That wasn't really my point/question Tim; we already have a treaty with TRR, and bi-lateral treaties are known to be more stable than multi-lateral ones. Why are we signing another treaty with TRR rather than a simpler one with TEP?

During regular diplomatic discourse with TRR, we found out that we both wanted to build relations with TEP, and also were both interested in something multilateral that is a bit outside of the box, which would also include TEP as a preferential partner. With TRR and TSP being as close as we are, we then simply reached out to TEP together to discuss our options - both out of convenience, and also because we then each had a wonderful ally with us to strengthen

Once there, we found that TEP had also interested in both TRR and TSP, which is a wonderful baseline to start with. During our discussions, we found that several particularities of the outside-of-the-box multilateral idea couldn't be achieved at this time, but we already had this set up, so we went with it. First, obviously, it was convenient, there's no denying that. Second, it's great for TEP, as in one fell swoop they gain two GCR partners, an area in which they were not particularly strong. Third, it's great for TRR and TSP together, because we literally double-down on our commitment for each other (and from our side, TRR is surely one we would do that with, as the great friends as they are). Finally, it's a great framework for establishing future things, particularly with TEP - this does include a bilateral option down the road.

I will ask a series of questions, not out of cynicism or disagreement (I don't like providing partisan opinions!), simply so we can have information that I think is necessary:

Both Tim and I encourage and welcome any and all questions, so thank you for all of these wonderful questions!

Why do we want a treaty with the East Pacific?

We have many things in common. TEP is, like us, a fellow feeder democracy, and that alone means we have many commonalities with regards to mutual inherent advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, like us, they also do not define themselves in terms of some R/D alignment or as subscribers to the Manifesto. Emergent from that, there are many ways in which we can help, inspire, and support each other.

Furthermore, getting down to brass tacks, it's good for us to expand our FA portfolio. Some may still lament that Balder and Euro are no longer allied with us, but with UDS, CK, and now TEP, I think we'll have far surpassed any hole that the loss of Balder and Europeia as allies may have left with us.

When was this first discussed?

The FA team has been eyeing TEP since Escade's first term, even. In June of last year, we had already floated to them that more formal relations is something we feel is worth investigating, though that was still under the Hobbes administration (TEP has an appointed, not elected, Cabinet). The multilateral ideas have been floating around since the end of last year, and we finally approached TEP just this year. We were able to work through this surprisingly quickly and cordially.

What is the current state of our relationship with them?

Friendly, though informal. Yuno, their Delegate, was a Cabinet Minister in TSP just last year (MoMA), and continues to be a good contact for many things. Our respective militaries have worked together several times in the past year, and we've also been working toward a cultural event (which hadn't happened yet not for lack of trying, but rather for scheduling reasons).

What steps have we taken to increase our contact with them in the weeks leading up to this submission?

As said above, we've been in contact for a variety of reasons for quite some time.

Why are we signing a treaty with the East Pacific and the Rejected Realms, rather than simply one with the East Pacific?

See my answer to Bel above.

What strategic value does the Cabinet see in signing this treaty?

Besides what I said in reply to your first question, I can add this: Imperialists and Manifestoists have wanted to push us into a "defender" corner, because they feel threatened by what we are capable of (not in terms of what we can inflict upon them directly, but rather how the presence of a strong TSP and the paradigm we represent afflicts their sphere). It's a handy rhetorical device they have available to them, to try to "sanction" us for not being a Perfect Manifesto-Confirming Independent Hiveregion like they are - isolate us from others by saying "omg they're fendas" to try to force us away from that.

Getting closer to The East Pacific, which itself is a region independent of the typical Gameplay Ideological Blocs, is an avenue that strengthens both of us against potential forces which would rather see us go down than move forward.

What benefits will there be for each area of our government, from military to regional affairs?

FA: This is a great framework for further work. It clearly opens us up for seeking bilateral relations with TEP directly for sure, and also gives us more to work with when we're seeking something multilateral (like what I mentioned earlier).

RA and MA: Not much benefit here directly, as cultural events or military collaboration don't require formal relations. However, it is a symbol - a statement of intent to say that we want to work with each other.

What issues surfaced during the negotiations, if any, that the Assembly should know about?

None really worth speaking of, the discussions were wonderful.

What measures will the Cabinet take to ensure that this treaty will not eventually became a paper alliance?

Collaboration is already ongoing, both with TEP and TRR, and this treaty strengthens even more the resolve to do exactly that.

Following some of Kris' questions, how active have we been with TRR?

Next to regular talks, military collaboration, planning for another cultural event, and us helping them in their most recent Delegate transition, the most obvious one recently has been the collaboration on the Lazarus situation, for which TRR has been an excellent partner.

Also, while I appreciate better connecting with TEP, I can't ignore the feeling that there's a bit of an imbalance here. We've long wanted better relations with TEP and forcing a tri-lateral agreement rather than a bilateral one, seems ... almost condescending.

It's not really forced, no condescension was intended, and neither Tim nor I have the feeling that it was interpreted in such a way at all.

Can we take this proposal to mean that TEP isn't interested in a bilateral treaty with us? And, if not, why?

Oh no, this does not preclude bilateral relations in any shape or form. Again, TRR+TSP approached TEP about this, and they were more than happy to gain us both simultaneously. Bilateral options remain on the table and are even better slated with this three-way treaty than without.

Reply

Could we possibly have a more interesting name for this? 

Other than what Belschaft and others have already said, I have no issues. Great proposal!

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

Reply

Could we possibly have a more interesting name for this? 

Other ideas were "ABC Treaty" and "Lampshade-Unicorn-Caek" so I think January Accords is much nicer

Reply

I kinda prefer the "Lampshade-Unicorn-Caek".

Reply

Well then, I guess you LUCed out.

Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

Who were the members of TSP involved in these discussion? Were ambassador level members involved in the negotiations?

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

Reply

Who were the members of TSP involved in these discussion? Were ambassador level members involved in the negotiations?

TSP was represented by Tim (MoFA), Roavin (PM), and Escade (FA Team, MoFA Emeritus). In this case, we didn't have anybody with ambassador level involved.

I assume your question is rooted in the Ambassador program - had we had a tenured TEP ambassador already, they would have been included (and likely Escade or myself would have been excluded), and if not tenured, at least drawn in to the internal discussions as they are supposed to be the ones from our side knowing TEP best. However, we didn't have such an ambassador for TEP (unfortunately - we will, though!)

Reply

Just to clarify, was Escade involved in the negotiations in this role of FA Team/MoFA Emeritus, or as our Minister of Military Affairs?

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Just to clarify, was Escade involved in the negotiations in this role of FA Team/MoFA Emeritus, or as our Minister of Military Affairs?

The former, primarily as FA Team and not as MoFA Emeritus. Having the current MoMA and a SPSF General participating in the negotiations was slightly convenient as we didn't need to touch base with SPSF separately, but the negotiations themselves didn't require military presence (we knew what we wanted militarily going into it).

Reply

Thank you for the explanation

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

Reply