Leaving the World Forum was the right choice for Esfalsa.
By Marian Hoerger September 26, 2022
Amid an abundance of international crises, there has been one organization that has remained conspicuously silent: the World Forum. Even as its regular business may continue, the World Forum Assembly has yet to hold much debate, let alone take any action, on crises in Valora, Hazelia, or Doge Land, and terror attacks across the South Pacific. Aside from the occasional condemnation, other debates have stagnated or simply have not been held at all.
When reforms like standard or binding resolutions were introduced to the World Forum, they were meant to be “quicker and not tied to expansive formalities” and to prevent any members “see[ing] themselves above” the consensus of the Assembly. Recent events have revealed major flaws in this vision for international cooperation.
If anything, the pace of activity in the World Forum has decreased, not increased. This may not be directly attributable to these reforms, but it is a symptom of the root causes of stagnation which cannot be addressed simply with a catalogue of standard actions. Ultimately, procedural shortcuts are not useful when there is little genuine appetite for international cooperation, at least on a global scale. While many nations eagerly criticize the unilateral actions of states such as Izaakia, or condemn terrorism across the South Pacific, few take the step of proposing concrete global actions towards shared goals. Arguably, while sentiments may sound remarkably similar in official statements, those statements are also where the motivation to act ends.
Similarly, an attempt to prevent members from simply defying the World Forum misses the mark. Such a change was always a reaction — and an overreaction at that — to unilateral Izaakia action in Nicholas and Great Britain. But it has done little to reign in Izaakian actions and overlooked non-member states and non-state entities that represent a threat to regional peace and security that is just as large, if not larger, than any threat ever posed by Izaakia. That’s not to say that unilateral actions should be tolerated or encouraged, but it is true that unilateral actions by some states have been met with much softer words than the criticism faced rightfully by Izaakia.
In light of these shortcomings, many nations are looking elsewhere. Even as existing international organizations falter, many Central Cordilian world leaders have floated the idea of increased cooperation, ranging from security cooperation to a full-fledged Central Cordilian Union.
None of these are the hallmarks of a successful international organization. While at the time of its withdrawal from the World Forum, Esfalsa primarily objected to a blatant disregard of national sovereignty, it’s unclear whether joining again would serve its interests even with those changes repealed. The World Forum has shown itself to be an organization all to prone to stagnation, and even its flurries of activity can all too often be misguided.
Instead of seeking to work through the clutter of complicated international relations, the Herdes administration has largely reverted to traditional Esfalsan neutrality. Most recently, this has been shown by its avoidance of unnecessary public comment on crises that have little to do with Esfalsa, the gradual but steady progress of the Esfalsan Free Trade Initiative, and a consistent business-friendly posture in contrast to turmoil elsewhere in the region.