|
The Peace First Clarification
| |
| Ponc_Gavrisom | Date: Wednesday, 21 Oct 2009, 11:50 AM | Message # 1 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 271
Status: Offline
| Gentlemen, Much has been bandied around discussing the actual application of the 'peace first' strategy. Allow me to elaborate in full. Peace first, means literally what it says, peace first, always first, it is our number one priority. We will take harsh measures against those who take actions to disrupt the fragile peace that now exists between our New Republic and the Government of Mr Pellaeon. I have met Admiral Pellaeon, and he is a reasonable and good man. He seeks only the best outcome for both sides, and I trust everyone in the senate, nay the galaxy, will recognise the importance of ending this thirty year old internicine conflict! As such the Pellaeon-Gavrisom treaty was signed, delivering peace in our time. Wherever reasonable officers at every level should act with restraint and consider that their actions could cause a re-ignition of the conflict, and countless more bloody battles. However, we will expand further upon the treaty, with several proposals currently under consideration, and will be proposed to the Remnant in due course. - A freedom of movement treaty with the Imperial Remnant.
- The establishment of a de-militarized zone in between our respective worlds, independantly monitored to prevent conflict.
- Restrictions on ship numbers within key systems close to the demilitarized zone, to be policed on both sides by observers given freedom of movement.
- Treaty-officers to be placed on every New Republic ship (where practicable) to make sure there are no breaches of the treaty from our side.
- A unilateral reduction in fleet numbers (although in many cases simply replaced with fewer, better ships) and opening dialogue with the Remnant over arms-reduction.
- Prisoner exchanges and release programs in order to retrieve all our men held still by the Remnant.
- The establishment of a joint-tribunal on a world within the De-militarized zone in order to try those accused of breaching the treaty in Neutral space.
Ponc Gavrisom
Chief of State
Message edited by Ponc_Gavrisom - Wednesday, 21 Oct 2009, 11:51 AM |
| |
| |
| Eli_Fitzgerald | Date: Sunday, 25 Oct 2009, 0:36 AM | Message # 2 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 355
Status: Offline
| Some of your proposals are wise but many more of them are not, and two in particular are absolutely unacceptable. With all due respect to the Chief of State, his naïveté has reached genuinely dangerous proportions if he is serious about a unilateral disarmament at a time, I remind us all, that the Imperial Remnant is expanding its fleet and, I have no doubt, intends to use it as soon as they are presented with the opportunity to do so. Secondly, the very concept of a "joint tribunal" would be laughable were it not so serious. The Chief of State assumes, foolishly, that the Republic and the Remnant can cooperate on matters of justice when, as we all know, the Remnant regards "justice" as a joke. Once again, the Chief of State is not only naive but criminally so if he intends to allow Imperial sadist bureaucrats to sit in judgment of our soldiers. We've already seen, at Bimmiel, that they are willing to accuse our crews of impropriety (and so, apparently, is the Chief of State) when in fact they've done nothing wrong.
Eli Fitzgerald
Senator of Ralltiir (10 BBY—Present)
"I was elected to do some flamethrowing in the Senate. To a light a fire under those Senators and make it hot for them."
|
| |
| |
| Simon_Levi | Date: Sunday, 25 Oct 2009, 0:43 AM | Message # 3 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| Having been involved in the discussions relating to the formation of the Tribunals, I am authorised to disclose the following. A Tribunal is required to discuss breaches of the treaty, it would consist of two members appointed by the Chief of State and two members appointed by the Imperial Head of Government, Admiral Pellaeon. Who I believe is a good man, not a 'Sadist beaureaucrat'. As such a consensus of atleast 3 delegates is required, this means that we will never have a situation where one side or another would have too much influence, and we are able to discuss peacefully differences. Without causing a resumption of hostilities.
Moff of the Tammuz Sector
Message edited by Senator_Kruus - Sunday, 25 Oct 2009, 0:44 AM |
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Monday, 26 Oct 2009, 1:40 PM | Message # 4 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| I support all of the Chief of State's proposals, particularly the demilitarized zone and the fleet reductions. There are simply too many weapons of war in this galaxy, and we wonder why war is so prevalent? We see the cost of arms proliferation on a weekly basis, as pirates and criminals prey on the defenseless and, thus, require the creation of more arms. It is, as the Chief of State has said before, a downward spiral of destruction. Thus, I ask for an assurance from President Gavrisom that any vessels "reduced" from the New Republic fleet will be scrapped, not sold, donated or auctioned. This measure would be unilateral, yes, but remember the ancient adage: "let peace begin with me." I have some lingering concerns on the tribunals, although Senator Kruus has convinced me to support this measure as well if it means an easing of tensions with the Imperial Remnant.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
|
| |
| |
| OrionKarath | Date: Tuesday, 27 Oct 2009, 10:18 PM | Message # 5 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Administrators
Messages: 612
Status: Offline
| A demilitarized zone is a very good measure...one I would certainly support. It could help prevent the Bimmiel Incident from repeating itself, no matter who is at fault. A restriction on forces around the DMZ would also be something, should such an area be successfully created, something I would also support. However, I'm curious who would be the independent party monitoring the border. Could you clarify this for me, sir? Also, has any study been done on the economic impact being within the DMZ could have on the potential planets? Prisoner exchange programs I would support, but I believe according to NRi reports, and Director Cracken can correct me if I am wrong here, that the Remnant no longer holds any New Republic or Rebel Alliance Prisoners of War. If there are any found however, of course we should get them back. However developing unnecesarry programs possibly requiring staffing and funding would be a waste and adding to the bulk of the federal government. A case by case operation, involving all of the Administration, should be sufficient. Freedom of Movement, I would have security concerns on this issue. Not against the Imperial citizens themselves, as many wish to flee from Remnant space and into our own worlds...but the risk of extremists (i.e.: terrorists, revolutionaries, etc.) is too high, at least at this moment, to allow such a provision. Establishing a Tribunal is unnecesarry as well. And to correct Senator Kruus, a Tribunal consists of three members, no more, no less. Any matter involving breaches of the treaty should be left to the respective administrations of both parties, perhaps their legislative arms as well. As for trial of individuals...a Republic citizen should be tried by the Republkic, vice versa for an Imperial citizen. The only time where this would in theory not apply, is a captured, aggressive officer (i.e. Gordon Holt). As for Treaty Officers and Unilateral Force Reduction, well...I will leave that to the upcoming report from the Defense Council. We hope to have this published by the end of next week.
Orion Karath
Manager from June 2009 to Present, Administrator from December 2011 to Present
My posts here, pre-2009 archives here
|
| |
| |
| Ponc_Gavrisom | Date: Tuesday, 27 Oct 2009, 10:32 PM | Message # 6 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 271
Status: Offline
| Mr Karath. A query. Since when does a tribunal only consist of 3 members? And since when is it the role of the Chair of the Defense Council's role to brand an administration policy as unnessesary? However, I am sure this is simply an error in communication and this is not actually the view of Mr Karath.
Ponc Gavrisom
Chief of State
|
| |
| |
| OrionKarath | Date: Tuesday, 27 Oct 2009, 10:53 PM | Message # 7 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Administrators
Messages: 612
Status: Offline
| Most of the Tribunals on Corellia have been bodies consisting of three people. I misspoke on the relevance towards an actual body, and I apologize for any offense Senator Kruus might take. As for my role to state my view on administrative policy...as a free being capable of free speech, and a member of this Senate, I can in fact say if I view a certain matter as unnecessary. And as for the role of the Chair of Defense, and delegate of Corellia, a member of the Advisory Council and Ruling Council, thus a member of this Administration, to give my personal imput on policies so that we may take a more effective route that is effecient and better for the entire New Republic, not just one belief, or one group, or just for one situation or crisis...but for all; all of the New Republic, all beliefs, all groups, all situations, all crises. It is not an error in communication...and it is my personal view, as a member of the Ruling Council, as a member of the Advisory Council, as the Chairbeing of the Defense Council, as a Galactic Senator, as a citizen of the New Republic, as a Corellian, as a human...and as a being living in this galaxy.
Orion Karath
Manager from June 2009 to Present, Administrator from December 2011 to Present
My posts here, pre-2009 archives here
Message edited by OrionKarath - Tuesday, 27 Oct 2009, 10:54 PM |
| |
| |
| Simon_Levi | Date: Wednesday, 28 Oct 2009, 1:52 AM | Message # 8 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| Neimoidia, in light of the massive public support for peace gives its endorsement for these measures. It also criticises Corellia for standing as an impedement to effective dispute resolution (the Tribunals) which would allow disputes such as the Bimmell Affair to be resolved without such contravercial actions by the Chief being required. Any man who opposes the tribunals and also opposed the Chief of State's exchange of Gordon Holt for the other prisoners is a hypocrit who cannot be pleased. Either the Chief of State must have the wide ranging power as he does now to resolve disputes involving the treaty, or it must be delegated to a Tribunal.. Resolving it in the relevant courts is a biased approach that will very seldom reach consensus.
Moff of the Tammuz Sector
|
| |
| |
| Cul-utaanForte | Date: Friday, 30 Oct 2009, 1:26 AM | Message # 9 |
|
Colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 150
Status: Offline
| I stand against these provisions. And to be brutally honest, the only term that should have been on this foresaken treaty is the Imperial unconditional surrender.
General Cul'utaan'forte
Forte's Legion
|
| |
| |
| Jamie_the_Hutt | Date: Friday, 30 Oct 2009, 1:51 AM | Message # 10 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 392
Status: Offline
| Thats cause y'all are yeller Shorte.
|
| |
| |
| Ponc_Gavrisom | Date: Friday, 30 Oct 2009, 12:03 PM | Message # 11 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 271
Status: Offline
| I call on Senator Tiure to explain his statements.
Ponc Gavrisom
Chief of State
|
| |
| |
| Jamie_the_Hutt | Date: Friday, 30 Oct 2009, 12:08 PM | Message # 12 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 392
Status: Offline
| I refer to the Dantooinian Dickshunary Written by Doc Medlicott of Dantooine Agricultural University Yeller: Notorious and shamefaced coward and hypocrit, one who lacks convictions and who is blinded by he own stupidity. Also A nickname used by the Dantooine Free Press to refer to Senator Forte. I am simply using the Nickname used in the Dantooine Free Press for Mr Forte.
|
| |
| |
| Ponc_Gavrisom | Date: Friday, 30 Oct 2009, 12:14 PM | Message # 13 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 271
Status: Offline
| *A chuckle went around the Senate from the majority who had enjoyed seeing Forte petulantly demand a call to order and now be further insulted to his face* I fail to see the Humour. Well, that was very cruel of you, Jamie, to refer to Mr Forte by such a rude nickname. Very rude indeed! Consider yourself called to Order. Mr Forte, I would like to see you and Mr Tiure in my briefing room at the end of the day. Now gentlemen, shall we stop acting like children and start acting like Legislators?
Ponc Gavrisom
Chief of State
Message edited by Ponc_Gavrisom - Friday, 30 Oct 2009, 12:20 PM |
| |
| |
|
