NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution(s) about humanitarian aid (Provisonal Title)

I am currently looking at possibly two resolutions which would cover two topics: the first would be inspired by the ICRC which is the protection of the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance.

The second resolution would be inspired by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) and would be dedicated to disaster response.

This was the original draft prior to the review at grass roots level.

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

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 both individuals and governments;

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

Defining a major disaster as a large-scale event in which many lives or livelihoods have been lost or disrupted: natural disasters, terrorist attacks and war are examples.

Hereby,

1. Establishes the International Coordinated Relief Committee (ICRC), whose purpose will be to coordinate relief and humanitarian aid in all member states affected by major disasters.

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. Directs that the functions of the ICRC will be to:
a) Provide international coordination of food, shelter, and humanitarian aid efforts in nations affected by a major disaster;
a) Advise NGOs with accurate and truthful reports on the situation in disaster areas and identify areas where their assistance would best be allocated.
b) Mediate with one or many member states who suffer from major disasters where for any reason, they are unable to communicate with each other.
c) Work together with governments of member states to coordinate government-based humanitarian efforts.
d) Provide mediation and education to the NGOs, civilians of member states and governments in preparedness for any disaster within their area of coverage.

4. Directs the ICRC to 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;

5. Prohibits the ICRC from promoting conflict or 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 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 member states and NGOs to:
- Work with non-member states in the same manner as they would with member states when they are hit by a major disaster.
- Share recovery plans and aid each other through the halls of the ICRC.

i see you have taken a lot from my own draft, written before yours. I hope you are going to recognise that in your proposal.

If you are going to extend major disasters to include war, you'll need to put some there. We don't need countries declaring war on other then getting their ass kicked and asking for aid.

i see you have taken a lot from my own draft, written before yours. I hope you are going to recognise that in your proposal.

May the ambassadors to Pantherai be informed that much of your draft was based from our original resolution.

If you are going to extend major disasters to include war, you'll need to put some there. We don't need countries declaring war on other then getting their ass kicked and asking for aid.

I think this is a fair theory: did you mean to say that the government of the silly country declared war on the big country, the big country retaliates and win a victory, then the government of silly country asks for aid?

In this case I would think of a clause such as:

"In the case of a major disaster being caused by war, the ICRC may ignore requests from belligerent governments."

I would then refine the definition of a major disaster to read:

"Defines a "major disaster" as a large-scale event in which many lives or livelihoods have been lost or disrupted because of natural disasters, terrorist attacks and war are examples."

Ideas dismissed: The ICRC can't discriminate against anyone.

I think this is a fair theory: did you mean to say that the government of the silly country declared war on the big country, the big country retaliates and win a victory, then the government of silly country asks for aid?

In this case I would think of a clause such as:

"In the case of a major disaster being caused by war, the ICRC may ignore requests from belligerent governments."

I would then refine the definition of a major disaster to read:

"Defines a "major disaster" as a large-scale event in which many lives or livelihoods have been lost or disrupted because of natural disasters, terrorist attacks and war are examples."



This is an appalling idea, with respect to the honoured Ambassador of Zarquon Froods who's suggestion this arises from, relief of civilians during or subsequent to war is exactly the kind of emergency this organisation should be involved in.

It can hardly be considered the responsibility of non-combatant civilians and innocent children that their reckless and irresponsible governments have made war with states which they could not hope to defeat.

Will we stand by as millions of refugees starve and die of treatable illnesses simply because we hold the governments which made them flee conflict to be foolish and ill advised in their actions ?


Yours,

I suppose the ambassadors to Charlotte Ryberg should ignore that previous idea, because the prevention of abuse derives from Clause 5, where it states that the ICRC will not promote conflict or war in any way. In addition, the ICRC cannot discriminate against anyone, so that idea can't work then.

It is important to note thought that there will be governments that will try and destroy lives and livelihoods. Another worry would be that a country's government requests aid that doesn't actually get delivered to the people in need.

Therefore, do you think we should ban the ICRC from promoting corruption? I think the ICRC should be banned from favouring one country over another.

By the way, perhaps I should dig into the original discussion of #5 and see what the nations of that time suggested.

Therefore, do you think we should ban the ICRC from promoting corruption? I think the ICRC should be banned from favouring one country over another..Even if a nation goes to war for the sole purpose of receiving aid from the ICRC, the people will still be in need of that aid. People under corrupt governments are still very much people.

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

The people are one thing, it's military is quite the other. I cannot in good faith contribute to something that will aid a nation in rebuilding itself after it had foolishly gone to war with another nation without probable cause. Since this proposal does not limit these funds to just civilian populations, it is conceivable that the military will benefit just as equally. I'm sorry that the civilians were brought into this conflict, but what is to stop the nation from doing the same thing again knowing that the WA will help them rebuild?

The people are one thing, it's military is quite the other. I cannot in good faith contribute to something that will aid a nation in rebuilding itself after it had foolishly gone to war with another nation without probable cause. Since this proposal does not limit these funds to just civilian populations, it is conceivable that the military will benefit just as equally. I'm sorry that the civilians were brought into this conflict, but what is to stop the nation from doing the same thing again knowing that the WA will help them rebuild?


Presumably, honoured Ambassador, the level of assistance which the w.a. would be supplying or organising would only be of an emergency nature to serve acute and vital needs and would extend to total rebuilding of a state which was at or had been at war.

We too would be reluctant to offer support for total rehabilitation of an entire nation , but we would be deeply worried if we thought the w.a. were doing nothing to help innocent civilians in desperate and urgent need of help.

Yours,

Presumably, should the civilians would be the top priority when it comes to humanitarian aid, or do you think the coverage of the ICRC should stay entirely within civilian level, for the civilians?

May the ambassadors to Pantherai be informed that much of your draft was based from our original resolution.

erm..no it wasnt, please name one part that is. you have just copied and pasted bits of my draft together.

Presumably, should the civilians would be the top priority when it comes to humanitarian aid, or do you think the coverage of the ICRC should stay entirely within civilian level, for the civilians?


Indeed, honoured Ambassador, innocent victims of any kind of disaster, natural or man made should be paramount in the concerns of the ICRC.



Yours,

That is the point. As it is written, the ICRC would be the body that appropriated money. Which means they could essentially give it to whomever they deemed necessary. In essence they could bypass citizens altogether and send the money straight to the military.

Pantherai has already submitted, which in all honesty is a bad move considering the possibility of the repeal not passing.

But currently the repeal looks likely to pass honoured Ambassador, or are we missing something ?


Yours,

(Whispers) A mass-telegram campaign to the delegates voting for. I posted a template at the official thread.

The people are one thing, it's military is quite the other.If only a nation's military was single organism, such an argument might stand in my eyes. However, a lowly infantryman has no authority to question his superior's commands. In the event that he his hurt, why should he be overlooked because of the commander's corruption? We must remember that we are seeking to offer humanitarian aid to all who need it, not simply the politically favored.

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

I suppose it is simply to "those in need". Plain and simple.

If only a nation's military was single organism, such an argument might stand in my eyes. However, a lowly infantryman has no authority to question his superior's commands. In the event that he his hurt, why should he be overlooked because of the commander's corruption? We must remember that we are seeking to offer humanitarian aid to all who need it, not simply the politically favored.

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



There is a legitimate distinction between military and civilian when it comes to the apportioning of emergency aid, Dr Castro. An army commonly has access to a well organised and well funded system which provisions and cares for for those in it. Even in extremis this kind of organised system provides an extra level of protection during crises, that is not usually available to civilian populations under the same circumstances.

Frequently civilians are the last priority on a governments list when evaluating how to apportion resources when conflict causes social collapse, the decision being made that civilians are expendable, and replenishable in the long term, whereas trained and battle hardened troops are a scarce and vital minority not to be wasted.

This is the reason why the w.a. should concentrate its effort on civilian assistance, in this instance, though we would support a separate statute which dealt with the welfare of combatant military personnel.


