Negotiations are occurring on the Lazarus forum.

URL: http://nslazarus.com/index.php?/topic/21...otiations/
Password: passtheword

If you haven't done so, register on the Lazarus forums and request diplomatic masking.

So, far the only change we are making to the treaty is amending Article IV, Section 3 to read the following:

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

---

Right now, the Deputy F&S Minister will take over these negotiations. The following principles must be reflected in the final draft:

• Mutual recognition of legitimate governments.
  
• Mutual defense against outside attack, subject to political and diplomatic considerations.
  
• Duty to respond to a coup, unless both sides agree that it's not necessary.
  

Some questions you might want to ask them:
- What do you envision military cooperation to be?
- Is there anything we can do right off the bat of signing the treaty? Conduct a mission? Training?
- What kind of cultural event can be organized to celebrate the treaty, if it passes?

Nothing in this thread is to be shared with Lazarus, unless explicit permission is given. This is an internal strategy thread. It's ranked Top Secret.

I have joined their forums now, and I have requested diplomatic masking. I will proceed with negotiations once I have been masked!! Also, I would like to say that there is no need to clarify confidentiality. I assumed it when you appointed me... confidentiality is most important.

I have received information back from Lazarus. They are asking for an explanation as to why the proposed clause is better than how Article IV, Section 3 reads, as is. I would answer, but I was not part of the conversation then, so the reasoning is unknown to me. Edit: Is it just for clarity, to make it so that it isn't required if, and only if, both parties agree? If it's a split opinion, military assistance is still required?

They could not provide a response to what military activity would be possible, except that we should contact Horse about that one the treaty is ratified.

As far as the cultural event is concerned, they seem to be open to anything. The mentioned that they have "games" with The North Pacific, and then both parties discuss "awards" for the games, which are hosted on a special section of the forums -- but they seem to be open to suggestions.

I've just read the current and the proposed articles. The way I see it, both are saying basically the same thing. If anything, the proposed article removes the "if circumstances permit" part, which I think would be better for both parties, as it could've been exploited to avoid enforcement, simply by one party saying that their internal circumstances don't allow for helping the other to fight a coup. The new wording makes it so that the only way out would be mutual agreement.

Of course, that is how I see it. I can't speak for Glen's thought process.

Kris has it right. The purpose is to create a mutual commitment to help each other if either party is faced with a coup. The previous language provided a loophole to get out of that commitment. The new language creates a more certain commitment.

That's what I figured, ya'll just worded it much more eloquently. Excellent, I will communicate those sentiments.

They agree to the change... what should I do to proceed from here?

I would like to bring this treaty to the Assembly at the same time we bring the TRR treaty to them. So we'll just sit back and wait a bit, until the last parts of the TRR treaty are finalized.

You can tell Lazarus that it will be brought the Assembly soon. Just don't mention the TRR treaty. We're trying to keep that under wraps.

Sounds good.
In the meantime, I'm betting on who will cry loudest about how we've sold ourselves to the NS defender conspiracy.

Them needing to elect a new Chairman works in our favor, I told them we would wait until after their elections to bring it before the Assembly. Since 1) we have to anyway and 2) we want to wait for TRR.

Please let me know if my approach has been wrong/if there's anything I could be doing better.