Concluding Recommendations: M. Hon. Pierce Milton

As a memetosociologist, I feel a somewhat paradoxical duty to point out when perception does not influence reality. While it is demonstrably true that much of society's function is determined by participants' models of what those functions are, it is equally true that people forget that there are limitations when you investigate from this perspective. In the Legend of the Three Trees, an argument over national pride belies a challenge to the disputants' survival itself. And, likewise, I fear that in the discussion over the Disarrangement Act, we are too concerned with which tree is whose, and not nearly enough about which tree is going to fall on us.

I begin by interrogating the dominant narrative of the Disarrangement Act, which is that it seeks to create world peace by moving belligerents away from each other. I am honestly surprised that a thinking person could entertain this argument in good faith for more than a few moments. Even a brief examination of world history reveals the absurdity of the notion. Less than three centuries ago, the War of Durun's Ass illustrated that a sufficiently motivated country could project military force to the other side of the globe with little more than a borrowed fleet of residential vessels. The Roerbach Incident proved that the Assembly itself could serve as the root of conflict, regardless of where the disputing Sovereigns sit their thrones.

In fact, the informed student of history would be forgiven for thinking the shortest road to world peace requires preventing Selestei from projecting force into other countries—a lesson which we know at least Shaster has taken to heart, given their quick response to Selesteine militarization during the Goats on Boats Affair. And yet Selestei has never come up in the rhetoric surrounding the Disarrangement Act. Likewise, the Act's proponents do not mention any threat posed by the Ulgravian Diaspora, despite their global force projection capabilities and the blood of an entire country on their hands. One would assume that if global peace were truly an objective of the Act's defenders, they would at least make some superficial arguments that grounding Ulgrav makes it harder for them to bomb us into oblivion. But no such arguments exist; we merely hear about how Flandre threatens world peace, despite Flandre never having engaged in direct military action against a recognized nation (this qualifier in recognition of the grey area of the Cetacean Wars).

One might make the (quite reasonable) objection that the threat of Flandre comes not from military action, but covert actions taken against other members of the global community. I agree completely. But if we admit intrigue into the scope of concern, then surely it would be criminal negligence not to mention Lepazzia, who blur the lines between our constructs of peace and conflict. Flandrean intelligence operations only serve to solidify Flandre's position on the international stage; meanwhile, the Massively Parallel Peace Conference did more to set back the cause of global peace than anything Flandre's done in the past three centuries. I would further argue that their inventive utilization of the Esoteric Order of Florists in destroying the sanity of Mad King Westler makes them a threat to the national security of every other nation on the planet—save perhaps the Hegemony of Whales—regardless of where those nations are located. And what of the other dark horse threats? If the Contagious Republic decides to infect a world leader and cause global chaos, how will moving the countries around do anything to stop them? We don't know, because we see only silence from champions of the Disarrangement Act on these topics.

Given that the pro-Act rhetoric seems insincere, strip that away. What are we left with? A proposal by a prominent Assembly nation to strip their largest rival of the key resource that allows them to be a threat. Noble Sovereigns, I have no stake in the conflict between Flandre and the Hegemony, but I do have a stake in the planet's continued peace and prosperity, and I fear that the collateral damage of this maneuver is strictly unacceptable. Since the Disarrangement Act was presented to the Assembly, multiple studies out of the National Academy of Velskyavo have confirmed that indicators of global tension have reached the levels that typically precede wars. Troublingly, this includes a record number of bloodmoots in the Fractured Cities this year, a particularly robust indicator of global unrest. And we are already seeing negative impacts from the Act: the Stratsky Foundation for Economics and Insurrection has released an analysis demonstrating that the global uncertainty is driving trade into the ground.

This is to say nothing of possible existential threats, which one would hope top the list of the Assembly's priorities. A recent paper by Professor Hazard McKinley made the observation that the Disarrangement Act would necessarily include massively increased sea travel, likely pushing pollution levels into unrecoverable territory. Does the Hegemony fear Flandre so much that they're willing to destroy their own country to neuter them? And given the prospective transportation of entire people groups across open water, why does the Disarrangement Act contain no provisions made for dealing with the Ravenous Squid-Trees? To overlook them is essentially asking for an accidental genocide.

Finally, I have a question which I have yet to hear a cogent answer to: why not pick an easier road to world peace? The Zeitgeist Manipulator is still operating in orbit around our planet, and demonstrably possesses the power to shape decision-making around the globe. If you want to see conflict diminished, order an expedition to alter its programming. By the fact that I can even suggest this, we know that this would be no threat to St. Stafford, whose legacy is already secure. In fact, it would make him the savior of our world once again.

Given all of these reasons, I cannot in good conscience recommend a vote in favor of the Disarrangement Act. In light of the available evidence, I can see no other conclusion than that implementing the Act would essentially be a form of global suicide—if a world war does not erupt before we even get that far. I trust that your wisdom, as responsible world leaders, will enable you to make the right choice.

---

Respectfully,
Most Honored Pierce Milton