Alliance Between Taijitu and The North Pacific

[Cormac]

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?

[Eluvatar]

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.

[Cormac]

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.

TNP is also allied with TSP and Balder, both of which are varying degrees of likely to also be supporting rather than opposing a raid that involves UIAF and/or Europeia. Let's not play this math game. The point stands that there is nothing in this treaty, nor TNP's treaty with TEP, that would give its government any reason to pause before supporting any raid. We're telling them through this treaty that it's fine if they're supporting a raid we oppose.

[Gulliver]

It's no secret that there's a lot of internal matters in TNP that are a mess, but for the purposes of a treaty I don't personally consider that an issue. What's more important is the external policies of TNP that have been discussed. I do not want to burn a bridge that for years hasn't done any harm to us, but there's also a part of me that's uncomfortable about allying ourselves to a region whose military does not respect the sovereignty of others. I'm somewhat torn.

[Myroria]

I think at this point we should all agree to disagree and just put this to the Ecclesia.

I move for a vote.

[Delfos]

I second the vote and hope we all vote Nay.

[Cormac]

This has gone to vote here.