On the Sovereignty Accord

The Plaza
1

On the Sovereign Accord

Fellow Magisters and Citizens of The East Pacific,

Under instruction from our Delegate, I have been working on developing a deeper foreign affairs perspective for our region and at this present moment the most pressing issue facing the the GCRs is whether or not to join the GCR Sovereign Accords. This organization is one which is designed to respect and preserve the sovereignty and rights as independent GCRs of all signatories.

With the permission of the Delegate, I entered us into dialogue with the signatories of the Accord. I will go further into the specifics, but I wish to point out the current signatories at they stand: The New Pacific Order, The West Pacific, Balder, and Osiris. I am pleased to have learned that earlier this evening, all four signatories voted to offer us membership into the Accord, subject to our ratification. The East Pacific and all four signatories are traditionally friendly towards one another, and each region views us as a stable force within NationStates. That is our strength. Our stability and our sovereignty are our two best strengths in my humble opinion.

We will not allow any document to subject The East Pacific to undermine our governing structure as laid out under the Concordat. Each signatory will have to recognize our structure, as we will have to recognize theirs. And frankly, that is a mutually beneficial venture when we are concerned as a grouping of regions over sovereignty and security matters which affect all of our regions. This document only asks that we help one another if requested, and that we ultimately support one another as a community of regions. We will defend our way of life and our policies as determined by our laws to the end. With that being said, I personally feel that we as a region can accomplish more by being part of the Sovereign Accord than by being outside of it.

As such, I would like to present the GCR Sovereignty Accords for consideration here before ratification.

I would like to state first off that none of this would have been possible without the incredible work of the Delegate of The West Pacific, Big Bad Badger. His leadership and stewardship over our application to his fellow representatives within the Sovereign Accord has been exemplary and I owe him a debt of gratitude for all of this. We have been discussing the possibility of The East Pacific joining the Accords and through him we have secured formal support from all four signatories. I would also like to thank the leaderships and governments of all signatories for taking the time to discuss the pros and cons of East Pacifican membership. As mentioned before, all four governments have voted to include us in what I consider to be one of the largest collective security and friendship agreements ever seen in the history of GCR diplomacy.

I will proceed by presenting the full text of the Accords to the Magisters and Citizens. I will take time in future posts to address potential questions or concerns that pop up, but by doing it this way I am hopeful that this briefing document can help with a clearer understanding over what this means for us. As you see, I have posted this in the Plaza area, so that any citizen may ask questions or have concerns addressed so that as a region, we are able to go forward.

— Begin quote from ____

Preamble
We, the signatories of this, the GCR Sovereignty Accords (hereinafter - the Accords), state our devotion to the principles of regional sovereignty within the GCR community. Through the adoption of these Accords we declare that our nations and regions vow to protect the sovereign rights of each member state to govern their lands as they see fit, to protect those lands against outside aggressors, and to support one another against all adversaries.

Article I
The legal and legitimate government of each member region shall be that form of government initiated by or adhered to by the sitting World Assembly Delegate at the time of ratification. If the sitting World Assembly Delegate changes the form of government, the remaining members of the Accords will hold a referendum on said region’s continued membership.

Article II
Should any region, group of regions, alliance, or entente of regions threaten a member region of the Accords with military force each region will be asked to assist in the defense of said threatened region.

Article III
Should any region, group of regions, alliance, or entente carry out such threat as to invade said region then all member regions of the Accords will be asked to contribute whatever means available to assist in the repelling of said invasion and to assist in any counter-offensive, if deemed necessary.

Article IV
All military involvement in the Accord’s affairs is voluntary. It is based on the good faith of those signatories of this document that if a member is subject to actions stated in Articles II and III all available military forces will come to the member region’s aid.

Article V
All member regions are expected to share intelligence that is pertinent to the sovereign safety of other members in a timely fashion. No member will be asked to reveal the source of said intelligence but it can be freely provided. All member regions are expected to share intelligence in regards to imminent invasions, espionage, or subversion within another member region.

Article VI
Member regions are not obligated to vote together on World Assembly resolutions. Each member region has the right to vote as they see fit according to the laws of their region. It is based on the good faith of those signatories of this document that if a member region is the subject of a specific World Assembly resolution that members will support the decision made by that region in regards to their regional vote. Member regions can solicit votes for and against specific resolutions from other members of the Accords and the opinions of fellow signatories should place due weight on any voting decision made.

Article VII
The Accord’s signatory regions may use their collective military forces to defend those regional governments that seek out our assistance. At no time will the Accords interfere with the internal affairs of a region without either specific requests from the regional government to do so or just cause. No unilateral action can be undertaken in the Accord’s name without a prior vote of approval with unanimous approval of sitting member regions.

Article VIII
Each member region of the Accords will have three (3) designated representatives to the Governing Council. The Governing Council will handle primary inter-regional communications and will vote on the admission of new members. Each member region will select its representatives in the manner it deems most fitting.

Article IX
Each member region (or potential member region) will decide on the ratification of these Accords according to the laws of their region.

Article X
New members will be added to the Accords only at the invitation from a sitting member and only after all sitting member regions vote on admittance. Each member region will hold a vote among their Governing Council members, this will be the official vote of that member region. All voting members of the Accords must vote positively for approval before an additional region will be admitted

Article XI
These Accords can be amended with a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of sitting member regions.

Article XII
Upon petition by any representative of the Accords regarding the unsuitability of another region’s representative or the ejection of another member region of the Accords for actions of subversion against a fellow member, for actions of espionage against a fellow member, or for actions in assistance of those that would contribute to subversion or espionage within a fellow member region, the Governing Council will convene a hearing to allow for the presentation of evidence and/or arguments for and against expulsion of the accused representative or region. At the conclusion of this hearing (which under no circumstances will last more than 72 hours) the Governing Council (excepting the accused region’s representatives) will vote for or against the replacement or expulsion of the accused representative or region respectively. The voting members of the Governing Council must reach a unanimous decision in the affirmative before a representative or region can be removed from the Accords.

Signed (in order of ratification),

The Pacific by
Ivan Moldavi
Ruler of Pierconium
Emperor and Delegate of the Pacific

The West Pacific by
Elegarth
Dragon Delegarth of The West Pacific
On behalf of The West Pacific and the Guardians of TWP

Balder by
Rach Eriksen
Ruler of Solorni
Queen and Delegate of Balder

Osiris by
Griffin Rahl
Pharaoh of the Osiris Fraternal Order

— End quote

I would like to open up discussion. Either myself or other interested parties can answer questions as they arise.

2

The long and short of the following lengthy post it is that I’m opposed to The East Pacific’s entry into the GCR Sovereignty Accords. Entry into these Accords would plunge TEP into an untested multilateral alliance with largely unreliable partners, while having the likely effect of distancing TEP from potential allies who have already proven themselves more reliable and could definitely, without question, be counted upon to defend TEP should that be needed.

To more comprehensively elaborate upon these concerns:

[ul][li]The North Pacific, perhaps TEP’s closest ally, is unlikely to ever enter into these Accords due to the poor relations between some of the Accords signatories and TNP. Has there been outreach to TNP to see how they feel about TEP entering into these Accords?

[li]Some other GCRs have deep reservations regarding some or all of the current Accords signatories and are unlikely to ever join the Accords. It’s important to understand that by entering into these Accords, TEP may be limiting possibilities for closer relations with the South Pacific, Lazarus, and the Rejected Realms.

[li]The Pacific has a long history of violating the sovereignty of other GCRs, most recently in Lazarus during the New Lazarene Order coup in 2015. While there have been apologies and symbolic gestures, there has been little concrete evidence that the Pacific has truly changed its ways. They have not demonstrated they can be trusted with TEP’s or any other GCR’s defense. They were required to defend Lazarus at the time they were instead perpetrating a coup against Lazarus.

[li]TWP has a long history of recognizing the supremacy of the in-game Delegate over regional constitutions and laws, and for that reason either supporting or remaining neutral in regard to coups perpetrated by native rogue Delegates. I recognize that Badger is apparently more committed to respecting the sovereignty of other GCRs according to their own values and norms, but what confidence can we really have that this will continue after his Delegacy, rather than TWP reverting to form? We haven’t really seen much in the way of concrete evidence from them either, just symbolic gestures as with the Pacific.

[li]Balder has a history of playing fast and loose with its treaty obligations. For example, while Balder contends that they did not violate their treaty with TSP, some in TSP regard Balder’s support for Hileville during his 2016 coup as a violation of the now-terminated treaty. Balder also continually had issues with the other signatories of the now-defunct Pan-Sinker Security Pact that existed between the four Sinkers from 2011-13. Given the unreliability of Balder for mutual defense, and given Balder’s poor relations with TSP and Lazarus and how that may affect TEP’s own opportunities for relations, entering into any kind of alliance with Balder is unwise.

[li]Osiris is a longtime treaty ally of TEP. While it has had its own domestic instability, it has consistently met its treaty obligations toward TEP. It’s probably the one Accords signatory that doesn’t raise any concerns for me, and I say this as someone who has recently withdrawn from participation in Osiris over disagreement with its recent overall direction. Lord only knows what will happen internally in Osiris, but they have thus far proven TEP can count on them for mutual defense.[/li][/ul]
All in all, I don’t see why anyone would have confidence in these Accords. How can anyone have confidence that the current signatories, with the exception of Osiris, can be trusted to actually come to TEP’s defense? Meanwhile, there remain the concerns regarding the impact entry into these Accords could have on TEP’s prospects for improving relations with the more stable, more reliable, more democratic GCRs that, frankly, share more in terms of governing values with TEP than do the Accords signatories. TEP doesn’t have a constitutional monarchy like Osiris and Balder, an in-game oligarchical government like TWP, or an autocratic Delegate like the Pacific. TEP has a constitutional, republican government. TEP elects its Delegate. TEP values the rule of law. TEP has much more in common with TNP, TSP, Lazarus, and TRR than it has with the Accords signatories. It would be a shame to do damage to relations with the latter four GCRs in order to enter into an alliance with GCRs that have – again, with the exception of Osiris – proven themselves unreliable partners in the defense of GCR sovereignty.

It would make more sense for TEP to stay out of these Accords, and to decline participation in any proposed alternative accords between the other four GCRs as well (though it doesn’t seem any of the other four are much interested in that), and instead strive to improve bilateral relations with GCRs on both sides of this divide. As a non-aligned region that strives for diplomatic balance, peaceful coexistence with all of the other GCRs, and avoiding conflicts that don’t involve TEP, this region is in a good position to bridge the divide between fellow GCRs and maybe improve GCR relations across the board. But not if TEP chooses a side. And that is how joining the GCR Sovereignty Accords would very likely appear to some of the other GCRs.

At the very least, it would be prudent to give it more time, to hopefully see concrete evidence that the Pacific, TWP, and Balder can be relied upon as treaty partners. Apologies and gestures need to be backed up with concrete evidence of change, and we haven’t seen much of that from the Pacific and TWP. We haven’t even seen the bare minimum of apologies and gestures from Balder, which remains unrepentant for souring relations with some other GCRs. A wait-and-see approach is still very much warranted.

3

I have a few things with how this as is, mostly with the wording of this - I won’t get too much into the politics of it, just my findings with the Accords themselves.

— Begin quote from ____

Article V
All member regions are expected to share intelligence that is pertinent to the sovereign safety of other members in a timely fashion. No member will be asked to reveal the source of said intelligence but it can be freely provided. All member regions are expected to share intelligence in regards to imminent invasions, espionage, or subversion within another member region.

— End quote

Specifically ‘subversion’ - I have a issue with its presence as what we define as ‘subversive’ differs very wildly from TEP to TNP to Osiris to specifically the NPO for example. What constitutes a ‘subversive’ act is a very slippery slope and has varying definitions depending on who you ask, which is going to make this not only difficult to enforce but I fear may be exploited one way or another in the future.

— Begin quote from ____

Article VII
The Accord’s signatory regions may use their collective military forces to defend those regional governments that seek out our assistance. At no time will the Accords interfere with the internal affairs of a region without either specific requests from the regional government to do so or just cause. No unilateral action can be undertaken in the Accord’s name without a prior vote of approval with unanimous approval of sitting member regions.

— End quote

Not so big of a loophole, but part of me wonders what constitutes ‘Just cause’.

— Begin quote from ____

Article VI

It is based on the good faith of those signatories of this document that if a member region is the subject of a specific World Assembly resolution that members will support the decision made by that region in regards to their regional vote.

— End quote

This can be read both ways so for clarification; the ‘regional vote’ being the vote of the Delegate of the region or the actual vote of nations in the Region? Both complicate this clause because the legality of when the Delegate vote of a GCR can be used varies wildly from no legal requirements (i.e, TEP) to following the forum vote (TNP) to some GCR’s afaik still are required to follow the actual in game regions vote.

— Begin quote from ____

Article XI
These Accords can be amended with a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of sitting member regions.

— End quote

This presents a major Gödel style logical fallacy; the Accords require a unanimous vote to commit military action or admit a new member, for example, but only a 2/3rd’s majority to amend the accords, so the accords can be amended with 2/3rds majority to remove the above unanimous requirements, thus rather defeating the point of them being truly unanimous.

IMO the biggest issue with the Accords as stands is the amendment clause because it more or less defeats the point of any other action being unanimous. As such, without even getting into the politics, I’m not sure how I feel about joining when the treaty itself has such a major self defeating loophole.

4

Agree with Hobbes that Article XI should be modified to require a unanimous vote for any amendment to the Accords.

Disagree with Hobbes on Article VI. The Delegate of TEP is constrained by the Concordat. “The Delegate of the The East Pacific must represent the popular will of The East Pacific in the World Assembly.” TEP cannot be bound by Article VI.

As to Cormac’s arguments, I agree that TEP should not be the 5th region to join this accord without including TNP, TSP, and Rejected Realms in a larger discussion.

5

I would like to start with the following: Any region which openly communicates with the Delegate on their recognition of him and the Concordat as our legitimate system of government can receive full recognition from us in a mutually respectful manner. The Delegate and I intend to extend foreign relations to regions which recognize our sovereignty. That is paramount. This can include Sov Accord regions or non-Sov Acccord regions.

What I am concerned with is our backwatered isolationism. We are regarded as a dead GCR based on our historical isolationism. Can we all agree that that is no longer acceptable?

With regards to the analysis that Cormac provided, I agree with him to a point. But mostly disagree. I do not envision that the counter-vision to Sovereign Accord has a legitimate agenda for recognizing our sovereignty as a region. Instead, it wishes to impose an agenda of so-called democracy according to the value system of the others. Every GCR is free to explore itself and its way of life, and frankly we have the best system of government I have seen. That being said, I do not envision TWP or other Sov Accord regions trying to impose their systems onto us. TNP, or TRR, or Laz, would try. I don’t blame them. They have good governments for their regions as they see fit for themselves. I want to work with them bilaterally on a TEP-X basis. Again, it comes to whether or not a region recognizes us for who we are.

All Sov Accord regions do.

I would like to work with TSP for bilateral ties if they are interested. Same with TNP, or TRR, or Lazarus. Any region with recognizes us for our historical ties and current foreign policy, and respects us for that, can have relations with us.

Again, before I carry on, I welcome Cormac’s analysis, as it is quite useful in this discussion.

EDIT: I will be addressing Hobbes and ASBS. I just need to read further into their contributions into this productive discussion first, if allowed.

6

— Begin quote from ____

What I am concerned with is our backwatered isolationism. We are regarded as a dead GCR based on our historical isolationism. Can we all agree that that is no longer acceptable?

— End quote

Casting aside isolationism doesn’t require entering into an untested multilateral alliance with unreliable regions, which will appear to some of the other GCRs as if TEP is taking sides against them and thus severely limit TEP’s diplomatic opportunities. There are other options besides isolationism on the one hand or the GCR Sovereignty Accords on the other. Those are the extremes; the middle ground would be improving bilateral relations with other GCRs in a balanced way, which is the course TEP should pursue. There is no reason for TEP to go all-in on an untested multilateral alliance with regions that have proven themselves unreliable.

— Begin quote from ____

With regards to the analysis that Cormac provided, I agree with him to a point. But mostly disagree. I do not envision that the counter-vision to Sovereign Accord has a legitimate agenda for recognizing our sovereignty as a region. Instead, it wishes to impose an agenda of so-called democracy according to the value system of the others. Every GCR is free to explore itself and its way of life, and frankly we have the best system of government I have seen. That being said, I do not envision TWP or other Sov Accord regions trying to impose their systems onto us. TNP, or TRR, or Laz, would try. I don’t blame them. They have good governments for their regions as they see fit for themselves. I want to work with them bilaterally on a TEP-X basis. Again, it comes to whether or not a region recognizes us for who we are.

All Sov Accord regions do.

— End quote

I’ll concede that some of the GCRs, such as TNP, have strong views about how things should be done. The idea that they would do anything other than perhaps be a touch annoying in promotion of their ideas is completely absurd. They aren’t going to impose anything on TEP, unless you are actually suggesting that TNP – or TSP, or Lazarus, or TRR – would perpetrate a coup d’etat against TEP to impose their values. Is that what you’re suggesting? Because if not, there would be no imposition. Promoting their values, even if you or I may find TNP’s zealous self-promotion annoying, is not imposition. What we do know about TNP, TSP, Lazarus, and TRR is that they do not shirk from their obligations to defend their allies, and they do not perpetrate coups against other GCRs. Far from imposing themselves on TEP, any one of these regions is likely to be a much more reliable partner in the defense of TEP’s sovereignty than any of the GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories, Osiris excepted.

But let me tell you about real imposition, the kind three of the GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories have engaged in for years.

Imposition is when the NPO perpetrated a coup against Lazarus, a region it had agreed by treaty to defend, in order to bring Lazarus under the NPO’s control. Imposition is the numerous times TWP refused to defend fellow GCRs against coups, or even supported those coups, because TWP’s view of Delegate supremacy was more important to them than defending other GCRs according to the values they hold dear. Imposition is the several times Balder shirked its treaty responsibilities because the leadership of Balder preferred a rogue government over the government they pledged by treaty to defend. That is imposition. You are proposing that TEP enter into an untested multilateral alliance with the very regions that have imposed themselves upon other GCRs for years, without any concrete evidence to demonstrate that these regions have suddenly become more reliable partners in the defense of GCR sovereignty. That is a recipe for disaster in the event that TEP suffers its own coup.

— Begin quote from ____

I would like to work with TSP for bilateral ties if they are interested. Same with TNP, or TRR, or Lazarus. Any region with recognizes us for our historical ties and current foreign policy, and respects us for that, can have relations with us.

— End quote

As I’ve already noted, you’re going to have a harder time working with the other GCRs if TEP ratifies the GCR Sovereignty Accords. Several of the other GCRs quite rightly see some or all of the GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories as hostile to them. In ratifying the Accords, it will appear as though TEP is choosing a side – the side hostile to them. That is not going to incline them toward improved relations with TEP; it’s instead going to dump ice water on any such project.

Bottom line: Ratifying these Accords will shove TEP into a corner with the Evil League of Evil, and alienate reliable friends that could become reliable allies, in favor of three regions unlikely to come to TEP’s defense. TEP would be better off maintaining the status quo with only TNP and Osiris as GCR allies, because if TEP ratifies these Accords, Osiris will still be the only Accords signatory likely to come to TEP’s defense – at least if the others prefer a rogue government to TEP’s constitutional government.

Again, however, the choice is not simply between the status quo and these Accords. That is a false choice between two undesirable extremes, both of which should be discarded. It is possible to pursue a more balanced approach through bilateral relations with other GCRs, as well as UCRs that share TEP’s values and interests. That is the course that would benefit TEP the most, both in terms of diplomatic opportunities as well as regional security, and that is the course TEP should pursue.

7

As I’ve got citizenship here, and I’m diplomat for the Pacific, I would like to add my own thoughts on this. The Pacific has no doubts that The East Pacific will decide on this matter as it sees fit. Further, we’d like to thank Cormac for his input and also be thankful that he doesn’t speak on behalf of all of The East Pacific. We consider it deeply concerning, not to mention, unwise to label more than the half of all fellow GCR’s as an “Evil League of Evil”. Despite being labeled by Cormac as an Axis of Evil, the Pacific didn’t engage in hostile activities against TEP, and indeed did quite the opposite. This can be seen as unique opportunity for TEP to further improve its relations with most of it’s fellow GCR’s at once and work together on a brighter future in the prospect of interregional goodwill and cooperation. What Cormac actually proposes is not only a re-consideration of everything, but a splitting of the GCRs. Despite his claims, TEP is not to “chose a side” but to put a progressive stance in regards of FA into consideration. It has to be duely noted, that Cormac, despite his promotions for relations with TNP, isn’t TNP’s best advocator right now, as he is deeply concerned with the fact that the NPA didn’t show up to come to aid Lazarus during the latest shenanigan of the Black Hawks. I wonder, why he above everyone else advocates the reliability of GCR’s like TNP, but on the same time publically scolds them for not defending a fellow GCR. We sincerely hope and wish to see a future where we can look forward to an era of mutual goodwill and cooperation with TEP. We cannot deny the past, only move forward with a new outlook shaped by it.

