History of the World . . .

[Guest]

Open message to all nations.

Like the Panama Canal, in principle the Suez Canal should be freely available to all nations of the world, since they are natural watercourses on this planet and no nation has spent any funds in building a canal. But if the AL can block a canal half a world away (and in Aussie territory) and charge a toll I think it even more legitimate that the Israelis charge a toll for the Suez Canal which is in their territory!

Sun Tzu, can you publish this agreement your nation has signed to allow free access to member signatories?

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[sekong]

We have to agree with our Aussie ally.
-- Consul of Mongol.

[SunTzu]

Well here's the problem i wasn't around when this alleged agreement was signed, so i think it should be void. For all i know capo can be making up half the agreement to go to his advantage, the agree itself is stupid, the canal is in my territory and i have the right to charge for its use. And i will do so next session. King SunTzu declares the FAWA treaty canceled on the Israelites side and will charge a toll of 10gold a turn.

[Guest]

Although Paul of the Aussies believes all the water ways of the world should be free for all nations to travel we accept that the Israelis have more right than any other to charge a modest toll such as the 10 gold being asked. Paul accepts this.

------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[The Capo]

I would think twice Sun, the agreement has that whoever breaks it pays a fine of 100 gold per signor. That is how it was agreed upon, which means as there are THREE signors, your total fine for breaking the treaty would be 300 gold (150 to Mali, 150 to me).

So what's better? Not charging 10 gold per use and keeping 300 gold, or comming up with 300 gold to pay?

I think you see my point.

[Prometheus]

I don’t think we should be changing any more of the rules around midway through the session. I won’t know if I can play at an earlier time till later this week, but I will be able to play as late as you guys want.

Anyway back to the game…


The Issue of the Panama Cannel and the Suez:

The Israelites we acknowledge have full territorial control over the Suez and therefore have the right to charge a price of passage, which we believe to be a reasonable sum. While we are not aware of Israeli-Adriatic affairs we believe the new Israeli government has full authority to undertake the charging of a sum. The prior agreement which, we are led to believe would award 150 to each the Mali and the Adriatic’s, is flawed as the only way to force Israel to pay would be to declare war.

The Panama Cannel while in control of Adriatic ships is in Australian and international territorial waters and therefore we do not think that the Adriatic should be stopping traffic. With news of the Mali ships, the Chinese wonder if perhaps the Mali will be blockading the Adriatic blockade of the cannel.

In any event the Chinese have no interest really in any of the cannels, as we will not be using them. But the Chinese do second their allies’ sentiment of free waterways.

[Guest]

Just so all nations have a clear idea of how the AL are blocking the Panama Seaway within my city radius....



------------------
*deity of THE DEITIANS*
aka: half-assed dieticians
icq# 8388924

[GNGSpam]

Israel has an agreement with Mali and the Adriatic providing free access to Mali and the AL, but charging a fee to everyone else. Further there is an agreement preventing ANY ship in the Mediterreanean except for Mali, Adriatic, or Israel, unless those 3 nations give approval, and Gilbaltor also has a fee, except for Mali, Israel, and the Adriatic. This was published as the FAWA or something on this forum.

No I do NOT think you should be able to go back on all of your treaties Sun just because your new. You can try to renegotiate but this is a diplogame, you dont get a blank slate just because you just joined, that would be like the US pulling out of NATO everytime a new President is elected.

Of course you could just not recognize the treaty and assume Mali and the AL wouldnt do anything about it, thats up to you.

[Guest]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by GNGSpam on 04-08-2001 01:40 AM</font>
Israel has an agreement with Mali and the Adriatic providing free access to Mali and the AL, but charging a fee to everyone else. Further there is an agreement preventing ANY ship in the Mediterreanean except for Mali, Adriatic, or Israel, unless those 3 nations give approval, and Gilbaltor also has a fee, except for Mali, Israel, and the Adriatic. This was published as the FAWA or something on this forum.

