Statement from the Chair on the Events in Osiris

[Sandaoguo]

Statement from the Chair of the Assembly of the Coalition of The South Pacific

Regarding recent events in Osiris

As a matter of principle, I must publicly dissent from the statement issued by the Cabinet of the Coalition of The South Pacific regarding recent events in Osiris. Because the presumption of Cabinet statements is that the Cabinet is acting unanimously, I feel compelled to issue a public statement to distance myself from this unfortunate decision. While I respect the institution of the Cabinet and its individual members, I feel that the recent decision all but recognizes as legitimate the Venico regime in Osiris. Many have said this is the right decision, but as a person with the courage of his convictions, I must break with popular opinion in this instance. I do not believe it is best for Osiris. I do not believe it is best for The South Pacific. I do not believe it is best for the Gameplay community as a whole.


The facts are these:


On 10 December 2013, Venico announced that he, Cormac, and Ambroscus Koth had placed Osiris under the tutelage of the Brotherhood of Malice. Accusing certain members of Osiris, who are also members of a loose group of players know as “The Empire,” of being “defender subversives,” these three engaged in an extra-judicial purge of long-term members of the region. They created a new forum to replace the original Osiris forums that have existed since the region’s creation, so that they could have sole administrative authority over the breakaway community. The three usurpers then instituted a new citizenship policy, requiring all citizens to swear an oath of allegiance to the Brotherhood of Malice. Lastly, Venico imposed a draconian identification requirement for all nations entering Osiris, violating principles of the right to privacy and the very purpose of a Game-Created Region to serve as a default location for nations in the game.


All of these are hallmarks of a coup d’etat. It is simply undeniable. Those who argue that Venico did not commit a coup are driven by ideology, or are a little too naïve in their good intentions, enough to be tricked into dissolving the principle of sovereignty for Game-Created Regions. Unfortunately, the Cabinet falls under the latter situation. While certainly having good intentions, my fellow Cabinet colleagues clearly have not considered the long-term impacts their Cabinet statement will have on The South Pacific and the Gameplay community going forward. Failure to condemn the imperial takeover a Game-Created Region, let alone a coup d’etat, will inevitably lead to these events becoming more and more acceptable. As a matter of foreign policy, it is unconscionable.


Additionally, the actions of this Cabinet go against the express desires of the Assembly, as outlined in the repeal of the Osiris-TSP Treaty. It is a reversal of previous Cabinet policy, which was enacted unanimously in response to the original coup d’etat by Astarial. To me, it is clear that the other members of the Cabinet are guided by a desire to renew relations with Osiris for the sole purpose of renewing relations. Little consideration went into the implications of calling for future cooperation with an unconstitutional regime. This reversal of long-standing principles is unacceptable. I cannot in good conscience remain silent and be assumed complicit in this decision. While the long-term goal of having amicable relations with Osiris is one that I share, we cannot ignore the current state of events. We can value cooperation and uphold the principles of Game-Created Region sovereignty and democracy. Sometimes, we must stand up for what we believe in, even if it means losing short-term ground on pan-regional cooperation.


Furthermore, I must respectfully voice my strongest disapproval of those who maintain citizenship with this unconstitutional breakaway regime. By registering for citizenship in the breakaway forums, these people recognize the legitimacy of the Venico regime, contrary to the determination of the Assembly that the post-Kemetic Republic regime is illegitimate. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to swear an oath of allegiance to the Brotherhood of Malice, the region currently occupying Osiris as an imperial power, which is a requirement for the citizenship application. I call on all those who registered for citizenship to immediately resign it.

 

I realize that it is unusual for a member of the Cabinet to break publicly with his colleagues. The Cabinet normally acts unanimously, or when it doesn't, individual Cabinet members do not publicly express their disagreements with Cabinet policy. However, this is a matter of first principles for me. I would not be releasing this statement otherwise. Some may believe this to be an offense worthy of recall, and I respect that, although I disagree with the assessment. I do not believe the Cabinet as an institution will be harmed by one of its members revealing what people already know: that there are moments when the Cabinet is not unanimous. With the new Sunshine Law, the people of The South Pacific will have full access to the discussions that occurred, anyways. Furthermore, the foundation of democracy is the freedom of expression. The ability of elected officials to feel comfortable expressing their true opinion without retaliation is not only a fundamental aspect of the freedom of speech, but it serves the public interest by allowing the people of The South Pacific to know what their elected officials actually believe.

