Esteemed delegates,

It seems increasingly clear that a serious discrepancy has emerged between empowering the World Forum to respond to crises, and enabling it to routinely overrule the principles of national self-determination.

Arguments stating that "nations don't have anything to do or restore within another nation's border in principle" ring hollow with the introduction of binding resolutions which, by their very essence, are means by which nations may affect events in other states. It is alarming that member states would be forced to adopt binding World Forum resolutions as legislation potentially even over disagreement from the people of that country.

The World Forum is not a government; it is a forum of governments. Directly applying the ideas of democratic government to a forum of governments may seem logical, but if we did so, there would no longer be a need for national governments. Instead, we must recognize that each and every nation has its own unique cultural, historical, and socioeconomic background. Each and every nation has its own political systems. Each and every nation has its own population. These aspects of a country will never be homogenous, and we should never seek to paint all member states in broad strokes via binding resolutions; because even if a majority or even supermajority of the member states here vote in favor of a resolution, foreign powers still should not have the right to impose their own beliefs on the people in a country who may not share those beliefs. Unfortunately, this is precisely what binding resolutions would impose onto those countries voting against them.

Of course, this is a different matter if and only if it becomes clear that the governments in place in a country may not be truly representative of its people. While it is alarming that the deployment of military personnel via a peacekeeping mission or international blockade can be accomplished with only a simple majority, with clearer safeguards, the process of standard actions may be workable. For this to be the case, however, clearer standards of proportionality, or a more clearly defined hierarchy of what actions are more severe than others, must be established. Simply stating that actions taken must be proportionate reveals good intentions but also a mechanism ripe for abuse.

Thank you all for your time.

Robert Sontheimer,
speaking as the Representative of Esfalsa