Embassy of the South Pacific

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

I love watching this all play out. It’s like a sitcom, except the actors are completely unaware they are putting on a show.

I believe they’re well aware. But unfortunately some peoples’ metaphorical mouths keep getting ahead of them.

And I think it’s ironic you mention grim triggers, Elu, considering I think we covered that in my game theory seminar the week HS issued the threat.

I think Chicken might be relevant, too.

[Southern Ocala]

Can we just Remove TSP and TNP pls?? that'll solve everything.

[Maurnindaia]

Can we just Remove TSP and TNP pls?? that'll solve everything.

great idea

[Sandaoguo]

This sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. We can't trust TNP to side with us, so we should test them by demanding they do something that's not important in an ultimatum. That's not the way one should treat allies, but clearly that just shows that we shouldn't be allies.

I don't think C&Cs are important, but clearly a lot people do for whatever reasons. *shrug* It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy any more than testing a strained relationship can be. TNP shouldn't have planned on abstaining from an LWU C&C. I understand why they did, they have to juggle raiders and defenders as an Independent region. That doesn't mean raiders and defenders have to cut TNP slack, though. If people think C&Cs are important, shouldn't TNP have realized that not committing to voting against the C&C was a bad move re: defenders, considering LWU had been at war with XKI and TGW? You can go further back in history and point to all the things that lead to today, on both sides. Maybe it was also the case the voting against would be really bad re: LWU, which obviously it was. Why should TSP or defenders care about that? That's TNP's problem.

Although you didn't reply to my interrogation of your curious blend of ideologue and realpolitik it's interesting to see you now say that TNP is somehow unusually untrustworthy. Fellow defender regions, presumably, can be treated with respect, but independents can only be handled with hard-nosed hawkish hatred realism and purely transactional dealings.

That shouldn't be surprising or strange. TSP's primary foreign interest is defending. Of course defenders will be treated differently than non-defenders. Why would TSP give TNP the benefit of the doubt, after the NPA had already pulled out of ops prior to this? Independent regions will always have to grapple with how their ideological identity (or their pretend non-ideological identity of "interests") leads to being seen as unreliable fence-sitters, and other regions handling them accordingly.

You didn't reply to my argument that TNP and tSP share democratic values. Do you agree with Unibot that TNP isn't democratic?

I don't believe democracy is as strong a bond as you might think. It's the last refuge of people who don't know what else they have in common.

Tit-for-tat is proportional. I think one of the reasons why the disclosures by Lone Wolves United were so damaging, to Wymondham and Hulldom, and to TNP's relations with tSP and the other involved defenders, was that this ultimatum lacked proportionality. If HumanSanity had said "If you vote against Commend Amerion and Commend Beepee we'll vote against Commend MadJack and Commend Former English Colony" that would I think have led to a very different debate. But in this case HumanSanity was threatening to stomp against Commend Madjack and Commend Former English Colony (or other future resolutions!) with the backing of four other regions and as retaliation against Hulldom even abstaining from voting for or against any proposals condemning Lone Wolves United members, even one Hulldom was a co-author of. Only voting against any proposals condemning any Lone Wolves United nation would be acceptable, or else. So not two vs two resolutions necessarily, and not two TNP resolutions for two tSP resolutions, but two or more TNP resolutions for any, even one resolution regarding LWU, even one co-authored by TNP's delegate. That looks a lot more like Grim trigger than tit for tat, to me!

Nothing revealed thus far, either by LWU or the leaked diplomatic conversations, shows TSP threatening to stomp all TNP C&Cs in perpetuity if TNP didn't vote against Commend Tom. What HS said was that TSP wouldn't blanket support TNP C&Cs of TNPers anymore, thus the inevitably reality would be voting against them. I can see how that in isolation could be read as "stomp all forever", but HS followed that up with an answer to the explicit question "Does that include all TNP authored resolutions?" with "No." (1, 2) It's very obvious, if you're not trying to read the worst into it like LWU has, that TSP's position was ending the vote quid-pro-quo agreement that both regions found fruitful, because TNP couldn't be counted on to uphold their side of it. That's not "stomp all forever", it's a return to the absence of an agreement and judging resolutions on their merits, rather than automatically voting for.

All that being said, on a side note, the grim strategy is a legit one to use, if you truly don't trust your partner at all!

[Sacred Butterfinger]

As a region opposed to the destruction of raiding, it will forever be marked as either a raider or a raider-sympathiser by me.

This just shows your knowledge on TNP's military affairs. Which, clearly, is not so substantial.

I love watching this all play out. It’s like a sitcom, except the actors are completely unaware they are putting on a show.

That's why we play this godforsaken game

How about, TNP focus on TNP, and TSP focus on TSP.
Stop arguing over the littlest shit.

Oh, wow! What a brilliant suggestion! I mean, who needs healthy debate and constructive discussions when we can just stick to our own little bubbles and pretend that the world revolves around us? How dare anyone have an opinion or engage in meaningful discourse! Let's all just bury our heads in the sand and avoid any form of intellectual growth. It's not like understanding different perspectives or finding common ground is important, right? Thank you so much for enlightening us with your profound insight.

[0cala]

Of course, it's the TNPer that has to come in and start shit.

EDIT: had to add the laughing emoji to show how much i dont give a shit about the post and/or didnt care to read it.

[Sacred Butterfinger]

Of course, it's the TNPer that has to come in and start shit.

EDIT: had to add the laughing emoji to show how much i dont give a shit about the post and/or didnt care to read it.

How do you know what it said if you didn't read it, though? Great generalisation of TNPers btw!

[Libertia-Columbia]

I love watching this all play out. It’s like a sitcom, except the actors are completely unaware they are putting on a show.

Same, man, same.

The future of TNP-TSP relations may be uncertain, but given how much past drama has been dredged up on this thread, what's not uncertain is that I'll have a lot of questions to ask on the NS History thread.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

This sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. We can't trust TNP to side with us, so we should test them by demanding they do something that's not important in an ultimatum. That's not the way one should treat allies, but clearly that just shows that we shouldn't be allies.

I don't think C&Cs are important, but clearly a lot people do for whatever reasons. *shrug* It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy any more than testing a strained relationship can be. TNP shouldn't have planned on abstaining from an LWU C&C. I understand why they did, they have to juggle raiders and defenders as an Independent region. That doesn't mean raiders and defenders have to cut TNP slack, though. If people think C&Cs are important, shouldn't TNP have realized that not committing to voting against the C&C was a bad move re: defenders, considering LWU had been at war with XKI and TGW? You can go further back in history and point to all the things that lead to today, on both sides. Maybe it was also the case the voting against would be really bad re: LWU, which obviously it was. Why should TSP or defenders care about that? That's TNP's problem.

I'm not asking the South Pacific to care about TNP's relations with LWU, any more than you should expect TNP to care about tSP's relations with XKI or TGW, necessarily. I don't really care about the LWU condemns one way or the other. I care about my region being presented with ultimatums by an ally, and I care about revisionist history to justify that mistreatment.

Although you didn't reply to my interrogation of your curious blend of ideologue and realpolitik it's interesting to see you now say that TNP is somehow unusually untrustworthy. Fellow defender regions, presumably, can be treated with respect, but independents can only be handled with hard-nosed hawkish hatred realism and purely transactional dealings.

That shouldn't be surprising or strange. TSP's primary foreign interest is defending. Of course defenders will be treated differently than non-defenders. Why would TSP give TNP the benefit of the doubt, after the NPA had already pulled out of ops prior to this? Independent regions will always have to grapple with how their ideological identity (or their pretend non-ideological identity of "interests") leads to being seen as unreliable fence-sitters, and other regions handling them accordingly.

I would hope that the South Pacific's primary foreign policy interest is its own security. But that isn't at issue here, exactly.

You didn't reply to my argument that TNP and tSP share democratic values. Do you agree with Unibot that TNP isn't democratic?

I don't believe democracy is as strong a bond as you might think. It's the last refuge of people who don't know what else they have in common.

Our disagreement about the importance of democracy may be intractable, but I will point out that democracy is less common than you may be implying.

