Aware of Taijitu's origin as a descendant community of The North Pacific, and of the two region's shared commitment to freedom and democracy, we seek to formalize an alliance of mutual defense.
- The parties to this treaty are Taijitu and The North Pacific.
- The parties will recognize the constitutional governments in force at the time of ratification of this treaty as the sole legitimate governments of their respective regions.
- The parties will not undermine one another through subterfuge, espionage, invasion, or any other means.
- The parties will defend one another to the best of their ability on the request of the other party.
- The parties will share any intelligence relevant to the defense of the other party.
- A new treaty between the parties may override this treaty.
Signed,
Delegate Blue Wolf II of The North Pacific,
Delegate Gulliver of Taijitu
3. I'm sure McM's inactivity has thrown a wrench into TNP's government, but the complete lack of response from them, despite my overtures to them months ago, reflects badly on how much they value this treaty in my opinion. I cannot help but feel, however, that this is me taking affront personally, and I do not feel strongly enough about this in any case to recommend against a renewal of this treaty. TNP is one of our oldest allies and this treaty remains of great use to us.
The signatories will recognize the constitutional governments in force at the time of ratification of this treaty as the sole legitimate governments of their respective regions.
The signatories will not in any way, direct or indirect, initiate or participate in espionage, subterfuge, or other clandestine operations against one another. For this purpose, a "clandestine operation" is one or more persons acting under false pretenses in one signatory's home region or regional forum, without that signatory's knowledge, and at the direction of the other signatory
The signatories will share any intelligence relevant to the defense of the other party. If this intelligence relates to the North Pacific, it shall be provided to the Security Council of the North Pacific. If this intelligence relates to Taijitu, it shall be provided to the Citizen-Delegate or Citizen-Initiator of Taijitu.
a Gastronomic meeting of the Cabal should be enough to "ratify" any alliance between Taijitu and TNP. No need to worry Cormac, it's one of those things that will do itself, like a cactus.Your rhetoric is starting to get a bit tired. :P
a Gastronomic meeting of the Cabal should be enough to "ratify" any alliance between Taijitu and TNP. No need to worry Cormac, it's one of those things that will do itself, like a cactus.
Section Three - Cultural CooperationCould we find more ways to involve cultural exchange seeing as how close we supposedly are? Perhaps grant map/RP space to each others citizens and other such exchanges more directly tied to our culture and whatever theirs is? (Am I the only one who never had any dealings with the region in direct manner?)
The signatories will endeavor to organize cultural events on the regional off-site forums or regional message board of one or the other party, with the goal of mutually enriching both communities.
QuoteSection Three - Cultural CooperationCould we find more ways to involve cultural exchange seeing as how close we supposedly are? Perhaps grant map/RP space to each others citizens and other such exchanges more directly tied to our culture and whatever theirs is? (Am I the only one who never had any dealings with the region in direct manner?)
The signatories will endeavor to organize cultural events on the regional off-site forums or regional message board of one or the other party, with the goal of mutually enriching both communities.
I speak not of a shared map. We have had language of promoting cross cultural exchange previously yet nothing came of such. I was trying to think of more solid ways in which we could have cultural exchange written right into such a document.QuoteSection Three - Cultural CooperationCould we find more ways to involve cultural exchange seeing as how close we supposedly are? Perhaps grant map/RP space to each others citizens and other such exchanges more directly tied to our culture and whatever theirs is? (Am I the only one who never had any dealings with the region in direct manner?)
The signatories will endeavor to organize cultural events on the regional off-site forums or regional message board of one or the other party, with the goal of mutually enriching both communities.
That would be cool. But I think some might not want to have to register on other boards just to maintain a RP. Because happenings on one board's RP could influence the RP on another board. Not to mention a need for universal RP rules for both boards to abide by. TNP n Taijitu RP are on different levels for this to work, imho.
Unless your proposal is just map space for fun and to encourage cultural exchange by encouraging both region's members to join both boards.
However, I think trying to specify anything in particular isn't needed to be added as cultural events covers a wide range of things. In which once passed, or mebbe even lay the groundwork now, discussion between the mapmakers, RPers, and official foreign liaisons can work towards this goal.
ehhhh
I like Khem's suggestion of some kind of RP-focused cultural exchange. I'd like to sit down with Myroria, Lord Lore, possibly madjack, Khem if he's willing, and myself otherwise to talk about some possible arrangement. I'd suggest a discrete event, possibly with sequels.Most certainly willing time permitting.
