[PASSED] Repeal SC#13 Liberate Utopia

[Ballotonia]

The Security Council,

Noting that the threats SC#13 was written to resolve, such as the invisible password and the delegate who imposed it, no longer exist, making the resolution’s operative clause obsolete, even though the resolution remains active,

Alarmed that SC#13, despite written in good-faith, still names a raider’s chosen delegate in this Council’s records, giving the resolution the unintentional means to work as an ode to the then-active The Alliance of Dictators,

Recognizing that the Security Council’s resolutions are meant to hold up over time following durable principles, not to serve as leftover praise to raiders they were meant to oppose,

Reflecting that after the loss of Utopia’s founder, Utopian thoughts, the region was left vulnerable and drew repeated raids, the Security Council’s earlier action in SC#13 prevented Utopia’s outright destruction without addressing its exposure to smaller incursions,

Noting further that the residents of Utopia took matters into their own hands, refounding the region and entrusting it in the protection of Blissfulness, who for more than 14 years kept Utopia free from successful raids, establishing the base that has allowed the region to stand independent for more than a decade,

Recognizing that this Council, in similar cases, has repealed resolutions once their operational clauses have been agreed as unnecessary by a region’s own stability rather than leaving them in the records,

Exhausted that after 17 years, SC#13 has not lived up to the standards of liberation of the modern times, and outliving its cause,,

Hereby repeals Security Council Resolution #13 “Liberate Utopia”.

Looking for feedback Merethin abandoned/postponed their take on this, so I am aware.

The Security Council,

Acknowledging that "Liberate Utopia" served a semi-crucial purpose in protecting Utopia during an era of regional instability, preserving Utopia’s idyllic and positive environment,

Noting that the specific security concerns that prompted SC#13 to be written, such as the invisible password and the delegate who imposed it, have been fully resolved by the region’s current community and circumstances,

Observing that Utopia has since established its own identity and governance, independent of the crisis that prompted this Council's intervention,

Recognizing that the Security Council’s resolutions are meant to serve the present needs of regions and uphold durable principles rather than preserve solved concerns and grievances,

Reflecting that the vulnerability following the loss of Utopia’s founder, Utopian thoughts, was a narrow, one-time circumstance tied to a gap in regional leadership, not creating a lasting weakness within the region itself, and that SC#13's framing of this period leaned toward exaggeration, treating a manageable disruption as an existential threat,

Noting further that the residents of Utopia took matters into their own hands, refounding the region and entrusting it in their own community, which, like any other founderless region, can rely on broader military networks to defend itself, the same framework which protects similarly small regions without dedicated Security Council resolutions of their own,

Understanding that this Council functionally repeals liberation resolutions once a region has shown long-term stability and no longer requires active World Assembly intervention,

Exhausted that "Liberate Utopia" has stood for 17 years past the circumstances that needed it, far longer than its original purpose required,

Hereby repeals “Liberate Utopia”.

The Security Council,

Acknowledging that “Liberate Utopia” served an essential purpose in protecting Utopia during an era of regional instability, preserving Utopia’s idyllic and positive environment,

Noting that the specific security concerns and administrative disruptions that prompted SC#13 to be written have been fully resolved by the region’s current residents and global circumstances,

Observing that no native population of Utopia remains, its founding nations and long-standing residents before its refounding having long since ceased to exist, leaving only recently arrived nations with no historical claim to the region predating this Council’s original intervention,

Recognizing that the Security Council’s resolutions are meant to uphold durable principles rather than preserve dated concerns and grievances,

Reflecting that the vulnerability following the loss of Utopia’s founder, Utopian thoughts, left the region genuinely exposed, and SC#13’s intervention played a real part in seeing it through that period, the circumstances that created the one-time occurrence belong to a specific chapter in Utopia’s history that has since closed,

Noting further that the residents of Utopia took matters into their own hands, refounding the region and entrusting it in their own community, which, like any other founderless region, can rely on established defender coalitions to defend itself, coordinated through networks such as Libcord, which respond to raids regardless of formal treaty ties,

Understanding that this Council functionally repeals liberation resolutions once a region has shown long-term stability and no longer requires active World Assembly intervention, as with the recent repeal of “Liberate Portugal de Esquerda,” where the resolution was recognized as unable to serve its intended function without a governor to enforce it, leaving the text ineffective without any active protective effort, and as with the recent repeal of “Liberate Syria,” where invading forces were found to no longer pose a threat to the region, as they were long gone,

Exhausted that “Liberate Utopia” has stood 17 years past the events that needed it, far longer than its original purpose,

Hereby repeals “Liberate Utopia”.

DRAFT 3.1, a lot of concerns here were addressed and I believe it's easier to read now.

The Security Council,

Acknowledging that “Liberate Utopia” served an essential purpose in helping Utopia’s residents reclaim their region from rogues, at a time when the region lacked the means to do so itself, restoring Utopia’s idyllic and positive environment,

Noting that the specific security concerns and administrative disruptions that prompted SC#13 to be written have been fully resolved by the region’s current residents and global circumstances,

Observing that no native population of Utopia remains, its founding nations and long-standing residents before its refounding having long since ceased to exist, leaving only recently arrived nations with no historical claim to the region predating this Council’s original intervention,

Recognizing that the Security Council’s resolutions are meant to uphold durable principles rather than preserve dated concerns and grievances,

Reflecting that the vulnerability following the loss of Utopia’s founder, Utopian thoughts, left the region genuinely exposed, and SC#13’s intervention played a real part in seeing it through that period,

Further reflecting that the circumstances behind the one-time occurrence belong to a specific chapter in Utopia’s history that has since closed,

Noting further that the residents of Utopia took matters into their own hands, refounding the region and entrusting it in their own community,

Aware that Utopia, like any other founderless region, can rely on established defender coalitions to defend itself, coordinated through networks such as Libcord, which monitor and respond to raids regardless of formal treaty ties or Security Council resolutions,

Understanding that this Council functionally repeals liberation resolutions once a region has shown long-term stability and no longer requires active World Assembly intervention, as with the recent repeal of “Liberate Portugal de Esquerda,” where the resolution was recognized as unable to serve its intended function without a governor to enforce it, leaving the text ineffective without any active protective effort, and as with the repeal of “Liberate Syria,” where invading forces were found to no longer pose a threat to the region, as they were long gone,

Exhausted that “Liberate Utopia” has stood 17 years past the events that needed it, far longer than its original purpose,

Hereby repeals “Liberate Utopia”.

Co-Author: Varanius

[Mammoth Cave]

You spend quite a bit of time in this proposal justifying the existence of a lib repeal, which may be my fault. I am also not sure I believe those justifications. In particular, I believe the second "recognizing" clause is unnecessary. In addition, I bet the liberation played some role in protecting Utopia, and I'm referencing the "noting further" clause when I say this. Lastly, while I personally like the suggestion made in the "alarmed" and "recognizing" clauses that the presence of the liberation rewards the raiders who initiated the attack, this argument is new to me. That's not an issue, just something to think about.

You can mention that there are problems with the author of SC#13, but be warned that going into detail would violate this site's harassment rule and SC rule 2. See the final clause in Repeal "Commend Unibot II":

Repudiating the disreputable behavior of Unibot II as contrary to the principles and aims of this Security Council, and firmly asserting that a nation of such ill repute -- which, as a result of its own reprehensible behavior, has been annihilated and no longer even exists -- should not be rewarded by this Security Council with commendation

And regarding our debate last night: I'm trying to help you, not force you out.

In addition, a few minor points:

• You have a typo at the very end of the "Exhausted" clause.
• The second clause should probably say "despite being written in good-faith".

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Here we go again.

I’m glad OP you said that this was a rough draft because it is pretty rough, a good distance away from being a polished product.

Might help if you put in the title header what SC #13 is so we don’t have to get halfway through the text to know what you’re doing.

The draft itself is a bit all over the place, the clauses could be better ordered for a start.

I’ll comment more later.

[Helios Command]

Looks like Utopia is back in attention again.
I moved here because it had a pretty Liberated badge, now the badge isn't as pretty as it used to be but that's no reason to get rid of it!
IDK if I'm considered a native or not, if my opinion matters or not, but I'd like the badge to stay thanks.

[One Small Island]

Hey L V M H, good to see you getting involved in the Security Council!

I have... some thoughts... on your draft. It's... not good, and I am generally against the premise of the draft (for exactly the same reasons that Merethin abandoned their draft). However, as a fellow TKU alum, I'm going to treat this as a learning opportunity, and offer you some earnest and genuine feedback.

