Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 ooc: Mediterranean states may attend if they feel the Mediterranean constitutes a North Atlantic sea. ic: "Good, looks like we have a lot of attendees. Ladies and Gentlemen, the reason I have called to you here is to discuss regional stability. With the fall of Tahoe the probability of wars rises due to the fact a security vacuum has been created. I realize that some of us here are not the best of friends with the others due to territorial disputes and past arguments, but I'm asking you to put those aside. It is in our best interest we move forward to co-ordinate trade and security.. making the Atlantic a safe place to live and to do business. On that note, I open this meeting and ask how all of you feel about the concept of creating such a protective umbrella. Perhaps a Defense Block with a reduction in trade barriers is what I was thinking. The reason I called this the NATO summit.. is that it would greatly resemble the old NATO alliance of eras past." Observed President Caudill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Zapatistas Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "I am concerned that certain states will not be able to comply with a non-aggression clause in such an agreement because of presumed 'responsibilities' or pseudo-claims to territory or former territory that they possessed. While I and the government of the Community of Chiapas welcome any kind of proposal to bring stability to the Americas and opening warm relations with our comrades in Europe, we cannot let a few rotten apples spoil the rest of the barrel. "As just a thought, I propose that this alliance's headquarters and coordinating centers be located in former Tahoe in an internationally-administered zone." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "I understand the request, but Tahoe has no Atlantic border. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to have an Atlantic command situated in the western sections of Continental North America. Is there any other locations you think would be suitable? Perhaps we could designate some island an international zone and host it there? I could talk to the Governor of Virgina about using an island for it, but most of our offshore islands are really close to our territories and I imagine you want somewhere more isolated. Somewhere like.. Jamaica, Puerto Rico or the Bahamas would be ideal for such a venture." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Zapatistas Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "It was just a thought to use recently conquered territory for a good cause," said Comandante Elisa, "however I think that this alliance should go beyond that of military cooperation and protection. The basic rights and liberties of people should be protected, as sadly, only an international union of nations are suitable enough to preserve even the most basic of rights. Even then, we see time and time again these organizations failing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "The United States is of like mind in your desire for such an organization.. and we sadly see the same failings. The issue tends to be the need for a strong central leadership and organizer, one appointed and selected by the body of those constituting the organization.. not self-appointed. The United States is willing to vote for a central leader and not simply impose one as in past organizations. We are firm believers in democracy. Do you have any suggestions on how we might overcome the failings of such organizations of the past?" Caudill inquired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californian Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "The reason similar organizations have failed in the past is due in part to the basic structure of such an organization. The original NATO formed between member nations that had just fought together in war, uniting them in a military treaty after years of being united in friendship. With the organization you propose now, a Mexican nation may have the responsibility to helping to defend a Scandinavian country they have had little to no contact with. It hardly makes sense in the first place, but then one must add in the North America/Europe rift. For some reason the two continents seem wary of the other, I know for example that the former nation of Groenlandia was required to be either European or North American, and nations would not allow it to align itself in the middle." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Zapatistas Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "Open up the organization. Make this proposed alliance open for the citizens of the globe to petition with their problems, with what their government is failing to do. If they cannot trust us, how can we trust them to cooperate," the masked Zapatista replied, "I propose an open assembly of people, electing delegates from their own nation to represent them in the alliance. These delegates may form an executive committee, directing the administration areas of international governance. The members of this committee may nominate one man and one woman to act as co-chairs - as a woman myself, I must stress the importance in gender equality in government." "While we may have opposing views of our nations, I find it admirable your devotion to the preservation and establishment of democracy on a global scale." OOC: 1. Each nation will elect a set number of representatives - they may do so how they feel is appropriate. 