GUM in turmoil as member states expelled
The State of Sandus and Kingdom of Juclandia were yesterday expelled from the GUM after a motion to do so was made by Haakon of Zealandia.
Sandus, Juclandia, and several non-GUM member states such as Prsänëa have for several weeks now made known their active opposition to King Quentin and Prime Minister Bradley of the Kingdom of Wyvern frequently bringing up controversial topics in Skype chatrooms such as the GUM Lounge and Micropolitan Lounge. Said topics frequently involve race, with the two Wyvernian leaders having been accused of xenophobia, and, in some cases, racism.
Examples of their controversial behaviour include Bradley, Duke of Dullahan, referring to Africans by the discouraged racial term “negroid”, stating that “cultural diversity is bad”, and that ”[Africans] are more aggressive through hormoons [sic] and are unfortunatly [sic] somewhat less intelegent [sic] then we are”, with King Quentin openly admitting that Wyvern is “Islamaphobic” and that he “just really do[es]n’t like Moroccans”. These are not one-off statements, either – Wyvern’s leadership has gained a reputation for talking about little other than race or religion, with Joseph Puglisi of Tiana saying that they “relate every single conversation to Islam”.
It was due to statements such as these that Sandus, Juclandia and some other states opposed the nomination of Bradley of Dullahan to the position of Vice-Chair of the GUM by newly elected Chair Yaroslav Mar. After the nomination passed two weeks ago, Sandus and Juclandia changed their full membership to observership in protest.
During yesterday’s Quorum the Secretary of the Securty Council, Haakon of Zealandia – who was suspended from the GUM in February for unprofessional behaviour and is known for a long-standing feud with Sandus – shocked the Quorum by proposing the expulsion of Sandus and Juclandia for “agressive [sic] and unaccatable [sic] behaviour”. Expulsion from the GUM is an extremely grave sanction, with the only other time it having been utilised this year being in May with the expulsion of the UDR from the community for confessed criminal actions by its founder.
Despite protests that Haakon was assuming a role incompatible with the Security Council’s function of promoting peace in the community, “not exarcabat[ing]” conflicts, a motion to expel Sandus passed by a single vote, with the Chair passing the motion before all online delegates had a chance to cast their vote.
Haakon then initially asked the Chair to move on, but after accusations of hypocrisy and of acting in the interests of Zealandia rather than the GUM, was pressured into also proposing the expulsion of Juclandia, again passed by a single vote. Later in the Quorum, Austenasia made a formal complaint in regards to the actions by Haakon, reminding him that the purpose of the Security Council is “not to arbitrarily decide who is in the wrong, and it is certainly not to propose expulsions of those who take part in diplomatic conflicts”, and criticising him for not “first trying to solve the issue at hand through negotiation or mediation, as [the Security Council] is obliged to do.” Renasia and Amager both expressed their support and backing for the complaint, and the Nemkhav Federation resigned from the Security Council in protest.
In an interview with the A1 News Service, Chairman Mar stated that the ”official reason” for the expulsion of Sandus and Juclandia ”was for making racist comments and offending the leadership of the GUM”, despite this not having been mentioned at the time of the expulsion. This statement has come under heavy criticism – the only “racist comment” referred to by the Chair is a joke taken out of context by King Ciprian of Juclandia during a discussion about the Moon, with no comments at all claimed to have been made by Sandus. King Adam of Uberstadt stated that “Sandus is the last micronation I would suspect of being racist”.
The second justification, “Offending the leadership of the GUM”, has also come under criticism, with Sebastian Linden of Francisville referring to the new Chair as “authoritarian” and an A1NS interviewer noting that it has “implications for freedom of speech”. Haakon has been directed to author a statement fully justifying why he considered it appropriate to motion for the expulsion of two member states instead of taking up the constitutional function of the Security Council to attempt to mediate the dispute.