| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| AO Forum :: > Governmental Archives > Freedom Alliance |
| Posted by: Tachbe May 16 2004, 08:48 AM | ||
I am sure the other council members won't mind me taking this liberty. I have opened this topic so everyone else in the region can have their word on the Freedom Alliance membership. I think that membership of an alliance which is not neutral should at least have a word on from everyone else around here. For those of you who haven?t a clue what I am talking about you can view the thread in the council forum. Please, have your say. |
| Posted by: xeroxparc May 17 2004, 02:12 PM |
| Hello I'm Xeroxparc (Parc) Foreign Affairs Minister of the Freedom Alliance Thank you for giving me this oppertunity to disscuss Membership in the FA. |
| Posted by: Vilita May 17 2004, 02:14 PM |
| What are the benefits of joining this Alliance, does it have a webpage or home base, does it have a forum, who are current members, what regions have shown interest that you are trying to recruit, don't try and embelish anything we just want the facts about what you are |
| Posted by: xeroxparc May 17 2004, 02:19 PM |
| First to cover somethings that I cover in My Mseeage to you. Each member region in the (FA) Freedom Alliance is allowed two Reps. in our Plarliment reguardless of their Pop. I know this is not mentioned in the FA Agreement/Constitution If Your region wishes to leave the FA, they simply tell us that they wish to resign then we part ways. |
| Posted by: Vilita May 17 2004, 02:20 PM |
| Added Xeroxparc's original telegram to the top of the thread... |
| Posted by: xeroxparc May 17 2004, 02:25 PM | ||
Member Regions The Unforgiven The Fwug Rebellion North Alerica, United Kingdom West Alerica Site http://freedomalliance.proboards19.com/index.cgi |
| Posted by: xeroxparc May 17 2004, 02:30 PM |
| the other region Considering membership is August Locale of Knurlyhood |
| Posted by: Vilita May 17 2004, 02:34 PM |
| One issue notable to AO Members, Listed FA Members "The Unforgiven" and "The Fwug Rebellion" are affiliated, while One would assume North and West Alerica are as well. |
| Posted by: xeroxparc May 17 2004, 02:37 PM | ||
Yes that is correct |
| Posted by: xeroxparc May 17 2004, 03:07 PM |
| Oh one more thing Military involvement is totally voluntary |
| Posted by: Vilita May 17 2004, 03:54 PM |
| parc, do you plan on remaining in our region after a decision is made? |
| Posted by: Aethyrea May 18 2004, 12:17 PM | ||
According to the Constitution of the Freedom Alliance, Section 2(1) military service is mandatory: “As member states of the Freedom Alliance, every member must be available to take part in military operations if considered necessary by the Freedom Alliance and the majority of members of the region before the state who is to be replaced came to power who did not leave freely” B~ |
| Posted by: xeroxparc May 18 2004, 12:26 PM |
| Section2(1) It's purpose is not to force all into the military but evenly distribute military responability over the whole FA. |
| Posted by: Vilita May 18 2004, 12:29 PM |
| Could you explain this response further parc? |
| Posted by: xeroxparc May 18 2004, 12:30 PM | ||
I will spend a week here and then move on |
| Posted by: Aethyrea May 18 2004, 12:36 PM |
| Hate to be picky here but “must” and “every” sound pretty mandatory to me. And if the purpose is to evenly distribute military responsibility, shouldn't it say that? BTW – what is the military responsibility of each member region? B~ |
| Posted by: xeroxparc May 18 2004, 12:46 PM |
| Section2(1) Is to prevent nations from going back on their word once they have agreed to particpate in an miliatry action. |
| Posted by: Vilita May 18 2004, 12:48 PM |
| There are a lot of shady principles and unclear affiliations within your proposal parc. You are going to have to provide more details responses if you are going to persuade us into your Alliance... |
| Posted by: xeroxparc May 18 2004, 12:58 PM |
| I will get back to you on this sticking point. |
| Posted by: Aethyrea May 18 2004, 01:51 PM |
| Ok, general comments, questions and concerns regarding the terms of the FA Constitution which this region would be required to sign & ratify (this is not the document in its entirety, only where I had comments): Constitution of the Freedom Alliance Section 1: Rights of Member States 1. As a member states of the Freedom Alliance, every member has the right to call upon the Freedom Alliance’s forces for help in times of region-crashing. a. Are there any conditions on this? like how much, how often, circumstances that are exempt? b. How do you request aid, and from whom? c. Does this also include preemptive defensive measures? 