Honorable Speaker,

I take your concerns very seriously, after all we are hoping on passing a resolution that all members of this Assembly can agree with. Therefore I would like to comment on your criticisms.

1) The concern about a potential over-politisation of the WF I cannot follow completely. The World Forum is a political organisation and it has decided politically, especially when it comes to memberships, already. This is why in our proposal we set the voting threshold to achieve membership in the Forum down from a 2/3 to a simple majority. As for the extensive use of standard measures: My delegation would be willing to add alternative vote requirements for standard measures, especially for detrimental measures against states, like a peacekeeping mission. However I'd like to remind you, that this is why we emphasized on the principle of proportionality in the context of standard measures. Whenever such one should be taken, the member who aims for having the Assembly adopt such a resolution must explain the necessity of such an action. It needs to have strong reasons; the more detrimental the to-be-taken measure, the stronger the argumentation needs to be. I believe that the Assembly and, if the targeted individual seeks recourse at the WFIC, our Court will take a correct approach to use those standard measures.

2) You mentioned it would be unclear on how the standard measures would be carried out. I disagree. As it is written in the proposed Res. 1d, Sec. E, Subsec. 2, S. 2 "[t]he resolution draft can also regulate, in which way the measure shall be carried out". In case the resolution does not regulate, how those measures shall be imposed by the Assembly and the standard resolution passes, each member, who voted in favour of the resolution decides themselves how they implement this kind of measure. Let me assure you, that if such a resolution passes on the grounds of wanting to impose "light economic sanctions" and then a member intervenes militarily, that this would be a breach of this and the passed resolution and the member themselves would be sanctioned by the Assembly and the International Court alike.
Here we would be also open to amend our proposal in such a way, that the extent of the measures, that are to be taken, must be clear instead of making that clarification voluntary. However, I'd like to remind the Assembly that this will ultimately lead to even longer procedures to pass such a resolution and limits the members of this Assembly even more in their "freedom of policy" than our current proposal already does.
As for the objection, that the WF doesn't have the resources to implement the standard resolutions: Yes, but this is not the sense of the standard measures. The standard measures are a quick procedure for the Assembly to pass resolutions on states and other entities, that violate our ground principles, which are basically the minimum that humankind can mostly agree on. The implementation happens through the individual members, namely those who voted in favour of the resolution. If they can't act upon it, the resolution stays a piece of paper.

3) I agree, the World Forum was and is supposed to be a place, where countries that don't think and act alike can discuss and negotiate and hopefully find a common ground. However these changes are targeted against the shortcomings of our organisation, that were ridiculed by members and non-members alike. How can we be an organisation stating we work for peace and human rights, having an International Court that should be respected by those who violate basic principles of humanity, and so forth, if we cannot and may not take action for it? If we merely want to be a discussion forum, we can do it like the Peony, take over Café Sonata and have some chitchat every half-a-year without the need for results coming out of it. I do think, this organisation aims to be more though and if that is a problem for a member, they can - just as you pointed out - either not be a member of this organisation thus isolating themselves or they can be a "simple observer", who has only the right to speak, but not to vote, but therefore does not need to fully accept our Charter and thus our common ground.

4) The fear of binding resolutions being implemented always now, I want to take away from you. You are not the only country fearing for too much intervention of this organisation. Our partners from Frost, who are also founding members of this organisation, are one of the biggest critics of plans to make this organisation bigger and more interventionist than it needs to be. This is why we connected binding resolutions to a 2/3 majority in the Assembly to pass them. We would be open to increase the needed support to up to 3/4 of the Assembly, however we do not think, we should drop our proposal of binding resolutions, because we've seen how certain members of this Assembly cherry-pick certain rulings, that we would've thought are clearly binding to everyone, with the reasoning, that their national policy is always above that of the WF. It has to be clear, that this was and is not the case.

I hope, I was able to take away some concerns from you and other members, who had or have similar doubts about our proposal.

Helene Meise
Ambassador of the Federal Republic of GI-Land