Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance

[Sandaoguo]

I was sent the following treaty draft by Karpathos. There's a lot in this treaty that we should discuss line-by-line. But first I just want to comment that I'm not sure if TSP should involved itself in a pan-GCR alliance of this type. I think these institutions rely on a mutual expectation of compliance and a single, common understanding of the commitments being made. I don't think Balder or Osiris will join it, and I'm not sure I would want TSP to join it either, given their reticence about alliances in the first place.

 

But if we do end up considering this, I would propose a requirement that there be regular Conferences of the Parties, where we do go line-by-line and spell out what we all expect each other to do. Otherwise we'll eventually run into the problems the Pan-Sinker Security Pact ran into, where parties disagreed about what they were actually required to do.

 

I've posted this in the Situation Room because I'm not sure how public this draft text is supposed to be.

 

 

Regions which may ratify this Treaty and take part in this Alliance (The Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance or MPSA) are as follows: The Pacific, The East Pacific, The South Pacific, The West Pacific, The North Pacific, Lazarus, The Rejected Realms, Balder, Osiris. The government of any one of these regions may ratify this Treaty at will and henceforth agrees to abide by the terms set forth within this document.

 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">All member regions of The Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance will pledge no greater allegiance to any entity that is not their respective local governments (the governments which have ratified this Treaty).

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">No member region of The Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance will initiate or facilitate the overthrowing, the infiltration, or the unjust denigration (slander) of a fellow Alliance member region and/or its government.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">No MPSA-involved region's government which has ratified this Treaty will usurp or replace with itself the government of another MPSA-involved region.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">No government of any Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance member region which has ratified this Treaty will willingly allow itself to be replaced by any governmental body which originates from any place foreign to the MPSA-involved region which it controls.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">No government of any Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance member region which has ratified this Treaty will allow itself to be usurped for the purposes of entities foreign to the MPSA-involved region which it controls.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Likewise, no government of any Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance member region will willingly allow its region to be exploited by any forces foreign to the MPSA-involved region which it controls through action such as:

• the distribution of World Assembly member nations to foreign regions or organizations in return for any sort of political favor as if these nations were some sort of item meant for barter or to be used as currency (not including the movement of troops in a military operation),
  
• the sale of governmental influence or positions to foreign leaders in return for any sort of favors from the foreign leaders' regions or organizations as if such influence was an item meant for barter or a form of intangible currency,
  
• and the entrance of any Alliance-bound delegate’s voting power into any kind of World Assembly voting bloc foreign to the GCRs and foreign to the MPSA.
  

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Upon a member region's violations of these terms it is no longer to be considered a member of the Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance. A corrupt/usurper government inherently in violation of these terms which attempts to ratify this Treaty is not to be considered a member of the Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">On the occasion of an emergency situation in a member region of the MPSA (which is to be deemed as such by the government of the MPSA-involved region in which the emergency situation is extant), the other member regions should attempt anything and everything within their power to end such a state of emergency and return the other member region to its former, stable, and secure state.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Modern Security Force:

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">With the existence of this Treaty likewise emerges the existence of the Modern Security Force (MSF). The primary directive of this pan-GCR military, which comes before all other activities in which it partakes, will be to act to end "emergency situations" such as those referenced in the final clause of the Treaty as quickly and as efficiently as possible without jeopardizing the sovereignty of member regions.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">Participation in this military is voluntary and will be decided by the appropriate officials within each member region. Any member region that joins MSF has the right to leave at any time. Any member region that joins must assign its two highest ranking military officers to the MSF Council within the MPSA's forum. This Council will decide via informal consensus how to organize the military and where to send it.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">The consent of appropriate officials is required before MSF troops are to engage in a mission that does not pertain to local emergency situations. This fundamental detail aside, the organization of MSF is the responsibility of the leaders involved and may be subject to change.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana, Tahoma;font-size:13px;">MSF will not engage in military activities irrelevant to the politics of its involved regions.

 

[Belschaft]

This treaty has already been rejected in private. AMOM was under the impression that we would sign up to it in an instant and was telling people such without even bothering to talk to us about - several GCR's were under the impression that we had agreed to it before we even knew it existed.

