Jump to content

Reformation of the Confederation of Arctic Nations


Californian

Recommended Posts

Kou waited for the translation to come through his ear before speaking again in a deliberative tone:

"The fundamental problem with that is the word [b]Arctic[/b]... This is not a North American Unity Treaty, at least by what one can infer from the name: this is supposed to be an Arctic one. The name confers legitimacy to lead the Arctic Circle or even a liberal definition of the arctic and sub arctic areas. One cannot say Quebec or Boston two of the participants here are part of an arctic community. I do not mean this as a disrespect to their nation, but its geography. They are part of a Northern Hemisphere community no doubt but so is Dalmatia, Mongolia, Zargathia, Athens... etc. All of whom were not invited to the conference.

To claim then that in an 'Arctic Treaty' nations with substantial holdings actually IN the Arctic Circle or nearby would be observers, but these nations who have no presence within the Arctic Circle could be full members strikes me as disingenuous.

If an [b]Arctic[/b] Treaty is in anyway insinuating, claiming, or promoting the idea of Arctic Unity in the same way other regional blocs are, its fundamentally exclusionary and in our opinion generally harmful to have nations outside of the Arctic as full members in a military sense, while only having members were actual arctic holdings as 'observers'. It strikes us as an imperialistic vocabulary.

My personal view here is that if this treaty is meant to be actual Arctic Unity, it should be done with the cooperative view of all the Arctic nations, if others want to have military blocs outside of this either through North America or as a global bloc, that is one thing and their decisions as a sovereign nations. We certainly have these type of arrangements, do not though claim to be forming a regional defense bloc, invite people with no territory in that region, and then tell people who actually do that they have the option of merely being 'observers'.

I will be candid by how my government views this: If this is forced upon other nations in the Arctic through the creation of a military bloc with little to no holdings in the Arctic, it would strike us as being a play for power within the Arctic Circle and could spark tensions that do not need to exist."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Perhaps now we should define what is an arctic nation. One option for us is to consider any nation with territory north of the Arctic Circle. However, since in most cases you would be challenged to find a nation with a majority of its sovereign territory or population residing inside the arctic circle, perhaps we could loosen that definition to countries that border the Arctic Circle. For instance the majority of Slavorussia's territorial waters are in the Arctic and the vast majority of our naval forces are stationed there as well.

Another option is to loosely define arctic nations as nations that border the Arctic Sea, or rely on trade and resources originating from the Arctic Sea. This would expand CAN's potential membership base as far south as Ontario and other countries that border Hudson Bay."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May we suggest any nation with either a substantial ammount of their territory above a latitude of 45* North? This would allow many of the Canadian nations to join the pact, however, it would also open the pact up to many more central european nations.

[img]http://www.citymaps.tk/wp-content/uploads/Global-map-with-latitude-1.jpg[/img]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Let me get this straight. By virtue of having less than half of a lightly inhabited protectorate within the Arctic Circle, the UFE is considered an Arctic nation while Quebec, a nation bordered directly by the Arctic Ocean to the north and the Hudson Bay to the west, a nation that is heavily invested in the Arctic Ocean and the economic ventures that take place there, nation that comprises territory historically considered to be a part of the Arctic community, cannot be involved in an Arctic Cooperation agreement or the UFE will see it as a cause of political and military tension?" Ramos looked in disbelief at the UFE representative. "With all due respect, sir, are you saying that the headquarters of the original CAN was located in a nation outside of the Arctic? Since you are being candid, I will be candid as well. The idea that a nation with such a substantial part of its holdings south of the 45th Parallel can dictate to us what does and does not constitute a power play for Arctic Sovereignty is, quite simply, ludicrous."

Edited by New Frontier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"With due respect, it is easy as hell to see it as a threat. We see the issue here already with the proposal of 45 Degrees North. Lets look for a moment at existing regional blocs. The Oceanic Union has a doctrine called the Asgeirsson Doctrine, it gives the OU sole rights to take protectorates in Oceania and prohibits all other nations from taking colonies in Oceania.

Now imagine for a moment, that you create a security council which claims this power over 45 degrees North, essentially most of North America, Europe, and Asia. That is in effect the equivalent of declaring global hegemony. Its a far far too ambitious and frankly ridiculous project.

My argument essentially comes down to this: What is the Arctic defined in this document? I would venture to guess NOT Northern Italy. I would also venture to guess that the Athenians would react very... angrily if such a claim was made. You need to come up with a reasonable definition. From there stake holders can be identified and you should discuss within that region what all the players want.

