United Regions

Americanicus I

Americanicus I

TNPer
A long time ago, I founded an organization called the United Regions (UR); most likely, you've never heard of it but it once had 35 large member regions and performed peacekeeping missions all over NS. Now dormant and inactive, I've come up with a plan for its recreation.

I think that if TNP took it over (i.e. joined and influenced it as its largest member), it would be a great asset. We wouldn't be the only members (only six or so tiny regions left), but we'd be the biggest kid on the block. I think we should enter it, attempt to revitalize it (by our very presence) and thus use it to our advantage.

We can use it until more large members come (large member-created regions, maybe another feeder; they're bound to flock if they see small regions working with a powerhouse like TNP), and then it will be more fair. It's basically a defender organization, so don't worry about rubbing elbows with any invaders. Only pacifists are allowed.

It works just like the real UN: we can do whatever we want, but we need the approval of an interregional body before we can conduct massive liberations and the like under a UR flag. This is a woefully sketchy outline, but you get the general idea. Sound interesting?

Similar copy of this in NationStates discussions -- feel free to take it down, since it really belongs in here. ;)
 
Hmm... Its an interesting idea, I'll give you that. The two main issues I can see are, firstly, the extent to which this would interact with regional sovereignty and secondly- at the other end of the scale perhaps- there wouldn't be much point in joining if this would be little more than a paper tiger.

I'm not really sure to be honest, as I said, it's an interesting idea but I'm not sure about it at the moment. Partly because TNP wouldn't be much a "powerhouse" as it stands, as the NPA remains relatively small.
 
I've heard of you. ;)

It would certainly be interesting to see an organization like this become the United Nations of this game. By that, I mean if United Regions could gather all of the larger, international-level regions into one group, not necessarially allies, but everyone in a forum for discussion, and see what happens.

If The North Pacific joined, that would give you leverage to petition other feeders, and if you get the feeders involved, the rest of the world will follow.

But that may just be wishful thinking.

Anyway, is your forum still up? I believe it was on ProBoards, something that will have to change if you go through with the revitalization. ;)
 
Yes, the new forum is up: http://westarcadia.proboards75.com/index.cgi (and hibernating)

As to paper tigers, don't you just love them? The UR wouldn't interfere with regional sovereignty at all (if a member region violates the Charter's principles then the GA could vote to have it expelled, but no other control) and it would create a powerful tool for coordination of liberations if armies from several large regions could be coordinated under one flag, through one channel.

TNP could still do whatever it wanted to militarily, but if it wanted to combine the military strength of several UR regions, it would need the GA's approval (unless it were made a permanent Security Council member -- a provision in the Charter allows for the permanents to use the UR flag without GA permission).

And I was always frustrated by virtually anything other than ProBoards, :headbang: although InvisionFree does have a better selection of lighter, UNish blue hues.
 
Anyway, if you decide in favor of the UR, it would be possible to set up a UR commission; sort of a TNP UR Organization composed of a panel (myself included, I hope) who could present their arguments and come up with a coherent plan.
 
I just briefly skimmed over this, so if this has been asked don't all ready mind me.

Military control. I am curious on who would have the ability to make the military orders, will it be this United Regions or the Minister of Defence of The North Pacific in our case? Is there a possibility that orders made by the MoD be overturned by the UR? I see you state that this organizatin will not affect regional sovereignty, but if the UR has control of our military, that statement is not true.

I am curious on how the internal structure of this organization works. I assume it has the General Assembly, Security Council, Secretariat, and the various other layers of bureaucracy that comes with the real United Nations? Due to the overall size of The North Pacific in relation to any non-pacific region, how do you think we will be treated in the floor of the General Assembly? Will we have membership to the Security Council? I wish to echo Haor Chall's question on who is involved in this.

My apologies if I seem a tad rough in my questioning, I am trying to provide the best deal for The North Pacific.
 
Grenval:
If The North Pacific joined, that would give you leverage to petition other feeders, and if you get the feeders involved, the rest of the world will follow.

But that may just be wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
I have to agree that is wishful thinking. The Pacific I believe has little interests with joing another organization outside the UoS or whatever they wish to call it now. The East Pacific and The West Pacific are isolationists for now, of course with TWP in almost a cold civil war and TEP just enjoying the quiet. The South Pacific might, and I must stress the might in this, be interested if presented with a good deal.

But thats how I see things in this vast corner of the world.
 
How does a region gain Security Council status?



