Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Conferences, visits and other bilateral or multilateral meetings.

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby matthewleitch » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:09 pm

Maureen Granger: We accept all but the nuclear disarmament as I would like to just inform you of the full information. The current government in Baltusia is in full support of our nuclear weapons. We increased defence spending and produced nuclear weapons ourselves. At this time there was an economic boom and our economy can afford this. We would not like for international inspectors to look at our fleet and publicise intelligence into our fleet, which potential enemies could capitalise on. We want them and we will keep them.

Also about Mr Benn, we will accept that we aren't going to get him extradited but would like to review this in 5 years, in case scenario or government has changed.

About the border, I agree that if Baltusia withdraws their concentration of troops from the border within 2 years of the treaty being ratified then Kalistan should do the same.

Despite our opposition to something in this bill and slight amendments we are glad to be working towards a de-escalation and would be happy to review the bill in 10 years to see if some things need removed or changed.

I invite the Kalistani diplomat to respond and then we should fully conclude this conference.
4042-4190: Baltusian Republican Party (Baltusia)
4190- : Republican Party (Cildania)

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” -Milton Friedman
matthewleitch
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:59 pm

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby jamescfm » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:22 pm

OOC: As a preface, as far as I personally am concerned I see no realistic way in which Baltusia would have nuclear weapons so, I'm basically just going to ignore the issue. I think you should seriously consider re-evaluating the matter, as it is likely to limit an international RP with Baltusia in future but it ultimately isn't up to me. In terms of how I intend to RP this out, we'll just have Kalistan be forced into conceding on nuclear disarmament.

IC:Serhat Aslan: It is good to finally receive a response from the Conservative Party, even if they have supported a motion to pull Baltusia from these talks behind our backs. The 'War game' bill which outlines Baltusia's preparations for war is similarly disconcerting however Baltusia has made it clear that their Congress has something of a Wild West aspect to it so we'll put that to one side for now.

We are prepared to concede on nuclear disarmament at this time but please understand this places a severe strain on relations between our nations. In exchange, we'll ask that you agree to withdraw your troops immediately. There is no reason that they should remain there for two years, if Baltusian troops remain on the border after this conference has concluded we will have to respond in an appropriate manner, given that we remain exposed along this front. Furthermore, any request for Mr. Benn's extradition should occur no earlier than the year 4100. This is enough time for some bizarre change of scenario to occur.

Please confirm that the following deal is acceptable and we will move this to a formal arrangement, provisionally entitled 'The Baltusia-Kalistan De-Escalation Accord'.

Article I- De-Escalation

Baltusia should demobilise its armed forces, reversing the concentration of military personnel on the border with Kalistan. In exchange, the Kalistani militias will cease conducting drills in areas within twenty kilometres of the Baltusian border for two years after this treaty is ratified.

Article II- Settling the Extradition of Karl Benn

Mr. Karl Benn, founder of the Revolutionary Anarcho-Communist Party, shall be allowed to remain in Kalistan for as long as he pleases with no effort to have him returned to Baltusia by the Baltusian government. The conditions under which Baltusia can request extradition are set forth in Article IV but these conditions do not apply to Mr. Benn until the year 4100 at the earliest.

Article III- Militias in Relation to Baltusia

Given the lack of understanding on the Baltusian side and a need for improved relations, Baltusian delegates are invited to visit the headquarters of Kalistan's two active militias in order to gain a better understanding of their operations, histories and structures. In future, militias wishing to participate in war games within one kilometre of the Baltusian border must notify the Baltusian government prior to doing so. However, the caviats to this deal are that it applies only to paramilitaries- not regular Kalistani forces- and that the Baltusian government are only notified. Specifically, it is not a request and the Baltusian government have no power to decline it.

Article IV- The Operation of the Kalistani and Baltusian Governments

Baltusia and Kalistan both agree to remain as far removed from the other's governing of their own nation as is humanly possible. Any communication relating to the other nation must be conducted in an open manner, to eliminate any clandestine dealing, similarly, any request from one government to another should be asked only once and on the Nation Page. The Head of State/Head of Government will then provide an answer to the request and that verdict is final. Where one nation disagrees with the decision made by the other, they shall have no power to challenge it.

Article V- Next Steps

The President of Baltusia, Baltusian Foreign Affairs Minister and Baltusian Defence Minister shall agree to meet with the President of Kalistan, Kalistani Premier, Kalistani Foreign Affairs Minister and Kalistani Defence Minister here in Indrala (providing our generous hosts agree) to review this legislation exactly ten years after it has been ratified. At this point, extra conditions may be proposed, articles removed or restrictions lifted.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby Doc » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:40 pm

matthewleitch wrote:Maureen Granger: We accept all but the nuclear disarmament as I would like to just inform you of the full information. The current government in Baltusia is in full support of our nuclear weapons. We increased defence spending and produced nuclear weapons ourselves. At this time there was an economic boom and our economy can afford this. We would not like for international inspectors to look at our fleet and publicise intelligence into our fleet, which potential enemies could capitalise on. We want them and we will keep them.

