TREATY: TSP - TEP

[Hileville]

As far as I know it is a joke campaign in which he would allow the second highest endorsement nation handle all Delegate duties.

[Southern Bellz]

I have no issue with anything that's happened so far, and still strongly support a treaty.

 

My only minor complaint is with the fact that they whinned about Unibot being banned here because it isn't really their place to tell us how to handle internal matters. Especially, (as far as I know) we didn't say anything to them about Topid running an unendorsement campaign.  If TEP elects Milograd, they do so knowing he committed treason in TSP.  If they start whining about him being banned, they can shove it.

[Cormac]

I've given this a lot of thought over the past few days and I don't think it's in The South Pacific's long-term interests to ratify a treaty with The East Pacific.

 

It's fairly obvious at this point that defenders are building a bloc of defender or defender-leaning GCRs, aimed at undermining other GCRs that are neutral, independent, raider-leaning, or raider through propaganda campaigns and other means. We saw the NPO throw in with defenders a few months ago with their sudden anti-imperialist crusade, we've seen Lazarus committed to defenderism through forcibly established dictatorship, we've seen The Rejected Realms make its defender status official, and we've seen the Defender Act in The East Pacific. In every one of these regions we've seen defenders who are committed to hostility, either diplomatic or military, against GCRs that don't conform to their alignment -- including defenders in The East Pacific against The South Pacific.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying The South Pacific shouldn't ratify a treaty with The East Pacific simply because it's defender. That isn't the problem. The problem is that defenders who have successfully turned these four GCRs defender or defender-leaning aren't satisfied with that, and are committed to hostility against the other five GCRs unless and until we conform to their military alignment.

 

Glen says above that he sees the outbreak of war between one GCR and another as very unlikely. I would once have agreed with him, but I don't anymore. With defenders in four GCRs committed to varying degrees of hostility against five other GCRs, I think it's entirely possible that war between a GCR in one bloc against a GCR in another could break out. For that reason, I don't think it's in The South Pacific's interests to make treaties with the regions that are involved in this campaign of escalating hostility against us and our existing allies in Balder and The North Pacific, or with Balder's allies in Osiris, when it is entirely possible that war could break out between us and one of these regions or between one of our allies and one of these regions. We don't want to put ourselves in a situation in which we have to choose between allies or choose neither in a war, and if we ratify a treaty with any of the GCRs in the hostile bloc of defenders who aren't satisfied with our own independent military choices or our allies' choices I think we'll be headed in that direction.

 

For these reasons, I'm opposed to a treaty with The East Pacific regardless of developments in their region's executive unless and until the overall prominence of defenders hostile to us and our existing allies is reduced.

[Southern Bellz]

I don't believe that there is a GCR war brewing at all.

 

I've seen this nonsense posted here before, and still believe it's just that.

[Cormac]

It's possible my concerns regarding a GCR war are incorrect, and I'm willing to admit that. I don't think war is inevitable, simply possible and not as unlikely as Glen seems to think. What is undeniable is that there is currently much conflict and hostility directed by defenders in these four GCRs at the other five GCRs. We are one of those five and already in treaty alliances with two others, one of which is in a treaty alliance with yet another.

 

I legitimately wish the formation of these blocs wasn't happening and everyone could be content to let each other independently decide our own paths, but burying our heads in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem just because we wish there wasn't one isn't a good idea. Given that the hostile defenders perceive us as being in the bloc they oppose, and given that we have existing alliances with two other regions they perceive to be in this bloc, I think we need to be mindful of our own self-interest and existing alliances and avoid entangling ourselves with those who are hostile to us and our allies.

 

I don't see what we gain from this entanglement with TEP that we wouldn't also gain through a treaty with a different region that doesn't also carry these potential problems. Wouldn't we be better served by closer relations with a fellow independent Feeder like The West Pacific, for example, than by closer relations with a newly defender Feeder with a notable and vocal group of citizens who absolutely loathe us?

[Geomania]

Cormac, I have difficulty understanding the logic of your statement. If you believe GCRs are on the brink of war and that well-defined cleavages are developing, you're saying we should....exacerbate this delicate situation by continuing the creation of those cleavages and shutting ourselves off from defenders? That seems like poor foreign policy, with all due respect.

 

And yes, I understand that a few people in TEP don't like us. However, three of their citizens screaming that we are a horrible region hardly justifies pruning a promising olive branch. They can scream as loud as they want, but they don't reflect the opinion of the people of TEP. Why should we care unless those people are elected to office?

 

<div>
Wouldn't we be better served by closer relations with a fellow independent Feeder like The West Pacific, for example, than by closer relations with a newly defender Feeder with a notable and vocal group of citizens who absolutely loathe us?


 

</div>
 

I don't see why close ties with TEP and TWP are mutually-exclusive options. I have always been interested in pan-feeder cooperation. If there was an option for a TWP-TSP treaty, or even a TNP-TSP treaty, I would be intrigued.

 

EDIT: FWIW, I think Cormac's characterization of TWP as "independent" is quite charitable, considering that many of their military operations have been in support of raids.

[Kris Kringle]

How about we actually let the Ministry of Foreign Affairs hande our foreign affairs, talk to the leadership of the East Pacific and assess the situation? That sounds like a much more sensible approach. Anyone?

[Hileville]

While I agree that the MoFA should handle foreign affairs it does not mean our citizens can't express their opinions.

[Cormac]

@ Geo - To be clear -- as I think others share this misconception -- I don't think the GCRs "are on the brink of war." I think there is a bloc of four GCRs whose citizens (some of them, at least) are incredibly hostile to the other five to varying degrees, and I think this state of affairs has made the possibility of war more plausible than it has been in some time. I don't think it's inevitable, I don't even think it's necessarily likely, but I don't dismiss it as a serious possibility as Glen seemed to do in his previous post.

 

Regarding your point, that we would just be exacerbating the situation by not ratifying the treaty, I disagree. I think we would actually be exacerbating the situation by ratifying the treaty because our vocal opponents among their citizenry aren't going to just shrug and give up when the treaty is ratified, they're going to howl about us more (we've seen it here against one of our own allies, with a treaty TSP ratified). They're going to escalate, to try to cause conflict so that the treaty will be repealed.

 

You mention "a promising olive branch." I don't see what is so promising about a treaty with TEP or what substantial gains we stand to achieve through this treaty. At this point, I see only headaches.

 

I'm not inclined to get into a debate over TWP's independence, as I was only using it as an example. Perhaps a poor one, given the history.

 

I would note that we already have a treaty with TNP so I'm glad you're receptive to it. 

 

@ Kringle - Well, yes, it is the MoFA's job to handle our foreign affairs. It is the Assembly's job to address any policy matter it chooses to address, and it's definitely the Assembly's job to ratify treaties. So I'm discussing this treaty in anticipation that it will be submitted for eventual ratification, since it's the Assembly's job to ratify treaties. Unless you're suggesting that the Assembly should just rubber stamp whatever the MoFA submits, but I know you can't be suggesting that as that would be entirely inconsistent with TSP's robust parliamentary democracy and much more consistent with the dictatorial shamocracies of the NPO and Lazarus.

[Kris Kringle]

Unless you're suggesting that the Assembly should just rubber stamp whatever the MoFA submits, but I know you can't be suggesting that as that would be entirely inconsistent with TSP's robust parliamentary democracy and much more consistent with the dictatorial shamocracies of the NPO and Lazarus.

That's...not even close to what I'm suggesting. What I said was that at this point we are debating whether there are hostile populations here and there, but few times in the latest posts has it been suggested that our MoFA talk with TEP's government and return to the Assembly with an assessment on how to proceed with this debate. That's something that some might consider to be obvious, but it's important and should be said nonetheless.

[Belschaft]

TEP is in the middle of an election cycle. Until that ends we have no way of knowing if there is still even going to be negotiations in a weeks time.

[Sandaoguo]

Cormac, I think you exaggerate the hostility of certain defenders in other GCRs. First, it's important to be up front about whom you're really talking: Unibot and Unibot's closest allies. Yes, Unibot did help stall the TSP-TEP treaty, but not without costs: he was stripped of his diplomatic titles in TEP and hurt his image with the incumbent delegate and those not within his supporting bloc. However, I challenge your assertion that those events represent hostility to TSP, let alone the events in Lazarus, The Rejected Realm, and The North Pacific.

 

What I've seen develop in response to a perceived surge in the political power of defenders, is language casting them as attackers and enemies. In reality, a group of defenders, largely just Unibot, has successfully convinced a few GCRs to go officially defender. That's not hostility. That's not attack. It's none of those, unless you're also willing to say that Osiris going raider is hostile, and that so many GCRs going Independent years ago was hostile. Mere gameplay alignment does not constitute hostility just because the alignment one region takes is opposite to your own.

 

Hostility has a very clear meaning. Lazarus, TRR, TNP, and TEP have not expressed hostile intent, nor have they actualized hostile intent by declaring war, fighting against the New Southern Army, or otherwise publicly declaring that they are hostile towards TSP. Everything else is politics. I am not willing to play a counting game and throw my hat in with anti-defenderism just because TSP happens to be allied with less defender regions. I don't, and TSP doesn't, operate our foreign policy on such an amateur level. There's more nuance here than I think some people are willing to admit, and rejection of that nuance has led some people to profess hypocritical arguments. The argument you're making isn't that these regions are hostile to TSP itself. Let's be honest about what you're arguing. You want TSP to throw its weight in complete support of the raider and imperialist sphere, as a matter of politics, not as a matter of security. That's no more hostile than Unibot wanting TSP to go complete defender. Both are political arguments and everybody has the right to express those arguments. But I recognize politics for what it is, and so should everybody else.

 

To address your substantive suggestion that we abandon TEP for The West Pacific, I need to remind everybody that the reason we don't have relations with TWP is because they refuse to accept the most important norm of regional governance. TWP does not recognize the legitimacy of off-site governance. We cannot have a meaningful relationship with a region that doesn't view a coup or an attack as, well, a coup or an attack. Those two events are what our treaties are all about, so it's impossible to form an alliance with a region that rejects the idea that legitimate government lies elsewhere than the physical Delegate seat of a region. To my knowledge, TWP has not reversed their stance. So that road is closed.

 

Negotiations of the TSP-TEP treaty are ongoing. As Belschaft mentioned, TEP will have elections one week from now, which will last an additional week. I will be personally monitoring the nominations and the election, to assess how (or if) they will impact negotiations. Until then, we are waiting for TEP to send us revised language. The ball is in their court, unless the Assembly sees something they want to change.

[Cormac]

1. I don't think I'm exaggerating the hostility these defenders -- who are not necessarily representative of all defenders, as I've already said -- are demonstrating toward The South Pacific, our allies, and their allies. And no, they are not just Unibot and his closest allies. It's true, Unibot and his closest allies are leading the smear campaign against us in TEP's Magisterium. Topid was the one who decided to conduct the unendorsement campaign against Escade, and you really don't get much more hostile than that. But the recent propaganda campaign against TSP, against Osiris, and to a lesser degree against Balder was conducted through The Rejected Times, and last I checked The Rejected Realms and the FRA were not among Unibot's closest allies. Unibot is the editor-in-chief but he is by no means solely responsible.

 

2. I'm not arguing that these regions are hostile because they decided to adopt a defender alignment. In fact, I'm not arguing that these regions, overall, are hostile. I'm arguing that a notable contingent of defenders in these regions are hostile and are exacerbating tensions between these regions on the one hand and TSP and our allies on the other. I'm arguing that given the prominence of this contingent in TEP, we will have nothing but headaches if we ratify a treaty with TEP.

