MPSA Treaty

[A mean old man]

No idea where else to put this, so I'll put it here.

 

For your consideration. Comments/questions welcome.

 

Treaty:

 

Regions which may ratify this Treaty and take part in this Alliance (The Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance or MPSA) are as follows: The Pacific, The East Pacific, The South Pacific, The West Pacific, The North Pacific, Lazarus, The Rejected Realms, Balder, Osiris. The government of any one of these regions may ratify this Treaty at will and henceforth agrees to abide by the terms set forth within this document.

 

All member regions of The Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance will pledge no greater allegiance to any entity that is not their respective local governments (the governments which have ratified this Treaty).

 

No member region of The Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance will initiate or facilitate the overthrowing, the infiltration, or the unjust denigration (slander) of a fellow Alliance member region and/or its government.

 

No MPSA-involved region's government which has ratified this Treaty will usurp or replace with itself the government of another MPSA-involved region.

 

No government of any Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance member region which has ratified this Treaty will willingly allow itself to be replaced by any governmental body which originates from any place foreign to the MPSA-involved region which it controls.

 

No government of any Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance member region which has ratified this Treaty will allow itself to be usurped for the purposes of entities foreign to the MPSA-involved region which it controls.

 

Likewise, no government of any Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance member region will willingly allow its region to be exploited by any forces foreign to the MPSA-involved region which it controls through action such as:

• the distribution of World Assembly member nations to foreign regions or organizations in return for any sort of political favor as if these nations were some sort of item meant for barter or to be used as currency (not including the movement of troops in a military operation),

•  
• the sale of governmental influence or positions to foreign leaders in return for any sort of favors from the foreign leaders' regions or organizations as if such influence was an item meant for barter or a form of intangible currency,
•  

• and the entrance of any Alliance-bound delegate’s voting power into any kind of World Assembly voting bloc foreign to the GCRs and foreign to the MPSA.

 

Upon a member region's violations of these terms it is no longer to be considered a member of the Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance. A corrupt/usurper government inherently in violation of these terms which attempts to ratify this Treaty is not to be considered a member of the Modern Pacific-Sinker Alliance.

 

On the occasion of an emergency situation in a member region of the MPSA (which is to be deemed as such by the government of the MPSA-involved region in which the emergency situation is extant), the other member regions should attempt anything and everything within their power to end such a state of emergency and return the other member region to its former, stable, and secure state.

 

Modern Security Force:

 

With the existence of this Treaty likewise emerges the existence of the Modern Security Force (MSF). The primary directive of this pan-GCR military, which comes before all other activities in which it partakes, will be to act to end "emergency situations" such as those referenced in the final clause of the Treaty as quickly and as efficiently as possible without jeopardizing the sovereignty of member regions.

 

Participation in this military is voluntary and will be decided by the appropriate officials within each member region. Any member region that joins MSF has the right to leave at any time. Any member region that joins must assign its two highest ranking military officers to the MSF Council within the MPSA's forum. This Council will decide via informal consensus how to organize the military and where to send it.

 

The consent of appropriate officials is required before MSF troops are to engage in a mission that does not pertain to local emergency situations. This fundamental detail aside, the organization of MSF is the responsibility of the leaders involved and may be subject to change.

 

MSF will not engage in military activities irrelevant to the politics of its involved regions.

 

[Westwind]

Interesting graphic to characterize the GCR's.  The Trident staff of the Feeders and the Grounding rod of the Sinkers.

 

The definition of emergency situations would need to be fleshed out, IMO.  Would a situation where the removal of a sitting but inactive delegate is engaged by members of that region be considered an emergency requiring a return to the "former, stable, and secure state." ?  Is the right of a member region's nations to rebel recognized, or rather considered an emergency ?

 

"Member regions..... pledge no greater allegiance to any entity that is not their respective local governments"  This would seem to place offsite governments over the Delegates, which doesn't fit with the philosophy of The West Pacific

 

I am interested in GCR cooperation and military coordination when our interested coincide, as long as each is also respected for itself and it's own philosphies and policies.

[Pestarzt]

I am all for this sort of initiative so as long as the concerns described by WW are addressed. 

 

I've been considering making an IRC channel open to all feeder militaries for cooperative missions for a while now, but I haven't got around to it due to my break and my situation. I believe it'd be the best way to keep such a force organized, as it's a lot easier to autojoin something and have people use it as needed than to resort to a forum every so often.

[A mean old man]

I have responses to all of these queries and will get back to you as soon as I get home from work.

[punkdaddy]

Taking another crack at this AMOM? I guess one thing we share in common is the pursuit of a pan-regional alliance.

