I think the concerns here about TSP’s sovereignty touch on an issue that hasn’t been discussed much, and that is the realities of how TSP can be powerful and influential in the game. We can’t bully our way into that position as a defender region, which is exactly what demanding special treatment would be doing. Diplomacy is the art of inter-regional cooperation, not co-optation. We can’t go to other regions and say, “We think you ought to vote the way we want and enter into a treaty that gives us more power than you.” That’s a pretty ridiculous proposition, but it’s exactly what Belschaft is saying we should be doing. It’s an imperialistic view of diplomacy and unlikely to succeed in winning over anybody.

If TSP wants to grow our power and influence, we have three options: become raider and do it through force alone; stay defender and go it alone, while others band together without us; or stay defender, cooperate with others, build bridges, and grow our power and influence in a way that lifts all boats. A treaty like this is a really significant bridge. While I wish the name was better, the project itself will build strong ties and, if managed effectively, be an institution other regions in the future will aspire to join. It would be a mistake to not do this.

I understand the concerns about losing some level of autonomy over the Delegate’s vote, though the notion that we would lose sovereignty over it is a misrepresentation of the treaty. But it’s important to realize we would have a major seat at the table. An organization like this would open avenues of cooperation beyond Delegate voting—it could be a boon to WA development across the board. And because it could attract new regions over time, it could be a great opportunity to get regions into the broader defender bloc. These are opportunities we would lack in a go-it-alone approach. Not just lack, but actually give away to those who ultimately do move forward with this. Again, I think it would be a big mistake to not pass this treaty.