LionStar Pact

Haor Chall

Haor Chall

The Power of the Dark Side
TNP Nation
Haor Chall
http://s13.invisionfree.com/TNP/index.php?showtopic=125

According to the terms of the Pact this needs to be discussed (the last Cabinet left it to us). Personally I'm in favour of removing it, we don't need something like a mutual defense pact with the RLA, there isn't any advantage from our end.

Dalimbar did mention replacing it with a new document, I can't recall what he called it now. Just to make it clear, I have no problem with the NPA working alongside the RLA, I have no problem with communications and discussions between TNP and the RLA. But we don't need this Pact to do so.
 
I wouldn't mind moving this to the public meeting room. I see no reason this would conflict with regional security if we did so.
 
Regional security, I imagine not, foreign relations... well maybe. I'd rather wait and see and if at the end of the discussion there isn't anything sensative then we could move it.
 
I think it should probably be left here for now, for the reasons HC stated, mostly.

Theoretically, the darn thing says we're actually supposed to meet with RLA reps - I don't suppose Dalimbar would count? :unsure:
 
But before we arrange to meet with any RLA reps we need to know what our position is to discuss. Personally I'd rather Dali wasn't our rep with the RLA. It isn't anything personal, but without wanting to get sidetracked this would be an ideal oppertunity to intro some of the stuff for the DC that I have talked about.
 
Completely understandable. I would indeed prefer it if someone other than myself from the RLA, such as Xha'dam, Blackbird or EuroSoviets meet, compared to myself who has ties with both groups. Conflict of interest, I know. Do you guys want me to set something up though?
 
I have no real problems with the treaty. It seems to encompass what we would probably do anyway.

It could be argued that we do not need a treaty committing ourselves to this, but writing things down never did anyone any harm, and serve as a reminder of the relationship we have with the RLA.
 
The IRC logs are on saved at uni, so I can't check, but Dalimbar suggested an alternative form of agreement but I can't remember what he called it now. "Terms of Communication"? Or something like that.

Mutual defense agreements between feeders aren't so much of a problem, a defense pact with TWP should be on the cards when they ever get their gov. sorted out and I personally would like a defense pact between all the feeders. Not sure if we'll ever get that one though...

But, and let me make this clear, defense pacts with founded regions are not to the benefit of a feeder. The benefit is entirely one way. Perhaps if we introduced something into it so that in return the founded region(s) in question wouldn't recruit from TNP or something and that sort of thing, I might be more inclined to go along with it. In this situation I would much rather an agreement that the NPA and the RLA will co-operate in defending missions, share information and that TNP and the RLA are friendly regions. That I would be very willing to accept, the Pact in its current form I am deeply unhappy with.


And as for the seeming suggestion that we join the RLA, I would most vehmently disagree. We need to improve TNP some way before we should join any large alliance organisation and if we ever reach the stage of joining any large organistion, IMO the RLA would be at the very bottom of the list. Primarily because it is a leftist-commie-type alliance and well, as a whole we're not and as such if we are to join an alliance IMO it should be one that doesn't have such an idealogical leaning.
 
Double post removed.

Perhaps if we introduced something into it so that in return the founded region(s) in question wouldn't recruit from TNP or something and that sort of thing, I might be more inclined to go along with it.
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but I don't think I've seen them recruit much to begin with.
 
Hersfold:
Double post removed.

Perhaps if we introduced something into it so that in return the founded region(s) in question wouldn't recruit from TNP or something and that sort of thing, I might be more inclined to go along with it.
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but I don't think I've seen them recruit much to begin with.
Click to expand...

Thanks. :)

I was speaking more generally about defense pacts with founder regions there, as something to consider for the future.
 
Right. We do need to reach a conclusion so that we can go to the RLA. This is my proposed plan of action if we can agree to it:

Looking at the Pact itself (linky in first post). Clause 1 substantially altered to remove any obligation but to recognise that support would be very likely. Clause 4 should have the condemnation of raiders removed, because the reality is we have a couple as citizens here (and in government...). And thats basically it, as far as I'm concerned the rest can stay as it is.

Then I'll sort out a delegation and if Dalimbar can speak with the RLA to arrange when (and where- possibly here might be good for us- for the publicity and things, I don't know) and then we get down to the talking.
 
That sounds fine to me. We might also want to request a spell-check run on the thing, particularly clause 6.
 
Ah, yes. That might be a good idea. :P

So, can we at least get a show of hands or something for people now please? This will need to be voted on by the cabinet and there is absolutely no point in going and negotiating any changes to the treaty if our cabinet then votes against it because we'd all look very stupid. So, before we talk to the RLA can we get a concensus on what we're going to say to them please?
 
