We've been offered the chance to enter into a Defence Pact with the SP. I'm just letting the public know about it now. It will be discussed by Cabinet next week.

A few issues of fairly major concern have been identified with the document by myself and others that have seen it already.

There have been other issues raised as to whether we even want to enter into any formal alliances, given the size of our region, and the fact we are still getting our own house in order.

However, As citizens you all have the right to express your views as well so that Cabinet knows where the general population stands.

Feel free to PM me with your views or post them here.

----

Defensive Alliance Treaty of The South Pacific and Canada

Proposed this third day of February 2004.

Article I. Purpose and parties to the agreement

Section 1.01 This treaty details the rights and obligations of the named Regions regarding the temporary furnishing of UN nation endorsements to defend the parties in the event of outside aggression.

Section 1.02 Parties to this treaty are the Government of the South Pacific region (The South Pacific), and the Government of Canada (Canada).

Section 1.03 a) The South Pacific acknowledges the Canadian system of government, in place on the date of the signing of this treaty, as being legitimate and representative of the people of Canada;

Canada acknowledges The South Pacific system of government, in place on the date of the signing of this treaty, as being legitimate and representative of the people of the people of The South Pacific.

Section 1.04 This treaty will be nullified upon any change to the government(s) defined in Article I, Section 1.03 (a) and (; such changes to be defined as (a) the overthrow of said government(s), or ( the removal of the majority of elected office holders in said government(s), through means that violate the established laws and precedents established by the parties to this treaty.

Article II. Obligations

Section 2.01 a) This treaty may only be invoked by a party to the treaty enduring aggression. Aggression is defined as (a) a nation, nations, region, or regions attempting to subvert the governments as defined in Section 1.03 (a) and (;

Aggression against either party that may be reasonably construed as being caused by or following from aggressive acts undertaken by a party to this treaty will not be sufficient to activate this treaty.

Section 2.02 Parties to this treaty, upon fulfillment of the conditions defined in Section 2.01, agree to furnish no less than ten (10) UN nations for the purpose of endorsing the regional Delegate of the party enduring aggression, upon the request of the government of either party to this treaty.

Section 2.03 UN nations defined in Section 2.02 must immigrate within twenty four (24) hours to the party enduring aggression and take necessary steps to defend the government(s) defined in Section 1.02

Section 2.04 UN nations defined in Section 2.02 must comply with Section 2.03 until the party enduring aggression declares the aggression to have been repulsed, or until twenty (20) days have passed since this treaty was activated.

Section 2.05 Following a second request for the activation of this treaty in any thirty (30) day period by either party, either party may refuse to activate the treaty.

Article III. Implementation, amendment, and duration

Section 3.01 This treaty goes into effect immediately upon the agreement between the parties, as defined in Section 1.02, via telegram/email/personal message; copies of such messages to be publicly displayed by both parties

Section 3.02 This treaty is in abeyance upon the violation of terms of the treaty by either party.

Section 3.03 Either party may, without prejudice, withdraw from this treaty upon serving written notice to the governments of both parties; withdrawal to take effect seven (7) days following the serving of such notice.

Section 3.04 Amendments to this treaty may be made upon the agreement of both parties.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized by the Government, and in recognition of the authority delegated to them by the peoples of the South Pacific, do sign this document.

DONE this [DATE] day of [MONTH], two thousand and four.

[NAME] [NAME]
Delegate of the South Pacific Delegate of Canada

[NAME] [NAME]
Secretary for Foreign Affairs Secretary for Foreign Affairs
of The South Pacific of Canada

After a quick read through the proposed treaty one issue that comes up will be the furnishing of 10 UN nations to support the UN Delegate. For the SP that is fine however at last check our UN Delegate had 58 Endorsements. Most likely the nations that would respond would be an endorser of our delegate. That is assuming everyone is playing by the rules and only has one UN Nation. That would leave our delegate with only 48 endorsements. That could potentially leave us vulnerable.

Whatever we do we would have to check our own situation first.

One suggestion could be to have a group of nations under the D of W that do not provide an endorsement to our delegate but could endorse the delegate if nessesary or provide assistance to another region that needs our help.

IMHO on the surface the above treaty seems to lean in favour of the SP.

I look forward to hearing everyones comments.

Micon

I would recommend that Canada develop a role in the international community as a peace broker not as a military force. The actions and role that Bweezy took in Alberta are a sound model for Canada to continue to follow.

I definitely agree

The phrase "can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" springs to mind.

Ten UN Nations is a lot in the situation that Micon suggests. However, we need to know that ten or more nations would be happy to put this effort into going to the aid of the SP.

Whether we agree or dissagree as a whole, its academic, unless we can get people to do it. Is this feasible?

We will only be able to know of our abilities to commit assets (i.e. UN Nations) once the Dogs of War concept is up and running with an active membership.

Until such time, its hard for us to even guarantee one nation. I mean, if no one wants to go, we can't force them.

Perhaps we should shelve such an alliance until we get the DoW up and running. When we have a committed troupe of DoW nations, then such alliances are workable. Until then, we can't do a whole lot.

This region has come a long way, but we may still have a ways to go before we can contribute militarily in any guaranteed way.

It is my hope the the DoW is used as peace keepers and not as counter-invaders.

Well, its mission statement is a "freedom fighting force" committed to returning democracy to oppressed regions. That's all I know about it.

I sure would like to know how other members of the region feel about Canada playing army. Maybe we could set up a poll on that subject once the RA has had a chance to spark more life into the forum.

Peace Keeping may involve military force at times however, it would be preferable to try for a diplomatic solution first.

As has been noted, 10 nations is a fairly large commitment at this time, perhaps an ammendment to "10 but, no more than 10% of our UN nations" should be suggested. Also, how many UN nations do we have that have no endorsed the delegate? (I.E. how many UN nations are there in Canada?)

I have some ideas for the formattion of a "Rapid Intervention Force" that I'll share with the Defense Minister after the election.

I have taken the concerns I see here to the SP and section 2.03 concerning the 10 nation minimum is currently under discussion. During the ongoing discussions, I have publically stated my preference for a wording change to "uncommitted available forces" that would allow for the realities of the situation to dictate each region's response instead of a mandated minimum that could jepordize the supporting region. I feel like its part of my role to keep information current on both ends, but also advocate in both forums.

Peace

PoJ - I like the wording, it means there is less pressure involved in being a part of the agreement.

I think everyone was concerned with it ruining our own defence capability.

HB - Good Idea!!! I think before we go on and resurrect the DoW we should really put the vote to public. Even though this was discussed as part of the election campaign we should make sure that it goes to at least the cabinet.