Talk:South-West Astrasian Economic Alliance (SWAEA)

From OpenGeofiction Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion as of 10 May 2019

Nothing much has happened with SWAEA since last year and before that it has been somewhat difficult to organise it. As countries that disappear from OGF are supposed to disappear completely, it is complicated to create an international organisation such as SWAEA if former member states have to be erased from history altogether. I must admit that I kind of lost the appetite to engage in international relationships on OGF and I have been focusing on mapping for several months now.

I received a message from EAJ however today who expressed interest in having Ôrlé join SWAEA. That is of course fine for me but I was wondering if those who are still there and are willing to be active would use this event/opportunity to agree to write down SWAEA from scratch? I would also propose some membership restrictions: to keep SWAEA manageable and to prevent member states from coming in for a few months without contributing much and then disappearing because their owners quit OGF, I think we should ask that the owners of prospective member states have been sufficiently active (especially in the area of mapping but also in developing a basic background of their nations) for at least e.g. six months, perhaps even a year. What do you think? -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2019 (CEST)

Treaty of SWAEA

I had some time to spare so I wrote a draft Treaty of SWAEA; it may be considered Overwikification but a) most of it is copied-pasted from other (fictional) treaties of (fictional) organisations in which some of my non-OGF countries participate so I didn't spend more time on it than I did on mapping in recent weeks, and b) it should be a one-off thing that will serve as a guideline for SWAEA members so the Treaty itself, once adopted, should not take away any (mapping) time from participants. It contains sections about meta-requirements that OGF Participants should observe before their nations can be considered as potential member states (pages 2 and 6 in grey/purple). In addition, the SWAEA Council (page 6) is set up so that the most active mappers/participants are prioritised over less active mappers/participants. Comments, questions, suggestions for improvement etc. are very welcome! -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2019 (CEST)

Federal States

Would it be okay if the FS were in SWAEA, possibly as a founding member?

Talk to Rhiney boi 16:59, 21 June 2019 (CEST)

Who is requesting this? The FSA "community"? --Mstr (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2019 (CEST)
Difficult question!
- On the 'meta-level' (1): Personally I am kind of opposed to the FS as their existence has a huge impact on the history of the continent and they were created unilaterally, without consulting mappers who already had countries in the area (I think one of the empty new continents would have been a better location for such a project). Nothing against mappers working on the FS but I see the FS as an anomaly that should better be moved elsewhere. But I am curious to know what other current SWAEA members think about this and may be convinced by other opinions.
- On the 'meta-level' (2): Since the FS is a collaborative project, do you have a mandate to discuss this on behalf of the other FS mappers or is this just reconnaissance? :)
- On the fictional level: the Federal States are a huge nation that would easily dominate SWAEA and if they are indeed some kind of OGF variant of the USA (dominant in several aspects), there may be opposition to the FS. I guess there would be a huge cultural clash with Xsegunis in any case (who probably can handle equal nations of more or less similar sizes but being culturally flooded and dominated by a USA style nation would be too much) - but this too can be discussed as far as I am concerned.
For the moment I am sceptical though that this would work :) --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2019 (CEST)
For the part about discussing this, this quote encourages the FS to join Archantian organizations:
Main member of several organisations, including organisations in Archanta
From OGF:Federal States's talk page. We are also setting up (just now) International relations.
Talk to Rhiney boi 21:23, 21 June 2019 (CEST)
And I also think the FS should be elsewhere, not in the Old World.
Talk to Rhiney boi 21:23, 21 June 2019 (CEST)
I see SWAEA forming as a counterbalance to the FSA, where the smaller nations of Archanta can join together as a trade bloc to better compete with/negotiate with the FSA at an international level. So it seems silly to have the FSA be part of SWAEA. -TheMayor (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2019 (CEST)
I like this scenario. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2019 (CEST)
Good idea. Now, nothing needs changed.
Talk to Rhiney boi 16:23, 22 June 2019 (CEST)

Discussion of 2018 and before

Associated membership

The request of Jørpenilands to participate as an associate member is OK for me (and Řots). We should however make clear what the difference between full and associate membership will be. (Note that we (i.e. Deltanz and I) haven't discussed introducing a single currency yet, and I'm not sure if Řots would participate) --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2015 (CEST)

