Praetonia
28-05-2007, 21:58
This document has been compiled by and on behalf of His Majesty's Foreign & Commonwealth Office. Its purpose is to analyse the only treaty proposition concerning the recent "Operation Octopus" which has been signed by Hataria. In the case of this incompetently drafted document, this mainly entails the highlighting of its many flaws, loopholes and inconsistencies. Each clause shall be examined in turn.
The updated modified Treaty of the Second Age, which is fair to all sides.
Treaty of the Second Age
1) The Hatarian Army, Navy, and Air Force will be used for defensive actions only.
This clause is uncontentious, but does not set out any definition of what constitutes a defensive action, or where Hataria's ability to act would end in the eventuality of an allowable war. For instance, the treaty is ambiguous on whether Hataria would be legally able to counterattack in response to a hostile attack.
2) There will not be more then 60 million Hatarians in the whole Hatarian Military, which includes the Hatarian Army, Navy, and Air Force in total.
Aside from the poor grammar of this sentence, the allowance seems unjustifiably high given that the military allowed to Hataria is intended only as a defensive force. Allowing what amounts to almost one part in a hundred of the population under arms seems inconsistent with anything but a state intending to project it influence abroad.
3) The Hatarian Military will not have any weapons classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction, which is NBC weapons and weapons satellites to launch ‘Rods of Gods‘. Until the Lord Marshall clears the Hatarian Military to get those weapons.
Another poorly constructed sentence opening up another gaping rift of ambiguity, it is in this clause that we encounter the first of the bizarre allotments of power given to Dominion Commonwealth and, in particular, Translyvania. This despotism of dubious repute is a decidedly second-rate power but, more importantly, was an ally of Hataria during the war. What, then, is the purpose of imposing restrictions if they can be immediately and arbitrarily removed by the defeated party's militarist friends and allies? Having been brought to the table to sign what amounts to a conditional surrender, it seems strange to allow the humbled party - that is, the Dominion Commonwealth - special rights and privileges as if it were a conqueror.
4) The Hatarian Army will only be allowed no more than 200,000 tanks.
This clause is at least a grammatically correct sentence, but it fails to define what constitutes a "tank", allowing Hataria to simply administratively reclassify its ordnance in order to be compliant with what is arguably not even a realistic restriction, taking into account the huge allowance it gives.
5) The Hatarian Air Force will not have long range bombers or long range strike crafts because those aren’t used for defensive actions. Fighter-bombers can be used for defensive actions.
One wonders what was going through the mind of whoever drafting this document when he penned the phrase "long range strike crafts". This clause, yet again, fails to define any of the terms it uses, and the second sentence seems to simply issue a statement which could either be a justification or a further term of the treaty.
6) The Hatarian Navy can only be allowed one Superdreadnaught, ten carriers, no submarines that have the power to launch long range attacks and the rest naval vessels designed for defensive actions. That means anti-air cruisers can be part of the Hatarian Navy.
A recurring theme in this awful document, this clause yet again fails to define its terms and is therefore just as uselessly ambiguous as the one preceding it. The clause sets out no mechanism by which a ship may be classed as "offensive" or "defensive" and completely ignores the fact that in the present age of multiple missiles being compatible with the same launcher, the same "anti-air cruiser" could be transformed, within the course of a day, into a deadly vessel fully equipped for land attack. Even if we were to presuppose the existence of some mechanism for determining whether a craft is offensive or defensive, and presuppose this is even possible, the clause does not even determine how many "defensive" ships the Hatarian navy may possess.
Why does this clause not use the infinitely more precise and less ambiguous method of number and tonnage limits?
6A. The Hatarian Navy can one Superdreadnaught as a ship in that class can be used for defend action like the current Hood within the United Dominion Navy.
6B. The Hatarian Navy can ten carriers as they will be used to land fighters that patrol their waters for threats of pirates or hostile naval fleets.
This pair of incomprehensible sentences appears to simply restate parts of the previous clause, but such is the atrocious quality of the drafter's written English that it is impossible to tell for sure.
7) There will be not payment by the Second Empire of Hataria for reparations as they can’t currently do it. Their nation is only rebuilding with foreign aid and all of their money is going to the rebuilding and to pay for their defensive military.
We again encounter convoluted and poorly articulated justifications as part of the general body of the treaty, in this case for why the treaty is not imposing a restriction. The only purpose of this pointless clause appears to be to apologise for its own existence.
