NationStates Jolt Archive

Gosh, I have a commitment to be unbiased to the best as I can, but it looks like my old friends don't think it is worth repealing it. The reason is acceptable, that the replacement could be just as worse as that lame-duck Veterans Reform Act if it was not planned. IMHO I would say go against, but I respect the opinions of Pantherai but there is a better way than jumping the gun. Plus, it saved lives.

On balance, I think it should be voted against.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: #5

Proposed by: Pantherai

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

Argument: ACKNOWLEDGING that, in principle, such a resolution is an admirable effort to better provide relief aid to areas that need it,

APPLAUDING all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that focus on providing such humanitarian aid,

NOTING that, although providing relief aid should be a fundamental part of The World Assembly, the coordinating of NGOs is not an effective way to go about it. This is because, naturally, many NGOs would prefer not to affiliate themselves with an organisation such as The World Assembly and shall continue to work independently thus making coordination of relief aid a fruitless task.

SEEKING an opportunity to establish a resolution which would put World Assembly resources to a more effective system of providing humanitarian aid,

AND HOPING that a resolution will, in the future, be put forward to create a World Assembly body that will, while working closely with NGOs in an informal capacity, shall provide its own structure of providing relief aid.

The World Assembly hereby repeals the 'Coordinating Relief Aid' Resolution.

------
For those who say no, please tell your fellow delegates and members those who said yes to change their mind. This is a message you could use:

Esteemed (Delegate or WA Member):

Please change reconsider your position in the attempt to repeal Coordinating Relief Aid. This resolution has allowed many lives to be saved because it has provided NGOs with accurate and vital data and reporting on conditions on the ground and where their assistance would best be allocated during any emergency.

I understand about the recent tax hikes, but the massive depletion of funds is due to new welfare commitments to war criminals, the Veterans Reform Act, and not humanitarian aid.

There is no conclusion in linking the style of the administration of relief aid to the style of administration of the Veterans Reform Act is.

On balance, Coordinating Relief Aid is more than sufficient and possibly the best option possible when it comes to providing national and international relief aid. The Veterans Reform Act is a failure and we are working to rid this once and for all.

Once again, We beg you to please vote against this repeal and focus your attention against the Veterans Reform Act instead. Thank you for your understanding.

Yours sincerely,
(Ambassador Name)
------
Considering the evolution of the World Assembly, I see a need to re-write this resolution to bring it into the future only if everyone wanted one. On balance, I then need to see what you think. I have to thank Mikitivity for defending this while it lasted. Let's use this thread to improve for a future version.

So do write to me, tell us what you like to see in a new version of Coordinating Relief Aid. We are open to suggestions and criticism, and we like to come over to see how you react to humanitarian disasters.

I have not made a formal position yet until you tell me what you like me to actually do.

Finally, I'd like to thank Pantherai for his input. The nation's resolution is yes, at the top.

The argument of this repeal is utterly specious.

The basis of my support for this repeal is primarily the need to allow relief agencies to be independent of the World Assembly if they wish to be. I'm not ready to say whether or not I support a replacement; I'll have to see what gets proposed. I will say that I don't support the WA having a relief agency of its own. The expense would be tremendous, and I don't think it makes sense given the countless NGOs and government programs that already exist for the purpose of providing aid both within particular jurisdictions and abroad. I seriously doubt that the fixed costs of such a venture would be outweighed by its marginal benefits in light of the fact that it would in most cases either supplement or supplant existing organizations.

I'm especially reluctant to approve such expensive projects when the WA is financed primarily through the provisions of the ambiguous, deceptive, and divergently interpreted WA General Fund, but my feelings about that resolution are well known and that's another matter.

Riley Fluffer
You know my titles by now, right?

Well, seeing as the WA now has to pay for several billion people's hleathcare amongst other things, we have to make cuts somewhere, such as coordinated relief...

indeed, the bill sent to each nation each year is rising, although i would like to see some kind of relief aid by the WA. Primarily i believe that NGOs should not be part of a WA body. Second, i think that a more efficient relief body would be one that gives relief and humanitarian aid to WA Members who need it and only when NGOs are not already assisting the area.

We are undecided as yet on this repeal. We are always loathe to ignore the opinion of the respected delegation of Quintessence of Dust, who's reason we hold in the highest regard.

