Pallaith's Security Council Application
- Thread starter Kaschovia
- Start date
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- Zyvet#9958
I have a number of questions for the applicant.
I would like to ask about whether you consider the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council to be adequate and whether you would, if on the Council, support the amendment of the Rules of the Council so as to create a disclosure mechanism? (particularly, though not exclusively, I would like to know whether you consider the present state of disclosure in relation to discussion of applicants to the Council to be appropriate, given the paucity of information that it leaves this Assembly to make its decision with)
Would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council, in order to provide for the disclosure of information, require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?
There have been two recent applications to the Security Council, one of them your own, which have required the Council to vote on whether to nominate the applicant or not (the other being Siwale's). If you had been on the Council in time, how would you have voted in relation to Siwale, what concerns would you have about their application, and what do you think were their merits?
Your application to the Council was voted on by only two members of the Council (a minority of the whole voting membership), and in two of the three most recent votes other than the one on your application a minority of members of the Council were, effectively, able to reject an applicant. Do you have any opinion on this?
What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?
I would like to ask about whether you consider the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council to be adequate and whether you would, if on the Council, support the amendment of the Rules of the Council so as to create a disclosure mechanism? (particularly, though not exclusively, I would like to know whether you consider the present state of disclosure in relation to discussion of applicants to the Council to be appropriate, given the paucity of information that it leaves this Assembly to make its decision with)
Would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council, in order to provide for the disclosure of information, require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?
There have been two recent applications to the Security Council, one of them your own, which have required the Council to vote on whether to nominate the applicant or not (the other being Siwale's). If you had been on the Council in time, how would you have voted in relation to Siwale, what concerns would you have about their application, and what do you think were their merits?
Your application to the Council was voted on by only two members of the Council (a minority of the whole voting membership), and in two of the three most recent votes other than the one on your application a minority of members of the Council were, effectively, able to reject an applicant. Do you have any opinion on this?
What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?
Alright Zyvet, thanks for the questions.Zyvetskistaahn:
Disclosure requires a very tightrope walk. We have to be sure that while opening up the SC's process to the public, we do not allow unnecessary distractions of conflict that are the result of private deliberations and SC members speaking their mind. Other than that, I would be comfortable with the SC releasing the discussion of applicants, provided that the specific concerns don't involve high level security considerations. But if it was objective analysis going over the specific history of the applicant or something, I don't see why that couldn't be released. Admittedly, I am rather unfamiliar with the SC disclosure process, but if there are examples of what I just described, I think there would be some room to move on this.
The SC discussion about amending rules to disclose information is probably safe to release, but it depends on if any specific cases are cited, or if they go over sensitive things in the process of debating it. If it stays abstract, it should probably be fine.
If I had been on the Council, I would have also voted against Siwale's nomination. He needs more time in the region and has yet to be tested in elected office. I do know that if he had been nominated, h would go on to be an active and engaged member of the SC and has already proven himself when it comes to endotarting. Time is really the only missing factor for him as it would give us more to go off of and allow his experiences to broaden even more beyond HA and Speaker's office.
I do not like the fact that we can only muster a couple of votes in the SC at any given time. This is why I support the effort to bring in more members, and hope that we will see new faces (even if they are old members) on the SC in the near future. I do trust the opinion of the SC members we do have, so while it is unfortunate only two can decide for the rest, it is not necessarily a horrible thing if we're in a pinch and a minority votes. Long term it is something I want to avoid.
I believe that if someone manages to earn a nomination to the SC, that counts for something, and so long as the SC member serves with distinction and does not violate his/her terms of office or is disgraced, letting them come back as already being nominated is not an issue. I do believe the SC should always have the option to revoke a nomination, and I am confident they will if the situation calls for it. I also trust that someone who merits losing the nomination will not pass muster in the RA, even if the nomination is not revoked.
Hope that addresses your questions.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
NM - should have read the entire reply above. 
Owenstacey
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- HuksGares
Siwale:
Darcania:
With the motion and the second, the vote has been scheduled to begin in two days (14/08/2017).
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- Zyvet#9958
Would it be possible for the Vice Delegate to procure for the Assembly some statement of the views of those members that did not vote in relation to this application?