The Lion Star Military Cooperation Pact

Asserting the common beliefs of the peoples of the RLA and The North Pacific that all regions should be free from malevolent outside forces, this treaty establishes an agreement between the signatories.

1. In the event of an attack by outside forces, each side will consider itself obligated to act in defence of or in liberation of the regions that are party to this treaty. Each side must of course follow the legislative procedures set down by their laws prior to military interventions against any force which is not a raider/invader organisation. This shall include only the member-regions of the RLA and The North Pacific.

2. The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific, the Security Council of the North Pacific and the Cabinet of the North Pacific shall be considered by the RLA to have such authority as to order an intervention in TNP territory in the event of an attack on The North Pacific regardless of whether those forces claim nativity.

3. Interventions in RLA regions are implicitly authorised upon any defender or defender organisation spotting an attack by raiders / invaders.

4. The Red Liberty Alliance and The North Pacific fully condemn the actions of raiders / invaders regardless of what name or banner they go under and each signatory promises to consider helping the other in liberations and defences that occur at update each morning. Neither will be under any obligation to do so.

5. To that end, the RLA and TNP agree to keep each other appraised of changes in the officers of their respective military forces in that such changes are relevent to cooperation.

6. Both the RLA and TNP military heirarchies agree that when the regional security of the other is at risk, they will (with their government's approval) to make a good faith effort to share intelligence that is relevent to their defense. to the other party.

7. Ninety days from the date of the last signature appended to this treaty, the RLA and The North Pacific agree to send representatives to a mutually agreed upon spot wherein the status of the military cooperation pact shall be reviewed. Changes, reductions or expansions of the pact may be discussed at this meeting.

Signed on behalf of The North Pacific

Signed on behalf of the Red Liberty Alliance
Click to expand...

If we keep the agreement, which I personally think is a great idea (might help increase military participation and doesn't really force us to do anything), then maybe the intelligence clause should be ammended so we're not having military generals exchanging vital intelligence that may not be in our best interest.
 
I agree. I don't think we currently have anything that is exactly sensitive at the moment, but you never know when such information could come into our possession.

And should we maybe extend the time limit to 180 days so that we won't have to deal with it again? We'll probably all be out of office by then...
 
I'm sorry, but I would vote no for TNP joining the RLA. They are a left wing alliance, and while I'm clearly a socialist and am a member of the RLA, I recognize that alot of the people here are not.

I also agree with extending the agreement to 180 days, or even just scrapping that clause all together.

The Central Soviet is also discussing the matter, wondering what our thoughts are on the matter.
 
I think the time clause might as well be removed.

The Lion Star Military Cooperation Pact

Asserting the common beliefs of the peoples of the RLA and The North Pacific that all regions should be free from malevolent outside forces, this treaty establishes an agreement between the signatories.

1. In the event of an attack by outside forces, each side will consider acting in defence of or in liberation of the regions that are party to this treaty. Each side must  follow the legislative procedures set down by their laws prior to military interventions against any force. This shall include only the member-regions of the RLA and The North Pacific.

2. The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific, the Security Council of the North Pacific and the Cabinet of the North Pacific shall be considered by the RLA to have such authority as to order an intervention in TNP territory in the event of an attack on The North Pacific regardless of whether those forces claim nativity.

3. Interventions in RLA regions are implicitly authorised upon any defender or defender organisation spotting an attack by raiders / invaders.

4. The Red Liberty Alliance and The North Pacific promise to consider helping the other in liberations and defences that occur. Neither will be under any obligation to do so.

5. To that end, the RLA and TNP agree to keep each other appraised of changes in the officers of their respective military forces in that such changes are relevant to cooperation.

6. Both the RLA and TNP military hierarchies agree that when the regional security of the other is at risk, they will (with their government's approval) to make a good faith effort to share intelligence that is relevant to their defence.

7. Should either party which to re-open discussion on the pact, the RLA and The North Pacific agree to send representatives to a mutually agreed upon spot wherein the status of the military cooperation pact shall be reviewed. Changes, reductions or expansions of the pact may be discussed at this meeting.

Signed on behalf of The North Pacific

Signed on behalf of the Red Liberty Alliance
Click to expand...
 
Dalimbar:
I'm sorry, but I would vote no for TNP joining the RLA. They are a left wing alliance, and while I'm clearly a socialist and am a member of the RLA, I recognize that alot of the people here are not.

I also agree with extending the agreement to 180 days, or even just scrapping that clause all together.

The Central Soviet is also discussing the matter, wondering what our thoughts are on the matter.
Click to expand...
Well I agree that we're not all socialists but this isn't a treaty binding our mutual ideologies but a treaty binding our military resources.

Do you feel that their socialism will affect their foreign/military stance that would be detrimental to us?
 
