NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my draft proposal for a resolution to replace the current 'WA Resolution 5: Coordination of relief aid' should the current repeal be passed.

please make suggestions on how to improve it and feel free to voice concerns on any parts of the proposal.

World Assembly Resolution: Humanitarian Relief Aid

The Members Nations of the World Assembly,

NOTING the recent repeal of WA Resolution 5: Coordinating Relief Aid;

BELIEVING that, despite the flaws of the repealed resolution, new international legislation is required in order to administrate humanitarian relief aid to World Assembly Members that need it;

FURTHER NOTING the existence of many Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that provide relief aid throughout the nations of the World Assembly;

FURTHER BELIEVING that, although efforts should be made to enhance communication of such NGOs, they should remain completely independent of the World Assembly in funding and co-ordination;

HEREBY

1. MANDATES that, in a major disaster, responsibility of the co-ordination of relief aid, and any NGOs that may provide it, is vested in the government(s) of the nation(s) in which the emergency has arisen;

2. ESTABLISHES 'The World Assembly Humanitarian Corps' (WAHC), a body that shall provide supplementary relief aid, in a major disaster, to nations that:

a. do not have sufficient aid from NGOs, and

b. does not have the enough resources to provide relief aid itself;

3.1. MANDATES that the WAHC shall be funded by the 'WA General Fund', but;

3.2. PERMITS the WAHC to accept donations from NGOs, WA Member Nations and individual persons;

4 DEFINES the responsibilities of WAHC as:

a) to provide funds, food and other resources as well as humanitarian aid workers in member nations affected by a major disaster, and

b) to mediate between nations who suffer from a common major disaster when, for what ever reason, the governments of said nations are unable to effectively communicate with one another, and

c) to provide regular conferences between interested NGOs, as well as WAHC humanitarian aid workers, to share tactics, training and to help establish a better form of communication between individual NGOs;

5. DEFINES a major disaster as any event, natural or through the actions of mankind, which threatens lives, livelihood, homes or wellbeing of any persons on a major scale;

6.1. ENCOURAGES Member Nations to:

a) plan ahead for the possibility of major disasters, and

b) take measures to reduce the possibility of disasters occuring through the actions of mankind;

6.2. FURTHER ENCOURAGES Member Nations to work with non-WA Nations just as they would with WA Nations when they suffer from a common major disaster.

May I inform the delegates to Pantherai that when I said I am due to begin on a redraft based on the old one but with improvements I was going to do so. I believe you may be jumping the gun a bit. Could you please wait until I put in my version before making suggestions?

No i am sorry but as i have repealed your resolution i think i have a right to make the new proposal. Your previous deceit when you told me you would support my repeal and immediety discuss a proposal for a new resolution has lead me to believe that i cannot trust you to wait for a draft from you when it is likely to be not that different from the old one.

If you wish to make your own draft then i am not stopping you.

Can the ambassadors of Pantherai be informed that I had sought the advice of professional ambassadors and they suggest opposing your repeal, only until you told us what the replacement was going to be. We do not want another Veterans Act-like trash.

Can the ambassadors of Pantherai be informed that I was only trying to listen to the advice of the majority of the informed forumers here. I was going to co-operate with you but I was worried that you would create something similar to the controversial Veterans Reform Act, which would have then been a waste of our time trying to repeal it.

Please, I only want to make it better for the whole of the World Assembly. The organization has just gone through crisis after crisis of poorly-written resolutions and dubious repeals. Although I do agree with you in principle in relation to the independence of NGOs, we don't normally write repeals before we wrote replacements.

No i am sorry but as i have repealed your resolution i think i have a right to make the new proposal.No you do not. Currently that "right" is reserved to whomever has at least two endorsements.

im sorry but your acting like your in charge here. your own resolution that i am repealing is, in my view, poorly written itself. I am not saying that as an attack on you, im saying it because you are not an authority on what a good written resolution is and that the definition of poorly written is different depending upon who is looking at the resolution.

I have repealed your resolution because i find it wasteful and impractical.

