Discussion [Discussion] Diplomatic issues

[joWhatup]

Shareholders of Lazarus,

I would like your opinion on two diplomatic affairs, since I want to make sure I represent the wishes of the Assembly and the region in my actions. I would like to hear your ideas and comments on these situations, related to our ongoing war with the Pacific and the recent events surrounding it. Therefore I propose two things:

An armistice with the NPO
First of all, this. PR Director Ryccia came up with this idea: it was determined a while ago that keeping the war with the NPO ongoing was the preferred method, even if it was more symbolic than it was out of practical reasons. The war has stalled, and no military action has been taken in months. Our ally Osiris has withdrawn from the war effort. Therefore, the armistice was proposed. It would do the following:

1. It would ensure the NPO can not take military or intelligence action against us. This would ensure that we are safe from their manipulation, at least for the duration of the armistice.
2. It signifies we didn't forgive the NPO. While the armistice prevents open hostilities, it would not be a peace treaty or signify we trust the NPO once more. The proscription would remain in place.
3. It gives us diplomatic room.Actions towards the West Pacific1. We chuck the treaty out the window.2. We renegotiate the treaty.3. We withdraw from the treaty while emphasizing that we not hold grudges.

 

[Mzeusia]

In regards to a possible armistice, I don't think that is a good idea. If they proposed an armistice, that would be a different matter, but Lazarus doing so would make Lazarus appear to be backing down. Also, the war could be restarted at a moments notice, which would obviously be harmful. Either continued hostilities or a more stable, lasting peace should be the goal.

As for the TWP actions, attempt to renegotiate the treaty because what they did has serious implications. They have acted poorly towards Lazarus and have called into question how much they value their relationship with this region. If a renegotiation does not bear fruit, withdraw and emphasise not holding grudges.

 

[Domais]

I think the Armistice is a dumb idea.

TWP's treaty with the NPO: Why should we through out a potential defender if our region is in strife just because they signed a new treaty? We could always just half ass our side of things to save face, while not actually caring.

 

[Deleted1]

Lets chuck the treaty out the window. If they really cared, they would have told us way beforehand. It is embarrassing.

Would an armistice keep them a hostile entity in our laws?

 

[joWhatup]

Lets chuck the treaty out the window. If they really cared, they would have told us way beforehand. It is embarrassing.

Would an armistice keep them a hostile entity in our laws?

The proscription would remain in force, yes. The exact terms of the armistice can be negotiated.

 

[Domais]

Also I think this is a public thread. Seeing that my resignation was viewable by others.

 

[whatermelons]

I fully support an armistice with the NPO. No, I don’t support them. No, what they did was bad. However we are getting nowhere by being in a Cold War with them. We are still a signatory in the APC, so we are protected from future aggressions by them.

However TWP has insulted us by signing this treaty. They obviously did not care to even think about us when they signed that treaty, meaning they would probably not care less if we chuck the entire treaty too. We should withdraw as soon as possible.

 

[New Rogernomics]

If we did an armistice, then that is still half way towards a peace agreement with the NPO, as it is a negotiated diplomatic and military stance through a third party i.e. TWP. For that reason I would argue that a Non-Aggression-Pact with the NPO is the more feasible alternative, as if the regional government declares that it will suspend military operations against the NPO it kinda undemines the point of being at war in the first place. Not to mention operations would risk being suspended just because a TWP citizen is on the other side.

Though an armistice also may have no basis in Lazarene law, and could be challenged as reneging on the war resolution passed by the assembly*. So I'd suggest against using a term that may have no legal basis. The Regional Guard may pause/suspend all operations against the NPO informally though and communicate that, whereas signing an armistice could be a binding diplomatic agreement contradicting the war resolution - which is going to make us look awful silly at mininum.

I no doubt disagree with Roavin on the NPO-Lazarus war resolution, though I'd prefer a debate and vote on repealing the NPO war resolution to something half-way like an armistice, as partly recognizing peace is possible makes us look pretty silly continuing the war.

*As any government in the future could hypothetically side-step/defy a war resolution passed by the assembly through a negotiated armistice. I don't know anywhere in the mandate or associated laws that provides such a power. I have asked for legal clarification on this matter.