8

— Begin quote from ____

We consider it deeply concerning, not to mention, unwise to label more than the half of all fellow GCR’s as an “Evil League of Evil”. Despite being labeled by Cormac as an Axis of Evil, the Pacific didn’t engage in hostile activities against TEP, and indeed did quite the opposite.

— End quote

The current signatories of the GCR Sovereignty Accords would not constitute “more than half” of GCRs, as there are nine GCRs and only four signatories. I have also repeatedly excluded Osiris from my concerns about reliability, so we’re talking about only three GCRs.

Moving past basic math, the actions of TP, TWP, and Balder toward their fellow GCRs over the years have been far from upstanding. I stand by my criticism of all three regions, and my concerns about entering into an untested multilateral alliance with them, and only them.

— Begin quote from ____

This can be seen as unique opportunity for TEP to further improve its relations with most of it’s fellow GCR’s at once and work together on a brighter future in the prospect of interregional goodwill and cooperation.

— End quote

This would not, in fact, offer an “opportunity for TEP to further improve its relations with most of it’s (sic) fellow GCRs at once,” because four out of nine is not, by any stretch of the English language, “most.” As I’ve already stated, ratifying the GCR Sovereignty Accords would improve relations with the four signatories but would probably make it much more difficult to improve relations with the four non-signatories. It would look very much to some of the latter four regions like TEP is taking sides against them.

— Begin quote from ____

What Cormac actually proposes is not only a re-consideration of everything, but a splitting of the GCRs. Despite his claims, TEP is not to “chose a side” but to put a progressive stance in regards of FA into consideration.

— End quote

The GCRs are already split, and they are split due to the history of hostility, disregard for sovereignty, and at times outright aggression on the part of TP, TWP, and Balder. Recognizing reality is not “a splitting of the GCRs,” it is a recognition that they are already split, and that TEP joining these Accords will appear to at least some non-signatories as though TEP is siding with the Accords signatories against them. You may not like reality, but that is, nonetheless, reality, and it is reality that must be seriously considered.

— Begin quote from ____

It has to be duely noted, that Cormac, despite his promotions for relations with TNP, isn’t TNP’s best advocator right now, as he is deeply concerned with the fact that the NPA didn’t show up to come to aid Lazarus during the latest shenanigan of the Black Hawks. I wonder, why he above everyone else advocates the reliability of GCR’s like TNP, but on the same time publically scolds them for not defending a fellow GCR.

— End quote

You’re actually only strengthening my point, by pointing out that I am no fan of TNP and that I strongly disagree with them on many issues. It can then be extrapolated that I am certainly not keen to pursue TNP’s interests ahead of TEP’s. Nonetheless, here I am, stating that TNP is a more reliable ally, and that TEP should be more concerned with preserving a healthy alliance with TNP, and fostering potential alliances with other similarly reliable regions, than with jumping into an untested alliance with unreliable regions. Why am I saying that? Because despite all my disagreements with TNP, I know that TNP will be a reliable ally to TEP and will come to TEP’s defense whenever necessary. How do I know that? Because they have proven it throughout their history, just as three of the GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories have proven throughout their history that they are unreliable allies who cannot be trusted to defend an ally’s constitutional government, and may even work against it, if they prefer a rogue government.

You have, however, also offered a misleading portrayal of my concerns and disagreements with TNP. I have never once complained that they did not show up to assist Lazarus when The Black Hawks recently violated Lazarus’ sovereignty. I have no idea whether TNP supported Lazarus or if TNP’s support was even requested; what I do know is that TNP is currently providing support to the Delegate of TRR, which is not even an ally of TNP, upon TRR’s request. How have the NPO’s relations been with TRR lately?

— Begin quote from ____

We sincerely hope and wish to see a future where we can look forward to an era of mutual goodwill and cooperation with TEP. We cannot deny the past, only move forward with a new outlook shaped by it.

— End quote

If that is the case, it needs to be demonstrated by concrete actions, rather than apologies and symbolic gestures. The world has seen such apologies and gestures from these regions before, and every time they have been followed by the same unacceptable behavior.

9

— Begin quote from ____

Disagree with Hobbes on Article VI. The Delegate of TEP is constrained by the Concordat. “The Delegate of the The East Pacific must represent the popular will of The East Pacific in the World Assembly.” TEP cannot be bound by Article VI.

— End quote

I had a brainfart, no idea why I forgot that clause and thought the Dele was free to vote as pleased. ASBS is correct.

10

Apologies if I am not intended to post herein, as the forum allows me to do so I believe it may be okay.

Cormac’s claims regarding the GCR Sovereignty Accords are largely unfounded and have been addressed ad nauseum on NSGP. His claims regarding historic actions as evidence of current reality are irrelevant and incorrect. Further, if that is the logic by which his determination should be measured then his own history should be considered when taking anything said by him into consideration.

The requests for a ‘meaningful’ display of the treaty is impossible without a crisis. What can be pointed to is continue cooperation in the present between the signatory regions.

Historically, the Pacific has been a friend of the East. Loop was always a good friend to me and the Pacific, and we returned the favour. While there may have been intervening years where the administration of the Pacific was perhaps quieter in regards to expressions of friendship and support, those days are past.

The Accords provide a means of mutual support but do not impose. There are requests for assistance and expectations of intel sharing but as noted above, every region defines certain things differently. Each region is of course expected to follow their own laws and traditions in regards to how they address such issues. The entire purpose of the Accords is to support sovereignty within the GCRs, it would make no sense to expect TEP to adhere to TP’s (for example) definition of subversion, etc.

11

Also, for the record, if TRR requested TP assistance, it would be considered. As this is neither TNP or TRR I fail to see the relevance of this but since it is mentioned above I thought to clarify.

12

Am I the only one who finds it inappropriate for a foreign dignitary to be commenting on what was clearly stated in the OP to be a discussion between citizens and magisters of TEP regarding potential entry into the GCR Sovereignty Accords?

What was that Dali was saying about imposing…?

13

My apologies, I invited Pierconium to speak on my behalf. So if you’d like to call that ‘imposing,’ my apologies for asking for an individual much more knowledgeable than I. I figured it’d be better than you having to debate a ninny like myself.

14

I have questions.

What are our needs? What are we trying to achieve?

— Begin quote from ____

We, the signatories of this, the GCR Sovereignty Accords (hereinafter - the Accords), state our devotion to the principles of regional sovereignty within the GCR community. Through the adoption of these Accords we declare that our nations and regions vow to protect the sovereign rights of each member state to govern their lands as they see fit, to protect those lands against outside aggressors, and to support one another against all adversaries.

— End quote

I fully support regional sovereignty. Is it threatened? By whom? And how do these Accords reduce that threat? Are there other ways to reduce that threat? What was the process that led to these Accords being the best choice?

Dalimbar adds this statement:

— Begin quote from ____

What I am concerned with is our backwatered isolationism. We are regarded as a dead GCR based on our historical isolationism. Can we all agree that that is no longer acceptable?

— End quote

Tell me more about this. I don’t know that I agree or disagree.

Are we isolationist? Or just disinterested? Preoccupied with other stuff? Or too busy?

During my time in TEP, there have always been individuals who were active in other regions. People, as I recall, that Unibot described as “cosmopolitan.” It hasn’t felt like the region was isolationist. People got involved beyond this region based on their own interests.

On occasion, I have tried to have some interest in other regions, but I don’t have enough time. I find there is enough to do in TEP. And I have refused nominations to run for Delegate because I don’t have enough interest in foreign affairs to do justice to the job.

Are we a dead GCR? What does that phrase mean?

