| The Rejected Realms Treaty |
|
Over the past few weeks, the Cabinet has been negotiating with The Rejected Realms, a fine region and fellow GCR. We want to expand our existing alliances, to ensure that we're connected to most active regions and the strongest military forces that could protect us if we even need it. (Hopefully we won't!)
TRR is part of a fairly large military organization, called the Founderless Regions Alliance. They have leverage that could help get the rest of the FRA to aid us in a time of need. If we were to be couped again, we would want as much help as we can get. TRR also has a lot of opportunities for cultural exchanges. For example, they have one of the most read newspapers in Gameplay, so they could help SPINN with technical stuff, or could collaborate on big issues. Some may oppose this treaty because of our existing alliance with The New Inquisition, who is currently at war with The Rejected Realms through their war with the Founderless Regions Alliance. This was a major point in negotiations. We stressed that TSP will not be dragged into a war we think is as fruitless as it is expansive. To that end, we agreed only to protect The Rejected Realms if anybody were attack the region proper, just as we are are asking them to do with us, and as all of our treaties do. That is the cornerstone of our all our treaties, because only by recognizing and protecting the sovereignty of all GCRs can we protect our own. There is a line even our allies cannot cross. When it comes to other military missions, we went with the standard protocol. We will cooperate whenever it's in our interests, meaning whenever it will provide an opportunity for the SPSF to be active, without having severe consequences for our foreign affairs. One other thing to mention is that this treaty adopts the position we took with Europeia. If TRR and TSP were to meet on the opposite sides of the battlefield, that would not constitute hostility or attack. This allows us to defend and raid, which is another standard of our foreign affairs. This treaty would let people know that we are truly independent, and we do whatever is in our best interests. What better way to do that then to be allied with multiple regions that differ in alignment on the whole R/D thing? Ultimately, our regional interests are best served by having good relations with all of our fellow GCRs. We have treaties with Balder, TNP, and Lazarus. So we should expand our relations with GCRs and encourage peace and cooperation among all of us. We all have the same common interest of protecting our regions from attack. This treaty is on the right step with our others in ensuring that! Without further ado, the Cabinet presents the following treaty for the Assembly's consideration! Quote:Treaty of Peace and Amity
I think the basic language of the treaty is fine.
My major issue is that frankly Unibot has not behaved here on a regular basis, and I just do not think our relationship with him or TRR is strong enough to justify a treaty at the current time. I don't really want to be listing every little thing he has done, but multiple moderator warnings, publicly supporting the slanderous statement of the UDL against TSP, and his most recent trying to use is position in TSP to further relations from TNI when the state of war is a clear conflict of interest. And this is just the tone set from the top.
It's important to remember that we wouldn't be ratifying a treaty with Unibot, anymore than TRR would be ratifying a treaty with Kris. That's the wrong way to look at it. This is a treaty between TSP and TRR, and there are so many more people involved in both regions than our delegates.
TSP and TRR do have a good working relationship. For example, the SPSF worked with the RRA when liberating Liberal Haven. We have an established diplomatic line of communication, as well. At this point in time, we have a more active relationship with TRR than we have with several of our existing treaty allies. The primary goal of this treaty is mutual defense. I've long supported, and the Cabinet currently supports, pan-GCR security cooperation. We would like to see an era where the GCRs defend themselves. This treaty is a good step towards that reality.
I don't think it's inappropriate at all.
Especially in a case where Unibot takes advantage of his citizenship here to push an agenda that clearly is in the best interest of TRR. If we want to show our independence, I think we shouldn't reward such backhanded behavior coming from TRR's leadership. I think we would all be disappointed with Kris if he went to other region's and said they should start getting rid of alliances while TSP was having an issue with a region. However, I am unaware of everything that has happened between our two regions, and I'll take your word for it that we have an improved line of communication and more efforts to accomplish joint goals, and I agree that peace is a very important goal. Taking that into account, I would support a non-aggression pact would be much more appropriate at the current time.
Unibot is not TRR and TRR is not Unibot. He has won a single term as the delegate of TRR, which he may not even hold for more than one term. This treaty represents a relationship between two regions. It should be judged on the basis of that, not on personal misgivings some have for TRR's delegate. We shouldn't let personal issues overshadow the strategic values of a GCR alliance. Personal grudges are fleeting. Long-term security is not.
I find it in bad form to go forward with this at this time. We are currently allied with TNI and need to wait until the issues with them and TRR are resolved. Being treatied to both sides of a war puts us into a position of having to choose and no matter how "independant" you think we are, a choice like that creates issues on multiple fronts. Let TRR and TNI settle down before going forward.
Those are issues are are probably never going to be resolved. This treaty would only make us choose sides if TNI were to invade TRR again, and that would be unacceptable with or without a treaty.
