King Adam will attend Sôgmô’s Armilustrium dinner, marking second Sande-Überstadti state visit

Armilustrium 2018

The Sôgmô has announced that they will hold a dinner for friends and colleagues to celebrate the Armilustrium ahead of the 19 October holiday on 15 October. The dinner, which coincide’s with þess university’s autumn break, will be held in the royal Appartement du Sôgmô and will include traditional food for the holiday. At first, it was an occasion to celebrate the holiday with the Sôgmô’s chosen family, but it has now taken on a greater significance for Sandus as a whole.

Following a courteous invitation to the Party Secretary and the King of Überstadt, Adam von Friedeck has announced that he has accepted the Sôgmô’s invitation and will attend þess dinner. The visit will both be the second state visit by the King of Überstadt and the first visit by the king to Sandus’s capital as a Sandum citizen and Party Secretary.

Read the Sôgmô’s invitation here for a state visit and the King of Überstadt’s response here.

Armilustrium Invitation - Redacted

A copy of the dinner invitation, with the Appartement du Sôgmô‘s address redacted.

The dinner will feature traditional food, such as baklava, Three Sisters Soup, and roast chicken, as well as other autumn desserts and delights, and will also feature communal drinking for those who imbibe alcohol. Since the dinner also falls on the occasion of the October Horse, a Roman holiday which featured a horse race and the sacrifice of the winning horse, the Sôgmô’s dinner will also feature a horse and racing theme—though, to be sure, no horse will in fact be sacrificed.

Guests have been requested to bring one book in order to be washed, representative of the traditional Sandum ritual of cleaning the home and washing books important to one’s life, which in Sandus taken on the meaning of philosophical weapons, or “arms.”

On 19 October, for the Armilustrium, according to tradition, Roman legions would enter the city and stop in an area on the Aventine hill to perform a lustrum, or ritual cleansing ceremony, of their weapons and of the soldiers. Presumably, this ritual stretches far back into Roman pre-history to mark the end of the campaign season and, as some anthropologists have argued, as a means of mitigating blood guilt and guilty consciences from the summer’s violence.

Sandus is not into war. It is instead a pacifist micronation and, unlike many other micronations, does not even have a decorative armed force. Instead of lustrating our arma, whence Armi·lustrium, we wash our metaphorical weapons: books. Specifically philosophical books, and other books important to our way of life. In Sandus, this holiday has become something of an Autumnal festival and, today, many of our citizens celebrate this holiday—shown by the fact that Adam von Friedeck will join in the Sôgmô’s celebration. von Friedeck celebrates the Armilustrium every year since the tradition began in Sandus in 2012.

Happy Armilustrium!

 

Sandus, Überstadt developing academic certificate

Academic institutions from both Sandus and Überstadt are cautiously optimistic about developing an academic certificate program, tentatively called the Certificate of Higher Micronational Learning, or CHML. The certificate is being developed as part of an academic consortium between the two social countries, with plans for more member institutions, and is open to involvement from other micronations outside of the two countries’ Social System.

Inquiries can be made to the State of Sandus at KremlumSandus@gmail.com.

The certificate is intended to fulfil the first year of higher or tertiary education, and is meant to be completed with 10 to 13 courses—10 courses for institutions which follow semesters and 13 for quarters. Students enrolled in the certificate program will be able to take any consortium member institution’s courses, and will also be required to take a certain number of courses in key micronational disciplinary fields—such as from the arts, humanities, and social sciences to law and language or communication.

The certificate is meant to provide a well-rounded factual and theoretical knowledge within various fields of study related to micronationalism. This certificate is especially useful for those interested in micronationalism or who wish to develop their skills as a micronationalist. It teaches micronationalists about the ancillary fields related to micronationalism and is also meant to support the development of interdisciplinary micropatriology.

Sandum and Überstadti academics have tentatively committed to teaching at least one class in 2019 during the springtime. Such classes could include humanities classes on the history of micronationalism, micronational themes in literature, an introduction to law, and a micronational communications class. What is more, both academics have agreed that, despite being the instructors of a course, they will also be students in whatever course they teach while both institutions are working toward developing the certificate program further. In other words, both will be the facilitators of learning—striking the balance between micronational colleagues and successful intellectuals and educators.

Academics and intellectualism are important to both countries, as both their leaders are pursuing graduate-level education. Sandus, in fact, even has a national order of merit tied to educational attainment; it is the only order in which the sovereign of the order is not automatically the most senior rank. The Sôgmô’s family all outrank það.

