[PASSED] Repeal "Humanitarian Aid Expansion Act"

[Separatist Peoples]

Oh, give me a break. If you don't want to allow the Red Cross or Red Crescent into your nation because of an irrational fear of foreigners who just want to help you, you're hurting your people, and the international community must intervene.

"The current wording does not allow member states to prevent known criminals from entering our borders, let alone a number of more organized threats. During a time when society is destabilized. The best a nation can do is refuse to transport them. If you don't see this as a problem, you have a laughably naive view of the world."

As for governments "rebuilding something we didn't break" I can only respond with the absolute highest level of condemnation for that mindset.

"Like anybody is going to lose sleep over that."

If your people are devastated by a natural disaster, and your government refuses to help rebuild, you deserve to be toppled from power for not serving your people. The original resolution was sensible, reasonable, and designed to protect people from governments like yours that have no sense of responsibility during a disaster whatsoever.

"If private property, built by private actors, was destroyed in a sharknado or volcanic hurricane or whatever, why should Johnny Q Taxpayer cover the damage? The subsidization of reconstruction for nonpublic works is a drain on capital best put to use elsewhere. The proposal was submitted with little opportunity for peer review, and was utterly failing in numerous aspects. I say this as an author of one of the humanitarian aid proposals listed in the preamble. If you want to trow the borders wide and fund projects that never once received government money, do so in your nation. Leave the rest of us to manage out business accordingly. This repeal has the full support of the C.D.S.P.'s campaigning office."

[Tsukuyomi-no-mikoto]

"Or maybe we shouldn't have to rebuild something we didn't break? Maybe we would like to have nominal control of our borders, even when disaster strikes? The target resolution had terrible flaws."

Oh, give me a break. If you don't want to allow the Red Cross or Red Crescent into your nation because of an irrational fear of foreigners who just want to help you, you're hurting your people, and the international community must intervene. As for governments "rebuilding something we didn't break" I can only respond with the absolute highest level of condemnation for that mindset. If your people are devastated by a natural disaster, and your government refuses to help rebuild, you deserve to be toppled from power for not serving your people. The original resolution was sensible, reasonable, and designed to protect people from governments like yours that have no sense of responsibility during a disaster whatsoever.

"The original resolution has many flaws, as Ambassador Bell has pointed out. The does exactly what it says it does. In this case, it requires us to let criminals in and requires us to provide transport to aid workers over using such resources to combat the disaster. The ridiculous requirements of immediate infrastructure rebuilding over such things as well-being of victims, viability or cost is another matter entirely" Clover said.

"We have no idea who the 'red cross' or 'red cresent' are, but unless they have been invited by the Princess or her representitives, or possess valid entry documents issued by our department of border control, they aren't getting in."

"I would suggest reading the resolution with your head and not your heart" Clover finished with a smile. "Welcome to the snakepit".

[Separatist Peoples]

"The original resolution has many flaws, as Ambassador Bell has pointed out. The does exactly what it says it does. In this case, it requires us to let criminals in and requires us to provide transport to aid workers over using such resources to combat the disaster. The ridiculous requirements of immediate infrastructure rebuilding over such things as well-being of victims, viability or cost is another matter entirely" Clover said.

"We have no idea who the 'red cross' or 'red cresent' are, but unless they have been invited by the Princess or her representitives, or possess valid entry documents issued by our department of border control, they aren't getting in."

"I would suggest reading the resolution with your head and not your heart" Clover finished with a smile. "Welcome to the snakepit".

"Clover, is that you? What have you done with your hair?"

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Oops. Phone left me logged in on a different account it seems...

IC: The Tsukuyomian representative began to speak, before a flash of light engulfed him, leaving Clover standing there. 'Ugh, that was wierd' she said "I guess that spell really doesn't work. What happened to me exactly?"

After a brief review of the minutes, she simply said "yeah, Inagree with them...err... Me..."

[Tinfect]

Oh, give me a break. If you don't want to allow the Red Cross or Red Crescent into your nation because of an irrational fear of foreigners who just want to help you, you're hurting your people, and the international community must intervene.

"If your Government wishes to attempt to breach the Imperial border, in order to provide access for unwanted and unnecessary 'Aid' personnel, they are more than welcome to the attempt. Simply remember that such a thing is an act of war, and the Imperium will respond with the appropriate measures when your forces are defeated.

The Imperium has managed its own population in the event of a disaster, natural or otherwise, quite effectively since its founding. International Aid has been either non-existent, or simply denied access for the entire period. We are far more than capable of disaster management, far more so than any foreigners."

[Belmaria]

"The current wording does not allow member states to prevent known criminals from entering our borders, let alone a number of more organized threats. During a time when society is destabilized. The best a nation can do is refuse to transport them. If you don't see this as a problem, you have a laughably naive view of the world.

The current resolution requires that aid workers be allowed into afflicted areas. It allows nations to implement security checks for the safety of their people, and does not forbid a nation from arresting known criminals.

"If the international community would like to access our borders without permission, we would be happy to correct them of that notion. I believe we have several light naval squadrons well-armed with dissuasion tools."

If you threaten war with the entire international community as a result of not being allowed to deny your people humanitarian aid, your government is likely going to be a candidate for condemnation.

"If private property, built by private actors, was destroyed in a sharknado or volcanic hurricane or whatever, why should Johnny Q Taxpayer cover the damage? The subsidization of reconstruction for nonpublic works is a drain on capital best put to use elsewhere. The proposal was submitted with little opportunity for peer review, and was utterly failing in numerous aspects. I say this as an author of one of the humanitarian aid proposals listed in the preamble. If you want to trow the borders wide and fund projects that never once received government money, do so in your nation. Leave the rest of us to manage out business accordingly. This repeal has the full support of the C.D.S.P.'s campaigning office."

Regardless of the peer review, there are no glaring logistical issues with this resolution whatsoever, essentially voiding of your assertions as a staunch opponent to the underlying legislative principles in the text. There is no provision requiring anyone to rebuild houses, bowling alleys, shopping malls, theatres, amusement parks, or any other non-essential property. The only property this resolution requires governments to rebuild after a disaster is essential infrastructure, such as hospitals and distribution centers, which may be used in the humanitarian aid effort.

If your government is so opposed to these most basic provisions of humanitarian aid, I shudder to think about how your government must treat your people on a regular basis.

[Separatist Peoples]

The current resolution requires that aid workers be allowed into afflicted areas. It allows nations to implement security checks for the safety of their people, and does not forbid a nation from arresting known criminals.

"Oh, that's adorable! You believe it, too!"

Mandates that host nations allow any personnel working with humanitarian organizations that are involved with the relief effort to enter afflicted areas, with all personnel being subject to any extensive security checks imposed by the host nation. If the personnel pass the security checks, the host nation must provide transportation so the personnel can reach the afflicted areas, if deemed necessary.

"The logical relationship between the security check and passing is linked to transportation. Not expulsion or refusal. In fact, the proposal continues about how nations can't turn them away. The assumption, since the proposal explicitly lists what one must do when security checks are passed, is that there are no other provisions for when the check fails. Had the proposal explicitly done so, I'd sit down and shut up."

If you threaten war with the entire international community as a result of not being allowed to deny your people humanitarian aid, your government is likely going to be a candidate for condemnation.

"We already have a Commendation. That would look spiffy. Go for it.

"We have no quarrel with the international community as a whole. Just those who cross our borders without explicit permission. We have a solution for that, too."

Regardless of the peer review, there are no glaring logistical issues with this resolution whatsoever, regardless of your assertions as a staunch opponent to the underlying legislative principles in the text. There is no provision requiring anyone to rebuild houses, bowling alleys, shopping malls, theatres, amusement parks, or any other non-essential property. The only property this resolution requires governments to rebuild after a disaster is essential infrastructure, such as hospitals and distribution centers, which may be used in the humanitarian aid effort.

"Rebuild is unqualified, so the aid would be too. The law does what the law says, here, ambassador."

If your government is so opposed to these most basic provisions of humanitarian aid, I shudder to think about how your government must treat your people on a regular basis.

"Considering the same World Assembly regularly ranks is so highly on Civil Rights and Political Freedoms, considering my authorship history, and considering the not insubstantial reputation I've built up that says otherwise, I'd have to say you're talking out of your posterior on that front, ambassador. Not a bad try, but wholly unconvincing. Being opposed to this law doesn't equate to abuse."

[Belmaria]

"Oh, that's adorable! You believe it, too!"

Mandates that host nations allow any personnel working with humanitarian organizations that are involved with the relief effort to enter afflicted areas, with all personnel being subject to any extensive security checks imposed by the host nation. If the personnel pass the security checks, the host nation must provide transportation so the personnel can reach the afflicted areas, if deemed necessary.

"The logical relationship between the security check and passing is linked to transportation. Not expulsion or refusal. In fact, the proposal continues about how nations can't turn them away. The assumption, since the proposal explicitly lists what one must do when security checks are passed, is that there are no other provisions for when the check fails. Had the proposal explicitly done so, I'd sit down and shut up."

The text just above it states that the security checks are intended to determine the eligibility of aid workers to be allowed into afflicted regions.

From Original Resolution: All humanitarian aid originating from outside the borders of the host nation are subject to any extensive security checks imposed by the host nation in order for it to be sent to the afflicted areas.

"Rebuild is unqualified, so the aid would be too. The law does what the law says, here, ambassador."

So you're saying that the term "rebuild" isn't defined under the current proposal, and that therefore, you believe the resolution is flawed? If we defined every last term used in every resolution, we'd have resolutions with dozens of A10 size pages just devoted to the definitions. The WA shouldn't bog itself down with that level of red tape.

"Considering the same World Assembly regularly ranks is so highly on Civil Rights and Political Freedoms, considering my authorship history, and considering the not insubstantial reputation I've built up that says otherwise, I'd have to say you're talking out of your posterior on that front, ambassador. Not a bad try, but wholly unconvincing. Being opposed to this law doesn't equate to abuse."

If you tightly control immigration, only to oppose humanitarian aid, your government is mistreating its people. This policy must not go unnoticed or unpunished by the World Assembly.

[Separatist Peoples]

The text just above it states that the security checks are intended to determine the eligibility of aid workers to be allowed into afflicted regions.

From Original Resolution: All humanitarian aid originating from outside the borders of the host nation are subject to any extensive security checks imposed by the host nation in order for it to be sent to the afflicted areas.

"And yet, that's not the logical relationship formed by the clause. If a consideration for turning away those that fail had been included alongside the many other details included, there would be no question."

So you're saying that the term "rebuild" isn't defined under the current proposal, and that therefore, you believe the resolution is flawed? If we defined every last term used in every resolution, we'd have resolutions with dozens of A10 size pages just devoted to the definitions. The WA shouldn't bog itself down with that level of red tape.

" You know what is a useful word, ambassador? "Necessary". Because of that qualifier had been added, no dictionary and no repeal would have been necessary. Well, perhaps the repeal would, but it wouldn't have that particular argument."

If you tightly control immigration, only to oppose humanitarian aid, your government is mistreating its people. This policy must not go unnoticed or unpunished by the World Assembly.

"And if that was what was happening, I might agree. Failing to support this resolution doesn't mean citizens are left to fend for themselves. Honestly, I don't see why this issues a problem for other ambassadors to get. We have several legal ways to enter our territory. If you cannot do so legally, we will register our displeasure, probably with a 3" twin-linked rocket. It's not as though we don't publicize that. At any rate, that was our policy while we wrote several resolutions and earned a Commendation. You'll forgive me if I don't exactly hold my breath."

[Belmaria]

The text just above it states that the security checks are intended to determine the eligibility of aid workers to be allowed into afflicted regions.

"And yet, that's not the logical relationship formed by the clause. If a consideration for turning away those that fail had been included alongside the many other details included, there would be no question."

The wording is broad, so as to allow nations to interpret this portion of the resolution as they wish. It doesn't specify that nations can't perform the security checks at their borders, and, therefore, doesn't ban nations from turning aid workers away if they fail security checks. If aid must pass security checks in order for it to be sent to depressed areas within the nation, all a nation must do is perform checks at their international border to exercise their ability to turn away workers that don't pass the checks.

Once again, there is no provision in the resolution banning this action. There is not even the slightest implication that this is the case.

So you're saying that the term "rebuild" isn't defined under the current proposal, and that therefore, you believe the resolution is flawed? If we defined every last term used in every resolution, we'd have resolutions with dozens of A10 size pages just devoted to the definitions. The WA shouldn't bog itself down with that level of red tape.

