Independent States Allied Forces | ISAF Summit 2013 Onwards

[Jamie]

---

​

Independent States Allied Forces ISAF Summit 2013 Onwards​

​

---

Attendance
[A] Great Britain
[P] Netherlands
[P] United States

Location
The Hub, London

Security
Encrypted/Private

Agenda

• Organisation Overhaul
• Membership Enlargement
• Concerns of Military Cooperation
• Review of ISAF Member Military Policy
  • Discussion of more inclusive ISAF bases.
• ISAF Peacekeeping Reassignment

  ---

  Any members wishing to add to the agenda, are free to confirm what they would like to discuss.
  
  @John
  @Dutchy

 

[Dutchy]

The Dutch Permanent Representative to the Independent States Allied Forces Ronald Averechs would arrive with ISAF Advisor Menno van Wegberg to the meeting. He'd greet his counterparts from BRITAIN AND America before speaking to the Secretary General whom he'd ask to add 'Increased Powers to the ISAF Executive Council' and 'Election of an Allied Supreme Commander'

Sara Vos Chairwoman of Political Affairs would also arrive and take her place.

---

Note this post is to help the RP move on, I am still on leave until 22/02

 

[John]

The American Representative to ISAF, Ivo Daalder, would arrive in the chamber. He'd move around the small room, shaking hands with his Dutch and British counterparts before taking a seat and engaging in small talk with said counterparts before the meeting begins. He'd request that a discussion of current events regarding the situation with Brazil be added to the Agenda so that ISAF can discuss how to move forward with the situation.

 

[Jamie]

With the ISAF Member States all in attendance, the room would be shut with no media/press or anyone else that wasn't the ISAF Councillors access. Private and all communications encrypted to ensure maximum privacy for the member states to discuss the future of the alliance. The Secretary General begun to speak, addressing the Dutch, American and British Councillors present.

"Thank you for attending the summit. It has been a while since the member states of the alliance were put together to discuss our future. The group has become exceedingly quiet, the impact minimised which, in turn, could be a positive note to escape the cliche we often receive from the international community. Given the state of the alliance, our military assets seem more out of touch then ever and I'd like to see a thorough discussion where all members can contemplate the plans for the future.

I'm going to go straight to the point, the first agenda is the Organisation Overhaul. This ties in with two agendas proposed by the Dutch which was powers to the Executive COuncil, and the election of the Allied Supreme Commander. I will list my proposal for the structure of ISAF, and you can of course share your thoughts.

The ISAF Council is, to be blunt, useless. We currently have four positions.
The Allied Military Commander which has never been filled.
The President of Economic Affairs which has a quiet voice.
Chairman of Political Affairs which has limited input.
No Admin of Science.

I would like to begin by proposing the establishment of these roles. They're something that ISAF hasn't used, thus never needed. This would mean the ISAF Executive Council will be replaced by a person of power from each member. So every ISAF member will have an authority figure from their government in the council which meets in a summit such as this one. The Executive Council will be the main party of government leaders and head ministers to discuss anything such as war, and generally big changes within the group. The Executive Council is managed by the Secretary General due to it been a full time position.

This then breaks down into the Military Committee which will handle the ADI Center, Independent Airlift Wing, anything generally surrounding our combined militaries. Joint Exercises, overseeing operations. These would meet each year to determine the intention moving forward."

The Secretary General stopped, allowing the US and Dutch to pitch their responses and any ideas on the above.

@Dutchy
@John

 

[Dutchy]

"I can agree with you that the organisation requires a major overhaul, for that you have Dutch support. While we are saddened to see the devolution of power withing the council go, we are not against the idea of creating an overarching 'security council' with a representative from each member state."

"In regards to the Military Committee, this is an idea we fully stand behind and support, can I propose that an Allied Military Commander oversees the meetings of the Military Committee and handles the day-to-day management of the Committee?"

 

[John]

"I agree, I do not wish to insult any nation but ourselves are included in this. ISAF has went downhill, we have went too quiet and.. I'm sure people don't even think the alliance exists anymore. I one hundred percent agree that we need a complete overhaul and we hope that agreements on how this is done can be reached quickly"

 

[Jamie]

"The issue is with extra roles like military commander is the lack of action by it. Such as the council, political affairs, research and development.. nothing was done with that role. What position would the commander have that the committee would not be able to do; given the committee would be requiring to agree before any decisions made. I'm just hoping to avoid the rut that ISAF is in with positions vacant or un-used.

To confirm the current change:


1. Executive Council
[Secretary General & and Senior Member from each members government].

This leads onto:

Military Committee

• Manages the Air Defence Initiative
• Upholds the Independent Airlift Wing
• Responsible for ISAF exercises and operations

Regardless, the idea of having multiple people in the committee means there is no excuse to neglect it; with an annual committee meeting to discuss or emergency video calls depending on the situation. These will have authority from ISAF and Governments to authorise operations there and then collectively. Then a Military Commander if you would both prefer it, as of course, majority dictates.

From this base model, we can add on new departments once we have a membership enlargement."

@John @Dutchy

 

[Dutchy]

"My suggestion to the position of an Allied Supreme Commander is to assist the Secretary General in running the organisation. I would like to see a simple split between the executive roles, allowing the Secretary General to focus on legislation, enlargement and representation on the international stage. The Allied Military Commander can manage the day-to-day military affairs such as planning exercises, proposing operations, delegating objectives and of course the other the tasks you have listed."