Sôgmô presents on the Sandum Constitution at MicroCon 2017

The Sôgmô attended MicroCon 2017 in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, from 23 to 25 June 2017, representing the State of Sandus and meeting with a multitude of Sandus’s friends and partners. The experience was the first diplomatic meeting for Sandus with several close allies, such as Saint-Castin and Aigues-Mortes. It was also a meeting again with some nations Sandus has already encountered, such as the Aerican Empire and Molossia.

The Sôgmô was received at the Ruritanian Empire’s embassy in Atlanta, Georgia, for a reception with Queen Anastasia of Ruritania before the conference. There, the Sôgmô met with and encountered a variety of micronationalists.

At the conference, the Sôgmô listened to a variety of presentations on micronationalism in general and specific micronational projects, before það presented þess own paper on the Sandum constitution. The presentation, which focused on Sandum history and the State’s constitutional development, was well-received and was applauded by many heads of state and of government. A multitude of conference attendees approached the Sôgmô to congratulate það and to ask for þess intellectual opinion on a broad range of topics.

Read the paper here.

The Sôgmô then met with a variety of micronationalists at a gala held that evening.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

All attendees considered the meeting a huge success for intermicronational diplomacy and, in particular, that it was a wonderful diplomatic success for environmentalist and French-speaking micronations. A large section of the micronations which attended, perhaps even a majority, could speak French—and it was rather frequent that individual groups would join together from a variety of different nations to discuss certain matters in French. In addition, attendees were asked to sign th 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which was also signed at the previous conference in 2015. In addition the Micronational Declaration on Ecological Stewardship, which the Sôgmô signed for the State of Sandus and for the Kingdom of Überstadt as a social citizen.

The Sôgmô finally met the Prince and Princess of the Principality of Aigues-Mortes and the President-Minister of the Republic of Saint-Castin, close allies of the State of Sandus in the MicroFrancophonie.

Sandus, Kumano, Überstadt pass Social System Treaty

The three social states of Sandus, Kumano, and Überstadt have ratified the Treaty Establishing the Social System and the treaty went into force on 8 November 2016. Sandus ratified the treaty first on 3 October 2016. Überstadt ratified the treaty next on 7 October, but Kumano did not ratify the treaty until 5 November. It formally went into effect on 7 November.

The treaty is divided into three chapters on the purpose of the organisation, membership in the system, and the social citizenship. It establishes an international organisation for like-minded states, based off of Sandus’s socia citizenship arrangement. The term “social” is derived from the Latin adjective socialis. Socius, the noun which gives meaning to the word socialis, signifies a kindred, aligned, allied, or associated person. It can translated to mean “associate,” “ally,” “companion,” and “comrade” — thus giving more nuanced meaning to the name of the Social System.

TREATY ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SYSTEMA SOCIALIS

The parties to this present agreement,
Affirming their shared values and ambitions,
Recalling the positive relationships which they have enjoyed for years,
Cognizant of the ways in which past treaties pertinent to these relationships have proven insufficient to adequately guide the multilateral system which has developed,
Desirous to formalize the Systema Socialis, or Social System, which they have formed for their mutual gain,
Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1
Purpose and Organization

  1. There shall be perpetual peace among the members of the Social System. They shall not incite discord amongst each other, nor invoke foreign adversaries upon one another. They shall assist one another when any falls victim to aggression.
  2. The founding ideals of the Social System are humanitarianism, socialism, internationalism, and pluralism.
  3. The official language of the Social System will be English; the recognized languages of the Social System will be the recognized languages of each member-state.
  4. The organization of the Social System will be comprised of equal members.
  5. The equal members will elect by simple majority a Secretary General who will:
    1. Moderate all business of the Social System;
    2. Arbitrate disputes under Article 2, Section 4 of this agreement;
    3. Have no allegiance to any member-state of the Social System but to the organization and its values in general;
    4. And, seek to uphold and disseminate the values of the Social System.
  6. The equal members will be represented to the Social System at large by a delegate who will be synonymous to an individual member-state’s head of government.
  7. The equal members may decide to perform or execute specific policies on the Social System’s behalf by a unanimous decision of the heads of government of the member-states.
  8. The equal members may decide to develop the Social System further in the future by consensus of their heads of government.

ARTICLE 2
Membership in the System

  1. Applications for membership in the Social System are granted to micronations which:
    1. Conform to the founding ideals of the Social System: humanitarianism, socialism, internationalism, and pluralism;
    2. Have existed for more than a year, including the micronation’s predecessors;
    3. Have not changed the constitution or regime and have not been in extraordinary political or social upheaval in more than three months; and
    4. Consistently demonstrate adherence to and compliance with established intermicronational conventions and accords.
  2. Applications are voted on by all members of the Social System and are approved by a unanimous decision of the member-states.
  3. A member-state may only be removed from the Social System by unanimous agreement of the other member-states, and only as a result of three unanimous ballots to that effect taken at least one month apart.
  4. At times of diplomatic discord, a member-state of the Social System may request the Secretary General to investigate disputes and to arbitrate, including and up to requesting the parties to present their cases in a court of arbitration.

