NationStates Jolt Archive

Official Topic of Coordinating Relief Aid

Please familiarize yourself with the briefing presented below. Thank you.


Coordinating Relief Aid
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

Description: RECOGNIZING the existence of many specialized non-governmental organizations (abbreviated as NGOs), both at domestic and international level, focusing on providing humanitarian aid to both individuals and governments;

APPLAUDING the efforts of such NGOs for promoting international peace and strengthening the ties between nations;

OBSERVING that the World Assembly has not designated a single point of responsibility for coordinating the efforts of such NGOs;

REALIZING there are duplications of some relief efforts, and that communication problems may create inefficiencies in absence of a clear single point of responsibility;

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that all citizens of member nations should be protected by such a humanitarian group.

1. ESTABLISHES the International Coordinated Relief Committee (ICRC), an organization whose sole duty is to co-ordinate of relief aid of NGOs in all member nations;

2. MANDATES that the ICRC shall be funded from the resources of the World Assembly, but;

3. PERMITS the ICRC to accept donations and grants from individual persons as a goodwill gesture;

4.1. DEFINES a major disaster as an event which may threaten lives and livelihoods, such as natural disasters, terrorist attacks and war;

4.2. DEFINES the functions of the ICRC, whose role shall be to:
a) Provide international coordination of food, shelter, and humanitarian aid efforts in nations affected by a major disaster;
b) Co-ordinate the efforts of existing NGOs in member nations at an international level;
c) Provide training to volunteers of NGOs and the ICRC itself in preparedness for such disasters.

5. INSTRUCTS the ICRC to:
a) manage and prioritize the allocation of resources to specific situations or emergencies, based on the current inability of other governmental and NGOs to meet all of the needs of those situations;
b) not promote conflict or war in any way;
c) not abuse their budget, in any way that may hamper the true purpose of the organization itself.

ENCOURAGES member nations and existing NGOs to share recovery plans and aid each other through the halls of the ICRC.

Co-authored by Mikitivity.

Credits

Thanks to all the people who made this proposal reach this far. These include:

Black Empire, Minyos, Shang Dang, The Derrak Quadrant, Quintessence of Dust, ka-Spel, Daehanguk, Soldnerism, Iron Felix, Cordova I, Uzbezkitan, Ducky McDuck Duck, Drugged Monkeys, Intelligenstan, Bataaf, The Artic Republics, New Hamilton, TamDerJust, Sensual delights, The Crazy King, Cowgirls United, Kohlenstoff, West Stockport, Aatesio, Mathenea, The Atreidond Islands, Misplaced States, Eiga-Baka, Petrstein, Nurdia, Anarchy works, Axelton, Gediz, Ventei, Going Postal, Colbertrica, Finnish Pride, WZ Forums, Mengjiang, Slices Right, Decorus Congregatio, Mercantilion, Kungpaomao, Letonija, Lucanian Shires, Loxx, Gallantaria, The Digital Network, Graalium, Worldia555, Alzonia, Immortalland, Anglo-Arrius, Xele, Technoviking, Lord Sumguy, Chickenstate, Catawaba, Bourgenstein, Colonial Timocria, Sancte Michael, Local folk, Scythina, Marari, Jey, Biain the First, Atherha, Judsland, Stephanephpolis, Blahminia, Kotire, Rotovia-, lost highlanders, Griffenfeld, Wencee, Alpacadom, QWERTY9223, Orioni 2, Servit, Scott Tree, Ymmij Gnest, 12 Colonies of Kobol, Bibliotecia, Glenlogan, RZGRZ, Exaequo, Mivvin, Euphonimia, Hadristan, Freebistan, Athenae Magnus, Mikhals Empire, Amoneyy, Gilliganstan, The rabid platypuses, Vintage Blue, Nymphiadora, Saudi burmia, Badass-Land, Engul, Subistratica, Nazakya, Candelaria And Marquez, Slabeen, Calleephoneya, Death Notes, Scififanaticz, Pakstania, Cahuilla, Bjarred, Althzakar, Azmodaizion, Ephidael, Imperial Aaronia and Pagemaster.

Now, I couldn't possibly reply to the plethora of telegrams I received (OOC: Seriously, the limit of 15 is annoying), but I appreciate it none the less. So here's a public statement:

"Thank you, WA Delegates!"

Assuming this doesn't lose any approvals before the big move up, this should go to the voting floor. Lets see it pass, baby!

Charlotte's Characters:

A host of characters representing the author are here, including three aspects of the 'Ban International Trafficking' debate in November 2007. They are:

Lulu Hilde Berlin (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13608982&postcount=5)
Age: 36
Responsibilities: Jackie of nearly all trades (except where Charlotte occasionally writes proposals here as if she was a forumer). She votes on behalf of the country.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg
Age: 28
Responsibilities: Author of the proposal, and makes approvals on proposals.

Marayevkohara K. D.
Age: 48
Responsibilities: Head of Foreign Affairs, supported the 'Ban International Trafficking' resolution.

Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L.
Age: 42
Responsibilities: Civil rights leader, against the 'Ban International Trafficking' resolution.

Amanda Edernegoizane
Age: 30
Responsibilities: Famous Poet, lead the abstain campaign in the 'Ban International Trafficking' debate.

OOC, The ICRC Acronym Clarified

Many will notice the use of the acronym ICRC in this resolution at vote. Charlotte Ryberg would like to make it really clear to all WA members that there are in fact various uses for the acronym

The ICRC may be an acronym of many organizations, including:

International Committee of the Red Cross, an humanitarian agency;
Irmo Chapin Recreation Commission, a recreation and parks commission;
International Conference of Reformed Churches, a conference of reformed Christian churches;
Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation, a technical and management services company;
Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission, a government organization in Australia;
Intercommunity Cable Regulatory Commission, a local cable service.

There is nothing here (http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/copyright) that says the acronym ICRC is trademarked, but the use of Red Cross/Crescent/Crystal is, which is why it isn't included here. Therefore, the ICRC acronym is appropriate for the job.

Finally, let me make it clear that in a resolutions a great deal of detail isn't required. Members like us make high-level decisions, and then pass them on to the 'bureaucrats' who invisibly implement the resolutions. You should always assume that it gets done. No one don't know how it is done.

-- Charlotte Ryberg, 26 April 2008

Suggestion before this goes to vote: change the [quote] tags in your post to [indent]. It'll leave the proposal distinct, but enable those commenting on it to quote it. Jolt doesn't allow quote-pyramiding.

Though I now it is hours prior this proposal, now in the resolution queue, to reaching the World Assembly floor, I'd like to publicly reaffirm Mikitivity's strong support for the World Assembly forming an organization focused to coordinating international relief efforts. Many nations have one or more NGOs all focused on humanitarian aid and emergency assistance, but the dynamic nature of NationStates is such that is simply makes common sense for a widely recognized international organization such as the World Assembly to help coordinate all of the various governmental and NGO programs.

Howie T. Katzman

No thanks, i'd rather not add another level of regulatory beaurocracy. Aid should be handled by individual nations.

No objections, voting for it.

I applaud humanitarian efforts by any person or group. However, how well could such an organization really do? Besides, adding an international bureaucracy that could potentially become wrapped up in red-tape involving the rights of sovereign nations and its own efforts to help its populace might seriously hinder the very thing it aims to achieve.

Maybe this bill should be more clear and specific, adding that it will not lend money to governments, which may or not even be used to help its citizens, but act like the Red Cross; setting up camps and providing financial relief, health care, food, and shelter wherever it's needed. Perhaps if it were to take action a more direct, hands on way - it would win my vote.

Undecided.

Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L:

Hyperboreus, without an central point of aid co-ordination, then nations that require more aid than they have available could be in a brink of a humanitarian crisis. The NS-ICRC is proposed so that a centralized organization get all the right amount of aid to the right nation at the right time, regardless of where it came from.

Amanda Edernegoizane:

Hyperboreus, committees do not always mean corruption and favourism. the ICRC is half-charity because of the ability to receive donations and half co-ordinator so any amount of aid can be sent to one needy nation.

Devreser, Thank you.

Lulu Hilde Berlin

Hyperboreus, there is nothing to suggest that regulatory bureaucracys will be corrupt. In fact, Article five entrusts them. If they do not do what the organization is trusted to do, we fire them.

Straethearn, setting up camps and providing financial relief, health care, food, and shelter wherever it's needed is an issue we are addressing now. This resolution creates a consortium representing all aid organizations so that all nations are covered.

Marayevkohara K. D.:

Straethearn: OOC, we could have a Red Cross: but a proposal saying Red Cross is now considered a violation of policy. Even the British Red Cross had to ask permission from the International Red Cross to be called such. And if it gets implemented, you will be able to see it in action because the government is considering a roleplay level edition of the NS-ICRC. the ICRC is open to all NGOs.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Hyperboreus, out of character, the magic of NationStates is that things just get done. If we trust them to not abuse the budget and not promote conflict or war in any way, they will. Of course, there is a 3500 character limit in proposals so we can't go into very great detail.

I could accept what Lulu Hilde Berlin said about firing them, but assumptions have to be made, like the Poisson probability distribution, where you have to assume that probability of an event within a certain interval does not change over different intervals.

Straethearn, you might need to be aware that certain governments are very wise with aid money. Like I said, assumptions have to be made that it will certainly increase welfare overall. You should assume that if governments try to hustle the cash of the NS-ICRC just for an Olympic-sized swimming pool then they will automatically have to pay it back.

Overall, there is no reason to go into so much detail because what gets implemented here at the WA will simply be done. Like what Frisbeeteria said, "One of the charming things about NationStates is that you don't have to wade through that level of detail. Ambassadors make high-level decisions, and pass them to the bureaucrats to invisibly implement. We don't know how they do it, only that it gets done."

The Kingdom of Pasier Rise,
On Behalf of His Majesty, Lord Asriel, King of Pasier Rise,

We support this proposal, and has cast our vote as such as we see fit. We need to act fast, swiftly, decisively and efficiently when providing relief aid, and as such, it would be prudent for an international commitee to coordinate relief effort instead of each member nation providing its own relief efforts, as it will prevent aid wastage in funds and resources. We support this proposal

On Behalf of the the King of Pasier Rise, His Majesty Lord, Asriel
Ahmad Firdaus
Prime Minister of Pasier Rise

Lulu Hilde Berlin:

Thank you very much for your support.

I really like the spirit of this proposal. If it passes, it will certainly demonstrate that the international community cares about disaster relief and humanitarian aid. However, it will also demonstrate that our international community has no idea how to manage disaster relief. Throwing resources at disaster creates huge problems. The food and clothing is not evenly distributed among victims, food, clothing, and other aid items destroy local economies by introducing extremely low prices. Aid should be offered carefully and on a case by case basis so that the aid doesn't do as much damage as the disaster.

Disaster situations can be more effectively handled by small, individual NGOs working with small groups of people because (1) they are generally more careful how they use their money as they have less of it and (2) they are often more specialized, which allows for each objective to be done more effectively.

The proposed ICRC will create more problems than it solves. The only organization that I would support would be one that supplied information and training for smaller NGOs, but mass organization of nations and NGOs in this way will cause more harm than good.

Official message from Militarianism two's Head of State:

If,as I believe it does, this bill requires all states to pay charitable donations to these organisations, Militarianism Two will most definitely vote against this resoulution: Our economy is in a fragile state of health,and funds raised by taxation in our country are spent on the NHS, social equality and schooling.

We simply cannot afford to pay for other countries woes.

Unless the WA has its own business intrests to appropriate funds from,of course... Which would surely be a conflict of interests.

I'd like to give the ambassadors (and entourages) of Charlotte Ryberg and Mikitivity a appreciative round of applause for their noble efforts. We're pleased that you've maintained the WA trend for specificity and eloquence.