However we can see the sense of keeping NGOs as independent of governments as possible. On the other hand a W.A. emergency coordination council which would provide NGOs with accurate and vital data and reporting on conditions on the ground and where their assistance would best be allocated during any emergency is vital and exactly the kind of thing the w.a. should be able to do.

The consideration that at we speak the general fund is being massively depleted by its new welfare commitments to war criminals is certainly a relevant factor, especially since were an emergency humanitarian crisis to occur now, it would be difficult to see where the funds needed to alleviate it would come from.


Would the respected and esteemed delegation of Quintessence of Dust care to elaborate on their position ?


Yours sincerely,

We fail to see this option work. It only means more spending, of course maybe for the greater good, this in turn means every WA country will need to step up to the plate with the funds. I can not see this happen as times are rough with the economy, we are voting against this.

It seems to us the author would prefer relief aid be administered much the same way the Veterans Reform Act is. We cannot fathom such obscene reasoning.

The Federal Republic stands against this repeal.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

This repeal is, as Ms. Benson has put it, "utterly specious". Namely, the assumption that the majority of NGOs refuse to work with the World Assembly is certainly plausible, but probably entirely false. Where is the proof?

I don't see how a World Assembly committee would be better at providing relief aid than NGOs. The world is massive, and we are but one organization that would be heavily outnumbered by the NGOs we would no longer be coordinating. It's the opinion of myself and my delegation that WAR #5, Coordinating Relief Aid, is more than sufficient and possibly the best option when it comes to providing national and international humanitarian/relief aid. Of course, it could be made better by also working with governments to coordinate government-based humanitarian efforts. But, that's not what is being proposed here, so it's a moot point.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

On reflection, it is the position of the government of the Emperor of Urgench that this repeal is unecessary.

We are liable to vote against this repeal, unless it can be shown to us that a better system of relief coordination could be put in place.


Yours,

In keeping with the logic outlined by Ambassador Baca, Zarquon Froods will be voting against this proposal. The likelihood that another one will come in its sted that will prove to be far more damaging to our already realing economy will only strengthen our stance.

Therefore, we will not be backing down on this.

a W.A. emergency coordination council which would provide NGOs with accurate and vital data and reporting on conditions on the ground and where their assistance would best be allocated during any emergency is vital and exactly the kind of thing the w.a. should be able to do. this is precisely what i want to happen, but in a more informal way where the WA will work with NGO's to make sure that assistance gets to the right areas without duplications - but where NGO's would remain autonomous from the WA and would fund themeselves rather than being funded by the WA.

We fail to see this option work. It only means more spending, of course maybe for the greater good, this in turn means every WA country will need to step up to the plate with the funds.

Because NGO's would be autonomous again they would also go back to funding themselves in the charitable ways as before, rather than being funded by the WA, therefore the cost to the WA, and thus all WA members, would be reduced heavily and only work carried out by the WA (which would only happen when NGO's are not offereing aid) would be funded by the general fund.

It seems to us the author would prefer relief aid be administered much the same way the Veterans Reform Act is.

Im sorry i dont understand what you mean, this repeal does not introduce new legislation it only repeals the old one, therefore your vote is on whether to remove the resolution, not on plans for a future proposal.

Secondly, the possibilities i have noted for a future proposal have been a system of funding exactly the same as the current resolution, but with far less funds needed to be put towards it, therefore you are contradicting yourself.

The argument of this repeal is utterly specious.

could you expand upon that?

Namely, the assumption that the majority of NGOs refuse to work with the World Assembly is certainly plausible, but probably entirely false. Where is the proof?

Nowhere in my repeal have i written what you have just said, i stated that many NGO's will want to work independently of the WA, nowhere did i state a majority.

I don't see how a World Assembly committee would be better at providing relief aid than NGOs.

i completely agree, which is why they do not need co-ordination at international level.

The likelihood that another one will come in its sted that will prove to be far more damaging to our already realing economy will only strengthen our stance.

I do not see how a body that will need less funds than the current one will harm your economy, in fact the only thing is can do it help it!

I do not see how a body that will need less funds than the current one will harm your economy, in fact the only thing is can do it help it!