By including nations in this discussion who are far to the South of the Arctic Circle, it does not seem like this is an Arctic Circle grouping. Instead it looks to be the creation of a large military bloc centered in North America. Which seeks to legitimize its political vision for a large chunk of the Northern Hemisphere by centering its claims of legitimacy around the Arctic.

Further I have to ask why is it that this discussion if it is in fact the 45th parellel you are using does not include Dalmatia, does not include Athens, does not include Cascadia?

What are the scopes of the power of the security council? What power can it grant itself? Does it believe that the Arctic Community includes most of Europe if Europe objects? Does it believe it includes large swaths of Asia if Asians object?

This idea that you can somehow create a regional bloc which encompasses so much of the World's land masses yet it is so disconnected from any traditional definition of geography without discussing it with existing regional organizations, individual nations, or anything else and on top of that try and establish a multi-national force and a security council for enforcing dominion over such a massive amount of territory already covered by existing national and international structures is in fact rightly viewed as a threatening proposition to those that choose to not join or do not wish to tie themselves to so many nations."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After listening for a few moments and rapidly taking notes, the Crown Prince leaned slightly forwards before beginning to speak in Russian:

[i]“The government of the Serene Republic of Vaule, echoes some of the sentiments previously discussed. Our government is generally skeptical of treaty blocs, especially those involving military commitments. Before we can proceed, we need to answer some fundamental questions about the direction of the renewed CAN.

For example, what do we mean by Arctic Defense? Will members simply be required to defend each other, or would the pact extend to the defense of the Arctic Seas and the ships which traverse it, for instance. Would the renewed CAN also seek to revive the previously used Arctic Defense Doctrine? We need to make the aims and intentions of the renewed CAN more specific, lest they be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

As already stated by my colleagues from the UFE and the Commonwealth of Buryatia, the mutual defense clause raises some concern for us. While we have the greatest respect for the nations present here, I must state that trust is an important issue. It is easy for us to sign defense agreements with nations who we have built ties with, but is much more difficult to sign such agreements with nations that we have had absolutely no contact with.

To those present I ask this question, are you willing to send the men and women of your militaries to fight and die for a foreign land whose leadership you do not know, and where you do not even have an embassy? A nation that you have had no prior contact with. Ladies and gentlemen, it is the position of my government that we shall not ever do so. It is my belief that a true military pact is much more than mere signatures on paper, it represents a commitment, the cost of which will be paid in blood and lives.

I ask that you forgive my pessimism. I am certain that my government would be willing to join a CAN which does in fact have a mutual defense clause, however it would only do so after building a strong diplomatic relationship with each CAN member nation. Until that time, we would only be willing to join CAN if the military clause is limited to optional defense or if the treaty is constructed in such a way as to allow both mutual defense and optional defense depending upon the wishes of the member states.

Regarding economic cooperation, we have no objections and would welcome wider regional trade and cooperation. Despite what I have outlined, I am still optimistic that we will be able to arrive at some common ground.”[/i]-Crown Prince Yuri

Edited by Imperator Azenquor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well then why not any nation with territorial waters in the Artic Ocean or any adjoining sea/bay, etc. This would allow many of the nations here to join the pact. Or we could even define it as any nation in the former Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Scandinavia or Russian Federation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My point has nothing to do with the 45th parallel. Of course it's a ridiculous boundary for determining who is an Arctic nation, but your nation, sir, the UFE, doesn't even meet [b]that[/b] criterion. That you would lecture us on what does and does not constitute an Arctic nation is laughable, for your own Federation is by far the least "Arctic" of those discussing this treaty!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I must urge those with heated tongues calm themselves. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and the UFE is simply expressing theirs. They may very well be the least arctic of those here in attendance, but their input is vital, just as yours is, to the reformation of this organisation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dorothy Smith decided to speak up.

"When it comes to the defense of the Arctic region, I think that it should be organized similar to the system the original CAN had, which was that an Arctic Defense Doctrine ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=74739"]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=74739[/url]) was established. There was a set amount of total troops in the CAN Joint Security Force and each nation contributed troops and established a military command known as the CAN Joint Security Force or CANJSF. There were clear definitions of how and when the CANJSF was supposed to be used. I have several copies on hand of the original Arctic Defense Doctrine, if anyone would like to see them.

On the issue of geography, I agree with the Slavorussian representative, we must first properly define what an Arctic nation is before we continue."

Edited by kitex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1307292211' post='2724399']
"My point has nothing to do with the 45th parallel. Of course it's a ridiculous boundary for determining who is an Arctic nation, but your nation, sir, the UFE, doesn't even meet [b]that[/b] criterion. That you would lecture us on what does and does not constitute an Arctic nation is laughable, for your own Federation is by far the least "Arctic" of those discussing this treaty!"
[/quote]

You were the one who said our worth was diminished by having territory south of the "45th parallel" if you feel it is a ridiculous boundary and saw no worth in it why did you use it as a measurement. If one mentions it as a relevant measurement, I can only assume that they find it relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1307306654' post='2724521']
You were the one who said our worth was diminished by having territory south of the "45th parallel" if you feel it is a ridiculous boundary and saw no worth in it why did you use it as a measurement. If one mentions it as a relevant measurement, I can only assume that they find it relevant.
[/quote]
You don't meet the criterion of the 45th parallel. You don't meet the criterion of the 50th parallel. You don't meet the criterion of the Arctic Circle. Whichever arbitrary line we draw in the ice, you don't meet it.

Edited by New Frontier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kou pressed his glasses to his face taking a sip of water before continuing calmly.

"Alaska is UFE sovereign territory, the Transamur Imperium and the City State of Fort Beihai are both full member states within the United Federation of the East just as much as the People's Republic of China or the Republic of Indochina are. This was all done by democratic voting.

Could the gentleman from Quebec clarify? Are you stating you do not believe the the legitimacy of the United Federation of the East's sovereign territories? I must say this amount of hostility coming from you appears to be rather troublesome as we are having a legitimate discussion about the scope of this bloc and what is in it. These are questions that I don't believe are unreasonable one. Any of our allies here can tell you we do not commit to defense of a nation lightly, nor should we."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm glad to see such lively discussion taking place. Allow me to give my take on some of the discussion points that seem to keep cropping up.

The definition for an Arctic nation has always been left fairly ambiguous, somewhat intentionally. I'd argue that a strict definition of what constitutes an Arctic nation isn't completely necessary for the purposes of the treaty. Any nation that has made a noticeable contribution or has sizable holdings in the Arctic should be carefully scrutinized by the CAN for membership. A better criterion is whether the applicant would work well as a member of the CAN to help achieve the goals highlighted in the Charter's preamble as well as purpose of intent, instead of some arbitrary definition dependent on some imaginary line. However a rough guideline of what would be considered an Arctic nation may prove useful. I agree with the representative from the Commonwealth of Canada, in that a good guideline would be any nation that has territorial waters in the Arctic Ocean, which would include nations in the former Canada and northern USA.

I also sense skepticism or fear from some nations about the extent of the Confederation of Arctic Nations. I can assure you the organization is entirely peaceful in nature and is simply trying to promote its member nations through increased cooperation, both militarily and economically. There's no ulterior motives present and the best example I can give is the previous reincarnation of the CAN. Feel free to look through its history, but you'll see that it was an organization that fostered relations between its members for the betterment of the Arctic as a region. It never aggressively attacked someone and it certainly never tried to exert hegemonic influence on half of the world. For all the doomsaying going on, I ask you look at the cold hard facts presented by decades of peace and prosperity under the former CAN. I expect nothing less out of the reformed organization.

And with that, I present a CAN Charter Draft. The multi-national task force has been removed as it seems too ambitious of a start for the organization. When the CAN has been reformed and matured we could always revisit the idea, but I believe the current proposal is a good compromise.

[quote]
Charter
of the
Confederation of Arctic Nations

[b]I. Preamble[/b]

The undersigned nations are sovereign independent entities who sign this pact in the hopes of peace and prosperity for the mutual betterment of the respective signatories as well as the Arctic region as a whole. Through this treaty the aforementioned states strive to ensure security and justice through a unified Arctic defense, increase well-being through economic measures, and promote Arctic unity through cross-cultural exchange as well as increased cooperation.

[b]II. Non-Aggression & Intelligence[/b]

The aforementioned nations agree to a pact of non-aggression, and will not interfere or step into the soil of any other member nation that does not specifically ask for outside assistance. Nor will any signatory illegally spy, destabilize, or in any other way attempt to bring harm to another signatory.

The nations in this pact agree to disclose and share any relevant intelligence and information that would adversely affect the security of a fellow member nation or this organization.

[b]III. Mutual Defense[/b]

The aforementioned nations agree to a pact of mutual defense and pledge to defend any member of this treaty that is being attacked by a foreign aggressor. If a nation is waging a defensive war, the signatories promise to provide military, intelligence, and civilian aid to ensure the survival of the threatened nation.

