Okolje ON/OFF

Join the new world


Chile, Australia, CoT and the broken treaty.

Dan 1,899, 22:59 Published in Chile Nova Zelandija s strani Valentyme

Each side believes that it is in the right, but only one can be right. So let’s take a look at the facts.

1. Chile stance: Understanding all of these facts and arguments, we find ourselves under the tentative position of NOT RENEWING THE ACCORD, due to the bad disposition and failure to comply from the Australian people towards us.”
2. Australia’s stance: The treaty can not be broken by a CP who has replaced one by Impeachment, the Treaty is very specifically worded, it can only be non-ratified AFTER the CP elections on the 5th of the Month and MUST be either ratified or not by the 10th of the month.

So let’s evaluate each of these statements. Chile has said that Australia violated the treaty in 3 different ways:
1. Tasmania was RW back to Australia before it was supposed to be given back.
2. Australia did not move towards a pro-Cot mpp stack.
3. Australian citizens were fighting against Chile in a few RWs.
Point one would be valid if it was not already determine by the cosigners of the treaty that it did not in fact violate the treaty. It was determined that Argentina was the primary catalyst for Tas being won by the resistant forces of Australia. Because it was determined that this did not violate the treaty Australia was given back its 200k by Brazil, and if they did violate the treaty why would they have been given back the money.

As already been explained by countless articles, CoT countries did not want to sign mpp with Australia because Indonesia had NE Australia several times and countries did not want to lose an mpp with Indonesia. So in fact it was not Australia’s fault and this point should be disregarded.

Point three is also invalid because per the treaty “Both countries understand that it is impossible to ensure that all Citizens of their nation meet the terms and conditions of this agreement, but will ensure that their own Defence Forces Personnel are ordered to fight correctly under the terms of this agreement.” Chile failed to identify any actual ADF personnel fighting against them, and the orders from the Australian MoD were clear to fight for Chile not against it.

Also another issue with the whole situation was XG’s famous quote:
16:56] <def0> Hmmm
[16:56] <def0> The problem is
[16:56] <def0> When we come and Chile said they got no interest in u
[16:57] <def0> It will be not only WA im afraid that will be in our occupation
[16:57] <Xavier_Griffith> I understand that, but I'm also going to rip CoT apart and Chile will be branded Treaty Breakers publically
[16:58] <Xavier_Griffith> USA can't do anything, they are only trial members
Everything in this quote is 100% true. If Indonesia invaded Australia it would in fact break the treaty per “2. Any move by Chile to NE Australia or hand our regions to any other nation by stealth, including working or making agreements with other nations will result in this agreement being nullified.” So if Indo invaded Australia then that would in fact make Chile a “treaty breaker” and any such action by Indonesia would actually be against the very fiber of that CoT was founded upon.

Now to evaluate Australia’s point.
The treaty was indeed resigned by the former CP before he was impeached, which would make it valid until Feb 10th, and there is nothing in it that says if either country’s CP is impeached that the treaty has to be resigned. So the fact that Chile said they decided to not renew the treaty is actually not valid, they cannot chose not to renew something that has already been renewed.

In addition Chile actually broke the treaty before the NE when they failed to return the Australian regions, Tasmania (Jan 10th) and Victoria (Jan 14th), that had resources that were duplicate resources to those that had been won in South American regions, which breaks “1. Allow Chile to hold on to the Australian States of Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania until this agreement is modified by successive Australian and Chilean Administrations during the amendment period each month, or until Chile gains another region with the same resource as one of those states, at which time the Australian region will be returned to Australia;” Clearly Chile’s actions are in violation of the treaty in this instance, but were overlooked by Australia as a sign of good faith, which one would think would be returned by Chile, but somehow seems to not be returned.

Now to address CoT…

The alliance was originally formed as an anti-colonial alliance which would stand against such countries like Argentina. Chile and Indonesia’s actions at best are questionable and at worse direct violations of the original CoT charter. Indonesia should not have sent a NE to Australia because of the “A member state needs to inform the Presidency for all contracts it intends to sign in its relations towards non-member states. In case these non-member states have common border with a member state the Presidency should act as a mediator between these member states involved to avoid potential conflicts” and “A member state needs the approval of the MC in order to initiate a long term military operation by its own will. In this case it is recommended that the MC coordinates his decision to approve the operation with the Presidency and/or his Assistants.” This alliance was founded on brother hood and trust, the last few weeks have been lacking in both. This whole situation smells of injustice and does not support the values of the original charter on which this alliance has been formed. The command of CoT needs to step in an mediate the situation as is their duty and if all else fails then the Court of Justice should rule on the dealings of Chile and Indonesia.

