TNP-Balder Security Treaty

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
Hi all!

We have been working on this security treaty between Balder and The North Pacific. This is just a drafting stage of the treaty, so feel free to suggest changes and ask questions. Once both regions are satisfied of any changes, I will move it through to a vote.

The North Pacific and Balder Security Treaty

Preamble

We, the regions of The North Pacific and Balder, in the interest of regional security, continued stability, and prolonged friendship, hereby enter into this pact to ensure the safe and continuous development of our parallel states as GCR brethren.

Article I: Non-Aggression Between Signatories
  • 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 and will not undermine or attempt to overthrow the other's regional government.
  • The parties will not undermine one another's security, regional identity, or sovereignty through subterfuge, espionage, invasion, or any other means.
Article II: Cooperation Between Signatories
  • The parties will defend one another against attack, either internal or external, with all available diplomatic and military resources at the request of the other party's legitimate government.
  • The signatories agree to share any intelligence relating to the security of the other party. This includes information relating to both regional and forum security.
  • The signatories agree to cooperate in the organizing and hosting of cultural events.
  • The signatories will aim to cooperate on military training exercises.

Article III Termination of Treaty
  • If a signatory region wishes to terminate this agreement they must give five days notice on the forum of the other region.
  • Termination of this agreement shall not be seen as an act of war or hostility.

Signed,

newsignature_zps6e8398de.png

Jamie Anumia
Delegate of the North Pacific
2emz8kn.png

Rachel Anumia
Queen of The Realm of Balder
Click to expand...
 
I like the way our delegate has already signed the thing despite it being only in draft stage :lol:

Shows we are keen.
 
If you look at the other drafts that we have discussed before that is the standard practice. Both Delegates have given their approval to this draft.
 
This draft looks fine to me. This may be off-topic, but are the two delegates related in-game?
 
a. Bel is right, b. Nominally, it's mother/son. However:

While this looks "standard" enough, I'm not exactly one for making treaties left right and centre. We're already allied with 6 regions, and tbh, from my point of view if you have too many they start to become meaningless. On a more general note, but still related, what would happen if one of our other allies attacked Balder (or vice versa)? Where does that leave our requirement to defend our allies?

I think we have to be a little more careful before we enter into -yet another- of these treaties. What would we gain from this? How many endorsements are we likely to gain -extra- in a crisis if we're treatied, as opposed to currently? Treaties need to be an expression of especially close relations and an extra desire to defend each other...forgive me, but I'm not seeing that right now.
 
Abbey Anumia:
a. Bel is right, b. Nominally, it's mother/son. However:

While this looks "standard" enough, I'm not exactly one for making treaties left right and centre. We're already allied with 6 regions, and tbh, from my point of view if you have too many they start to become meaningless. On a more general note, but still related, what would happen if one of our other allies attacked Balder (or vice versa)? Where does that leave our requirement to defend our allies?

I think we have to be a little more careful before we enter into -yet another- of these treaties. What would we gain from this? How many endorsements are we likely to gain -extra- in a crisis if we're treatied, as opposed to currently? Treaties need to be an expression of especially close relations and an extra desire to defend each other...forgive me, but I'm not seeing that right now.
Click to expand...
says Rachel Anumia's granddaughter/Jamie Anumia's niece?

Why hasn't anybody published the Anumia family tree? A project for the university methinks, in the interests of transparent governance.
 
I'm not sure how any NS family has any bearing on this discussion and how people are related to who is relevant. In my opinion, disclosing any of such info is in the interests of 'transparent governance' is silly and regardless it is another debate completely.
 
Abbey Anumia:
While this looks "standard" enough, I'm not exactly one for making treaties left right and centre. We're already allied with 6 regions, and tbh, from my point of view if you have too many they start to become meaningless. On a more general note, but still related, what would happen if one of our other allies attacked Balder (or vice versa)? Where does that leave our requirement to defend our allies?

I think we have to be a little more careful before we enter into -yet another- of these treaties. What would we gain from this? How many endorsements are we likely to gain -extra- in a crisis if we're treatied, as opposed to currently? Treaties need to be an expression of especially close relations and an extra desire to defend each other...forgive me, but I'm not seeing that right now.
Click to expand...
Well, you're in the NPA so you'd be directly affected by this security treaty in case things go south for Balder. We are a larger region, so doesn't that mean they would be more likely to be invaded?
 
Jamie:
I'm not sure how any NS family has any bearing on this discussion and how people are related to who is relevant. In my opinion, disclosing any of such info is in the interests of 'transparent governance' is silly and regardless it is another debate completely.
Click to expand...
Ok, if you think it's silly I won't do it then.

Silly is the last thing I want to be.

I think a treaty with Balder is fine but Abbey raises some serious points that ought to be at least considered if not fully answered.
 
Abbey Anumia:
I'm not exactly one for making treaties left right and centre.
Click to expand...

Nor am I. Is this occurring?

Abbey Anumia:
We're already allied with 6 regions, and tbh, from my point of view if you have too many they start to become meaningless. On a more general note, but still related, what would happen if one of our other allies attacked Balder (or vice versa)? Where does that leave our requirement to defend our allies?
Click to expand...

We are allied with six regions. It is notable however that two of our major allies The South Pacific and Osiris, both share treaties with Balder as well. It is highly unlikely that this would draw us into a conflict between them and Balder, and if it did, it would require them to remove their treaty first or otherwise violate it.