Member nations are not required to assist in any aggressive war started by a signatory. If fellow signatories wish to support the nation that is in a state of war, they are allowed to do so, but this is neither required nor expected of any nation upholding this charter.


[b]IV. Economic & Political Cooperation[/b]

The nations in this treaty agree to try to engage in mutually beneficial economic policies and agreements with other member nations when possible. Members should work to increase economic cooperation through increased trade and lowered tariffs.

The nations in this treaty agree to house embassies of other nations in this pact in the spirit of political cooperation. Likewise, nations agree to staff foreign embassies with diplomatic staff.

[b]V. Organization of the Confederation of Arctic Nations[/b]

The member nations agree to staff a Confederation of Arctic Nations headquarters in the city of ____. The undersigned nations agree to staff the building with permanent representatives at all times to ensure urgent issues can be quickly dealt with. All foreign diplomats in the Confederation of Arctic Nations headquarters are provided full diplomatic immunity.

The Confederation of Arctic Nations General Assembly, consisting of all full member nations, will be led by the Confederation of Arctic Nations Secretary General. The Secretary General is elected with a 66% majority to a six year term (OOC: six months) and acts as the spokesperson for the Confederation of Arctic Nations. The Secretary General may be impeached with 75% of member nations voting in favor of impeachment.
[b]
VI. Security Council[/b]

The nations in this treaty agree to form a Security Council tasked with providing a unified command during periods when Article III of this pact has been activated. While member nations will maintain complete authority over their citizens, the Security Council will provide a centralized front to repel any aggressive attack on a member of this organization.

The Security Council will be led by the Security Council Chairman. The Chairman is democratically elected for a six year term (OOC: six months) by members of the Confederation of Arctic Nations. The Chairman can be impeached with 75% of member nations voting in favor of impeachment.


[b]VII. Membership[/b]

Nations may apply to join this treaty at any time, as either a member state or observer state. There are no specific requirements to apply for membership, however geographical location in the Arctic or close proximity to other member nations is suggested.

Observer states agree to uphold all articles except Articles III and VI. They may not vote however they are allowed to discuss Arctic matters and affairs as well as cooperate with other full member and observer states. When applying for observer state status, the applicant must receive unanimous approval from members of the Confederation of Arctic Nations.

Full member states agree to uphold all articles in this treaty and are guaranteed a vote in any matter brought before the Confederation of Arctic Nations. They agree to defend other full members. After one year (OOC: one month) of being an observer state in this treaty, a nation is eligible to apply for full membership standing. The applicant must receive unanimous approval from the members of the Confederation of Arctic Nations.

[b]VIII. Amendments[/b]

This treaty, excluding Article II, can be amended at any time. Any changes to the wording of this document require more than three-quarters majority of all member states in favor of the proposed changes.

[b]IX. Termination[/b]

No nation shall be forced to stay in this treaty against their will and are allowed to leave if they so choose. Thus, any nation may leave this pact so long as they give a five day notice before withdrawal. The nation may apply to rejoin at any time, however the nation must follow all procedures to becoming a member state as written in Article VII.
[b]
X. Signatures[/b]

This treaty was ratified on the date of June X, 20XX. The undersigned agree to uphold this treaty and all of its specified obligations to the best of their abilities.
[/quote]

Edited by Californian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i]"We note the fact that some of the issues that we have presented have not been clarified. Due to the inclusion of a mutual defense clause in the treaty draft presented, and reiterating the points we have made earlier, the government of the Serene Republic of Vaule will not be signing the current treaty at this time. We will perhaps contemplate an application for observer status sometime in the near future, however I believe that that will be the limit of our ties to the Confederation if indeed the draft treaty is approved."[/i]-Deputy PM Kerbev

Edited by Imperator Azenquor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Imperator Azenquor' timestamp='1307150787' post='2723401']
After listening for a few moments and rapidly taking notes, the Crown Prince leaned slightly forwards before beginning to speak in Russian:

[i]“The government of the Serene Republic of Vaule, echoes some of the sentiments previously discussed. Our government is generally skeptical of treaty blocs, especially those involving military commitments. Before we can proceed, we need to answer some fundamental questions about the direction of the renewed CAN.

For example, what do we mean by Arctic Defense? Will members simply be required to defend each other, or would the pact extend to the defense of the Arctic Seas and the ships which traverse it, for instance. Would the renewed CAN also seek to revive the previously used Arctic Defense Doctrine? We need to make the aims and intentions of the renewed CAN more specific, lest they be misunderstood or misinterpreted.[/quote]

Arctic Defense refers to the member nations of the CAN, which includes their territorial waters. However the mutual defense portion of the treaty does not include the Arctic Ocean as a whole nor ships traversing it. Parts of the Arctic Defense Doctrine have been incorporated into the new draft, however the idea of a multi-national force with contribution provided by each member nation is not included.

