From the UDL

[Kris Kringle]

Received a telegram from Mahaj with this proposal, which explains recent Georgie's topic:

 

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Hi.

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">You're receiving this because you're the MoFA for TSP. Bel told me to send the text of the initial idea for a TSP-UDL treaty for consideration.

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">------------------------------------------------------

The Treaty of Amity

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Preamble

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">To strength our friendship, The South Pacific and The United Defenders League enter into this agreement with hope and enthusiasm.

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Section 1. Non-Aggression

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">1. The South Pacific recognizes The United Defenders League as a politically independent, non-governmental military organization, whose martial efforts to secure native sovereignty abroad, holds legitimacy.

2. The United Defenders League recognises the constitution, government and laws of The South Pacific as legitimate and agrees not to overthrow their government or assist in activity as such. 

3. For the purposes of this document, participation by The United Defenders League and The South Pacific on opposite sides of a military engagement outside of The South Pacific, does not constitute an attack on The South Pacific’s government.

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Section 2. Good Faith

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">1. Both signatories agree to act in good faith with one another and with the spirit of this document's law.

2. Both signatories agree to maintain off-site and on-site embassies with one another. 

3. Neither party shall commit espionage against the other.

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Section 3. Military Cooperation

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">1. The United Defenders League promises to provide military aid to defend the security of The South Pacific.

2. Military Cooperation between The South Pacific and The United Defenders League is encouraged. 

3. Both signing parties shall in good faith, disclose uncovered information with one another in the interest of their own organization's counter-intelligence.

4. Both parties agree to support each other in times of war.

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Section 4. Termination of Treaty

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">1. If a signatory region wishes to terminate this agreement they must give 5 days notice on the forum of the other region.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Obviously this is just a draft, nothing is set in stone. Do let the cabinet know that if they have any questions I would love to answer them.

<p style="font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Thank you so much.


Like I've done before, I post this for the consideration of the Cabinet.

[Rebel-topia]

Not a fan.

 

1) "To strength our friendship" - This kinda makes me giggle, as its an acquaintanceship at best...

 

2) If we had an army to participate with OR against the UDL, Id say we try to work with them before we even thnik about getting into an agreement with them.

 

3) "Both signatories agree to maintain off-site and on-site embassies with one another" I think this is a step bigger than Im willing to take before we even open any real lines of communication with them.

 

4) "Both parties agree to support each other in times of war." - As many regions/orgs that despise the UDL, I dont think thats really such a great idea if this somehow has any support in the assembly.

[Sandaoguo]

3) "Both signatories agree to maintain off-site and on-site embassies with one another" I think this is a step bigger than Im willing to take before we even open any real lines of communication with them.

"Lines of communication" are already open. Honestly, ending relations with the UDL was rushed and the whole thing was overblown. There were personal animosities driving the whole ordeal. The "intelligence leak" wasn't in any way critical, and if leaky problems are a big deal, we should have stopped trusting Osiris a long time ago. There was a concerted effort in TNP by Gaspo to go after any and all UDL members, and we all know how wonderful and trustworthy Gaspo was.

I've been critical of how the UDL handles GCR relations, but obstinacy isn't one of those criticism. It's regions like ours that have that characteristic. I can understand thinking that signing a treaty is going too fast, but we have multiple people in the region, including the Vice Delegate, saying they would never consider signing anything, without even reading the proposal. That's absurd and it's not a good way to conduct TSP foreign policy.

We are an utterly defenseless region relying on a single military group for our security. We've put all our eggs in one basket, which is never a good strategy. So let's face the facts, here, that we can't rule out TSP-UDL relations forever. To do that while we aren't even trying to have any military to speak of would be frankly irresponsible. The Ravania controversy was 7 months ago. The Conclave is evidence enough that the UDL learned its lesson. Let's stop letting Ravania and TNP dictate our stance on the UDL, and lets start engaging diplomatically. Additionally, military cooperation would not be the end of the world either. Our military sucks and could use some training in how to conduct defenses and liberations.

4) "Both parties agree to support each other in times of war." - As many regions/orgs that despise the UDL, I dont think thats really such a great idea if this somehow has any support in the assembly.

I don't even know of any group that's really engaged in warfare with the UDL. It's not a region that needs defense. I'm not sure this is a valid criticism of the proposal. I think a better criticism is that there's no reason for this to be a symmetric relationship. The UDL defends regions; regions don't defend the UDL. They should have an obligation to defend us, but there's no reason why we should have an obligation to help them with whatever missions they conduct in "war." The UDL doesn't even fights wars, anyways, so I imagine this is just boilerplate language taken from other gameplay treaties.

[Belschaft]

TNI is at war with UDL as part of the UIAF. As such, a TSP-UDL treaty is not feasible whilst we are allied with TNI; being allied with both sides in a war would be simply absurd.

[Sandaoguo]

TNI is at war with UDL as part of the UIAF. As such, a TSP-UDL treaty is not feasible whilst we are allied with TNI; being allied with both sides in a war would be simply absurd.

 

We're not at war with the UDL. The UDL isn't at war with TNI. TNI doesn't get to dictate who we can and cannot ally with. Under this logic, Bel, we may as well write off any and all alliances with any defender groups, because at some point they will be in conflict with the UIAF. That's not a position I find reasonable or responsible, especially when you and others in TSP profess that we're an independent region.

 

The TSP-TNI treaty does not preclude relations with a group that TNI is at war with, anyways. We're under no obligation to sever and preclude ties with their enemies, just as they aren't any obligation sever and preclude ties with ours. 

 

I feel that pretty much all of you have completely written this off without even thinking about it. It's incredibly disappointing, because I'm sure 98% of it is coming from personal animosity, rather than an objective assessment of the costs and benefits. 

[Kris Kringle]

Do we want or not an alliance or at least normalised relations with the UDL? If we do, then the most logical thing to do would be to actually negotiate with them the terms of this proposal instead of thinking it is set in stone, like Mahaj mentioned in the telegram. If we don't, then there is no point in keeping this thread active. I think that determination should be our starting point.

[Belschaft]

That's not a realistic position Glen. We are already allied with TNI; they are at war with the UDL. For us to now enter into an alliance with UDL would be simply farcical.

[Sandaoguo]

That's not a realistic position Glen. We are already allied with TNI; they are at war with the UDL. For us to now enter into an alliance with UDL would be simply farcical.

 

Bel, I'm not seeing the end-game here. TNI and the UIAF are always going to be in conflict with the UDL and other defender groups. That is how the gameplay dynamic works. When you guys signed and passed a treaty with TNI, was there an expectation that TSP would never ally itself with defenders? Or was a tacit acceptance of TSP permanently being aligned towards raiders?

 

I'm sorry, but TNI is not  "at war" with the UDL. It's a symbolic statement at most. They will be fighting against the UDL and the FRA forever, because that's simply the natural order of raiding and defending. The UIAF will never become allies with a defender group, because the UIAF is never going to defend and defenders are never going to raid. TNI took regions and called them colonies. The FRA and the UDL liberated those regions, which is their entire purpose as defender groups. Thus, TNI declared "war" on both groups. That's nothing new; it's how NS military gameplay works. What is farcical is believing that a UIAF "war" against defenders is any different from the base status quo.

 

What I fear is that you and others have basically signed the region's foreign policy over to TNI, because literally every time something is brought up that would have the slightest effect of moving us away from them, you and others come out strongly against it. I get that TNI has helped us out. But that should not and does not mean they and their allies are our only possible allies. That's just completely unreasonable. TSP is not a raider region. We can ally ourselves with defenders, regardless of what TNI wants. They've been at war with the FRA for 6 years over one region. If you think it's reasonable and responsible for TSP to preclude relations with the UDL for TNI's no-end-in-sight conflict with defenders, then I respectfully have to question whether you're the one being unrealistic.

 

 

<div>
Do we want or not an alliance or at least normalised relations with the UDL? If we do, then the most logical thing to do would be to actually negotiate with them the terms of this proposal instead of thinking it is set in stone, like Mahaj mentioned in the telegram. If we don't, then there is no point in keeping this thread active. I think that determination should be our starting point.

 

Yes, we should want normalized relations with the UDL, and we should be taking advantage of their offer for joint training missions. Should we enter into a military alliance with them? I don't think so. Like I said, any TSP-UDL relationship should be asymmetrical, because we shouldn't be fighting the UDL's battles for them, and there will always be some kind of enemy for the UDL to fight against. The NSA needs to be trained in defending, unless the Delegate and the MoA plan on making them purely a raider army, and let's face it, there aren't many existing defender groups that can help train the NSA.

</div>

[Rebel-topia]

I feel that pretty much all of you have completely written this off without even thinking about it. It's incredibly disappointing, because I'm sure 98% of it is coming from personal animosity, rather than an objective assessment of the costs and benefits. 

 

 

Its not personal animosity, but history of being burned before. How many times did you stick a fork in the electric socket before learnin that wasnt such a good idea? The UDL has burned us before, and will do it again if the oppertunity presents itself. Im going to speak up when the region tries to forget the past. Its one thing to forgive, but dont forget. Forgetting leads to making the same mistake again and again.

[Sandaoguo]

I'm not buying it, Rebel-topia. I've been both and outsider and an insider to the whole UDL saga. People have long been confusing personal and regional/organizational conflict. TSP's problem with the UDL was Unibot, regardless of anyone's willingness to admit it.


There have been substantial changes to the UDL since his retirement. I was involved in the Conclave and in discussions about GCR relations. It was a big Lessons Leaned moment for them. The only issues that have arisen since then have been rooted in and caused by Osiris, and the same baseless accusations of them trying to improperly influence GCRs that have lobbied since its creation.


This blind opposition to the UDL is ridiculous. If you're not willing ever to reassess TSP-UDL relations, then you're not be reasonable.

[Rebel-topia]

I'm not selling anything... I don't care what your position is or had ever been in UDL affairs - internally or externally. And I could care less what goes on between the UDL and any other region. This is TSP, and the UDL - not just Unibot - has picked fights with us in the past, and claimed it was OUR fault. They've never taken responsibility for their actions.


I'll give anyone a shot twice. They've had their two and then some. I won't let TSP climb into bed with the UDL unless they really prove they're not in it to screw us and be gone before the sun rises.

[Sandaoguo]

I'm not selling anything... I don't care what your position is or had ever been in UDL affairs - internally or externally. And I could care less what goes on between the UDL and any other region. This is TSP, and the UDL - not just Unibot - has picked fights with us in the past, and claimed it was OUR fault. They've never taken responsibility for their actions.


I'll give anyone a shot twice. They've had their two and then some. I won't let TSP climb into bed with the UDL unless they really prove they're not in it to screw us and be gone before the sun rises.

 

The importance of me experiencing this issue from the outside and the inside is that I can represent a viewpoint unbiased by personal experiences. I've seen the histories and I've seen the evolution of TSP-UDL relations. It's very clear that Unibot was the central figure of ire for you, DM, SB, Antariel, etc. You in particular are somewhat of an outlier, because you were also concerned with the UDL working against SPA missions. However, I get the impression that you ascribed skepticism based on personal assessments of Unibot and his leadership style. Somewhere along the way, you guys tricked yourself into thinking that a dislike of Unibot was a judgement on the UDL as an institution.

 

You may not want to admit it or care very much, but that's the way I've come to see it. Your distrust of the UDL is idiosyncratic, and we should not rely upon it when reassessing TSP-UDL relations now. It's irresponsible and unreasonable of you to take a blind opposition position whenever the UDL is mentioned here. That shows you aren't being objective and that you're letting personal animosities cloud your judgement, in addition to completely discounting or ignoring the massive changes to the UDL since Unibot's retirement. It's way too simplistic to believe that past actions predict future actions, and indeed it's not the way we've conducted relations before, especially with TNI.

[Rebel-topia]

 

It's way too simplistic to believe that past actions predict future actions, and indeed it's not the way we've conducted relations before, especially with TNI.
 

Then why dont we shoot [nation]Leather-clad Germany[/nation] a TG and ask if they want to strike up a treaty? Just because the GGR was bad yesterday, doesnt mean they are bad today, right!? That just doesnt make any sense!

 

Look. Im not saying we dont ever talk to them again. But lets not put the cart before the horse. Im all about communication. The UDL, on the other hand, has not been... at least toward TSP. Lets work on devising some sort of plan that we'll work with them off the books for a few months, and, if they prove themselves to us, then we'll work on a treaty.

[Sandaoguo]

Then why dont we shoot [nation]Leather-clad Germany[/nation] a TG and ask if they want to strike up a treaty? Just because the GGR was bad yesterday, doesnt mean they are bad today, right!? That just doesnt make any sense!

Has GGR stopped being a Nazi group? Have they stopped adspamming? Was there a significant change of leadership following weeks of internal debate about lessons learned and differences in going forward? You're misinterpreting what I said. It's absurd to look at the DUL and say that whatever happened in the past will happen again. That is a lazy way of going about TSP foreign policy. We need to analyze how the environment has changed, who the new actors are, and what beliefs, if any, have changed. That requires more cognitive thought than just, "Oh, the UDL? Then, no."

 

Look. Im not saying we dont ever talk to them again. But lets not put the cart before the horse. Im all about communication. The UDL, on the other hand, has not been... at least toward TSP. Lets work on devising some sort of plan that we'll work with them off the books for a few months, and, if they prove themselves to us, then we'll work on a treaty.

The problem I see, Rebel, is that many of you aren't even willing to work with the UDL absent a treaty. SB, for instance, just posted that discussing TSP-UDL relations is useless. There's this incredible bias against the UDL here, so I'm skeptical that you're even willing to engage in joint confidence-building measures.


If you guys genuinely believe it would be okay to start working with the UDL, even if it starts out small, then let's discuss rescinding the executive policy ban on working with the UDL. That would send a strong message and would clearly outline TSP's preferences when it comes to normalizing relations with the UDL.

