Honorable ambassadors,

please allow me to defend our proposal mainly based on the argumentation of what Ambassador Graves has brought forward.

Quote:Firstly, Article I, Section B, between Subsection 1 and 2, where the idea that this assembly can impose legally binding resolutions is an absurd overstretch of powers that is fundamentally undemocratic. The idea that a corrupt and undemocratic nation such as Ryccia or The Frost Empire can have an equal say on a resolution to bind the laws of a democracy such as The United States of Izaakia or Sedunn is quite frankly absurd. 

1) I don't think, that giving countries, especially members of this organisation, a right to speak, propose resolutions and vote is undemocratic, even if they themselves would be undemocratic. Otherwise we would need to prohibit voting to all voters, who are far-right or far-left or liberal-anarchists in our democratic countries. To be honest with you, I find prohibiting someone to speak and vote far more undemocratic than to let them have that right and also it would go against one of the main principles of this organisation, which is, as our Speaker has mentioned, to provide a forum to all Pacifican nations. It's without question, that extremists - even though I'm not sure we have many or any of those as members of this organisation here - need to be fought against democratically. This could happen, as Ambassador Frere pointed out, by just arguing against those members and their resolutions or by voting against their proposals. On the other hand: Not all their proposed resolutions would be binding or, even if so, would affect anything, that a democratic government should or could be against. The fact alone, that a traditional monarchy e.g. brings in a resolution proposal, doesn't make their arguments or suggestion less valid.
 

Quote:Secondly, In Article II, Section C, Subsection 1 the removal of the requirement for disputes at the International Court to be voluntary. In an organisation where you are proposing that defendants in an international court case are disqualified from leadership of the world forum, this act opens up the international court process to politicisation and exploitation for nations to illegitimately put forward their own agenda. 

2) With the removal of the word "voluntary" we are just making sure, that the International Court has the ability to judge states and entities, that are not directly tied to this organisation or aren't able to file a complaint here. I would like to remind you of the Romordian situation. The Romordians have not or were not able to come to the International Court to file a complaint, thus, because NAGB is not part of this organisation, the WFIC was not able to suggest a peacekeeping mission in NAGB to restore peace, stability and potentially save the Romordians. Instead you felt the need to go in there, which ended up in you being trialed at the International Court for a disruption of peace and stability. I think, it should be in your own interest to support that amendment, so that the Assembly and the International Court alike have an undisputable right to act upon similar situations as in NAGB.
 

Quote:Thirdly, Article III section 2b the prohibition of the use of threat or violence, is a fundamentally naive view of a world where military action is often necessary to maintain one’s sovereignty and security, and often to prevent injustice in a foreign nation. The rigidity of this section is unreasonable, as is the particularly well written section 6, which implies that this legislation is unimpeachable.

3) In our view, nations don't have anything to do or restore within another nation's border in principal. There are exemptions of it, where violence might be necessary, that's right, but it should never be one of the first actions to be taken, but one of the very last measures in an emergency situation.
 

Quote:Fourthly, Article IV section 2, the world forum should not have the ability to impose new laws on nations who do not ratify changes to the world forum. The assembly fundamentally has no rights to do so, and it insist on such a measure undermines the democratic rights of nations and their citizens.

4) We disagree. In any democracy, if a law is passed by more than 1/2 of the parliament's members or, if the law is substantial enough to the principle of the state, if a law is passed by 2/3 of the parliament's members, the other members of parliament and their voters need to abide by those laws they argued and voted against too. Otherwise we would live in some kind of anarchy. You refer to a provision that asks not only for the support of 2/3 of this Assembly, but also of 2/3 of the national governments in the member states. We think, this quorum is set high enough, that (1) if it is met, that it is more than justifiable for this Assembly to accept those amendments fully and (2) it is likely enough to not be met in cases of very divisive amendments to the Charter, e.g. a prohibition of nuclear weapons or fundamentals that would make this organisation more than it needs to be. Also it is worthy to note, that the current version of the Charter already contains the provision. We just made it clearer in its language, so potential grey zones are removed. You accepted the old Charter by the way, so you accepted the provision already, thus arguing against it seems kind of hyprocritical to me or, if not that, shows you haven't taken a good enough look at our Charter.
 

Quote:Fifthly, Chapter 2 - Additional procedural resolutions, Section A - Introduction of World Forum Resolution 1c - Membership, Section D 1, a member has their rights suspended after another member initiates a motion against said state. This rule presumes the guilt of a nation without backing or democracy, and is open to abuse by hostile state entities to remove the voice of a nation from this forum without a reasonable basis.

5) Please read the rest of WFR 1c, Sec. D to notice, that a suspension upon motion has certain requirements and thus a hostile state cannot simply remove the voice of a nation in this forum by themselves. Please also refer to proposed WFR 1d, Sec. F, Subsec. 2, Letter i which lays out, that a suspension of a member is one of the more detrimental standard measures to take and thus its proportionality would need to be laid out by that "hostile member". In other words: A suspension of a member is not as easily reachable as you make it out to be.
 

Quote:Sixthly WFR 1d – Debate and voting procedures, section B, 2 & 5, it is as mentioned previously undemocratic to allow foreign nations, many of which are not democratic to impose binding legislation onto a democratic nation. Specifically on section 5, where IC judge choices can be politically motivated by the speaker.

6) As for my seemingly alternative views on democracy, I already said everything. As for the insinuation against the International Court, let me remind you again, that the judges at the International Court are independent from the Speaker. They can also become active against a member of this Assembly by themselves without the Speaker asking them to do anything. I don't think, it is alright to discredit our independent organ here in the Assembly in such a way, just because you are hurt about the fact that there are two trials against your nation currently.
 

Quote:Seventhly, WFR 1d - Debate and voting procedures, section C - 2 banning the use of unparliamentary language is a violation of both sense, and rights to free speech, which in this assembly should be paramount. There should be no topic or accusation that is off the table, and speech should not be curtailed. We should be able to call a pig a pig, and mr speaker this suggestion is a pig.

7) I agree, that there should be no topic barred from discussion in this Assembly. I disagree with unbased accusations against anyone. However what you principally object here, I can follow and thus I would agree to adopt Ambassador Frere's proposed amendment to our resolution draft and have undignifying language prohibited instead of unparliamentary language. This suggestion is also good, as it defines better what I meant with "unparliamentary language" and prevents potential future Speakers not coming from a fully democratic member state to limit the potential discourse. Thus I thank you for your constructive criticism on this draft.
 

Quote:Eighty,WFR 1d -Section F2, L and M are in direct contradiction to other elements in this set of reforms, such as Article III section 2b.

8) You argumented yourself, that violence can become necessary sometimes and I agreed with you there. It's just that principally speaking, violence and threats should not be an option, however under certain circumstances they should be available to this organisation and their members.
 

Quote:Ninthly, Chapter 3 Between Section B, Subsections 2 and 3, is fundamentally against the right of nations to be innocent until proven guilty, an open case against a nation should not be a reason to prevent their accession to the speakership, especially when the bar is to be set so low for initiating a case.

9) The bars for suspension and expulsion are definitely not set low. The bar for a trial at the International Court is indeed set lower, however the Interational Court decides upon an appeal to it, whether they see the need to open the desired trial or not. And if they decide that, an organ consisting of several independent judges from several member states with often opposing political views, well then I suppose, it's not to be taken light-hearted that a trial is going on against your state.
Furthermore we do not make an end to the "innocent until proven guilty" policy of democratic judicial systems like this one. We must protect the World Forum however from nations becoming Speaker, where a higher probability of them having violated our Charter and its principles exists, because if they become Speaker and have either been suspended or expelled recently or are proven guilty during their 12 months term in the Speakership, they could and will bring this organisation in discredit. This cannot be in our, the World Forum's, interest.

Helene Meise
Ambassador of the Federal Republic of GI-Land