Embassy of the South Pacific

[Whiskum]

We also wish to make clear that this turn of events was not entirely surprising to us, despite our best hopes that it could be avoided through diplomacy and better communications.

There was no attempt to communicate with The New Inquisition regarding the treaty with The Rejected Realms, which (alone) caused the treaty termination. If you hoped that communications would prevent the alliance ending, it would have been appropriate to have actually explained your position to us. If your point is in relation to other communications (in particular the conversation you instigated to discuss our relationship back in January) then, as was explained in the Minister-President's statement, it was the treaty with TRR which led to the Government terminating our treaty with TSP.

The New Inquisition mentioned in its statement two specific concerns that had contributed to their withdrawal from our Treaty,

You say that the statement mentioned 'two specific concerns that had contributed to their withdrawal from our Treaty'.

Actually, the statement said nothing of the sort:

While this decision has been reached solely as a result of The South Pacific's decision to align with an enemy of The New Inquisition, it would be remiss if we neglected to note that we had previous concerns regarding the conduct of The South Pacific and some of its senior officials.

The statement was very clear that the reason for terminating the treaty was solely a result of TSP's decision to align with a region at war with TNI. The additional issues were discussed to provide background to concerns regarding TNI and TSP's relations; they were not described as contributory factors.

Our officials have every right to speak their minds as private citizens as long as their behaviour does not affect the discharge of their duties.

It affects the Foreign Minister's discharge of their duties if they are publicly criticising an ally and indeed calling into question relations with that ally.

Inevitably what a Foreign Minister says will be taken as representative of what their government thinks about foreign policy - that is unexceptional.

The Cabinet finds itself taken aback by the accusations of unprofessionalism, when it was the South Pacific Special Forces who convinced the United Imperial Armed Forces and the Founderless Regions Alliance to work together.

SPSF arranged operations in the same region on the same update with the UIAF and the FRA, who are at war, without informing either beforehand.

When they informed the UIAF of this, the commander in the field had a snap decision as to whether to proceed or pull out. From the log he provided, he made it after one question - none of this so called 'convincing' which The South Pacific has talked about. However, he should not have been put in that position and it was the unprofessionalism of SPSF which led to that situation - as Geomania accepted in my conversation with him, hence his apology.

---

Remaining allied to region which had aligned itself with a region at war with us, and providing a guarantee of defensive support support to a region which would defend a region we are at war with, would not have been an option for The New Inquisition. That is the standard politics of inter-regional relations.

---

Regarding my conversation with Geomania, I am not going to make substantial comment because the Joint Commander has already refuted it.

On being approached by Geomania, I explained specifically that the UIAF was concerned that he was 'discussing the details of discussions with UIAF military officials in a media outlet, in particular one run by an FRA region and edited by Unibot. Refraining from discussing the details of discussions with our military officials with enemy media outlets, regardless of those discussions' sensitivity, especially without consulting with us, would have been courteous.

I made very clear that it was 'a matter of protocol' which I wished to clarify and not a 'major problem'. As the log Bishop posted shows, I was civil at all times. TSP appear to have made a complaint essentially grounded on the fact I raised concerns about their officials' conduct - an inherent contradiction.

At no point did I suggest that TSP officials should make no comments to TRR Times. I merely answered Geomania's question and accepted an apology from him for his error in failing to discuss with the plan to undertake an operation with the FRA with Christopher Bishop. He thanked me for my candour.

[Cormac A Stark]

Anyways, it's nice to return a GCR to the market after a long time off the shelf. When there's only 9 (if someone starts counting Warzones they get the paddle. =P) it hurts to take one off the list.

And again, it isn't "on the market" unless for some reason you don't place equal validity in the treaties that Balder and Kantrias have with The South Pacific, given that these regions, like The New Inquisition, are imperialist regions that regularly raid and support others' raids.

I will also point out that no Feeder or Sinker, treaty or otherwise, is "on the market" for any soldier of the Sekhmet Legion of Osiris who wishes to remain a soldier of the Sekhmet Legion of Osiris if I have anything to say about it. And I likely will.

Apologies to TSP for this digression from the topic at hand, though it is related.

[Kringalia]

Apologies to TSP for this digression from the topic at hand, though it is related.

It's alright. I think we both agree that GCRs are most definitely not on the market.

[Astarial]

Apologies to TSP for this digression from the topic at hand, though it is related.

It's alright. I think we both agree that GCRs are most definitely not on the market.

So... you won't take the region's weight in tomatoes as barter?

What about... *fishes in pockets* this crumpled up receipt and an Amazon gift card?

[The Blaatschapen]

It's alright. I think we both agree that GCRs are most definitely not on the market.

So... you won't take the region's weight in tomatoes as barter?

What about... *fishes in pockets* this crumpled up receipt and an Amazon gift card?

Are you regifting the gift card I gave you?

Oh well, it might be a good price for TSP

[Venico]

Anyways, it's nice to return a GCR to the market after a long time off the shelf. When there's only 9 (if someone starts counting Warzones they get the paddle. =P) it hurts to take one off the list.

And again, it isn't "on the market" unless for some reason you don't place equal validity in the treaties that Balder and Kantrias have with The South Pacific, given that these regions, like The New Inquisition, are imperialist regions that regularly raid and support others' raids.

I will also point out that no Feeder or Sinker, treaty or otherwise, is "on the market" for any soldier of the Sekhmet Legion of Osiris who wishes to remain a soldier of the Sekhmet Legion of Osiris if I have anything to say about it. And I likely will.

Apologies to TSP for this digression from the topic at hand, though it is related.

On the Legion note, ok? Most people will choose a coup over a military that doesn't support coups. And I don't know if either Balder or Kantrias prescribe to Raider Unity (TNI to my knowledge doesn't but they've been a good friend to most raiders) so I won't comment on their validity. I just thoroughly enjoy that TSP is closer to being on the market at the very least.

[Charles Cerebella]

I believe Onder and Chris have at length dealt with both the ending of the treaty, and the reasons behind it, which are quite clearly set out in TNI's official statement by the Minister-President, so I won't go into them again.

As far as the 'official complaint' goes, the substance again of your accusations have been refuted by Chris and Onder again. For the complaint itself, at no point does it ask for an apology or even a response. It asks that TNI and/or the UIAF 'will reconsider approaching TSP with further demands of this nature.' That is it. The rest, after explaining the circumstances, is a restatement of TSP's policies regarding the granting of interviews. Given that it is primarily a statement of TSP's policy as opposed for a demand for restitution, for an official inquiry or anything else, it was treated in that light. I responded 'Thank you for informing me of this. I'll discuss it with those concerned.' That's not saying it will be looked into and that I'll get back to TSP about it, or anything else. It is what it says it is. This, of course, was also 69 days ago. At no point since that time has there been a follow up message from TSP. My reply was not responded to. There has been no indication that any more was expected until this statement here. At any point over that time TSP could have got back to me if they expected more. They didn't. You can make of that what you will.

I am more than happy to provide the text of TSP's message, which was however, marked: 'Note: This is a classified communique of the rank “confidential.” Please do not redistribute this communique, except to government officials with a direct purview over its contents.' If TSP are willing to have the contents revealed then I am to and people can judge for themselves whether my interpretation of the intentions was right or not.

[Glen-Rhodes]

1. As I said, it wasn't addressed to me, so no, it wasn't my 'position' to issue an apology, 'fake' or otherwise. I assumed it was for information.

The telegram was sent to you. When you're CC'd in something, it's because the sender specifically wants you in the conversation.

2. Associate Comamnder is a sort of honorary position (not a rank) given to Onder, NES and Cere, the former JCs. As for ranks, Onder's a Field Marshal, same as me, and more to the point he's one of three IMC members. They hired me and each can individually veto my orders and personnel decisions.

You have a rank that is placed first above them in every UIAF communication I've come across. If these ranks mean nothing, a quick response that you are not the person who should be talked to about the issue would have been welcome.

3. If you're complaining about him as Commander of TNIAF, which is what the message said, it's not a UIAF matter anyway. TNIAF's their business.

Actually, the official complaint the Cabinet issued was with Onder in his positions as both Commander of TNIAF and Field Marshall of the UIAF. That is why we included the Joint Commander of the UIAF as a recipient.

The complaint was CCed to me, not addressed to me. Your post above said the UIAF told 'the issue would be looked into'. I never said that. You lied.

If anything, that is a minor error in our statement, overlooked in a multi-author drafting process. The fact remains that we were definitely told by TNI that the issue would be looked into, and got no response. It is still problematic that we received no response whatsoever from the UIAF. That is further evidence that TNI and the UIAF did not take the alliance seriously, and did not take our concerns seriously. You should have responded. If you were not the person with the authority to respond, you should have told that us that and directed us towards the correct authority. Not responding at all to an official complaint by an ally is a serious problem.

Honestly, I've seen the chat logs you sent. You couldn't misrepresent them more if you tried. Onder was direct but polite in a conversation Geomania requested.

Yes, you may think so. That is not how Geomania felt afterwards, and it's not how the Cabinet felt once we were debriefed on the mission. That is why we issued a formal complaint. Regardless of whether you personally do not see merit in our complaint, we were an ally and our complaint should have been treated with the seriousness that ought to be afforded to an ally.

Onder was right. Allies shouldn't discuss our military affairs, public or private, with their allies' enemies' propaganda media. That's fairly obvious.I think 'innocuous' pretty much sums up Onder politely telling you that.

No, this is an absurd request of an ally. The liberation of Liberal Haven was a major event in NationStates. Multiple news organizations covered this. The Rejected Times, whether TNI/UIAF likes it or not, is the most widely read and prolific news service in this game. Of course we are going to talk to it if they approach us. TNI/UIAF believes The Rejected Times is merely a propaganda outfit of the FRA. Fine, whatever. TSP does not. We believe strongly in freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. It is absolutely inappropriate to demand that we not speak with them, because Onder doesn't like Unibot and TNI/UIAF leaders don't like TRR or the FRA.

There's nothing like the UIAF seeking 'control over to whom their treaty party may speak' or saying 'members of TSP's government shouldn't communicate with TRT' in Onder's conversation with Geomania. You're just making this up, as anyone who reads the conversation above can see for themselves. Onder's complaints were about Geomania, having done a joint op with the UIAF, speaking to UIAF's enemies about it.

Geomania speaking to The Rejected Times was the biggest issue Onder had, which he said so himself. That was the thrust of the conversation. Geomania granted an interview to them, and Onder told him never to discuss the UIAF at all with The Rejected Times, regardless of what information was actually being discussed. TNI/UIAF needs to be more reasonable and mature with regards to how it treats its allies. Complaining about media appearances is not reasonable or mature. It's overbearing and patronizing. It's that kind of stuff that contributed to a complete communication meltdown between our two regions.

If TNI/UIAF believed we were misunderstanding the exchange, that could have been remedied by actually responding to our official complaint. In that complaint, we told you guys exactly what we thought Onder's take-away point was. Both TNI and the UIAF had over 2 months to clear up the miscommunication, if there was any. The fact that both opted not to speaks to 2 things: (1) TNI/UIAF did not see TSP as an equal partner, and thus our complaints were not taken seriously; and (2) TSP's understanding of Onder's demands were accurate

It affects the Foreign Minister's discharge of their duties if they are publicly criticising an ally and indeed calling into question relations with that ally.

I'll respond to this exactly how I responded to it on TSP's forum:

Specific complaints were about a single innocuous statement about how Geomania got the UIAF and the FRA to work together, and how that was a diplomatic success. Other complaints surround my statements on Independence and imperialism in general. I actually do not comment very often on the specific alliance, outside threads dedicated to it on these forums.

That being said, there were more serious problems with the health and longevity of the alliance, if TNI could not handle a single government official being critical of imperialism. The Cabinet certainly was prepared to maintain the alliance, despite the issues some of us have had with a single individual in TNI. A long term alliance should be able to withstand periods where our government isn't composed of solid proponents.

For the complaint itself, at no point does it ask for an apology or even a response. It asks that TNI and/or the UIAF 'will reconsider approaching TSP with further demands of this nature.' That is it.

When an ally takes the time to lodge an official complaint, that they expect a thorough reply is obvious.

[Whiskum]

No, this is an absurd request of an ally. The liberation of Liberal Haven was a major event in NationStates. Multiple news organizations covered this. The Rejected Times, whether TNI/UIAF likes it or not, is the most widely read and prolific news service in this game. Of course we are going to talk to it if they approach us. TNI/UIAF believes The Rejected Times is merely a propaganda outfit of the FRA. Fine, whatever. TSP does not. We believe strongly in freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. It is absolutely inappropriate to demand that we not speak with them, because Onder doesn't like Unibot and TNI/UIAF leaders don't like TRR or the FRA.

No request was ever made whatsoever that The South Pacific should cease speaking to The Rejected Times.

The complaint was regarding 'a matter of protocol' concerning TSP's officials discussing UIAF military business in a news outlet run by its military enemy.

Discussing the military affairs of an ally, indeed actually disclosing the contents of private conversations (however sensitive you deem them), which is what Geomania did, with an enemy of an ally, is completely inappropriate. The correct protocol should have been at the very least to approach us first.

Geomania speaking to The Rejected Times was the biggest issue Onder had, which he said so himself. That was the thrust of the conversation. Geomania granted an interview to them, and Onder told him never to discuss the UIAF at all with The Rejected Times, regardless of what information was actually being discussed. TNI/UIAF needs to be more reasonable and mature with regards to how it treats its allies. Complaining about media appearances is not reasonable or mature. It's overbearing and patronizing. It's that kind of stuff that contributed to a complete communication meltdown between our two regions.

