NationStates Jolt Archive

My first ever attempt...and it isn't even a draft...I got carried away and submitted the darn thang.

Its not too late to offer suggestions though. Other than...don't forget to separate the "Discription" and the "Argument" :)
Repeal "Coordinating Relief Aid"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #5
Proposed by: ASXTC

Description: WA Resolution #5: Coordinating Relief Aid (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Description: WA Resolution #5: Coordinating Relief Aid (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

Strongly identifying with the principles of promoting stronger ties and the need for humanitarian relief embraced in WA Resolution #5, "Coordinating Relief Aid",

Taking note of the honourable intentions of WA Resolution #5, "Coordinating Relief Aid", and specifically it's recognition of the fine work provided by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs),

RECOGNISING that while some International committees can serve useful functions, attempting to replace, coordinate and oversear already established Non-Governmental bodies will reduce the efficiency of said bodies and may lead to confusion during the most critical periods of an event,

BELIEVING the NGOs in coordination with each individual nations emergency proceedures to be best suited to deal with humanitarian events and to perform these duties untainted by political pressures,

NOTING that the establishment of another layer of Management will certainly reduce the effectiveness and swift deployment of aid required at short notice,

REJECTING the intention of §4.1, whereby the World Assembly officially DEFINES what a major disaster is without due process and leaving the definition open to far more self-interpretation than was surely intended,

DENOUNCES the biased and unsupported statement made in WA Resolution #5"Coordinating Relief Aid 5 )a that existing humanitarian bodies are currently unable to meet the requirement for which they exist,

Repeals WA Resolution #5 "Coordinating Relief Aid".

Voting Ends: Fri May 9 2008

I wish to tell nations that while my resolution was at vote, the number of oppositions inspired me to take a bold and daring step by repealing my own proposal, but it is important to know that I can't satisfy everyone's needs.

Is it okay that if the original resolution doesn't reach quorum, may I take over, because I have a better case to make.

----

(Unfinished Edition)

WA Resolution #5: Coordinating Relief Aid (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

UNDERSTANDING:
- The intention of the Author to create a international body for the co-ordination of humanitarian aid;
- The difficulty the Author has had to go through to ensure the resolution was within the regulations of the WA

APPLAUDING deeply, the Author who believes that humanitarian aid and emergency disaster assistance is just as vital as a foundation stone for the recovery of devastated livelihoods;

NOTING that the Author strives to ensure that the International Coordinated Relief Committee (ICRC) would meet the needs of Member Nations;

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING:
- That while some International committees can serve useful functions; attempting to replace, coordinate and oversee an established non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will reduce the efficiency of such bodies, and may lead to confusion at the most critical periods of an event, thereby putting lives at risk;
- That the NGOs, in coordination with each individual nations emergency procedures, is the best suited solution to deal with major disasters, and to perform these duties untainted by political pressures,
- That Member Nations have chosen not to surrender certain functions of their non-governmental organizations (abbreviated as NGOs) to the NS-ICRC, which they claim is another level of regulatory bureaucracy;

CONCERNED that this resolution:
- Fails to prevent the NS-ICRC from donating money directly to governments, for the fear of corruption;
- Fails to specify that humanitarian aid must be distributed carefully and fairly;
- May increase taxes, putting pressure on Member Nations that are struggling with their budgets;
- Establishes another layer of Bureaucracy, which may potentially reduce the effectiveness and swift deployment of humanitarian aid where it is desperately needed;

CONDEMNING the definition of a Major Disaster in section 4.1, whereas it has failed to leave the definition open to far more self-interpretation than was intended;

ANGERED over the biased and unsupported statement made in Resolution #5, that existing NGOs are currently unable to meet the requirement for which they exist;

BELIEVING that concerns therefore warrant a repeal, and;

CALLING for the Author to never give up in the fight against social injustice and global poverty caused by disasters of such;

The Original Author, taking a daring and bold step in history by repealing its own resolution, Coordinating Relief Aid.

Co-authored by ASXTC.