Oh Dalimbar, we know reality hurts, but you don't have to rub it in. :P ;)

[Edit] I'm adding in this edit just to be clear that despite the (friendly?) sarcasm, I do agree with Dalimbar.
 
About joining the Security Council (URSC): there are five permanent members and five elected members (each term is for two months). Each URSC region is approved by the GA and doesn't need to be confirmed by the permanent members. I think it could definitely be arranged for TNP to be a permanent member (one of the slots is still open).

And no, the UR would not control the region's actions. If TNP troops use their own flag (which they don't have yet and I don't know why) then they can do whatever they like without UR assistance. If they want help from other regions, they can easily obtain it through the forum of the UR, instead of going to one-on-one alliances to obtain a smaller number. If the GA approves helping TNP in any action, it would select forces from willing member regions.

So, if Grenvali United, England, and TNP were all members and TNP needed assistance in a mission, they could approach the UR. England and TGU could volunteer troops to help TNP, each one sending a contingent that would use a UR flag (TNP would need one too and their national mottos would temporarily read "North Pacific/UR Peacekeeper").

So if you want to use a UR flag and get lots of help, contact the UR; if you wanted to go it alone, then use your own flag and your own troops (they might be placed under the command of someone from some tiny little ten-member region if the GA decides that).
 
It would be nice if your Charter was public (hint, hint). ;)

But thanks for the answer. I'll read it later, I have to run now. :P
 
Yeah, sorry about that. :D Regulations go on forever, but here's the Charter:

We, the Peoples of the United Regions, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to reaffirm faith in the dignity and worth of individual nations and in the equal rights of regions large and small; to establish conditions of justice and respect for interregional law, and to promote regional prosperity without the oppression of war, do we unite.

It is for these ends that we shall practice peaceful tolerance and unite our strength to maintain interregional peace and security, and ensure that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.

This organization hereby establishes itself as the United Regions.

On 16 October, 2005, this Charter was adopted by the United Regions General Assembly.

As to layers there are the following, descending in order of importance, with the most influential at the top:

General Assembly (the main political body)
Secretariat (Secretary General and Undersecretary General)
United Regions Security Council (URSC members; five permanent and five elected)
United Regions Political Department (URPD Secretary and Undersecretary)

Members are Cerin Amroth, City Ankh Morpork, Greco Anglican Majority of Utz, Pax Britannica, The Galactic Republic, and UNFR. Four are permanent URSC members, although it being inactive now, many of the ambassadors have left, but the regions could be induced, I'm sure, to send other ambassadors.
 
Is there any way to get a copy of the Charter. You made the political layers clear, and I thank you, but I would like to look over the Charter to see how things work according to the legislation. Plus, I'm just curious!
 
Grenval:
Is there any way to get a copy of the Charter. You made the political layers clear, and I thank you, but I would like to look over the Charter to see how things work according to the legislation. Plus, I'm just curious!
Click to expand...
Nevermind, thanks for the edit.
 
(Sorry about the triple post...)

Wait, so that is the entire Charter? Is there anything detailing how resolutions pass, how the Security Council functions in relation to the General Assembly, the powers of the Secretariat, what the Political Department does, etc.?
 
I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse here, and I'm actually quite glad that Americanicus I has brought this forward to us to discuss, however, I still have reservations on the military aspects.

As you know, The North Pacific is not a isolated region. We do have contacts with the outside world, be it in the feeder or userite world. Main part of treaties negotiated and signed between us and other parties is military cooperation and declaration of defence of the other party in emergancy situations. At this current time, Delegate Hepzibah II, otherwise known as Honeysheep, has 350 endorsements. In the instance of invasion, we in my personal opinion are safe. Insurrection we are also safe from. In the event of insurrection, the Delegate has the ability to eject the nation from TNP if it poses a risk to the stability and peace of this region. In the event that our elected Delegate turns rogue, this is one of the reasons we have a Vice Delegate for, as well as treaties with various groups regardless of their affiliations to various alliances and organizations. While the idea is admirable, to me it is too restrictive and may have the potential to in the future not have the interests of North Pacificans in mind.

Also, as a question, how many nations are "under the UR flag"?
 
Dalimbar:
Also, as a question, how many nations are "under the UR flag"?
Click to expand...
There is never an exact number -- the laws of the UR prevent it from having a standing army, as it is not exactly a sign of peaceful intentions. Each time a peacekeeping force is needed, contingents from contributing member regions are assembled in whatever number is necessary.

And the UR was designed to have the interests of every member region at heart. If Honeysheep turned rogue or if we were invaded, the permanent members of the Security Council could put together a force of nations (from different member regions) without General Assembly consent. These nations would enter our region, eject the invaders, and endorse no one but the member sanctioned by TNP laws and we would stay until asked to leave (a request the UR must honor, as a peaceful entity).

You see, the permanent URSC members are the immediate, first-responding "defenders," and the specific regions later appointed by the GA to monitor the "North Pacific conflict" would be a permanent, long-term team, and not the emergency one (unless those members are voted the long term peacekeepers). Again, the UR would need to leave if asked to by the official government.
 
I have skimmed your Charter and picked out areas that I thought might be problematic. Of course, since I don't know the context of the Charter (the intentions behind the words) and I have never seen the United Regions in action, some of my questions may not actually be relevant, so please bear with me.

United Regions Charter:
II b) Representatives are members who represent certain branches of the UR (IV) and therefore must abandon all official positions outside of their UR offices.
Click to expand...

When you say they must abadon all official positions outside of their United Regions office, does that apply to a position in another organization, for example, would a Representative in the United Regions need to resign a Cabinet position in The North Pacific or does it only apply with the United Regions itself?

United Regions Charter:
II e) All Ambassadors and Representatives will be required to maintain an active role in general concerns; after two weeks of elapsed time since the individual's last login date, his/her account will be deleted.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to lecture, but that is a stupid policy... Deleting accounts is not a good idea.

United Regions Charter:
If the poll contains more than one option, a seventy-percent majority vote, without the constraint of a time limit, shall be required to settle the issue. If the GA is not able to achieve a seventy-percent majority vote, the poll shall then be determined by simple majority.
Click to expand...

If there is no time limit, then how do you determine whether or not the General Assembly has achieved a seventy-percent supermajority? For example, several regions and their ambassadors could simply not vote and claim they are still thinking it over, effectively stalling a vote indefinitely.

United Regions Charter:
IV d) The Safety and Intelligence Commission of the United Regions (SICUR) shall act as a sub-division of the URSC, one that is controlled entirely by the permanent members of the Security Council, but whose information must be released to the other URSC members. No SICUR information may be disclosed except on authorization of the URSC as a whole or if that information is found to violate a member region.
Click to expand...

I don't like this policy. Your Charter does not allow you to deny most regions membership in the United Regions, which means two unfriendly regions could both be in the United Regions, one on the Security Council and another not on the Security Council and the one on the Council could manipulate intelligence against the one not on the Council. Moreover, this creates a division between those regions who do receive access and those who don't. Even if the regions are allies, it could create a problematic imbalance. It would seem to me that either the intelligence should be distributed uniformly, or on a need-to-know basis.

United Regions Charter:
Ambassadors to set up temporary accounts on this forum for purposes of negotiation in a specified area. Immediately after the negotiation has ended, the participants will be given twenty-four hours notice that their accounts will be deleted, in order to avoid security threats.
Click to expand...

Again, bad idea.

United Regions Charter:
VI a) A peacekeeping force is a military force made up of soldiers acting in the name of the UR and under a UR commander (appointed by the URSC). A peacekeeping force is usually tasked either with the presentation of an impartial, nonendorsing group to maintain order in case of an invasion or attempted coup or with the instating of a native member of a region after an invasion. UR peacekeepers may also act to prevent invasions.
Click to expand...

Do you define defense, invasion, and/or liberation?

United Regions Charter:
VI b) If the URSC resolves to take military action in a given region, the consent of the GA is not needed and a UR flag may be used in the operation. If the URSC elects to use the military of a region not represented on the URSC, a GA poll is required to determine the UR's course of action.
Click to expand...

Requiring a vote for the use of unrepresented military seems unnecessarily bueracratic and may tie up resources.

United Regions Charter:
VI c) There shall be no chain of command in a peacekeeping mission beyond the URSC, a field commander, and UR peacekeeping troops.
Click to expand...

What if the Security Council takes too long to make a decision, tying up resources? How are field commanders appointed? Do field commanders change with new missions?

And finally, what benefits are there to being permanent members of the Security Council, besides intelligence access? I did not see anything about veto powers or other similar measures.

Now I don't mean to sound like Dalimbar the arse ( :P ), but I am curious about how these things work. Thanks for all your help.
 
When you say they must abadon all official positions outside of their United Regions office, does that apply to a position in another organization, for example, would a Representative in the United Regions need to resign a Cabinet position in The North Pacific or does it only apply with the United Regions itself?
Click to expand...

