Jump to content


Recommended Posts

*Blows dust off of lectern*


Greetings, Internal Ministry. I know, it’s been a while, but we have some business to attend to. We have been in talks with the current WZSB government. These talks have produced the following proposed treaty, which would formalize the existing alliance between our regions.


We may change parts of the treaty, but keep in mind that will mean we must renegotiate. I move to hold a vote on this in a week.



We, the Interim Imperial Government of Warzone Sandbox and the Dominion of Warzone Europe, in an attempt to strengthen our ties, in the interests of Warzone Unity, and in an attempt to better each-other for the best interests of our region, do hereby enter into this Agreement of Friendship and Mutual Cooperation with each-other.


Article I - Sovereignty and Recognition

  1. Both signatory governments recognize each-other as the only legitimate governments of their respective regions and as such agree to not recognize any other government claiming to be the legitimate government of their counterparts unless it comes to power through the legal means provided by that region's laws and procedures.
  2. Both signatories recognize each other as sovereign entities and as such agree to not unduly influence or control another region through political, cultural, or diplomatic means.
  3. The regions agree to not support any invading force or to attack the counterpart's region, or it's holdings. As such they agree to not perform any WA actions against the legitimate World Assembly Delegate for the legitimate government of the region.


Article II - Culture

  1. The regions and their governments agree to hold a cultural event in their counterpart's regions at least once a year, unless an invasion or other regional instability occurs.


Article III - Military and Intelligence Cooperation

  1. The regions agree to share any intelligence and information that they might have involving the counterpart region, including plans to destabilize or invade the region.
  2. The regions agree to help one another during times of invasion, during a time of suspected invasion, or during times of emergency where the delegate may be at risk. The regions shall only help upon the request of the head of state of their counterpart government, or a governmental entity/officer empowered to make such a decision. The government requested to help may not deny unless it would open that region to invasion, destabilize the region, harm the regional security, or the region lacks a military.


Article IV - Ratification

  1. This agreement shall be considered ratified upon it being passed by both of the regional governments and the procedures and laws of that government for the ratification of agreements/treaties.


Article V - Amendments

  1. This agreement may be amended after the amendment has been ratified by both region's governments and the procedures and laws for ratifying agreements/treaties or amendments to them.


Article VI - Termination

  1. Both signatories agree that upon the repeal of this treaty by one of the signatory regions, this treaty shall be null and void. However the counterpart region must be informed one week before the repeal and both regions must work to resolve the issues and reasons for dissolution of this agreement before this may be repealed by the government.
    1.  The counter-part region may not be informed should the government no longer exist due to it's dissolution with no interest to form yet a new government, due to the falling apart of the government due to invasion, and/or due to the disappearance and inactivity of the government for a period of six (6) months and until all government members CtE's. This shall not take effect should there be an act on the succession of government members in the absence of the members, in which case this shall only take effect until after the resolution or one (1) year after the enactment of the law.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that as Governor, I do not have a vote in the Internal Ministry, but I do have veto rights and a say in foreign affairs matters. With this position in mind I will express that I will make no motion to veto this legislation should it pass, and I will support the signing of this treaty should both legislatures agree. (This assent should be considered non-binding should the terms of the treaty be changed).

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say the "Rightful Government of Warzone Sandbox " I assume you mean the one nation , with no endorsement or fellow natives to back them up, correct? 


That is exactly why it is not in the best interest of WZEU to back this nation.  It's a sole nation that can not defend a region or keep it's delgacy, with 0 other native support and no guarantee of getting stronger anytime soon. The only way that nation can keep a delgacy is if WZEU weakens itself and it's endorsement count. Not to mention the new government is backed by dedicated allies that have helped us numerous times in the past. The choice here is simple.  Help a sole nation gain control of a Warzone we know they can not control or aid proven allies and not weaken regional security.  Our trusted allies know we support them no matter what , but I can not condone weakening us for no reason . The "Government" of Warzone Sandbox is welcome to stay here as long as they Like, become citizens , or keep claiming WZSB. I will not deport them from the region and I gladly am willing to keep them under our protection for as long as they require.  However , I will not recognize their claim to the delgacy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

By rightful government, I mean the government with which this treaty was agreed, and which we agreed in the treaty to respect as the rightful government. In this case, at this time, yes, that means one native WA. I do not see anything in the text of the agreement which indicates that this would be a problem. We already de jure recognize this government as legitimate, and I see no compelling legal or moral reason why we should change that; indeed, I see no legal mechanism by which we may change that, except through negotiation with said government, as detailed in the treaty. 