We of The Narnian Council consider the goals behind ICRC worthy, but are concerned with a few issues.

b) Co-ordinate the efforts of existing NGOs in member nations at an international level

To what extremity do we take when considering the word "co-ordinate"? I'm not sure if I'd be supportive of a resolution that takes too much decision-making power away from relief organizations. What if a certain organization didn't want to participate in a certain situation that the ICRC deemed worthy of humanitarian aid? Would they be forced to do so against their will?

Or perhaps if the ICRC required organizations [OOC: i.e. a entity similar to our 'World Vision'] to assist in areas they don't specialize in - such as providing mass shipments of food/clothing...where they are more suited to assisting the needy on an individual/small community basis? It would ruin the company.

We're concerned that there's not enough restrictions - to safeguard against calamity that ICRC control might bring over NGOs.

c) not abuse their budget, in any way that may hamper the true purpose of the organization itself.

I do understand the very irritating limits of the character count, but this clause really deserves more attention. One could define "abusing" as putting the budget "only" 50 million dollars in debt, or in the other extreme, only leaking out 1% of what they're really capable of giving, for fear of "abusing" the budget.

With the character limit, the problem of clarification will always give us trouble - but I believe this was really quite important enough to warrant extra detail.

I'll be putting our region's vote on hold to give us further time to consider the matter.

________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

No, and if this goes through it will not be followed by the Dictatorship of Kangarnia, aid should be handled by individual nations.

yes for sure

The addition of another layer of bureaucracy will only slow the response and take away more funds from where they are needed. Since the individual NGOs aren't allowed to speak before the WA, how are we to know whether they wish to have another entity interfering with their efforts.

There is also the concern raised by our colleague of Militarianism two. Small developing nations and those suffering economic hardship can't possibly contribute funds.

The nation of Geektique believes international relief agencies would be better served if we, the member nations of the WA, required our individual media outlets to run PSAs encouraging charitable giving to international relief agencies. It would allow the citizens of WA nations to decide how much they can afford and not force our members to increase taxes to pay for this misguided resolution.

Bueaucracy is something to be dealt with. It just takes some time and to adjust this law to the countries. I think it's a minor issue on a long period.

As for the Charlotte's characteristics:
I choose Charlotte. Because of the title. and because she's the youngest and thus the sexiest. I mean, the most "representative". Not to mention that she made the proposal =)

The Kingdom of Fratty20 will NOT vote for this resolution, on the sole basis that it states "natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and wars." I completely agree on natural disasters (tornadoes, hurricanes, wild fires...), but "terrorist attacks" are subjective, and who decides where money should go during war?

If I am wrong, correct me, but just reading over the resolution tells me that we are about to create a government organization (as proposed by the World Assembly) to overview all non-government organizations (NGOs), for the main purpose of delegating where funds should and should not go. I don't like that idea. The sole purpose of NGOs were to remain separate from any government oversight, and therefore the decisions of where to disperse funds should remain isolated from those of the governments.

One other issue that I didn't notice... since all nations have different currency (as the Currency of the Kingdom of Fratty20 is the National Debt), how does exchange rates play in the delegation of relief?

Thank you, but for now the Kingdom of Fratty20 votes NO to this resolution.

As delegate of Intelligentsia Islands I voted against this. I think the proposal has good intentions but I don't see anything in one organisation that co-ordinated all relief work.
For example MSF (Doctors without Borders) still goes to area's where others are being pulled out by UN. And there are much more of those groups. Government can help NGO's (very good if they do) but don't let government co-ordinate all NGO. We for ourselfves have been working against international laws for years because we could not stop helping good people which needed support although there where UN-embargos which did not allow to do that. And I suppose others will do so too.

Supporting and co-ordinating of those NGO's who want that is a good idea. But in this proposal it is the idea to co-ordinate also those who do not want to be coordinated.

So our vote is no.

The Narnian Kingdom of Fotar is currently undecided on this proposal. While it is noble in its intent, we are wary of a couple of things.

Firstly, we are concerned about making non-governmental organizations governmental. There is a reason these organizations are not governmental to begin with and we feel they should stay that way.

Secondly, when a disaster strikes, we feel it best that the individual nations effected are best suited to deal with the situation. We fear long delays in response time. Let us pose this situation:

A tornado strikes a town in a nation in the far reaches of the world, totally destroying it. Under the current system, NGO's will be able to respond very quickly, if not practically immediately. Now, under this proposal, as we are understanding it, there would be delay in notifying the ICRC of the disaster...more delay as they coordinate the relief effort, and still further delay and hardships in giving the relief due to differences in cultures, languages, currencies, prejudices, etc between effected residents and foreign aid.

Again, Fotar has not yet decided on which way to vote, but is leaning towards the policy of "If it isn't broken, don't fix it."
_________________
Fotar,
~King of the Narnian Kingdom of Fotar
~Vice-Chancellor of the Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/10639/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

The nation of Avarat would be more than happy to vote for this resolution but we would like to know who exactly will be running this organization? An elected panel of diplomats? Random people off the street? Without the knowledge of who exactly will be deciding when and where relief aid goes we must abstain for now. Also if this would provide relief to war torn areas, what if im at war with the area you wish to aid? Do you expect me to send aid to my enemy?

The nation of Avarat would be more than happy to vote for this resolution but we would like to know who exactly will be running this organization? An elected panel of diplomats? Random people off the street? Without the knowledge of who exactly will be deciding when and where relief aid goes we must abstain for now. Also if this would provide relief to war torn areas, what if im at war with the area you wish to aid? Do you expect me to send aid to my enemy?

I would like to second this, as it is greatly concerning. Also, we would like to ask if it completely eliminates NGO's in various nations. Personally, I don't see a problem with centralizing the aid to a single point, but I do have a problem if it completely eliminates the smaller level associations.

Occasionally disasters happen on a grand scale and affect multiple countries. A centralized association would take care of this easily. I don't see a problem with adding on an extra upper level ring, so long as they allow smaller associations to do their work.

Lulu Hilde Berlin:

Fotar, This proposal isn't broken...

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Fotar actually has a point to make because... well, communication levels vary worldwide. But unfortunately this is outside the scope of the ICRC, which deals with relief aid not communication infrastructure. I suggest that we draft up a proposal after the vote which unifies communications standards. This resolution is still going to be a major step forward because of the unity, not nationalization.

Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L.:

I agree with that, Charlotte. We can't have a single resolution that solves all the world's problems. And out of Character, there isn't a category that says 'One for All'.

Amanda Edernegoizane:

Wierd Anarchists is very concerned about this but again this resolution is about unity. However, I see that this resolution is missing a point whereas participation with the NS-ICRC is optional, and that you forgot to mention that the ICRO will not nationalize NGOs.

Marayevkohara K. D.:

But Amanda, you got it all wrong. Mikitivity has been waiting so long for the return of the successor to the ICRO, and I believe we should see it through. If Charlotte wants to repeal it later, let her do it, because all she is doing is trying to improve the world.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Yes, there are points to be made here, but the resolution of the ICRO had no charter. They were made up later. Yet, although this is not a resolution to change game mechanics, we could emulate the NS-ICRC in a forum. That resolution is a foundation stone.

Lulu Hilde Berlin

Of course, now we see something missing, but getting over 110 delegates to see it through has been really tough.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Now let's get to Fratty20's concern. The resolution says terrorists attacks because it threatens lives and livelihoods. Out of character, let's cast ourselves to 9/11, where over 3000 died and thousands injured. And what about the floods in the UK last year? The Red Cross responded to both. And recovery is already underway.

In Character, if a huge tsunami were to hit us now, the government will be unable to cope. This is why we established the NS-ICRC so if all nations get overwhelmed by disasters we would be there. In fact, my people are ready to donate when it passes.

Marayevkohara K. D.: Correct Fratty20 because it accepts donations. As already mentioned in our debate, it's a charity that will be alive so long as this resolution lives. As for currencies, you may have seen, Out of character, that many charities sometimes only ask for £25 for a tent that usually cost £50 because they can get it so cheaply. Maybe if they get discounts then yes, it will work.

Lulu Hilde Berlin:

Hey, Marayevkohara; where did you get the idea from? It doesn't say nations in need pay would have to pay for it. Funding the ICRC with WA resources alongside donations will always make the charity have enough money.

Polukinthulatestussia has something to say about bureaucracy again. Again, it's is indeed a minor issue and as we said, we always make sure they do it right. Trust us.

Amanda Edernegoizane:

Geektique, there nothing that says TAX. It only establishes the ICRC as a charity.

Lulu Hilde Berlin:

Death and murder kill said yes, probably because he read it carefully, perhaps you should direct everyone to read it again.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

No, you're wrong here. Concentrate on Narina Council's concerns too because it lies along the lines of what some said. Yes, it has been a difficult resolution, largely because there was not enough feedback in the forums. If every delegate and member told us what they wanted for the ICRC then we would have done better. But again it is a real race against time becuase the probability of a major disaster in the NationStates world is 1. Really, it is one. Yesterday, we were hit by a city center bomb, for example.

Currently, there's the Furry Genocide, that needs relief aid agencies. It will be worth seeing it through because we will be establishing that crucial charter in the forums if it is allowed.

Amanda Edernegoizane:

Narnian Council wants to ensure that the ICRC really does not abuse their budget. It will not happen. Maybe Charlotte might want to add on to this:

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Actually, it should have been mentioned, and yes, I should have done it. But it wasn't suggested before submitting our second attempt.

But my aides once said to me, that for many ideas, it is best to implement it first and see how it works. I can always repeal my own resolution later if I am satisfied that it didn't work. As always, I will actually, personally monitor the NS-ICRC's progress and performance if this resolution passes.

Militarianism two's Head of State claims that this bill requires all states to pay charitable donations to these organizations. That's not simply true. Increasing aspects of sectors doesn't always mean taxes. Again, I will monitor my tax rates and if it goes up, I will make a repeal proposal. I am responsible to ensure that it works.

Keovich is also concerned too, as it is clearly understood. Although really low prices create deflation, I find it unacceptable, but I can only agree what Lulu says, because she deals with this resolution.

Lulu Hilde Berlin:

By all means just go for it.

Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L.:

Hey, Lulu, that's being downright lazy. By the looks of it your role is under threat because you are irresponsible. Charlotte actually believes that ideas should always be tried out, but Amanda also has the same idea.

Avarat, I'll clearly tell you who will run this: WA members themselves.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Hey hey, hold your horses, Ratreekulapanyaawan! Look, I do have the same feelings with Avarat. But since it doesn't clearly state how it will be run, it would have to be assumed that WA ambassadors from countries in NationStates will run the NS-ICRC. In serious circumstances if it all goes wrong I will intervene in a form of a repeal.

Finally, I will be clear that no NGOs will be absorbed becuase there is ntohing that says it. The last clause may actually mean that the NGOs are here to stay.

Amanda Edernegoizane:

We got to listen to what Shang Dang and Avarat says. If it gets defeated, then their ideas have to be seriously considered. either way, humanitarian aid is a very vital part of this resolution. That's the core fundamental component of this resolution.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

I cannot force people to vote whatever side. Without enough feedback at drafting stage, all I can do is write one, submit it and hope for the best. Sorry.

OOC, there is nothing wrong about using the forum regularly to discuss drafts here at the WA. If as many as about hundreds of members, both delegate and non-delegate helped with, like New Dibuia's idea of Helping Homeless Children here at the forum, and with great campaigning for the delegate approvals, it could become a classic.

Aid should be offered carefully and on a case by case basis so that the aid doesn't do as much damage as the disaster.

Disaster situations can be more effectively handled by small, individual NGOs working with small groups of people because (1) they are generally more careful how they use their money as they have less of it and (2) they are often more specialized, which allows for each objective to be done more effectively.