" You know what is a useful word, ambassador? "Necessary". Because of that qualifier had been added, no dictionary and no repeal would have been necessary. Well, perhaps the repeal would, but it wouldn't have that particular argument."

A repeal isn't necessary. Where, specifically, do you desire the word "Necessary" be added within the resolution, and how would the amendment as such increase the effectiveness of the legislation?

If you tightly control immigration, only to oppose humanitarian aid, your government is mistreating its people. This policy must not go unnoticed or unpunished by the World Assembly.

"And if that was what was happening, I might agree. Failing to support this resolution doesn't mean citizens are left to fend for themselves. Honestly, I don't see why this issues a problem for other ambassadors to get. We have several legal ways to enter our territory. If you cannot do so legally, we will register our displeasure, probably with a 3" twin-linked rocket. It's not as though we don't publicize that. At any rate, that was our policy while we wrote several resolutions and earned a Commendation. You'll forgive me if I don't exactly hold my breath."

Your opposition, and the opposition of other governments, to this resolution, has largely been argued from the standpoint that nations should be allowed the sovereignty to deny access to whoever they please. Considering the fact that there are no provisions in this resolution banning nations from barring entry to known criminals, regardless of their status as an aid worker, it appears that your opposition is largely cosmetic, so as to shroud your underlying ulterior motives. It's quite obvious that your government holds hawkish beliefs on defence and nationalism, so it's not out of line to question your sincerity.

[Normlpeople]

"The original punctuation is unfortunate as the only thing the security check reveals is rather you must provide transportation." Clover said "Thankfully, all we have to do is seal the borders and were good. Its not hard to keep these 'aid workers' out then. Assuming we don't use Omega, which is possible with this resolution"

"As far as your threat regarding the international community, I've been representing the kingdom here for a few years" Clover said, staring hard at the accusing ambassador. "During this time, I have always held the interests of the Princess and her Kingdom above those of the International community. That will not change, least of all as a result of thos flawed legislation"

[Belmaria]

"The original punctuation is unfortunate as the only thing the security check reveals is rather you must provide transportation." Clover said "Thankfully, all we have to do is seal the borders and were good. Its not hard to keep these 'aid workers' out then. Assuming we don't use Omega, which is possible with this resolution"

From Original Resolution: All humanitarian aid originating from outside the borders of the host nation are subject to any extensive security checks imposed by the host nation in order for it to be sent to the afflicted areas.

"As far as your threat regarding the international community, I've been representing the kingdom here for a few years" Clover said, staring hard at the accusing ambassador. "During this time, I have always held the interests of the Princess and her Kingdom above those of the International community. That will not change, least of all as a result of thos flawed legislation"

The only people issuing threats here are those who refuse to allow aid workers to enter their nations, and then proceed to threaten acts of war as a result of the World Assembly passing a resolution, by a large margin, to stop this oppressive behavior.

[Separatist Peoples]

The wording is broad, so as to allow nations to interpret this portion of the resolution as they wish. It doesn't specify that nations can't perform the security checks at their borders, and, therefore, doesn't ban nations from turning aid workers away if they fail security checks. If aid must pass security checks in order for it to be sent to depressed areas within the nation, all a nation must do is perform checks at their international border to exercise their ability to turn away workers that don't pass the checks.

"The law does as the law says. The error in punctuation links, in an operative clause, transportation to the passing of security checks. Not access. By your interpretation, we could raise security checks to be so stiff, no worker passes through our borders. Is this an acceptable interpretation for you?"

Once again, there is no provision in the resolution banning this action. There is not even the slightest implication that this is the case.

"Except the logical reasoning of the proposal."

Your opposition, and the opposition of other governments, to this resolution, has largely been argued from the standpoint that nations should be allowed the sovereignty to deny access to whoever they please.

"Borders exist for a reason. Nations should have absolute authority over who enters them."

Considering the fact that there are no provisions in this resolution banning nations from barring entry to known criminals,

"There are. It's a logical relationship created by poor sentence structure. A tragedy, but a heinous oversight nonetheless."

regardless of their status as an aid worker, it appears that your opposition is largely cosmetic, so as to shroud your underlying ulterior motives. It's quite obvious that your government holds hawkish beliefs on defence and nationalism, so it's not out of line to question your sincerity.

