Join the new world

Of Alliances

The 'Brotherhood of Eden' (what about the sisters?) has never been the proverbial paradise that it's name implies. ALL alliances have ongoing and varying arguements on a host of issues but this is the nature of alliance almost by definition; you can't have an alliance of one partner in the same way that it is impossible to say "I" without implying a "you". Partners to ANY and ALL alliances be they military, economic, diplomatic or political all have some interests in common but never all interests (if all interests coincide then union proceeds). So it is natural that partners within an alliance will agree on common interests and try to push their own interests within the alliance framework and here there is always conflict and this often represents itself in strategic disagreements.

Generaly the most famous historical alliances are formed against a direct and imminent threat which outwieghs all other interests. The various Coalitions against Napoleon and Hitler spring to mind. Countries with normaly very different interests agreed to join together to defeat something that threatened ALL their interests. However as the threat receeds or is removed so does the common interest; Hitler predicted that the allies would fall out. He was right on that but wrong on the timing.


Common interests... for now.

Of eRepublik Alliances

In general erep is a bi-polar world; you are either pro Peace/Phoenix/One or pro Atlantis/Eden-PANAM/Terra. Fundamentaly these alliances boil down to conflicts between 'traditional' enemy states. Atlantis vs Peace was essentialy eRomania against eIndonesia and later eHungary. Another ongoing conflict is eSpain vs eFrance although sides have changed on this one. More recently Eden and Terra have comprised alliances of smaller nations to counterbalance the threat of One 'super-powers' ePoland and eSerbia (and a few other 'lackeys').

Alliances in erep however do not follow real life when they break up. It is rare for an erep allaince to dissolve because a foe is defeated (of course they are never defeated as such). Peace dissolved into Phoenix after a military defeat in North America and eSerbia and eHungary decided to head east instead, thus leaving eFrance for eSpain. Atlantis dissolved into Eden after a similar attack on eFrance had failed ('French Toast'). These defeats were NOT the issues argued over when the alliances broke up but were the causes for the later arguements. If these military operations had been 100% successful it is doubtful that anyone would have argued, but after a defeat they started thinking about themselves first: It is interesting to note that eIndonesia, after recent defeats, has recently left One.

Of eBulgaria and eTurkey

Let's first review eTurkeys alliance history: Of old they were members of Peace, in another of the interminable conflicts of the eworld with eGreece, who naturaly applied to Atalntis and remained into Eden. Then last year they became members of PANAM (now Terra) briefly before reverting to the descendants of Peace, One. When however they attacked another One country (eIran) and failed to desist this cannot be described as the behaviour of an ally and they were kicked out. So off they marched straight to Eden and here the trouble began.

The Legal Issues

It is disputed as to whether eBulgaria actualy voted yes to eTurkeys trial membership of Eden. From what I understand the eBulgarian Congress was certainly not consulted but then I wonder if ours was. What we DO know is that the end of the agreed one month trial membership eBulgaria was going to veto eTurkish full membership. Then Eden HQ became 'creative' and invented new laws; you need 2/3rds of members majority to kick a trial member country out. I can't find this rule anywhere in the Treaty... On admission it clearly states in Article II, 1.0.3. "Receive unanimous vote from all Members and Founding Members in favour of admission into the Brotherhood". It also states in Article II (3. Membership termination can be effecte😛 ) "3.0.2. At the request of another Member. In this case a vote will be held with a required majority of over 66% to exact the Membership termination immediately".

So let's get this clear... eTurkey applies to Eden, is given 1 month 'trial membership' and then vote is due again to see if eTurkey becomes a member. Well a 'trial member' is clearly NOT a member and eBulgarias consent is needed for eTurkey to become a member. This consent is evidently not forthcoming so eTurkey is NOT legaly an Eden member. Therefore the 66% needed to expel a member is not applicable to a country that has not gained membership. Where does it say you need 66% to reject a trial membership nation? On the contrary it says 'unanimous vote'.

The Taking Sides

So eUkraine and eArgentina very soon afterwards signed an MPP with eTurkey, as have we and others including eRomania, eCroatia and eFrance (even eGreece!). What rankles eBulgaria here is that they recently returned some regions to eUkraine whom they had previously supported against ePolish aggression. Why would they suddenly ally with eTurkey? So next came the proposal of eBulgarian/ePolish MPP which failed... When eBulgaria then changed it's attitude and offered an MPP to eTurkey they in turn rejected this. Now eBulgaria fights for eIran against eTurkey... All this is pretty much the direct result of Eden HQ inventing new rules for 'trial members'.

This is in many ways a re-run of the dissolution of Atlantis. In that case eGermany was 'trial member' and eSweden (who previously had occupied some valuable eGerman regions) rejected their membership. eSweden attacked eGermany countries within the alliance took sides etc etc etc.

Questions and Answers

What seems most necessary to ascertain first is whether eTurkey is a member, or even a trial member, of Eden? To my mind it is cannot legaly be a member but could our Government please give us first an informed legal opinion. Perhaps our Court could asked be asked for an opinion?

Secondly does Congress regard eTurkey as a member of Eden? Diplomaticly and militarily? The eTurkish MPP implies that this is the case but has an eBulgarian MPP been proposed?

Thirdly what is Eden HQs opinion of eTurkeys status? Why did they invent new rules (if they did in our Governments opinion).

Only when we have answers to these questions can we hope to disentangle this chaos since if eTurkey is NOT a member of Eden then eBulgaria is not fighting it's allies when supporting eIran, although it IS helping a One nation. Of course if eTurkey IS a member of Eden then eBulgaria must face expulsion... which nobody wants to see.

The eCanadian Government must:

A. Form an considered opinion on the status of eTurkey and explain it. I have given my opinion... over to you.

B. Propose an MPP with eBulgaria asap. In any ongoing dispute we must not be seen to take one side only.

C. Demand the resignation of the Eden SC if he is found to have broken Treaty Articles.

D. As a price for eCanadian support demand that eBulgaria cease helping our enemies in eIran.

I look forward to the Governments response.



Gut Instincts

Of course in ALL delicate questions of this sort, particularly regarding alliances, people do not work as calculating machines, weighing the balance of interests so completely that it becomes a science of measurement. Much is made diplomaticly in real life of simply whether people 'get on' and can be pals. Even if one were to find a case so finely balanced that a decision in terms of self interest were impossible one can look at the history. In this regard I ask 'How many eTurks fought to help eCanada in the past?'. Hmm...