United Nations
- The Empire of Kayros

(edit: fixed typos)

The Empire of Kayros is appalled that the members of this once great organization have made the tragic mistake of passing UN Resolution #114. It is our hope that it will soon be repealed and that this intrusion on our sovereignty will be reversed.

- The Lord Martin Kenneth, Ambassador to the United Nations
- The Empire of Kayros

(edit: fixed typos)

I also hope to see a repeal of this resolution.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones