So, I wrote this a few days ago but was waiting for one of my advisers to tell me not to post it. They never did, so...here it is.
I add narrative. It's what I do. Deal with it.
This is just an info dump. Sorry for the lack of pics.
The NAP between Australia and Chile was signed at the very end of the last term.
A day or two after the start of the new term, I got a message from Australian CP, Xavier Griffith saying they were trying to negotiate region deals with Indonesia. I asked them why. They simply said 'because they are our neighbors.'
A couple days later (5-ish days into the term) Australia published this.
tl;dr- "Indonesia is single handedly undermining Australia's entry into CoT and our relationship with Chile for short-term personal gain. Is this really how you build a circle of trust? Slow down, take in the sun, and build a proper relationship."
The comments are fascinating. What they indicate to me are two things-
1. Australian congress is probably the most entertaining thing in eRepublik
2. It was believed by some that a couple Indonesian leaders may not have been on same page as the rest of their country.
Now, if #2 is true, then one would think knee jerk reactions and immediate accusations against an entire alliance might be a bad move before diplomacy had actually been exhausted (or even taken place). This is less than a week into the term (which is less than 2 weeks after the deal was signed).
There was an accusation straight out of the gate in the comments that Binda was trying to use Indonesia to wrestle more regions away from Chile. That accusation is likely based on this.
The same day that article was published, Binda sought out someone in the eUS State Dept.
[09:22:49] <%binda33> anyone from DoD here please?
[09:28:38] * You are now known as n0s3y|afk
[09:28:57] <n0s3y|afk> sup binda33
[09:29:11] <%binda33> hey
[09:29:14] <n0s3y|afk> hey
[09:29:17] <%binda33> Indo are going to attack Aus
[09:29:52] <%binda33> yeah
[09:29:53] <n0s3y|afk> what makes you think so?
[09:30:09] <%binda33> indo want Western Australia. one of only 2 regions we have right now
[09:30:25] <%binda33> we asked them to wait till we had more regions back from Chile as per our Treaty
[09:30:32] <%binda33> but Indo said they will just take it
[09:31:09] <n0s3y|afk> ugh
[09:31:19] <%binda33> yeah
[09:31:46] <%binda33> we asked them to wait and be patient but they sadi no
[09:31:49] <%binda33> said*
[09:32:45] <n0s3y|afk> I see. I'll get in touch with fingerguns and our SoS about this.
[09:33:11] <n0s3y|afk> I don't think that anybody will be okay with it as even CoT as an alliance has signed the treaty between Australia and Chile.
[09:33:50] <%binda33> thanks
[09:34:02] <n0s3y|afk> thanks for the information, I'll get in touch with fg and the SoS asap
[09:34:10] <%binda33> Aus is joining CoT and doing all the right things. Indo are just big bullies
[09:34:16] <%binda33> thanks mate
Australia at this point, a week into the term, is banging the war drums. Multiple messages were sent out claiming Indonesia was on the verge of invading, making accusations against Chile and CoT for not doing anything to stop it. They had already decided the contract will be breached and the eUS will fight for them 5 days into the term. News to us. Sure, she asked them to wait...but she also asked them to help negotiate more regions away from Chile.
We gave them the benefit of the doubt because we know how Indonesia can be...but we also know how Australia can be, so we did fact-checking of our own. My staff sent me this convo and I spoke with CoT leadership. As far as I could tell, CoT leadership was meeting with Chile and Indo to try and resolve this issue, but first they had to sort through what is actually happening. No easy task. There were different stories coming out of Indo and none of them seemed to match up with the various stories and accusations coming from Australia. Example: Indonesia told me their interest in Australia had nothing to do with resources in the first place. They simply wanted to pass through.
Migraine coming on.
I left them to it, but strongly suggested to both Indo and Australia that they have a 3rd party involved in their talks going forward so there is no more room for confusion. I'm not sure either ever did.
Background: The threat of war with the eUS was my idea while I was still working in the State Department last term. There were some understandable trust issues on both sides between Chile and Australia. Throughout the negotiations, Australia was constantly pushing for more and wouldn't stop running their mouths, even though they really didn't have a leg to stand on. I don't understand the mentality that leads someone to tell their occupiers who are offering them their freedom for literally nothing in return to 'stop treating them like bugs and show some respect!' Constantly. Every time a little headway was gained in negotiations, Australia started swinging their dongs around. I couldn't help but be impressed by the patience of the Chilean government. I can guess how the eUS would respond if a country we occupied, didn't trust or like, started running their mouths to us while we try to do them a favor. It wouldn’t have been so kind.
The threat of war was a last ditch effort to see if we could get the thing signed. It worked, but I did realize that we would probably end up at war with Australia. Their CP at the time made it abundantly clear that their Congress did not favor this deal, but he stuck his neck out to make it happen anyway because he was starting to see it was their best/only option. It was looking less and less likely that a new Aussie administration would even want to make good on their deal, but I was hopeful.
Just so it's understood, their move toward any kind of membership into CoT would be a ways down the road for Australia. Even for the eUS (who has something to offer), it took months just to get to the trial stage. Any talk that XG was going to push for full membership into CoT this term is silliness because the offer isn't even on the table. Never was. This NAP would have to be seen through first...regions returned to Australia without major incident and evidence of a willingness to work together. You know, prove they can be allies. Like I said, it was a long shot.
It was unfortunate that Indonesia had suddenly entered the picture, but according to this Venezuelan interview with Aussie CP, XG, Indonesia are no longer really aggressors. They are allies! Everything is hunky dory with Indonesia and they’re totally not “single handedly undermining Australia's entry into CoT and our relationship with Chile for short-term personal gain.”
Do what now?
Also in that interview, he says he strongly favors CoT. But shortly after things hit the fan (a couple days ago), other Aussies let it slip that XG never actually believed they would be accepted in CoT in the first place, so they were trying to manipulate the situation to create more options. Yeah... it’s gossip, and it confirmed my existing bias so I’m giving it weight. But, it’s their impression of what’s happening. As a fellow CP, I know people can and will get it wrong, however I continue to be dazzled by the Aussies who openly admit they think XG handled all of this poorly and totally disagree with all he has done but still defend him tooth and nail in article comments and help him burn bridges. That’s politics, I guess.
Another migraine coming on.
So where does this actually leave things? Like in a practical way?
According to XG,
" 3. Continue to work with Chile and find a trusting solution to any issues we may still have and should a Treaty be approved prior to the CP election, I commit to ensure that all parts of the agreement are kept. –ACHIEVED The Treaty was resigned and Australia kept to the Treaty as it was, we did not break it once while Chile broke it 3 times, which we allowed it to slide due to relations between our nation"
Oh, well I guess there isn't a problem at all then. Australia was kind enough to let it slide. lol
The bit that I find strange, though, is that Australia claims there was an unwillingness to negotiate, however based on the logs that XG himself posted, it seems very clear to me that Australia were the ones who were unwilling to negotiate. The 'full context' of the conversations I threw in little clips of, as well as the convos they offered up, make it pretty clear to me that they were playing every angle EXCEPT the angle of someone who was serious about making the NAP work and heading down the path of an alliance with CoT.
I don't think Australia is completely out of options here. They aren't totally screwed. The question is, will they do what needs to be done to get back on track and restore the broken agreement with CoT? Or will they let it burn and take their chances and try to join TWO (which, by the way, is not the same thing as signing a defensive MPP with a single nation, you derps)? Or will they be wiped again and just stay that way because their inner turmoil makes them such a hassle to try and work with?
Based on some of their comments, it seems some hold out the hope that there is still room to negotiate and try to mend things. Based on some of their other comments (from the current Administration), it seems they have readied their torches to make sure no bridge is left unburned.
They need to make this decision rather quickly. If their hope is to try and mend things with CoT, I believe the eUS is still willing to try and help them help themselves...again. We would really love some sort of indication that Australia actually wants this, though. I've seen nothing this term on behalf of the current Australian administration that would lead any reasonable person to believe they are interested in this. Lip service, sure. But it is just that.
As trial members in CoT, the eUS will support our new allies. But I do not think we will close the door on Australia entirely until we know for certain that's what they want (the majority of them).
O que é isso?Este é um artigo escrito por um cidadão do eRepublik, um imersivo jogo de estratégia baseado nos países do mundo real. Crie um personagem e ajude seu país rumo à glória. Torne-se um herói de guerra, um editor renomado ou um guru das finanças.