@Nat: Our bill of rights already protects people’s views: “1) All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies”

Yes, I am aware. However, I think it would still be good to add something to the resolution so that it is clear that TSP is a defenderdom (right word?) which welcomes those who disagree. It would be pretty much there for symbolism. But really, a fair bit of this proposal seems to be about symbolism (not saying there is anything bad about that). If this is the statement TSP makes to the world about our military principles, we should also state that we welcome those who disagree. To not do so would be to omit one of the key considerations we have regarding our military principles. At the very least, I see no harm in adding it.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

@Nat: Our bill of rights already protects people’s views: “1) All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies”

Yes, I am aware. However, I think it would still be good to add something to the resolution so that it is clear that TSP is a defenderdom (right word?) which welcomes those who disagree. It would be pretty much there for symbolism. But really, a fair bit of this proposal seems to be about symbolism (not saying there is anything bad about that). If this is the statement TSP makes to the world about our military principles, we should also state that we welcome those who disagree. To not do so would be to omit one of the key considerations we have regarding our military principles. At the very least, I see no harm in adding it.

Rights clauses belong in the Rights & Freedoms section of the Charter, and at that point we’re just duplicating what already exists to provide special assurance for something that already can’t happen (and that nobody has even suggested). The freedom of association is what currently allows people to join other orgs & regions that might cause them to be discriminated against without the freedom. It was actually added just for that purpose, really.

@Tsu: In this context, liberating means specifically breaking a raider military’s hold on a region they’re trying to lock down (and likely refound as a trophy). When these regions are liberated, we would have an opportunity give them advice and whatnot on how to structure their government going forward.

I don’t think anybody (except I guess Bel?) is advocating George Bush-ing the SPSF and forcibly spreading democracy. That would basically be a weird flavor of imperialism, rather than defending

I'm not, not calling for a George Bush style system, but yeah. I mean, I'm assuming we're not going to "liberate" a government and give to a different (yet non-raider) strongman. Correct?

There’s a big difference between promoting democracy in regions we’re liberating because they were raided, and forcibly “liberating” regions in the first place and making them democracies. The former is what we would do, the latter is contrary to the democratic principles we’re founding our defending on. As defenders, we wouldn’t be seeking out regions to basically raid and impose democracy on.

As for liberating a region and just handing it over to a strongman... I’m personally against that, and would like to see the SPSF hold the region to allow the community a true choice. (And if they choose to not be a democracy, that’s their choice.) I’m not sure how that would codified, because there are quite a few variables that would go into it, including how long we’d want the SPSF in any single region post-lib. That might be something left up to the Generals, and we just write a broad principle.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 06-13-2019, 06:42 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

@Tsu: In this context, liberating means specifically breaking a raider military’s hold on a region they’re trying to lock down (and likely refound as a trophy). When these regions are liberated, we would have an opportunity give them advice and whatnot on how to structure their government going forward.

I don’t think anybody (except I guess Bel?) is advocating George Bush-ing the SPSF and forcibly spreading democracy. That would basically be a weird flavor of imperialism, rather than defending

I'm not, not calling for a George Bush style system, but yeah. I mean, I'm assuming we're not going to "liberate" a government and give to a different (yet non-raider) strongman. Correct?

That depends, do they have oil?

Reply

@sandaoguo - thanks for your response. Am I correct in thinking that the purpose of this resolution is to articulate the TSP defender ideology? If that is so, part of this is that we allow differing views. So I still feel the resolution should include a statement on this, even if it doesn't confer any rights (as they are conferred elsewhere). Perhaps something like the following would be more agreeable: "Affirms that the Charter gives individuals the right to freely express disagreement with these policies." If the resolution is a wholistic articulation of our military identity, then the right to hold a dissent view and the encouragement of diversity should not be omitted from the statement. However, if you would prefer, I can suspend my case for this until after your resolution passes, in which case I will propose an amendment.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

As for liberating a region and just handing it over to a strongman... I’m personally against that, and would like to see the SPSF hold the region to allow the community a true choice. (And if they choose to not be a democracy, that’s their choice.) I’m not sure how that would codified, because there are quite a few variables that would go into it, including how long we’d want the SPSF in any single region post-lib. That might be something left up to the Generals, and we just write a broad principle.

Sure, sure. It doesn't have to be clearly stated how we'd go about this, just generally that we support democracy and self selection for other regions as well. And we don't necessarily want to force democracy on those who don't want it.

This situation I'm thinking of is, say an officially elected delegate somewhere couped, (i.e. Milo for instance), we'd want to/be willing to intervene on behalf of the natives (i.e. us). That would be something we can support under this, yes?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Sure, sure. It doesn't have to be clearly stated how we'd go about this, just generally that we support democracy and self selection for other regions as well. And we don't necessarily want to force democracy on those who don't want it.

Yep! Regional self-determination would be a key value and more important than the export of democracy. Let's say for example that that Osirans are given a democratic choice over their governance - they would most likely not choose a democratic system. And we shouldn't then force a democracy upon them.

This situation I'm thinking of is, say an officially elected delegate somewhere couped, (i.e. Milo for instance), we'd want to/be willing to intervene on behalf of the natives (i.e. us). That would be something we can support under this, yes?

Yes. Might be a bit difficult in some cases to determine who's "right", but in the case of Milo it was an obvious illegal dissolution of the Coalition, so yeah we'd stand behind those fighting him.

Reply

Sure, sure. It doesn't have to be clearly stated how we'd go about this, just generally that we support democracy and self selection for other regions as well. And we don't necessarily want to force democracy on those who don't want it.

Yep! Regional self-determination would be a key value and more important than the export of democracy. Let's say for example that that Osirans are given a democratic choice over their governance - they would most likely not choose a democratic system. And we shouldn't then force a democracy upon them.

This situation I'm thinking of is, say an officially elected delegate somewhere couped, (i.e. Milo for instance), we'd want to/be willing to intervene on behalf of the natives (i.e. us). That would be something we can support under this, yes?

Yes. Might be a bit difficult in some cases to determine who's "right", but in the case of Milo it was an obvious illegal dissolution of the Coalition, so yeah we'd stand behind those fighting him. 

To point one: Sure. But, that gets a bit into how we determine what the region "wants", no? We could make the argument that that is somewhat democratic in of itself.

Point two: Sure it's not always clear-cut, but I think including a gesture toward this in our mission clearly links back to the founding and values of TSP and speaks to the idea of our own unique brand of defenderism.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Regarding coups, my long-time position has been that we oppose all coups, period. But when it comes to one autocratic group fighting a counter-coup against another... we shouldn’t get involved. If I was MoFA, I’d push for TSP to say “both groups should allow the region to vote in a free and fair ballot what kind of region they want and who they want to lead it.”

Reply

[Just a note that I'm posting this query here because I'd like to avoid having multiple threads on the same topic]

...

People said R/D was stale and dead in 2016, then a new defender organization called TGW came around. It brought with it a new idea, a new culture, and many of the specifics emerged from those two items to form a new brand of defending. And in 2017, TGW led the Defender world. We can repeat this, except that I'd argue we, as a feeder, have a stronger message and a longer breath to give.

Roavin wrote the above post in Tsunamy's opinion piece thread. I've emphasised in bold the part which interests me — I am curious whether there is a plan for if and after these proposals are passed in the Assembly? Given the various commitments of our main military personnel, will it fall primarily on W&S to lead this new ambitious endeavour?

Reply

Some edits to Glen's proposed resolution and Charter amendment. This is all about framing -- writing down how our defending is South Pacifican and distinct from what's already been done.

Resolution on Adopting Defending Military Principles

Whereas the Coalition of the South Pacific is founded upon dedication to democratic principles, including the right of a community to exist peacefully and free from unprovoked attack;

Whereas our values have a natural affinity with the principles of defending, thatose being protecting innocent regions from raider attack and, liberating those regions under occupation, and assisting those regions seeking to rebuild under a democratic framework;

Whereas we believe no innocent region should be subjugated against its will, have its residents purged, or be completely destroyed or kept as a trophy of its destruction;

Whereas we believe the general principles of defending do not contradict offensive military operations against hateful or totalitarian regions, anti-democratic forces, or against forces of subjugation and destruction,

Resolved that the Coalition of the South Pacific:

1. Commits itself to upholding and advocating the defender principles of protecting innocent regions, promoting legitimate, native democratic institutions across the world, and fighting against forces of destruction and oppression.

2. Declares that these principles are a fundamental aspect of our community and culture, and will strive to reflect these principles in our Charter, constitutional laws, and military guidelines, but that the Coalition will as always let our traditions and culture develop naturally in adopting these principles.

3. Considers this resolution a constitutional law, to show our dedication to upholding these principles by considering them a fundamental aspect of our governance.  

THE CHARTER OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC

..

X. THE MILITARY

...

(3) The military will have the support of the Coalition in conducting operations to protect innocent regions from attack and oppression and promote legitimate, native democratic institutions across the world. The military may not colonize or annex any region without the express permission of the Cabinet and the Assembly, by majority vote of both chambers. Nor may the military attack, subjugate, purge, destroy, or vandalize any regions, excepting those regions which espouse hateful or totalitarian ideologies and those regions against which the Coalition has declared an official state of war.

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

(This post was last modified: 06-14-2019, 09:57 PM by Somyrion.)

Reply