2. These elected delegates will comprise the legislative branch of the NATO international government. 3. The delegates will elect among themselves a cabinet to administrate executive NATO agencies. 4. This cabinet will select among themselves one man and one woman to act as co-chairs, whose positions are confirmed by the representatives from the various nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "That was under the old regime, one perpetuated and sponsored by Tahoe. The United States has no reason to fear its neighbors unless presented with a reason to do so. That said, we are naturally wary for our own security and keep a strong military for it, but at the same time.. unfounded paranoia does little more than serve as a divider of great economies and of people who collective could accomplish much more than alone." Caudill observed. "Each continent.. north, south America and Europe.. all have distinct resources utilizable to make all participants much more competitive and to improve all of our lives. I, for example, love the French Cognac. Embargo France and I'll be in my own little personal hell. That said I'll always be friendly to the French. South America has a lot of useful mineral deposits. North America has coal, steel, and an abundance of agricultural land. We really need to work together better." "Additionally, in times past, Europe was inhabited by much darker powers with more sinister intent. I do not get that out of them any longer. So was North America.. and one such power has fallen. If my North American brothers and sisters are willing to move on from the past, I most certainly am." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proxian Empire Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 A fairly disinterested diplomat from Scotland sat at the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 The Empress stood up to address the man from the USA. "Sir, no offence, but outline your plan, explain it and then answer questions about it, because frankly, im being bored to sleep, and im still not seeing progress towards what you actually want member nations of NATO to achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) "That depends a lot on what you as the constituents of NATO want to Achieve. I envision, as previously stated, a mutual defense pact with a restriction on tariffs and quotas governing the Atlantic region. If we want to do more or less than that is purely up to the constituents. If that is all you want then I propose the following: [quote name="NATO"] 1. The members of this treaty vow to defend each other from attacks by other nations and not to attack each other. 2. The members of this treaty agree to share intelligence about potential threats to other members. 3. The members of this treaty agree to allocate 5% of their military budgets to the NATO defense force which will constitute a merchant marine to protect trade in the Atlantic from piracy and attacks by foreign forces. 4. The members of this treaty agree the definition of national waters shall not exceed more than 200 NM from the coastline and anywhere that such boundaries overlap shall constitute international waters. 5. The members of this treaty agree to abolish quotas on trade between member states and to minimize tariffs to less than 5% per product. The only exception to this clause is if a member state requests an embargo upon itself, for example as when an embargo may be due to a migratory health concern such as polluted or contaminated food products. Members agree to request an embargo upon themselves upon detection of the contamination for the sake of the whole. 6. The members of this treaty agree to extradition of all convicts found guilty under the laws of other member states to the state which was offended for proper prosecution. 7. All diplomats operate under diplomatic immunity and may not be held accountable for local laws except at the permission of the originating nation. In the event a diplomat becomes a problem it is the responsibility of the hosting nation to expel the diplomat or request a replacement. 8. Member states agree to allow their currencies to float and not to manipulate currency values but allow them to be determined by free markets. 9. The addition of more members must be approved by a simple majority of existing membership. 10. When a vote is called anyone not lodging their vote within 72 hours is considered to have voted for a referendum, meaning that whatever simple majority is made of the remaining voters becomes the official, accepted vote. 11. Withdrawing from the treaty requires 72 hours notice. [/quote] "That's a start. This is purely a draft.. pieces can be added or removed at the request of those present." Edited June 8, 2010 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingChris Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) OOC: Hmm, anything about suspension or expulsion of a member country? And possibly veto power based on geographic strategic locations? Edited June 8, 2010 by KingChris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "With such a variety of members, we will only be tying our hands behind our backs. Those of us who legally allow this bloc to rule will be allowing those who don't to get the upper hand. I'm sure that all of you remember the actions of the Puerto Ricans during the Tahoe Conflict. Vaule during the Fall of Slavorussia? It's only a matter of time before somebody in this bloc betrays another, and with the large amount of nations