 

3. This isn't about politics or about wanting TSP to throw its full weight behind the raider and imperialist sphere. This is about my very real concern that, due to this climate of hostility, if we enter into a treaty with TEP we may compromise our existing alliances -- and no, I am not talking about TNI, as I've made quite clear I am talking primarily about TNP and Balder. I think our first duty should be to our existing alliances, and if we're considering a new alliance that might be detrimental to our existing alliances (particularly if it might be detrimental to multiple alliances) we need to give that some serious consideration. I have yet to hear from anyone what substantial benefit we're going to receive from this treaty that would make it worth the risk of causing problems for multiple existing alliances.

 

4. I think you're oversimplifying the views of The West Pacific. My understanding is that they still see an invasion as an invasion, and only support rogue Delegates who are sustained by native populations -- not rogue Delegates who are installed or sustained through an external invading force. That isn't perfect, but it is room for common ground that could at least go into some kind of agreement to defend each other against rogue Delegacies installed or sustained through invasion. It may be that I'm wrong here, but we won't know until we try. Anyway, I digress. TWP was just supposed to be an example.

 

5. I look forward to hearing your reports on developments in TEP and I appreciate that you're monitoring the situation. Contrary to what some may think, I'm still keeping an open mind and I don't mind being convinced that this treaty is in our interests. I'm not blindly opposing this for ideological or political reasons; I'm legitimately concerned about the impact it could have on TSP's interests. I could still be persuaded to support it as I was inclined to support it previously, even initially after passage of the Defender Act. But so far all I'm hearing is unconvincing arguments as to why I'm wrong about this not being in our interests, with very little if anything in the way of what substantial benefits this would bring us. I really need to hear more about the latter before I can even think about supporting this at this point, and I would hope others would also want to hear more about what benefits we're going to get for all this trouble and for taking a non-negligible risk if we ratify a treaty with TEP.

[Sandaoguo]

The short version of the long story is that you need to grow a thicker skin. Propaganda is a tool used by everybody. I know it when I see it. You know it when you see it. Everybody here does too. So don't attempt to turn us against others by painting harmless speech as hostility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Punk D]

I can pretty much assure you that TWP will not reverse course on the what is supreme, off-site or ingame. If that is the impasse between TWP and TSP, it will continue to be one. Such is life, some ideologies do not mix.

 

I don't agree with Cormac that TEP is not a good partner for TSP. In many ways Cormac's argument is the other side of the coin to Unibot's and others desire to influence feeders. If we ally ourselves with a defender region and are also allied with imperialist regions such as TNI there's no doubt we will get ourselves in some tricky situations. If we don't believe that to be the case, we'd be naive.

 

But, if we want to truly be a neutral region - nay, independent region, then it follows that our international alliances should criss-cross multiple ideologies. Defenders probably fear we moving closer to a raider position while imperialists certainly don't want us alligned with defender types. 

 

I say an alliance with TEP is good for us because it gets our foot in the 'defender world' as it were. We gain an alliance with another feeder and we get an opportunity to cultivate. In TSP, we respect the right of offsite governments and joining with another region that respects that right is not a bad idea, in my opinion. What we will need to make sure is clear is that there is mutual respect for us to raid and them to defend. The question I have is will we be able to effectively do that? If we can, this alliance will be very fruitful for us. If we can't, well then the alliance won't last long. But,I don't see much of a downside here.

[Belschaft]

The objective shouldn't be to try to 'balance' defender and Independent regions when it comes to our foreign policy (as a general query, when did the R/D conflict become the D/I conflict exactly?) but to establish a robust foreign policy where we have a multitude of allies that our reliable and capable. Whether or not a region is defender or otherwise shouldn't be a question when considering relations, what the alliance does for TSP is what matters. The entire point of Independence is that we have a realist approach to foreign and security policy, considering the interests of our region devoid of meaningless R/D ideological baggage.


It doesn't matter whether or not TEP is defender. What matters is if they are a credible diplomatic partner who can be relied on to keep their word and meet their commitments. All evidence suggests that they are.