World Assembly Perspectives
Interviews with Europeia’s World Assembly Sages
Written by Maowi
Just like any other Europeian ministry, World Assembly (WA) Affairs usually features as a paragraph or two on presidential platforms, which often focus on ways of increasing engagement in the ministry, ensuring its efficiency, and developing talent within it. These are, of course, extremely valuable discussions to have -- but it is rare to see an analysis of possible approaches to various different issues in the WA and how we could shape our collective stance on them as a region. The Europeian Broadcasting Corporation spoke to WA Delegate Prim, Minister of WA Affairs SkyGreen24, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Kuramia about their personal views on some of these issues in order to gain a clearer picture of where Europeians’ opinions might lie.
The General Assembly (GA) -- the in-character chamber of the WA, for debating issues that translate over from real life -- is perhaps difficult to address as it operates in an entirely different universe to that of regions and gameplay. While Prim prefers to separate the two -- “we should treat the GA as RP [roleplay] as possible, as if these resolutions are affecting actual nations and people” -- Kuramia approaches the GA first and foremost as a Europeian. “[M]y nation was, as it might be for many people, built upon a whim and do not [sic] reflect my own personal beliefs. I think if someone voted for something truly against Europeian ideals -- not that there are many like that -- there would be people asking questions.” She alludes to the GA’s lack, in recent times, of proposals controversial for their content instead of their execution. “Now it comes down to well-written proposals or repeals that make good points and have replacements in the works.” On the rare occasion a strongly disputed policy is submitted -- such as Imperium Anglorum’s “Access to Abortion,” which in earlier forms was subjected to both written and military counter-campaigning from its opponents -- Europeia has lent its support; but in general, there is little to debate about from that angle. Perhaps the GA needs a breath of fresh air? Some have advocated for a reset of the GA, similar to the replacement of the United Nations with the WA. Kuramia believes this would allow “a lot of newer people staring in bewilderment and maybe a bit of hesitancy at all the big names in GA to [...] come in and shift the landscape instead of fighting against the tide.”
Prim has a similar assessment of what he calls “a worrying trend.” In his view, this decrease in “opportunities and topics to create new resolutions” has led to a tendency of “scouring current resolutions for minor errors or possibly vague declarations” as a basis for a repeal, possibly followed by a replacement. This “would be fine if [such authors] had drafted a replacement resolution ready to go upon repeal of the old one.” Unfortunately, it allows national sovereigntists -- those who prefer to minimise the GA’s interference in national matters -- to “repeal a resolution, promising a replacement, but then never actually move to replace it, effectively repealing it and co-opting the support of those who wanted the resolution in the first place.” SkyGreen24’s outlook is similar: it is a question of the author’s honesty. He refers to a surge, this summer, of “bad-faith repeals, where the wording made it sound like a replacement was necessary and upcoming, but it was all just an attempt to ensure the passage of the repeal.” For Prim, however, there is also an in-character element to it. “If we repeal a resolution, even with the intention of replacing it, we're creating a gap in coverage, in protection, for all those who may have come to rely on these resolutions.” As a result, he takes “any repeal as an "On-the-merits repeal" meaning that they oppose the spirit of the resolution, regardless of what the repeal clauses claim,” until a replacement draft is produced.
In complete contrast to the GA, the Security Council (SC) is inherently tied in with regional gameplay dynamics -- but it, too, has seen a paradigm shift of sorts in recent times, as more and more non-gameplay areas of NationStates (NS) gain SC recognition. SkyGreen24 welcomes this change: “I reason that since these areas have become more prominent it is only normal for those who excel in them to be given attention. I think there's still some refining done as to what is worthy of a SC resolution, but I'd say it's generally a positive trend.” Prim is more critical; the SC rules prevent direct mention of game mechanisms, such as issues and cards, forcing authors to refer to them in roundabout ways (e.g. cards as artwork), which results in what he calls “the blatant absurdity of Card Game SC Resolutions.” This is not, he says, a particular fault of the cards community, but an effect of the SC’s setup. “SC resolutions ought to be allowed to reference their mechanics in a more straightforward way [...] since SC resolutions almost exclusively utilize in-game mechanics, even though they have to shroud it behind gimmick phrases or vague wording to avoid using explicit references to NS being a game, then it seems like the Card Game should be accommodated somehow.”
Even within the subset of gameplay-related SC resolutions, things are far from set in stone. An occasional point of contention is the role of the Condemnation -- do they lose their value if the nominee wants it? Kuramia chooses to evaluate that on a case-by-case basis: “I personally don't mind the Commendatory Condemnation as long as that region or nation aligns with our ideals. For example, a fascist region wanting a condemn would hopefully not be getting one.” How does she justify that view? “Many people point out that conflict and bad guys are important to have in Nation States (though that doesn't extend to fascism). I agree. I don't think there's anything wrong with someone acknowledging they make a good villain any more than there's anything wrong with someone acknowledging the opposite.” Of course, it is vital to be careful what message a Condemnation sends out. “[C]ondemns of bad actors (forum destroyers, fascists, etc.) should be a warning to anyone else that we do not tolerate such actions or ideas and should not become badges of honor.” SkyGreen24 goes further, preferring to stay entirely on the safe side. “A badge is a badge. And if people start to think that they can get a badge for doing stuff like that, I'd rather see pseudo-Commendatory Condemnations.”
What about the other tools at the SC’s disposal? The Liberation is a type of SC resolution that removes delegate-imposed passwords to a region, and was originally designed to aid defenders in preventing raiders from maintaining indefinite control of a region. Over time, however, it has grown into something of a more symbolic role; Liberation texts often resemble Condemnations (e.g. “Liberate Confederation of Corrupt Dictators”), and are used to separate them from the types of “honourable” Condemnations mentioned above. Kuramia believes they can be extremely effective in this capacity. “A Liberation can sometimes be better at addressing the problem and insinuating, rather pointedly and sometimes without subtlety, that a region or its leadership is dangerous for its residents [...] it can be utilized in a different direction as well to say something related to a condemnation but also provoke action alongside it.” That is not to say that Liberations in their traditional role cannot also be used powerfully: Kuramia mentions St Abbaddon’s Liberation as “a big example of how Liberations can be effective and good for the region's community.” Securing St Abbaddon’s from the New Pacific Order (NPO), and returning its rightful government to power, was an extremely significant step towards victory in the war against the NPO and the Liberation was crucial to Europeia’s and its allies’ success.
St Abbaddon is one major example of the importance of understanding the WA, but doing so is essential to good foreign affairs in a multitude of other ways. The WA can do anything from bringing players closer to serving as the battleground for an ideological war. Discussing where we fit in that landscape, and how we can use it to further our values, can only do us good.
