|
Post by Nathan on Dec 13, 2005 18:06:47 GMT -6
An alternative to the United Confederation... What we have in the UC is basically an attempt to counter-balance the large-ness of the GC... but it will be a weak union under the current set up, riddled with needless bureacracy that will only slow it down. What we need is something similar to the Concert of Europe... basically a loose understanding among all the European powers in the 19th century that no one state should dominate Europe. There was no government in the Concert of Europe, but decisions relied on European heads of state meeting in various congresses time to time to discuss matters of important foreign concern.
I propose a similar set up instead of the United Confederation. Everytime a need arises, leaders will meet to discuss and decide that topic alone. It will be more an avenue to open discussion... something that will be appealing to other larger, more influential nations that would be wary of joining the UC... a VUAS or GC bastard child in most eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Mr F Wombat on Dec 13, 2005 18:49:53 GMT -6
Pardon my ignorance, Emperor Nathan, but until now I had not heard of the UC. Where can I find its Charter or website?
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 13, 2005 18:59:40 GMT -6
It is still being discussed in the main Convention Hall (just click "Lindstrom Convention Hall" on the main forum page).
It is intended to be a GC-like union between Natopia, Alrodria, and Sullifree (and possibly Aryez). I have recently, however, decided to withdraw Natopia from the UC talks.
|
|
|
Post by Carson Smith on Dec 13, 2005 20:49:47 GMT -6
I can say that I do not think such a thing interests Ronen at the time. We intend to remain neutral in these conflicts between the Grand Commonwealth and other nations and to be honest with you, we consider ourselves a bit above such things.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 13, 2005 21:10:42 GMT -6
These talks have nothing to do with the UC.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Dec 13, 2005 23:00:21 GMT -6
"and to be honest with you, we consider ourselves a bit above such things."
Thanks so much on your fine compliment of Sullifree! I am so happy you think we are "below" you simply because the GC decided to bully us!
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Dec 13, 2005 23:02:11 GMT -6
And I like the idea, but only as an addition to the UC. I REALLY like the UC right now, I think the UC is a fantastic way to go about things as we show micronationalism we have one voice without losing much power at all. I will really be ticked if the hard work I put into the UC fails.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 13, 2005 23:15:58 GMT -6
The UC can certainly go on with Alrodria, Sullifree and Aryez.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Dec 13, 2005 23:29:39 GMT -6
Almost pointless. As much as I hate to admit it, Natopia was the only really necessary member. Aldrodria has one citizen. Sullifree has been reduced to one EXTREMELY active citizen. Aryez has two, and still has very little activity.
|
|
|
Post by Carson Smith on Dec 14, 2005 4:46:09 GMT -6
Grand Prince Brian, I am sorry that you have once again taken offense from me where none was meant. However, my comment was not directed at any specific nation, but rather at the idea of recwarring and forum attacks as a whole. Ronen takes itself very seriously and simply maintains stringent forum security instead and does not participate in the M.C.S. or recwar leagues so as not to involve itself in such things which run against its fundamental goals. We do not consider ourselves any better than nations that do such things, though.
|
|
|
Post by Mr F Wombat on Dec 14, 2005 5:52:00 GMT -6
Having now read the UC discussions, I see the sort of thing you don't want. The question now, though, is what you do want.
What you're describing is basically the Balance of Power, yes? That sort of thing relies on a lack of legislation, a sort of nod-and-wink relationship between the heads of state and of government of various different nations. If you regulate it, it becomes like the UC. Enforced friendship doesn't work so well.
Part of the "Concert of Europe" was a sort of schoolyard thing. If, say, France wanted to bully Germany, or vice versa, then they got Spain and Italy on their side, and forced the other to capitulate to whatever demands they have. The EU, in contrast, allows everyone to have a representative voice, allows issues to be heard from smaller, perhaps less influential nations, other than the big powerful few.
Would alliances be enforced, for another thing? Aryez asked if nations would be made ally with each other under the UC. As far as I could make out, alliance was provided for anyway, if it wasn't a prerequisite. You can talk all you like about like-minded nations, and so forth, and I suppose if they shared a foreign concern they would be somewhat allied, but in this "Concert of Micras" who would conduct? Who would play first fiddle? Who would be stuck playing the cymbals? Whose needs and wants would come first? In an informal relationship like the one I think you're suggesting, with minimal (if any) legislation binding it, it'd be hard to distinguish it from any other kind of intermicronational behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by olorix on Dec 14, 2005 20:11:34 GMT -6
Well, the Grand Commonwealth are not the sole tyrants of the micronational world. It's easy to forget that, which is why I disagree with the idea of forming an organisation formed soley to oppose them. As I mentioned in my other post, I think we should instead aim for a grouping of nations who are not traditionally very powerful, and thus give a strong united voice to a multitude of smaller nations that are trodden over by the historic powers.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Dec 14, 2005 21:06:37 GMT -6
Neither the UC or this was intended solely for that purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 14, 2005 22:11:44 GMT -6
Indeed, with all due respect to Shireroth, they need as much, if not more balancing as the GC. I've made a seperate topic to discuss the superpower question and proposed what will hopefully be a compromise. I think the actual text of the Lindstrom Pact will be concise, non-binding, and vague. Merely stating some basic goals and protocols for calling a congress. Each congress can establish its own protocols when they are called, as, if my superpower compromise is used, not all nations signing the pact will go to every congress... so each congress may need different protocols. I beleive it will be more a statement, than anything like: "hey, we all have differences, but we'lll talk them out. and we're not a YAMO"
|
|
|
Post by Mr F Wombat on Dec 15, 2005 7:41:48 GMT -6
Well how can you hope for balance if you don't invite the GC to such discussions? It would be like people grouping together to invent a fantastical new remote control, without any of them owning a television, if you'll excuse the metaphor.
As I've said in the superpowers thread, and I'm sorry to drag topics across threads, I don't know that it's necessarily very fair or wise to have specific congresses. Such things could build intrigue and resentment. Plus, if we have a congress of small and medium nations, with the "superpowers" getting left out altogether, how easily will the resolution made by the congress fare when it's re-introduced into Macro-Micras? Far better, in my opinion, to have one delegate from each nation present at all congresses, in order to give their opinion, or to propose something new, as they wish.
Incidentally, unless we were aiming for a true Non-Aligned Movement, which would be a very admirable but difficult effort, since it seems to me that the default instrument of micronational diplomacy is the "peace and alliance in a can" treaty, then I see no reason why the United Confederation idea could not co-exist with the Lindstrom Pact, unless Natopia is really opposed to the UC after helping engineer it.
|
|