Belmaria wrote: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."