The Case for Multilateral Treaties

[Belschaft]

It's good to see that Unibot's vision of democracy in a non-aligned GCR remains "ban anyone who'll oppose making the region Defender". I remember his cheerleading for NPO when they started their takeover of Lazarus that way.

I'll stick to working with anyone, regardless of political or R/D alignment, who puts TSP first and isn't subverting the region for foreign interests. Most recently in the form of drafting and signing a motion with three members of
TSP's pro-defender political party.

[Unibot III]

This is really lovely coming from someone who maintains Balder and TSP are still in an alliance.

You're correct that the people responsible for the corruption are still in the South Pacific, but those people are Belschaft and company. Made worse, of course, by the amnesty granted. I wrote the aspects of the criminal code related to corruption, organized crime and electoral fraud - I know there are issues with internal justice and due process in the South Pacific.

Getting rid of your cronies in the South Pacific would aid a lot in the South Pacific's stability (i.e., the folks who couped TSP last time) but that won't happen because there's always a reluctance in TSP to remove Belschaft and others known for corruption; a multilateral pact is a good alternative way to help protect the Coalition's diplomatic situation however.

Actually, if I recall correctly Hileville couped because of the corruption of Glen-Rhodes. I do not believe he cited Belschaft who actually worked with Glen-Rhodes to help end that coup. Although I suppose if they were working together, that would seem to suggest they are both part of the same corrupting influence.

Also, I love the idea that I have cronies in The South Pacific. But that is absurd. If you recall, Belschaft was actually not allowed in Balder for awhile because of his planned coup of the region with Luxembourg and Sovereign Liberties.

The best thing TSP could do were to remove players like Glen-Rhodes from its institutions and work closer with more stable democracies. TSP has already started to reform by copying Balder's system, but it would do even better to get rid of players like Glen-Rhodes from influential posts who quite simply are the most major source of instability for the region. The idea that a coup could occur because it was felt corruption was simply that high, is quite frankly not an acceptable situation. By remaining in his posts, Glen-Rhodes and others have shown they do not care about the region. Which is always dangerous.

But I am glad that we agree that the systemic corruption in the region is a major issue.

---

One of the reasons why WALL works so well, is that each region involved has a strong set of institutions, is internally strong and active and stability as well as strong relationships between all leaders. Call it Bismarckian, but there should be efforts at improving internally before expanding outward.

I doubt TSP will see it endearing to see a foriegn ally's leader poo-poo'ng their democracy as corrupt.

It's good to see that Unibot's vision of democracy in a non-aligned GCR remains "ban anyone who'll oppose making the region Defender". I remember his cheerleading for NPO when they started their takeover of Lazarus that way.

I'll stick to working with anyone, regardless of political or R/D alignment, who puts TSP first and isn't subverting the region for foreign interests. Most recently in the form of drafting and signing a motion with three members of
TSP's pro-defender political party.

I, unlike, you do not see being a defender, unpatriotic. The idea that you put 'TSP first' is ludicrous, you put yourself first. As you did when you couped TSP. As you did, time and time again in every public office you occupied in the South Pacific.

You did your best to remove me from the region via the "Prohibited Regions and Organization" list because you made the case that a defender could not be trusted. I and other defenders survived your culling by being outstanding members of the South Pacific who performed our duties in our capacity as executive officers to the fullest of our abilities.

[Solorni]

I'm not a leader, that would be our newest Statsminister Fake. It does seem odd that the defender leaning GCRs have tended to struggle compared to the independent ones.

[Tsunamy]

The best thing TSP could do were to remove players like Glen-Rhodes from its institutions and work closer with more stable democracies. TSP has already started to reform by copying Balder's system, but it would do even better to get rid of players like Glen-Rhodes from influential posts who quite simply are the most major source of instability for the region. The idea that a coup could occur because it was felt corruption was simply that high, is quite frankly not an acceptable situation. By remaining in his posts, Glen-Rhodes and others have shown they do not care about the region. Which is always dangerous.

While I appreciate all input from our allies, I'll ask you to leave the personal vendetta out of this. Regardless of the reasons for the coup, they can't be placed at the foot of any one person.

---

More to the point, while I appreciate the analysis, Uni, I find the overall premise here a bit faulty. The 2016 coup in TSP was barely fully delineated a coup and by the time we started pushing against it with force, Hileville turned over his nation to Bel and arrangements were made to pace the delegate's seat to me. Point being: Between the messiness and the quickness of the turnaround, I wouldn't expect a lot of statements.

[Unibot III]

Point being: Between the messiness and the quickness of the turnaround, I wouldn't expect a lot of statements.

With respect, Tsu: most coups at least create the impression of 'messiness' to deter regions from supporting the couped region and involving themselves in local politics. We sign treaties to bind actors to get involved even in instances where it looks like 'local politics' could be at play.