----

Charlotte,

as you can see from the content of my repeal...there is indeed a fair amount of good statement made in the original resolution.

Is it okay that if the original resolution doesn't reach quorum, may I take over, because I have a better case to make.

Certainly...thats what debate in politics is all about.


Its the first dabble in WA affairs....so i'm not touring the countryside trolling for support.

I fear the ASXTC delegation may have misunderstood the intent and scope of the original resolution.

RECOGNISING that while some International committees can serve useful functions, attempting to replace, coordinate and oversear already established Non-Governmental bodies will reduce the efficiency of said bodies and may lead to confusion during the most critical periods of an event,The resolution is intended to increase efficiently of international aid, not any and all aid provided by national or regional NGOs. It only coordinates relief efforts for a major disaster "based on the current inability of other governmental and NGOs to meet all of the needs of those situations." In other words, if extant NGOs are fully capable of handling a major disaster on their own, there's no need for ICRC involvement. And the only people qualified to assess whether or not the NGOs can meet those needs are the NGOs and the nations themselves; i.e., a request for international aid. This is well within the guidelines of a sovereignty-friendly and unintrusive international mandate.

BELIEVING the NGOs in coordination with each individual nations emergency proceedures to be best suited to deal with humanitarian events and to perform these duties untainted by political pressures,Unless they are ill-suited to meet current needs, and request international assistance. The purpose of the ICRC is to assess current needs and identify those NGOs that are capable of providing it. If current needs are being met, there's no need for the ICRC to step in, but if the NGOs request international aid, the ICRC is best equipped to identify the sources from which this aid should come.

NOTING that the establishment of another layer of Management will certainly reduce the effectiveness and swift deployment of aid required at short notice,The only mandate of the ICRC is to coordinate international relief aid, not micromanage its delivery.

REJECTING the intention of §4.1, whereby the World Assembly officially DEFINES what a major disaster is without due process and leaving the definition open to far more self-interpretation than was surely intended,The definition of major disaster only relates to the specific situations where ICRC assistance would be appropriate. It limits the ICRC's jurisdiction to only major disasters, "based on current inability." The only instance where the ICRC could legally intervene is when existing national or regional NGOs claim they need international resources and request assistance.

The definition is not intended to apply to any manner of law or regulation outside the implementation of this resolution.

DENOUNCES the biased and unsupported statement made in WA Resolution #5"Coordinating Relief Aid 5 )a that existing humanitarian bodies are currently unable to meet the requirement for which they exist,False. It is not a statement of opinion, it is just a limitation of the ICRC's reach. Translation: it is only appropriate for the ICRC to intervene if current NGOs are unable to meet all needs. And since the ICRC lacks any authority to declare to NGOs that they are unable to meet them, it is up to the NGOs themselves to determine if they need international aid.

It was said multiple times during the debate that internationalizing relief aid would not be so controversial if the participants knew the RL parallel: the Red Cross. This is a repeat of the Red Cross organization from the original UN -- but since we couldn't use an RL name, we used a recognizable acronym: ICRC, the "International Committee of the Red Cross," or as it's styled in this resolution, "International Coordinated Relief Committee."

Sorry if I am tempted, is just I push my resolutions to such deadly tests so I can see if it is still working..

Kenny, (with all due respect, given your vast knowledge and fine work in the field of WA resolutions)

I didn't misunderstand the intent at all...as is evident in the wording of the first few paragraphs.

Nowhere in the text of the resolution does it make clear that Aid from the ICRC will be given "if requested" rather:

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

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;
Thats another level of micromanagement that is already being undertaken by Governments and NGOs

The definition of major disaster only relates to the specific situations where ICRC assistance would be appropriate.
No it doesn't...it clearly states:
4.1. DEFINES a major disaster as an event which may threaten lives and livelihoods, such as natural disasters, terrorist attacks and war;
with no precursor to the definition. It is a poor definement of a "Major Disaster" in any situation.

The resolution is intended to increase efficiently of international aid, not any and all aid provided by national or regional NGOs.
Perhaps it should have said so then.

Thats another level of micromanagement that is already being undertaken by Governments and NGOsThe resolution "INSTRUCTS the ICRC to ... manage and prioritize the allocation of resources." That is, it determines what resources should go where. Nowhere does it state the ICRC must manage how these resources are then delivered.

No it doesn't...it clearly states:
<snip>
with no precursor to the definition. It is a poor definement of a "Major Disaster" in any situation.How charmingly pedantic. The resolution doesn't even require nations to do anything with regards to that definition; the only instructions it gives (with specific regard to the definition of "major disaster") are to the ICRC. It strikes me a bit odd that the definition would apply to the implementation of national or local laws when no mandates or instructions are given to member states regarding the definition.

Perhaps it should have said so then.Q: With what shall I carry the water, dear Liza? With what shall I carry the water, with what?
A: With a bucket, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry! With a bucket, dear Henry, dear Henry, bucket!The WA does not need to hold your hand for everything, you know. Some things can be figured out on their own. ;)

OOC:
I'm a bit confused here.

Is there really anything that needs repealing here???

Resolutions are meant to be 100% perfect. They can't be. Anybody can roleplay and sidestep them, any argument can be used under some contrived situation to show they won't always work. Which is cool ... roleplayers can make use of these resolutions, but they can't do nearly as much with repeals. :(

It's quite possible this breaches national sovereignty: " For others, national sovereignty is the ability of their nation to make its own policy through daily issues. For them, national sovereignty is a quality diminished only by an inability to make policy in a particular area. Even if they are members of the World Assembly, they are still allowed to make their own policy through daily issues and thus they still have national sovereignty."

This resolution forces me to make choices I'd rather avoid; hence breaking the rules defined above.


Incidentally,would it count as spamming to promote This Marvelous resolution HERE? http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556099

Kenny, (with all due respect, given your vast knowledge and fine work in the field of WA resolutions)

I didn't misunderstand the intent at all...as is evident in the wording of the first few paragraphs.


Actually, I'm convinced you misunderstand the intent of the resolution.

The reason Kenny and I can speak to the intent of the resolution goes beyond its actual language. We both participated in both the drafting of the proposal and also the resolution debate. We *know* what the goal was.

Here is the intent:
When a large emergency hits, governments will need external aid ... but will barely have the resources to deal with allocating domestic resources, so having a common point to help out reduces the amount of "meetings" and coordination that the stressed government needs to do and increases the amount of actual response based activities the government can engage in.

As I mentioned OOCly in the closing of that resolution I'm a real-life emergency responder / emergency planner for the State of California and am telling you that the concept behind this resolution is sound.

I'm a real-life emergency responder / emergency planner for the State of California and am telling you that the concept behind this resolution is sound.

The concept may well be sound...however this concept does not come across well in this document.

Most people that read it tend to miss the word "request" that was stated earlier in the debate. Without it the ICRC thoughout the entire resolution has the ability to oversee and take control of relief efforts in all member nations.

the World Assembly has not designated a single point of responsibility for coordinating the efforts of such NGOs;has someone decided that one is needed?

duplications of some relief efforts,
is the better of the two evils. Stricken people would rather have 2 blankets than none at all..

member nations should be protected by such a humanitarian groupthey already are. The humanitarian groups that conduct this work are mostly charitable, non-governmental and already have thier own management structure. They are the ones best suited to cater for any emergency with local knowledge and the ability to swiftly react to changing situations.

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;
This comes across as:
The ICRC is mandated by the WA to take control of the disaster relief if it decides that the local relief organisations are unable to cope.
...and not what you obviously intended.

The process of repeal is not to argue the toss or ruin peoples hard work...but to give the nation the chance to have well worded, clear and concise resolutions to assist nations. I am sure that this particular document needs repeal and will eventually be replaced by another "Coordinating Relief Aid" that does just that.

The concept may well be sound...however this concept does not come across well in this document.


Sure it does.

