[PASSED] Medical Provisions in Blockades

[Damanucus]

Good point, completely forgot about that. Mind if I have a think on it and get back to you?

Of course. Our concern is that the issue be addressed. Too often resolutions assume the infallibility of World Assembly staff.

Hmm, the assumption there was that WHA members would actually make their own way.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Without intending to deride your knowledge of naval operations, if you mean what we think you do then that won't work. There's nothing stopping a blockade runner from putting a WHA flag; if nothing else it increases the chance that the operational commander won't fire on the ship and it also increases the chance later on that the commander will, even if the ship is legitimate. It is even more difficult to run inspection operations from shore. The third option is to require member nations blockading another member nation to host WHA inspectors, but that presents its own problems because none but the most stupid commanders will trust in the benevolence and neutrality of a third party. Also, while we realize that this is a special case and you can't do anything about it, Imperial Navy ships tend to carry nuclear weapons on board while on patrol and most assuredly do during combat operations. That's another can of worms that makes the third party hosting issue even worse.

Our suggestion is to just trust in the basic honor of the member nations and let the blockading nations have the ability to negotiate with the blockaded party for critical medical services and supplies. After all, capital ships do have fully operational hospitals as part of their accommodations and enough medical supplies to last them an entire combat tour and then some.

Okay, I'll address what you discussed here, because, as you stated either directly or by implication, this have been a little underconsidered.

The first one regarding a transport ascertaining themselves: the resolution "Humanitarian Transport" authorizes that vessels transmit a cargo manifest. Now, I could do something similar for this, but I am a little concerned about duplication. (OOC: Mod ruling please.) If we were able to, I'd probably change the recommends statement to:

STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that member-nations, in the instance of being blockaded, transport medical supplies separately from other commodities , and provide, upon request, a crew and cargo manifest ascertaining their contents.

(Adjustments in red.)

The second part, yes, I have lacked in considerable thought for. It is probably best if they do travel with the medical supplies, as has been suggested. And while I would love to entrust nations with deciding for themselves how to distribute medical supplies, the concern has been raised earlier that nations may actually distribute all medical supplies brought in on this resolution to their military. Hence, entrusting an external committee with dispensation would see that medical supplies are directed where needed.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Scandavian States]

I don't believe we'll agree on the distribution issue, so I will leave it alone. In fact, I'm content provided that nothing would stop any potential boarding parties belonging to the Imperial Navy from putting non-medical cargo into the ocean.

[Damanucus]

I don't believe we'll agree on the distribution issue, so I will leave it alone. In fact, I'm content provided that nothing would stop any potential boarding parties belonging to the Imperial Navy from putting non-medical cargo into the ocean.

Well, I kinda have to allow boarding, even just for the sake of getting medical supplies and personnel off the transport.

On that note, I'll put up Mark V of the draft, and I would like to request a legality ruling on it.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Trecdom2]

If I read this correctly, any transportation of medical supplies through the blockade would have to be handled by non-military personnel. I guess we'll start shuffling money into private security contractors for just such a purpose.

[Ularn]

If I read this correctly, any transportation of medical supplies through the blockade would have to be handled by non-military personnel. I guess we'll start shuffling money into private security contractors for just such a purpose.

"Strictly speaking, I don't think it matters who is transporting medical supplies as long as medical supplies are all they're transporting. PMCs could still be prevented from passing a blockade if they had non-medical supplies on board, while a vessel with a military crew could pass as long as the vessel and its crew was unarmed and medicine was the only thing on board."

Ambassador Zhed Foxtrot
Envoy to the World Assembly
Ularn Interstellar Federation

[Damanucus]

If I read this correctly, any transportation of medical supplies through the blockade would have to be handled by non-military personnel. I guess we'll start shuffling money into private security contractors for just such a purpose.

Not specifically stated. It only asks you not to send medical supplies and personnel into military, non-medical uses. You can use your military to move them, as long as you're willing enough to transmit your manifest when requested, and are only bringing in medical supplies.
If you're worried about this translation, I can easily disambiguate it.

"Strictly speaking, I don't think it matters who is transporting medical supplies as long as medical supplies are all they're transporting. PMCs could still be prevented from passing a blockade if they had non-medical supplies on board, while a vessel with a military crew could pass as long as the vessel and its crew was unarmed and medicine was the only thing on board."

