|
|
Post by Austerain on Apr 29, 2017 2:49:32 GMT
Member States of SLU,
Many of you have been posting and telegramming me with your concerns about the military operations planned, so I will brief you all in full how this first came up, our reasonings for it, and the objectives.
It came to my attention from the Speaker and Members of the Cabinet that the region called Eurasian Socialist Union is under control of the Kingdom of Great Britain, a prominent imperialist raiding region that is allied with The Invaders (this region should sound familiar enough). The Social Liberal Union has a treaty (T-2) with ESU which states,
While both parties have neglected the provisions of the treaty, we felt that we should begin honoring our commitments by taking control of the region back from the regime in control to return back to any remaining natives (or those forced out). The mission would be likely easy and successful since the WAD there only has TWO endorsements. When the Cabinet discussed this mission we laid out suggestions, concerns, and goals:
1) Reach out to old members about the mission for them to return or assist. Refound for the old members.
2) Reach out to regions we have embassies with such as The Region With No Big Banks to assist in the mission
3) Using this operation as a sort of training mission in the case that we pass any more treaties requiring military support from either party.
4) There was a concern that if natives didn't want to return that this would be a wasted mission, but see #3 as possible rebuttal
5) We agreed that the mission would be a significant blow and show of force against the region that invaded our own region and those associated with it (a sort of "big middle finger", as one individual in the Cabinet meeting described it).
6) There were concerns over the legality, though the Speaker was consulted, who confirmed that "as long as the current constitution is in effect, it is technically legal given our treaty".
7) One individual expressed concern over retaliation by the Invaders and the Kingdom of Great Britain returning to invade us, but this would be nearly impossible since we have an active Founder. Most smart Raiders wouldn't attempt to invade a region with an active Founder if they were even considering it.
8) I expressed my reluctance of "the idea of having [ESU] occupied by a region allied with the region that occupied us" when one individual pointed out that they didn't help us when we were raided. See #3 and #5.
In addition to the concerns to #8, it was suggested that we repeal the treaty. This can be an option if the members of the region remain reluctant to pursue this operation and decide against continuing it, though I'd much rather make up for our commitments first. I believe this would be a great activity to members to take part in.
So, what say you, SLU? Would you be open to pursuing this operation as an opportunity to make up for our commitments from a treaty and to use this as a training mission for future defense commitments in future treaties? Or would you rather save the time and effort? If more of you remain against this, I will order this operation terminated and we will not pursue any further action with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dermin on Apr 29, 2017 3:12:38 GMT
The treaty states that we must have the "implied or explicit consent of the aggrieved party." We have neither. Nobody from the ESU has reached out to us, and if they have then it would be wise to reveal so. Being raided is not implying consent.
The SLU does not need training missions because we are, as has been pointed out before, not a military region. We can defend ourselves because we have an active delegate and a founder.
None of our allies, including the ESU, came to our defense when we were raided. This should mean that they have betrayed the agreement. If they are not willing to commit, why should we? You said the invading delegate has two endorsements, perhaps this would be a good time for the ESU's military to get some training of its own.
This mission is an unnecessary change of policy that is only technically legal. I think it's safe to say this is not in the best interest of the SLU at large.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 3:25:25 GMT
We are in full support.
|
|
|
|
Post by Austerain on Apr 29, 2017 3:26:48 GMT
Did we reach out to them when we were invaded? I expect not.
This mission wouldn't be a "change of policy", nor would it be a shift towards becoming a "military region" (the latter is a grossly emotional and overreactive assessment). We are not going full scale defender or full scale invader. If we're not going to have some sort of body organized to defend our allies, we shouldn't be making provisions promising such. If we are going to keep making such provisions for treaties, we'll need an organized force to commit ourselves to them along with training missions.
I will be proposing a repeal of the treaty in the coming days. But in the meantime, how do you feel that an ally of a region that invaded us is holding a region that aligned with our ideology? Even if its old members aren't interested in returning, I'd say the refounding effort and protecting it (maybe until ESU members decide to return) is worth it. As someone mentioned, a big middle finger
|
|
|
|
Post by North American Republics on Apr 29, 2017 4:48:56 GMT
Member States of SLU, Many of you have been posting and telegramming me with your concerns about the military operations planned, so I will brief you all in full how this first came up, our reasonings for it, and the objectives. It came to my attention from the Speaker and Members of the Cabinet that the region called Eurasian Socialist Union is under control of the Kingdom of Great Britain, a prominent imperialist raiding region that is allied with The Invaders (this region should sound familiar enough). The Social Liberal Union has a treaty (T-2) with ESU which states, While both parties have neglected the provisions of the treaty, we felt that we should begin honoring our commitments by taking control of the region back from the regime in control to return back to any remaining natives (or those forced out). The mission would be likely easy and successful since the WAD there only has TWO endorsements. When the Cabinet discussed this mission we laid out suggestions, concerns, and goals: 1) Reach out to old members about the mission for them to return or assist. Refound for the old members. Were there responses/Did they explicitly ask for our help in getting the region back under their control?2) Reach out to regions we have embassies with such as The Region With No Big Banks to assist in the mission Why do that if you haven't established there is a mission to begin with.3) Using this operation as a sort of training mission in the case that we pass any more treaties requiring military support from either party. We don't need a training mission. We're supposed to go in alongside ally forces, not leading them. Furthermore, nothing precludes states from organizing a militia unit separate from the government from whence we can recruit defenders in case we need them.4) There was a concern that if natives didn't want to return that this would be a wasted mission, but see #3 as possible rebuttal See #3 as a rebuttal.5) We agreed that the mission would be a significant blow and show of force against the region that invaded our own region and those associated with it (a sort of "big middle finger", as one individual in the Cabinet meeting described it). A significant blow? As you've repeatedly said, it's a region controlled by two WA members. There is no need for unnecessary retaliation against a state that has since, generally, left us alone and who we see no threat from seeing as our Founder has returned.6) There were concerns over the legality, though the Speaker was consulted, who confirmed that "as long as the current constitution is in effect, it is technically legal given our treaty". This is technically not legal. T-2, Section 3. Clause 3: military intervention can only happen if the invaded region asks us to intervene. As we have established, the administration reached out to old members of the region, but we do not even know that natives even want the region back. It has been over 2 months since the overthrow of their government. See #3 for why this is a wasted mission.7) One individual expressed concern over retaliation by the Invaders and the Kingdom of Great Britain returning to invade us, but this would be nearly impossible since we have an active Founder. Most smart Raiders wouldn't attempt to invade a region with an active Founder if they were even considering it. Okay.8) I expressed my reluctance of "the idea of having [ESU] occupied by a region allied with the region that occupied us" when one individual pointed out that they didn't help us when we were raided. See #3 and #5. See #5.In addition to the concerns to #8, it was suggested that we repeal the treaty. This can be an option if the members of the region remain reluctant to pursue this operation and decide against continuing it, though I'd much rather make up for our commitments first. I believe this would be a great activity to members to take part in. We had no commitment if they did not contact us to help. There is nothing to make up for.So, what say you, SLU? Would you be open to pursuing this operation as an opportunity to make up for our commitments from a treaty and to use this as a training mission for future defense commitments in future treaties? Or would you rather save the time and effort? If more of you remain against this, I will order this operation terminated and we will not pursue any further action with this. |
|
|
|
Post by North American Republics on Apr 29, 2017 4:59:02 GMT
Did we reach out to them when we were invaded? I expect not. This mission wouldn't be a "change of policy", nor would it be a shift towards becoming a "military region" (the latter is a grossly emotional and overreactive assessment). We are not going full scale defender or full scale invader. If we're not going to have some sort of body organized to defend our allies, we shouldn't be making provisions promising such. If we are going to keep making such provisions for treaties, we'll need an organized force to commit ourselves to them along with training missions. I will be proposing a repeal of the treaty in the coming days. But in the meantime, how do you feel that an ally of a region that invaded us is holding a region that aligned with our ideology? Even if its old members aren't interested in returning, I'd say the refounding effort and protecting it (maybe until ESU members decide to return) is worth it. As someone mentioned, a big middle finger Rules are rules and technically, this would violate the treaty by intervening when we were not asked. At every instance of opposition against a proposed policy, why do you resort to attacking points as irrational, emotional, or overreactive? These are valid oppositions points you hand wave aside as irrelevant. Establishing a military is exactly the move toward a more militant region. We do not have a need for one, we usually have not had a need for one, nor do we generally want one, clear and simple. If you want to establish a military, you cannot invade another region to do so. Start up another region and practice overthrowing the delegate using a paramilitary force, if you would like, but even this is entirely unnecessary. I can easily point you to the failed Azerzian defender experiment where he did exactly that. We are constitutionally obligated to be a neutral region, save for allies who ask for our help. We cannot legally even be soft defenders or soft raiders, as a region. |
|
|
|
Post by Austerain on Apr 29, 2017 5:16:24 GMT
The Speaker reviewed the legislation and we followed his confirmation that it was legal "given our treaty".