Usually the economic integration goes through a lot of steps before agreeing on the monetary union, so I think that now, the full members of the SWAEA should work as a free trade area and a customs union. That means that members should agree on free transit of people and goods, as well as agreeing on abolishing the trade tariffs between them. So right now, trade between Neo Delta and Řots is free, there are no export and import tariffs, as they work as a single market. The next step is to become a customs union, that means a free trade area with a common external tariff. The participant countries set up common external trade policy, so Neo Delta and Řots should have the same tariffs when importing from and exporting to other countries that are not in the SWAEA. The request of Jørpenilands to be an associate member could only mean it is now part of the free trade area, for example, without the need of using the same tariffs Neo Delta and Řots use in trade with other countries. That is the way it works with MERCOSUR in South America, for example. --Deltanz (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2015
Agreed regarding the membership differences. Anyway, since Jørpenilondini are part of another country, it would be logical that they are bound to respect the international rules set by their mother country. A customs union, let alone a currency union, could therefore be problematic if they were to become a full member state. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2015 (CEST)
So logically the Jørpenilands can only be an associated member - not a full member of the SWEA. But because the geographic position the Jørpens has a lot of relations to other countries in that area. --Histor (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2015 (CEST)

Secretaries General

Based on their respective accession years I provisionally added the countries nominating the Secretaries General on the main page. I assumed that Vega and Yuris joined before the end of the Secretary General of Řots's term (i.e. before July 2004) so that these countries were able to add themselves to the first alphabetical round. If this list is accepted, it won't be possible anymore for new member states to claim that they have joined before today if this messes up the alphabetical order (unless we find a reason why that country was excluded from nominating a SG at that moment). --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2017 (CEST)

See also the discussion below about Asparagus's request to change Wapashia's membership into a full one retroactively as of 1996. -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2017 (CEST)

SWAEA Offices

Please discuss location, purpose, related treaties, and other of the following:


I guess that the SWAEA headquarters can only be located in one of the four founding member states (Forrintia, Neo Delta, Randalia, or Řots). Which cities were candidate to host these headquarters? --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2017 (CEST)

  • Kotōlets, the 'other capital' and the second largest city of Řots, is equipped with an international airport and a sufficient amount of infrastructure to host an international organisation like SWAEA. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2017 (CEST)
I think the ideia of having the headquarters in a "non-capital" city, such as Kotōlets (as it's not the main capital of Řots), would work very well, seems more neutral then a capital. Neo Delta would offer Malojdeh, due to its position in the very end (or beginning) of Astrasia. But at the same time, it's too far from most other countries, so I'd be happy with a regional office. --deltanz (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2017 (CEST)

SWAEA Surveillance Authority


SWAEA Statistical Office

Other institutions?

SWAEA Human Rights Office

Neo Delta would like very much for SWAEA to have a Human Rights Office, since it is one of the most important themes for the country, both domestically and internationally. This doesn't mean all of the member states are forced to have the same kind of human rights policies, but it would require them to respect basic human rights, at least in speech. As we have in the real world, many countries claim they respect those rights, but in practice this does not happen, so this could be the case of plenty of SWAEA member states. --deltanz (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2017 (CEST)

Another member?

Demirhanlı Devleti is interested in joining SWEA. Can it do that? Are there any criteria that the country should be fulfilled to join? Rustem Pasha (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2017 (CEST)

Hello, nice to see more countries interested in joining! So far, all you need is the will creating an open market together with other countries and agree on an open borders policy with the members of SWAEA regarding the movement of people. More particularly, Neo Delta is a very free and progressive nation, so we would like to see other countries with similar views joining the bloc, so countries that do not discriminate against race, gender, relition, ethnicity, disabilities, age, and sexual orientation of their citizens. I've seen that your country does not allow people to be atheists, would you consider changing that policy in Demirhanlı Devleti in the future? --deltanz (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2017 (CEST)
Just to be clear: there is nothing - so far - that suggests that member states of SWAEA should apply to a certain standard regarding democracy and/or human rights. Although Řots has an open mind regarding e.g. homosexuality, this is mainly the result of the dominant religion, which could - in turn - cause other restrictions to human liberties (which I haven't worked out yet, btw). Despite the fact that Řots allows its citizens to follow one to four of their Gods, and may be accepting that a God from another religion is worshipped, having no Gods at all may receive weird responses from Řots people. I haven't determined yet whether or not there are laws restricting the number of Gods in which one should believe, but seeing as Řots is rather unique, I can imagine that its citizens are conservative regarding their faith. -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2017 (CEST)
Rasmus Rasmusson is right, Demirhanlı Devleti is welcome into SWAEA regardless of the polical and social contexts of the country, what I meant was that from the Neo Deltan perspective, we'd like to make the alliance a force against human rights abuses. See that at no moment I mentioned that religous freedom was a criteria for membership. --deltanz (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2017 (CEST)
So I will add Demirhanlı Devleti as soon as it will be possible to the members listwith becoming a full member in early 2018. Legislative in the country is not complicated so it could be done in fifteen minutes (by sultans decree), but implementation should take few months.
When we talk about freedom and discrimination in Demirhanlı Devleti, I try to form it in the shape of some right-wing regimes like IRL Turkey, Hungary or Poland are. So many thing are not prohibited (like in Russia or Gulf countries) but simply not recognised by law. It's immanent feature of right-wing regimes that they believe if they don't recognise something, it don't exist (in egzample homosexual marriages). So simply Demirhanlı Devleti doesn't recognise atheism (which means it can't be an option to choose in national census), previously mentioned homosexual marriages, transwestitism (which means even man change his/her gender for the country it stays the same when born) and things like that but doesn't want to penalize them in any way, so if the citizen wants to be atheist gay, he can. I don't find it really discriminative in traditional mean of this word. Rustem Pasha (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2017 (CEST)
That's great, also, your date of admission in SWAEA can have happened in the past, if you feel that's more interesting for the history of your country. It doesn't necessarily have to happen in 2017-2018. --deltanz (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2017 (CEST)
Actually I prefer to avoid retroactive joining. As there is currently at least one member state that supposedly joined years ago, which has a big chance of being deleted soon, its membership doesn't make much sense... -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2017 (CEST)


