Login | Register


All times are UTC


It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:46 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 487 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 25  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:32 pm
Posts: 391
Quote:
[17112011] Closure of the Elwynnese Legation

Image
Official Communique: Ministry of Foreign Affairs - אויסלאנדס מיניסטעריום

It is with regret that the Republic of Ashkenatza announces the closure of the legation of Elwynn, Amokolia and Hurmu, 17 Tsofnbreg Str, in Kolmenitzkiy. The maroon republic was one of the first nations to recognise the Riqi Adurellion, and has done nothing but to attempt to pursue constructive and peaceful relations with that polity. The republic views with displeasure the blatant disregard to the terms of Trans-Elwynn accords that the Riqi Adurellion has shown by it's recent actions. We can only hope that the Riqi Adurellion sees as we do the continued importance for civilised relations to maintain the security of Benacia.


...In the words of the Dayan of the Beth din of my administration -

Quote:
Excellency,

I would like to express my displeasure at your statement that the Republic of Ashkenatza is 'determined' to close this Legation. As I have explained on your nation's forum, our decision to do so was done in response to the apparrent readiness of Elwynn to station Babkhan troops on its territory, a nation which you are very well aware has less than cordial relations with the Republic at present. I would go as far as to say that it is, in this instance, Elwynn which has begun an aggressive stance towards the Republic, given the contents of the very first article of the Trans-Elwynn Accords which a Babkhan presence near our borders would quite clearly break. The Knesset is no cabinet of fools. We are aware, and have been, for some time of the remarkable coincidences of dual citizenships between Babkha and many other nations and the equally coincidental changes this spells in said nations' foreign policy towards the Republic.

Similarly, the Republic has as yet made no statement regarding the Batavian civil war, and it would be haphazard of anyone to base a foreign policy order on sheer conjecture. It is my considered opinion, unofficially, that the Republic will not get involved with any civil war which will occur in Batavia outside providing humanitarian aid. We have the same interest in Benacian peace and security as Elwynn, and it is my opinion that in recent weeks it is Elwynn, not this Republic, which has been jeopardising the peace on our continent.

If Elwynn is so closely knit with Babkhan foreign policy that it sees deployment of Babkhan troops on its soil as more important than keeping to the principles of an agreement signed in good faith, then it should do the honourable thing and let its Ashkenatzi colleagues know. But to put words into His Excellency the Nohsi's mouth on the subject of the Batavian Civil War and consequently portray the Republic as threatening Benacian security is disingenuous.

I would ask the Elwynnese nation to crawl out of the mire of ambiguity and declare who her true friends really are. Given our close history, I sincerely hope Ashkenatza is the preferred choice. Given the quite plain Babkhan political and military moves against this Maroon Republic, anybody who would accuse this nation of threatening Benacian security would truly be wilfully blind.


We did not begin this. We don't want this.

_________________
Image
Image
Image


Last edited by Aster on Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:52 am
Posts: 1971
:tears:


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:57 am
Posts: 2000
We shall indeed miss the friendship and cooperation extended to us by the Ashkenatzi Republic. We regret that we shall not be able to further enjoy the diplomatic courtesies extended to us during such crises as the Amokolian Secession.

_________________
The ghost of Nathan Waffel-Paine


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:32 pm
Posts: 391
We will miss your friendship as well. I am sad to see that it has been replaced by antagonism and provocation.

_________________
Image
Image
Image


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:55 pm
Posts: 1161
Minister Astopov,

I would like to ask you and your government to consider for a moment on what grounds he proposes to close the Legation of the Union of Elwynn, Hurmu and Amokolia. Does the granting of anchorage rights to one Babkhan vessel operating alone and unarmed in northern waters really pose anything like a credible threat to the vast military and industrial complex of the Republic of Ashkenatza? To talk of stationing troops is disingenuous in the extreme, since shore leave for visiting sailors does not equate with garrisons with gleaming scimitars.

Does this truly merit the deployment of warships and the placing of threats against this very Legation? How is the spirit of friendship to be represented now? Are we to have no correspondence with the nations of Micras except with the tacit approval of mighty Ashkenatza?

