Yurizlansia wrote:Neigeland wrote:Adding to the discussion on neutral countries, Oscar said, "I agree with Emperor Ryūō, the only restrictions facing neutral countries should be around supporting either side militarily in a conflict. If a neutral country decides to start supporting another side in a direct, military way, then they should simply cease to be considered neutral. I would not be able to support a motion to enact sanctions on neutral countries, being the leader of one myself. However, I do agree with Emperor Jimenez that there should be no restrictions on neutral countries providing aid - often times it is only those countries that provide aid to civilians in the midst of war."
'Sanctions would be political suicide...', he thought to himself, sitting back in his chair and thinking about his position in the polls for the upcoming 1905 election.
"I agree. No matter what kind of support they are giving them, it is still support. Even if it is just money, the country can use it to buy weapons. During the Persian-Konstantinoplean war of 1900-1902, Yurizlansia committed resources to East Persia in a trade agreement, This was followed by a blockade from GK which then eventually broke into a all-out war. Going back to my part in that war, should the declaration of neutrality be negated by a preexisting trade agreement? When we were involved, this was a new trade agreement where we gave them weapons so it makes sense for us to surrender our neutrality. But what if someone in the Pacific declares war on Dragomeria? Even if we wanted to we could not get involved due to us lacking a very up to date navy. So would we have to terminate the trade agreement to keep our neutrality, or can we keep the existing trade agreement and keep our neutrality?"
Andrei Klumystef sat and waited for his question to be answered.
"I term neutrality as a nation who is not giving active military assistance, such as sending troops, during conflict. I do not term trade deals existing prior to a war, as being allied to a nation during a war, as it economically punishes both those at war, and those who usually trade with those who are at war."