[PASSED] On Humanitarian Aid

[Connopolis]

ACKNOWLEDGES that soldiers are not the only battlefield casualty of a war,

LAMENTS that Humanitarian Aid Workers are also an unfortunate casualty of conflicts,

REALIZES that by protecting Humanitarian Aid Workers, militant, and civilian casualties would decrease for all participants of a conflict,

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

1. Humanitarian Aid Worker, as a neutral party who provides logistical and medical assistance in conflict, and disaster zones, primarily to civilians
2. Conflict Zone, as an area of open, or prolonged combat,

ALLOWS humanitarian aid workers to declare a neutral zone, where humanitarian aid workers may distribute supplies, administer medical care, and provide temporary residence to civilians/refugees.

MANDATES that all neutral zones must display recognized humanitarian aid insignias to prevent inadvertent conflict,

PROHIBITS:

1. Conflict from occurring within neutral zones,
2. The intentional injuring, or slaughtering of Humanitarian Aid Workers,
3. The stymieing or hindering of said workers who are providing treatment to wounded soldiers, civilians, or others

RELINQUISHES protection to humanitarian aid workers who

1. Do not clearly display a recognized insignia within their neutral zone,
2. Have engaged in any form of combat,
3. Are dressed in a uniform similar to, or identical to those worn by standard soldiers,
4. Declare neutral zones with the intent of stockpiling weaponry,
5. Deny aid to wounded soldiers, civilians, or any other any other sapient being affected by conflict,

FURTHER PROHIBITS humanitarian aid workers from intentionally entering conflict zones,

FORBIDS militants from forcing humanitarian aid workers into conflict zones, regardless of the circumstances,

ALLOWS individual nations to relocate Humanitarian Aid Worker declared neutral zones if it is determined that they interfere with war efforts,

ENCOURAGES individual nations to allow humanitarian aid workers to utilize pre-existing facilities as neutral zones,

URGES individual nations to send qualified officials to inspect these neutral zones to ensure that they are in compliance with the aforementioned provisions.

PERMITS nations to peacefully disband neutral zones within their borders once the conflict is recognized as having ended or when it is determined that the need for humanitarian efforts are minimal.

ACKNOWLEDGES that soldiers are not the only battlefield casualty of a war,

LAMENTS that Humanitarian Aid Workers are also an unfortunate casualty of conflicts,

REALIZES that by protecting Humanitarian Aid Workers, militant, and civilian casualties would decrease for all participants of a conflict,

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

1. Humanitarian Aid Worker, as a neutral party who provides logistical and medical assistance in conflict, and disaster zones, primarily to civilians
2. Conflict Zone, as an area of open, or pronlonged combat,

ALLOWS humanitarian aid workers to declare a neutral zone, where humanitarian aid workers may distribute supplies, administer medical care, and provide temporary residence to civilians/refugees.

MANDATES that all neutral zones must display recognized humanitarian aid insignias to prevent inadvertant conflict,

PROHIBITS:

1. Conflict from occuring within neutral zones,
2. The intentional injuring, or slaughtering of Humanitarian Aid Workers,
3. The stymieing or hindering of said workers who are providing treatment to wounded soldiers, civilians, or others

RELINQUISHES protection to humanitarian aid workers who

1. Do not clearly display a recognized insignia within their neutral zone,
2. During any form of combat,
3. Are dressed in a uniform similar to, or identical to those worn by standard soldiers,
4. Declare neutral zones with the intent of compromising the war effort in favor of any participant(s),
5. Deny aid to refugees, civilians, or any other sapient being affected by conflict,

FURTHER PROHIBITS humanitarian aid workers from intentionally entering conflict zones,

FORBIDS militants from forcing humanitarian aid workers into conflict zones, regardless of the circumstances,

ALLOWS individual nations to relocate Humanitarian Aid Worker declared neutral zones if it is determined that they interfere with war efforts,

ENCOURAGES individual nations to allow humanitarian aid workers to utilize pre-existing facilities as neutral zones,

URGES individual nations to send qualified officials to inspect these neutral zones to ensure that they are in compliance with the aforementioned provisions.

PERMITS nations to peacefully disband neutral zones within their borders once the conflict is recognized as having ended or when it is determined that the need for humanitarian efforts are minimal.

