Greetings All,

First let me just say I'm glad to be back - R/L can be demanding on occasion. The move went fine other than having to wait for DSL provisioning and then finding time to actually go on the net..... Anyhow, things have slowed a bit, so here I am. :D

The South Pacific is considering this proposal, titled The United Democratic Pacific Alliance:

QUOTE

With recent events in the founding Pacifics regions, several have suggested defensive alliances be formed between the more democratically aligned regions, that is the South Pacific, the West Pacific, and the North Pacific. I would like you input on a defensive alliance among our three regions, following a charter like this:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the NationStates and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in their respective regions. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this Treaty of the Free Pacifics:

Article 1
The Parties undertake to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the ideals of liberty.

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being.

Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of the member regions shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the member regions.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the delegates of the member regions. Such measures shall be terminated when the delegates have taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

Article 7
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

Article 8
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of each member region. The Treaty shall enter into force between the regions which have ratified it as soon as the ratification process is complete.
QUOTE

Basically it's a defensive alliance of the Pacific nations and thus far it is being received favorably in the SP.

I'll review it in more detail at some less un-godly hour. ;)

I think that even the thought of the Pacifics coming up with this type of alliance means a greater shift in regional relations and the general game-play in NationStates. We're going to need an intelligent, well-articulated response to the new climate in the Pacifics. Hmm...perhaps a question for the prospective Ministers of Foreign Affairs?

Agreed. Like, tomorrow afternoon.

Thanks for the info, though! :D

Great to hear from you again!

Lelana

Apparently this arisen from the ashes of Loop's (the EP delegate) League of the Pacifics. I fail to see how an alliance of the more democratic feeders affects Canada in any substantial way.

This will be long, boring, an overtly analytical. I submit my apologies in advance. References of particular interest have been quoted in bold type and referenced numerically for addressing. Blackshear poses a very pertinent and relevant observation.

At first glance, it would appear not to. Without reviewing the available information, it would appear that this alliance is a way to safe-gaurd the more 'democratic' feeder Regions from future incursions. This has become increasingly difficult with the strategy used to reclaim the North Pacific and, to an extent, is nothing more than a tokenistic bureaucratic response to appear as if 'something is being done'. However, I hope that the following critique proves otherwise.

The UDPA, an interesting name. My first question would be to address the relevance of the ADN considering some of their more 'questionable' allegiances, and whether local defence forces would be brought under one hierarchy. I doubt this would happen as this proposal itself is paranoia based security spurred from the North Pacific's recent incursions.

This could take a while, depending on whether you take the literal meaning of Democracy or not. For the sake of argument, time, and space, we shall consider the term to refer to the generally accepted definition.

1. What are these purposes and principles? I have no recollection of these being in existence, or is this something that this charter seeks to rectify? Each Pacific will have it's own agenda, whether you admit to it or not, and I am curious as to how these can be assimilated into one common goal or set of specific aims and objectives with quantifiable results. Personally, I do not think it can be done. The amount of power-play makes this impossible and the level of distrust would be catastrophic.

2. Is this peace through choice, tyranny, or dictatorship? Democracy is really nothing more than an elected dictatorship with aspects of anarchy. It also poses the question: Will the ADN be disbanded and re-formed into a singular Defence Force for the members of this treaty? Considering some of the questionable ties the ADN has, and have had this would be problematic in it's own right. It also leads to whether individual Pacifc Defence Forces would be disbanded and integrated into this singular Defence Force. It presupposes itself that if this treaty were to go forward, only one Defence Force would be required as it's members [the treaties] would co-exist in a democratic utopia. This is idealistic and foolish. It would also never be agreed to. some have got too used to positions of major influence and would be weary, nay unwilling, to compromise. This is a major undertaking with the potential for a massive ripple-effect throughout the NationStates world. I am not implying you are incapable of achieving such a task, but if you have considered the gravity of the tasks that you have created yourselves.

1) This makes no sense. If I read it correctly, it is stating that the Members of this treaty shall refrain from direct involvement in other Regions' internationl relations. A clause should be included whereby if a threat is percieved to the security of the alliance, defencive measures can be employed. It should be reiterated that this cannot be used to intefer with any Regions' Governmental activites, Foreign Affairs, Regional Affairs, matters of defence unless the prerequisite be fulfilled. This maybe addressed in later articles, but I am addressing them in order and will tie in related points as need be. This first article, outlining the core purposes, needs to be clear and concise with no equivocations or opportunity for misinterpretation whatsoever.

