A motion to recall our IDU-TNP treaty or alternatively, reduce its terms.

unibot

unibot

TNPer
As the title says; our region is currently required to vote "FOR" any IDU-authored resolution in the WA, if there is a tie among our voters. Frankly , IDU's policies do not always coincide with our voters' philosophies and I don't think we should be selling our democracy like this unless there's a good reason to do so.

I know I created a similar treaty between Dharma and Capitalist Paradise -- but at the time, Dharma was a powerhouse defender and WA region; IDU does not have the same defense capabilities -- they're untrained, minus two UDLers and would have to be rounded like kittens to do anything to help TNP if we were actually being coup'd.

Back when I was an active WA Author, I would have given my right arm for such a deal as we've given IDU (advantages in the WA mean so much more to WA authors) -- we should have rode a harder bid at the very least and required their regional members to be trained to defend with the NPA. If IDU doesn't want to do such a thing, we should be passing those treaty advantages to some other region who *does* want to work harder to earn such an advantage in the WA or, simply, letting our vote be determined by our voters, not foreign affairs.
 
I second this. While the Security Council might be a different matter, it's ludicrous for TNP's vote in the General Assembly to be bound by our treaty alliance with IDU. This shouldn't have been included in the treaty in the first place and if that much of TNP's democratic process was going to be ceded then it should have been accompanied by a much stronger commitment from IDU, as Unibot said.
 
Just as a note the treaty's quite clear that if a plurality of voters here are against the resolution, it does not apply.
 
The total ignorance of the long history and relationship between the IDU and TNP is simply appalling

The IDU relationship does not involve and has never involved military relationship. I consider the motion a personal insult towards those of us who have long dealt with and working with the IDU.

Unibot, you should be ashamed of yourself. Deeply, Deeply ashamed.

If this and some of your other behaviors in recent weeks is a true reflection of how you do things, I will be seeking to have you removed from the Council of Five, because what you've been doing is not politically representative of TNP.
 
And Carmac Stark, you might want to learn about the long history of the IDU and TNP before stepping into this controversy.

The only other explanation would reflect poorly upon your nation as a whole.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
And Carmac Stark, you might want to learn about the long history of the IDU and TNP before stepping into this controversy.

The only other explanation would reflect poorly upon your nation as a whole.
Click to expand...
That would be Cormac*, and while you're right that I am ignorant of the history between TNP and IDU I still don't see any reason why under any circumstances TNP's vote in the General Assembly should be dictated by another region -- even if in the event of a tie, and even if it's the closest ally TNP has ever had.
 
I'm opposed to repealing the treaty. After doing research into TNP-IDU's relationship it seems that our two regions have had relations for 6 years are are linked by being founded by refugees from TNP who fled during the delegacy of Great Bight, such a link should not simply be thrown away. On top of that, IDU are a neutral region from what I can see, and should not be pushed into helping the NPA, like you are suggesting. Also, why on earth does every treaty have to involve some kind of military alliance? I'll admit I myself abstained on the treaty at the time (due to lack of information about the relationship between our two regions), but now I fully believe this treaty should be kept in place.
 
Current Treaty:
Cognizant of our shared origins and the long-standing commonality between us, we endeavor to support one another in the pursuit of our freedom and enjoyment.
1. The parties to this treaty are International Democratic Union and The North Pacific.
2. The parties will recognize the constitutional governments in force at the time of ratification of this treaty as the sole legitimate governments of their respective regions.
3. The parties will not undermine one another through subterfuge, espionage, invasion, or any other means.
4. The parties will defend one another to the best of their ability on the request of the other party.
5. The parties will share any intelligence relevant to the defense of the other party.
6. The parties will support resolutions proposed by members of the other party in the General Assembly by a Delegate vote in favor within a minute of it reaching the floor so long as (i) the other party publicly registered the request sufficiently in advance, (ii) accommodated any limitations as to when the Delegate may be available to vote, and (iii) provided that a plurality of active WA members in the Delegate’s region do not thereafter object to the resolution while it is at vote.
7. A new treaty between the parties may override this treaty.
Signed,
Delegate Blue Wolf II of The North Pacific
Delegate Sanctaria of the International Democratic Union
Click to expand...
 