This is nonsense; speaking to TRR Times, taken in isolation, was never my complaint.

I did not even request that Geomania did not discuss Liberal Haven with TRR Times; it was only the aspects regarding UIAF, and I specifically referenced from the outset the section where he disclosed details of a confidential conversation between himself and Bishop, regardless of how sensitive he judged it.

Geomania approached me and I replied:

[6:55:52 PM] geox158: good evening
[6:56:17 PM] Onder Kelkia: Greetings
[6:56:37 PM] geox158: I heard you were upset with my actions?
[6:57:43 PM] Onder Kelkia: Indeed yes
[6:58:10 PM] Onder Kelkia: In particular, the fact you are discussing the details of discussions with UIAF military officials in a media outlet, in particular one run by an FRA region and edited by Unibot.
[6:58:33 PM] Onder Kelkia: As well as the fact the UIAF was not notified when you became aware that the FRA were planning to act in Liberal Haven

I referred to 'the details of discussions with UIAF military officials in a media outlet, in particular one run by' people we are at war with.

When Geomania stated that the content in question was not sensitive, it was made clear nonetheless the UIAF's business should not have been discussed with them: 'It's more the fact that our affairs should not be discussed with the FRA, especially in the context of their propaganda (which is what TRR Times is), than the sensitivity of the information in question.'; 'The UIAF's affairs should not be discussed with an FRA newspaper.' etc.

My point there was that UIAF's affairs, including but not limited to the contents of our private conversations, remained UIAF business regardless.

That is a normal and reasonable request, delivered politely. The conversation ended amicably. What's more, this was not the sole topic of conversation, which was also focused on an error (which you'll see I raised at the outset) in Geomania's failure to inform us of the FRA's plans, which he apologised for.

So the claim that I suggested that TSP officials should not talk at all to TRR Times or should not talk about Liberal Haven to TRR Times is a fabrication.

If TNI/UIAF believed we were misunderstanding the exchange, that could have been remedied by actually responding to our official complaint. In that complaint, we told you guys exactly what we thought Onder's take-away point was. Both TNI and the UIAF had over 2 months to clear up the miscommunication, if there was any. The fact that both opted not to speaks to 2 things: (1) TNI/UIAF did not see TSP as an equal partner, and thus our complaints were not taken seriously; and (2) TSP's understanding of Onder's demands were accurate

You were advised by the Konig that he would discuss the matter; that was all. You did not request a reply or an apology, and were promised none.

As for the UIAF, the Joint Commander has made clear that he was only copied into the communication and that he assumed that this was for information.

In your original statement, you claimed that both TNI and the UIAF had told you they'd get back to you. That turns out to have been untrue for both.

I'll respond to this exactly how I responded to it on TSP's forum:
Specific complaints were about a single innocuous statement about how Geomania got the UIAF and the FRA to work together, and how that was a diplomatic success. Other complaints surround my statements on Independence and imperialism in general. I actually do not comment very often on the specific alliance, outside threads dedicated to it on these forums.

That being said, there were more serious problems with the health and longevity of the alliance, if TNI could not handle a single government official being critical of imperialism. The Cabinet certainly was prepared to maintain the alliance, despite the issues some of us have had with a single individual in TNI. A long term alliance should be able to withstand periods where our government isn't composed of solid proponents.

No formal complaint was made about the specific post referred to in my conversation with Geomania. You may believe that the post in question was 'a single innocuous statement', but the claim that blundering so spectacularly so as to arrange an operation in the same region with two warring forces without informing them, and then Bishop's snap decision to proceed with an operation (without any persuasion), as a 'diplomatic success' stretches all credulity.

However, that was far from the most serious incident.

See for instance, this post, where you called into question TNI-TSP alliance - on a completely unrelated discussion, so this incident was not a thread dedicated to it in the forums as you seem to have told the citizens of TSP. You suggest that TSP's Government will need reassurance if TNI does not have 'a sincere normative belief in the principles of delegate legitimacy'. That was seeking to impose views on TNI by calling into question the alliance publicly.

As for the rest of your comments, the Foreign Minister is the voice of a region's government. They have the portfolio for making and implementing regional foreign policy. Therefore it is inevitable that if the Foreign Minister indulges in criticising an ally, that is going to severely undermine trust and confidence.

As it happened, it was even worse than simply undermining trust,for instance in the incident I link where you publicly questioned the basis of the alliance.

[Charles Cerebella]

For the complaint itself, at no point does it ask for an apology or even a response. It asks that TNI and/or the UIAF 'will reconsider approaching TSP with further demands of this nature.' That is it.

When an ally takes the time to lodge an official complaint, that they expect a thorough reply is obvious.

