Bananaistan wrote:Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:*Box containing compromise*
"We hope this may be viewed as a compromise, although we understand that extreme elements on both sides of this issue may be hard to please."
"This is no compromise. The war party could easily propose and dupe voters into passing a subsequent resolution barely restraining or controlling either national or international forces. "
"The Princess will, of course, join your Banananess in attempting to defeat any proposed organization of a World Assembly military. And you are certainly right that anything short of an outright ban allows the possibility of clever future authors trying to skirt the edges and gut what we're trying to do here."
"Nonetheless, we believe this language - or something substantively similar - would be a valuable compromise between the War Party and the Peace Party, for several reasons. First, something more pro-peace seems politically untenable at the moment, particularly because the author is a member of the War Party and has emphatically stated that they will not include an outright ban on WA members waring eachother, or on a WA military, in this proposal.
"Secondly, on the level of philosophical principle, this language declares the WA's commitment to peace between WA members, and by the WA as a whole, as our expected presumptive status quo. Absent such a declaration of intent, there would be an uncomfortable silence in this proposal that might one day be filled with a much less pleasant noise."
"Third, this language would be easily consistent with any future WA resolution restraining members from warring on each other or otherwise attempting to prevent the formation of a WA military. Put differently, this language does not guarantee a right to 'consensual' war like we had before. Presumably a win for both the Peace Party and the less-maniacal members of the War Party."
"Finally, pragmatically, this language would require future authors to make an open declaration of the extraordinarily compelling cause to justify a proposed use of force against other members or by the WA. Hopefully the requirement to justify will be an impediment against more radical or stupid warmongering. Granted, use of such force would remain possible as a compromise to the War Party. But how is that result different from what we would have in the world where this amendment is not included? "
Kenmoria wrote:Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “That is a very intriguing proposal. I will have to confer with my… colleagues about it, but it seems supportable. Those are just the sorts of statements of principle that are important for the General Assembly to state here. At least, they are in my opinion.”
"Thank you for your consideration. Please let us know what you and your shadow counsel decide. We would like the opportunity to respond to your decision before this is submitted for a vote, if possible."
- Ambassador K. Twinklebright