We have every right to accept visits from who we wish, to negotiate treaties with whom we please, and if one ship constitutes a covert or overt threat to the Republic of Ashkenatza then can we not for a moment consider the opposite case; that Ashkenatza has, since its very inception been an enemy of peace in Central Benacia. Ashkenatza was the nation that tore up the Romersk Accords almost as soon as they were signed. All for the sake of Benacian security.

It was for the security of Benacia that Ashkenatza invade Tellia, it was for the security of Benacia that it sought to annex Benaciastadt. For the security of Benacia it forced frontier adjustments on Batavia, and finally for the security of Benacia Ashkenatza has repeatedly subjected Amokolia to the most dire threats, provocations and outright aggression.

So we say now, enough! Enough with the lies. Enough with the self-serving hypocrisy. Enough with the arrogance.

The Accords are dead, it would seem.

_________________
Ghost of Dâniyal the Dead
Disturb not my sleep!


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:57 am
Posts: 2000
Here, here, Your Highness!

How can we be true friend when they treat our every action with suspicion and distrust? How can we be true friend when they interfere in our sovereign dealings with other nations?

Ashkenatza never saw Elwynn as a true friend, only a pawn in it's struggle to establish hegemony over Benacia in the false name of stability and security.

_________________
The ghost of Nathan Waffel-Paine


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:18 pm 
Lord of the Fries
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:39 pm
Posts: 4821
Location: Daocheng, Jingdao
Quote:
For the security of Benacia it forced frontier adjustments on Batavia

They did? =p

_________________
Chiang Shun
Diwang of the Jingdaoese Empire


Ming Wei
Chairman of the Nokarodo Faction


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:52 am
Posts: 1971
Quote:
For the security of Benacia it forced frontier adjustments on Batavia


Jonas, are you missing anything over there?

_________________
Jacobus Loki

Ducal Baron of Greater Yardistan
MoMa of the Imperial Republic
Once and Future King of the Ma'alanje
Prophet of Loki, Wielder of the Sword of Madness

Shireroth sumus. Tempus in parte nostrum est.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:35 pm 
Lord of the Fries
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:39 pm
Posts: 4821
Location: Daocheng, Jingdao
Jacobus Loki wrote:
Quote:
For the security of Benacia it forced frontier adjustments on Batavia


Jonas, are you missing anything over there?


I can remember that the Ashkenatzim gave Batavia some of their land because we couldn't get any during the Romero Conference, but I'm sure that they never took land away from us.
Of course, it was a frontier adjustment, but I can hardly say it was a bad deal for the Batavians. =p

_________________
Chiang Shun
Diwang of the Jingdaoese Empire


Ming Wei
Chairman of the Nokarodo Faction


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:51 am
Posts: 158
To be blunt, the Elwynnese are those who have shown they don't want a friendly relationship with Ashkenatza. Knowingly allowing troops of a nation which you know full well has less than cordial relations with Ashkenatza to be stationed on your territory for obvious reasons (it has hardly gone unnoticed that the vast majority of Elwynnese are also Babkhan citizens) is very difficult to interpret as adhering to:

Quote:
Article I: Recognition
The Elwynnese Realm and the Republic of Ashkenatza recognise eachothers' sovereignty as independent nations and shall not partake in or initiate covert or overt acts of hostility against eachother.


Elwynn had every right to reject Ashkenatzi frontier adjustments in Amokolia but your government did not. I find it strange that this is recognised only as 'self-serving hypocrisy' once you begin acquitting the Babkhan who deleted your forums out of a personal vendetta and start stationing Babkhan troops on your lands. Tellia was annexed by Ashkenatza under agreement by King Christopher, who later became an Ashkenatzi citizen under the name Chaim Wajnstein. The 'Ashkenatzi-Tellian War' which followed was mere theatrics to cement the occasion. Look, we're not naive. It won't be one merchant vessel stationed in Elwynnese waters, and we both know it. Elwynn is conspiring with a nation which seeks to undermine the territorial integrity of the Republic of Ashkenatza, after signing a treaty which expressly forbids it. Meanwhile, Ashkenatzi recognition of Elwynnese independence set back Ashkenatzi-Shirereithan relations considerably and what has Ashkenatza received in response. A traitor for a neighbour who portrays their own inability to adhere to intermicronational treaties as some kind of great nobility.

If Elwynn wants to align herself with Babkha, that is her right. It is quite clear to all concerned that that is the state of affairs at present. If this is indeed the case, then be professional and cancel the accords; but please, please don't portray us of having forced you into this state of affairs. It's just disingenuous.

Elwynn wants to exchange Ashkenatza for Babkha. In doing that it would rather break a treaty than do the honourable thing and repeal it before we parted our separate ways. A true friend of the Republic? Really?

We're more than happy to extend diplomatic courtesies to Elwynn. But in response we expect Elwynn to do the same. This includes, understandably, adhering to Treaties signed in good faith. If Elwynn is unable to do this, as has just been demonstrated, and shows no interest in trying to remedy the situation, then Elwynn should not be surprised at our Republic's course of action. Yet they portray our understanding of the true state of affairs as 'mistrust'.

The Republic will continue to view the Trans-Elwynn Accords to be in force until an accredited repesentative of the Elwynnese government officially lets us know otherwise in the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy. Which remains open.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:57 am
Posts: 2000
Quote:
Article II: Territorial Integrity

Both nations recognise the total territorial integrity of eachothers' lands, and shall not seek to appropriate any territory or province administered by the other signatory party.


This is our main concern. If you hold the Accords in such high esteem you should not have entered into the bidding war perpetrated by Victoria over Amokolia. Yet you did, claiming that Elwynn was unsuitable to administer the country and that Ashkenatza could do better. Granted, of course, Amokolia was not internationally recognized as part of Elwynn when you began to carve it up for yourself, you had previously recognized our claim to it, and welcomed it as a step towards central Benacian stability. Everything else has built off of this perceived betrayal.

_________________
The ghost of Nathan Waffel-Paine


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:55 pm
Posts: 1161
Minister Goltz,

I will comment on two of all the irregularities in your statement. Firstly, how can a merchant ship be construed to be a stationing of military troops? Just because you are in a bad relationship with Babkha does not mean that we are obliged to disallow Babkhan merchant ships in our ports. Really?

Secondly, if you choose to continue abiding by Accords, the legation should as by the treaty be reopened.

Other matters of the either blatant lies or paranoid dillusions from the Ashkenatzi governments will be responded to at a later point.

_________________
Ghost of Dâniyal the Dead
Disturb not my sleep!


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:51 am
Posts: 158
Minister Nathan,

Jess signed a treaty with Victoria and then broke it. The legal precedent for who would rule Amokolia was hazy at best- luckily Jess chose Elwynn and Ashkenatza in fact congratulated Elwynn upon the occasion. You may remember, seeing as you responded to it and were moderator of the Hall of Conciliation on Elwynn's pre-Bastion forum. Ashkenatza had been concerned for a while about Amokolia's constant hopping from nation to nation to continue to survive and if you remember the Ocian War, you'll recall that this at times gave Ashkenatza grave cause for concern. Our northern border could fall into anyone's hands, at any time, all at Jess's whim. Of course we were concerned. Anybody would be. When Elwynn annexed Amokolia we were relieved- it gave us some kind of stable northern neighbour to do business with. If you'll remember our communication was quite extensive in those days after the 'bidding war' which you only now seem to have a problem with. The Cherokee Accords which came as a part of our 'carving up' Amokolia resulted in there being no discord in Central Benacia since. They worked.

Daniel. Paranoia? Really? Have you forgotten a recent discussion entitled 'Babkhan military presence' on your own forums? This is proof, not paranoia. Given the large number of Elwynnese citizens who are also Babkhan citizens, it is not paranoid to suppose that such a move would easily find support in the Senate. On the contrary, that's called realism. I think I am being reasonable in supposing that a discussion about a Babkhan 'military presence' won't be talking about merchant ships as you suggest.

From where I'm standing, Elwynn wants to align itself closer to Babkha and needs a compelling reason to get rid of its cordial relations with Ashkenatza whilst appearing as if it has reasonable grounds for doing so. So Ashkenatza hasn't been perfect. But as regards our attempts at building a friendship with Elwynn, we tried pretty hard. Remember, we were the first nation to recognise you as an independent state. You can try, and you evidently are, to find compelling reasons for why Elwynn suddenly needs not only to cease friendly relations with Ashkenatza, but become a possible future enemy, but you won't meet with much success. There was a time when we put a lot of time and effort into making Elwynn a good friend- the Elwynn bridge, trying to establish Trans-Elwynn cultural links and so forth, so if you want to tear up the Trans-Elwynn Accords, just do the mature thing and say so.

First it was the closure of the Embassy, which didn't work, because somebody evidently hadn't read the post on our forums thoroughly enough (it was a statement of displeasure that the embassy could close given close Elwynnese military ties with an enemy state). Then there was some equally nonsensical reason about our harming Benacian stability by participating in a Batavian Civil War (quite an assumption there since we were only notified of the war yesterday and still haven't even started discussing our position on it in the Knesset). Now you're trying to dig up supposedly long-standing grievances against us from the partitioning of Amokolia.

The reasons change, but the facts remain the same. And the fact in Kolmenitzkiy is that Elwynn has shown that she has picked a side in the Ashkenatzi-Babkhan Cold War and is searching frantically for a reason. You won't find a good one, for sure, but whichever one you decide, we'll be waiting for you to approach our government formally to cancel the Accords. Then we can get this tedious argument behind us and get down to the business of actually closing Legations like we promised.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:52 am
Posts: 1971
Could not Elwynn prove to be an honest broker to help restore Babkho-Ashkenatzan relations?

_________________
Jacobus Loki

Ducal Baron of Greater Yardistan
MoMa of the Imperial Republic
Once and Future King of the Ma'alanje
Prophet of Loki, Wielder of the Sword of Madness

Shireroth sumus. Tempus in parte nostrum est.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:51 am
Posts: 158
Of course. I am sure that the Knesset and Nohsi would welcome the opportunity. Nonetheless I am sure you will agree that such a move would be difficult with Elwynn providing military access for Babkhan forces to Benacia.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:18 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:52 am
Posts: 1971
Herr Goltz,

This ship is supposed to be on a peaceful polar exploration mission. What if Ashkenatzan scientists, and perhaps scientists from other interested nations were to accompany this expedition, thus proving its scientific and non-threatening nature for the benefit of all of Micras?

_________________
Jacobus Loki

Ducal Baron of Greater Yardistan
MoMa of the Imperial Republic
Once and Future King of the Ma'alanje
Prophet of Loki, Wielder of the Sword of Madness

Shireroth sumus. Tempus in parte nostrum est.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:32 pm
Posts: 391
Babkhan ideology explicitly refutes the idea that there can be common benefit to all the peoples of Micras. The only 'science' the revisionists are interested in are eugenics and weapons testing.

_________________
Image
Image
Image


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:52 am
Posts: 1971
Then wouldn't it be a good idea to go along and know what's happening?

_________________
Jacobus Loki

Ducal Baron of Greater Yardistan
MoMa of the Imperial Republic
Once and Future King of the Ma'alanje
Prophet of Loki, Wielder of the Sword of Madness

Shireroth sumus. Tempus in parte nostrum est.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:34 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:32 pm
Posts: 391
Yes. In a battleship.

_________________
Image
Image
Image


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Closure of the Elwynnese legation in Kolmenitzkiy
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:51 am
Posts: 158
Then why is the discussion I linked to entitled 'Babkhan military presence'?
Come on, we all know that the Ashkenatzi Ice-Stations along the polar fringes of Benacia, Apollonia, and Keltia have a military as well as scientific application. This Babkhan base is obviously no different.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 487 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 25  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: