The Rejected Times

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm the one being called unprofessional by the likes of Onder, while you're saying Euro went straight to delivering an unmeetable ultimatum without thinking twice, and without considering the consequences?

I'm giving Euro the benefit of the doubt there. You don't play the ultimatum card on your first move without having already planned to do so from the start.

[Kringalia]

Let's make something clear. Europeia did mistreat us. There is no reasonable argument against that statement. Kraketopia, who was President at the time, came to us saying that the South Pacific could not possibly attend both conferences, that we were downplaying our friendship with Europeia and that the other attendees needed to see a token of our commitment to Independence.

That is mistreating an ally, regardless of how many justifications you come up with. We were told that our priority should be to engage with Europeia, even at the cost of our other alliances, and that we needed to proof our commitment to the very ideology that says regions don't need to pick a side. If TSP had done that to Europeia, everyone would be criticizing us for our poor diplomatic handling of the situation. Like it or not, you all know that is what would have happened.

[Anumia]

I'm getting damn close to dealing with the lies coming from these former TSP leaders myself. The region is lucky they now have leadership with more integrity, that isn't interested in sabotaging every non-defender alliance one at a time for the sake of G-R's personal preferences and pet projects.

[Todd McCloud]

I'm getting damn close to dealing with the lies coming from these former TSP leaders myself. The region is lucky they now have leadership with more integrity, that isn't interested in sabotaging every non-defender alliance one at a time for the sake of G-R's personal preferences and pet projects.

Say, where is the current TSP leadership and their opinions on the matter?

[Kraketopia]

I'm getting damn close to dealing with the lies coming from these former TSP leaders myself. The region is lucky they now have leadership with more integrity, that isn't interested in sabotaging every non-defender alliance one at a time for the sake of G-R's personal preferences and pet projects.

So much this. I've been sitting here biting my tongue because I don't wish to engage with such a one-sided presentation of what went wrong with negotiations. Kringalia and G-R certainly didn't engage us with the intention of resolving the situation, and virtually nothing was offered as a compromise.

[Onderkelkia]

The part where we were told *several times* that these demands were being made by *other* conference attendees is the part you should take out of this. This was when Euro was saying that the list of attendees was small, and NES was definitely on the list.

The LKE and TNI were not even aware of the plans to hold a conference prior to these issues going public, so if other attendees were referred to, they were not us. If other attendees were in fact referred to, I suspect Europeia was referring to other attendees' anticipated wishes rather than to actual demands.

The idea that a reference to "other conference attendees" meant NES in a personal capacity is unsupportable - anymore than it could be taken as a reference to any one of the other individuals who might have been expected to attend. If this is the best evidence you can present, it really is clutching at straws.

I'm the one being called unprofessional by the likes of Onder, while you're saying Euro went straight to delivering an unmeetable ultimatum without thinking twice, and without considering the consequences?

Europeia's statement made clear that they saw it as 'impossible' to proceed with the Independence Convention as originally planned in light of TSP's decision.

If they saw the alternative as impossible (correctly in my view), then it was entirely appropriate to explain to TSP that they needed to make a choice.

That is assuming that you are being in honest in claiming there were no prior discussions on the issue before the so-called 'ultimatum' was put.

Let's make something clear. Europeia did mistreat us. There is no reasonable argument against that statement. Kraketopia, who was President at the time, came to us saying that the South Pacific could not possibly attend both conferences, that we were downplaying our friendship with Europeia and that the other attendees needed to see a token of our commitment to Independence.

Based on this, Kraketopia appears to have accurately summed up the implications of TSP attending the Lazarus Regional Sovereignty Conference - where anti-Independence beliefs were being promoted by Lazarus - when TSP had been specially invited to host the Independence Convention with Europeia.

You can assert that there "is no reasonable argument against" your own view if you like, but you are failing to face up to the failures in TSP's diplomacy.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Kringala, I didn't say if Europeia did or didn't mistreat you. All I said is that both sides have genuine reasons to feel offended/insulted/bothered/etc by the whole affair. I'm willing to believe that you rightly feel mistreated, all I'm saying is try to consider the situation from Europeia's perspective.