You don't have a replacement drafted, therefore you are under the assumption that if one is made it will adhere to what you have outlined in this repeal. I say unto you that unless you are the one that writes the replacement, if it is decided that one is needed, the NGO could be given more power than already outlined. I would just as soon see this repeal carried out and the CRA removed, but the idea that something more damaging may take its place is enough cause for concern to pursaude me to vote against this.

I think that by judging from the comments by fellow ambassadors so far, in defence the repealing of Coordinating Relief Aid would be very bad for humanitarian aid co-ordination, which would put many lives of people affected by disasters at risk. I stand with agreement with my old friends of Omigodtheykilledkenny, Glen-Rhodes, Zarquon Froods and the QoD. I don't believe that all Social Justice acts are bad. I place the blame on yes, the Lame-duck veterans resolution.

I think the root cause of this is another resolution, the Veterans Reform Act. But if there was to be a better version, may it be drafted it before repealing it them replacing it? May the ambassadors of Pantherai be advised not to jump the gun: we've gone through a lot already and we can't bear to see a classic be repealed.

For those who want to see the repeal defeated, feel free urge the Delegates who voted for to change their position. Since I am a relatively good writer, it should go along the lines of (but please adapt to your taste):

Esteemed Delegate:

Please change reconsider your position in the attempt to repeal Coordinating Relief Aid. This resolution has allowed many lives to be saved because it has provided NGOs with accurate and vital data and reporting on conditions on the ground and where their assistance would best be allocated during any emergency.

I understand about the recent tax hikes, but the massive depletion of funds is due to new welfare commitments to war criminals, the Veterans Reform Act, and not humanitarian aid.

There is no conclusion in linking the style of the administration of relief aid to the style of administration of the Veterans Reform Act is.

On balance, Coordinating Relief Aid is more than sufficient and possibly the best option possible when it comes to providing national and international relief aid. The Veterans Reform Act is a failure and we are working to rid this once and for all.

Once again, We beg you to please vote against this repeal and focus your attention against the Veterans Reform Act instead. Thank you for your understanding.

Yours sincerely,
(Ambassador Name)

Oh we see, you are suggesting that the current marginal majority in favour of this repeal is a mistaken vote for the repeal of the veterans reform act, are you honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,

After the first round of analysis, yes.

Mongkha, I think some ambassadors are being a bit too paranoid just because an incredibly expensive resolution such as the Veterans Reform Act fell through our fingers. I find that some resolutions are worth the money, and the NS-ICRC, along with the Living Wage and the World Health Authority is one of them.

Yours etc,

I think what the Ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg is trying to say is the VRA has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Those of us against it are doing so, my own assumption here, that without knowing what a replacement, which is what this repeal is suggesting, will contain we cannot in good faith vote for this repeals passage.

As I said earlier, if we repeal without knowing precisely what will be replacing it, we set ourselves up for another resolution on this subject that will mirror the economic nightmare caused by the VRA.

im aginst this because it doesnt give me the neccesary information backing up why we should reapel this act give more detail on excatly why nations would rather be independant then to follow this law

More than a bad taste and ill-prediction, I'm afraid and I fully agree with you, Zarquon Froods. 6 million have already fled to my alternative nation: Charlotte Antje (http://www.nationstates.net/charlotte_antje) (Inspired by Japanada), with more to follow until that lame-duck Veterans Act is gone.

OOC: Can we get a sticky for this please.

The problem with this repeal is it is entirely unclear exactly what its argument is. It seems that some are voting against this statute because they think th current system is fiscally irresponsible, and the argument against the repeal is that the CRA will be replaced with a fiscally irresponsible alternative.

Frankly, though we have voted against this repeal ( on the basis that as yet no alternative is proposed ) we are still no wiser as to the merits of either argument.


Yours,

And I think we need a telegram campaign to convince delegates who voted for the repeal to change their minds.

What I originally meant by against was "those against the CRA and thereby in favour of the repeal". Sorry for the miswording.

I am for the repeal, but I fail to see the connection between this and the vets act.

This was up for delegate vote shortly before mine went to the WA for a member-wide vote. I voted against this Relief Aid Act when it first came up, naturally I would vote to see it repealed, just as you all feel about the vets act. Quit punishing Pantherai for something they aint doin!

And I think we need a telegram campaign to convince delegates who voted against to change their minds.


Do you mean all those who have voted against this repeal, honoured Ambassador ?

