Honest Mistake: Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.
The challenged repeal argues as follows; emphasis added _
The verbiage of 2b -- which, in an attempt to promote cooperation between nations at risk of volcanic activity, requires member nations at such risk to "provide aid to each other in an evacuation" -- does not include any sort of explicit or implicit condition that the evacuation aid be necessary or even helpful for the evacuation, or that the member nation be able to provide such aid. The resolution thus needlessly drains the funds of member nations that happen to be at risk of volcanic activity, as they are forced to aid every evacuation due to volcanic activity that occurs in the thousands of nations in the world, regardless of the need for such aid, while establishing no mechanism to support member nations unable to cope with this burden. This will bring countless such nations to financial burden and possibly even bankruptcy. A developing member nation may very well have to defund essential services such as education, public transport, and law enforcement, in order to assist in an evacuation of a small town on the opposite side of the world which can proceed perfectly without such aid. Inefficient uses of member nation funds reduce the amount of funds available for more important projects funded by member nations -- including humanitarian aid for evacuating nations that actually require such aid.
The resolution says this _
member nations whose populations face the risks of volcanic activity [must] Work with nations likely to be significantly affected to prepare for any volcanic activity via communication and combined efforts to protect the general public from volcanic activity or the damage it will or has caused, including providing aid to each other in an evacuation;
The resolution quite clearly -- or not -- therefore only mandates "providing aid to each other in an evacuation" where necessary to engage in "communication and combined efforts to protect the general public from volcanic activity or the damage it will or has caused" -- "providing aid to each other" would simply be an example of what these efforts might look like, rather than something that must always be done as part of these efforts. If the receiving nation does not require such aid, the provision of aid would not be necessary to engage in these efforts. Further, if the aid is necessary, but the providing nation is unable to provide it without burdening their finances, it would not be a "combined effort". As such, there is, in fact -- or not -- both an "implicit condition that the evacuation aid be necessary ... for the evacuation" and one "that the member nation be able to provide such aid", in which case the repeal misrepresents its target.
The second argument is also -- or not -- an Honest Mistake -- emphasis addded _
This mandate further flushes member nation funds down the toilet as the resolution omits any mandate preventing member nations from misusing such aid, or an allowance for member nations to deny aid to nations that misuse the aid. Thus, this mandate still forces member nations to throw money and resources at evacuating nations even if they are, for example, diverting all financial aid to politicians' off-shore bank accounts.
The target resolution again says that the efforts must be "combined". Diverting financial aid will therefore be a form of non-cooperation, and not "combined efforts", so this claim is also -- or not -- an honest mistake.
-----
Counterargument:
The resolution's "including providing aid to each other in an evacuation" does not have any qualifier saying "where necessary" or similar. It implies that "combined efforts to protect the general public from volcanic activity or the damage it will or has caused" will include "providing aid to each other in an evacuation". Therefore, regardless of whether the receiving nation is properly using or needs the aid, or the providing nation is able to provide it, it is still mandatory for efforts to "include providing aid to each other in an evacuation". Similarly, there is nothing saying what "combined efforts" are, outside of providing aid to each other in an evacuation. In fact, a receiving nation can argue that that they will provide/have already provided aid to the receiving nation, and that is part of the combined efforts. Further, "nations" does not refer solely to member nations, so an argument that the target does, in fact, force receiving nations to use the aid properly would imply that the resolution is legislating outside of the WA's authority. Such an interpretation would therefore be absurd, and ought to be rejected.
Discuss.