Yours,

But currently the repeal looks likely to pass honoured Ambassador, or are we missing something ?


Yours,

Taking a deep breath.

Becaus, Ambassador, at this particular juncture submiting a proposal that mirrors one that is still a law is illegal. You can't submit a new proposal to replace the one that is being repealed while the vote on that repeal is still going. It was foolish, and I firmly beleive it was done out of spite to get the jump on the Ryberg delegation. Either way, it has been removed.

Taking a deep breath.

Becaus, Ambassador, at this particular juncture submiting a proposal that mirrors one that is still a law is illegal. You can't submit a new proposal to replace the one that is being repealed while the vote on that repeal is still going. It was foolish, and I firmly beleive it was done out of spite to get the jump on the Ryberg delegation. Either way, it has been removed.


We thank the honoured Ambassador for Zarquon Froods but we did realise that the replacement could not be submitted without the repeal being passed, we were asking about the possibility of the repeal not passing which you mentioned, since it seemed the repeal was doing well for votes.

But we understand what you meant now.


Yours,

Uncertainty always exists in every proposal that comes to the floor. I've seen many a vote change drastically in the closing 24 hours, this one is no exception.

Uncertainty always exists in every proposal that comes to the floor. I've seen many a vote change drastically in the closing 24 hours, this one is no exception.


Indeed, you are absolutely correct honoured Ambassador.



Yours,

We have significant reservations about potential bias created by large donations under clause 2a. Clause 4 may be intended to prevent this, but we are frankly somewhat dubious of it.

On the request of the legendary ambassador of Urgench, let us focus this draft at a civilian level.

May I enquire the respected ambassador of Gobbannium on whether the problem can be healed by clearly stating that organizations must make unconditional donations: to put it simply, a donation with no conditions attached to it, like sponsorship and all that whatsits.

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; (waiting for opinion from Gobbannium)
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;

4. 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.

Is there not a confusion between 'aid' and 'relief' in the present draft?

'Aid' we would tend to think of as long term structural support, whether by grant or investment. 'Relief' would be short term emergency support based on unforeseen circumstances.

This is not a semantic issue. The need for aid is relatively permanent and unchanging. There are poor countries, diseases, regular environmental problems. These can be budgeted for the General Fund. The need for relief, though, is relatively unpredictable. As such it could place very acute strains on the General Fund budget.

We do not feel the mechanism should be funded through the General Fund, at all. This might force us into a situation where we would be assessed for a contribution for our own reconstruction, or for the reconstruction of a nation we had been at war with, or for a nation with different values to our own. We would not, for example, be pleased to see our national contribution going towards the rebuilding of segregated schools.

Furthermore, we are unclear what the aim of the ICRC actually is. The preamble discusses coordination; the operative section discusses provision of resources. Do you even know what your own proposal is about?

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

We would probably echo honoured Ambassador Merrywether's concerns. We imagine an ICRC would be an organisation which would properly coordinate the work of NGOs and voluntary organisations, offering them the latest information about conditions as they are in a specific crisis. Presumably the ICRC could also help member states effectively disperse any crisis relief funds which they might choose to offer, making sure that these funds were given to organisations which would be best able to use them for the benefit of those who most need them.

The ICRC would effectively be a crisis information management organisation with the ability to offer well informed and useful advice to governments and non-governmental organisations on how best to help relieve the worst effects of crises.

Aid and all the complexities which accompany it are probably best left to another resolution which can deal with them more comprehensively.

Yours,

If I could have a clarification on the definition please, does social or economic crises fall under the current definition? If so then could the entire nation be declared a disaster area?

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador
United States of Philimbesi

b) The general fund of the World Assembly, only if there is not enough of the above.

I should mention that this might be bordering a House of Cards violation. The fact that it's not capitalized would probably save the resolution, but it would probably be better to say that the financing would come from World Assembly funds, or to extend the duties of the General Accounting Office to delegating emergency funds.

This might force us into a situation where we would be assessed for a contribution for our own reconstruction, or for the reconstruction of a nation we had been at war with, or for a nation with different values to our own.

I've seen this come up quite a bit lately. When these donations are given, does the money not cease to belong to the donating nation, but rather immediately belong to the World Assembly?

I cannot stress how dangerous it is to make the argument you are using a legitimate argument. You're setting up a situation in which the General Fund is no longer useful, because nations object to the idea that their money might be going to nations that they would not extend capital to otherwise.

Furthermore, how does a nation know where their donation money is going, anyways? Past the money being donated to the World Assembly, it's all conjecture in regards to where it goes from there.

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

OOC: The new ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg is Sarah Harper (please check the "Meet the Reps" thread). She has been briefed by the outgoing Lulu Hilde Berlin about the current situation and she will do her best to resolve the issue, but she will have her own ideas about the replacement of Coordinating Relief Aid. Take a deep breath...

IC:

If we could turn this draft into an organization inspired from the real-life ICRC then that would be great because according to my research their aim is simply "to be an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance." It also directs and coordinates the international relief activities conducted by the Movement in situations of conflict. It also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles (although it might be too much for this draft)."

Ms. Berlin has briefed me before taking over that natural disasters were involved in this draft, I think natural disasters would be included too alongside the other causes of disaster. However, this draft needs a shake up.

I see the ambassadors have questions to ask...

Is there not a confusion between 'aid' and 'relief' in the present draft?

'Aid' we would tend to think of as long term structural support, whether by grant or investment. 'Relief' would be short term emergency support based on unforeseen circumstances.

This is not a semantic issue. The need for aid is relatively permanent and unchanging. There are poor countries, diseases, regular environmental problems. These can be budgeted for the General Fund. The need for relief, though, is relatively unpredictable. As such it could place very acute strains on the General Fund budget.

Dr. Merrywether, welcome to the World Assembly. It would be a good idea to simply address it as "humanitarian activities": it would be appropriate but I hear that some nations are inhabited by aliens. However, I want to avoid too much political correctness.

We do not feel the mechanism should be funded through the General Fund, at all. This might force us into a situation where we would be assessed for a contribution for our own reconstruction, or for the reconstruction of a nation we had been at war with, or for a nation with different values to our own. We would not, for example, be pleased to see our national contribution going towards the rebuilding of segregated schools.

Dr. Merrywether, According to my research into the real-life ICRC, it is funded by contributions from governments, national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, supranational organizations and public and private sources. It does not wait to receive funds before responding to urgent needs in the field, and counts on the goodwill of its contributors to provide the funds as quickly as possible. It says that all funding is voluntary.

Judging by this bit of research, it appears that the NS-ICRC is voluntarily funded so this would mean it does not come from taxes or compulsory contributions. If this is the case then in comparison to Ms. Berlin's original a category change would be required.

Furthermore, we are unclear what the aim of the ICRC actually is. The preamble discusses coordination; the operative section discusses provision of resources. Do you even know what your own proposal is about?

We would probably echo honoured Ambassador Merrywether's concerns. We imagine an ICRC would be an organisation which would properly coordinate the work of NGOs and voluntary organisations, offering them the latest information about conditions as they are in a specific crisis. Presumably the ICRC could also help member states effectively disperse any crisis relief funds which they might choose to offer, making sure that these funds were given to organisations which would be best able to use them for the benefit of those who most need them.

The ICRC would effectively be a crisis information management organisation with the ability to offer well informed and useful advice to governments and non-governmental organisations on how best to help relieve the worst effects of crises.

Aid and all the complexities which accompany it are probably best left to another resolution which can deal with them more comprehensively.


Dr. Merrywether and Mongkha, I'd like to apologise for the confusion bought on by the previous ambassador. Ms. Berlin was fairly good on humanitarian aid but I think I can simplfy the aim further.

Again, according to my research on the real-life ICRC their aim is simply "to be an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance: it also directs and coordinates the international relief activities conducted by the Movement in situations of conflict: and it also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles (although it might be too much for this draft)."

We can see by this bit that the NS-ICRC should be impartial, neutral and independent with World Assembly support (The RL-ICRC was backed by the Geneva Convention, which is also at international level).

We also see that its mission should be:
- To protect the lives and dignity of victims of war, natural disaster and internal violence and to provide them with assistance;
- To direct and coordinate the international relief activities conducted by the (movements) in situations of conflict:
- To prevent suffering by urging member states to strengthen humanitarian law and adopt universal humanitarian principles (although again it might be too much for this draft)."

The organization in this draft should be able to respond to anything from tsunamis to terrorism: prevent should be in separate resolutions.

I see that resolutions can't cover non-member states, which makes it a bit complex.
If I could have a clarification on the definition please, does social or economic crises fall under the current definition? If so then could the entire nation be declared a disaster area?

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador
United States of Philimbesi

I appreciated Ms. Berlin's approach to the definition but having succeeded her, I think this is resolvable. Generally a "major disaster" is a result of war, natural disaster or internal violence (terrorism too) that claims lot of victims.

I have been briefed about the economic concerns in RL Planet Earth but I don't think it needs the intervention of the NS-ICRC.
I should mention that this might be bordering a House of Cards violation. The fact that it's not capitalized would probably save the resolution, but it would probably be better to say that the financing would come from World Assembly funds, or to extend the duties of the General Accounting Office to delegating emergency funds.

I've seen this come up quite a bit lately. When these donations are given, does the money not cease to belong to the donating nation, but rather immediately belong to the World Assembly?

I cannot stress how dangerous it is to make the argument you are using a legitimate argument. You're setting up a situation in which the General Fund is no longer useful, because nations object to the idea that their money might be going to nations that they would not extend capital to otherwise.

Furthermore, how does a nation know where their donation money is going, anyways? Past the money being donated to the World Assembly, it's all conjecture in regards to where it goes from there.
Dr. Bradford Castro, If I were to make the organization independent of tax and compulsory contributions then the donations given to the NS-ICRC would belong to the NS-ICRC: the World Assembly would not be able to take it away from them. I cannot understand why everything financial-related has to involve some source of WA general funding. Would it be beneficial if the NS-ICRC had an independent source of funding?

I see in my research that the RL-ICRC launches two budget appeals every year, for organization and the field, to cover the coming year. It also goes on to say that operational information and statistical and financial tables, all based on the original appeals are combined in an Annual Report.

By looking that the rules on Real-life inclusion, I think the organization we should be drafting should not be called the ICRC at all. I think it should be unique of the real-world, but inspired by the real ICRC. Why don't we call it "Committee for Humanitarian Relief"?

Bibliography:
- International Red Cross (http://icrc.org/)
- Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross)

Dr. Bradford Castro, If I were to make the organization independent of tax and compulsory contributions then the donations given to the NS-ICRC would belong to the NS-ICRC: the World Assembly would not be able to take it away from them. I cannot understand why everything financial-related has to involve some source of WA general funding. Would it be beneficial if the NS-ICRC had an independent source of funding?While I believe that supplying resolutions their own sources of funds goes against the spirit of the General Fund (capitalization is important, here), I suppose that there isn't anything preventing an author from doing so. I was under the assumption that the resolution intended to draw its funds from the General Fund, given the word usage in the funding clause.

Why don't we call it "Committee for Humanitarian Relief"?Although its a bias in favor of the Glen-Rhodes Senate's naming conventions, I'm more favorable of 'Committee on Humanitarian Relief'. Bureaucracy aside, 'Committee for Humanitarian Relief' is generally acceptable.

Also, welcome to the World Assembly, Ambassador Harper. I hope the chairs are comfortable enough.

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

May I enquire the respected ambassador of Gobbannium on whether the problem can be healed by clearly stating that organizations must make unconditional donations: to put it simply, a donation with no conditions attached to it, like sponsorship and all that whatsits.

That would certainly assist. We believe it would also be a considerable help if, as the newly-arrived Quoddite representative has pointed out, the proposal was less confused as to its purpose.

I appreciated Ms. Berlin's approach to the definition but having succeeded her, I think this is resolvable. Generally a "major disaster" is a result of war, natural disaster or internal violence (terrorism too) that claims lot of victims.

I have been briefed about the economic concerns in RL Planet Earth but I don't think it needs the intervention of the NS-ICRC.



First off may I wish you a most warm welcome Ms Harper. Second, I understand the aspects of economic concerns and agree that it's not a WA concern. How about the aspects of health would an outbreak of disease or famine fall under the category. Please understand I'm not disputing or supporting at this time, merely curious as to the scope of how WA funds will be distributed.


Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador
United States of Philimbesi.

At this very moment in time I can reviewing the principle Coordinating Relief Aid as a whole. I want to make resolutions that don't have to cover so much aspects because it may compromise the quality of it. I noted already that this draft needs a shake up: a very big one.

Oh, more questions coming, sure...

While I believe that supplying resolutions their own sources of funds goes against the spirit of the General Fund (capitalization is important, here), I suppose that there isn't anything preventing an author from doing so. I was under the assumption that the resolution intended to draw its funds from the General Fund, given the word usage in the funding clause.
Dr. Castro, the General Fund is more for the World Assembly's internal affairs, and I agree with you that there is nothing against the organization being funded independently. Independent funding is likely because they would then be more appreciative of the donations from the public.

Although its a bias in favor of the Glen-Rhodes Senate's naming conventions, I'm more favorable of 'Committee on Humanitarian Relief'. Bureaucracy aside, 'Committee for Humanitarian Relief' is generally acceptable.
'Committee for Humanitarian Relief' is currently just a conceptual name. the final name of the organization is yet to be decided. By the way, the chairs are okay.

That would certainly assist. We believe it would also be a considerable help if, as the newly-arrived Quoddite representative has pointed out, the proposal was less confused as to its purpose.
Prince Rhodri Mawr, this is why I am undertaking a deep review of the principle and performing research into real disaster relief organizations before creating NationStates equivalents. And of course there has to be some way to prevent corruption, we can go into this when the basics are done. I do apologise unconditionally for the confusion in relation to the purpose of the resolution before Ms. Berlin's resignation.

First off may I wish you a most warm welcome Ms Harper. Second, I understand the aspects of economic concerns and agree that it's not a WA concern. How about the aspects of health would an outbreak of disease or famine fall under the category. Please understand I'm not disputing or supporting at this time, merely curious as to the scope of how WA funds will be distributed.

Nigel S Youlkin, Thank you... and I am pleased to tell you that famine, disease and health epidemics would be covered because there is clearly a need for an organization to respond to disasters...

Speaking of which, I am currently looking at possibly two resolutions which would cover two topics: the first would be inspired by the ICRC which is the protection of the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance.

The second resolution would be inspired by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) and would be dedicated to disaster response. So let's take an insight to the DEC:

Although British, it unites the leading independent humanitarian agencies in the country in their efforts to maximise income through cost-effective media-based appeals to finance humanitarian relief for major disasters overseas. The latest project is the response to the Gaza Crisis.

Their promises are:
- to ensure that the humanitarian imperative comes above everything
- to maximise charitable donations from companies and the public in response to disasters overseas
- to unite the leading independent humanitarian agencies in their efforts to mount an effective, timely humanitarian response to those least able to withstand such disasters
- to ensure that all funds are used in an accountable, transparent manner (no room for corruption there!)
- to facilitate agency cooperation, coordination and communication, and
- to raise standards in the implementation of humanitarian responses.

The DEC states that transparency and accountability are important for their activities. The DEC trustees review how their members spend the money the people donated, with results published on our website.

Since crises and emergencies occur regularly throughout the world the DEC has to restrict appeals to major disasters and emergencies which cannot be dealt with by the usual in-country coping mechanisms, and where their member agencies are in a position to respond quickly and effectively. (In this case it would have to be assumed that at least one charity would be able to respond quickly and effectively in a given location). They have guidelines to check whether a national joint appeal is the appropriate response to a particular emergency.

It seems the DEC is also independently funded but I think there has to be disaster co-ordination response, which they do to some form. Again, the purpose needs to be reviewed and simplified, and I don't think it should ever be funded by tax any more, now the original is repealed. So I guess social justice is out of question.

Bibliography:
DEC Website (http://www.dec.org.uk)

Dr. Castro, the General Fund is more for the World Assembly's internal affairs, and I agree with you that there is nothing against the organization being funded independently. Independent funding is likely because they would then be more appreciative of the donations from the public.It's your choice, Ambassador Harper. Either way, the committee will probably be adequately funded.

When I mentioned that independent funding went against the spirit of the General Fund, I was alluding to the previous practice of hundreds of funding mandates being pressed upon nations. The Senate of Glen-Rhodes, and myself to a degree, strongly prefer the use of the General Fund, as it consolidates all of the funding mandates in to a single responsibility, making budgeting and auditing an easier process.

As for splitting the resolution in to two parts -- one for the aid of war victims, and one for the aid of victims of disasters -- I think that it could go quite well, especially since the ICRC wouldn't be stretched too far with the introduction of a DEC-like committee.

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

Your draft is based on your original resolution and I don't see the justification of the argument by Pantherai on stealing the proposal: if your plan was to write a draft for Pantherai to comment on, make suggestions and work together then that's not a prob. Okay, you might have a different strategy to replace resolutions, but these libelous claims of proposal stealing by Pantherai is entirely false. Yours focuses on the ICRC and Pantherai's focuses on the WAHC.

But now its a good opportunity to overhaul it while its dormant. Yes, I will support a breakup of the ICRC to form two organizations because I think the original concept that does both has bit the dust due to overload.

The Aundotutunagirian People have grown weary of the drama surrounding both of these competing proposals and the repeal that precipitated them. We will support neither proposal and recommend that the World Assembly refrain from replacing "Coordinating Relief Aid" at this time.

The government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to concur with the respected and esteemed delegation of Aundotutunagir. We too recommend the postponement of a replacement for the Coordinating Relief Aid statute for the time being. National and inter regional provisions for this kind of thing will be more than adequate for now.


Yours,

At this moment in time I see a postponement to be clearly feasible. In fact it is possible that a breakup of the coordinating relief aid is imminent and any replacement in future is unlikely to be similar in operation to the original.

Having said that, I'm outta here for now to engage in research and other proposals. Ciao!

At this moment in time I see a postponement to be clearly feasible.

Oh, bollocks. Do not postpone any replacement(s) of Coordinating Relief Aid because a few delegations can't handle a little heat in the kitchen.

I'm looking forward to seeing the ICRC and the DEC proposals, soon.

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

I would have to agree with my esteemed colleague from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes. The theory and intent behind "Coordinating Relief Aid" was sound and unfortunately it was flawed. A replacement to provide adequate cover in this area should be something that is approached with the utmost urgency.

Sir Marcus Darcourt
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Taurat

The Aundotutunagirian People have grown weary of the drama surrounding both of these competing proposals and the repeal that precipitated them. We will support neither proposal and recommend that the World Assembly refrain from replacing "Coordinating Relief Aid" at this time.


I second this motion. I beleive there are those who are rushing for the sake of spite which greatly compromises any chance of passing a viable replacement.

I have to admit that I am not rushing at all: not at all, take your time to put in the suggestions. At some point however I will be putting in a "rough guide" to the two drafts.

If we could turn this draft into an organization inspired from the real-life ICRC then that would be great because according to my research their aim is simply "to be an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance."
First, it's poor roleplaying etiquette to have your characters reference real life.

Second, it's abominably stupid to do so, because the real ICRC is not administered by the real UN.

If you want to base the organization on Dunant's Red Cross, then go to the NS or II forums and start a roleplaying thread. If you want to have the World Assembly administer it, then don't pretend there is any operational similarity between the RL and NS versions.

And given most people in this forum use in-character posts, stop referencing real life using your characters. An out of character discussion of the Red Cross belongs in the General forum.