2. To take part in the Presidential election. a. by voting only? 3. To participate in the Freedom Alliance board, including access to any and all areas which are restricted to members, as long as they do not have additional restrictions. a. And those ‘additional restrictions’ would be what? 4. To run for President or other office within the Freedom Alliance. a. definitions, limitations, duties. 5. To resign from the Freedom Alliance. a. general comment: I’m glad that this isn’t permanent! b. how does a region leave, who do they notify, when does it take effect? 6. May bring charges against the president or other Freedom Alliance officials as well as members. a. what charges may be brought, under what circumstances and using what procedure? Section 2: Duties of Member States 1. As member states of the Freedom Alliance, every member must be available to take part in military operations if considered necessary by the Freedom Alliance and the majority of members of the region before the state who is to be replaced came to power who did not leave freely. a. I posted my concerns with this before. It sounds like unlimited mandatory involvement defined solely by FA. b. what is our region’s duties/obligations under this section. 2. To help with any and all activities required by the president or other duly appointed official to facilitate the smooth running of the Freedom Alliance. a. again, this sounds like our region could be forced to participate in ANY and ALL activities defined solely by FA. b. what is exactly our region’s duties/obligations under this section: what are the activities, how many activities must we participate in, how often? 4. Failure to abide by these rules can result in the immediate expulsion of the violation member at the discretion of the president or other duly appointed official. a. guilty until proven innocent huh? and no trial either…interesting. 5. Failure to abide by the rules of the 4th section will also result in expulsion after being tried and if found guilty. a. trials only for the terms of section 4. b. “immediately” is defined as what? c. tried by who? Section 3: New Members 3. In the foresaid post they must include their Nationstates nation’s name, their reason for joining the Freedom Alliance, if they are a member of any interregional, whether they have participated in any region crashings, and who their allies are, unless there is a necessarily for secrecy in which case they shall explain that reason to the president or a duly approved official handling the application and send the information through private message on the board or telegram on Nationstates. a. Let see if I got this right - basically give up any and all intelligence that this region has gathered, hand it over to FA, and receive nothing back? b. is this ‘regional’ or ‘national’ ie: if I have information that my nation has participate in crashing/defending/spying, but not for this region – do I have to make it known? Section 4: High Crimes against the Freedom Alliance 1. Any member accused of committing the following crimes, is subject to immediate trial, and if found guilty, expulsion. a. what’s the court procedure? b. “immediately” is defined as what? c. tried by who? d. guilt decided by who? 2. Spying, this is defined as giving sensitive information to enemy nations, alliances, or regions, unless it is with prior knowledge or consent of the Freedom Alliance president, or cabinet. a. define enemy (FA’s enemies, any members enemies, single nations, regions, what? Does it include this regions allies, present and future…etc) b. define sensitive information. c. how is such ‘consent’ obtained/granted? 3. Treason, which is defined as helping enemy nations, regions, or alliances through garnering support for an enemy nation, region, or alliance, or directly helping an enemy nation, region, or alliance, specifically, but not limited to endorsements. a. define enemy (see above) b. define helping. Act: In the event of a security breach in the Freedom Alliance, the government would hold the right to enter and/or suspend anyones account if they are suspected of being a threat to the Freedom Alliance, this desicion would fall to the president after consulting his advisors. a. again guilty until proven innocent. b. define these emergency powers a bit more c. what’s the procedure for clearing your name if accused? Part 2: Each nation entering the FA must send an IM to the moderator of the FA forum on entry to the alliance. The reasoning behind this is so that multi-nation cheating can be stamped out quickly. Thereafter each nation should make a further post within one week of the first just to double check there authenticity. a. I’m REQUIRED to ALWAYS use the same IP???? B~ |
| Posted by: xeroxparc May 18 2004, 02:03 PM |
| I have spoken to the FA President Reguarding Section 2(1) The Constitution is applies more to when individuals sign it rather than when regions join. We are more strict with individual members, regions on the other hand simply participate when they like. We do not force people to take part or punish them for not participating. |
| Posted by: Crystilakere May 18 2004, 02:07 PM | ||
I agree right now I am against this alliance due to lack of information |
| Posted by: Tachbe May 18 2004, 02:12 PM |
| I do have to say the information is vague. Would it be possible to negotiate a specialised deal for membership so we have in black and white exactly what in entails for us? |
| Posted by: Vilita May 18 2004, 02:13 PM |
| They are supposedly Sending over the FA President to further explain. |
| Posted by: Tachbe May 18 2004, 02:32 PM |
| Perhaps we could get a standered, full detailed agreement which will show everything that relates to us as a region. Then we can pick at the details. |
| Posted by: Ectascia May 18 2004, 02:55 PM |
From all the information I've read, I must say that I'm against the Freedom Alliance. I don't really have a clear idea of what real good it would do.  |
| Posted by: Samonina May 18 2004, 02:59 PM |
| i think its just unclear. and this unclarity is prejudicing us against it. anyay, isnt it just a representative from the region that takes part? or am i wrong........again.?? |
| Posted by: Aethyrea May 18 2004, 03:05 PM |
| I know I've been the most vocal on this proposed alliance, mostly because I don't see any benefits. At best, the only benefit would be added protection if invaded. However, our region has a founder, so the danger of an invasion is pretty slim. I am interested if anyone else sees any benefits of this treaty? I do see numerous undefined obligations, such as military service and ‘other activities’ deemed appropriate by the President, which could be potentially detrimental to this region. I think that these obligations far outweighing any benefits. B~ |
| Posted by: Vilita May 18 2004, 03:07 PM |
| Agreed, The danger of Invasion is slim and there are no clear benefits to joining. We will wait for the FA president to arrive and answer questions but until them the stance of the Colony of Vilita is Against |
| Posted by: Samonina May 18 2004, 03:11 PM |
| however-advantages-i guess would give a community feel. we'd be part of an organisation. although i am not for this i am all for giving them a fair cahance to prove themselves. or even to join and then leave if we were all right about it. the way i see it theyve taken the time and consideration to ask us, we should at least oblige |
| Posted by: Tachbe May 18 2004, 03:16 PM |
| We should not take a negative stance on this, just a objective one. We should not post ourselves against or for until we have the facts. The once we have the facts, if we are not happy we could negotiate a special deal perhaps addressing our concerns or request reclassification in the alliance itself? Also what other alliances are out there, are any better? |
| Posted by: Vilita May 18 2004, 03:17 PM |
| We have predetermined alliances with the regions of Maya and Amazon Rain Forest |
| Posted by: Aethyrea May 18 2004, 03:19 PM |
| I’m all for alliances, just not for the sole fact of being able to say that we have one. Alliances are double edged swords – with both benefits and obligations. I just don’t want to see this region get involved in one that it may not be able to (or may not want to) later honor. B~ |
| Posted by: Tachbe May 18 2004, 03:24 PM |
| We should look at all the facts. OF course if there are no suitable ones then we souldn't take part. But even if we decide to stay out we could still have some connections with the alliance could we not. |
| Posted by: Samonina May 18 2004, 03:46 PM |
| yes i agree. we shouldnt pass judgement on the FA untill we have all the facts they are prepared to present us with. following that we should have a poll. we shouldnt prejudice ourselves against it now. |
| Posted by: Musez May 18 2004, 05:25 PM |
| Greetings, I am the Freedom Alliance President and I come to clear up the issue of AO entrance to the alliance. Firstly, the Constitution is in need of updating. Up until now, it has been widely accepted as guidelines rather than a strict rulebook. Allow me to make a quick summary of AO and the benefits of entrance. The FA is a one year old alliance and we are growing rapidly. 7 regions are in the alliance, with around 11 regular UN nations in the FA military. In terms of the 'FA Agreement', this is where we have 2 regional reps from member regions come to FA Parliament which governs the alliance. If AO were in the alliance, you would select 2 MP's (Members of Parliament). As for the Presidential structure, anyone in an FA allied region is an automatic FA member. They then can vote and run in the Presidential elections. A President then selects a Cabinet of 3 Ministers, who form FA policy on all issues, then present those policies to Parliament to have all regional reps vote on whether these policies become law and official. I hope this clears up the issue of representation and the part regions play in governance. As for the military/ops. As stated, when the