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.

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.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

Thanks for your thorough response

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.

This is certainly, in my opinion, the most reasonable and defensible scenario yet for us to be able to save the TSP/TNP treaty. If I may ask, what are some things you would be willing to compromise with TNP about?

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

This is certainly, in my opinion, the most reasonable and defensible scenario yet for us to be able to save the TSP/TNP treaty. If I may ask, what are some things you would be willing to compromise with TNP about?

It is clear to us that TNP will not discontinue the act of quorum raiding because they argue that any proposed resolution that appears beneficial to fascist regions in any way should not even reach the floor for a vote. We disagree, and I disagree because we would thoroughly stomp on those proposals. However, they make the secondary argument that letting them go to vote is a "propaganda victory". It is clear as day that we will never see eye-to-eye on this matter, so I believe we need something in place in which we can avoid confrontation.

If we allow TNP to continue quorum raiding, we should continue to defend against it in regions that are not fascist without the act being considered a breach of the treaty, nor should it warrant another statement like the one in January. We should make it explicitly clear, either through an amendment to the treaty or a memorandum of understanding, that such actions do not constitute a violation of Section II, Article 1 of the Aurora Alliance. We will allow them to raid regions that are fascist, the same as we have always done before, but we will engage where quorum raiding affects regions that are not fascist.

That is one potential compromise that I see, but I will work with the Cabinet to craft our strategy and our counterparts in TNP to find some common ground and reach a mutual understanding. It may be that we get less than the potential compromise that I put forward and concede more to TNP. It takes a village to get something done, and we will work in the upcoming term to find a solution. Compromises often result in a bitter pill that both parties have to swallow, so we will have to see what comes out of negotiations.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

If we could get that compromise, I'd be stoked. However, I feel it's relatively certain TNP would not agree to that "compromise" because from their perspective that is conceding our demands.

Either way, I appreciate you doing the scenario analysis on this in response to my questions. Thanks!

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

(This post was last modified: 06-05-2021, 08:06 PM by HumanSanity.)

Reply

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.

Are there any other regions in particular that come to mind? 

I know others and I try to scout out new defender regions and individuals who are interested in the cause, but that's more for military purposes - so I'd love to hear what other regions you might consider viable options for purposes relating to the PfS and WASC affairs.

New Quebecshire,
Full Player Résumé
Discord: Cubic#1608

Reply

Are there any other regions in particular that come to mind? 

I know others and I try to scout out new defender regions and individuals who are interested in the cause, but that's more for military purposes - so I'd love to hear what other regions you might consider viable options for purposes relating to the PfS and WASC affairs.

I don't have any specific regions in mind and prefer to keep it open-ended, but I think we should reach out to those who do not necessarily have a position in R/D or do not typically define themselves as defenders. If we limit our options to predefined defenders, there will be little room for growth in the PfS. I believe we can convince regions that care for their security and native rights that the PfS is an institution where they can convey those interests in the World Assembly with other regions backing them up. If we protect each other, we protect ourselves, but we also protect all the natives out there who do not want to lose their homes.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

1. Can you rank the GCR's (excluding warzones obviously) from favourite to least favourite with explanations?
2. What is your stance on the Balder/TSP/Osiris thing?
3. Do you like sloths or armadillos more?

Local Councilroar.

Selfie

Reply

1. Can you rank the GCR's (excluding warzones obviously) from favourite to least favourite with explanations?

Unfortunately, I cannot reasonably rank all of the GCRs from most to least favored because I have not been a citizen of all the GCRs to provide an informed response to your question. Though, I may put TSP at the top of the list because, well, I'm here.

2. What is your stance on the Balder/TSP/Osiris thing?

Us having a trilateral relationship with Balder and Osiris is news to me. I am aware that we have bilateral relationships with them, but not a single trilateral one. Separately, our relationship with these regions has recently thawed as Osiris and then Balder lifted their proscriptions against our region, so I am pleased by these developments as they increase the rights and freedoms of our citizens in maintaining citizenship elsewhere.

3. Do you like sloths or armadillos more?

They're both cute!

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 06-09-2021, 04:33 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

If the Partnership for Sovereignty isn't warm to the idea of militarizing the alliance, do you have a backup plan for the kind of defender alliance you are envisioning? Right now, defenderdom is pretty complacent with Libcord being the substitute for an actual alliance. Not all defenders use Libcord, and those might be the first to go to for creating a military alliance. But I'm just wondering how much thought you've put into a Plan B if the PfS signatories want to keep the organization solely focused on the World Assembly.

Reply

If the Partnership for Sovereignty isn't warm to the idea of militarizing the alliance, do you have a backup plan for the kind of defender alliance you are envisioning? Right now, defenderdom is pretty complacent with Libcord being the substitute for an actual alliance. Not all defenders use Libcord, and those might be the first to go to for creating a military alliance. But I'm just wondering how much thought you've put into a Plan B if the PfS signatories want to keep the organization solely focused on the World Assembly.

Having served as MoFA before, I know all too well the experience of having proposals shot down by other regions. It has come to my mind that our friends in the PfS may not be receptive to the notion of expanding the organization's scope, so if I cannot materialize such an alliance within the PfS, I am willing to pursue its development parallel to the bloc. I have often compared the PfS to the real-life European Union, but if we cannot establish a capacity for collective defense within the PfS, we can fall back on developing a NATO-like institution featuring defender regions.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply