The Council of the State of Sandus, the direct democratic assembly in Sandus’s republican constitution, has decided not to apply again to the Grand Unified Micronational, this time for observership. The motion was proposed early yesterday morning.
The vote had a turn out of 83.3% of the citizens in the direct democratic Council and decided against the motion to reapply for membership with a vote of 60% in opposition and 40% in support.
The vote comes several weeks after the GUM Quorum of Delegates voted against an initial Sandum application to join as a full member. The rejection by the organisation set off a diplomatic conflict between Sandus and several other micronations, and shook up the relations with several others. This conflict is still being played out.
The Sôgmô had since publicly announced his opposition to Sandus’s renewed involvement in the organisation in light of the organisation’s “unwarranted” and “illogical” decision. “For us, the [Quorum’s] decision represents a clear and present diplomatic danger,” the Sôgmô commented earlier this evening on the repercussions of the 3 July vote, addressing GUM Chairman Fionnbarra Ó Cathail of Leylandiistan. Þess comments to MM. Bradley of Dullahan from Wyvern and Fionnbarra Ó Cathail from Leylandiistan are copied in full below.
To M. Bradley of Dullahan:
You are saying that Sandus should not have been allowed into the GUM for ideological reasons, which is contrary to the argument made which allowed for Wyvern to be voted in.
The different reasons [of Dullahan referenced] were hysteria over the Denton Protocol, which Sandus has not appealed to since August 2014. Furthermore, as we have said repeatedly since that date, the Denton Protocol is a non-issue where it concerns the organisation: the Charter establishes similar provisions as the protocol on the delegates, so it should not have been a concern. Furthermore, if it was a concern, then the Quorum of Delegates voted in a manner contrary to the GUM Charter — which stipulates that the organisation may not interfere in the individual foreign policy of a member-state.
We are not picking fights. Indeed, in the past two years, Sandus has shown a concerted effort to avoid diplomatic conflict altogether. Rather, Wyvern’s attempt to continue to meddle in Sandum policies and Sandum interests by denigrating us reflects a Wyvernian policy to provoke and to attack Sandus. Your actions, Mr. of Dullahan, show that you are in fact picking fights with us — and that you have been since 3 July 2016.
To M. Fionnbarra Ó Cathail:
The rationale for the rejection of the Sandum application was, in effect, the rationale for a violation of Sandum sovereignty — that the organisation should not weigh the value of an application based on national policies, a rationale which was accepted minutes before by the acceptance of the Kingdom of Wyvern. Such a rationale is contradictory to the nature of the GUM’s principles, a rational that was noted with the decision of the Wyvernian application.
Our argument is not that the GUM has in fact infringed on Sandum sovereignty, but that in principle that is what the Quorum decided on: that if Sandus had caved to overwhelming diplomatic pressure and had changed its policies, then Sandus would have been accepted. The decision and the arguments for Wyvern and against Sandus are logically contradictory.
Furthermore, we also argue that the rationale presented was tendential: it did not look at what the real nature of Sandum foreign policy has been in the past two years but instead acted on the prejudices of a few member-states who sought validation and who utilised (incorrect) heuristics to make the case against our application. In other words, the decision was based on certain members’ unfounded prejudices and inaccurate stereotypes of the State of Sandus. Sandus has indeed changed since August 2014. Rather than decide equally and fairly, the Quorum was arbitrary and capricious in its vote.
I am not familiar with any other reasoning for rejecting the Sandum application: the only reasoning I have heard is over concerns with the Denton Protocol. I would ask you, M. Cahill, to clarify.
The fact that the Charter and the Denton Protocol share explicit provisions is in fact very relevant: it underscores the pathetic (i.e., emotional) decision by the Quorum of Delegates which tugged on the heart strings of a plurality of delegates. The decision was not rational, it was not logical, because it was based off of unfounded fears and misconceptions about Sandum foreign policy. In so doing, the GUM and the Quorum of Delegates belittled and undermined Sandum sovereignty and Sandum sovereign foreign policy, in addition to beginning the present diplomatic crisis. Rather than tackle the application in an appropriate and professional manner, the organisation reached its conclusions through improper and unprofessional means. The comparative silence by the organisation on being the progenitor of the current diplomatic crisis, exacerbated at the hands of one of its most recent full members, undermines the organisation’s message for professionalism and serious micronationalism.
The resulting controversy is indeed far more significant than any particular provision of the protocol or the charter: it is significant in that the organisation has acted inappropriately and irresponsibly. The organisation has in effect hurt and harmed the State of Sandus, as shown by recent diplomatic attacks by Wyvern and Zealandia, and it is, for this reason, that I have sought to defend my State: as is my duty.
For us, the decision represents a clear and present diplomatic danger.