[Kringalia]

Kringala, I didn't say if Europeia did or didn't mistreat you. All I said is that both sides have genuine reasons to feel offended/insulted/bothered/etc by the whole affair. I'm willing to believe that you rightly feel mistreated, all I'm saying is try to consider the situation from Europeia's perspective.

Oh, it wasn't my intention to imply that you did, Cerian. I was responding to Onder's post, where he said that TSP had not been mistreated at all.

--

I'm getting damn close to dealing with the lies coming from these former TSP leaders myself. The region is lucky they now have leadership with more integrity, that isn't interested in sabotaging every non-defender alliance one at a time for the sake of G-R's personal preferences and pet projects.

So much this. I've been sitting here biting my tongue because I don't wish to engage with such a one-sided presentation of what went wrong with negotiations. Kringalia and G-R certainly didn't engage us with the intention of resolving the situation, and virtually nothing was offered as a compromise.

With all due respect, that is not how it happened, and you both know it. You both came to me with an accusation that we were purposely attending the Lazarus Conference, to spite Europeia. We denied that accusation, assured you that we were simply accepting the separate invitations from our two treaty allies, and insisted that we valued both equally, as we should. It would have been unbecoming to value Europeia over Lazarus, just as it would have been to value Lazarus over Europeia. We even said that our attendance to the Lazarus Conference was on the assumption that we would only discuss regional sovereignty from a theoretical perspective, and that actual anti-independent/anti-imperialist rhetoric was not on our agenda, and that we would pull out if we saw such discussions take place.

What you replied was that any arrangement that included our attendance to both conferences was impossible, you insisted that this had to be a plot by Glen and Unibot to sabotage our bilateral relationship, and that other attendees to the Independence Conference wanted to see us renounce to the Lazarus Conference as a demonstration of our commitment to Independence.

We then submitted the matter of our attendance to either conference, to the Assembly, because we considered that this was a matter that required the opinion of the region at-large. The Assembly decided that there was no reason why we should not attend both conferences, and that our position as allies of both Europeia and Lazarus actually put us in a unique position to understand both sides, and contribute with the debates on both events. The decision was not from a Glen or Unibot, it was from the entire region, and out of a desire to treat our allies equally, as should be expected.

Now, it has been said that we did not have intention of compromising with Europeia. My question is, what kind of compromise would have been enough for them? We were outright asked to renounce our attendance to the Lazarus Conference. Our reply was that Lazarus is as much of an ally as Europeia is, and both deserved to be treated with respect. We indicated that we had no way of knowing that the dates of both conferences would conflict, you replied that we should have known that "in a couple of weeks" meant around the time of the Lazarus Conference.

Say that the South Pacific did not handle this situation well, if you want. My foreign policy was not perfect, nor was it intended to be, and I have no problem admitting that. But to say that Europeia behaved like an exemplary ally is far from the truth, and as one-sided as this discussion could be.

[Solorni]

Many other regions boycotted the conference held by lazarus. Both events were certainly not equal which is how you are treating them. The lazarus one was held by a controversial regime and by more controversial people.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Oh, it wasn't my intention to imply that you did, Cerian. I was responding to Onder's post, where he said that TSP had not been mistreated at all.

Ah. My apologies then.

[Kringalia]

No worries.

[Ahsanne]

Maybe one day I'll be able to giggle at being called a "mouthpiece" in Euro.

Those will be the days.

[Onderkelkia]

The Assembly decided that there was no reason why we should not attend both conferences,

You have confirmed that TSP didn't even accept that there was a problem or or contradictory message in attending the Regional Sovereignty Conference, which was highly likely to feature anti-Independent content, when it had been specially invited to co-host the Independence Convention at the same time.

By dismissing what was manifestly a problem which risked undermining the credibility of Europeia's plans, despite the fact that Europeia had chosen to partner with TSP as co-host, you failed to respect that Europeia had a legitimate complaint and from that failed to deal with the issue appropriately.

It would have been unbecoming to value Europeia over Lazarus, just as it would have been to value Lazarus over Europeia.

Our reply was that Lazarus is as much of an ally as Europeia is, and both deserved to be treated with respect.