The proposed ICRC will create more problems than it solves. The only organization that I would support would be one that supplied information and training for smaller NGOs, but mass organization of nations and NGOs in this way will cause more harm than good.

Honorable Ambassador, I would like to respond to some of your thoughts and also thank our Ambassador Katzman for allowing me to attend this debate. I myself am the head of a NGO, the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz. (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/mikitivity_rote_kreuz.html) While I did not directly talk to any ambassadors, Mikitivity's representative, Howie Katzman, has been in continuous communication with my organization, and similarly, the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz has been talking to other smaller Mikitivity based emergency relief organizations.

Everybody involved in the commenting and drafting of this resolution (and there were a number of nations) will universally agree that aid should be accepted on a case by case basis, but the source of humanitarian and emergency aid currently come from numerous governmental and non-governmental sources.

For example, in Mikitivity, the Mikitivity Defense Forces (MDF) and the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz both are capable of supplying aid to other nations. The MDF specializes in offering technical, logistical, and evacuation assistance, because even though the MDF has amble supplies stockpiled, as a military organization is is already prepared to quickly move. Our Rote Kreuz operates on a combination of trust funds and generous donations, thus it often works in concert with the MDF to pay for materials.

You are correct that NGOs are flexible enough to respond to emergencies, but the issue is when those emergencies cross over into unfamiliar legal / political realms. The World Assembly alone has 10,000s of member states, NationStates many more than that. Mikitivity Rote Kreuz is just one of literally thousands of NGOs, and honestly is not equipped or capable of responding to all the emergency needs within NationStates.

So naturally NGOs overlap. They duplicate function, but tend to limit their area of influence to the regions that have their need and to which they can fill those needs.

Unfortunately emergencies and disasters do not respect political borders, nor do they respect bureaucratic or logistical arrangements. There will be times when an emergency may overwhelm a domestic or regional based NGO, and having an organization like the ICRC to bring in the second wave of relief from other NGOs and national sources can quite literally make the difference between life and death.

Specifically, you stated that the strength of NGOs is to specialize -- perhaps it is to focus in evacuations or instead perhaps to really provide the best care and shelter possible or maybe instead it is solely to focus on giving medical supplies (the list is endless). And you are absolutely correct. However, with specialization, there comes a need for a larger organization to have the skill and ability to literally pull mixes of the specialties together.

For example, if there were a massive flood along Fluss Risden, Mikitivity's largest river, the following assistance would be needed:

- evacuation
- care & shelter
- flood fighting
- emergency construction & repairs
- rerouting local and international traffic
- warning downstream communities

Ignoring the fact that Mikitivity has an effective flood control system in place, complete with national and cantonal emergency operations plans, it is always possible that a catastrophe will exceed these plans. It has happened in the past -- in fact, this is why the current flood control system and plans exist today.

However, the plans work by allowing different national and cantonal organizations the chance to specialize. The overall emergency is then coordinated through an emergency response organization, which itself is a specialized agency.

This resolution really builds upon the correct idea that specialization is the key to success. It re-established a tool to pick and choose existing other specialized groups in order to respond. The ultimate choice of what aid to accept remains the sole responsibility of the national government(s) impacted by an emergency.

Danke,
Jean-Christophe Dunant

I would like to second this, as it is greatly concerning. Also, we would like to ask if it completely eliminates NGO's in various nations. Personally, I don't see a problem with centralizing the aid to a single point, but I do have a problem if it completely eliminates the smaller level associations.

Occasionally disasters happen on a grand scale and affect multiple countries. A centralized association would take care of this easily. I don't see a problem with adding on an extra upper level ring, so long as they allow smaller associations to do their work.

You have exactly nailed the focus and intent of this resolution. It does not replace nor eliminate smaller relief organizations. NGOs will still exist, and national governments too can offer assistance to other nations or as you correctly pointed out regions impacted by disasters.

Believe me, Mikitivity has a well deserved international reputation for being "guarded". We would never advocate something if we believed it took away the local ability to exceed a one-size fits all approach. This resolution is not that. It is entirely about coordination.

Howie T. Katzman

Ok stating that WA members would control where the aid goes and when that would create a lot of favoritism. Picture this scenario also. Nation A is on the committee and is at odds with Nation B, Nation B experiences a terrible disaster and is need of aid quickly. What is to stop Nation A from postponing the aid to further his own goals against Nation B? Even if its a vote type deal Nation A could rally others to its cause. Creating a entity to control aid on a global scale is a waste of time and effort all you are doing is adding another layer that nations must go thru to help allies. I still would like my question about aid to my enemies answered. As of this moment the nation of Avarat is undecided but leaning toward against this resolution.

Ok stating that WA members would control where the aid goes and when that would create a lot of favoritism. Picture this scenario also. Nation A is on the committee and is at odds with Nation B, Nation B experiences a terrible disaster and is need of aid quickly. What is to stop Nation A from postponing the aid to further his own goals against Nation B? Even if its a vote type deal Nation A could rally others to its cause. Creating a entity to control aid on a global scale is a waste of time and effort all you are doing is adding another layer that nations must go thru to help allies. I still would like my question about aid to my enemies answered. As of this moment the nation of Avarat is undecided but leaning toward against this resolution.

With respect, I believe you are confusing "Control" and "Coordination".

Let's pretend that a hurricane, call it Kathy, hits a large city, Old NewOrder, in a massive country called the States of Unity. Mikitivity can offer aid (probably food and portable generators).

Without this resolution, my government's offer goes directly to the States of Unity from my government.

With this resolution, my government's offer would first go to the ICRC (it can still go directly too ... the phrase "prohibits" really isn't in the scope of this resolution).

Now let's pretend that the States of Unity, although they need my generators, doesn't like my government. They can always say, "No thank you."

The advantage is that the States of Unity can choose to first deal with the ICRC, and then as a second priority deal with direct offers. In fact, the SU can say, "All nations trying to help us recovery from Hurricane Kathy. The people of Old NewOrder appreciate your thoughts and offers, but please send them through to the ICRC. We'll provide the ICRC with a complete list of what we need."

This enables the SU to focus on the emergency instead of diplomacy. The ICRC will honor the SU's request, because even handling diplomatic replies *helps* the SU respond to the emergency.

Howie T. Katzman

What is to stop Nation A from postponing the aid to further his own goals against Nation B?

Nation C, Nation D, Nation E, Nation F, Nation G, Nation H, Nation I...

The situation your providing is too hypothetical. I can't imagine a single situation in where one nation could actually withhold aid from another just because of dislike. If we delegated a council of seven nations to vote on how much aid, and they were clearly being corrupt appointees by the head of this committee, then the rest of us would be able to notice.

At which point, this would be useless and I'm sure it would be easy as pie to repeal this as causing corruption.

We shouldn't be worried about "probable favoritism." Under those grounds we will never do anything in the WA and nothing will progess. While I was, admittedly, iffy about voting for this issue on the grounds of probable favoritism, I realize that it is in the interests of all nations to put faith in each other. We currently have very few councils and it will not cause a huge burden to start an international emergency aid fund, as I'm sure most of you have done this in some way or another. Most of us have small surpluses of various commodities stashed away in case of such an incident.

If in fact the group heading the distribution of funds and supplies is showing blatant favoritism and corruption, then we have the power to repeal this bill on those grounds, providing the evidence is there.

I'm still abstaining from this moment, but I expect to land in support unless someone can convince otherwise.

If the World Forum is to "coordinate" the activities of all "non government organizations" then they are not really non government organizations (they are under the influence of the World Forum) - especially as the World Forum is to provide money "from its own resources" (what resources would they be?).

The resolution does not make sense - but it will pass because it will be seen as "helping people".

This is why my nation is not a member of the World Forum. I might present logical arguments (I hope I have done so above), but no use of reason is going to trump "helping people" with most voters.

If the World Forum is to "coordinate" the activities of all "non government organizations" then they are not really non government organizations (they are under the influence of the World Forum) - especially as the World Forum is to provide money "from its own resources" (what resources would they be?).

Like its predecessor, the World Assembly has mysterious funding sources that allow its members to adopt a wide range of resolutions. Essentially your argument "where will the money come from?" could be applied to any resolution.

The only response is "From the same source as with all other resolutions."


My own government contributes money to the World Assembly precisely so it can function, because we see benefits in standardizing relations between as many governments in a larger organization as opposed to being nibbled to death by ducks while attempting to establish literally 10,000s of bilateral agreements.


Your other point about "non-government organizations" is also in error. The term NGO stands for "non-governmental organizations", which means they are organizations that are formed by private citizens beyond the scope of any single national government. Any single NGO can have offices in multiple nations (the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz is one such example, though headquartered in Miervatia City, it has small offices throughout the International Democratic Union).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization

Please reference the wikipedia link, as I can assure you that it will help you better understand the nature of aid based NGOs.

NGOs aren't subject to World Assembly resolutions. This resolution is not going to force NGOs to hand over resources or control they do not wish to hand over to the ICRC or World Assembly, because coordination means just that.

There are essentially several steps to providing aid:

1. Identifying assistance needs,
2. Offering assistance,
3. Providing assistance.

This is universal. Governments and NGOs alike have to deal with this. The trick is in determining how much of an organizations staff and resources are allocated between each of these items.

By centralizing the first two steps within a large organization that focuses on coordination (not control), governmental and NGO based relief programs can devote more time and energy into the third step.

Howie T. Katzman

No-one in Chiarizio understands this proposal well enough to vote in the poll yet.

We're worried that the "co-ordinating commission" might actually delay, or decrease the amount of, or decrease the effectiveness of, or right-out prevent, relief.

(In the "real world"'s USA), FEMA, as re-organised post-9/11/01 and as managed by Michael Brown, actually delayed relief getting to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

--------------

Furthermore, member-nations of our region may sometimes wish to provide relief on terms other than those dictated by this "co-ordinating commission"; and sometimes, even on terms inconsistent with this proposed Resolution.

We are often faced with questions of which nations to help; some of us only wish to help those nations which will agree to buy some of our products rather than someone else's, or will agree to sell us some of theirs rather than selling them to someone else, or will agree to sell to us at a lower price than to other nations.

Or there may be other ways in which a nation receiving relief could help out the nation providing it; some of us sometimes may want to get something for giving relief. (Military alliance, votes in multi-national treaty organizations, or military forward-bases, etc.)

The same sorts of issues may come up about accepting refugees. Some nations sometimes won't want to accept just any and all of them.

----------------

We don't understand the resolution well enough to be sure, but, isn't it possible that the adoption of this resolution would eliminate one of the "dilemmas" in the NS game, or force the hands of WA members to choose just one option? If so, should the moderators even allow this proposal to be adopted, even if it receives a majority?

Ok the purpose of this is to help relief get to where it is needed why have this orginization at all? All it will do is add another layer of red tape that must be sorted thru before aid reaches where it is needed? Why not just alow the nations of the world to send the aid where it is needed? Let each nation send aid to each other rather than have it go thru different channels? If a nation is willing to lie to itself and accept aid from a nation thru the WA but not directly from the nation itself then maybe they shouldnt get the aid at all.

I'm switching from undecided to against this bill due to my first post's reasons as well as the concerns of many of my collegues here in the WA. Bureaucracy is not an effect means of aiding those in need, and in fact, slows down the ability to give aid. What's the point of giving aid when two weeks after the disaster, this organization is still trying to get approval from one's government to intervene? A lot of people will be homeless and have died by then.

Also, the mean of "terrorism" is a very loose and debatable term. Getting involved in area in the middle of a war might cause a lot of backfire.

