WesWorld

Circulated to all Contracting Powers of the Cleito Treaty, as well as the larger non-Treaty powers.

To: Marus Xanthus, Foreign Minister, Atlantis
From: Jal Kadharni, Foreign Minister, Bharat

Per the note jointly issued by ourselves, Japan, and the Philippines in April, we have been monitoring the status of the Italian Pope class cruisers. It is our understanding that the ships went into port during the summer, at which time a primary turret, some secondary weapons, and other equipment were removed. The ships now sit higher in the water, and thus have a lesser displacement.

It is Bharat's interpretation that this work constitutes nothing more than a half-hearted attempt at temporarily decreasing the displacement of the ships into something approaching Type A limits. It is clear to us that the refit concentrated on removing easily detached items from the ships, and applying nothing more than temporary plating to cover holes afterward. Given that no effort has been made to make use of this deck space or redress some of the key deficiencies created by the refit - such as the now glaring lack of a useful secondary battery - we also infer that the ship is intended to benefit from a quick and simple return to its overweight status at the convenience of its owners.

As Bharat remains of the opinion that Italy's Barbiano and Colloeoni cruisers were rebuilt to allow for quick modification to aircraft carriers, we are of the opinion that Italy is actively seeking to subvert the treaty while remaining compliant only in the strictest sense of the word. A lesser power such as ourselves can not afford to remain bound by a treaty when a larger neighbour seems so intent in abusing it.

Although we recognize that we risk bringing down the entire Cleito Treaty in doing so, it is my duty to inform you that Bharat's participation in the Cleito Treaty shall conclude at midnight, 31 December 1934.

Sincerely,

Jal Kadharni

Long live Cleito!

I'm just wondering why India decided to wait this long before simply chosing to ignore the treaty. Leaving because someone is sticking to the treaty makes little sense. Leaving because Australia unilateraly removed itself from its obligation would make much sense - and be believeable.

Edit:

Italy would like to say that she sees no reason that the withdrawal of an inconsequential small power should have any effect on other countries and their standing in the treaty structure.

At the time Australia "learned that it hadn't had authority to sign the treaty", the RAN:

-Was not triple the size of the BNS

-Was not building warships ten to fifteen years in advance of the rest of the world

-Had not fortified and threatened to close a key international waterway

-Had not been called to task for building ships that were a few day's work away from being treaty-busters

-Did not have a regional proxy which actively sought out opportunities to attack Indian vessels, intervene in Indian conflicts, and accuse India of sabotaging the proxy's vessels

...so the view was that Bharat's interests were not especially threatened by the RAN, treaty bound or not.

Bharat agrees that its own withdrawal should not greatly affect the remainder of the treaty, but is open to discussons with other Contracting Powers that may feel otherwise.

Also Australia stated that it would voluntarily limit itself to Treaty limits for a period of two years,(however that might change) and has yet to buy or build a treaty buster.

The French government expresses its understanding of the reasons for His Imperial Highness' note of 10 October, and shares his concern over actions by which the Italian government has sought to gain capabilities exceeding Cleito Treaty restrictions while attempting to remain in compliance by easily reversible cosmetic measures.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I'm just wondering why India decided to wait this long before simply chosing to ignore the treaty.

I suppose they hoped that Italy would reconsider her actions.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Leaving because someone is sticking to the treaty makes little sense.

I think they clearly stated they were leaving because someone wasn't sticking to the treaty

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Leaving because Australia unilateraly removed itself from its obligation would make much sense - and be believeable.

I think it was bi-laterally, Canada left too.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Italy would like to say that she sees no reason that the withdrawal of an inconsequential small power should have any effect on other countries and their standing in the treaty structure.

I'm sure she would, what happens however is entirely another matter....

Canada didn't really figure into Indian considerations at all, given how infrequently our interests appear to intersect.

Ah yes the ballon is going up so to speak.

October 15, 1933

Chile recognizes India's proposed withdrawl from the Cleito Treaty due to the Italian's "creative engineering" method. Chile would offer larger than treaty standard designs to the Indians after they are apart from the Treaty if they wish. Knowing Indian construction methods, they probably will not need assistance from a South American power.

Well, there was never really a decision about the Italian ships and reconstructions so this entire point might be moot.

Acctually the decision came down to one person...

huh?

Italy spent nothing, so India bought nothing.

Decision on whether it was possible for those modifications within the infrastructure rules. Most people seemed to be tending towards 25% or 50% cost but there was no decision.

Agreed, and in the meantime, you've still spent 0%. So I'm forcing the issue - better now than two or three quarters from now, isn't it?