The South Pacific and Lazarus have been working towards improved relations for a while, now. We passed a non-aggression pact a while ago, stressing that neither of us has reason to be an enemy of one another, and that friendship among all GCRs serves in all of our best interests. We promised that we would reconsider our relationship with them, and over the past few weeks we have negotiated a treaty to upgrade their status to full ally.

This treaty creates a mutual defense pact, which is always helpful for GCRs. It also promotes military cooperation when possible and beneficial to both of us. The treaty itself is also highly flexible, allowing both of our regions to act consistent with their interests, rather than being rigidly tied down to a single course of action.

The Cabinet believes that promoting Lazarus to a full ally will boost our military defenses and provide many opportunities for cultural and military activities!

Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between The South Pacific and Lazarus

Preamble
The parties to this treaty express their faith in the benefits of friendship and cooperation between their two regions. We believe that working together on matters tangible and intangible will add even more vitality to the lives of our regions. In the spirit of our shared history as Game-Created Regions, we affirm these beliefs by adopting the following principles.

Article I. Mutual Recognition of Government Legitimacy.

Section 1. The parties to this treaty recognize the government of each region, based upon its constitutions and laws, as legitimate, and will not extend that recognition to any government that comes to power through means not proscribed by law, which shall be determined by the legitimate government in question.

Section 2. Should the government of either party fundamentally change, but not violate the terms of the previous section, the parties may adopt a memorandum of understanding extending the provisions of this treaty to the new government.

Article II. Affirmation of Non-Aggression.

Section 1. The parties to this treaty reaffirm their pact of non-aggression.

Section 2. Both parties will refrain from engaging in any decisive and purposeful action that will undermine the regional security of either party.

Section 3. Both parties will refrain from conspiring, either directly or through a third party, to destabilize or overthrow the legitimate government of either party.

Section 4. Both parties will, in good faith, report any known threat or concern related to the other party's security, to the appropriate security organs.

Article III. Cooperation on Military Affairs.

Section 1. The parties to this treaty agree to work with each other, from time to time and as circumstances permit, on mutually beneficial military operations, including training missions and confidence-building measures.

Section 2. Both parties agree that diplomatic and political concerns may prevent military cooperation, and will not consider the rejection of cooperation as hostile posturing.

Section 3. Both parties agree to keep classified any information regarding military affairs, and only publish that information in a manner mutually agreed upon.

Section 4. Both parties agree to share intelligence as circumstances permit.

Article IV. Mutual Defense.

Section 1. The parties to this treaty may seek assistance for their self-defense by lodging an official request with the appropriate officials.

Section 2. Both parties acknowledge that this treaty does not establish, nor prohibit, a collective security arrangement, but rather mutual defense will be conducted on an as-requested and as-approved basis.

Section 3. Both parties agree to assist each other in responding to an internal coup d'etat, unless relieved of duty by mutual agreement.

Section 4. Both parties agree that the provisions of mutual defense do not extend to defense against attacks provoked by hostile activity on part of the requesting party.

Article V. Exchange of Cultural Values.

The parties to this treaty believe that cultural ties help solidify political ties, and as such agree to hold cultural exchanges from time to time, to strengthen the institutions of peace and liberty.

Article VI. Exchange of Embassies.

Section 1. The parties to this treaty agree to establish permanent embassies on their respective community forums, which shall be open until such a time that either party requests their embassy to be closed.

Section 2. Both parties agree that embassies may accommodate private discussions, but shall not be the sole means of official communication.

Section 3. The ministers of foreign affairs for both parties will strive to regularly communicate about the implementation of this treaty.

Article VII. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes.

The parties to this treaty undertake to settle any and all disputes between them through peaceful means, in such a way that friendship and cooperation between them are not harmed, and to refrain from using the threat of force or sanction while this treaty is in force.

Article VIII. Deposit and Clarification of Terms.

Section 1. This treaty shall be deposited in a publicly accessible area of the community forums of both parties.

Section 2. The parties to this treaty may, from time to time, clarify the terms of this treaty through memorandums of understanding, which shall be posted alongside the treaty.

Article IX. Suspension of Terms and Termination of the Treaty.

Section 1. Either party may suspend the terms of the treaty, if the other party has materially breached its terms, until such a time that both parties peacefully settle the dispute and adopt a memorandum of understanding that the treaty is again in force.

Section 2. Either party may terminate the treaty with five days notice, posted publicly in the forum of deposit in both regions, after which the terms of treaty are no longer binding on either party.

Reply

Good to see this up finally.

Reply

Looks good.

Reply

Considering that Lazarus refused to comply with the last alliance we had with them, why on earth would we want to sign a new one?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

I'm not sure you can really compare old Lazarus with the PRL. There's not too much overlap in term of membership (since there was never a lot of members of old Lazarus to begin with). Feux, Stu, Drop Your Pants, Harmoneia. At the time of TSP's coup, Old Lazarus didn't even really have an army to support TSP with - I think their only soldier was DYP and DYP helped TSP.

Obviously things are different now since Lazarus maintains the LLA. One of the more active GCR armies in NationStates.

(This post was last modified: 08-05-2014, 07:40 AM by Sandwich Territories.)

Reply

While in the Cabinet, I've been supportive of this treaty.

But, following the fallout after the last treaty, I feel it's important to ask whether there's any potential conflicts with current treaties and/or what we think the outcomes will be.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I can't see any reasonable conflict between this treaty and any others we have right now. We have very similar GCR alliances with Balder, TNP, and TRR.

Reply

I can't see any reasonable conflict between this treaty and any others we have right now. We have very similar GCR alliances with Balder, TNP, and TRR.

I'm generally in support of all treaties.

I'll admit that I'm especially concerned about becoming a target for Raids ... but if this won't alter that, then I'm all in.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

It seems like we're losin' a treaty for every one that we sign...

The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN)
Provost, Magisterium
Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army
Journalist, East Pacific News Service
Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific

Reply

I don't have strong feelings against a treaty with Lazarus, but I do have a few questions and concerns.

First, is the Cabinet at all concerned about the impact that two back to back treaties with FRA member regions could have on future foreign affairs? In agreeing to military cooperation with regions that only defend, we are agreeing to military cooperation against raiders, imperialists, and fellow independent regions that conduct raids. Granted, there is wiggle room here that allows us to reject military cooperation, but presumably the intent is to regularly cooperate or there wouldn't be much point. Given that Lazarus is not only defender but virulently anti-imperialist, this would seem to pose a potential problem for future relations with imperialist regions, including other GCRs.

Second, what kind of military cooperation are we envisioning here? I think that's important to clarify. Are we talking about Warzone operations, are we talking about defensive operations against fringe invaders like recent operations in Liberal Haven, or are we talking about full scale joint operations against mainstream regions and organizations like UIAF, ISRA, TBR, etc.? This could change over time with changes in government, in both regions, but I assume the Cabinet has some idea what direction they would like to see military cooperation take in the short term.

Finally, returning to concerns regarding Lazarene anti-imperialism, has anyone from the Cabinet been in contact with Balder in regard to this treaty? Balder and Lazarus don't even have basic diplomatic relations, having mutually severed relations shortly after the PRL came to power in Lazarus. This is due in large part to the PRL's ardent anti-imperialism, as Balder is an imperialist region. With this history of hostility between the two, it would be good to know if the Cabinet has had conversations with Balder and to have general impressions on Balder's reaction to this treaty. I'm sure we all want to avoid any potential damage to preexisting treaty relations with a fellow GCR, and such could probably be avoided by touching base with them and letting them know we value their perspective before we ratify this, rather than after. I hope that has already been done.

I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on this and that will probably be determined by answers to the above questions and concerns. I would likely have supported the treaty with The Rejected Realms had I been here at the time, but TSP and TRR have much more in common in terms of philosophy of government (e.g., democracy) as well as a more moderate approach to gameplay politics than do TSP and Lazarus. I'm not sold on this being a good idea, particularly on the heels of the TRR treaty, because it's increasingly looking like our foreign affairs are out of balance. Given that defenders insist upon confining themselves to one military activity, defending, the more we pledge military cooperation with defenders the fewer opportunities there are going to be for cooperation with others.

(This post was last modified: 08-07-2014, 02:34 AM by Andrew.)

Reply