Taijitu
Government of Taijitu => The Ecclesia => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: Myroria on March 29, 2015, 01:09:58 PM
-
Hello, my lovelies!
The Foreign Service and myself have been speaking to Ramaeus about a treaty of mutual defense. We have come up with the following draft, which is currently before The East Pacific's legislature for discussion.
The Tomato Treaty
A Treaty of Friendship and Amity between Taijitu and The East Pacific
Preamble
The sovereign regions of Taijitu and The East Pacific, as governed democratically by the Ecclesia of Taijituan citizens and the Concordat of The East Pacific, are independent regions. Recognizing the sovereign right of both parties to maintain a military furthering the region’s security and foreign policy and respecting the sovereignty of our own regions, our allies, and all regions in NationStates we join as friends in this treaty.
Article One
1. The parties agree to maintain a mutual embassy relationship, onsite and offsite.
2. The parties agree to penalize willful violation of the other party’s rules for RMB posts on that party’s RMB, should the other party allow embassy RMB posts.
3. From time to time, the parties will organize cultural events on the regional offsite forums or RMB of one or the other party.
Article Two
1. If the sovereignty of a party is threatened by outside forces, the other party will assist proportionately in coordination with and by the consent of the threatened party.
2. Military activity in another region does not constitute extension of the region’s sovereignty.
3. The parties will collaborate militarily on request when their forces are not otherwise needed.
4. Cooperation may only be requested for operations consistent with Article Three, other agreements entered into by the requested party, and the requested party’s regional law.
Article Three
1. The parties, recognizing the overriding principles of respect for regional sovereignty, diplomatic integrity, and interregional cooperation, pledge to one another to hold faith with all their treaties and behave honorably with their diplomatic partners.
Article Four
1. If either party breaks the treaty, the other party may warn them of this.
2. Any violation of the treaty, however, is grounds for termination.
3. Either party may withdraw from the treaty with seven days’ notice.
Article Five
1. This treaty may be amended by mutual consent, through the normal ratification processes of the two parties.
2. Amendment which does not make the treaty incompatible will not end the applicability of the respect under this treaty for other mutual alliances or vice versa.
This will hopefully smooth any remaining hurt feelings over Tomatogate.
One thing I feel I should point out for the Ecclesia to discuss, however: The East Pacific Sovereign Army invaded the founderless of region of Belgium minutes after Ramaeus and I decided to present this to our legislatures.
-
I'd like to hear their great and oh-so-righteous reasons for the Belgium raid before deciding my position on this proposal.
-
I feel similarly. I'm not sure to what extent Xoriet or Ramaeus were aware of/endorsed this operation.
-
I feel similarly. I'm not sure to what extent Xoriet or Ramaeus were aware of/endorsed this operation.
Xoriet at least authorized and was involved in it. She may also be the lead nation, I'm unclear on that point.
I, too, would like to hear their justification for raiding a peaceful and unoffensive region alongside some of the worst griefers in NationStates, though to be honest I'm not seeing any potential justification that is going to make me likely to support a treaty with them moving forward. That's really unfortunate, as I was fairly supportive of this less than 24 hours ago.
-
Well, Xoriet has explained why EPSA conceived of the raid (here (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=24012859#p24012859)):
Did your memory fail that you recruited from EPSA, Cormac? We spent months choosing to assist in the defenses out of goodwill and fun. And how was that dedication thanked? You thought to bolster your own new and shiny force by taking from us. When I first thought of the raid, two weeks ago, it was because I was extremely angry,
But that was not why we went through with it two weeks later. Where "backstabbing" is stated, I should note that the behavior of "They helped us but that's not enough when we think we need something and we want it under our command" is in its own way quite a betrayal. A betrayal of trust. Trust which was placed in people we had hitherto trusted immensely to respect our sovereignty and individuality as much as we respected theirs.
That alone would be justification to fit the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army Act, our legal code, had I chosen to let it be so. This was, however, not the chosen justification because that one would have simply been petty. As long as our military and our region agreed that the justification we ultimately decided upon and was provided was sufficient, it was not illegal. This operation happened last night because it was intended to be fun to the participants. And, as ever, my aim is for things to be fun for the people involved in the operation at hand.
Given that this is just as petty as Tomatogate, if not moreso given that it involved an innocent third party region I've never even so much as visited, it appears that The East Pacific has learned absolutely nothing about how to reasonably interact with others in NationStates. Their childish, spoiled sense of elitism and self-entitlement is nauseating. I'm absolutely opposed to any treaty. Can we coup them instead?
-
I will post my thoughts here and elsewhere once I've composed them.
-
I'm really kind of surprised that the EPSA decided to raid for the reason of "fuck Cormac."
-
I would like to give the Ecclesia a bit of a review of this whole situation, as to those not involved directly this may be a bit daunting.
A short time after Ramaeus and I agreed on the treaty to present to Taijitu and TEP's legislatures, the East Pacific Sovereign Army, let by Xoriet, invaded Belgium, a region with a history of defending. Many in the defending community took this as an affront, and I and the Citizen-Diplomats in particular took this as an affront to the treaty we had agreed upon less than an hour before. I asked Ramaeus for a quote I could bring before the Ecclesia about this matter - which I will get into later.
This morning Xoriet posted the explanation Cormac quoted above on the NS gameplay forums, inflaming things further. Todd McCloud, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, met with myself, Cormac, Dyr, and Eluvatar to discuss and, hopefully, to sooth. He maintained that no one involved in the raid knew the history of Belgium, or at the very least didn't think the history elevated the operation beyond a simple raid. Though I can't speak on behalf of anyone else, I am reasonably convinced this was the case.
Some time after Todd left, Ramaeus responded to my request for a quote. With his permission, it is shown in its entirety below, along with an addendum sent shortly after.
To start, I'll address the actual justification of the raid (I am aware of Xoriet's post in Gameplay): this was a raid to see if we're compatible with any potential military friends outside of Defenders. We are, and will continue to be, interested in a wide variety of operations, not just defending. This type of justification -- testing if we are compatible with potential military friends -- has been used before by EPSA, and will continue to be used by EPSA.
Secondly, the mildness of the raid was due to internal EPSA policy. We have a strict no griefing policy, which is why the only things that changed in Belgium are the flag and Delegate. It's also why the raid ended as quickly as it did. Given the organizations and people participating in this raid, it could have been far more destructive than it was. The lack of destruction is due to internal EPSA policy.
It's obvious that people are, and will continue to be, offended by this raid and the posts which have emerged in Gameplay. There hasn't been an official EPSA statement on the matter, and there won't be. The actual justification for this raid was written above. That being said, it's obvious that posts in gameplay and elsewhere have offended people.
I won't apologize for what was said, because it isn't representing TEP in any official capacity, much like I'm not expecting you to apologize for what Cormac has said and will continue to say. For example, this quote from Cormac on your offsite forum: “Given that this is just as petty as Tomatogate, if not moreso given that it involved an innocent third party region I've never even so much as visited, it appears that The East Pacific has learned absolutely nothing about how to reasonably interact with others in NationStates. Their childish, spoiled sense of elitism and self-entitlement is nauseating. I'm absolutely opposed to any treaty. Can we coup them instead?” I don't control what TEP's citizens say because we're a republic, and I don't expect you to control what Taijitu's citizens say because you're a democracy.
People say and do strange things when angry, so I'd like to thank you for keeping a level head, even though people from both our regions have said some incendiary things. I wasn't aware that this raid would cause such backlash. If you and Taijitu wish to cancel or withdraw from negotiations, I understand. I'd rather we let cooler heads prevail and not have a repeat of the Tomato incident, which caused resentment on both sides.
Addendum:
An addendum to my previous telegram: we weren't aware of the history of Belgium. If we were aware, we wouldn't have chosen Belgium as a target. We've also apologized to Belgium.
In my reply, I told Ramaeus that I was reasonably convinced they were telling the truth, had no plans to move for the Ecclesia to end discussion, but that in the end the passage or failure of this was up to them.
When writing this treaty, before the events in Belgium, everyone in the Foreign Service was well aware that the East Pacific raided from time to time. Despite this, we believed them - and I believe now - that they would be a reliable ally to us. The politics is the major question here.
I will leave this discussion to the Ecclesia for now.