CONFIDENTIAL// DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE
The Cabinet of the Coalition of The South Pacific
Official Communique
To: Charles Cerebella, Kaiser of The New Inquisition
CC: Christopher Bishop, Joint Commander of the United Imperial Armed Forces
Re: Communications from Onder Kelkia, Commander of the Armed Forces
Note: This is a classified communique of the rank “confidential.” Please do not redistribute this communique, except to government officials with a direct purview over its contents.
--------------------
On May 15, 2014, UIAF Field Marshall and TNIAF Commander Onder Kelkia, on behalf of the UIAF and TNI, messaged on Skype TSP Minister of the Army Geomania, to voice the UIAF's displeasure that Geomania gave an interview to The Rejected Times about the liberation of Liberal Haven. Onder Kelkia expressed that The Rejected Times was a propaganda outlet of the Founderless Regions Alliance, and that Geomania should not talk to them about anything related to the UIAF. For clarification, it was not merely a request that Geomania avoid giving sensitive private information about UIAF military operations, but rather a request for complete censorship of anything involving the UIAF. Additionally, Onder Kelkia complained about a comment made by TSP Minister of Foreign Affairs Sandaoguo (aka Glen-Rhodes), where the Minister congratulated Geomania, the UIAF, and the FRA on working together, and proclaimed the mission as a success for diplomacy and liberating.
This conversation was forwarded to the senior Cabinet at large, which took serious issue with the behavior of Onder Kelkia and the implications of the conversation itself. The Cabinet came away from the conversation feeling it had been bullied into censoring itself, particularly by not discussing the UIAF with The Rejected Times. By implication, the Cabinet understands the UIAF's complaints as intending to prohibit all Cabinet members from talking with The Rejected Times regarding the UIAF, based on a politically motivated charge that it is a propaganda outlet. We feel that this is a gross violation of TSP's long-standing principles of freedom of speech.
The Cabinet wishes to make clear that all citizens of TSP have the right to discuss any matters with anybody, granted that such matters are not classified. The government of TSP has a long history of granting interviews with many media outlets, and we do not screen interview requests based on the perceived Gameplay alignment of their publishers, editors, or journalists. Indeed, we have our own affiliated outlet, and we would be very upset if anybody was bullied into not taking interviews in SPINN because of whom it employs.
We believe that interference by our treaty allies to influence to which media outlets Cabinet members speak is wholly inappropriate and damaging to relations. We sincerely hope that Onder Kelkia, and any other representative of the UIAF or TNI, will reconsider approaching TSP with further demands of this nature.
--------------------
Chat log:
[6:55:52 PM] geox158: good evening
[6:56:17 PM] Onder Kelkia: Greetings
[6:56:37 PM] geox158: I heard you were upset with my actions?
[6:57:43 PM] Onder Kelkia: Indeed yes
[6:58:10 PM] Onder Kelkia: In particular, the fact you are discussing the details of discussions with UIAF military officials in a media outlet, in particular one run by an FRA region and edited by Unibot.
[6:58:33 PM] Onder Kelkia: As well as the fact the UIAF was not notified when you became aware that the FRA were planning to act in Liberal Haven
[6:58:41 PM] geox158: UIAF looks very good in this
[6:59:16 PM] geox158: And while Dyr came to me proposing to liberate Liberal Haven, he never gave me a specific date
[6:59:30 PM] geox158: Should I have told you and Christopher Bishop?
[6:59:42 PM] geox158: Yes, I regret that oversight
[6:59:54 PM] geox158: but it was not some attempt at subterfuge
[7:00:55 PM] geox158: And the article did not reveal any sensitive information about the UIAF
[7:02:30 PM] Onder Kelkia: It's more the fact that our affairs should not be discussed with the FRA, especially in the context of their propaganda (which is what TRR Times is), than the sensitivity of the information in question.
[7:02:53 PM] Onder Kelkia: And the extent to which the UIAF look good depends how it looks.
[7:03:52 PM] geox158: Onder, I'm sorry but I did not reveal anything sensitive in the interview
[7:04:06 PM] Onder Kelkia: As I have said, it is not the issue of sensitivity
[7:04:13 PM] Onder Kelkia: It is more the fact that the UIAF was the subject of a discussion with an FRA region's media outlet
[7:04:41 PM] Onder Kelkia: When precisely did you learn of the FRA's intended operation may I ask?
[7:04:44 PM] geox158: umm
[7:04:54 PM] geox158: probably Thursday?
[7:05:13 PM] geox158: My one mistake here was not alerting you guys about it
[7:05:30 PM] geox158: but they never gave me a straight time for a liberation
[7:05:42 PM] Onder Kelkia: A fairly significant issue, because whereas normally we'd have wanted to discuss how to proceed, the issue was left to Bishop to decide on the update
[7:06:02 PM] geox158: I did not know that the FRA had intended to liberate Tuesday
[7:06:07 PM] geox158: because they did not tell me
[7:06:22 PM] geox158: It was an oversight on my part
[7:06:33 PM] geox158: And you do deserve an apology
[7:06:35 PM] geox158: For that I am sorry
[7:06:44 PM] geox158: However
[7:07:35 PM] geox158: I find your objection to my interview to be based on poor ground
[7:09:02 PM] Onder Kelkia: The UIAF's affairs should not be discussed with an FRA newspaper.
[7:09:20 PM] geox158: What, information that easily could have been found publicly?
[7:10:37 PM] Onder Kelkia: It is the principle of the matter, rather than the sensitivity of the information. We are at war with the FRA.
[7:11:27 PM] Onder Kelkia: And comments like 'were huge concerns' about the UIAF's conduct in relation to the FRA, ' I understand why defenders would have a hard time with people working with raiders being a longtime Commander of the RRA' (especially when the UIAF are not raiders) etc., do not necessarily look good for us.
[7:11:41 PM] Onder Kelkia: Not that anything published in TRR Times ever looks good to us.
[7:11:46 PM] Onder Kelkia: It is an FRA propaganda magazine.
[7:13:06 PM] Onder Kelkia: Although it is far from just you
[7:13:07 PM] Onder Kelkia: viewtopic.php?p=20093097#p20093097
[7:13:18 PM] Onder Kelkia: G-R 'Geomania did an excellent job of getting the FRA and the UIAF to work together on this mission'
[7:13:34 PM] Onder Kelkia: Yes, the UIAF and the FRA worked together, and yes the UIAF did so in the greater good
[7:13:42 PM] Onder Kelkia: However, the circumstances in which that came about were not good
[7:14:26 PM] geox158: Which I have already apologized for
[7:14:32 PM] geox158: It was a basic thing that I should have reported
[7:14:41 PM] Onder Kelkia: Thank you for acknowledging that
[7:14:49 PM] Onder Kelkia: I'm not saying this is a major problem or anything
[7:15:01 PM] Onder Kelkia: I was merely pointing out that as a matter of protocol all these issues could have been handled a lot better.
[7:15:08 PM] geox158: Thank you
[7:15:13 PM] geox158: i appreciate your candor on the matter

At what point do you ask for a thorough response? At what point have you contacted me to indicate that my response was inadequate?

People can judge for themselves, but to me the above document reads as an assertion of TSP's policies and rights regarding the giving of interviews and a hope that there won't be similar disputes regarding it in future (a dispute over what I regard as a perfectly reasonable conversation on Onder's part anyway, which I chose not to challenge your interpretation of in preference to continuing good relations). You never indicate it is an official complaint expecting a thorough response as opposed to an official communique, which is what you label it, communicating your stance. You don't ask for an apology. You don't ask for anything. It reads as a statement and clarification of TSP's policies and that is how I took it. I thanked you for it, said I would discuss it with those involved and as far as I'm aware there wasn't another dispute of this nature since then.

At no point has TSP contacted me to follow up on this, to indicate that my response was not what expected, or to complain of behaviour that goes against the spirit of what you wrote in your communique. You say in your statement 'communication dwindled to nothing'. If that was the case and you had an ongoing issue based on my misunderstanding of your message to me (which people can judge whether was the correct one or not), then it was a concious decision by you to keep that communication dwindling. You could have sought to right my misunderstanding by contacting me again. My inbox has been open.

[Glen-Rhodes]

No request was ever made whatsoever that The South Pacific should cease speaking to The Rejected Times.

That was what Geomania and the rest of the Cabinet took from the conversation. You complained about Geomania granting an interview to The Rejected Times, specifically mentioning Unibot being the editor. You said it was not a matter of the sensitivity of information discussed, but the mere fact that Geomania was talking about the UIAF at all with The Rejected Times.

Again, we included in our official complaint what we understood the conversation to mean. If we were misconstruing your words, there was ample time for TNI or the UIAF to respond and clear up the misunderstanding. Over 2 months of time.

But I think you guys are engaging in some rewriting of history, here. The grand total of what Geomania discussed in the interview that involved the UIAF, was that he was approached to work with the UIAF, and then got the UIAF and the FRA to work together. That's all, and that was already public record by virtue of the fact that, well, the SPSF and the UIAF worked together with the FRA to liberate Liberal Haven. No "private conversations" were discussed at all. In fact, you and Christopher Bishop were the ones who went into greater detail about what those discussions actually entailed.

You were advised by the Konig that he would discuss the matter; that was all. You did not request a reply or an apology, and were promised none.

This has to be the most BS thing I've ever heard. An ally officially complained about your behavior, Onder. What magic words are needed for the proper neurons to fire and make TNI/UIAF think, "Wow, we should probably respond, since they're taking this so seriously."? TNI/UIAF takes a lot of pride in how it conducts its foreign affairs, but not responding to our complaint was a major blunder on your guys' part. It was the death knell in a larger pattern of communication breakdown.

You may believe that the post in question was 'a single innocuous statement', but the claim that blundering so spectacularly so as to arrange an operation in the same region with two warring forces without informing them, and then Bishop's snap decision to proceed with an operation (without any persuasion), as a 'diplomatic success' stretches all credulity.

Pretty much everybody but TNI/UIAF saw it as a diplomatic success. You guys were instead incredibly upset that the FRA claimed victory first, and that Geomania granted an interview to The Rejected Times. Also, portraying Liberal Haven as some kind of calculated failure on behalf of Geomania is insulting. The history is out there for everybody to read. There were communication problems on all sides, and Geomania was able to bring everybody together anyways.

See for instance, this post, where you called into question TNI-TSP alliance - on a completely unrelated discussion, so this incident was not a thread dedicated to it in the forums as you seem to have told the citizens of TSP. You suggest that TSP's Government will need reassurance if TNI does not have 'a sincere normative belief in the principles of delegate legitimacy'. That was seeking to impose views on TNI by calling into question the alliance publicly.

You made comments that called into question your belief in delegate legitimacy, and I responded in a way that sought to get an affirmation that I was either correct or incorrect. Delegate legitimacy is a bedrock of TSP foreign policy. We have lackluster relations with TWP in large part because of their refusal to recognize it. Of course I am going to respond when you make a comment that sounds an awful lot like TNI/UIAF doesn't give a shit about GCR sovereignty, unless there's a treaty forcing them to.

At what point do you ask for a thorough response? At what point have you contacted me to indicate that my response was inadequate?

This isn't going to get turned around on us. We issued a formal complaint. A good ally would have offered a thorough response. It's common sense.

Furthermore, I do hope you requested TSP's Cabinet to declassify that communique. I would have voted in favor, because the pertinent alliance no longer exists. Regardless, posting confidential communications tend to be frowned upon.

[Charles Cerebella]

At what point do you ask for a thorough response? At what point have you contacted me to indicate that my response was inadequate?

This isn't going to get turned around on us. We issued a formal complaint. A good ally would have offered a thorough response. It's common sense.

Furthermore, I do hope you requested TSP's Cabinet to declassify that communique. I would have voted in favor, because the pertinent alliance no longer exists. Regardless, posting confidential communications tend to be frowned upon.

People can judge for themselves whether my response was suitable and whether your message was a complaint as opposed to a statement of policy. Either way, a good ally would not let another continue in ignorance that their reply was not considered adequate.

I posted in my previous response concerning the latter point.

I'm afraid though, I must point out, that I am not bound by the rules of TSP. As the Sovereign of TNI, I am entirely within my rights to communicate and release official correspondence with TNI when it I deem it adequate. This is not a personal conversation between individuals that should rightly be regarded private. It is an official communication between regions and I am an official that is quite rightly capable of deciding if it should be released to the public sphere or not. In a communication between two regions, each region has the right to release whatever they deem appropriate. If you care to pursue the records of centuries of diplomatic history, you will find that governments have always had, and exercised, the right to release their correspondence with foreign powers when they wish to (and in constitutional states, when a parliamentary body impels them to).

In a correspondence between two sovereign states, one state cannot claim sole ownership of it. That goes against common sense, let alone all precedence.

[Space Dandy]

All I see here is Glen and possibly others in TSP overreacting.

[Kringalia]

All I see here is Glen and possibly others in TSP overreacting.

Thank you for that insightful comment. I'm sure it will greatly affect the course of our foreign policy.

[Whiskum]

That was what Geomania and the rest of the Cabinet took from the conversation. You complained about Geomania granting an interview to The Rejected Times, specifically mentioning Unibot being the editor. You said it was not a matter of the sensitivity of information discussed, but the mere fact that Geomania was talking about the UIAF at all with The Rejected Times.

I complained about Geomania granting an interview to TRR Times, specifically mentioning Unibot being editor and TRR being an FRA region, solely because that interview discussed the affairs of the UIAF - at no point did I discuss it solely in terms of giving an interview to TRR Times. That's disingenuous.

It is not a matter of the sensitivity of the information discussed: our allies giving blow by blow accounts of UIAF communications to our enemies is a problem regardless of how sensitive those communications are. When Region A is allied to Region B and at war with Region C, it is entirely inappropriate for Region's B military chief to give a running commentary on Region A's military affairs (including disclosures of the conversations concerned) to Region C.

Again, we included in our official complaint what we understood the conversation to mean. If we were misconstruing your words, there was ample time for TNI or the UIAF to respond and clear up the misunderstanding. Over 2 months of time.

If the complaint (which as Cerebella has now pointed out, was not entitled as a complaint but as a communique about TSP's policies) had been referred to me to deal with, then I would have corrected your interpretation. As it happens, the Konig dealt with the matter by assuring you he'd have discussions over it. If you were dissatisfied that outcome or wanted further feedback, then you should have informed him that you wanted a further response.

In any case, frankly your interpretation of the conversation bears so little relation to what was actually said that it was obviously entirely artificial.

But I think you guys are engaging in some rewriting of history, here. The grand total of what Geomania discussed in the interview that involved the UIAF, was that he was approached to work with the UIAF, and then got the UIAF and the FRA to work together. That's all, and that was already public record by virtue of the fact that, well, the SPSF and the UIAF worked together with the FRA to liberate Liberal Haven. No "private conversations" were discussed at all. In fact, you and Christopher Bishop were the ones who went into greater detail about what those discussions actually entailed.

First, the comments from the Joint Commander and me came on 21st May, after Geomania's interview on 15th May, so the issue was already open.

It is entirely unacceptable and a breach of protocol that for an ally to provide accounts of a region's military activity to its enemies' propaganda.

That is what Geomania did, it was highly unprofessional and that was perfectly justified ground for complaint, regardless of sensitivity.

Private conversations were discussed multiple times in the interview between Geomania and TRR Times, for instance:

Well Christopher Bishop, the head of the UIAF, approached me for a mission. He wanted to liberate Liberal Haven. My interest was immediately piqued because I was interested in liberating the region before the fascist occupiers had password-protected the region.

That was the case, yes. When I logged on last night at a little before 11:30 PM ET, I discovered that the FRA and the UIAF were conducting preparations for separate missions to deploy in Liberal Haven.

General QuietDad of the South Pacific Special Forces had assumed we would be working with the FRA and instructed SPSF forces to work with the FRA. But I soon realized that the UIAF was not involved in the FRA plan, I conferred with Dyr and Christopher Bishop (the UIAF commander) and they agreed to collaborate.

UIAF chose me to be their lead. But switching leads was a dealbreaker for Dyr and FRA. Horse encapsulated the FRA position when he said "Unless defenders lead, nope.jpg", even though I was the lead. But Christopher Bishop agreed to endorse Milograd as long as I was also being endorsed.

All of those quotes include details of conversations which took place in private between the Joint Commander and Geomania.

Now, it is not that the information in question is especially sensitive or harmful were it to be released.

Regardless, you should not give descriptions and accounts of your ally's military activity to its enemies for them to publish.

That was the UIAF's problem with it.

I communicated that to Kringalia. Geomania then came looking for me and asked for me to explain. I did so.

This has to be the most BS thing I've ever heard. An ally officially complained about your behavior, Onder. What magic words are needed for the proper neurons to fire and make TNI/UIAF think, "Wow, we should probably respond, since they're taking this so seriously."? TNI/UIAF takes a lot of pride in how it conducts its foreign affairs, but not responding to our complaint was a major blunder on your guys' part. It was the death knell in a larger pattern of communication breakdown.

I was not dealing with the complaint and indeed I never saw the precise text of the complaint until this issue arose.

The communqiue (never styled an official complaint), despite its absurd interpretation of the conversation, never demanded an apology.

However, the Konig dealt with that matter and told you he'd have discussions regarding it. If that response was inadequate you should have said so.

Pretty much everybody but TNI/UIAF saw it as a diplomatic success. You guys were instead incredibly upset that the FRA claimed victory first, and that Geomania granted an interview to The Rejected Times. Also, portraying Liberal Haven as some kind of calculated failure on behalf of Geomania is insulting. The history is out there for everybody to read. There were communication problems on all sides, and Geomania was able to bring everybody together anyways.

No, we were incredibly disappointed in TSP's incompetence and sheer unprofessionalism in having arranged to do an operation with the FRA in the same region as where they had arranged to do an operation with the UIAF given the on-going war between LKE/TNI and the FRA without telling UIAF/FRA.

The UIAF of course were the victims of that incompetence.

Our position was that that the operation was good, but that the circumstances in which it came about were bad. Geomania accepted that view:

[7:13:18 PM] Onder Kelkia: G-R 'Geomania did an excellent job of getting the FRA and the UIAF to work together on this mission'
[7:13:34 PM] Onder Kelkia: Yes, the UIAF and the FRA worked together, and yes the UIAF did so in the greater good
[7:13:42 PM] Onder Kelkia: However, the circumstances in which that came about were not good
[7:14:26 PM] geox158: Which I have already apologized for
[7:14:32 PM] geox158: It was a basic thing that I should have reported
[7:14:41 PM] Onder Kelkia: Thank you for acknowledging that
[7:14:49 PM] Onder Kelkia: I'm not saying this is a major problem or anything
[7:15:01 PM] Onder Kelkia: I was merely pointing out that as a matter of protocol all these issues could have been handled a lot better.
[7:15:08 PM] geox158: Thank you
[7:15:13 PM] geox158: i appreciate your candor on the matter

Nowhere have we suggested that Geomania did this deliberately, so I don't know why you say we have said it was a 'calculated falure'. But it was a failure.

You made comments that called into question your belief in delegate legitimacy, and I responded in a way that sought to get an affirmation that I was either correct or incorrect. Delegate legitimacy is a bedrock of TSP foreign policy. We have lackluster relations with TWP in large part because of their refusal to recognize it. Of course I am going to respond when you make a comment that sounds an awful lot like TNI/UIAF doesn't give a shit about GCR sovereignty, unless there's a treaty forcing them to.

It was entirely inappropriate for you to respond publicly in a way that questioned the basis of TNI and TSP's alliance on an entirely unrelated topic.

If you had genuine concerns, the correct procedure would have been to have raised them with TNI's Government in private.

Raising those concerns in public undermined the alliance, suggested tensions in the relationship and decreased our trust in you.

That is the inevitable result of a foreign minister going around overtly and publicly posting criticisms of regions his region is allied to.

[Kringalia]

Let me get this straight:

1. It's our fault that you can't recognize a complaint for what it is, leaving aside that when you say the matter will be discussed, there is an expectation of follow-up communication.
2. You have a right to tell us who we can talk to and about what, because being allies somehow means we get dragged into your silly wars.

What I still don't understand is why the hell do you guys have such a compulsive need to write walls of text each time you are challenged by someone? In case you didn't notice, it's boring.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Bottom line, you guys didn't take TSP seriously enough to deal with an official complaint the way you should have, and are now trying to save face by saying you need to be explicitly told that a response was expected. (Because common sense isn't enough anymore.) That was one part of a pattern of communication breakdown on both sides. Unfortunate, but predictable.

Regarding the leaking of a confidential communique, it's ridiculous to say that being the "Sovereign" of TNI means you aren't bound by common understandings regarding confidential communication. It only further confirms that Cabinet members were justified in their view of TNI/UIAF leaders being overbearing and patronizing.

I think we've said what we've come to say by now. I'm sure we're just going to start reiterating the same arguments over and over, if we haven't already.

edit: Also, Charles, you should be careful trying to make points about intelligence sharing to me. It's part of what I got my degree in. If you want to bring diplomatic history into it, I know for a fact that international classified information agreements do not work that way. The creator of the information gets to decide the classification, and the receiver must respect it.

[Whiskum]

1. It's our fault that you can't recognize a complaint for what it is, leaving aside that when you say the matter will be discussed, there is an expectation of follow-up communication.

As can be seen quite clearly from reading the document, it is a diplomatic communique addressed to Cerebella asking him to reconsider our approach.

Cerebella did respond, namely by saying the matter would be discussed. That does not imply that anything will come out of those discussions. If you were dissatisfied with the response which Cerebella gave you, then the appropriate course of action would have been for you to have notified him of that.

2. You have a right to tell us who we can talk to and about what, because being allies somehow means we get dragged into your silly wars.

As an ally, we did not tell you who you can talk to. Nowhere did we say not to talk to TRR Times. We objected to telling them about UIAF military affairs.

As an ally, we had a legitimate interest in ensuring that our communications are not described by your military officials to our enemies' propaganda outlets.

That is what Geomania did and that we had every right to register our concerns over it.

What I still don't understand is why the hell do you guys have such a compulsive need to write walls of text each time you are challenged by someone? In case you didn't notice, it's boring.

We generally like to address the substance of each point in context, rather than skirting over with selective commentary and misrepresentations.

[Charles Cerebella]

edit: Also, Charles, you should be careful trying to make points about intelligence sharing to me. It's part of what I got my degree in. If you want to bring diplomatic history into it, I know for a fact that international classified information agreements do not work that way. The creator of the information gets to decide the classification, and the receiver must respect it.

As you say, I won't get into the same argument regarding the rest of it again, but as far as this goes, I'm doing a PhD in Diplomatic History and Foreign Policy so I think I can speak with some authority on it. Just as much as doing 'part' of a degree anyway...

And ok, lets look at what you actually just said. No, international classified information agreements do not work that way. They protect the release of classified information by granting the originator power to decide whether it is released.

For example, Article V, Clause 2 of The Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Finland Concerning the Mutual Protection of Classified Information (2013):

'2. The Parties shall take all legally available steps to respect the principle of originator consent in accordance with their constitutional requirements, national laws and regulations.'

Ok, so that is established. But, wait. Lets think. Why do these agreements exist in the first place? Oh that's right. Because otherwise the receiver of the information has the right to do what they want with the information they are provided with regardless of the originators classification! A treaty is required, ratified by both states, to put classified information received the same protection it would have in both states even if it is from the other party.

Now, the Non-Aggression and Cultural Treaty Between The South Pacific and The New Inquisition, which the government of TNI has terminated anyway, does not even include an agreement on the status of classified information. There is no agreement of that kind between TNI and TSP. Which, as you have demonstrated by pointing out that such agreements are required in international law to make each country have to follow the rules of the originator in documents release otherwise the receiver can do what they want, means I was well within my rights to release that document.

If you are going to try and pull a argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy, at least make sure that you don't prove your opposer's point in the process...

[Christopher Bishop]

The telegram was sent to you. When you're CC'd in something, it's because the sender specifically wants you in the conversation.

No, being 'CCed' means a secondary recipients getting a courtesy copy. You said UIAF told you we'd reply and we didn't.

You have a rank that is placed first above them in every UIAF communication I've come across. If these ranks mean nothing, a quick response that you are not the person who should be talked to about the issue would have been welcome.

First-off, Ranks DON'T equal positions. Onder and Cerebella have the same rank as me, Field Marshal. Associate Commander is an honorary job given to those two and NES as the three former Joint Commanders. It's shown a couple of lines below Joint Commander, but their main positions aren't listed at all. As the Joint Commander, I answer to the Imperial Military Council. That has an LKE rep (Onder as LKE Commander-in-Chief), a TNI rep (NES, appointed by the TNIAF Commander, Onder) and an Albion rep (Cerebella, as Albion Commander-in-Chief). The Military Council oversees me. Not the other way round.The IMC is UIAF's supreme body. I don't list it in communications because it's not a day-to-day operational body, but its members outrank me.

I didn't reply saying that because I was only CCed into it. You don't 'CC' someone if you want them to reply. I was not dealing with it.

If anything, that is a minor error in our statement, overlooked in a multi-author drafting process. The fact remains that we were definitely told by TNI that the issue would be looked into, and got no response.

Cerebella's just confirmed that he never told you 'that the issue would be looked into'. Another lie.

He told you he'd talk it over with the people involved. You wanted more than that and you should have said.

Yes, you may think so. That is not how Geomania felt afterwards, and it's not how the Cabinet felt once we were debriefed on the mission. That is why we issued a formal complaint. Regardless of whether you personally do not see merit in our complaint, we were an ally and our complaint should have been treated with the seriousness that ought to be afforded to an ally.

There's nothing that's not polite in the convo. Geomania started that convo and asked Onder why he was upset with him. Onder simply explained it. Geomania ended by apologising for his mistake in not telling me about FRA plans to lib Liberal Haven and stating his appreciation for Onder's candour.

You 'CCed' me into a complaint. You never sent it to me. If you were unhappy with TNI's reply, you should've told TNI's monarch.

No, this is an absurd request of an ally. The liberation of Liberal Haven was a major event in NationStates. Multiple news organizations covered this. The Rejected Times, whether TNI/UIAF likes it or not, is the most widely read and prolific news service in this game. Of course we are going to talk to it if they approach us. TNI/UIAF believes The Rejected Times is merely a propaganda outfit of the FRA. Fine, whatever. TSP does not. We believe strongly in freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. It is absolutely inappropriate to demand that we not speak with them, because Onder doesn't like Unibot and TNI/UIAF leaders don't like TRR or the FRA.

Onder didn't 'demand that we do not speak with them', either generally or about LH. His issue was about speaking to them on UIAF business. By UIAF affairs, if you see the interview Onder was complaining about, you'll see Geomania disclosed private conversations with me. He didn't just give an interview on LH. He gave factual accounts of the UIAF's role in it - to an organisation which TNI and LKE are at war with. Frankly that's not on.

That's a normal request in the face of extreme unprofessionalism over Geomania not telling me about the FRA's plan and then gloating about it.

[Southern Bellz]

I can't believe this is legitimately how our foreign affairs is operating

[Drop Your Pants]

I can't believe this is legitimately how our foreign affairs is operating

Arguments and talking behind people's back are how FA in NS works

[South Pacific Regional Games]

Hi NationStates!

We would be very honoured to have you in our Regional Games. This is an event in which nations from different regions are randomly assigned into teams and have to compete in different challenges. While the challenges are very fun and engaging, the real benefit is that the Games are an excellent opportunity to meet people from other regions and establish new friendships. How to participate? Simple!

1. Create a nation that identifies who you are and from which region you come (example: South Pacific Testlandia or Teslandia of TSP)
2. Move it to the special region we have created (to go there click on the invitation)
3. If you prefer forum activities, we will have a special pavilion in our forum during the Games, so stop by and we'll have a good time there

If you have any questions just send me a telegram and I'll be glad to help.

Thanks for reading, and we hope to see you next week in the Games!

[Glen-Rhodes]

September 2014
Minister: Sandaoguo (Glen-Rhodes)

Note: We've got a lot going on this post, so here's a helpful guide! The first part is the actual foreign update (written by me, NS' favorite MoFA). The second part is an Assembly resolution on the Osiris-Lazarus War. Lastly, the Cabinet has issued a statement regarding the Independence and Regional Sovereignty Conferences.

We’re plugging the hell out of this!

The games are back! The South Pacific is hosting a worldwide contest dubbed the South Pacific Regional Games – SPRG. (Pronounced “sperg”? maybe?) SPRG is a recreation of former Delegate and Minister of Regional Affairs Escade, who enjoyed great success with the South Pacific Games in March earlier this year.

The games started on the 7th, but it’s MOST DEFINITELY NOT too late to get involved! They will run until September 19th. To join the games, create a puppet nation that indicates you’re there for the games (like Maxtopia of TSP), move into South Pacific Regional Games, and you’ll receive a telegram with your team, that team’s SECRET MESSAGE BOARDS!, and some basic information about the games. The current challenge is to create a team flag and get the highest score in Wings Over Water, a challenging snake-like game by Ferry Halim.

