A cold climate such as Iceland may indeed be useful for researching disease, but as China is providing the primary funding for this research center, keeping it in Hainan also makes sense. We need to pick the best location based on practical, scientific concerns, not mere politics.
The italicized portion much better matches your underlined conclusion than the bolded portion.
First of all, we haven't established the research center, or even drafted a resolution for it yet, so who's to say that China will be providing the primary funding? Secondly, if practical scientific concerns are your priority, considerations of climate and its effect on the disease should hold much more weight than "Well [country] gave the most money, so I guess they get to host the center."
-Victor Heinrich, Chief Military Adviser to Germany
I am considering the reality of the situation as it currently stands. China has taken the initiative and pledged 5 billion yuan already. If other nations can match their contribution, this discussion may change, but for now we are looking at a research station that is primarily staffed by Chinese people speaking Chinese languages using Chinese equipment. To that end, the money for this research could be spent significantly more efficiently if these people and equipment can stay in China rather than be moved to the other end of the world. Of course, the climate considerations may outweigh this, we will have to speak to our scientists to confirm that. But make no mistake, there are practical reasons for a Hainan-based base.
Again, nothing has been set in stone on this. China pledging 5 billion yuan (can we get that in game money? Is it just $5?) is the only factually true statement regarding their input you have made. Staffing it with primarily Chinese people speaking Chinese languages using Chinese equipment is conjecture at this point.
I applaud China for taking initiative and generating discussion, but the fact is that such discussion is necessary to determine the best course of action for the world. Making assumptions about the level of China's control, excuse me, contributions isn't conducive to that discussion.
-Victor Heinrich, Chief Military Adviser to Germany
+1
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
What is the deadline for submitting proposals for the next summit?
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
We, the people of Brazil, would like to applaud China's initiative in their stated goal of an internationally-run, internationally-funded research station. This goal is strongly aligned with our own. We would, however, need to stipulate that such a facility ought to be truly multinational and not headed by any one nation; likewise, neither should such a facility be headquartered in one such region so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety with such a potentially important scientific resource. We believe that housing such a facility on entirely neutral ground would give adequate satisfaction to the peoples of all nations that if a cure for this outbreak is found, it will be distributed without regard to nationality.
We look forward to working together with all nations on the details of this undertaking, and would like to request additional discussion regarding funding, as some nations are more (proportionally) economically positioned to contribute greater amounts than others.
As ambassador for Brazil, I look forward to a healthy compromise which I can feel confident voting for.
joshofalltrades on
0
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
Ah, it appears that I was mistaken on the official-ness of China's proposal.
My apologies to the esteemed Nigerian Ambassador -Tal.
0
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
There is no such thing as a truly neutral location.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
For Immediate Release NEW YORK (13 July 2015) - Today, Beijing's delegation to the United Nations has formally presented a draft proposal calling for the creation of a international scientific institution to be head-quartered on the island of Hainan, dedicated to the study and treatment of infectious diseases. "The Chinese Government believes strongly in the role of science in combating the spread of contagious diseases, and believe this proposed centre will be a large step towards further understanding highly infectious diseases and their patterns of infection. We call upon all member nations to support our proposal for the creation of the UNCSID [United Nations Commision for the Study of Infectious Diseases]." This comes on the heels of several further initiatives announced earlier today in Beijjing directed at limiting the spread of infectious disease.
The Chinese Delegation to the United Nations submits a Funding proposal for the creation of a infectious disease research centre. This centre is to be head-quartered on Hainan, and primarily funded by China, with contributions from other nations.
0
AuralynxDarkness is a perspectiveWatching the ego workRegistered Userregular
I don't think we have an official referendum on a research station yet, hoodie.
My understanding is that it's being proposed as something to vote on Day 2 by the Chinese. And now by Germany, with the Antarctica Iceland version.
The Chinese also rp-ified their research spending.
0
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
edited July 2015
How detailed do proposals have to be? For example, China's "funding proposal" is pretty vague with respect to expected financial contributions from other nations.
I'm not trying to pick on China, I'm just unclear as to how their proposal would be implemented. What exactly are we voting on?
There is no such thing as a truly neutral location.
Isn't the antarctic treaty you previously mentioned requiring that land be treated as a truly neutral location?
Geth's checking it out for you.
0
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
There is no such thing as a truly neutral location.
Isn't the antarctic treaty you previously mentioned requiring that land be treated as a truly neutral location?
It provides for it to be used only for peaceful purposes, that no military action be taken there, that whatever is done there is for the benefit of all humankind, and that no country recognize any claims for sovereignty.
This does not mean that it is a neutral location with regards to the placement of an international research station.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
The President of Russia is worried about providing logistics to such a remote location as Antarctica. Such a large operation so far from civilization may prove tricky and increase the cost.
There is no such thing as a truly neutral location.
Isn't the antarctic treaty you previously mentioned requiring that land be treated as a truly neutral location?