[Dizyntk]

ACKNOWLEDGES that soldiers are not the only battlefield casualty of a war,

LAMENTS that field medics are also an unfortunate casualty of conflicts,

ENRAGED by intentional assault, or murder of these courageous, yet necessary military assets,

NOTES that the sole intention of a field medic is to provide humanitarian aid in conflict zones,

PROHIBITS:

1. The capturing, injuring, or slaughtering of field medics who clearly bear a defined, or recognized insignia, or are evidently administering medical aid to fallen soldiers,
2. Belligerent communication with field medics in order to temporarily distract them from their duties,
3. The intentional stymieing or hindering of a medic by militants or civilians,

On issue of the first clause, while I agree with prohibiting the willful injuring or killing of medical personell I would argue that since they are members of an enemy nations military they can be taken as prisoners of war. At that point they would be subject, of course, to the same protections as any PoW.

As for the second two clauses, I believe it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is intentional and what is incidental in the heat of a battlefield.

Sometimes, by exposing themselves bravely to fire in order to help fallen soldiers, medics do get wounded and killed. It is unfortunate but it would be hard to prove intent with so many guns firing and so many bullets in the air.

[Connopolis]

ACKNOWLEDGES that soldiers are not the only battlefield casualty of a war,

LAMENTS that field medics are also an unfortunate casualty of conflicts,

ENRAGED by intentional assault, or murder of these courageous, yet necessary military assets,

NOTES that the sole intention of a field medic is to provide humanitarian aid in conflict zones,

PROHIBITS:

1. The capturing, injuring, or slaughtering of field medics who clearly bear a defined, or recognized insignia, or are evidently administering medical aid to fallen soldiers,
2. Belligerent communication with field medics in order to temporarily distract them from their duties,
3. The intentional stymieing or hindering of a medic by militants or civilians,

On issue of the first clause, while I agree with prohibiting the willful injuring or killing of medical personell I would argue that since they are members of an enemy nations military they can be taken as prisoners of war. At that point they would be subject, of course, to the same protections as any PoW.

This would be detrimental to both sides, as their soldiers would die needlessly. It would be in the best interest of both sides to prevent medics from being captured, as this is a two-sided sword. If you capture your enemy's medics, you should expect similar treatment.

As for the second two clauses, I believe it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is intentional and what is incidental in the heat of a battlefield.

The second clause isn't an operative clause; it's only expressing disdain shown towards soldiers that intentionally harm medics.

Sometimes, by exposing themselves bravely to fire in order to help fallen soldiers, medics do get wounded and killed. It is unfortunate but it would be hard to prove intent with so many guns firing and so many bullets in the air.

Medics very seldom retrieve, or attend to bodies in the middle of an armed conflict, rather after the situation has subsided, or at least as soon as it begins to calm.

[Dizyntk]

I would expect any of my military's medical personell on the front lines to be exposed to the possible risk of capture. Actually captured medics tend to provide additional medical support to fellow PoW's. Hence it can actually be beneficial to to the capturing nation's military.

As for the your closing statement, I would beg to disagree. Combat medics regularly attend to, or attempt to retreive, wounded soldiers in the midst of a battle.

[Connopolis]

I would expect any of my military's medical personell on the front lines to be exposed to the possible risk of capture. Actually captured medics tend to provide additional medical support to fellow PoW's. Hence it can actually be beneficial to to the capturing nation's military.

Honored Ambassador, how is that possible? A field medic wouldn't be able to bring necessary supplies if captured. It would be redundant anyways, as POWs are already given medical attention, as stated in the Prison of War Accord.

As for the your closing statement, I would beg to disagree. Combat medics regularly attend to, or attempt to retreive, wounded soldiers in the midst of a battle.

In the case that this were to happen, a field medic would be clearly visible, and recognizable. Most wars are not large masses of soldiers firing at eachother, and if this were the case, soldiers would not run into the midst of the field. In the case of Guerilla Tactics, a medic would also be clearly visible. If a nation chooses to cover their medics in camoflauge, that's their choice, as this would be putting their medics in evident danger.

[Dizyntk]

I agree that the captured medic would not bring his own supplies. However, said medic would be able to apply his skills in a PoW camp, thus reducing the workload on the capturing nation's military.

Most nations do require their medics to dress in uniforms similar to the rest of their military. We are talking about front line combat medics, not rear area medical personell. As for how battles are fought, that varies greatly.

[Dizyntk]

And as for medics not running into the midst of the field to retrieve fallen comrades all i can ask is, have you talked to any current or former combat medics?

[Connopolis]

I agree that the captured medic would not bring his own supplies. However, said medic would be able to apply his skills in a PoW camp, thus reducing the workload on the capturing nation's military.

"Shelter, fully nutritional food, washing facilities, water, & competent medical attention..." GAR#18

For a captured medic to work at the came voluntarily is highly unlikely, and forcing them to work violates the Ban on Slavery and Trafficking resolution.

Most nations do require their medics to dress in uniforms similar to the rest of their military. We are talking about front line combat medics, not rear area medical personell. As for how battles are fought, that varies greatly.

That's a falacy. Medics are normally clearly visible and recognizable, as they either wear seperate uniforms, or bear a recognized insignia. I can give you several references if you'd like.

[Connopolis]

And as for medics not running into the midst of the field to retrieve fallen comrades all i can ask is, have you talked to any current or former combat medics?

I'm extremely offended by that. My grandfather was a combat medic in the mozambique colonial war between portugal and its colonies (he was enrolled during Salazar's tenure), and my uncle was a U.S. Military medic in vietnam. Please, don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. My grandfather was nearly killed due to belligerants, and narrowly avoided it.

I did, however, word that poorly. I meant that they wouldn't tend to soldiers in the midst of a battle; retrieving them is a seperate topic that I didn't mean to difuse into that argument.

[Dizyntk]

A white armband with a red cross on it is not a great difference from the other soldier's uniforms. Especially from any distance away.

And are you saying that a captured medic would be unwilling to help his fellow soldiers in a PoW camp. I think your nation needs more compasionate medics.

[Dizyntk]

And as for medics not running into the midst of the field to retrieve fallen comrades all i can ask is, have you talked to any current or former combat medics?

I'm extremely offended by that. My grandfather was a combat medic in the mozambique colonial war between portugal and its colonies (he was enrolled during Salazar's tenure), and my uncle was a U.S. Military medic in vietnam. Please, don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. My grandfather was nearly killed due to belligerants, and narrowly avoided it.

I did, however, word that poorly. I meant that they wouldn't tend to soldiers in the midst of a battle; retrieving them is a seperate topic that I didn't mean to difuse into that argument.

My apologies then. I too have had relatives that were medics. One in World War 2 and another in Vietnam. According to them they did, regularly, retrieve and tend to soldiers while combat was still raging.

[Connopolis]

A white armband with a red cross on it is not a great difference from the other soldier's uniforms. Especially from any distance away.

And are you saying that a captured medic would be unwilling to help his fellow soldiers in a PoW camp. I think your nation needs more compasionate medics.

Ambassador, a captured medic does not simply ask nicely for medical supplies to treat his fellow soldiers; they aren't capable of it, nor is it necessary, as competent, adequate medical care is ensured to POWs.

And again, Ambassador, your initial comment is unfounded. Is your idea of a combat medic a U.S. medic? I can assure you that the U.S. is not the only army that employss combat medics, and certainly didn't set a mandatory precedent that forced all medics to wear a small band with a cross on it. Again, if you would like, I have references.

[Connopolis]

I'm extremely offended by that. My grandfather was a combat medic in the mozambique colonial war between portugal and its colonies (he was enrolled during Salazar's tenure), and my uncle was a U.S. Military medic in vietnam. Please, don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. My grandfather was nearly killed due to belligerants, and narrowly avoided it.

I did, however, word that poorly. I meant that they wouldn't tend to soldiers in the midst of a battle; retrieving them is a seperate topic that I didn't mean to difuse into that argument.

My apologies then. I too have had relatives that were medics. One in World War 2 and another in Vietnam. According to them they did, regularly, retrieve and tend to soldiers while combat was still raging.

Ambassador, as a relative of a combat medic, wouldn't you have found solace in the fact that medics are ensured protection? I fail to see how you'd prefer that medics be killed and captured in combat.

[Dizyntk]

Protection from willfuly being targeted and either wounded and killed I am completely in favor of.

I am just saying that being captured does him no physical harm and I do not see why that prohibition is nessecary.

[Connopolis]

Protection from willfuly being targeted and either wounded and killed I am completely in favor of.

I am just saying that being captured does him no physical harm and I do not see why that prohibition is nessecary.

