A clarification of MHA obligations.

[Teriethien]

That was before my time, so it has no relevance for me.

Your being delusional doesn't change anything.

o/ MHA

[CelenAzrael]

I should probably make an observation as the facepalms are getting to hurt now. This statement is as a result of a few actions by NPO over the last few days, including not informing us of their intentions with OV, practically negating the same treaty and ignoring us when we said that the declaration was a bad idea in the first place... repeatedly. We do not wish to get involved in this war and, as long as none of NPO's allies decide to get aggressive towards are allies on the other side, there will be no problems whatsoever. We are trying to stay neutral and, as long as NPO and co., refrain from undue aggression, this never needs to have any effect, just as this could have been avoided by the same.

This is, of course, my viewpoint and does not reflect the alliance as a whole, except at the points where the words of the triums and mine coincide.

[Azrael Alexander]

The general turning your back on your allies and not following agreements

Seeing as no one in a position of power has really answered this other than crush, i'll try and explain a little:

No, on the contrary. It a Mutual Defence Pact based on mutual interests with a mutual consensus on what is just and right. To wit, the MHA feels that as to the rationale of launching of this war - to use a cliche - was not mutual.

Cowardice is standing idly as wrongs are perpetuated in your name. Cowardice is being helplessness as innocents burn before you with their cries for mercy going unheard. We are the Mostly Harmless Alliance. We are not the Mostly Cowardice alliance.

Quite simply this.

I did not know the "Order at the End of the Universe" Treaty had an optional defense clause. Even after reading it, and seeing this:

I still read it as you defending us if we were attacked. It seems you do not live up to your word, MHA. I'm disappointed.

From the treaty:

III. Defense and War

A. In the event that one of us comes under attack, the other shall provide all possible assistance. An attack on one shall be considered an attack on the other. Assistance is defined as military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, and all other forms of aid possible to provide. In the event this clause conflicts with other agreements, each of us agrees that, except for the Mobius Accords, this agreement shall take precedence.

B. Should one of us engage in offensive warfare, the other shall have the option, but not the obligation, to provide military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, or any other form of aid.

C. Notice of offensive military action by one must be given to the other no less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of hostilities. This time period will be used for the consideration of whether to undertake supportive offensive action.

That is why you guys have voided article a. We follow our treaties closely technically you have voided the entire document and due to the cancellation clause this is the only option the remains open to us.

To Quote Lord Brendan:

Your war against Ordo Verde was an aggressive war. The aggression part of your treaty is optional. All repercussions of your aggressive war are not defensive wars.

Maybe you should have written that in the treaty.

Or maybe 1 year cancellation was just a bit too long?

People make mistakes were not infallible, we have to work with what we have now.

These two quotes are direct contradictions. As soon as NPO is attacked, NATO is obligated to come to their defense. If you intend to fully activate Trident, you'd have to declare war alongside NATO... in defence of NPO and their war.

The only solution I can see is Fark and MHA intend to eject NATO from Trident.

e. Any offensive war initiated by a member of the Trident must receive a 2/3 vote for the bloc itself to actively aid the Trident member

So no chances are we won't be ejecting them from Trident

I've got to say, this really bugs me, much as I appreciate the direction MHA is taking.

You helped prop up NPO's regime all this time. Are their actions against OV really that surprising or out of character*?

This goes not just for MHA, but plenty of others who now suddenly want to see NPO burn after over a year of preventing anyone else from taking action against it.

*I don't mean that in the OOC sense

They are when communication is non-existent and after our numerous attempts to stop this war, pacifica does this.

[apriland]

you guys so much!

[Stonewall Jaxon]

o/ MHA.

Also, I Sorum and Shamshir so damn much*

* But in a manly way

[Sorum]

I wasn't aware that we had an ODP with you guys.

It's an MDoAP. You were the aggressors. That makes our entry optional. And when we've been pushing for peace all week, do you expect us to fight with you for something we certainly don't back?

We informed NPO that they would have our backing if they exhausted all attempts at peace. Attacking during peace talks is not the way to go to gain our support.

[WorkingClassRuler]

Our support for not starting this conflict was communicated prior to the war, as we worked to avoid a conflct - only to see those efforts dashed due to our partner's aggressive actions. We don't support those actions at all. This is a fundamental conflict in the friendship, initiated by the other partners of these treaties. MHA cannot be expected to defend an Aggressive War that we fundamentally do not agree with and cannot be a party to.

This is just a path that we cannot follow and would NEVER ask our partners to do it either. I know it's too much to expect everyone to understand the difficulties we've faced in this, but this is the only decision we could make.

[turboflame]

I <3 my alliance

Awesome announcement

[BamaBuc]

It's an MDoAP. You were the aggressors. That makes our entry optional. And when we've been pushing for peace all week, do you expect us to fight with you for something we certainly don't back?

We informed NPO that they would have our backing if they exhausted all attempts at peace. Attacking during peace talks is not the way to go to gain our support.

You chose to sign a treaty with a year long cancellation clause. YOU agreed to that. No one did it for you. You wrote a check you weren't willing to cash. Your sacred word is on that treaty, and on all the others you've chosen to overlook. Cancelling in a war is one thing. Dishonorable, maybe, but within your rights as a signatory. But just ignoring certain treaties? You have made it clear to the world tonight that your word, your sacred honor, is good only when convenient. You have proclaimed to us all that the word of the Mostly Harmless Alliance is not worth the ink it's signed in. When people come down from their war frenzy, they will realize this. And they will never let you forget.

-Bama

[Kowalski]

While the defensive part of this treaty appears to have been ignore it's worth remembering the MHA has worked hard with other parties to try and avoid this war and to get across how foolish it was. We were ignored. Were not even given the required period of notice for an offensive action, despite talks apparently having been officially ended with enough time to do so.

C. Notice of offensive military action by one must be given to the other no less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of hostilities. This time period will be used for the consideration of whether to undertake supportive offensive action.

Now I'm not saying that that clause is as important as the mutual defense clause, but for how long does MHA try and help and advise NPO only to be ignored, disrespected and kept in the dark? How long does MHA put up with being brushed aside and offended only to then be expected to come running when NPO goes against advice and starts some trouble? Friendship is a two-way process not just take, take, take.

[Azrael Alexander]

You chose to sign a treaty with a year long cancellation clause. YOU agreed to that. No one did it for you. You wrote a check you weren't willing to cash. Your sacred word is on that treaty, and on all the others you've chosen to overlook. Cancelling in a war is one thing. Dishonorable, maybe, but within your rights as a signatory. But just ignoring certain treaties? You have made it clear to the world tonight that your word, your sacred honor, is good only when convenient. You have proclaimed to us all that the word of the Mostly Harmless Alliance is not worth the ink it's signed in. When people come down from their war frenzy, they will realize this. And they will never let you forget.

-Bama

If the treaty was an MDAP then yes, MHA = Dishonourable

But the treaty is an MDoAP, this is an aggressive war by pacifica thus negating the defensive obligation of the MHA.

B. Should one of us engage in offensive warfare, the other shall have the option, but not the obligation, to provide military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, or any other form of aid.

C. Notice of offensive military action by one must be given to the other no less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of hostilities. This time period will be used for the consideration of whether to undertake supportive offensive action.

So, we are declaring neutrality, unless someone randomly attacks NPO.

[BamaBuc]

If the treaty was an MDAP then yes, MHA = Dishonourable

But the treaty is an MDoAP, this is an aggressive war by pacifica thus negating the defensive obligation of the MHA.

So, we are declaring neutrality, unless someone randomly attacks NPO.

That's very odd. I recall the OP saying that certain treaties will be honored, all others will not be.

-Bama

[Azrael Alexander]

That's very odd. I recall the OP saying that certain treaties will be honored, all others will not be.

-Bama

this is the way i justify it and what i think sorum was trying to get across.

[LeVentNoir]

We are going to defend NPO against any new aggressive wars launched against them, however, we will not be aiding them in their aggressive war against OV, nor will be aiding them with action against MDP treaty partners of OV or their MDoAP+ partners

Thats is exactly what I get out of the OP.

Edited April 22, 2009 by LeVentNoir

[crushtania]

The OP states that we're using our optional aggression clause to opt out of any aggression, well within the purview of the treaty. That's why it's optional. We're honoring the treaty, for all intents and purposes.

But hey, if any of you guys want to come and lecture me about proper conduct and application of a Mutual Defence, Optional Aggression Treaty then please feel free to do so.

[Mentor]

Hail MHA, guess this was a wise decision

[Poobah]

Now I'm not saying that that clause is as important as the mutual defense clause, but for how long does MHA try and help and advise NPO only to be ignored, disrespected and kept in the dark? How long does MHA put up with being brushed aside and offended only to then be expected to come running when NPO goes against advice and starts some trouble? Friendship is a two-way process not just take, take, take.

If Pacifica did not give the 24 hours notice, then this treaty could be null and void right now.

[Minilla Island]

Very classy and honorable. Hail!

[Kowalski]

If Pacifica did not give the 24 hours notice, then this treaty could be null and void right now.

I suppose that's a route that we could go down but why throw away two years of friendship over two weeks of bad blood? While we feel the need to stand aside from NPO on this occasion due to personal issues we are not looking for a way out of out relationship.

[Poobah]

I suppose that's a route that we could go down but why throw away two years of friendship over two weeks of bad blood? While we feel the need to stand aside from NPO on this occasion due to personal issues we are not looking for a way out of out relationship.

Exactly.

That's why there is more honor in this move that the trolls aren't giving you credit for. You are merely suspending a treaty after Pacifica broke it as opposed to just dropping it based on that article.

[Sir Skint]

I enjoy this thread, for it is far more clear then the other one.

[Aratar]

though i do love MHA, this is not honorable. when NPO did it, it was all "you guys suck!" now when MHA does it, its all "you guys rule!"

though i like the path you chose, you are doing it in a dishonorable way

Why do people trolling the MHA refuse to acknowledge the facts? Optional agression clause in NPO-MHA treaty requires the attacking party to give 24 hour notice about aggressive action to it's partner. From what I hear, Pacifica did not provide such a notice, so they were not upholding this treaty, so MHA has no obligation to defend them. Furthermore they have no obligation to support their aggressive war, since it's an optional aggression pact. Given that, and the fact that they're allied also to the opposite side of this conflict, I don't understand how can anyone accuse MHA of being dishonourable, abandoning allies, etc. This is nonsense!

[Azrael Alexander]

Why do people trolling the MHA refuse to acknowledge the facts? Optional agression clause in NPO-MHA treaty requires the attacking party to give 24 hour notice about aggressive action to it's partner. From what I hear, Pacifica did not provide such a notice, so they were not upholding this treaty, so MHA has no obligation to defend them. Furthermore they have no obligation to support their aggressive war, since it's an optional aggression pact. Given that, and the fact that they're allied also to the opposite side of this conflict, I don't understand how can anyone accuse MHA of being dishonourable, abandoning allies, etc. This is nonsense!

You are never going to please everyone, we did what was right. We followed the treaty and unlike the action of some alliance i will be able to sleep at night knowing this decision has been made.

[jerdge]

If Pacifica did not give the 24 hours notice, then this treaty could be null and void right now.

However, we still like the NPO, we're worried for them, and we'd like to be put in a position in which we can substantially help them again. We don't forget our friends this easily: the Pacifican certainly have been outstanding friends for years, they still are, and hopefully they will be for other years to come: I for one am deeply concerned for the troubles our Pacifican brothers are currently facing.

We Hitchhikers may do mistakes and I don't claim we must certainly be correct, but our position on the current events is that a succession of Pacifican bad judgments made it impossible for us to support them in their current policies and actions. This can very well change and I hope that it does soon, with the NPO correcting its course and creating the conditions for a satisfactory diplomatic solution to this conflict. Our door isn't shut at all.

[Il Principe]

(Crushtania @ Apr 22 2009, 04:03 AM)

No, on the contrary. It a Mutual Defence Pact based on mutual interests with a mutual consensus on what is just and right. To wit, the MHA feels that as to the rationale of launching of this war - to use a cliche - was not mutual.

Maybe you should have written that in the treaty.

I think we did:

We will discuss concerns openly, we will share routinely, and we will resolve any disagreements between our governments via private diplomatic channels.

B. Should one of us engage in offensive warfare, the other shall have the option, but not the obligation, to provide military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, or any other form of aid.

C. Notice of offensive military action by one must be given to the other no less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of hostilities. This time period will be used for the consideration of whether to undertake supportive offensive action.

Why should pacifica get anything better than what they gave their allies pray tell?

Because a wrong can never be made right by committing a wrong yourself. It also can never be a reason to commit a wrong yourself.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't look like they've actually pulled out, they've just said they won't be honoring it. Which just seems like a slightly peculiar way of going about things here.

You are right, we do not pull out. We are honoring our treaty. However we do not think the defence part of the treaty applies to this situation.

If Pacifica did not give the 24 hours notice, then this treaty could be null and void right now.

We care about Pacifica and we consider them friends. Thats why we do not want to see this treaty nulled and voided. Nobody said a 1 year cancellation period was practical, but between friends it can be the right thing to have and to restore weakening bonds.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Il Principe