This looks like a good collaboration! I don't have an interest in membership, but had a thought for a motto for the organisation: if you want to use Latin, you could have something along the lines of 'Per ardua ad astra', perhaps 'Per ardua ad Astrasia fortior' 'through hardship to a stronger Astrasia' (I would have said 'a more united Astrasia', but I'm not sure how to translate that into latin properly)--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2017 (CEST)

I like that, Udi. Well done Turnsole80 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2017 (CEST)
Sounds good (except that ad is followed by an accusative case, so Per ardua ad Astrasiam fortiorem). What would be the probability that Latin (is that Romantian in OGF?) is used for these purposes in Astrasia? Did the Ingerish, Florescenteans, Franquese, etc. immigrants/colonists import this from elsewhere? -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2017 (CEST)
Ah, good, that would make better sense (I don't know much Latin!). Or could you translate "to a more united Astrasia" into Latin? In answer to your other question, on probability, if you want this world to be similar to real world then probably Latin should have a similar place and history. If it is used in taxonomy, as seems to be the case, it has to have this element of continuity through mediaeval latin, to 16th/17th century latin and into modern latin. It would make sense that latin would still be in use in some parts of the world for mottos, as it is in the US etc, but specifically for Astrasia I've no idea - what other common language might bring SWAEA together? The problem with Ingerish is that countries that don't speak it might not want to be 'dominated' by it, so perhaps Romantian is a good neutral substitute. Though I don't know if that works for Řots! And I don't know why the countries that speak Ingerish speak it, they haven't all written that into their histories.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2017 (CEST)

Wapashia as a full member

Is it alright if Wapashia was a full member of the Alliance (as if it was never an "associate member" to begin with)? I fully understand it being considered an associate member since I hadn't been active for a good period of time, but now that I'm back and mapping much more frequently, I feel like full membership would be more acceptable now. --Asparagus (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2017 (PST)

That could be possible. Just a small item: in order to not change the order in the list of Secretaries General, would you accept that Wapashia joined only in 2006, with or without an associate membership from 1996 to 2006? If you prefer to have Wapashia as a full member from the beginning, the SG list can be changed (since so far only Řots has filled in a name, changing it wouldn't be very problematic anyway) -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2017 (CEST)
Is it alright if it was a member from 1996? Since Wapashia fills the slot after Vega, the time frame that the Řotsnan SG was in power won't even have to change, which makes things easier. If we don't want to change the list, I could come up with a reason for why the SG wasn't from Wapashia for that term. --Asparagus (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2017 (PST)
For me it is OK, so I changed the list accordingly. User TRJ added however the names of his secretaries general to the list just before I made the change, so I had to postpone some of these persons to later terms. As there were several other new member states that had to be inserted as well, the term of the Lezerne secretary general (that would have been acceding next year) had to be postponed to 2024-2026; I hope that this is OK for TRJ as well! -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2017 (CEST)
It is pefectly fine with me.--TRJ (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2017 (CEST)
Thanks! --Asparagus (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2017 (PST)

End of membership Forrintia

Although Forrintia was removed from OGF already last year, I provisionally made that effective as of July 2018 to allow the Secretary General Ariën van Tuijl to finish his term. I added a new line 'former member states', so as far as SWAEA is concerned Forrintia was a member state from 1996 to 2018 and it left for reasons yet to determine (revolution; country fell apart?). If other members prefer to have Forrintia removed as a member at the moment that it was removed from OGF, please indicate this below. (This means that the SecGen will have had to be replaced by an interim for the remainder of the term btw) -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2018 (CEST)

Replacement membership Řots > Xsegunis

As mentioned elsewhere, Řots is being replaced by Xsegunis as country. Is it OK for all of you if Xsegunis has been SWAEA member instead of Řots retroactively? -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (CEST)


I agree to make Lost country.png Naajaland a former member of SWAEA. Before Naajaland gained indepence, it was a part of SWAEA, but later it left because of low economic feases and lack of interest in international relations. I agree that Naajaland left in 2013. Arisuaq (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2018 (CEST)