Youssath wrote:Firstly, Youssath opposes the preamble and preliminary findings made by
The Holy Bouncy Slothland of Maowi and
The Grand Nation of Araraukar. Starting from the "thought (that) attacking of people in need of or providing medical care" is real and that as a result, "such people (must be) safeguarded against unnecessary violence even during a war" and that "these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive" of our time is simply misleading at best.
GAR #6 assures the safety and protection of medical wartime personnel through reasonable clauses such as Clause 8, which expressly states that "any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel (can) request to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection", and that it is mandated by Clause 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the resolution which guarantees the safety and protection of medical personnel such that any inspections do not put them in danger and to allow medical wartime personnel to provide official documentation for national vessels while ensuring that they will not be attacked and that the only real consequence is the seizure of any non-humanitarian cargoes found within these vessels. Hence, to say that "these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive" is incorrect, to say the least, and we hope that the Maowese and Araraukarian ambassadors can make the following amendments to their preliminary findings.
'With all due respect, ambassador, this complaint is both trivial and unfounded: a proposal's preambulatory clauses have no bearing whatsoever on its legislative substance, and in any case, the provisions outlined in GAR 6 target a rather specific situation. This proposal aims not only to protect medical personnel from harm in their travels, but also to guarantee personnel and patients access to medical facilities and to ensure that membernations do not target medical facilities in an attemptto further their war efforts. I therefore find it perfectly legitimate to claim that the area upon which we wish to legislate is not sufficiently addressed by extant international law.'
Secondly, Youssath is against the definitions and interpretations of the "Wartime Healthcare Protections" resolution. With these numerous concerns troubling at best, the passing of such a resolution can have dire consequences such as:
- The use of the term "non-civilian" to define all military personnel employed in the armed forces is incorrect, as there should be a better term to define military personnel rather than just giving a negative terminology on the word "civilian". For example, civilian specialists employed by the government in defence research or private military contractors are officially not part of the armed forces' employment, but they are critical in the war effort directly or indirectly. If they are used to commit crimes against humanity by attacking medical installations, this resolution does not effectively provide enough interpretations and coverage for these types of scenarios.
OOC: I'll answer this OOC-ly as I have actually been thinking about this one a fair bit recently. The thing about this definition is that civilians are already protected under GAR 317, but said resolution does not provide a definition for civilian. I want this proposal to protect all patients and medical personnel who are not already protected by GAR 317, i.e. who are not considered civilian. The way I see it, if my definition of non-civilian errs on the side of being too inclusive, as it may be now, everyone would be protected as this proposal would protect this perhaps too large group of people, and the rest are covered by GAR 317. If this proposal is not inclusive
enough, we risk ending up with people who are classed neither as civilian, nor as non-civilian, and who are therefore not protected. I think the lack of a definition for civilian in GAR 317 means that I can be a little over-inclusive in my definition here without questions of illegality due to contradiction. Those are my thoughts on the matter, and they may be completely wrong.
Furthermore, the definition of "destructive military action" is way too specific in nature, and that it does not define concentrated attack and fire on key military installations such as naval bases or airports, which often have a small medical office presiding within these institutions to attend towards non-emergency treatment. Thus, military action should be defined as unwarranted or unnecessary attacks on humanitarian institutions, regardless of the type of attack and its accuracy used against said nation.
'I'm not sure I quite understand your point, ambassador. Are you advocating that military installations be protected from attack? How in the multiverse do you expect member nations to advance in war at all? As long as all efforts to minimise the risk of damaging a medical facility are made, I do not believe that what you appear to be arguing for is valid. And I don't know where your gripe about "the type of attack and its accuracy" is coming from. Destructive military action is defined as damaging - pretty genetic, no? - and with the potential to cause fatalities - also doesn't seem to be particularly specific. The reference to such attacks as having an "often low-accuracy area of effect" is merely a guideline, per the use of "often".
Thirdly, Youssath is extremely concerned over Clause 2 of the "Wartime Healthcare Protections" resolution, which mandates that all "member nations (must) document the locations of all medical facilities in areas controlled by them". This sets a dangerous situation for all WA member nations here, as it violates national security and intelligence gathering by warranting for the disclosure of all medical locations within the nation. While the rest of the resolution does protect these medical installations from being attacked, often at times there are also key military installations in close proximity to the medical hub (so that emergencies can be treated quickly), making it not only difficult to attack without violating this resolution but it gives away key military strongholds and can result in mass casualties in a war should such documentation fall in the wrong hands.
'I will note that there is no requirement to make such documentation publicly known and that member nations would of course be perfectly entitled to take every precaution to protect this information. However, I do agree that this clause may need some reworking. Indeed, the very fact that this information is not to be shared makes me on second thought question the necessity of the existence of such documentation when it could, as ypu say, fall into the wrong hands. As long as medical facilities are clearly identifiable from the ground and from the air I believe the purposes of this proposal would be fulfilled and, subject to objections from the Araraukian delegation, I'd gladly remove the requirement to document the location of medical facilities.
Lastly, Youssath states that Clause 7 of this resolution is in similarity towards
GAR #121 in its interpretation towards the revoking of such protections if a medical facility is found to conducting operations than what it is intended to do. Clause 7 states that any medical installations that conduct "military actions of war" or is maintained for similar purposes will not be covered in this resolution. Similarly, Clause 3 of
GAR #121 also states that any attempts to produce or stockpile non-medical supplies or is used for camouflage that can be deemed as "military actions of war" will not be covered under the same protections. These clauses are similar and as such, there is no need to include Clause 7 if it has already been defined clearly within international law.
'The exceptions to GAR 121 are ... uh ... exceptions to
GAR 121, ambassador. They revoke the protections granted
in that resolution. If I wish to remove the protections granted by
this proposal in specific situations - as I do - I must do so in the text of this proposal. Moreover, I do not wish to make exceptions subject to the same conditions as those made in GAR 121, which, as pointed out in our draft repeal of that resolution (OOC: which I won't link here because I am on my phone and that's not happening
but the link is in the OP) are far too broad.
While my administration can support greater protections for medical personnel and their operations, this resolution, unfortunately, only provides ambiguity towards the topic at hand and can be exploited if interpreted wrongly. Hopefully, the ambassadors of this august council can come to their senses and realize the faults of this resolution.
'I hope my responses have addressed your concerns and please do speak up if you have anything more you wish to discuss.'
OOC: If you guys need any further feedback on this issue, please feel free to let me know and I will be happy to respond!
OOC: Thanks for taking the time to give feedback