An Honourable opportunity?

[Walter and Theodor]

Would people consent to putting this on the NS boards?– it’s a quick and easy way to publicise the region and we in Walter and Theodor would like to think that the spirit of it is kind of nice as well and might even a confuse a few preconceptions about anarchist politics. Maybe people think it’s a bad idea? Or perhaps they would modify it in some way?

Would anyone volunteer to be a contact point if nations did start to take it up?

As follows:

The communes of the Anarcho Communist Alliance wish to announce the establishment of The Honourable Council of Foreign Delegates.

The young region has been graced with the sociable and advisory presence of a number of the world’s illustrious former and current regional delegates. Recognizing that some of these nations are sympathetic to the aims of the Anarcho Communist Alliance at the same time that their involvement is limited by their leadership responsibilities in libertarian , anti-capitalist, socialist , and communist regions elsewhere the Anarcho Communist Alliance wishes to honour their contribution. We therefore seek to establish The Honourable Council of Foreign Delegates as a body that can be consulted by the younger nations of the Anarcho Communist Alliance that aspire to international organization and influence.

The Council is advisory only, a sort of philosophical panel of experts, and holds no authority to institute policy, procedures or laws but it does come with an open invitation to any and all festivals, parties or impromptu celebrations within the Alliance. We are looking for members and would be happy to receive applications from and nominations for anarcho-communist councillors with past or present experience of regional delegacy. We would hope to see the establishment of embassies in our region to build bridges with other libertarian-socialist/anarcho-communist nations.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

W&T - I think it's a really good idea - but it may be a little too soon to institute and formalise liaison with other regions etc through a regional foreign council.

I hate to seem bureaucratic about stuff, but I think internally we need to formalise how and when we elect the UN representative for the region, and I also think we should institute a policy of members actually signing up to pledge/aims/principles of the region published on this forum.

(I'd also like for us to have a process by which we establish whether any member has acted contrary to those principles and what action may or may not be taken)

If not we are a loose affiliation of reasonably like-minded members. If that is what members prefer I have no problem with that but think that formalising international relations in such circumstances would be inappropriate.

However, if we are all committed to a set of principles both the UN representative and the foreign relations representative have a clear set of guidelines.

[claptonpond]

I agree that we should be a bit more organised internally.

In particular, we need some rules as to how the UN delegate votes, since they're effectively voting on behalf of all the UN members who endorse them. My view is that the delegate should vote on each resolution according to a consensus reached on this forum, or abstain if we can't reach a consensus.

[Walter and Theodor]

Good point(s). I agree.

I also agree about the UN voting - that has been my concern as well. I think Clapton Pond's suggestion is a good one.

I would be interested to see how far we could take consensus here.

[theyellowspot]

Clapton said:

In particular, we need some rules as to how the UN delegate votes, since they're effectively voting on behalf of all the UN members who endorse them. My view is that the delegate should vote on each resolution according to a consensus reached on this forum, or abstain if we can't reach a consensus.

Second that emotion, in the Anti-Capitalist Alliance, everytime there is a vote up in the UN they do a poll to see how the delegate should vote, and the delegate is bound to that decision. I'd like to see this, as well as delegates being immediately recallable in the event they do something the members of the Alliance don't like.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

I agree with immediate recall, perhaps prompted by a vote of a given number of members (5?) which does not need to be a majority.

[Rosalux]

There's a big gap between concensus and majority-rule (which is what the AntiCapitalist Alliance does, really).

And do the non-UN member nations get a voice? If so, how?

[theyellowspot]

Guest-rosalux said:

There's a big gap between concensus and majority-rule (which is what the AntiCapitalist Alliance does, really).

And do the non-UN member nations get a voice? If so, how?

Though I could possibly convinced to change my mind, I can't really see why non-UN members would really need a voice in what the UN delegate does as UN decisions don't effect them. as for the consensus/majority-rule thing, i like the idea of the recall vote being prompted by 5 members, and i would say some kind of super-majority (two thirds, more?) to recall, simple majority is definitely not good enough. Maybe consensus (or super-majority?) for delegates voting on measures. Maybe astention if we can't reach consensus.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

1. I like the idea that the UN delegate would be recalled and a new election held if 5 members voted for it.

2. I don't believe non-UN members should have a vote in the UN delegate election, or on issues. Once elected I think all UN members should endorse the successful candidate.

3. Non-UN members could vote on any foreign liaison delegate. (Same recall status)

4. On UN issues I think it should be a simple majority of those who cast a vote.

5. I don't really like super-majorities, they are often the catalyst for catatonia.

6. Voting can be a way to shed responsibility for understanding issues and considering options. Regardless of majority voting, super majorities, blah blah, we should commit to listening to each other's passion on any given subject. (That wasn't meant to sound glib, it did, but it is still true)

[FreeLandofAIM]

I think a loose affilaition with single member nations is better, and they should be approached individually.

Concerning the UN, a new 'law' brought in affected my UN status, the 'law of the sea' resolution. I read on the NS forum that because of a loophole in that resolution, a nation is Rping putting nuclear silos off the coast of every UN member nation.

I think also that non UN nations should have a say on how a UN delegate votes and on how other UN members vote also.....it could get on rocky ground and lots of deadlock wrangling, but we should work something out.... I hope WC sees this thread.

AIM

[workerscommunes]

Hello there. This is indeed an interesting discussion. Voting on most UN resolutions has so far been fairly straightforward as they have tended to be left vs. right or authoritarian vs. libertarian in nature. However I agree that we should debate the resolutions on the regional message board just to ensure that we are all in agreement. I think the delegate should then vote in accordance with the majority's opinion, with those who disagree temporarily withdrawing their endorsement. If there is no clear majority then the delegate could simply abstain.

The views of non-UN members ought to be taken into account as they could persuade others to their way of thinking.

For security reasons I also think a vice delegate ought to be elected. If we were to be invaded and the delegate or founder was not present to eject the hostile nations, a number of nations could withdraw their endorsement for the delegate and the vice delegate could enter regional control and do this. Alternatively, I could just restrict the delegate's access to regional control permenantly so that there is no risk of a successful invasion. Hopefully though such a situation should never arrive.

[FreeLandofAIM]

Excellent suggestions WC.

[zigtag]

While the founder is also the delegate there is no need to have delegate controls turned on. That deals with the security issue.

[FreeLandofAIM]

good point.

[claptonpond]

I've taken the liberty of starting a thread to debate the current issue, even though we haven't formulated a procedure yet.

I think we should at least aim for consensus.

WC's idea that "the delegate should then vote in accordance with the majority's opinion, with those who disagree temporarily withdrawing their endorsement." is a good one, I think. As long as we have an active founder, withdrawing endorsements shouldn't cause any security problems.

I agree that the delegate should be recallable too.