We reiterate in the strongest terms possible our opposition to clauses 6 and 7. Additionally, we have less than zero interest in advocating membership in this body to our allies as envisioned in clause 8. That they are not members is often a bonus in our relations with them.
Clause 10 remains a complete non-starter for us. We maintain less than zero interest in enforcing sanctions and embargoes over insufficiently zealous beekeeping, parameters of pillows, or adherence to whatever far more sinister radical left-wing cause du jour has become popular on any given day. We would encourage our radical leftist enemies to join in this view, as they should equally have no interest in enforcing sanctions and embargoes over insufficiently zealous military spending, IP protections, gun rights protections, etc. There remain numerous other options for enticing compliance than engaging in acts of warfare.
The new wording of clause 11 has taken us quite by surprise and we must register an objection to it. We have no opposition, in principle, to codifying permission for committees to exist, but believe this to be too broadly worded and in need of refinement, preferably in such a way as to deny committees the ability to create new substantive requirements beyond what is contained in a duly passed and voted upon resolution or at the least to sharply limit it in scope.
In more depth, we believe that clause 6 is entirely unsalvageable. We will not ever, under any circumstance, support a clause that purports to extend the scope of compliance beyond the actual written text as it was voted upon and promulgated. We embrace the use of creative and malicious compliance to undermine the more asinine pronouncements of this body and zero interest if leveling hypocritical criticism at others for doing so, even if we do not necessarily agree with them. Again we implore nations to join us here in regard to proposals we might like that they do not. What is good for one is good for all.
In terms of clause 7 we agree with the Regina Imperatrix Elisabetha. It is entirely possible to recognize a requirement to comply with a resolution without pretending it is some form of holy text given forth by Iupiter Pater and the Dii Consentes themselves. We are reminded of an anecdote from the popular MMO The Real World in which the fictional polity of Arkansas legislated that the water level of the Little Rock river was not allowed to rise above a certain level. The river, being subject only to the laws of Nature and Nature's Gods, did not comply.
We might, albeit grudgingly agree to something like "Member states are required to treat as a solemn obligation compliance with world assembly law, to treat it as equal in standing to the most solemn laws and foundations of the state, and to transcribe it into their national law in the best practicable manner" or something similar that acknowledges that member states have undertaken obligations when joining the WA without embracing the rush to turn this body into the unelected, unrepresentative government of a de facto multi-versal single state.