 

[Roavin]

My opinion on the war on NPO is well-documented ("dumb" is the key adjective here), so an Armistice as a starting point sounds good to me in principle, BUT I assume NPO wouldn't even agree to that, precisely because it's so meaningless, and them agreeing to an armistice would be them actually acknowledging any remote threat that just doesn't even exist. So they'll probably counter offer with a NAP as a "take it or leave it" option.

Armistice = cessation of hostilities. There have been no hostilities, only Lazarus bending over backward and frowning at people to save face. Why not just end it already?

Regarding TWP, it's not that unusual in FA circles to not tell ally X about a possible alliance with region Y, though in some cases a bit of sensibility and a heads up is appropriate. Given the war (dumb or not), this is one of those cases. I think the way to handle this is to talk to TWP, frown at them, and let it slide otherwise.

 

[New Rogernomics]

My opinion on the war on NPO is well-documented ("dumb" is the key adjective here), so an Armistice as a starting point sounds good to me in principle, BUT I assume NPO wouldn't even agree to that, precisely because it's so meaningless, and them agreeing to an armistice would be them actually acknowledging any remote threat that just doesn't even exist. So they'll probably counter offer with a NAP as a "take it or leave it" option.[...]

I would agree with that. The official position of the NPO is that the declaration of war is a unilateral action of Lazarus that they haven't recognized, and since we haven't attacked them in The Pacific proper, we haven't really done much of anything against them, so an armistice could require them to a recognize a conflict that they have never recognized with a reciprocal war declaration. All the informal conversations with NPO folks I have had over the years lends credibility to the point of view that [the] NPO would be more than willing to quickly resolve the war with a Non-Aggression-Pact and bury the hatchet*. The other official position is that they want nothing to do with Lazarus, militarily or otherwise, and that any possible diplomatic relations with them is optional and down to what we would feel comfortable with.

*And I am pretty sure I'd be able to get a formal diplomatic statement to that effect from the NPO.

 

[joWhatup]

My opinion on the war on NPO is well-documented ("dumb" is the key adjective here), so an Armistice as a starting point sounds good to me in principle, BUT I assume NPO wouldn't even agree to that, precisely because it's so meaningless, and them agreeing to an armistice would be them actually acknowledging any remote threat that just doesn't even exist. So they'll probably counter offer with a NAP as a "take it or leave it" option.

do

 

[Roavin]

You assume wrongly.

Do you say that because you have talked to NPO leadership about it and/or have other prior knowledge? If not, my assumption is just as valid as yours (and I'd argue probably more likely to be true in this specific case).

 

[joWhatup]

You assume wrongly.

Do you say that because you have talked to NPO leadership about it and/or have other prior knowledge? If not, my assumption is just as valid as yours (and I'd argue probably more likely to be true in this specific case).

I asked Xoriet, current Legatus of the NPO, if the NPO would potentially agree to an armistice. So yes.

 

[Roavin]

Fair enough. Surprising, but okay.

 

[Demonos]

The Principality of Demonos supports any effort in peace. Give the armistice with NPO a sunset, though. Should signatories fail to comply to its articles and it expires, at least the situation that arrises won't be constrained with a perpetual armistice situation.

Pertaining to the Treaty with TWP. Do you think @joWhatup that the appraisal, "doesn't change our relationship [between us] at all", is a good description for what would happen should the treaty be "chucked out"? Why not renegotiate? The effort would signal an intention to remain diplomatic and cooperative, at least. By renegotiating we could establish conditions that Lazarus and TWP could be happier with. The project needs to insure better conditions or don't even bother with it: withdraw. Perhaps custom may develop instead of statute...

 

[McChimp]

It seems incongruous that you would throw out relations with the West Pacific because they made a treaty with the NPO and make peace with the NPO because of it.

The "armistice" you propose is peace by another name and should be subject to all the provisions of the Assembly that ending the war would be. I am against it for all the same reasons I am against ending the war. Give us more than rebrands.

 

[joWhatup]

My personal preferred option is renegotiating, yes. It would both say "we don't want allies that do not regard us as allies proper" while also saying "we are still open to closer ties in the future, but not right now."

 

[Roavin]

NPO also signed with Balder now.

 

[New Rogernomics]

NPO also signed with Balder now.

Though we don't have treaties with them like with TWP.

We aren't in a rush to sign with Balder either.

Regardless of an armistice or peace with the NPO, I'd guess the question would stlll stand i.e. should there be re-negotiation, repeal, or just a diplomatic statement of disapproval - which TWP will likely acknowledge or shrug off in some fashion.