Thanks for the information Sil. Thanks for the response Cretox.
I look at this and it seems like the major issue was a perceived lack of continuous activity in the region.
It makes me wonder, given Cretox's absurdly short time period in the region, how could he have demonstrated he is able to contribute continuous activity? He has not even been here for a year so it feels weird that we are drawing conclusions about Cretox's commitment from such a small data set.
This weirdly gives me the impression looking at the two different applications that being newer to the region is going to help give you an advantage in applying to the Security Council...
I guess I can see why you would think that, but that is not the case. In my case, I am operating under the assumption that Cretox, having in my view met the other qualifications I would consider necessary (and more important than length of time in the region), will continue to do so in the months ahead. It’s not hard at all to imagine someone else who has been in the region for a short period and working in a ministry who nevertheless is not qualified in other ways, and therefore would not win the SC’s support. An arbitrary period of time is not some magic bullet that makes someone safe or automatically qualified. It simply allows people to more easily lend their trust and have ample evidence to support their beliefs and convictions about someone. Some people need that time to cast that vote - as I have said, if that is the case, I understand why they would need to vote against this confirmation. A couple on the SC voted precisely on these grounds, and I respectfully disagree with them but understand why they did it.
The obsession with activity, as some have called it, is an interesting charge. I have long heard how activity is a perceived problem for the SC, one we have been trying to work on. I supported Brendog’s application, and my take on that vote is that “sustained activity” means something different than how I think it’s being viewed here. Brendog has undoubtedly been an active part of our region over a sustained period of time, and he finished his work whenever he had it. However, his service overall came with starts and stops, and he’s not always readily present for any given term. That’s not a bad thing, and is true for many in the region, but this was enough for some people to decide against supporting him for the SC. It was not enough for me, because as I have said, I value other criteria more, and don’t believe that arbitrary chunks of time should be held above all else. It is still my belief this council should have supported him and nominated him. It isn’t really fair to either of them to try to compare them to each other, though. I can see how it’s useful for people to learn how SC members evaluate and vote on nominees and to draw conclusions from past votes, but every applicant is unique and brings experience and a record that has to be weighed along with everything else we know about the applicant. It’s a judgment call each time. We should continue to consider each applicant on their specific merits and not try to make them and every applicant before them fit into the same cookie cutter mold.
Waiting for more time to pass is easy. Anyone can wait out a clock. It’s also undoubtedly the safer thing to do. The longer someone is around, the better odds you have of getting a better sense for who they are and how they react to different scenarios. More information is always a good thing. I completely understand why people would prefer to have more time before making this decision. But I don’t believe in this being an impassable line any more than I believe the number of SC members is some impassable line. Each member of the SC made a call on this applicant as we have in previous votes, and it doesn’t bind us to future votes, because the next applicants will present their own challenges and realities for us to reckon with.
I don’t want you guys voting on this nominee out of some fear that it’s setting some new or dangerous standard, I hope that you vote based on your own criteria while taking into account what we on the SC have also said, and decide for yourself how best to dole out your trust and what standards and qualifications you wish for the applicant to meet to become a member of the SC.