 

Ignoring the actual text, it's fundamentally anti-TNI/Balder in intent and something we will not be having any part in. Possible MPSA members include/d TP, TEP and Lazarus, with TWP as a maybe. I say include/d as there is some indication that this has stalled partly as a result of me telling AMOM that we had no interest in this and TWP getting cold feet.

 

At the end of the day, multilateral alliances do not work in NS unless there is an existing relationship and foreign and security policy unity. Neither of those exist here, and as such MPSA is still-born.

[Sandaoguo]

It's a mistake to reject it outright, when no real drafting meetings have taken place. I'm a bit surprised that you told AMOM it was DOA in TSP. I'm not sure when you did, but if it was post-election, I'm just going to go ahead and say that the Cabinet should be consulted beforehand the next time a treaty is shopped around. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is in charge of negotiating treaties and the Assembly has the sole authority to accept or reject them. Bypassing both of those is troublesome for me, because the people who actually have treaties within their portfolios aren't given the opportunity to express their own thoughts. I know that the Delegate is the leader of the Cabinet, but we assign responsibilities in the Charter for a reason.

 

I don't think this treaty is unworkable. Changes need to be made, but saying it's still-born is entirely premature. Balder isn't going to join it anyways, so whether or not it's anti-TNI or anti-Balder is irrelevant. An alliance between TSP, TEP, Lazarus and maybe TWP certainly isn't useless. Balder and Osiris aren't necessary actors in a GCR security alliance, especially since it's clear that they've decided to go out on their own.

 

The fundamentals of this treaty are pretty simple:

1. Local governments should have more power in their regions than outside forces and organizations. This shouldn't be controversial. The problem with outside groups -- be it the UIAF or the UDL or whatever -- having outsize influence in GCRs is that governments don't have a single actor with which to negotiate. TSP can't negotiate with a regional government if outside actors are calling the shots, and it would be very disruptive to the entire GCR governance model if we enter into negotiations with the power players instead of the regional governments.
   
2. Coup d'etats are threats to all GCRs and should be responded to with a unified force. The first part of this principle is pretty self-explanatory and non-controversial. I'm not sure a Rapid Response Force is workable, but it's really not a controversial idea either.
   

I don't think either of those principles are anti-TNI or anti-Balder. They represent opposition to the creeping influence of outside actors in GCRs. These principles would apply to any outside group, not just TNI. If this was shopped around last year, some would be saying that this is a fundamentally anti-UDL treaty, and it probably would have been enacted by now. There is a hard truth that TNI and Balder are heavily intertwined. I think that's a bad thing and I don't think it's inappropriate to point that out. But like I said, Balder isn't going to join any kind of pan-GCR alliance anyways, so whether or not it's anti-them is an irrelevant point of consideration.

 

I think it's a responsible thing to protect ourselves against the influence of outside actors. I think it's within our strategic interests to prevent outside actors from becoming intertwined in more GCRs. Edits definitely need to be made, but this is not a treaty that should be considered dead on arrival.

[Belschaft]

Edits aren't needed to the text as the text itself is meaningless. The intent of a treaty is not necessarily determined by the text, and in this case the intent is anti-TNI and anti-Balder, who are both TSP allies. AMOM and Karpathos are currently on a paranoid 'TNI is trying to take over the GCR's' kick, as recently epitomized by Condemn TNI for those who weren't already aware of it. Now, the lines are already largely drawn on this issue and TSP's premier alliance is the TNP-Osi-TSP 'Triple Alliance', which is in the process of being expanded into a TNP-Osi-TSP-Balder 'Quadruple Alliance'. All members of this bloc are opposed to the MPSA. The reality of diplomacy is fundamentally simple; we are allied with TNI and Balder. We cannot remain such and join an alliance targeted against them. Further, to do so would constitute abandoning our main alliance/diplomatic bloc. Finally, our extant allies who we would be distancing ourselves from have historically given us significant assistance whereas two of the four prospective MPSA regions supported Milograd during the recent coup. We are not going to do something as absurd as flip our diplomatic alignment from people we like and who we have mutual interests/treaties with to instead bind ourselves to people we largely do not like or trust.