 

I also want to make clear that this statement does not reflect a broader disagreement with the Cabinet. This is only one small area with which I fundamentally disagree and must break rank. I still agree with the grand strategy on which Escade and Kringalia ran. I simply do not believe this particular decision was made with a full consideration of its potential impacts. I hope that I am proven wrong in my assessment of those impacts.


Thank you,

Sandaoguo
Chair of the Assembly

The Coalition of The South Pacific

[Belschaft]

That was a contemptible statement. The South Pacific operates under a system of collective cabinet responsibility; you were aware of that when you ran for office. Once the cabinet has settled on a course of action, it is your duty to publicly support that course of action - if you cannot do so, the only honorable thing to do is resign. I can think of no occasion in the entire history of the Coalition that a Cabinet member has acted as you have done so here.

 

Further, the fact that you have chosen to do so now, undermining a first time Delegate on literally her second day in office, make this even more appalling.

[Unibot]

We elected Glen knowing he was a man who'd stick to his principles -- it's good to see he keeps his promises. I too was disappointed with the Cabinet's statement and it's comforting to see that at least one official I voted for disagreed with the statement. TSP is in safe hands with strong, independent-minded officials who shoot from the hip.

[Sandaoguo]

Belschaft, I fully recognize the extraordinary nature of this statement. I am not ignorant of the tradition of the Cabinet to maintain a united front. However, I feel that I was compelled to express my honest opinion, which is a right afforded to me by the Charter. Throughout my entire career in Gameplay, I have been a steadfast proponent of the sovereignty of Game-Created Regions. It is the core of my political beliefs in this part of the game. Because I see the Cabinet statement as abandoning the principle, I must speak out against it. Not only is it wrong for people to pressure or bully me into silence, but it is wrong for me to effectively lie to the people of The South Pacific. You all deserve to know where I stand, so that you can make the determination that I am or that I am not worthy of my elected office.

[Belschaft]

If you cannot support Cabinet policy publicly, resign and oppose it in the Assembly as a private citizen. That is the only honorable and principled course of action.

[Sandaoguo]

I do not believe resignation is required to express disagreement with my Cabinet colleagues. Indeed, establishing that kind of behavior will simply encourage groupthink within the Cabinet. The Cabinet is an elected body. We all know that there will be disagreements. When those disagreements are serious enough, I support the right of individuals to publicly express their thoughts. Collectivism can easily become anti-democratic, if Cabinet members feel that they will be ostracized for disagreeing with their colleagues.

[Rebel-topia]

Firstly, its not assumed that the cabinet releases statements unanimously. Its a majority. Even in such a small group, its rare that six people will all have the same mindset in dealing with a problem. Therefore, not every cabinet member will always get exactly what they want with any collective, official release.

 

Secondly, theres a difference between not agreeing with the official statement the cabinet released, and single handedly undermining a cabinet statement that, like it or not, is the position the majority of the cabinet.

 

Your statement here today is most unbecoming of an elected official!! If you cannot support the majority rule of the cabinet, you do not deserve to belong to such a position.

[StGeorgie]

 

 

Furthermore, it is inappropriate to swear an oath of allegiance to the Brotherhood of Malice, the region currently occupying Osiris as an imperial power, which is a requirement for the citizenship application.

This isn't true, actually. The current oath that new citizens are required to say is as follows:

 

 

I, [Name], swear that I have, to the best of my knowledge, been completely truthful in applying for citizenship in the Osiris Fraternal Order and that I have no other NationStates identity that has not been made known to the Pharaoh. I swear my allegiance to the Osiris Fraternal Order, its Pharaoh, and its citizens, and I swear not to engage in hostilities against the Osiris Fraternal Order or to violate its laws and rules.

 

Asta's removing of the BotD also wasn't a coup d'etat. It was a move supported by the citizens of Osiris at the time as well as within her authority as delegate of Osiris. You were wrong when you said it made her regime illegitimate and you are wrong now.

