Repeal “Condemn The Black Hawks”

[Moonfungus]

Ah makes sense, was a bit confused about those

[Zaberaz Hapang]

Did a few changes based on the feedback I have received

[Indibagion Mer]

The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING the good intent of the original proposal;

ACKNOWLEDGING SC resolution #217 goes much further in-depth about why The Black Hawks deserves a condemnation;

STATING that the original resolution has very few arguments as to why specifically The Black Hawks is special and deserves to be condemned with arguments such as: "CONCERNED that The Black Hawks have openly targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to permanently exert their control.";

NOTING the original proposal makes vague claims without giving any specific examples;

BELIEVING that the original proposal has done more harm than good by giving The Black Hawks propaganda and recruitment material as they say in their recruitment telegram: "The Black Hawks: The Most Feared Military Organization in NationStates. Now the only region with two World Assembly Condemnations!";

WISHING to stop the Black Hawks from using this condemnation as a badge of honor which defeats the purpose of the original resolution;

FURTHER NOTING that this is not a pardon of The Black Hawks' acts against defenseless founderless regions;

Hereby, repeals SC resolution #52 Condemn The Black Hawks

No we like it

[Kingdom Of Englands]

Against this

[Zaberaz Hapang]

Last call

[Outer Sparta]

Still unconvinced at your repeal arguments. All you say is that "they use it for propaganda." By that logic, we should repeal every region condemnation because it encourages them to do propaganda.

[Eumaeus]

The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING the good intent of the original proposal;

ACKNOWLEDGING SC resolution #217 goes much further in-depth about why The Black Hawks deserves a condemnation;

While it is only my personal opinion that Security Council ought to be spelled out when referencing a resolution, objectively resolution needs to be capitalized here. Additionally, there should be a "that" after acknowledging.

Furthermore, referencing a specific resolution by number prior to acknowledging the number of the target resolution further muddles the clarity of which condemnation is being discussed when. Another point of technicality is in regard to the use of the word "proposal" in the first clause: the terms "draft", "proposal", and "resolution" each have different meanings, as they each refer to different stages in the SC's legislative process (drafting, voting, and passage respectively).

The first clause would be more effective as "RECOGNIZING the good intent of the original condemnation of The Black Hawks, Security Council Resolution #52 Condemn The Black Hawks;".

STATING that the original resolution has very few arguments as to why specifically The Black Hawks is special and deserves to be condemned with arguments such as: "CONCERNED that The Black Hawks have openly targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to permanently exert their control.";

NOTING the original proposal makes vague claims without giving any specific examples;

The placement of this quote is completely off: you initially argue in this first clause that the resolution offers few arguments in favor of condemning TBH but go on to reference hundreds of attacks on other regions, undermining the point that you're attempting to make. Furthermore, offhandedly copy-pasting a quote here instead of listing the reasons given by SC #52 gives off the impression that the content of the resolution isn't the focus of your criticism (after all if there really are so few arguments then listing them shouldn't take much space). Compounding my initial concerns regarding the unwieldy use of this quote is the fact that the very next clause argues that SC #52 is too vague, an argument that the quote actually could have lent some support to.

You also completely fail to address (or even acknowledge) the second, more fleshed out prong of SC #52's argument regarding TBH's strong arming of the World Assembly and its implications regarding free speech and faith in the WA as an institution. I'm hesitant to imply that it was intentional, but this is potentially because that argument, which takes up a greater bulk of SC #52's text than the argument you've acknowledged, does not fit the narrative you've set up in which SC #52 is vague and lacking in content.

BELIEVING that the original proposal has done more harm than good by giving The Black Hawks propaganda and recruitment material as they say in their recruitment telegram: "The Black Hawks: The Most Feared Military Organization in NationStates. Now the only region with two World Assembly Condemnations!";

WISHING to stop the Black Hawks from using this condemnation as a badge of honor which defeats the purpose of the original resolution;

Outer Sparta's previous comment aptly explains the issues with these clauses: the logic that has been set forth in favor of each of the existing instances in which a double condemnation was deemed appropriate by the members of the World Assembly has been an extension of the same logic that has been used to counter the "badge of honor" argument for years. We all know that Raiders like being condemned but that's never been accepted as a reason not to condemn them.

Your argument that "condemnation [sic] are supposed to show disapproval of a nation or region but in this case it's doing the opposite" is incorrect in that what you're describing is true of all raider condemnations. While it could potentially be argued that having two condemnations has a distinct effect in terms of propaganda from that of a single condemnation, that is not what the text of this draft or your responses to feedback have sought to argue. By explicitly invoking the "badge of honor" argument you are presenting this condemnation not as an aberration from but as an extension of a (flawed) perspective of Security Council doctrine lobbying against all R/D condemnations.

FURTHER NOTING that this is not a pardon of The Black Hawks' acts against defenseless founderless regions;

I would comment that this clause feels incredibly tacked on in its current form/placement, but this concession isn't going to resonate with many WA members regardless of its form or placement.

Hereby, repeals SC resolution #52 Condemn The Black Hawks

What I said above about the 'acknowledging' clause applies here as well; that comma after "hereby" is unnecessary; there should be a period at the end of this sentence.

Substandard research, mediocre writing, poorly constructed arguments, and a flawed perspective makes this a hard against from me.

[Refuge Isle]

There are frequently proposals that arise in the Security Council that are critical of the TBH condemnations and highlight that they are used as propaganda. This isn't news for us.

Doing a quick scan, I see 11 unique proposals to repeal a TBH condemnation since the start of 2019. For repealing SC#52, in particular, there have been three previous proposals in total which reached vote and were defeated.^[1][2][3] So what makes this repeal attempt different and more credible than those that have come before it?

R/D politics aside, when you have a repeal that is as short as this one, the few arguments it brings to the table need to be powerful ones. Sometimes you can get away with writing this compact in the GA, as there are cases where the target resolution accidentally enacted something catastrophic, but that's not really the case here. You have two main arguments in this repeal. The first being that it's positive propaganda, which is an argument every failed repeal makes. The second is that the writing is simply not good enough, which is solvable with a repeal and replace. That isn't being done, so I feel you're not left with much chance for this passing.

An r/d political stance that could be had is that TBH simply doesn't deserve the badge of honour, for their raiding quality/ability to raid no longer justifies it. This is also swinging in the same political direction as a recent political statement from Balder and recent occupations such as Equestria which seemed to specifically exclude The Black Hawks. The viability of that strategy is hard to say, but you may pick up more votes than with your current angles.