Of our other allies, Stargate is concerned primarily with it's domestic security and would not attack another of our allies. Taijitu does not have the capacity to do so at this current time, and as a primarily defender or neutral region is unlikely to do so. The International Democratic Union does not get involved in military gameplay, and would not take a strike against one of our allies, or even any region. I would also find it unlikely for Equilism to do so, given their pro-stance on Regional Soveriegnty and the links that Equilism shares with The North Pacific, TSP, Osiris etc.

I think we have to be a little more careful before we enter into -yet another- of these treaties. What would we gain from this? How many endorsements are we likely to gain -extra- in a crisis if we're treatied, as opposed to currently? Treaties need to be an expression of especially close relations and an extra desire to defend each other...forgive me, but I'm not seeing that right now.
Click to expand...

The History of The North Pacific and Balders relationship (in list form):
  • Offers of assistance from then Delegate Charles Cerebella, during the crisis following Eluvatar's recall, and the unendorsement campaign that followed.
  • Assistance in the Delegacy transition from Former English Colony to McMasterdonia, Assistance in the Delegacy Transition from Charles Cerebella to Solorni
  • Military collaboration and team work on the Reich and The Greater German Reich raids.
  • Balder was of vital assistance during the Liberation Attempts of the South Pacific. I personally worked extensively with Balder's War Minister Isidor Anumia on that matter.

Other related matters of regional and forum security. There are also likely things that I have missed.

What is in it for us, well. In the view of the Delegate and I, this is a way of continuing to strengthen our relations with Balder as well as striving towards the continued goal of GCR Unity. It's a way of recognizing the good work that has been done between the North Pacific and Balder, and encouraging it to continue. I think it is unlikely for Balder or The North Pacific to act against each other, or to act against an allied region that we currently hold, and therefore unlikely to cause friction between us. I also think that many TNPers have a great affinity to some of the members of Balder, which is another reason we pursued this treaty.

I want to make it absolutely clear that it is not the intention of the Government to be signing treaties here and there without meaning. This was agreed to after careful thought and due consideration was given to the relationship between our two regions.
 
I'm not a fan of meaningless treaties, but like MC note that TNP and Balder have significant common history, shared allies and shared interests. I think there is an existing relationship there that deserves to be formalized via a treaty.
 
I would like to thank the minister for considering all of the concerns raised by Abbey Anumia and responding to them.

I believe you are now setting a good precedent for any future treaties that are brought to the Regional Assembly.

I will be voting for this treaty.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Truly an unbiased opinion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, perhaps not. I've also expressed support in the Riksdag discussion- I truly believe as one who can view this from both sides that this would be beneficial for Balder and TNP.
 
Funkadelia:
Funkadelia shakes his fist at all of these cosmopolitan heathens.
Click to expand...
In my defense, I do my best to fulfill all my commitments (and avoid conflicts of interest).
 
Such a treaty has merit, and I am supportive of it based on what I've read.
 
Balder's Riksdag and Cabinet is pleased with this draft. If anyone would like any other questions answered or has an issue with the wording or the treaty as a whole, I'd like to hear from you soon :)
 
Funkadelia:
Wow, with all these treaties just imagine how many people we could potentially nail on treason charges! Start rubbing your hands together, TNPers!
Click to expand...
Shsssss! Don't say that. TNP is already prosecution happy and the courts are tied up already with cases that move slower than a sloth's colon!
 
I am truly sorry for the slow reply!
The North Pacific and Balder Security Treaty

Article II: Cooperation Between Signatories
  • The parties will defend one another against attack, either internal or external, with all available diplomatic and military resources at the request of the other party's legitimate government.
  • The signatories agree to share any intelligence relating to the security of the other party. This includes information relating to both regional and forum security.
  • The signatories agree to cooperate in the organizing and hosting of cultural events.
  • The signatories will aim to cooperate on military training exercises.
Click to expand...
What does "agree to" mean? Does it mean "shall" or "should"?
What are the consequences of TNP or Balder breaking (not terminating) this treaty in any way?

Jamie:
I'm not sure how any NS family has any bearing on this discussion and how people are related to who is relevant. In my opinion, disclosing any of such info is in the interests of 'transparent governance' is silly and regardless it is another debate completely.
Click to expand...
Honorable Legitimate Delegate,
I am sorry that you feel this way. Since you are related in some way to the Delegate of Balder, your opinion cannot be seen as unbiased.
(If you were a Court Justice or Attorney General, would you recuse yourself from the trial of someone in your family?)

Funkadelia:
Funkadelia shakes his fist at all of these cosmopolitan heathens.
Click to expand...
Agreed.


Lord Byron
 
I believe that agree to means that we agree to :P I would take it as shall.

Balder's Riksdag has given this treaty unanimous approval. I would like to motion this treaty to a vote.
 
This treaty will now enter formal debate, which will last a maximum of five days (until 10PM EDT, July 4th). Formal debate is the last chance for any changes to be made to the treaty's text.

Formal debate can be ended as soon as mcm wishes to do so. The treaty will then have two days to acquire a second, after which a vote will be scheduled.
 
Thanks, SillyString! Your knowledge of parliamentary rules is appreciated.

Edit: I was half-asking in my previous post. :spin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top