No, it applies for all positions in NationStates (that the UR can find out about). There's no harm in a cabinet member being an ambassador, but not a representative.

I don't mean to lecture, but that is a stupid policy...  Deleting accounts is not a good idea.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the extent to which you wish to control your forum. Sometimes it can be an excellent policy. You aren't familiar with the incident, but a member who was disgruntled by a string of peacekeeping missions sabotaged our forums and I was just barely able to transfer and rewrite the content. We created that new provision to make sure that the ability to delete accounts (in case of the discovery of a spy) was available and you have to understand that activity needs to be protected in an organization that suddenly went very inactive (granted, it hasn't done much good recently, but it is absolutely necessary to keep a steady ambassador and a link with your member region, so no dormant accounts can be allowed).


If there is no time limit, then how do you determine whether or not the General Assembly has achieved a seventy-percent supermajority?  For example, several regions and their ambassadors could simply not vote and claim they are still thinking it over, effectively stalling a vote indefinitely.
Click to expand...

"If the GA is not able to achieve a seventy-percent majority vote, the poll shall then be determined by simple majority." That provision protects against what you're talking about. Within the boundaries of law, the SG has the power to determine when the conversion from 70% majority to simple majority takes place, if people stall or are indifferent/inactive.

. . . two unfriendly regions could both be in the United Regions, one on the Security Council and another not on the Security Council and the one on the Council could manipulate intelligence against the one not on the Council.  Moreover, this creates a division between those regions who do receive access and those who don't.
Click to expand...

No manipulation is possible, since the law protects against SICUR spying on member regions. As to creating divisions, we've never really had that problem. When we were really active, there were never any complaints about the power system -- I guess it's because everyone saw the bigger picture; those are the kind of people I want in the organization. To be honest, they had a HUGE amount of confidence in me and what I said went (even though I almost always turned it over to the GA for purposes of fairness). So I never really had to deal with internal strife.

Do you define defense, invasion, and/or liberation?
Click to expand...

No, and that was purposeful. We make it clear that we don't accept invaders (and we accept the standard definition, although it's mostly determined by circumstance), but setting hard lines could create internal strife and if we accidentally fall into the sniping camp of organized defenders, we could get a lot of regions turning us down because of our "defender" status. That's what we are, but we don't usually go by that name -- we're just PC. :noangel:

Requiring a vote for the use of unrepresented military seems unnecessarily bueracratic and may tie up resources.
Click to expand...

Well, the point was to keep every Tom, Dick and Harry from running around with a UR flag (even though they're UR members, the UR may not approve of their flag and name being used for this or that mission). Only a small group of regions (the permanent URSC members) have that authority, and they have it because they've proven themselves worthy of it, really. Because that is a very weak premise, I decided to cut down the powers of the Security Council from what they were originally (and what they are in the real UN).

What if the Security Council takes too long to make a decision, tying up resources?  How are field commanders appointed?  Do field commanders change with new missions?
Click to expand...

They won't, because if Permanent Number 1 picks a commander and Permanent Number 2 disagrees, the unspoken authority of the Secretary General allows him/her to step in and help them decide. Again, I never had to deal with animosity and/or internal disagreements. And as to field commanders changing, it's an unspoken policy at the UR that they should rotate regularly, which is what we did, to maintain fairness and make sure no one feels left out. So field commanders can be chosen from a 200-member region one day and an active three-member one the next.

One of the central (and probably dangerous) policies was that small regions need to be given lots of attention and treated as equally important. I was always disgruntled with people who didn't want to join my old regions because they were brand new.
 
Americanicus I:
When you say they must abadon all official positions outside of their United Regions office, does that apply to a position in another organization, for example, would a Representative in the United Regions need to resign a Cabinet position in The North Pacific or does it only apply with the United Regions itself?
Click to expand...

No, it applies for all positions in NationStates (that the UR can find out about). There's no harm in a cabinet member being an ambassador, but not a representative.
Click to expand...
What is the reasoning behind that policy?

Americanicus I:
Grenval:
. . . two unfriendly regions could both be in the United Regions, one on the Security Council and another not on the Security Council and the one on the Council could manipulate intelligence against the one not on the Council.  Moreover, this creates a division between those regions who do receive access and those who don't.
Click to expand...

No manipulation is possible, since the law protects against SICUR spying on member regions. As to creating divisions, we've never really had that problem. When we were really active, there were never any complaints about the power system -- I guess it's because everyone saw the bigger picture; those are the kind of people I want in the organization. To be honest, they had a HUGE amount of confidence in me and what I said went (even though I almost always turned it over to the GA for purposes of fairness). So I never really had to deal with internal strife.
Click to expand...