 

This treaty was and is DOA due to existing TSP foreign policy, simple as that.

[Rebel-topia]

There is more than one problem I have with this... But I'll only state the biggest, most obvious one right now...

 

TSP has already left essentially this treaty in another form about a year/year and a half ago. The MPA was crap, did NOTHING to strengthen Pacifics/feeder relations, and died. AMOM is stuck on this "The feeders are going to unite and kick ass", but its never going to happen, as it really isnt a Pacific-Sinker Alliance if all the feeders/sinkers don't ratify. Its worthless in the sense that it will do the same things the MPA did, which is absolutely nothing.

I was the second biggest advocate against the MPA (only to Ant), and I'll continue to fight against and such for of it trying to slither its way into TSP. I say we stick to 1-on-1 treaties, and strengthen those.

[Sandaoguo]

I agree that pan-GCR alliances are really difficult, because people can't often come to a consensus on what the treaties actually require. When you lack that common understanding and a solid enforcement mechanism, treaties are likely to fail. That happens in the real world, too. I'm not convinced that there needs to be a common foreign policy or a unified security policy, beyond the commitments to responding to coups d'etat. The most difficult aspect of this treaty is getting regions to commit to constructing barriers against creeping outside influence, which is especially difficult in regions where outsiders already have considerable power.

 

I strongly disagree with your stance, Bel, that the text is inherently anti-TNI or anti-Balder. It is simply against outside influence. The same mechanisms that would prevent TNI from having a grip on Balder would prevent the UDL from having a grip on TSP. It's not an anti-imperialist text, regardless of the anti-imperialist sentiments of its authors. I think personal relations are clouding an objective reading of the text. (Although I am anti-imperialist myself, so perhaps I'm also biased in favor of the principles of the treaty.)

 

I don't see any conflicts between the Triple Alliance and the Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance, beyond the fact that Balder doesn't like the MPSA. I don't think we are beholden to the wants and needs of Balder, especially if there is something better out there that will serve our long-term strategic interests. We are also allied with other regions who support the MPSA. I think it's within our long-term strategic interests to prevent outside actors from controlling GCRs. We need to be able to work with governments and have a reasonable expectation that government-to-government negotiations won't be subject to vetoes from outside actors. We need to know who we are interacting with and outside influence makes that infinitely more difficult.

 

With regards to the Balder specifically, the UIAF is already in the Balder government at the highest levels. When we're negotiating with Balder, we're already negotiating with TNI. So I'm not sure what effect this treaty would have, especially if we make it clear that no government would be required to remove officials in office prior to ratification, or carve out special exemptions for the purpose of maintaining regional stability or whatever reason they gave for not enforcing the PSSP.

 

A pan-GCR alliance is compatible with TSP-TNI and TSP-Balder relations. If it's not possible politically, then that doesn't preclude a new alliance between TSP and MPSA signatories. I reject the notion that the Triple Alliance is somehow exclusive. In fact, it would be cause for reconsideration if the Triple Alliance ends up being incompatible with any and all other alliances. I don't think that's the Delegate's call to make unilaterally, and I don't think it's at all appropriate or a good idea to make TSP foreign policy some kind of third rail. We should be able to discuss changes to our foreign policy and diplomatic relations, even if it includes changes to how we interact with TNI and Balder. I still find it very worrisome that this wasn't brought before the Cabinet before you decided it was DOA.

 

The bottom line is that we can enhance our security by forming similar alliances with the rest of the GCRs, and the MPSA is a ready vehicle we can use. The alternative is to sign individual treaties with partner regions. But if we can get those treaties, then there's no reason why we shouldn't just go for the MPSA, which would have more customary power for the simple fact that it shows consensus.

[Rebel-topia]

In my mind, theres no need to join this. Im not against sending Kris to give our $0.02, then presenting it to the Assembly. I just dont see this making it through the Assembly. We've tried our hand at the MPA. We left as it wasnt doing what it was supposed to. Im not saying its not a great idea, but its not practical.

[Belschaft]

The MPA wasn't practical, and it was a benign attempt at pan-GCRism. Even if the MPSA was equally benign, which it isn't, then it still wouldn't be practical.

 

There may be no harm in sending Kris to give our two cents but at the same time there is no point in wasting anyone's time. The assembly is not going to abandon a year and a half of foreign policy unless the cabinet recommends it, and even then it is a doubtful prospect. So before we go any further in this matter we should decide on what we are going to do.

 

My personnel preference is clear on this. I do not countenance abandoning our established friends and allies to take part in some half baked utopian scheme cooked up by the NPO, and in doing so aligning ourselves with people who we do not trust and were recently fighting to get out of our region.

[Rebel-topia]

I very much agree. Its going to be a waist of time, but if it makes the region happy, then Im all for "trying". No matter the text, I will ALWAYS vote against such a "treaty"...

 

I would like to know what the rest of our cabinet thinks... especially our MoFA...

[Kris Kringle]

I have never been an enthusiast about regional alliances because it's difficult to keep them active and effective and often it's just not worth the effort. I don't see much difference between this alliance and the MPA and so far as I know the latter did not accomplish much. We might as well invest our efforts in forging bilateral relationships that we know for a fact will be valuable to us instead of using formulas that we know have not given us results or at least not the results that we might obtain through other diplomatic means.


 

I also have two concerns about this proposed alliance. First of all, I am reticent to supporting an alliance among GCRs just for the sake of it or for some hidden motives without a strategic or real need for it. The MPSA seems to be made for just that purpose and I don't see how we can look at the evidence of failed alliances without understanding that it just hasn't worked out well so far. Unless there is little disagreement on courses of action and policies among GCRs (which there isn't) and a real benefit from participating in such a project it will not be possible to make a GCR alliance possible.


 

The second concern is that we don't have the best of relationships with two of the prospective members of the MPSA and it wouldn't make sense to join an alliance with regions that we don't consider our friends for the sake of it when we can divert our efforts to forging new alliances or keeping current ones with other regions more akin to our values and interests. I'm not sure if it would do us harm but I sure don't see the strategic benefit from it and thus don't see a compelling reason for joining the MPSA.


 

I can agree with some parts of the text of the MPSA agreement (like committing to respecting the legitimate governments of each GCR and even then I have to concede that the writing looks custom-made for an anti-UCR alliance) but I don't see how we can't pursue this on a bilateral basis and with regions that will in fact be committed to being our allies because of conviction and not for the sake of having an agreement with The South Pacific or for some other motive that we might or might not know. Further I don't like the concept of this MSF and how we could be implicated in its actions even without participating in it. I see this as a potential damage rather than a benefit. I agree to a limited extent with some parts of the text of the agreement but in principle cannot support a regional alliance of this kind.

[Sandaoguo]

I'm genuinely confused about this bilateral treaty alternative. If we have five regions -- A, B, C, D, and E -- all signing identical bilateral treaties with one another, that's a very inefficient system. They could instead just sign one treaty together, and that treaty would have more power behind it because it shows a consensus of all five regions, not just a bunch of two-party mutual understandings. The idea here is that if more than two regions want to be part of the same treaty, there's no reason to avoid a multilateral treaty.

 

When it comes to practicality, if you can get a bunch of practicable bilateral treaties with the same people, then there's no reason why a multilateral treaty wouldn't work out in practice. The only reason why you wouldn't go with the MPSA is if you wouldn't also sign bilateral treaties with all the same members. That may very well be the case, but I don't think it's within TSP's interests to not work towards good relations with all GCRs.

 

If Balder would get upset that we're interacting with the NPO, then we should reassess our relationship with Balder. I'm sorry, but I don't care how "good" of allies somebody is if they have that kind of veto power here. We don't <i>need</i> any particular region that holds us back from establishing good relations with others. I personally don't believe that Balder or TNI would suddenly turn enemies if we sign a treaty outlining the principles of GCR governance and pan-GCR security.

