Lamentable Leadership: Treatment of Treaties

Random Rants

Entry posted by Delta1212 January 16, 2009

215 views

Probably one of the most publically visible issues in the current political climate is the attitude toward treaties that is held overwhelmingly by leadership in by far the vast majority of alliances. Essentially, current treaties are worthless in that it's very easy to get out of fulfilling them, and done intelligently, without even bringing down any particularly considerable sum of criticism. In point of fact, the only reason to have a treaty is to avoid being criticized for helping your friends without one. Quite frankly, that's nonsense, but I'm now getting side tracked. That's a topic for another entry.

The root of the problem lies in the reasoning behind signing treaties these days. For som time now, there has developed a tendency to ally people who are not your friends in order to neutralize a potential threat by sticking a piece of paper between you and them. While I'm not opposed to the practice in a limited fashion per se, the net effect has been an overwhelming dilution of the value of that paper. There are an uncomfortably large number of alliances whose majority of treaties are signed with people they can never count on in an actual war scenario because the document exists solely for political convenience because such treaties are no longer viewed as having true lasting value. It is this attitude I ascribe as the reason for the faults rife in the handling of treaties in the modern day.

One of the largest issues is the handling of treaty cancellations. For most alliances, a PIAT effectively boils down to an "I won't attack you for at least 48-72 hours after my friends jump you" treaty, or at best, an "I'll give you some slight advance warning of your impending doom by abandoning you" treaty. The fact that a number of alliances treat MDoAPs in the same manner just demonstrates the degree to which this issue permeates the collective mind set. Now, normally, I'm not going to use real world examples, for obvious reasons. That said, this is a rather positive one, so I will. One of the few times in recent history that an alliance has actually held up their end of a treaty was during the GATO-1V war. CSN cancelled on GATO, yes, but still defended them when they were attacked during the cancellation period. That's how a cancellation period is supposed to work. Unless it says in your treaty that when cancelled it reverts to an NAP until time runs out, that's not how it works. And, as an FYI, unless you have a "don't piss off someone bigger than us" clause, doing so is not breaking the treaty and grounds for immediate cancellation, no matter how you want to spin it.

Even those who sign treaties in good faith often have an attitude whereby they will defend an alliance until they screw up, then wash their hands of them. In practice, this doesn't really seem so bad, but if you stop and consider it, the ultimate result is that that MDP you just signed is actually an MD(as long as your attacker is too stupid to make up a good CB)P. This is not how a treaty, any level of treaty should work. If your treaty partner screws up, you fulfill your commitments, then drop them. If you think they did something idiotic, then that's your punishment for signing a treaty with an idiot. Choose more carefully next time or sign an actual ODP instead of using your MDP as one.

If someone comes to you and asks you to cancel a treaty with someone, be it a PIAT, MDP, MADP or anything in between, in order for them to be attacked, the correct answer is a polite no. You see them through their current crisis, whatever the level, and then decide whether you want to maintain ties afterward. If someone demands you drop a treaty, the correct response is "$%&@ off." And if someone lays a finger on anyone you're obligated to defend, the correct response is to hit them with anything you can lay your hands on.

There seems to be this weird conception that you should tell your allies to stay out of a fight you can't win. First, unless you have to request assistance per the text of your treaty, this is illegal. Most people write "An attack on one is an attack on the other" and then don't follow that through to the conclusion that they're already at war. Secondly, this attitude is moronic. having strong allies and telling them to stay out of your fight is like having nukes and not using them. Curbstomps exist because there is no deterrent. There is no deterrent because everyone knows that at some point the people at war are going to keep their allies out to "save them" and make the war small and easy. An actual ally is someone you should be willing to fight beside regardless of the odds and someone you should let return the favor. Too many people these days have cordially agreed to stick by each other when it's easy and let the bad stuff play out as it plas out when times get tough.

If you aren't willing to die together, your treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on, and treaties in this game aren't even written on real paper.