-
I'm not interested. However they try to spin this, they raided a region that had nothing to do with me for the purpose of basically saying "fuck Cormac," as Funkadelia noted above. This song and dance about Ramaeus not controlling what his citizens say and do is ridiculous. Xoriet wasn't just acting as a citizen, she ordered a raid in her capacity as EPSA Overseeing Officer for petty, vindictive regions, to target a citizen of Taijitu. He has control over what an officer appointed by him does with that office, and he clearly isn't interested in exercising that control to ensure that this is redressed.
The East Pacific has not made any effort to correct anything they've done here, and now, somehow, in Ramaeus' mind, my reaction is somehow as bad as the actual raid that Xoriet carried out because she didn't like someone recruiting. The East Pacific is not a credible diplomatic, military, or cultural partner. We have no idea what they will do when they feel slighted. They sever relations over tomatoes, and raid innocent regions over recruitment. I don't think we need to do anything drastic like completely severing embassy relations, but we can do better for allies than people who raid regions to target our citizens for petty, vindictive reasons.
That said, I move for a vote on the treaty so we can get this out of the way.
-
I don't think an immediate vote is the right thing to do in this case.
I would instead suggest tabling the alliance for at least a week, to see exactly what The East Pacific and Xoriet do. It's my understanding and/or hope that Xoriet, at least, understands the nature and magnitude of her negligence, ignorance, and imprudence in this case.
It is my perhaps tentative belief that despite the involvement of the "Brotherhood of Malice" the decision to raid belgium (as opposed to some place else) was not one of malice, but a serious failing of, well, negligence ignorance and imprudence.
It strikes me that there are some major similarities between aspects of this event and aspects of our own invasion of the Rejected Realms nearly eight years ago on July 21st 2007 (20-21st major update). I, then, and perhaps other Taijituans, despite being quite active in some of the interregional politics of the day, were quite surprised by how the capture of what we largely saw (perhaps a bit indoctrinated still by the Lexicon...) as an undemocratic hegemony, however amiable its leader, in the Rejected Realms as an attack on defenders and/or civil/civilized regions everywhere.
Our invasion of the Rejected Realms was a mistake. We realized this almost immediately. It was a mistake, in (small) part, because of our ignorance of the way the wider NationStates world viewed Kandarin and specifically attempts to remove him.
I may empathize too much, in this regard. It seems pretty clear to me however that Xoriet recognizes a mistake, and seeks to act on that recognition.
-
I can appreciate and accept recognition of a mistake, and even respect it, but that doesn't make The East Pacific either a good or stable treaty ally. There's nothing they can do or say that will make me vote for a treaty with them now. They would need to actually demonstrate, over the course of months, that they've learned something from this and can in fact be a stable ally, because I don't trust them to be that kind of ally right now and I don't think anyone else should either.
That said, if we would prefer to delay the vote for a bit rather than getting it out of the way, I'm fine with that.
-
I am also of the opinion that we should plan to vote in a week or two.
obviously a bad decision on their part, and a horrid announcement/PR operation, but I believe that a bit of time may help
-
I'm not sure whether it is presumptuous for me to address this topic, as I am a complete beginner in NationStates, let alone its utterly confusing politics.
However, if I'm not mistaken, the East Pacific has already violated "the principles of regional sovereignty" espoused in Article Three of the Tomato Treaty. After all, Belgium clearly is even to my ignorant eyes a peaceful region and therefore there is no valid justification for a raid undermining its sovereignty. To me it seems that this is not only a move of "Fuck Cormac", but "Fuck Taijitu", seeing as the raid goes against both the terms of the treaty and the ideology of Sovereigntism*. How is it acceptable to sign a treaty that has already been broken before its inauguration, especially considering that the East Pacific's military knew or should have known of the terms?
*As far as I understand this, this is only the official ideology of the TaiMil rather than the region as a whole. However, seeing as the military is an indispensable element of foreign policy, and closely tied with diplomacy, wouldn't it make sense to extend official Sovereigntism to the foreign office equivalent of Taijitu?
P.S. Also, may I ask what Tomatogate is?
-
TEP + Arson = <3
(http://www.catholiclane.com/wp-content/uploads/passing-torch.jpg)
-
Libre: "Tomatogate" or "The Tomato Incident" refers to a hubbub on the East Pacific's IRC channel last summer where some Taijituans, including Funkadelia, were trolling a bit. Due to a variety of reasons, mostly involving Funkadelia's high position in Lazarus at the time, TEP ended relations with Taijitu, saying that certain people had "promoted a coup". It was so long ago and was such a mess that it's more of a Noodle Incident (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoodleIncident) than anything else at this point.
EDIT: For the record, I support tabling this discussion for a week.
-
Of some perhaps amusing relevance is the East Pacific's current regional flag:
(http://udl.taijitu.org/images/rflags/the_east_pacific/the_east_pacific__696223.png)
-
Is that some sort of apology? Standing in solidarity with the people they just victimized?
-
Is that some sort of apology? Standing in solidarity with the people they just victimized?
They apologized earlier to Ravania, Tangaroa, West-Flanders, and probably others. This is part of that.
-
Call it what it is Eluvatar. First they invade, now they appropriate their culture. When will the injustices end?
But in all seriousness, I am like many other people in this thread very upset that they would do something like this within 24 hours of finalizing a draft of the treaty, and would also like to see the discussion tabled for at least a few weeks.
-
Perhaps we can go back to working out the Tomato Learning Center or whatever Delfos wanted to call it?
-
for kids who can't read good. Research Center
-
But in all seriousness, I am like many other people in this thread very upset that they would do something like this within 24 hours of finalizing a draft of the treaty, and would also like to see the discussion tabled for at least a few weeks.
Tabling the discussion for a few weeks before voting seems the most prudent move to me as well. Though I'm all for forgiving repentant people after they fuck up (god knows I've needed forgiveness myself), they must prove that they can rise above their own mistake and learn from it, grow from it, and behave more responsibly to be considered a reliable ally.
That being said, I also don't want us to burn a bridge unnecessarily as happened over the Tomato Incident.
Let's note how they act going forward. I hope to see some earnest repentance once the facts settle in, which does not seem in abundance at this time. Violating a treaty's terms immediately before signing it is not acceptable, no matter how they attempt to excuse it. If the vote were held now I'd have to vote No on principle.
-
Since we tabled this treaty, the East Pacific has cut ties with NPO - one of its oldest allies - over its support of the Lazarus coup. I think this is an excellent display of respect for sovereignty and learning from mistakes in Belgium. In addition, I think with these new developments it's more important than ever for GCRs and UCRs to have strong alliances with each other.
I think we should reconsider signing this treaty.
-
Since we tabled this treaty, the East Pacific has cut ties with NPO - one of its oldest allies - over its support of the Lazarus coup. I think this is an excellent display of respect for sovereignty and learning from mistakes in Belgium. In addition, I think with these new developments it's more important than ever for GCRs and UCRs to have strong alliances with each other.
I think we should reconsider signing this treaty.
I agree with your perspective here, and I would add that in light of Lazarus, the very brief invasion of Belgium, in which the WFE didn't even get changed and no harm besides infringement of sovereignty was done to the region, now seems like small potatoes. Democratic regions that respect other regions' sovereignty, even if they've made some mistakes, need to band together against the imperialist NPO and its allies.
So, I would support ratification of this treaty at this time.
-
Vote!
-
Makes good sense to me.
Seconding the motion to vote
-
Do we want to maybe tell TEP we're doing that? XD
-
Do we want to maybe tell TEP we're doing that? XD
Probably a wise move. :whoops:
-
I have just telegrammed Ramaeus about this.
-
I have just telegrammed Ramaeus about this.
I will wait to hear back on their response before moving this to vote.
-
Ramaeus has communicated to me that he would like us to hold off until his legislature has had a bit more time to process it. I will inform the Ecclesia when I hear more.
-
Ramaeus has communicated to me that he would like us to hold off until his legislature has had a bit more time to process it. I will inform the Ecclesia when I hear more.
Noted. For procedural purposes, could al' Khem withdraw his motion to vote?
-
The Magisterium has opened a vote on the treaty. I motion we vote as well (seconding if al' Khem hasn't withdrawn his motion yet).
-
I'll second.