No I do NOT think you should be able to go back on all of your treaties Sun just because your new. You can try to renegotiate but this is a diplogame, you dont get a blank slate just because you just joined, that would be like the US pulling out of NATO everytime a new President is elected.

Of course you could just not recognize the treaty and assume Mali and the AL wouldnt do anything about it, thats up to you.


<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>


Well, if a transient Mongol leader can start throwing away Eastern Pact techs then I'm sure Sun Tzu can establish his own set of rules about HIS territory

[The Capo]

"Eastern Pact" techs, thats funny Deity.... you should consider a career in stand up comedy.

[The Capo]

(Terms of Free Atlantic Waters Treaty)

The following terms are to be collectively known as the Free Atlantic Waters Treay (or FAWT) and are to be signed into effect by the Unified Adriatic Kingdoms (Adriatic League), the Nation-State Mali, and the Kingdom of Israel.

I. No vessels carrying the banner of the signors of this agreement are to be present within the waters of the Mediterranean ocean upon signing of this treaty, unless one or more of the following criteria:
a. The vessel is one of strict transport, meaning that it has no attack value higher than 1.
b. The vessel is entering for purposes of upkeep after it has been attacked and has suffered damages and is headed for a city which MUST have a port facility capable of fixing said damage.
c. The vessel is accessing the Mediterranean for the purpose of traversing to another ocean (ie from Atlantic to Indian, or vice versa).

II. No vessels carrying the banners of other nations are to be permitted in the mediterranean unless all of the following criteria have been met:
a. payment is made to one or more of the signors of this treaty.
b. all signors of this treaty have agreed to this nation's enterance into the mediterranean.
c. the ship must continue movement at all times in the same general direction towards either exit (Gibraltar, Suez).
d. the nation must be in a state of peace with all signors regardless of either criteria a, b, or c.

III. In order for foreign vessels to traverse the straights of Gibraltar they must pay a sum of thirty gold, which may be amended to any fund deemed at a later date by the signors, to the United Adriatic Kingdoms and to the Nation-State of Mali. At which point this sum is split in halves to each side. Two vessels of the Adriatic League are to be placed in charge of this task, they will be dispatched at (66,42) and (65,43) any further ships may be provided by the Adriatic League within these boundries but are not permitted within the Mediterranean Ocean as provided for in section I.

IV. The Panama canal is to be of free access to all signors of this agreement and is owned by the United Adriatic Kingdoms. The Adriatic League may not prevent any signor of this treaty of free and uncontested access to this canal for a period of 500 years of peace, any act of war will void this period. After 500 years the Adriatic League may reserve rights to this canal if it deems fit.

V. The Suez Canal is the sole propery of the Kingdom of Israel. Access through the Suez must be proffered to the United Adriatic Kingdoms and the Nation-State of Mali, and may not be removed by the Kingdom of Israel ever. The Kingdom of Israel may charge any sum of money for a foreign nation to pass a ship through this canal subsequent to the terms of section II.

VI. Any act of war between the signors will void this treaty. Any omission by either the Nation-State of Mali, the United Adriatic Kingdoms or the Kingdom of Israel will remove the status of "signor" from that nation.

VII. All signors hereby agree to this treaty and the terms therein, any act which goes against this treaty will result in fines not in excess of 100 gold per each signor.

[The Capo]

This treaty was created and signed into effect on 3.29.01 in our days, so any suggestions that it was "just made" are ridiculous.

I am pretty sure one or more of you would suspect me of this...

[SunTzu]

Well i'd just like to say that the new government of the Israelites has canceled our end of the agreement and will start a toll on OUR Canal which is in our waters and land boundaries.
It has been written in the Israel Canal Act that a fee of 10gold per turn will be charged.

[GNGSpam]

You are just going to CANCEL it? Does China, Mongolia, and Australia support this going back on a signed treaty?

[sekong]

We don't support it.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by sekong (edited April 09, 2001).]</font>