Good day Magisters,
I am coming (once again) to you.
Today I am proposing the draft for the treaty between The East Pacific and The Free Nations Region. We’ve been working on it for a longer moment and I think, that we came up with a pretty nice treaty.
Cheers!
— Begin quote from ____
The Treaty of Santiago de Chile
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/752497101664944168/758413761224376400/tep.png
Treaty of friendship, military, diplomatic and cultural cooperation between The Confederated East Pacific and The Free Nations Region.
Section 1: Diplomatic Recognition & Diplomacy
- The Government of The Free Nations Region, as instituted per the FNR Constitution, and any legal successor to it is hereby recognized as the legitimate government of The Free Nations Region by The East Pacific.
- The Government of The East Pacific, as instituted per Concordat, and any legal successor is hereby recognized as the legitimate government of The East Pacific by The Free Nations Region.
- Both signatories hereby declare the will to uphold continuous diplomatic relations between them for as long as this treaty is in place.
- Both signatories hereby declare not to engage in diplomatic hostilities or bad-mouthing against one another.
Section 2: Cultural Promotion
- Both signatories of this treaty are encouraged to bilaterally promote cultural cooperation.
- The designated diplomat of both signatories shall actively coordinate with the respective cultural officer of The East Pacific and The Free Nations Region.
Section 3: Mutual Defence and Non-Aggression
- Both signatories of this Treaty hereby declare non-aggression between their regions:
…a. Signatories may not invade, raid, coup or support any of these actions aimed against one another.
…b. Signatories may not commit espionage or any other spying actions against one another.
…c. Military competition shall not be seen as an act of hostility.
…d. The East Pacific will not commit any action mentioned in b and c points of this section against any territory under jurisdiction of The Free Nations Region.
…e. The Free Nations Region will not commit any action mentioned in b and c points of this section against any territory under jurisdiction of The East Pacific.
- Both signatories of this Treaty hereby declare mutual defence of one another:
…a. Shall either signatory receive a declaration of war from a region, organization or other entity, the other signatory is obligated to issue declaration of war on the hostile entity.
…b. Shall the hostile entity mentioned in the point above be found in an alliance, or non-aggression pact with the second signatory, the one is not obligated to issue a declaration of war.
…c. The above clause shall not be considered valid in case of coup or other means of trying to illegitimately achieve control over either signatory region.
…d. Upon invasion, raid or coup of either signatory, both signatories are obligated to defend one another.
Section 4: Security Matters
- Signatories of this treaty are obligated to exchange intel or any other security-related information, regarding one another’s crucial security of the region, legitimate government or the community.
- Unless permitted by either signatory possessing the intel, the intel may not be publicated or spread.
- Any intels regarding The East Pacific shall be directly handed to the Delegate of The East Pacific. Shall the intel be related to the Delegate, The Free Nations Region shall hand it to Grand Vizier or any other Vizier.
- Any intels regarding The Free Nations Region shall be directly handed to the President of The Free Nations Region. Shall the intel be related to the President, The East Pacific shall hand it to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Section 5: Repeal and Amendments
- At any time, either signatory may suggest amendment to this treaty. Should the respective Heads of State of both signatories agree, the amendment should go by legal ways as outlined in laws of respective parties.
- At any time, either signatory may decide to repeal and exit this treaty. Shall that be the case, the part willing to repeal this treaty shall arrange negotiations. The negotiations regarding either amending or annulling the treaty shall last for at least 3 days.
- Repeal of this pact shall not be seen as an act of hostility and shall not dictate closure of relations.
— End quote
As diplomat to and from FNR, Senior Diplomat overseeing relations with FNR, and Magister, I completely 100% support this treaty.
I support this treaty, but I have questions & concerns.
— Begin quote from ____
- Both signatories hereby declare the will to uphold continuous diplomatic relations between them for as long as this treaty is in place.
— End quote
Instead of this general statement, why not add that both will maintain in-game embassies and exchange ambassadors? We already do those, so it makes sense to enshrine those practices in a treaty.
— Begin quote from ____
- Both signatories hereby declare not to engage in diplomatic hostilities or bad-mouthing against one another.
— End quote
I don’t like this. I understand the intent, but I don’t like it.
Anything like criticism can be taken as “bad mouthing”. Sometimes, one of the regions may do something that necessitates bad mouthing, and ofc the other region will come and say “hey you’re badmouthing us, breaking our treaty!!”
For example, look at TSP NationStates • View topic - Embassy of the South Pacific | Raiders TSPINed. They blatantly called TEP’s actions “anti-democratic”. Some people would consider that badmouthing. Yet TSP did that anyways, and stood by their values.
Sometimes we need criticism, even if said criticism can seem like badmouthing. We’re all mature lads anyways, so I don’t view that part of the section as nessecary.
— Begin quote from ____
- The designated diplomat of both signatories shall actively coordinate with the respective cultural officer of The East Pacific and The Free Nations Region.
— End quote
Why not have the cultural officers work directly together? Why the “middle man”?
— Begin quote from ____
…a. Shall either signatory receive a declaration of war from a region, organization or other entity, the other signatory is obligated to issue declaration of war on the hostile entity.