Tit-for-tat is proportional. I think one of the reasons why the disclosures by Lone Wolves United were so damaging, to Wymondham and Hulldom, and to TNP's relations with tSP and the other involved defenders, was that this ultimatum lacked proportionality. If HumanSanity had said "If you vote against Commend Amerion and Commend Beepee we'll vote against Commend MadJack and Commend Former English Colony" that would I think have led to a very different debate. But in this case HumanSanity was threatening to stomp against Commend Madjack and Commend Former English Colony (or other future resolutions!) with the backing of four other regions and as retaliation against Hulldom even abstaining from voting for or against any proposals condemning Lone Wolves United members, even one Hulldom was a co-author of. Only voting against any proposals condemning any Lone Wolves United nation would be acceptable, or else. So not two vs two resolutions necessarily, and not two TNP resolutions for two tSP resolutions, but two or more TNP resolutions for any, even one resolution regarding LWU, even one co-authored by TNP's delegate. That looks a lot more like Grim trigger than tit for tat, to me!

Nothing revealed thus far, either by LWU or the leaked diplomatic conversations, shows TSP threatening to stomp all TNP C&Cs in perpetuity if TNP didn't vote against Commend Tom. What HS said was that TSP wouldn't blanket support TNP C&Cs of TNPers anymore, thus the inevitably reality would be voting against them. I can see how that in isolation could be read as "stomp all forever", but HS followed that up with an answer to the explicit question "Does that include all TNP authored resolutions?" with "No." (1, 2) It's very obvious, if you're not trying to read the worst into it like LWU has, that TSP's position was ending the vote quid-pro-quo agreement that both regions found fruitful, because TNP couldn't be counted on to uphold their side of it. That's not "stomp all forever", it's a return to the absence of an agreement and judging resolutions on their merits, rather than automatically voting for.

The screenshot you link has HumanSanity explicitly threatening to vote "against proposals TNP supports which to commend or condemn TNP members" without limit on their number. I don't see how the exception for resolutions with mutual interests could apply to limit this threat at all.

All that being said, on a side note, the grim strategy is a legit one to use, if you truly don't trust your partner at all!

All right, I'll bite. You've previously said that TNP is untrustworthy enough that Tit-for-tat is an appropriate strategy with TNP. Are you saying that Grim trigger is an appropriate strategy with TNP?

[Darcania]

Of course, it's the TNPer that has to come in and start shit.

"wow the most numerous category of nation currently present in the thread is the first to have done X action"
"who could have guessed"

[Chava Cal]

Of course, it's the TNPer that has to come in and start shit.

EDIT: had to add the laughing emoji to show how much i dont give a shit about the post and/or didnt care to read it.

How do you know what it said if you didn't read it, though? Great generalisation of TNPers btw!

It has the same energy as Lenlyvit not reading what was to be a "united" condemnation.

So even though Hulldom worked to improve relations between XKI and TNP you guys still threatened to kill TNP C/Cs and then proceeded to throw him under the bus and blame him in the previous statement on which Lenlyvit proudly displayed his signature? With friends like these, huh.

I will admit that I did not read the statement that was drafted before giving my permission to have my name added to it. I wasn't on much for the talks surrounding the whole ordeal, and will take the full blame for making the FA blunder and shit show that it was.

You condemned your ally without reading… How did you… Did you think… What exactly…

This just keeps getting better.

And as Scar said, "this just keeps getting better".

I am also aware that I'm comparing an apparent random nobody to the delegate of 10000 Islands, and that XKI has since retracted and released an apology, but apples to oranges, I thought it funny that two separate players have the same thought processes, especially when it's over volatile stuff.

[Sacred Butterfinger]

It has the same energy as Lenlyvit not reading what was to be a "united" condemnation.

They just have so much in common. Not reading stuff they're responding to for example. Really sets the tone for their competence.

[Chava Cal]

It has the same energy as Lenlyvit not reading what was to be a "united" condemnation.

They just have so much in common. Not reading stuff they're responding to for example. Really sets the tone for their competence.

Most assuredly. Truly the marks of a great statesperson.

[Unibot III]

I love watching this all play out. It’s like a sitcom, except the actors are completely unaware they are putting on a show.

More like a Retirement Home hosting a podcast.

But I know he wasn't a member of the Cabinet who signed off on Hileville's forum move and signed off on the 'dissolution' of the Coalition and creation of a "Transitional Government." So I was honestly asking, what the specific level of involvement in things he had was.

He couldn’t have signed off on the dissolution because he wasn’t in Cabinet.

Actual Belschaft in 2016 at the time of the coup: “France has had five different republics; sometimes it is necessary for the good of the people for a new government to be established in place of the old one… I would hardly call it a coup Ryccia. Stop being so dramatic.… Anyone who wants to pretend that the Coalition wasn't collapsing on itself before the Cabinet called for a Constitutional Convention is simply kidding themselves. The sheer level of toxicity and pointless fighting was utterly destructive, and the region was dying a slow death. Something like this has to occur for TSP to be able to renew itself and return to being the great region it once was. … Whilst it's certainly the case that this wasn't exactly done in accordance with the Charter, I think people are seriously underestimating how screwed up TSP had become. The elected Cabinet and the admin team were quite literally at war with each other, and the sheer level of toxicity that had developed was ridiculous. I'm shocked that this has come as a surprise to anyone; the only way this situation was ever going to end was either either the elected Cabinet or the admin team forcing the other out.…” etc etc etc

The reason why I thought you might not be serious Elu is you’re digging up timelines to try to argue things that are easily established - like yeah, Bel supported the coup.

Do you agree with Unibot that TNP isn't democratic?

I think its distanced itself from past liberal democratic values (i.e., de-democratized). I’m not disputing that elections aren’t being run for positions or votes cast etc.

I’m questioning the rights and freedoms of residents and its respect for democracy and sovereignty outside of its region.

I’ll note too that Glen and I aren’t in agreement - which is more common than people think. Glen is advocating here for a careful tit-for-tat approach with a healthy amount of distrust towards TNP; I’m advocating for a passive state of hostility that would free TSP up to challenge TNP’s influence in the world, including poaching talent and soldiers and disrupting relations with The Wellspring, which is a much more extreme position.

[Dhemixia]

I was just going to say, "can't we just drop it and be friends, TNP is a nice region to visit, so we should treat them like it." but deep down, i realized that we may be a little too far gone for that, even though that approach never works on this silly site

[Mlakhavia]

More like a Retirement Home hosting a podcast.

You seem to be the only retired person here. Everyone else still has stakes in this game that you now spectate in lieu of ability to participate.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Actual Belschaft in 2016 at the time of the coup: “France has had five different republics; sometimes it is necessary for the good of the people for a new government to be established in place of the old one… I would hardly call it a coup Ryccia. Stop being so dramatic.… Anyone who wants to pretend that the Coalition wasn't collapsing on itself before the Cabinet called for a Constitutional Convention is simply kidding themselves. The sheer level of toxicity and pointless fighting was utterly destructive, and the region was dying a slow death. Something like this has to occur for TSP to be able to renew itself and return to being the great region it once was. … Whilst it's certainly the case that this wasn't exactly done in accordance with the Charter, I think people are seriously underestimating how screwed up TSP had become. The elected Cabinet and the admin team were quite literally at war with each other, and the sheer level of toxicity that had developed was ridiculous. I'm shocked that this has come as a surprise to anyone; the only way this situation was ever going to end was either either the elected Cabinet or the admin team forcing the other out.…” etc etc etc

The reason why I thought you might not be serious Elu is you’re digging up timelines to try to argue things that are easily established - like yeah, Bel supported the coup.

Where are you getting these quotes? I'm not an elephant, I don't remember everything. I just do some research.

Not challenging their accuracy, I just want to see them.

Thanks, those quotes do establish that Belschaft gave at least some support to the coup. Not sure if they establish him as a 'couper" as in my understanding of that word we generally mean the people who actually did the coup, but sure.

And the purpose of the timeline was nothing to do with Belschaft. Belschaft is only being discussed because he had the temerity to post that he disagrees with Sandaoguo's narrative, and Sandaoguo said he shouldn't be listened to because he was part of the coup. I literally asked questions about Belschaft and pointed out that he wound the coup down. I didn't do any research I hadn't already done for the timeline about TNP's stance over time.