1) Is this a reference to Institutions within the Pacific's or within Regions with whom relations are sought? This is on the right ideological lines, but the semanitcs need polishing as does the grammar, for technical reasons.

1) I would omit this on the grounds that the purpose of this alliance makes this irrelevant.

This makes perfect sense. I would consider defining what constitutes as a 'threat' however, so that the necessary guidelines, policies, and procedures are in line with this and favour collective involvement. I draw your attention to the points made regarding Articles 2 and 3.

This could be simplified yet still enable the ability for self defence in case of attack. My suggestion would be something like this:

The Parties agree and recognise that an armed attack against any member Party constitutes as an attack against this treaty. In such cases, each Party recognises each others right to exercise the right of self-defence, be this independent or collective [this is somewhat obsolete as an attack against one member is considered an attack against all member Parties]. Self defence shall be considered either political, democratic, or military mobilisation to restore an elected government or in order to maintain peace.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the delegates of the member regions. Such measures shall be terminated when the delegates have taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
This makes more sense now in my opinion. The first paragraph was over-complicated and convoluted as if too much was trying to be communicated in one go.

A more prudent measure would be to renumber this as Article 1. If it is communicating what I it to be, rewording would also be beneficial as this is one of the crux points for misinterpretion. Maybe:

Each Party declares that no international engagements alredy in existence, or those being considered, shall be in conflict or direct contradiction to any Article of this Treaty. Each member Party also recognises it's responsibility not to enter into a conflict that contradicts, or conflicts with this Treaty.

This screams bureaucracy, and an inability to accomplish what it sets out to do. Rather than a Council, that sets up subsidiary agencies, a Council comprised of each Regions Minsiter/Secretary of Defence, Minsiter/Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and Delegate would be far simpler to Administrate. It also means the collective use of gathered Intelligence, and a more co-ordinated aproach should an attack occur. Layering Councils and agencies is all very impressive, but adds to the amount of Red-tape when requiring to accomplish a task. In the worst case scenario, perhaps Deputy Ministers/Secretaries be able to fulfil this role should the Minister/Secretary be unavailable for whatever reason. If it is a fast response you are seeking, this is the way to go. If you are concerned about lack of Regional involvement, Admbassadors, Intelligence Operatives, and so forth can also be involved for a more wholisitic and participatory approach.

1) Conflict? This may infer constitutional ammendments, and that could take time. I would also change the term Parties to Pacific's as they are the sole beneficiaries of this treaty and this would go a long way to prevent any unnecessary confusion.

...rant over... ;)
For now

From my point of view, this is the motivation for this undertaking. I have not been convinced otherwise. My experience in the recent troubles in the NP has shown me that treaties are unenforceable and signatories will ignore their provisions at the drop of a hat.

I'm not following the ADN references in your analysis, Carb. They are a separate entity and largely irrelevant with regards to the feeders. The SP isn't a member, the WP has a small contingent there but is wary of the ADN and Ananke is the only NP member with any kind of consistant involvement with them. It's my understanding that she will be moving on in the near future to a more committed defender region. It was the ALL that honoured its agreement with the NP and led the liberation of the region, not the ADN.

While technically true, the SP has its share of ADN recruiters amongst their ranks. It is my recollection that the ADN has a very small but vocal minority which pushes the ADN agenda on all of the feeder regions (except the Pacific).

This vocal minority was not very sucessful at promoting themselves in the NP. We couldn't keep 3 members active in the organization, let alone the 5 representatives plus a senator that the NP's membership allowed. Considering the number of members on the off-site forum, that's fairly pathetic. I can see why though. The last time I was there, they were debating legislation to change the ADN forum's banner. :rolleyes:

It would appear that experiences of the ADN differ. Some reliable sources, as well as my own investigations, have drawn me to the conclusion that they are not all they originially intended to be.

As far as a possible ADN/ SP link, this was posted on our board today:

There has been no poll activity at the time I posed this so I cannot say if the SP is favoring it or not. Personally I'm not much for recruitment rights per se. I feel like its something in the nature of a phone solicitor or someone knocing on one's door uninvited selling magazines or something. I know that it's a way for regions to make new nations aware of other regions than the feeder regions, but I just personally don't care for it a whole lot. But it is nice of them to ask for permission.

Yuck, I don't like the looks of that! Hope everything works out well for you guys!

