|
|
Post by Githoniel on Apr 20, 2015 7:24:01 GMT -5
Ah yes, I think an alliance between Aszakaeria and I would suit nicely.
|
|
|
|
Post by aszakaeria on Apr 20, 2015 16:28:23 GMT -5
Well Gith, what shall we call it then? Just a standard trade agreement? Is it also a military alliance? Joint control of the straits? The Gith-Khan Free Trade Agreement? Alliance of the Straits?
|
|
|
|
Post by Githoniel on Apr 22, 2015 11:12:46 GMT -5
Well Gith, what shall we call it then? Just a standard trade agreement? Is it also a military alliance? Joint control of the straits? The Gith-Khan Free Trade Agreement? Alliance of the Straits? How about a defensive pact? An agreement to come to the aid of the other, provided the other is not the aggressor. So, for example, if I am attacked, you agree to come to my help, but you dont have to help if I declare war on someone else, and vice versa. And, naturally, free trade. I propose the name Concordiate of the Seas. Gott im Himmel might want in on it, too. What say you? |
|
|
|
Post by aszakaeria on Apr 22, 2015 15:21:31 GMT -5
Concordiate of the Seas? Hmm, it's interesting, I like it! Gott is certainly welcome to join this, though being in another geographic location he doesn't quite fit in our monopoly of the straits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Githoniel on Apr 23, 2015 3:49:32 GMT -5
That's true, although his location is useful for trade across the *other* sea (provided, of course, that Magnalucia isn't flat, hehe).
|
|
|
|
Post by gottimhimmelct on Apr 23, 2015 6:07:05 GMT -5
I would be interested in joining. As a sea- faring nation, I could send Navy in the event of war, and could lower, if not remove, tarriffs from participating nations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Githoniel on Apr 23, 2015 6:14:18 GMT -5
Here's the terms of the alliance so far:
+ Defensive alliance: we are obligated to assist the other in the event of aggression, but if one member starts the aggression, the other is not obligated to assist.
+ Each nation has reduced tariffs (or no tariffs) on the other member nations, to encourage solidarity in trade.
+ Each member nation gets a profit proportionate to what they put in; if 60% of the goods are yours, 60% of the profits are yours.
+ In the event of seizure of embargoed cargo, each nation gets a profit proportionate to population.
How does that sound to everyone? If that's okay, I'll draft up a formal treaty and post it on my factbook for others to copy as signatories.
|
|
|
|
Post by gottimhimmelct on Apr 23, 2015 7:13:23 GMT -5
That sounds goods good to me. If we wanted to take it a step further, we could do an EU type thing, and allow open immigration between member nations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Githoniel on Apr 23, 2015 7:45:54 GMT -5
*slams on brakes*
Nope. I like you and all; I don't like you that much. :/
Heh. Mostly a gut reaction seeing the immigration problems that the real EU has caused. (Mostly because I'm a US citizen, living in Germany, and trying to immigrate to the UK with my husband. I hate visa processing. Hate it. Hate hate hate hate.) How about visa-free visits for 6 months and priority/free visa processing for longer stays?
(Mostly because WTF it costs well over £2000 to get a visa. >.<)
|
|
|
|
Post by gottimhimmelct on Apr 23, 2015 8:46:07 GMT -5
.-. Okay then... I would be fine with your alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ventalia on Apr 23, 2015 11:12:39 GMT -5
This is very appealing and I'm definitely in on this alliance. Just a few ideas I'd like to float:
-The defense-side of the equation could perhaps go further. The nations of the CS could be proactive in joining conflicts before they reach member states if there is a compelling argument to do so (prevention of genocide, for example). This could be done by consensus vote.
-Ventalia is a nuclear armed nation by virtue of the way I've answered issues and has a keen space program. This is a great deterrent, and the nature of the Ventalian culture makes the weapons fairly taboo and never a primary resort. Knowing that you've voiced general opposition to nuclear weapons, perhaps an agreement could made stating that nuclear weapons may only be used in a CS operation if A) approved by consensus and B) other options, diplomatic and otherwise, have been exhausted.
|
|
|
|
Post by gottimhimmelct on Apr 23, 2015 13:50:17 GMT -5
I think nuclear weapons and other WMDs should be last resort at best. Destroying a population in a city only does more harm than good for an effort as it creates resentment in that populous. Wars are fought against regimes and governments. I am not for banning them but they should be used as a deterent against invasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Githoniel on Apr 23, 2015 14:03:31 GMT -5
Exactly what I would have said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ventalia on Apr 23, 2015 15:55:24 GMT -5
Indeed. So the principle on WMDs could read:
+Biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons may be deployed in Alliance missions if and only if:
i) Diplomatic, back-channel, and conventional military options have been exhausted.
ii) There is a consensus on their use to end current conflict.
iii) There is a consensus on their use to deter related future conflict.
iv) There is a consensus on a reconstruction and detoxification effort post-conflict.
And the principle on proactive use of force:
+The Alliance may initiate military action in the absence of an immediate threat to members provided:
i)There is a compelling argument to do so on moral or humanitarian grounds.
ii) There is a consensus on the use of force.
|
|
|
|
Post by aszakaeria on Apr 24, 2015 17:44:48 GMT -5
Well this has certainly kicked off, I don't think "Concordiate of the Seas" accurately reflects our latest additions. Perhaps we should call it the Confederation of East Concordia and South Regalia (CECSR).
As far as nuclear weapons go I propose that we limit our stockholds to where they currently stand and agree to not build any more. Everything else established about usage is perfectly acceptable by my standards, though I do not have any nor intend to have nuclear armed missiles any time in the near future.
All other trade deals and defensive allegiances are perfect. And I do quite like Vent's proposal of preemptive strikes and etc. However, to do so should be done in council if it's using our Allied armies to do so. Heretofore, I would like to propose the establishment of:
1) A combined multinational response force
2) A Peacekeeping Corps
3) A Health Administrations Corps
4) A council for our member to meet and negotiate matters of state and foreign diplomacy
All member nations would be required to contribute to the Response force, though they may withhold their committed soldiers in the event of nondefensive, preemptive, or otherwise offensive deployments if the nation itself does not with to embroil itself in conflict.
The council will discuss all matters pertaining to the peaceful existence between our members and the rest of the world.
Peacekeeping corps will deploy to member/foreign nations who either a)request their presence or b)a 2/3rds majority of member nations deem it necessary to deploy them.
And the health administration corps will be our combined efforts on health related issues (i.e. virus outbreak, natural disaster, war refugees, etc.) it will deploy to priority areas, assess them, and report to the council their findings. Council would then vote whether or not the case is worthy of response.
|
|