I'll play devil's advocate. We should repeal this treaty, why are we allies with the shittiest democracy in the world anyways?The shittiest? Have you seen ... any ... of the other ones? XD
Besides, the NPA is more a raider organization than a neutral one.I hear the Minister of Defense is working on that.
I'll play devil's advocate. We should repeal this treaty, why are we allies with the shittiest democracy in the world anyways?Please elaborate :P
Besides, the NPA is more a raider organization than a neutral one.
The Taijitu-North Pacific Alliance
A treaty renewing the alliance between Taijitu and the North Pacific.
Preamble
1. Aware of the long and special relationship between Taijitu and the North Pacific, the two regions’ shared commitment to freedom, liberty, and democracy, and the kindred ties between them, the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific and the Ecclesia of the Citizens’ Democracy of Taijitu formalize this alliance of mutual defense and cooperation.
Section One - Establishment
1. The signatories will recognize the constitutional governments in force at the time of ratification of this treaty, and any legally enacted successor governments, as the sole legitimate governments of their respective regions.
2. The signatories agree to maintain both on- and off-site embassies with each other.
3. The signatories 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.
Section Two - Security
1. If the sovereignty of either party is threatened, the other will respond with the consent of the aggrieved party.
2. They will assist in coordination with the aggrieved party and in proportion to the grievance.
3. The signatories will collaborate militarily on request, according to established laws or policies.
4. Participation by the signatories on opposite sides of a military engagement that does not constitute an attack on either signatory's home region shall not be considered "military hostilities against one another" for this purpose.
5. The signatories will not in any way, direct or indirect, initiate or participate in espionage, subterfuge, or other clandestine operations against one another. For this purpose, a "clandestine operation" is one or more persons acting under false pretenses in one signatory's home region or regional forum at the direction of the other signatory's government without the knowledge of the affected signatory..
6. The signatories will share any intelligence relevant to the defense of the other party. If this intelligence relates to the North Pacific, it shall be provided to the Security Council of the North Pacific. If this intelligence relates to Taijitu, it shall be provided to the delegate of Taijitu.
Section Three - Cultural Cooperation
1. The signatories will endeavor to organize cultural events on the regional off-site forums or regional message board of one or the other party, with the goal of mutually enriching both communities.
Section Four - Amendment and Dissolution
1. This treaty may be amended by mutual consent through the normal ratification processes of the two signatories.
2. Either party shall give a week’s notice prior to withdrawing from the treaty.
3. Either party shall exhaust all reasonable diplomatic options before withdrawing from the treaty.
The Taijitu-North Pacific Alliance
A treaty renewing the alliance between Taijitu and the North Pacific.
Preamble
1. Aware of the long and special relationship between Taijitu and the North Pacific, the two regions’ shared commitment to freedom, liberty, and democracy, and the kindred ties between them, the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific and the Ecclesia of the Citizens’ Democracy of Taijitu formalize this alliance of mutual defense and cooperation.
Section One - Establishment
1. The signatories will recognize the constitutional governments in force at the time of ratification of this treaty, and any legally enacted successor governments, as the sole legitimate governments of their respective regions.
2. The signatories agree to maintain both on- and off-site embassies with each other.
3. The signatories 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.
Section Two - Security
1. If the sovereignty of either party is threatened, the other will respond with the consent of the aggrieved party.
2. They will assist in coordination with the aggrieved party and in proportion to the grievance.
3. The signatories will collaborate militarily on request, according to established laws or policies.
4. Participation by the signatories on opposite sides of a military engagement that does not constitute an attack on either signatory's home region shall not be considered "military hostilities against one another" for this purpose.
5. The signatories will not in any way, direct or indirect, initiate or participate in espionage, subterfuge, or other clandestine operations against one another. For this purpose, a "clandestine operation" is one or more persons acting under false pretenses in one signatory's home region or regional forum at the direction of the other signatory's government without the knowledge of the affected signatory..
6. The signatories will share any intelligence relevant to the defense of the other party. If this intelligence relates to the North Pacific, it shall be provided to the Security Council of the North Pacific. If this intelligence relates to Taijitu, it shall be provided to the delegate of Taijitu.
Section Three - Cultural Cooperation
1. The signatories will endeavor to organize cultural events on the regional off-site forums or regional message board of one or the other party, with the goal of mutually enriching both communities.
Section Four - Amendment and Dissolution
1. This treaty may be amended by mutual consent through the normal ratification processes of the two signatories.
2. Either party shall give a week’s notice prior to withdrawing from the treaty.
3. Either party shall exhaust all reasonable diplomatic options before withdrawing from the treaty.
Section One-
1. TNP recognizes they are a region full of losers.
The Taijitu-North Pacific Alliance
A treaty renewing the alliance between Taijitu and the North Pacific.
Preamble
1. Aware of the long and special relationship between Taijitu and the North Pacific, the two regions’ shared commitment to freedom, liberty, and democracy, and the kindred ties between them, the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific and the Ecclesia of the Citizens’ Democracy of Taijitu formalize this alliance of mutual defense and cooperation.
Section One - Establishment
1. The signatories will recognize the constitutional governments in force at the time of ratification of this treaty, and any legally enacted successor governments, as the sole legitimate governments of their respective regions.
2. The signatories agree to maintain both on- and off-site embassies with each other.
3. The signatories 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.
Section Two - Security
1. If the sovereignty of either party is materially threatened, the other will respond with the implied or explicit consent of the aggrieved party.
2. The responding party will assist in coordination with the aggrieved party and in proportion to the grievance.
3. The signatories will collaborate militarily on request, according to established laws or policies.
4. Participation by the signatories on opposite sides of a military engagement that does not constitute an attack on either signatory's home region shall not be considered "military hostilities against one another" for this purpose.
5. The signatories will not in any way, direct or indirect, initiate or participate in espionage, subterfuge, or other clandestine operations against one another. For this purpose, a "clandestine operation" is one or more persons acting under false pretenses in one signatory's home region or regional forum at the direction of the other signatory's government without the knowledge of the affected signatory..
6. The signatories will share any intelligence relevant to the defense of the other party. If this intelligence relates to the North Pacific, it shall be provided to the Security Council of the North Pacific. If this intelligence relates to Taijitu, it shall be provided to the delegate of Taijitu.
Section Three - Cultural Cooperation
1. The signatories will endeavor to organize cultural events on the regional off-site forums or regional message board of one or the other party, with the goal of mutually enriching both communities.
Section Four - Amendment and Dissolution
1. This treaty may be amended by mutual consent through the normal ratification processes of the two signatories.
2. Either party shall give a week’s notice prior to withdrawing from the treaty.
3. Either party shall exhaust all reasonable diplomatic options before withdrawing from the treaty.
So, this is something we've discussed a bit on IRC. I'm not sure about this alliance anymore -- what do we really have in common with The North Pacific these days?TNP is still the single region we have the most members in common with, as far as I know. We have been allied with TNP for some time now, and TNP has stood by that alliance, even when it might have been convenient not to during times of our inactivity. Leaving aside my personal involvement in TNP, I would be ashamed if we were to drop an alliance which the other party had respected through thick and thin, as it were, on a "but what have you done for me lately" basis.
They mostly raid, we mostly defend.It's a shame that United Celts left The North Pacific when it did, as the makeup of operations undertaken by the NPA has changed. While the ongoing delegacy transfer(s) following mcmasterdonia's unanticipated resignation have limited the NPA's mobility, I have it on good authority that it has participated in update defenses recently as well as warzone attacks, and indeed helped defend the region of European Union from a raid orchestrated by The Black Hawks which was many months in the making.
They're a bureaucratic republic, some would say an oligarchy, and we're a direct democracy.I beg to differ. Bureaucratic TNP may be, but that is not an undemocratic thing. To the contrary, carefully detailed procedures are often a mark of a pursuit of fairness and the removal of official discretion a mark of limited authority. While it is certainly true that there are persons in The North Pacific whose arguments and advice are more often considered, such respect does not an oligarchy make.
Our RPers don't even like their RPs. :-PAnother overgeneralization. I imagine that our RPers like their own RPs posted in TNP, for one thing. For another, TNP RP is fairly varied and there are TNP RPers interested in more story-focused and less game-ish RP like ours.