As much as possible, yes. If you can't separate medical supplies, then you will be required to separate them at the border.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Trecdom2]

CHARGES the World Health Authority and national health organizations with ensuring that medical supplies transported during blockades are used for non-military, medical purposes, and that professional medical personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.

We were concerned about this clause in the draft. But earlier you qualify what makes a person a medic, so we assume the quoted clause is to prevent snipers, infantry, etc. from delivering the supplies as a front for hostile activity.

[Damanucus]

CHARGES the World Health Authority and national health organizations with ensuring that medical supplies transported during blockades are used for non-military, medical purposes, and that professional medical personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.

We were concerned about this clause in the draft. But earlier you qualify what makes a person a medic, so we assume the quoted clause is to prevent snipers, infantry, etc. from delivering the supplies as a front for hostile activity.

No, it actually prevents doctors from being given a gun and told to fight, and using radioisotopes from being used for weapons. It has no effect on transportation itself.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Alqania]

"For what is it that the legality ruling has been requested?", Lord Raekevik asked. "And the category, has that been discussed yet? What makes this proposal Free Trade?"

[Trecdom2]

Sounds good. Thanks for answering our questions. We will vote FOR this resolution should the repeal go through.

[Damanucus]

"For what is it that the legality ruling has been requested?", Lord Raekevik asked. "And the category, has that been discussed yet? What makes this proposal Free Trade?"

OOC: I've made a request for a mod to look through the resolution and make sure I haven't duplicated anything from any area outside of "Medical Blockade Restriction", as well as any other areas. It's odd, I know, to ask before I submit it, but I don't want to end up making unnecessary mistakes and not realize it after I've submitted it.

IC: The category Free Trade was chosen because of the original, Medical Blockade Restriction. Since blockades affect trade, it only made sense to follow suit. The strength, however, has been toned down, from Strong to Significant, by personal choice. It may not seem like such a reason, but I validated it within myself that, unless I was telling nations exactly how it should be done, setting it as Strong did not make much sense. It does, however, affect a major element in political action, so Significant seemed the best option for this one.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Dukopolious]

We highly support this repeal, but do not support the Replacement simply because this would allow ships to pass through blockades, therefore ruining the purpose of a blockade, to stop a nation from receiving supplies, trading, leaving...

In addition, the supplies could easily be abused by the government and not given to the people who need them.

The lack of supplies would help pressure the blockaded nation to give in to the blockading nation's demands, should they have any, thus stopping the blockade, and allowing supplies to once again reach the people who need them, not the governments that would abuse them.

Furthermore, this draft doesn't ensure safe return of the vessel, therefore allowing the blockaded nation to keep the vessel hostage or under custody to pressure the blockading nation to end the blockade.

[Gantilgrim]

We highly support this repeal, but do not support the Replacement simply because this would allow ships to pass through blockades, therefore ruining the purpose of a blockade, to stop a nation from receiving supplies, trading, leaving...

In addition, the supplies could easily be abused by the government and not given to the people who need them.

The lack of supplies would help pressure the blockaded nation to give in to the blockading nation's demands, should they have any, thus stopping the blockade, and allowing supplies to once again reach the people who need them, not the governments that would abuse them.

Furthermore, this draft doesn't ensure safe return of the vessel, therefore allowing the blockaded nation to keep the vessel hostage or under custody to pressure the blockading nation to end the blockade.

this, logical and reasonable

[Damanucus]

We highly support this repeal, but do not support the Replacement simply because this would allow ships to pass through blockades, therefore ruining the purpose of a blockade, to stop a nation from receiving supplies, trading, leaving...

So politics is more important than sapient life, is it?

In addition, the supplies could easily be abused by the government and not given to the people who need them.

Let me quote from the replacement itself:

CHARGES the World Health Authority and national health organizations with ensuring that medical supplies transported during blockades are used for non-military, medical purposes, and that professional medical personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.

The government, realistically, has no say in where the medical provisions go; the WHA decides that for them.

Furthermore, this draft doesn't ensure safe return of the vessel, therefore allowing the blockaded nation to keep the vessel hostage or under custody to pressure the blockading nation to end the blockade.

Okay, I'll fix it so that this is covered...