Referenced articles:



Aussiee Bloke
Aussiee Bloke Dan 1,900, 23:02



Xavier Griffith
Xavier Griffith Dan 1,900, 23:08

Nice, and this is all we wanted, was for CoT and the other Signatories to come together in one full discussion and discuss and rule on the Treaty violations as a group, not in secret without all parties involved.

lancer450 Dan 1,900, 23:14

Voted. Finally somebody gets it!

Arthur the Elitist Cole
Arthur the Elitist Cole Dan 1,900, 23:18

Voted for Truth.

Tim_Holtz Dan 1,900, 23:19

voted hard

Mr Crumpets
Mr Crumpets Dan 1,900, 23:29

Voted Viagra Hard!

Sir_c0nstant Dan 1,900, 23:44

so all those that say we broke the treaty are not worth being in any sort of government.

Majester Dan 1,900, 23:52

Valentyme, our deposit was returned by Brazil because we did not NE Chile before the 15th. While you are correct that Tasmania was started and won by Argentina... (SA started by CoT-SG and lost), its not the legal reason we go our deposit returned.

We let slide the duplicate resources because we were not convinced that Chile could hold the Argentine regions and the regions serves as a link for the critical resource Chile needed for the fight. We posed an alternate link to avoid the issue and it was rejected.

Our biggest complaint is that Chile claim that CoT, USA and Brazil ruled in favour of them in a meeting where:
1) Australia were not given the right of defence (since we were not invited), nor
2) Where transcripts made available to prove that such a meeting did indeed occur, nor
3) Have any of the mediating parties confirmed that they in fact attended and ruled on the treaty in such a meeting either privately to Australia or publicly.

Right now, Chile is warring Australia, and we have no idea if CoT, USA and Brazil have declared us in breech of the treaty and are thus helping to wipe us as the treaty stipulates, or just ignoring that they were ever part of anything, or are planning on wiping Chile in response for their illegal NE on Australia.

At this point, any response will do so that we can all move along and deal with the logical consequences.

Wacky368 Dan 1,900, 00:07


quijanojulian Dan 1,900, 00:07

Majester +1kk

Satria Pandawa
Satria Pandawa Dan 1,900, 00:14

don't trust eAustralia, they always backstabb their friends..

New Faustian Man
New Faustian Man Dan 1,900, 00:22

Interesting read.


Binda33 Dan 1,900, 00:23

Finally somebody gets it! (and is willing to say so)


infin Dan 1,900, 00:50

so much for getting a fair go. this treaty was loaded against australia from the start. I don't know why anyone believed Chile. What a pack of ^%$#s. <--- Aussie slang.

Gavra Munja
Gavra Munja Dan 1,900, 00:51

Never put any possible outcome of RW in a treaty. It is impossible to predict who will start it, who will fight in it, or will it be won by the right side. Too many unknowns.
In this case, Argentinians won it, not Australians, and u cannot blame few of their citizens for fighting for their country. I saw many NZ-ers fighting in Otago RW for NZ, although we had an agreement with Chile.

Regions are won and lost, treaties with enemies shouldn't be taken too seriously. But trust among allies must not be broken, and any treaty-violating action must be punished by the alliance.

Arfman Dan 1,900, 00:58

Voted for Valentyme.

Viarizi Dan 1,900, 01:03

Theres not a lot of trust in the circle of trust....anyways Chile is right, the Aussies clearly violated the agreement and Brosil was biased!

Btw Chilean girls are a lot hotter than Australian chicks, so in my opinion Chile will always be right against Australian.

Excelsior.HMA Dan 1,900, 01:15

Hail Chile
Hail Australia
Hail brotherhood


Commius Dan 1,900, 01:29

Never trust Chile. They backstabbed TERRA once why not Australia?