It provides for it to be used only for peaceful purposes, that no military action be taken there, that whatever is done there is for the benefit of all humankind, and that no country recognize any claims for sovereignty.
This does not mean that it is a neutral location with regards to the placement of an international research station.
I get what you're saying. From practical, logistical purposes, any location is going to provide advantages or disadvantages to certain nations, whether it's due to physical location or means of access.
A location being neutral ground does not make its choice a politically neutral one. Its location and complex logistical nature make it politically advantageous for some countries over others.
How detailed do proposals have to be? For example, China's "funding proposal" is pretty vague with respect to expected financial contributions from other nations.
I'm not trying to pick on China, I'm just unclear as to how their proposal would be implemented. What exactly are we voting on?
The only funding you can guarantee is a pot of UN specific money, which is enough to cover building an institution. If a proposal is ever deemed too large for the UN to cover, we'll work out how much extra needs to be put in when it get's posted at the start of the day and it'll be up to nations to volunteer funding to cover the gap.
So I am not sure exactly how this officially works, but:
I would like to put forward an amendment to the proposed resolution that would place a combined WHO research station for the virus in Iceland. Nations would generate funding for the research along similar lines with a decreased overall cost for everyone.
is that how this works? idk.
0
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
!vote Russia makes its feelings on Greece official. We should be focused on the actual global issue, not the local one that should be Greece/the EU's burden to bear.
The EU was made to support its countries financials. We do not see this local unrest being the burden of the world, nor do we see it as pressing as containment and cure of the disease.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
+1
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
edited July 2015
Iceland is a good choice for a lot of reasons.
1. It is not located in one of the 10 major countries.
2. It is easy to isolate, with a relatively cold climate (but not nearly as cold as Antarctica, barring perhaps the Antarctic Peninsula).
3. It is within 5000 km of the capital cities of 4 of the major powers (UK, Germany, Russia, US), and only slightly further for Egypt. Meanwhile, an Antarctic base is going to be, at best, within 5000 miles of only two major powers and more than 12,000 km away from 6 major powers!
4. It already has modern infrastructure, so we wouldn't have to build an entire livable area just for this project.
-Victor Heinrich, Chief Military Adviser to Germany
Hi I'm Vee! on
+1
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
What I'm looking at now for tomorrow is (this is a draft)
Topic: International Research Station Sponsors: China, Nigeria, Ect
The General Assembly,
A new research station station dedicated to understanding and researching the virus must be constructed.
We ask that the UN provides the funding to construct this station at a location agreed upon by diplomats
Diplomats must vote where the station is going to be based when they vote on the resolution - If the resolution passes the station will be built in the country with the most votes. If the resolution falls the station is not built.
!vote Russia makes its feelings on Greece official. We should be focused on the actual global issue, not the local one that should be Greece/the EU's burden to bear.
The EU was made to support its countries financials. We do not see this local unrest being the burden of the world, nor do we see it as pressing as containment and cure of the disease.
Gosh yes, I'm sure civil unrest in Europe will have no negative consequences with regards to attempts to contain and eliminate a deadly disease in.....Europe.....
!vote Russia makes its feelings on Greece official. We should be focused on the actual global issue, not the local one that should be Greece/the EU's burden to bear.
The EU was made to support its countries financials. We do not see this local unrest being the burden of the world, nor do we see it as pressing as containment and cure of the disease.
Gosh yes, I'm sure civil unrest in Europe will have no negative consequences with regards to attempts to contain and eliminate a deadly disease in.....Europe.....
I would add my feelings to this but the cabinet has said I'm not to speak publicly about Russia.
Why not build the facility in Spain, where it can double as a treatment center
In addition to the research that could be accomplished elsewhere, there would be a plethora of infected patients that can serve as test subjects for new treatments
The goal of this facility is to develop a cure to prevent this disease from spreading, and it appears many nations are concerned that placing it in any particular country will lead to a power imbalance should demand for the cure increase in the future
Why not place it where it can most immediately serve the people it is intended to serve
The delegation from Egypt formally proposes an amendment to China's proposed resolution, to have the facility built in Spain.
I'm questioning how much some people actually care about the Spanish outbreak versus care about it as a tool to solve a Eurozone crisis. The Maghreb is even closer to Spain than Greece is, but we aren't seeing the Spanish outbreak as an excuse to stop civil unrest there, are we?
I'm questioning how much some people actually care about the Spanish outbreak versus care about it as a tool to solve a Eurozone crisis. The Maghreb is even closer to Spain than Greece is, but we aren't seeing the Spanish outbreak as an excuse to stop civil unrest there, are we?
I believe you are underestimating the potential consequences of a financial collapse in Greece. It could lead to financial instability in the entire region, and hamper nations adjacent to Spain in their ability to keep the infection from crossing their borders
As a nation that is only a sea away from Southern Europe, Egypt is deeply concerned with maintaining the well-being of our northern neighbors, if for no other reason than to ensure our own health along with them.
