GPA Declaration of Neutrality

[mhawk]

Indeed we were told you were remaking the list and would have the option to sign, we have not done so. Please remove our name.

[SpiderJerusalem]

oh... neutrality...

[Mogar]

perhaps some more alliances will sign it .

[Thomasj_tx]

Treading lightly here since it would be pointless to pick on an alliance like the GPA with a baiting post. However, what I have quoted above from your announcement seems like a rather arbitrary definition of neutrality, subject to the vagaries of alliance leadership and politics.

Is this a new definition or has this always been a part/the heart of the DoN?

And something specific, would the GPA ever find someone threatening one of the signatories of this DoN as involving the GPA to the point of defending GPA interests per this said definition?

Also, irrespective of the DoN's wording in the past, it is curious that any other sovereign alliance would sign this, unless it is mostly out of respect for your peaceful tradition. I mean no harm here, but I do not see why any alliance would recognize and support an alliance whose purpose is to never come to the assistance of any other alliance.

And at last, I realize some of these surely are old and even tired questions for your diplomatic corps, so thank you ahead of time for any consideration of these questions.

I'm simply a curious bystander who finds neutrality on Bob both intriguing and terribly problematic.

Thank you for the questions. I will do my best to answer them.

First as to the wording. Here is the applicable wording from the original DoN:

Article 2: Neutrality

GPA member states shall be considered neutral in any conflict, save for those in which a Belligerent has taken hostile action against a GPA member state.

As you can see, the content is nearly identical, except the new DoN mirrors our Charter with the inclusion of political non-intervention. As you can see in the new wording, we have removed the potential ambiguity of “neutrality” and replaced it with “non-intervention”.

Now to your next question. “Direct involvement”, in the context of life on PB clearly means actions directed at the GPA or any of her nations. The GPA does not consider claims or threats direct actions. Direct actions are actions that occur within the military phases of the game.

On to your next comment/question. Respect and recognition are different then assistance. The GPA is not looking for assistance. Just as we are offering none, other then friendly and impartial conduct and interaction. This is true between many Alliances on PB.

The GPA realizes that we are approaching CN in a unique way. Some Alliances favor the military aspects of CN. Some favor the economic aspects of CN. Of course, many pursue some degree of both. The GPA is asking PB to realize that our members have chosen to exist on PB in a unique way. And as such, we realize that we have to earn the acceptance of all of the other Alliances in order to have the right to exist in this way. And in order to earn this ability, we have to hold our members to a high standard. And we have to be very rigorous in our enforcement of these standards.

A year ago, a few members failed to uphold these standards and the result was a historic change for the GPA. But the values and principles of the GPA never changed. The actions and activities of these few members were not a result of any change in our values as a whole, but a failure of a few to uphold these values. As it should be expected, they were removed from the GPA just like any other Alliance would do.

And as to “neutrality” being problematic....

Looking at the history of many, many Alliances, that approach may not be any more or less problematic then any other. It is just the one that our members have chosen for over three years now.

Thanks again for the questions.

[Thomasj_tx]

Indeed we were told you were remaking the list and would have the option to sign, we have not done so. Please remove our name.

Yes, you were given a preview and an option to reaffirm your signature. And I will remove your signature.

Thanks!

[Randleman]

Hello my neutral neighbors, welcome back.

[General Specific]

Thank you for the questions. I will do my best to answer them.

First as to the wording. Here is the applicable wording from the original DoN:

As you can see, the content is nearly identical, except the new DoN mirrors our Charter with the inclusion of political non-intervention. As you can see in the new wording, we have removed the potential ambiguity of “neutrality” and replaced it with “non-intervention”.

Now to your next question. “Direct involvement”, in the context of life on PB clearly means actions directed at the GPA or any of her nations. The GPA does not consider claims or threats direct actions. Direct actions are actions that occur within the military phases of the game.

On to your next comment/question. Respect and recognition are different then assistance. The GPA is not looking for assistance. Just as we are offering none, other then friendly and impartial conduct and interaction. This is true between many Alliances on PB.

The GPA realizes that we are approaching CN in a unique way. Some Alliances favor the military aspects of CN. Some favor the economic aspects of CN. Of course, many pursue some degree of both. The GPA is asking PB to realize that our members have chosen to exist on PB in a unique way. And as such, we realize that we have to earn the acceptance of all of the other Alliances in order to have the right to exist in this way. And in order to earn this ability, we have to hold our members to a high standard. And we have to be very rigorous in our enforcement of these standards.

A year ago, a few members failed to uphold these standards and the result was a historic change for the GPA. But the values and principles of the GPA never changed. The actions and activities of these few members were not a result of any change in our values as a whole, but a failure of a few to uphold these values. As it should be expected, they were removed from the GPA just like any other Alliance would do.

