Review of Extant Treaties

[Sandaoguo]

Just to reiterate: repealing the TNI-TSP treaty isn't in the radar of any government official, as far as I know. The Assembly would probably vote it down anyways.

[Unibot]

Before we pursued a Treaty with TNI we had approached TRR twice about a treaty and close relations. Both times we were denied. I handled one of the discussions and I can't remember without looking who handled the other.

 

That may have to do with who was in government at the time. Thanks for commenting, Hileville. I didn't know that part of the story.

[Southern Bellz]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
As far as 'dropping TNI for TRR', I just think that is a terrible approach.  We have sent multiple delegation's to try to develop a treaty with TRR, and they are the ones not interested.  I understand they do not want to deal with TNI, but that is their choice, and if they want to isolate themselves from any regions associated with them in any way, then I respect that decision, but it should not influence us to drop a good ally.

 

As far as the RRA, I do not believe they have ever come to our aid, but I honestly don't remember much about military support in the Milo coup.  TRR has been largely indifferent towards TSP in all of my dealings.

You have perpetuated this apathy of TRR towards TSP.


Back when we were considering TNI's treaty with TSP, I told you that they had recently invaded TRR and this would likely piss them off. Your response?

 

I really don't care too much about TRR after how they treated me. TNI has shown TSP more respect with this treaty than TRR has had in years.
 

 

We've allied ourselves with the region that invaded TRR and admittedly at the time, said we "didn't care" - and now we expect them to suddenly be okay with this? That's just rude and selfish -- it typifies how The South Pacific has been doing FA for the past two years. 

 


</blockquote>
 

Does their 'perpetuated apathy' also include when I personally tried to negotiate a treaty with them as delegate?  Or do you just want another assembly platform to call me names.

[Unibot]

 

 

Or do you just want another assembly platform to call me names.

 

These negotiations were not known to me, my apologies. My stance remains the same on TNI treaty, but I'll concede TRR isn't a huge issue, when they turned down offers to be negotiating before TNI's treaty with us. Thanks.

[Cormac]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 

 

Or do you just want another assembly platform to call me names.

 

These negotiations were not known to me, my apologies. My stance remains the same on TNI treaty, but I'll concede TRR isn't a huge issue, when they turned down offers to be negotiating before TNI's treaty with us. Thanks.

 


</blockquote>
 

Now that you no longer have TRR as the issue you've cited justifying repeal of the TNI treaty, why hasn't your stance changed? What is your reasoning for repealing the TNI treaty?

[Unibot]

The same reasons as Bel stated.

 

1. The South Pacific should not be associated with Imperialism.

 

2. The change of the parameters of the treaty requires a new treaty so that the Assembly can independently review whether to approve an alliance with Albion and The Land of Kings and Emperors. 

[Cormac]

The same reasons as Bel stated.

 

1. The South Pacific should not be associated with Imperialism.

 

2. The change of the parameters of the treaty requires a new treaty so that the Assembly can independently review whether to approve an alliance with Albion and The Land of Kings and Emperors. 

 

In regard to the first point, I would be interested to hear whether Bel continues to believe that The South Pacific shouldn't be associated with imperialism in light of the help TNI and other imperialists provided during Milograd's coup. I think that point may have been a little more relevant prior to the coup than it is now. The South Pacific should be associated with those who are committed to our security, regardless of R/D ideological considerations. TNI, and the other two UIAF member regions who aren't even in a treaty alliance with us, have already demonstrated a strong commitment to our security.

 

On the second point, I would be fine with repealing the TNI treaty in favor of a treaty with all three UIAF member regions. Great idea. Let's work on that first before repealing what is perhaps our most practically important security treaty.

[StGeorgie]

Furthermore Cormac, your statement is misleading, TRR was a "neutral" region at the time it was invaded by TNI. TRR has only, as of two days ago, been a "defender" region.

You are delusional. TRR has been an FRA member region for years. By joining the FRA, you announce that you are a defender region.

[Unibot]

 

In regard to the first point, I would be interested to hear whether Bel continues to believe that The South Pacific shouldn't be associated with imperialism in light of the help TNI and other imperialists provided during Milograd's coup. I think that point may have been a little more relevant prior to the coup than it is now. The South Pacific should be associated with those who are committed to our security, regardless of R/D ideological considerations. TNI, and the other two UIAF member regions who aren't even in a treaty alliance with us, have already demonstrated a strong commitment to our security.

 

On the second point, I would be fine with repealing the TNI treaty in favor of a treaty with all three UIAF member regions. Great idea. Let's work on that first before repealing what is perhaps our most practically important security treaty.

 

 

I don't really care if Bel thinks differently now - TNI provided help during Sedge's coup too. The South Pacific should not simply be associated with those who will "provide security"; our allies's actions abroad, destroying innocent regions with fits of imperialism, reflects poorly on The South Pacific. 

 

I doubt very much that TNI is our most "practically important security treaty". Why does TEP, TNP and all of these other feeders get on well without needing the entire Imperialist world to defend its borders? It seems like we're using blind fear to dictate our FA policy in one extreme direction. Milograd's coup was, essentially, a fluke. 

 

The treaty as it stands is being used beyond the scope of what the Assembly agreed to -- its apparently been arranged to already extend to UIAF, even without this having been reviewed by the Assembly. That is concerning. What was "one little treaty" with an imperialist region has exploded into a treaty with three imperialists regions and a follow-up treaty with Kantrias and Europeia to boot! Exactly the sort of slippery slope that I warned the Assembly about two years ago. 

 

 

 

You are delusional. TRR has been an FRA member region for years. By joining the FRA, you announce that you are a defender region.

 

No you do not announce that at all upon joining the FRA. TRR was a neutral region in the FRA till Jan 10 2014. 

 

I don't appreciate your comments about my mental health either. 

[StGeorgie]

Don't say things that make it look like you're delusional, and I won't say that you're delusional.

 

You can not simultaneously be the largest and most influential member of the only pan-regional defender alliance organisation and be neutral. That is impossible.

[Geomania]

I have obviously never been a big fan of raider regions, but it is clear that The New Inquisition has kept up its end of the bargain. To tear up the agreement now would ignore the help that they have given to our region, and would be poor form diplomatically.

 

Has TNI ever asked us for support in defense of their territories?

[Rebel-topia]

Georgie. Lets try to keep this clean.

[Sandaoguo]

[quote name="Geomania" post="113839" timestamp="1389607427"]Has TNI ever asked us for support in defense of their territories?[/quote]

The Minister of the Army should be able to say for sure, but I'm not aware of the NSA ever helping TNI to pile a region. Beyond having a treaty, there isn't actually a lot of interaction between our two regions. Despite what some people believe, the bilateral relationship is largely untested. We don't actually know, for example, how TNI would react if we met them on opposite sides of the battlefield, or if we signed a treaty with a defender region. In my term as Chair, I wasn't aware of any communication we had with them at all.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

[Unibot]

I know a lot of TSPers who didn't even know we had an agreement.

[StGeorgie]

Such as? If you're going to make frankly ridiculous claims, back them up.

[tsunamy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Geomania" data-cid="113839" data-time="1389607427">
Has TNI ever asked us for support in defense of their territories?

The Minister of the Army should be able to say for sure, but I'm not aware of the NSA ever helping TNI to pile a region. Beyond having a treaty, there isn't actually a lot of interaction between our two regions. Despite what some people believe, the bilateral relationship is largely untested. We don't actually know, for example, how TNI would react if we met them on opposite sides of the battlefield, or if we signed a treaty with a defender region. In my term as Chair, I wasn't aware of any communication we had with them at all.


Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk
 


</blockquote>
 

According to the treaty, at least as I'm reading it, it's about protection of TSP and TNI as regions ... but doesn't say anything about "meeting them on the battlefield." So, as long as we're not supporting a region that is attacking TNI, we're holding up our end of the dealings. No?

[Letoilenoir]

 


The South Pacific should not simply be associated with those who will "provide security"; 

 

 

I'm a little confused here - what else, other than to "provide security" is the reason for a Defender organisation, region or for that matter Defenderism?

Surely the dogma of the defender is to defend a region regardless of its association, or lack of, with any ideology, faction or governmental style? 

 

Extrapolating from this it is therefore unnecessary to enter into any arrangement unless seeking to commit this region to Defenderism.