I'm questioning how much some people actually care about the Spanish outbreak versus care about it as a tool to solve a Eurozone crisis. The Maghreb is even closer to Spain than Greece is, but we aren't seeing the Spanish outbreak as an excuse to stop civil unrest there, are we?
The Maghreb isn't the subject of the current resolution that is up for vote.
If the Nigerian delegation would like to propose such a resolution, they are free to do so.
Posts
Again, nothing has been set in stone on this. China pledging 5 billion yuan (can we get that in game money? Is it just $5?) is the only factually true statement regarding their input you have made. Staffing it with primarily Chinese people speaking Chinese languages using Chinese equipment is conjecture at this point.
I applaud China for taking initiative and generating discussion, but the fact is that such discussion is necessary to determine the best course of action for the world. Making assumptions about the level of China's control, excuse me, contributions isn't conducive to that discussion.
-Victor Heinrich, Chief Military Adviser to Germany
Last vote I see them make gets counted
All deadlines are day close, which are 1-pm GMT/5pm EST
No, troops cannot be transferred. It's up to both sides to coordinate what they want done.
My apologies to the esteemed Nigerian Ambassador -Tal.
For reference, here's the proposal:
My understanding is that it's being proposed as something to vote on Day 2 by the Chinese. And now by Germany, with the Antarctica Iceland version.
The Chinese also rp-ified their research spending.
I'm not trying to pick on China, I'm just unclear as to how their proposal would be implemented. What exactly are we voting on?
Center of the Earth.
And cede sovreignity to the mole people?
Isn't the antarctic treaty you previously mentioned requiring that land be treated as a truly neutral location?
Geth's checking it out for you.
It provides for it to be used only for peaceful purposes, that no military action be taken there, that whatever is done there is for the benefit of all humankind, and that no country recognize any claims for sovereignty.
This does not mean that it is a neutral location with regards to the placement of an international research station.
I get what you're saying. From practical, logistical purposes, any location is going to provide advantages or disadvantages to certain nations, whether it's due to physical location or means of access.
The only funding you can guarantee is a pot of UN specific money, which is enough to cover building an institution. If a proposal is ever deemed too large for the UN to cover, we'll work out how much extra needs to be put in when it get's posted at the start of the day and it'll be up to nations to volunteer funding to cover the gap.
Day closes in four hours from this post
Any missing votes count as the country abstaining, which is completely OK.
I would like to put forward an amendment to the proposed resolution that would place a combined WHO research station for the virus in Iceland. Nations would generate funding for the research along similar lines with a decreased overall cost for everyone.
is that how this works? idk.
The EU was made to support its countries financials. We do not see this local unrest being the burden of the world, nor do we see it as pressing as containment and cure of the disease.
1. It is not located in one of the 10 major countries.
2. It is easy to isolate, with a relatively cold climate (but not nearly as cold as Antarctica, barring perhaps the Antarctic Peninsula).
3. It is within 5000 km of the capital cities of 4 of the major powers (UK, Germany, Russia, US), and only slightly further for Egypt. Meanwhile, an Antarctic base is going to be, at best, within 5000 miles of only two major powers and more than 12,000 km away from 6 major powers!
4. It already has modern infrastructure, so we wouldn't have to build an entire livable area just for this project.
-Victor Heinrich, Chief Military Adviser to Germany
Topic: International Research Station
Sponsors: China, Nigeria, Ect
The General Assembly,
A new research station station dedicated to understanding and researching the virus must be constructed.
We ask that the UN provides the funding to construct this station at a location agreed upon by diplomats
Diplomats must vote where the station is going to be based when they vote on the resolution - If the resolution passes the station will be built in the country with the most votes. If the resolution falls the station is not built.
Gosh yes, I'm sure civil unrest in Europe will have no negative consequences with regards to attempts to contain and eliminate a deadly disease in.....Europe.....
I would add my feelings to this but the cabinet has said I'm not to speak publicly about Russia.
In addition to the research that could be accomplished elsewhere, there would be a plethora of infected patients that can serve as test subjects for new treatments
The goal of this facility is to develop a cure to prevent this disease from spreading, and it appears many nations are concerned that placing it in any particular country will lead to a power imbalance should demand for the cure increase in the future
Why not place it where it can most immediately serve the people it is intended to serve
The delegation from Egypt formally proposes an amendment to China's proposed resolution, to have the facility built in Spain.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I believe you are underestimating the potential consequences of a financial collapse in Greece. It could lead to financial instability in the entire region, and hamper nations adjacent to Spain in their ability to keep the infection from crossing their borders
As a nation that is only a sea away from Southern Europe, Egypt is deeply concerned with maintaining the well-being of our northern neighbors, if for no other reason than to ensure our own health along with them.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
The Maghreb isn't the subject of the current resolution that is up for vote.
If the Nigerian delegation would like to propose such a resolution, they are free to do so.