+- Forums (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum)
+-- Forum: Second Floor (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Forum: Board Meeting Room (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+---- Forum: Past Proposals & Discussions (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=50)
+---- Thread: [Discussion] Diplomatic issues (/showthread.php?tid=1515)
Pages:
1
2
[Discussion] Diplomatic issues - joWhatup - 06-11-2020
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 Our ally Osiris has withdrawn from the war effort.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. As recent events with TWP show, the NPO is being accepted again by the Feeders, and we run the risk of becoming isolated from potential allies due to the war. The armistice would allow us to operate a bit more freely, since open hostilities wouldn't be a concern for the duration of the armistice.
This is, of course, subject to the approval of the Assembly. I'd like to know what you all think of the idea, whether we should attempt to negotiate an armistice or we should continue as is.
Actions towards the West Pacific
This will take some explaining. As you might already know, the West Pacific signed a treaty with the NPO. We did not know this beforehand: in fact, we were only approached when the treaty was signed and ready to be published, and the treaty was published before I was available to express any concerns on behalf of the region. The West Pacific's foreign minister did not ask if we had any concerns or comments on the treaty, simply stating this "doesn't change our relationship with [Laz] at all". Apparently our war with the NPO did not mean anything to them and our opinion didn't matter enough to inform us earlier on.
This signifies that the West Pacific did not care for our opinion, and indeed, did not bother to ask for it beforehand. This presents a problem, as we are currently allied with the West Pacific through the Treaty of Fuhuo. We can choose not to do anything, or we can act in the following ways:
1. We chuck the treaty out the window. This is the agressive route we can take, and it would involve releasing a public statement and withdrawing from the treaty. It would signal we do not simply accept the way we were treated and that we expect better from our allies, but it is the more extreme option.
2. We renegotiate the treaty. Less extreme action can be taken by renegotiating our alliance to a non-agression pact. It would ensure the West Pacific can not support the NPO in offensive military actions against Lazarus. Furthermore, it would signal that we think the way this was conducted is unacceptable between close allies and that we expect better, while also not completely closing out closer ties in the future. A statement would be drafted up expressing our regret but that we do not think the treaty as it stands suits our interests.
3. We withdraw from the treaty while emphasizing that we not hold grudges. We would dissolve the treaty, but make a statement saying that we do not harbour ill will towards the West.
I would also like your opinion on this. We find ourselves in a complicated situation, and I want to ensure mine and Ryccia's actions have the support of the region. Please let us know what you think in this thread. Depending on the answers, we will deliberate a course of action.
RE: Diplomatic issues - Mzeusia - 06-11-2020
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.
RE: Diplomatic issues - Domais - 06-11-2020
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.
RE: Diplomatic issues - Debussy - 06-11-2020
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?
RE: Diplomatic issues - joWhatup - 06-11-2020
Debussy;9800 Wrote:Lets chuck the treaty out the window. If they really cared, they would have told us way beforehand. It is embarrassing.The proscription would remain in force, yes. The exact terms of the armistice can be negotiated.
Would an armistice keep them a hostile entity in our laws?
RE: Diplomatic issues - Domais - 06-12-2020
Also I think this is a public thread. Seeing that my resignation was viewable by others.
RE: Diplomatic issues - whatermelons - 06-12-2020
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.
RE: Diplomatic issues - New Rogernomics - 06-12-2020
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.
RE: Diplomatic issues - Roavin - 06-12-2020
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.
RE: Diplomatic issues - New Rogernomics - 06-12-2020
Roavin;9806 Wrote: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.