ARTICLE 3
Social Citizenship

  1. All citizens of the Social System’s member-states will have the right to apply for social citizenship in the individual member-states.
  2. An individual member-state may or may not grant social citizenship to an applicant.
  3. An applicant for social citizenship in an individual member-state who has not been granted social citizenship will receive notice from the individual member-state, including that member-state’s rationale for its decision; the applicant’s respective mother-state will also receive notice and the individual member-state’s rationale.
  4. Disputes over refusal to grant social citizenship to a member-state’s applicant will be arbitrated by the Secretary General.
  5. Social citizens will receive fewer rights and obligations than full citizens of the member-states; these rights and obligations will be determined by an individual member-state and will be ratified by the member-states at large in a manner and in a spirit which seems just to all members.
    1. Information concerning these rights and obligations of social citizenship in the individual member-states should be published and made public when requested by an individual citizen of any member-state.
    2. Disputes arising over the rights and obligations of a social citizen will be arbitrated by:
      1. The Secretary General if the dispute arises from a member-state or from a non-citizen or applicant to an individual member-state;
      2. The individual member-state’s judicial system or system of arbitration if the dispute arises from a social citizen in an individual member-state.
    3. Recommended rights include:
      1. The right to life, which includes the right to work, the right to rest, the right to care in old age and illness, the right to housing, the right to education, the right to culture, the right to expression, the right to conscience, the right to protection from the state and the right to the inviolability of the home, and the right to equality before the law;
      2. The right to a fair trial in the individual member-states and their jurisdictions, the right to a jury in certain cases, and the right to appeal;
      3. The right to petition an individual member-state’s government for redress of its policies or functions;
      4. The right to participate in national referenda of significant importance; and
      5. The right to vote and stand for election in low-level or significantly democratic offices.
    4. Recommended obligations include:
      1. Adhering to the laws and customs of an individual member-state when and while one is exercising or performing functions associated with the jurisdiction of that individual member-state;
      2. Necessary taxes or duties associated with the right to complete and total suffrage in a state; and
      3. Performing or executing necessary and appropriate security or diplomatic functions at the behest of a social citizen’s social member-state.
    5. Social citizens shall be prohibited from obtaining foreign citizenship apart from those held in the Social System and any member-state of the United Nations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, duly authorized by their respective governments, have signed this treaty.

DONE the fourteenth day of September in the year two thousand and sixteen.

For the Kumano Jiritsu Nation, Daijo Daijin Hatsu Ryuho

For the State of Sandus, the Hon. Sôgmô Gaius Sörgel Publicola

For the Kingdom of Überstadt, HM King Adam I

von Friedeck awarded first Sandum agnomen

Adam von Friedeck has been awarded the first Sandum agnomen, “Camillus,” after the system of awards for charity taxes was established on 23 June 2012. He will now be known as Adam Camillus von Friedeck.

His contributions helped to make Summer 2016 the most charitable season in the history of Sandus’s charity tax system at $1,118.46, more than double the next highest season. As a socius citizen from Überstadt, he was not required by law to declare his charity taxes — but did so in order to receive suffrage in Sandus’s upcoming national election in December. Von Friedeck’s charitable donations, which almost singlehandedly surpass Sandus’s next most charitable season of Winter 2016 at $473.81, are the first charity taxes declared by any Überstadti socius citizen.

The charity tax system was established on 10 March 2012 by the Act on Citizenship of Martio MMXII (March 2012), which stated that a system of taxation may be levied on Sandum citizens. The charity tax system developed over the next few months and the first charity taxes were declared in time for the 2012 Summer Solstice. In those days, “grains” from FreeRice.com were used as charitable donations but monetary donations and volunteer work replaced this system as Sandum citizens have grown older since 2012. The last grains were declared in March 2013. Since then, more than $3,700 has been donated to charity by Sandum citizens.

The system of agnomina was established by the Sôgmô soon after the first charity taxes were declared in June 2012. The decree which established the awards system is phrased in terms of FreeRice.com quotas, meaning that no specific guidelines exist for monetary donations or volunteer work. It was decided, however, in the extraordinary nature of von Friedeck’s donation, that he had exemplified the decree’s quota for the highest award in the tax award system, in the spirit of the decree’s provisions. New directions toward the awarding of Sandum agnomina will be given in the coming weeks to replace the out-dated language of the decree.

