SC Proposal: Condemn Minineenee

[HumanSanity]

Condemn Minineenee

A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.

Category: Condemnation

Nominee (nation): Minineenee

Proposed By: xoriet

The Security Council,

Beginning with the fact that Minineenee first entered the world stage in Autumn 2003 and since that time has participated in and orchestrated many egregious offenses against the community.

Bringing to light the first of the coups by Minineenee with the overthrow of The West Pacific on November 2, 2005, wherein Minineenee and their allies in the Core held absolute power under a declaration of martial law following the announcement of dissolution of the constitution with Minineenee as the sitting Delegate. The coup led to a period of instability and chaos in The West Pacific which persisted for many years after.

Observing that Minineenee spearheaded the formation of Empire, a notorious organization which operated under the cloak of anonymity which was achieved by the promotion of satellite nations to conceal their true identities. Minineenee, as the leader of the organization, drove Empire's formation and contributed greatly to the selection of regions targeted as well as the execution of each of these operations. Empire would go on to enact multiple coups or conduct such attempts on many significant regions across the world from 2008 onwards.

Deeply concerned by the coup of The East Pacific which was successfully carried out on August 16, 2008, through the satellite nation Lady Phedre and under the aegis of the newly formed Empire. Through the unlawful gathering of endorsements, Minineenee built up to the coup until Gnidrah was finally replaced and the satellite nation of Lady Phedre controlled The East Pacific. Minineenee's roles were as the ringleader of the group and as the head of the illegitimate government, where they most notably served as the Delegate of the coup government of The East Pacific for the duration of the operation. Over one-hundred nations were forcibly exiled from The East Pacific throughout the months in which the coup lasted.

Further disturbed by the execution of the unlawful seizure of Osiris on December 28, 2012 from the legitimately elected Pharaoh, an effort which was publicly spearheaded by Minineenee’s Empire allies Dalimbar and New Kervoskia but encouraged and driven by Minineenee behind the scenes, as credit for the inspiration and eventual execution was eventually attributed to Minineenee by the executors of the coup.

Discomfited by Minineenee and Empire garnering their core support from among numerous imperialist groups which historically also worked against the good of sovereign regions and their right to self-governance, such as Gatesville, The New Inquisition, and Great Britain and Ireland.

Perturbed by the effectiveness of early elitist propaganda issued by Empire under Minineenee's direction intended to battle the narrative of the natives of the regions who sought to reclaim their home regions from the invading forces.

Alarmed that Minineenee was further caught attempting to coup several other regions across their time, namely concentrating these efforts in the Sinker regions. Two such regions which Minineenee attempted to coup were:

• The Rejected Realms, both in 2011 and early 2015, attempted by subtly gathering endorsements from unwitting natives of the region through the use of hitherto-unknown satellite nations. Both efforts were outed before they could succeed.
• Lazarus during its seemingly free-for-all Anarchy phase in 2018 through solicitation of endorsements from unwitting natives and allies alike, an effort made before a stabilized new regime could be enacted by the native populace and which was ultimately thwarted by the then-current delegate, Imkiville.

Believing that Minineenee’s shocking efforts against the sovereignty of the natives across the NationStates world are worthy of international recognition and concerned that this has not yet been addressed.

Hereby Condemns Minineenee

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[HumanSanity]

I'm opposed to this resolution because I believe using the SC to support recognition for raiders and coupers goes against XKI's long standing tradition of opposing "Condemnations as Commendations" for nations which violate regional sovereignty.

In the case of a more traditional raider Condemn, we wouldn't even be having this conversation and we'd consider it open-and-shut that "well, it's a raider, and raiders don't get nice things, so no badge". However, with this proposal and the (in my opinion) manufactured distinction between couping and raiding, I've heard whispers that defenders can safely vote "For". I consider this incorrect.

The premise under which this proposal, and many raider Condemns, are offered is historical archiving and recognition of the "bad" accomplishments of the players involved. This frame for how to approach WA debates is deliberately ignorant of the way all WA votes are a function of politics and ideology for all actors. There is no such thing as a "neutral" SC vote, or one which simply "documents" history, since all SC votes are functions of politics and ideology. I can't really lift a finger about the content of this Condemnation, it is well research and well explained. However, in this fight to rewrite the narrative of acceptable actions, to recast Condemns as badges of honor for bad actions, we cannot waver from our belief that raids and coups are unacceptable and do not deserve any recognition. Sometimes, it's very clear what the ideological motivation of a propsoal is--for example, joWhatup's effort as leader of LWU to Condemn Raionitu, a leader of TBH. In this case, the ideological motivation is mystified by the author and their relationship to the subject, but that doesn't nullify the consequences of the proposal and the precedent it sets. This does not distance the proposal from the ideology that underlies it. The proposal still buys into the idea that Commends and Condemns are neutral documentations of the history of exceptional nations instead of political tools, thus creating the opportunity for manipulation by other actors. It buys into the idea a Condemn for "bad actions" is a justified SC tool in the name of preserving history, as if it isn't a recognition system for those who interfere with regional communities. Allowing Condemnations to be used as positive recognition, an eventual goal, for raiders or coupers to achieve subverts the purpose of the SC in preserving interregional good will and provides a recognition system for enemies of 10000 Islands and defenders to achieve their objectives.

Some may argue since Neenee's actions largely predate the Condemnation function of the game, they clearly weren't motivated by it. To a large extent, this is true, however it ignores the precedent these resolutions set. The nominee will not be the last to attempt wide-scale and persistent subtrefuge against sovereign regions and continuing the precedent that such subtrefuge will be rewarded with a badge is dangerous. This argument goes beyond the individual, it is structural: the SC cannot be used as something to aspire towards for raiders and coupers who are perpetuating bad actions.

Some would argue that's hypocritical to then use Commends for defenders. It's not. Defenders are doing something good. Raiders and coupers are doing something bad. The SC should promote doing good things and oppose doing bad things. It's actually exceptionally simple. The idea that raiders and defenders are two sides of the same coin is yet another ideological lie which attempts to paint raiding as neutral and defending as somehow nefarious. Defending proactively approaches the game with the welfare and consent of other regions and players in mind, whereas raiding is content to destroy and infiltrate those communities as fuel for raiders' own communities. Examples of defender failure are almost always constructed propagandic lies or isolated screw ups by inherently imperfect individuals, not evidence of a coordinated defender agenda to commit nefarious acts.

All efforts to present an idea of neutrality about SC ideology are in themselves ideological, and are often proactively fostered at some point down the ideological line by those who will torch native communities for their own ends. This is what we oppose. A strong ideology of defending in the Security Council is the only plausible answer to the ideology of supposed "neutrality" in how we evaluate defending compared to raiding and couping because this very philosophy of neutrality actively fosters acceptance of destructive practices in the international community. The demolition of innocent communities is never acceptable, and those who propagate this destructions hould be beaten at every available turn and denied every available tool to gain notoriety and advance their agenda.

[Eastern New England]

I was leaning for, mostly because I hadn't given this proposal very much thought. Reconsidering "condemn Minineenee" with HS' arguments, as well as having read over it, I am currently leaning slightly towards ABSTAIN.

[Thingvelir]

So after looking over this & previous SC resolutions, when if ever is it appropriate to place condemnations on a nation? Is it pageantry that only encourages raiders or are there times when applying such stipulations actually makes a difference?

FYI: new here & looking for perspective from the seasoned vets