Honourable Ambassadors;
Canadish People stand for helping those that need it, and will be willing to go along with repealing the CRA if a replacement is proposed after this vote has been taken. If there will be no replacement, Canadish People will not accept any alteration of the current act.

Nowhere in my repeal have i written what you have just said, i stated that many NGO's will want to work independently of the WA, nowhere did i state a majority.Your entire repeal stems from the assumption that because NGOs will not work the ICRC, coordinating humanitarian/relief aid is fruitless. You are very much saying that the majority of NGOs will not work with the ICRC, less you're telling me, right now, that you're quibbling over a few stubborn NGOs.

i completely agree, which is why they do not need co-ordination at international level.That's a mighty jump there, Ambassador. "Since NGOs are more capable of providing aid than the World Assembly, the World Assembly should not help them coordinate such aid." Providing and coordinating are two very different things. A single body is infinitely better at coordination than thousands of separate bodies.

After the first round of analysis, yes.

Mongkha, I think some ambassadors are being a bit too paranoid just because an incredibly expensive resolution such as the Veterans Reform Act fell through our fingers. I find that some resolutions are worth the money, and the NS-ICRC, along with the Living Wage and the World Health Authority is one of them.

Yours etc,

I agree completely, Ambassador Berlin. I do not understand all this hype over the depletion of the General Fund. "Where is the proof?" I ask. The General Fund was created to fund all resolutions, no matter how large or small they are. I think that we ought to simply stick with the fact that the Veterans Reform Act uses these funds irresponsibly, with the possibility of dangerous consequences. That's a much more reasonable argument.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Is there great contention about depletion of the general Fund in this debate Dr Castro ?


Yours,

Is there great contention about depletion of the general Fund in this debate Dr Castro ? What's troublesome is that there isn't, yet no proof has been given to anybody that the General Fund is actually being dangerously depleted. Irresponsibly used, yes; which itself is reason enough for having the Veterans Reform Act repealed. But depletion is a strong word. I cannot seriously entertain the argument that the General Fund, a fund created expressly to fund all resolutions, is being made insufficient by a single resolution without any actual proof.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Dr. Castro is right about the General Fund; it was invented to fund everything, and if more funds are needed, the GAO is empowered to collect more. It is relatively impossible to deplete the fund, per se, but that certainly does not mean we shouldn't cut out wasteful spending. And we fear a system established according to this repeal author's suggestions would amount to just that. We raised the flag of VRA as a means of comparison, not to accuse anybody of trying to emulate that resolution's horridness.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

lame duckOOC: Do you even know what this term means?

Do you mean all those who have voted against this repeal, honoured Ambassador ?

Correction: I mean those who voted FOR the repeal.

Dr. Castro is right about the General Fund; it was invented to fund everything, and if more funds are needed, the GAO is empowered to collect more. It is relatively impossible to deplete the fund, per se, but that certainly does not mean we shouldn't cut out wasteful spending. And we fear a system established according to this repeal author's suggestions would amount to just that. We raised the flag of VRA as a means of comparison, not to accuse anybody of trying to emulate that resolution's horridness.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

OOC: Do you even know what this term means?
Yes, I adapted it to refer to a useless Veterans legislation that will one day be repealed. normally refers to one whose position or term of office will soon end.

That Veterans Act is just as useless as the Cones Hotline.

Dr. Castro is right about the General Fund; it was invented to fund everything, and if more funds are needed, the GAO is empowered to collect more. It is relatively impossible to deplete the fund, per se, but that certainly does not mean we shouldn't cut out wasteful spending. And we fear a system established according to this repeal author's suggestions would amount to just that. We raised the flag of VRA as a means of comparison, not to accuse anybody of trying to emulate that resolution's horridness.


The GAO can summarily raise funds on its members without their consent to such an operation, excess to their obligatory donation, can it honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,

What's troublesome is that there isn't, yet no proof has been given to anybody that the General Fund is actually being dangerously depleted. Irresponsibly used, yes; which itself is reason enough for having the Veterans Reform Act repealed. But depletion is a strong word. I cannot seriously entertain the argument that the General Fund, a fund created expressly to fund all resolutions, is being made insufficient by a single resolution without any actual proof.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes


The proof would be apparent if the sums of funding paid out by the general fund were greater than the donations of the w.a.'s members.