I'll use a California example, but add that last October the Dutch government flew me to the Netherlands to participate in an international conference on tidal estuaries (my technical expertise is in tidal hydrodynamics, hydroclimatology, and also emergency response planning). While at the conference I represented the United States and exchanged ideas with my counter parts from Bangladesh, India, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, Romania, Japan, South Korea, and the Netherlands. The systems this poor and rich nations alike use is essentially the same as my example.

California has 58 counties. When an emergency, say a forest fire or flood, exceeds the capacity of local emergency responders, usually sheriffs and firefighters, they immediate call the county Office of Emergency Services (OES). Other states and nations use different names, but the concept is the same ... the locals will ALWAYS be the first on the scene. County OES then responds by getting a situation representation (sitrep) from the "incident commander" (IC) <-- the first person on the scene is always in charge, because they have the actual ability to directly respond. After briefing the County OES, the IC will do one of two things, stay in charge or request additional resources. Those resources could be additional firefighters or police. The minute those resources are *not* from the IC's own local government / jurisdiction (i.e. a city cop calling in for cops from another city), County OES takes charge.

Here is why, the incident is now LARGER than the ability of one local jurisdiction to handle. The cop who called for help does not have time to have all of his/her friends from neighboring cities call in with offers of assistance. That cops job remains the same, directly respond to conditions in the field ... don't waste any more time calling for help, County OES will do that with *ONE* voice.

Now if the resources required to respond exceed the County's ability, then a request goes up to a regional OES. California has four, some nations could literally have hundreds, and some nations could actually bypass this step (but only in very small cases). Now groups that normally do not work together are pulled together. A great example of this would be a forest fire. The fire is not going to stop at a county line, and firefighters from hundreds of miles away will be brought in. The fire companies can not only come from cities in far away counties, but also frequently can come from tribal governments.

Again, as with the cop example, the firefighters on the scene and putting out the fire, don't have the time to tell the other government's engine companies where to go ... they are two busy trying to immediately save lives.

In both cases, the model is really simple: coordination of relief is handed over to a SINGLE command that is not directly responsible for the operations, but instead solely focuses on providing: (1) information, (2) logistics & resource support, and (3) starting financial recovery ops. In the United States this process is outlined by the National Incident Management System (NIMS).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMS

The basic principal comes from the military and honestly is applied (with variations) throughout the world, because it is a natural system.

The *intent* of the resolution, which you claim clearly is wrong, and I claim is clearly right, is to set up a single international body that ... *gasp* just like the real-life ICRC, can collect resources (people and material), thus giving an national government fewer points of contact to have to worry about.

Take Hurricane Katrina. The global support offered for the United States was HUGE. Nations that have good reason to despise the US Government, like Iran, were offering tangible resources. Germany immediate offered to fly US food goods that were stored in Germany *back* to the US.

The problem was, things were so bad in New Orleans, that the request for help quickly jumped from the State government to the Federal govt, and the US couldn't handle all of the international offers *and* also manage its own activities. As most of us know, in addition to international aid from governments, NGOs (like the 100s of Red Cross / Red Crescent organizations) also offered supplies.

The bottom line is you are certainly entitled to your OPINION that the resolution is clearly "wrong". But frankly between you and me, as somebody who actively works in this field and has planned for Katrina scaled events on a State level with input from international ER planners, I'm stating that my years of experience tell me that your OPINION is flat out wrong.

It could mean I'm a very poor planner and all of these other people I've worked with are also wrong. But thus far all you've done is honestly taken literal words and made *one* of many interpretations.

Last week we were discussing what the difference between "collaborating" and "cooperating" mean between agencies working together in an emergency response. That is honestly a STUPID debate for four engineers to be having (the other three guys have 25+ years worth of experience each), but the reason was we knew that the "strength" of the words would mean different things to different people. We felt obligated to spend a bit of time because somebody would come by and claim that collaborating might mean "more" than cooperating or less. In reality they really mean about the same thing ... it is a word used to say two groups share ideas and resources to meet a common goal.