It seems rather naive to me to think that nations won't manipulate intelligence because of a law. Besides, it is possible to manipulate intelligence without actually spying on other member regions, thus bypassing the Charter.

If you continue on the road you are going, attempting to attract larger and more powerful regions, you are bound to find some divisions.

Americanicus I:
Grenval:
Do you define defense, invasion, and/or liberation?
Click to expand...

No, and that was purposeful. We make it clear that we don't accept invaders (and we accept the standard definition, although it's mostly determined by circumstance), but setting hard lines could create internal strife and if we accidentally fall into the sniping camp of organized defenders, we could get a lot of regions turning us down because of our "defender" status. That's what we are, but we don't usually go by that name -- we're just PC. :noangel:
Click to expand...

What is the standard definition?


Americanicus I:
One of the central (and probably dangerous) policies was that small regions need to be given lots of attention and treated as equally important. I was always disgruntled with people who didn't want to join my old regions because they were brand new.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is dangerous. I think it is noble.

Thank you for answer my questions.
 
Americanicus I:
A long time ago, I founded an organization called the United Regions (UR); most likely, you've never heard of it but it once had 35 large member regions and performed peacekeeping missions all over NS. Now dormant and inactive, I've come up with a plan for its recreation.

I think that if TNP took it over (i.e. joined and influenced it as its largest member), it would be a great asset. We wouldn't be the only members (only six or so tiny regions left), but we'd be the biggest kid on the block. I think we should enter it, attempt to revitalize it (by our very presence) and thus use it to our advantage.

We can use it until more large members come (large member-created regions, maybe another feeder; they're bound to flock if they see small regions working with a powerhouse like TNP), and then it will be more fair. It's basically a defender organization, so don't worry about rubbing elbows with any invaders. Only pacifists are allowed.

It works just like the real UN: we can do whatever we want, but we need the approval of an interregional body before we can conduct massive liberations and the like under a UR flag. This is a woefully sketchy outline, but you get the general idea. Sound interesting?

Similar copy of this in NationStates discussions -- feel free to take it down, since it really belongs in here. ;)
Click to expand...
I agree with tis idea. Full stream ahead. I only see benefits nothing possibly bad could come out of this I believe.
 
No problem, Grenval.

Well, the reasoning behind the policy of abandoning all other positions may seem unnecessary, but is very important if the person is a native of a member region -- they may use their position to benefit it. Granted, they might do so without having a position in their own region, but it would be slightly more difficult, since they would have no official office there.

And if there were regions/nations that were manipulating intelligence, they would be expelled or suffer whatever punishment decided upon by the GA.

EDIT: standard (note that it's unspoken) definition of invasion should be roughly "person or persons who illegally and/or forcefully seize the delegacy of a region."
 
I find this telegram in my inbox from a nation named Ruscan Knights. It was sent to me two days ago.

Ruscan Knights:
Greatings Grenval,
I have created a region named Irish Empire. I am obviously not here to recruit you to join me or anything along those lines. I have approached you to see what you, or those in your government, think about a United Regions. It would be what the true UN is in RL. Not the one that is on here.

Do not be put off by the youth in my nation. I have played this game for sometime. I just happened to lose my nations in a time were RL got me away and I did not have the opportunity to even keep them active.

The UR would, like I said before, be what the true UN is. Member nations would send an appointed or elected official to either the forums or the region, it is not required that they join the region, and that official would represent the region. The UR has yet to be established and after this is sent to you I will be meeting with others of varying regions. The first 5 regions to message me with the intent of joining will be on the Security Council. It will then be up to the majority vote of those 5, as well as the Irish Empire, to choose who else joins the UR. And it will take all 6 votes to add another region to the SC at a later date.

I am 100% sure that you and/or your government will have both doubts and questions. I can do nothing about your doubts and most likely will not be able to answer your questions since they will be political. And they will only be answered after the SC is established and creates a constitution of sorts. If you wish to wait that long you may. But if you wish to be on the SC and help create the laws than you are welcome to do that as well.

If you have any questions I will be glad to answer them as best I can. I understand that you will have to discuss this with your government first, but I would like to request that you all at least consider it.

Thank You,
Ruscan Knights
Click to expand...

Interesting... Do you know anything about this Americanicus I?

And no region named Irish Empire, nor The Irish Empire for that matter, exists.