Unregulated spending commitments might very easily cause this, and there would be little point in essentially giving complete fiscal responsibility for one's national spending commitments to the w.a., with the w.a. making up the differences where national revenues are insufficient. That truly would make the w.a. a form of government akin to dictatorship.



Yours,

This is a stupid repeal, to put it bluntly. Yes, that law has problems. However, it is not forcing anything on anyone. It simply establishes an organization to co-ordinate the efforts of NGOs if they wish to give aid. They don't have to accept that co-ordination. We can still pass a resolution that defines more responsibilities or better defines the current responsibilities of the already existing organization, without wiping it out entirely and leaving no relief co-ordination until a new resolution works its way up the long line of waiting proposals.

Signed,
Rob
Ambassador of - Chaos -
World Assembly

After reviewing the arguments it is the opinion of our delegation that whatever flaws are existant in Resolution 5, it is not worth the damage that repealing it would cost. If an alternative resolution to 5 is presented, we would then consider arguments for the merits of it over #5.

As we have added nothing new to this discussion, feel free to ignore our statement.

To add to my earlier statement, although that law (in my opinion) should have never been allowed in the first place, due to its lack of enforcement, there is no reason that it needs to be repealed. It doesn't force anyone to send aid, or to do anything at all, really. Just propose additions to the existing organization.

The GAO can summarily raise funds on its members without their consent to such an operation, excess to their obligatory donation, can it honoured Ambassador ?

Well, yes, actually. It can. Though, I wonder what you mean by 'obligatory donation'? All nations present and future consented to it when it passed. Part 4 states that "national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give".

The proof would be apparent if the sums of funding paid out by the general fund were greater than the donations of the w.a.'s members.

Unregulated spending commitments might very easily cause this, and there would be little point in essentially giving complete fiscal responsibility for one's national spending commitments to the w.a., with the w.a. making up the differences where national revenues are insufficient. That truly would make the w.a. a form of government akin to dictatorship.Ambassador Mongkha, your argument really does have merit when applied to funding as a whole. But, when you accuse a single resolution of having the power to deplete the General Fund, alone, you've crossed the line in to absurdity.

Yes, we must be watchful of wasteful and irresponsible spending. But, we must do so without it fogging our views on all resolutions with large spending obligations. It's troubling when you say that the World Assembly shouldn't bear the responsibility of 'making up the differences where national revenues are insufficient'. In essence, you've limited any and all resolutions that need any amount of funding, as there will always be nations out there that cannot afford to comply with such resolutions. This kind of thinking is dangerous.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Honourable Ambasadors;

If this repeal does go through, could another such organization be set up to give Foreign Aid to those that need it? Could a Registry of nations that would like Foreign aid be set up, and the proposals sent in be reviewed and accepted by the nations wishing to provide such aid? Propsals would be in the form of helping with their economy, natural distasters, etc.

This will be the basis for a new Proposal if the CRA is repealed, and will be pushed by the Canadish People as far as possible.

The belief that all those that need help should recieve it is the foundation of charity, and Canadish People believe in such Charity to the downtrodden people of the world.

Thank you.

When did we say the donation was not consented to Dr Castro ?


And when did we say that one resolution is, or could be responsible for the total depletion of the general fund ? We merely suggested that it might be possible, which it is, and that the current spending commitments of the w.a. would deplete ( not entirely mind you ) the general funds resources.

The sentence we used which you quote should be read in the context of the entire contribution, not as a maxim on w.a. spending per se.


Yours,

I am for the repeal, but I fail to see the connection between this and the vets act.
Thankyou for saying that Studly Penguins, this is also what i fail to understand. It is really quite insulting for someone to say that just because they like their own resolution that i must be planning to impose a WA Resolution which will damage economy. It is quite clear that funding NGO's when they were quite capable of funding themselves is a waste to the economy itself.

Quit punishing Pantherai for something they aint doin!

an even bigger thankyou for writing that, because i feel that some ambassadors here are doing exactly that.

Mongkha, I think some ambassadors are being a bit too paranoid just because an incredibly expensive resolution such as the Veterans Reform Act fell through our fingers.