15

Now that this has gone public and I won’t be breaking confidentiality in TSP, I think this is relevant:

— Begin quote from ____

[8:53 PM] Belschaft: Anything you want me to do in TSP? I’m not actually in the government these days
[8:53 PM] Belschaft: So if you want me to act as back channel you’ve got to let me know
[8:57 PM] Griffin: As Heir Apparent I focused solely on domestic affairs so I’m unfamiliar with many of the neweer people. If you would keep an eye on things - any rumors that may be detrimental to Osiris, or any possible threats. I also want to reach out to TSP eventually, but I don’t believe they would be receptive now. Peoeple still have Empire madness and I want to put that to rest.
[9:00 PM] Belschaft: nods
[9:00 PM] Belschaft: Coolio
[9:00 PM] Belschaft: I can work to discourage any “Osiris bad, Empire bad” thinking
[9:04 PM] Griffin: Thank you.

— End quote

Here we have Neo Kervoskia (Griffin), the Pharaoh of Osiris, at the end of last year – the beginning of his term as Pharaoh – asking someone already known for acts of subversion in TSP to spy on TSP for him. He also agreed to Belschaft covertly working “to discourage ‘Osiris bad, Empire bad’ thinking.”

This just underscores what I’ve been been saying: The GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories are unreliable and unpredictable, and there is good reason for the other GCRs to see them as a threat. This is not the side that TEP wants to be on, and there is no question that there are sides here and joining the GCR Sovereignty Accords means choosing one of them. The question is whether TEP really wants to choose to be on the side of regions with a history of actions just like we see Neo Kervoskia engaged in as recently as a few months ago, and actions far worse than that. TEP has never been a region that aligns itself with habitual coupers, spies, and subversives. There is no reason for TEP to start down that road now.

16

Actually, that runs counter to most of what you have been stating. You have been running a smear campaign against some of the signatories of the Accords while maintaining that Osiris is trustworthy. Notwithstanding your own requests to be invited to join the Accords while you were Delegate there.

Regardless, nothing in that log indicates that Belschaft is spying for Osiris. He may be politicking as a non-government official, but that isn’t illegal, here (I believe) or there. The cosmopolitan nature of NS these days almost demands a certain level of internal cooperation between friendly nations in order for any diplomatic exchange to take place. Belschaft stating that he will attempt to dissuade negative (and potentially unfounded) opinions about Osiris is not a crime, it’s politics.

Again, if I am not welcome to post in this discussion someone from the government of TEP inform me I will gladly stop posting.

17

Personally, I don’t see the reason we can’t pursue these relations if we deem it worthy outside of the Accords. Any of these clauses seem to be handled through one on one treaties, or can be. This adds benefits that are already in place and a political siding that we need not commit to. Entering a divisive political coalition is not the way to reenter the political sphere.

18

— Begin quote from ____

Personally, I don’t see the reason we can’t pursue these relations if we deem it worthy outside of the Accords. Any of these clauses seem to be handled through one on one treaties, or can be. This adds benefits that are already in place and a political siding that we need not commit to. Entering a divisive political coalition is not the way to reenter the political sphere.

— End quote

The ‘political siding’ and divisiveness are primarily the imagining of Unibot and Cormac. No one, at least insofar as I have encountered within the Accords, actually feels that there is an us versus them mentality within the GCRs.

19

This is Dalimbar’s thread to manage, but all of these responses from Pierconium engaging in debate about divisiveness are making me weary.

Meanwhile, a question raised by Hobbes (and seconded by me) about what appears to be a functional flaw in the Accords remains unanswered.

Also, my questions about whether this serves a basic need for TEP also remain unanswered. I don’t expect (or want) Pierconium to answer them. I want to hear from Dalimbar and Aelitia.

20

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

Personally, I don’t see the reason we can’t pursue these relations if we deem it worthy outside of the Accords. Any of these clauses seem to be handled through one on one treaties, or can be. This adds benefits that are already in place and a political siding that we need not commit to. Entering a divisive political coalition is not the way to reenter the political sphere.

— End quote

The ‘political siding’ and divisiveness are primarily the imagining of Unibot and Cormac. No one, at least insofar as I have encountered within the Accords, actually feels that there is an us versus them mentality within the GCRs.

— End quote

It’s the swearing to a certain group of people early on that is my problem. Divisive wasn’t quite right, more of potentially divisive. Either way, I don’t think these are waters that The East Pacific should tread so suddenly. I think we should give it some time, and see these accords in action, before we join them.