The Case for Multilateral Treaties

[Cormactopia Prime]

At what point did Lazarus become a signatory region of the Accords?

Because it seems that some people are claiming that since those regions within the Accords aren't actively enforcing the Accords in regards to a non-signatory region then the treaty is invalid.

What kind of screwy maths are you working at there?

No one is saying the Accords signatories should have acted, as the South Pacific did, to defend Lazarus against The Black Hawks. I would argue that it doesn't require a treaty for a Feeder or Sinker to defend one of its sister regions, but that is beside the point.

The point is, simply, this: If the signatories of the GCR Sovereignty Accords will not, at minimum, disavow military forces that have just perpetrated a hostile invasion against one of their sister regions now, what basis of trust can possibly exist for any other Feeders or Sinkers to join a defense pact with you later? This "single-update prank," as The Black Hawks are calling it, was an unintentional test of whether the GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories could be trusted to uphold the sovereignty of their fellow Feeders and Sinkers. Thus far, the Queen of Balder has abysmally flunked the test, and the clock is ticking on how the rest of you will handle it, and whether the government of Balder will do anything to correct their monarch's misstep.

[Drop Your Pants]

I was thinking the opposite. Lazarus does not appear to be a stable democratic region yet.

I'm reminded of a comment i made about Balder not being stable enough to join the PSSP (long time ago) which sent you into an hour long rant about me not being able to speak for another regions stability without knowing all the facts. Funny how we swap sides

[Pierconium]

At what point did Lazarus become a signatory region of the Accords?

Because it seems that some people are claiming that since those regions within the Accords aren't actively enforcing the Accords in regards to a non-signatory region then the treaty is invalid.

What kind of screwy maths are you working at there?

No one is saying the Accords signatories should have acted, as the South Pacific did, to defend Lazarus against The Black Hawks. I would argue that it doesn't require a treaty for a Feeder or Sinker to defend one of its sister regions, but that is beside the point.

The point is, simply, this: If the signatories of the GCR Sovereignty Accords will not, at minimum, disavow military forces that have just perpetrated a hostile invasion against one of their sister regions now, what basis of trust can possibly exist for any other Feeders or Sinkers to join a defense pact with you later? This "single-update prank," as The Black Hawks are calling it, was an unintentional test of whether the GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories could be trusted to uphold the sovereignty of their fellow Feeders and Sinkers. Thus far, the Queen of Balder has abysmally flunked the test, and the clock is ticking on how the rest of you will handle it, and whether the government of Balder will do anything to correct their monarch's misstep.

That is a false comparison and you know it. Measuring the response to actions against a signatory is different from reactions to non-signatories by default.

That said, I never support userite intervention in the GCRs. And I dare say that Balder would oppose it against a fellow signatory of the Accords.

[Cormactopia Prime]

That is a false comparison and you know it. Measuring the response to actions against a signatory is different from reactions to non-signatories by default.

That said, I never support userite intervention in the GCRs. And I dare say that Balder would oppose it against a fellow signatory of the Accords.

What you're essentially saying is that the other Feeders and Sinkers should sign the Accords now and find out if they can trust all of you later.

I can't imagine anyone finding that offer appealing.

[Pierconium]

That is a false comparison and you know it. Measuring the response to actions against a signatory is different from reactions to non-signatories by default.

That said, I never support userite intervention in the GCRs. And I dare say that Balder would oppose it against a fellow signatory of the Accords.

What you're essentially saying is that the other Feeders and Sinkers should sign the Accords now and find out if they can trust all of you later.

I can't imagine anyone finding that offer appealing.

Absolutely not. That is what you are saying and you are incorrect. You are attempting to project a necessity of action onto the Accords signatories in regards to non-signatories but that is not common or justified.

[Cerian Quilor]

There's a difference between a reaction to an event in a nebulously defined 'sister region' and an event in a treatied ally, though...