No other Sandum citizens have ever received the distinction of an agnomen, though the tax awards and agnomina have existed for more than four years.

Sôgmô accepts Überstadti King’s invitation for arbitration

The Sôgmô has accepted an invitation from King Adam of Überstadt to arbitrate the ongoing diplomatic dispute between the State of Sandus and the Empire of Austenasia. Both states have been historically close friends and allies, especially as a part of the unofficial “Troika” alliance which included Technocratic Renasia. That alliance broke down when Renasia ceased to exist in early 2015.

Það has instructed the Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs to attend the talks and to encourage a peaceful resolution to diplomatic issues which have been gradually growing in the past year. Addressing the Council of the State of Sandus, það announced the decision to accept the invitation and briefly recounted the recent diplomatic history  of the year to date. Þess timeline included such things as Sandus’s concerns over imperial policy earlier in the Spring, Sandus’s omission from GUM restart talks, cursory talks with Emperor Jonathan in May and June, Sandus’s rejection from the GUM in July, and other disputes which arose in July and August.

There are no further details yet as to when the talks may begin. According to the understanding of the Central People’s Government, the Empire of Austenasia has not yet accepted a similar invitation sent by the Überstadti king.

 

Sôgmô subject of New Israeli ultimatum

New Israeli Emperor Markus Abernathy has issued an ultimatum concerning the Sôgmô Gaius Soergel Publicola “so as to prevent any foreign incursions into the affairs of our most holy and apostolic empire,” although the emperor admits “that [það] of the impious state of Sandus has no record of participation in conflict against our Holy Empire.”

The ultimatum specifies that the empire considers its duty to “subdue the enemies of our faith and bring them to the obedience of the divine majesty,” which explicitly includes “William Soergel” as “priest of impiety and wickedness” — referring to the Sôgmô by þess birth name. Despite having been considered a Sandum enemy since 2013, the Central People’s Government of the State of Sandus has stated that it does not have strategic diplomatic policies concerning the Empire of New Israel and that the ultimatum comes as a surprise. The State of Sandus furthermore has no diplomatic relations with the empire, causing the government to be perplexed by the recent ultimatum.

The ultimatum from the New Israeli inquisition hopes to “suppress” the Sôgmô’s private beliefs, especially þess religious and social beliefs, and demanded a “full recantation of error” in order to be “brought into the fold of the one church of the one God.” The ultimatum claims that “the unity of Christendom is imperiled by vile and impious heresies, particularly those promulgated by a certain William Soergel, of the State of Sandus, who teaches iniquity and slander, preaches false doctrines, and writes, in both Latin and English, syncretistic doctrines that have been accepted by many, greatly diminishing the honor of God and the Catholic faith, endangering Christian souls, and bringing future confusion to all religious affairs.”

In addition, while claiming the Sôgmô “takes cruel pleasure in exploiting the privacy of others,” which the Sôgmô firmly denies, the Emperor has done the same in referring to the Sôgmô by his unofficial name — similar to calling Abernathy by his macronational name, which Veritum Sandus and the Sandum government has previously kept dutifully private. Here, the Emperor referred to a recent diplomatic conflict with the Austenasian emperor. Það took no pleasure in “exploiting the privacy” of M. Augustus but used logs from a private conversation begrudgingly in a public dispute when he felt pushed to extremes by Augustus — as is apparent in the logs of the conversation in the MicroPolitan Lounge, where Abernathy is not present.

In addition to the Sôgmô, the ultimatum also named Adam von Friedeck, King of Überstadt and Sandum socius citizen, because of the joint Buddhist-Christian-Pagan religious service between the Sôgmô and the King when von Friedeck visited Kremlum Sandus in July 2014. At that service, það reaffirmed the ecumenical nature of Sandus’s religious and sociocultural beliefs, embracing Sandus’s Christian majority while following his own personal religious beliefs as a Tibetan Buddhist and as a cultor Religionis Romanae which form the basis of Sandus’s cultural background. Rather than “trouble and demolish all religious peace and charity and all order and direction in the things of this world,” the meeting reaffirmed the Sandum sociopolitical order and reaffirmed compassion and peace amongst different religious backgrounds — reflecting the peaceful and compassionate nature of Sandum culture and society.