I have come to agree with you, today, on the good idea in bringing draft proposals for a replacement before repealing an existing one, however, the fact that i didnt in this instance is regardless. As i am repealing the resolution i am entitled to draft a replacement proposal and would be grateful if you didnt try to stop me from doing so.

If it at all matters, the delegation of Glen-Rhodes prefers Ambassador Berlin's replacement over this one. Not only is this proposal riddled with grammar and mechanical errors, but it does little to prevent the abuse of funds that so many delegations are in an uproar about. It also assumes, on numerous occasions, that all nations will live up to the spirit of the resolution, rather than simply it's text.

The attitude taken by the delegation of Pantherai does not extend any sympathy. In all actuality, it will probably hurt their reputation in this organization. No delegation is entitled to anything other than their name on the resolutions they write. The delegation of Pantherai can certainly submit their own proposal to replace Coordinating Relief Aid, but they are not the only delegations with such an authority.

That being said, comparing the first drafts of both proposed replacements, I have little doubt that Ambassador Berlin's will be the one to reach quorum.

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

im sorry but your acting like your in charge here. your own resolution that i am repealing is, in my view, poorly written itself. I am not saying that as an attack on you, im saying it because you are not an authority on what a good written resolution is and that the definition of poorly written is different depending upon who is looking at the resolution.

I have repealed your resolution because i find it wasteful and impractical.

I have come to agree with you, today, on the good idea in bringing draft proposals for a replacement before repealing an existing one, however, the fact that i didnt in this instance is regardless. As i am repealing the resolution i am entitled to draft a replacement proposal and would be grateful if you didnt try to stop me from doing so.


We are not sure if the honoured Ambassador for Pantherai is addressing the esteemed Ambassador for Omigodtheykilledkenny or the respected Ambassador for Charlotte Ryberg in these remarks, but in either case we feel it may be important to pour a little oil on the waters so to speak.

Both the respected delegations of Pantherai and Charlotte Ryberg seem to have at some point been in agreement that a repeal of the aid coordination statute was necessary, they also seem to have believed that it needed replacing.

Since the repeal seems as though it might be successful it would seem sensible for both delegations to put aside any acrimony, or distrust and work together to create a viable replacement. Both drafts have merit and both delegations seem industrious enough to achieve there aim, it seems counter productive to the stated aims of both delegations not to continue to cooperate.

As it is we ( and we imagine many other delegations ) will find it difficult and tiresome to follow the progress of both drafts let alone feel able to contribute to their betterment. We urge both delegations to put aside their minor disputes for the good of the generality.


Yours,

Although the Aundotutunagirian People despise both this proposal and the competing proposal which has sprung from the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, we despise this one a little less.

We are not sure if the honoured Ambassador for Pantherai is addressing the esteemed Ambassador for Omigodtheykilledkenny or the respected Ambassador for Charlotte Ryberg in these remarks, but in either case we feel it may be important to pour a little oil on the waters so to speak.

my apologies, it was in reference to Charlotte Ryberg, i believe omigodtheykilledkenny must have posted while i was writing my post.

however, in response to omigodtheykilledkenny:
No you do not. Currently that "right" is reserved to whomever has at least two endorsements.

Urgench i have to agree with you, but unfortunately the continued offences made by Charlotte Ryberg in lying, dirty politics and taking parts of my draft and including them in her own word for word without any thought to acknowledge my contribution is making co-operation increasingly difficult.
that is precisely my point ambassador, Charlotte Ryberg has been acting as though she has a god given right to draft a proposal and that i shouldnt be doing so. Therefore i am merely defending myself.

No delegation is entitled to anything other than their name on the resolutions they write. The delegation of Pantherai can certainly submit their own proposal to replace Coordinating Relief Aid, but they are not the only delegations with such an authority.

Precisely, this is my entire point, what you have just accused me of, is actually what is being done onto me.

It also assumes, on numerous occasions, that all nations will live up to the spirit of the resolution, rather than simply it's text.

where in the draft does it do that?

Well it looks like you've already submitted this one.

