Amyante Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 "At this point, we would have quite a few issues with virtually every article in the A.N.C.A. treaty. The Vauleo-Buryatians among others have already stated that they are not interested in anything more than a NAP, as have we stated that we are not interested in a treaty that drops all tariffs as said trade tariffs make up for a good deal of the Zargathian treasury. From top to bottom, these are the issues we have with this version." Preamble---The signatories below sign this treaty in mutual agreement to promote order and to bring a new level of peace and prosperity to the Asian region. "So far so good..." Article One: Membership-Any nation which is based out of the Asian continent or Indian subcontinent region is allowed to join. -All nations must be seen as regional peace keepers to join -Once applying, the applicant nation must receive a 100% acceptance by all members. "Aside from the fact that unanimous acceptance is being made a prerequisite which we feel would lead to an 'old boys' club', the nations in Oceania are omitted from this list. Also, while it is commendable to promote impeccable behavior from member and applicant nations alike, there are nations who for some reason cannot be regional peacekeepers for whatever reason, or -- on the other end of the scale -- use the term too freely." Article Two: Economic Cooperation and Coordination-For the advancement of all Asian people, all nations must drop all tariffs between signatories. -International businesses between signatories will not receive excessive taxation. -All signatories agree to lessen border payments between travelers from signatory nations. -Technology sharing between nations is not required, but encouraged. "As previously mentioned, Zargathia feels that an obligation to drop all tariffs would have too great of an impact on the current taxation system, given that a large part of the treasury stems from these trade tariffs." Article Three:Mutual Defense-If one of the signatories are under attack it is the other signatories duty to defend that nation. -If a nation cancels this treaty during war that nation shall be attacked by the signatories as the friendship and trust held in this treaty is gone. "While we have no problems with an MDP, the second article gives the impression of holding the other signatories at gunpoint, essentially treating a treaty cancellation during war as a declaration of war itself." Article Four: Aggressive War-If any signatory wishes to go to war that signatory must give the members of Asian Nations Coalition Agreement a 72 hour notice beforehand. -If the notice period is not given then the member community shall vote on whether to keep the said nation or eject them from the bloc. "Three days is a bit short to start up an effort for diplomacy to prevent the conflict from taking place. Basically, this article seems to promote warmongering (and by extension imperialism) while sweeping peaceful solutions under the rug. If we would for example invade and annex Furon without provocation under this treaty, the only trouble we could get in was if we did not announce our intentions on time!" Article Five: Nuclear Warfare:-Each member nation of the Asian Nations Coalition Agreement is allowed to research and develop Nuclear weapons at their own cost. -Nuclear first strikes is prohibited and the said nation who has launched nuclear weapons shall be expelled. -Nuclear defense wars are allowed. -Members are to alert all A.N.C.A. participants in the event of the use of one within their borders. "Zargathia is, and will always be, against the use of nuclear weapons. Thus, by extention, we would be against a treaty which not only allows them, but adds a manual for what it deems 'correct use'." Article Six:In case of Civil Instability:- In the case that any nation should experience internal conflict, rebellion, or any type of over through of government each nation will pledge it's support to the nation under hostilities through both economic and militaristic efforts. - Peaceful demonstrations or weaponless struggles for power may not be defined as an insurrection or a rebellion. "Zargathia has a policy of trusting nations to deal with their civil unrest themselves, and their ability to request aid if they do not. We feel... a bit iffy about this article, though we will not comment on this article further." Article Seven: Cancellation/Expulsion-If any signatory wishes to cancel the treaty,they will have to give a 96notice period before this treaty is null or void. Should any member of the Asian Nations Coalition Agreement be found to have aims that are either against or counterproductive to those of it's neighbors, then the nation in question may be voted out by the general membership with a 75% +1 majority. "72 hours to announce a declaration of an aggressive war, 96 hours to cancel the treaty, and the silent promise of being attacked for leaving during war. There is certainly potential for abuse there." "Summarised, while we can understand Acca Dacca's attempt to merge the contents of two treaties into one, we feel the A.N.C.A. would not necessarily be the solution Zargathia would be looking for. Old does not always equal better, and perhaps having two separate organizations -- with one of them being primarily economic for those not wishing to join a bloc -- would be the answer -- after all, the AUP and Asian Union have existed alongside one another for this long, why would it suddenly be undesirable to continue having them cooperatively coexist as long as they do not overlap one another?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acca Dacca Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 "Aside from the fact that unanimous acceptance is being made a prerequisite which we feel would lead to an 'old boys' club', the nations in Oceania are omitted from this list. Also, while it is commendable to promote impeccable behavior from member and applicant nations alike, there are nations who for some reason cannot be regional peacekeepers for whatever reason, or -- on the other end of the scale -- use the term too freely." Elaborate. Are you saying that knowing the people in your block enough to trust them is an 'old boys club' as you state? As for the regional peacekeepers, you have stated the exact reason for the article. They have to be seen as peace keepers to join the block. If not, they are omitted. "As previously mentioned, Zargathia feels that an obligation to drop all tariffs would have too great of an impact on the current taxation system, given that a large part of the treasury stems from these trade tariffs." Understandable, but you'd prosper under the international market growing within your state. Causing domestic markets to challenge prices and lower them, allowing the average citizen to be able to by more. You'd certainly benefit off of that. "While we have no problems with an MDP, the second article gives the impression of holding the other signatories at gunpoint, essentially treating a treaty cancellation during war as a declaration of war itself." Frankly if you arent going to defend someone in the bloc, then they shouldnt sign this part. Either offer the defense and have it given to you in return, or dont sign. That is for the scoundrels that use this bloc as a way to have protection, but when the time comes, they should be prepared to defend those that would defend them. "Three days is a bit short to start up an effort for diplomacy to prevent the conflict from taking place. Basically, this article seems to promote warmongering (and by extension imperialism) while sweeping peaceful solutions under the rug. If we would for example invade and annex Furon without provocation under this treaty, the only trouble we could get in was if we did not announce our intentions on time!" The article in no way promotes warmongering. At all. If you were not to announce your intention, you would not have our backing. Which, in turn, would cause you to suffer. If you want our backing, you'll first have to ask for it. "Zargathia is, and will always be, against the use of nuclear weapons. Thus, by extention, we would be against a treaty which not only allows them, but adds a manual for what it deems 'correct use'." So putting regulation where there wasnt is promoting? your logic is flawed. "Zargathia has a policy of trusting nations to deal with their civil unrest themselves, and their ability to request aid if they do not. We feel... a bit iffy about this article, though we will not comment on this article further." Then those who care for our allies and civilians will help. Well, apparently the falling influence of the AUP and an extension of AU is not what is needed. If there is nothing more to say here, then the two groups can continue on thier merry way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amyante Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Elaborate. Are you saying that knowing the people in your block enough to trust them is an 'old boys club' as you state? As for the regional peacekeepers, you have stated the exact reason for the article. They have to be seen as peace keepers to join the block. If not, they are omitted. "No, i am saying that requiring a 100% approval rating could lead to an 'old boys club' as only one member voting 'Nay' would reject the application. It allows for a situation where a young nation is forced to jump through hoops to appease every single member. Just because i trust the other heads of state to be integral and fair in their judgment does not guarantee their eventual successors will be, hence why i wished to point out this issue." Understandable, but you'd prosper under the international market growing within your state. Causing domestic markets to challenge prices and lower them, allowing the average citizen to be able to by more. You'd certainly benefit off of that. "While that is certainly true, the problem is of a different nature. For a while now, Zargathia has been trying to increase its population, something that has recently been starting to show results*. One of these measures is low overall taxation, and the trade tariffs keep a check on the unemployment rate as it is relatively cheaper for companies to produce and sell goods from within Zargathia itself rather than import them from abroad. Though one could state that the domestic market is protected, low taxation generally reflects on consumer prices as well, resulting in an on average not particularly heightened level of consumer prices in comparison to our neighboring countries. The average citizen is able to buy more because he has less taxes to pay, not because products are cheaper. It's a system of checks and balances, and we chose another way to achieve our goals." OOC: * = Only bought Clinics and a Hospital a week ago, boosting pop per mile from 19 to 33. Frankly if you arent going to defend someone in the bloc, then they shouldnt sign this part. Either offer the defense and have it given to you in return, or dont sign. That is for the scoundrels that use this bloc as a way to have protection, but when the time comes, they should be prepared to defend those that would defend them. "While we agree with you, we meant that this could be read as 'abandon us and be run into the ground'. While such acts are regrettable, we believe wars should not lead to more wars." The article in no way promotes warmongering. At all. If you were not to announce your intention, you would not have our backing. Which, in turn, would cause you to suffer. If you want our backing, you'll first have to ask for it. "That is the point we were trying to make: It is an announcement, nothing more, and one leaving no room for a peaceful solution. The nation would not even be asking for backing as the A.N.C.A. is an MDP, and the aggressor is not the defending party. Furthermore, it could stress the relation between blocs of different continents, which is why wars of aggression should be avoided or at least discouraged, something this document does not do in the least." So putting regulation where there wasnt is promoting? your logic is flawed. "The Sydney Accords -- which we are a signatory of -- contains articles concerning nuclear, chemical and biological warfare, so regulation is most definitely existent. The A.N.C.A. article could be best described as 'No first strike, other than that you're good to go', once again without even the slightest hint at discouragement." Then those who care for our allies and civilians will help. "I care for my allies and civilians, but that does not mean i should disrespect their sovereignty by giving them the impression they cannot handle civil unrest alone. In the greater picture, such acts may depict the government facing this unrest as weak and incompetent by leaning on its neighbors, in turn sparking more unrest, especially in cases where militaristic aid is given. Therefore, while we stand ready to defend our allies, we will only do so upon their request, trusting their assessment of the situation." Well, apparently the falling influence of the AUP and an extension of AU is not what is needed. If there is nothing more to say here, then the two groups can continue on thier merry way. "The purpose of these talks was to have both groups continue on the same merry way, so your comparison is quite accurate. Still, we have not reached this point yet. A true middle road, a treaty everyone present is comfortable with is i fear unattainable, hence why i believe two treaties working together would be the best solution. It adds a layer of gray between white and black, between everything and nothing." "Those that prefer complete isolation will focus on their own treaties, becoming a member of neither AU nor AUP. Those that wish a simple network of economic treaties would join the Asian Union. Those who seek an even closer level of international cooperation would join the AUP as well, and higher still would lie the level of a full merger of nations, that which the Dragon Empire had been before its regrettable collapse. And that is what these organizations are, shades of gray between white and black. They represent different levels of international cooperation, and this is precisely why they are able to coexist. If this would be streamlined to not cause overlaps, to emphasize rather than compete against one another... Then that is, in its full potential, a wonderful thing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 "I specifically stated nothing more than an NAP and reduced tariffs. Making the Defense Clause Optional may be acceptable...I'll have to confer with my government on this, but no more than that. And unless the clause about eliminating tariffs is removed, my nation will not sign this treaty proposal." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperator Azenquor Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 "Given the statement by Zargathia, we must ask the following: Is there a proposal for the formulation of a new inclusive treaty (i.e. AU and AUP) on the table, or is this discussion simply about furthering cooperation between the two organizations? It appears that there is some confusion regarding the actual intent of the meeting. If indeed the intention is to remain as two separate organizations, then perhaps we could draft an inter-organizational cooperation agreement?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amyante Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 "There is no formal proposal in place at this time as far as we know. We offered a suggestion in having the AU and AUP coexist, Acca Dacca offered a suggestion in the form of a resurrection of the A.N.C.A. Currently we are in a phase where we discuss ideas and alternatives to see which would appeal to the majority of representatives present, and only upon completion of this phase would we advance into actually putting something on paper." "As far as Vauleo-Buryatia's own suggestion to draft an interorganizational cooperation agreement is concerned, we would have no objections to this, as it would fit in with our intention to form a mutual bond between the two organizations." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrich von Richt Posted December 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 OOC: Bump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.