 

With regards to TRR not wanting relations with TSP because of our accord with TNI because of what TNI has done to them is a little like TSP declining to do business with Lazarus because their leader Milograd despoiled TSP, a stance which you yourself have heavily argued against.

 

Thankfully TSP has had the maturity to see beyond such pettiness and enter into negotiations with Lazarus.

 

Once again the question concerning our relationship with the outside world must come down to this: "How does TSP benefit?"

Be in no doubt that when the diplomats come knocking at our door it is THEIR regions interests that are foremost in their minds, not those of TSP.

If youbeleive otherwise then you really are delusional 

[Sandaoguo]

[quote name="tsunamy" post="113857" timestamp="1389645854"]
According to the treaty, at least as I'm reading it, it's about protection of TSP and TNI as regions ... but doesn't say anything about "meeting them on the battlefield." So, as long as we're not supporting a region that is attacking TNI, we're holding up our end of the dealings. No?[/quote]


Well, you'd think so, but politics tends to trump the law. If we foil one of their missions, are they going to think it's just how things are, or are they more likely to get upset at us? They're also at war with almost every major defender group out there. So are they going to let us work with those groups, or is that going to be considered a breach of the treaty?

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

[Cormac]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="tsunamy" data-cid="113857" data-time="1389645854">
According to the treaty, at least as I'm reading it, it's about protection of TSP and TNI as regions ... but doesn't say anything about "meeting them on the battlefield." So, as long as we're not supporting a region that is attacking TNI, we're holding up our end of the dealings. No?

Well, you'd think so, but politics tends to trump the law. If we foil one of their missions, are they going to think it's just how things are, or are they more likely to get upset at us? They're also at war with almost every major defender group out there. So are they going to let us work with those groups, or is that going to be considered a breach of the treaty?


Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk
 


</blockquote>
 

I would point out here that they're only at war with the FRA and the UDL, and that they themselves have worked with both groups -- specifically, to liberate The South Pacific. So no, I don't think they're going to consider NSA working with the FRA and the UDL under any and all circumstances to be a breach of the treaty. Now, if NSA worked with the FRA and/or the UDL against a UIAF operation they may consider that a breach of the treaty but one has to ask themselves why the NSA would be working with the FRA and/or the UDL, neither of which are our treaty allies, against a treaty ally's military operation that doesn't involve us in any way.

[Geomania]

 

I'm a little confused here - what else, other than to "provide security" is the reason for a Defender organisation, region or for that matter Defenderism?

<div>
 


Surely the dogma of the defender is to defend a region regardless of its association, or lack of, with any ideology, faction or governmental style? 

 

Extrapolating from this it is therefore unnecessary to enter into any arrangement unless seeking to commit this region to Defenderism.

 

</div>

 

Your assumption about defender dogma is correct. However, I believe that a security agreement would avail this region to more than outright defense in the event of an attack. Intelligence sharing, for one thing, is something that could benefit us. Secondly, it would be in the best interests of our region to beef up the number of allies we have.

 

There is also something to be said for GCRs reemphasizing their common bond. TSP and TRR have a history of defending each other in times of dire need and being close friends (if not explicitly by treaty), and I think we should rekindle that relationship.

 

We might also be veering slightly off-topic with this discussion :O

[tsunamy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="tsunamy" data-cid="113857" data-time="1389645854">
According to the treaty, at least as I'm reading it, it's about protection of TSP and TNI as regions ... but doesn't say anything about "meeting them on the battlefield." So, as long as we're not supporting a region that is attacking TNI, we're holding up our end of the dealings. No?

Well, you'd think so, but politics tends to trump the law. If we foil one of their missions, are they going to think it's just how things are, or are they more likely to get upset at us? They're also at war with almost every major defender group out there. So are they going to let us work with those groups, or is that going to be considered a breach of the treaty?


Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk
 


</blockquote>
 

I mean, I'm well aware I'm going to drag this off topic, but I can't resist here. As someone who still doesn't get the R/D game, I'm intrigued.

 

Isn't his really where TSP's "independent" ideology comes in? (Yes, I'm aware this is a loaded question.)