So here are a few thoughts:

You should make your thread title the title of the resolution you're proposing, it makes it easier for people to know what they're getting into. [Draft] Repeal "Liberate Utopia", would work.

Your opening clause is very weak, and needs work. It does not inform anyone as to what your proposal is about, or grab the reader's attention in any way. Try something along the lines of "Remembering that in the early days of this council's existence, the region of Utopia was thrown into chaos and ravaged by war, distraught its natives turned to the security council to preserve their idyllic environments and abundant culture by liberating the region," Once you've got that hook in place you can go on with the boring minutia of why the liberation should be repealed.

Noting that the threats SC#13 was written to resolve, such as the invisible password and the delegate who imposed it, no longer exist, making the resolution’s operative clause obsolete, even though the resolution remains active,

This clause is doing a lot, and so I'm gonna break it down into several parts.

Noting that the threats SC#13 was written to resolve, such as the invisible password and the delegate who imposed it, no longer exist

This is not a good argument. Just because the specific people who threatened the region no longer exist does not mean the threat is not still present. Just because the delegate who imposed the password has ceased to exist doesn't mean there's not another raider waiting in the wings to try to claim Utopia for themselves. So instead of saying "These threats don't exist anymore," you should instead be telling us how the region is now prepared to withstand or fight off those threats without the aid of the Security Council.

making the resolution’s operative clause obsolete,

A poorly written, which describes much of the early security council's work, operative clause doesn't make for an obsolete operative clause. The operative clause is essentially "Hereby liberates Utopia", except that liberations were relatively new at the time, and so there was probably some worry that people wouldn't vote in favor of the resolution if it was not explained to them what a liberation did; and instead of doing so in the body of the liberation the writer waited until the operative clause to get around to it.

even though the resolution remains active,

You don't need to tell use that the resolution remains active, you wouldn't be trying to repeal it if it didn't remain active.

Alarmed that SC#13, despite written in good-faith, still names a raider’s chosen delegate in this Council’s records, giving the resolution the unintentional means to work as an ode to the then-active The Alliance of Dictators,

You're concerned that SC#13 will be an ode to the raiders, because it names them in its text, and so your solution to this is to name the raiders in the text of your repeal thus making your repeal an ode to them? Something seems off there.

Recognizing that the Security Council’s resolutions are meant to hold up over time following durable principles, not to serve as leftover praise to raiders they were meant to oppose,

This clause doesn't make sense. what "durable principals" are security council resolutions meant to follow that will cause them to hold up over time?
Also, I've seen SC#13's author wax effusive about raiders from time to time, SC#13 is not one of those times when he does so. So what "praise to raiders" is there in SC#13 that you think should render the resolution void?

Reflecting that after the loss of Utopia’s founder, Utopian thoughts, the region was left vulnerable and drew repeated raids, the Security Council’s earlier action in SC#13 prevented Utopia’s outright destruction without addressing its exposure to smaller incursions,

You're making the case here for why the resolution should be left in place; a part of why those raids were smaller and did not destroy Utopia is because the region was liberated and defenders were able to act without hindrance in repelling them.

Noting further that the residents of Utopia took matters into their own hands, refounding the region and entrusting it in the protection of Blissfulness, who for more than 14 years kept Utopia free from successful raids, establishing the base that has allowed the region to stand independent for more than a decade,

Blissfulness ceased to exist almost two months ago, and shows no signs of reviving anytime soon. This is the only strong argument you've made in favor of a repeal thus far, and it's based on facts that are out of date.

Recognizing that this Council, in similar cases, has repealed resolutions once their operational clauses have been agreed as unnecessary by a region’s own stability rather than leaving them in the records,

This clause reads like you started writing it, took a break to write a different clause, lost your train of thought, and then returned to writing your first clause at the end of it. It definitely need to be tightened up and focused down. Also "has repealed resolutions once their operational clauses have been agreed as unnecessary" why are you focusing so much on operational clauses? It's a strange thing to focus in on; you should instead be making the argument that the whole resolutions is unnecessary, not just it's operational clause.

"agreed as unnecessary by a region’s own stability rather than leaving them in the records,"
Even when leaving this in the context of the rest of the clause, I have no clue what this means or what you're trying to say with it.