FA Cabinet see a region being oppressed or dominated by a tyrant or dictator delegate, we want to oust them and install democracy. We also participate in defending regions in case the founder gets deleted leaving the native delegate vulnerable hence we go in and support the delegate. This is where the so called 'duties' come in. We simply telegram nations within FA regions and ask them to participate in such operations. They can disregard the telegram and ignore it, or they can participate - entirely their choice. There is not one case in the FA's history that we have condemned or even said publicly that someone has not participated. Operations are more on an individual basis rather than regional. The FA is worldly known. Yes you have a founder and this alliance will not benefit you militarily, but we can add you another dimension to your region with regards to having you publicly known and allowing you to participate in defending and keeping NationStates a free world. This is entirely your choice and we hold no grudges against those who decline. Regards, Spaceisland & Musez FA President |
| Posted by: Exham May 18 2004, 06:31 PM |
| The whole thing sounds like a power play, the rules are just blurry enough to put member regions effectively under the thumb of one nation or region while not giving any tangable gains. |
| Posted by: Aethyrea May 18 2004, 06:38 PM | ||
I have to agree. I wouldn’t accept this without making some serious understandings, reservations & declarations. I’m glad that they are planning on re-vamping their constitution, but until they do the ‘rules’ are what they are, regardless of the fact that they are loosely enforced. B~ |
| Posted by: Tachbe May 19 2004, 05:52 AM |
| What about the parliament, I want to hear details on exactly what it does, how many votes, how many people (total) voting thresholds, sovereignty. Finish the commercial and onto the details. |
| Posted by: Samonina May 19 2004, 06:23 AM |
| hmm yes. i agree with all the above. however, if we joined BEFORE any revamp took place, surely we could have input into what was changing? i dont mean we manipulate the system to suit us, just that we make sure our priorities are adressed. |
| Posted by: Tachbe May 19 2004, 09:25 AM |
| It would depend on what out voting weight would be like. If its minimal then theres no much point. Though I think we should try to be involved in any revamp, I particualy would like to add my voice to any such project even if it would carry little weight. Perhaps we could hold a meeting at some point between the leaders of the invoved regions to discuss this? |
| Posted by: Samonina May 19 2004, 10:56 AM |
| well that sounds like fun. define region leader though. delegate or founder? personally i think you could do it tachbe. youd also have to get all the other member regions to agree. some may have worked themselves into a comfortable hole as far as the FA is concerned. |
| Posted by: Tachbe May 19 2004, 11:06 AM |
| Well out leader is the protectorate council, I admit we dont have a single post. Others might though. But basicly what I meant by leader was not somone representing them in the parliment or somthing who actualy has no direct power at home. |
| Posted by: Aethyrea May 19 2004, 12:29 PM |
| If the FA will allow us to have a say in the terms and conditions of our acceptance to their Union, then I am not against it in the least. Alliances can be beneficial. But as this one is written I think that it is potentially disastrous. Will someone on the governing council of Atlantian Oceania be preparing a written counter-proposal? B~ |
| Posted by: Tachbe May 19 2004, 12:34 PM |
| I will if we could get a complete original agreement. At the moment its rather sporadic |
| Posted by: Aethyrea May 19 2004, 12:49 PM |
| Its posted at there forum, but here's the direct link: http://freedomalliance.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=apply&action=display&num=1079812407 ~B |
| Posted by: Tachbe May 19 2004, 12:53 PM |
| Yes I posed that in the council forum but they stated that was more orientated towards individual nations did they. This document also contains very little detail on the decision making process and what influence we would have. Perhaps we should agree to that constitution along with a separate agreement of our own along side augmenting the constitution and adding extra areas securing our position. |
| Posted by: Tachbe May 19 2004, 01:28 PM |
| I am working out a possible draft clause, if we add it to any agreement we sign we can include in it, in clear black and white, any rights we want secured from the vagueness of this constitution, any suggestions? |
| Posted by: Aethyrea May 19 2004, 01:28 PM |
| ok, so I'm back to my original question - is someone going to make a counter-proposal? B~ |
| Posted by: Aethyrea May 19 2004, 01:29 PM |
| scratch that last post - question aswered as I was posting. B~ |