So, what, aside from history, is the reason we should continue an alliance with them? How does it benefit us?History is by no means an invalid reason. That aside, however, in my studies of our foreign policy (http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/taijitu-foreign-policy/) the alliance with The North Pacific stands out as one of 3 links between The North Pacific and the less imperialist-friendly independent regions, themselves closely linked with outright defender regions. From a strategic standpoint, I think this linkage is beneficial. Breaking it could push TNP to embrace the imperialists outright, which I would argue is about as far from our interests in this regard as can be imagined. Our part is not negligible in this role.
TNP is still the single region we have the most members in common with, as far as I know. We have been allied with TNP for some time now, and TNP has stood by that alliance, even when it might have been convenient not to during times of our inactivity. Leaving aside my personal involvement in TNP, I would be ashamed if we were to drop an alliance which the other party had respected through thick and thin, as it were, on a "but what have you done for me lately" basis.
It's a shame that United Celts left The North Pacific when it did, as the makeup of operations undertaken by the NPA has changed. While the ongoing delegacy transfer(s) following mcmasterdonia's unanticipated resignation have limited the NPA's mobility, I have it on good authority that it has participated in update defenses recently as well as warzone attacks, and indeed helped defend the region of European Union from a raid orchestrated by The Black Hawks which was many months in the making.
I beg to differ. Bureaucratic TNP may be, but that is not an undemocratic thing. To the contrary, carefully detailed procedures are often a mark of a pursuit of fairness and the removal of official discretion a mark of limited authority. While it is certainly true that there are persons in The North Pacific whose arguments and advice are more often considered, such respect does not an oligarchy make.
The North Pacific is quite like Taijitu in its fierce commitment to democracy. Arguments like "but they took away Unibot's free speech" are somewhat ridiculous given that Unibot left TNP of his own choice years ago, and was faced with diplomatic consequences to a tendency to habitually denigrate The North Pacific in outside publications while Delegate of the Rejected Realms. Does Taijitu respect the free speech rights of, say, Govindia? No, because Govindia is not a Taijituan.
Another overgeneralization. I imagine that our RPers like their own RPs posted in TNP, for one thing. For another, TNP RP is fairly varied and there are TNP RPers interested in more story-focused and less game-ish RP like ours.
History is by no means an invalid reason. That aside, however, in my studies of our foreign policy (http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/taijitu-foreign-policy/) the alliance with The North Pacific stands out as one of 3 links between The North Pacific and the less imperialist-friendly independent regions, themselves closely linked with outright defender regions. From a strategic standpoint, I think this linkage is beneficial. Breaking it could push TNP to embrace the imperialists outright, which I would argue is about as far from our interests in this regard as can be imagined. Our part is not negligible in this role.
Yes, we're more laid back. I like that we are.TNP is still the single region we have the most members in common with, as far as I know. We have been allied with TNP for some time now, and TNP has stood by that alliance, even when it might have been convenient not to during times of our inactivity. Leaving aside my personal involvement in TNP, I would be ashamed if we were to drop an alliance which the other party had respected through thick and thin, as it were, on a "but what have you done for me lately" basis.
I don't mean it in a "what have you done for me lately" sense more as in the sense of what do we really have in common with them? Shared citizens, yes. But both our political and community culture are very different from The North Pacific's. We are much more laid back and they are much more political. Our community is far less interested in gameplay than theirs. Our community hates the kind of bureaucracy that thrives in TNP. And once again, and I'll get to this point below, our military primarily defends and theirs primarily raids.
It's a shame that United Celts left The North Pacific when it did, as the makeup of operations undertaken by the NPA has changed. While the ongoing delegacy transfer(s) following mcmasterdonia's unanticipated resignation have limited the NPA's mobility, I have it on good authority that it has participated in update defenses recently as well as warzone attacks, and indeed helped defend the region of European Union from a raid orchestrated by The Black Hawks which was many months in the making.
Eluvatar, with all due respect, that you are currently Minister of Defense because Gladio wouldn't take the job again does not represent a significant change in TNP policy or military operations. This is an anomaly. The NPA for the past several years has been more actively involved in raiding than in defending, and TNP's political community has also taken every opportunity to stick it to defenders -- the UDL, XKI, TRR -- whenever a reasonable opportunity presents itself. The idea that TNP is on the verge of becoming much more friendly to defenders is absurd. TNP's treaties and the continued activity of the people who have made TNP so hostile to defending indicate otherwise.