Also about Mr Benn, we will accept that we aren't going to get him extradited but would like to review this in 5 years, in case scenario or government has changed.

About the border, I agree that if Baltusia withdraws their concentration of troops from the border within 2 years of the treaty being ratified then Kalistan should do the same.

Despite our opposition to something in this bill and slight amendments we are glad to be working towards a de-escalation and would be happy to review the bill in 10 years to see if some things need removed or changed.

I invite the Kalistani diplomat to respond and then we should fully conclude this conference.


OOC:

One does not simply produce nuclear weapons. While the plans are available on the internet, there is a reason why like 7 something countries in the world have them and 200 something countries in the world do not. Nicaragua, no matter how much it wanted them, could not develop nukes. Iran, no matter how much it wants them, has not developed nuclear weapons, despite neighboring Pakistan who did develop them because someone gave them the technology.

Saying "We just produced nuclear weapons" is equivalent to saying "We have just destabilized the regional security order." It will invite a swift and immediate response form Baltusia's neighbors, and it should never have gone unnoticed when it was happening.

I would submit this matter to Moderation, rather than simply letting it stand that Baltusia has nukes. This might be seen as a form of godmodding.
Primary: Institutionalist Party of Kalistan (IPoK), 5146-

Inactive:
Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), 2591-
Hizb Al'Sultan حزب السلطان 4543-4551
Parti des Frères Lourenne, 4109-4132
Gaduri Brethrenist Movement (MHdG), 4481-4485
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 1964
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: Kaliburg, Kalistan

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby jamescfm » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:13 pm

OOC: I messaged them to try and clear up what the procedure was. The message, as I understand it, was sort of this: they can claim whatever they like but you don't have to accept that claim. That's why I want to get this deal wrapped up because it's just unrealistic at this point that we've got a neighbour who is claiming to simultaneously have undergone a civil war and also be going through an economic boom; it's also why I say it would limit future RP because it makes Baltusia almost impossible interact with. IC and OOC, my view is that Baltusia has no nukes. My OOC belief is that Baltusia is vastly overstating its capability, perhaps not understanding its nations history. My IC belief is that it's a government trying to intimidate neighbours.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby Doc » Sat Aug 27, 2016 4:31 am

Right on: This is basically the same message I got from Aquinas:

For more information on the rules concerning consent in role-play, check out the role-play section of the Game Rules, especially section 21 on role-play principles and section 23 on role-play events. To quote the first sentence in section 23,

The default rule is that role-play events can only be done with the consent of all of the players legitimately involved, and that if one of the players withdraws consent for the role-play, then the role-play becomes void.

Although under certain conditions, also outlined in section 23, it is possible to use an OOC RP Event bill to pursue a role-play without the consent of a minority of players.

So to sum up: you can't prevent the Baltusians from claiming they have nuclear weapons, but at the same time, they can't compel you to acknowledge their claim that they have them. If you're unhappy with the role-play you're engaged in with them, you're free to say "No" to it and they would need to respect that.


My suggestion is that we do not acknowledge their claims. I say that explicitly. Baltusia's comments about nuclear weapons should be taken by us, as not having been made. I say we drop all talk of nuclear disarmament. They can claim they have nuclear weapons all day, but that doesn't make it so. And we are under no obligation to agree that they do or act as if they do.
Primary: Institutionalist Party of Kalistan (IPoK), 5146-

Inactive:
Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), 2591-
Hizb Al'Sultan حزب السلطان 4543-4551
Parti des Frères Lourenne, 4109-4132
Gaduri Brethrenist Movement (MHdG), 4481-4485
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 1964
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: Kaliburg, Kalistan

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby matthewleitch » Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:25 am

jamescfm wrote:OOC: I messaged them to try and clear up what the procedure was. The message, as I understand it, was sort of this: they can claim whatever they like but you don't have to accept that claim. That's why I want to get this deal wrapped up because it's just unrealistic at this point that we've got a neighbour who is claiming to simultaneously have undergone a civil war and also be going through an economic boom; it's also why I say it would limit future RP because it makes Baltusia almost impossible interact with. IC and OOC, my view is that Baltusia has no nukes. My OOC belief is that Baltusia is vastly overstating its capability, perhaps not understanding its nations history. My IC belief is that it's a government trying to intimidate neighbours.