Exhausted that after 17 years, SC#13 has not lived up to the standards of liberation of the modern times, and outliving its cause,

I don't think something written 17 years ago needs to live up to modern standards of writing. I also think that "it's poorly written" is, on it own, a pretty weak argument which should serve to supplement other, more substantive and persuasive, arguments.

Hereby repeals Security Council Resolution #13 “Liberate Utopia”.

This should not be the first time that you are telling us which resolution you're trying to repeal. At least one, preferably the first, instance where you used SC#13 should be replaced with "Liberate Utopia".

[L V M H]

Draft updated, thank you to all who commented.

[L V M H]

Boost

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

So we have one resident (out of four) saying they don’t want the Liberation removed. Now unless we hear from the others saying yes it can go I’m against this repeal.

Noting that the specific security concerns that prompted SC#13 to be written, such as the invisible password and the delegate who imposed it, have been fully resolved by the region’s current community and circumstances,

Observing that Utopia has since established its own identity and governance, independent of the crisis that prompted this Council's intervention,

Let’s have a look at the highlighted phrases. The current community consists of four nations, one whom doesn’t want the Liberation repealed and another who has previously been identified as a raider-aligned puppet.

There is also very little evidence for any sort of governance or identity for the region. You appear to be using stock phrases without any evidence that what you are saying is true.

The fact that the region is now Governor-less should also give you pause on moving forward with this. At the moment the only good reason I can see for a repeal is the author of the original.

[L V M H]

So we have one resident (out of four) saying they don’t want the Liberation removed. Now unless we hear from the others saying yes it can go I’m against this repeal.

Noting that the specific security concerns that prompted SC#13 to be written, such as the invisible password and the delegate who imposed it, have been fully resolved by the region’s current community and circumstances,

Observing that Utopia has since established its own identity and governance, independent of the crisis that prompted this Council's intervention,

Let’s have a look at the highlighted phrases. The current community consists of four nations, one whom doesn’t want the Liberation repealed and another who has previously been identified as a raider-aligned puppet.

There is also very little evidence for any sort of governance or identity for the region. You appear to be using stock phrases without any evidence that what you are saying is true.

The fact that the region is now Governor-less should also give you pause on moving forward with this. At the moment the only good reason I can see for a repeal is the author of the original.

I don’t believe that simply being resident is a native. All the natives of the region have CTE’d, and the only remaining people are recently moved in nations who came for the sake of the badge. This raises the question of who counts as a native if all the nations are gone. A few nations and I did have a discussion on this but the opinion does remain split on the native consent.

Liberations do in fact exist to keep active and relevant communities safe, raiderdom is asleep as of now, so why do we need to keep archaic liberations for the sake of historical relics or a few alts? Defenders are there to assist, and I think we can take the training wheels away from Utopia after 14 years because I think they can clearly steer themselves in which direction they want to go for the sake of their region’s future.

It seems that I may have to put a freeze on the proposal for now, and I will keep that option in mind.

Thank you for your feedback, Bhang Bhang Duc!

[Dengist China]

Additionally, out of the other three residents, one has only resided in the region for ten days. If either of the other two say no (it seems one is active, too, so I'd go TG them about it) then I'd drop the draft.

[L V M H]

Additionally, out of the other three residents, one has only resided in the region for ten days. If either of the other two say no (it seems one is active, too, so I'd go TG them about it) then I'd drop the draft.

ALL of the residents are puppets, the region has no natives. Resident consent is not a concept, native consent is. Though the term is used loosely, it still has some sort of definition. I'm not sunsetting this for the sake of someone's puppet who really likes the badge.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Additionally, out of the other three residents, one has only resided in the region for ten days. If either of the other two say no (it seems one is active, too, so I'd go TG them about it) then I'd drop the draft.

ALL of the residents are puppets, the region has no natives. Resident consent is not a concept, native consent is. Though the term is used loosely, it still has some sort of definition. I'm not sunsetting this for the sake of someone's puppet who really likes the badge.

So a nation that has resided in the region for nearly 1,500 days and has the gumption to show up here to give their opinion on removing the Liberation has no rights?

Good to know you’re just going to bully them into this against their clearly stated wishes.

This has now descended to the level of a fucking awful badge hunt.

Against.

