NationStates Jolt Archive

THE GLOBAL DEFENCE INITIATIVE [GDI]
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f16/MattShipwrighter/GDI.png


The Global Defence Initiative, from now on referred to as the GDI and its members shall strive to maintain and defend democracy and the rights and liberties of all humans. The GDI is a mutual defence alliance with belief in democracy through freedom, liberty, and the independence of sovereign nations.
Every member of the GDI vows upon confirmation of membership, to strive to protect the rights and liberties of all humans, to protect democracy if it is danger and to strive to halt genocide around the globe.

To join the GDI a nation must have a democratic system, and must have the first five basic freedoms, whilst nations should at least seek to meet the 6th criteria:

1.) Freedom of Speech
2.) Freedom of Demonstration
3.) Freedom of the Press
4.) Freedom of Assembly
5.) Freedom of Religion
6.) Freedom of Property

The definitions for these terms are listed below.

Democracy:
Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens of the state wield political power; through either direct or representative democracy by which citizens “rule by the many” through regular and fair elections; and thereby have the right to elect the head of government and whereby an unelected head of state does not hold absolute power.

Freedom of Speech:
Every citizen and/or permanent resident shall have the legal right to possess and express his or her own opinions regardless of the nature of the subject of those views, the nature of the views themselves or the nature, gender, position, creed or any other characteristic of the citizen or the permanent resident.

Freedom of Demonstration:
Every citizen and/or permanent resident shall have the legal right to assemble freely in groups for political or other reasons, and to express their opinions through demonstration.
This right to does not extend to such activities as rioting, rebellion, armed demonstrations or other activities in which humans are exposed to unnecessary danger for political goals.

Freedom of the Press:
There shall be no bar to the free and unhindered publication of newspapers or other media outlets, nor shall there be any bar to the free and unhindered establishment of new media outlets or information sources. There shall be no law restricting the information available the public.
This does not apply in cases where the publication of certain information may place the citizens of a state in grave danger, such as publication of military or state secrets, the identity of intelligence servicemen or people legally living under assumed identity or similar.
Nor does it apply in cases where the publication of certain information is in violation to the restrictions placed upon the Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Assembly:
There shall be no bar to the free and unhindered assembly of groups of citizens and/or permanent residents for social reasons or other.
This does not apply in cases where the assembling of certain individuals would place the nation in grave danger, such as terrorist organizations and similar.

Freedom of Religion:
No man may be prosecuted or discriminated against on account of his religion or lack thereof. No law shall be made restricting the freedom of, and from, religion.
This does not apply in cases where the exercise of a religion is deemed harmful to the individual or society as a whole, such as ritual sacrifice or collective suicide; nor is it intended to protect the activities of cults or other religious organizations in which the individual member may not be in total control of his or her own person.

Freedom of Property:
No man or woman shall have his or her property illegally seized by the government or other similar organization of any nation for arbitrary reasons. This property includes, but is not limited to: his or her nationality, his or her permanent residence or citizenship, his or her personal property, his or her source of income or his or her wealth.
No man or woman shall be deported from, exiled from or denied entry into a state without clear and just motivation, and the informing of the concerned persons of the reasons and effects of this decision.

Guidelines of the GDI

Tribunal:
The two founding members of the GDI shall if the need arise form a Tribunal together with three other members. These three members shall be selected by the founding members.

Intervention:
Members and nonmembers of the GDI shall have the right to petition the GDI to intervene in a conflict that the state considers genocidal, a danger to democracy, a crime against humanity or otherwise in conflict with the ideals of the GDI.
A petition shall be voted upon by the members of the GDI, though nations are not punished or penalized for abstaining from voting. The outcome of the vote will decide whether any action by the GDI shall be undertaken, though the founding members of the GDI shall have the right to prevent any members of the GDI to intervene. Such prevention can be vetoed upon by a 70% majority of the active members.
If the voters decide that an intervention shall be attempted, the Tribunal will ask a number of voluntary nations to contribute in a way that the Tribunal sees fit.
If the voters decide that an intervention shall not be attempted by the GDI, no action may be undertaken by any nation claiming to represent the GDI. This does not in any way stop nations from undertaking actions independently,

War between GDI members:
The GDI does not wish for infighting, as it weakens not only the nations involved, but also severely undermines the authority and credibility of the GDI as a whole.
If however any member finds itself waging war against another member, both shall stand trial before the Tribunal. The Tribunal will decide if and how to penalize the nations involved.
Instead of waging war against other members, the leadership of the GDI wishes for its members to solve their differences peacefully and diplomatically. If no such solution is deemed possible, the leadership of the GDI wishes that the involved parties make a formal petition to the Tribunal to mediate.

War between a member and a non-member:
In the event of war between a member of the GDI and an unassociated nation, any member of the GDI can call for a vote to decide whether the warring member shall receive aid from the GDI. This vote is made in the same way and fashion as regular interventions.

The GDI membership list

Questers [Founder]
Hotdogs2 [Co-Founder]
-----------
Adamta
Adaptus Astrates
Aequatio
Allanea
Anglad
Aralonia
Aunesia
British Londinium
Calizorinstan
Caseus Vatisicus
Clandonia Prime
CoallitionOfTheWilling
Dounreay
Flightopia
Franberry
Groznyj
Hamily
Independent Hitmen
Ironwell
Lanzanor
Leocardia
Mondoth
O Boyce
Relative Liberty [Blackwood]
Segamu
Shalrirorchia
Spizania
Stevid
The PeoplesFreedom
Velkya
Veritasburg

Officially inactive
None

Pending
Laquasa Isle
The Fedral Union

Ex-members
Cravan

Bump.

Anyone have any opinions?

OOC:
Democracy should be defined, and the obligations of every signatory should be more specific. All five of the required freedoms should be specified in more detail.
''The GDI also pledges to defend democracy if it is in danger; acting also as an anti genocide unit that will forcefully halt genocide and the persecution of ethnic or religious groups if necessary'' should be expanded upon. Who will decide which events constitue genocide and which don't? Who will decide what kind of mission to embark upon, and what kind of force is needed? Are all members required to send peace keeping forces, or is it enough if they express their ''support'' for the actions taken by other GDI members? If it isn't, will they be punished, and if so, how will they be punished?
'Tis just my initial reaction. I'll get back to you sometime when it isn't eleven PM.

OOC:
Democracy should be defined, and the obligations of every signatory should be more specific. All five of the required freedoms should be specified in more detail.
''The GDI also pledges to defend democracy if it is in danger; acting also as an anti genocide unit that will forcefully halt genocide and the persecution of ethnic or religious groups if necessary'' should be expanded upon. Who will decide which events constitue genocide and which don't? Who will decide what kind of mission to embark upon, and what kind of force is needed? Are all members required to send peace keeping forces, or is it enough if they express their ''support'' for the actions taken by other GDI members? If it isn't, will they be punished, and if so, how will they be punished?
'Tis just my initial reaction. I'll get back to you sometime when it isn't eleven PM.

Thanks for the info, i'd added like one sentence to it but no more (the bit about not attacking each other), main reason was in fact so i could update it myself rather than having to get questers to do it.

Your ideas sound good and i'll look to include those suggestions in an update which can be ratified by the embers, should get more people involved in decisions, which in turn increases interest as its not just "their alliance", its "my" alliance.

Leocardia is still waiting for its acception.

Leocardia is still waiting for its acception.

Leocardia has been accepted to the GDI. Welcome and i hope we can see greater co-operation between our nations.

United States Of the Federal union state department:
Our country is expressing grate interest in joining this alliance and would be honored to be accepted, if we are accepted we will offer discounts to our F-17 lighting and F-17T

(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12601675&posted=1#post12601675)

we are the allied states of cazelia would like to apply for the GDI

Cazelia cannot be accepted currently as its invading Hataria without any real reason.

The Fedral Union must await further checks as to whether they pass our entry requirements.

OOC: Cazelia, may i suggest you read some of the stickies in the forums about RPing? You can't have all your population in the military you know...

TFU i'll have to check your recent posts or something, don't you mainly play FT?

Consider this an application.

Calizorinstan wishes to apply to be in the GDI, it hopes it can further it's foreign relations.

Lanzanor would like to join GDI.

Note: I know Cazelia broke the rules but I bet he never reads the Stickies.

Allanea and Calizorinstan are greeted into the GDI, we look forward to working together as members of this alliance. Should you have any comments on our alliance and which direction it should take etc in the future then please do so and don't forget- we are here to help, so if you have a problem we are always waiting to help.

Lanzanor is also welcomed into the GDI, as a young nation you are more than welcome to ask for help, for which we will do all in our power to aid our new ally. Calizorinstan may also ask for help should they need it to help improve their nation.

Cazelia cannot be accepted currently as its invading Hataria without any real reason.

The Fedral Union must await further checks as to whether they pass our entry requirements.

OOC: Cazelia, may i suggest you read some of the stickies in the forums about RPing? You can't have all your population in the military you know...

TFU i'll have to check your recent posts or something, don't you mainly play FT?

I also play MT but not much until recently and i am a democracy .

Hotdogs2 announces research into the GDI's direction

Following some initial criticisms of the current GDI Constitution for being ambiguous on exactly what it means in its rules and regulations. Whilst in the past this served in favor of the founders it has become clear more democracy, not less is needed within the GDI. Therefore General Tarponica (director of GDI affairs, Hotdogs2) has made the following announcement:

"Hotdogs2 is proud to be co-founder of the GDI." He paused, for dramatic effect, slowly scanning his audience of media reporters. "Its history spans far back into the beginnings of the modern era when history was hazy and who and what was important varied greatly." He took yet another pause, which he would continue to do so through the speech; "However, throughout its history the GDI has been dedicated to supporting democratic nations and its ideals have been used as guidelines for all nations wishing to join the alliance. Whilst this was acceptable in the past the GDI must now act to ensure that its obligations to member states and of member states to the alliance are known in greater depth.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, all members of the GDI are being invited to put forwards ideas to improve upon our constitutional rules, which will enforce them bringing them to be laws for the running of the alliance and its members, rather than simple guidelines which have, unfortunately, been forgotten all too often. To this effect every single member state, full member of otherwise, will be sent an official letter inviting their responses. We are also open to arranging small scale meetings which we would in fact prefer to improve social interaction between member states. A full and public discussion of the way forward for the GDI's constitution must be made, and i hope we shall see many responses from our members. Thank you."

With this the General allowed a few questions from the audience, such as why the sudden change of direction which they perceived the GDI was to take, which he quickly squashed as a pack of lies (or words to that effect), and that in fact the GDI was simply undergoing improvements.

And so it was, that the GDI had opened itself up completely to criticism...

Consider the Aequatian Republic now active in worldly affairs under the GDI banner.

Communique to Aequatio

We are glad Aequatio has rallied to the cause of democracy once more as an active member of our alliance. May we ask you for your thoughts on the GDI rules of membership? As you are probably aware from our recent press release we are looking to improve the alliance to suit our members better, whilst keeping our key aims for a democratic and free alliance.

Suggested definitions:

Democracy:
Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens of a state wield the supreme political power; in which they can make certain their will is followed through regular and fair elections; in which the political leader of the nation reaches his position through the political support of the people.

Freedom of Speech:
Every citizen and/or permanent resident shall have the legal right to possess and express his or her own opinions regardless of the nature of the subject of those views, the nature of the views themselves or the nature, gender, position, creed or any other factor of the citizen and/or permanent resident.
This right does not extend to such things as hate speech, inciting to violence or criminal action, illegal defamation or slander of individuals or groups.

Freedom of Demonstration:
Every citizen and/or permanent resident shall have the legal right to assemble freely in groups for political or other reasons, to express their opinions through demonstration.
This right does not extend to such activities as rioting, rebellion, armed demonstrations or other political activities in which other humans are exposed to unnecessary danger for political goals.

Freedom of the Press:
There shall be no bar to the free and unhindered publication of newspapers or other media outlets, nor shall there be any bar to the free and unhindered establishment of new media outlets or information sources. There shall be no law restricting the information available for the public.
This does not apply in cases where the publication of certain information may place the citizens of a nation in grave danger, such as publication of military or state secrets, the identity of intelligence servicemen or similar. Nor does it apply in cases where the publication of certain information is in violation to the restrictions placed upon the Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Assembly:
There shall be no bar to the free and unhindered assembly of groups of citizens and/or permanent residents for social, political or other reasons.
This does not apply in cases where the assembling of certain individuals would place the nation in grave danger, such as terrorist organizations or similar.

Freedom of Religion:
No man may be prosecuted or discriminated against on account of his religion or lack thereof. No law shall be passed restricting the freedom of, and from, religion.
This does not apply in cases where the exercise of a religion would be harmful to other humans, such as ritual sacrifice of humans.

Suggested additions:

Freedom of Residence:
No citizens shall be stripped of his or her citizenship for arbitrary reasons, nor shall any person be denied citizenship without having received clear and just reasons for this denial.
No citizen shall be deported or exiled from a state without clear and just motivation and information of the concerned persons.

Intervention:
All member states of the GDI, as well as non-member states, shall have the right to petition the GDI to intervene in a conflict that the state considers to be genocidal, a danger to democracy, a crime against humanity or otherwise in conflict with the ideals of the GDI.
A petition shall be voted upon by the members of the GDI. A 51% vote in favour is required for humanitarian relief missions; including but not restricted to food deliverance, relief efforts in association with natural disasters or acts of god and establishment of refugee camps.
A 66% majority in favour is required for peacekeeping and peace enforcing missions; including but not limited to the forceful termination of genocidal civil war, repeated border incidents and undeclared war.
A 75% majority in favour is required for military operations such as declarations of war against dictatorial and/or genocidal states and governments by all members of the GDI.

War between GDI members:
In the event of a state of war between two or more members of the GDI, all involved parties shall stand trial before a tribunal consisting of the founders and four other nations selected by them.
If one party is found to be the unprovoked aggressor, that nation shall be forever banned from the GDI.
If it is found that one of the parties had been provoked in such a way as to warrant military action, that nation shall receive a warning for not have issued a formal petition the GDI. After several such warnings, the nation shall be forever expelled from the GDI.

Attack on a GDI member by a non-member:
In the event of an attack upon a fellow member of the GDI, a tribunal consisting of the founders and three other members shall decide if the attacked member shall receive military aid. If the tribunal decides that this is the correct course of action, it is the duty of all member states to lend the required support.
If a state is found not to have lent the required support, or otherwise failed to do its duty, that state shall be issued a warning.

OOC: It's still pretty ambiguous, but I'm working on it.

The Government and therefor the people of CoalitionOfTheWilling are requesting to join the GDI, to preserve and protect the peoples of this earth from tyranny.

CoallitionOfTheWilling has been made a full member of the GDI, having a clean record we see no reason not to allow you to join the alliance. As with all members feel free to make comments on the alliances rules and those suggested by Relative Liberty.

OOC:

COTW- I care about pints of beer staying as pints of beer...can't go changing that! lol, just wondering also if you want your name on the list as CoallitionOfTheWilling or with spaces between the words?

Relative Liberty- thats looking pretty good to me, Questers going to look over it and im not totally sure on the additions completely, there is a definite need for a case by case look at these things.

[EDIT] Questers looked over it, he said if freedom of residence was freedom of property instead and democracy is where the citizens have the right to choose the government. Other than that he's all for it :P.

I personally wouldn't mind an addition to the voting saying that nations may choose to abstain from the vote(save any hastle if someone misses a vote or not everyone turns up or whatnot). Also what if the vote fails? I personally think nations should be able to support each other if it does not harm the interest of the GDI but also votes to ensure GDI nations don't interfere possibly...imo that one might get shunned by people so get that voted on lol.

Also war between members should be allowed but with a vote, and rather than just ban members there should be peace talks etc instead. More UN style which would allow peace keepers to be sent in rather than kicking someone from the GDI which means they don't come under our jurisdiction. Would also be in keeping with my actions in the past on stopping inter-alliance warfare.

Attacks on GDI members by a non-members should not force members to act as they may be allied with the aggressor, be stretched militarily or the attack may be justified in some way. However i would suggest possibly a pool of military forces, where a nation can offer its forces to be available for GDI missions, similar to NATO say, and when extra forces are needed then members can be asked for support. If a member is very much supporting the alliance by their choice and not because the rules say so then i believe it breeds trust and sets a better example.

Last comment would be Vetos- currently just for myself and Questers as founders for any votes that take place, but in the future possibly extending to other nations who are voters if they show they are reliable.

As for the actual choosing of council members i think my point on not forcing people to act helps there, but for now myself and Questers will choose. If it works then i could see votes on it and elections for them.

Bump

Lets get more interest :D

Relative Liberty- thats looking pretty good to me, Questers going to look over it and im not totally sure on the additions completely, there is a definite need for a case by case look at these things.Case to case on my suggestions, or events?

Questers looked over it, he said if freedom of residence was freedom of property insteadProperty including citizenship, I take it. and democracy is where the citizens have the right to choose the government.That's what it says, or at least that's what I mean for it to say. ''[A system] in which they can make certain their will is followed through regular and fair elections; in which the political leader of the nation reaches his position through the political support of the people''.

I personally wouldn't mind an addition to the voting saying that nations may choose to abstain from the vote(save any hastle if someone misses a vote or not everyone turns up or whatnot). Yes, of course. As in real life democracies, the percentage refers to the number of votes cast, and not the number of people eligible for voting. The only exception is the declaration of war, which I proposed would require a 75% majority of all members (perhaps it would be best to add ''active'' before that)Also what if the vote fails?How do you mean? I personally think nations should be able to support each other if it does not harm the interest of the GDII don't mind if they intervene as individual states, but I don't think any intervention should be undertaken or endorsed in the name of GDI without us voting for it. but also votes to ensure GDI nations don't interfere possiblyMost definately.

Also war between members should be allowed but with a vote,The only legitimate reason I can think of for GDI to wage war against any state, is if that state commits atrocities or is a dictatorship. If that is the case, that nation should not be a part of the GDI and should be banned, and then declared war upon (after a vote, of course). and rather than just ban members there should be peace talks etc instead.I did mention a punishment for not issuing a ''formal petition'' in the case of a conflict or dispute with another member. I mean that all such disputes should be settled by a tribunal (or security council, to borrow UN jargong). War between members is something to be avoided as it is hamrful not only to those directly involved, but to all members of the GDI and to the orgnization itself as it underminses it credibility. That's why I think it should be so harshly punished.than kicking someone from the GDI which means they don't come under our jurisdiction.If we are to have any chance of success in our stated struggle for democracy and against genocide and other atrocities, I think we may have to extend our jurisdiction to include non-members.

Attacks on GDI members by a non-members should not force members to actIt doesn't. The tribunal's decision to lend aid does. as they may be allied with the aggressor, be stretched militarilyIn that case, it comes to the tribunal to take into consideration when deciding whom, what and if to call upon in the event of war against a fellow member. or the attack may be justified in some way.The tribunal I am sure will take this into consideration when deciding wether to lend support to the attacked member. However i would suggest possibly a pool of military forces, where a nation can offer its forces to be available for GDI missions, similar to NATO say, and when extra forces are needed then members can be asked for support.I imagined a somewhat more on the spot system, in which ad hoc forces are formed by units from various members upon request by the tribunal.
While your suggestion certainly has its merits (such as the increased effectivity of the units when they are trained to operate together and use standardized equipment [which would be prerequisite in such a force, just like it is in NATO]), it also has some drawbacks as it would take a widespread standardization of equipment and training to pull off.
Perhaps a goal to try and achieve, this GDI Force, but at the moment I think it would be best if intervention forces were assembled and supplied by the indivudal members, and the put under an overarching command. If a member is very much supporting the alliance by their choice and not because the rules say so then i believe it breeds trust and sets a better example.Well, they aren't forced to join in the first place. People are free to join, and if they do they have to abide to the rules. If they have a reason not to want to send troops in a particular case, I hope the tribunal will take that into consideration. If it is some isolationist policy the nation has, I question their membership in an internventionist organization.

Last comment would be Vetos- currently just for myself and Questers as founders for any votes that take place, but in the future possibly extending to other nations who are voters if they show they are reliable.Agreed, though I don't like vetoes.

As for the actual choosing of council members i think my point on not forcing people to act helps there, but for now myself and Questers will choose. If it works then i could see votes on it and elections for them.Votes on the members of the Tribunal? Most certainly, but I think for now it would be best if you chose.

EDIT: Could I have Blackwood in brackets after my name on the members list? 'Tis my MT name.

I would like permison do declare war on Hatria:mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :headbang: :headbang:

/Snip

OOC: /Snip

IC:

Relative Liberty-

Case to case on events as of course none will be the same.

Property indeed including citizenship, all citizens should have the right to their nationality and citizenship, and of course nationality would be a good one to add to the freedom of property clause.

With the democracy one, maybe just adding "political support and choice of the people" which im sure Questers will be fine with.

As for the voting thing keep it the same for all of them, so if someone doesn't vote then it doesn't matter, including any war votes, if a member isn't active enough to notice it then they shouldn't stop the alliance from acting. If the vote fails i mean if the vote is not passed in favor of the petition. However an addition along the lines of "If a petition is not accepted then the petitioner has the right to re-appeal to the leadership for a re-vote if the situation changes, although this is limited to a number of repetitions.". Not allowing GDI members to interfere or putting restrictions will be decided by myself and Questers, although i do not generally see it being enforced strictly.

Members may well war each other if say they had a dispute which could not be settled by a tribunal, although i would say having a tribunal to be set up by myself and Questers would work well if needed. It may also lead to proxy wars which are just as damaging but can't really be stopped, and there may also be cases when third parties to whom those nations are allied to are involved in a war with another GDI member. I would suggest it may lead to people leaving the GDI if they feel they cannot stop the war, but not in all cases and this could be highly politically charged. An example of this is the Stevid-Kanami war, where Kanami (Then GDI member) took stevids islands and so Independent Hitmen helped Stevid in their defense.

The GDI is a mutual defense alliance, however it does not, and will not, force its members to act against their will. As such, in particular in offensive operations, should they take place, then members should definitly not have to act. The rules are mainly to ensure their own nations are democratic. After all, there are too many nations to police but serious genocide of course is a concern of the GDI.

I'll post up on the rest of it when i have time.

Bump

Case to case on events as of course none will be the same.No, they wont, and I believe it is up to the members to decide wether a particular case is going to warrant an intervention. I think this would be best decided by a majority vote.
If there exists very special circumstances, perhaps the foundig members and/or the chosen members of the tribunal can decide amongst themselves wether the GDI is going ot intervene.

Property indeed including citizenship, all citizens should have the right to their nationality and citizenship, and of course nationality would be a good one to add to the freedom of property clause.Agreed.

With the democracy one, maybe just adding "political support and choice of the people" which im sure Questers will be fine with.I do not see how that would change the meaning of the text as it already says ''regular and fair elections'', but OK.

As for the voting thing keep it the same for all of them, so if someone doesn't vote then it doesn't matter, including any war votes, if a member isn't active enough to notice it then they shouldn't stop the alliance from acting.Lack of activity could stem from many more reasons than just neglect, but I see your point.
The reaction to a GDI intervention will be in proportion the use of force in this intervention though, and this reaction will affect all members. I would therefore like to see a very strong support of all military interventions. If the vote fails i mean if the vote is not passed in favor of the petition.Then no action may be undertaken in the name of the GDI. If one or more nations are willing to intervene, they may do so, but they wont be sanctioned by the GDI. It'll be a coalition of the willing, so to say. However an addition along the lines of "If a petition is not accepted then the petitioner has the right to re-appeal to the leadership for a re-vote if the situation changes, although this is limited to a number of repetitions.".Agreed. Not allowing GDI members to interfere or putting restrictions will be decided by myself and Questers, although i do not generally see it being enforced strictly.OK, though I would prefer if such bans were vetoed by a popular vote of 70% in favour of a veto.

It may also lead to proxy wars which are just as damaging but can't really be stoppedWhy couldn't a proxy war be stopped? Peace-enforcing and peace-keeping troops could be deployed and the two nations ordered to settle their differences diplomatically. and there may also be cases when third parties to whom those nations are allied to are involved in a war with another GDI member.I don't see the problem. If you're allied with people that are attacking GDI members, you simply do not join them in the attack. If you value your alliance to them more than the GDI, you do join them and the tribunal will get back to you after the war. It's a simple matter of priorities. An example of this is the Stevid-Kanami war, where Kanami (Then GDI member) took stevids islands and so Independent Hitmen helped Stevid in their defense.I havent read the thread, bit it would seem to me that Kanami was the attacker in this case, and so should be punished by the tribunal (if Stevid was a member of the GDI at that time). Independent Hitmen responded by helping Stevid defending (and that's a keyword here; defending, not attacking) against Kanami, and the tribunal will have to decide wether to reprimand him.
Frankly, I don't see the problem. If you wage war against another member, the tribunal will decide who is to blame for the war and also how to punish (and if to punish) the guilty. You don't get much more case by case than that.

The GDI is a mutual defense alliance, however it does not, and will not, force its members to act against their will.That's where our opinions differ. I think that if you aren't prepared to fight, perhaps you shouldn't be a member of a mutual defence alliance, which by nature is inherently military.
Still, I could go with member nations having the right to refuse to lend military aid if the tribunal calls for them to, though I hope this right won't be exercized as I expect the tribunal to be a bit more careful about whom the ask than to pick one who is allied with the enemy (for example). As such, in particular in offensive operations, should they take place, then members should definitly not have to act.And that's why I proposed that we'd vote for it. First we vote, and if the petition passes,the tribunal will ask a few members to send troops. If someone refuses, that's their choice.
Perhaps we instead could arrange it so that if a vote passes, a few members volunteer to send troops, and the tribunal decides who will contribute. The rules are mainly to ensure their own nations are democratic.Pledging to defend democarcy if it is danger and acting as a anti-genocide unit ''that will forcefully halt genocide'' is something that every member does upon signing up however, at least according to the opening post. It is already in the rules.
Making such a pledge carries with it an inherent risk that you may have to send armed forces into combat, even more so that joining a military alliance (or even existing, which also carries such a risk). If someone is not ready to do so, maybe he or she shouldn't be a member in the first place.
After all, by joining a mutual defence organization, you must not only defend your own interests, but those of others as well. This greatly increases the possibility of going to war. Joining a mutual defence organization that has ''some interventionist ideals'' increases this risk even further, as you now must accept the chance that people may hold you responsible for invasions.

Italics are quotes from Relative Liberty.

No, they wont, and I believe it is up to the members to decide wether a particular case is going to warrant an intervention. I think this would be best decided by a majority vote.
If there exists very special circumstances, perhaps the founding members and/or the chosen members of the tribunal can decide amongst themselves wether the GDI is going to intervene.

I think this makes sense to me, i will agree to that myself.

Agreed. Excellent.

I do not see how that would change the meaning of the text as it already says ''regular and fair elections'', but OK.

Neither do i, so keep it as it is, i think i probably misunderstood Questers anyway.

Lack of activity could stem from many more reasons than just neglect, but I see your point.
The reaction to a GDI intervention will be in proportion the use of force in this intervention though, and this reaction will affect all members. I would therefore like to see a very strong support of all military interventions. Then no action may be undertaken in the name of the GDI. If one or more nations are willing to intervene, they may do so, but they wont be sanctioned by the GDI. It'll be a coalition of the willing, so to say. Agreed. OK, though I would prefer if such bans were vetoed by a popular vote of 70% in favour of a veto.

We can try it, as this is a democratic alliance and after all banning someone won't really make a problem if that nation is willing to contribute to its alliance members.

Why couldn't a proxy war be stopped? Peace-enforcing and peace-keeping troops could be deployed and the two nations ordered to settle their differences diplomatically. I don't see the problem. If you're allied with people that are attacking GDI members, you simply do not join them in the attack. If you value your alliance to them more than the GDI, you do join them and the tribunal will get back to you after the war. It's a simple matter of priorities. I havent read the thread, bit it would seem to me that Kanami was the attacker in this case, and so should be punished by the tribunal (if Stevid was a member of the GDI at that time). Independent Hitmen responded by helping Stevid defending (and that's a keyword here; defendin, not attacking) against Kanami, and the tribunal will have to decide wether to reprimand him.
Frankly, I don't see the problem. If you wage war against another member, the tribunal will decide who is to blame for the war and also how to punish (and if to punish) the guilty. You don't get much more case by case than that.

Well to be fair IH was about to bomb them and an invasion might well have taken place had i not intervened. However i think active prevention is the better option in any case, but yes trying to stop the war would be a good thing. I'm personally fine with it anyway.

That's where our opinions differ. I think that if you aren't prepared to fight, perhaps you shouldn't be a member of a mutual defence alliance, which by nature is inherently military.

Yes, but also some nations will have reasons, maybe their RPing declining military, have ongoing wars, in RL they are too busy etc, so what you said next is very important...

Still, I could go with member nations having the right to refuse to lend military aid if the tribunal calls for them to, though I hope this right won't be exercized as I expect the tribunal to be a bit more careful about whom the ask than to pick one who is allied with the enemy (for example). And that's why I proposed that we'd vote for it. First we vote, and if the petition passes,the tribunal will ask a few members to send troops. If someone refuses, that's their choice.
Perhaps we instead could arrange it so that if a vote passes, a few members volunteer to send troops, and the tribunal decides who will contribute.

That makes full sense to me as it goes along with the overall message from the alliance- democracy and freedom of choice etc. As such it should extend to nations fully for them to make these decisions on who to help and when. So, putting forward a call for help would make more sense at first, after all one would hope they would feel a sense of comradeship through their membership to the GDI. However that said if nations put their names forward to be contacted in times of need i think that would work well, and although not a key issue now that can be resolved in the near future.

Pledging to defend democracy if it is danger and acting as an anti-genocide unit ''that will forcefully halt genocide'' is something that every member does upon signing up however, at least according to the opening post. It is already in the rules.

That is true, but that said not all war threatens democracy and neither does warfare lead to the best way of stopping genocide from occurring. However for now it is again not a key issue, members should be prompted to act and perhaps benefits found, but that does not need to go into the terms of membership as such.

Making such a pledge carries with it an inherent risk that you may have to send armed forces into combat, even more so that joining a military alliance (or even existing, which also carries such a risk). If someone is not ready to do so, maybe he or she shouldn't be a member in the first place.
After all, by joining a mutual defence organization, you must not only defend your own interests, but those of others as well. This greatly increases the possibility of going to war. Joining a mutual defence organization that has ''some interventionist ideals'' increases this risk even further, as you now must accept the chance that people may hold you responsible for invasions.

Whilst this is true we should also try not to stray too far from the original ideals, the main idea is an alliance "protecting the rights of free, democratic nations.", rather than that strongly interventionist alliance we could become. To me if GDI members want to become strongly interventionist then they may well do, if for the right causes, however the GDI should be careful not to overuse military force, because rather than being a mutual defence pact it will turn into a militaristic and aggressive power. Anyway, i think we should do ok generally with what we have got so far, as nothing is permanent but just rules which change with time and opinions, so i say go for it and any problems we can just sort them in the future.

Curious... if I so happen to go to war with a certain neighbor because he decided to use nukes to exterminate a certain populous within miles of my southern border.. and the war wasn't going too well.... would be liable for aid by my fellow GDI comrades?

P.S. not going too well as in my attack fails and I get invaded..

:p

Perhaps calling some of it guidelines instead of rules then, HD2?

Grozny: I could make case of it.
Looks like we've got our first election. Better get those tribunals up an' runnin'.

WTI wishes to tell all those who are in the GDI can open an account for free and gets a discount on all WTI products

WTI wishes to tell all those who are in the GDI can open an account for free and gets a discount on all WTI products

IC: On behalf of all GDI members i would like to thank Weapons-Tech inc. for their kind offer, i hope they shall make use of it should they require your services. Once more, thank you for helping the GDI, we shall make full use of it i am sure!

OOC:

Relative Liberty- that sounds like a great idea, if you post up any changes you have made i'll give it the final looking over and get it posted up :). Also i think there may be a use for the tribunal, i hear TPF has been invaded by Leocardia, im hoping to check the thread out but it needs doing sooner rather than later as Leocardia is being invaded currently.

Groznyj its doom, yes your going to get invaded :P. Im not 100% sure about defending you, i say we wait, put pressure on doom not use nuclear weapons for now, im already not trading with him(only nation to have embargoed him) but we can see what else can be done. AMF might like some help/help you out as Golgoth are warring doom.

Guidelines of the GDI

The Global Defence Initiative, from now on referred to as the GDI and its members shall strive to maintain and defend democracy and the rights and liberties of all humans.
Every member of the GDI vows upon confirmation of membership, to strive to protect the rights and liberties of all humans, to protect democracy if it is danger and to strive to halt genocide around the globe.

Democracy:
Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens on the state wield the supreme political power; in which they can make certain their will is followed through regular and fair elections; in which the political leaders of the state reaches his position through the political support and choice of the people.

Freedom of Speech:
Every citizen and/or permanent resident shall have the legal right to possess and express his or her own opinions regardless of the nature of the subject of those views, the nature of the views themselves or the nature, gender, position, creed or any other characteristic of the citizen or the permanent resident.

Freedom of Demonstration:
Every citizen and/or permanent resident shall have the legal right to assemble freely in groups for political or other reasons, and to express their opinions through demonstration.
This right to does not extend to such activities as rioting, rebellion, armed demonstrations or other activities in which humans are exposed to unnecessary danger for political goals.

Freedom of the Press:
There shall be no bar to the free and unhindered publication of newspapers or other media outlets, nor shall there be any bar to the free and unhindered establishment of new media outlets or information sources. There shall be no law restricting the information available the public.
This does not apply in cases where the publication of certain information may place the citizens of a state in grave danger, such as publication of military or state secrets, the identity of intelligence servicemen or people legally living under assumed identity or similar.
Nor does it apply in cases where the publication of certain information is in violation to the restrictions placed upon the Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Assembly:
There shall be no bar to the free and unhindered assembly of groups of citizens and/or permanent residents for social reasons or other.
This does not apply in cases where the assembling of certain individuals would place the nation in grave danger, such as terrorist organizations and similar.

Freedom of Religion:
No man may be prosecuted or discriminated against on account of his religion or lack thereof. No law shall be made restricting the freedom of, and from, religion.
This does not apply in cases where the exercise of a religion is deemed harmful to the individual or society as a whole, such as ritual sacrifice or collective suicide; nor is it intended to protect the activities of cults or other religious organizations in which the individual member may not be in total control of his or her own person.

Freedom of Property:
No man or woman shall have his or her property illegally seized by the government or other similar organization of any nation for arbitrary reasons. This property includes, but is not limited to: his or her nationality, his or her permanent residence or citizenship, his or her personal property, his or her source of income or his or her wealth.
No man or woman shall be deported from, exiled from or denied entry into a state without clear and just motivation, and the informing of the concerned persons of the reasons and effects of this decision.

Tribunal:
The two founding members of the GDI shall if the need arise form a Tribunal together with three other members. These three members shall be selected by the founding members.

Intervention:
Members and nonmembers of the GDI shall have the right to petition the GDI to intervene in a conflict that the state considers genocidal, a danger to democracy, a crime against humanity or otherwise in conflict with the ideals of the GDI.
A petition shall be voted upon by the members of the GDI, though nations are not punished or penalized for abstaining from voting. The outcome of the vote will decide whether any action by the GDI shall be undertaken, though the founding members of the GDI shall have the right to prevent any members of the GDI to intervene. Such prevention can be vetoed upon by a 70% majority of the active members.
If the voters decide that an intervention shall be attempted, the Tribunal will ask a number of voluntary nations to contribute in a way that the Tribunal sees fit.
If the voters decide that an intervention shall not be attempted by the GDI, no action may be undertaken by any nation claiming to represent the GDI. This does not in any way stop nations from undertaking actions independently,

War between GDI members:
The GDI does not wish for infighting, as it weakens not only the nations involved, but also severely undermines the authority and credibility of the GDI as a whole.
If however any member finds itself waging war against another member, both shall stand trial before the Tribunal. The Tribunal will decide if and how to penalize the nations involved.
Instead of waging war against other members, the leadership of the GDI whishes for its members to solve their differences peacefully and diplomatically. If no such solution is deemed possible, the leadership of the GDI wishes that the involved parties make a formal petition to the Tribunal to mediate.

War between a member and a non-member:
In the event of war between a member of the GDI and an unassociated nation, any member of the GDI can call for a vote to decide whether the warring member shall receive aid from the GDI. This vote is made in the same way and fashion as regular interventions.

Grozny: Got link?

Thanks RL, i'll look at it and make any fine adjustments if need be and get it posted!

Am I led to believe that under the orders of Hotdogs2, representing the whole GDI, that the region of Xanadou that used to, or still holds, the nations of Kurona and Kanami as well as Magic Socery- has been invaded.

Simply put H2, i find it hard to believe that you gave such an order. Is it true you gave the order, or is this a pathetic attempt by Kanami and allies to undermime the GDI and what it stands for. Because for his sake, I hope not.

If he did do it then new treaty or no new treaty the Empire will go back to war- screw the Golden War of Succession, back-stabbing is something Stevid does not tolerate.

I really need an honest response here.

OOC: Not sure if that was OOC, but in case its IC heres a reply for it anyway...

IC:
[Secret IC]

Dear Sir,

I have no recollection of any such order, or even who Xanadou is. Perhaps i could be issued with information on the situation? I have not been involved in any military action for some time, nor have i allowed any invasions on the part of the GDI.

It has been noted that we were contacted by an organisation who stated that the GDI had been troubled by Kanami and this organisation was willing to help destroy them. However, as the offer was unvalidated we decided it would be a waste of resources to track the organisation. It may be this had something to do with the current situation.

If someone has been accusing the GDI of false rulings, we shall act on it and punish the perpetrators, the GDI will not stand for false statements or nations pretending we have authorized an invasion.

Regards,
[Signed]
General Tarponica

OOC: I did get a TG from a nation (unfortunately i can't remember their name) but im not sure if they were asking ICly or OOCly if i would help take out Kanami, why i put . I declined, firstly because Kanami is (was) not a problem and also because if i had it would be bad BIG time for any reputation we hold, and as i have a distrust of Kanami OOCly i thought it would be a stupid idea. When you combine this with the fact that i told Kanami he wasn't welcome to post in the GDI thread i was pretty much ignoring him.

I'd like to know who has been saying this and what their source is.

OOC: mind me for asking OOCly, but since when does The GDI send Nations to invade a Region?

OOC: I'm a teeny bit sceptical that those nations are controlled by GDI members...

Besides, does it really matter in terms of the GDI's principles? I'm not going to make any comments about region invading here, but regions are generally separate to II, no? Forgive my ignorance.

OOC: I'm a teeny bit sceptical that those nations are controlled by GDI members...

Besides, does it really matter in terms of the GDI's principles? I'm not going to make any comments about region invading here, but regions are generally separate to II, no? Forgive my ignorance.

OOC: These are The Nations in The Region that say they are from the GDI (http://www.nationstates.net/73013/page=display_region/region=xanadou)

OOC: Yes, I saw them, which was why I was sceptical. Unless they're using reverse psychology, I doubt GDI members would invade a region happily spouting how the GDI has come to invade.

Personally I think someone is playing an elaborate prank.

OOC: Yes, I saw them, which was why I was sceptical. Unless they're using reverse psychology, I doubt GDI members would invade a region happily spouting how the GDI has come to invade.

Personally I think someone is playing an elaborate prank.

ok.

OOC: You could put it in both IC and OOC.

OOCly is is region crash of Xanadou and the main puppeteer said you had ordered it.
It seemed really out of character for you to give such order, thought i should inform you

OOC: You could put it in both IC and OOC.

OOCly is is region crash of Xanadou and the main puppeteer said you had ordered it.
It seemed really out of character for you to give such order, thought i should inform you

OOC: so I heard.

OOC:

Well that is absolute rubbish. I had been contacted before by some anti Kanami nation and i said i would not support them. I will contact the nations involved and make sure its clear to them they are being out of order and to stop pulling such a stupid ban. Whats more, should they continue i shall take this further.

You will also note please that these nations all log in at the same time:

Magic Sorcerey- Most Recent Government Activity: 37 minutes ago
Magic Sourcery- Most Recent Government Activity: 36 minutes ago
Magical Sorcery- Most Recent Government Activity: 40 minutes ago
Magic Grocery- Most Recent Government Activity: 50 minutes ago
Magic Scorcery- Most Recent Government Activity: 21 hours ago

Now, if you could all stop posting in this thread, there is no need for so much OOC in the main GDI thread, if we have any more problems please TG me, but mind not to send several TG's until after i reply. I don't want to run out of space in my inbox :P.

Get Kurona to kick them out if you can, i will chase this up as far i can go with it, but we shall wait and see...if anyone has any evidence of TGs etc from them then please send them to me all in one TG.

Oh, and out of character is no understatement, its one of the most noobish things you can do, its not even proper region crashing which in itself is just a pain.

OOC:

Well that is absolute rubbish. I had been contacted before by some anti Kanami nation and i said i would not support them. I will contact the nations involved and make sure its clear to them they are being out of order and to stop pulling such a stupid ban. Whats more, should they continue i shall take this further.

You will also note please that these nations all log in at the same time:

Magic Sorcerey- Most Recent Government Activity: 37 minutes ago
Magic Sourcery- Most Recent Government Activity: 36 minutes ago
Magical Sorcery- Most Recent Government Activity: 40 minutes ago
Magic Grocery- Most Recent Government Activity: 50 minutes ago
Magic Scorcery- Most Recent Government Activity: 21 hours ago

Now, if you could all stop posting in this thread, there is no need for so much OOC in the main GDI thread, if we have any more problems please TG me, but mind not to send several TG's until after i reply. I don't want to run out of space in my inbox :P.

Get Kurona to kick them out if you can, i will chase this up as far i can go with it, but we shall wait and see...if anyone has any evidence of TGs etc from them then please send them to me all in one TG.

Oh, and out of character is no understatement, its one of the most noobish things you can do, its not even proper region crashing which in itself is just a pain.

OOC: I have told Kurona.

Well, I invaded TPF because he attacked my ally, and is expressing his aggressive mind toward them. Though my invasion was not sucessful, I did receive alot of support from countries that were interested in helping the little man out.

Well, I invaded TPF because he attacked my ally, and is expressing his aggressive mind toward them. Though my invasion was not sucessful, I did receive alot of support from countries that were interested in helping the little man out.

Could i have a link to it please? Attacking another member has in the past lead to that nation being expelled from the GDI. I can't say anything until i know who your ally being attacked was and for what reasons.

For anyone involved in that recent Xanadou issue, here's a TG i got from one of the perpetrators.



Received: 12 hours ago

Oh... ok! Well, we apologize for faking to be GDI, however, we were never intending to fake another GDI than the one of Command and Conquer. We found you had the same name, so who cares. And we never said we had orders from you or anything. We just said we're from the GDI - we are from the Global Defense Initiative of CnC. So, matters clear? We're leaving now.

I think that proves i had nothing to do with, neither did any other GDI members as far as im aware. Hopefully this will clear up any issues, and that it hasn't been too big a problem for anyone.

I don't know exactly what has gone on over the last day but neither me or the REAL Magic Sorcery have logged on to our nations, at all yesterday. Everything has been taken care of, I've ejected the crashers and have made attempts to restore regional order

He attacked my allies, Greal and North Calaveras. Yet, he failed to agree in withdrawing, he established territories in North Calaveras, refusing to return the land, and established a demilitarized zone. The war went well long for longer than a few days, probably lasting almost a week and a half until my arrival into the war, plenty of time in which my allies have warned TPF before any action was committed.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527701

Kurona those weren't anything to do with this GDI, supposedly they were based on C&C but i don't expect them to go touting to be part of the GDI without making it clear their based on C&C, and they have apologized for it(see my above post).

Leocardia i will look into it at a later date, as it stands i don't like the look of it as you didn't contact the GDI first or alert us of the fact, but we shall look into it further.

Relative Liberty- I've got a different definition for Democracy so it encompasses Constitutional Monarchies of the UK parliamentary type:

Democracy:
Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens of the state wield political power; through either direct or representative democracy by which citizens “rule by the many” through regular and fair elections; and thereby have the right to elect the head of government and whereby an unelected head of state does not hold absolute power.

The rest of it looks fine, but any modifications can be made at a later date.

O Boyce will be willing to join this cooalition, although going through some major reforms, we wish to reach a more diplomatic form a government soon.

O Boyce will be willing to join this cooalition, although going through some major reforms, we wish to reach a more diplomatic form a government soon.

O Boyce is welcomed into the GDI, we look forward to working closely with you in the future, if you ever fall into trouble or need any advice the GDI is here to help.

OOC: This is an NS MT alliance just so you know, and also nice RPing from what i've seen of it. Keep it up!

Relative Liberty- I've got a different definition for Democracy so it encompasses Constitutional Monarchies of the UK parliamentary type:

Democracy:
Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens of the state wield political power; through either direct or representative democracy by which citizens “rule by the many” through regular and fair elections; and thereby have the right to elect the head of government and whereby an unelected head of state does not hold absolute power.'Tis fine, though I would like if the GDI did express ''its hope and ambition'' (or something similar) that every head of state or head or equiv. was elected.
The rest of it looks fine, but any modifications can be made at a later date.Any radical changes will be agreed upon by popular vote, I presume.

'Tis fine, though I would like if the GDI did express ''its hope and ambition'' (or something similar) that every head of state or head or equiv. was elected.
The trouble with that is that you then push democratic monarchies out of the alliance, and thats not a good thing. To me, the UK is a very democratic country and it does so with an unelected head of state, and im not about to stipulate that the GDI wants republicans only, thus the change to the definition.

Any radical changes will be agreed upon by popular vote, I presume.

I'm not planning on making any radical changes, in fact what we now have looks very good to me, and as the members signed up for what the original GDI was about i don't think going further than defining the terms properly.

The trouble with that is that you then push democratic monarchies out of the alliance, and thats not a good thing. To me, the UK is a very democratic country and it does so with an unelected head of state, and im not about to stipulate that the GDI wants republicans only, thus the change to the definition.Then it's fine with me.



I'm not planning on making any radical changes, in fact what we now have looks very good to me, and as the members signed up for what the original GDI was about i don't think going further than defining the terms properly.I meant more of a general principle of how to make alterations to the definitions and goals of the GDI. Either the members propose definitions, goals and obligations and the Tribunal or the founding members decide what to accept and what to reject, or it is decided by a vote amongst the members what proposals are to incorporated into the GDI charter.

The Empire of Segamu is interested in world peace. Join?

I meant more of a general principle of how to make alterations to the definitions and goals of the GDI. Either the members propose definitions, goals and obligations and the Tribunal or the founding members decide what to accept and what to reject, or it is decided by a vote amongst the members what proposals are to incorporated into the GDI charter.

Im not sure really, if it does happen then i shall see what it is, if its something that will radically change the GDI i will probably say no, because like i have said the alliance and what its about has already been stated.

Something really big i would hope for a vote of some sorts, either representative (tribunal) or direct.

Segamu- Welcome to the GDI, accept this as a confirmation of membership.

New Guidelines for GDI membership posted on first post.

O Boyce is welcomed into the GDI, we look forward to working closely with you in the future, if you ever fall into trouble or need any advice the GDI is here to help.

OOC: This is an NS MT alliance just so you know, and also nice RPing from what i've seen of it. Keep it up!

OOC
thank you, i do appreciate it, it kinda helps when someone acctually goes through the trouble to make it legable, it bugs me sometimes when i cann't even understand what is going on.......and i do understand, i kinda do both, just to keep myslef interested, or whatever thread i am in at the moment. I do tend to stick to the FT just because that is where most of the fun ones are..lol....anywho, thanks

OOC: NP, i had noticed you doing both MT and FT stuff, it just saves any confusion or whatnot, i'd probably do it to anyone applying who looks FT.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c381/crave22/Cravan/crestcopysmall.png
Imperial Department of Foreign Affairs


It is with regret that I say this but, at least temporarily, the Libertarian Empire hereby resigns from the Global Defense Initiative for internal reasoning. The treaty is hereby rendered null and void, and therefore no longer applies to the Libertarian Empire.

We hope to maintain friendly relations with our former comrades, and depending on the way events unfold this may only be a temporary measure. I thank you for your hospitable nature throughout our time in the GDI, however I am afraid that, for now, that time is up.

Thank you, and Godspeed in future endeavours.

Signed,

Louis McHenry
Louis McHenry
Director of Foreign Affairs

Private Communique to Cravan

Dear Mr. McHenry,

I read with sadness your resignation from the GDI. It is a sad loss to see our friends in Cravan leave this alliance, and would be interested, if possible, to inquire as to why you have made such a decision? I understand fully internal discussions must often be kept secret and there may be good reasons for leaving the GDI. However if it is something that we could change then we would look into it, recently we have come under attack from supposedly "allies" over other foreign affairs, but we shall stand strong for what we believe in, the rulings made for this alliance act as a guide for our foreign relations.

May your nation prosper as you seek the path your nation must take to advance, and may we wish you the best of luck with it.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed]
General Tarponica
Director GDI affairs.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c381/crave22/Cravan/crestcopysmall.png
Imperial Department of Foreign Affairs

We assure you, the reasoning for this move is entirely internal, and is not based upon this alliance or any of its members. There are no changes which we could suggest which would improve our odds of staying, since our resignation is not a matter of the state of affairs of this alliance but more our own internal state of affairs.

I must again thank you, General, for you have done an outstanding job. Again, many thanks.

Signed,

Louis McHenry
Louis McHenry
Director of Foreign Affairs

Private Reply to Cravan

Dear Mr.McHenry,

Your compliments are quite unnecessary, much of what occurs within this alliance is down to its members, rather than my actions alone, although i am proud to be the Hotdian director for GDI affairs, a post i take very seriously, and it is a shame our department won't be receiving information on you any more. However, i would like, on behalf of Hotdogs2, to extend that hand of continued friendship, and would be interested in setting up an embassy within Cravan to ensure future ties. If this is acceptable then please contact the foreign affairs department, as it is no longer under my jurisdiction[signature for link] to create embassies.

Again, good luck in your future endeavors, may your nation prosper and gain in their international acclaim.

You may always count on my friendship,

[Signed]
General Tarponica
Director GDI affairs

busy?

OOC: Currently yes, if you haven't noticed im about to invade doom, and straight after i've got lots of NATO nations to go "BOO" to...not sure if i will yet, doom is a major enemy after all.

OOC: Will the GDI be mobilized?

OOC: Nope, not for now anyway but if a nation should call for aid then we can see what happens.