"It must hurt, pulling such tall tales out of yours. I sincerely doubt that the ambassador of Belmaria has any functional knowledge of the C.D.S.P.'s internal policies, which explains resorting to abject speculation. I don't do it to you, I'm sure a civilized person would engage in some quid pro quo on that front."

"The original punctuation is unfortunate as the only thing the security check reveals is rather you must provide transportation." Clover said "Thankfully, all we have to do is seal the borders and were good. Its not hard to keep these 'aid workers' out then. Assuming we don't use Omega, which is possible with this resolution"

From Original Resolution: All humanitarian aid originating from outside the borders of the host nation are subject to any extensive security checks imposed by the host nation in order for it to be sent to the afflicted areas.

"Assuming "it" refers to the aid worker the check clearly has only to do with transportation. That would be why the conditional action is the act of being sent to the afflicted area. It has nothing to do whatsoever with access to the country. That is how the law is structured. The law does as the law says."

[Normlpeople]

OOC: I'm not real good at cutting/pasting on mobile.

IC: "That requires security checks to access the affected area. It further states a nation is required to provide transport if they pass. It does not explicitly state that failure will allow expulsion, nor is the actions of the 'aid worker' specified when they get there. This is a massive loophole." Clover sighed. "Punctuation is what it is."

"There's several WA resolutions on the books that do not involve massive national security risks, and I have stated I hope the author re-visits this with a proper hashed-out version instead of a rushed-to-submission version. Unfortunately, with this on the books, the borders are sealed, security check will be citizens only, and aid workers will be arrested should they stay. Unfortunate, but we do not allow just anyone into our nation."

Clover added a sly smile "Don't worry, our Royal Guard is well equipped to deal with any emergancy or disaster. Im sure the WA inspection team will agree."

[Tinfect]

The only people issuing threats here are those who refuse to allow aid workers to enter their nations, and then proceed to threaten acts of war as a result of the World Assembly passing a resolution, by a large margin, to stop this oppressive behavior.

"Untrue. You have personally stated that you believe international interference to be necessary to force open the borders of States that maintain border controls. In any case, Ambassador, do explain how the Imperium disallowing foreigners to enter our Borders is oppressive."

[Belmaria]

"The law does as the law says. The error in punctuation links, in an operative clause, transportation to the passing of security checks. Not access. By your interpretation, we could raise security checks to be so stiff, no worker passes through our borders. Is this an acceptable interpretation for you?"

It would be unfortunate if nations chose to skirt the requirement to allow aid workers into depressed areas by instituting security checks that block all aid traffic into the nation. However, it is my opinion that you all are attempting to repeal the original resolution to avoid having to allow aid work to commence in your nations. As a result, I would rather stick with the established and largely unblemished resolution than risk repealing it and replacing it with something far worse, assuming it would get replaced at all.

Once again, there is no provision in the resolution banning this action. There is not even the slightest implication that this is the case.

"Except the logical reasoning of the proposal."

Except for the clause I have referenced multiple times in this discussion, effectively voiding the supposed grammatical error in the clause you continue to cite.

"Borders exist for a reason. Nations should have absolute authority over who enters them."

No, nations should not be allowed to turn away legitimate aid. That's the whole premise of the resolution, which would explain your opposition to it. I think it's quite clear to unbiased observers that you only oppose the original resolution as a result of ideological zeal, and that your attempts at logistical and grammatical justification of the repeal effort are only thinly veiled attempts at hiding your real intentions.

Considering the fact that there are no provisions in this resolution banning nations from barring entry to known criminals,

"There are. It's a logical relationship created by poor sentence structure. A tragedy, but a heinous oversight nonetheless."

There are none. As you have stated previously, the clause you continue to cite is related to government-provided transportation. There is an entirely separate clause which ties security checks to entry into afflicted areas. If you can't see how the two are completely different, and how the clause you cite couldn't possibly be used to bar nations from restricting access to criminals, you need to re-read the original resolution.

"It must hurt, pulling such tall tales out of yours. I sincerely doubt that the ambassador of Belmaria has any functional knowledge of the C.D.S.P.'s internal policies, which explains resorting to abject speculation. I don't do it to you, I'm sure a civilized person would engage in some quid pro quo on that front."