 

I definitely echo WW's concerns. I'm personally not all too interested in such an alliance because they usually fall flat at the most inopportune times. In theory, I love them but in practice they just haven't been able to do much at all.

[A mean old man]

"Interesting graphic to characterize the GCR's.  The Trident staff of the Feeders and the Grounding rod of the Sinkers."

 

It's one of my favorite designs. Kudos to Heptimus for creating the high-res version. o7

 

"The definition of emergency situations would need to be fleshed out, IMO.  Would a situation where the removal of a sitting but inactive delegate is engaged by members of that region be considered an emergency requiring a return to the "former, stable, and secure state." ?  Is the right of a member region's nations to rebel recognized, or rather considered an emergency ?"

 

The general vagueness of the clause was intentional. I have faith in those in power at the time of an emergency to classify and deal with it accordingly, and it is the responsibility of an involved government to classify an emergency situation within its own region (which helps to remove the possibility of other regions abusing the clause for the sake of causing trouble). Also, the idea that a corrupt government is not worth protecting is inherently worked into this proposal, as such a government would not be accepted as a part of this Alliance. A "rebellion" against a local, loyal government that hasn't sold itself out to foreign interests is most likely not a rebellion at all but a takeover attempt. If it is not a takeover attempt, it is misguided, as the best (and lasting) way to change a flawed (but not corrupt) system is by changing it from the inside, not by violently overthrowing it. If the situation is murkier than this ... as I said, we're all capable of using our good judgement. So many treaties and legal codes attempt to set everything in stone, portray things in black and white, and account for every possible turn of events when reality is far too convoluted for such compulsive effort to ever be worth expending.

 

Perhaps, however, for the sake of preventing the clause from being ignored of misconstrued in certain situations, the word "former" should be removed from said clause. I will notify TEP and TP, the two other regions this treaty has currently been sent to of the concern expressed here and the possible solution I have proposed. I'll wait to see if you have further concerns/requests before doing this.

 

""Member regions..... pledge no greater allegiance to any entity that is not their respective local governments"  This would seem to place offsite governments over the Delegates, which doesn't fit with the philosophy of The West Pacific"

 

The Delegate is inherently a part of the presiding government. If he is not, chances are that he has gone rogue. Or perhaps his government is the entity that abandoned him and the wording of the Treaty favors his reign? The details of the situation would determine the nature of the allies' response, no?

 

"I am interested in GCR cooperation and military coordination when our interested coincide, as long as each is also respected for itself and it's own philosphies and policies."

 

The clauses in the second section of the document and the optional nature of the military ensures that this will either be the case or that the military simply will not function.

 

"Taking another crack at this AMOM? I guess one thing we share in common is the pursuit of a pan-regional alliance."

 

Let's see if our collaboration is a recipe for success.

 

"I definitely echo WW's concerns. I'm personally not all too interested in such an alliance because they usually fall flat at the most inopportune times. In theory, I love them but in practice they just haven't been able to do much at all."

 

The MPA, in the end, failed - not because of a weakness in its purpose, but because of a flaw in its design: the Assembly. Your Republic was similarly flawed and, similarly, petered out and died during inactive times. When the MPA was in place and active, however, The South Pacific and The Pacific were closer than they had ever been before and than they've ever been since. The NPO played a key role in defeating Frak in TSP and TSP likewise aided TP when its FA minister Antariel went rogue and tried to incite unjust rebellion there. The MPA ultimately failed, but I would not label it a "failure."

 

With this treaty the MPA is revived and its faults are remedied - the Treaty stands alone even during times of inactivity and there is no Assembly to argue over or to kill the alliance during stagnant times.

[Darkesia]

A "rebellion" against a local, loyal government that hasn't sold itself out to foreign interests is most likely not a rebellion at all but a takeover attempt. If it is not a takeover attempt, it is misguided, as the best (and lasting) way to change a flawed (but not corrupt) system is by changing it from the inside, not by violently overthrowing it.

 

There are only two ways to change delegates in TWP.  The first is to have the seated delegate choose his/her sucessor.  The second is for the community to declare rebellion against the seated delegate.  Your statement about "changing it from the inside" assumes that the community formed government has some sort of restrictive legislative hold on the delegate. This is not how it works in TWP.  Open rebellion is a legitimate tool of the community.

 

The Delegate is inherently a part of the presiding government. If he is not, chances are that he has gone rogue.

 

No.  There is no such thing as a rogue delegate.  The presiding government may have a cooperative relationship with the seated delegate or it may not.  Neither situation is more "legitimate" than the other.

[A mean old man]

This argument is fairly superfluous. My definition of "rogue," which would apply in a region like TEP, TSP, or TNP, would probably not apply in a region like TP or TWP. In this sense we may be speaking in two different dialects and becoming frustrated when they fail to overlap. It seems the concern expressed regarding this opinion is directed at the "emergency situations" clause, which, as I stated, can only be invoked by the government of an involved region.

 

It would seem TWP's concern here, as it relates to the Treaty itself, relates to the ability of an involved "government" to declare a state of emergency and seek the assistance of involved regions. The posters here are implying that, in TWP, there is a definable separation between "government," "delegate," and "community," and that the ability of the "government" to declare such a state of emergency could be contrary to the ideals/interests of TWP as a whole. Is this correct?

 

If so, how do you propose it be remedied? As I stated, the Treaty is safely vague and could be made even more vague in certain areas, though after a point the ambiguity could give the text infinite interpretations, which is not the intended goal.

 

I personally have had very little interaction with TWP and do not know as much about its functions as I would like to, so please bear with me here.

[Westwind]

The posters here are implying that, in TWP, there is a definable separation between "government," "delegate," and "community," and that the ability of the "government" to declare such a state of emergency could be contrary to the ideals/interests of TWP as a whole. Is this correct?

 

Yes, that would be correct.  TWP holds the forum community and it's government to be a separate entity from the Delegacy.  Ingame, the Delegacy is the primary authority.  Offsite the forum community is it's own authority. Happily at this moment the two are unified, but that has not, and may not always be the case.  We beleive in the sovereign right of each nation to act within the rules of NationStates, and that applies equally to the Delegate.  Therefore an offsite government dictating to the Delegate is a violation of the Delegate's own sovereignty.  The Yin to that Yang is that the soveriegnty of all nations allows them the right to rebel against the Delegate.

 

So the emergency definitions are too vague and too easy to be miscontrued to be used to support one side vs. another side in what should be an internal matter.  This is where The South Pacific failed to appreciate the neutrality of the TWP Government in their conflict.  We recognize the soveriegnty of the sitting delegate, while also recognizing the rights of the community standing in opposition to the sitting delegate. 

 

The treaty emphasises governments, while failing to emphasis the equal rights and authorities of Delegates.

[A mean old man]

Can we talk on Skype or IRC at some point?

[Pestarzt]

#thewestpacific is our IRC channel. Feel free to pay a visit and make yourself at home.

[Karland]

#thewestpacific is our IRC channel. Feel free to pay a visit and make yourself at home.

 

No it's not. It's #the_west_pacific.

 

EDIT: Never mind, didn't know #thewestpacific existed as well. They lied to me. D:

[Darkesia]

The channel with th underscore is the old channel.

[punkdaddy]

what??? we have a new channel? lol...

 

Anyway - most feeders believe in the supremacy of the forum government. That is definitely not the case. One could argue in TWP, the ruling authority is the Guardians. And the Guardians are really made up of people who have agreed on a few things:

• Delegates have the right to choose their form of government (e.g. have an offsite gov or not)
• WA members can rebel against their delegates if their delegates do not do things they agree with.
• Guardians are there to protect the 'way of life' of TWP which places supremacy of the delegate in place.

It's a very different system than the other feeders which seem to say that the in-game delegate's authority is derived from the offsite forum. We view it oppositely. 

[Westwind]

Aye,  which is why I said  "....as long as each is also respected for itself and it's own philosphies and policies." The Treaty as written would require TWP to change it's philosphies.

 

Having no control of the old IRC channel, it was abandoned for the new one.  And I ask for your patience, I have had seven seizures this week, a new record, so I need to stay within telegrams, RMB, and forum threads for the moment.  It'll take a few days for me to recover enough to handle real time conversations.

[Pestarzt]

Wow, I wish you a swift recovery and the best of luck. 

[Westwind]

Thanks I normally have 2 - 4 each week, but doubling that sucks.

[Intelligent Holograms]

Get well soon, AGP.

[Kharkistania]

I was actually discussing such an alliance with Cormac in Osiris two weeks ago, before I went on vacation. I like the idea of a cross-regional military command, though perhaps we should try a more informal grouping before signing into a full on military alliance?

 

As an aside, I wish you the best Westwind. Get well soon!

[Papercuts and Skittles]

Quit reading my mind Khark

[Westwind]

I think the key is to ensure a mutual respect for the sovereignty of each without imposing an overall concept of what exactly that means to each.  Combine that with militlary cooperation that allows each to freely opt-op of missions that do not interest them, or do not coincide with thier policies, and it should all be workable.