I disagree on the notion that the only way in which they might regain the delegacy would inherently weaken our own position. I disagree on the notion that there is only one way in which they might regain the delegacy. I am not motioning for full scale war at this time, though that would be an entirely justified response; merely that our government continue to keep its binding word, and avoid trying to squirm out of our prior commitments merely because it is convenient, in a manner that would weaken our moral and legal standing as a democratic, native government that respects the rule of law, and can be trusted to adhere to its own treaties.
As a point of order, I was not aware that any other government, let alone one of our allies, had publicly declared support for the new regime. The most I had been made aware of was that the leader of the new regime happens to be a relevant figure in Equilism. Nor was I aware that we were being compelled to a binary and mutually exclusive choice between two sides with which we have already made binding commitments.
Perhaps you wish to clarify on this matter before proceeding further, to avoid further speculation potentially damaging to our foreign relations: Is this motion being put forward because you honestly believe it represents the best interests of the natives of WZEU to violate our word of honor and sacred law, or are we being compelled by foreign powers to pick a course of action which is incongruous with our principles and interests?
Such compulsion itself, I must hasten to add, would naturally be an affront to the self-determination of our sovereign region, and, in addition to being a violation of either treaty, would raise serious questions of propriety against all involved. At present, I am aware of no hard evidence of such compulsion; only circumstantial evidence and speculation, in addition to the points you have raised. 
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry.  However, there is no benefit In supporting this nation. I have negotiated and came to the conclusion this treaty is not in our best interest , especially in regard to future political situations . We live in Warzones, realistically this treaty holds us back in that setting and severely handicaps our ability to avoid war, and come to peaceful solutions, especially if they have no ability to do literally anything without our help. 


Equlilsm and Europeia are both in support of this regime, and I see no reason not to be. The reason the government could not return in the first place was that they did not have the power to take or hold the region. That is still true.  I never claimed that terminating this treaty was morally just, I said that it aids our interests to not have this treaty. I do regret this, but I see no outcome where the WZSB government in exile returns successfully to the delgacy. Which hurts our interests in the region.  


To answer your question, I believe that by terminating the treaty, we would not be going back on our word. I see no honor or word being broken if this is successfully repealed.  However, yes  by supporting their government to ascend to the delgacy of WZSB we would have to spend valuable endorsements that frankly can't be spared , and starting a war to get it would be even worse for our citizens . 


do understand where you are coming from.  So I will make this compromise.  If you can successfully negotiate a change to the treaty which does not bind our regions so closely and makes it easier to back out , I will approve it and we can be done with this business .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Treaties are not signed for the Machiavellian benefit of a single party, and that is not why we abide by them. We abide by them because that is the interregional and legal standard. If we abandon our treaty allies, who we have made a commitment to stand by, what does that say about us? What does that say about our trustworthiness in signing future treaties? What message does it send to our other treaty allies, such as Equilism? Is this same argument not also applicable to Equilism's relationship towards us? This action to unilaterally nullify a bilateral agreement sends the message that we do not care about laws, commitments, or principles, and that other regions are perfectly in the right to take such actions against us. 


Again I say that I have not seen any public declaration of support from either Europeia or Equilism. If you have a link to such a declaration, or else have some private correspondence in official capacity, that you wish to share for the public record, please do so, that I and my fellow citizens may be fully abreast of the situation. As I have seen no such declarations, I can only assume that these are private citizens not acting in official capacity. Such private citizens are naturally permitted to do as they please within the laws of their respective regions, and naturally, we are obliged to act against such private citizens in whatever capacity we are best able.


I should reiterate at this point that merely because one of our allies may happen to support support a campaign against another one of allies, that we are under no obligation to lend our own support to their support. Indeed, were it to be revealed that Equilism is publicly and officially backing the new occupation in WZSB, the correct course of action would be military neutrality while maintaining official recognition of both governments, per the terms of both treaties, particularly as anything else would give Equilism reason to question our commitment to our treaty with them, and therefore raise, not lower, the possibility of our current allies turning hostile.


Were it to emerge that either side were engaging in threats or other hostile posturing, to effect a favorable policy within our own government, this would be a clear violation of the terms of either treaty, which state in no uncertain terms, that both parties recognize the sovereignty of the other. Should it emerge, as has been hinted at in your own statements, that persons within the occupation government were using their position of privilege within other government to effect pressure against our region, I should think that sufficient reason to conduct a full inquiry into those actions, particularly as it would pertain to violations of our own laws and treaties. 


In short, our relationship with any region is based solely on trust; the same trust which we erode any time we abandon our treaty allies, particularly in doing so without extending the basic diplomatic courtesy of proceeding with the normal withdrawal framework. While we might gain some temporary relief in the short run by taking this extralegal shortcut, this course of action can only serve to doom our interests in the long run and destroy faith in the dominion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think I'm being convinced . Well done mate. However, I will recognize both governments, and endeavour to amend this treaty as it stands currently .  If that endeavour fails, I will immediately resume my attempt to repeal this legislation.  


Equilism knows full well our commitment as do our other allies , i think you are ignoring the reasons I set forth to repeal this treaty. Because none of our other allies have the problem of being a single powerless nation. Regardless, I understand the sentiment behind the example. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...