— End quote
Given that TEP has Independent and raider allies, I don’t like this. We saw many of our allies declare war against NPO, for example. If a treatied ally declares war on FNR, what do we do??
I just want to better understand this:
— Begin quote from ____
…c. The above clause shall not be considered valid in case of coup or other means of trying to illegitimately achieve control over either signatory region.
— End quote
Is this saying that the release of obligation to declare war if the other party is allied to the entity declaring war isn’t valid if the entity declaring war is actively trying to coup TEP / FNR (i.e., if either one was allied to the couper, they would still have to break that alliance and declare war)?
— Begin quote from ____
…a. Shall either signatory receive a declaration of war from a region, organization or other entity, the other signatory is obligated to issue declaration of war on the hostile entity.
— End quote
Not gonna lie, this clause does make me feel iffy on this. I feel that this could cause a chain reaction of declarations of war, or at the very least a lot of breaking of treaties.
— Begin quote from ____
…b. Shall the hostile entity mentioned in the point above be found in an alliance, or non-aggression pact with the second signatory, the one is not obligated to issue a declaration of war.
— End quote
If this was supposed to prevent declaring war on allies, thus not allowing the breaking of treaties, it feels a bit too poorly worded. I don’t quite understand it.
— Begin quote from ____
- Unless permitted by either signatory possessing the intel, the intel may not be publicated or spread.
— End quote
This looks like it should stop sharing of intel without the other’s consent. However, I interpreted it as, if the signatory possessing the intel permits, they may share the intel.
The proposal just seems kinda convoluted to me.
In addition to the questions fielded by my honorable peers above, I would like an explanation from our Executive on the reasons for this treaty. Who is FNR, why is the treaty proposed, and why should TEP engage?
— Begin quote from ____
In addition to the questions fielded by my honorable peers above, I would like an explanation from our Executive on the reasons for this treaty. Who is FNR, why is the treaty proposed, and why should TEP engage?
— End quote
FNR, the Free Nations Region, is a relatively large democratic defender ucr in the Consortium. It’s been doing really well lately and they’ve been dealing with issues that were before holding us back.
This treaty is proposed to strengthen our interests and solidify our relationship.
TEP should engage because with the Consortium, N Day, and Statesmus+, FNR has become a close ally of TEP, and is on track to be as close as the likes of Thaecia. They’re our good friends already.
Can you enlighten me as to the past issues you mentioned? Can these issues come back and be a problem for TEP later on?
— Begin quote from ____
Can you enlighten me as to the past issues you mentioned? Can these issues come back and be a problem for TEP later on?
— End quote
Past issues mainly refers to Crystalsummer’s status as their founder. Crystalsummer’s founder nation has been transferred to their current President, Heaveria, who is a lot more responsible, and Crystalsummer was effectively removed from the region. In the case he comes back, it is highly unlikely that he will go back into any position of power.
Another issue I was semi-referring to was a rift between their Government and RP community. This wasn’t something TEP’s government really focused on, but the hostilities and distrust that could have potentially caused a problem have begun to be repaired. It’s unlikely they will return, but if they do it shouldn’t have any bearing on TEP or our relationship with FNR.
In addition to the points raised above which don’t appear to have been addressed (back story excepted) this clause make little sense to me:
- Unless permitted by either signatory possessing the intel, the intel may not be publicated or spread.
I think ‘either’ should be ‘both’ otherwise this means if I have the intel then I can permit me to publish it.
Assuming this change is accepted: this means that if we learn that the other party is going to do something terrible to a 3rd party we can’t alert them without breaking the treaty or quitting (which takes 3 days).
Also what exactly does ‘intel’ mean and how is it different to ‘security-related information’?
— Begin quote from ____
- Unless permitted by either signatory possessing the intel, the intel may not be publicated or spread.
— End quote
Adding on to what Phil said, There should be an exception if we are required to share said intel with another ally by other treaty obligations
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
- Unless permitted by either signatory possessing the intel, the intel may not be publicated or spread.
— End quote
Adding on to what Phil said, There should be an exception if we are required to share said intel with another ally by other treaty obligations
— End quote
I disagree, especially since our other treaties say we don’t have to share such intel if it unduly compromises our sources.
The rest of the points will be addressed soon.
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
- Unless permitted by either signatory possessing the intel, the intel may not be publicated or spread.
— End quote
— End quote
Adding on to what Phil said, There should be an exception if we are required to share said intel with another ally by other treaty obligations
I disagree, especially since our other treaties say we don’t have to share such intel if it unduly compromises our sources.
The rest of the points will be addressed soon.
— End quote
Treaty with Thaecia, Treaty with the New Pacific Order and Treaty with The Rejected Realms don’t say that
— Begin quote from ____
The Treaty of Santiago de Chile
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/637022147482484761/638126306076393512/TEP_Flag_Parta_001-002.png
Treaty of friendship, military, diplomatic and cultural cooperation between The Confederated East Pacific and The Free Nations Region.
Section 1: Diplomatic Recognition & Diplomacy
- The Government of The Free Nations Region, as instituted per the FNR Constitution, and any legal successor to it is hereby recognized as the legitimate government of The Free Nations Region by The East Pacific.