I see, and understand your point of view, but wouldn't they be more useful aiding soldiers that aren't already ensured medical attention?

[Dizyntk]

I agree. However there are situations where that is not feasible. Say an isolated unit is captured in enemy territory. The unit has a medic in it. You would naturally assume that the medic is taken prisoner with the rest of his unit. What else are they going to do with him?

[Connopolis]

I agree. However there are situations where that is not feasible. Say an isolated unit is captured in enemy territory. The unit has a medic in it. You would naturally assume that the medic is taken prisoner with the rest of his unit. What else are they going to do with him?

Now that's a legitimate point, Ambassador.

I'll change that clause to be more flexible towards special occassions.

[Mousebumples]

This seems ... very familiar. Haven't we (at the very least) voted on a proposal along these lines over the past few months? There may even be something in passed resolutions, but it's late and I've had a few glasses of wine. (As such, I'll leave the further examination of that question up to you/others.)

DISTRESSED by the unnecessary casualties of all belligerants due to the slaughtering of medical officials,

Typo here. Should be belligerents.

ENRAGED by the intentional assault, or murder of these courageous, yet necessary military assets,

How often does this happen? I'm not denying that it happens, but I'd think that field medics are more likely to be accidentally taken down by friendly fire or be collateral damage if they venture onto a field of war in the midst of battle. (i.e. a missile strikes the area where they are working, even though they were not specifically being aimed at)

NOTES that the sole intention of a field medic is to provide humanitarian aid in conflict zones,

REALIZES that by protecting field medics, casualties would drastically decrease for all participants of a conflict,

The causality here is lacking. Field medics do what they can, but they can't magically sew up an exploded body part. You're making statements that are unconvincing, and I doubt they'd stand up to scrutiny if subjected to a solid argument.

Protection for field medics may decrease casualties, sure. But drastically? That seems like hyperbole, to me.

1. The capturing, injuring, or slaughtering of field medics who clearly bear a defined, or recognized insignia, or are evidently administering medical aid to fallen soldiers,

This line is what made me SO SURE that we've had this sort of proposal introduced before. What's to keep nations from putting the Red Cross symbol on all of their troops? That would protect all of their troops from being captured, injured, or slaughtered.

2. Belligerent communication with field medics in order to temporarily distract them from their duties,

How often does such belligerent communication take place? I'd figure armies/troops have better things to do with their time on the field of war than play "distract the medic" ...

3. The intentional stymieing or hindering of a medic by militants or civilians,

Again how often does this happen? Also: this seems redundant when compared to Option 2. Is there some common action that would fit under Option 3 that doesn't fit under Option 2?

While I could perhaps be persuaded that such a thing is needed (if it's not already covered), this draft is - frankly - atrocious and lacks any substance that would convince me to support.

OPPOSED.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Dizyntk]

I would be in favor of making captured medics elligible for return to their nations as quickly as possible and that they have priority, after wounded, in prisoner exchanges.

[Edlichbury]

I must disagree with this proposal. It is unrealistic to allow a wide array of solidiers immunity from being harmed or captured simply because they are medics. If nothing else, we muse eliminate the ridiculous immunity from capture. In several cases, it would be more humane for the medic and other captives to be taken as a PoW then for the medic to be left for dead.

OOC: I'd like to note that medics IRL are on the front lines more often then we think. Several of my family members are on active duty, and even the support troops among them are seen in fights. Medics are needed on the front lines, but it should not mean they get complete protection, and furthermore in battles some will die.

[Mousebumples]

I lied. I went and checked the Passed Resolution list and I found this. I fail to see why the provisions in that resolution are insufficient and require further governance/guidance from the World Assembly.

[Connopolis]

This seems ... very familiar. Haven't we (at the very least) voted on a proposal along these lines over the past few months? There may even be something in passed resolutions, but it's late and I've had a few glasses of wine. (As such, I'll leave the further examination of that question up to you/others.)

DISTRESSED by the unnecessary casualties of all belligerants due to the slaughtering of medical officials,

Typo here. Should be belligerents.

ENRAGED by the intentional assault, or murder of these courageous, yet necessary military assets,

How often does this happen? I'm not denying that it happens, but I'd think that field medics are more likely to be accidentally taken down by friendly fire or be collateral damage if they venture onto a field of war in the midst of battle. (i.e. a missile strikes the area where they are working, even though they were not specifically being aimed at)

NOTES that the sole intention of a field medic is to provide humanitarian aid in conflict zones,

REALIZES that by protecting field medics, casualties would drastically decrease for all participants of a conflict,

The causality here is lacking. Field medics do what they can, but they can't magically sew up an exploded body part. You're making statements that are unconvincing, and I doubt they'd stand up to scrutiny if subjected to a solid argument.

Protection for field medics may decrease casualties, sure. But drastically? That seems like hyperbole, to me.

1. The capturing, injuring, or slaughtering of field medics who clearly bear a defined, or recognized insignia, or are evidently administering medical aid to fallen soldiers,

This line is what made me SO SURE that we've had this sort of proposal introduced before. What's to keep nations from putting the Red Cross symbol on all of their troops? That would protect all of their troops from being captured, injured, or slaughtered.

2. Belligerent communication with field medics in order to temporarily distract them from their duties,

How often does such belligerent communication take place? I'd figure armies/troops have better things to do with their time on the field of war than play "distract the medic" ...

3. The intentional stymieing or hindering of a medic by militants or civilians,

Again how often does this happen? Also: this seems redundant when compared to Option 2. Is there some common action that would fit under Option 3 that doesn't fit under Option 2?

While I could perhaps be persuaded that such a thing is needed (if it's not already covered), this draft is - frankly - atrocious and lacks any substance that would convince me to support.

OPPOSED.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

After quickly looking through resolutions to detect what this may have reminded you of, Medical Facility Protection caught my eye. I'll without a doubt do a bit more research and editing tomorrow, but this was written at midnight, so it might not be well written. However, there isn't a resolution that protects combat medics, and I find that necessary.

[Mousebumples]

After quickly looking through resolutions to detect what this may have reminded you of, Medical Facility Protection caught my eye. I'll without a doubt do a bit more research and editing tomorrow, but this was written at midnight, so it might not be well written. However, there isn't a resolution that protects combat medics, and I find that necessary.

And that's your prerogative. Personally, I'm likely to find that to be micromanagement and am likely to vote against.

[Connopolis]

I've changed the draft to ensure that medics are only protected while administering medical care. Therefore, equates them to standard soldiers unless they are providing medical attention. I've also altered the wording to prevent misconceptions, and to cut any hyperbole or exaggerations.

I'll edit and revise it tomorrow, because it's horrid in it's current state.

[Monikian WA Mission]

"Right off the bat, Category? Strength?

ACKNOWLEDGES that soldiers are not the only battlefield casualty of a war,

LAMENTS that field medics are also an unfortunate casualty of conflicts,

"Empty rhetoric.

DISTRESSED by the unnecessary casualties of all belligerents due to the slaughtering of medical officials while in the process of providing first aid,

"Monikians would be more distressed if the enemy wasn't completely destroyed in the field of battle. If that means killing their medics then thats what it means. The purpose of war is to achieve victory, any war fought with goals other than achieving victory is a waste of time and resources.

NOTES that the primary purpose of a field medic is to provide humanitarian aid in conflict zones,

"So-Called humanitarian aid to enemy soldiers. We don't know how many wars Connotopolis has been involved in, but Monkiah has had many wars--indeed having a star empire requires it. One tactical objective is to prevent the enemy from supplying their military with the necessary foods and medicines to continue the war. To not disrupt such supply chains only prolongs the war, and increases the casualties.

REALIZES that by protecting field medics, casualties would decrease for all participants of a conflict,

"Actually no. If a medic can heal an injured soldier he can be returned to his unit in short order. Whereas if the medic is eliminated, his healing ability is also eliminated meaning that every soldier that she may have have saved will also be a dead casualty as well. This removes not just one, but potentially hundred or thousands of enemy soldiers.

PROHIBITS:

1. The intentional injuring, or slaughtering of field medics who are administering medical aid to injured soldiers,
2. The stymieing or hindering of medics who are providing treatment to wounded soldiers by militants or civilians,

"We flat out must oppose this. First off how are nations to know who is and is not a medic? Secondly this is just simply not militarily true. Hindering the use of medics providing treatment means that those wounded soldiers might likely die. And dead soldiers are incapable of using their weapons.

"Finally, we believe that this may be redundant. GAR 121 already covers medical staff."