OOC: Baltusia haven't undergone a civil war, would you please care to elaborate? Our current government created a longstanding economic boom through cost saving and tax cuts. We had a massive increase in defence spending and from what I was aware, we had nuclear capability long before the Conservative's came along. Also, our Cultural Equivalent is the USA, who have a huge nuclear capability. It would be helpful if you could try and compare Baltusia to a real life country as you clearly have more historical knowledge and it would be able to give us insight into our nations total capabilities. Thanks
4042-4190: Baltusian Republican Party (Baltusia)
4190- : Republican Party (Cildania)

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” -Milton Friedman
matthewleitch
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:59 pm

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby stuntmonkey » Sat Aug 27, 2016 9:41 am

There has been no civil war in Baltusia; there has been an economic boom. I do not understand where you are getting your information. In terms of the articles you set out these need to be debated and voted on in our congress.

The reason my party was away from this conference was to give us time to vote on our bill regarding whether to carry on with these talks or not. The majority of parties have voted yes so now we return.

Our party did send a letter to the arbitrator of these talks and i presume the salient points were conveyed to you.

I would suggest that the article pertaining to Mr Benn has a sub clause added, so that if there is a change of government and president in Kalistan that we are free to approach said government and request extradition. I say this because I can imagine a right or centre right administration may see this situation rather differently.

Gillian Crabbe, Patriotic Party Foreign Affairs Spokesperson.

Ooc - re the nukes, i asked you and the arbitrator for some time to see if Baltusian players were up for agreeing to or even signing up to the role playing accord. Obviously this needs some time to discuss and debate and i have asked our nationmaster to instigate a vote. I suggest we just base any ic rp on conventional forces, leave our nuclear subs under the water for now and move on.
“I venture to suggest that patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

― AES II

Current party - Haruzuterēchisuku Refonpātī
stuntmonkey
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby jamescfm » Sat Aug 27, 2016 5:27 pm

Serhat Aslan:The idea of this conference was to agree terms, not to have you constantly moving backwards and forwards between Indrala and Baltusia. Suggestions of a civil war were admittedly hyperbolic but the point remains. The Treaty has been proposed and Baltusia now has to decide whether to ratify or not. If they ratify, the procedures outlined in the Treaty will come into effect. If they do not, Kalistan will match Baltusia by deploying troops along our border. Beyond that I have no further comment.

OOC: Whilst I understand that your aren't bound by the RP Accords, they are still suggestions about nations stature, economic power etc. I agree with Doc, we won't recognise these claims and we ask that if you intend to RP with Kalistan in future, you drop them. Cultural equivalents aren't necessarily the same as political or economic though, for example I believe there are three or four nations based on France but it would be unrealistic if they all possessed France's nuclear capability. This is obviously advice more than request but I would reiterate that Baltusia RP away their nukes at some point because they don't really add a lot to your game experience and it will make interaction with other nations easier.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby stuntmonkey » Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:55 am

OOC - Sure, and I agree with the point you are making. But it is not for me alone to say yes or no on the matter. I suggest, as you mentioned, we just put nukes to one side on this matter and concentrate on the treaty. I will try again following our upcoming election to take a vote on the Global RP Accord. Thanks.


IC - Bathsheba Grey -

As you are aware, Gillian Crabbe has resigned her position as Foreign Affairs Spokesperson for the Patriotic Party due to a diplomatic incident involving the Kalistani Assembly.She will play no further part in these talks.

Moving on, we cannot agree to this treaty unless the aforementioned sub clause about Karl Benn is added. However, you may also be aware that the President of Baltusia has quit politics – mid term – and her entire party has also quit Congress. Early elections are on the cards and so you may be dealing with a new administration soon. Until that point, Baltusian troops will remain on the Kalistani border until a new executive order is given to withdraw or an accord is agreed. As current Home Secretary I will keep channels open with Kalistan and ask that negotiations remain civil while our country decides its future direction.

Thank you.
“I venture to suggest that patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

― AES II

Current party - Haruzuterēchisuku Refonpātī
stuntmonkey
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby jamescfm » Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:51 pm

Serhat Aslan: Unfortunately, this shall be my last address to this conference. Elections loom in my home country and, as I have been re-elected Foreign Affairs Spokesperson and chosen as the party's new Deputy Leader, it is imperative that I return as soon as possible. It is clear that this conference has been a failure. I do not say that lightly and would like to apologise to all involved that I have not been able to conclude a deal.

However, I made it clear that if Baltusia did not sign the final proposal then the requisite consequence would be that Kalistani forces would be deployed along the Baltusian border. I bring with me several copies of a letter I received late last night informing me of developments at home. I invite all that remain to consider its contents.

To whom it may concern,

With Baltusia failing to accept a de-escalation and instead introducing conscription, I have no choice but to invite my Defence Minister to deploy troops along the Kalistan-Baltusia border. This should not be seen as an escalation but rather as Kalistan responding in the necessary way to a military build-up along its border. It is with great regret that I take this decision but I cannot allow my citizens to remain at risk of foreign invasion, I would be letting them down immensely. Personally, I remain hopeful that my successor might oversee a return to peace for our time.

Yours Faithfully,
F. Orlando


I bid good evening to all, farewell and good luck. May Akim watch over your souls.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Diplomacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests