Woshkal's longing for the middle road
Whoever meats Ian Woshkal in these days and listens to him when he speaks about the planned International Democratic Union Council may easily be surprised. In the last days, the government started a great publicity campaign for the IDUC to make the people vote "yes" in the plebiscite which will decide whether Saidercray will join the Council or not, once it's finally established. Woshkal insisted upon participating in a lot of events, commuted between the cities of Saidercray and Klouch, far in the north-east of the IDU, where the debate about the Council takes place. Vis-à-vis with Saidercray Today, he proclaimed: "I feel that something great is going to originate, and I am proud to be able to participate in this." Is this really the same man who announced after his victory in the 2004 Presidential Election that he wanted to make Saidercray a model for other states without allowing other states to force laws upon it? Is this the man who reluctantly applied for Saidercray's UN membership some months ago because a plebiscite compelled him to do it? Yes, he is it.
For if you examine more closely on Woshkal's change, you'll ascertain that there hasn't been such a great change at all. Apart from a failed draft for an anti death penalty resolution and the participation in the election of the delegate, Saidercray's UN policy restricted itself to voting on some resolutions and is far away from showing eagerness or initiative. "The initial hope to saidercrayanize other UN states via resolutions from our side dissipated when we were confronted to a system where many blocker resolutions such as the so-called Fair Sentencing Act prohibit real changes in many parts. The good things we can still export to the UN do therefore not measure up to the bad things we get from it", says the PPJ's General Secretary Howard Tolcan.
Woshkal shares this negative attitude towards the UN. Now as before, he is the model state creator who's ambitions in foreign policy are more or less limited to economic aid to developing countries of the third world and to the role of the negotiator who tries to prevent international conflicts from escalating. He really welcomes exchange of views with other states, but he wants to remain the master of his own house, sharing his power with the parliament and the people, not with multinational organizations. Since our country's first hour in the United Nations, he wants to leave them, but he knows he can't do this. Unless he offers a better alternative to the people. Now, the new Council can become this alternative the President longs for. The only thing he has to do, and that's what Woshkal's trying at the moment: He has to convince the people that a Saidercrayan membership in the Council is good, and that it is better than a membership in the Council and in the UN.
The scenario of a membership in both the UN and the Council would be Woshkal's worst nightmare, for then he wouldn't have one, but two international legislative organisations above him. It's not enough if the new organization seems to be nice, it has to be excellent and much better than the UN. Only then, the double strike - withdrawal from the UN plus accession to the Council - can succeed and Woshkal's Saidercray would be nothing more than a founding member of a small organisation who's resolutions and decisions it could co-design and co-determine from the first day on.
idunews
For if you examine more closely on Woshkal's change, you'll ascertain that there hasn't been such a great change at all. Apart from a failed draft for an anti death penalty resolution and the participation in the election of the delegate, Saidercray's UN policy restricted itself to voting on some resolutions and is far away from showing eagerness or initiative. "The initial hope to saidercrayanize other UN states via resolutions from our side dissipated when we were confronted to a system where many blocker resolutions such as the so-called Fair Sentencing Act prohibit real changes in many parts. The good things we can still export to the UN do therefore not measure up to the bad things we get from it", says the PPJ's General Secretary Howard Tolcan.
Woshkal shares this negative attitude towards the UN. Now as before, he is the model state creator who's ambitions in foreign policy are more or less limited to economic aid to developing countries of the third world and to the role of the negotiator who tries to prevent international conflicts from escalating. He really welcomes exchange of views with other states, but he wants to remain the master of his own house, sharing his power with the parliament and the people, not with multinational organizations. Since our country's first hour in the United Nations, he wants to leave them, but he knows he can't do this. Unless he offers a better alternative to the people. Now, the new Council can become this alternative the President longs for. The only thing he has to do, and that's what Woshkal's trying at the moment: He has to convince the people that a Saidercrayan membership in the Council is good, and that it is better than a membership in the Council and in the UN.
The scenario of a membership in both the UN and the Council would be Woshkal's worst nightmare, for then he wouldn't have one, but two international legislative organisations above him. It's not enough if the new organization seems to be nice, it has to be excellent and much better than the UN. Only then, the double strike - withdrawal from the UN plus accession to the Council - can succeed and Woshkal's Saidercray would be nothing more than a founding member of a small organisation who's resolutions and decisions it could co-design and co-determine from the first day on.
idunews
posted by oculus @ 11:54
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home