You say this..but this proposal was proposed before the veterans act passed, so it is moot. Yes, saving funds is a good reason to axe a wasteful resolution such as the co-ordination of relief aid but it is not the only reason for the repeal which seeks to bin a completely unoworkable resolution.

the argument against the repeal is that the CRA will be replaced with a fiscally irresponsible alternative.

could you explain how exactly that is?


At the end of the day, those who are slagging of the veterans reform resolution due to economic reasons and tarring me with the same brush are hypocritical.

The Resolution that i am trying to repeal wastes money by funding NGO's which used to fund themselves quite adequately, it wastes more money on attempting to co-ordinate the thousands of NGO's which cannot be done due to the difference of aims and principles of each NGO.

I am quite prepared to draft a new resolution on relief aid. I would have done already if i had not been told by Charlotte Ryberg to let her write it herself. I find your actions to be extrmemly dirty Charlotte Ryberg and that telling me that you would support the repeal and that you should write the draft yourself and then using the fact that i have not written a draft proposal as your main basis of arguement as completely unacceptable.

We are voting against this repeal. Co-ordinated relief aid has its share of financial burdens, but the decision to take advantage of it is the domain of NGOs, not governments. Therefore, we see the current agreement places little strain on the political freedoms of our nations, and bolsters the well-being of our citizens.

When did we say the donation was not consented to Dr Castro ?Well, when you said, "The GAO can summarily raise funds on its members without their consent to such an operation, excess to their obligatory donation, can it honoured Ambassador?" By default, all nations have consented to the GAO's authority to dynamically change donation assessments when the legislation passed.

And when did we say that one resolution is, or could be responsible for the total depletion of the general fund ? We merely suggested that it might be possible, which it is, and that the current spending commitments of the w.a. would deplete ( not entirely mind you ) the general funds resources.You are still entirely wrong, even after the Deputy Ambassador Baca clearly explained that the worries you have aren't anything to be worried about at all.

I do no know why you insist that the General Fund is so fragile. Even now, you say that the current spending commitments, of which there are not a great many compared to the World Assembly's predecessor, can deplete the General Fund coffers. The General Fund is sound today, and it will be sound ten resolutions down the road, and ten more after that.

We cannot get irresponsible spending and funds depletion so mixed up, Ambassador Mongkha. For example, covering the budget shortfalls of nations would result in funds depletion. Creating a massive relief force, when there are ample NGOs to carry out the job, is an example of irresponsible/wasteful spending.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

could you explain how exactly that is?

Well until now honoured Ambassador, this organisation had no idea that your delegation had ever planned to write a replacement for the statute you are repealing. We only voted against this repeal because no alternative seemed to be being proposed. Had we seen a draft of such an alternative we may have voted differently.


At the end of the day, those who are slagging of the veterans reform resolution due to economic reasons and tarring me with the same brush are hypocritical.

It may be unfair but it isn't hypocritical.

The Resolution that i am trying to repeal wastes money by funding NGO's which used to fund themselves quite adequately, it wastes more money on attempting to co-ordinate the thousands of NGO's which cannot be done due to the difference of aims and principles of each NGO.

This may or may not be true, but surely some sort of emergency relief aid coordination of a centralised international nature is still desirable no ?

I am quite prepared to draft a new resolution on relief aid. I would have done already if i had not been told by Charlotte Ryberg to let her write it herself. I find your actions to be extremely dirty Charlotte Ryberg and that telling me that you would support the repeal and that you should write the draft yourself and then using the fact that i have not written a draft proposal as your main basis of argument as completely unacceptable.


This is extremely interesting information. You should perhaps have indicated from the outset that the honoured delegation of Charlotte Ryberg had made specific plans with your delegation regarding the replacement for this statute, and should have given details of this replacement's nature, you might have received more support for your repeal, assuming the replacement would be an improvement that is.


Yours sincerely,

Perhaps the replacement should have been drafted before this repeal was brought to vote. If you had submitted it to the appropriate places before submitting it here you might have enough input to draft one before submitting it.

If an appropriate replacement is brought forward I might consider changing my vote, but don't count on it.

I shall await Charlotte Ryberg to say whether or not she is still planning to submit a replacement resolution before i draft one.

I can see your point that perhaps a draft should have been brought before this forum first and, should the repeal not pass the world assembly vote, i shall ensure that i do that before re-proposing the repeal.

It is a forgivable mistake, every mistake is a learning experience. The vultures that swarm these halls are out for blood. Trouble is they tend to shit on everything.

