[DEFEATED] Repeal: Food Welfare Act

[Sedgistan]

~ IN QUEUE ~

Repeal: Food Welfare Act
Category: A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation Proposed by: Knootoss

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that many of the recommendations made by the Food Welfare Act are sound;

RECOGNISES, however, that the problems of starvation and malnutrition are insufficiently addressed by this resolution, creating several problems:
1) Dumping food from prosperous Member States into recipient nations through the "surplus donation system" may drive local farmers out of business;
2) The IFWO does not provide any reason for the governments of recipient nations to reduce their dependency on food aid, leaving the system open to abuse;
3) The provision allowing governments to "seize food" from local farmers and from businesses may deter social enterprises from achieving community solutions;
4) The mandate of the ITA to "gradually reduce protectionist practices" and "manage trade issues" is overly broad and vague, which prevents the World Assembly from passing better trade legislation;

CONCERNED that the Food Welfare act may have unintended consequences as a result of these problems, aggravating the hardships experienced by people suffering from starvation and malnutrition:
1) Food aid provided by the IFWO may be resold on the black markets of nations that experience famine, at prices that undercut local food producers;
2) Governments of nations receiving unconditional food aid from the IFWO may divert funds from their own food-support budget to their military budgets;
3) Permitting governments to seize food supplies from local farmers may lead to some farmers refusing to cooperate in producing additional food for the benefit of the nation;
4) Food aid provided by the IFWO may be offset by other economic programs, such as tariffs and agricultural subsidies, hollowing out the agricultural sectors of recipient nations;

LAMENTS that the aid programmes established by this resolution may result in greater harm to nations in need of assistance;

REPEALS the Food Welfare Act.

In Queue! see here.

[Monikian WA Mission]

"I can't detect any spelling errors. And it definitely seems legal. Monkiah will support." Faliksa Albertron said.

[Urgench]

The CSKU supports this measure.


Yours,

[Mousebumples]

DETERMINED to address the problems of starvation and malnutrition, and believing that many of the recommendations made by the Food Welfare Act are sound;

This may be better suited (and more fluffy-friendly) as 2 separate clauses. (And, of course, I like present-tense verbs better )

i.e. ACKNOWLEDGES that many of the recommendations made by GA#52, Food Welfare Act are sound;

RECOGNIZES, however, that the international issues of starvation and malnutrition are insufficiently unaddressed by this resolution;

CONCERNED that the Food Welfare act has had unintended consequences which have aggravated the hardships experienced by the population:

If you want to make all the verbage parallel (Geoffrey, my nation's Official Grammarian, would certainly appreciate that), "LAMENTS" may be an option for this clause.

Also --> "which HAS aggravated"
And --> "by the INTERNATIONAL population" may better make the point.

1) Food aid provided by the IFWO has been sold on the black markets of nations that experience famine, at prices that undercut local food producers;

I don't dispute this clause, but it may need to be expanded upon, slightly, to better address how this relates, directly to the proposal as written. (Or I may be missing something as I'm rushing to get this written this morning ... )

2) Governments receiving unconditional food aid from the IFWO have diverted funds from their own food-support budget to their military budgets;

"as they feel that their nation's needs will be better served by allowing the WA to completely subsidize this specific area?" Or something like that?

3) Permitting governments to seize food supplies supplies from local farmers has led some of them to refuse to cooperate in producing food;

"as they are not being appropriately reimbursed for the fruits of their labor" ?

4) Food aid provided by the IFWO is offset by other economic programs such as tariffs and agricultural subsidies, hollowing out the agricultural sectors of recipient nations;

I think this is good, at first glance.

RESOLVED that aid programmes managed by the World Assembly should not cause harm to the recipient nations,

BELIEVES?

REPEALS the Food Welfare Act.

Yay! As you may have expected, full support. Hopefully we can meet up on IRC at some point to work on perfecting this text. However, I'm not sure when you're looking to submit ....

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Moronist Decisions]

Our nation will oppose this. Without a better replacement, we believe that it is critical to keep such a program around, and we dispute the claims that you have discussed. Some inefficiencies may exist but I will be willing to live with that for the benefit of the starving.
Robert G.

[Knootoss]

OOC: I've made some adjustments based on Mousebumples' recommendations. We can discuss them further on IRC. I am curious if other folks think that the explanations for the unintended consequences are needed. I intend to submit this repeal on a short notice, as soon as the text meets reasonable standards of quality and legality.

Our nation will oppose this. Without a better replacement, we believe that it is critical to keep such a program around, and we dispute the claims that you have discussed. Some inefficiencies may exist but I will be willing to live with that for the benefit of the starving.
Robert G.

This viewpoint suffers from politician's logic:

"We must do something.
This is something.
Therefore we must do it."

The Fair Trade in Agriculture resolution, which was just removed from the queue, is a partial replacement. Glen-Rhodes has also expressed an interest in resubmitting this resolution without the trade provisions, though I hope that any replacement will address the problems which have been raised in the repeal.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Glen-Rhodes]

[AMENTS that the Food Welfare act has unintended consequences, which aggravate the hardships experienced by people suffering from starvation and malnutrition:
1) Food aid provided by the IFWO has been resold on the black markets of nations that experience famine, at prices that undercut local food producers;
2) Governments receiving unconditional food aid from the IFWO have diverted funds from their own food-support budget to their military budgets;
3) Permitting governments to seize food supplies from local farmers has led some of them to refuse to cooperate in producing food;
4) Food aid provided by the IFWO is offset by other economic programs such as tariffs and agricultural subsidies, hollowing out the agricultural sectors of recipient nations;

I think this all absolute nonsense. First of all, you cannot in any way prove any of these statements. Nobody can in any way disprove these statements. Indeed, just as you can say that all of these things are happening, I can say that a billion positive benefits have arisen from the international food aid, scientific programs, crop-growing and seeding-banking programs, and indeed the trading regulations of farming and food-related industries.

Which brings me to the point that your forth 'unintended consequence' is impossible, considering tarrifs and agricultural subsidies are phased out by the ITA in the Food Welfare Act, as are all other protectionist and similar devices. It is plainly obvious why you want to repeal the Food Welfare Act: your proposal, Fair Trade in Agriculture, was declared illegal for duplicating it. Meaning, of course, that what you wanted to do was already being done.

I stated my willingness to consider a repeal of the Food Welfare Act, if it was guaranteed that another international aid program was going to be established. However, it's abundantly clear that you want to hide your true intentions and poison the well for any international food aid program. Why do you hate children? Why do you want poor people to starve? (Yes, I'm being facetious, here.)

If you're going to attempt to repeal the Food Welfare Act, be honest. Don't be vindictive simply because you think I did something underhanded. Your proposal was illegal. It did something that the Food Welfare Act already does. I warned you of that very early on when you were drafting Fair Trade in Agriculture. You chose to ignore me and now you're unhappy with the consequences.

However, I'm not arguing that the Food Welfare Act is perfect or that it's better than what was in your proposal. The trading regulations in the Food Welfare Act were added as a sweetener. At the time, the World Assembly was engaged in the free vs. fair trade debate. The predecessor of the Food Welfare Act -- the Global Food Distribution Act, written by Yelda -- was pointed out as a good model to follow. Indeed, the trade clause in the Food Welfare Act is incredibly similar to that in the Global Food Distribution Act:

3. REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;
-- Global Food Distribution Act

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;
-- Food Welfare Act

The Food Welfare Act passed with a supermajority, 72% support. Clearly, the World Assembly member states favor having a comprehensive international food aid program. I would like to believe that Knootoss think it's a good idea to have humanitarian aid for nations facing food crises. So be honest. Don't pretend like there are serious problems with aid programs. You don't like the Food Welfare Act because it prevents you from writing a free trade of agriculture resolution. Write a repeal that addresses the downsides of the Food Welfare Act's less-than-comprehensive economic policy.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Glen-Rhodes]

Now I'd like to do a point-by-point refutation of your so-called 'unintended consequences,' even though I believe you're being completely dishonest, because you won't exactly garner any popularity by saying that you want to repeal the Food Welfare Act to vindicate your own free trade proposal.

1) Food aid provided by the IFWO has been resold on the black markets of nations that experience famine, at prices that undercut local food producers;

False. I'd like to see some documentation. I'd like to see some research that shows that IFWO-provided food is propping up black markets. Considering that IFWO food is provided directly to consumers, your allegations are highly unlikely are clearly intended to incite unfounded fear, uncertainty and doubt.

2) Governments receiving unconditional food aid from the IFWO have diverted funds from their own food-support budget to their military budgets;

Governments don't receive aid. The IFWO is a direct supplier of food aid. It does not send food and money to governments, where it can be diverted. No aid whatsoever, from the food to the scientists to the crop programs and the seedbank, is put in the hands of national, regional or local governments. Your allegations are absolutely impossible, unless you're accusing the World Assembly itself of diverting funds donated to the IFWO into national military budgets. Again, you are knowing lying in an attempt to conceal your true intentions.

3) Permitting governments to seize food supplies from local farmers has led some of them to refuse to cooperate in producing food;

The Food Welfare Act does allow national governments to seize food supplies, with the caveat that such seizure cannot harm the population. Furthermore, you've made baseless claims that you cannot prove. Where's the data? Where's the research? Additionally, any food seized is required, by international law, to be reimbursed.

4) Food aid provided by the IFWO is offset by other economic programs such as tariffs and agricultural subsidies, hollowing out the agricultural sectors of recipient nations;

As demonstrated in my previous comments, this is totally false and actually impossible. Again, you are lying through your teeth. The Food Welfare Act initiates the phasing-out of tariffs, subsidies and other protectionist devices. The language is quite clear in that regard.

As per the above, submission of this repeal would be illegal, as it's abundantly clear that you have grievances with things in the resolution that aren't actually in the resolution. I'd call it an honest mistake, but you're too intelligent for it to be honest.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: Yes, I know that I sound really angry and like a huge asshole. I am certainly willing to work on a repeal of the Food Welfare Act, but only if it honestly reflects the problems in the resolution. I don't personally think that you, Knootoss, are acting out of pure vindictiveness. But I do think that you are approaching this without total honesty of why you want the Food Welfare Act repealed. I agreed with most of the substance of Fair Trade in Agriculture. The economic policy part of the Food Welfare Act is not detailed enough and it incredibly open-ended. It ignores numerous problems with having total free trade in agriculture. I would like to see more detailed resolutions on farming subsidies and food trade. But I cannot support a repeal of the Food Welfare Act that is so blatantly false and so obviously written with full knowledge of the untruthfulness of the arguments.

[Sionis Prioratus]

The Food Welfare Act passed with a supermajority, 72% support. Clearly, the World Assembly member states favor having a comprehensive international food aid program.

- Dr. B. Castro

Oh, look! A fallacy, Appeal to Majority! What a nonsense, let me check...

GA #5 "Coordinating Relief Aid" - Originally passed with 75% - REPEALED.

GA #13 "Fair Criminal Trial" - Originally passed with 76% - REPEALED.

GA #131 "Missing Minors Act" - Originally passed with 77% - REPEALED.

GA #115 "Space Reseach Station Program" - Originally passed with 78% - REPEALED.

GA #59 "The Right to Education" - Originally passed with 79% - REPEALED.

The repeal arguments are sound. I fully support this measure.

Yours actually worried about ending world hunger,

[Flibbleites]

The Food Welfare Act passed with a supermajority, 72% support. Clearly, the World Assembly member states favor having a comprehensive international food aid program.

- Dr. B. Castro

It also passed nearly two years ago, or are you saying the the WA's opinion on the issue couldn't have changed between then and now?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Embolalia]

I think this repeal has some valid points, but I think a better replacement needs to be written first.

There's no way simply saying "woohoo, free trade!" is going to solve world hunger. It might help (maybe), but it's a completely passive solution. We need an active solution. It doesn't have to be exactly the same as what's being repealed, and in fact shouldn't be. As it stands, having some form of food delivery, even if it may be less than optimal, is ultimately ensuring people get fed. If there's no program at all, that won't happen. So while the existing resolution is by no means perfect, it's definitely better than nothing. As soon as I see a better solution proposed, I will support this repeal wholeheartedly.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper cannot agree on everything just yet because she is uncertain what a replacement would look like. That needs to be outlined before attempting a repeal, otherwise someone could take advantage with a poorly written replacement.

[Sionis Prioratus]

So while the existing resolution is by no means perfect, it's definitely better than nothing. As soon as I see a better solution proposed, I will support this repeal wholeheartedly.

There was one, Your Excellency. One which most strangely vanished. Oh, wait. Not strangely. The author of the so-called "Food Welfare Act", the Ambassador from Glen-Zimbabwe, submitted a legality challenge to "Fair Trade in Agriculture" because it crazily would contradict "Food Welfare Act". Much to my astoundment, certiorari was granted and the appeal succeeded.

So we are left in this situation; "a better solution" cannot be proposed because it would contadict the so-called "Food Welfare Act"; and then Ambassadors like Your Excellency state that the so-called "Food Welfare Act" cannot be repealed because "a better solution" cannot be proposed.

A Brave New World Assembly.

Yours in 1984,

[Krioval]

For those delegations asking for a replacement, consider drafting one concurrently with the repeal. It doesn't sit well with me to ask repeal authors to draft replacements to resolutions before they can repeal them - making the replacement draft a potential colossal waste of time if the repeal doesn't pass. Perhaps a balance could be struck between unrestricted trade and typical Glen-Rhodes legislative overreach.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Knootoss]

I reject the accusations levelled against us by the ambassador from Glen-Rhodes. Knootoss has publicly stated it's diplomatic opposition to the Food Welfare Act in the Green Book, which has been open for perusal by all World Assembly members for well over a year. Repealing the Food Welfare Act was not a priority, however, and I would have been happy for it to co-exist with Fair Trade in Agriculture, had the very same ambassador from Glen-Rhodes not appealed to the secretariat for duplication. When the ambassador, himself, admits that the trade provisions of his own Food Welfare Act are wholly inadequate!

The manner in which the delegation of Glen-Rhodes has acted during this episode reminds me of the fable of the scorpion and the fox. It goes like this: A scorpion was wandering along the bank of the river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river. The fox said, "No. If I do that, you'll sting me and I'll drown."

The scorpion assured him, "If I did that, we'd both drown."

So the fox thought about it and finally agreed. The scorpion climbed up on his back and the fox began to swim. But halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him. As the poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said, "Why did you do that? Now you'll drown too."

"I couldn't help it," said the scorpion. "It's my nature."

The lesson, I suppose, is that instinctive opposition to anything that Knootoss gets up to is irrepressible, no matter how their own delegation is treated and no matter what the consequences.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

OOC: Yes, I know that I sound really angry and like a huge asshole. I am certainly willing to work on a repeal of the Food Welfare Act, but only if it honestly reflects the problems in the resolution. I don't personally think that you, Knootoss, are acting out of pure vindictiveness. But I do think that you are approaching this without total honesty of why you want the Food Welfare Act repealed. I agreed with most of the substance of Fair Trade in Agriculture. The economic policy part of the Food Welfare Act is not detailed enough and it incredibly open-ended. It ignores numerous problems with having total free trade in agriculture. I would like to see more detailed resolutions on farming subsidies and food trade. But I cannot support a repeal of the Food Welfare Act that is so blatantly false and so obviously written with full knowledge of the untruthfulness of the arguments.

OOC: Don't you think it is a little disingenuous to write a huge post accusing me of duplicity, only to add a tiny disclaimer that you don't really believe it's true? Actually, that was a rhetorical question. I'd like for this thread to focus on legality and quality concerns, until such time as it is actually submitted for debate.

[Embolalia]

So while the existing resolution is by no means perfect, it's definitely better than nothing. As soon as I see a better solution proposed, I will support this repeal wholeheartedly.

There was one, Your Excellency. One which most strangely vanished. Oh, wait. Not strangely. The author of the so-called "Food Welfare Act", the Ambassador from Glen-Zimbabwe, submitted a legality challenge to "Fair Trade in Agriculture" because it crazily would contradict "Food Welfare Act". Much to my astoundment, certiorari was granted and the appeal succeeded.

So we are left in this situation; "a better solution" cannot be proposed because it would contadict the so-called "Food Welfare Act"; and then Ambassadors like Your Excellency state that the so-called "Food Welfare Act" cannot be repealed because "a better solution" cannot be proposed.

%s/proposed/suggested
I used the term proposed in an informal sense. It's not at all uncommon for a replacement to be drafted concurrent with, or even prior to, a repeal. And you'll recall that I mentioned your so-called better solution, and stated that not only is its efficacy debatable, but at best it would only be a partial replacement. I specifically mentioned that Mr. Koopman's proposal was a passive solution for a problem that necessitates an active solution.

[Sionis Prioratus]

*snip*

Good! Intelligent Ambassadors such as Your Excellency, so acute to point out putative defects of a repeal draft, are certainly also endowed with the capability & motivation to draft a true "good solution".

I am eagerly anticipating for Your Excellency's replacement draft, one that does not have the grievous putative mistakes Your Excellency pointed out.

Yours in waiting,

[Embolalia]

(OOC: I have two midterms and two labs this week. If I do it, it's not happening until next week.)

[Glen-Rhodes]

There was one, Your Excellency. One which most strangely vanished. Oh, wait. Not strangely. The author of the so-called "Food Welfare Act", the Ambassador from Glen-Zimbabwe, submitted a legality challenge to "Fair Trade in Agriculture" because it crazily would contradict "Food Welfare Act". Much to my astoundment, certiorari was granted and the appeal succeeded.

First of all, Fair Trade in Agriculture was removed because it duplicated the Food Welfare Act. I said this in my comments above, so it's quite clear that you did not read them. Please read them before responding to me or mentioning Glen-Rhodes in this debate. Second of all, Fair Trade in Agriculture is not an international aid proposal. It is a purely economic proposal about agricultural trade. The two are not the same thing. Indeed, international aid and agricultural trade regulation can exists in tandem, and actually do currently exist in tandem.

For those delegations asking for a replacement, consider drafting one concurrently with the repeal. It doesn't sit well with me to ask repeal authors to draft replacements to resolutions before they can repeal them - making the replacement draft a potential colossal waste of time if the repeal doesn't pass.

I will draft a replacement if a serious repeal effort is underway and if that repeal effort doesn't poison the well against providing international humanitarian aid.

Perhaps a balance could be struck between unrestricted trade and typical Glen-Rhodes legislative overreach.

Let me break character here and say that this is so rich. When I was writing the Food Welfare Act, it was 'legislative overreach' to not include a free trade provision. When I supported Ethics in International Trade, it was 'legislative overreach.' Now you're saying that it's legislative overreach that I did what Antarctic Oasis and Pals loved doing two years ago, and indeed pummeled people who didn't do it: promoting laissez-faire free trade. Will you please stop with the blatant demonization of anything attached to the nation 'Glen-Rhodes'? It's not fun. It's not serious. It's not conducive of making this game productive and worthwhile.

Repealing the Food Welfare Act was not a priority, however, and I would have been happy for it to co-exist with Fair Trade in Agriculture, had the very same ambassador from Glen-Rhodes not appealed to the secretariat for duplication. When the ambassador, himself, admits that the trade provisions of his own Food Welfare Act are wholly inadequate!

An illegal proposal is still an illegal proposal, regardless of the merits of its substance. Like I said, I warned you early on in your own drafting thread that what you were doing was already covered by the Food Welfare Act. You choose to ignore me. You acknowledged yourself that the subject matter was the same. You knowingly submitted a duplicative proposal, and now you're angry that it was removed. Repealing the Food Welfare Act is a vindictive act.

But I don't care about you being vindictive. I publicly said that I would not be against repealing the Food Welfare Act over its economic free trade provisions. What I object to is your blatant lies and disinformation and you attempting to hide your true intentions, here. The fact is that you cannot point to single part of the proposal that backs up any of your claims, because none of those claims are based in reality. I would wager that you sat there and thought, "What could be wrong with an international aid proposal? What are the usual boilerplate criticisms?" Then you proceeded to write a repeal without actually reading the Food Welfare Act. That's the only way I can fathom how this repeal was written. If submitted, it would be entirely illegal for complaining about things that aren't actually in the resolution it's trying to repeal.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: Don't you think it is a little disingenuous to write a huge post accusing me of duplicity, only to add a tiny disclaimer that you don't really believe it's true? Actually, that was a rhetorical question. I'd like for this thread to focus on legality and quality concerns, until such time as it is actually submitted for debate.

OOC: Let me rephrase: I don't think you're acting entirely out of vindictiveness. I don't think you're a bad a person and I don't think you're vindictive in nature. I do, however, think you are (a) being dishonest and (b) out to get 'revenge' for what you call my 'underhanded' actions in getting Fair Trade in Agriculture -- an illegal proposal -- removed from the queue. If you weren't, I think you would have worked with me to repeal the Food Welfare Act, as you obviously knew that I had publicly stated my tentative support for a repeal effort.

[Urgench]

There was one, Your Excellency. One which most strangely vanished. Oh, wait. Not strangely. The author of the so-called "Food Welfare Act", the Ambassador from Glen-Zimbabwe, submitted a legality challenge to "Fair Trade in Agriculture" because it crazily would contradict "Food Welfare Act". Much to my astoundment, certiorari was granted and the appeal succeeded.

First of all, Fair Trade in Agriculture was removed because it duplicated the Food Welfare Act. I said this in my comments above, so it's quite clear that you did not read them. Please read them before responding to me or mentioning Glen-Rhodes in this debate. Second of all, Fair Trade in Agriculture is not an international aid proposal. It is a purely economic proposal about agricultural trade. The two are not the same thing. Indeed, international aid and agricultural trade regulation can exists in tandem, and actually do currently exist in tandem.

For those delegations asking for a replacement, consider drafting one concurrently with the repeal. It doesn't sit well with me to ask repeal authors to draft replacements to resolutions before they can repeal them - making the replacement draft a potential colossal waste of time if the repeal doesn't pass.

I will draft a replacement if a serious repeal effort is underway and if that repeal effort doesn't poison the well against providing international humanitarian aid.

Perhaps a balance could be struck between unrestricted trade and typical Glen-Rhodes legislative overreach.

Let me break character here and say that this is so rich. When I was writing the Food Welfare Act, it was 'legislative overreach' to not include a free trade provision. When I supported Ethics in International Trade, it was 'legislative overreach.' Now you're saying that it's legislative overreach that I did what Antarctic Oasis and Pals loved doing two years ago, and indeed pummeled people who didn't do it: promoting laissez-faire free trade. Will you please stop with the blatant demonization of anything attached to the nation 'Glen-Rhodes'? It's not fun. It's not serious. It's not conducive of making this game productive and worthwhile.

Repealing the Food Welfare Act was not a priority, however, and I would have been happy for it to co-exist with Fair Trade in Agriculture, had the very same ambassador from Glen-Rhodes not appealed to the secretariat for duplication. When the ambassador, himself, admits that the trade provisions of his own Food Welfare Act are wholly inadequate!

An illegal proposal is still an illegal proposal, regardless of the merits of its substance. Like I said, I warned you early on in your own drafting thread that what you were doing was already covered by the Food Welfare Act. You choose to ignore me. You acknowledged yourself that the subject matter was the same. You knowingly submitted a duplicative proposal, and now you're angry that it was removed. Repealing the Food Welfare Act is a vindictive act.

But I don't care about you being vindictive. I publicly said that I would not be against repealing the Food Welfare Act over its economic free trade provisions. What I object to is your blatant lies and disinformation and you attempting to hide your true intentions, here. The fact is that you cannot point to single part of the proposal that backs up any of your claims, because none of those claims are based in reality. I would wager that you sat there and thought, "What could be wrong with an international aid proposal? What are the usual boilerplate criticisms?" Then you proceeded to write a repeal without actually reading the Food Welfare Act. That's the only way I can fathom how this repeal was written. If submitted, it would be entirely illegal for complaining about things that aren't actually in the resolution it's trying to repeal.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: Don't you think it is a little disingenuous to write a huge post accusing me of duplicity, only to add a tiny disclaimer that you don't really believe it's true? Actually, that was a rhetorical question. I'd like for this thread to focus on legality and quality concerns, until such time as it is actually submitted for debate.

OOC: Let me rephrase: I don't think you're acting entirely out of vindictiveness. I don't think you're a bad a person and I don't think you're vindictive in nature. I do, however, think you are (a) being dishonest and (b) out to get 'revenge' for what you call my 'underhanded' actions in getting Fair Trade in Agriculture -- an illegal proposal -- removed from the queue. If you weren't, I think you would have worked with me to repeal the Food Welfare Act, as you obviously knew that I had publicly stated my tentative support for a repeal effort.

This would be pitiful if it were not quite so nauseatingly hypocritical. Urgenchis have a phrase "people with filthy hands bake bad saffron cakes", by which is meant it is not possible to pose as a credible moral authority while one is sunk in a mire of iniquity.

This repeal outlines the faults in the resolution in question perfectly, with the aid of the honoured Ambassador for Knootoss's usual laser-like perception the thing has been unravelled before our eyes, and all that Dr Castro is left to do is squirm and froth in faux outrage because his overweening pride has been pricked. Dr Castro cares nothing for the poor and starving and cares only for his own reputation as a font of mediocre and often downright harmful resolutions which it is high time this organisation began the process of removing from the books.


Yours,

[Knootoss]

After this brief display of unconcealed loathing, perhaps we can get back to discussing the legality of the current draft?


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Burtonea]

Honored Ambassador,

I support this repeal, but the "unintended consequences" you have alleged lack any evidence, although they certainly seem plausible and likely. The exception is part of the first contention: I find it hard to believe that anyone (esp. on the black market) is selling food below market prices ("undercut[ting] local food producers") in the middle of a famine! Supply and demand, ambassador. The resale of food on the black market is a legitimate concern, but "at prices that undercut local producers" should be removed. Anyways, it would be for the best if either proof were given or the resolution was reworded to more accurately describe the unintended consequences as potential and likely.

Yours,
Dr. Sean Burgundy
Ambassador, Burtonia WA Embassy

[Unibot II]

1) Food aid provided by the IFWO has been resold on the black markets of nations that experience famine, at prices that undercut local food producers;
2) Governments receiving unconditional food aid from the IFWO have diverted funds from their own food-support budget to their military budgets;
3) Permitting governments to seize food supplies from local farmers has led some of them to refuse to cooperate in producing food;
4) Food aid provided by the IFWO is offset by other economic programs such as tariffs and agricultural subsidies, hollowing out the agricultural sectors of recipient nations;

Do you have proof that this happened?

OOC: This is the problem when you use 'specific events' in repeals, you need to prove their existence -- which you can't. However you can say that the resolution facilitates or promotes Scenario X₁, X₂ and X_n. No comment on whether the resolution actually does that, however. Perhaps you should go into detail in the resolution how the resolution actually does what you say it does, because a repeal should be an argument, it should have propositions leading to conclusions, this is a bunch of assertions, (X has happened following Y). This repeal attempt suffers from Post hoc ergo propter hoc unless it can outline a reason as to why the repeal leads to these conclusions (i.e., LAMENTS 1-4). I could LAMENT that following the passage of "Permit Male Circumcision", unicorns started eating our nation's supply of strawberry jam, so clearly we should repeal GA#141 for it's unintended consequences, but unless I explained how GA#141 led to such bizarre consequences, I'm assuming causation when there likely is none at all.

[Knootoss]

OOC: Thing is, this resolution has been in effect for years. If these events are indeed "likely", then they are certainly not "potential". Demanding that a repeal provide "proof" of such events is to demand an impossibility, since links are not permitted, and it would exceed the word limit. I might just as well ask Glen-Rhodes to prove that world hunger even exists.

I'll file a request with the mods as to the wording. Saying they "may" have happened in the past seems again utterly ridiculous, since it concerns entirely plausible events, all of which have occurred in response to similar policies in real life. They are not "specific events" but rather general flaws that result from direct food aid policies. The unicorn example therefore does not hold.

[Knootoss]

Honored Ambassador,

I support this repeal, but the "unintended consequences" you have alleged lack any evidence, although they certainly seem plausible and likely. The exception is part of the first contention: I find it hard to believe that anyone (esp. on the black market) is selling food below market prices ("undercut[ting] local food producers") in the middle of a famine! Supply and demand, ambassador. The resale of food on the black market is a legitimate concern, but "at prices that undercut local producers" should be removed. Anyways, it would be for the best if either proof were given or the resolution was reworded to more accurately describe the unintended consequences as potential and likely.

Yours,
Dr. Sean Burgundy
Ambassador, Burtonia WA Embassy

How is it 'hard to believe' that someone would try to sell something they got for free on for a low price? Does the concept of war profiteering not meet with Mr. Burgundy's bright views on the nature of humanity? Selling on aid goods has happened in famines many times before.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss