United Nations policies?????

Question

Hey, below are three questions it would be awesome if you could answer, even just one or two. Thanks!!!

1.)If a country that is suppose to be your ally goes against its own policy and proposes a resolution that your true nations policy would reject, what should you do? Do you retain your alliance and sacrifice your policy, or do you hold on to your policy and sacrifice what should have been a alliance in the eyes of the committee? What is more important in terms of accuracy: your alliances or your actual written policy?

2.)If it is impossible to have your country's ideal policy pass in a resolution, how much of it should be comprimised? Is it correct to sacrifice a large amount of what your country wants in order to secure the remainder of it?

3.)If a delagate from another country openly slanders your country and your country's policy, how do you react?

Answer 1

1) Although alliances are very important, the stated policy of a country with the consent of a majority of it's citizens should be considered paramount. Unless of course that policy goes contrary to international law and agreed expressions of national behaviour eg not making war unless attacked, not oppressing segments of a population etc. 2) In negotiations, issues must be prioritized in order of importance. Therefore some policies could be sacrificed but there has to be a recognition that negotiation is a two way street. 3) Slander is never an acceptable form of behaviour, and in an international forum is even more unacceptable and must never be tolerated in any form. My reaction would be to appeal to the moderators of the organization and failing that, I might consider curtailing my participation accordingly and on whatever levels I deemed appropriate.

Answer 2

Your first question makes no sense. The ally nation in question has every right to act according to its own laws. In fact, their laws should precedent an alliance proposal. A nation should learn to but out of what an ally nation is doing even if called upon by the weaker nation in question of being retaliated upon. Keep your allies your allies before you rush them into enemies. A few political squabbles will doubtfully effect your alliances. As per compromises, they are essential go as low as 40 to 60 on compromises. Any less would make your own policies inferior and unworthy, but do not at all costs black ball your competitor’s ideals. Learn to compromise despite the way you feel. It is better for all involved, generally. React calmly and efficiently towards a delegate who is hostile and berates your own policy. It is doubtful they mean any harm towards your nation or policy in its entirety. Perhaps it is a particular quarter of the policy or maybe a person in general that is clouding this delegate’s personal views into becoming political ones. Keep an open mind and consider what they say patiently and then state your own options in defense. Each case is individually based.

Answer 3

1. I would probably hold to the policy. Holding to actual policies makes for better accountability than changing due to what other states do.

2. It surely depends what the resolution is? Any steps towards the ideal resolution however might make it easier to get more of it passed later.

3. Diplomatically? You can take the floor and respond.