> Perhaps Harn and LotC were wise to keep their grievances from being
> 'resolved' in the Accord, considering its vague and inflamatory nature. I
> have no doubt that the Seehawk and the other worthies involved in the
> drafting of the Accord had the best intentions, but the Yellowleaf war and
> the resulting Accord certainly lends credence to the old legal aphorism
> "interesting cases make bad laws".
>
there's another aphorism that applies:
"garbage in, garbage out"
The accord was drafted with input from all concerned leaders and met with all
of their approvals. Now, when it becomes more convenient, these same leaders
start chaffing at the "spirit". What they don't mention is that the issues
they now chaff at were addressed, and at the time, they did not want more
detailed constraints. The general thinking being that the Accord should a
framework with which the involved parties could build more detailed and
specific treaties. This is one of the reasons that I refer to the document as
an "accord" and not a "treaty".
WEBSTERS:
Accord - 1. to bring to an agreement. 2. to allow a concession. 3.
balanced interrelationship.
Treaty - a contract in writing between between two or more political
authorities formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually
ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state.
The representative leaders did not want a binding treaty, they wanted an
accord. I wrote the accord as specific and as binding as I felt would be
accepted by the involved parties. It was my, and other's, hope that the
leaders would build upon the accord - not attempt to work around it.
> I would suggest the GCoA write up a list of acceptable and unacceptable
> reasons for war. That way we can start arguing about the interesting grey
> areas instead of engaging in rhetoric that is likely to turn a bush war
> into something very bad for everyone's business.
>
AH-HA!!!
sorry, inside gcoa humor here. Before, during, and after the Yellowleaf war I
was heading up an intiative inside the gcoa to forge such a document.
Unfortunately I didn't get much support and was vehemently opposed by some.
Lately, several ambassadors have contacted me privately and suggested that
they would now support such a document. Perhaps I'll raise this again on the
floor of the gcoa.....
> In the end I prefer to bow to the spirit of the Seehawk or the spirit of
> Oleg or the spirit of any number of respected Olympians over the "spirit
> of the Accord", a mere document.
By all means.
I plan to stop publicly supporting or explaing the Accord. It is now apparent
that some of the involved parties never intended to respect it. Others are
more concerned with how to get around it rather than how to work with it. I
now see that the SE region of the world is simply filled with too many players
that see war as a first choice to handle disputes. Leaders of such attitude
will only adhere to a treaty as long as it aids them and will discard it as
soon as it becomes too restrictive.
A treaty is only as strong as the word of the men who sign it.
Eric the Seehawk
TIB Alliance