Eluvatar:
And how would you suggest getting Ossitania to sign off?
Click to expand...
To be frank, this provision shouldn't have been included in the treaty in the first place. It's entirely one-sided; they receive a massive number of votes for their proposal even though half of TNP's own citizens voted against while we receive -- what, exactly? Sure, they would have to do the same for us, but GA resolutions are much more important to their region than to ours. And as Unibot pointed out, they are not well prepared to fulfill their obligation to defend TNP if necessary.

It may seem odd that I'm making an issue of this given that I voted for the proposal in question. I'm making an issue of it because I don't like lopsided treaty alliances and that's what this appears to be.

EDIT: That said, having previously been unaware of the significant history between the two regions, I defer to those who have been in TNP longer and withdraw my support for Unibot's proposal. But I maintain that this treaty alliance is lopsided in favor of IDU.
 
Some factors to consider are how strongly TNP feels about the WA (the level of cost), particularly when we haven't made up our own mind, how big a deal it is for IDU to pledge any kind of military assistance, and how unlikely it is that they would ever need our military assistance.
 
The IDU is not a military region. As a former Delegate in both regions, I can attest that the grounds for the foundation of the IDU was its founders' desire to participate in the then NSUN (now the WA) free of the raider-defender rubric.

The IDU is neither raider or defender, has no interest in raider-defender, and insistence that all treaties made by TNP must solely involve military force is ludicrous. TNP and the IDU have a history of working together on UN/WA matters. There was a period of time when, after Great Bight the founders of the IDU worked closely with TNP's government on NSUN matters, even making one of the IDU founder's a moderator of the official forums to maintain TNP's repository on NSUN matters.

Looking only at numbers without looking at the symbolism for both regions is a disservice.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I have no issue with the current treaty as it stands. This proposal is scratching where it doesn't itch.
Click to expand...
And changing the treaty might result in unneeded complexities in terms of foreign relations. This is, indeed, scratching where it doesn't itch.
 
Romanoffia:
Great Bights Mum:
I have no issue with the current treaty as it stands. This proposal is scratching where it doesn't itch.
Click to expand...
And changing the treaty might result in unneeded complexities in terms of foreign relations. This is, indeed, scratching where it doesn't itch.
Click to expand...
:agree: I'm satisfied with the current treaty.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The total ignorance of the long history and relationship between the IDU and TNP is simply appalling

The IDU relationship does not involve and has never involved military relationship. I consider the motion a personal insult towards those of us who have long dealt with and working with the IDU.

Unibot, you should be ashamed of yourself. Deeply, Deeply ashamed.

If this and some of your other behaviors in recent weeks is a true reflection of how you do things, I will be seeking to have you removed from the Council of Five, because what you've been doing is not politically representative of TNP.
Click to expand...
Grosse, if the treaty is not militarily-beneficial.. then how is it beneficial at all to TNP? I say this because I *don't* know IDU-TNP's history. The reason being: IDU hasn't done a dahm thing for TNP since I've been a player in NationStates (2008-ish).

Furthermore, if they were once engaged with us in the WA -- I'd love to organize something in the WA with the IDU; but the treaty with IDU doesn't make out any cultural provisions; if they don't want to work with us, they don't have to.. but if we don't want to vote their way during a tie, we have to. It doesn't make any sense except in a historical context that spans generations -- most of the people in charge of IDU weren't even around when this went on except of course, Bears and you.
 
I'm not sure why this is such a big issue. Basically the WA thing just makes us vote for until there is a majority of nay votes, and when there's a tie we must vote for. Sorry if this acts against what you would like to see in the GA this time, but it's not a bad treaty.
 
I propose a swift, repeal and replace, or simply, cut the red tape and propose a revision of the treaty's content to IDU.
 
unibot:
Grosseschnauzer:
The total ignorance of the long history and relationship between the IDU and TNP is simply appalling

The IDU relationship does not involve and has never involved military relationship. I consider the motion a personal insult towards those of us who have long dealt with and working with the IDU.