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Dukopolious]

We highly support this repeal, but do not support the Replacement simply because this would allow ships to pass through blockades, therefore ruining the purpose of a blockade, to stop a nation from receiving supplies, trading, leaving...

So politics is more important than sapient life, is it?

I never said that, this wont necessarily be used to to help sapient beings now will it? It could easily be abused by the government (I understand you adressed it, but I'm replying to that too. See below)

In addition, the supplies could easily be abused by the government and not given to the people who need them.

Let me quote from the replacement itself:

CHARGES the World Health Authority and national health organizations with ensuring that medical supplies transported during blockades are used for non-military, medical purposes, and that professional medical personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.

The government, realistically, has no say in where the medical provisions go; the WHA decides that for them.

More bureaucracy? How do we know the blockaded government wont simply keep the vessel, and take the WHA members dispatched hostage?

Furthermore, this draft doesn't ensure safe return of the vessel, therefore allowing the blockaded nation to keep the vessel hostage or under custody to pressure the blockading nation to end the blockade.

Okay, I'll fix it so that this is covered...
[/quote]

That would require the blockaded nation to safely allow it to return as well [Thus putting them under obligations in the draft], therefore this would only work on WA-WA member states, not if a WA member were to blockade a non-WA nation.

[Bears Armed]

We would be allowed to treat warships as not being "transports", hrright?

[Dukopolious]

I plead that, following the pass of the repeal in which would allow you to submit this, the delegate from Damanucus not submit this draft, simply because it is unnecessary. and would be a burden on all member nations, with no balancing benefits.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

The category Free Trade was chosen because of the original, Medical Blockade Restriction. Since blockades affect trade, it only made sense to follow suit.

I just want to point out that while Blockades do affect trade, they do so indirectly and generally not as a primary goal. I think an Embargo is generally what a nation would use if they were trying to conduct some sort of economic warfare or sanction (though admittedly an embargo is a prohibition on ships leaving a nation's ports for a destination in the embargoed nation; while a blockade is the surrounding of another nation's ports to keep cargo from getting in.). Blockades are generally used in open war, as a means to keep all manner of supplies from reaching the target nation from any source. Blockading forces generally don't care very much about whether textiles and children's toys reach markets in the target country - they are more concerned with debilitating the other side's war effort by keeping steel, food, gas, ammunition, medical supplies, and a host of other things out of enemy hands.

That aside, I'm in favor of a bill that would allow medical supplies to pass through blockades. It may partially defeat the purpose of the blockade, but there are other interests that are more important than the speed at which a blockade is "successful." It's a noble goal to try to ease the suffering of those living in a blockaded nation by at least making sure children's cough medicine and grandpa's heart pills are available (though I'm really not sure why this bill does not include basic food and water, as some others have suggested).

I only say this because I strongly recommend that this resolution be reclassified as a "Human Rights" proposal. I think the following quote from the text of the resolution demonstrates why this is a resolution to "improve worldwide human rights" rather than a resolution to "reduce the barriers to free trade and commerce:"

ASSERTING that sapient life should be considered a higher priority than international politics

That sounds like human rights to me.

I find it strange and quite sad that so many nations are willing to defend tactics that they know will cause indiscriminate misery on the poor and helpless citizens of other nations. Then again, I find it remarkable that the governments of blockaded nations don't just surrender rather than allow their people to come to misery and death at the hands of such tyrannical and wicked nations (many of whom, no doubt, are the same nations that oppose this resolution). But then few nations are wise enough to surrender as early and as often as we Cowardly Pacifists.

[Dukopolious]

ASSERTING that sapient life should be considered a higher priority than international politics

That sounds like human rights to me.

I find it strange and quite sad that so many nations are willing to defend tactics that they know will cause indiscriminate misery on the poor and helpless citizens of other nations. Then again, I find it remarkable that the governments of blockaded nations don't just surrender rather than allow their people to come to misery and death at the hands of such tyrannical and wicked nations (many of whom, no doubt, are the same nations that oppose this resolution). But then few nations are wise enough to surrender as early and as often as we Cowardly Pacifists.

Ambassador,
Although I respect your intentions, I'd like to point out why I think you'd be wrong to support this proposal in the most simplistic form possible.

Firstly, I agree this should be under Human Rights, if medical supplies are passing to a nation, they should be considered as donations, and the blockaded nation shouldn't have to pay for the medicine essential to saving their people's lives.