 

Who would be the <i>ideal</i> members of the MPSA? In other worlds, which sets of regions do you guys think would make credible commitments to a treaty of this type? I want to see the principle of GCR governance -- that outside actors shouldn't be allowed to have enormous influence over GCR governments -- come to fruition, but I'm not tied down to the specific vehicle through which that occurs.

 

As for your thoughts Bel, I think you're simply wrong. This is not an anti-TNI treaty. If you think it is, then you're tacitly or explicitly approving of outside groups controlling GCRs, because the only way this is an anti-TNI treaty is if Balder is truly controlled by TNI. That is not a supportable position, and it's not really compatible with the Cabinet's previous actions regarding the UDL.

 

I'm also going to reiterate the point that Cabinet members need to be transparent among each other, because I don't think I can overstate its importance. No Cabinet member, including the delegate, should be unilaterally making decisions without first notifying the entirety of the Cabinet. If Karpathos had not told me about the details of the MPSA, I never would have known. That's not good governance. Senior cabinet officials should be in the loop in these kinds of decisions.

[Rebel-topia]

The problem I have is this sort of thing works in principal, but not really in practice. And like Ive said a hundred times, we've been through this exact practice before, only to have it show its true colors, not work in the least, and disintegrate rather quickly. And I lied about the time frame for the MPA. It was October of 2012 that we left the MPA, and it wasnt long after that it became defunct.

[Belschaft]

It had been defunct for at least six months when we left it. That was why we left it.

[Rebel-topia]

It was still open, but not operating... So, I guess thats all but defunct

[Drugged Monkeys]

I agree with Bel and Rebel on this as well.


We need to work on the relationships that we have with our current allies and not waist out time on ridiculous "treaties" like this.

[Belschaft]

NPO has begun purging Lazarus of what they view as Imperialist players, starting with former delegate Viktoria Griffin. This was announced in an official NPO thread by the Delegate of TEP, AMOM.

[Kris Kringle]

Indeed it has. Indeed it was. Curious how the top official from one region can announce on behalf of a second region the purging of a third region.

[Rebel-topia]

This was announced in an official NPO thread by the Delegate of TEP, AMOM.

Linky?

[Belschaft]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic....2&t=262057

 

That would be because the NPO has been moving it's people in to Lazarus and TEP to try and take control for the last year or so Kris. The Imp's were already in TNI and had to be purged to allow NPO unfettered control. My only hope is that Todd and the other genuine TEP natives make a move to drive the NPO out of their region before they are purged as well.

[Sandaoguo]

NPO has begun purging Lazarus of what they view as Imperialist players, starting with former delegate Viktoria Griffin. This was announced in an official NPO thread by the Delegate of TEP, AMOM.

 

I'm not sure what this is, but I'm assuming it's supposed to serve as a "gotcha." I generally don't agree with purging, but I don't think this is as much of a gotcha as you think it is, with all due respect. There has been a consistent escalation over the past month between the NPO and what it sees as imperialist threats. Karpathos ratcheted up his vitriol, and given how much of role personal animosity plays in GCR politics, I think it was pretty clear that something would happen sooner or later. 

 

As I understand it, Feux conducted or is currently conducting a purge of imperialists in Lazarus. This is an unfortunate outcome, but it is erroneous to say that the NPO is conducting a purge. Feux has long been wary of the presence of imperialists in Lazarus, particularly high-level players such as Viktoria Griffin. This was privately expressed to be during the Dourian coup of Osiris, before the PSSP was dissolved. There was concern that TNI was exerting considerable influence in Lazarus, and as the delegate I believe Feux is in the position to say something about that. Feux is an anti-imperialist with poor relations with the TNI and UAIF affiliated members of Lazarus. She would likely be doing this regardless of her membership in the NPO/Senate.

 

As for what effect this treaty would have had, I am unsure. I don't think there's a legal basis within this treaty to go rogue. Feux isn't resigning Lazarus because she wants to focus on her NPO duties. She's resigning because her actions aren't legitimate and she went rogue. If you believe that this was an action by the NPO, simply using the delegate seat as a domestic cover, then that would actually have been a violation of the very first clause of this treaty.

 

The general point I made before stands, and I believe it stands much stronger now. It's strange to believe that the NPO is conducting a purge of UIAF members in Lazarus, and <i>still</i> believe the intertwining of GCR governments and the creeping influence of outside organization aren't major problems. That is some serious cognitive dissonance. Assuming this is an NPO action, it follows that it wouldn't have happened if an NPO Senator wasn't the delegate of Lazarus. It wouldn't have happened if UIAF members weren't powerful within Lazarus, causing the delegate to believe they were asserting improper levels of influence. If GCRs weren't composed of a relative handful of elites, and outside organizations stayed outside, would we be seeing what's happening right now?

[Belschaft]

Probably not, but that's an academic question. I'm more interested in the practical reality's of this situation. I've done some quiet questioning about this last night, and by my count (beyond myself) the Delegates of TRR, Balder, Osiris and TNP's soon to be Delegate all viewed free elections in Lazarus as a red line issue; if they produced an independent but pro-TP delegate that was tolerable, if it resulted in an NPO puppet then that was not tolerable and would have to be met with some kind of diplomatic sanctions. I have yet to talk to AGP of TWP, and for obvious reasons will not be seeking AMOM's opinion on this.

 

Since then Feux has resigned and handed over control to Harmie, who is a newish NPO member and the probable victor of any election. I expect the same holds, minus the elections aspect. If she's an NPO puppet then action will have to be taken.

 

Also, didn't post in here in regards to the treaty (which is dead) but simply as we were talking about NPO/TNI in here.

 

Further, this course of action was cooked up in the NPO Senate and enacted in Lazarus. As far as I understand it Lazarus was not informed of what would be happening until after AMOM had issued NPO's declaration.

[Sandaoguo]

Also, didn't post in here in regards to the treaty (which is dead) but simply as we were talking about NPO/TNI in here.

 

Okay. It looked like that to me, which is why I took your post as a kind of "gotcha."

 

Probably not, but that's an academic question. I'm more interested in the practical reality's of this situation. I've done some quiet questioning about this last night, and by my count (beyond myself) the Delegates of TRR, Balder, Osiris and TNP's soon to be Delegate all viewed free elections in Lazarus as a red line issue; if they produced an independent but pro-TP delegate that was tolerable, if it resulted in an NPO puppet then that was not tolerable and would have to be met with some kind of diplomatic sanctions. I have yet to talk to AGP of TWP, and for obvious reasons will not be seeking AMOM's opinion on this.

 

Is that TSP's stance, too? I don't really get why these regions feel they can judge Lazarus' elections like this. Is the NPO actually a threat to any of them? I don't think so. The NPO is more concerned about TNI/LKE being in those regions, than the regions themselves. And there's been no indication of an NPO military threat. They're basically conducting a PR campaign against TNI/LKE through espionage tactics. TRR, Balder, Osiris and TNP should let the UIAF fight its own battles, in my opinion.

 

Let Lazarus elect who it wants, and if they elect an NPO Senator, then that's their decision. I would prefer they didn't, but my views aren't shared by many. It's quite possible that Lazarus and the NPO independently share common goals. So the election of an NPO Senator or Lazarene officials becoming NPO Senators shouldn't be viewed as some kind of NPO takeover, but as an aligning of interests. Things would be different if we have evidence that the NPO is conspiring to take over Lazarus, meddle in the elections, etc. Currently, Lazarus citizens seem to support Feux's actions.

 

Further, this course of action was cooked up in the NPO Senate and enacted in Lazarus. As far as I understand it Lazarus was not informed of what would be happening until after AMOM had issued NPO's declaration.

 

There's no evidence that this was coordinated by the NPO. Karpathos told me last night that he wasn't involved in the decision, that AMOM and Feux discussed it among themselves, and that (in his experience, to be taken with a grain of salt) the NPO generally has little influence when AMOM and Feux get together. Saying it's an NPO action is myopic. The AMOM-Feux double-teaming is part of a broader push for anti-imperialism that certainly isn't limited to the NPO.