[Cormactopia Prime]

Absolutely not. That is what you are saying and you are incorrect. You are attempting to project a necessity of action onto the Accords signatories in regards to non-signatories but that is not common or justified.

This is how building trust begins. There is no reason for various Feeders and Sinkers that haven't joined the Accords to think various Accords signatories will act in their defense, and the only way to change their minds -- the only way to build upon the Accords, to give it the potential to be a truly inclusive, pan-Feeder and Sinker pact -- is to begin building the trust that would be required for other Feeders and Sinkers to believe the agreement would be worth the proverbial paper on which it is written. If you want them to believe you will uphold their sovereignty later, you're going to have to uphold their sovereignty now. Otherwise all they have to go on is history, and I think we can all concede that history does not inspire trust.

The likely alternative is, in fact, the solidification of blocs that are likely to become hostile to each other. That the Feeders and Sinkers which have no reason to trust various GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories will join that agreement anyway, absent any trust building that would lead them to be more confident in the agreement, is not just unlikely. It would be madness on the part of those Feeders and Sinkers. Why would Lazarus, for example, join an agreement with Balder, when the Queen of Balder has just ridiculed and libeled them instead of disavowing those who invaded them? If your goal is really for all Feeders and Sinkers to uphold each other's sovereignty, you'll have to demonstrate that all of you will uphold the sovereignty of Feeders and Sinkers that have every legitimate reason to be skeptical that one or more of you will actually do so.

[Pierconium]

Absolutely not. That is what you are saying and you are incorrect. You are attempting to project a necessity of action onto the Accords signatories in regards to non-signatories but that is not common or justified.

This is how building trust begins. There is no reason for various Feeders and Sinkers that haven't joined the Accords to think various Accords signatories will act in their defense, and the only way to change their minds -- the only way to build upon the Accords, to give it the potential to be a truly inclusive, pan-Feeder and Sinker pact -- is to begin building the trust that would be required for other Feeders and Sinkers to believe the agreement would be worth the proverbial paper on which it is written. If you want them to believe you will uphold their sovereignty later, you're going to have to uphold their sovereignty now. Otherwise all they have to go on is history, and I think we can all concede that history does not inspire trust.

The likely alternative is, in fact, the solidification of blocs that are likely to become hostile to each other. That the Feeders and Sinkers which have no reason to trust various GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories will join that agreement anyway, absent any trust building that would lead them to be more confident in the agreement, is not just unlikely. It would be madness on the part of those Feeders and Sinkers. Why would Lazarus, for example, join an agreement with Balder, when the Queen of Balder has just ridiculed and libeled them instead of disavowing those who invaded them? If your goal is really for all Feeders and Sinkers to uphold each other's sovereignty, you'll have to demonstrate that all of you will uphold the sovereignty of Feeders and Sinkers that have every legitimate reason to be skeptical that one or more of you will actually do so.

Again, no.

Just because you (currently) believe a certain thing doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean you will believe the same thing tomorrow.

Trust doesn't come from empty platitudes and statements of disapproval. It comes from actions. If there is a real threat to GCR sovereignty then I will be the first to speak out against it and take whatever action is necessary to overcome it.

But Lazarus hasn't asked us for assistance and as they are not signatories of the Accords, there is no reason for us to assume it is wanted.

[Solorni]

To the best of my knowledge Lazarus still has not apologized for the PRL coup and in particular the purging of many of their citizens. Some of those people were Balder citizens. I feel like I should be able to critique regions which struggle, particularly when we have Unibot extolling their democratic principles. This is despite talk recently of a potential coup, something I discussed with Altmoras. Then today you have delegates once again purging people extra judicially. If you want me to disavow the Black Hawks, should I not also disavow the undemocratic things going on in Lazarus?

Quite frankly I would be happy if Lazarus was a quality democracy. I am one of the only delegates who has spoken out against the PRL coup. I can say that Balder likely would oppose a coup against Lazarus as we did with the PRL. We even discussed our concerns with recent events with Altmoras to prevent another Lazarus coup. I want Lazarus to continue to strengthen its institutions.

I'm also not sure why -I- would be asked to disavow the Black Hawks. I have never been a member of their organization and have not worked or talked with them for years. Quite frankly I do not even know who runs them.

Also, I feel like Lazarus could alleviate any remaining tensions and bad feelings by apologizing for their purges of Balder citizens.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Trust doesn't come from empty platitudes and statements of disapproval. It comes from actions. If there is a real threat to GCR sovereignty then I will be the first to speak out against it and take whatever action is necessary to overcome it.

But Lazarus hasn't asked us for assistance and as they are not signatories of the Accords, there is no reason for us to assume it is wanted.

You're right, it comes from actions. The concrete action of all of the Feeders and Sinkers publicly declining to work with The Black Hawks in the future, due to their violation of Lazarene sovereignty, is an action that would build trust. If none of you are willing to take any concrete action to build trust, then why would any other Feeder or Sinker join the Accords? Why wouldn't they just go the route Unibot has proposed, the safer route in which they can actually have confidence that the signatories of their alternative multilateral pact would actually uphold and defend their sovereignty?

I find it amusing that you're saying "trust doesn't come from empty platitudes and statements of disapproval." That is basically also what I'm saying. Statements of apology for historical transgressions, restoration of embassies -- these are words and platitudes, not actions. These gestures do nothing to build real trust. When given an opportunity to transform words into actions, to demonstrate that all of you are serious about turning the page on a troubled history, declining to take that opportunity just demonstrates that there is probably more truth to the suspicions Unibot and others harbor toward all of you than I would like to admit. If you demonstrate now that you've calculated The Black Hawks may be more important to all of you in the future than your sister Feeders and Sinkers, don't expect new signatories to the Accords. Expect hostile blocs instead.

<snip>

Congratulations for confirming that in the case of at least one GCR Sovereignty Accords signatory, Unibot has been spot on.

[Pierconium]

Trust doesn't come from empty platitudes and statements of disapproval. It comes from actions. If there is a real threat to GCR sovereignty then I will be the first to speak out against it and take whatever action is necessary to overcome it.

But Lazarus hasn't asked us for assistance and as they are not signatories of the Accords, there is no reason for us to assume it is wanted.

You're right, it comes from actions. The concrete action of all of the Feeders and Sinkers publicly declining to work with The Black Hawks in the future, due to their violation of Lazarene sovereignty, is an action that would build trust. If none of you are willing to take any concrete action to build trust, then why would any other Feeder or Sinker join the Accords? Why wouldn't they just go the route Unibot has proposed, the safer route in which they can actually have confidence that the signatories of their alternative multilateral pact would actually uphold and defend their sovereignty?

I find it amusing that you're saying "trust doesn't come from empty platitudes and statements of disapproval." That is basically also what I'm saying. Statements of apology for historical transgressions, restoration of embassies -- these are words and platitudes, not actions. These gestures do nothing to build real trust. When given an opportunity to transform words into actions, to demonstrate that all of you are serious about turning the page on a troubled history, declining to take that opportunity just demonstrates that there is probably more truth to the suspicions Unibot and others harbor toward all of you than I would like to admit. If you demonstrate now that you've calculated The Black Hawks may be more important to all of you in the future than your sister Feeders and Sinkers, don't expect new signatories to the Accords. Expect hostile blocs instead.

Please point out where I have stated I want to work with TBH.

Can you also point to a statement from Lazarus requesting assistance regarding the recent events?

If you can't point out one or both of these statements then, again, you are speaking about things that are immaterial to the Accords or the relations we might have with the other GCRs.

Your attempts to validate your own agenda by trying to back us into a corner through fabrications and hypotheticals is no different than Unibot doing the same in regards to Balder and Osiris, which you railed against earlier in this thread.

