WesWorld

Security Agreement for Eastern Regions (SEAR)

Preamble
The Governments of Great Britain, United Kingdom of the Netherlands, Republic of France, Russia, Australia and Canada for the purpose of mutual defence of their common interests in Asia have agreed to co-operate in times of war.

Article I.
This agreement comes into force automatically if any member of SATSUMA declares war on any of the Contracting Signatories for the joint co-operation and execution of any war plans in any such war.

Article II.
If any Contracting Signatory on the outbreak of war refuses to endorse this agreement and declare war on SATSUMA then the other Contracting Signatories are not obliged to defend its territory and the said nation forfeits all reparations or spoils at the conclusion of the hostilities.

Article III.
The Contracting Signatories agree to work on joint defence plans and the sharing of all military and political intelligence pertaining to SATSUMA with all each other on a fair and mutual basis for the benefit of all Contracting Signatories.

Article IV.
The Contracting Signatories agree to the following division of responsibilities and rightful areas of influence in peacetime and that each Signatory should maintain a proper regular reconnaissance of their designated area for the benefit of all Contracting Signatories.
Great Britain: Pakistani coast, Eastern Indian Ocean, Burmese coast, Strait of Malacca (jointly with Netherlands), Singapore, Sarawak, the South China Sea and Hong Kong.
Netherlands: Dutch East Indies, Java Sea, Celebes Sea, Banda Sea, Bali Sea, Molucca Sea and Southern Indian Ocean (jointly with Australia)
France: Indochinese coastline and Gulf of Thailand
Russia: Northern Pacific and Sea of Japan
Australia: Island of Guinea, Arafura Sea and South Western Pacific
Canada: Canadian Pacific coastline

Article V.
The Contracting Signatories agree to the following division of responsibilities in wartime and that each Signatory should share reconnaissance and plan co-operative operations for the benefit of all Contracting Signatories.
Great Britain: Strikes against India in the Indian Ocean, protection of the Burmese coast, denial of the Strait of Malacca to SATSUMA shipping in cooperation with Dutch forces, Singapore, Sarawak, offensive operations in the South China Sea
Netherlands: Operations in the eastern Indian Ocean and denial of SATSUMA to sea routes via the waterways of the Malay Archipelago
France: Defence of the Indochinese coastline and operations in the Gulf of Thailand, further operations with joint Franco-Russo fleet
Russia: Operations in the Northern Pacific and Sea of Japan
Australia: Protection of the Island of Guinea and South Western Pacific
Canada: Protection of Canadian Pacific coastline and operations in the Northern Pacific and screening of the Panama Canal with Royal Navy support

Article VI.
The Contracting Signatories promise to refrain from colonial disputes with each other and work together to reduce misunderstandings from any future strengthening of naval or military forces in the area by any Contracting Signatory. Measures should be taken to make military deployments with the approval of other Contracting Signatories to fulfil the SEAR.

Article VII.
The present Agreement is concluded for a period of twenty years, with the proviso that, in so far as one of the High Contracting Parties does not advance it one year prior to the expiration of this period, the validity of this Treaty shall automatically be extended for another ten years.
The present Agreement only exists to find a solution to a possible war with SATSUMA. This Agreement does not affect any other Treaty signed by the Contracting Signatories and does not involve any other nation or supra-national body (e.g. NATO).

The Agreement shall enter into force as soon as the Instruments of Ratification have been exchanged in London on September 1st 1935 in the English, French, Russian and Dutch languages, all texts being equally authentic.

Wow, ....just wow. I think this is the first defence agreement specifically aimed at a distinct alliance.

Explicitly, even. Admittedly, there's little prospect of another threat to those countries in that region, but still.......

Very interesting in that it draws together members of FAR, AANM, and NATO.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Explicitly, even. Admittedly, there's little prospect of another threat to those countries in that region, but still.......

Well the only other enemy would be each other.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Very interesting in that it draws together members of FAR, AANM, and NATO.

But not all of them, which makes for very interesting politics.

Quoted

Explicitly, even. Admittedly, there's little prospect of another threat to those countries in that region, but still.......

Lets hear what they've got to say now...

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Very interesting in that it draws together members of FAR, AANM, and NATO.

But not all of them, which makes for very interesting politics.

I would think, yes. Unclear whether it portends the death of the older alliances or not.

Also, in comparison to many other treaties, this one is scheduled to run for a LONG time.

Just made this sim so boring with this. Now we just have a Cold War for the next 15 years and that will be the end of this. Just build ships and stare at each other. Wow! that will be so interesting.

Quoted

Now we just have a Cold War for the next 15 years and that will be the end of this. Just build ships and stare at each other.

resolve differences by amicable negotiation and agreement, with force present but in the background. SEAR signatories are aware that no status quo will last forever, and that a new world is being born.

Besides, who of us really has time to run a big, multi-theater war?

I'm just curious as to why SEAR saw fit to exclude Iberia and Denmark, who both have interests in the Far east, and why they would want to deny themselves the use of the Panama canal!

As I said in another post, I think its a case of availablity of the players, particularily in the case of Iberia. Theres no real player for Iberia at the moment.

I could be wrong however....

As i stated a couple of weeks ago, if something comes up, I will step in temporarily for sake of the story line. I could do a quarterly report or 2 if necessary, just running with whats already there, if needed.

Christmas is dead, so I have a life again.....or so they tell me!

Either way, SEAR seems to be living up to its name, creating heat diplomatically.

Well, you guys seem to have fun. One wonders how you have rated the SAE in your calculations...

Balancing out the interests in the Indian Ocean, namely between the Dutch and Indians, is like dancing on a string for the South Africans. This treaty clearly offsets this balance.

It may drive the SAE right into the arms of SATSUMA even if that´s a place the SAE never wanted to be. :o/

Even if hampered by the conflict in South America the SAE still has enough power to block all entries to the Indian Ocean from the West, especially around Cape Good Hope. Even more so if working together with the Indians and (BLASPHEMY!) the Itlalians.

I really can´t say I´m too lucky about this move. So I´m awaiting dimplomatic notes....

Not sure why the SAE seems to gravitate more towards the Indians and not the Dutch, seems the SAE has turned its back on its Dutch brethern?

Atlantis would certainly review its own arangements with the SAE, NATO, FAR ect as a result of the SEAR treaty and the SAE's bewildering gravitation towards SATSUMA. SAE membership in SATSUMA would almost certainly scuttle the non-agression pact, considering it was a pain to refrain from taking sides in the South American war.

For now I'm quite content to see NATO, SEAR and the AANM as separate entity's but the way things are going (with the usual over reaction to a new alliance) these entity's might acctually find themselves alligned as hard as that may have been to fathom 5-8 sim years ago.

You missed my point - or I wasn´t blunt enough.

The SAE has no interest in joining SATSUMA other than my enemys enemy is my friend. Fact is the new treaty is made to cause problems in the SAEs backyard - and everybody knows the Indian Ocean always has been of special importance to the SAE.

So let me put this straight: The SAE _may_ be forced to side with the former dark side just to keep the status quo, the balance of power, in the Indian Ocean and make sure a war would be too costly for either side. With SEAR (and those alliances already in place) things are too single sided, IMHO.

The status quo and peace is what has to be kept in that region first place. The SAE would not have allowed SATSUMA to move west nor can we allowed the smaller nations in the region to be aggresively stomped over.

And why on Earth is Canada with SEAR?!?! Have they gained possession in the region lately? Have I missed something while I moved?

Would the joining of the Netherlands not be a violation of article 15 of SANTA (you know, the secret part)? While SAER is no threat to the SAE directly, the fact that the SAE would have to assist India should they be attacked will most likely put the SAE in conflict with the Netherlands.

I mentioned Canada to Hooman via PM. To me the only reason they are there is to p*ss of a couple of nations (like Japan). As far as I can see, they on the wrong side of the Pacific for SAER because Canada would be Western Regions.

The crux with SANTA Art. 15 lies in "possible conflict".

While the SAER-treaty is no declaration of war and officially only a defensive treaty allowing the signatories to _react_ to a threatening situation its political consequence may lead to such situation. In German that would be lie a "selbsterfüllende Prophezeiung" (self-fuldilling prophecy?) - meaning something becomes a fact just because people expect it to be a fact, no matter if it´s really a fact.

That´s opening a can of worms from a diplomats point of view. Guess the right "interpretation" can make sure SAER means no loss of faith into Dutch-SAE relations but not having consulted the SAE before signing has to be rated some kind of diplomatic lapse at least.....

I could say the same about the U.S. Why are they NOT in SEAR? Rather moot point anyway as I'm glad they are not, that would DEFINATELY be one sided.

I didn't miss your point Hoo, I was merely stating that the same could be said in reguards to Atlantis and their veiw of the next door neighbour sleeping with the enemy.

SEAR is also abit of a shock to Atlantis, but in the end its a defensive treaty, and given the actions of some of the lesser SATSUMA nations and India-post leadership change, its understandable.

Even Turkey is starting to feel the intimidation tactics so its no wonder that the Netherlands, France et all are starting to draw a line in the sand.

Personally I've always veiwed SATSUMA as an alliance with a "monopoly" over the Pacific, much the same as NATO is in the Atlantic and the ABC alliance in South America. At least with FAR and the AANM the nations were a reasonable mix in various regions.

SATSUMA set the presedent, NATO raised the bar high and the ABC alliance continued the trend so its no surprise that SEAR is the next in line. It looks to me like alliances based on mutual prevention of war are becoming extinct as regional alliances are set up.

The next step would seem to be a war that alligns the various regional powers into two camps leavign all other nations in its wake, a scary prospect indeed but predictable IMO.

(Btw, the signing of SATSUMA by India back then caused some headache too. Art 5.2 of SAINT could have caused problems but actions and declarations by the then-Indian player made clear what priorities India had. And SATSUMA wasn´t aimed against a named force. That left some leeway...)

True in that reguard. This seems to be the first defencive alliance aimed at a specific alliance, in word no less.