Ambassador, you have openly admitted that you believe nations should have absolute control over their borders. It is clear that your opposition to this resolution has an ulterior motive that you are not telling us about. My "speculation" is valid, and based on legitimate inductive reasoning.

"The original punctuation is unfortunate as the only thing the security check reveals is rather you must provide transportation." Clover said "Thankfully, all we have to do is seal the borders and were good. Its not hard to keep these 'aid workers' out then. Assuming we don't use Omega, which is possible with this resolution"

From Original Resolution: All humanitarian aid originating from outside the borders of the host nation are subject to any extensive security checks imposed by the host nation in order for it to be sent to the afflicted areas.

"Assuming "it" refers to the aid worker the check clearly has only to do with transportation. That would be why the conditional action is the act of being sent to the afflicted area. It has nothing to do whatsoever with access to the country. That is how the law is structured. The law does as the law says."

The interpretation of "sent" is broad as well, and could potentially be interpreted by a national government as permission to deny the ability of aid workers to be sent to any portion of their country by means of border restriction.

OOC: I'm not real good at cutting/pasting on mobile.

IC: "That requires security checks to access the affected area. It further states a nation is required to provide transport if they pass. It does not explicitly state that failure will allow expulsion, nor is the actions of the 'aid worker' specified when they get there. This is a massive loophole." Clover sighed. "Punctuation is what it is."

Failure to explicitly state the specific proper response of national governments does not explicitly ban perceived improper responses. If we spent time specifying every detail of what the WA would consider proper governmental action on various issues, we would be unnecessarily micro-managing member states.

"There's several WA resolutions on the books that do not involve massive national security risks, and I have stated I hope the author re-visits this with a proper hashed-out version instead of a rushed-to-submission version. Unfortunately, with this on the books, the borders are sealed, security check will be citizens only, and aid workers will be arrested should they stay. Unfortunate, but we do not allow just anyone into our nation."

If that is your government's position, you will be in violation of a number of human rights resolutions passed by the WA.

Clover added a sly smile "Don't worry, our Royal Guard is well equipped to deal with any emergency or disaster. I'm sure the WA inspection team will agree."

I'm glad you believe that to be the case. I'm also glad that we have an inspection team in the first place, as a result of this resolution being passed by such a large margin.

The only people issuing threats here are those who refuse to allow aid workers to enter their nations, and then proceed to threaten acts of war as a result of the World Assembly passing a resolution, by a large margin, to stop this oppressive behavior.

"Untrue. You have personally stated that you believe international interference to be necessary to force open the borders of States that maintain border controls. In any case, Ambassador, do explain how the Imperium disallowing foreigners to enter our Borders is oppressive."

If any nation were to refuse the entry of aid workers whose only goal was the assistance of the citizens and residents of said nation after a disaster, said nation would be denying its people access to potentially life-saving aid, unnecessarily I might add. There is no evidence that allowing aid organizations into depressed areas increases security risks. If anything, the aid would decrease security risks by allowing emergency infrastructure to be established more quickly. I don't understand why any government would be opposed to that.

[Normlpeople]

If that is your government's position, you will be in violation of a number of human rights resolutions passed by the WA.

"Feel free to tell me which ones" Clover said. "Oh, and don't worry about the inspection teams. Regardless of your inability to trust in national governments to provide for thier people, the Princess genuinely cares for her subjects and ensures appropriate precautions are taken for thier protection. That was the case even before we joined the WA."

[Tinfect]

If any nation were to refuse the entry of aid workers whose only goal was the assistance of the citizens and residents of said nation after a disaster, said nation would be denying its people access to potentially life-saving aid, unnecessarily I might add.

"This assertion rests on the entirely unfounded assumption that Member-States maintain no National Disaster Relief system, or that the System is entirely incompetent. The Imperium has handled all disasters within its own borders without any form of International Aid, and it is not projected that foreign interference in the operations of the Imperial Civil Oversight Disaster Mitigation Division would have been capable of handling the situation in a superior manner to Imperial forces; Most such projections, in fact, show only that foreign interference would have caused only greater casualties, due to 'heroic' fools refusing to evacuate the area, and the inherent inefficiency of improperly organized and equipped forces operating within Imperial territories.

Further, there are few Member-States that maintain greater, or even sufficiently similar Technological advancement to what has been achieved by the Imperium, it is highly unlikely that any foreigners equipped with primitive technologies and improper facilities would have been capable of operating to the standards required by the Imperium. This technological deficiency alone, is considered by the Imperium to be sufficient grounds to deny groups of foreign 'aid' organizations access. Combined with their extremely dangerous lack of discipline and organization, their operation within the Imperial Territories could not result in any superior outcome than what has been achieved by Imperial Personnel, and that their interference would present a significant risk to themselves, the Civilians under their 'care', and the Imperial Personnel forced to deal with the sudden appearance of unqualified and under-equipped personnel getting in the way of Imperial operations."

There is no evidence that allowing aid organizations into depressed areas increases security risks.

"Entirely untrue. Imperial Cities are designed to resist attack, and contain a variety of defensive installations, emplacements, and design features. Were a foreigner to report on even the layout of Imperial Cities, it may pose a security risk in the event of an attack, as potentially hostile forces may be able to utilize the information to bypass Imperial Defensive Strategy.

Further, were these foreigners to 'take home' any information regarding Imperial Technologies, such as the specifics of operation of Imperial Military Vehicles operated by Civil Oversight Personnel during Disaster Mitigation Operations, it may result in further security risks due to the information being acquired by a potentially hostile entity."

If anything, the aid would decrease security risks by allowing emergency infrastructure to be established more quickly. I don't understand why any government would be opposed to that.

"Because it is Untrue. What possible benefit could the interference of personnel unqualified in the operation of Imperial Machinery and Technology, be of use in the efforts of Reconstruction? The Civil Oversight Development Division is more than capable of reconstruction efforts, as they were fully capable of the original Construction efforts. These Foreigners would not be able to utilize Imperial Technologies, nor would they have access to Imperial Resources. Their attempts at assistance would be only of hindrance to Imperial Personnel forced to repair the further damage caused by the presence of interfering personnel."

[Belmaria]

If that is your government's position, you will be in violation of a number of human rights resolutions passed by the WA.

"Feel free to tell me which ones" Clover said. "Oh, and don't worry about the inspection teams. Regardless of your inability to trust in national governments to provide for thier people, the Princess genuinely cares for her subjects and ensures appropriate precautions are taken for thier protection. That was the case even before we joined the WA."

In the case of medical aid being restricted in the fashion you describe, it would be illegal under the resolution "Medical Provisions in Blockade". In the case of aid in general, ironically enough, "Access to Humanitarian Aid" would also forbid you from hindering the rendition of aid after a disaster.

So best of luck defying international law.

If any nation were to refuse the entry of aid workers whose only goal was the assistance of the citizens and residents of said nation after a disaster, said nation would be denying its people access to potentially life-saving aid, unnecessarily I might add.

"This assertion rests on the entirely unfounded assumption that Member-States maintain no National Disaster Relief system, or that the System is entirely incompetent. The Imperium has handled all disasters within its own borders without any form of International Aid, and it is not projected that foreign interference in the operations of the Imperial Civil Oversight Disaster Mitigation Division would have been capable of handling the situation in a superior manner to Imperial forces; Most such projections, in fact, show only that foreign interference would have caused only greater casualties, due to 'heroic' fools refusing to evacuate the area, and the inherent inefficiency of improperly organized and equipped forces operating within Imperial territories.

Further, there are few Member-States that maintain greater, or even sufficiently similar Technological advancement to what has been achieved by the Imperium, it is highly unlikely that any foreigners equipped with primitive technologies and improper facilities would have been capable of operating to the standards required by the Imperium. This technological deficiency alone, is considered by the Imperium to be sufficient grounds to deny groups of foreign 'aid' organizations access. Combined with their extremely dangerous lack of discipline and organization, their operation within the Imperial Territories could not result in any superior outcome than what has been achieved by Imperial Personnel, and that their interference would present a significant risk to themselves, the Civilians under their 'care', and the Imperial Personnel forced to deal with the sudden appearance of unqualified and under-equipped personnel getting in the way of Imperial operations."

There is no evidence that allowing aid organizations into depressed areas increases security risks.

"Entirely untrue. Imperial Cities are designed to resist attack, and contain a variety of defensive installations, emplacements, and design features. Were a foreigner to report on even the layout of Imperial Cities, it may pose a security risk in the event of an attack, as potentially hostile forces may be able to utilize the information to bypass Imperial Defensive Strategy.

Further, were these foreigners to 'take home' any information regarding Imperial Technologies, such as the specifics of operation of Imperial Military Vehicles operated by Civil Oversight Personnel during Disaster Mitigation Operations, it may result in further security risks due to the information being acquired by a potentially hostile entity."

If anything, the aid would decrease security risks by allowing emergency infrastructure to be established more quickly. I don't understand why any government would be opposed to that.

"Because it is Untrue. What possible benefit could the interference of personnel unqualified in the operation of Imperial Machinery and Technology, be of use in the efforts of Reconstruction? The Civil Oversight Development Division is more than capable of reconstruction efforts, as they were fully capable of the original Construction efforts. These Foreigners would not be able to utilize Imperial Technologies, nor would they have access to Imperial Resources. Their attempts at assistance would be only of hindrance to Imperial Personnel forced to repair the further damage caused by the presence of interfering personnel."

OOC: I'm calling BS on all of that. Just how technologically advanced is your nation?

[Tinfect]

OOC: I'm calling BS on all of that. Just how technologically advanced is your nation?

OOC:
The Imperium is a massive, post-singularity, interstellar government, with access to technologies "retrieved" from civilizations far, far more advanced than itself, and could probably flatten most MT Nations with only minimal losses through sheer technological disparity, even if Imperial Forces were outmaneuvered and outnumbered at every turn.

Obviously, that's not particularly representative of the whole story, but the Imperium has good reason to believe that foreign interference in such matters would be damaging, not just Racism. Which is also a factor.

EDIT:
MT will be flattened, not FT ones, we're not nearly that powerful given the -Wank that FT can be prone to.

[Belmaria]

OOC: I'm calling BS on all of that. Just how technologically advanced is your nation?

OOC:
The Imperium is a massive, post-singularity, interstellar government, with access to technologies "retrieved" from civilizations far, far more advanced than itself, and could probably flatten most FT Nations with only minimal losses through sheer technological disparity, even if Imperial Forces were outmaneuvered and outnumbered at every turn.

Obviously, that's not particularly representative of the whole story, but the Imperium has good reason to believe that foreign interference in such matters would be damaging, not just Racism. Which is also a factor.

OOC: And this type of completely unrealistic roleplay is allowed?

[Transilia]

Utterly fine. Happens all the time.

[Belmaria]

OOC: Fine.

IC: If nations can be as technologically advanced as yours, surely you are not alone. If other civilizations that are as technologically advanced as yours opt to help, you should not be allowed to turn them away from a moral standpoint. That would be deprivation of necessary aid, and would be unnecessarily cruel to your people.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Not all nations are on earth. We have dot on the map city-states to vast star empires consisting of multiple galaxies. Technology ranges from stone age to well beyond imagination. Heck, not all nations are populated by humans either. Clovers a unicorn.

IC: "I agree with Ambassador Markhov. Human doctors tend to be useless dealing with ponykind. That said." Clover turned to face Ambassador Chan "We do take international responsibly seriously. I have read the regulations you've accused our kingdom of violating. One specifially deals with blockaded nations and the other with humanitarian crisis specifically stemming from armed conflict. As such, I declare my opinion as a member of the Royal Advisory Council, that our stance against this is in compliance with existing law."

[Belmaria]

OOC: Not all nations are on earth. We have dot on the map city-states to vast star empires consisting of multiple galaxies. Technology ranges from stone age to well beyond imagination. Heck, not all nations are populated by humans either. Clovers a unicorn.

IC: "I agree with Ambassador Markhov. Human doctors tend to be useless dealing with ponykind. That said." Clover turned to face Ambassador Chan "We do take international responsibly seriously. I have read the regulations you've accused our kingdom of violating. One specifially deals with blockaded nations and the other with humanitarian crisis specifically stemming from armed conflict. As such, I declare my opinion as a member of the Royal Advisory Council, that our stance against this is in compliance with existing law."

Your opinion is incorrect, as I'm sure a majority of WA members would agree.