Regarding Lazarus

[Southern Bellz]

We have nothing in common with them. They ignore the treaty, they oppose independence, and are led by Milo. What could go wrong?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Belschaft]

Considering everything, I must once again motion for a renunciation of the treaty. We could try requesting they fulfill it's terms again, but I highly doubt Milograd will eject himself.

[tsunamy]

Fair warning: I'm swimming out of my depth here.

 

But, reading this, I feel like it comes down to a matter of trust. Obviously, we can't trust Milo. But, do we trust the rest of the region? Here, for instance, Bellz runs the NSA so despite feelings toward Bels, we'd still have someone to act in regard to a treaty.

 

Again, I have no experience with this, but I feel like this is what the pro/con argument is becoming.

[Belschaft]

I'd argue that Lazarus has shown us consistent bad faith regarding this issue; there really isn't anyone over there I would say I trust.

[Southern Bellz]

I think we should consider meeting with then and downgrading this to a non aggression pact.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[HEM]

When considering (or in this case reconsidering) an alliance, the most important thing to ask is: What do we get from this?

 

Honestly, from the outset I can't name many things Lazarus has to offer us. I suppose if you're obsessed with GCR unity, then that's your reason, but I don't buy it. Not all GCR are created equal, and we certainly shouldn't pretend to like them if we don't (not saying we don't like Lazarus, that's an ongoing discussion). 

 

With Milograd in charge I see Lazarus going from offering us nothing, to actually making our lives harder. Wait for it, in two months he's going to request to come here for a conference, a meeting, a barndance -- whatever -- and we are going to have to have a multi-page divisive discussion on whether he is allowed. 

 

I am okay with downgrading to a Non-Aggression Pact...but honestly I barely see the point in that too.

[Sandaoguo]

We don't have any real alliances, you guys. We don't actually work with anybody. We have a treaty with TNI, but it's nothing more than a symbol of past cooperation. So this talk of what we need to be considering when talking about dissolving treaties is pretty much nonsense. If you want to bring up our strategic interests in alliances, then be prepared to reconsider every alliance we're in. Otherwise that kind of talk is disingenuous. (I'd actually support reviewing all treaties, as I've stated in the past.)

 

From where I sit, a few of you guys have sour grapes with Milograd and you're letting your personal feelings dictate TSP-Lazarus relations. That's how you guys have been conducting foreign relations for years, and I don't know when you guys will realize that's the reason why no GCR is capable of having a rational, cogent foreign policy.

 

What has Lazarus done that has harmed TSP's interests (which aren't you're feelings)? Nothing. At all. Abandoning independence is not harmful to our interests. Having Milograd as their Chairman is a slight annoyance, not an existential threat to TSP. Get over that, ffs. Lazarus hasn't done anything to warrant us taking the highly provocative action of dissolving the treaty. We'd be making an enemy out of an entire region because of personal beef some of you have with one of their members. I don't really see any other policy goal, here. Our goal with Osiris was to deter future coups and promote democracy. Our goal here is to do what, exactly?

 

And for the last time, it would be totally hypocritical for us to bring up their harboring of Milograd after his coup. <i>We didn't require them to comply with that part of the treaty</i>. That clause clearly wasn't important at the time, so to bring it up now is very opportunistic.

[QuietDad]

To further add to that Milograd has served all his sentences and paid his dues and the region he is in has no problems with how it's going. Not our region, not our business. As annoying as the coup was here, it could have been WAY worse than it was. Worst possible case is we send a message to Lazerus that we understand they are going through changes and would be willing to discuss an ongoing relationship when things have settled down there. Our doors are open and lets us know when your ready and that we will respect all treaties currently in effect.