Unibot, you should be ashamed of yourself. Deeply, Deeply ashamed.

If this and some of your other behaviors in recent weeks is a true reflection of how you do things, I will be seeking to have you removed from the Council of Five, because what you've been doing is not politically representative of TNP.
Click to expand...
Grosse, if the treaty is not militarily-beneficial.. then how is it beneficial at all to TNP? I say this because I *don't* know IDU-TNP's history. The reason being: IDU hasn't done a dahm thing for TNP since I've been a player in NationStates (2008-ish).

Furthermore, if they were once engaged with us in the WA -- I'd love to organize something in the WA with the IDU; but the treaty with IDU doesn't make out any cultural provisions; if they don't want to work with us, they don't have to.. but if we don't want to vote their way during a tie, we have to. It doesn't make any sense except in a historical context that spans generations -- most of the people in charge of IDU weren't even around when this went on except of course, Bears and you.
Click to expand...
Unibot, you've illicited probably the harshest words from Grosse that I have ever seen.

Well done!

I take the most issue with this comment:

Grosse, if the treaty is not militarily-beneficial.. then how is it beneficial at all to TNP?
Click to expand...

It's not all about the military, there's also cultural similarities/history.

I become very nervous in a world dominated by you...very nervous.
 
Funkadelia:
Blue Wolf II:
You know, I'm left to wonder what the real motive behind this actually is.
Click to expand...
The motive behind what, the treaty or the suggestion of a recall?
Click to expand...
The suggestion of a recall. Unibot has an unfortunate habit of including a personal interest in just about everything he does here. I find he very rarely acts on behalf or for the benefit of TNP itself.
 
To be fair Unibot doesn't gain anything from Numismatics Appreciation Act remaining on the books; he just thinks it'd be better if it did.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Funkadelia:
Blue Wolf II:
You know, I'm left to wonder what the real motive behind this actually is.
Click to expand...
The motive behind what, the treaty or the suggestion of a recall?
Click to expand...
The suggestion of a recall. Unibot has an unfortunate habit of including a personal interest in just about everything he does here. I find he very rarely acts on behalf or for the benefit of TNP itself.
Click to expand...
Ah, in that case I'd have to agree.
 
Funkadelia:
Blue Wolf II:
Funkadelia:
Blue Wolf II:
You know, I'm left to wonder what the real motive behind this actually is.
Click to expand...
The motive behind what, the treaty or the suggestion of a recall?
Click to expand...
The suggestion of a recall. Unibot has an unfortunate habit of including a personal interest in just about everything he does here. I find he very rarely acts on behalf or for the benefit of TNP itself.
Click to expand...
Ah, in that case I'd have to agree.
Click to expand...
I do as well.
 
After careful consideration, I see no reason why this treaty has become an issue at all. I am against repealing it. Though if someone wants to persue tbis issue, the maybe they should talk to the IDU about changes in the current treaty instead of forcing a repeal vote.
 
Eluvatar:
To be fair Unibot doesn't gain anything from Numismatics Appreciation Act remaining on the books; he just thinks it'd be better if it did.
Click to expand...
I think that may be a wee bit naive, Elu.

Looking at what he actually said provides us with clear motivation behind this motion.

we should be passing those treaty advantages to some other region who *does* want to work harder to earn such an advantage in the WA or
Click to expand...

Those advantages are 1) influence in our WA vote and 2) military connections. It is not a stretch to see where he's going with this is it?

What region/organization do you think would be at the top of the list for TNP to become aligned and pass along those treaty advantages?
 
mcmasterdonia:
Romanoffia:
Great Bights Mum:
I have no issue with the current treaty as it stands. This proposal is scratching where it doesn't itch.
Click to expand...
And changing the treaty might result in unneeded complexities in terms of foreign relations. This is, indeed, scratching where it doesn't itch.
Click to expand...
:agree: I'm satisfied with the current treaty.
Click to expand...
:agree: I'm satisfied as well.
 
I find it funny that Unibot just a few days ago was talking about how he's concerned about foreign relations but then turns around and suggests we throw out a longstanding treaty because it goes against his wishes once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top