We can continue to argue over the words. But as somebody who was PRESENT and ACTIVE during the drafting of this resolution and as somebody who does this stuff in real-life, I am seriously doubtful that you'll find a way to tell me that my memory of the intent is wrong by you picking apart words that in reality can easily mean slightly different things.

You can sit here and claim the resolution really means this, that or something else. You aren't arguing the intent of the resolution. You are picking on word usage at this point. You are trying to argue how to pronounce tomato. Is it collaboration or cooperation??? Does it really matter?

Obviously you feel it does.

Obviously I don't. I've given everybody some insight into my real-life experiences that support my opinions, and honestly until somebody else who really is an emergency planner can come in here and show me how arguing over TOE-MAY-TOE vs. TOE-MAH-TOE really matters I'm inclined to say it is probably best to move onto the numerous other DRAFT proposals other authors want help on and let this one be.

It's quite possible this breaches national sovereignty: " For others, national sovereignty is the ability of their nation to make its own policy through daily issues. For them, national sovereignty is a quality diminished only by an inability to make policy in a particular area. Even if they are members of the World Assembly, they are still allowed to make their own policy through daily issues and thus they still have national sovereignty."

This resolution forces me to make choices I'd rather avoid; hence breaking the rules defined above.

Technically every resolution breaches National Sovereignty just some more than others.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

Ofcourse a coordinating body is very usefull. But let me give an example from RL East Timor. It happened that Indonesia lost a referendum on autonemy. Than the Indonesians and their allies ravaged the country. Than many people fled and became withodd food and other supplies. Than outsiders gave those people help. Coordinating from outsiders. Really graet lots of food came in. Very healthy for people who normally use milk. Accept those East Timorese did not use that for decades. Than people who were hungry get sick because of those milky products. More people died because of coordinated help.

So if an institute is made for co-ordinating all humanitarian relief, those things surely will happen a lot. I think WA can offer co-ordinating, but nations have to decide if they like that. And NGO have to decide if they can work with that co-ordinating or not. And nations decide if they can use those not co-ordinated. If all is decided on the international body, we can be sure it will not work. But those willing to be co-ordinated, let them be co-ordinated, very good.

Excuse for my bad English, I barely speak it, the same is for the mayority of this planet.

So I strongly support this repeal.

Greetingas,
Cocoamok,
Co-ordinator of The Wierd Anarchists

Hopefully not quoted out of context...both the following full statements indicate that my view or opinion is wrong.

The *intent* of the resolution, which you claim clearly is wrong,

At no time have i said that the intention of the resolution is wrong. Indeed the first few paragraphs of my repeal clearly state that the idea and principle is something that would be welcomed. You appear to have overlooked the main point that the repeal makes. It's not that your intentions are poor/bad/ill-concieved or otherwise.

I'm stating that my years of experience tell me that your OPINION is flat out wrong.

Your experience in the field is both interesting and praiseworthy. It doesn't however, no matter how involved someone is in relief organisation and planning, have any bearing on my opinion.

The proposed intent is probibly exactly as you see it from your perspective.
The implied intent created by reading it with an untainted viewpoint is something entirely different.

Now it's my turn to make a claim.
I don't think you understand why the resolution in its current form causes a problem. Re-read the repeal again and you will see that it not only praises the resolution for its intent..
Strongly identifying with the principles of promoting stronger ties and the need for humanitarian relief embraced in WA Resolution #5, "Coordinating Relief Aid"
but actually states where the thrust of the problem lies.
RECOGNISING that while some International committees can serve useful functions, attempting to replace, coordinate and oversear already established Non-Governmental bodies will reduce the efficiency of said bodies and may lead to confusion during the most critical periods of an event,
The original resolution allows the ICRC to assume control, without any request or situational prerequisite. Mearly if the ICRC decides that the current national and regional planning is under performing.

In my opinion and also during your examples of disaster management experience this is not the best way to coordinate relief aid. Which relief organisation during the completion of it's plan would want an oversear to muscle in and take over...this would slow or at least hamper the activities currently being undertaken.

The resolution is in most parts extremely soveriegnty sensitive and if the intervention of the ICRC was "at the request of the affected Nation/s" it wouldn't be viewed as a big-brother action.

So...for the second or third time....what you intended to produce is fully understood and I don't need to praise it anymore. What you produced is unacceptable to my nation and the NGOs/relief organisations that would resent a World Assembly committe taking over during a catastrophy.

No, I understand clearly what opponents are saying. They claim basically "two blankets are better than one", which based on my real-life experience as an emergency responder is complete ignorance speaking. They don't understand supply logistics. They've never had to deal with these sorts of problems.

The expression many of us know by heart is a "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Statements like "two blankets" are just stupid, because the issue in emergency response is always capacity. If our capacity to respond wasn't compromised, it would be a routine (non-emergency) response. BY DEFINITION PEOPLE.

Here is how emergencies work. Something happens. Either the first person there SOLVES the problem or asks for help. Asking for help is the same thing as having an emergency that exceeds the local capacity to respond. The response for any emergency responder is to ask for help. Why? Emergency responders aren't paid well, never have been. The motive in part is that the goal of the response is simple: save lives by any means necessary. It is also in part the very nature of an emergency responder ... these people (for many reasons) value action, not talk. Asking for help is expected.

When a request for aid goes out, naturally other people want to help. Not only is that human nature, but it actually makes good business sense too!!! There is one person / agency on the scene responding. Every offer of assistance, while appreciated, comes at a cost of distracting the emergency response decision maker from the real emergency.

Here I like to point to Return of the Jedi as an example. There is a scene where Han Solo wants C-3PO to talk to a bunch of Ewoks. Han tells 3PO what to ask for. Before 3PO can talk to the ewoks, Han gives him another order. 3PO starts to ask both questions to the bears, when Han interrupts him with more instructions.

Without a central ICRC, like in the real world, aid will be caught in a logistical queue just waiting for a sincere and legitimate offer to be made.


Too much help at once is worse than no help. The phrase I describe it as is "being nibbled to death by ducks". Nobody dislikes ducks (well except snails and slugs which ducks eat). They are cute and non-aggressive. One of them following a person around is manageable, 200,000 of them following somebody and offering to help is a nightmare exceed even Tim Burton's wildest dreams.

As somebody who is an emergency responder, I can honestly give a list of "gaps" of resources to one external agency with instructions, "Find me these resources ASAP." If they come back with strings attached, which is gonna be the case in any governmental or NGO assistance, literally ever SECOND I would spend saying "No, Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, YES DAMNIT" is a second that the disaster is unattended.

Having somebody else provide me logistical support is not only beneficial, in the United States under SEMS it is the law. Period. End of story.


Michael

No, I understand clearly what opponents are saying. They claim basically "two blankets are better than one", which based on my real-life experience as an emergency responder is complete ignorance speaking. They don't understand supply logistics. They've never had to deal with these sorts of problems.


ERm!! NO..I dont think you read my previous post.

The main problem is not "2 is better than 1"...its:

THE Resolution DOES NOT ASK to manage and organise...IT DECIDES ITSELF.

Place the prerequisite " AT THE REQUEST OF THE AFFECTED NATION" and it doesnt stamp all over the local orgaisations and National emergency plans.


Even the RED CROSS have to ask BURMA if they can come in and deliver aid.
Irrespective of whether you or I think they ought to do this sooner rather than later. The Burmese Government is primarily responsible to the people of Burma...not some overriding committee of a world organisation..beit the UN or the Red Cross.

The ICRC has no right to take command of ANY situation that occurs within my nations borders without gaining permission from the current govt.

I am not an avid fan of Star Wars or for that matter Star Trek but it is the latter that i shall use.

The Starship Enterprise has a crew of 5000+ (someone once told me about a particular passage that stated how many people were on board) which makes the actual ship several hundred meters long.
Only faithful and devote trekkies have never asked the question....

Why does something so large need an approximately 15 meter high orange flashing lamp on its roof?

..because they can't see it.