[GA - AT VOTE] Repeal "Food Welfare Act"

[Cretox]

Repeal "Food Welfare Act"
Repeal | Target: GA 52
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Co-author: Solringen | Onsite Topic​

---

General Assembly Resolution #52 “Food Welfare Act” (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Noting that, while GA#52 had the good intentions of ensuring that nobody need die of famine, that does not compensate for its inadequate handling of this exact same issue,

Concerned that GA#52 merely requires the International Food Welfare Organization to distribute "food rations to the people of nations undergoing severe economic depression, famine, or conflict which causes a shortage of food" without also requiring them to be culturally sensitive, nutritious, or even free from outside poisons,

Angered that GA#52 declares that where "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," effectively allowing states to steal food from private entities - such as businesses, charities, and middle-class individuals - without regards to any nutritional or other assistance they may have received from abroad, and in particular while demanding the pre-existence of such a "compelling government interest" as will almost inevitably arise during such crises,

Baffled by the target resolution's insistence that a singular World Assembly Seedbank be created to store all manner of seeds "as volunteered by nations," even though the danger that would be posed by its destruction would be immeasurably massive,

Convinced that aspiring to eliminate "protectionist practices... [with] the potential to severely harm international food trade" should not be a WA priority, given that protectionism helps developing economies to avoid being undercut by developed, industrialised countries, especially in niche agricultural areas, and

Concluding that GA#52's micromanagement in all spheres of famine management - from agriculture to stockpiling to distribution - is massively detrimental to the people of all nations...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#52 "Food Welfare Act."

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

---

For	Against	Abstain	Present
4	3	0	1

 

[Cretox]

IFV

 

[Fachu]

[Non-WA] Against. Whilst I believe the resolution is flawed, the reality of no replacement being possible means I would favor this staying versus the alternative.

 

[Halsoni]

For

 

[Bankowiata]

Against

 

[nvxl]

Against

1. Does not require repeal—as an extension of the original, this can be applied by a separate resolution without violating the house of cards rule: "Rations Suitability Act: That any WA organ, including though not limited to ..., which distributes rations, including though not limited to foodstuffs, take into account local dietary requirements, practices, and customs..."
2. My interpretation of this clause is that it would not override any national laws, given it is meant as a restriction of the preceding prohibition; regardless, this is a bit of a silly (though I daresay on-brand) concern to have.
3. Perhaps this is a flaw on the part of the resolution, but whether the "Seedbank" refers to a physical structure or an organisation is ambiguous; I personally interpreted it as the latter on my reading. Regardless, I don't think the destruction of either such would pose "immeasurably massive danger" (and perhaps repealing this resolution would, in fact, end up "destroying" it...?); and, even then, that it would is not an argument for repeal, but simply a statement of (supposed) fact.
4. I think it's fairly clear in this case that the clause is specifying only those protectionist practices which do, in fact, potentially harm trade, not stating that all such practices do so. In my view, inserting pontificating justifications into the text of a resolution is unnecessary and rather gauche (the text of the resolution is not a place for arguments of debate), and whilst this repeal does indeed contain instances thereof, its target, in my view, does not.

 

[Tinhampton]

Against

1. Does not require repeal—as an extension of the original, this can be applied by a separate resolution without violating the house of cards rule: "Rations Suitability Act: That any WA organ, including though not limited to ..., which distributes rations, including though not limited to foodstuffs, take into account local dietary requirements, practices, and customs..."

I feel as though this should have been made clearer in the first instance, even though I joined NS seven years too late to make a difference. In general, I would support a resolution along these lines - but I do think it would have to be broader, both in scope and in terms of covered entities - although I appreciate that this is a very challenging task at this moment.

2. My interpretation of this clause is that it would not override any national laws, given it is meant as a restriction of the preceding prohibition; regardless, this is a bit of a silly (though I daresay on-brand) concern to have.

I feel as though this section of the target resolution effectively gives member states a permission slip to start seizing food in times of crisis. This is not the same as requiring them to do it.

3. Perhaps this is a flaw on the part of the resolution, but whether the "Seedbank" refers to a physical structure or an organisation is ambiguous; I personally interpreted it as the latter on my reading. Regardless, I don't think the destruction of either such would pose "immeasurably massive danger" (and perhaps repealing this resolution would, in fact, end up "destroying" it...?); and, even then, that it would is not an argument for repeal, but simply a statement of (supposed) fact.