Lelana

I do not doubt this to be true. The leadership has engaged in some questionable actions in the last couple of months. Their definition of defender has strayed from what mine is. My point was that they do not control the feeder regions as has been suggested by some. They may be trying, but they have not suceeded.

The ADN is dominated by middle-sized regions such as Nasicournia and ASE, places with not enough going on at home to keep their members occupied. The Pacifics tend to be more active, vibrant places and its members don't require outside entertainments to the same degree to keep them playing the game.

I have some well-placed sources of my own, but there is still much I do not know.

I never meant question your position Blackshear. As an ex-feeder Region Minister, I'm sure you probably know more about the actual remit of the ADN than I.

I just hope that everything works out for the SP and the current dilemma. I'm not sure about ASE. I did some recon a while back but found the Region and Forum, as already mentioned by Blackshear, to be somewhat inactive. Perhaps the recent turn of events has lent itself to the ASE wanting/needing to become more active.

I'm sure that the Government and Citizen's of the South Pacific will make the right decision.

On this, we can definitely agree.

I haven't been to the SP in a while. I should go visit... :)

Make sure to drop by the Canadian embassy....which somehow got onto the topic of Days of Our Lives :wacko: :D

as an aside -- we went to a wedding reception many years ago and the theme from Days of our Lives was played to introduce the bride and groom.
Each to their own and all, but people were snickering!
lol!

:P

Ahh...

Perhaps now isn't the best time to visit. :P

Ack! I hope the ghost of Stefano Demera haunts you in your sleep tonight!

btw, I finally saw the new actress who plays Belle - you're right Checkers, she can't act.

Did you see it before yesterday?

Because they changed her again! Probably because they gotta a lot of hate mail about changing it to that annoying girl. The new new one's not as bad as the old new one...but still not as good as the original. (I know that was confusing lol) :D

That's what they did with Phillip a few years back, if I recall - there were three of them in three months.

Huh? :huh:

It's kinda ironic that soap opera actors come and go like thier onscreen counterparts...... B)

The truly sad part of it is I used to watch Days, at first as cannon fodder to make fun of my wife, then because I got hooked. Then i started working primarily days so I couldn't watch it anymore. This was, oh about 9 years ago now, so I haven't even tried to pick it back up.

Oh, and I'd have to snicker too at a wedding reception where the bride and groom's into was the theme to Days.... I once jokingly suggested a country song titled "You ain't much fun since I quit drinkin'" as our intro when we have our renewal, but that didn't go over too well..... :D

Love the song title!

:lol:

I like it - but my wife doesn't like country music at all, and she had some obscure objection to the song title for some reason...... :D As far as music goes I have very eclectic tastes, I pretty much listen to anything other than folk, bluegrass, gangsta rap, polka and oldies.

I used to listen to oldies until I was around 16. I worked at Paramount's Kings Dominion (pre Paramount - it was owned by Hanna Barbara I think) and I worked at the one store with it's own stereo system - and we got to select the music. There was one cashier - a full timer who inevitably got assigned to the register that has the stereo and she played oldies all during her 8 hour shift. That was many many moons ago and I still can't listen to "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" aka "The Weema Whappa" song.... :wacko:

*sigh*

Thanks!

Thanks a lot! <_<

:wacko:

:P

:lol:

There's a song like that for me too. In grade 9, one of my best friends played Linkin Park's "In the End" every day, all through computer class (we're talking 70 minutes here...) and my teacher never complained ONCE. I was SO pissed!

Sometimes, I hear it, and I just have to scream. Honestly, its too much! And that was 3 years ago too....

BTW, I love the "You ain't much fun since I quit drinkin'" thing! :D Quite hysterical! :P
I could definitely see why it WOULDN'T go over well, however :P I could also see my future husband (since he's going to have a major sense of humour) doing something similar! :P

Lelana

Now a news flash from TSP

LadyRebels to wed htz3 of The Shaft on saturday August 21

The church located on market street will be opened thursday this week so all can make their arrivals.

Clothing is optional (LR is queen of a nudist nation).

The wedding and reception are expected to last for 1 week.

All of Canada is invited to attend the wedding and reception.

Awesome. I'll definately attend the reception. :)

I'll be there as well. I've already picked out a suit.B)

Blackshear's going to be the sharpest dressed there. I can tell already. :hail:

Funny as it may seem the wedding party will all be wearing a country and western theme.

Yessir-rie bob. I'm a fixin ta throw on my stetson ana pair of snakeskin boots.

Sorry, got a wee bit carried away.... :lol:

JIC I haven't said it yet - congrats to ya both.