that are proposed to join it is more than inevitable. The first NATO fell because the nations collapsed. The second NATO never got anywhere. Third time will not be the charm because you are asking us, Kuutsmil, to ally with people we share no cultural, economic, or even friendly connection with. You are asking all of us to put the lives of our citizens on the line for strangers, and this is unacceptable." Chavez shook his head. "Why should I care what happens to the United States of America? Why should I care what happens to Scotland or the Holy American Empire for that matter? These are not countries we are on friendly terms with and indeed not country we would go to war for except in cases of extreme situations. Now you're suggesting that we change our maritime borders, give away the rights to our own currency, dedicate billions of dollars and mess with our own economy for these people? This is what teenagers dream up when they want to become Leader of the Free World." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 The Empress looked over at Chavez as he spoke, such passion in his words, and logic. "I am sorry to say, but the points just raised, are very valid, and echo my own mind. Why should a nation, with no previous ties to another, be obliged to protect another, with no guarantee the favour would be returned?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSchaine Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 An interesting proposal, to be sure. However, point 6 is a bit heavy. For instance, we do not always agree with the laws of other nations. Why would we want to send one of our citizens to face something we consider unjust? And what of those fleeing for political reasons or from oppression? These issues need to be explored in more detail and made clear in as plain a way as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 [quote name='KingChris' date='08 June 2010 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1276008589' post='2328816'] OOC: Hmm, anything about suspension or expulsion of a member country? And possibly veto power based on geographic strategic locations? [/quote] ooc: Post your suggestions icly as my diplomatic adviser. ^..^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "Okay, from what I'm understanding two of us do not have an interest in working with our neighbors in this degree of detail for fear of being back-stabbed and embracing a very justifiable paranoia. It is not an unjust concern given the history of the region and if that is something that is something you cannot reconcile you are free to depart these talks, however if you are willing to give some merit of trust to the new nations that have risen in the region and want to participate in some measure of trust building co-operation with them.. most of us.. are new governments. Ours, at the least, despises the old way of how our regions politics have been handled. We think important changes can be made. We think this is how. This is your chance to build that trust. If you have particular parts of the proposal you wish to have removed that are notable in their offense to you, simply give me the number of the article you feel is a threat to you. I heard some mention of an objection to the Merchant Marine Anti-Piracy task force funding; if that is all it is easily stricken." "Ms. Connolly, as for your concerns.. Option 6 with the extradition treaty is completely optional, if wanted it could be completely stricken and extradition could continue to be negotiated on a case by case basis, which may be far more feasible." Caudil concluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 The Norway-Swedish Diplomat frantically typed into his computer, writing down the proposed points. He chuckled: "In our issues with this proposed pact are rather extensive;" 4. The members of this treaty agree the definition of national waters shall not exceed more than 200 NM from the coastline and anywhere that such boundaries overlap shall constitute international waters. "Such a law would render areas, such as the Baltic and Mediterranean, entirely under your definition of 'International waters.' Where countries are tight together, and coastlines are widely shared, one cannot suddenly claim that any overlap is 'International waters.' It is, quite simply, absurd." 5. The members of this treaty agree to abolish quotas on trade between member states and to minimize tariffs to less than 5% per product. The only exception to this clause is if a member state requests an embargo upon itself, for example as when an embargo may be due to a migratory health concern such as polluted or contaminated food products. Members agree to request an embargo upon themselves upon detection of the contamination for the sake of the whole. "Tariffs are a necessary part of trade, generating revenue for the country, protecting homegrown, small businesses from massive, international conglomerates that would love to eliminate competition." 6. The members of this treaty agree to extradition of all convicts found guilty under the laws of other member states to the state which was offended for proper prosecution. "I am afraid I do not follow what you mean here. It would seem as if you are stating that anyone who commits an action that is not a crime in one member state, but is a crime in another state, should be extradited to the second state to be prosecuted for their perfectly legal action. I realize that this is utterly absurd, and hope that this was not the intention." 7. All diplomats operate under diplomatic immunity and may not be held accountable for local laws except at the permission of the originating nation. In the event a diplomat becomes a problem it is the responsibility of the hosting nation to expel the diplomat or request a replacement. "So, you are saying that diplomats are above the law, that they are deserving of never being prosecuted for any crime they commit? That is, quite simply, absurd. We have heard of this theory in the past, and heard much more of the times it has been used at the advantage of the diplomat to evade taxes, tickets, and even more serious felonies, such as manslaughter. If a diplomat commits a crime in Norway, they will be charged just the same as a citizen, in a fair court." "I can say now, on behalf of my homeland, that, as it is currently written, Norway-Sweden will not be signing into this treaty." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) "Okay, So we'll strike proposals 4-7. That leaves 1,2,3,8,9,10,11. Any additions anyone would want or anything else stricken? Others have objected to 3 and 8.. so we'll knock those as well. Leaves us with this more pared down draft." [quote name="Nato Mod 1"] 1. The members of this treaty vow to defend each other from attacks by other nations and not to attack each other. 2. The members of this treaty agree to share intelligence about potential threats to other members. 9. The addition of more members must be approved by a simple majority of existing membership. 10. When a vote is called anyone not lodging their vote within 72 hours is considered to have voted for a referendum, meaning that whatever simple majority is made of the remaining voters becomes the official, accepted vote. 11. Withdrawing from the treaty requires 72 hours notice. [/quote] Edited June 8, 2010 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "What of a missile sheild for those nations whom sign this treaty? IE, nations with a strategic defence program, extend their shield over the ones who dont, in the form of installations to extend the sphere of defence." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proxian Empire Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "Despite the turmoil within Scottish politics at this time, the current head of state, Her Majesty the Queen Violet I of Scotland has informed me that there is no vested interest in any sort of defence agreements with nations outside of Europe. Scotland wishes to protect her immediate friends and affairs, and we do not trust any country that supported the invasion of our friends in Tahoe. We are willing to sign some sort of trade agreement to improve relations, but beyond that we will be taking our leave from this discussion if there is no military opt-out clause," the Scottish diplomat said without haste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) "You know.. that is a good idea. It would be nice to have a missile shield over at least part of the Atlantic, and we're working on our own shield as we speak. The United States would not mind sheltering others under this shield once complete so long as we see those neighbors working for peace in the region." Caudill noded. "Excellent idea." When the Scottish representative spoke up Caudill noted, "The U.S. would be glad to sign a unilateral trade treaty with Scotland if NATO is not of interest to you as of yet." Edited June 8, 2010 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 "I'm sorry to say that missile shields have, for whatever reason, spontaneously failed. While they worked for a brief moment in the past, it appears that with the Generalissimo Theory of Time, and how time varies from place to place, comes a change in the way certain machines work. Such an endeavour would prove to be fruitless," Chavez pointed out. He went back to his earlier point. "Scotland makes a good note as well. There are fundamental differences within some of these nations proposed here, differences in politics or government or economics that may be too hard for our citizens to uphold. I'm quite certain that many of my citizens would not want to ally with nations such as Scotland, and while I mean not to be rude I will simply say that it is impossible at least in this moment in time. This is a good try, but the most important part of the treaty here is the mandatory military defence. Perhaps if this was an optional clause we would be willing to sign. In addition, the intelligence sharing clause could cause trouble for international agents or any nation's intelligence agency. Revealing to a group of people that you gained intelligence is one thing, but revealing it to a group of people who may turn on you later and use espionage as an excuse is another. Call me paranoid but there is a history of treachery in the world." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezequiel Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 OOC: Can I attend a meeting when locked? If not then just unlock me please. 'The Republic of Spain would like to attend this meeting, Foreign Minister Jose will arrive shorty.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Of course missile shields will fail, sometimes they just cant stop the incoming missiles, but thats only for nations that have them. What about other nations who dont, and can be turned into plains of glass at will by other nations or rogue groups?, it would certainly do alot in building the trust up between many nations. 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.