Chile, Australia, CoT and the broken treaty.

Day 1,899, 22:59 • Published in Chile New Zealand • by 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] Hmmm
[16:56] The problem is
[16:56] When we come and Chile said they got no interest in u
[16:57] It will be not only WA im afraid that will be in our occupation
[16:57] I understand that, but I'm also going to rip CoT apart and Chile will be branded Treaty Breakers publically
[16:58] 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:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-gob-chile-australia-and-chile-non-aggression-agreement-2202147/1/20
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/acuerdo-regional-entre-chile-y-australia-chile-and-australia-regional-agreement-2186547/1/20
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/full-disclosure-in-context-2203363/1/20

Cheers,