PASSED: Food Welfare Act

[Opola]

I will vote for this if u answer my question good.

Why should the IWFO choose whether we are dealing our food out properly? Also if our country is say poor and small will it be forced to donate a share of food to the IWFO?
For the most part this legislation seems bi-partisan so it may have a chance at passing.

[Goobergunchia]

The PRESIDING OFFICER: It being the appropriate hour, the Clerk will redesignate the resolution now pending before the World Assembly.

The READING CLERK reported the title of the resolution:

Food Welfare Act, a resolution to strongly reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare, proposed by the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: Voting on this resolution will end on Tue Jul 7 2009.

[Almajoya]

Almajoya presents the following questions:

ENCOURAGES prosperous nations to support ailing nations when and however possible, to supplant the need of World Assembly intervention;

ENCOURAGES all nations to research more efficient irrigation and drainage technology to prevent crop shortages and wasteful water use; to research plant breeding techniques and soil fertilization techniques, as well as employ crop rotation, and weed, insect, and pest control;

How strong is this "encouraging"? If we decide not to help my neighboring country when it is in the midst of a famine, will actions be taken against us? If not, what is the purpose of these two statements?

RECOGNIZING that under such circumstances a compelling governmental interest exists to protect the health and welfare of the people, the right of governments to seize food to supply to victims of such crises is granted, so long as such seizure is not detrimental to the larger population;

What if the government is uninterested? And doesn't this impede on the right of governments to make their own decisions in times of crisis?

INITIATES the gradual reduction of protectionist and other practices, in regards to farming and food-related industries, that have the potential to severely harm international food trade;

Is this directed at the individual level? It seems to implicate subsistence farming, which Almajoya has quite a bit of.

CONSTRUCTS the World Assembly Seedbank to store seeds as a source of planting where seeds are generally unavailable, due to natural disaster, disease outbreak, and war, as well as to protect the biodiversity of food crops; such seeds shall be collected as volunteered by nations; the IFWO shall manage the distribution of seeds when needed.

Where exactly will these crops be grown? What about rare crops- for example, the Almajoyese apple- which cannot be grown anywhere else?

We will await any responses to these questions with interest.

Garnett Remajiwakari
World Assembly Liaison to Almajoya
In the Service of Her Ladyship the Empress

[Kaeporia]

OUTLAWS governmental actions such as state-based food hoarding and unfair food distribution practices which deliberately produce famines and starvation; also outlaws such actions taken during crises such as famines, natural disasters, and refugee crises that are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people.

I would like this segment to be clarified. Does it outlaw surplus crop buying by a government? That could be construed as "state based food hoarding," however, history shows that government buying of crops is beneficial in many instances, such as lessening a surplus and thereby raising food prices, as was done by the American govt during the Great Depression, or creating our own stores for famines, as was done by many of the ancient Chinese empires, such as the Han and Qin. I fear that this line may mistakenly outlaw something that is entirely beneficial , and as such I cannot support it until this is clarified or amended.

[Glen-Rhodes]

How strong is this "encouraging"? If we decide not to help my neighboring country when it is in the midst of a famine, will actions be taken against us? If not, what is the purpose of these two statements?

Encouragements to not hold any weight, in the legal sense. They are included as a friendly reminder to do the right thing.

RECOGNIZING that under such circumstances a compelling governmental interest exists to protect the health and welfare of the people, the right of governments to seize food to supply to victims of such crises is granted, so long as such seizure is not detrimental to the larger population;

What if the government is uninterested? And doesn't this impede on the right of governments to make their own decisions in times of crisis?

If the government is uninterested in seizing food to supply to victims of crises, then they are uninterested. The clause simply asserts the right of governments to do so, since the previous clause might suggest otherwise. It does not require them to do so.

Is this directed at the individual level? It seems to implicate subsistence farming, which Almajoya has quite a bit of.

If a single farm's protectionist practices have the potential to severely harm international trade, then it applies to that single farm, too. I don't think that's a plausible situation, though. It's meant to be on a national scale, but can be applied on a more local scale if needed.

Where exactly will these crops be grown? What about rare crops- for example, the Almajoyese apple- which cannot be grown anywhere else?

The seedbank merely stores seeds, to be handed to farmers to grow during a food crisis. Almajoyese apples, if they can only be grown in Almajoya, would only be given to Almajoyese farmers. It wouldn't make any sense to give them to farms, where they cannot possibly be cultivated.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

(OOC: I will respond to the other questions tomorrow, possibly. Independence Day party tonight.)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

OUTLAWS governmental actions such as state-based food hoarding and unfair food distribution practices which deliberately produce famines and starvation; also outlaws such actions taken during crises such as famines, natural disasters, and refugee crises that are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people.

I would like this segment to be clarified. Does it outlaw surplus crop buying by a government? That could be construed as "state based food hoarding," however, history shows that government buying of crops is beneficial in many instances, such as lessening a surplus and thereby raising food prices, as was done by the American govt during the Great Depression, or creating our own stores for famines, as was done by many of the ancient Chinese empires, such as the Han and Qin. I fear that this line may mistakenly outlaw something that is entirely beneficial , and as such I cannot support it until this is clarified or amended.

Surplus crop buying would not be outlawed if it is done to prevent a future famine, honoured ambassador.

[Dinkamana]

Heres a question: Why should I have to pay for others peoples food? It's their fault it happened in the first place. Countries themselves should decide to help or not.

[Mown Lawns]

This is yet another example of the World Assembly meddling into the affairs of sovereign nations, and as non-interventionists, we staunchly oppose it, and are pleased that our regional delegate, The Zombay, has as well.

[Qumkent]

It has been our pleasure to be instructed to vote for this statute, we commend its authors for their attentions to this important issue.


Yours,

[Trefoilland]

Trefoilland supports this resolution.

[Surote]

Finally someones doing something about the food crisis

[The Nation of Elysium]

The Nation of Elysium supports this proposal.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The legendary delegate to Charlotte Ryberg, Ms. Sarah Harper casts her vote for this resolution. It is hoped that less surpluses in stock in this country will go to waste. The delegate has voted for not because of the money, it is because the country cares about action against famine. Not every country uses the talai in trade.

[Greto]

WELL THIS IS A MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT I WOULD SUPPORT AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT

[Greenlandic People]

This is a very interesting resolution; it seems to work hard in order to strike a balance so that it remains effective but at the same time more or less un-intrusive. Greenland usually produces enough food in order to feed herself, but when a cold year or two strikes famines can be widespread. It is my hope that this resolution will allow smaller countries to carry on their agricultural practices unabated whilst leaving larger countries to ship their massive surpluses to where they are needed most.

My only question is in regards to this:

INITIATES the gradual reduction of protectionist and other practices, in regards to farming and food-related industries, that have the potential to severely harm international food trade; to determine when such practices have the potential to harm international food trade and regulate those practices, as well as to manage other international trade issues at the behest of the World Assembly, the International Trade Administration (ITA) is formed

Initiates? Initiates how? What is the plan to remove such practices? What order will they be tackled in? This, in my opinion, is a rather vague point.

Sigismund Ibsen,
Greenlandic Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Glen-Rhodes]

Initiates? Initiates how? What is the plan to remove such practices? What order will they be tackled in? This, in my opinion, is a rather vague point.

The International Trade Administration would be given the authority to decide when and how. I am no expert in international trade relations, so I have not included the steps necessary. The administrators of the ITA would be experts, though, and I trust that they would act fairly, reasonably, and with good intent and speed.

As a side note, Glen-Rhodes maintains a fair trade policy. We have the earnest of hope that the ITA will abide by their mandate, and only terminate such policies if they "have the potential to severely harm international food trade". In the future, if the ITA is utilized in other trade matters, I would hope that the authors of those resolutions would use similar language. It prevents fair trade and protectionist policies from being terminated unjustly, by requiring sufficient proof that they would severely harm a section of international trade. The World Assembly Economic Union, now repealed, blindly ended any and all of these policies, which did much more harm than good to those countries that depended upon them.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Either way, it would be good to see some free trade resolutions that promotes fair trade, honoured ambassador. It is possible, by perhaps the end of unfair tariffs or small businesses promotion.

[Opola]

Somewhat, socialist act.....

You dont have my vote

[The Altan Steppes]

Somewhat, socialist act.....

You dont have my vote

Socialist? Please. Just because legislation aims to help people doesn't make it socialist.

The Altani Federation is no fan of socialist or communist policies. Thankfully, that's not an issue, as this resolution is neither.

We will be voting in favor.

-Irina Misheli, Ambassador

[Opola]

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Tell me that does not sound socialist

[Greenlandic People]

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Tell me that does not sound socialist

Not all welfare and aid is Socialist.

I think you're making a dangerous generalization here about the tenants of both Socialism and Capitalism.

Income equality and basic welfare are both important social goals that national governments have a duty to pursue in the interest of serving the people. All societies, or at least all functioning ones, do something for the impoverished citizens of their country because if they did not then the ramifications would be far more costly then the money put in to such efforts.

Sigismund Ibsen,
World Assembly Delegate of Lavinium

[Ethyrica]

[blocktext][align=center]GENERAL ASSEMBLY


ENCOURAGES prosperous nations to support ailing nations when and however possible, to supplant the need of World Assembly intervention;

The Politburo wishes to express its enthusiasm for this proposal and promises that we will support it wholeheartedly. We believe that the agricultural cooperation of the nations will at least lessen the amount of people who starve.

To counter the positions of other states on the issues such as national soverignity and intervention, it is our interpretation that nowhere does this section explicitly force a state to give up its crop surplus. It is simply encouraging them to share their prosperity if they should have it. Thus, the smaller, more impoverished nations are not being treated unfairly; rather, they are the ones who will benefit from this resolution. Surely we cannot expect newly-formed nations to export large amounts of crops.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

"I'm happy to say that I have been permitted to vote for this resolution, and to ask our Delegate to vote for it as well. The saving of lives from starvation is a noble pursuit."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Ladies and Gentlemen of this august body,

After giving this resolution serious consideration, (but after I had voted for the resolution knowing I could change my mind up until the last second) I rise in support of this fine resolution. A number of representatives have suggested that this resolution smacks of socialism. Now the question of socialism is something for another day (in my own nation of Frustrated Franciscans that has a tax rate of 100% or more, socialism is something the opposition of the right occasionally brings up, but I’m digressing) but as far as I can see the basic tenants of this resolution are not “socialist” but in fact downright Franciscan.

Let me try to summarize the resolution in simple Franciscan terms. Items in bold red seem troubling to me.

• You know if you just help someone a little early on it won’t be a “disaster” later.
• We really need to learn how to farm better; it helps everyone.
• Let’s make a committee to do this and other food related stuff.
• You can give it your excess food; it will be great!
• Using food hording as a way to punish other nations is bad; don’t do that.
• You can steal from your people to help in need as long as you don’t overly hurt them.
• We should really work towards free trade.
• We should store seed or grow things in case of an emergency.

As you can see I only have troubles with two of the parts of the resolution. I don’t think stealing from people is ever a good idea; sure my government does it all the time, but as a principle of international law I don’t think it is a good idea. Secondly, I see a “free trade” thing in a “social justice” resolution. Some people may like peanut butter with their chocolate, but I’m allergic to nuts, so I mildly object. Still I strongly urge the adoption of this resolution.

[Loria Aesir]

I voted for it. I really like the proposal.