The Mithlond Conference, July 1908

[Korpen]

The only Swiss possession left in the Indian Ocean is Christmas island (it is currently leased to Orange).

well then that would meet the neutral third party requirement.

As Oranje is not a Neutral party, it does not meet that requirment.

is orange involved in the war in some way I am unaware of? and Teritory curently held by another nation (even in a lease) canot be honorably taken from that nation.  the best way to handle a situation like that is to pass the teritory to a neutral party with the lease continued. 

Neutral is something you become by issuing a declaration of neutrality, Oranje have as far as i know not done so. Neutral is no the same as non-belligerent.

[Desertfox]

5: The Swiss Confederation desists from assisting any endeavours furthering the Kra Canal

6: The Swiss Confederation leases to the Empire and Commonwealth of Japan: Saipan, Aquijan and Tinian for a period of 99 years, as well West New Guinea.

7: Attu and Kiska to be given to Empire of Japan for All Eternity.

8: The Swiss Confederation leases to the Deutsches Kaiserreich Brandenburg South-West New Guinea, for 99 years;

After reading the latest proposal:

"Well we might be getting somewhere. However as said before point 5 is beyond our control, and frankly I don't see why it matters at all. (OOC by international treaty NS is obligated to help Siam build the Canal). On 6 we might consider a 5 year lease on Tinian, and maybe a slightly larger than proposed lease in New Guinea. However we can not consider 8 at the present time, but we are open to alternate suggestions."

[Carthaginian]

AFIK, NO ONE has issued an explicit declaration of neutrality.


And when the Swiss say that something that can voluntarily be ended is out of thier control, the war will be over. What treaty, and where is that explicit obligation?

IC:

The CSA proposes as well that the Swiss leave all matters of a canal in Siam to that country alone and cease involvement in the endeavor.

Also, the CSA proposes 20 year leases on all disputed islands.

[Korpen]

5: The Swiss Confederation desists from assisting any endeavours furthering the Kra Canal

"Well we might be getting somewhere. However as said before point 5 is beyond our control, and frankly I don't see why it matters at all. (OOC by international treaty NS is obligated to help Siam build the Canal).

So you can always renegotiate (to the effect ending it) or break that treaty, so it is not beoynd your controll.

[Desertfox]

OOC I don't understand what in the world is the Kra Canal doing in the negotiation. What does the Canal have to do with the war?

Also NS has not and will not break any treaty it has signed.

The Treaty in question is the Treaty of Bangkok, the text of said treaty was in the old website, but I can't find it here. I should have it somewhere.


EDIT: It is not part of the Treaty of Bangkok, it's part of an older treaty dealing specificly with the Kra Canal.

[Korpen]

OOC I don't understand what in the world is the Kra Canal doing in the negotiation. What does the Canal have to do with the war?

Also NS has not and will not break any treaty it has signed.

The Treaty in question is the Treaty of Bangkok, the text of said treaty was in the old website, but I can't find it here. I should have it somewhere.

They you will renegotiate it with Siam, it is really very simple.

You say that it is beyond your control, but the fact is that you simply do not want to.

[Tanthalas]

AFIK, NO ONE has issued an explicit declaration of neutrality.

Uhm actually I did... it's around here somewhere in someone's post lol

IC
 20 year leases would be more than fair, and just.  When you consider that the Swiss have offered 99 year leases on several of the contested territories.

As to the canal, I heavily encourage one party or the other to give up on this point; it is a worthless hole in the ground a "Glory Project" looking grand on paper but of little to no real use. (OOC if it was worth building there would be one there OTL)

[Desertfox]

And if Siam doesn't agree? ;)

Then again I could provide funds for the beutification of Bangkok, now if the Siamese 'misuse' the funds...

[Tanthalas]

And if Siam doesn't agree? ;)

Then again I could provide funds for the beutification of Bangkok, now if the Siamese 'misuse' the funds...

LOL now that would make a good news story, better would be suplying funds for reserch into shore erosion though...  my original point remains valid though half a day really isn't worth it.

[Korpen]

And if Siam doesn't agree? ;)

That is your problem. But as even a retarded orangutan would be able to negotiate such a treaty void under these circumstances, you should have no problems.

Then again I could provide funds for the beutification of Bangkok, now if the Siamese 'misuse' the funds...

Well if any Swiss money or any other form of support, directly or indirectly affects anything on Kra you are breaking treaty.

[Tanthalas]

And if Siam doesn't agree? ;)

That is your problem. But as even a retarded orangutan would be able to negotiate such a treaty void under these circumstances, you should have no problems.

Then again I could provide funds for the beutification of Bangkok, now if the Siamese 'misuse' the funds...

Well if any Swiss money or any other form of support, directly or indirectly affects anything on Kra you are breaking treaty.

actualy stupid question, who is runing siam?

[Borys]

OOC
Ahoj!
Siam is NPC.

And what Korpen has in mind is that the Swiss Confederation can claim to be unable to fulfill its commitments under the Treaty of Bangkok due to being under duress.

Borys

[P3D]

Neutral is something you become by issuing a declaration of neutrality, Oranje have as far as i know not done so. Neutral is no the same as non-belligerent.

"Point two is completely unnecessary. The only single piece of real estate this point 2 is relevant to is Christmas island, already in Orange control for five years. As apparently some participants of the conference defines neutrality by the existence of some meaningless declaration of neutrality, the point should be removed in entirety, or reworded taking the interest of the Republic of Orange into considerations."

[Korpen]

Neutral is something you become by issuing a declaration of neutrality, Oranje have as far as i know not done so. Neutral is no the same as non-belligerent.

"Point two is completely unnecessary. The only single piece of real estate this point 2 is relevant to is Christmas island, already in Orange control for five years. As apparently some participants of the conference defines neutrality by the existence of some meaningless declaration of neutrality, the point should be removed in entirety, or reworded taking the interest of the Republic of Orange into considerations."

There is the issue of keeling as well. And as Oranje have repeatedly have stated that it do not believe in multi-state solutions and agreements (or established international practice) and consider them worthless, the alliance see little point in taking Oranje considerations into account as Oranje by default consider a treaty worthless.
If Oranje feel differently in this matter feel free to inform us.

Point stays.

[Borys]

However we can not consider 8 at the present time, but we are open to alternate suggestions."

8:
- Nieu Amsterdam and district, of 100 mile radius, to Austria for All Eternity.