Mack Craft
Mack Craft Dan 1,900, 01:30


F0rse7i Dan 1,900, 01:34

voted for truth

witherd1 Dan 1,900, 01:39

Voted harder than Tim_Holtz 😛

kuckuck Dan 1,900, 01:44


Mikhail Alexander
Mikhail Alexander Dan 1,900, 01:51

Excellent article!

Arcaian Dan 1,900, 01:55

Voted and subscribed, excellent article.

alexg737 Dan 1,900, 01:59

Poor Australia, pity UK has decided to side with Chile and not fight for you.

Daenerys Stormborn Targaryen
Daenerys Stormborn Targaryen Dan 1,900, 02:33

"deciding" makes a mockery of the pretense of CoT. Apparently CoT member nations don't trust the others enough to follow their own rules.

Mickskitz Dan 1,900, 02:36

voted harder than witherd1

Gordon Lightning
Gordon Lightning Dan 1,900, 03:19

Voted. Compare how clear and factual this was via fingerguns "article".

Lord TJ
Lord TJ Dan 1,900, 03:26

"Everything in this quote is 100% true. If Indonesia invaded Australia it would in fact break the treaty per “2. Any move by Chile to NE Australia or hand our regions to any other nation by stealth, including working or making agreements with other nations will result in this agreement being nullified.” So if Indo invaded Australia then that would in fact make Chile a “treaty breaker” and any such action by Indonesia would actually be against the very fiber of that CoT was founded upon."

^ Few lies here Val - and I expected better from you. Just because a country is in the same alliance and eAus hates eIndo and all that propaganda jazz that goes on between the two countries like shady bogan neighbours, there is a little Latin term here that you all need to learn -

Casus belli - Latin for "cause for war" in the case of an offensive country attacking one traditionally not allied.

eAus argued "casus foederis" which is cause when an allied country gets threatened. This wasn't the case here.

Where is eIndonesia tied to eAustralia? eAustralia's propaganda campaign fell apart at the start of the current executive term when select cabinet members provoked eIndonesia like a bully twit then ran to the school yard teacher (i.e. eUSA and eBrazil) yelling "Miss! Miss! eIndo was picking on us. You promised to go after them if they did!" The teacher replies, "Yes, but only if eChile does".

eAustralia then thought long and hard (for approx. 2 mins) and came up with the worst idea ever. Psst hey .. if we can say eIndo is gonna beat us up because eChile told them to do it, they'd have to help us with our shady plan. Then we can get back at eIndo and screw eChile at the same time! herp herp"

Sadly for the current eAustralian government, eUSA saw right through their BS. Nice try though - better luck next time.

Mickskitz Dan 1,900, 04:19

so Mick, you disagree with the cabinet's and CP's choice to ask for rent or a region swap for WA? Not sure exactly where the propaganda was that you were talking about, and how you think anyone in cabinet provoked eIndo. There were several of us in cabinet looking to get closer ties to eIndo before they looked at invading us.

And as for the part about us talking about the eIndo and eChile thing, you do realise that the fact that Chile said they would do nothing if indo invaded actually happened right? I know you were busy over in the USA, but that doesn't really excuse making up BS stories on how things happened in your mind.

Pescaman Dan 1,900, 04:41

However, USA CP, has indicated: "Australia has broken the agreement", "they were not acting in good faith more or less from the begining".USA is a referee of the treaty, in your analysis : what about implications of that statement?, same for Brazil silence.

Cabinza Dan 1,900, 06:39

Australia should honor the treaties they suscribe, taht´s all that matters !

sol feo
sol feo Dan 1,900, 07:46

Cuidado aquí parece q esta metida la mano negra de argenta. Son muchos los problemas. Todo esta pasando después de la invacion a argenta.

Valentyme Dan 1,900, 08:35

@Mick Go read the CoT Charter and maybe you will understand my point. Also claiming that Chile broke the treaty because Indonesia invaded is just as valid as claiming Australia broke the treaty due to Tasmania being lost to Chile, more so in my opinion. Also there was nothing wrong i those actions taken by Australia, nothing broke the treaty at all, if it did break the treaty please refer me to a specific passage. The actions taken by Australia because of eIndo's NE's were what any administration would attempt, a plan to prevent being strong armed by another nation who shouldn't even be doing what they were via CoT charter and the Treaty between Chile and Australia.

Pescaman: I never called for the USA to do anything, I called for CoT. Also silence does not equal a ruling.

Cabinza please refer me to a specific point in the treaty Australia broke.

TRAUKO1 Dan 1,900, 09:07

However, USA CP, has indicated: "Australia has broken the agreement", "they were not acting in good faith more or less from the begining".USA is a referee of the treaty, in your analysis : what about implications of that statement?, same for Brazil silence. x2

La buena fè, aqui no hubo de parte de Australia, sabiendo de estas clausulas las utilizaron para romper el tratado, ademàs, es claro que su unica razòn era la de desvirtuar el tratado, tal como lo hicieron antes, asi que a llorar a aRgentina australianos.

AllG3M3iN Dan 1,900, 09:26

articulo challa, pidale ayuda a los argentos 😉

Stolch Dan 1,900, 09:41

Another lawyer.....

1. Nowhere in the treaty is specified that "if either country’s CP is impeached that the treaty has to be resigned", however nowhere it is specifeid that it can't either.

The only thing it is specified that every new government can rene or not the treaty. The only argument here can be on the basis wether the ne Chilean government is "elected" or not. It can be regarded as elected, since the ne CP was elected to be second in the running (this is how erep mechanics work), thus a reserve for the curent CP, something of the role the VP has in some countries in RL, where he becomes the president if the curent CP for any reason is unable to do his job. Simply put that is a ne administration. Stil the point is open to interpretation.....

2. Just as both sides agreed that the tasmania RW was the result of Argentina movements and Australia was not held liable, the same can be said about the "returning" of regions "violations" from Chile. Simply put it is tit for tat and Chile has received it's 200K back as well. The use of this argument reveals heavy bias and selective argumentation for predefined goal of vilification of one side in favour of the other.....

3. Australia does not have or gain any rights under the CoT charter as a non member country. It cannot quote it, it cannot use it to it's benefit and least of all can it pertain to interpret it, least of all to advise ho it should be interpreted.

The CoT charter is clear it is neither colonial or anti-colonial, it is based on equality for all "MEMBERS" of the alliance.

4. Australia was given the opportunity to improve relations with CoT countries and signing MPPs would be the result of that, finding a solution to the problem with Indonesia is their prorogative and their responsibility. They choose to take an aggressive stands and to accuse of all earthly sins, Indonesia and CoT from the first moment the problem appeared instead of looking to solve it in the least painful way.

Stolch Dan 1,900, 09:52

5. The court of justice is for internal disputes between member states and it is not for the personal use of anyone outside the alliance for their own benefit.

6. When Tasmania was lost, while it was not in violation of the treaty it can be argued that the is in disrepute until the conditions under which it exists are reestablished. This as well as not stipulated in the treaty explicitly what happens if another country recovers a Australian region by force and is thus open to interpretation.

7. There ere congressman fighting in that and other RWs against Chile, while ordinary players are exempt from responsibility, the congressman are not, they're regarded as part of the government of Australia, furthermore the congress of Australia ratified the original treaty and is bound by it.

8. Once all regions of Australia are back in it's possession the treaty is no longer valid as it has been completed, not to mention that Australia fought in earnest for the last RW, before a NE law came into effect which technically is a breach of the treaty. The excuse that that was done to prevent a border and thus prevent a war (preventive strike), does not change the technical breach of the treaty preceding Chile.

Finally what has brought on this whole soup opera is the choice made by the Australian administration to try to use technicalities and free interpretation of the not settled explicitly parts of the agreement to their benefit in an agressive propaganda backed position to force concessions it desired from everyone involved. By doing so it engaged in shady diplomatic back-room deals which it justifies on the said propaganda and which ultimately convinced everyone of the lack of sincerity on their part to be honest and fateful to the treaty and the process of which it was only the beginning.

B R U J I N Dan 1,900, 09:53

Go cry with Harjentyna.

Diego Tugiyo
Diego Tugiyo Dan 1,900, 09:53

Indo invade australia, after chile gov declare to not renewed the treaty, you spin the story so it seem indo breaking the COT charter
The NE when the treaty is valid always rejected, like your saying that no one cannot control citizen to hit one side, of course no one cannot control conggresman to not propose NE law

Diego Tugiyo
Diego Tugiyo Dan 1,900, 10:01

Btw, why chile should have treaty, when all chile region in australia are freed, and aussie did not want make any sacrifice to put the region back to chile as what the treaty said

Stolch Dan 1,900, 10:02

Last I'll say this again......

In a game like this it is neither practicle or desirable to draft 100 page treaties hich are fool rpoof and cover all posible eventualities and aspects of interaction beteen both parties. There is a need for a common will to adhere to the treaty and work out any posible problems that arrise form it's inperfection with good faith.

Disecting the treaty for weaknesses and using technicalities to justify actions or positions only means that in future it will be much harder if at all posible to find partners willing to risk engaging in diplomacy with one that does so. Especially when the said party is in no position to make or justify any demands.

While every country has the right to selfdetermination and should strive for it, there is no obligations on everyone else to adhere to their demands.... one has to take responsability for their own defense as well as offense and battles are not only fought n the battlefield.

It is clear that on the battlefield Australia cannot match neither Chile, nor Indonesia, their choice to engage them on the diplomatic battlefield has led to this disaster for Australia, the attempt to vilify Chile, Indonesia and CoT, USA and Brazil as a consequence is only so they can justify this disaster politically inside Australia. Simply put Australian government bet they can get international support, big enough to force Chile and Indonesia in to accepting their terms and it turned out they're unable to, which caused them to try to spin events in their favour in a desperate attempt to salvage a disastrous diplomatic tactic.

Hopefully next Australian government wil focus on how to make Australia strong and thus seek to achieve it's goals and ambitions and not how to weaken it's opponents to gain the same.

Pescaman Dan 1,900, 10:33

I know Valentyme. That is the reason of my question. USA is a referee of the treaty and has indicated that Australia has broken it, however you dont include that important fact in your analysis.

Don Pedrokus Nerod
Don Pedrokus Nerod Dan 1,900, 11:10

es weon o lo culeo un leon? XD

Gael Cavannari
Gael Cavannari Dan 1,900, 12:00

Linda forma de llegar...

Zer0Xx Dan 1,900, 12:02



Valentyme Dan 1,900, 13:42


1. There is no clause for an impeached gov situation, which can only mean that a contract once signed is binding until the next renewal.

2. Please explain your logic for number 2 because they are far from comparable situations.

3. While you are right about this point in a sense, I however do have a right to quote it since I am part of a CoT country and have served as part of the HQ of CoT as the president of eNZ. Firstly, the actions of Chile and Indo are not in the spirit of the CoT charter. 2ndly it was CoT's HQ's job to mediate the situation per "A member state needs to inform the Presidency for all contracts it intends to sign in its relations towards non-member states. In case these non-member states have common border with a member state the Presidency should act as a mediator between these member states involved to avoid potential conflicts." and because of that CoT SC should step in and make a fair ruling, and Indo should not have ever NE'd Australia since its against the interest of CoT.

4. Australia was not given a fair chance to do this since Indonesia did not act in good faith, NE them while Australia was under a treaty with Chile. Also Chile did not act in good faith either by attempting to strong arm Australia into a new agreement by using the fact that they were the only thing standing between Australia and Indonesia. To me neither of those actions seem like a decent opportunity.

5. You are both right and wrong in this aspect, only a member nation can bring forward a complaint over another country breaking the charter, but that does not mean that the member nation has to be an internal dispute between nations.

6. Not really sure what you are trying to say here.

7. Not all members of congress are part of the ADF, also you cannot say that you can force each congressmen and each party to do as the CP wants, after all you only need to look at the USA politics to know that this is true.

Valentyme Dan 1,900, 13:46

8. The treaty might be over as you see it, but the consequences have yet to be enacted. It all depends on who is ruled to have broken the treaty.

Pescaman: I did not want to include that because of the whole eUSA wanting to join CoT and if they rule in favor of Chile then eNZ while veto their membership trial period argument to surface again. I am mainly calling for CoT to do the responsible thing and actually make a ruling taking into account all the facts and giving Australia a fair hearing.

Diego: several NE were proposed though, and Chile used that as leverage to attempt to get a better bargain, which is not acting in good faith.

Objavi komentar

Kaj je to?

Prebirate članek, ki ga je napisal državljan eRepublika, izjemne večigralske strateške igre, ki temelji na državah iz resničnega življenja. Ustvarite svoj značaj in pomagajte vaši državi doseči slavo medtem ko se uveljavljate kot vojni junak, znan založnik ali finančni mogotec.