I'd like to present a cartoon / image which shows conceptually how Emergency Response Coordination works.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c111/mcalamari/NationStates/EmergencyCoordinationScales.gif

Low
Local governments and individuals (this includes NGOs) are best equipped to prepare for and response to frequent emergency events. This ranges from simple domestic fires to annual small stream flooding or moderate sized events including avalanches, mud slides, small fires, & structural failures (bridge collapses).

Moderate
However, less frequently larger scale events occur that test local resources. Traditionally local governments rely upon external groups (governments or NGOs) to bring in additional resources from areas that are not directly impacted by the event. Examples can include large wild fires, large tornadoes, blizzards, rural earthquake recovery, extended droughts, and regional floods.

High
And finally there are times when an event is so large, that resources from around NationStates are needed. Examples include large urban earthquakes that also destroyed critical infrastructure, tsunamis, large hurricanes, dam breaks, widespread famine, & volcanic eruptions.

As events increase in magnitude, the resources locals have are exhausted. However, other regions that were not impacted *also* have resources. By importing resources (supplies or experts) any one community needs to save *less*. The critical factor isn't trying to overstock and overprepare for an emergency, but rather to prepare for common / frequent events and then trade resources for the large scale emergencies. By doing so, everybody can spend less knowing that in their darkest hour, other resources exist.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC: If you are an American, here is the scale that we've recently experienced: Minnesota, MN bridge collapse --> World Trade Center --> Hurricane Katrina. I'm absolutely dying to say more, but I'll let it wait til the resolution's completion. ;)

The Empire of Hypomania believes that the ICRC will be able to push itself into incidents that could be easily handled by the local nation without outside support. However, we also understand that many nations need something like the ICRC to help their nation after a crippling natural disaster or terrorist attack. But, the ICRC should not be given the power to choose one side, or both, in a war in attempts to help. Hypomania's resources will not go towards funding other nations' wars. The ICRC's power must be limited to only helping those after a natural disaster or after a serious terrorist attack. Hypomania's delegate vote is no.

No-one in Chiarizio understands this proposal well enough to vote in the poll yet.

We're worried that the "co-ordinating commission" might actually delay, or decrease the amount of, or decrease the effectiveness of, or right-out prevent, relief.

(In the "real world"'s USA), FEMA, as re-organised post-9/11/01 and as managed by Michael Brown, actually delayed relief getting to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.


IC:
First, these are good questions. Thank you!

NGOs and governments can always bypass the ICRC if they feel it is too slow. But consider this, you are a momma duck, you have 12 ducklings each of which is wanting to swim somewhere away from you, 6 momma geese swim up and all at the exact same time offer to help you keep your ducks in a row ... in the time it will take you to accept their generous offer, your 12 ducklings will have swam away. ;)

My point is when you MOST need "triage" via coordination help is when you will honestly find the international community will all approach at about the same time. Logistically getting supplies and experts from around the world is already difficult.

For example, let's say that there is a dam break in Aslan canton along the Risden, and the resulting flood wipes out Miervatia City. Even simple international offers of food and engineers (for the recovery) are going to overwhelm a government that will have just lost its actual seat-of-government (base of operations). Having a group like the ICRC function as the point of contact between Mikitivity and all non-domestic aid groups is a huge benefit.

Second, international aid often comes in the form of supplies. Getting supplies into an area already swamped with responders will be a challenge with or without a domestic coordinating agency, but an international one could easily establish a secondary staging area a day away from a disaster area and function to really restock gaps in local supplies.

OOC:
New Orleans was a failure of local and State governments as much as the Federal government. It also was an eye-opener throughout the US (and hopefully the world), that the *lack* of prearranged coordination agreements and plans will severely hamper emergency response efforts. Like I hinted before, I'll hold off on saying more about that til after the debate is over. ;)

One problem that I expressed earlier that I didn't feel was sufficiently addressed (most likely because I did not express the issue very well) is the problem of over-aid. This is not a very popular view, aid is only helpful when done correctly and in the right amount.

After the real world tsunami in southeast Asia, the local markets were flooded with free goods that completely undermined the local economy. In many (not all) areas, there was enough food produced by local farmers and enough clothing for people who had lost everything. The huge influx of goods went strait to the markets and drove many people out of business. Money set aside for buying local goods often disappeared into the nation's government and often found its way into official's pockets. The most effective organizations in these circumstances were those that went in as individual organizations and took the time to figure out exactly what is needed in each circumstance before acting.

Larger organizations tend to create a single plan of action and follow through with that plan in all circumstances. While they do that very well, that is not the best way to treat disaster situations. I would completely support an organization that gathered information about a disaster for the use of disaster relief organizations, trained volunteers, and helped NGOs do their work as long as that organization could not provide it's own relief efforts. Section 5)a) creates more problems than the whole rest of the body could solve. I know that sounds harsh. However, in an emergency, I would much rather have an EMT or a Doctor treat me than for emergency dispatch to try and save my life.

While I can say nothing against humanitarian aid, this bill seems to do nothing but take away autonomy from NGOs and government organisations and add another layer of bureaucracy.

I'd also like to point out that while details don't always need to be included, adding a definition of major disaster (clause 4.1) which ranges from an asteroid collision to a thunderstorm, is counter productive. "May threaten livelihoods" - come on, this could mean anything.


Lord Araneus,
Ambassador to World Assembly
Sanctus Aequitas

While I can say nothing against humanitarian aid, this bill seems to do nothing but take away autonomy from NGOs and government organisations and add another layer of bureaucracy.

I'd also like to point out that while details don't always need to be included, adding a definition of major disaster (clause 4.1) which ranges from an asteroid collision to a thunderstorm, is counter productive. "May threaten livelihoods" - come on, this could mean anything.


Lord Araneus,
Ambassador to World Assembly
Sanctus Aequitas

NGOs still have the freedom to do what they like. They aren't under any obligation to cooperate, but the incentive is a tremendous cost savings if they do. Mikitivity Rote Kreuz will gladly respond to calls from the ICRC. (Note, a previous question asked who would staff the ICRC, my organization would also be willing to loan staff to the ICRC until the World Assembly Gnomes can take control of the body.)

On the subject of costs vs. benefits of "collectives", "cooperation", and "centralization", imagine if somebody were to say, "We all own books. I think having a public library is a stupid waste of time and money. If I want a book, I'll just track it down going door to door until I find the damn book." While they'd be absolutely correct that libraries are nothing more than collections of materials that would still exist elsewhere, since the creation of them, the door-to-door book borrower is a thing of the distant past. ;)

As for what is an emergency, I'd argue it is any situation in which people need help. So when is it appropriate for the others to help? Simple, when asked.

In some nations, a simple thunderstorm may overwhelm the local government's ability to provide emergency services. In that case, *right now* that government can all upon the international community to help. With the passage of this resolution, they can now put out two calls (at the same time -- so there is a cost savings). They can ask the ICRC for help and in doing so the international community.

The ICRC and international community won't have to help every time. Nor will the scale of the international response be the same. Please reference the figure I posted. For a moderate event, maybe all a nation needs is a few extra doctors. However, for a large event, that nation might need doctors, food, housing for people displaced by the event, structural engineers to assess damaged buildings and infrastructure, and perhaps buses or other forms of public transit to help kick the economy again.

If we were to attempt to write a one-sized fits all resolution that would make both c.2008 humans and the crab-people of Draconis Nebula happy we'd honestly not only exceed the character length of resolutions, but also hem in the flexibility that currently exists within the international aid community.

Danke,
Jean-Christophe Dunant

Fotar, This proposal isn't broken...

We never said it was...you totally missed my point. I feel that the system of NGO's works perfectly fine and does not need to be tampered with. The proposal is the fix, while the system is what is not broken.

We still haven't made up our minds on this, but the chances of having our support are waning.
_________________
Fotar,
~King of the Narnian Kingdom of Fotar
~Vice-Chancellor of the Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/10639/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

If our country has to contribute adonation, i believe the donation amount should reflect the size of the country. If my country, which is very small, has to pay the same amount as a very large country, then our vote, for now, shall be NO. We will look further into this matter and come to an official decision sometime during the week.

With sincerest regards,

President James P. Flannighan

The idea behind this humanitarian proposal is worthy and commendable. However, cursory thought reveals it to be unworkable and dangerous to the security of nations. Consider a war against a hostile nation, crucial to the well-being of your State: they will be supported by even your own organizations in humanitarian aid to their populace, economy, and perhaps even their army.

Do not submit to regulation and bureaucracy: retain your freedom and autonomy!

Best regards,

Karl v. Eisen
Diplomat
The Dominion of Hocheisen

If our country has to contribute adonation, i believe the donation amount should reflect the size of the country. If my country, which is very small, has to pay the same amount as a very large country, then our vote, for now, shall be NO. We will look further into this matter and come to an official decision sometime during the week.

With sincerest regards,

President James P. Flannighan

President Flannighan,

Please let me assure you that many of us considered that concern when discussing the early drafts of this proposal. Though Charlotte Ryberg will obviously be able to provide you a far better response, I would like to highlight to clauses:

2. MANDATES that the ICRC shall be funded from the resources of the World Assembly, but;

3. PERMITS the ICRC to accept donations and grants from individual persons as a goodwill gesture;

I believe the point of the second clause is to reassure nations such as your own that the ICRC will be funded by the World Assembly. It is reasonable to assume that as the World Assembly's resources are slowly delegated to new organizations, committees, and other projects, that as member nations the World Assembly may ask us to contribute more.

How that is done is something best left to World Assembly Gnomes. :) But it is my understanding that the "impacts" each of our governments will feel should this resolution (hopefully) pass, will be unique to each government.

But clause 3 allows the organization to get additional funds as necessary from donations, which really means nations that can't afford to give the World Assembly more resources shouldn't.

This resolution is essentially toothless, but it will be charging a hell of alot for dentist visits anyhow. I'm not particularly happy with it, but I recognize it's possible positive effects. The problem I see here is that when you're setting up an organization that effectively governs itself(as opposed to instructing governments to do something), you HAVE to provide clear definitions.

All I see here is an organization that we are required to fund, and that should, in theory provide some coordination of aid between nations. Maybe some training. It doesn't have to be good coordination, or good training, it just has to provide some.

2. MANDATES that the ICRC shall be funded from the resources of the World Assembly, but;

I am not especially happy with the concept of the forced funding of this. As useful as this is, it should run entirely on donations, not drawing from whatever general fund we eventually set up. What this and the following clause suggest is that while donation will be accepted any shortfalls WILL be made up by the international community. Strangely enough this is the only truly active legislation in the proposal as well. It's the only thing that HAS to be done, and coincidentally it's the only thing we as nations are responsible for. Even that wouldn't be a problem if it didn't essentially write them a blank check. No matter what they decide to do, I have to pay for it.

A lot of people, myself included would like better assurance that our money won't be abused beyond banning anything that "may hamper the true purpose of the organization itself". As long as they can coordinate some aid and do the minimum this resolution asks(training two volunteers a day, for example) they're free to spend the rest of the money on whatever. If you'd said they could only spend it on aid, I'd be alot happier. It'd make a lot more sense and be a lot shorter too.

4.1. DEFINES a major disaster as an event which may threaten lives and livelihoods, such as natural disasters, terrorist attacks and war;

This definition is VERY shaky. "an event which may threaten lives and livelihoods". That means this can cover as few as two people's problems. I'm fairly sure that's not an intended function of this organization. Yes, I know you provide examples afterwards, but they are just that, examples. "Such as" can be read as "including but not limited to". Even if you restricted it to the terms listed, a terrorist attack can have no causalities and no property damage. Natural Disasters can be defined as things that don't take lives but wreck empty land. War can be governments attacking their own people and calling it a civil war in order to get aid.

A final beef, comes by combining a couple of clauses to extrapolate a potential snag:

1. ESTABLISHES the International Coordinated Relief Committee (ICRC), an organization whose sole duty is to co-ordinate of relief aid of NGOs in all member nations;

Co-ordinating relief aid will necessarily include giving aid received from one group to another who is better placed to distribute it.

A number of terrorist organizations are also charities that provide very real aid to certain communities, this resolution would support funneling aid through them and to them should the need arise.

Somewhere right after 5B, there shoulda been a clause that stated "X) Not support NGOs that promote conflict or war in any way,".

Basically? There are far to many unaddressed issues in this proposal to warrant this assembly writing it a blank check. This resolution wasn't quite done cooking yet I think.

I sincerely wish I'd been available to make these comments in drafting(of which there was ample time for me to do so, so it's my fault), as this has alot of potential as a resolution.

I apologize but I must vote against this.

Who ever your che... I mean, whom ever your getting help from. Please stop. Each one just becomes a mash of poor legislation and a bit of a circle (content edited) where we (content edited) and after (content edited)

but yes! the wonderful resolution that seems so super! makes me want to gag. You waste our time for what?

Establish a political sub-structure for what? circle (content edited for you, brought to you by S.P.Q.R., leading the way for a better tomorrow) and (content edited)? Waste of time an effort for what it establishes

that we pay em money for humanitarian aid. Fine by me and my own.

but I would have surmised that these agencies... these non-government extortionists.... are not allowed to have gifts. So we are setting them free! yes free like birds and (content edited). News flash.... any group of people can receive gifts! Or is it that now no one can take this right away without sanctions? Any just and rational nation should be able to care for what these stop gap cartels on resources can offer. Any rational government would recognize punks and (edited content). Any society in it for the long haul would (edited) and make sure all loose ends were tied up no matter what the price was.

Good underlying idea. Poor execution in legislation. Vote no and staunch the bleeding from our eye sockets.

Anyone who doesn't like the idea of laying law with pure reason, you can (transmission cut)

The nation of Avarat has decided to vote against this resolution. It leaves too much unanswered, what are to be the procedures during war time? Why do we need another layer to sort through just to help our fellow nations? Yes having an enity that can help focus aid where it is needed sounds good but this resolution just leaves too much up in the air. If it were changed and more explanitory then we might can change our vote but as it is the resolution cannot be approved by my nation.

The nation of Avarat has decided to vote against this resolution. It leaves too much unanswered, what are to be the procedures during war time? Why do we need another layer to sort through just to help our fellow nations? Yes having an enity that can help focus aid where it is needed sounds good but this resolution just leaves too much up in the air. If it were changed and more explanitory then we might can change our vote but as it is the resolution cannot be approved by my nation.

Avarat, likely this is because the reslution applies to Non-Governmental Organisations (as clearly stated in the resolution) and therefore does NOT add another 'layer to sort through' for your Government. Inter-Governmental aid regulations and restrictions remain untouched by this resolution.

It seems to me, and I hope someone will clarify for me if I have gotten it wrong, that the resolution is so designed that if there are many NGOs or charity organisations with the same aims then many people donate money to varying organisations. Whereas if there is a central co-ordinator then the money will still go to the designated charities but their efforts will be combined to have a greater effect.

The People's Republic of Willsilvania votes in favour.

Initially I was leaning against this document, but I'm very much voting FOR it now.

The arguments here seem to be nit picking and complaining. While in the last resolution we waved it off as ineffective but 'nice', this one actually does work.

People claim about having to go through another layer of bureaucracy, but that isn't the case. Instead, we are creating a higher level to deal with an international crisis. As an INTERNATIONAL organization our position seems obvious.

People claim that it isn't specific enough, but that is up to the duty of this newly formed organization to found their own guidelines. I would actually vote this down if it created more rules upon rules.

The way I see it, most nations are just worried that it won't work and aren't willing to try. I'm willing to try but I'm going to keep my finger on the repeal button.

The only objection that I have is that nowhere in the proposal does it say that you will only act in my country at my request. In the event of a natural disaster, it is a perfect example of Malthusian Theory. A portion of my population is culled. Clearly, you can see why I don't want any WA Aide distributed without my approval.

His Grace, Gelbredir

The Sunset Lands

The nation of Avarat understands the concept of this resolution now and we understand that the nations will not go the red tape but the NGO will. There is still one matter of concern though. What will be the procedure during war time? Will the money NGO in my nation have donated go to aid the enemy soldiers we are currently fighting? We are willing to switch our vote in favor but we need to understand what the protocol will be concerning wartime aid? In the case of aiding during natural disasters we are for focusing the aid to where it is needed but we want to know the procedure when it comes to "terrorism" and war relief.

we don't provide our own citizens welfare, why would we supply such to yours?

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

I am pleased that Shang Dang is beginning to understand the resolution better.

The Sunset Lands, there is nothing in this proposal that says you can't say no. But, why would you prefer to kill a portion of the population just because they're victims of a natural disaster? Now, that is definitely a denial of human rights: the right to live.

The current WA proposal is nothing more than a veiled effort by rent seekers to secure themselves "jobs" for the rest of this institution's existence.

We should not saddle every nation with increased taxes in order to coordinate relief agencies that may have other than altruistic motives at heart.

These seems like a typical attempt at trying to justify the WA and it's importance at the cost and behest of smaller, poorer nations like The Most Serene Republic of Samosata. We struggle enough providing for the people of our own nation without the WA coming in and demanding help for something that will never directly effect our Most Serene Republic. We are too big to receive this help yet too small to carry a strong enough voice to fight all these high cost resolutions that make our membership in the WA a questionable decision. Let those who need aid request it and we will vote case by case if need be, but do not force us all to give aid at all times to private corporations who claim to have only the misfortune of others at heart when these privatized Aid relief organizations pay their CEO's hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary.

In fact, why not just let individual nations decide when and when not to give International Aid Relief instead of forcing it on those who can ill afford it.

Amanda Edernegoizane:

I'll make it clear: The WA doesn't send cash to military armies, since the WA can't have an army.

Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L.:

Members please, we are doing our best to meet the needs of 19,846 or so members, but we cannot meet them all. The most important priority in the WA is to improve the world and make it peaceful as possible: we only write resolutions that we think will actually improve the quality of life in the world. The NS-ICRC is proposed because it will improve the quality of life and keep the death toll as low as possible. Our ally Mikitivity and I can demonstrate that without such resolution, a major disaster affecting an entire nation could result in a collapse of that government and at worst, civil war.

The Federal council did used to draft rubbish resolutions like the value of Pi but since then the offending members have been dismissed. And furthermore, the benefits of the predecessor (NS-UN) are lost, which forces us to pay serious attention to improving the world better, and restoring the best of the lost resolutions; and Relief Aid is one of them. It is difficult for us because we can no longer mention real-life environments. But it can be done.

There is still one matter of concern though. What will be the procedure during war time? Will the money NGO in my nation have donated go to aid the enemy soldiers we are currently fighting? We are willing to switch our vote in favor but we need to understand what the protocol will be concerning wartime aid? In the case of aiding during natural disasters we are for focusing the aid to where it is needed but we want to know the procedure when it comes to "terrorism" and war relief.

The proposed body would not give money to EITHER side during a war, but the money would be used to relieve civilian suffering in the war zones; to help refugees and provide medical aid to any civilian caught within crossfire.

Say your country was invaded and you had to fight off the invaders, this is fair enough. But if millions of refugees were displaced by enemy action or simple fear of the oncoming violence and fled to the capital city the ICRC would coordinate NGO efforts to form refugee camps and provide aid in conjunction with your governments own efforts.

In fact, why not just let individual nations decide when and when not to give International Aid Relief instead of forcing it on those who can ill afford it.

Because they're not forcing ANY governments to give aid when they do not want to. In fact it has nothing to do with the governments of individual countries, since the idea is to create a conglommerate of NGOs (non-governmental organisations) in order to help the needy. The money will only partially come from your government but mostly from voluntary contributions from individuals to the ICRC.

It is still up to your government to decide when to give international relief but even if you decided not to help the ICRC still could provide relief. Say there was a disaster in your nation and other neighbours decided not to lend you aid, wouldn't you want some kind of well-funded organisation to provide support to your citizens?

The money will only partially come from your government but mostly from voluntary contributions from individuals to the ICRC. The Popotan requests the representative of Willslvania to back up his claims with some hard statics.

The Popotan does not mind aiding those who made adequate preparations or whose attack was unprecedented, such as a 500-year great flood, but we do not want to aid those who set up their beach front property only to get hit by hurricanes and tsunamis or help governments who have destroyed their ecology in favor of their economy and now a disaster that would have been major, but not catastrophic, becomes catastrophic.

We therefore at this time are ABSTAINING.

Budgets would plumet in some poorer nations, and we should be able to let Releaf should be handled by governments: No matter how corrupt it is ther nation...:mad:

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

The Sunset Lands, there is nothing in this proposal that says you can't say no. But, why would you prefer to kill a portion of the population just because they're victims of a natural disaster? Now, that is definitely a denial of human rights: the right to live.

I'm not saying that they don't have a right to live. But we all must die. Some of my people have chosen to build their homes in areas that have, in the history my kingdom have flooded. If we are going to survive as a people, we have to understand and accept that in order for us to be able to take everything that we need from the earth, than the earth has to be able to also regulate how much we take. This is the only way that the earth will survive as a viable, life-supporting planet. The way that the earth regulates how much we are able to take is with floods, drought, tornadoes, and earthquakes. If there aren't so many people around, we don't take nearly so much as we were, and the earth goes on living.

With a vote of 15-0, the Jevian World Assembly Representatives (JWAR) agreed to pass Jey's 7 votes as the Delegate of the United Nations region FOR this resolution.

The JWAR congratulates the representatives from Charlotte Ryberg for bringing this resolution to vote.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian World Assembly Ambassador

The Popotan requests the representative of Willslvania to back up his claims with some hard statics.

That's easy. Current UN funds: whatever's in the replacement pickle barrel, all of which (and then some) is earmarked for building an HQ. Proportion of current UN funds available for ICRC: sweet FA. Proportion of ICRC funding coming from donations: pretty much all of it.

Until a funding proposal actually passes, arguing about where the money comes from is a pretty pointless exercise. Not that that's going to stop people from doing it, but...

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

That's easy. Current UN funds: whatever's in the replacement pickle barrel

I don't believe its been replaced yet - ever since it was reduced to ashes, its never been needed. Representatives seem to have a tight clutch on their money satchels these days...

Oh, you might want to be careful with your wording...I can see the "politically correct" squad over there eying you off and patting their clubs every time you mention the N and its preceding U.

Until a funding proposal actually passes, arguing about where the money comes from is a pretty pointless exercise.

Agreed. Among other things, as various members have pointed out, we're also left guessing too many times...it just doesn't cover enough ground.

I’ve cast our region’s 33 votes AGAINST this proposal.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

I have concerns regarding corruption within this body, leading to neglect of the needy, removal of independence of NGOs, and vested intrests taking effect. If some one from my nation or region heads this organization, then they will obviously dedicate more rescources to a nation they are allied with, plus they can prevent aid from flowing to nations and regions they wish to pressure.

I have concerns regarding corruption within this body, leading to neglect of the needy, removal of independence of NGOs, and vested intrests taking effect. If some one from my nation or region heads this organization, then they will obviously dedicate more rescources to a nation they are allied with, plus they can prevent aid from flowing to nations and regions they wish to pressure.

[OOC: From the rules on proposals:]
Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee.

Perfectly neglecting to follow much of the discussion that has already taken place, the Subistratica has voted FOR this resolution.

Following many of our colleagues from The Council of Narnia, the Nation of Sequoyah casts their vote AGAINST the resolution.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
WA Delegate from New Sequoyah

[OOC: From the rules on proposals:]


Perfectly neglecting to follow much of the discussion that has already taken place, the Subistratica has voted FOR this resolution.

