(06-05-2021, 01:11 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: I certainly agree with you about preserving our obligations under our treaties and with the fact that sometimes issues in a relationship must be addressed. You then bring up The North Pacific in a later response. We're at a stalemate there: they're one of our oldest allies, but there's been a pattern of unreliable, unhelpful, and disrespectful behavior from TNP towards TSP (and our defender allies) for quite some time. This is compounded by the increasingly less recent "quorum raiding / aiding the causes of fascism" issue which neither of us seem willing to compromise on. How would you seek to resolve this issue? This alliance seems to exist in name only at this point, so how would you reach an agreement/understanding on our significant issues with TNP or would you pursue other courses of action?

We cannot deny that our paths with TNP have diverged significantly since the ratification of the Aurora Alliance years ago. They call themselves Independent; we are defender. It's only natural that we have come to this point. Last year, we were warned by one of our own that our relationship with TNP would come to a head, especially when we decided to pursue closer relationships with other defenders. It was either destiny or a self-fulfilling prophecy that this has happened. Either way, it is incumbent upon us to resolve the matter.

As such, I do not want to rule anything out. All options are on the table in this dispute with TNP. The least preferable option is that we agree to a divorce and decide that the Aurora Alliance is a treaty that no longer aligns with either of our interests. Either that or we agree to water down the treaty's provisions, thereby reducing our commitments to each other. Again, this is the least preferable option.

The most preferable option is that we agree to a memorandum of understanding, and lemme be clear that the absolute minimum we should expect out of TNP is a retraction of the January statement, particularly the part where they said that our "sanctioned activities...ultimately aided the causes of fascism". We expect this from them, and I'm sure TNP will expect some things from us. I am more than willing to reach a compromise with TNP, but they have so far decided to care more about their pride than budge on this issue.

The ball is in their court. They will have to answer for themselves what they want in their relationship with TSP. We aren't the same rag-tag region we were all those years ago when we ratified the Aurora Alliance. We have new goals, new ambitions, and they have their own. I am willing to salvage this relationship, but TNP will have to decide if they are willing to do the same.

(06-05-2021, 01:11 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: I am glad to see you isolate Philippines as an example of a region we should cooperate with. I am more of an NSLeft skeptic in terms of what those relations could potentially help us with, but I see merit in making an honest effort at it. 

What prospective members would you attempt to include in PfS? You talk a lot about fortifying the bloc, and you published an opinion piece about it recently, although you're not actively forwarding those ideas anymore (which is fine, sometimes we all have ideas we change our mind about it). What ideas do you still believe in for fortifying PfS?

I believe that there are a few dark horses out there whom we could add to the PfS; we just have to search them out. The most apparent option is The League. The last time they applied, the PfS rejected their application and with good cause. I believe that The League has taken a few promising steps in the right direction, but I'm sure they still have a lot to prove to all of the members proper of the PfS.

As for the fortifications you speak of, I am steadfast in adding security protections for PfS members. I believe that such an addition to the Charter would be in our collective interest. As for proposals I've made in the past, I am still in favor of opt-in treaties that PfS members can voluntarily decide whether to ratify. I believe such treaties would be a welcome addition to the PfS and add new and innovative layers of integration between members. Those treaties would increase the scope and relevance of the PfS and could potentially help avoid the stagnation that the WALL endures.