8) There will not be any changes to the Hatarian government. There is the Hatarian Emperor, the Great Khan, which is a Prime Minster that will be elected into office, and the Emperor’s council.
As far as it is possible to translate this sentence, it appears that the Hatarian government - which is of dubious democratic legitimacy - is to be fully retained. Although one is forced to wonder once more why a treaty includes entire clauses on what it is not going to regulate, it perplexes us even further why what is, ultimately, a surrender treaty is allowing the present government to remain completely unchanged.
9) There will be elections for Regional Governors of the provinces within the Second Empire. There will not be current military leaders as regional governors unless they have been born of noble blood or elected into the position.
The election of regional functionaries does not seem to us and important enough matter to deal with in a high-level international treaty, but even more confusingly this clause sets out a system of elected Governors and then specifically sets restrictions on certain people becoming Governors without being elected. Does the second sentence contradict the first, or is it merely redundant? This is perhaps a question to which we will never know the answer.
10) There will be elections for Mayors of the rebuild cities within the Second Empire.
This condition seems superfluous, but not objectionable further than it is inappropriate to set in stone the methods of local government in a treaty whose main purpose has no relevance to local government.
11) There will not be current military leaders as regional governors unless they have been born as a noble or elected into the position.
This clause appears to be a direct copy of clause 9, with no readily apparent purpose.
12) Within the Second Empire, there will not be mistreatment from the poor by those noble ones. There will not be slaves within the Second Empire.
Another bizarre and ambiguous clause, this does not define who is "poor", who is a "noble one" or what constitutes "mistreatment" (does this simply mean that the "noble ones" may not attack and steal from the "poor", or does it mandate a system of state-run social security?). The second sentence adds further confusion, as it is unclear whether its purpose is to define the previous, also ambiguous, sentence as meaning that slavery is banned, or if it is additional to the previous sentence.
13) This treaty will be a honorable an fair one and it will be treated as one by all sides.
The exact meaning and purpose of this clause eludes us.
14) The Ratifying members of this treaty will agree to aid in the rebuilding process of Hataria's Infrastructure and economic development, in exchange Hataria shall agree to have free and open trade between itself and the ratifying members of this treaty
This clause is also bizarre, as it seems to bind the victorious parties to give an undefined donative to the defeated party.
15) This treaty can be added on to at any time.
This clause is so ambiguous over such an important subject as to make the treaty worthless, or even dangerous. It does not set out any mechanism by which the treaty can be added on to, by whom, or what process must be undertaken for an addition to be accepted.
16) This treaty can only be called off by the Lord Marshall of the Dominion Commonwealth.
Again, it escapes our comprehension why the defeated party should have a special right to abandon the entire treaty at will. As the Dominion Commonwealth is an ally of Hataria, it is more than likely that it will abolish the treaty as soon as it comes into force.
16) If this treaty is broken by the Second Empire, it will be the duty of the United Dominion to drop the hammer on the current Hatarian regime. This is a Dominion Commonwealth problem and it will be treated as one, if the Second Empire breaks this treaty.
This clause uses bizarre language ("drop the hammer"? what precisely does this mean) and even more strangely seems to impart the responsibility for enforcing the treaty on the defeated party to the defeated party's friends and allies. This is a system so obviously flawed as to make us wonder if whoever drafted this treaty ever intended it to go any further than a planning stage.
We are still trying to hammer out what type of Superdreadnaught, carriers, and submarines will be allowed in the Hatarian Navy. Even figure out how many main battle tanks, light tanks and etc should be allowed in the Hatarian Army. Come on, people, we need to work this out and not issued unfair treaties like the Dephirian one or that bloody surrender treaty.
The strangest part of all, the treaty that has actually been signed by both the Dominion Commonwealth and Hataria openly admits that it is incomplete in extremely colloquial language.
For the less observant reader, we will now recap the key points of this treaty:
- The Hatarian military is subject to a number of incomplete and ambiguous restrictions, some of which may be immediately removed by Hataria's allies.
- The Hatarian government is to remain unchanged and military leaders who launched attacks on Blub civilians are not disqualified from holding public office, nor will they be brought to justice.
- Hataria is not obliged to pay any reparations.
- The governments of the victorious powers must pay a cash gift or tribute to Hataria, allegedly for "rebuilding".
- Hataria's allies may cancel the treaty in its entirety at any time.
- Hataria's allies are solely responsible for the enforcement of this treaty.
It is the opinion of His Majesty's Foreign & Commonwealth Office that not only are the terms of this treaty inexplicably skewed towards the humbled party, the restrictions it imposes are so ambiguous and the humbled party's friends and allies are given so much power to cancel them that it is not worth the paper it is written on.
It is not in the interest of any country, with the exception of Hataria and Transylvania, to sign this document.
The updated modified Treaty of the Second Age, which is fair to all sides.
Treaty of the Second Age
1) The Hatarian Army, Navy, and Air Force will be used for defensive actions only.
This clause is uncontentious, but does not set out any definition of what constitutes a defensive action, or where Hataria's ability to act would end in the eventuality of an allowable war. For instance, the treaty is ambiguous on whether Hataria would be legally able to counterattack in response to a hostile attack.
2) There will not be more then 60 million Hatarians in the whole Hatarian Military, which includes the Hatarian Army, Navy, and Air Force in total.
Aside from the poor grammar of this sentence, the allowance seems unjustifiably high given that the military allowed to Hataria is intended only as a defensive force. Allowing what amounts to almost one part in a hundred of the population under arms seems inconsistent with anything but a state intending to project it influence abroad.
3) The Hatarian Military will not have any weapons classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction, which is NBC weapons and weapons satellites to launch ‘Rods of Gods‘. Until the Lord Marshall clears the Hatarian Military to get those weapons.
Another poorly constructed sentence opening up another gaping rift of ambiguity, it is in this clause that we encounter the first of the bizarre allotments of power given to Dominion Commonwealth and, in particular, Translyvania. This despotism of dubious repute is a decidedly second-rate power but, more importantly, was an ally of Hataria during the war. What, then, is the purpose of imposing restrictions if they can be immediately and arbitrarily removed by the defeated party's militarist friends and allies? Having been brought to the table to sign what amounts to a conditional surrender, it seems strange to allow the humbled party - that is, the Dominion Commonwealth - special rights and privileges as if it were a conqueror.
4) The Hatarian Army will only be allowed no more than 200,000 tanks.
This clause is at least a grammatically correct sentence, but it fails to define what constitutes a "tank", allowing Hataria to simply administratively reclassify its ordnance in order to be compliant with what is arguably not even a realistic restriction, taking into account the huge allowance it gives.
5) The Hatarian Air Force will not have long range bombers or long range strike crafts because those aren’t used for defensive actions. Fighter-bombers can be used for defensive actions.
One wonders what was going through the mind of whoever drafting this document when he penned the phrase "long range strike crafts". This clause, yet again, fails to define any of the terms it uses, and the second sentence seems to simply issue a statement which could either be a justification or a further term of the treaty.
6) The Hatarian Navy can only be allowed one Superdreadnaught, ten carriers, no submarines that have the power to launch long range attacks and the rest naval vessels designed for defensive actions. That means anti-air cruisers can be part of the Hatarian Navy.
A recurring theme in this awful document, this clause yet again fails to define its terms and is therefore just as uselessly ambiguous as the one preceding it. The clause sets out no mechanism by which a ship may be classed as "offensive" or "defensive" and completely ignores the fact that in the present age of multiple missiles being compatible with the same launcher, the same "anti-air cruiser" could be transformed, within the course of a day, into a deadly vessel fully equipped for land attack. Even if we were to presuppose the existence of some mechanism for determining whether a craft is offensive or defensive, and presuppose this is even possible, the clause does not even determine how many "defensive" ships the Hatarian navy may possess.
Why does this clause not use the infinitely more precise and less ambiguous method of number and tonnage limits?
6A. The Hatarian Navy can one Superdreadnaught as a ship in that class can be used for defend action like the current Hood within the United Dominion Navy.
6B. The Hatarian Navy can ten carriers as they will be used to land fighters that patrol their waters for threats of pirates or hostile naval fleets.
This pair of incomprehensible sentences appears to simply restate parts of the previous clause, but such is the atrocious quality of the drafter's written English that it is impossible to tell for sure.
7) There will be not payment by the Second Empire of Hataria for reparations as they can’t currently do it. Their nation is only rebuilding with foreign aid and all of their money is going to the rebuilding and to pay for their defensive military.
We again encounter convoluted and poorly articulated justifications as part of the general body of the treaty, in this case for why the treaty is not imposing a restriction. The only purpose of this pointless clause appears to be to apologise for its own existence.
8) There will not be any changes to the Hatarian government. There is the Hatarian Emperor, the Great Khan, which is a Prime Minster that will be elected into office, and the Emperor’s council.
As far as it is possible to translate this sentence, it appears that the Hatarian government - which is of dubious democratic legitimacy - is to be fully retained. Although one is forced to wonder once more why a treaty includes entire clauses on what it is not going to regulate, it perplexes us even further why what is, ultimately, a surrender treaty is allowing the present government to remain completely unchanged.
9) There will be elections for Regional Governors of the provinces within the Second Empire. There will not be current military leaders as regional governors unless they have been born of noble blood or elected into the position.
The election of regional functionaries does not seem to us and important enough matter to deal with in a high-level international treaty, but even more confusingly this clause sets out a system of elected Governors and then specifically sets restrictions on certain people becoming Governors without being elected. Does the second sentence contradict the first, or is it merely redundant? This is perhaps a question to which we will never know the answer.
10) There will be elections for Mayors of the rebuild cities within the Second Empire.
This condition seems superfluous, but not objectionable further than it is inappropriate to set in stone the methods of local government in a treaty whose main purpose has no relevance to local government.
11) There will not be current military leaders as regional governors unless they have been born as a noble or elected into the position.
This clause appears to be a direct copy of clause 9, with no readily apparent purpose.
12) Within the Second Empire, there will not be mistreatment from the poor by those noble ones. There will not be slaves within the Second Empire.
Another bizarre and ambiguous clause, this does not define who is "poor", who is a "noble one" or what constitutes "mistreatment" (does this simply mean that the "noble ones" may not attack and steal from the "poor", or does it mandate a system of state-run social security?). The second sentence adds further confusion, as it is unclear whether its purpose is to define the previous, also ambiguous, sentence as meaning that slavery is banned, or if it is additional to the previous sentence.
13) This treaty will be a honorable an fair one and it will be treated as one by all sides.
The exact meaning and purpose of this clause eludes us.
14) The Ratifying members of this treaty will agree to aid in the rebuilding process of Hataria's Infrastructure and economic development, in exchange Hataria shall agree to have free and open trade between itself and the ratifying members of this treaty
This clause is also bizarre, as it seems to bind the victorious parties to give an undefined donative to the defeated party.
15) This treaty can be added on to at any time.
This clause is so ambiguous over such an important subject as to make the treaty worthless, or even dangerous. It does not set out any mechanism by which the treaty can be added on to, by whom, or what process must be undertaken for an addition to be accepted.
16) This treaty can only be called off by the Lord Marshall of the Dominion Commonwealth.
Again, it escapes our comprehension why the defeated party should have a special right to abandon the entire treaty at will. As the Dominion Commonwealth is an ally of Hataria, it is more than likely that it will abolish the treaty as soon as it comes into force.
16) If this treaty is broken by the Second Empire, it will be the duty of the United Dominion to drop the hammer on the current Hatarian regime. This is a Dominion Commonwealth problem and it will be treated as one, if the Second Empire breaks this treaty.
This clause uses bizarre language ("drop the hammer"? what precisely does this mean) and even more strangely seems to impart the responsibility for enforcing the treaty on the defeated party to the defeated party's friends and allies. This is a system so obviously flawed as to make us wonder if whoever drafted this treaty ever intended it to go any further than a planning stage.
We are still trying to hammer out what type of Superdreadnaught, carriers, and submarines will be allowed in the Hatarian Navy. Even figure out how many main battle tanks, light tanks and etc should be allowed in the Hatarian Army. Come on, people, we need to work this out and not issued unfair treaties like the Dephirian one or that bloody surrender treaty.
The strangest part of all, the treaty that has actually been signed by both the Dominion Commonwealth and Hataria openly admits that it is incomplete in extremely colloquial language.
For the less observant reader, we will now recap the key points of this treaty:
- The Hatarian military is subject to a number of incomplete and ambiguous restrictions, some of which may be immediately removed by Hataria's allies.
- The Hatarian government is to remain unchanged and military leaders who launched attacks on Blub civilians are not disqualified from holding public office, nor will they be brought to justice.
- Hataria is not obliged to pay any reparations.
- The governments of the victorious powers must pay a cash gift or tribute to Hataria, allegedly for "rebuilding".
- Hataria's allies may cancel the treaty in its entirety at any time.
- Hataria's allies are solely responsible for the enforcement of this treaty.
It is the opinion of His Majesty's Foreign & Commonwealth Office that not only are the terms of this treaty inexplicably skewed towards the humbled party, the restrictions it imposes are so ambiguous and the humbled party's friends and allies are given so much power to cancel them that it is not worth the paper it is written on.
It is not in the interest of any country, with the exception of Hataria and Transylvania, to sign this document.