Although I may be able to appreciate Gorundu's insight on the matter, I must respectfully disagree with his position on this.
As past instances have shown us, Wonderess' "philosophical statements on the community of the region" can often be mistaken as being condescending in nature and his rhetoric can oftentimes be inadvertently seen as though it was meant to belittle us or preach to us as to how we should be doing things - much like how Lore commented above.
Indeed, Wonderess is a very distinct personality in the region and although I will admit that I have been a political adversary of his in the past I too generally find that he can be a respectful and thoughtful individual at times, much like Marcus does. Wonderess may say that Lore is unwilling to see the positive aspects of his presence in the region, but whether or not this is true (which I don't believe it to be), I want to make it clear that I am willing to see the positives and I am willing to publicly acknowledge them if and when they become apparent at a given time.
That being said, at this juncture, I do not believe that Wonderess is fit to be a Security Councilor and I would strongly discourage the Regional Assembly from overturning the Security Council’s recommendation (or in this case the lack thereof). My reasonings for this are as follows:
Firstly, I'd like to note that simply because an applicant to the Security Council has experience in public service, that is not what should be used to compare them to other civil servants who are currently on the Security Council. At no point should public service alone be the bar by which we assess others because there is a multitude of factors that contribute to a Security Councilor being qualified to hold office and whether or not they're successful in the role.
Of course, having a track record of valuable service to the government or a record of contributions to the community will always be an important indicator of one's engagement with the region. But the reason why I say that this alone shouldn't become the bar by which we assess future applicants is because doing so narrows our standards for the qualities that we desire in our Security Councilors. I firmly believe that focusing solely on this would be a mistake and would prove as a distraction when attempting to view the overall picture of things.
There's nothing wrong with being a vocal critic of the government or regional institutions, and I'd even go as far as to say that Wonderess' promotion of fundamental regional values such as free speech and free expression is admirable, especially when he knows that he'll receive heavy criticism for his views. That is another positive aspect of Wonderess' character, and once again I'm always willing to concede positives when I notice them.
Wonderess is a strong-willed individual who doesn't deviate from what he believes in the face of widespread public opinion. That itself can be considered a positive trait, but where I have an issue is how Wonderess remains seemingly oblivious as to how comments such as these reflect badly on his perceived sense of commitment and loyalty to the region.
Going back to his comments on how he "will not protect the existence of a regime if [he] finds it broken", I find that his brief departure from the North Pacific coincides well with this and makes an even stronger argument for what Lore was saying above. At that time, Wonderess found something to be broken with our government but rather than acting to correct it or improve upon it for the good of all North Pacificans he instead decided to abandon the region for a period of time.
This lead me to consider: If admitted to the Security Council without the recommendation of its members, what would happen if a would-be couper or disrupter were to express views that more closely aligned with Wonderess' own? How would he react? Would he sympathize, and more importantly, would he aid? These are all discussions that have taken place before, and while I don't personally doubt that Wonderess actively seeks what he deems to be "the good", I do also recognize that his definition of that good is completely arbitrary and if given the choice to trust or not trust I simply wouldn't rely on Wonderess' own discretion for the same reason Lore cited: the "shadow of a doubt" factor.
Circling back to what I could only identify as being oblivious, Wonderess routinely questions why others doubt his commitment or doubt his loyalty to the region without recognizing that it could be in part due to his own actions - actions that speak volumes and have communicated a message that contradicts his claims. When we're making a choice about who to admit and who not to admit to the Security Council there should
never be an instance in which we continue to question this and still overturn the Security Council's recommendation despite this. When I spoke to Wonderess and told him how some of his comments could be seen as condescending he even admitted that he was unaware of this prior to me communicating that to him and said that he hadn't even considered it from that perspective.
Frankly this isn't relevant. This application should be decided on the merits of the applicant only, not on past precedent.
I completely agree with you in saying that this application (or any other for that matter) ought to be decided on the merits of the application itself. However, I do not believe the precedent of the situation to be irrelevant in this case and the fact that this body has not overridden the Security Council’s recommendation in over a decade is a fact that should be very telling to us all.
I believe that what Artemis has said here allows us to reflect properly upon the significance of this event and truly understand the gravity of potentially overturning the Security Council’s recommendation. Seeing as to how there is no mechanism for the Regional Assembly to regularly re-confirm or re-affirm Security Councilors on an annual or every sixth-month basis, this poses an interesting question to the citizenry that addresses whether or not we’d like to have Wonderess sit on the Security Council for an undefined amount of time that’s not respective to a term length,
During this time, the time in which Wonderess would hypothetically be serving as a protector of our region if his application were to be upheld by the Regional Assembly, he would need to work with others currently on the Security Council to ensure that he’s doing his duty in the most effective manner possible. That being said, if sitting Security Councilors have already expressed doubts about his ability to serve and do the aforementioned duty effectively then I feel as though there’s reason to believe that he may have a difficult time working alongside members of the Council who have displayed a lack of trust or confidence in him.
If there's any reason to suspect that this indeed may be the case, which there is, then I'd say that it doesn't bode well for Wonderess' application.
We need Security Councilors who have the self-awareness to know how their actions and their words affect others in the region, and at this point in time, I don't believe Wonderess has checked the box on that criteria even if I know he means well and even if I perceive his intentions to be pure (which I do, for the record). No applicant is perfect and I'd never expect Wonderess to be a perfect applicant. But in my opinion, when looking to the overall picture and weighing the positives against the negatives, Wonderess leaves a fair amount to be desired and I do sincerely hope that improves with time.
It is something that can improve with time, and it's something that I believe Wonderess would consciously endeavor to improve in time. But right now? I do not see this as a Security Council-ready applicant for the reasons I've stated herein.