 

But, ultimately, what our treaties say -- or should say -- is that we're supporting the status quo. So, we're not going to support raiding other regions, but we're also not going to allow defender groups to raid our allies. If there is fighting between other R/D groups in other regions -- which we have no treaties with -- then we sit on the sidelines.

 

Now, someone tell me how I'm wrong.

[Escade]

FYI, I did TG Evil Wolf of LWU that we are in the process of repealing the treaty in case they would like to comment.  They have not done so, so far.


From my perspective independence means that we pursue our own agenda.  Our NSA engages in missions that work with both raiders and defenders. My primary concern with our allies is our security. Can they provide us with security? Do they have the numbers, the strength, and the common sense?  Obviously, since we don't have a very large army yet we are offering something else in return which I'm not entirely clear on. 

 

At some point I'd like to see TSP actually take a central role in GCR and NS relations and say, "Hey R\D let's negotiate." That won't happen this term obviously or any other term unless more people are willing to see us in that role. 


Frankly, TSP has been couped by Milograd and yet we have the common sense not to declare war on Lazarus and are actually working with them in some capacities. I'd like to start a discussion with multiple people over all the current war declarations in major NS GCRs and others, their implied causes, and discuss with the people involved. 

 

I would also like to bring up a treaty with UDL (and please refrain from commenting before taking deep breaths and remain civil) in the near future. If we are truly independent or neutral (which are not exactly the same things) then we should have the most strong allies in place possible rather than just a few.  Any ally that is forcing us to take a side is impinging on our independence and\or neutrality. 

 

We can definitely stay out of situations that cause us to step on the toes of an ally, that is sensible.  However, we could also try to mediate so that there is less overall conflict which may have a trickle down effect on us. 

 

P.S. Members from our treatied allies are on my Skype, having been providing their perspective, feel free to contact me with your own. The only thing I request is refrain from dialogue that is extreme (negative, toxic, scare-mongering).  

[Sandaoguo]

Isn't his really where TSP's "independent" ideology comes in? (Yes, I'm aware this is a loaded question.)

Yeah, again, you'd think so. But there are a lot people in TSP who prioritize the TNI treaty above everything else. It really has been the spoke around which the rest of our foreign policy wheel is built. It's difficult to be "independent" if your analysis of what's within our interests has a huge variable called TNI's interest. That's where I get frustrated with this whole claim that we're an independent region. Yeah, we're independent, up until the point where we do something that might piss off TNI.
 

But, ultimately, what our treaties say -- or should say -- is that we're supporting the status quo. So, we're not going to support raiding other regions, but we're also not going to allow defender groups to raid our allies. If there is fighting between other R/D groups in other regions -- which we have no treaties with -- then we sit on the sidelines.

The thing is, it's not reasonable to tell defender groups, "We're not going to work with you if you work against TNI." The entire purpose of defending is to work against those groups, and TNI is part of the most active group right now (the United Imperial Armed Forces). According to TNI (and acquiesced by the Cabinet at the time), our treaty with them now extends to all members of the UIAF (even though the Assembly never voted on that), so if the Land of Kings and Emperors decides Spiritus is an enemy, suddenly our options are limited even further. We can "sit on the sidelines," but when TNI has a habit of declaring all defender groups their enemies, then we'll always be sitting on the sidelines.

We've been operating without clear communication from TNI about what we're allowed and not allowed to do. (Allowed in the sense of, "If we do this, are you going to dissolve the treaty?") We've been in talks with the UDL about renewing the relations for several months. Under Belschaft's administration, those talks stalled the moment somebody pointed out that TNI was at war with the UDL. We didn't bother to ask TNI their input on our working with the UDL. And nobody stopped to think if it was appropriate for TNI to carry so much influence -- whether they do it actively or have that influence just through the existence of the treaty -- in who else we work with.

[Escade]

GR, I have been speaking informally with some members of TNI.  Can you arrange a meeting some time this week so me, Kris, you, and TNI's representatives can discuss a few issues on the table.  

[Sandaoguo]

GR, I have been speaking informally with some members of TNI.  Can you arrange a meeting some time this week so me, Kris, you, and TNI's representatives can discuss a few issues on the table.

Yeah. I can get in contact with them later this afternoon.