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
Besides, their issues are not our issues, just like Unibot is not TRR. The feud between TNI and TRR has nothing to do with TSP, and we should not make their problems our own. Other peoples' disagreements are not acceptable reasons (to me) to oppose a treaty that has nothing to do with those issues at all. Especially when it is in the best interest of both regions to follow through with something like this. We need to promote peace and understanding. If anything, I would hope seeing a treaty like this would encourage TNI and TRR to come closer to settling their differences, and embracing peaceful relations not only for the betterment of their two regions, but for all GCRs and all other regions who participate in such diplomatic action.
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice (06-27-2014, 05:10 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Those are issues are are probably never going to be resolved. This treaty would only make us choose sides *******>if TNI were to invade TRR again,<************* and that would be unacceptable with or without a treaty. It's not unprecedented. It's not like it never happens. If anything, we should run it past TNI BEFORE we do anything to make any issues that may happen surface before a treaty is signed.
I have a number of issues with this.
To start with, the suggestion that an alliance with TRR would provide leverage with the FRA and military support from it is fundamentally misleading. FRA deployments in GCR's are determined according to the Feeder and Sinker Deployment policy, which mandates that the decision will made by the FRA Chief of Defense, Arch Chancellor and Intelligence Minister, with the FRA Regional Assembly empowered to overrule such a deployment. TRR has no more influence over this process than any other FRA member region - it is effectively up to the FRA officials in question. The only way to gain a guarantee of FRA support would be to either sign a treaty of alliance with it or to become a member region. Now, I think it is highly unlikely that the Vice-Delegate would seek to mislead the Assembly; instead, I can only conclude that he himself and other members of the Cabinet have been misled in regards to this matter. I am extremely interested to find out who exactly was responsible for this. If it was an official of TRR misrepresenting the nature of the FRA then I would be disturbed; such dishonesty would not be effective foundations for a diplomatic partnership. I also have strong doubts of the benefits of an alliance with a region that would not be willing to support us in offensive operations. TSP does not maintain a reactive-update force for defending purposes - it is manpower intensive (manpower we lack) and of limited benefit. Tag raids are irrelevant to us. TRR in turn would not be willing to support us should the SPSF be involved in an invasion or raid, which are historically our armed forces most common activities for a number of reasons. Military cooperation is thus limited to liberation's, which make up a comparatively small percentage of our operations historically. To put it bluntly, I do not believe that our two regions military doctrines are compatible - there is extremely limited room for cooperation, unless either us or TRR alter such. I have no expectations that TRR will alter their doctrine, so unless TRR expects us to do so - which we most certainly should not and that no Assembly majority would support - then this proposed military alliance has no serious prospects of existing on anything but paper. The "Europeia style" clause is also something I don't like. It was an asinine clause when it was included in that treaty, and should not be replicated. An Alliance should not allow parties the ability to actively oppose the others military operations. In the case of Europeia that has never occurred; in the case of TRR, I do not have confidence that would be so. It is a clause waiting to be abused. As a minor aside, before I address the elephant in the room, I find the comments about alliances with regions of different R/D alignment showing that "we're truly independent" to be absurd. It utterly misses the point of Independence - the rejection of R/D - and attempts to reduce it to a balancing act. Independence is about prioritizing regional interests in military and foreign policy, which you absolutely don't do if your justification for a treaty is "we're allied with an Imperialist region, lets ally with a Defender region to balance it". Alliances should be judged on merit, not on such absurdities. Now, the elephant in the room is of course our existing treaty with TNI. TNI is a proven ally of this region, with a capable military willing to support us offensively and defensively. There is not history of hostility between our regions, and they have never failed to meet a commitment they have made to us. And they are at war with TRR. Being allied with TRR and TNI is functionally impossible. They produce conflicting commitments in areas of intelligence sharing and military cooperation. Neither party would have any particular reason to trust us with sensitive information, nor to rely on us as a military partner. In the case of another TNI invasion of TRR we would be treaty bound to defend TRR, in turn breaching our treaty with TNI. It does not work. At best we might hope for the two treaties to exist on paper, without any major diplomatic incident revealing them to be inoperative. More realistically, sooner or later one would have to be discarded - having already done damage to the other. Foreign affairs is about choices. This region has chosen to be allied to TNI; so long as that is the case, we cannot realistically ally with a region they are at war with. Similarly, TNI could not realistically ally with a region we are at war with. The reality of alliances is that they, whilst providing benefits, also close certain doors. Anyone who pretends that this proposal does not entail the inevitable collapse of our treaty with TNI is engaging in wishful thinking, or desires that outcome - TRR certainly desires such an outcome. To discard a proven and successful alliance for the possibility of a meaningful relationship with a region less capable - TNI's army is far larger and more effective than TRR's - and unwilling to support us as fully is the very height of stupidity. As such, I must oppose this proposal and encourage everyone else to do the same. Addendum: Like SB I think a NAP would be both appropriate and feasible whilst maintaining existing diplomatic commitments. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES | Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |