NationStates Jolt Archive

"And so, I believe we should post an official condemnation of the Treaty of Rome."

"I agree, Mr. Ellisworth. We must not allow the Treaty of Rome to impinge upon our trade and power in the Mediterranean."

"Indeed, Mr. Green. However, it is more than that. It is directed at two nations - Incognitia and ourselves. Every other nation that is a signatory of the Treaty of Rome has been so in order to strengthen their control of the Mediterranean, and thus weaken our grasp on the sea. Incognitia, likewise, is not a signatory, and, having no naval access outside the Mediterranean, is vastly weakened."

Green smiled. He was the Admiral for the Mediterranean Fleet, and he was currently discussing the issue with Mr. Ellisworth, the Minister for Defence. The two had already put the proposal before the Imperial Cabinet, which was, in theory, only the Emperor himself, but in practice, many decisions were made by this unofficial, unlegislated body.

And they had received permission to go ahead. It was vital that they did so. Naval control of the English Channel was crucial to the defence of the Empire, however, the far larger exposed coastline of the Mediterranean part of the Empire had no such single point to defend. And this, of course, was why the Treaty of Rome was such a threat.

The message was sent, then. To each of the four nations involved in the Treaty.

Greetings. I, Mr. Ellisworth, Minister for Defence, write you this letter, and for a singular purpose. The Treaty of Rome represents a solid threat to Illar assets within the Mediterranean, and, furthermore, forces us to divert more forces from the north, thus bringing forth the consideration that we may close off the Gilbratar Strait. We are glad that you have not yet signed this treaty, and, as such, are willing to offer you a promise to preserve your indepedence, as well as, perhaps, a mutual-defense pact, in return for your promise not to sign this treaty.

- Mr. Ellisworth, Minister for Defence


Salutations. As Minister for Defence for the Illar Empire, the Treaty signed within Rome represents a threat to Illar interests within the Mediterranean. Should you continue to ratify this treaty, we must regretfully prevent your ships from travelling through the Gilbratar Strait, thus reducing the amount of trade your nation may receive by a significant amount. Any act of naval aggression against the Empire, furthermore, will be met with force.


We are currently concerned about your status as a signatory of the Treaty of Rome. After ratifying the mutual defense pact with your Kingdom, we are worried about your need to sign a pact that exists for no other reason than to restrict Illar interests in the Mediterranean, and force us to divert more forces from the north. Should you continue to ratify the Treaty of Rome, we will be forced to dissolve our mutual defense pact with you, and perhaps take more drastic measures, should you continue to work against Illar interests.

We are concerned about your status a member of the Treaty of Rome. Your membership restricts Illar interests in the Mediterranean, and gives us due cause to worry about your national intent. We could, perhaps, offer you a mutual-defense pact, including free passage through the Gilbratar Strait, in return for the nullification of your part in the Treaty of Rome.

The Treaty of Rome, it seems, represents a threat to both of our nations. Your naval assets and interests are solely in the Mediterranean, and this pact seems to restrict your power as much as possible, and, no doubt, your trade. We would be willing to sign a treaty displaying our intent to aid you, should you go to war against the Balkan Empire, or New Roman Empire, should they continue on with this treaty.

There. The letters were done, transmitted by telegram to Illar diplomatic embassies, who then lovingly wrote them into 'proper' English, in order to deliver them personally to the governments of the various nations they were to pressure...

The New Roman Empire would like to inquire how this loosens your grasp on the Mediterranean? It does not impose tarrifs on non members, just reduces them in signatorie's ports and facilities.

The Byzantium League replies, informing Illar that there is nothnig impeding their trade in the Meditteranean, the signatories of the Treaty of Rome are working together to facilitate peace and fiar trade in their area. Nothing is preventing Illar from trading in the area.

OOC: Uhhh.. I'm not entirely sure where you whisked trade out of, but I'm not a'talkin' about trade.

We did not speak of trade, but, rather, of military concerns. The Treaty of Rome represents a threat to Illar defense in the area, and thus requires us to keep more of our navy to the south. However, since you seem intent on keeping this threat to Illar security whole, we must regretfully inform you that ships bound for the New Roman Empire may no longer pass through the Gilbratar Strait, whether they be military or otherwise. Furthermore, any act of aggression against Illar ships within international waters will be met with force.

We are not overly concerned with trade, but, rather, the military implications of this treaty. Illar security requires that no unified power present a threat to our more vulnerable Mediterranean coastline, and, thus, should you continue to ratify the Treaty of Rome, we must treat you as a nation with hostile intent, and act accordingly.

Letter to all nations and countries concerned
The New Prussian Confederacy advises their new allies, the New Roman
Empire, to remain calm, and strengthen their land trade routes. War would be
undesirable, death is not a neccesity. Also the new Tunisian air transport
allows us to be more open minded when it comes to trade. We again, beg
you, to not initiate war with the Illar Empire. Blood dosn't need to be spilt.

As written and delivered by a missi convoy Illar ~

Why does Illar not just sign the Treaty and be on an equal basis, rather than take a course of blockade and war mongering. This treaty is not designed as an offensive alliance, it is to improve efficiency of trade amongst it's signatories.

The Conference would not be against entering into bilateral trade agreements with Illar, even if it does not wish to be a signatory to the treaty of Rome.

The Conference would like to state it's cordial and calm relations with Illar, and our general beneficence in our proposed continuance.

----------

We would also like to invite the Illar Empire to a state visit this spring or summer, where we can discus matters in more detail about any concerns pertaining to trading rights that Illar feels are being deprived to it, as the Conference has not been made aware, but through channels has learned of some disconnent on the part of Illar.


Dominique Harldroh, Miisi to Western Europe
X.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It seems we have heard from our friends in Illar. We were concerned ourselves at this Treaty of Rome, were we not?"
"Yes indeed."
The scene: a smokey gentlemens' club, in a private annex. Comfortable leather chairs. Port and/or brandy consumed after dinner in a leisurely way.
Here were to be found many of the power-brokers of Incognitian politics, and any decision reached tonight would likely be acted upon by the government tomorrow.

"Well, what do we do? We have generally been more concerned at the Illar attitude than anything the other lot do."
"However it has never come to conflict between us."
"True, even if we've been close. But you do have a point; we are not foes of Illar."
"Perhaps we should accept. Make it publicly known that we find this Treaty of Rome threatening, and that we will co-operate closely with Illar in preventing the continuation of this pernicious treaty. We may well find ourselves at war with either of the Balkans or Romans in any case; why not have assistance?"
This met with a soft murmur of general agreement.
"And perhaps...we should approach the Salo Republic. They might be able to help us further."
"That will require further consideration. Nevertheless, the Foreign Office will be appropriately instructed tomorrow."

As expected, a communique went to the Incognitian embassy in Illar, and was delivered, the following morning.
We too have watched this Treaty of Rome with concern. As a result we are prepared to accept your kind offer of a treaty of assistance. We will make representations to the signatories, and be in close communication with you should the Treaty remain.

To: The Illar Empire

Why do you feel threatened by a defensive alliance in the Eastern Mediterranean? Our interests lie in protecting the Eastern part of this sea, not going near the Western Part, where the Ilar Empire is.

This took slightly longer, but a suitable communication was written for the New Roman Empire, Byzantines and Greeks.

To: The New Roman Empire, Byzantium League, Balkan Empire

We understand that the Illarians have already expressed concern at the Treaty of Rome; we would like to make it clear that we too are opposed to the 'defence' clause of this pact, and while we are ever supportive of free trade and friendship, the Treaty of Rome is ill-concealed aggression.
Consider this: you ask who is threatened by a mutual defence pact? We ask who threatens YOU, that you require one.
At present the answer appears to be ourselves, Illar, and some of the smaller states of the Mediterranean, such as the Lycurgans. The fact that you consider either Incognitia or Illar a threat speaks ill of your intent, and sets us against the Treaty of Rome.
We beg of you to reconsider.

Th Byzantium League replies by informing Incognita that the defense clause is to deter future agressors, no matter who they may be, from sundering our lands and slaughtering many people. We also ask why you see yourselves as a threat to us, we have no want a quarrel with your nation.

A defence pact does not exist without a threat to defend against. Your nations must therefore consider that there is a threat, to have agreed a mutual defence pact.
Since the only nations that could possibly be considered a threat to the signatories of the Treaty of Rome are Incognitia and Illar, that clearly means you consider one or both of us as a threat.
The certain knowledge that you consider us a threat, we can reasonably consider to be hostile action on your part.
Thus you are the one picking a quarrel, since your nations are the ones preparing for war; while we look on in concern.

King James III of Bautzen, and the nations Prime Minister, and Foreign Minister have a letter drawn up to be sent to the Byzantium Leage, it reads the following:

"To my Great Byzantine counterpart,
I, King James III, of the Majestic Kingdom of Bautzen, feel that I must inform you that the current political climate in Bautzen is against signing the Treaty of Rome. I, myself, must admit, that I have wondered what threat you believe our fellow nations in Eastern, and Southern Europe are currently facing, as we have detected no ill will from any other nations. While we are flattered by your offer, it simply seems unesscessary and I and my Ministers believe that Bautzens best interests currently lie in not signing the Treaty of Rome. I hope that our great nations may continue to live side by side in peace, and understanding; perhaps one day, my friend, but, alas, today is not that day.
Your Friend and Fellow Ruler,
~King James III of Bautzen, by the Grace of God King of the Majestic Kingdom of Bautzen"

The Byzantium League replies that a defense treaty does not signify a threat, a treaty promising defense against a certain nation signifies that you believe a certain nation is a threat, whereas a mutual defense treaty, promising to come to the aid of your fellow nations in their defense signifies you are willing to assist other nations near you to help them , nothing more.

The Byzantium League replies that a defense treaty does not signify a threat, a treaty promising defense against a certain nation signifies that you believe a certain nation is a threat, whereas a mutual defense treaty, promising to come to the aid of your fellow nations in their defense signifies you are willing to assist other nations near you to help them , nothing more.

But why would you sign a binding treaty, I wonder, if you did not consider there to be some kind of threat.

OOC: Its called a bad pretense, and if I were to publicly use it to justify it the opposition would have a fit (The Conservatives, and at times the Socialists in the current government, will have more on that in my factbook...eventually).

But why would you sign a binding treaty, I wonder, if you did not consider there to be some kind of threat.

OOC: Its called a bad pretense, and if I were to publicly use it to justify it the opposition would have a fit (The Conservatives, and at times the Socialists in the current government, will have more on that in my factbook...eventually).

We believe there may be a threat sometime, the treaty is to provide assistance to all memebr nations. The Treaty is also useful to deter nations from seeking agression against the signatoriesof the treaty of Rome.

We believe there may be a threat sometime, the treaty is to provide assistance to all memebr nations. The Treaty is also useful to deter nations from seeking agression against the signatoriesof the treaty of Rome.

OOC: Ah, by forming alliances to counter a larger nation who has done nothing to you (yet) you hope to deter him... Right, so now your making the conflict larger by causing hime to seek allies.

IC: The answer remains no. I am sorry, my friend, and I hope that our two great nations can continue to remain friends.

OOC: Ah, by forming alliances to counter a larger nation who has done nothing to you (yet) you hope to deter him... Right, so now your making the conflict larger by causing hime to seek allies.

IC: The answer remains no. I am sorry, my friend, and I hope that our two great nations can continue to remain friends.

We ask then, why you see us as a threat to you by entering the alliance you did with Incognita?

OOC: a number of nations banded togetehr causes him to think twice.

We ask then, why you see us as a threat to you by entering the alliance you did with Incognita?

OOC: a number of nations banded togetehr causes him to think twice.

I have not stated that I have entered the alliance with Incognita, any mutual defence treaty has to go through the Parliament. While there is a good chance it will go through, as of right now, it is not certain as I need to consider this carefully. As I dont want it to seem as though I am threatening by possibly accepting this defensive alliance.

We have offered a treaty to Bautzen for the simple reason that our government sees war brewing; among other threats to our security is combined action by the Treaty-States; and all it takes is a manufactured pretext to turn an offensive action into one of 'mutual defence'.
In response to this threat we wish to feel secure on our southern frontier, and believe an agreement with Bautzen will aid this significantly.
We have specified the Treaty of Rome so as not to drag Bautzen unwillingly into any of the other conflicts in which we may become engaged. We hope but do not expect to avoid war entirely, and with you specifically it is likely that we may avoid conflict with the Treaty-States if you are prepared to be reasonable.
However long experience with foreign governments leaves us unwilling to rely on the reasonableness of a military pact that borders our nation, so we have made other arrangements.
We now await the outcome of Bautzen's due constitutional process in considering our offer.

I have not stated that I have entered the alliance with Incognita, any mutual defence treaty has to go through the Parliament. While there is a good chance it will go through, as of right now, it is not certain as I need to consider this carefully. As I dont want it to seem as though I am threatening by possibly accepting this defensive alliance.

As has been repeatedly stated, we wish no quarrel with either nations, but you seem to percieve a threat where there is one, despite invitations to both your nations to join us.

To Bautzen: We find it odd that you percieve our treaty as threatening if there is no threat, while you are prepared to sign a treaty essentially declaring us agressors, when we have not done anything of the sort.

As has been repeatedly stated, we wish no quarrel with either nations, but you seem to percieve a threat where there is one, despite invitations to both your nations to join us.

To Bautzen: We find it odd that you percieve our treaty as threatening if there is no threat, while you are prepared to sign a treaty essentially declaring us agressors, when we have not done anything of the sort.

Perhaps we would prefer a treaty with Incognitia, as it ties us to them only in the event of a declaration of war by a signatory of the treaty of Rome. As opposed to committing ourselves to assist in the defence of all signatory members. We do not percieve a threat, this treaty merely gives us a smaller risk of war; especially if you have no designs on Incognitan territory.

Perhaps we would prefer a treaty with Incognitia, as it ties us to them only in the event of a declaration of war by a signatory of the treaty of Rome. As opposed to committing ourselves to assist in the defence of all signatory members. We do not percieve a threat, this treaty merely gives us a smaller risk of war; especially if you have no designs on Incognitan territory.

Then why be bound to such a treaty in the first place, particularly if Incognita has repeatedly attacked the Treaty of Rome and is prepared to drag other nations into the fight?

Then why be bound to such a treaty in the first place, particularly if Incognita has repeatedly attacked the Treaty of Rome and is prepared to drag other nations into the fight?

For the singular purpose of having an ally close to home. While we hope that there are none who look upon Bautzen with greedy eyes it never hurts to have your security gaurunteed, without any strings attached.

Then why be bound to such a treaty in the first place, particularly if Incognita has repeatedly attacked the Treaty of Rome and is prepared to drag other nations into the fight?

Sophistry, my dear sir. We have attacked verbally the Treaty of Rome. We have no intention of actually attacking the Treaty-States.
We are quite prepared to 'drag' other nations into the debate; and are more than willing to gather allies in case the Treaty-States attack us.

With a deal with Bautzen, and a tabled offer from Illar of a defence pact in case of invasion by the Treaty-States, which is admittedly yet to be formally negotiated, we are now satisfied that we have sufficient power to stop you in your tracks even if we are committed heavily elsewhere. As a result we issue one last call for you to re-shape the Treaty of Rome, and will henceforth ignore all further spoutings by your government on the subject, until you see reason of your own accord.

For the singular purpose of having an ally close to home. While we hope that there are none who look upon Bautzen with greedy eyes it never hurts to have your security gaurunteed, without any strings attached.

We note that the treaty of Rome has no "strings" attached, and we are just as close as Incognita is.

We note that the treaty of Rome has no "strings" attached, and we are just as close as Incognita is.

OOC: *Sigh* This is getting us nowhere.

IC: I chose my words poorly, when I referred to there being strings attached I meant that I would have fewer obligations to fulfill. My point is that it gives me an ally to assist in my defence while, at the same time, holding me to very little in the way of obligations.

OOC: *Sigh* This is getting us nowhere.

IC: I chose my words poorly, when I referred to there being strings attached I meant that I would have fewer obligations to fulfill. My point is that it gives me an ally to assist in my defence while, at the same time, holding me to very little in the way of obligations.

The Byzantium League notes these "obligatins" include fre acces to every other member nations ports, and more trade. However, as this debate is pointless, the Byzantium League will not discuss this matter further.