OOC: Thank you! Honestly, if we could violate the rules and micromanage things, we would have at the very least explored the possibility of being much more explicit. But the bottom line is proposal / resolution proponents have to follow the game rules.

That's easy. Current UN funds: whatever's in the replacement pickle barrel, all of which (and then some) is earmarked for building an HQ. Proportion of current UN funds available for ICRC: sweet FA. Proportion of ICRC funding coming from donations: pretty much all of it.

Until a funding proposal actually passes, arguing about where the money comes from is a pretty pointless exercise. Not that that's going to stop people from doing it, but...

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Undersecretary Coch,

I couldn't have said it better myself. Complaining about funding issues is about as productive as complaining about the lack of rain. No amount of grumbling is going to yield a magic money tree.

Personally I still have my hopes pinned on finding the elusive magic beer tree. At the very least, I can still drink to my dream of finding a magic beer tree.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC: Thank you! Honestly, if we could violate the rules and micromanage things, we would have at the very least explored the possibility of being much more explicit. But the bottom line is proposal / resolution proponents have to follow the game rules.

[OOC: Not to sound snobbish or anything, but I noticed the person that raised that concern had just joined this month and only had 1 post (that one)... n00bs, honestly. I'm glad that there are some out there that have taken the time to read the rules, but there's too many that pop on here once, say something that is blatantly wrong, and then don't turn up again until the next resolution is at vote to basically do the same thing.]

The good but unwholesome Senator Sulla looks around at the assembly, and gives his fellow delegates a smile most unpleasent. He reaches under his desk and pulls out a very large, empty glass Fine Yeldan Pickle(TM) jar, which he then places on the front of his desk. THen the Senator form the plalentine leans over and speaks into his microphone.

"You lucky sods! I wish I could sit here and listen to myself all day. Anyway, even though the Palentine usually opposes any social justice proposals as a matter of principles, I'm willing to be fair, out of my respect for the proposal's co author, Mik. So I've decided to sell my vote to the highest bidder. Those of you who have been here awhile know the drill. Place the offering in the jar, and the highest bribe...err... "inducement" wins. And remember In God We Trust, All Others Must Pay CASH."

The Popotan requests the representative of Willslvania to back up his claims with some hard statics.

The Popotan does not mind aiding those who made adequate preparations or whose attack was unprecedented, such as a 500-year great flood, but we do not want to aid those who set up their beach front property only to get hit by hurricanes and tsunamis or help governments who have destroyed their ecology in favor of their economy and now a disaster that would have been major, but not catastrophic, becomes catastrophic.

We therefore at this time are ABSTAINING.

I can appreciate your government's position. Basically it sounds like you do not wish to reward what you believe is poor planning -- building in a hazardous zone. I'd like to offer two thoughts in hopes of getting you to consider changing your vote to supporting this idea.

First, you can make the choice of when to contribute and not to contribute resources, so you'd still be able to create an economic incentive for better landuse planning (that is what I believe you are really stating). I think this is in fact a wise policy.

Second, many nations are subjected to changing environments or geographically are challenged by a greater frequency and range of disasters than others. For example, low lying island nations are threatened by changes in the climate that *might* result in raised sea levels or more powerful and more frequent hurricanes. Similarly, alpine nations like my own, face challenges of more frequent floods due to a decreasing snowpack and intensification of storm events.

Here are just some examples of disasters:
- flash floods
- sustained floods
- earthquakes
- volcanic eruptions
- hurricanes
- tsunamis
- tornadoes
- extreme wind events
- mud / rock slides
- prolonged droughts
- blizzards
- avalanches
- waste water sewage plant spills
- pandemics
- large traffic accidents
- pipe-line / refinery explosions
- building / infrastructure collapses
- wild fires (small and large)
- dust storms
- crop failures
- chemical spills
- loss of power (brown-outs)
- reactor melt downs
- dam failure
- giant owl bear attacks
- mother-in-law visits

The list goes on, but my point is in some countries our risks of say a mass assault of mother-in-laws is rare, but we might not always be able to plan for all of these other disasters.

[OOC: Not to sound snobbish or anything, but I noticed the person that raised that concern had just joined this month and only had 1 post (that one)... n00bs, honestly. I'm glad that there are some out there that have taken the time to read the rules, but there's too many that pop on here once, say something that is blatantly wrong, and then don't turn up again until the next resolution is at vote to basically do the same thing.]

OOC: This is a tangent, but the problem with n00b reactions is there have been some no votes coming from players who are worried about more than just money.

One player mentioned concerns about their enemies being able to give and receive aid. I *think* somebody took the time to respond to that, because that is a fair concern. There are other examples, but too many of one kind of reaction risks drowning out other comments and ideas.

I'm still trying to train my own skill in ignoring opinions I can't change and responding to those that I might. ;)

IC:
First, these are good questions. Thank you!

NGOs and governments can always bypass the ICRC if they feel it is too slow. But consider this, you are a momma duck, you have 12 ducklings each of which is wanting to swim somewhere away from you, 6 momma geese swim up and all at the exact same time offer to help you keep your ducks in a row ... in the time it will take you to accept their generous offer, your 12 ducklings will have swam away. ;)

My point is when you MOST need "triage" via coordination help is when you will honestly find the international community will all approach at about the same time. Logistically getting supplies and experts from around the world is already difficult.

For example, let's say that there is a dam break in Aslan canton along the Risden, and the resulting flood wipes out Miervatia City. Even simple international offers of food and engineers (for the recovery) are going to overwhelm a government that will have just lost its actual seat-of-government (base of operations). Having a group like the ICRC function as the point of contact between Mikitivity and all non-domestic aid groups is a huge benefit.

Second, international aid often comes in the form of supplies. Getting supplies into an area already swamped with responders will be a challenge with or without a domestic coordinating agency, but an international one could easily establish a secondary staging area a day away from a disaster area and function to really restock gaps in local supplies.

OOC:
New Orleans was a failure of local and State governments as much as the Federal government. It also was an eye-opener throughout the US (and hopefully the world), that the *lack* of prearranged coordination agreements and plans will severely hamper emergency response efforts. Like I hinted before, I'll hold off on saying more about that til after the debate is over. ;)


Thank you. Chiarizio has decided to vote "For". We're still not sure (others' objections may be correct), but we've decided the proof of the pudding must be in the eating.

As for the second half of the poll, we still don't know what that's about.

Lesser Biglandia has voted AGAINST this resolution.

While we applaud the sentiment and motivation behind this resolution, we do have objections to certain provisions of the resolution as written.

1. We object to having the ICRC draw its operating funds from the coffers of the WA. This would essentially mean that all WA nations would have a levy placed upon them to maintain the ICRC.
2. Lesser Biglandia is uncomfortable with the notion of having the ICRC intervene in war zones. What safeguards would be placed to ensure the ICRC's political neutrality? Any bias (whether real or perceived) on the ICRC's behalf would not only endanger ICRC personnel, but would jeopardize the reputation and standing of the ICRC and the WA.

Amanda Edernegoizane:

Chiarizio, It's an opinion poll. Although the WA has only existed for a month, each representative serves one year. Lulu was elected in May last year, and it looks as if she could be allowed to stand again for another year. Of course, this poll is only an performance indicator, since the whole of our country actually has the final say. The election, is on 5th May 2008.

Marayevkohara K. D.:

We'll come back to that a little later, Amanda. I haven't really have any idea why WA members are so concerned about their military: already the team have mentioned that this does not favor the military because the WA can't have an army.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Whoa members, calm down for a moment. The WA is purely here to promote peace and unity, and not to squabber about where the cash goes.

Please be confident that once this passes, the most important thing it will do is to help victims of natural disasters, and not to fund any military. The category and strength of this proposal bear no reference to the word 'army'. There will be no bias. The essence of NationStates WA resolutions is that things simply get DONE without problems.

Okay, I'm sorry, I've probably being too rushy at the moment. I know that The WA has lost so much since the NS-UN collapsed: many great articles fell; and between many experienced and determined writers like me, Mikitivity, Jey, Quitessence of Dust, they have been trying to restore the best of those that were passed.

It has been very tough for me. Some of the best resolutions such as the ICRO, which inspired the creation of the NS-ICRC, were made before rules were changed, such as a ban on real-life references. This meant a lot of work had to be done to achieve this.

I have learned quite a lot from the last year; I have realized that the true value of the World Assembly, although now in our world, is to promote world peace, international security and global unity, and not to start wars. I am convinced that the WA doesn't exist for members simply to squabble about war and money: I feel that the real purpose of being a WA delegate... is to really take care of our (NationStates) universe, as... if it was our own world... our own, one universe.

Like real humans, many of us seek a better world, which is why the WA exists for. So as members or delegates we should show a bit of respect to the organization by continuing to work together and come up with resolutions that will actually improve the quality of our universe. I also believe that new members deserve the same respect as experienced ones. Please really be helpful to them: I really know that with encouragement they can create a resolution that will be a classic. I know that nothing is impossible; all one needs is determination and imagination.

I really encourage you to unite with each other and make the WA a great organization as if it was a real one. I strongly commend Max Barry and everyone behind NationStates for providing such a way to learn how to take care of a world as if they were our own.

Thank you.

Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L.:

Wow, so many of us have been so stupid, when Charlotte was really doing something to inspire new proposal makers? Oh, what have I done?

Marayevkohara K. D.:

Nothing wrong. It's one of many resolutions that aim to improve the world, just as what Charlotte wished for. There cannot be just one resolution that solves everything.

I do not object to an international organization to coordinate relief efforts. However, I object to the fact the the World Assembly should have to pay for it. I think there should be an organization, but not funded from the pockets of member nations.

I have voted against this proposal and urge other nations to do so. Furthermore, I ask you: should we even provide relief efforts in the first place? Nations should be able to feed themselves, provide safety equipment agianst natural disaters themselves. By providing relief, I am promoting bad decisions by bailing out those who made them. I am training people to live off my aid. I would rather invest in the natural resources of a needy country than send them aid. I would provide jobs by building oil wells in impoverished nations, teach them not to sponge off others, and bring money and resources to my own nation. I thank you all for your audience.

Shang Dang's ambassador can be seen rapping his fingers in frustration.

Thankfully this will be passing, so we won't have to listen to this again. Of course, to these fellahs over here, if your not intending to help anyone, then why are even here? Really now. To the Canton of Bern, we have funds. We have the money for an organizations already being used from the funds we bring in. Might I add, they are currently not going to any major humanitarian projects. It'd be different if they were already spread out among six other councils, but they are not. The WA is a brand new start, so why not kick it off with something that accepts donations? It's not like I have to finally institute an income tax for this.

That, and I see that national disasters and unforeseen catastrophes shouldn't be mixed in with welfare. Trust me on this one, Shang Dang is first and foremost against needless welfare, but this isn't it. This is to hasten the recovery from damage that results in possible damage to economies, international trade, the work force and our tax flow! Poor people that live in rubble may be good to a few contracting companies, but for the most part it just makes poor people without jobs. Not much use are they now hrm? Oh sure probably a couple thousands of pounds of food will be needlessly dropped over a tribe that won't go out and get real jobs, but I can live with that so long as it aids in revival of major economic powerhouses. I can always tell my poor to get to work, but it's a bit hard to do that when the all the jobs are from lifting rubble. Besides, most people... he shudders volunteer.... to do that anyway.

Where can I start? Basically this is a good proposition, its goals are good for many of the Nations but there are some issues I am concerned with.

On section 5 letter A. It states that the ICRC can obtain all resources to aid in emergencies. In a time of crisis a government must give some of its resources to the area in crisis because of the will of the ICRC. What happens when an economy is weak and the ICRC still must obtain all the resources to areas in need? What about the rest of the nation? Since they are not in poverty or destroyed they must wait till those resources are reproduced and given back to them? Wouldn't this start to cause the entire nation to reduce to nothing? This also includes some of the more powerful nations, would this also cause our economies to decline?

The last issue i wish to discuss is on Section 5 letter C. Is this actually stating that the ICRC must not abuse their budget, or is it considering that they can become corrupt?

Thank you for reading. I hope this might change some of our Nations views.

_________________
CoN Amercian
First Knight of Aslan

I voted against because of the reoccuring thought that this is going to become Nationstates' FEMA International.

Lesser Biglandia has voted AGAINST this resolution.

While we applaud the sentiment and motivation behind this resolution, we do have objections to certain provisions of the resolution as written.

1. We object to having the ICRC draw its operating funds from the coffers of the WA. This would essentially mean that all WA nations would have a levy placed upon them to maintain the ICRC.
2. Lesser Biglandia is uncomfortable with the notion of having the ICRC intervene in war zones. What safeguards would be placed to ensure the ICRC's political neutrality? Any bias (whether real or perceived) on the ICRC's behalf would not only endanger ICRC personnel, but would jeopardize the reputation and standing of the ICRC and the WA.

These are both good and thought provoking questions. Thank you.

To reply to your first question, true the costs of any World Assembly program will essentially come from the WA budget, which might even be financed by book sales for all I know. ;)

I think your second reservation is very important! Neutrality is extremely important to the mission of any emergency aid based organization, which is why having coordination coming from a neutral organization (per the Rights and Duties resolution) such as the World Assembly is necessary!

Another nation raised a complaint that terrorist organizations would fund emergency relief, and in doing so legitimize their existence. Without this resolution, they can currently do so. Mikitivity could enter a severe drought and need food. The Aslan Faction, a local terrorist organization, could offer up food in an attempt to undermine the confederal government. But if the true intent of the aid were simply to provide food to hungry Mikitivitians, the Aslan Faction could discretely give supplies to the ICRC, which as being neutral could pass them back to Mikitivity.

I think the spirit of the resolution is clear enough that if, getting to your concern, the ICRC wasn't neutral, that other nations could lobby the World Assembly to correct that. :)

Howie T. Katzman

[QUOTE
RECOGNIZING the existence of many specialized non-governmental organizations (abbreviated as NGOs), both at domestic and international level, focusing on providing humanitarian aid to both individuals and governments...
OBSERVING that the World Assembly has not designated a single point of responsibility for coordinating the efforts of such NGOs... QUOTE]

Ok, the point of an NGO is that it IS a non-governmental Organisation, which in turn (Theoretically) means it has no vested intrests in the area of the disaster. The proposed bill would mean Governments would organise aid, raising the possibility tht "Relief aid" conferences may descend into bidding wars as nations compete to give the lowest price on goods which will be bought and delivered to disaster areas. This bill is supposed to be about relief aid, not a cartel fixing low prices on goods which will then be bought. I'm sorry, but this just seems a little too open to corruption.



[QUOTE REALIZING there are duplications of some relief efforts, and that communication problems may create inefficiencies in absence of a clear single point of responsibility QUOTE]

And creating a bureaucracy will solve inneficiency? I'm sorry,but this just doesn't seem like a good idea. If there is an earthquake in my country, I don't want a well meaning organisation forming a plan of action in a boardroom AND THEN CONTINUING WITH IT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE SITUATION IS ACTUALLY LIKE. An organisation like this would not be welcome in my country if it did not consult with local government to analyse what is nessacary. If a region has a weak economy but is managing to produce enough to keep itself running, I do not want hundreds of tonnes of underpriced foreign-made surplus charitable donations flooding the market and finishing off any chance of economic recovery.
The World Assembly,

[QUOTE RECOGNIZING that all citizens of member nations should be protected by such a humanitarian group.

1. ESTABLISHES the International Coordinated Relief Committee (ICRC), an organization whose sole duty is to co-ordinate of relief aid of NGOs in all member nations;

2. MANDATES that the ICRC shall be funded from the resources of the World Assembly, but;

3. PERMITS the ICRC to accept donations and grants from individual persons as a goodwill gesture; QUOTE]

Ok, my citizens have the right to relief aid in the event of a disaster. This is the job of my government to co-ordinate - NOT the responsibility of the WA. If this organisation is funded by the WA, the point I raised earlier is appicable here. Bribes are easily concealable as "Donations"... Such as the owner corporation "Donating" money which then recieves a large order for relief aid supplies?


[QUOTE 4.1. DEFINES a major disaster as an event which may threaten lives and livelihoods, such as natural disasters, terrorist attacks and war;

4.2. DEFINES the functions of the ICRC, whose role shall be to:
a) Provide international coordination of food, shelter, and humanitarian aid efforts in nations affected by a major disaster;
b) Co-ordinate the efforts of existing NGOs in member nations at an international level;
c) Provide training to volunteers of NGOs and the ICRC itself in preparedness for such disasters.

5. INSTRUCTS the ICRC to:
a) manage and prioritize the allocation of resources to specific situations or emergencies, based on the current inability of other governmental and NGOs to meet all of the needs of those situations;
b) not promote conflict or war in any way; QUOTE]

Not promote conflict or war, but still provide humanitarian aid to both sides which could be appropriated by the government?

[QUOTE ENCOURAGES member nations and existing NGOs to share recovery plans and aid each other through the halls of the ICRC. QUOTE]

It doesn't encourage, it FORCES NGO's to co-operate through its legislature. This is not a good idea - An individual organisation is better suited to meet the needs of certain situations than a bureaucratic juggernaut.

This is Big Brother all over again. It basically says "my way of the highway." it is a recipe for corruption, bureaucracy, waste and a license for a bunch of overpaid cronies to snigger about how much they make while thousands die.

Stop wasting WA time!

:gundge:

find this proposal greatly offensive and would urge everyone to vote against it. The legalization of theft on a grand scale should never be allowed and I am highly disapointed that the WA would allow such precident.

This is Big Brother all over again. It basically says "my way of the highway." it is a recipe for corruption, bureaucracy, waste and a license for a bunch of overpaid cronies to snigger about how much they make while thousands die.

Stop wasting WA time!

:gundge:
Ah such eolquence. Oh to bask in the glow of such fine words and phrases that most of us mere mortals can only deam to aspire. read the proposal and look at the strength. I can live with a mild proposal such as this one. Its the stronger ones that bug me, and lucky if this one passes then I won't have to deal with them. Speaking of that...
"Velma, How is the inducements coming?"

At this point Sen Sulla's Secretary Velma (http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/Velma.jpg) looks up from the magazine she was reading and says,
"Some Frog from Texas offered $10 million for you to vote against, While another offered a magazine subscription to Joshi Wrestling Hotties Weekly for you to cast your vote supporting the resolution."

"Well then I guess I'll have to go with agains...", the good but slightly unwholesome Senator started to say before his iPhone rang. He picked it up and looked at the caller ID.
"ah its the Thessadorian Ambassador. I wonder what she wants?", He said to himself.
"Yes Ambassador, Its good to hear from you. well I was going to vote against it as I received a sizable inducement. You'ld like me to do what? Well I'm not sure about that. What's that? Look at my screen?"
At this point Sulla looks at the screen on his iPhone. Sudddenly all the color drains from his face. He begins to tremble uncontrolably and his jaw drops dramatically. He reaches for a glass of ice water, which he then procedes to throw over his face.
"Great googly moogly, woman! How in the world can you fit all that on the screen?"

The good but now slightly shaken Senator, Closes his phone, leans over to his microphone and says,

"The Palentine gladly votes For this fine piece of legislation. Now if you excuse me, I'm off to see a lady from Thessadoria."

With that the Senator gets up and leaves.

Title: Coordinating Relief Aid
Sub-title: A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

How is income inequality only happening during emergencies... I thought it was an on going element in many nations?

I also thought that basic welfare was the responsibility of the state, not the international community.

This is a piece of poorly written legislation. The effects do not reflect the causes, the words are written sideways, and the ultimate point is to establish a collective who has no use.

Coordinating Relief Aid is a stop gap measure against nations who abuse their populace.

This is a waste.

Title: Coordinating Relief Aid
Sub-title: A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

It's socialist. It violates regional and national sovereignty by mandating 'charity' and it's......*gasp*......Socialistic on an international scale.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day; teach him to fish and you will feed him for life.

If people want to give then they should have the choice of giving. There is no reason to rob people to force them to give. Charity if voluntary. If it isn't, it's socialism and coerced redistribution of wealth - socialism/communism.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day; teach him to fish and you will feed him for life..

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a night; set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Not every aphorism matches the events. Mine makes as much sense as yours in this context.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day; teach him to fish and you will feed him for life.

If people want to give then they should have the choice of giving. There is no reason to rob people to force them to give. Charity if voluntary. If it isn't, it's socialism and coerced redistribution of wealth - socialism/communism.

I seem to be making a habit of speaking up when people say silly things.

Ya know there mate, this isn't like we are plucking out cash from the rich to give to the good for lazy drug-using homeless we got. This is to form an organization to fix serious problems caused by generally unforeseen events. Hell, it accepts donations! I'm sure we can find a bunch of sorry good-for-nothing humanitarians to donate to the cause. They always seem to need to help someone for not working, so we'll point them that way.

While agree with you that socialism is communism, this here ain't socialism. This is forming a committee to handle disastrous events. If your telling me you own nation doesn't have one of them, then I'm willing to bet you were elected through a game of duck-duck-goose.

I can appreciate your government's position. Basically it sounds like you do not wish to reward what you believe is poor planning -- building in a hazardous zone. I'd like to offer two thoughts in hopes of getting you to consider changing your vote to supporting this idea.

First, you can make the choice of when to contribute and not to contribute resources, so you'd still be able to create an economic incentive for better landuse planning (that is what I believe you are really stating). I think this is in fact a wise policy.

Second, many nations are subjected to changing environments or geographically are challenged by a greater frequency and range of disasters than others. For example, low lying island nations are threatened by changes in the climate that *might* result in raised sea levels or more powerful and more frequent hurricanes. Similarly, alpine nations like my own, face challenges of more frequent floods due to a decreasing snowpack and intensification of storm events.

Here are just some examples of disasters:
- flash floods
- sustained floods
- earthquakes
- volcanic eruptions
- hurricanes
- tsunamis
- tornadoes
- extreme wind events
- mud / rock slides
- prolonged droughts
- blizzards
- avalanches
- waste water sewage plant spills
- pandemics
- large traffic accidents
- pipe-line / refinery explosions
- building / infrastructure collapses
- wild fires (small and large)
- dust storms
- crop failures
- chemical spills
- loss of power (brown-outs)
- reactor melt downs
- dam failure
- giant owl bear attacks
- mother-in-law visits

The list goes on, but my point is in some countries our risks of say a mass assault of mother-in-laws is rare, but we might not always be able to plan for all of these other disasters.
If this proposal relied 100% on donated funds we would gladly accept. However, as some of it comes from the WA, we still wish to maintain of abstinences of vote.

We may reconsider, but being a nation devoted to the environment, we do not want to aid nations who ruined their environment for economic prosperity and then got hit quite hard because the ecological barriers that would nartually be there are gone. We do not want our money payed to the WA being sent there either.

We might also be willing to support a revised version would it have a clause to require nations that did ruin their environment for such reasons be required to impliment measures in order to receive aid, and star them in conjunction with the aid being dispersed, so they can't say "yes" get aid, and turn around and say "screw you...we have the money now"

If this proposal relied 100% on donated funds we would gladly accept. However, as some of it comes from the WA, we still wish to maintain of abstinences of vote.

We may reconsider, but being a nation devoted to the environment, we do not want to aid nations who ruined their environment for economic prosperity and then got hit quite hard because the ecological barriers that would nartually be there are gone. We do not want our money payed to the WA being sent there either.

We might also be willing to support a revised version would it have a clause to require nations that did ruin their environment for such reasons be required to impliment measures in order to receive aid, and star them in conjunction with the aid being dispersed, so they can't say "yes" get aid, and turn around and say "screw you...we have the money now"

Our nations do not see eye to eye on this subject, but I do want to let the Popotan people that my government does *respect* your logic and decision in this case. :)

I'd like to explain why my environmental friendly nation supports this proposal. We believe that there are other ways, including normal economic trade relations, to encourage sustainable planning. I'm not saying the position of my government is a better or only way, but I wanted to suggest it is a similar but different approach. ;)

Our hope is to convince the people of nations that do not incorporate good sustainable policies which consider alternate land use plans than to first show them in a time of need fundamentally our peoples are still connected and should work together.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC: Out of curiosity, are you talking about Louisiana and its barrier islands?

"The Palentine gladly votes For this fine piece of legislation. now if you excuse me, I'm off to see a lady from Thessadoria."

With that the Senator gets up and leaves.

*overheard in the halls outside the World Assembly chambers*

"Quick, call and cancel ... er redirect the companion we arranged to entertain the Palentine delegation."

"Why?"

"Some other nation apparently also makes good use of the Companion's Guild."

"OK. But which nation would you like me to send her to visit."

"Oh, I dunno. Just don't send it to one of the n00b nations. That is a waste of the start of perfectly good relations! Just make sure that we are still using one of the unnamed bank accounts that we have some Canadian activity on, so if anybody tracks this back to us we can blame Canada."

My nation did seem truly care for this resolution in any fashion and wished to simply abstain from it. However after a regional vote, I am obligated to follow what the majority wish, and by a narrow margin the region of La Mafia supports this and so we vote YES.

No thanks, i'd rather not add another level of regulatory beaurocracy. Aid should be handled by individual nations.

That is the smartest thing i've heard sir. If anyone has any idea of the evilness of beaurocracy, that person is educated. A vote in affirmation is voting in another way to do nothing. This is not worth the space its written on.

[Dragons Bay Broadcasting Company]-- King Timothy I of Dragons Bay has today voted against the resolution currently debated at the World Assembly on setting up a WA body to coordinate relief aid.

"Frankly, this is not a very bright idea," said His Majesty to a press conference in the capital. "The point about non-governmental organisations is that there are non-governmental. Establishing a WA-mandated body to oversee their operations runs against the exact principle of having NGOs in the first place.

"Moreover, this would create unnecessary and excessive bureaucracy and inefficiency, and nobody will benefit out of this, not member states, not the WA, not the aid recipients. It also deals a heavy blow to civil society movements in developed countries like Dragons Bay. Who says the NGOs aren't capable of handling themselves?

"Don't get me wrong. I am all for foreign aid, but do we really need an international regulatory body to oversee it? I don't think so."

Despite the government's view, the resolution is currently widely supported by the international community. Voting ends today.

Ok i know its nearly been passed in the WA but i just want to say i support 100% and it should be passed so please everyone vote.

I think Dragon Bay is right on point with this one.

It's insulting to the people of my nation that laws will be enforced upon them that are hokey and ultimately pointless. They have heard the assembly leaders who have noted that they are in support of this resolution, but do not feel the need to state why.

What is the point of recognizing something that is already recognized? Do we really need to applaud their efforts? Is the world truly so disenfranchised that we are not able to say thank you, that we would need a government body to this for us?

What say do we have in the budget of an NGO? It's an NGO!!! The very act of governing a non-government charity organization is truly is disturbing.

This is my favorite...
"REALIZING there are duplications of some relief efforts, and that communication problems may create inefficiencies in absence of a clear single point of responsibility;"

So in the absence of clear responsibility, we will a find a single point of responsibility called the World Assembly which has 20,000 member nations, and 1800 regional delegates? Responsibility would imply that there is someone who could hold people accountable if the wrong action is taken. But who will hold the WA accountable, the WA?

These organizations have existed for quite sometime, and they have only grown and become better at what they do. Why impede progress?

Title: Coordinating Relief Aid
Sub-title: A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

How is income inequality only happening during emergencies... I thought it was an on going element in many nations?

OOC: Each proposal that's submitted to the WA has to be placed within one or another from a limited set of 'categories'. For "aid"-related proposals like this, the obvious choice out of that set is 'Social Justice'... and the game's programming automatically places that sub-title under the title of every proposal in this category.

Samir's Lebanon supports and will continue to support the aid of the people. It is our belief that those in power shall work to improve the lives o those without power, while those without the power work for the benefit of those with the power. Those with the power, in our nations case, is the government. The people shall work to better improve the government, a hard working, well educated people, will bring prosperity to its nation. With that, the nation, primarily its government, will use that capital to better the lives of its people. However, if the government of the country can not find the means by which to do so, then who will aid these people? It is expected, that if one group does not harm the other, then both should continue to follow this set of "I help you, you help me" rules to the best of their capabilaty. If one group can not maintain this, if the government can not provide aid for its people due to circumstances hindering the governments efficiency and abilaty to look after its people, then aid should be offered by governments with the means to do so. Why should these governments aid the people of another government? Because, be a person from one nation or antoher, people are people. Everyone deserves a chance, and the relief aid should continue to be provided until the government of those in need can support itself and its people. This goes with the assumption that the alledged government is striving to help its populace but, temporarily, does not have the capabilaty to do so.

This nation, Samirs Lebanon, declares its approval for Coordinated Relief Aid bt the WA since it sates that such relief comes in times of emergincies, and this is sufficient for our nation to assume that relief will be provided on the spontaneous occasions when incidents "occur". We feel assured that there will be no abuse of this policy and the coordination of the aid, as long as the WA remains uncorrupt. Therefore, our trust is in the WA.

Many nations have foundit distastefull to place relief aid provided by NGO's into the hands of an entirely nation based assembly. However, considering tht no one nation controls this, and that the union of all these nations is what maintaisn this coordination of relief aid, then it seems wholly reasonable to place it in the hands of the WA who could make sure the relief goes to those who truly need it, and not those who wish to abuse it as the clause of their peole.

Thank you for your patience with this message, it is riddled with personal opinion; however, we hope that the statements made in this arguement are relevant to many other nations. Samirs Lebanon thanks those who have voted Yes, and emplores those who have voted No to reconsider on future occasions when a simmilar poll is made. Excuse any spelling errors in this message, the representative of Samirs Lebanon who wrote this has had a...long...long day. Good day to you World Assembly members, may your soviegrnty never be questioned.

Because of the passing of this article, My economy has faltered. The WA has no right to disrupt my peoples lives in this manner.

You have not improved the standard of living for my people, and are siphoning off money from their pockets. You are all nothing but silver tongued serpents. :upyours:

We need to think before you support people who wish to pass pointless and harmful legislation for their own ego boost.

Ratio-

You're last point about egotism is the only thing that keeps this from being as serious as it could be. Whether it is egotism or just plain ignorance, we here in Garlicstan are not sure. I have been here for only two votes so far, and what I can summize is that delegates of the WA are very limited in their view of the world. If something is cute and cuddly like limits on Child Labor, or foreign aid, people will assume it's in the best interests of their people. Again, I've only been here for two votes.

Someone just made a long post, I didn't catch his name (I'm on my cell phone - a pain to go back). I just wanted to say that the notion that those in power should help those that aren't because they keep them in power is absurd. We are talking NGOs, which should hold no power, anywhere! They are there to help, and when and where they help is a decision left up to the organization. People who are looking to do the right thing usually end up doing it in the right places, so why do we need to regulate it?

After years of decreasing taxes, the people of Geektique would like to thank the World Assembly for reminding them that their country does have a goverment as exhibited in said goverments need to raise taxes in order to pay for this absurd resolution.

It took me a lot of effort to stabilise my countries economy without breaching my nations enviromental and moral integrity.

As this resolution has mostly undone this work, I will first be launching a motion to repeal this.

If this does not succeed,I feel that I,And many like me will be rescinding our WA memberships.

The WA has no right to disrupt my peoples lives in this manner.

It has every right to disrupt your peoples lives in this manner. You gave it that right when you joined.

Expect more pleasant surprises with each subsequent resolution. Your poverty-stricken but safer citizens will laud you from the highest lampposts in the land.

It took me a lot of effort to stabilise my countries economy without breaching my nations enviromental and moral integrity.

As this resolution has mostly undone this work, I will first be launching a motion to repeal this.

If this does not succeed,I feel that I,And many like me will be rescinding our WA memberships.You were the one stupid enough to join the WA so early. Don't bitch at us because your nation is young and vulnerable and the slightest wave will capsize the boat. I don't need to tell you, it's especially bad form to attempt a repeal of international relief aid (red: The Red Cross) for purposes of statwank.

Hahaha! Whats this nonsense about this ruining economies and raising taxes to meet this demand? Ahhh, Shang Dang still hasn't put an income tax in place and our economy is still very solid and running as normal. Is it because we are more fortunate, or because we learned how to run our territory? Ahh well, dumb legislators still run about this planet it seems.

On the behalf of the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz, I would like to personally thank all the nations that took the time to share their comments concerning international humanitarian aid as it relates to this resolution. We'd also like to thank the government of Charlotte Ryberg and the World Assembly Delegates who endorsed the proposal for taking the time to campaign and draft this resolution.

As an NGO focused on providing humanitarian aid, in addition to gladly offering emergency assistance when needed, the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz would also like to offer staff resources to help the ICRC get started (should the World Assembly Gnomes need to recruit members of the international community into their staff). ;)

Furthermore, in spirit of the political neutrality promoted in the resolution, I would like to personally encourage NGOs and governments from other nations to also offer administrative and staffing resources to the World Assembly and its ICRC as needed.

Danke,
Jean-Christophe Dunant

OOC:
I was chopping at the bit during the debate to say more, as in real-life, I'm actually an emergency responder and emergency response planner for the State of California. :) I'd be happy to talk more about that, but I wanted to underscore that I really did enjoy the discussion. Thanks all!

You were the one stupid enough to join the WA so early. Don't bitch at us because your nation is young and vulnerable and the slightest wave will capsize the boat. I don't need to tell you, it's especially bad form to attempt a repeal of international relief aid (red: The Red Cross) for purposes of statwank.

OOC: I see why the UN demanded that NS remove any mention of them from this game. It takes a lot of effort to make the UN look noble and you sir have done it.

OOC: I see why the UN demanded that NS remove any mention of them from this game. It takes a lot of effort to make the UN look noble and you sir have done it.

OOC:
No, you don't.

The real-life UN has two principal headquarters. One in New York and one in the former League of Nations headquarters in Geneva (I've been to them both -- and was actually presented an award at the New York headquarters for an essay on environmental mitigation in the construction industry in the 21st century that I wrote back in 1995).

The Geneva headquarters is where most of the specialized committees and agencies meet, whereas the New York facility is for the General Assembly, Security Council, and a few other programs. Both facilities also serve as meeting places for nations & diplomats (which is why I was at the New York facility -- the award was a joint US-Japan award, later I was taken on a 1 week tour of Japan at the expense of Shimizu).

The Geneva headquarters is located IMMEDIATELY across the street from the real life ICRC. I promise you that the spirit and language of the resolution you are complaining about is the type of thing that the United Nations would actually approve in heartbeat.

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

All Delegates and members we are pleased to announce that the resolution has passed at 7,923 votes to 2,584 against and has been duly implemented in all WA nations.

All credit are due to both, the government of Charlotte Ryberg and the government of Mikitivity.

Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L.:

Now come on, let's party!

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Not just yet. Next on the agenda is to improve water quality so everyone has access to safe drinking water.