SPSF FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT

The SPSF conducted a mix of raids and liberations in August with our military partners. Orbis Terrae was successfully taken with The North Pacific Army, and returned to the natives in a clean operation.

In partnership with the East Pacific Sovereign Army, the SPSF successfully liberated and detagged 10 regions. The SPSF also lent its hand to an attempted liberation of Anarchy.

Farengeto was promoted to Colonel for his leadership and dedicated to the SPSF.

Interested in working with the SPSF? Sign up on our forums! SPSF membership only requires residency within TSP, so anybody is able to sign up, as long as they have a nation in the region!

AUGUST HIGH COURT SPECIAL ELECTION

Citizens of the Coalition gathered at the polling booths just a short time after the July General Elections to vote for a new Justice on the High Court. The seat was left vacant by Unibot, who had won his election for Chair of the Assembly, which he ran for presumably because life at the court is unbearably non-controversial. The election was a forgone conclusion, with GustaveBerr running unopposed.

The High Court roster now stands with Belschaft as Chief Justice, and GustaveBerr and God-Emperor as Associate Justices. While the court is not a huge center of activity in TSP, its decisions often have wide-reaching consequences, such as the court’s decision last term on what to do when a Vice Delegate resigns.

CHANGES IN THE CSS

Sadly, we have lost two members of the Committee for State Security. Southern Bellz left the CSS to pursue a position as World Assembly Delegate in another region. HEM was unfortunately removed from the CSS as a result of losing citizenship due to inactivity. Despite the losses, the CSS remains to be a valuable firewall against attack and coups d’etat. (Coup d'etats? We need a Proper English Word for this.)

The Committee on State Security is the central security organ of the Coalition. It makes decisions about the security of the region during imminent crises. The CSS is chaired by the Vice Delegate, with the Delegate being a non-voting observer. The current roster is: Tsunamy, Rebeltopia, Belschaft, Aramanchovia, Penguin, and Drugged Monkeys.

---

ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON THE OSIRIS-LAZARUS WAR

The Assembly of The Coalition of The South Pacific, cognizant of the Osiris Fraternal Order's August 28th Declaration of War against the People's Republic of Lazarus, hereby resolves to maintain neutrality in this conflict. We do not accept that the antagonistic rhetoric on either side is a serious cause for war, especially when this war could have wide-ranging impacts on the Game-Created Region community.

Further to this, The Assembly of The Coalition of The South Pacific believes that peace and goodwill between Game-Created Regions is of vital importance to all, and that this conflict - driven by mutual dislike and personal feuds - is damaging to the security of all Game Created Regions. While the differences between the Osiris Fraternal Order and the People's Republic of Lazarus are most likely irreconcilable, we encourage both parties to end this conflict and adopt an attitude of mutual respect and toleration before acts of aggression render this impossible.

---

STATEMENT FROM THE CABINET OF THE COALITION OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC


on the Independence and Regional Sovereignty Conferences

On August 22, 2014, Europeian President Kraketopia issued an ultimatum to The South Pacific: either refuse to attend Lazarus’ 2014 Regional Sovereignty Conference, or we will drop you as co-host of our Independence Conference and “[we] won't be held responsible for the actions of some of [our] allies.” This ultimatum was delivered shortly after Lazarus announced our attendance at the Regional Sovereignty Conference. Although we attempted to reason with Europeia about why there were no issues with attending both conferences – the natural thing to do, given both Europeia and Lazarus are our allies – Europeia would not rescind their ultimatum.

President Kraketopia gave various reasons for issuing the ultimatum. Those reasons range from a conspiracy that The South Pacific has been going down “the path to defenderdom,” to believing the Regional Sovereignty Conference was a ploy to overshadow the Independence Conference, to simply arguing that two conferences cannot be held so closely to one another. These reasons did not seem acceptable to the Cabinet. The allegations put forth were also highly disrespectful.

After internal discussion, the Cabinet decided that it was best to bring this issue to the Assembly, so the region as a whole could debate it. Given whatever choice was made would have a significant impact on our foreign affairs, this seemed to the most appropriate way to deal with this issue. The Assembly reached the conclusion that there was no good reason why The South Pacific could not attend both conferences. As one citizen put it, TSP is “in a unique position in the NS world that allows us to be in touch and understand both sides of NS spheres of influence.”

Therefore, The South Pacific will fully attend the Regional Sovereignty Conference. We realize that this violation of Europeia’s ultimatum will disqualify us from co-hosting the Independence Conference. However, we sincerely hope that our attendance at the conference will still be welcome. Our regional interests in protecting the sovereignty of Game-Created Regions would be best served by attending both conferences.

Lastly, we truly hope that diplomacy will be conducted in a less heated manner in the future. These dual conferences have created a tense atmosphere, but that is no reason why allies should not endeavor to understand each other's positions and needs. At times, allies will disagree and hold opposite interests in a certain issue. Good diplomacy will overcome these short-term difficulties and look towards maintaining good long-term relations. Diplomats should refrain from purposefully creating a situation where no good option exists for their allies.

Thank you,

The Cabinet of the South Pacific

[Cormac A Stark]

The Osiris Fraternal Order has no particular interest and no specific stake in "the security of all Game Created Regions," only in the security of our own region and allied regions, game-created or user-created. We do not accept any responsibility for the security of non-allied regions, game-created or user-created, nor do we accept the absurd notion that game-created regions share some special bond by virtue of being game-created. Like any other regions, there are significant differences between the various Feeders and Sinkers, and we do not adhere to nor do we accept any concept of "GCR unity" to dictate our policy decisions -- particularly in regard to our own sovereignty and security.

Moreover, we do not recognize Osiris as being part of any "Game-Created Region community." Such a community would include our enemy, the People's Republic of Lazarus, as well as other regions with which the Osiris Fraternal Order no longer maintains even the most basic of diplomatic relations. We have abandoned the pretense of relations with regions that have not opted to maintain such relations with us. The only community in which we are interested is the community we and our allies have built together, a network of strong, purposeful, and mutually beneficial bilateral alliances and a multilateral cultural alliance. This is a community with a foundation that is not formed of sand, a community that we know will last, and the only community to which we are accountable.

Having clarified our position on these matters, I nonetheless want to express on behalf of the Osiris Fraternal Order our appreciation that the esteemed Assembly of The South Pacific has collectively opted to exercise more wisdom than the region's Minister of Foreign Affairs in declaring neutrality. As we have previously stated, we respect neutrality in this war and will not seek to pressure any region to abandon a position of neutrality. We look forward to a day in which common ground between our regions may once again provide a foundation for real relations between Osiris and The South Pacific, rather than merely the pretense of such relations.