The short answer is that it’s both; as the Charter puts it, the Council is tasked with both “monitoring and responding to regional security issues.” These aren’t separate areas of responsibility, but rather components of a holistic approach to keeping our region secure. By proactively making contingency plans, the Council can aim to streamline its reactive actions in an emergency. By reactively responding to acts of hostility against an ally, the Council can proactively stay alert for potential actions taken against the Coalition itself. In some cases, the line between proactive and reactive can be unclear. Are proscriptions in response to the invasion of an ally a reactive measure to that invasion or a proactive measure against potential hostilities against the Coalition? Would the rescission of an emergency Citizenship Committee appointment be a reactive response to that appointment or a proactive guard against how that appointee might handle applications? The distinction, at some point, is academic — the Charter tasks the Council with being both proactive and reactive, and in my view, that holistic approach is more effective than an approach more narrowly focused on one or the other.