NationStates Jolt Archive

The first draft of my proposal "End World Hunger" was just in the queue and it lacked the support to pass by last night's deadline. Therefore, I'm returning to my original proposal and making the necessary changes in order to help this proposal be beneficial and acceptable to everyone. I would appreciate any advice or comments given on this proposal, and I hope that when I decide to resubmit it to the UN, it will have the support it needs to pass into resolution form. Thanks


End World Hunger
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Zandurian States

Description:
OBSERVING the fact that millions of citizens throughout the world are in fact starving and in poverty.

RECOGNIZING that despite the internal attempts by many nations to combat the starvation epidemic, poorer nations throughout the world are unable to overcome this issue without serious global support.

UNDERSTANDING that although it will be difficult to reverse this terrible problem, especially for nations with limited fiscal capabilities, it is morally mandatory that we, as UN nations, confront this devastation and prevail over the ever-present global hunger epidemic.

REQUIRING that all UN nations give a mandatory "donation" to a world-wide fund for fighting hunger. The sum of each nation's donation will be determined by an unbiased council, taking into account the country's GDP and economic status. The council will insure that no UN nation will be forced to contribute more than they are capable of giving. The aforementioned contribution will be payable in the form of manpower (to physically visit the afflicted regions with the intent to distribute necessary food), cash (to pay for food rations), or transportion (to move supplies and people from region to region.

INSURING that through the power of the UN, and the council assigned to determine where the fund's resources are needed most, the world's contributions will most definitely go to the needy people, rather than corrupt, money-grabbing regimes who seek to destroy our efforts.

FURTHERMORE, that instead of merely handing out food rations and jump-starting agrarian economies, the UN will make sure that these starving nations are given the capabilities to make the donations a long-term investment; particularly by teaching farmers different agricultural techniques, and introducing new, hardier crops that will not die off after the year's harvest.

RECOMMENDING that this requirement of UN nations will continue until the hunger epidemic has been globally recognized as defeated.

What would we be feeding these starving people? One hopes it is good quality food and tasty too. After all any self respecting nation doesn't want to be accused of offering boring bland cuisine to the needy. A good session of nation one-upmanship would solve the worlds starving in an instant.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the UN was prohibited from imposing a tax on member nations. This "mandatory 'donation'" seems to fall under that heading, in my opinion.

That is not to say that Stanimir is against humanitarian aid projects, but the UN simply does not have the power to force member nations to give it funds or resources, even in the name of charity.

--Nikolai Korjev
--Minister of Foreign Affairs

I believe that my reference to the "mandatory donation" does not fall under that particular UN resolution because it applies to the governments themselves, not each individual citizen, as specified by the resolution:

UN Taxation Ban-
"The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose."

I undersand your concern but I think that the "donation" requirement is not so strict as to impose a specific tax against each citizen of the UN nations.

Ah, thank you for clarifying. Yes, I agree that due to the wording of the taxation ban, it wouldn't apply in this case.

That said, I still have one minor concern with the proposal.

INSURING that through the power of the UN, and the council assigned to determine where the fund's resources are needed most, the world's contributions will most definitely go to the needy people, rather than corrupt, money-grabbing regimes who seek to destroy our efforts.

What specific criteria will the council be using to determine whether a nation is full of "needy people" or is, in fact a "corrupt, money-grabbing regime"?

I would strongly suggest removing "mandatory donation" and replacing it with language strongly encouraging donations. The sort of nation that wants to solve world hunger would be far more willing to give what it can, whereas forcing nations to do it would tend to cause international bad will.

My first language isn't English, but "INSURING" ? The UN as insurance company? ;)

Furthermore, don't mandate the donation. It'd be silly if poor nations have to donate money they might have to spend on education, healthcare etc themselves to hunger of another. That's very difficult for a council to assess.

The bit about the corrupt regimes is also tricky. I mean, just because a nation has a dictator, the people run a high risk of staying hungry? Dangerous, that.

And "end world hunger" is a bit optimistic, the problem is too big for that. But it looks like a step in the right direction.

While the government of BlueTiger fully supports this idea the exact wording is what we disagree with.

For one we belive that a manditory donation by all UN nations is not a good idea. There are starving UN nations out there, why would they donate to the UN to help themselves?

Also, you need to define what a "corrupt, money-grabbing regime" is.

After these few things are cleared up, you will have BlueTiger's full support.

Sincerely,

Allan Smith
BlueTiger's UN Representive
Regional Delegate of United Intelligentsia East

This is funny because in the last thread Zan made to talk about this proposal he had the donation as a "tax". So they suggested he change it to mandatory donation. And now you guys say you want to be just a donation. Make up your minds! ;)

But anyhow, great idea, but you do need to be specific about what kind of foods would be givin out. And what about instead of food the ingrediants and tools for the people to make food? Or spend the money into making farmland?

Why exactly do we want to end hunger? Hunger is good. It lets us know when we need to eat.

Starvation and malnutrition are the real concerns, and each nation should be addressing it in their own nation. Once their own nation is free of those ills, then perhaps it might be appropriate to cooperate with other nations in their regions or alliances to offer to aid in ending starvation and malnutrition in other nations.

You may want to try this proposal instead:



The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that in many nations there are sovereign persons suffering from starvation and/or malnutrition.

BELIEVING that this need not be the case, and that member nations can take measures to eliminate this problem.

RECOMMENDS that all member nations take appropriate action to eliminate starvation and malnutrition in their own nation.

ENCOURAGES those nations that have already done so to cooperate with other nations in eliminating starvation in those nations that have not already eliminated starvation and malnutrition.

That should take care of it, and all without infringing on my nation's sovereignty.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

applies to the governments themselves, not each individual citizen, as specified by the resolution:

UN Taxation Ban-
"The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose."


A government without 'citizens' is nothing so go get your food from that government..... if you can find them... Citizens are the government... some citizens lead other citizens while some citizens protect and some citizens defend all citizens.. So remove the citizens and where is your government.... again go collect you food from those governments... I'm sure when you find them they will gladly give to this cause to feed people..

Also we have learned that if your give a bear food it will always exect it from you.... Thus if you stop giving one food it will turn WILD and eat you....

I do like the idea that you did indicate education as a solution to move those who may get help from needing it.... as feel that to not educate and insure the 'bear' is taught to find his own prey... then we only turn it 'wild'....
Also I would have elected to take none of above on your pole...