I was just going to say, "can't we just drop it and be friends, TNP is a nice region to visit, so we should treat them like it." but deep down, i realized that we may be a little too far gone for that, even though that approach never works on this silly site

I don't things are too far gone, and I think tSP and TNP have a lot of common and are friends and allies and can continue to be. As long as Sandaoguo doesn't get his way and rip it all up.

[Sandaoguo]

I'm not asking the South Pacific to care about TNP's relations with LWU, any more than you should expect TNP to care about tSP's relations with XKI or TGW, necessarily. I don't really care about the LWU condemns one way or the other. I care about my region being presented with ultimatums by an ally, and I care about revisionist history to justify that mistreatment.

What revisionist history? Did your Delegate not flip-flop on how TNP was going to vote? Did the NPA not pull out of ops it said it would participate in? If you're talking about the Hileville coup tangent, I already pointed out that it's interesting, but not actually the primary driver of contemporary TSP-TNP relations. Since it happened in 2016.

If you don't want your region to be faced with ultimatums, then I suggest you either advocate for your region to stop sitting on the fence in R/D, or you go to the government and tell them to keep their promises. A flip-flopping Independent region is the least trustworthy type for all sides of R/D. If your region continues to be that way, they're going to get more ultimatums from raiders and defenders in the future. It is what it is.

The screenshot you link has HumanSanity explicitly threatening to vote "against proposals TNP supports which to commend or condemn TNP members" without limit on their number. I don't see how the exception for resolutions with mutual interests could apply to limit this threat at all.

It's obvious in the rest of that exchange you cut out from your reply, that HS said the potential response to TNP's decision wouldn't impact all proposals authored by TNPers. "Especially" in the case that TNP and TSP share the same interest in voting for a resolution. "No" means "no."

All that being said, on a side note, the grim strategy is a legit one to use, if you truly don't trust your partner at all!

All right, I'll bite. You've previously said that TNP is untrustworthy enough that Tit-for-tat is an appropriate strategy with TNP. Are you saying that Grim trigger is an appropriate strategy with TNP?

Yeah, of course. I don't think TNP can be trusted at all. I've seen your region swing between prioritizing raiders and defenders for years. I've counseled for a long time in TSP that no government should rely on TNP. To the extent that the relationship is useful, it's only when TNP is in its defender mood, and TSP should treat it as a very transactional relationship because sooner or later TNP will swing back to raiders. That's why TNP was never the focal point any time I was PM or MoFA. I concerned myself more with actually reliable defender alliances. If TNP was this great amazing ally, rather than a more fair-weather one, you'd think the major strategic moves TSP's made in the past several years would've included them at a some point. But I don't recall TNP ever being considered for Aegis or PfS, right?

I don't think TSP loses anything of real value if there's no longer any relationship with TNP at all. So if, in the future, all trust is completely lost between TSP's government and TNP's, a "you have one last chance" scenario is totally acceptable. Personally, I think we should've done that when I was PM dealing with 2 of your region's administrations in the fascist-enabler saga. I regret that I let Roavin talk me out of it, though I didn't mince words with TNP or subsequent Cabinets that I believed the core cleavages between our regions were likely intractable and the band-aid settlement Roavin negotiated wouldn't last.

[Unibot III]

More like a Retirement Home hosting a podcast.

You seem to be the only retired person here. Everyone else still has stakes in this game that you now spectate in lieu of ability to participate.

Yes that’s true, Geriatric Ward Hosting A Podcast, is more accurate.

@Elu: It’s from TSP RMB. Pretty sure Bel was endo-swapping too. You wanted to know if he supported the coup, he did - he was a loud proponent of it - and his views still seem unchanged.

While granted you’re not expected to know everything, the next time you’re wondering “Did Bel support this coup/electoral interference/bribery/whatever?” You’re best to assume yes and then work backwards in your evidentiary research. (Okay — that’s me taking the piss. )

[Sandaoguo]

More like a Retirement Home hosting a podcast.

You seem to be the only retired person here. Everyone else still has stakes in this game that you now spectate in lieu of ability to participate.

I need everybody to know I have zero stakes in NS, am functionally retired, this all just piqued my interest

[Mlakhavia]

You seem to be the only retired person here. Everyone else still has stakes in this game that you now spectate in lieu of ability to participate.

I need everybody to know I have zero stakes in NS, am functionally retired, this all just piqued my interest :)

Oh shush. You're very blatantly agendaposting because you still want the treaty to die, and this is a perfect place for you to use your influence to stir the pot.

This is more than a piqued interest, this is a vendetta -- and hey, I respect vendettas. But be honest about it. ;)

[Sandaoguo]

I don’t need to post for TSP’s Cabinet to know how I’ve felt about the TNP treaty, they all already know lol

But if my posting leads to TNP not wanting it anymore, I’ll consider that a success for a few days of posting in NSGP I don’t think that’ll be the case though

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

I'm not asking the South Pacific to care about TNP's relations with LWU, any more than you should expect TNP to care about tSP's relations with XKI or TGW, necessarily. I don't really care about the LWU condemns one way or the other. I care about my region being presented with ultimatums by an ally, and I care about revisionist history to justify that mistreatment.

What revisionist history? Did your Delegate not flip-flop on how TNP was going to vote? Did the NPA not pull out of ops it said it would participate in? If you're talking about the Hileville coup tangent, I already pointed out that it's interesting, but not actually the primary driver of contemporary TSP-TNP relations. Since it happened in 2016.

I absolutely meant the stuff about past years when I said revisionist history.

If you don't want your region to be faced with ultimatums, then I suggest you either advocate for your region to stop sitting on the fence in R/D, or you go to the government and tell them to keep their promises. A flip-flopping Independent region is the least trustworthy type for all sides of R/D. If your region continues to be that way, they're going to get more ultimatums from raiders and defenders in the future. It is what it is.

This is a a pretty aggressive, hard sell, approach to diplomacy you're advocating. You're either with us or you're against us, and by the way we have an offer you cannot refuse, friend.

The screenshot you link has HumanSanity explicitly threatening to vote "against proposals TNP supports which to commend or condemn TNP members" without limit on their number. I don't see how the exception for resolutions with mutual interests could apply to limit this threat at all.

It's obvious in the rest of that exchange you cut out from your reply, that HS said the potential response to TNP's decision wouldn't impact all proposals authored by TNPers. "Especially" in the case that TNP and TSP share the same interest in voting for a resolution. "No" means "no."

That's a pretty generous reading of that exception (which by the way I addressed in my reply). HS said C&Cs targeting TNPers (implicitly all of them), Hulldom asked if that also meant all proposals authored by TNPers, and HS said not if those authored proposals favored tSP interests too. That sounds like an exception for TNP-authored proposals that commend tSPers or liberate occupied regions (with native consent, I imagine) to me. Not exactly a huge concession. I don't see how you can read any commendations of TNPers into that exception.

All right, I'll bite. You've previously said that TNP is untrustworthy enough that Tit-for-tat is an appropriate strategy with TNP. Are you saying that Grim trigger is an appropriate strategy with TNP?

Yeah, of course. I don't think TNP can be trusted at all. I've seen your region swing between prioritizing raiders and defenders for years. I've counseled for a long time in TSP that no government should rely on TNP. To the extent that the relationship is useful, it's only when TNP is in its defender mood, and TSP should treat it as a very transactional relationship because sooner or later TNP will swing back to raiders. That's why TNP was never the focal point any time I was PM or MoFA. I concerned myself more with actually reliable defender alliances. If TNP was this great amazing ally, rather than a more fair-weather one, you'd think the major strategic moves TSP's made in the past several years would've included them at a some point. But I don't recall TNP ever being considered for Aegis or PfS, right?

You just said that the relationship is also useful for culture. Maybe I should just get you to argue with yourself...

I don't think TSP loses anything of real value if there's no longer any relationship with TNP at all. So if, in the future, all trust is completely lost between TSP's government and TNP's, a "you have one last chance" scenario is totally acceptable. Personally, I think we should've done that when I was PM dealing with 2 of your region's administrations in the fascist-enabler saga. I regret that I let Roavin talk me out of it, though I didn't mince words with TNP or subsequent Cabinets that I believed the core cleavages between our regions were likely intractable and the band-aid settlement Roavin negotiated wouldn't last.

Okay, apparently TNP is just that untrustworthy from your perspective. The same TNP that did its utmost to fight coups and liberate the South Pacific in 2013, Osiris in 2013, and worked alongside the South Pacific and others to free Lazarus from the NLO in 2015. The same TNP which did not back Hileville's "Transitional Government", regardless of what we can debate about whether Hileville's forum move was a coup, and which Cormac excoriated for in his view dooming that regime. The same TNP which has historically encouraged the South Pacific adopt something similar to its WADP to encourage a wide distribution of influence in the South Pacific and resist a coup. The same TNP which, I'm guessing, I don't actually remember much about this, opposed Fedele's coup of The East Pacific. That TNP is super untrustworthy, you can't trust it to back the South Pacific if there's any kind of coup and therefore you think it's useless to bind the South Pacific to... protect TNP if it's couped? What's the burden of the mutual defense alliance here, exactly? Would you prefer that the SPSF not fight to liberate TNP if it gets couped?

[Amerion]

I believe it worthwhile underscoring that as Minister of Foreign Affairs of TSP, the private musings of private citizens are exactly that, and do not at all reflect the views or positions of those in power. This government's commitment to this treaty is unwavering.

[I am tempted to request that these discussions/post morteming of historical events are taken elsewhere but as a once-young nation new to interregional affairs, I recall how illuminative these forum threads were and how critical they are to our newer members. I just ask that friends and casual observers understand the aforementioned point that these are private citizens speaking.]

[Sporaltryus]

Fellow South Pacificans and to our Friends abroad,

The South Pacific and The North Pacific have long enjoyed an alliance that stretches generations of our leaders and is cemented as reliable cornerstones of our foreign policies.

In recent weeks and indeed days, this foundation has come under strain by our actions and it is a series of events that we hope to fully elucidate in this statement.

On May 10th, I submitted to the Assembly the nomination of HumanSanity for Minister of Regional Affairs. This nomination was made with the best interests of the Coalition in mind and solely on that basis. HumanSanity is an esteemed member of The South Pacific with extensive interregional experience in community-building and is commended by this august body for these very acts of service. The Ministry of Regional Affairs is tasked with the integration of new South Pacificans, cultivation of our community, and the promotion of a regional culture. It is an exclusively domestic role and one whose function is a priority of this administration. As with many of our allies, friends, and future friends, our region is undertaking efforts at adapting to the new dynamics that shape our world. We endeavour to meet these new challenges with vigour and it is our position that this nomination is the best option to this end.

With that being respectfully said, the Cabinet understands the sensitivity of this nomination to our longstanding ally, The North Pacific. We appreciate the depth of hurt felt by our partner by both the past incident along with this news. We erred in having failed to adequately consider how this nomination would be received by our friends to the north. While this is nominally a purely domestic issue, it’s exceptional circumstances means that we should have notified The North Pacific’s government that this was being considered. We did not. We made a mistake. We deeply apologise for it.

Consequently, we understand the bevy of opinions strongly expressed in the halls of interregional dialogue by both select members of the Coalition, The North Pacific, and by observers. Some of which have taken a rather provocative tone, expressing desire for the dissolution of the treaty which binds our two regions in partnership. They do not reflect the steadfast desire or commitment of this government to our alliance and we trust that they are interpreted as the views of private citizens as they rightfully are.

As with a renewed focus on our regional affairs, so too is there a renewal in our foreign policy characteristics. Going forward, this Cabinet will no doubt continue to engage with the best intentions with our friends and allies but do so in a more consultative manner, learning from our mistakes. It is these lessons that inform our good faith discussions with the government of The North Pacific as to the directions of improving the health of relations between our two regions. It is a direction that we will sincerely and consciously work towards in the future and this statement of our error and remorse is but the first step in this process.

Yours truly,

Prime Minister of The South Pacific
ProfessorHenn (Sporaltryus)

Minister of Foreign Affairs of The South Pacific
Amerion