 

This is typical Glen-Rhodes grandstanding and the fact that you are using the offiice of the Chair of this Assembly as a platform for this is contemptible in the extreme. You should resign in shame.

[Hileville]

As Minister of Foreign Affairs I feel I must publicly state my disapproval of this statement and behavior.  Never in my history as a member of this region has a Cabinet member broke the majority opinion of the Elected Officials and released a dissenting opinion.  You were outvoted by a vote of 5 in favor and 1 opposed to the statement we released.

 

I formally request you submit a resignation.  If you do not I will have no choice but to draft and submit a Motion for your Recall.

[Unibot]

Firstly, its not assumed that the cabinet releases statements unanimously. Its a majority. Even in such a small group, its rare that six people will all have the same mindset in dealing with a problem. Therefore, not every cabinet member will always get exactly what they want with any collective, official release.

 

Secondly, theres a difference between not agreeing with the official statement the cabinet released, and single handedly undermining a cabinet statement that, like it or not, is the position the majority of the cabinet.

 

Your statement here today is most unbecoming of an elected official!! If you cannot support the majority rule of the cabinet, you do not deserve to belong to such a position.

 

You said this Cabinet release was unanimous and called me "crazy" and told me "nobody thought the way I did" -- then I learn, one of our elected officials thought the same way and you've been trying to silence him???

 

The Cabinet is not an assembly and there is no legally established system of "votes" in Cabinet nor any law that a Cabinet ministers should shut his mouth if he disagrees with the Cabinet. It's totally off the books and used to silence and suppress dissenting voices in Cabinet.

 

We elected Glen-Rhodes. The South Pacific elected him. The cabinet did not.

 

He has a responsibility to The South Pacific, not to the Cabinet and not to you or Belschaft's made up principles, he has a responsibility to The South Pacific. I for one support him for standing up what he believes and saying what needed to be said. I also think the Minister who took G-R's viewing privileges away should be the one who is recalled. Hileville, your calls to pressure a Minister is disgusting and I hope you receive punishment for your actions, Hileville. I am disappointed someone I voted for would speak out against the democratic process (as is written in our laws), that person is not Glen-Rhodes -- it's you, Hileville. 

[Rebel-topia]

Unibot... I think you've got me confused with SB... I said nothing of the sort. And, though there is no legally established system of votes, the cabinet has always worked on a system of "majority rule" when it comes to any vote.

[Sandaoguo]

RT, there is a presumption of unanimity. If disagreements exist, they aren't voiced. It's assumed the Cabinet is a "united front" on the policy. As I stated earlier, this has its benefits, but it can also be very anti-democratic if taken too far. Additionally, because this is an issue I care so deeply about, I felt that I could not allow myself to be associated with the decision. I believe the Cabinet can easily weather an instance of disagreement on a significant issue as this. Cabinet members have disagreed with each other in public before. The only thing I did differently was release a formal statement.

[Arbiter08]

Article 2: Bill of Rights

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;background-color:rgb(221,221,221);"> 

1. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of thought, belief, and opinion.
   
2. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of expression, including the freedom of press, notwithstanding expression be considered unjustifiable as per the Criminal Code.
   
3. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of peaceful assembly.
   
4. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of association.​.  
   

<p style="margin:0px;">G-R is a citizen right?

[Kris Kringle]

[quote name="Arbiter08" post="111171" timestamp="1386972153"]Article 2: Bill of Rights

1. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of thought, belief, and opinion.
   
2. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of expression, including the freedom of press, notwithstanding expression be considered unjustifiable as per the Criminal Code.
   
3. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of peaceful assembly.
   
4. All citizens are entitled to the freedom of association.​.
   

G-R is a citizen right?[/quote]

This is not the Bill of Rights. I will not further comment on this for the time being.

[StGeorgie]

G-R should re-acquaint himself with number 4 there before demanding citizens resign from OFO.

[Belschaft]

The rights of citizens are not the same as the responsibilities of Cabinet members.

[Arbiter08]

Thank you for clarifying.

[Arbiter08]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Arbiter08" data-cid="111171" data-time="1386972153">
Article 2: Bill of Rights

<ul class="bbcol decimal">[*]All citizens are entitled to the freedom of thought, belief, and opinion.
[*]All citizens are entitled to the freedom of expression, including the freedom of press, notwithstanding expression be considered unjustifiable as per the Criminal Code.
[*]All citizens are entitled to the freedom of peaceful assembly.
[*]All citizens are entitled to the freedom of association.​.
</ul>
G-R is a citizen right?
 

This is not the Bill of Rights. I will not further comment on this for the time being.
 


</blockquote>
I know it isn't the full bill of rights, it's just the section I wanted to show.

[Kris Kringle]

You misunderstand. This is the former Bill of Rights. It isn't valid anymore.

[Unibot]

We're not entitled the freedom of speech anymore? That's an odd development for a democracy. :/

[tsunamy]

You misunderstand. This is the former Bill of Rights. It isn't valid anymore.

 

This is the Bill of Rights.

 

Article 2: Bill of Rights.

1. Nations that reside in The South Pacific shall be afforded all rights contemplated in this article unless otherwise noted.
   
2. The freedom to voice their opinions on all matter of their interest, including the peaceful criticism of the Coalition and its government, on both the Forum and the Regional Message Board, subject to reasonable restrictions established by the Assembly that do not violate the spirit of the Charter.
   
3. The right to contact the government on all matters of their interest and receive a prompt and adequate response from the relevant officials.
   
4. The right to defend themselves in the judicial system of the Coalition of The South Pacific with all the guarantees of a speedy hearing and due process of law.
   
5. The right to apply for citizenship and have such an application promptly accepted, subject to requirements of citizenship, or otherwise denied under reasonable causes, with the right to an appeal to the appropriate officials.
   
6. The freedom to reside in the region of The South Pacific, and the right to not be ejected or banned without reasonable cause and due process of law.
   
7. The freedom to determine to whom their endorsements are given, subject to the duties and restrictions established in the Charter and the Code of Laws.
   
8. Voting and being elected to an office under the Coalition of The South Pacific shall be rights afforded only to citizens.
   

[Southern Bellz]

I am very disappointed in GR for releasing a statement like this which directly attempts to undermine the policy of a new delegate who has been in office for less than a week.  I apologize to Escade for my fellow's actions, because never has a cabinet member publicly released a statement telling off the government.  For the record, I am all for GR stating that we was not in-lock step with the rest of the cabinet, and even detail his disagreements, that is the right of every citizen of The South Pacific.  But to issue a public statement like this directly undermines the foreign policy efforts that Hile and Escade as MoFA and delegate.  It is not the chair's job to issue statements on foreign policy, GR has directly jeopardized foreign policy efforts by this cabinet.  I will not get into details, but the foreign policy efforts goes beyond issuing statements.  Do you think all we do when a major GCR has a new government is issue a statement and move on to the next issue?

 

Ultimately, I feel GR has grossly violated his responsibility as a cabinet member and issued a statement far outside of the scope of his responsibilities, that directly attacks the position by the elected who was ELECTED to direct this region's foreign policy.  I regrettably have to advocate for a recall.

[Southern Bellz]

We're not entitled the freedom of speech anymore? That's an odd development for a democracy. :/

 

Free speech is not the right to issue cabinet statements that undermine the foreign policy efforts by the minister of foreign affairs nor the right to say anything without political consequences.

[Kris Kringle]

Let's make something very clear. GR as a citizen can point out that he does not agree with the course the Cabinet has taken. He has not right whatsoever to release a statement as Chair of the Assembly undermining the position of the government he belongs to. He does not determine the foreign policy of this region, and if he has any objection he can discuss them with the Delegate, as he in fact was offered before he released his statement.

[Unibot]

It makes no sense to say The Chairman can vote on these issues and be political in those regards, but The Chairman cannot publicly "say" what he thinks from his position. Under that logic, it's fine for the Chairman to hold political opinions behind closed doors, but it's not okay for him to voice them outside of the secret Cabinet meetings. That's a disturbing depiction of our democracy.

 

HE'S VOTING AS CHAIRMAN ON THESE MATTERS?? -- why is he not allowed to SPEAK AS CHAIRMAN ON THESE MATTERS???