I am prepared to write one if the original fell. But I must advise the ambassadors that it would take time as we want to avoid the pitfalls of the Vetrans Act. I will throw my hat in the ring, basing the replacement on the original, but with improvements. But I am not going to rush it.

Let's try and vote against the repeal anyway.

I see your point there, Charlotte Ryberg. I agree with what you say and and am going to vote against it.
I also agree, as an anti-war nation, against the Veterans Reform Act

I completley agree with the Honorable Ambasador of Zarqon Froods, that a replacement for the CRA should have been drafted, but can one be written now?

in the resolution it says that countries would not want to be affiliated with the wa if we were to keep this resolution why excatcly wouldnt they we are helping their citezens with this resolution i speak on behalf of thos citezens whom have lost every thing due to a disatster what about them are we to do nothing are we really going to say your on your own its up to your leader to help you know well i say thats not right i dare any of you to pass this resolution and say its for the best

who agrees with me

I do: Canadish People too.

Unless there is any suggestion for improvements I am just simply going to rewrite with a few evolutionary adjustments such as, maybe, introducing direct contributions from states so that it would bypass the general fund, or perhaps use the ICRC to promote disaster awareness (these are just ideas).

The freshman ambassador from the Republic of Santo and Banks is honored to come before the World Assembly. Our republic has been watching with great interest the discussion of the proposal to repeal "Coordinating Relief Aid". I humbly come before you to ask questions on behave of the Republic of Santo and Banks.

I would ask patience from the honorable ambassadors and delegates so our great republic can get acclimated as a new member of the World Assembly.

I question the necessity of the original proposal and at this time, am inclined to vote to repeal the the original proposal. I ask honorable members, should the Assembly be more concerned with coordinating our own efforts of giving aid to those in need? I concede, I am not familiar with all of the resolutions that are in effect in the Assembly now. As a freshman member, I have not had the opportunity to review many of the resolutions. There may be a resolution in effect that addresses how the World Assembly disperses aid.

This ambassador sees no reason to keep a resolution for the sole reason of having one until another can be drafted.

Again, I ask your patience with this humble freshman representative from the Republic of Santo and Banks. It is an honor to be a member of this great Assembly.

Regards,

Ambassador Kuhnini

The honoured ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg welcomes the delegation of Santo and Banks

I advise at this stage to vote against right now as there was no better version written prior to the repeal. It is also essential for the World Assembly to implement a central point of coordination of relief aid as it would save lives and livelihoods during major disasters.

in the resolution it says that countries would not want to be affiliated with the wa

no it says that many NGO's (non-government organisations) would rather work independently rather than being affiliated to the WA.

I believe that refusing to repeal a resolution just because another one hasnt been put in its place is absurd. However, I shall be writing a new draft which shall be completed before this resolutions voting ends.

Would the respected and esteemed delegation of Quintessence of Dust care to elaborate on their position ?
There doesn't seem to be anyone else around, but I'll try to answer.

The original resolution doesn't require that NGOs work with the WA, for one thing. To say that some NGOs might not want to work with the WA is probably true, but not terribly relevant. Equally, there are enough NGOs that are willing to work with the WA to make the task hardly 'fruitless'. For example, the Quintessential Red Non-Denominational Symbol Organization, my country's major aid and relief agency, will do so. I would imagine similar agencies exist in nations voting against this.

Furthermore, the old resolution does not stop the WA from providing funds for relief. Perhaps the ICRC can't do itself, but another agency could do so. In which case, having the ICRC doing the coordinating would be all the more sensible.

Given the old resolution was sponsored by the nation of Charlotte Ryberg I would intuitively guess it is riddled with defects making it ripe for repeal; it just doesn't appear this proposal presents any compelling arguments whatsoever.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have another stack of documents to get through.

-- Tiffany
Photocopying Intern
Office of WA Affairs

no it says that many NGO's (non-government organisations) would rather work independently rather than being affiliated to the WA.

I believe that refusing to repeal a resolution just because another one hasnt been put in its place is absurd. However, I shall be writing a new draft which shall be completed before this resolutions voting ends.

May I inform the delegates to Pantherai that I am due to begin on a redraft based on the old one but with improvements. I would certainly listen to the advice of the delegation of the QoD to start simple then build it up.