Edit: for a lesson in how to abandon a draft gracefully in the face of resident opposition to a repeal you might want to follow Islandwalk’s example.
viewtopic.php?p=43899638#p43899638

[Adriatic Democratic Empire]

ALL of the residents are puppets, the region has no natives. Resident consent is not a concept, native consent is. Though the term is used loosely, it still has some sort of definition. I'm not sunsetting this for the sake of someone's puppet who really likes the badge.

So a nation that has resided in the region for nearly 1,500 days and has the gumption to show up here to give their opinion on removing the Liberation has no rights?

Good to know you’re just going to bully them into this against their clearly stated wishes.

This has now descended to the level of a fucking awful badge hunt.

Against.

Edit: for a lesson in how to abandon a draft gracefully in the face of resident opposition to a repeal you might want to follow Islandwalk’s example.
viewtopic.php?p=43899638#p43899638

was their opinion expressed elsewhere? I don't think any natives have confirmed nor denied that on this thread

edit: yes turns out there was didn't see them

[Rovhania]

The residency stat of an inactive puppet calling themselves a native could be 10,000 days and it wouldn't matter.
There are no compelling reasons to retain the badge, and I'm finding it difficult to see any merit to the claim that this badge is what stands in the way of preventing an occupation raid against Utopia. This is hardly an unworthy target, and should also simply be repealed on account of the author.

[L V M H]

The residency stat of an inactive puppet calling themselves a native could be 10,000 days and it wouldn't matter.
There are no compelling reasons to retain the badge, and I'm finding it difficult to see any merit to the claim that this badge is what stands in the way of preventing an occupation raid against Utopia. This is hardly an unworthy target, and should also simply be repealed on account of the author.

Thank you for saying this!

[Adriatic Democratic Empire]

The residency stat of an inactive puppet calling themselves a native could be 10,000 days and it wouldn't matter.
There are no compelling reasons to retain the badge, and I'm finding it difficult to see any merit to the claim that this badge is what stands in the way of preventing an occupation raid against Utopia. This is hardly an unworthy target, and should also simply be repealed on account of the author.

the author (while unfortunate) is still what keeps the region going. and considering they're active enough to post (I mean what regional activity are you expecting from a no governor region with 4 non WA accounts) and yet still went to the forum to say against for the badge. the compelling argument is native disapproval. this also means you didn't even ask for native approval.

hard against

[Rovhania]

The residency stat of an inactive puppet calling themselves a native could be 10,000 days and it wouldn't matter.
There are no compelling reasons to retain the badge, and I'm finding it difficult to see any merit to the claim that this badge is what stands in the way of preventing an occupation raid against Utopia. This is hardly an unworthy target, and should also simply be repealed on account of the author.

the author (while unfortunate) is still what keeps the region going. and considering they're active enough to post (I mean what regional activity are you expecting from a no governor region with 4 non WA accounts) and yet still went to the forum to say against for the badge. the compelling argument is native disapproval. this also means you didn't even ask for native approval.

hard against

You can't be serious, rn. I can come on the SC forum and post with a bunch of different puppets, that won't make my point any more legitimate. One of these so called natives is literally a raider puppet and was proven as such in the earlier Merethin draft thread. Native disapproval is also so weak as to bring into question why we do this song and dance at all. Is there a compelling argument why a region filled with puppets, and under no threat of occupation, deserves to keep its badge simply cos?

[L V M H]

Boost, Draft 3 uploaded!

[L V M H]

The residency stat of an inactive puppet calling themselves a native could be 10,000 days and it wouldn't matter.
There are no compelling reasons to retain the badge, and I'm finding it difficult to see any merit to the claim that this badge is what stands in the way of preventing an occupation raid against Utopia. This is hardly an unworthy target, and should also simply be repealed on account of the author.

the author (while unfortunate) is still what keeps the region going. and considering they're active enough to post (I mean what regional activity are you expecting from a no governor region with 4 non WA accounts) and yet still went to the forum to say against for the badge. the compelling argument is native disapproval. this also means you didn't even ask for native approval.

hard against

The puppets sitting in Utopia have absolutely 0 connection to the region pre-refound. They're twisting the "resident/native consent" argument on its head. Instead of protecting a legitimate local community, you're weaponizing it to preserve a liberation under false pretenses.
None of the players answer issues in the region. I think the flat NS stats for each one them show a message that these aren't anyone's main nations.

