Statement on The Coup of The South Pacific

Gaspo:

Jamie was rather explicit. Here's what he said, in this very thread:

I think it's the right phrase to use, since as, said by McMasterdonia, it's being used to show that Milograd is unwelcome in the sense that he is not an official representative of the The South Pacific government

Click to expand...

That statement, evidently, was a lie. Jamie was unequivocal - he explicitly confined the declaration of persona non grata to Milograd attempting to represent The South Pacific. The Pacific considered this very public, very clear statement from the Delegate of The North Pacific when considering Milograd's appointment. We believed, erroneously it would seem, that The North Pacific would abide by its word, would keep its promises. That is clearly not the case.

Click to expand...

I think you are reading too much into Jamie's original statement. At the time, Milograd was only present on our forum in one capacity - a representative of TSP. You seem to think that Jamie's statement was intended to distinguish between representing TSP and representing other regions, but if you look at the context of his remarks, it was distinguishing between representing TSP and other possible roles in our region, such as entering the region or becoming a citizen.

Jamie's statements are not in conflict. I think that the NPO is overreacting to a simple request to send a different ambassador to our region.

Eluvatar:

Given what relations between our regions were like in 2004, I think we'll live.

Click to expand...

If we want to talk ancient history, let's talk about TNP's complete failure to abide by promises to investigate its illegal espionage against The Pacific in 2007. Let's talk about 2 months of promises for a statement and an apology, which never happened. Let's talk about years of documented NPIA attempts to undermine and destabilize The Pacific. You want to dig up ancient history, that cuts both ways, but really it's entirely irrelevant here. None of the people involved at that time are involved in this matter, on either side, so bringing it up here is nothing more than an attempt to bait us into a straw man argument.


COE: I fear your conclusions are based on incomplete facts regarding the reason for Jamie's original clarification. I will do what I can to locate the records I possess which may enlighten you and others.

Gaspo:

Eluvatar:

Given what relations between our regions were like in 2004, I think we'll live.

Click to expand...

If we want to talk ancient history, let's talk about TNP's complete failure to abide by promises to investigate its illegal espionage against The Pacific in 2007. Let's talk about 2 months of promises for a statement and an apology, which never happened.

Click to expand...

False.

Gaspo:

Let's talk about years of documented NPIA attempts to undermine and destabilize The Pacific.

Click to expand...

Gaspo:

You want to dig up ancient history, that cuts both ways, but really it's entirely irrelevant here.

Click to expand...

Gaspo:

None of the people involved at that time are involved in this matter, on either side, so bringing it up here is nothing more than an attempt to bait us into a straw man argument.

Click to expand...

You said irreparable. That draws one to consider what has been repaired in the past. Clearly, one has to agree that far greater damages to relations have been repaired.

Gaspo:

COE: I fear your conclusions are based on incomplete facts regarding the reason for Jamie's original clarification. I will do what I can to locate the records I possess which may enlighten you and others.

Click to expand...

Without such records, your position looks very extraordinary, that's for sure.

The Pacific's leadership can choose whether or not to practice diplomatic finesse. Or perhaps they are not very good at it, I don't know.

If they considered, as Gaspo indicated, how the appointment might be received here, then the possibility of our displeasure must have been a factor in their deliberation. When they realized, rather quickly, that their assumption regarding Milo's reception here was in error, the ball was in their court to make the next diplomatic (or not so diplomatic move.)

The "let's make nicey-nice" thing to say would have been, "It appears there was a misunderstanding as to the extent of Milo's PNG status in TNP. Let's look at ways we can resolve this."

Instead we get NPO Senators saying things like "You can't tell us what to do," "You're liars and we can never trust you again," and the rest of what sounds like stuff that a little counseling could help them leave at the door.

The bottom line is this: How the NPO chooses to respond is indicative of their objectives vis-a-vis TNP relations.

Great Bights Mum:

If they considered, as Gaspo indicated, how the appointment might be received here, then the possibility of our displeasure must have been a factor in their deliberation. When they realized, rather quickly, that their assumption regarding Milo's reception here was in error,

Click to expand...

There's also the possibility that their assumption was not in error, and they're just trying to stir up trouble.

But I'm just the Speaker. I don't have a head for all this diplomatical stuff