Peace talks

[DribNairb]

If greece truly wishes to look for peace then let peace talks begin.

We have previously stated our position and I do not feel the need to do so again. Both greece and carolingia have had ample opportunity to provide a counter proposal as a basis for negotiation. In every instance this has happened these nations have fallen silent or stalled for time. Therefore I await your response with hope but with little expectation.

DribNairb of The Founders

[da_Vinci]

Word of the Interminable War on the other continent continues to reach Leonardo in his hemitage ...

"Once again, the two sides discuss having discussions of peace" Leonardo muses to himself.  "But if for one side, removal of Maltman is non-negotiable, and for the other, the preservation of Maltman is non-negotiable, then where is there room for agreement?

[DribNairb]

Such defeatist comments do not help the peace process. I would invite anyone with constructive proposals to speak up with suggestions on how this conflict may be resolved.

However, I request that anyone with negative thoughts refrain from discussing them within the peace forum as it simply degenerates into an argumental state.

In this instance, the situation is not as black and white as my learned friend tries to make out. Had he spent the time to learn of the precise circumstances involving this war he would know that The Founders require the removal of maltman from power of carolingian people. greece requires the protection of the greek civilians. There is no reason these two requirements cannot be met with very little loss of life. However, it requires that leaders understand The Founders are not a bloodthirsty bunch of fanatics - we are here to uphold our law - and have no interest in exterminating the carolingian civilization - we are forced to do so due to the incompetence of their leader.

[Fosse]

Greece welcomes discussion of peace.  We are afraid that Leonardo may have some point, but we pray that it is not so.  Yet, the reason such nascent talks led nowhere in the past was for your insistence that the Carolingian people be conquered.  If we can sway from that single point then Greece will seek compromises.

Our first priority is the cessation of hostilities against our Vassal.  We are pledged to protect them and their citizens.

It is the Greek position that Reparations should be paid to the Carolingians to aid in the rebuilding of their cities and the re-peopling of their territory, while all occupied Carolingian holdings are returned to them.  Further, the Carolingian government should be a primary signatory to any Treaty we sign. 

We are willing to consider conditions short of the complete eradication of their people and government.

If you truly wish for Peace, then I urge you to study again your Path and the Word to see if it has no room for wisdom and justice in place of warfare and zealotry, for Peace in the place of violence, and for Compromise in the place of stubbornness.  And, if you truly wish for peace, then I would call for a Cease Fire amongst warring parties in which the front lines are not advanced for the duration of talks.  We would extend this Cease Fire to America.  Please note that we have the forces in place to occupy several of their cities within the week, which we would withdraw to Greek territory in this bid to seek peace.

To show our willingness to see this conflict ended, we are also willing to subject the entire affair to the arbitration of non-belligerent nations.

[DribNairb]

I must say, I am surprised that this time you have responded to these talks to allow discussions to begin. However, I am also concerned that this is merely another tactic of greece to cause delay while your own military is mobilized.

A cease fire during peace talks would have been acceptable previously. However, you and your predecessor give me no choice but to continue military actions until serious diplomatic negotiations have started and treaties have at least been drafted.

However, I state again that I do not wish and have never wished to see the carolingian people 'conquered'. Our requirement is that the carolingian leader be removed from power and pay for his blasphemy. Whosoever continues to govern carolingia must allow their borders to be open to the teachings of The Truth and not act in any way to prevent such teachings to those who wish to listen.

[da_Vinci]

However, I state again that I do not wish and have never wished to see the carolingian people 'conquered'. Our requirement is that the carolingian leader be removed from power and pay for his blasphemy. Whosoever continues to govern carolingia must allow their borders to be open to the teachings of The Truth and not act in any way to prevent such teachings to those who wish to listen.

OOC: So are you saying that if Jamie renames himself, and is a new leader who emerges in Carolignia (or maybe that needs to be renamed too?), your forces will stand down?

Or is it required that you fill the power vacuum in Carolingia?

dV

[da_Vinci]

Leonardo continues to ponder the methods of successful peace negotiations ...

"The way to have efficient peace negotiations," Leonardo muses, "is to identify the existing barriers to peace."