And as to “neutrality” being problematic....

Looking at the history of many, many Alliances, that approach may not be any more or less problematic then any other. It is just the one that our members have chosen for over three years now.

Thanks again for the questions.

Thanks and I think I see the issue now. (OOC: your raison d'etre skirts into OOC territory, a la how to approach the "game," while those of us giving you a hard time here are IC).

I do think something like a declaration of pacifism might be more in order and then you could appeal to other alliances to sign on recognizing that you are a quasi-pacifist alliance that will only fire if fired upon directly. The neutrality stuff, by definition, in that neutrality asserts an international morality, places you into the international arena. I could be wrong, but I think this is why some are still loathe to sign any DoN.

[Thomasj_tx]

“Neutrality, as a lasting principle, is an evidence of weakness” - Lajos Kossuth, Hungarian freedom fighter

'Neutrality' is a situational ethos and needs two things: a situation to be neutral about and at least two poles of thought/behavior to be neutral between. Then, one can have the involved parties sanction your neutrality and you don't have to take sides. Permanent 'neutrality' is unmaintainable - and giving you a signature you can point to and say "See? All these people certify we are neutral" is what got you into your mess last year in the first place.

'Isolationist'? Definitely. 'Non-aligned'? OK. 'Pacifistic'? Perhaps. But, neutral in all things? We know better. We've been there.

Thanks for your post, SWK.

First, as to your quote. This may or may not be true in RL. It implies that not taking a stand in the face of injustice is morally weak. This may be true within the context of the real world. However, that is not for me to discuss in this venue given this is an IC forum.

That said, the GPA is not asking for any certification or sanctioning of our values and principles. They are what they are, what they have been and what they will remain to be. That is why this document is called a "Declaration" and not an "Affirmation". The presence or absence of any Alliances signatures will not change that. We welcome any and all Alliances that chose to recognize our Declaration, but openly realize that some Alliances will and some will not.

What got us into the "mess" that you refer to was a few people that forgot our values and not our values in and of themself. We realize that and they are long gone from our Alliance.

I appreciate your comments and hope I have addressed them to you satisfaction. If not, please feel free to express any other concerns or questions you may have.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Thomasjtx

[omnilynx]

I do think something like a declaration of pacifism might be more in order and then you could appeal to other alliances to sign on recognizing that you are a quasi-pacifist alliance that will only fire if fired upon directly.

That's a good suggestion. The only problem I see is that pacifism, to most, designates an unwillingness to use military force at all, even in self-defense. We are peace-loving, but we aren't in that sense pacifist, so that label might lead to confusion. It would also allow interference with others diplomatically, which we don't want to do. Neutrality seems the best term to describe our stance of both quasi-pacifism, as you put it, and diplomatic non-intervention.

[General Specific]

That's a good suggestion. The only problem I see is that pacifism, to most, designates an unwillingness to use military force at all, even in self-defense. We are peace-loving, but we aren't in that sense pacifist, so that label might lead to confusion. It would also allow interference with others diplomatically, which we don't want to do. Neutrality seems the best term to describe our stance of both quasi-pacifism, as you put it, and diplomatic non-intervention.

Hmm, seeing the central vision of peacefulness and isolationism...excepting the desire for something on paper everyone can sign, presently termed international "neutrality" which is a bit inimical to the isolationist and pacifists themes...how about Islopacifists? lol that sounds an awful lot like something in another world

Good luck and I'll stop giving you a hard time now so you can respond to the people of real substance like TrotskysRevenge and Reyne.

edit: I think many pacifists do believe in self-defense, so that should just be a question of schools of thought. I think?

Edited February 22, 2009 by General Specific

[omnilynx]

Good luck and I'll stop giving you a hard time now so you can respond to the people of real substance like TrotskysRevenge and Reyne.

Thanks, and don't worry, we're happy to chat.

[Wes Walz Pants]

While the exact wording has changed, that has always been the heart and intention of the DoN.

Other alliances sign this out of respect for who we. It also makes sense from a practical standpoint, since an alliance that won't help anyone is also not going to help your enemies.

We'll take our chances that you do.

On behalf of TORN I'd like to reaffirm that we are not a GPA DoN Signatory. Good luck though.

[chefjoe]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself

Just my .02......

[Lord Boris]

edit: disregard. misread it.

/me goes to not read forums after being awake for two days.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Lord Boris

[joracy]

ummm... did I miss something here? Are there more than one USN now?

Not sure what you mean :S As far as I know USN has always had an s at the end.

EDIT: I cannot read...