[Drugged Monkeys]

The UDL has a long way to go to earn the trust of the people here in TSP. As Rebel said, we've given them chance after chance with and without Unibot. And time and time again they show their true colors, always trying to meddle in OUR business.


We are allied with TNI, that's the bottom line here. Nothing else.

[Rebel-topia]

I didnt say I wouldnt work with them outside of a treaty. Im not a fan of the way the UDL has treated us time and time again. But Id be willing to work with them as long as they are willing to keep their nose out of our affairs.

 

My personal opinion is they cant. They'll start meddling as soon as its in their interest.

[Sandaoguo]

"Nose out of our affairs." What does this mean? I'm a formal member of the UDL, and I oppose our alliance with TNI. Does that mean I'm meddling? We have to be careful about this kind of rhetoric, because it's the kind of stuff that leads to witch hunts.

 

Anyways, the idea I'm proposing is that we engage in regular confidence-building measures with the UDL. This can be in the form of joint defense missions, training missions, and Warzone missions. The idea is that the UDL can build up our confidence by showing that we can work together and smooth out whatever problems arise. However, this requires on our end to recognize the probability of problems occurring and not immediately balking or attacking the UDL when they occur.

 

Also, like I said, we would have to rescind the ban on interacting with the UDL. Which I think we should do regardless, which has been suggested before by other Cabinet members.

[Drugged Monkeys]

I believe he means that in the past they have tried to tell us what we are doing is wrong, we can't do this or that. Basically trying to make decisions for us.

[Belschaft]

Historically the UDL has tried to prevent any GCR they operate with from conducting any offensive operations; the short lived UDL-TEP alliance is a classic example. I imagine it is that kind of behavior that Rebels is referring to.

 

My reading of this is myself, Rebels and DM opposed to the idea, Glen in favor, and Escade and Kris undeclared. In regards to issuing a new policy on the UDL restoring recognition, I fully support such a move.

[Kris Kringle]

I guess I was too absorbed with the citizenship and activity discussion at the Assembly, sorry about that. I'll post my stance on UDL relations as soon as I return from class.

[Sandaoguo]

I think I'd be able to talk with Mahaj about how this would go down. We have a good relationship and he tends to take what I say to heart, unlike some other leaders over there. I can explain to him that requiring us to ban raiding is a nonstarter at this point. However, you guys have to realize that that isn't meddling: it's an obvious position the UDL would take as an organization opposed to raiding.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

[Kris Kringle]

I don't think we should rule out some kind of relationship with the UDL and in fact would like for us to have some kind of agreement or understanding with them. I don't know if having treaties would be convenient right now nor do I think that a formal alliance or similar commitment would be feasible under the present conditions, but I would be amenable to mutual recognition and an acknowledgement that it would be possible for us both to engage in training operations upon our request, while stating that we retain the explicit right to other kinds of operations without them. This should be just a simple statement and subject to evaluation on its future results, like a trial run. Then we could determine whether it is in our interests to keep that relationship with the UDL, terminate it, or even enhance it.

[Drugged Monkeys]

I am open to restoring recogntion as well, but let me make one thing very clear. As long as I am a citizen of TSP I will NOT let the UDL or any other group try and tell us who or what we do with our military. If we want to raid, we will. If we want to defend, we will. These will be our choices and no one elses to make, if they cant live with that then we shouldn't even waist our time.

[Kris Kringle]

I am open to restoring recogntion as well, but let me make one thing very clear. As long as I am a citizen of TSP I will NOT let the UDL or any other group try and tell us who or what we do with our military. If we want to raid, we will. If we want to defend, we will. These will be our choices and no one elses to make, if they cant live with that then we shouldn't even waist our time.

 

I don't see a problem with that, since I mentioned the same thing ("while stating that we retain the explicit right to other kinds of operations without them"), and other members of the Cabinet have done so as well. I guess we can agree on restored relations and that it is possible to have operations, though for the time being subject to strict evaluation?

[Sandaoguo]

I am open to restoring recogntion as well, but let me make one thing very clear. As long as I am a citizen of TSP I will NOT let the UDL or any other group try and tell us who or what we do with our military. If we want to raid, we will. If we want to defend, we will. These will be our choices and no one elses to make, if they cant live with that then we shouldn't even waist our time.

 

The UDL doesn't tell regions what to do. Requiring regions to exclusively defend is a policy preference, and they are free to make it a prerequisite to any treaty alliance. Thinking that you're fighting against the UDL is another issue that's worked against TSP-UDL relations. You need to convince everybody else in the region to not agree to the UDL's proposition. And both sides need to recognize that if TSP doesn't agree to exclusively defend, that is not an antagonistic proclamation.