The new Sandum Minister of Diplomatic Affairs, Jacob Barnet Pharmacologus, commented on the ultimatum by saying, “The Lion need pay no heed to the opinion of the sheep, or their foolish Shepherd.” He also expressed Sandus’s solidarity with the other parties referred to in Abernathy’s ultimatum, mirroring the Sôgmô’s private message of support to Mercian Lord Spiritual Richard Hytholoday. The minister’s statement reflects Sandus’s new policy of eschewing superfluous diplomatic conflicts. “When we see these kind of statements being thrown about by certain members of the community, we cannot help but feel a certain sense of disinterest. That Markus chooses to condemn us is neither really news nor worth paying much heed to. Instead, however, we choose to reiterate our own religious openness and inclusivity; we stretch out our hand in solidarity to all those who are condemned by the unnecessary partisan comments of Markus. We choose to focus on this solidarity with the tolerant members of our community, be that with Mercia, with Shorewell, with Pende Johannes, or others.”

“Ultimately, no citizen of Sandus will lose sleep over the condemnations of a madman. We understand that Markus is a representative only of his own hatred, not of his whole religion,” Barnet Pharmacologus said.

Social leaders draft new social treaty

Meeting of the Social Leaders.png

The leaders of Sandus and her socilivançae have met this evening to discuss and to negotiate a new social treaty. Meeting on Skype, the three leaders — Sôgmô Gaius Soergel Publicola, King Adam I of Überstadt, and Premier Hatsu Ryuho of Kumano — discussed the Sandum proposal for a new Systema Socialis, or Social System. The discussion took the form of the Sôgmô presenting þess proposal and answering questions and concerns from the other leaders. The draft includes sections concerning the system’s purpose and organisation, its member-states, and its social citizens. The other leaders, King Adam I in particular proposed alternative wordings and a substantial change to one provision. This meeting represents the first of three scheduled meetings before the treaty will be presented to the national legislatures of the three states for ratification.

Currently, only Sandus offers social citizenship — that is, a type of foreign citizenship — to two allies who have bilateral social treaties with the State of Sandus. These treaties afford the citizens of those two allies, Überstadt and Kumano, certain rights and privileges derived from the iura Latina. Under the new social treaty, social citizenship will instead become a reciprocated, multilateral treaty which will grant the right to apply for social citizenship to all citizens of the social states, or the member-states of the new Social System.

The first section of the draft specifies that:

  • the system is established on the principles of humanitarianism, socialism, internationalism, and pluralism.
  • English will be the official language of the system, but other official languages will represent voluntary recognised languages.
  • all members will be equal and will be represented by heads of state; however, some changes might include the possibility for the head of state to delegate this position to the head of government.
  • a secretary-general will be elected by simple majority of the member-states; though the Sandum draft specifies that this person should have no allegiance to any member-state, the Überstadti delegation raised some concerns over this provision, preferring instead to have a citizen of a member-state.

The second specifies that:

  • member-states should conform to the founding ideals of the system, be older than one year (including their predecessor states), not change their constitution by social or political upheaval in more than three months prior, and adhere to established micronational diplomatic conventions and customs.
  • applications for membership in the system must pass unanimously by all member-states.
  • member-states may not be expelled, but must leave voluntarily; this provision has challenged by the Überstadti delegation (see below).
  • the secretary-general should arbitrate disputes between member-states and between member-states and the system.

The third specifies that:

  • all citizens of a member-state of the Social System may apply for social citizenship in a member-state other than their mother-state.
  • a member-state may decide to decline the application for social citizenship, but must explain their rationale to both the applicant and their mother-state.
  • disputes arising from matters concerning social citizenship will be arbitrated by the secretary-general.
  • social citizens will receive certain rights and obligations as a result of being social citizens; the list of rights and obligations are derived from the current rights and obligations of Sandum socii citizens.

The one provision substantively modified by the Übertadti King concerns expulsion of member-states of the Social System. The Sandum proposal expressly forbade expulsion of member-states, citing political concerns, while the Übertadti counter-proposal permitted expulsion after a series of three ballots taken over the span of a quarter of the year — one ballot per month. Two other clauses, related to the treaty’s preamble and member-states’ shared policies, were reworded by the King. The preamble of the treaty is derived from Dionysius of Halicarnassus’s reading of the Foedus Cassianum, the treaty which established the Latin League in 493 BCE, which proclaimed peace amongst the Latins and Romans; similar wording was used for the Sandum proposal. The other clause, about member-states’ shared policies, was reworded to be more explicit.

In addition to concerns raised by the Überstadti King over provision that the secretary-general should not have allegiance to any particular member-state, the Kumanoese Premier requested that the head of state should be able to pass off their responsibilities to the head of government. King Adam I however suggested that the provision be simply changed to the head of government who will be a member-state’s delegate to the Social System. Finally, the Sôgmô suggested an addendum to the Sandum proposal and clarified that, while the current draft of a new social treaty will lay the foundation for the Social System, the future Social System may be developed in the future by further treaties, accords, and conventions. King Adam I termed this the treaty-nature of the future Social System.