"If such barriers did not exist, peace would almost happen by default.  Peace will occur (short of total victory by one side) only when one or more mutually exclusive non-negotiable positions that prevent peace becomes negotiable.  Effective and efficient discussions should focus on those issues."

"To pretend that these thorny issues do not exist, in the name of false optimism, is to doom oneself to a lot of activity without much hope of accomplishment."

[Fosse]

The carolingian people deserve to know The Truth. They will only be allowed to follow The Path under a government who truly believes this. Currently this means carolingian cities must be governed by any of the following nations:
The Founders
The French
The Nomads
The Catfish Confederation
Skarsgardia
Gren

Perhaps this, drafted by your hand and sent to my embassies in the first days after my election to First Senator, is the Esource of my interpretation of your desire to conquer? (Emphasis mine.)

Regardless, I cannot understand your balking at a Cease Fire.  I have never engaged in any sort of "delaying tactics."  American cities will be occupied in the next week without a Cease Fire.  If the absence of a proposed treaty is all that is needed for a Cease Fire, then I await your proposal, as the aggressor, and its proper filing in the Greek or Carolingian embassies.  Failing that, I will happily draft one before I next meet with my generals if it would lead to a Cease Fire.

The immediate stop of bloodshed is what is important to Greece.  If you are truly amenable to treat then I cannot see what you gain by delaying a Cease Fire.  Such actions are those of a nation that merely wishes to convey peaceful intentions whilst continuing to conquer.  And the nations of this world easily see through such transparent ploys, making them of dubious value.  We have placed no conditions whatsoever on a Cease Fire, when it can be shown (and America could attest to this) that we have much to gain by allowing conflict to continue for another turn.  The same is not true of The Founders.  Thus I feel that this offer on my part is one of generosity and attempted understanding.  Lay aside this foolish brinkmanship and agree to Treat with us under a cessation of hostilities, laying aside this Wearying specter of war.

[DribNairb]

Your (or possibly your predecessor's) offer of a cease fire was accepted previously. During the cease fire no military action was taken by those who follow The Path. However, during talks (or rather while we were awaiting responses from greece) the city of Ulm came under attack from the sea. That is hardly what I would call a cease fire.

Therefore, I put it to you that a cease fire means nothing to greece and therefore I cannot condone signing such a treaty without prior knowledge that it will lead to a lasting peace with all relevant terms being met.

My previous statement (which you have highlighted) shows that there are many nations who currently follow The Path. There are some who clearly do not (carolingia and greece are the most obvious). Neutral countries who are open to accepting the teachings of The Truth may come to follow The Path and therefore may be acceptable as governors. However, under no circumstances can it be allowed that a blasphemer (or any aides to a blasphemer) rules the country.

This is, and has always been, the barrier to peace. It is unfortunate that it has taken until now for you to understand this is the reason for war despite the numerous occasions this has been stated.

[r_rolo1]

A voice from the other side of the world .......

If the governing of the caroliginian cities is the main culprit of the peace talks, why don't give it to a neutral third party ( directly or via vassaling) ?

Said this, Babylon is eager to see peace in this land.... your war is bad for our trade routes ( cities with their young fighting in far away lands are less eager to buy Babylonian products )

Ricardo

Ruler of the land between the rivers

[Fosse]

I can find no record of a Cease Fire having been signed or in effect when Ulm was liberated from its conquerors.  Any existence of such a treaty signed by my predecessor was lost.  The closest thing to a discussion of Cease Fire I can find is this message, again from your hand:

I thank you for putting the effort into contacting me to attempt to establish communication in anticipation of peace talks. However, I am afraid I cannot, in good conscience, give you any assurances during this time whether there will be any further military action taking place.

Though I had not at that time explicitly asked for a Cease Fire, the above text make it clear that The Founders did not intend for the Greeks to believe that one was in effect.  The liberation of Ulm occurred long after this exchange.  Furthermore, between this message and the amphibious operation under discussion, Founder armies were active in Carolingian territory, and her ships in American territory.  No communication between The Founders or Greece has taken place between now and then by which a misinterpretation of the presence of a Cease Fire could be reasonably explained.  For your claims that Greece violated any Cease Fire to meet with any credibility, you'll need to provide evidence of such a transgression.  Until that point, your unwillingness to lay down arms so that discussions may begin indicates you are merely paying lip service to the idea of Peace.

Furthermore, the old Republic of Greece is no more.  To hold any actions of such ancient history against a current peace is to act in bad faith to a potential Peace process.  We must deal with the here and now to effect peace.  

Regarding potential terms once we are able to sit together:  Without clarification, for example to the question the Babylonian ambassador has posed (OOC, also to Da Vinci's OOC post) the practical effects of what you call for seem negate Carolingian sovereignty.  Tell me, is it completely impossible for one who has not followed the Path in the past to do so in the Future?  From where we stand, the barrier to peace is not a lack of our understanding of your motive, but instead the impossibility of peace talks to begin in earnest under the horns of ongoing war.  
Greece is showing good faith, and doing all we can to initiate a process, at a significant military disadvantage to ourselves.  Meanwhile, the Founders are speaking of a willingness to treat, but are not willing to take necessary steps to allow such action.  If Peace is valued by your nation, it is time to show this to the world.

[DribNairb]

We had agreed a temporary cease fire while peace talks were taking place. As I have already stated, we were awaiting a sensible response from greece/carolingia when the attack on Ulm took place:
http://www.chaosciv.com/index.php/topic,612.0.html

Your quote comes from a message after this time when greece had already attacked us. You may be a different person to your predecessor but I am finding it increasingly difficult to spot any difference in your actions. For this reason I need to be certain that any peace agreement you make will be upheld. The actions of greece suggest to me that they find it acceptable to attack their neighbours for the sole reason of expanding their own borders. You claim this is what The Founders do, but in actuality we have only ever attacked a nation for their transgressions against the ancient laws which all must follow. The war on greece only exists because of your insistence at helping a blasphemer.

Regarding your peace terms - it IS possible for those who have not followed The Path to begin to see The Truth. America is one such case (although we are yet to see if they truly follow The Path - I have my personal doubts and your declaration against them simply gives more credit to the conspiracy theory that greece has been planning to take over America for some time and their 'defection' was done only out of pure desperation rather than real belief).

However, it is unprecedented that anyone who has been so outspoken against The Truth as maltman could ever be able to repent those sins. he has had ample opportunity to express his sorrow but instead has simply blasphemed even more. A new leader is required (OOC: a character rename could fulful this part) who is acceptable to the teachings of The Truth.

[Fosse]

The exchanges you cite above as evidence of a Cease Fire represent flawed evidence.  Firstly, the discussion you've drawn our attention to ended much earlier (April 3, 2009) than the declaration you made to me, which I have quoted, that clearly shows The Founders were not operating under any kind of Cease Fire, implid or otherwise (May 12, 2009).  The election in which I was made First Senator occurred only days before that communication from you (May 10, 2009).

The liberation of Ulm was conducted under the authority of First Senator Fosse, and happened on 1330 AD (May 16-18, 2009)

Secondly, the cease fire that appears to have been agreed to (Greece nor Carolingia agreed in the thread, though embarrassingly the archives in which any personal missives from Levegre and his government are lost to me at the moment) was for one turn, while negotiations took place.  The public record shows that the Carolingians made offers which you refused.  Despite the negotiations having gone nowhere, hostilities were taken up again AFTER that one turn, however.  Had the Cease Fire been for more than a single turn, it may have been possible to reach a consensus.

The attack on Ulm took place MUCH later than the observed and legally expired Cease Fire (assuming it was agreed to and not merely offered).  You are twisting the timeline of events to try to hide from the truth, that the Greek/Carolingian alliance has valued peace for this entire affair while you yourself have always pressed on.

We again offer a Cease Fire, of no determined or a negotiable length, during which our two sides can discuss Peace in good faith.  Show the world that you are not endlessly twisting the past to justify your actions, that you are not a warmonger, and that you value justice and peace as much as any reasonable nation.  Let us begin to Treat.

[DribNairb]

Edit: My word is important to me. I do not spin lies and do not willingly engage in the deception you describe. However, I fully acknowledge that in this case I have got it wrong and wish to apologise to anyone who reads these messages. I have clearly got my dates and events mixed up. I will endeavour to correct this mistake:

The temporary cease fire was in action "while constructive dialogue continues". I was awaiting responses from greece and other nations. Ony carolingia made an 'offer' which clearly made no attempt to fulful any of the requirements necessary and was discarded from the table.

As I have been hoping for so long, I optimistically clinged to the hope that the comparitive silence was only a precursor to a sensible draft of a treaty. In fact it was a precursor to a greek attack.

Your attack on Ulm may have been made after your original messages to me. However, there was military action taken by greece before you sent that message and that is why I stated that military action would not be stopped.

(OOC: I honestly can't remember what it was, but I remember logging in to see greece had attacked some of our units and decided then that I would give up on any further diplomatic means. I thought that was when greece attacked Ulm but you're right, my timeline is wrong and it must have been something Lev did not you. Perhaps it was when greece attacked the Skarsgardian or French stack? Or it might have been when greece re-attacked Aachen. Sorry, I don't have the dates when these things happened and it might just be I've got my city names mixed up again)

[Fosse]

With some clarity having been brought to the early days of this conflict, which can easily be explained by the hectic goings on and simple miscommunication, perhaps we can now make progress.

It should be clear that Greece was not trying to misrepresent the past events, or manipulate the peace process for military gain. 

(OOC: It does get confusing with razed, rebuilt, renamed, razed again cities and lots and lots of units in play  )

[DribNairb]

Perhaps we have finally found some common ground. The historical records of this ongoing conflict are patchy at best. I do not believe that either side is deliberately trying to twist the facts for their own gain, but it is likely that mistakes will be made. I am glad to see that you can accept my apology in this particular matter and not attempt to use it as a political weapon.

However, the underlying cause of the conflict still exists and must be resolved before military action will cease. I am intrigued with the various suggestions made in these peace forums but do not see any concrete suggestions on how peace can actually be achieved.

[Fosse]

Greece's leadership is happy to have made any progress, but are is discouraged by the pace of these proceedings.

The Founders are conditioning that a treaty be reached before negotiations for said treaty may begin.  The cause of your previous distrust has been ameliorated; we are agreed that neither side is politicking.  So what continues to prevent a Cease Fire if not your desire to continue burning cities and conquering territory? 

The underlying cause of the conflict is that you are attacking us.  Once that immediate action ceases we can negotiate how to address the claims of both sides.  In the immediacy of war, however, we must focus our efforts on defense.  Would the advance halt our efforts could be geared toward peace, as could your own.

[DribNairb]

While it may be clear that in these public forums neither side is specifically aiming to gain politically by bending the facts, it is still the case that we cannot fully trust the greek government and the carolingian leader is still currently at large.

Should a peaceful proposition be put forward which will meet our laws then it will be given full consideration. However, until such time we will continue our endeavour to bring the blasphemer to justice as we have stated since the dawn of time.

Currently these peace talks provide a certain amount of hope and optimism, but we cannot allow such crimes to go unpunished. Our righteous campaign will continue until the carolingian leader is brought to justice, either by militaristic or diplomatic means. If a diplomatic solution can be found then military force will be immediately stopped. Otherwise our law will continue to be upheld in the way it has always been.

[da_Vinci]

Leonardo ponders the current peace "discussions" in his cave (at least he has something to relieve his boredom!)

"The Followers of the Founders claim to be fighting to bring "Maltman the Blasphemer" to justice.  Whether this quest is in fact just depend on whether Maltman has actually committed a crime.  This war has been so long, I have forgotten what act by Maltman is alleged to have been criminal ... perhaps that should be discussed by the parties."

"Is Maltman's crime failing to Believe?  Is it criticizing the Belief?  Is it insulting the Belief?  Is it not allowing his followers to Believe?  Or is it being too conveniently close?"

"In the world of Democracy and Freedom heralded by the Scotue of Liberty, the freedom to disbelieve, to criticize, and yes, even to blaspheme is guaranteed.  As the world evoves, perhaps it is only the Founder Theocracy that idiosyncratically considers Maltman to have commited a crime?"

"And if Maltman has not committed a crime, what just peace would allow him to be punished for his non-crime?"

[Capsavian Hopewell]

OOC:  "Scotue of Liberty"