Why should TSP's alliance with Lazarus have been assumed to reduce the level of respect owed by TSP to Europeia?

TSP's alliance with Lazarus would not have reduced the extent to which Europeia's conference would have been undermined.

If TSP's alliances with Europeia and Lazarus created conflicting commitments, then the onus is entirely on TSP to resolve that to mutual satisfaction - and to the extent that is not possible, to pay the price. Europeia shouldn't have been expected to endure disadvantage due to TSP's commitments to Lazarus.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Onder, I hate to disagree with you, but TSP made clear that anti-Independence content would not be tolerated:

We even said that our attendance to the Lazarus Conference was on the assumption that we would only discuss regional sovereignty from a theoretical perspective, and that actual anti-independent/anti-imperialist rhetoric was not on our agenda, and that we would pull out if we saw such discussions take place.

Now, I don't know if that was made clear to Europeia, since I wasn't involved in the negotiations, but TSP wasn't jumping head first into some sort of Independence-bashing effort.

[Onderkelkia]

Onder, I hate to disagree with you,

That is news to me.

but TSP made clear that anti-Independence content would not be tolerated:

We even said that our attendance to the Lazarus Conference was on the assumption that we would only discuss regional sovereignty from a theoretical perspective, and that actual anti-independent/anti-imperialist rhetoric was not on our agenda, and that we would pull out if we saw such discussions take place.

Now, I don't know if that was made clear to Europeia, since I wasn't involved in the negotiations, but TSP wasn't jumping head first into some sort of Independence-bashing effort.

TSP does not need to have intended to participate in an anti-Independence conference.

Regardless of their intention, it was fundamentally a rival conference with a rival agenda.

It was entirely legitimate for Europeia to be concerned at its co-host, which it had specially invited, deciding to attend such an event at the same time.

TSP's idea of anti-Independence content may also have been rather different, considering that the then Delegate of Lazarus subsequently published an announcement revealing the conception of regional sovereignty which Lazarus tried to sell at the conference to be essentially opposed to Independence.

[Kringalia]

Some things to clarify:

1. Cerian, I have just checked some of our logs, and we did inform Europeia that we intended to withdraw from the Lazarus Conference, if it turned its focus away from the theoretical discussion of regional sovereignty, and to plain old imperialist criticism. Our concern was to actually give Lazarus, our treaty ally, the benefit of the doubt, which I like to think is quite reasonable.

2. If TSP rejected an invitation from Europeia, under pressure from Lazarus, the latter would be rightly accused of interfering in the affairs of other regions, and would be rightly accused of subjecting ourselves to foreign influences. It would be unacceptable to let one ally dictate whether we can accept an invitation from another ally. Europeia was the one who did that, and the same degree of unacceptability should apply.

3. I still disagree with the assertion that the Regional Sovereignty Conference somehow diminished the importance of the Independence Conference. Both were held at separate locations, both features different participants, and in fact the Independence Conference was the only one that produced an agreed upon text.

Had TSP agreed to co-host both conferences, I would understand the concern of Europeia, since we obviously would be trying to balance two conferences, and would inevitable end up prioritizing one over the other, not out of malice, but simply because that is how things work. However, we were co-hosting one and attending the other, and explicitly told Europeia that we had no intention of diminishing our degree of commitment with the Independence Conference, since we were perfectly capable of handling our responsibilities to both allies. We failed to see any inherent conflict in the situation "as it was", and the region at-large (not simply Glen and Unibot) agree with that assessment.

[Onderkelkia]

1. Cerian, I have just checked some of our logs, and we did inform Europeia that we intended to withdraw from the Lazarus Conference, if it turned its focus away from the theoretical discussion of regional sovereignty, and to plain old imperialist criticism. Our concern was to actually give Lazarus, our treaty ally, the benefit of the doubt, which I like to think is quite reasonable.

First, theoretical discussion of regional sovereignty could be antithetical to Independence - it depends on the theory. It would not have taken a genius to guess the approach which Lazarus took to interpreting sovereignty - as has ultimately been borne out by Funkadelia's joint Sovereigntist announcement.

Second, such a promise has no impact on the impression created by a co-host attending a simultaneous conference with a rival and opposing agenda.

2. If TSP rejected an invitation from Europeia, under pressure from Lazarus, the latter would be rightly accused of interfering in the affairs of other regions, and would be rightly accused of subjecting ourselves to foreign influences. It would be unacceptable to let one ally dictate whether we can accept an invitation from another ally. Europeia was the one who did that, and the same degree of unacceptability should apply.

Why should Europeia have been concerned about the relationship between TSP and Lazarus?

Europeia's concern, as set out in it statement, was for the credibility of its conference - and TSP's alliance with Lazarus has no bearing on that.

3. I still disagree with the assertion that the Regional Sovereignty Conference somehow diminished the importance of the Independence Conference. Both were held at separate locations, both features different participants,

How does the fact they took place in different locations (one would take that as a given) with different participants make them less likely to be rivals?

They were both major inter-regional events, both based around different concepts.

It would not have been hard for any serious observer to see how those conferences could clash in their approaches.

Such a situation, given TSP's intended status as co-host of The Independence Convention, would have undermined it.

and in fact the Independence Conference was the only one that produced an agreed upon text.

I agree that in the outcome of the two conferences, the Independence Convention was more successful.

However, you would have no idea about which one would have reached agreement at this stage.

[Kringalia]

Obviously we are not going to convince each other, and as much as I love to defend TSP, sometimes it just isn't worth the headaches and the endless posts. I don't know about you, but I'll leave it at that.

[Ambrella]

This conversation has been hashed out so many times, I can't believe there's even anything left to say.

[Yuketobaniac]

Masterpiece you should be hired to your local newspaper

[RiderSyl]

TRT is his local newspaper.

[Unibot III]

Masterpiece you should be hired to your local newspaper

..Thanks?

[Cormac Stark]

Many other regions boycotted the conference held by lazarus. Both events were certainly not equal which is how you are treating them. The lazarus one was held by a controversial regime and by more controversial people.

Actually -- and much to my chagrin at the time -- the attendees of the regional sovereignty conference were remarkably diverse in comparison to the attendees of the independence conference. There were defenders, regions that could be classified as independent or non-aligned, and even a couple of imperialist regions at the regional sovereignty conference, despite my best efforts to ensure that only defenders would be attending. Several allies of The South Pacific attended, and the host region was their ally, so choosing not to attend because some allies were boycotting would have expressed a clear preference for those allies over attending allies. Instead, The South Pacific sought compromise, making clear it would withdraw its attendance if things went in an anti-independent direction, and was shot down.

The independence conference, by contrast, included only independent and imperialist regions, and not even all of those were invited -- for reasons that remain unclear to this day. Osiris and The West Pacific, for example, were not initially invited, though this was later rectified and both ended up attending, as far as I know. Other regions that could be considered independent or at least independent friendly, such as The East Pacific, were ignored. Is it an accident that EPSA defends more than most of these other "independent" regions' militaries and The East Pacific was ignored? You'll all insist that it was, but I fail to see why else they wouldn't have been invited.

So, yes, some regions boycotted the regional sovereignty conference, but that was to be expected given the political turmoil at the time and the fact that conference was much more open to attendance from a broad spectrum of regions. Europeia was quite selective in who it invited to the independence conference, which virtually assured that it would be non-controversial and viewed as a success. That's fine and all, but there's something to be said for diversity and hearing contrasting views rather than echoes.

[Ramaeus]

Other regions that could be considered independent or at least independent friendly, such as The East Pacific, were ignored. Is it an accident that EPSA defends more than most of these other "independent" regions' militaries and The East Pacific was ignored? You'll all insist that it was, but I fail to see why else they wouldn't have been invited.

I was Delegate of The East Pacific then, and presided over the termination of our treaty with Lazarus (which had essentially the full consent of the government). GE -- an imperialist -- was my Minister of Foreign Affairs then. He and I clearly weren't independent enough.

EDIT: There's this, too.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

"How dare the representatives of your sovereign region attend a glorified conversation wherein other representatives might express a viewpoint on regional policy that conflicts with ours!"



EDIT: wrong pic