Once again we have case of another World Assembly member rushing through his proposal and personally I think the ambassador to Pantherai will suffer the same fate as the ambassadors to the Studly Penguins. This is why we don't repeal before drafting replacements unless we know that it isn't going to be revived.

Well this is a fine mess we find ourselves in. Why this repeal was brought to vote in the first place was a mystery, and now we have two completely nascent resolutions proposed by former colleagues who now seem incapable of reconciling there differences and one of these resolutions is up for approval.

Needless to say we are utterly non-plussed, and frankly disappointed at the behaviour of all concerned.

Yours sincerely,

I told the ambassadors of Pantherai to listen to me and wait before jumping the gun, and obviously they didn't.

But you did recommend to them to bring this repeal for vote in the first place no ?


Yours,

The ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg didn't endorse the proposal in the first place.

I'm afraid at this very situation in time that incumbent ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg believes that in light of the current situation Lulu Hilde Berlin expresses her intention resign from her position and allow a replacement ambassador to take over her place. She hopes that a new ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg can try to repair the current rift between Pantherai and Charlotte Ryberg.

The following was what she could have suggested: She hopes that the new ambassador has the guts to pursue it further:

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the existence of many specialized Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), both at domestic and international level, that focus on providing humanitarian aid to civilians in need;

Applauds the efforts of such NGOs for salvaging lives and livelihoods, promoting international peace and strengthening the ties between nations;

Observing that in absence of a clear single point of responsibility, there may be duplications of some humanitarian efforts or communication problems, which may then cause inefficiencies;

Realizing that the World Assembly has not designated a single point of responsibility for the coordination of humanitarian aid;

Believes that civilians of member states should be protected by such a humanitarian group, whilst preserving the independence of NGOs;

Defines:
- A “major disaster” as a large-scale event in which many lives or livelihoods have been lost or disrupted due to events such as natural disasters, terrorist attacks or war;
- A “disaster area” as an area in any member state affected by major disasters.

Hereby,

1. Establishes the International Coordinated Relief Committee (ICRC), whose purpose will be to coordinate relief and humanitarian aid to civilians in disaster zones.

2. Mandates that the ICRC will be funded dynamically, from:
a) Donations and grants from any person or organization in member states, and;
b) The general fund of the World Assembly, only if there is not enough of the above.

3. Instructs the ICRC to:
a) Provide international coordination of food, shelter, and humanitarian aid efforts to civilians in disaster areas;
b) Advise NGOs with accurate and truthful reports on the situation in disaster areas and identify areas where their assistance would best be allocated to;
c) Work together with member states who are assisting in humanitarian efforts to deliver the required aid to civilians;
d) Provide universal training and education to the NGOs, civilians and governments of member states in preparedness for any disaster within their area of coverage, and;
e) Further instructing the ICRC to manage and prioritize the allocation of resources wisely, based on the severity of the situation in disaster areas;

5. Prohibits the ICRC from promoting war in any way or abuse their budget in any way that may hamper the true purpose of the organization itself.

Strongly urges member states and their civilians to plan ahead for the possibility of a major disaster, as well as taking measures to prevent or subdue the effects of major disasters;

Encourages NGOs in member states to:
- Work with NGOs in non-member states in the same manner as they would with those within member states when they are responding to a major disaster.
- Share recovery plans and aid each other through the halls of the ICRC.


Lulu Hilde Berlin: April 1 2008 - 25 January 2009... not a big name in dealing with troublemakers, but she made two resolutions for the WA. I'll never forget her. -- Charlotte

This (http://www.nationstates.net/32580/page=UN_proposal/start=17) is ridiculous. Does the delegation of Pantherai honestly believe that they've taken the correct course of action by submitting this proposal without ever debating it? From where I stand, the delegation of Pantherai's warped view of entitlement, along with their inability to diplomatically settle rather childish conflicts, has tarnished their already meager reputation.

Submitting this proposal without proper review is a broken promise to those that supported the repeal of Coordinating Relief Aid. It is an insult to those of that did not support it, as you are effectively silencing our criticisms of any replacement of a statue we believed to be efficient.

My delegation has had its fair share of diplomatic faux pas, but it is saddening that such an easily settled conflict has resulted in an esteemed ambassador's resignation. On a personal note, I offer my condolences to Ms. Berlin, and a full endorsement for her reinstatement should she seek it.

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

The government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to commend Ambassador Berlin of the respected delegation of Charlotte Ryberg for her tireless work at this organisation.


Yours sincerely,

Well it looks like you've already submitted this one.It's already been deleted, it appears, because it violates the current statute that hasn't been repealed yet. It's a shame the author had to waste a warning on a silly technicality such as this. :rolleyes:

IC: While the childish bickering of the Pantherai and Charlotte Ryberg delegations is certainly amusing, it does little to convince us of the merit of either proposal. Therefore the Federal Republic supports neither.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

Glen Rhoedes, i think you are missing the point, i am not going to be bullied in letting Charlotte Ryberg get her way, she has been unacceptable.

erm..by the way, that proposal as deleted at my request and a moderator confirmed with me that it was an error in NS that was confusing. I was using the form for the spell check and the buttons didnt work properly.

Glen Rhoedes, i think you are missing the point, i am not going to be bullied in letting Charlotte Ryberg get her way, she has been unacceptable.

How has she been 'unacceptable'? I imagine it's because she poses some kind of threat to the existence of an humanitarian aid resolution authored by the delegation of Pantherai. What I see here is a delegation that feels entitled to the authorship of a resolution, and a delegation that is flagrantly undiplomatic. I would not want to cooperate with a delegation that says that I am "not an authority on what a good written resolution is" (sic) right after repealing a resolution I wrote. Do you honestly not see the error of your ways?

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

In every respect where we might have been concerned with the details of "Coordinating Relief Aid", this proposal is worse. Much worse, in some cases. We do not expect to be supporting it, or indeed the repeal currently at vote on this showing.

Whilst I see a merit in the repeal of the "Coordinating Relief Aid" in it's current form, it is the Commonwealth's utmost belief that a replacement bill in this area is vital. That being said, the newly proposed Bill from the honourable ambassador to Pantherai does not look to be an improvement. Indeed, it leaves the metaphorical door wide open for an easy abuse of funds which will be paid for by the member states. The proposal from Charlotte Ryberg appears to at least address these fears and thus if it becomes a resolution, will receive our vote. That is of course providing that amendments to the proposal do not make it unacceptable.

Sir Marcus Darcourt
Ambassador to the Commonwealth of Taurat.

So it seems the respected Ambassador for Pantherai has submitted this ridiculously undeveloped statute again, and we are expected to believe their prior claims that their first submission was accidental ?

It seems that the honoured delegation of Pantherai is more concerned with getting anything that they may have written to quorum rather than getting a serious and sensible solution to the problems of humanitarian funding and coordination to vote.

How depressing.


Yours,

Whilst I am optimistic that a replacement or a new concept can be developed, it has come to a point sadly where the ambassadors to Pantherai can no longer be trusted. We have had two poorly-written resolutions that have plunged the World Assembly into an unprecedented crisis, which has resulted in the loss of Ms. Berlin.

All that can be said is that the vetting process for resolutions is in place for a reason. You can deny and petition for removal of any poorly thought out bill that your country so desires. Its not all bad.

i didnt get a warning because i asked for it to be taken down as soon as i realised i'd accidentally posted it. I was using the proposal form's spell check and pressed the wrong button.

And i believe that its people who ovbiously lie and steal peoples proposals that are the ones not to be trusted.

Also, i cannot see how my proposal is any where near as bad as the poorly written resolution it seeks to replace. You can go on and on about how its aweful but unless you actually mention the specific bits that need changing and state what the problems are then how is anyone supposed to take you seiously.

If you dont believe that i asked the mods to remove that proposal the first time then why dont you stop mouthing off and ask the moderators yourself.

Just for future reference, you can do the same thing with the TG for or the RMB form.

Pantherai, you should try your best to maintain a civil tone.

The fact is that as far as proposals go, it isn't really our concern how the bill gets to be a resolution and how it's created. What does matter, is that the resolution meets the demands and expectations of the member states.

Now, no one is saying that your proposal is badly written, only that it seems to replace one problem with another one and in the aftermath of the Veteran Affairs Fiasco, a monetary 'slip up' is the last thing that is desired in a bill. Take suggestions and re-write and you will have a satisfactory proposal. At this point however as far as our vote goes, we would rather Charlotte Ryberg's proposal. Im sure I speak for others though when I say that things can change if the proposal warrants it.

Thanks,

Marcus Darcourt.
Ambassador to the World Assembly for the
Commonwealth of Taurat.

i didnt get a warning because i asked for it to be taken down as soon as i realised i'd accidentally posted it. I was using the proposal form's spell check and pressed the wrong button.

And i believe that its people who ovbiously lie and steal peoples proposals that are the ones not to be trusted.

Also, i cannot see how my proposal is any where near as bad as the poorly written resolution it seeks to replace. You can go on and on about how its aweful but unless you actually mention the specific bits that need changing and state what the problems are then how is anyone supposed to take you seiously.

If you dont believe that i asked the mods to remove that proposal the first time then why dont you stop mouthing off and ask the moderators yourself.



O.O.C. Calm down, your mixing out of character emotions with in character rp.

The reason Urgench's Ambassador is suspicious of Pantherai's delegation is that they seem to have rushed to submit their resolution, without taking any time to use the intellectual resource of the other delegations which work on draft legislation here.

The fact that Pantherai has submitted now looks precipitate and rash from an IC perspective.

But if all your interested in is sticking it to Charlotte Ryberg because she got on your nerves then work away and ignore in character condemnation.

U.

OOC

Ok this message is to everyone who may have been offended by my recent comments in defence of the way i have been treated by one particular member, but in particular to Urgench and Taurat who seem to be trying to be diplomatic.

I admit i have been much less than calm and from now on i shall calm down a bit. However, i think a lot of what ive said is semi-justified, ive had someone lying about me, stealing parts of my resolution and generally slagging me off for the same things they are doing themself. Ive had no apology from Charlotte Ryberg and continuous abuse.

Due to Charlotte ryberg continuously slagging me off i decided to just debate the proposal in my own regional forum rather than on here as its impossible to debate something if im being lied about.

Personally i think, and on agreement with many delegates who have telegrammed me in support, the proposal i have submitted is much better written than the one it seeks to replace. I mention that because much of the debate against it has been regarding that.

I am not saying that my proposal is definately better than the repealed reolution in any other way. In my opinion it is but im not blocking other peoples opinions. But the fact of the matter is that the resolution has been repealed by a majority of nations and we just have to live with that. Similarly, if my proposal was to actually become legislation, i would have to live with it if my resolution was to get repealed and then replaced by something i dont agree with. The majority rules here.

Charlotte Rybergs behaviour has been far from just in character Condemnation, it has been utterly dispicable.

However, i have been rash with other people because i have been annoyed at her actions. For that i would like to apologise. This post is my final word on the matter and, after posting, i am just going to forget the whole incident with the hope that we can work together in the WA harmoniously, despite any differences of opinion.

Once again my apologies and thanks for your last posts Urgench and Taurat.

These claims are libelous. But the different strategies between the two states may be the cause of confusion.

I do apologise only for the fact that there was a lack of communication between the ambassador to Pantherai and the former Ms. Berlin, which may have resulted in confusion. OOC: there was a flood warning about the possibility that the only road into my house would be flooded and noting that I was to take a major exam the following day, I decided stayed with my friends. The waters did not come in as predicted, but most of the ambassadors here understand that the player's good education is the key to their success.

but I agree with New Ferrium that most of the claims are untrue. My proposal on the other side was in fact based on my original Resolution #5, and not yours.

At this moment in time I see a risk of this getting out of hand, so a postponement of the debate may be required. We need to stop, sit down and think whether how the plan is going to work, now that I have replaced Ms. Berlin, and I do not want another Cold War.

Yours,

Regardless, this is an issue which urgent consideration. I would urge the parties involved to put aside the issue of the documents origins and press on with putting in place a resolution which addresses the greater problem. For the good of the Assembly.