Secondly, The point of a blockade is to keep supplies such as medicine and food from reaching the hands of the Government/military of the blockaded nation, not the people. Due to this, stopping the supplies form reaching the nation may stop citizens from receiving medicine, but it will also fully stop the blockaded nation from abusing the substance for what ever use the government of said nation believes the resources should be used for, not what the people of the nation need them for.

I can guarantee that if a nation receives valuable supplies they have little of, they will not be giving them to old dying grandparents who are retired, when soldiers and average citizens that could potentially become soldiers, could use them to treat injuries, if they were to say, break the blockade.

I'd also like point out, the nation blockading the target isn't necessarily the "bad guy" per-sey, simply because they could be blockading the nation, to protect their own, or another nation, or perhaps even to stop outside powers from being involved with internal conflict, for example, a civil war on a remote island which has geographical value to 2 nations. One nation could blockade it, so once the civil war is over, they can set up a government in it, or assimilate it into their own nation under a possible democratic government, while the second nation, which could potentially be a tyrannical dictatorship, has no possible means of annexing the island. This is just a single example mind you.

Not only would stopping supplies from reaching the blockaded nation cause them to surrender, or attempt to break the blockade sooner, it would also make them more self reliant, which is absolutely essential for when under a blockade.

In addition, if a nation were to regularly trade with the blockaded nation (This nation being a 3rd party and not the blockading nation), chances are, they would either cease trade with said nation (Due to a probable decline in profit), or assist the nation by helping break the blockade.

In many ways, restricting the supplies can be more beneficial than providing them, this isn't even touching on the numerous disadvantages to the blockading nation (Which is, evidently, the WA member nation).

I plead, ambassador, you stand against this resolution.

[Mahaj]

CHARGES the World Health Authority and national health organizations with ensuring that medical supplies transported during blockades are used for non-military, medical purposes, and that professional medical personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.

Assuming the blockade is for war reasons, you want the WHA to follow medical supplies in a nation thats at war? Assuming blockade is for sanctioning reasons... you want the WHA to follow medical supplies in a nation thats being ostracized? That... in the first case, is stupid and puts lives at risk, and in both cases you risk alienating the nation even further and annoying them more, to the point of counter retaliation, both against the WHA staff, and the blockading nations, etc.

[Dukopolious]

CHARGES the World Health Authority and national health organizations with ensuring that medical supplies transported during blockades are used for non-military, medical purposes, and that professional medical personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.

Assuming the blockade is for war reasons, you want the WHA to follow medical supplies in a nation thats at war? Assuming blockade is for sanctioning reasons... you want the WHA to follow medical supplies in a nation thats being ostracized? That... in the first case, is stupid and puts lives at risk, and in both cases you risk alienating the nation even further and annoying them more, to the point of counter retaliation, both against the WHA staff, and the blockading nations, etc.

Now this is something I fully agree with.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

That sounds like human rights to me.

I find it strange and quite sad that so many nations are willing to defend tactics that they know will cause indiscriminate misery on the poor and helpless citizens of other nations. Then again, I find it remarkable that the governments of blockaded nations don't just surrender rather than allow their people to come to misery and death at the hands of such tyrannical and wicked nations (many of whom, no doubt, are the same nations that oppose this resolution). But then few nations are wise enough to surrender as early and as often as we Cowardly Pacifists.

Ambassador,
Although I respect your intentions, I'd like to point out why I think you'd be wrong to support this proposal in the most simplistic form possible.

Firstly, I agree this should be under Human Rights, if medical supplies are passing to a nation, they should be considered as donations, and the blockaded nation shouldn't have to pay for the medicine essential to saving their people's lives.

Secondly, The point of a blockade is to keep supplies such as medicine and food from reaching the hands of the Government/military of the blockaded nation, not the people. Due to this, stopping the supplies form reaching the nation may stop citizens from receiving medicine, but it will also fully stop the blockaded nation from abusing the substance for what ever use the government of said nation believes the resources should be used for, not what the people of the nation need them for.

I can guarantee that if a nation receives valuable supplies they have little of, they will not be giving them to old dying grandparents who are retired, when soldiers and average citizens that could potentially become soldiers, could use them to treat injuries, if they were to say, break the blockade.