Edited February 22, 2009 by joracy

[heggo]

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality”

Dante Alighieri

OOC:

I like the Divine Comedy and as such feel compelled to defend Dante's cleverness. Dante didn't do something so dull and simple as toss neutrals into some hot pit in hell. (In fact, the worst part of his hell was cold and wet.) See, Dante took the people that were neutral to good and evil (or more precisely, didn't back pick a side between God and Satan) and didn't let them go to either Heaven or Hell. He left them on the shores of the river Acheron, right by hell. The logic was that since they didn't pick a side they never really lived and thus never really died. If they have done neither, then you can't get sent to heaven. Or hell. It wasn't really a pleasant place, though. They had to run around chasing a banner that they would never be allowed to reach and also had to deal with bees and other things bothering them. It was, however, a lot better than most parts of hell, assuming that you can disregard the ontological crisis that those folks have to suffer with.

You can blame the false quote on JFK, if I recall correctly.

[Thomasj_tx]

Hmm, seeing the central vision of peacefulness and isolationism...excepting the desire for something on paper everyone can sign, presently termed international "neutrality" which is a bit inimical to the isolationist and pacifists themes...how about Islopacifists? lol that sounds an awful lot like something in another world

Good luck and I'll stop giving you a hard time now so you can respond to the people of real substance like TrotskysRevenge and Reyne.

edit: I think many pacifists do believe in self-defense, so that should just be a question of schools of thought. I think?

Maybe the term Non-intervention is easier to understand then Neutrality.

I assume that you are not concerned if I did or did not pay my bills today, or did or did not collect taxes from my citizens today. You may be mildly interested in the Nation Strength of my nation or the amount of causalities that I have or to whom I am sending or receiving aid from.

That is how the GPA looks at Planet Bob. We are interested in all that goes on with the Planet that we live on. But we have no desire to intervene in the activities of the other Alliances. So that negates isolationism since we are interested in our Planet. Non-aligned, several nations and Alliances can say that. Pacifists, just look at my causalities. Peace, non-intervention directly means that we neither support the wars on PB nor oppose them.

I hope that this may make things a bit clearer.

[Otto Verteidiger]

Just my .02......

You can patriot about your own alliance and not have to interfere with others, all the while still feeling proud about your own alliance.

[WalkerNinja]

OOC:

I like the Divine Comedy and as such feel compelled to defend Dante's cleverness. Dante didn't do something so dull and simple as toss neutrals into some hot pit in hell. (In fact, the worst part of his hell was cold and wet.) See, Dante took the people that were neutral to good and evil (or more precisely, didn't back pick a side between God and Satan) and didn't let them go to either Heaven or Hell. He left them on the shores of the river Acheron, right by hell. The logic was that since they didn't pick a side they never really lived and thus never really died. If they have done neither, then you can't get sent to heaven. Or hell. It wasn't really a pleasant place, though. They had to run around chasing a banner that they would never be allowed to reach and also had to deal with bees and other things bothering them. It was, however, a lot better than most parts of hell, assuming that you can disregard the ontological crisis that those folks have to suffer with.

You can blame the false quote on JFK, if I recall correctly.

I fail to see how your clarification improves your standing.

Once upon a time I got a GPA MoFA to plainly admit that there is no value in affirming the DoN nor any compelling reason to do so. If I still had access to the forum where he said it, I would post it here.

Edited February 22, 2009 by WalkerNinja

[Sunstar]

Once upon a time I got a GPA MoFA to plainly admit that there is no value in affirming the DoN nor any compelling reason to do so. If I still had access to the forum where he said it, I would post it here.

I have access to the forum, I'm just too lazy to post it.

I have no problem with GPA's Neutrality, however altering a treaty without consulting the other signatories seems quite unprofessional to me.

[Soyak]

Wait, so if you do not oppose wars that really doesn't make you a pacifist then does it? It's hard to categorize you, since you aren't quite pacificst, and now you're apparently not isolationist. You guys are quite unique

[Thomasj_tx]

I fail to see how your clarification improves your standing.

Once upon a time I got a GPA MoFA to plainly admit that there is no value in affirming the DoN nor any compelling reason to do so. If I still had access to the forum where he said it, I would post it here.

I think that the "value" is in the eye of the beholder. And the nice thing is that a signature on or off of it will not and does not change what we are declaring. I value your consideration as much as I value your decision to not recognize it.

Thanks for your interest.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Thomasjtx

[Thomasj_tx]

I have access to the forum, I'm just too lazy to post it.

I have no problem with GPA's Neutrality, however altering a treaty without consulting the other signatories seems quite unprofessional to me.

As I stated earlier, this is not a traditional "treaty", but a refinement of our existing Declaration. And I should point out that a couple of dozen Alliance leaders were given a preview of this a while ago and informed how we were going to introduce it.

[Thomasj_tx]

You guys are quite unique

We think that we are "normal".

[Gofastleft]

R&R removed their name from this over a year ago

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...mp;#entry363846