WesWorld

You may have noticed that on 1 April the British and Filipinos (along with a certain Sultan) will be meeting to discuss SALSA and Sabah.

Now, the result will be that the Philippines will renounce any and all claims they have on Sabah. This will make the Sultan mad (to say the least), and they know it, so they will request a 'little bonus'.

In exchange for the renouncing of claims (and a few other things), the Brits are planning to transfer a warship to the Philippines. Now, that silly Part H of the Cleito Treaty prohibits the sale of warships, but will a "barter" like this slip through a loophole?

Squawk now, or forever rest in pieces!

I shall Rust in Pieces... Although I am curious which vessel you have in mind.
BTW, as long as the UK does not sell the ship, it should be no problem.

The idea doesn't appear to contravene the word of the Treaty, but kinda goes against the spirit of the treaty.

Go for it; India will likely be mute on the issue, but Germany may not.

Quoted

The present Treaty does not provide for disposal by way of sale to another Contracting Power or to a non-Contracting Power.

Quoted

I. CONSEQUENCE OF SIGNATURE



The Contracting Powers agree to limit their respective naval armament as provided in the present Treaty.

Italy calls on the British to reconsider their position, do they really want to violate the Treaty of Cleito? Although this action does not violate Part 3 Chapter H, of the treaty(above), it does, in the eyes of the Italian government, violate Part 1 I (above bottom). This action will result in increasing naval armament, in a potentially hazardous part of the world. If the British government presses ahead, Italy will have to rethink her treaty obligations.

I interpret the passage RA quoted not as banning the transfer of Treaty-accountable warships to another power, but saying that such a transfer does not count as a method of disposing of those warships. So by all means, I'll consider the proposed transfer of a British warship to the Philippines as legal under the treaty.

The ship merely still counts against British Treaty limits.

No doubt the government of the Philippines will consider that this makes the deal even more attractive.

Quoted

The present Treaty does not provide for disposal by way of sale

The ship isn't being sold...

Quoted

The ship merely still counts against British Treaty limits.

No doubt the government of the Philippines will consider that this makes the deal even more attractive.

True, but the British Ambassador has already informed me that the deal cannot proceed under those conditions.

(Begins thinking about Plan B)

Quoted

True, but the British Ambassador has already informed me that the deal cannot proceed under those conditions.

(Begins thinking about Plan B)

Naaa, You just gotta sweeten the pot a little...

What's a few infrastructure points? And the way Gravina's building infrastructure, he could use 'em.

Quoted

What's a few infrastructure points?

My IPs are already planned out clear through 1952...

Besides, that would be payment, so it'd be selling the ship.

Give the British something why would like in exchange that is not monitary. Coaling right...a potental base of operations (Subic Bay for example). The right to operate freely in the Sulu Sea. Increased trade (lower tarriffs and such). Or give them a few older ships to scrap for free in a year or so to compensate them for their loss...but do it cleverly, so it looks like something else (like the British only pay for one ship but get three or four to scrap). It is an idea. Or work though a third party that does not have a treaty preventing certain things from happening.

Hmmm, all good ideas, but not quite workable...

The Brits (and Dutch) are already grudgingly tolerated in the Sulu Sea, a trade agreement was already 'in play', and I don't have any ships to scrap at the moment.

But, we could always trim the deal down to just not claiming Sabah, in exchange for this certain ship's guns when she's scrapped in the near future...

I sense battlecruiser...yes, 13.5 inch guns perhaps? Aren't the Princess Royal and Tiger due to be scrapped right after the two new ships come fully operational?
Aside from that I'm trying to think of what the British could be giving up, that would be useful in the South China Sea.

I noticed that the British will be short two hulls for their maximum treaty limit on capital ships once there battlecruiers are "disposed of". There seems to be a battleship missing, and Tiger wasn't planned on being scrapped (at first).

Just pointing this out if anyone missed it.

I would have to think that ANY nation that is part of the CT should abide by its rules both legally and in spirit. Barring that, said nations would have to consider why they are signed into the treaty if they do not wish to promote the spirit of the treaty.

Why would the Philipines aquire an old ship when they could just as easily have one built brand new by another nation, or build it themselves?

Hi there...

Ithekro wrote "Give the British something why would like in exchange that is not monitary."

I think the most important question is if it has to be monetary to fulfill the definition of "sale"?

According to modern german law it has not and trading a warship against coaling rights would be "selling".

Revealing a secret, there also were talks between the Filipinons and the SAE about RSAN MADAGASCAR. SATSUMA put an end to that but until then we did not find a way to work around the Cleito Treaty. It would either be selling and not allowed or the ship in question would still count against SAE limits.

I personally think there is no way to hand over a ship from country A to country B without violating the CT if the party giving away the ship is a signatory.

There is one exception.

Under some circumstances Part I, Chapter VIII of the Cleito Treaty allows a signatory to suspend the treaty (with the exception of two chapters named) for the duration of hostilities if enganged in war with another power.

So if GB is in war and said situation cannot be handled with the assets allowed within the limitations of the CT GB could suspend the treaty and would then be allowed to sell a warship to the Filipinos. However, how realistic is such scenario? If GB is really fighting somebody so strong CT limits have to be suspended they surely wouldn´t have a capital ship left to give it to the Filipinos.

So we´re back to where we´ve been before - there´s no way the Filipinos can get a warship already in existance. All they could do it to order a new one.

I´d also like to remind you of Part I, Chapter VII of the Cleito Treaty. As early as 1-1-1929 there can be a conference regarding the change in status quo.

Without changing the overall treaty or its duration single chapters can be modified if all signatories agree. This is most important regarding those signatories that want to change their limits allowed (more of category x, less of category y) and probably even more so regarding Germany and the peace treaty of 1919 (see Part I, Chapters III-V).

Regards,

HoOmAn

Quoted

I personally think there is no way to hand over a ship from country A to country B without violating the CT if the party giving away the ship is a signatory.

Oh, there are a few ways around it. You just have to know what to do. :-)

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Oh, there are a few ways around it. You just have to know what to do. :-)
[/QUOTE]

Under the assumption that whenever you exchange a ship against any kind of good (including rights) you´re actually selling it I don´t see how it can be done legally.

I mean, of course you can sell it but it will still be rated against your limits....

Wouldn't it be better to sell an old ship instead of building someone a new one? The new one would be more advanced, and more powerful than the old one. So would not the building of a new ship be more against the spirit of the Treaty then selling an old one?

IIRC the 'no sales' provisio was put in as a player check, to stop people from "boosting" their infrastructure by selling ships to NPCs. The Law of Unintinded Consequences then kicked in...

We may have a way around it for this deal. Stay tuned.

I´m curious to see your results...

Walter wrote me a PM but all three options he lists there are in direct violation of the treaty. My opinion of course...

Could England sell a battlecruiser to the Phillapines to scrap? (better steel prices) and once it got there, the Phillapines has a issue that requires suspention of the treaty, and its government takes over the ship to be scrapped and recommissions it into the navy?

I'd say that that would be considered by (some, perhaps all) nations as selling, especially when the Philippines would take over the ship and recommission it.