Give it a rest.

[Unibot III]

Quite frankly I would be happy if Lazarus was a quality democracy.

"Quality democracy." The bestest democracy. So good. Great!

[Cormactopia Prime]

Please point out where I have stated I want to work with TBH.

This has nothing to do with you as an individual, particularly now that you are no longer Emperor of the Pacific Order.

If the signatories of the GCR Sovereignty Accords don't prioritize possible future collaboration with The Black Hawks over their sister Feeders and Sinkers, disavowing The Black Hawks and declining to work with them in the future should be no problem. I don't understand the hesitation. I don't think any of the four of you would have much, if anything, to lose from such a disavowal -- so what's the issue?

Can you also point to a statement from Lazarus requesting assistance regarding the recent events?

Does it require a request for assistance for Feeders and Sinkers to disavow a raider group that has violated the sovereignty of a sister Feeder or Sinker? Does that even constitute "assistance"? I can still remember when that would have just been standard procedure, back in 2012 when the Feeders and Sinkers were basically on the same page in regard to upholding each other's sovereignty. If the GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories are serious about wanting to get back to that consensus, there is no time like the present to demonstrate that's true with actions, rather than mere words.

Your attempts to validate your own agenda by trying to back us into a corner through fabrications and hypotheticals is no different than Unibot doing the same in regards to Balder and Osiris, which you railed against earlier in this thread.

What agenda do you imagine I have? My agenda is pretty simple: I would like to see all of the Feeders and Sinkers once again committed to upholding and defending each other's sovereignty. I would like to see a return to the pre-2013 consensus. A nefarious agenda, to be sure. Before that can happen, the regions that broke the consensus need to demonstrate that they are actually willing to repair it with something more than earnest-sounding diplomatic statements. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone to believe in the sincerity of those statements, and every reason for two blocs to go their own way and probably end up hostile to each other, as Unibot has suggested.

Give it a rest.

Not likely.

[Pierconium]

Give it a rest.

Not likely.

Then you can continue talking in circles within your private little echo chamber. Your position is illogical, your assumptions are incorrect, and your deductions are false.

No member of the Accords is obligated to make any statements regarding matters pertaining to non-signatories who themselves have not stated any need for it. The only person making such statements is you. And I don't think you speak for Lazarus.

Which is where we differ. I do speak for the Pacific in this instance as head of Foreign Affairs, regardless of your offhand remark regarding my status.

[Drop Your Pants]

Also, I feel like Lazarus could alleviate any remaining tensions and bad feelings by apologizing for their purges of Balder citizens.

I'm sorry. Can we get an apology for the years of snark?

[Cormactopia Prime]

Then you can continue talking in circles within your private little echo chamber. Your position is illogical, your assumptions are incorrect, and your deductions are false.

You've failed to demonstrate that. There is nothing illogical about expecting regions to demonstrate they can be trusted before signing a document that entrusts them with upholding the sovereignty of your region. If all we can expect from the signatories of the GCR Sovereignty Accords are words and platitudes, those of you that threw away the trust of other regions will never earn it back.

No member of the Accords is obligated to make any statements regarding matters pertaining to non-signatories who themselves have not stated any need for it. The only person making such statements is you. And I don't think you speak for Lazarus.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, these days, and I've not claimed otherwise.

Of course you're not under any obligation to do anything. It would be in your best interests, and the best interests of Feeder and Sinker security, to do what I'm suggesting, if you're serious about rebuilding trust and restoring the consensus that all Feeders and Sinkers will uphold each other's sovereignty. But perhaps Unibot is right. Perhaps you're not serious about it.

Which is where we differ. I do speak for the Pacific in this instance as head of Foreign Affairs, regardless of your offhand remark regarding my status.

I had no idea you were head of the Pacific's foreign affairs, not that it changes anything. Perhaps you should include that in your signature, so people will realize they're talking to a Feeder's head of foreign affairs and not merely a "tyrant" proudly boasting about his various deplorable past affiliations.

[Onderkelkia]

Thus far, the Queen of Balder has abysmally flunked the test, and the clock is ticking on how the rest of you will handle it, and whether the government of Balder will do anything to correct their monarch's misstep.

The Queen - who is not an executive official of Balder- merely offered an opinion about a non-allied region. There is nothing remotely wrong with that.

Balder is not in the business of making defence commitments - to any game-created or user-created region - without entering into a treaty. We re-opened embassy relations with Lazarus in late 2015 (which is over a year ago now), but exchanging embassies in NationStates does not imply any other obligations. If there was a mutual defence treaty involving Balder and Lazarus, it would be a different matter, but such a situation is purely hypothetical at this stage.

[Solorni]

Also, I feel like Lazarus could alleviate any remaining tensions and bad feelings by apologizing for their purges of Balder citizens.

I'm sorry. Can we get an apology for the years of snark?

If Lazarus sincerely were to apologize for the PRL purges and the way they treated Balder after the PRL coup, then I will gladly apologize for the snark and refrain from doing it in the future.

[Pierconium]

Then you can continue talking in circles within your private little echo chamber. Your position is illogical, your assumptions are incorrect, and your deductions are false.

You've failed to demonstrate that. There is nothing illogical about expecting regions to demonstrate they can be trusted before signing a document that entrusts them with upholding the sovereignty of your region. If all we can expect from the signatories of the GCR Sovereignty Accords are words and platitudes, those of you that threw away the trust of other regions will never earn it back.

No member of the Accords is obligated to make any statements regarding matters pertaining to non-signatories who themselves have not stated any need for it. The only person making such statements is you. And I don't think you speak for Lazarus.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, these days, and I've not claimed otherwise.

Of course you're not under any obligation to do anything. It would be in your best interests, and the best interests of Feeder and Sinker security, to do what I'm suggesting, if you're serious about rebuilding trust and restoring the consensus that all Feeders and Sinkers will uphold each other's sovereignty. But perhaps Unibot is right. Perhaps you're not serious about it.

Which is where we differ. I do speak for the Pacific in this instance as head of Foreign Affairs, regardless of your offhand remark regarding my status.

I had no idea you were head of the Pacific's foreign affairs, not that it changes anything. Perhaps you should include that in your signature, so people will realize they're talking to a Feeder's head of foreign affairs and not merely a "tyrant" proudly boasting about his various deplorable past affiliations.

Again, no.

As to the rest, who says they are all past affiliations? I am a retired Tyrant, until I'm not...

[Cormactopia Prime]

The Queen - who is not an executive official of Balder- merely offered an opinion about a non-allied region. There is nothing remotely wrong with that.

The Queen of Balder is its monarch and head of state. I'll concede that her statements don't define future policy, nor do they necessarily articulate existing policy. Let's not pretend, though, that your region's monarch and head of state is merely a private citizen, and that her words are unimportant. Like it or not, your monarch's words do have foreign affairs implications.

Balder is not in the business of making defence commitments - to any game-created or user-created region - without entering into a treaty. We re-opened embassy relations with Lazarus in late 2015 (which is over a year ago now), but exchanging embassies in NationStates does not imply any other obligations. If there was a mutual defence treaty involving Balder and Lazarus, it would be a different matter, but such a situation is purely hypothetical at this stage.

Fair enough. You should be able to understand, however, given Balder's mixed record on honoring its commitments, how the failure to take concrete action to demonstrate Balder is trustworthy may lead to Balder being regarded as untrustworthy. That could make future agreements difficult, if not impossible, and lead to the formation of mutually hostile blocs like those Unibot has suggested.

[Trumps Regular Sized Hands]

This is a huge idea, huge. For years, Pacifica hasn't been sending its best people to TRR. They've been sending their spammers and their worst. It's terrible, just terrible. Total disaster.

[Drop Your Pants]

If Lazarus sincerely were to apologize for the PRL purges and the way they treated Balder after the PRL coup, then I will gladly apologize for the snark and refrain from doing it in the future.

I think Balder is the only region still trying to make a big deal over PRL. Lazarus views it as a humorous bump in the road that we call a bumpy history. Can you link me to some posts where Laz verbally attacked or belittled Balder that warrant an apology (thats the region now, not certain members who shared citizenship).

[Onderkelkia]

The Queen - who is not an executive official of Balder- merely offered an opinion about a non-allied region. There is nothing remotely wrong with that.

The Queen of Balder is its monarch and head of state. I'll concede that her statements don't define future policy, nor do they necessarily articulate existing policy. Let's not pretend, though, that your region's monarch and head of state is merely a private citizen, and that her words are unimportant. Like it or not, your monarch's words do have foreign affairs implications.

The Monarch of Balder is indeed the non-executive head of state. The principal purpose of the Monarchy is safeguarding the World Assembly Delegacy, in order to the avoid the dangers which we perceive in regularly shifting the delegacy between different elected heads of government. However, she is also a commentator on NationStates affairs and events in her own right. Given that her term has no end date and she has no involvement in Balder's foreign policy, it would be unreasonable to expect a prominent gameplayer like Solorni to remain gagged on world affairs indefinitely. We could not retain someone of her calibre and trustworthiness as a figurehead if we required her to take a vow of silence outside Balder when she has no say over our own policies.

In practical terms, what is more important than her remarks abroad is that she does not interfere in politics within Balder.

You have acknowledged that her statements do not represent our current policies or indicate our future policies. Given that, if someone cares about the actual position of Balder's government as opposed to simply pretending to be offended, I fail to see why such importance would be attached to her remarks. We could choose to care about people pretending to be offended, but instead we care about having someone as trustworthy as Solorni as our monarch.

You have also ignored the other aspect to my response here, which was that Lazarus is not allied to Balder. Whereas the government officials of a region will avoid making comments which are critical of an ally, there can be no such expectation between Balder and Lazarus. As such, even if Solorni was an executive official of Balder - which she is not - there would be no breach of etiquette from her making a passing comment critical of Lazarus.

Balder is not in the business of making defence commitments - to any game-created or user-created region - without entering into a treaty. We re-opened embassy relations with Lazarus in late 2015 (which is over a year ago now), but exchanging embassies in NationStates does not imply any other obligations. If there was a mutual defence treaty involving Balder and Lazarus, it would be a different matter, but such a situation is purely hypothetical at this stage.

Fair enough. You should be able to understand, however, given Balder's mixed record on honoring its commitments, how the failure to take concrete action to demonstrate Balder is trustworthy may lead to Balder being regarded as untrustworthy. That could make future agreements difficult, if not impossible, and lead to the formation of mutually hostile blocs like those Unibot has suggested.

We do not recognise your characterisation of Balder's record of meeting its commitments as "mixed".

Similarly, I fail to see how offering to defend all and sundry amounts to "concrete action to demonstrate Balder is trustworthy". If you are going to unilaterally commit to defend other regions, then why would they enter into treaties with you? The approach you recommend is simply bad foreign policy.

Likewise, we are confident about Balder's ability to form meaningful diplomatic relationships with other regions.

As for your final remark, I would suggest that you are taking Unibot's far-fetched scheme for a grand inter-GCR conflict rather too seriously.

[Cerian Quilor]

This is a huge idea, huge. For years, Pacifica hasn't been sending its best people to TRR. They've been sending their spammers and their worst. It's terrible, just terrible. Total disaster.

I think this person won the thread.

[Unibot III]

This is a huge idea, huge. For years, Pacifica hasn't been sending its best people to TRR. They've been sending their spammers and their worst. It's terrible, just terrible. Total disaster.

I think this person won the thread.

*gives two thumbs up, Trump style*