Put the ball in their lap and let them come to us instead of coming off as the arrogant bullies. I see it pointless to decide anything with a region that hasn't even decided what it wants to be or do with themselves yet. Game would be really boring if every region thought and acted like us,

[HEM]

 

 

We don't have any real alliances, you guys. We don't actually work with anybody. We have a treaty with TNI, but it's nothing more than a symbol of past cooperation. So this talk of what we need to be considering when talking about dissolving treaties is pretty much nonsense. If you want to bring up our strategic interests in alliances, then be prepared to reconsider every alliance we're in. Otherwise that kind of talk is disingenuous. (I'd actually support reviewing all treaties, as I've stated in the past.)

 

Umm, then that's a problem. If anything, what you are saying makes a good case for investing heavily in a few alliances and scraping others. I think Lazarus, all things about Milograd being gone, would still be one of the first to scrap.

 

 

 

From where I sit, a few of you guys have sour grapes with Milograd and you're letting your personal feelings dictate TSP-Lazarus relations. That's how you guys have been conducting foreign relations for years, and I don't know when you guys will realize that's the reason why no GCR is capable of having a rational, cogent foreign policy.

 

Jesus weeps...

 

Yes, we as a region are opposed to the political advancement of someone who tried to destroy our home because he was bored. We are opposed to someone who make a mockery of our court system, attacked our citizens, and worked against our interests. You think that is "sour grapes"? That isn't emotional, it is common sense. If an ally elevates someone to lead them who attacked us, then they are saying they don't value the alliance. Neither do I, so we might as well part ways.

 

 

 

What has Lazarus done that has harmed TSP's interests (which aren't you're feelings)? Nothing. At all. Abandoning independence is not harmful to our interests. Having Milograd as their Chairman is a slight annoyance, not an existential threat to TSP. Get over that, ffs. Lazarus hasn't done anything to warrant us taking the highly provocative action of dissolving the treaty. We'd be making an enemy out of an entire region because of personal beef some of you have with one of their members. I don't really see any other policy goal, here. Our goal with Osiris was to deter future coups and promote democracy. Our goal here is to do what, exactly?

 

Our goal is to have allies that are worth something. Like I said before, this has nothing to do with my feelings. Also, you need to deeply consider the message Lazarus is sending us about how they value our alliance when they make their leader someone who attacked us. Even the Pacific wasn't that crass toward us.

 

 

 

And for the last time, it would be totally hypocritical for us to bring up their harboring of Milograd after his coup. <i>We didn't require them to comply with that part of the treaty</i>. That clause clearly wasn't important at the time, so to bring it up now is very opportunistic.

 

I don't know why we didn't make them enforce that part of the treaty then. Someone seriously dropped the ball. Nevertheless, better late than never.

[HEM]

 

 

To further add to that Milograd has served all his sentences and paid his dues and the region he is in has no problems with how it's going. Not our region, not our business.

 

Milograd did not "serve all his sentences" because the sentencing is for life. It is for life because he attacked this region and attempted to destroy our community. 

 

If what Lazarus does is not our business, then why have an alliance in the first place? What is the point of any alliances? The point of being allies is to be friends, and what they are doing shows very clearly that they have no interest in being friendly to us.

[QuietDad]

Milograd did not "serve all his sentences" because the sentencing is for life. It is for life because he attacked this region and attempted to destroy our community. 

 

 

 

That sentence was in THIS region and his activity is not in THIS region. Again, I would be the bigger region and just send a message that while we don't agree with were things are , we are here to talk about future relationships when they are ready instead of sealing the doors before we even look through them by screaming "YOU GUYS AREN'T PLAYING IN THE COMMUNITY SANBOX RIGHT! WAAAAAAAA!!!!"

Respect and cooperation is earned and negotiated, not rammed down someones throat,

[HEM]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="HEM" data-cid="108080" data-time="1384373433">

Milograd did not "serve all his sentences" because the sentencing is for life. It is for life because he attacked this region and attempted to destroy our community. 
<div>
 

 

 

That sentence was in THIS region and his activity is not in THIS region. Again, I would be the bigger region and just send a message that while we don't agree with were things are , we are here to talk about future relationships when they are ready instead of sealing the doors before we even look through them by screaming "YOU GUYS AREN'T PLAYING IN THE COMMUNITY SANBOX RIGHT! WAAAAAAAA!!!!"