Do you think the ICRC should be a charity and be funded from donations only?

Here's what I have been thinking, based on your opinions:

The ICRC will be funded dynamically from:
- Donations and grants from any person or organization in member states.
- The general fund of the World Assembly, but only if there is not enough of the above.

The ICRC will provide NGOs with accurate and truthful reports on the situation in disaster areas and identify areas where their assistance would best be allocated.

The ICRC will coordinate relief and humanitarian aid to WA members who request it, or where NGOs cannot assist a disaster area sufficiently.

The ICRC will work together with governments of member states to coordinate government-based humanitarian efforts.

The ICRC will provide training and education to the NGOs, civilians of member states and governments in preparedness for any disaster within their area of coverage.

Honourable Ambasadors;

If this repeal does go through, could another such organization be set up to give Foreign Aid to those that need it? Could a Registry of nations that would like Foreign aid be set up, and the proposals sent in be reviewed and accepted by the nations wishing to provide such aid? Propsals would be in the form of helping with their economy, natural distasters, etc.

I think this may be meta gaming in terms of proposals for aid.

The ICRC will be funded dynamically from:
- Donations and grants from any person or organization in member states.
- The general fund of the World Assembly, but only if there is not enough of the above.

The ICRC will provide NGOs with accurate and truthful reports on the situation in disaster areas and identify areas where their assistance would best be allocated.

The ICRC will coordinate relief and humanitarian aid to WA members who request it, or where NGOs cannot assist a disaster area sufficiently.

The ICRC will work together with governments of member states to coordinate government-based humanitarian efforts.

The ICRC will provide training and education to the NGOs, civilians of member states and governments in preparedness for any disaster within their area of coverage.

If Coordinating Relief Aid is repealed, my delegation and I would agree with these... revisions. Though, when you say this --
The ICRC will coordinate relief and humanitarian aid to WA members who request it, or where NGOs cannot assist a disaster area sufficiently. -- are you meaning to say that the ICRC will provide relief and humanitarian aid, given such and such prerequisites?

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I was thinking about this bit, but I think that might be a bit too complex. Perhaps simplify to this instead:

The ICRC will help to coordinate relief and humanitarian aid efforts to member states affected by major disasters.

I was thinking about this bit, but I think that might be a bit too complex. Perhaps simplify to this instead:

Do you mean it might be too complicated, honoured Ambassador ?



Yours,

Korintar votes Nay on this resolution as we do not see the point in the resolution.
- T'blis Oltavi, Director of International Affairs.

I have created a draft proposal for a replacement resolution and would ask that people make suggestions to improve it or voice their concerns upon anything it contains.

It is located here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14437939#post14437939)

Do you mean it might be to complicated, honoured Ambassador ?



Yours,

No, the phrase "The ICRC will help to coordinate relief and humanitarian aid efforts to member states affected by major disasters." simplifies that bit Glen-Rhodes was pointing out.

the NGO work independently because they want to avoid problems created by government, in my opinion, NGO has a better chance of helping the other nation than the government, for instance, NGO help at their own will, while in the government, they are required so, so, most of the time, corrupt government official tend to keep some, but the government should also help NGO, because its also the government responsibility.

I hereby support this resolution

I support this bill because it is killing the economy of my nation.

The Presons talking about the VRA this debate is not for the VRA.

I support this bill because it is killing the economy of my nation.

In comparison with the amount of money the most recently passed resolution is sucking out of national coffers, the ICRC's budget is miniscule.

In any case, as has been observed, the reasoning of the repeal is at best specious, and for that reason alone we could not dream of supporting it. That we prefer what is in place to both of the alternatives being developed cements the matter.

The new ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg, Sarah Harper is to announce a complete review of Coordination of relief aid at grass-roots level. Whilst Ms. Berlin's resolution worked very well whilst stable, I cannot see that a replacement should be funded by tax any more. The ICRC will continue to operate without legal backing but I must advise you of big changes.

I have to say, the draft replacement put up by Charlotte Ryberg Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14439764&postcount=17) looks extremely promising from the point of reducing the burden to economies and still having the initiative financially viable. Also, there is less scope for financial misconduct in the scheme.

I was against it, but it seemed the votes for outnumbered the votes against, and that's pretty unfair

Pantherai has already submitted his replacement.