Embassy of The Meritocracy

[Black Adder]

I thank RedCommunist for his input but point out this is over the proposed ADMA treaty, not prior ADN action. I only use those in context to find where the Meritocracy stands on issues highlighting the treaty they formed with the ADN.

Thus far they appear to hold with the idea that NS is democratic because they say it is. We hold it is not because the rules do not support it. The crux of the issue then is why do they insist on applying a set of rules that Max did not generate to the issue of legitimacy in a game controlled region. We cannot be bound to the interpretation that is generally made for a founder based region hence the creation of the League of Pacifics as a forum to discuss the issues that face game controlled regions.

This is a diplomatic exchange. Let's keep it civil and beyond personal insult. Enough of us on all sides have enough personal slights to avenge which would derail any detente. We as Governments have to rise above that and do what's right to create stability.

[Cortath]

Black said:

That response concerns me. On one hand you refer to the Meritocracy as an organization and expect everyone to recognize its power as such yet you do not extend the same courtesy to us. To even enter into a contract means you recognize the organization as a whole as opposed to its individual parts. I see nowhere where you've broken it down to the delegates of The New Meritocracy,the Meritocracy and the Sardaukar Confederacy entering into a contract with the Nasicounia, Antarctica, Rejected Realms et al. You accept the legitimacy of the ruling governments as a whole, not just the delegates involved yet you do not extend the same to us? You came here seeking a treaty with the NPO, not the Pacific. You make the very real case we speak for the Pacific and to proceed further without that recognition based on prejuidical reasoning is impossible.

We recognize the whole of the NPO, and recognize that the Delegate holds power by the gameplay mechanics, and that the Delegate is usually the titular or de facto head of government and thus, it is the Delegates that enter into a treaty. Uh...the Meritocracy prohibits UN membership...I'm fairly sure there's only one province that even has a UN delegate. We don't need to break it down, because phrase includes all the Delegates of the ADN and the NPO. This Treaty is not supposed to extend legitimacy or recognize anyone or anything; it's purpose is to disavow the use of certain war tactics.

I question the legitimacy of any document where the other party does not question what the other is doing. In effect you've told us this is self policing. If you are in the habit of penning documents with no real weight how serious are they about promoting peace? Its a treaty not a mission statement.

There is nothing but self-policing in nationstates. Do we wish to return to our philosophical discussion on gameplay? Until gameplay mechanics recognize our governments and our treaties, everything is self-policing. You could use the argument that a Treaty cannot be enforced against any Treaty.

To pen a document placing restrictions on how aggression and attack is conducted by definition does interfere with internal poilcy of the signing states. To imply otherwise is disingenuous and would appear to state you have no real intent to honour the obligations. If the NPO were to sign such a document we would hold ourselves to the terms and expect the other side to as well. Why go through all the trouble otherwise? If its peace you seek its peace you must enforce from those who have vouched it for you.

Of course this document deals with the foreign policies of regions. My point is that this document is not intended to interfere with wholly internal policies, such as your "authoritarian" (your word, not mine) policies, which, I think you would agree, is not in the sphere of foreign affairs. This treaty regulates foreign affairs.

Legitimately is legally, you obfuscate. Whether it meets with your political philosophy is entirely a different matter. It shows a real lack of understanding in my view of Game Controlled regions to make the argument otherwise. There is no founder there is no password, a feeder is not a founder region where there is an implied contract of how the political aim is to be striven for. We have no more basis to scream we are the rightful regime should we ever be toppled than the North Pacific did. There is no contract in place saying the Pacific was a democracy, oligarchy or anything else that made people move here based on a founder's intentions. We are allowed to eject to protect the delegacy and the government they choose. Given how rules on invasion differ with a founder region courtesy of the protections you can insert your political ideals into those scenarios. By stating a deposed regime has a right to claim legitimacy in a feeder stretches reality, there is no implied contract and people are dropped there automatically. They generally make no decision to move there hence the term 'feeder'.

Legitimacy is in the eye of the natives of the region. If they believed that the government-in-exile held more sway over them than the de facto government of Great Bight, then the government-in-exile was more legitimate.

You are correct, we impose our ideals on our own regions by our very existance. I wonder why you defend imposing yours on anyone else. I understood the Meritocracy to uphold diversity and not necessarily take a stance on anything.

I fail to see how this Treaty imposes any restrictions on NPO policy, since the NPO has repeatedly stated that they are not expansionist, they do not invade, etc., etc. Thus, this Treaty would only be a reaffirmation of your prestated beliefs, no?

The major stumbling factor I see here is a great divide in what we see those standards to be. We have widely varying views on gameplay, understandings of game controlled regions and most alarmingly a lack of any real committment to enforce these treaties. The NPO wants peace, we've suffered enough at the hands of many of your members but not at any cost. If you wish to negotiate with us we demand recognition as the NPO being the rightful government of the Pacific. You extended the same priviledge to the North Pacific so its not without precedent. We demand a document written with good faith that we expect to be honoured. We want peace. And this will be a document with very few loopholes, definitions and will leave very little room for interpretation.