Dalimbar:
I'm sorry, but I would vote no for TNP joining the RLA. They are a left wing alliance, and while I'm clearly a socialist and am a member of the RLA, I recognize that alot of the people here are not.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about joining? :blink:
 
mr_sniffles:
Haor Chall:
Mr_sniffles suggested so earlier, here:

mr_sniffles:
I'm all for the treaty and most other documents outlining an alliance with the RLA.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm for an alliance that shares our resources and helps spread our defender ideals not for joining the RLA. There's a difference.
Click to expand...

There is?

:ADN:

Anyway, at the moment, only me, mr_sniffles and Ator seem to have actually put forward solid opinions and we don't agree. What does the rest of the cabinet think, since everyone will need to vote on this. Any thoughts on the edited version in my post above (which includes Ators changes as well btw)?
 
Haor Chall:
I think the time clause might as well be removed.

The Lion Star Military Cooperation Pact

Asserting the common beliefs of the peoples of the RLA and The North Pacific that all regions should be free from malevolent outside forces, this treaty establishes an agreement between the signatories.

1. In the event of an attack by outside forces, each side will consider acting in defence of or in liberation of the regions that are party to this treaty. Each side must  follow the legislative procedures set down by their laws prior to military interventions against any force. This shall include only the member-regions of the RLA and The North Pacific.

2. The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific, the Security Council of the North Pacific and the Cabinet of the North Pacific shall be considered by the RLA to have such authority as to order an intervention in TNP territory in the event of an attack on The North Pacific regardless of whether those forces claim nativity.

3. Interventions in RLA regions are implicitly authorised upon any defender or defender organisation spotting an attack by raiders / invaders.

4. The Red Liberty Alliance and The North Pacific promise to consider helping the other in liberations and defences that occur. Neither will be under any obligation to do so.

5. To that end, the RLA and TNP agree to keep each other appraised of changes in the officers of their respective military forces in that such changes are relevant to cooperation.

6. Both the RLA and TNP military hierarchies agree that when the regional security of the other is at risk, they will (with their government's approval) to make a good faith effort to share intelligence that is relevant to their defence.

7. Should either party which to re-open discussion on the pact, the RLA and The North Pacific agree to send representatives to a mutually agreed upon spot wherein the status of the military cooperation pact shall be reviewed. Changes, reductions or expansions of the pact may be discussed at this meeting.

Signed on behalf of The North Pacific

Signed on behalf of the Red Liberty Alliance
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I like this version as well.
 
This is the revised version of the Pact which the RLA has agreed to. We now need to vote on this here.


The Lion Star Pact

Asserting the common beliefs of the peoples of the RLA and The North Pacific that all regions should be free from malevolent outside forces, this treaty establishes an agreement between the signatories.

1. In the event of an attack by outside forces, each side may consider acting in defence of or in liberation of the regions that are party to this treaty and will make a sincere effort to do so. Each side must  follow the legislative procedures set down by their laws prior to military interventions against any force. This shall include only the member-regions of the RLA and The North Pacific.

2. The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific, the Security Council of the North Pacific and the Cabinet of the North Pacific shall be considered by the RLA to have such authority as to order an intervention in TNP territory in the event of an attack on The North Pacific regardless of whether those forces claim nativity.

3. Interventions in RLA regions are implicitly authorised upon any defender or defender organisation spotting an attack by raiders/invaders.

4. The Red Liberty Alliance and The North Pacific fully condemn the actions of raiders / invaders regardless of what name or banner they go under and each signatory promises to consider helping the other in liberations and defences that occur at update each morning. Neither will be under any obligation to do so.

5. To that end, the RLA and TNP agree to keep each other appraised of changes in the officers of their respective military forces in that such changes are relevent to cooperation.

6. Both the RLA and TNP military heirarchies agree to make a good faith effort to share intelligence that is relevent to ther other party; the relevant government officials shall have authority to veto such sharing, should they consider it to be a danger to regional security.

7. One hundred and eighty days from the date of the last signature appended to this treaty, the RLA and The North Pacific agree to send representatives to a mutually agreed upon spot wherein the status of the military cooperation pact shall be reviewed. Changes, reductions or expansions of the pact may be discussed at this meeting.
Click to expand...
 
I know that Delegate doesn't get a vote, so if the Del does, why should the VD? Nothing against Tres or anything, just the logic doesn't make sense to me...
 
He doesn't get a vote here. Anyway, due to the cock up with the part of the constitution that deals with this atm it requires a referendum vote anyway. So he'll get to vote then.
 
Doesn't seem to be too popular with the RA... :P

Strange considering how much it passed my first time around. Anyhoo, just that we'll need to think of what to do should the vote fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top