My concerns with the Seedbank were best stated by Mouse and Mall almost fifteen years ago now.

4. I think it's fairly clear in this case that the clause is specifying only those protectionist practices which do, in fact, potentially harm trade, not stating that all such practices do so. In my view, inserting pontificating justifications into the text of a resolution is unnecessary and rather gauche (the text of the resolution is not a place for arguments of debate), and whilst this repeal does indeed contain instances thereof, its target, in my view, does not.

My position in these regards has been well-established since 2021.

 

[Zash]

Against

 

[ForFishing]

For

 

[Petronellania]

For [NPA]

 

[Chipoli]

For

 

[Cretox]

Non-WA against. "Having a voluntary seedbank is bad because it could get bombed" is just such a ridiculous argument that I can't take the repeal seriously. It's so ridiculous that even the WAHQ repeal - of a resolution that made a physical headquarters for the entire WA - didn't use it. Are we going to repeal the library compact for being vulnerable to arson and anything with a committee for being vulnerable to blackmail?

It's also funny that the repeal uses the weasel words "aspiring to eliminate" to get around the fact that all the resolution does is mandate a gradual reduction of protectionist practices "that have the potential to severely harm international food trade." Why not argue that "INITIATES the gradual reduction of protectionist and other practices" and "regulate those practices" are so vague as to be meaningless drivel? The repeal avoids making stronger arguments that are sitting right there.

 

[Tinhampton]

Non-WA against. "Having a voluntary seedbank is bad because it could get bombed" is just such a ridiculous argument that I can't take the repeal seriously. It's so ridiculous that even the WAHQ repeal - of a resolution that made a physical headquarters for the entire WA - didn't use it. Are we going to repeal the library compact for being vulnerable to arson and anything with a committee for being vulnerable to blackmail?

Two of the titans of the early GA already passed an entire repeal grounded on such arguments.

It's also funny that the repeal uses the weasel words "aspiring to eliminate" to get around the fact that all the resolution does is mandate a gradual reduction of protectionist practices "that have the potential to severely harm international food trade." Why not argue that "INITIATES the gradual reduction of protectionist and other practices" and "regulate those practices" are so vague as to be meaningless drivel? The repeal avoids making stronger arguments that are sitting right there.

The resolution as worded does aspire to eliminate such practices, to the extent that it requires their elimination within an unspecified future timeframe. I think we're coming at this particular clause from different points of view. I have always been wary of WA-imposed free trade, even if I tend to more supportive of it IRL, and have been making protectionist arguments in my repeals dating back to 2021.

Hence my concern about the clause is because it attempts to liberalise trade to such a great extent - especially in an area such as agriculture, where waves of imports from industrial farms in more developed members could constitute dumping and/or seriously harm subsistence agriculture in less developed members and not vice versa (witness the economic crisis that happened throughout the IRL coffee-producing world at the turn of the millennium) - rather than despite it not really doing anything to liberalise trade.

As for the point that the requirement for the ITA to "regulate" such practices is overly fluffy, it's the convention in the GA to assign to committees tasks that are cannot be clearly defined within the text of a resolution.

 

[Cretox]

Two of the titans of the early GA already passed an entire repeal grounded on such arguments.

You're a titan of the modern GA and I think your arguments here are bad.

More seriously, that was the last of several arguments against the creation of a physical facility in a resolution dedicated specifically to creating a physical facility. Arguing that a physical facility is a poor way to address the topic for a multitude of reasons makes sense in that context. This repeal neither uses those stronger arguments nor actually cites that repeal. It's also weird to say that a passed resolution doing something makes that thing good as a way to defend a repeal.

As for the point that the requirement for the ITA to "regulate" such practices is overly fluffy, it's the convention in the GA to assign to committees tasks that are cannot be clearly defined within the text of a resolution.

It's convention to then repeal those resolutions if they don't give the committee proper parameters. Telling a committee to "regulate... practices" is dangerously vague and we bash resolutions for better stuff than that like "reasonable restrictions." This is Repeals 101!

 

[Wilkshire]

Against