My point is that the current observer status is completely useless; why pay the expenses of continuing to send a delegation when we can simply find the details of the deliberations in the annual report online? There is no distinction between observer and non-member. Rabarac is surrounded by many IPO members, and has military, diplomatic, and economic relations with many more members, who are affected by the resolutions passed. We cannot pretend that IPO does not affect those nations who are not members, for it does. Rabarac has a vested interest in the decisions of the IPO, but not at the expense of deferring to the authority of any supranational organization with, currently, extremely vague goals and methods. Improving observer status would allow the concerns of nations to be heard by the IPO body, while maintaining a nation's sovereign decision to abstain from the IPO itself.
This is not a discussion of the legitimacy of a nation's decision to not be in the IPO; if that decision is marginalized or looked down on, if a nation is condemned, openly or internally, for remaining outside the IPO, then the whole purpose of the IPO will be subverted. IPO is not an elitist club of nations who can use their unified clout to bully nations into joining or face complete isolation. But this is not the discussion.
Clearly we can all see that IPO's actions do affect non-member nations, if not directly, then still indirectly and powerfully. It would be undemocratic to not allow those nations who choose to not be full members for whatever reasons to have their concerns heard in the deliberation process. I will gladly author a resolution if there is a member nation who would propose it. *Looks to Cantr.*
OOC: This is how observer nations work in the UN, for similar reasons, I imagine. They can participate in deliberations, but not vote.