I beg to differ. Bureaucratic TNP may be, but that is not an undemocratic thing. To the contrary, carefully detailed procedures are often a mark of a pursuit of fairness and the removal of official discretion a mark of limited authority. While it is certainly true that there are persons in The North Pacific whose arguments and advice are more often considered, such respect does not an oligarchy make.
The North Pacific is quite like Taijitu in its fierce commitment to democracy. Arguments like "but they took away Unibot's free speech" are somewhat ridiculous given that Unibot left TNP of his own choice years ago, and was faced with diplomatic consequences to a tendency to habitually denigrate The North Pacific in outside publications while Delegate of the Rejected Realms. Does Taijitu respect the free speech rights of, say, Govindia? No, because Govindia is not a Taijituan.
Nonetheless, the point is that TNP's system has very little in common with our own. There are other regions -- like our current ally, The Rejected Realms, or The South Pacific -- that have much more politically in common with us, as well as militarily. So I question why we're pursuing TNP.
History is by no means an invalid reason. That aside, however, in my studies of our foreign policy (http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/taijitu-foreign-policy/) the alliance with The North Pacific stands out as one of 3 links between The North Pacific and the less imperialist-friendly independent regions, themselves closely linked with outright defender regions. From a strategic standpoint, I think this linkage is beneficial. Breaking it could push TNP to embrace the imperialists outright, which I would argue is about as far from our interests in this regard as can be imagined. Our part is not negligible in this role.
I think it's silly to assume that the treaty with us is going to have any impact on a decision TNP has already made. It is independent, leaning heavily in favor of raiding, and that is not going to change. If anything, what is more likely to happen is that changes will occur here, and not changes for the better. You're looking at this from the perspective of our influence on them, but they're not only a Feeder, but the largest and most influential Feeder. We need to be looking at this from the perspective of their influence on us as well. I don't want people migrating here after this treaty draws more attention to Taijitu pushing TNP's crappy political, military, and community culture in Taijitu.
so much talk about TNP, TNP this, TNP that. Either burn it down or leave it.
so much talk about TNP, TNP this, TNP that. Either burn it down or leave it.
Generally one would expect to hear talk about TNP in a discussion about a treaty with TNP. :-P
I did not leave the UDL following the Ravania incident, for the record. I did not leave the UDL until well after Unibot's resignation, well into the Conclave process. I don't mind the error as I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but I did want to correct it. I was as subject to Blue Wolf's and Gaspo's anti-defender witch hunt as anyone else.
Anyway, I honestly don't feel like debating this to death. I feel that Taijitu and The North Pacific have very little in common, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. I'll be voting Nay, though I appreciate the time and energy that has been put into this on our end.
I'm going to put the military issue in simple terms. If we are allied with TNP, then in a UIAF raid TNP chooses between allies (in conditions where the alliances do not require its support). If we end our alliance, then it potentially has only one ally involved: Albion. Our alliance gives TNP more room to choose to oppose a UIAF raid. I think this is in our interest.
I'm going to put the military issue in simple terms. If we are allied with TNP, then in a UIAF raid TNP chooses between allies (in conditions where the alliances do not require its support). If we end our alliance, then it potentially has only one ally involved: Albion. Our alliance gives TNP more room to choose to oppose a UIAF raid. I think this is in our interest.
It also gives them plenty of room to choose to go ahead and support it, in that our treaty draft makes clear that being on opposite sides of a military conflict in a third party region isn't a problem for the status of the treaty.
Albion is not likely to be the only TNP ally that is a factor, in any case. Combine Albion and Europeia -- which frequently happens -- and the scenario is that TNP has two allies supporting the raid, one ally opposing it, and no obligation to the latter not to get involved. What do you think TNP is honestly going to do in that situation? Why would it not get involved when we are saying, through this treaty: "Go ahead. We don't mind. Not a problem." -- and how appropriate is it for us to even be saying that? Are we regional sovereigntist, or not?
TNP is also allied with The East Pacific, so hypothetically with us it's 2 allies / 2 allies and without us 1 ally / 2 allies.