Dark Garden

Friday, August 22, 2008

Sorry for another hiatus. I'm pleased to note that 4 days can be considered a hiatus now as compared to one week in the past. The week has been rather rushed and packed with the Model United Nations (MUN) sabbatical AND the French controle which would be the equivalent of the Japanese CA. I have spent the last three days lobbying on MSN, writing position papers and resolutions. Yes, it is most depressing to not have received the position of a delegate of the P5 (Permanent 5) nations, especially when I'm in the SECURITY COUNCIL (described as the pwnzors). And yet, I acknowledge that I'll have to do my best with what I have, delegate of South Africa, Security Council. Yesterday and today have been especially exhausting as formal committee sessions were conducted and South Africa has attempted to put up a valiant fight against The United States of America, The United Kingdom and the French Republic. After half a day of debating on the joint resolution submitted by The United States of America and co-submitted by The United Kingdom, France and Burkina Faso, the resolution failed to pass with a vote of 9 for and 5 against. Funny how things in the Security Council work. A two-third majority was required for the resolution to pass. And since China was on MC, close allies South Africa, Croatia and Libya, managed to get the support from Vietnam and Indonesia. And we FAILED their resolution MUHAHAHA! But really, their resolution failed to grasp the problem at hand and deal with it according, having to many lofty ideals rather than concrete actions.

Of course they came back with a revenge killer. Today, they merely debated OUR (South Africa, Libya, Croatia and Vietnam) joint resolution for what? One and a half hours? The indignity! Considering that ours was much more comprehensive by stating the different steps to be taken to "Manage Religious Fundamentalism in South East Asia". With 10 clauses compared to their 7! And that FAT BLOB! A pathetic excuse of a delegate from FRANCE (I love the country in reality) actually called for a direct voting procedure on the resolution right before recess! I just removed my amendment and was going to submit a new one plus we had so much to amend. And she just used her influence, together with the US' and UK (FEI) to move right into direct voting procedure when it was so obvious that our resolution wasn't ready for passing and was in the midst of amendments! We got overpowered in the voting for the approval of the direct voting procedure. And the direct voting procedure was the most horrible of all. 2 for, 7 against, 6 abstaining. With two co-submitters Libya and South Africa abstaining and co-submitter Vietnam and main submitter Croatia for. Well, I kinda agreed with Libya on abstension because it was not a bad stance but it just had to be refined further. So we abstained...What angered me most was the unfair allocation of time for debate to US' first resolution and OUR first resolution. So you support the subjugation of smaller nations eh? France just motioned idiotically for direct voting procedure just like that and wow! It got passed? And ours was so much more comprehensive and down-to-earth! Gah!

In view of the UK delegate for Security Council betraying South Africa after forming alliances in the ECOSOC (Economic-Social) and General Assembly delegates of the UK, I have drafted out a declaration of dissatisfaction together with the delegates of Croatia and Libya:

TO: The United States of America, The United Kingdom, The Chair
COMMITTEE: Security Council
STATEMENT: Declaration of dissatisfaction at the level of integrity of certain delegates

SUBMITTED BY: Republic of South Africa
CO-SUBMITTED BY: Republic of Croatia, Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
CO-SIGNATORIES: Russian Federation, Indonesia, Vietnam

DECLARATION OF DISSATISFACTION

Fully aware that the delegate of The United Kingdom was absent on the day of the sabbatical when delegates were trained to write resolutions and thus most likely lacked the expertise in writing one given his lack of any MUN/MAS experience prior to this sabbatical,

Deeply disturbed by the fact that the delegate of The United Kingdom had given a negative response of “No” when questioned about the existence of his resolution the night before at 11.39pm,

Noting with concern that the delegate of The United Kingdom's box under the column "Resolution" was unchecked in the list of submitted position papers and resolutions at 8am on the day of the introduction of The United States of America's joint resolution,

Viewing with displeasure the blatant stating of The United Kingdom as a co-submitter of resolution 1.1 even with the delegate of The United Kingdom's repeated misinterpretation of and inability to answer the query about resolution 1.1 raised by the delegate of South Africa,

STANCE OF SUBMITTER AND CO-SUBMITTER NATIONS

Strongly affirms the questioning of the integrity of the delegate of The United States of America who allowed The United Kingdom to be a co-submitter of the resolution 1.1 he submitted without any significant contribution and the delegate of the United Kingdom for such an irresponsible act, as can be justified by the above preambulatory clauses, by demanding clarification of the following doubts:

The level of contribution made by the delegate of The United Kingdom to the resolution as a whole, most notably in the operative clauses,
The standards by which the delegate of The United States of America evaluates and then accepts a nation's contribution, if any, to the resolution to be eligible as a co-submitter,
The existence of a resolution by the delegate of The United Kingdom that is required for any merging of resolutions with The United States of America,
The stances of both delegates in concern on whether their word in the Security Council should remain credible,
The probability of other co-submitters of resolution 1.1 being aware of The United Kingdom's level of contribution to the resolution prior to its submission;

ACTION TO BE TAKEN

1. Calls for an immediate investigation to be conducted by The Chair with regards to this issue of integrity and the delegates of The United States of America, The United Kingdom and any other co-submitter nations who were aware of this but did not inform the chair to make an official apology, should the accusation of The United Kingdom being a co-submitter of resolution 1.1 with the sole intention of garnering support without having made any significant contribution to the resolution before, by the following means, limited but not restricted to ways, limited but not restricted to:

a. Making a public apology during the plenary session of 22nd August 2008 to all delegates from the 15 member states and three committees with regards to the felony committed and required to state:

i. an official retraction of all statements made during all committee sessions that is in line with the notion of The United Kingdom making any significant contribution whatsoever to resolution 1.1 or/and is an eligible co-submitter of resolution 1.1,
ii. a declaration of its support for or neutrality towards any resolution jointly submitted by South Africa, Croatia, Libya and Vietnam after the passing/failing of resolution 1.1,
iii. a declaration of discounting all of its votes made after the passing/failing of resolution 1.1 and prior to the introduction of this declaration, and the motioning for a reconsideration of voting for all failed resolutions introduced after resolution 1.1 it voted against,

b. Declaring to view all committee members and sessions of the Security Council with utmost respect and undertake its responsibility as a member state with responsibility and integrity;

2. Calls upon The Chair to take possible action against the aforementioned member states including The United States of America, The United Kingdom and any other co-submitters who may be involved, who fail to act accordingly to the terms of Sub-clause a, should the felony described in Clause 1 indeed have been committed, in the following ways, limited but not restricted to:

a. The entire replacement of the concerned delegate with a more competent and trustworthy delegate from the delegation to be decided by The Chair in the Security Council,

b. The removal of voting privileges or/and veto rights if any, of the aforementioned states;

3. Strongly demands that the delegate of the United Kingdom be awarded 0 credit points, and instead should be further recommended to an autism school or any local kindergarten for re-education on communication skills, should the delegate of the United Kingdom demonstrate any further apathy towards the delegate of the United States of America's exploitation of his retardation;

Credits go to Benjamin who helped add a few clauses and Yongzhi for providing so much help with his Declaration of Displeasure!

Dark Memories[11:08 PM]

_____________