Respect and cooperation is earned and negotiated, not rammed down someones throat,

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

If you are in an alliance with someone there should be mutual respect. You like to pretend like our region is a totally different world from Lazarus, but it is not. We are all part of one game called Nationstates in which your action in one region effects who your character is across the game. COPS and forum destruction is a great example of this. You do the crime, you pay the price. Period. End of story.

 

If Lazarus respects our region, respects what we endured because of this unsavory player, they should reject him as their leader. That shows that they consider us to be their friends, and that they value our community (i.e. the community Milograd attempted to destroy). That's their choice, they are free to make it, but it reflects on their value of the South Pacific.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the "community sandbox" or anything else. This is a self interested choice that Lazarus has made. If that's the direction they want to go -- fine. I have no animosity toward them. But we sure as heck don't have to stay tied to them in an alliance when their interests are out of line with ours.

[QuietDad]

I agree that there is no reason to pursue further relations at this point. The reality is the region and government in place there (and here, by the way) are different then the governments in place when the treaty was drafted. A simple message from us stating that we see the treaty as no longer in effect since actions on both sides have made it invalid. When they get things settled down, come speak to us about establishing a new relationship and until then we will do our thing and they can do theirs.
Put the ball in their court and instead of being the region force feeding the other regions to behave the way we want (which WILL cause backlash...) we come across as the region willing to negotiate. When they come to us, we hold all the cards since they are the ones that ignored the original treaty and puts us in a better bargaining position then trying to force things though at this point that the government there is nothing more than Milograd trying to get established.

[tsunamy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 

 

And for the last time, it would be totally hypocritical for us to bring up their harboring of Milograd after his coup. <i>We didn't require them to comply with that part of the treaty</i>. That clause clearly wasn't important at the time, so to bring it up now is very opportunistic.

 

I don't know why we didn't make them enforce that part of the treaty then. Someone seriously dropped the ball. Nevertheless, better late than never.

 


</blockquote>
 

I think there's a clear distinction between allowing Milograd to be active in the region and to lead the region. As part of the region he's one voice among many. As the delegate he's the man. No?

[HEM]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="HEM" data-cid="108079" data-time="1384373331">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 

 

And for the last time, it would be totally hypocritical for us to bring up their harboring of Milograd after his coup. <i>We didn't require them to comply with that part of the treaty</i>. That clause clearly wasn't important at the time, so to bring it up now is very opportunistic.

 

I don't know why we didn't make them enforce that part of the treaty then. Someone seriously dropped the ball. Nevertheless, better late than never.

 


</blockquote>
 

I think there's a clear distinction between allowing Milograd to be active in the region and to lead the region. As part of the region he's one voice among many. As the delegate he's the man. No?

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

I think that could be a reasonable distinction, but if we made an exception it should have been with the caveat that under no circumstances would we ever have to negotiate / deal with / liaison / whatever with them. At the very least that would be the expectation he doesn't rise to the Delegacy, Vice Delegacy, or Foreign Affairs (or equivalent).

[Kris Kringle]

So I guess that our treaty with Lazarus is no more?

[Hileville]

The Assembly would need to pass a repeal first.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[Sandaoguo]

Our goal is to have allies that are worth something. Like I said before, this has nothing to do with my feelings. Also, you need to deeply consider the message Lazarus is sending us about how they value our alliance when they make their leader someone who attacked us. Even the Pacific wasn't that crass toward us.

Get over it. TSP doesn't get to kick Milograd out of the game. Him being in Lazarus has literally zero affect on us. That's all I can say.

 

I don't know why we didn't make them enforce that part of the treaty then. Someone seriously dropped the ball. Nevertheless, better late than never.

The Cabinet at the time felt it would have been more drama than it was worth, basically. They didn't want to anger any potential partners, and wanted to focus on healing or whatever. The bottom line is that if TSP exempted Lazarus from that cause, then we exempted them. Lazarus did not violate the treaty, because we told them that part of the treaty effectively wasn't in force. "Better late than never" is the most hypocritical thing we could do. It's stupid foreign policy and would show that TSP is not trustworthy. What we say should be taken with a huge grain of salt, because we might turn around a few months later and use it against you.

 

 

<div>
So I guess that our treaty with Lazarus is no more?

 

Lazarus dissolved the treaty, reportedly because Belschaft decided to tell him TSP has no interest in maintaining it. I guess going to the Assembly wasn't necessary, if you could just get Lazarus to act first.

</div>

[tsunamy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="HEM" data-cid="108079" data-time="1384373331">
Our goal is to have allies that are worth something. Like I said before, this has nothing to do with my feelings. Also, you need to deeply consider the message Lazarus is sending us about how they value our alliance when they make their leader someone who attacked us. Even the Pacific wasn't that crass toward us.

Get over it. TSP doesn't get to kick Milograd out of the game. Him being in Lazarus has literally zero affect on us. That's all I can say.

 


</blockquote>
 

While I agree that some of the views against Milo have been over the top, I do think there is room for legitimate debate over whether we want to be allies with Milo as delegate. I don't think your constant stance of "Get over it," is productive.

[Sandaoguo]

While I agree that some of the views against Milo have been over the top, I do think there is room for legitimate debate over whether we want to be allies with Milo as delegate. I don't think your constant stance of "Get over it," is productive.

 

There is nothing inherently dangerous about Milograd being the delegate of Lazarus. The only reason why you guys see a problem with it is because there's personal animus with him. If Belschaft doesn't think he can talk to Milograd, guess what? He has a Foreign Minister to do it for him!

 

TSP foreign policy shouldn't be guided by the emotions of its leaders. It should guided by our strategic interests, and too long have the whole of GCR leaders confused "strategic interests" with who they're friends with and what annoys them. GCR politics is nothing more than high school cliques fighting with each other, exactly because of reactions like we're seeing in this thread.

 

So, yeah, "Get over it" is actually an incredibly productive thing to say at this point. Get over the personal drama. If HEM and Belschaft want to make enemies out of another GCR, they need to provide some real reasons.

[Kris Kringle]

I'm with Glen here. Besides the obvious and understandable anger we might have with Milograd becoming Chairman of Lazarus (which I too some extent share) there is no reason to break ties with a region that has not attacked us or our strategic interests. Lazarus attacked sensibilities, not interests. We can't fight with a new GCR each month: The Pacific, The West Pacific, Osiris, Lazarus. There's a point where there is something wrong with the management of our foreign policy if we keep fighting or loosing ties with our fellow regions.

[Sandaoguo]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hileville" data-cid="108095" data-time="1384381079">
The Assembly would need to pass a repeal first.Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

So what Lazarus just did doesn't have an actual effect on the treaty?
 


</blockquote>
 

I'm not sure Hileville knew what had happened when he made that comment. If Lazarus dissolved the treaty on their end, due to Belschaft telling them TSP has no interest in maintaining it, then the treaty is defunct. We can go through the formal process of repealing it, but the effects are already in force.

[Hileville]

We need to formally repeal it on our end. Bel doesn't have the power to override Assembly policy. While Laz has dealt with it on their end we still need to take care of it here.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[Unibot]

Alternatively, if the Assembly feels differently than the Delegate, perhaps the MoFA should be sent to approach Milograd about reconsidering. All in all, I don't think it was right for Belschaft to undercut the Assembly here. 

[Hileville]

Alternatively, if the Assembly feels differently than the Delegate, perhaps the MoFA should be sent to the approach Milograd about reconsidering. All in all, I don't think it was right for Belschaft to undercut the Assembly here.

That too.



Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk