(06-30-2014, 01:38 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Our region recognises the concept of war in our legal system. We expect others to recognize our right to wage war, and as such we must too recognize the right of others to do so. We can disapprove of a hypothetical TNI invasion of TRR and we have no legal duty to assist them - which we should not - but they have the undeniable sovereign right to wage war, and as our ally they have a right to expect us to not ally with their enemies.

I, for one, never voted to allow TNI to attack the sovereignty of another GCR. Nor did I ever vote to recognize the legitimacy of declaring war against any defender group that, well, defends.

We are not obligated to recognize every single war TNI declares. We are not obligated to write a blank check to TNI, so that they can control our military alliances and foreign policy interests, simply by declaring war over basic R/D rivalries like they always do.

(06-30-2014, 01:35 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: I just don't see this a genuine idea. We already have cultural and military cooperation with TRR, and that has not been a problem. What's left is mutual defense, and that can't really be subject to a trial period. Either TNI directly attacks TRR, or they don't. If they do, that spells the end, for me, to the current alliance anyways.

And here we go; you identify the problem. If TNI attacks TRR - a region they are at war with - and we are allied with TRR then one or the other treaty will collapse as they are fundamentally contradictory. You know this. In fact, you want this to occur.

(06-30-2014, 01:35 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: How many of our current treaties went through this path of first having an NAP to "prove" a relationship?

None, because none of them produced the contradictory commitments you're actively salivating over as a way to destroy our alliance with TNI.

(06-30-2014, 01:42 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:

(06-30-2014, 01:38 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Our region recognises the concept of war in our legal system. We expect others to recognize our right to wage war, and as such we must too recognize the right of others to do so. We can disapprove of a hypothetical TNI invasion of TRR and we have no legal duty to assist them - which we should not - but they have the undeniable sovereign right to wage war, and as our ally they have a right to expect us to not ally with their enemies.

I, for one, never voted to allow TNI to attack the sovereignty of another GCR. Nor did I ever vote to recognize the legitimacy of declaring war against any defender group that, well, defends.

We are not obligated to recognize every single war TNI declares. We are not obligated to write a blank check to TNI, so that they can control our military alliances and foreign policy interests, simply by declaring war over basic R/D rivalries like they always do.

Any treaty produces obligations. If we wish our allies to recognize our right to declare war, and take into account our interests when conducting foreign policy, then we must do such in regards to them. Our alliance with TNI exists, and was established by the Assembly. We all know you don't like TNI, but as MoFA you have to implement the foreign policy the Assembly established. You cannot simply ignore the obligations the Assembly produced when it allied with TNI.

Once again, I suggest that our FA office pursue a non-aggression pact with TRR. Kris in particular has been a harsh critic of assembly gridlock and the lack of compromise that happens in the assembly, and I believe this will be a solution most of us will view as a major step in the right direction and hopefully will strengthen our relations without the weight of this current proposal.

I have not seen the working relationship between TRR and TSP first hand, but I am more than willing to take the government's word for it. I do think that our regions have had a rocky relationship for years now, and that our relationship needs to built over time. I think having only one term of good relations and then binding it would be a mistake.

Where is the "weight" of this current proposal, Southern Bellz? All of it's clauses are standard for any NS diplomatic alliance. If you could specifically outline which clauses you find contentious, that would be helpful.

I should point out, Southern Bellz that The Rejected Realms has been engaging with The South Pacific since the beginning of the Escade administration. This isn't just one term and we were told then that relations would have to "wait a few months" and that The South Pacific wasn't willing at that time to commit to defending The Rejected Realms in the event of us being couped. We've kept up our communication with the Kringalia administration, invited The South Pacific to cultural events we're organizing and when we restarted treaty negotiations, The Rejected Realms made it clear that mutual support in the event of a coup was something that was quite important to The Rejected Realms. We are a vulnerable region - any region with over a hundred endorsements and a ban button can coup us instantly. It means quite a lot to us that our allies stand behind us when we're in a tight situation like that. As I'm sure, The South Pacific would expect from their friends and allies too.

Admittedly, we are getting a bit frustrated being told every few months that we need to wait another few more months to consider an alliance, but we will probably continue to invite The South Pacific to our cultural activities and try to be an engaging neighbor however these treaty negotiations proceed. We harbor no hostilities toward The South Pacific and I think we've advanced our relationship to the point that a Non-Aggression Pact would not pose much utility to either of us. We are not hostile towards The South Pacific and I don't see The South Pacific being hostile towards us. A treaty, to have meaning and real value, has to be advancing a diplomatic relationship further. We seek to be real allies who stand behind each other in times of need and cooperate with each other regularly through various opportunities for cultural and military activity.

Thanks for reading,
Unibot.

Umm... Uni, don't you have a pretty f-ing massive CoI here?

I won't be voting on the proposal here. But I felt I should bring up a point or two here that I thought had been missed in the discussion.

Thanks Belschaft.

There are three points I want to address right now. First, the main objection I have with a non-aggression pact is that the idea here isn't to prevent aggression from the Rejected Realms. The idea is to enhance a relationship that we have been developing and that we want to formalise. Of course, how we end up calling this agreement is not so important as what is contained in it, but I do want to make clear that we are proposing a treaty because we believe that a treaty is in order.

Second, the only actual circumstance in which we would have to face TNI is if they attacked TRR itself, and we have already said that this would be unacceptable even without this treaty. I should point out that this treaty doesn't compel us to engage in military cooperation with TRR, it just says that such cooperation may take place, outlines the procedure to make it happen and clearly states that it will happen as circumstances permit. Obviously this and all future Cabinets would be responsible enough to evaluate when and how to cooperate with our various allies.

Third, I have to agree with Unibot's point about continued requests to "see where the relationship goes". We haven't asked that from other regions, and I think that we should be consistent with our standards for treaties. In this case, I have no doubt that a closer relationship with the Rejected Realms is in our best interests, not only because of the opportunities for military cooperation, but also because of the opportunities for cultural cooperation, which we have been exploring already and will continue to do in the future.

It has been said that a non-aggression pact would be better, but it has also been said that the text of the treaty itself is not really objectionable. I'm interested in seeing how would a non-aggression pact would differ from our current proposal. While I am, to a certain extent, open to other proposals, depending on their content, I honestly believe that the treaty as it is right now is our best option and will continue to argue in favour of it.

Ah so The Cabinet gas made that policy decision then?
Was the Assembly consulted, was it part of your manifesto when you ran for delegate - just trying to determine where this mandate derives from

(07-02-2014, 05:15 PM)Ditortilla Wrote: Ah so The Cabinet gas made that policy decision then?
Was the Assembly consulted, was it part of your manifesto when you ran for delegate - just trying to determine where this mandate derives from

It's this awesome thing called executive policy.