I'd also like point out, the nation blockading the target isn't necessarily the "bad guy" per-sey, simply because they could be blockading the nation, to protect their own, or another nation, or perhaps even to stop outside powers from being involved with internal conflict, for example, a civil war on a remote island which has geographical value to 2 nations. One nation could blockade it, so once the civil war is over, they can set up a government in it, or assimilate it into their own nation under a possible democratic government, while the second nation, which could potentially be a tyrannical dictatorship, has no possible means of annexing the island. This is just a single example mind you.

Not only would stopping supplies from reaching the blockaded nation cause them to surrender, or attempt to break the blockade sooner, it would also make them more self reliant, which is absolutely essential for when under a blockade.

In addition, if a nation were to regularly trade with the blockaded nation (This nation being a 3rd party and not the blockading nation), chances are, they would either cease trade with said nation (Due to a probable decline in profit), or assist the nation by helping break the blockade.

In many ways, restricting the supplies can be more beneficial than providing them, this isn't even touching on the numerous disadvantages to the blockading nation (Which is, evidently, the WA member nation).

I plead, ambassador, you stand against this resolution.

Dear Duke:

You make very good points about the difficulty in separating "good-guys" from "bad-guys" in war, and about the fact that many governments would sooner confiscate medical supplies for their war effort and let the people be damned. The problem is that you and I are trying to compare apples to oranges. You are reading "medical supplies" and thinking bandages, penicillin, morphine, blood transfusions, and bone splints. When you see "medical personnel" you think trauma surgeons, E.R. doctors, medics, pharmacologists, and critical-care nurses. And I agree with your premise that those things would likely be confiscated by the government for the purpose of fighting the war, thus (possibly) drawing out the conflict and hurting the war effort of the blockading nations - who may well be good guys trying to put a put down a vile dictator.

But when I think of medical supplies, I think of blood pressure medication, children's vaccines, arthritis pills, insulin for diabetics, and ulcer medication. When I see "medical personnel" I think pediatricians, ear-nose-and-throat doctors, rheumatologists, maternity nurses, and internists. And I think we can agree that many of these people and things would not be particularly useful for a war effort. I think we can also agree that without them, a lot of innocent people are going to suffer. In some case, suffer a lot. In some cases, die.

I wonder if there's any provision that would convince you that letting these things across a blockade would not be so bad. You say "the point of a blockade is to keep supplies such as medicine and food from reaching the hands of the Government/military of the blockaded nation, not the people." Technically, I disagree - a blockade is intended to put as much pressure on the people as the government (partly in the hopes that a suffering populace would urge the government to surrender or otherwise give in to the blockading nation). But suppose you are right - couldn't we just include a provision saying something like this:

Blockading Nations may demand Written Assurance that any medical cargo passing through a Blockade will be given directly to civilians and will not be used to supplement or supply the war effort in any way. If a Blockading Nation has evidence that such assurances were not kept, they may prohibit the offending party from crossing the blockade in the future no matter what cargo the offending party is then carrying.

Would that do anything to relieve your concerns?

I also want to touch briefly on this: "Not only would stopping supplies from reaching the blockaded nation cause them to surrender, or attempt to break the blockade sooner, it would also make them more self reliant, which is absolutely essential for when under a blockade." This is a little schizophrenic, no? Preventing medical supplies helps a nation by making them more self reliant while also hurting them bad enough that they will surrender or fight to break the blockade? I'm not sure I follow that logic.

In any case, it may well cause a surrender, but not until lots of poor, innocent people died of a whole mess of preventable medical problems because of the blockade. And encouraging an attempt to break a blockade sounds like encouraging violence - violence in which many soldiers from both sides are gonna die. It may well come to that, but I don't know that I want to encourage it with a policy of withholding medical supplies from civilians. Even if an eventual fight to break the blockade is the most desirable outcome, I'd rather have it happen "later" and save the lives of a few asthmatic children by getting their inhalers through the blockade. Wouldn't you?

Best Regards.

[Damanucus]

We would be allowed to treat warships as not being "transports", hrright?

I understand this can be a bit of an ambiguous part, but, by the resolution, if it isn't just carrying medical supplies and/or personnel, then yeah, you can stop them at the blockade border. That means warships (assuming them to be armed, of course) would not go through.

CHARGES the World Health Authority and national health organizations with ensuring that medical supplies transported during blockades are used for non-military, medical purposes, and that professional medical personnel shipped under these terms are not assigned to military positions.

Assuming the blockade is for war reasons, you want the WHA to follow medical supplies in a nation thats at war? Assuming blockade is for sanctioning reasons... you want the WHA to follow medical supplies in a nation thats being ostracized? That... in the first case, is stupid and puts lives at risk, and in both cases you risk alienating the nation even further and annoying them more, to the point of counter retaliation, both against the WHA staff, and the blockading nations, etc.

I feel very annoyed that I have to argue with you on this point, but I feel I have to defend my position here.

The intention of the stated clause was to prevent governments from misdirecting medical resources into non-medical areas. I am fully aware that the nations are already being ostracized by the blockade being set onto their country, but I had to choose between dealing with the people at the risk of alienating the nation further, or letting the government take control of the resources and putting them somewhere else.

However, that said, I have also listed local medical organizations (which would've been established alongside the WHA) to oversee the dispensation. If you like me to simply entrust the duty with these organizations, then I can simply do that.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Dukopolious]

Dear Duke:

You make very good points about the difficulty in separating "good-guys" from "bad-guys" in war, and about the fact that many governments would sooner confiscate medical supplies for their war effort and let the people be damned. The problem is that you and I are trying to compare apples to oranges. You are reading "medical supplies" and thinking bandages, penicillin, morphine, blood transfusions, and bone splints. When you see "medical personnel" you think trauma surgeons, E.R. doctors, medics, pharmacologists, and critical-care nurses. And I agree with your premise that those things would likely be confiscated by the government for the purpose of fighting the war, thus (possibly) drawing out the conflict and hurting the war effort of the blockading nations - who may well be good guys trying to put a put down a vile dictator.

But when I think of medical supplies, I think of blood pressure medication, children's vaccines, arthritis pills, insulin for diabetics, and ulcer medication. When I see "medical personnel" I think pediatricians, ear-nose-and-throat doctors, rheumatologists, maternity nurses, and internists. And I think we can agree that many of these people and things would not be particularly useful for a war effort. I think we can also agree that without them, a lot of innocent people are going to suffer. In some case, suffer a lot. In some cases, die.

I wonder if there's any provision that would convince you that letting these things across a blockade would not be so bad. You say "the point of a blockade is to keep supplies such as medicine and food from reaching the hands of the Government/military of the blockaded nation, not the people." Technically, I disagree - a blockade is intended to put as much pressure on the people as the government (partly in the hopes that a suffering populace would urge the government to surrender or otherwise give in to the blockading nation). But suppose you are right - couldn't we just include a provision saying something like this:

Blockading Nations may demand Written Assurance that any medical cargo passing through a Blockade will be given directly to civilians and will not be used to supplement or supply the war effort in any way. If a Blockading Nation has evidence that such assurances were not kept, they may prohibit the offending party from crossing the blockade in the future no matter what cargo the offending party is then carrying.

Would that do anything to relieve your concerns?

I also want to touch briefly on this: "Not only would stopping supplies from reaching the blockaded nation cause them to surrender, or attempt to break the blockade sooner, it would also make them more self reliant, which is absolutely essential for when under a blockade." This is a little schizophrenic, no? Preventing medical supplies helps a nation by making them more self reliant while also hurting them bad enough that they will surrender or fight to break the blockade? I'm not sure I follow that logic.

In any case, it may well cause a surrender, but not until lots of poor, innocent people died of a whole mess of preventable medical problems because of the blockade. And encouraging an attempt to break a blockade sounds like encouraging violence - violence in which many soldiers from both sides are gonna die. It may well come to that, but I don't know that I want to encourage it with a policy of withholding medical supplies from civilians. Even if an eventual fight to break the blockade is the most desirable outcome, I'd rather have it happen "later" and save the lives of a few asthmatic children by getting their inhalers through the blockade. Wouldn't you?

Best Regards.

Ambassador,

You should know, in times of war, a pediatrician can become a war medic, a therapist can become a small unit mental health tactician, an asthma inhaler could become a emergency source of air for troops in dire situations, nurse practitioners could become field medics arms to the teeth on the front lines. Chances are, if you're under a blockade, you're on your last strands of hope, and you are losing.

When desperate times approach a nation, an old man's vitamins are the nation's last concerns when they suffer the threat of invasion, or bombardment daily.

Although I agree that these supplies are of utmost importance, I feel that only constitutes intervention when military action is not the cause of the prevention of supplies. Not only would this be a small concern, but it would most likely fuel the conflict between the member states.

Put yourself in the position of the nation under blockade, if you were receiving boat loads of medicine daily, would you give it to those who it would be better for to have daily, or those soldiers, who fought bravely for your country, and are dying. Or perhaps would use use them to fight off the invader attacking you.

Also, another concern is, this resolution only applies to the blockading nation, meaning the blockaded nation does not have to be a WA member state. Enacting this proposal would, potentially, maim and in danger member states protecting their own interests abroad.

In no way does this address the concerns of the blockading forces, it is just as, if not even more difficult to provide supplies to the blockading nation's soldiers currently surrounding their enemy, which just may be a tyrannical dictatorship enacting child labour to build biological weapons. (Breaking many resolutions at that). We need to consider both parties when addressing these concerns.

Also, the party providing the resources is not the same as the actual member state. In no way is the blockaded nation required to regulate or even use the supplies, all that's required is they be delivered. for all this resolution matters, the suppliers aboard the vessel could be taken as political prisoners, the supplies ceased for the military, and the boats stripped for parts to be used for naval ships in the effort to damage the blockade.

As for your addition:

Blockading Nations may demand Written Assurance that any medical cargo passing through a Blockade will be given directly to civilians and will not be used to supplement or supply the war effort in any way. If a Blockading Nation has evidence that such assurances were not kept, they may prohibit the offending party from crossing the blockade in the future no matter what cargo the offending party is then carrying

.

Would that do anything to relieve your concerns?

I'm afraid not. The blockading nation may demand the assurance, yet the provider is not required to provide it, yet they still must be allowed to pass. Also, there is no way for the blockading nation to know what happens in the blockaded nation, otherwise the point of the blockade would be less useful, and they could simply invade.

I'd suggest simply scrapping this entire draft.

Thank you for your concerns.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

...an asthma inhaler could become a emergency source of air for troops in dire situations...

Well, asthma inhalers don't work that way, but I think your point is really that we need to agree to disagree. Clearly, my arguments are not going to convince you. And obviously I'm not going to be convinced that we should block the passage of a child's asthma medication because it might be given to a soldier under some ridiculous pretense.

I'm afraid there's just no reasoning with you; your position is just too extreme to allow for any compromise. I am willing to risk some penicillin getting through to an injured soldier if that means that medical supplies will also have a chance of reaching innocent people. I know you think that any blockaded government will automatically take every last bandage, vitamin, and bottle of NyQuil that gets through the blockade. I reject that view out of hand - I believe that even if some (or hell, most) governments would be so devious, others would allow medical personnel and supplies to reach their populace. To the extent that there's a potential for abuse by "bad" nations - who are so vile that they would rather give medicine to their soldiers than to their people - I am happy to risk that abuse if there's also the potential to save just one - even one - innocent person as well.

Frankly, the favor you show to total war is quite disturbing. I'm not so sure that it would be so bad if medical supplies were encouraged to go to soldiers as well as to civilians. Maybe by making universal access to medicine a priority - even in wartime - the WA could make war just a tiny, tiny bit less horrific. But we can't have that, now can we?

Moreover, I reject your premise that there are no possible safeguards adequate to ensure that medical supplies and personnel meant for the people are not seized by the government for other purposes. I think your opinion belies a lack of creativity and a failure to see that most exporting nations can (and will) demand that the supplies they ship will go directly to the population as a condition of shipping those supplies. I find it hard to imagine that a Red Cross pediatrician (a doctor who specializes in treating children and works for a humanitarian aid organization) will be easily conscripted into a 'field medic armed to the teeth on the front lines.' That's ridiculous. And I find it hard to believe that insulin is going to be provided only on the condition that it's diabetic recipient grab a gun and head to the front. That's just absurd.

I'm truly sorry you feel otherwise, and you'll have to forgive my harsh rhetoric. But when I'm told that we cannot allow a small child to receive her asthma inhaler for fear that some brute soldier might use it as an "emergency source of air," I tend to lose my patience.