[quote]As already stated by my colleagues from the UFE and the Commonwealth of Buryatia, the mutual defense clause raises some concern for us. While we have the greatest respect for the nations present here, I must state that trust is an important issue. It is easy for us to sign defense agreements with nations who we have built ties with, but is much more difficult to sign such agreements with nations that we have had absolutely no contact with. [/quote]

As I have mentioned before, this is a valid concern for some nations. Your nation has had little to no contact with Canadian nations of the past, and it makes sense you would not be willing to sign a mutual defense clause. That is what observer status is specifically designed for. You are allowed to be part of the CAN, interact with its members, make your positions known, without agreeing to the mutual defense portion of the pact.

[quote]To those present I ask this question, are you willing to send the men and women of your militaries to fight and die for a foreign land whose leadership you do not know, and where you do not even have an embassy? A nation that you have had no prior contact with. Ladies and gentlemen, it is the position of my government that we shall not ever do so. It is my belief that a true military pact is much more than mere signatures on paper, it represents a commitment, the cost of which will be paid in blood and lives.[/quote]

I cannot answer for you, but I can without a doubt answer yes. Though the leadership has changed over the years we are quite familiar with the people that inhibit the Arctic due to our longstanding participation in the previous CAN as well as close alliances with former Arctic nations. Though some of these participating nations are new or not as vocal on the world stage, each has been carefully analyzed and scrutinized by our government, as well as yours, I'm sure. To be frank, we know a crazy government when we see one. Greenland is extremely optimistic and has high hopes signing this treaty will only make us closer to the other signatories. When the previous FRG helped found the previous CAN, it had limited relations with its neighbors. Years later some of its strongest allies in Disparu, the Eggman Empire, and Cyneriice Northan were made as a direct result of participation in the CAN.

[quote]I ask that you forgive my pessimism. I am certain that my government would be willing to join a CAN which does in fact have a mutual defense clause, however it would only do so after building a strong diplomatic relationship with each CAN member nation. Until that time, we would only be willing to join CAN if the military clause is limited to optional defense or if the treaty is constructed in such a way as to allow both mutual defense and optional defense depending upon the wishes of the member states.[/quote]

Your stance is perfectly understandable, there is no need to apologize. The pact is formatted in such a way that the nation can choose either mutual defense or strictly non-aggression, depending on the wishes of the state in question. We hope that as an observer you would be able to build a strong diplomatic relationship with each CAN member state so that mutual defense becomes a viable option for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The UFE finds itself in agreement with its allies against signing this pact. "Trust us." is not a good argument in our minds for one nation telling a broad swath of others to sign a mutual defense pact, further it feels as though there is absolutely no desire to really make any substantive changes to the pact to accommodate the concerns of us or our Asian allies. This feels very Atlantist-centric, especially noting the disproportionate inclusion of below arctic circle atlantic states invited at the notable exclusion of some Pacific ones, which also reflects in large part what I feel is the ill defined geographic nature of this alliance." Kou said.

"As such we will not join this alliance and we shall vigorously object to any attempt of regional assertion similar to that of the OU or Zurich."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What if the UFE was to tell this council what it defines as Arctic territory and who it belives has been missed out of this conference? I know I certainly wouldnt object to re-convening with the addition of nations that may have been missed out of the first guest list. Moreover Its my belief it seems very Atlantist because some Eurasian and Asian nations are not willing to commit, which is of course unfortunate. If they were willing to commit to this alliance then perhaps it would seem much more equal in terms of regional representation amongst nations." Jessica said politely to the UFE representative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is not a matter of agreeing to the treaty, but the forum in which this treaty is being discussed with due respect to the delegation from Britain. It is Atlantist in the very nature of the people invited. The invitations seemed to labor to send it to as many Atlantic nations who conceivably could be invited while this was not done for the Pacific. The Boston Federacy was invited while Cascadia was not, granted both aren't really in possession of any real arctic or sub arctic territory, but it sends a message especially with how little heed is paid to the objections of the UFE, Burytia, or Vauleyo in these matters.

With due respect your argument seems to be you're either with us or against us. It is not how can there be any sort of arctic circle unity. If that was the desire, there would be an open dialogue where each of the treaty articles could be discussed in turn and one nation did not dictate to others a take it or leave it final product as is happening here."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...