- The Government of The East Pacific, as instituted per Concordat, and any legal successor is hereby recognized as the legitimate government of The East Pacific by The Free Nations Region.
3. Both signatories hereby declare the will to uphold continuous diplomatic relations between them for as long as this treaty is in place.
- To ensure continuing diplomatic relations, the Signatories shall maintain in-game embassies on Nationstates.net, off-site embassies on their respective regional forums, and diplomatic representatives within each other’s region, to the best of their abilities.
- Both signatories hereby declare not to engage in diplomatic hostilities or bad-mouthing false accusations against one another.
Section 2: Cultural Promotion
- Both signatories of this treaty are encouraged to bilaterally promote cultural cooperation.
2. The designated diplomat of both signatories shall actively coordinate with the respective cultural officer of The East Pacific and The Free Nations Region.
- The respective cultural officers of The East Pacific and The Free Nations Region shall actively coordinate with one another to this end.
Section 3: Mutual Defence and Non-Aggression
- Both signatories of this Treaty hereby declare non-aggression between their regions:
…a. Signatories may not invade, raid, coup or support any of these actions aimed against one another.
…b. Signatories may not commit espionage or any other spying actions against one another.
…c. Military competition shall not be seen as an act of hostility.
…d. The East Pacific will not commit any action mentioned in b and c points of this section against any territory under jurisdiction of The Free Nations Region.
…e. The Free Nations Region will not commit any action mentioned in b and c points of this section against any territory under jurisdiction of The East Pacific.
- Both signatories of this Treaty hereby declare mutual defence of one another:
…a. Shall either signatory receive a declaration of war from a region, organization or other entity, the other signatory is obligated to issue declaration of war on the hostile entity.
…b. Shall the hostile entity mentioned in the point above be found in an alliance, or non-aggression pact with the second signatory, the one is not obligated to issue a declaration of war.
…b. Signatories are released from the obligations of Clause 3.2.a should they have an active treaty with the aforementioned hostile entity, including non-aggression pacts.
…c. The above clauseClause 3.2.b shall not be considered valid in case of coup or other means of trying to illegitimately achieve control over either signatory region.
…d. Upon invasion, raid or coup of either signatory, both signatories are obligated to defend one another.
Section 4: Security Matters
- Signatories of this treaty are obligated to exchange intel or any other security-related information, regarding one another’s crucial security of the region, legitimate government or the community.
2. Unless permitted by either signatory possessing the intel, the intel may not be publicated or spread.
- This intel may not be publicated or spread without explicit consent from the other signatory. This clause does not apply when the intel is required to be shared to another region by another active treaty.
- Any intel regarding The East Pacific shall be directly handed to the Delegate of The East Pacific. Shall the intel be related to the Delegate, The Free Nations Region shall hand it to Grand Vizier or any other Vizier.
- Any intel regarding The Free Nations Region shall be directly handed to the President of The Free Nations Region. Shall the intel be related to the President, The East Pacific shall hand it to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Section 5: Repeal and Amendments
- At any time, either signatory may suggest amendment to this treaty. Should the respective Heads of State of both signatories agree, the amendment should go by legal ways as outlined in laws of respective parties.
- At any time, either signatory may decide to repeal and exit this treaty. Shall that be the case, the part willing to repeal this treaty shall arrange negotiations. The negotiations regarding either amending or annulling the treaty shall last for at least 3 days.
- Repeal of this pact shall not be seen as an act of hostility and shall not dictate closure of relations.
— End quote
All my concerns were addressed. Thank you.
Some minor suggestions to ‘tidy’ things up.
- b. Signatories are released from the obligations of Section 2a. should they have an active treaty with the aforementioned hostile entity, including non-aggression pacts.
‘Section 2a’ should probably be replace by ‘Clause 3.2.a’ - Section 2 is "Cultural Promotion’ and there is no ‘a’
- c. The above clause shall not be considered valid in case of coup or other means of trying to illegitimately achieve control over either signatory region.
‘The above clause’ should probably be replaced with ‘Clause 3.2.b …’ just to clarify which clause is meant and for consistency.
---- change of subject slightly ----
Looking at 3.2 in its entirety
- 2a say that we have to declare war on any 3rd party declaring war on FNR (and vice versa)
- 2b says, but not if we have a treaty with the 3rd party.
- Clause 3.2.c seems redundant as that refers to a coup (or similar) which is not a situation covered in 2a or 2b, they refer solely to Declaration of War, coup is covered in 3.2.d.
- 3.2.d says that if FNR is invaded, raided or couped then we MUST defend them, even if there is a treaty with a 3rd party.
My 2 points are:
- 3.2.c is not required as currently structured.
- I want to make sure that it is intended that there is a ‘get out’ clause for a Declaration of War, but not one for invasion or raid. If the intention is that there is always a get out clause when a treaty exists then c & d need to be switched (and reworded)
Did the clause references but I don’t have the time to get to the other part tonight.
The 3.2 concerns have been brought up in the treaty DMs, but as of now I’m of a mind with you.
