[PASSED]Preparing for Disasters

[Topid]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Preparing for Disasters
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Topid

The General Assembly,

Defining for the purposes of this resolution a ‘disaster’ as an event that causes massive loss of life or property damage, exempting any event intentionally caused by a warring party, or any acts of terrorism, or other political attacks,

Noting the vast amounts of wealth spent annually by member states, NGOs, and the World Assembly itself in providing humanitarian aid after disasters,

Recognizing that some of the loss of life and damage to property could be avoided if a nation had some warning a disaster was pending,

Seeking to prevent the loss of as many lives or the damage of as much property as possible when disasters occur,

Hereby:

I. Establishes the World Assembly Disaster Bureau (WADB) which shall be tasked with monitoring public hazards,
(a) Defines ‘public hazard’ as a condition, event, or situation that could become a disaster or makes a disaster possible or likely to occur,
(b) The WADB shall operate "early warning" systems for the initial detection of possible disasters,

II. Demands member states to regularly inspect structures such as dams, levees, nuclear facilities, and any other structures or vehicles which hold materials which, if the structure were to malfunction, could precipitate a disaster in the immediate area,
(a) Member states shall share the findings of these inspections with the WADB,
(b) The WADB shall provide all the help that a nation requests in this process such as training national investigators or performing the investigations for the nation,
(c) The WADB is to keep all information about each nation's infrastructure strictly confidential to prevent this information from being used in a manner not intended by the resolution,

III. Mandates each nation to create response plans for likely or reasonably possible disasters,
(a) Part of each nation's response plan will be to ensure an adequate amount of funds are available to respond to a disaster,
(b) The WADB shall be able to give loans and grants to nations which cannot afford to respond to disasters on their own,

VI. Mandates WADB shall issue warnings to national governments and all national monitoring agencies, when they suspect a disaster is pending, and shall also notify the various NGOs, WA Organizations, and National Governments which frequently send humanitarian aid, in the hopes the aid will arrive sooner if advanced notice is given;

V. Declares member states maintain the right to operate their own disaster alert system,
(a) The WADB shall provide as much assistance as possible to national systems on request,

VI. Encourages member states to respond to alerts in a manner that will protect the lives of as many civilians as possible.

VII Directs the WADB to research and experiment with techniques to better detect disasters, technologies that would assist in responding to a disaster, improvements to structure that reduce the danger of a disaster,
(a) The WADB shall share this information with the national governments of all nations, for the government to use as they wish,

VIII. Instructs the WADB to collaborate with all World Assembly organizations to achieve its goals,

Co-Author: Cievan

My apologies for the long delay. I am still very convinced that this is a matter of dire importance, however, in the long period since the disputes raised between supporters of the original resolution and the supporters of the repeal (OOC: Which is still to this day the narrowest margin of any WA matter I've been personally involved in.) my personal feelings over some of the minor details have changed, so I've made some of the changes the other side suggested. It is my opinion that we've let these minor disputes hold up this issue for longer than three months, and I'm just ready to get a new one in the books, even if it means making the replacement weaker and less effective.

Topid

[Ainocra]

A noble Goal, however the poorer nations that cannot afford such systems are barely mentioned.

[Topid]

A noble Goal, however the poorer nations that cannot afford such systems are barely mentioned.

This was one of the criticisms of the original. They are only mentioned once, but it gives them loans or grants to make it so the can afford such systems so I fail to see the problem.

Topid

[Ainocra]

It should get it's own clause and a little more verbage

[Topid]

It should get it's own clause and a little more verbage

So the complaint is not about what the proposal does for poor nations but rather the percent of text that is written specifically for them? Adding to the length of the proposal without changing what the proposal actually does is pointless, we shouldn't add words simply to add them.

Topid

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The proposal is starting to look much better now.

V. Declares member states maintain the right to operate their own disaster alert system,
(a) Such an organization shall work with the WADB to monitor disasters using the existing equipment of the national program,

I hope this clause isn't conspiring to replace national systems unintentionally in future (the use of the word existing might suggest such). We thought that the following wording might be better:

V. Declares member states maintain the right to operate their own disaster alert system,
(a) Such national system shall collaborate with the WADB to monitor disasters;

Besides, we assume for the purpose of the scenario, that national systems know the situation of their nation or their region better than the WADB and its contributions could be valuable.

[Manticore Reborn]

What about management of the relief efforts? Whom is in charge the WADB or the nation's disaster relief agency?
If as a nation I am giving aid, whom to I coordinate with? Who has authorization to state that any relief supplies should go to point A as opposed to point B?

[Topid]

The proposal is starting to look much better now.

V. Declares member states maintain the right to operate their own disaster alert system,
(a) Such an organization shall work with the WADB to monitor disasters using the existing equipment of the national program,

I hope this clause isn't conspiring to replace national systems unintentionally in future (the use of the word existing might suggest such). We thought that the following wording might be better:

V. Declares member states maintain the right to operate their own disaster alert system,
(a) Such national system shall collaborate with the WADB to monitor disasters;

Besides, we assume for the purpose of the scenario, that national systems know the situation of their nation or their region better than the WADB and its contributions could be valuable.

The section in question came about because of the repeal. The complaint (and a valid one in my opinion) is that under the original the WADB was wasting money on monitoring equipment in nations that already had their own. The rewrite fixes this problem but I do suppose it blurs the line between WADB and National Agency. Your suggestion would bring up the same complaints the original did by removing the prevention of duplicate equipment. How about...

V. Declares member states maintain the right to operate their own disaster alert system,
(a) The WADB shall provide as much assistance as requested from national systems,

This way the nation can monitor itself if wanted, and WADB may help it wherever it needs. It also saves money by allowing nations to do some of the work for the WADB if it should want to. (Though I cannot imagine why a nation would pay to monitor something the WA is offering to monitor for it.)

What about management of the relief efforts? Whom is in charge the WADB or the nation's disaster relief agency?
If as a nation I am giving aid, whom to I coordinate with? Who has authorization to state that any relief supplies should go to point A as opposed to point B?

GA #51 already handled that topic.

[Manticore Reborn]

What about management of the relief efforts? Whom is in charge the WADB or the nation's disaster relief agency?
If as a nation I am giving aid, whom to I coordinate with? Who has authorization to state that any relief supplies should go to point A as opposed to point B?

GA #51 already handled that topic.

This representative thanks the noble ambassador from Topid for pointing us to GA# 51. We know ask what is the point of this resolution then since most of the issues covered by this proposal appear to already have been addressed in the Humanitarian Aid Coordination resolution.

[Topid]

What about management of the relief efforts? Whom is in charge the WADB or the nation's disaster relief agency?
If as a nation I am giving aid, whom to I coordinate with? Who has authorization to state that any relief supplies should go to point A as opposed to point B?

GA #51 already handled that topic.

This representative thanks the noble ambassador from Topid for pointing us to GA# 51. We know ask what is the point of this resolution then since most of the issues covered by this proposal appear to already have been addressed in the Humanitarian Aid Coordination resolution.

The only thing duplicated by my proposal is the requirement of response plans. Everything else in this proposal is not in GA #51, so I must disagree with that statement. (Also, just to point out, I don't like restating what was said in GA #51, and was opposed to Article III prior to this draft (it wasn't in the original, or my first replacement draft) but one of the reasons it was repealed was that Article III was left out.

To demonstrate the difference, GA #51 focuses on responding to disasters. My proposal focuses on preparing for disasters. That is why the original was named the Disaster Preparedness Act, and the new name (Disaster Act) isn't specific enough. I'm going to change it back to Disaster Preparedness Act, even though I don't like the idea of the GA having passed two resolutions by the same name.

Topid

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The proposal is starting to look much better now.

V. Declares member states maintain the right to operate their own disaster alert system,
(a) Such an organization shall work with the WADB to monitor disasters using the existing equipment of the national program,

I hope this clause isn't conspiring to replace national systems unintentionally in future (the use of the word existing might suggest such). We thought that the following wording might be better:

V. Declares member states maintain the right to operate their own disaster alert system,
(a) Such national system shall collaborate with the WADB to monitor disasters;

Besides, we assume for the purpose of the scenario, that national systems know the situation of their nation or their region better than the WADB and its contributions could be valuable.

The section in question came about because of the repeal. The complaint (and a valid one in my opinion) is that under the original the WADB was wasting money on monitoring equipment in nations that already had their own. The rewrite fixes this problem but I do suppose it blurs the line between WADB and National Agency. Your suggestion would bring up the same complaints the original did by removing the prevention of duplicate equipment. How about...

V. Declares member states maintain the right to operate their own disaster alert system,
(a) The WADB shall provide as much assistance as requested from national systems,

This way the nation can monitor itself if wanted, and WADB may help it wherever it needs. It also saves money by allowing nations to do some of the work for the WADB if it should want to. (Though I cannot imagine why a nation would pay to monitor something the WA is offering to monitor for it.)

When written as:

V. Declares member states maintain the right to operate their own disaster alert system,
(a) The WADB shall provide as much assistance as possible to national systems on request;

It would be much better. We just wanted to extinguish as many traces of that "conspiracy". Plus, it would pave way for a new generation of national systems too, as local knowledge is crucial.

[Topid]

We shall say that then, proposal updated.

[Manticore Reborn]

To demonstrate the difference, GA #51 focuses on responding to disasters. My proposal focuses on preparing for disasters. That is why the original was named the Disaster Preparedness Act, and the new name (Disaster Act) isn't specific enough. I'm going to change it back to Disaster Preparedness Act, even though I don't like the idea of the GA having passed two resolutions by the same name.

Topid

My government thanks you for your explanation and appologizes for our thickheadedness. Although we would prefer an omnibus resolution covering both response and preparedness, we understand that cannot be done without repealing GA#51 which would be detrimental to world security. We will await further updates to your current proposal to pass judgement.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I am confident that is possible to create a disaster preparedness act that goes on well with GA#51. On a side note, I never used the word "Act" in my resolutions. I thought in my opinion that "Preparing for Disasters" as a title would be catchy.

[Topid]

I am confident that is possible to create a disaster preparedness act that goes on well with GA#51. On a side note, I never used the word "Act" in my resolutions. I thought in my opinion that "Preparing for Disasters" as a title would be catchy.

... I like including Act but given a choice between the two I'd rather leave it out than have two Disaster Preparedness Acts. I'll change it over.

I thought in my opinion

Topid

[Nullarni]

How about "Disaster Planning and Response"

[Topid]

Ah, what's in a name?

Besides, I like focusing on the term preparing/preparedness.

[Nullarni]

Ah, what's in a name?

Besides, I like focusing on the term preparing/preparedness.

Remember, (and I think you actually said something similar to me earlier today,) the name of it is the first and often the only thing people see of the proposal. So make sure it is a good one.

[Topid]

Ah, what's in a name?

Besides, I like focusing on the term preparing/preparedness.

Remember, (and I think you actually said something similar to me earlier today,) the name of it is the first and often the only thing people see of the proposal. So make sure it is a good one.

Sadly that is true, but I think most people would be FOR preparing for disasters.

[Freeoplis]

We note that this policy area was dealt with under Resolution 81 Disaster Preparedness Act and then quickly repealed under resolution 85 Repeal Disaster Preparedness Act. We conclude that that it will be difficult to get such a proposal passed.

[Nullarni]

We note that this policy area was dealt with under Resolution 81 Disaster Preparedness Act and then quickly repealed under resolution 85 Repeal Disaster Preparedness Act. We conclude that that it will be difficult to get such a proposal passed.

In his defense, WA#85 does list exactly why it is being repealed, and does ask for another, better disaster preparedness resolution be passed. Perhaps this is just an attempt to fulfill that request.

As a side note, I suggest that the author of this proposal pay very special attention to the concerns and requests made in WA#85.

[Topid]

Yes there was a resolution almost identical to this in the past (which I also authored), which was repealed by a narrow margin over minor issues, as I said in the OP. And also as I said in the OP we all intended to replace it but no one got around to it. This draft already takes most if not all the points of the repeal into consideration if you read the original, repeal, and this draft (which is a lot to ask people to do nowadays, sadly).

[Topid]

*nudge*
I'd like to have this submitted and campaigned for relatively soon (More important work in other councils), so please comment.

[Cievan]

I would like to apologize formally to you for what may be perceived as an offense.
As another draft, I posted the idea for the "Calamity Readiness Act", as somewhat of a different version of the unfortunately repealed Resolution 81 "Disaster Preparedness Act". I was informed that I may have made an accidental breach of etiquette, and had been unaware before of your attempt to re-draft and re-instate the resolution in the Assembly.
For this, you have my sincere apology. It is my hope that I have not offended you in any way, and I apologize for this unfortunate misunderstanding.

[Topid]

Don't worry about it. The 'etiquette' around here is too strict anyway. Chaos and conflict could do this place a little good. No harm done!