"I would like to hear the thought of the Americans on this subject."

@John @Jamie

 

[John]

"I agree, the stress of handling the day to day business of a whole alliance is too much for one person to bare, I think with the assistance of the Allied Military Commander, the jobs needed to keep the alliance running smoothly will get done quicker and with a much better outline"

 

[Jamie]

The thoughts of both the Dutch and American representatives were well received, the Secretary General nodding and adjusting the plan he had:

"Understood, so we have the Executive Council which consists of the Secretary General, then the Allied Supreme Commander which both manage the alliance itself. Then within that, each member state has a seat at the council for any decision making. This is then followed by the Military Committee which will uphold the ADI, IEW, responsible for managing exercises and operations.

Any additional branches, none military related, would spark the discussion of additional committees. Does this adjustment sound like something we all agree on, or any further changes?"

@Dutchy
@John

 

[Dutchy]

"Mr Secretary General, this is something the Netherlands supports and can full its full weight behind. We are in favour of these reforms and hope to see them come to fruition in the near future. We hope that both the British and American government join is in forming an unanimous front in improving our organisation."

---

Note: I am still on leave, this post is to help the rp move forward in my absence​

---

 

[John]

"We too, are in favour of these reforms.. Gentlemen I would like to move on the discussion to something more serious. Can I ask both of your opinions on the Brazilian threat to invade French Territory?"

 

[Jamie]

There was a short silence as the Secretary General crossed out the first agenda of an 'Organisational Overhaul', marking the changes as authorised and something he'd work on updating during and after the meeting. Before moving onto the next topic, he did respond to the American discussion. "Whilst I appreciate the severity of the situation, perhaps you could invite all of our countries to a meeting to discuss that separately to mark the first Military Committee? Ideally I'd like to keep this meeting specific for ISAF, it's been neglected a little too long and I'd very much like to see us get past the bumpy road the alliance has come too.

The second agenda was member enlargement. The organisation has been tight between the UK, US and Netherlands. We all have the ability, yet our own cooperation has diminished. Less exercises, less communication. So whilst we work on this in the next agenda, I'd like to request your thoughts on us opening applications for a 2013 Enlargement?

You can answer that shortly, but this also drags onto the point of Military Cooperation. The issue is that we've had exercises that have failed and gone quiet due to lack of interest, I'd like to also know if you both have any opinions on why it might be? too unrealistic? Too expensive? etc. Overall, I'm not sure if it's simply lack of interest, which is something you can have, but we need to counter it. We used to have regular exercises, yet that seems to be gone. What, realistically, would you like to see to get your countries more involved in joint exercises to further cooperation?"

@Dutchy
@John

 

[Dutchy]

Before moving on the the next topic the Dutch ISAF Representive asked, "in regards to the Military Committee, will we be holding a vote before the conclusion of this meeting to assign an Allied Military Commander to head that committee?"

"I can agree that the cooperation between our nations has diminished significantly. However, what I believe we can be proud of is our close cooperation consensus on important topics and crisis. This should always be a cornerstone of ISAF that the member states act as a united front. While we are open for an enlargement we would like to ensure that it is a complex process to ensure that the nations joining are a match for the organisation."

"The issue with military cooperation in the form of exercises is that we may have aimed to high. I believe it would be more appropriate to begin from the bottom organising small exercises between our forces before holding massive war games. We need to learn to work and fight together at all ranks, from private to general. This is why I suggest holding small scenario exercises before we aim for large conventional exercises."

 

[Jamie]

"Yes, we will decide on the Allied Military Commander towards the end. In relation to cooperation, I agree, we should start at a smaller scale but this is something that we all need to put the effort into. Not just Britain hosting all, but agreed training between the US and Netherlands, the UK and the US, and then all three involved in others with set up scenarios to further cooperation on a smaller level.

With your permission, I'd like to open an application process which has the basic requirements that:
- Government must be a Democracy.
- Abide the ISAF Treaty.
- Contribute through Military, Economic and Political channels.
Any we receive, we can review at the time.

Unless we stick to the MAP? Where existing states work with others and if they fit our criteria, we decide on inviting them to ISAF?"

@Dutchy
@John

 

[Dutchy]

"The Netherlands supports the opening of a new enlargement round, however we hope that the process of ascension won't be rushed. In addition to the conditions you have noted we'd also like to see aspirant nations have friendly relations with all current ISAF states, as well as have a positive track record when it comes to human rights and press freedom."

 

[John]

"I feel like application processes should be opened, however, I think that it shouldn't just be an application process and then done - we should make them aware that if their application is being considered, that we will send invigilators to their country to find out their current economic, military and social situations to make sure they are a right fit for ISAF - rather than basing their commitment and security from just words alone"

 

[Jamie]

"Agreed.
So we either:

A. Open applications, see who's interested, and do a MAP from there?

B. Have closed enlargement, where we mention countries we're close with, and we evaluate their compatibility and invite them?

What would you both prefer? unless you have a third idea."

@Dutchy
@John

 

[Dutchy]

"While we would prefer to first ensure the restructure is complete and we can prove that the organisation can work effectively together, The Netherlands supports the idea of a mixture of what you are presenting. We support the idea of open application to allow any nation seeking membership to apply. Then the new Executive Council can review the applications for their compatibility and their compliance with the requirements of being a democracy, protecting human rights, etc."

 

[John]

"I agree with my Dutch counterpart, open applications for everyone, but we have independent and state investigators make sure they are safe to and steady to join"