With all due respect, altough I repeat I do not speak for the Senate, I doubt the Senate would appreciate being "demanded" to do anything. If you wish to sit down at a table as equals, demanding concessions isn't exactly something that would entice us or any body to do so. I appreciate diplomacy and negotiation, not ultimatums.

Thank you for your quick repsonses.

Thus far they appear to hold with the idea that NS is democratic because they say it is. We hold it is not because the rules do not support it. The crux of the issue then is why do they insist on applying a set of rules that Max did not generate to the issue of legitimacy in a game controlled region. We cannot be bound to the interpretation that is generally made for a founder based region hence the creation of the League of Pacifics as a forum to discuss the issues that face game controlled regions.

I do not understand why you oppose the Treaty simply because the gameplay mechanics do not. Why do you support the NPO? Why do I support the Meritocracy? The gameplay mechanics support neither. I have heard many a time that Francos Spain maintains his power democratically, because the endorsement system is inherantly democratic.

I understand the problems of a founderless region, as the sister nation of Cortath resides in one as well.

I decline to respond to the posts of RedCommunist, as I doubt he represents your government when he calls me a "dumbass", hmm? I haven't cursed or slandered at any member of NPO, and I would appreciate at least the same modicum of respect in return.

[edit] Edited to include the second post by Black Adder.

[Black Adder]

We recognize the whole of the NPO, and recognize that the Delegate holds power by the gameplay mechanics, and that the Delegate is usually the titular or de facto head of government and thus, it is the Delegates that enter into a treaty. Uh...the Meritocracy prohibits UN membership...I'm fairly sure there's only one province that even has a UN delegate. We don't need to break it down, because phrase includes all the Delegates of the ADN and the NPO. This Treaty is not supposed to extend legitimacy or recognize anyone or anything; it's purpose is to disavow the use of certain war tactics.

If you recognize the NPO as the legal ergo Legitimate Government and the natives here support Franco then a statement that the NPO Government is the legitimate Government is not an issue to make. It further holds that you would be inclined to support us against any who would be attempting to subvert us as an aggressive action. Would this be an issue to uphold?

To make a treaty with a delegate and by extension the government recognizes the legitimacy of that organization. Why bother at all otherwise? It makes no sense. To not recognize the other party means you have no real intent to support the document. Despite the lack of delegates you expect the Meritocracy to be respected as a legitimate organization. We have a delegate with a chosen government yet we are to be refused on a basic level the recognition? This is a point which needs to be addressed.

There is nothing but self-policing in nationstates. Do we wish to return to our philosophical discussion on gameplay? Until gameplay mechanics recognize our governments and our treaties, everything is self-policing. You could use the argument that a Treaty cannot be enforced against any Treaty.

A neat side step. You are correct in the grand scheme it is self policing but you come offering a document which binds us to the same philosophy. A philosophy which should bind the two sides to a common standard. To fall back on the argument its all self policing at this point in negotiations does not point to a desire to hold to the spirit of Peace and non aggression. We will want assurances that the Met will hold its members to that standard and the agreement just as we would expect ours to. Gameplay mechanics do not enter into it, this is an agreement that we will not cross this certain line if you don't.

Of course this document deals with the foreign policies of regions. My point is that this document is not intended to interfere with wholly internal policies, such as your "authoritarian" (your word, not mine) policies, which, I think you would agree, is not in the sphere of foreign affairs. This treaty regulates foreign affairs.

I agree this isn't meant to constrict our internal policies. It is meant to constrict our external policies as it would yours. If your membership does not agree with our political system it should not allow them to carry on subversive activities against us. We would expect the terms to the right to exist using the system of our choice be respected as we are the legitimate regime of the Pacific legally. How people feel about the Authoritarian nature of it does not come into play. We would expect that the non agression elements be honoured unequivocally.

I fail to see how this Treaty imposes any restrictions on NPO policy, since the NPO has repeatedly stated that they are not expansionist, they do not invade, etc., etc. Thus, this Treaty would only be a reaffirmation of your prestated beliefs, no?

This would be a reaffirmation correct. We are non expansionist. However many of your membership claim membership in other organizations which we do not see so clearly defined. Given the manner in which many have disavowed portions of the treaty so far gives us pause that there would be an honest attempt on the part of the Meritocracy to enforce any actions on the part of its membership with appropriate censures. We would expect the Meritocracy leadership to demand, yes demand, compliance.

With all due respect, altough I repeat I do not speak for the Senate, I doubt the Senate would appreciate being "demanded" to do anything. If you wish to sit down at a table as equals, demanding concessions isn't exactly something that would entice us or any body to do so. I appreciate diplomacy and negotiation, not ultimatums.

You quibble. A demand in this context is reasonable. If you prefer substitute strenuously request as a condition. We are sitting as equals unless you feel otherwise. This is not an ultimatum, these are stipulations which would need to be addressed to progress. This leads me to question how dedicated you are to working through to a profitable end given how you are taking offence to basic negotiation. I would certainly hope your Senate can make the distinction.

I look forward to a response from your Senate. Yours has been most enlightening and thank you.

[Capitollium]

If we did not recognize the NPO as the legitimate government of the Pacific, this embassy would not be here. If the NPO did not recognize the Meritocracy as a sovereign organization with jurisdiction over our regions, you would not consider signing this document.

We made our step and extended our hand. Should you mirror this move and shake it, then that move shall require mutual recognition. Therefore, a treaty between partners that do not recognize each other at the point that they sign the treaty is useless. If these proceedings are useless, I shall probably be able to find something better to do. The NPO must answer that question.

I agree this isn't meant to constrict our internal policies. It is meant to constrict our external policies as it would yours. If your membership does not agree with our political system it should not allow them to carry on subversive activities against us. We would expect the terms to the right to exist using the system of our choice be respected as we are the legitimate regime of the Pacific legally. How people feel about the Authoritarian nature of it does not come into play. We would expect that the non agression elements be honoured unequivocally.

That shall be done. Refer to my first and second paragraphs. Domestic affairs are a nonfactor.

You quibble. A demand in this context is reasonable. If you prefer substitute strenuously request as a condition. We are sitting as equals unless you feel otherwise. This is not an ultimatum, these are stipulations which would need to be addressed to progress. This leads me to question how dedicated you are to working through to a profitable end given how you are taking offence to basic negotiation. I would certainly hope your Senate can make the distinction.

The responses of the Deputy Minister for Foreign Relations and myself, as Ambassador, officially represent the policy of the Senate.

[Mammothistan]

Capitollium said:

If we did not recognize the NPO as the legitimate government of the Pacific, this embassy would not be here.

Then why is our ambassador to your organization listed as the "Ambassador from the New Pacific Order" and not "Ambassador from the Pacific"?

[Neandertron]

I personnly thought you prefered to be called the NPO. something about the government being greater than the region or some such comment.

[Black Adder]

Neandertron said:

I personnly thought you prefered to be called the NPO. something about the government being greater than the region or some such comment.

At the risk of being offensive I fail to understand what the West Pacific Interest section could possibly have to do with the Meritocracy.

[Neandertron]

Sorry Black adder I will stay within the confines of my own little section from now on. I just wanted to clear up the matter of what you prefered to be called.

[Capitollium]

This is quite a dilemma. Capitollium has been engaging in consultations with our colleagues, and has some diplomacy to partake in on the Meritocratic side.

[Black Adder]

Would the Ambassador care to enlighten us as to why Crazy Girl is currently planning and taking part in the attack against us at the moment? In light of the ADMA treaty between the ADN and the Meritocracy I find it interesting this Invasion is not being censured. I find it interesting so many of your membership are involved in it as well. Are we to understand this is to be the Meritocracy's position from now on? Aggression against the Pacific?

[SardaASSK]

In this instance I agree with BA. Though I wont create controversy be posting to much here, I believe that the Meritocracy should take an official stance on the defender invasion Even if we aren't taking sides officially.

[Black Adder]

We shall see. I'm expecting the RLA to show up at any moment so indeed the Met is gaining some strange bedfellows.

[Cortath]

Allow me to wear two hats for a moment.

As Cortath: The Meritocracy currently has no legislation pending nor military operations I am aware of that would change our stance of nuetrality over any military operations in your region. The Meritocracy's position has never been aggression against any body without reciprocal aggression.

*takes off his hat, puts on another*

As Blackbird: The Red Liberty Alliance currently has no discussions nor votes pending about military action in the Pacific.

[Black Adder]

Not a nice game being played here. On one hand you disavow your members actions outside the confines of the Meritocracy yet you wish us to treat with the organization as a whole as if you control them.

Apparently you do not. If you wish for relations with the NPO to progress unhindered in the future we are demanding the Meritocracy take action against members clearly in violation of the ADMA treaty. This is unequivocally an ADN operation and you cannot seperate the two any longer. Either you are an ADN vassal or you are not. Make up your minds.

[Unistrut]

Not a nice game being played here. On one hand you disavow your members actions outside the confines of the Meritocracy yet you wish us to treat with the organization as a whole as if you control them.

Apparently you do not. If you wish for relations with the NPO to progress unhindered in the future we are demanding the Meritocracy take action against members clearly in violation of the ADMA treaty. This is unequivocally an ADN operation and you cannot seperate the two any longer. Either you are an ADN vassal or you are not. Make up your minds.

Unlike many other organizations in NationStates, The Meritocracy respects the right of national sovereignty. That means that Moldavi can be an NPO governor and still a member of our Senate just as it means CrazyGirl and others can oppose the NPO in any manner they deem suitable.
You brought up the ADMA. Now, how exactly can an individual nation of The Meritocracy be in violation of a treaty ratified by the Senate when not acting on behalf of the Senate? I reject your demand outright- the only ones with a say over actions taken on members of the Meritocratic Senate are the members of said Senate.
We are no vassal to anyone. Spend some time around our Senate, interact with our members and you will see that. In fact, I invite you to come. I think you would find some interesting and intellectually stimulating conversation there.

My apologies to Capitollium, I don't intend to cut him out of this process. He is still the negotiator here. I felt it was necessary to interject at this juncture.