[Edit: This was sent to The Grenvali United, not The North Pacific. I am just asking here because I know I can reach Americanicus I here easily.]
 
Ruscan Knights? Be very careful, Grenval; I think this is a nation of the same invader who destroyed our first forum. He has caught wind of plans and perhaps sees an opportunity to attempt a takeover, remoldeling, or sabotage of some sort.

If he is, be careful about involving your region with him; he practically destroyed four regions (and he was elected/appointed to the positions where he could do the damage).
 
Its an interesting idea, and one which I've had thoughts about before. However, as things stand I don't think TNP is strong enough to be involved- certainly not with the 'superpower' kind of status we should have- and secondly I'm not sure the UR currently is large enough to warrant TNP membership under current circumstances. However it is, I believe, certainly something to consider in the future.
 
Now I don't mean to sound like Dalimbar the arse ( tongue.gif ), but I am curious about how these things work. Thanks for all your help.
Click to expand...
I love you too :P

Anyways, I am indeed concerned on the representative point. If one is not a member of the government, how can they represent it? For example, if the Minister of External Affairs was not allowed to be a representative to the UR, how can one state that the Government of The North Pacific (by this I mean the Cabinet and the Executive branches, as well as the Minister incharge of the MoFA) is represented? Would a member of the Regional Assembly be allowed? By your defininition, no, they would not, as they hold a position as a member of the RA. Thus, I fail to understand the reasoning and intent for that clause, and its overall usefulness if a region is not allowed to have a member of the Government as a representative.

IV d) The Safety and Intelligence Commission of the United Regions (SICUR) shall act as a sub-division of the URSC, one that is controlled entirely by the permanent members of the Security Council, but whose information must be released to the other URSC members. No SICUR information may be disclosed except on authorization of the URSC as a whole or if that information is found to violate a member region.
Click to expand...
Please, give me a break on thinking that if one writes a law stating something, such as the above, that everyone will obey it, ect. No, I'm sorry, but even with conventions, regulations and laws, if two opposing bodies are in the UR, there is still a good chance that they will spy on eachother with the possible intent of doing something malicious. I'm speaking from knowledge here, as Deputy Director of a widely known (someways we want to be known, someways not... :P) intelligence group. As Grenval states, if a region is in the SICUR and has problems with a non-SICUR member, then there is again a good chance that they will manipulate, however illegally, the system to their own benifit.

Regarding invaderism/defenderism, does the UR condone raider activites? Is the UR a "defender group"? In situations, would the UR invade a region to meet its goals?

The standard definition as defined by the moderators of invader is found at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301703

All right, done for now. Forgive me for being an arse, I think I'm turning into a regionalist, lol.
 
Dalimbar:
Anyways, I am indeed concerned on the representative point. If one is not a member of the government, how can they represent it? For example, if the Minister of External Affairs was not allowed to be a representative to the UR, how can one state that the Government of The North Pacific (by this I mean the Cabinet and the Executive branches, as well as the Minister incharge of the MoFA) is represented? Would a member of the Regional Assembly be allowed? By your defininition, no, they would not, as they hold a position as a member of the RA. Thus, I fail to understand the reasoning and intent for that clause, and its overall usefulness if a region is not allowed to have a member of the Government as a representative.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think you keep missing the point that if the spying is discovered, both regions would be removed from the UR entirely.

As to not being able to hold positions in the UR, it says Representatives, not Ambassadors, are required to relinquish other positions/obligations. And the legality of an ambassador is determined by its own government. So if I went to the UR as an ambassador from TNP, it wouldn't be legitimate, because it wasn't sanctioned by External Affairs. If it were, and if I were the North Pacific ambassador, I could still be in the Regional Assembly. Representatives has different responsibilities.
 
Oops, forgot the invasion issue...

If, for example, a region is invaded either by an army or an individual who garners support (through influence or by force), the URSC may decide to intervene, its method being immediate disposal of the invader and the establishment of a UR peacekeeping team as the temporary government until a native (supported by the official government) has been selected as the new delegate. UR troops would then endorse that person and leave whenever they are requested to leave (note that they are not allowed to post messages on a region's RMB).

If internal disruption arises, however, and a native assumes the delegacy, then special permission from the government is needed before the UR can act. Do we defend raider organizations? Nominally, yes. The URSC has chosen to ignore the defense of some regions it doesn't like (i.e., raiders), but it has also decided to defend raider groups.

As I said before, we act like defenders, but just don't call ourselves that. . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top