Honeydewistania wrote:I have no idea how you construed 'reputational damage' and knowing '100% of the time if someone's corrupt' out of my argument and proceeded to ignore my actual points, but alright. I do question how this is relevant to the proposal in question. Humanitarian Aid Coordination, which you cited, also provides aid to nations but makes no mention of diversion. And neither that nor Volcanic Activity Convention does not stop punishments from being levied, or entities making smart decisions during cooperations to mitigate the risk of corruption. You provide no solution to the problem of aid diversion, and repealing Volcanic Activity Convention will not do anything to that effect, as it will merely make less aid available to nations. If the solution to aid diversion is to cut off all aid, I am eager to see how this plays out on the voting floor.
-Benji
"Relying on member nations to be able to magically tell whether diversion is occuring or will occur is the worst way to deal with the issue of diversion. The correct solution is preventing aid from being diverted by prohibiting nations from doing so. Also, Disaster Precautions and Responses' aid mandate applies to 'Member-nations met with a financial burden as a result of this resolution', implying that such aid would only be provided where necessary to comply with the resolution's mandates -- implicitly meaning that diversion of aid would necessarily result in non-compliance -- rather than throwing it at all evacuations due to volcanic activity. As other resolutions making the target's aid mechanism redundant actually competently ensure that aid is provided and used properly, contrary to your claims, repealing 565 does not 'cut off all aid'."
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States