In concluding the meeting, the Sôgmô laid out a schedule for further meetings. Terming this meeting the “first reading” of the social treaty draft, a “second reading” will take place on 28 August, when the proposed changes will be made to the treaty draft and voted on by the three leaders. A “third reading” will take place in late-September or early- to mid-October, where the three leaders will formally adopt the agreed-upon proposal and submit it for ratification to their national legislatures in time for the Winter Solstice.

Sôgmô publishes the Philia Plan

The Sôgmô has published the Philia Plan for the Major Societal Shift, detailing the plan of the Office of the Sôgmô to prepare the State of Sandus for þess departure for foreign PhD. programs in ancient history. The plan seeks to reduce the activity which það executes as result of constitutional obligations, while increasing the means by which governmental power can be exercised in the State of Sandus. It is the Sôgmô’s attempt to avert a constitutional breakdown of power, þess abdication, and the dissolution of the Sandum State.

The plan has now been sent to the Council of the State of Sandus for ratification of its seven provisions. Below is a provision-by-provision explanation of the plan.

  1. Vision for Sandum Society: The Sôgmô has made the case that Sandum national interests must be considered, while embracing the national diversity of the State of Sandus. More work must be done in terms of advancing Sandum culture and Sandum philosophy.
  2. the Gens System: In addition to provinces, a new administrative division will be created by gens, or administrative groups of families. Three different membership types — sanguine, familiar, and regional — have been established based on the different relationships with the overall gensGentes will elect a parensfamilias in their þings. The parentes will represent their gens to the Senate, whose parliaments will be convoked by the Sôgmô when needed.
  3. Simplification of the Anthropological Polity: The emphasis on governance will lessen and the role of the State will be more for cultural and philosophical development. Rather than necessarily see Sandus as a state which must meet the obligations of a nation-state, Sandus will instead be viewed as a micronation: a state with the anthropological characteristics of a tribe. Emphasis will be on Sandum culture and on the interdisciplinary view of Realism.
  4. Relaxing Activation Energy — or, the Decentralisation of Sagamorial Functions: This extended provision with its five sub-provisions establishes specific changes to the nature of the Sandum State to reduce the burden of activity on the Office of the Sôgmô.
    1. Scribe: a scribe position will be added to the Central People’s Government in order to fulfil the Sôgmô’s journalist and annalist functions
    2. Devolving Provincial Government — the role of Curiae and Praetors: provinces will now have a curia, a provincial assembly to make consultations for provincial policies, and a praetor, an official like the Sôgmô and the Facilitator on the provincial level
    3. Establishing new ministries — the Gendarmerie and Diplomatic Affairs: the first two Sandum ministries will be established in the Gendarmerie, a paramilitary force responsible for policing and security functions, and the Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs, Sandus’s first foreign ministry
    4. Affirming the Independence of the Facilitator and the Secretary
    5. Imperium — the Realist principle on the exercise of power: despite the many new institutions formed, they will be used in a way to devolve power from the Sôgmô and they will be used as needed without an expectation of constant activity; imperium will be explained in another Realist treatise
  5. the Ultimate Question: The Sôgmô has reaffirmed the principle of popular sovereignty, saying that það would abdicate if það should fail “in the constitutional and legitimate exercise of [þess] duties” as a result of a failed annual election.
  6. for a New, Coherent Citizen Law: The Sôgmô affirmed the effort by Facilitator Bee Rodgers Albina’s caucus to write a comprehensive citizenship law responding to citizenship concerns from citizens and the party membership concern from the November 2015 Party Congress.
  7. the Sôgmô’s Constitution Project: The Sôgmô will work with civis Akhil Indurti to create an interactive infographic of the Sandum constitution to be used as an educational tool for all Sandum citizens.

The Council will now discuss the plan and will ratify the plan provision-by-provision.

The entire plan can be found here.

Palace releases Statement on failed GUM Application

GUM'it.png

The Palace of State in Kremlum Sandus Province, Sandus, has released a statement from the Sôgmô on the failed Sandum application to full membership in the Grand Unified Micronational.

The statement is attached in full below this article.

In the statement, Gaius Soergel Publicola lambasts the GUM Quorum of Delegates’s decision to reject the Sandum application as a result of “irrational and baseless” concerns over Sandus’s status as a signatory to the Denton Protocol. He argued that the GUM Charter “already possesses provisions which would make the Denton Protocol irrelevant in the organisation and to any possible Sandum delegation,” citing the provision in III.2.b of the Charter. He briefly discussed the history and exigency of the protocol before turning to discuss the decision itself, arguing it was “inconsistent with the provisions of the GUM Charter and the principles of the organisation itself.”

The Sôgmô raised the differential treatment of the Wyvernian and Sandum applications and how, despite Wyvern’s history of racist and Islamophobic hatred, “turning a blind-eye to their radical far-right politics in the name of objectivism,” the Quorum shooed in Wyvern while Sandus was rejected.

Soergel Publicola added that “[this] decision will necessitate a re-examination of our relationships with [the states which were Sandum allies yet voted against the Sandum application,” narrowing out the Empire of Austenasia. “The time has come, instead, to re-examine our relationship with the Empire of Austenasia,” the Sôgmô stated.

He also added that Sandus should reinvigorate its commitment to l’Organisation de la MicroFrancophonie, a Francophone intermicronational organisation which has a better record than the GUM. “[The] member-states of the organisation reflect in their actions our foreign objectives for professionalism,” Soergel Publicola argued. The concern with micronational professionalism was a key driving force for Sandus’s desire to become a GUM member, which was initially hailed in multilateral discussions last month with Austenasian Emperor Jonathan Augustus and Überstadti King Adam I.

Read the Statement below.

Good evening, Comrade Citizens.

As Sôgmô, I must regrettably inform you that our application for full membership to the Grand Unified Micronational has been denied, following a vote in the organisation’s Quorum of Delegates.

Sandus has not been voted into the status of provisional membership necessary for the application to full membership, which we applied for as a result of the unanimous and democratic decision of the Council of the State of Sandus. The vote was a result of concerns raised over our adherence to the Denton Protocol, an intermicronational agreement which seeks to extend diplomatic decorum and protections to transgender micronationalists. The GUM Charter, however, already possesses provisions which would make the Denton Protocol irrelevant in the organisation and to any possible Sandum delegation; in other words, the concerns were irrational and baseless. Specifically Article III, Chapter 2, sub-section b is a provision which, in the history of the organisation, has necessitated respect for other micronationalists’ styles of address. Sandus has repeatedly abided by this convention when asked to do so, especially towards those who have fought against the Denton Protocol. It is this same provision upon which Sandus has historically built its foreign policy initiative which developed historically into the Denton Protocol in the summer of 2014.

The Denton Protocol was first drafted at a time when some micronationalists — including Bradley of Dullahan from Wyvern, a nation whose application was accepted today — refused to address transgender micronationalists by their preferred names and pronouns. It was, and still is, the ardent belief of the Sandum State that this contravened diplomatic decorum which necessitated respect between diplomats: decorum which stands at the heart of the GUM’s own provisions towards respecting another person’s style of address. Instead, many of these arguments against this display of respect and human dignity were based on irrational arguments which instead sought to provoke and undermine the lives of micronationalists these detrimental efforts would affect. The micronationalists at the helm of this informal movement narrowly applied the provisions of generally agreed upon notions of decorum, used them for their own benefit, and yet refused that same respect to others on the basis of their gender identity and gender expression — citing instead their social conservative politics. The Denton Protocol was the forthright and principled response to these micronationalists who, in the case of Sandus, asked that Sandus respectfully follow their styles of address yet refused to do the same with transgender micronationalists. As a highly philosophical and principled nation, this was unacceptable to the State of Sandus. We therefore sought to rectify this discrepancy through a diplomatic coalition of states.

In response, Sandus and Zealandia drafted the controversial document which precipitated diplomatic upheaval in July and August 2014. Sandus, however, defended its case and made it clear, through its communicable reality, that the Denton Protocol was an extension of already established diplomatic convention: just as some had requested that Sandus not use the “M.” prefix, so too we requested that they respect the sincere requests of transgender micronationalists to the same effect. Despite extensive demonisation and negative backlash, Sandus’s interests and actions were based on sincerely-held beliefs about intermicronational diplomacy and diplomatic ethics and decorum. To this end, Sandus finally concluded several bilateral diplomatic agreements with multiple parties by mid-August 2014. It is our intention to preserve and to maintain these diplomatic agreements, regardless of the outcome of the GUM vote.

As Sôgmô and former Chairperson of the GUM, I believe the result of this vote to be inconsistent with the provisions of the GUM Charter and the principles of the organisation itself. The Charter stipulates that the organisation will not interfere in the domestic and foreign policies of its member-states, citing Article II, sub-section b, point ii and Article III, Chapter 3, sub-section b, points i-ii. Indeed the Quorum of the organisation had reaffirmed that principle with a rather literal reading only minutes earlier when it voted to approve the application of the Kingdom of Wyvern, a micronation which has often expressed irrational racism and Islamophobia. The Chair and others argued specifically that the organisation should seek to work with other micronations without regard to their domestic politics and to respect the inviolability of their sovereignty. Not so for Sandus. Only minutes later, Sandus was voted down by a vote with four oppositions, three supports, and two abstentions for objections raised concerning the Denton Protocol and Sandus’s sovereign foreign policy.

Despite my private concerns with our application, mostly as a result of concerns arising from the Philia Plan for the Major Societal Shift, it was my opinion that Sandus should seek membership as quickly and forthrightly as possible as a result of the unanimous decision of our direct democratic Council. After all, it has seldom been in the history of the Council or our republican constitution when a poll so conceived has resulted in a unanimous decision such as this. Instead, the democratic hopes of the Sandum People have instead been thrashed and cut short by the Quorum of Delegates. We in Sandus had in fact hoped to be a beacon for democracy in the organisation once more and to raise the standards of micronational professionalism. Unfortunately, that is no longer an option with this decision by the GUM Quorum.

It is unfortunate, furthermore, considering those who abstained and opposed our application. Among them are states which Sandus has known for a long time and have been Sandum allies. This decision will necessitate a re-examination of our relationships with these other states, especially those states which fervently defended the application of the Kingdom of Wyvern — turning a blind-eye to their radical far-right politics in the name of objectivism — and yet voted down the Sandum application.

One of those states is the Empire of Austenasia, a micronation which Sandus has considered a close friend and ally since 2009 when Austenasia joined the Grand Unified Micronational. It is our dismay that the Emperor himself, as the delegate for the Empire to the GUM, decided to abstain from the vote and not to defend Sandus’s application. While the Empire’s vote is not necessarily an opposition, it is not an action that would have been believable under the former “Troika” association of Austenasia, Renasia, and Sandus. In recent weeks, Sandus and Austenasia, with Überstadt as a neutral arbitrating party, has sought to rectify the divide between both nations since the departure of Renasia. Indeed, it was our hope that a new troika friendship would form and that a renewed, cooperative close friendship would strengthen following Sandus’s admission into the GUM. That is, however, no longer expedient nor proper.

The time has come, instead, to re-examine our relationship with the Empire of Austenasia. In discussions between King Adam, Emperor Jonathan, and me, I have fervently raised the issue of the distancing friendship between Sandus and Austenasia — a distance which has now been further exacerbated to the extreme by this vote and the Austenasian delegation’s lack of willingness to defend the Sandum application. This is not behaviour befitting a friend.

The decline in the Sandum-Austenasian relationship has reached an all-time low. I urge Emperor Jonathan to consider carefully their program of side-lining the interests of and no less hurting a once-close friend, lest the divide cause a prolonged diplomatic conflict which will certainly negatively affect us both.

In addition, I announce publicly and unequivocally that I am not in favour of and will strongly oppose any effort to reapply to the Grand Unified Micronational. Sandus is in fact already aligned and strong friends with members of l’Organisation de la MicroFrancophonie. Though as native Anglophones we have a large language barrier to cross, the OMF has made a strong mission and history to achieve the same objectives as the GUM. Indeed, Sandus and its Francophone allies in the organisation have already achieved much more than the GUM, and the member-states of the organisation reflect in their actions our foreign objectives for professionalism. Though the GUM and the OMF are not mutually exclusive, this decision will have the result of aligning Sandus more with our Francophone allies throughout the world — especially at the expense of the hopes we had for our GUM membership. Our relationships with some of our closer neighbours will undoubtedly falter.

Finally, I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to Bee Rodgers Albina (peregrina), Facilitator of the Council, for her dutiful support of the Sandum application and her faithfulness to the Sandum State. She is, as both a citizen and a friend, a strong and fervent defender of the Sandum Philosophy — and we appreciate her work and her defence of Sandum policies which, though before her time, protect her today. I would also like to thank the Chair, Shane Cahill, for his level-headed discussion with me following the vote. Though we may not agree politically, I appreciate his forthright stance to speak truthfully yet also with respect to his duties as Chair. Finally, I think my constant adviser and close friend Adam von Friedeck, Secretary of the Party, for his level-headed examination of the diplomatic situation, his willingness to enter “emergency mode” soon after news of the decision broke, and his faithful allegiance to the State of Sandus.

This is a sad and distressing day for the State of Sandus and for the Sandum People. As always, however, we shall respond to these events in a principled manner, being faithful and diligent to our convictions yet remaining dialectically flexible. As has always been historically true, we are always strongest and show the greatest resolve during stressful times.

Today and the days to come shall be no different.

Gaius Soergel Publicola
Sôgmô of the State of Sandus
Kremlum Sandus, Sandus