I only describe points in that way when such points become hyperbolic, as one can clearly read. To describe it as a shift towards focusing on military is a miscalculation that invokes an emotional response, especially given the sensitivity of anything resembling hawkishness in a leftist region. We would use any military force that would be established (which hasn't been proposed in OP) constantly as other regions do, merely for these specific occasions or just in case. If we can't have some sort of established or organized body in place to execute provisions that require us for allies, then we shouldn't include any such provisions in a treaty at all.
Perhaps we've been moving too fast with too much change. To satisfy the concerns, we can repeal the treaty altogether since there is no use for it at all at this point. Back to the SLU we all know.
The operation is terminated. You've convinced me, NAR, well done
|
|
Avaerilon
Member State 
The Royal Cartographer, Peritus Scriptor Litterarum
Former Delegate, Minister of DA and Registrar of the Court
Posts: 6,518
|
Post by Avaerilon on Apr 29, 2017 7:56:35 GMT
Did we reach out to them when we were invaded? I expect not. Just to clarify for future reference, the admin at the time reached-out to everyone we could, including the DSA, who were, along with ALH, the only region to give any kind of response. We were coordinating with allies when my long-shot paid-off and I managed to find Ainland. The rest is history (::) |
|
|
|
Post by Odd Republic on Apr 29, 2017 9:50:16 GMT
The Speaker reviewed the legislation and we followed his confirmation that it was legal "given our treaty". I only describe points in that way when such points become hyperbolic, as one can clearly read. To describe it as a shift towards focusing on military is a miscalculation that invokes an emotional response, especially given the sensitivity of anything resembling hawkishness in a leftist region. We would use any military force that would be established (which hasn't been proposed in OP) constantly as other regions do, merely for these specific occasions or just in case. If we can't have some sort of established or organized body in place to execute provisions that require us for allies, then we shouldn't include any such provisions in a treaty at all. Perhaps we've been moving too fast with too much change. To satisfy the concerns, we can repeal the treaty altogether since there is no use for it at all at this point. Back to the SLU we all know. The operation is terminated. You've convinced me, NAR, well done Well, upon closer examination, it isn't legal under the treaty, but i would argue is legal under the constitution, as the embassy was never legally closed. |
|
|
|
Post by Dermin on Apr 29, 2017 14:48:20 GMT
I would also propose that we not sign defensive treaties with any other regions because, as NAR has said, nothing is stopping individual nations from forming their own militias. A state military simple just doesn't fit in with SLU policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Austerain on Apr 29, 2017 16:52:22 GMT
If we can't have some sort of established or organized body in place to execute provisions that require us for allies, then we shouldn't include any such provisions in a treaty at all. Yes, I would agree, Dermin. Any such treaties would be very useless |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 2:54:49 GMT
I would also propose that we not sign defensive treaties with any other regions because, as NAR has said, nothing is stopping individual nations from forming their own militias. A state military simple just doesn't fit in with SLU policy. Good point. I don't find a reason for the region as a whole acting as a defender even temporarily. Though, as to the militia, I think it is hard to be as cohesive as a regional defense force. Perhaps we can establish an inter-regional voluntary coalition of nations that will participate in a defense mission if one of the regions are in trouble. |
|