Sedgistan's coup of TSP and Milograd's coup of TSP are both cases of players masking their blatant coups against the Coalition as faux 'regional upsets.' Frak used the same rhetoric. It's a common tactic among coupers - Belschaft and Hileville's coup was not unique in that respect. It's a tactic as old as Francos Spain (who, if he hadn't invented it, perfected it.)

[Solorni]

The idea that I have person vendettas and would act upon them is completely absurd Tsu.

[Belschaft]

It's good to see that Unibot's vision of democracy in a non-aligned GCR remains "ban anyone who'll oppose making the region Defender". I remember his cheerleading for NPO when they started their takeover of Lazarus that way.

I'll stick to working with anyone, regardless of political or R/D alignment, who puts TSP first and isn't subverting the region for foreign interests. Most recently in the form of drafting and signing a motion with three members of
TSP's pro-defender political party.

I, unlike, you do not see being a defender, unpatriotic. The idea that you put 'TSP first' is ludicrous, you put yourself first. As you did when you couped TSP. As you did, time and time again in every public office you occupied in the South Pacific.

You did your best to remove me from the region via the "Prohibited Regions and Organization" list because you made the case that a defender could not be trusted. I and other defenders survived your culling by being outstanding members of the South Pacific who performed our duties in our capacity as executive officers to the fullest of our abilities.

I have no problem with defenders. I was a defender. Roavin, who is the head of TGW, is a friend and someone I work with all the time in TSP. I'm even able work with Glen despite our notorious dislike of each other, and regularly vote for him when I feel he's the best candidate for office. Some of the best, most dedicated and valuable people in TSP are defenders. I have no reason to question their patriotism. The SPSF is currently organized on a defender basis, and I have no problem with that, as it's the preference of those TSPers active in military GP.

I remain firmly opposed to people who would exploit TSP's open and democratic system of government to advance foreign interests, and feign loyalty to the region whilst subverting it. I will always fight against attempts to impose any kind of outside ideology on TSP.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The best thing TSP could do were to remove players like Glen-Rhodes from its institutions and work closer with more stable democracies. TSP has already started to reform by copying Balder's system, but it would do even better to get rid of players like Glen-Rhodes from influential posts who quite simply are the most major source of instability for the region. The idea that a coup could occur because it was felt corruption was simply that high, is quite frankly not an acceptable situation. By remaining in his posts, Glen-Rhodes and others have shown they do not care about the region. Which is always dangerous.

I can only imagine how fast I'd be recalled if I said the same about you, especially since you and others are maintaining that TSP and Balder are still allies.

It's very disappointing that certain players are brushing off your words here, but I had to spend days defending myself over the past two years whenever I said something slightly off color about TSP's "allies."

[Unibot III]

Some of the best, most dedicated and valuable people in TSP are defenders. I have no reason to question their patriotism.

"I have lots of defender friends." *rubs his temple in frustration*

I would dispute your characterization of my service to the South Pacific. I think I served productive, lawful, constructive terms as Chair of the Assembly and in various positions in TSP's justice system - I was not to be trusted because I was a defender, end of story. That's how you've treated defenders in the South Pacific: with open contempt.

[Cerian Quilor]

I don't think anyone who didn't have a direct stake in SPSR's success (or weren't people like Frak) were tricked by Milograd's facade of popular will or 'regional upset'.

TBH was involved for the lulz, not out of any ideological commitment, far as I understand it.

@Glen: I'd imagine the fact that Rachel's power over government policy is minimal, whereas when you're MoFA and say these things, you're speaking with... well, actual governmental authority plays a role in that seeming double standard.

[Unibot III]

@Glen: I'd imagine the fact that Rachel's power over government policy is minimal, whereas when you're MoFA and say these things, you're speaking with... well, actual governmental authority plays a role in that seeming double standard.

Sorry, is she not the Queen of Balder?

[Cerian Quilor]

@Glen: I'd imagine the fact that Rachel's power over government policy is minimal, whereas when you're MoFA and say these things, you're speaking with... well, actual governmental authority plays a role in that seeming double standard.

Sorry, is she not the Queen of Balder?

I'm sorry, but doesn't the Balderan Constitution reserve actual power for the Statsminister?

If I, under the old Kantrian Constitution, had said things like that (and to be fair, I kind of did), I don't think it would entirely be out of line for TSP to take issue with it, as full executive authority over FA belonged to me (the Senate really only had power to reject or approve treaties, though if they ever wanted to they could have raised a bigger stink about anything I was doing). Under the current draft of our new constitution being considered, I don't have control over FA anymore, but I will run the military and probably will have enough power that again, prejudicial remarks about TSP or whatever would be reasonably reacted against.

But in Balder, what power the Monarch has is extremely limited, as far as I understand it.

[Unibot III]

Sorry, is she not the Queen of Balder?

I'm sorry, but doesn't the Balderan Constitution reserve actual power for the Statsminister?

The Statsminister is Onder for christ's sake, CQ.

Does Onder disagree with the Queen of Balder's statement on the South Pacific? I think we all can guess the answer to that one but I'm open to being surprised.

[Cerian Quilor]

I'm sorry, but doesn't the Balderan Constitution reserve actual power for the Statsminister?

The Statsminister is Onder for christ's sake, CQ.

Does Onder disagree with the Queen of Balder's statement on the South Pacific? I think we all can guess the answer to that one but I'm open to being surprised.

That's not what I said. So far as I know, Onder made no such statements, and in general, Onder isn't one to make public statements like that.

And I believe they just elected a new Statsminister, who isn't even Onder.

But had Onder said something like that while Statsminister, TSP might have some grounds for complaint.

EDIT: Yes, yes they have elected a new Statsminister.

[Unibot III]

The Statsminister is Onder for christ's sake, CQ.

Does Onder disagree with the Queen of Balder's statement on the South Pacific? I think we all can guess the answer to that one but I'm open to being surprised.

That's not what I said. So far as I know, Onder made no such statements, and in general, Onder isn't one to make public statements like that.

And I believe they just elected a new Statsminister, who isn't even Onder.

But had Onder said something like that while Statsminister, TSP might have some grounds for complaint.

EDIT: Yes, yes they have elected a new Statsminister.

I would say the Queen of Balder's statement carries some weight on Balder's behalf, CQ. But it's certainly an entertaining line of argument to maintain. "I'm just the Queen!!"

[Cerian Quilor]

So if Queen Elizabeth II makes predjucidial remarks about President Cheeto McTangerine, the US should end its alliance with the UK?

[Solorni]

I'm sorry, but doesn't the Balderan Constitution reserve actual power for the Statsminister?

The Statsminister is Onder for christ's sake, CQ.

Does Onder disagree with the Queen of Balder's statement on the South Pacific? I think we all can guess the answer to that one but I'm open to being surprised.

Um... I literally wrote this earlier in the thread:

I'm not a leader, that would be our newest Statsminister Fake. It does seem odd that the defender leaning GCRs have tended to struggle compared to the independent ones.

[Unibot III]

So if Queen Elizabeth II makes predjucidial remarks about President Cheeto McTangerine, the US should end its alliance with the UK?

If Queen Elizabeth II were to call out American democracy for corruption, I would expect it to impact US-UK relations, yes. I can't believe you'd entertain the idea that UK-US relations would proceed as normal. There's a reason Queen Elizabeth II hasn't voiced an opinion on anything except her preference for Coronation Street and horse-trading since 1952.

Being a Queen does come with responsibilities...

[Cerian Quilor]

So if Queen Elizabeth II makes predjucidial remarks about President Cheeto McTangerine, the US should end its alliance with the UK?

If Queen Elizabeth II were to call out American democracy for corruption, I would expect it to impact US-UK relations, yes. I can't believe you'd entertain the idea that UK-US relations would proceed as normal. There's a reason Queen Elizabeth II hasn't voice an opinion on anything except her preference for Coronation Street and horse-trading since 1952.

Queen Elizabeth II has about as much real power over the UK's government as the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office does.

[Solorni]

So if Queen Elizabeth II makes predjucidial remarks about President Cheeto McTangerine, the US should end its alliance with the UK?

If Queen Elizabeth II were to call out American democracy for corruption, I would expect it to impact US-UK relations, yes. I can't believe you'd entertain the idea that UK-US relations would proceed as normal. There's a reason Queen Elizabeth II hasn't voice an opinion on anything except her preference for Coronation Street and horse-trading since 1952.

Being a Queen does come with responsibilities...

So I should be quite and know my place like a good Queen Mitch McConnell?

[Unibot III]

If Queen Elizabeth II were to call out American democracy for corruption, I would expect it to impact US-UK relations, yes. I can't believe you'd entertain the idea that UK-US relations would proceed as normal. There's a reason Queen Elizabeth II hasn't voice an opinion on anything except her preference for Coronation Street and horse-trading since 1952.

Queen Elizabeth II has about as much real power over the UK's government as the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office does.

Don't you dare pick on Larry! I maintain that, yes, Queen Elizabeth II's opinion has an impact on foreign affairs despite the diminished scope of her constitutional powers. She's the UK's head of state. The same responsibility lies on Rachel's shoulders as Queen of Balder - and any head of state, really.

[Cerian Quilor]

I think the relevance of a Head of State's opinions is directly proportional to their real power, but that may be an irreconciable difference between us.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm sure it's that, Cerian, and not blatant hypocrisy.

[Cerian Quilor]

That's certainly the premise under which I'm operating, Glen. That's why I made a policy of moderating my comments in Gameplay significantly when I was MoFA and then later President of Europeia.

[The Blaatschapen]

So if Queen Elizabeth II makes predjucidial remarks about President Cheeto McTangerine, the US should end its alliance with the UK?

Careful there. While the rule is mostly used in NationStates General, political nicknaming (this includes disparaging nicknames for politicians) is against the rules.

Ergo, knock it off.

The Blaatschapen - Nationstates Moderator