[The Ambis]

I would provide examples in your "understanding" clause.

I am not opposed to this resolution. I think that the arguments made against the naysayers have been good. Happy to support if this gets to vote

[L V M H]

I would provide examples in your "understanding" clause.

I am not opposed to this resolution. I think that the arguments made against the naysayers have been good. Happy to support if this gets to vote

Thank you, Ambis!
I will be sure to implement a few examples next time I get writing.

EDIT: added examples

[Dengist China]

Honestly, that is a good argument. I will swap back to support as such.

[L V M H]

Honestly, that is a good argument. I will swap back to support as such.

Pleased to hear that!

[Greater Kibleston]

The Security Council,

Acknowledging that “Liberate Utopia” served an essential purpose in protecting Utopia during an era of regional instability, preserving Utopia’s idyllic and positive environment,

When Utopia was griefed, it was not unstable. Inactive, yes, but saying both unstable and idyllic seems contradictory. What about:
Acknowledging that "Liberate Utopia" aided Utopia's vibrant community to reclaim their region from rogues

Noting that the specific security concerns and administrative disruptions that prompted SC#13 to be written have been fully resolved by the region’s current residents and global circumstances,

Could also be modified a bit, for flow.
Noting that the region has changed significantly since it was Liberated, and resolved the security and administrative concerns that prompted its Liberation

Observing that no native population of Utopia remains, its founding nations and long-standing residents before its refounding having long since ceased to exist, leaving only recently arrived nations with no historical claim to the region predating this Council’s original intervention,

Sounds info-dumpy. Could be:
Observing that the sands of history have reclaimed Utopia, following the disappearance of the nations that thrived in the region in its heydays, leaving but stragglers and satellite states squatting in a home emptied of its residents

Recognizing that the Security Council’s resolutions are meant to uphold durable principles rather than preserve dated concerns and grievances,

Concerned about what this implies about Condemnations, historical resolutions, and some badges that are symbols of hard-won victories.

Reflecting that the vulnerability following the loss of Utopia’s founder, Utopian thoughts, left the region genuinely exposed, and SC#13’s intervention played a real part in seeing it through that period, the circumstances that created the one-time occurrence belong to a specific chapter in Utopia’s history that has since closed,

Noting further that the residents of Utopia took matters into their own hands, refounding the region and entrusting it in their own community, which, like any other founderless region, can rely on established defender coalitions to defend itself, coordinated through networks such as Libcord, which respond to raids regardless of formal treaty ties,

Some of your clauses have a tendency to break their own flow, and I forget the previous part of the sentence while reading the next.

Understanding that this Council functionally repeals liberation resolutions once a region has shown long-term stability and no longer requires active World Assembly intervention, as with the recent repeal of “Liberate Portugal de Esquerda,” where the resolution was recognized as unable to serve its intended function without a governor to enforce it, leaving the text ineffective without any active protective effort, and as with the recent repeal of “Liberate Syria,” where invading forces were found to no longer pose a threat to the region, as they were long gone,

SC Repeal wave incoming?

Exhausted that “Liberate Utopia” has stood 17 years past the events that needed it, far longer than its original purpose,

Could be:
Exasperated that "Liberate Utopia" has outlined its original purpose by seventeen years,

Hereby repeals “Liberate Utopia”!

[Adriatic Democratic Empire]

the author (while unfortunate) is still what keeps the region going. and considering they're active enough to post (I mean what regional activity are you expecting from a no governor region with 4 non WA accounts) and yet still went to the forum to say against for the badge. the compelling argument is native disapproval. this also means you didn't even ask for native approval.

hard against

You can't be serious, rn. I can come on the SC forum and post with a bunch of different puppets, that won't make my point any more legitimate. One of these so called natives is literally a raider puppet and was proven as such in the earlier Merethin draft thread. Native disapproval is also so weak as to bring into question why we do this song and dance at all. Is there a compelling argument why a region filled with puppets, and under no threat of occupation, deserves to keep its badge simply cos?

I'm not talking about Teahouse, I'm talking about Helios Command (see here:https://www.nationstates.net/nation=helios_command/detail=trend/censusid=80) considering no one have given two shits about the region except when it comes to repealing it their opinions matter.

and besides, the liberation is the only thing that keeps it safe.

if something is put in place for the region besides letting it wither I'd reconsider.