| Lazarus Treaty |
1. We already have a nonaggression pact with Lazarus, with the intention always being to return to a full treaty like before. TSP and Lazarus have been allies before, and the current status of only having the NAP is frankly a fluke due to some unfortunate decisions a few administrations ago.
2. I am not concerned about Lazarus being an FRA member or anti imperialist. We are still an Independent region. A treaty with Lazarus has been in the works as part of our efforts to create a GCR security network, not as a way to signal that we're changing alignments. Treaties with the other GCRs will be discussed as soon as I have a stable internet connection in my new apartment. 3. We envision full military cooperation, as we have done with all other similar treaties. R/D alignment of our allies should not matter, as we are an Independent region. As the adage goes, we raid and defend. That's with equal veracity. 4. Balder will be informed. I do plan on talking to Rachel before this is motioned to vote. It would be, in my opinion, wrong of them to think TSP-Balder relations are affected by TSP-Lazarus relations. We've maintained relations with both for a long time. This is about being GCRs, not about where anybody falls on the R/D spectrum. 5. Speaking in a personal capacity, I think it's honestly silly to say that our foreign affairs are NOW out of balance because of the TRR treaty. Our affairs were out of balance before it, not after. NS Gameplay accepts Independence as a guide for GCRs. They should be fine with a region forming alliances with BOTH raiders and defenders. That's the whole point. We believe these alliances are in our interests, so others should respect that and not assign hidden meaning to them. There are no fewer opportunities when allying with defenders versus raiders and imperialists. Raiders and imperialists don't defend, even if imperialists like to say that they do. There have a few liberations, although imperialists now refuse to even call them liberations. But 99% of the opportunities available to us these past few years have consisted of raiding. So I think your last point doesn't make a lot of sense, under the framework of Independence. Every treaty we've ever considered with defenders explicitly allows us to raid. If raiders and imperialists feel that TSP defending means they can no longer let us raid with them, then that is entirely their own problem. Under the promise of Independence, our region has always understood we could do both.
I just woke up, so either Glen will beat me to it of I'll answer later, but I do want to point out that the point of this and the TRR treaty are not necessarily made military cooperation. True, we cooperate with allied militaries, but that doesn't meant that we negotiated the treaties only based on that consideration. Personally, I like these treaties because they are with region with whom we have had excellent opportunities for cultural cooperation, and a treaty would formalise and enhance those relationships.
I just figured I could explain part of my thought process regarding these treaties, as to how important (or not) I see military cooperation as a part of them. You guys know I'm a big fan of cultural things, so that's one of my main concerns when having a relationship with another region. And Glen did beat me to it. 
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
At the risk of being called a subversive does the Assembly intend to consult with the Region proper on this treaty or is it going to be another discussion held behind closed doors?
Only the Assembly has the power to approve treaties. We have no intention of holding a RMB-based debate on this 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
(08-07-2014, 09:51 AM)Sandaoguo Wrote: 4. Balder will be informed. I do plan on talking to Rachel before this is motioned to vote. It would be, in my opinion, wrong of them to think TSP-Balder relations are affected by TSP-Lazarus relations. We've maintained relations with both for a long time. This is about being GCRs, not about where anybody falls on the R/D spectrum. First, Im not stating Im against this, or even that Im for it. Just putting that out there. What it comes down to is, we've already lost an ally in gaining a new one. The Cabinet has made it know that, as a region, we support our sister GCRs. But not all the GCRs get along. Are we willing to potentially lose an existing GCR ally to gain another? With that said, maybe we should be talking to Balder before the discussion even makes it to the Assembly? That way, the Assembly is presented with ALL the facts - pros and cons - with any initial draft.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
More importantly, should Balder have issues with this what will the Cabinet's reaction be?
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)
(08-07-2014, 03:19 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: Are we willing to potentially lose an existing GCR ally to gain another? The entire point of these treaties is to create what I'm calling a GCR Security Network. Losing GCR allies the opposite of what we want. If it's necessary, the Cabinet will have to weigh things, namely the ability of a region to mobilize in the future should our own region be attacked. I don't have an assessment of that at this time, because I don't think Balder will act rashly. (08-07-2014, 03:19 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: With that said, maybe we should be talking to Balder before the discussion even makes it to the Assembly? That way, the Assembly is presented with ALL the facts - pros and cons - with any initial draft. We do not typically run our treaties past all of our allies, especially before the treaties have been made public. Balder is first and foremost a GCR, and has never expressed any issues regarding our relations with Lazarus. We were allied with both when Lazarus purged imperialists from their region around September 2013. It wasn't until November 2013 that the TSP-Lazarus treaty was dissolved and the NAP was created in its place, for a reason completely unrelated to Lazarus' position on imperialism. So it is not obvious to me that Balder should be contacted during negotiations. This is not a gameplay alignment treaty. I think some people are thinking about this treaty and the TRR treaty in terms of how they affect TSP's alignment. Because the Cabinet does not view it that way, it is not immediately obvious to consult allies whose ostensible alignments (Balder doesn't consider itself imperialist, last time I checked) might conflict with the alignments of other allies. (08-07-2014, 03:30 PM)Belschaft Wrote: More importantly, should Balder have issues with this what will the Cabinet's reaction be? It's hard to say, considering the existing Cabinet is not the same Cabinet that negotiated the original treaty. In talking with Balder (specifically, Rachel), I will be outlining what our goals here are. I do not anticipate a negative reaction from Balder. If there is, then the Cabinet will reconvene and decide what's in our best interests and present that to the Assembly.
Balder should be (and is being) contacted about the treaty negotiations, although I would be leery of any ally attempting to dictate our FA Policy.
However, whatever happens, I hope TSP is being treated with the same respect and sovereignty by Balder granted to TNP and other GCRs. I know McMasterdonia (MoFA in TNP) was pursuing a treaty with Lazarus - I doubt Balder would have risen to prevent such a treaty then. Likewise, TEP maintains strong relations with Lazarus - I doubt Balder would try to splinter that relationship if Balder and TEP were to consider treaties (which I also believe is in the works from what I hear). @ Also, I don't think we really should judge the value of a treaty based on the principles that those regions hold. We've had treaties in the past with authoritarian regions (NPO), monarchist regions (TNI) and military juntas (LWU).
Rachel just confirmed for me that this treaty will not be a problem for TSP-Balder relations. While Balder and Lazarus are not "compatible" at the time, that doesn't affect the relationship between TSP and Balder.
If Balder is the only potential issue -- and it has just been confirmed that it isn't an issue -- I'll motion this to a vote.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |