The End of PADA
When the Pan-American Democratic Accord was founded, the New World was a very different place. The United States were just beginning to return to their feet after years of chaos and a half-century of dictatorship, and moralism was still unrealized in South America. The Japanese held colonies on the North American mainland, and held much of the Pacific Coast in their sway, through the Pacific Concord.
When the Accord was young, the democratic trio of America, Brazil and Vinland, soon to be joined by Argentina, formulated the idea of an organization to promote democracy throughout the new world, and to prevent the incursions of extracontinental powers seeking to restore the shackles of foreign domination over the new world. At the time, these founding nations of the Accord shared a common vision for the new world, and sought to create PADA to encompass all of it. These founders looked to the League of Continental Nations, studying it closely to learn and avoid the pitfalls that had doomed the organization. Thus, PADA was founded with means of guaranteeing quorum, a clearly-defined system to add and remove member nations, and a clear guiding vision.
The tenets of the Accord strove towards high ideals of self-determination, continental independence and peaceful conflict resolution. The Charter recognized "... that cooperation is superior to division, that democracy is superior to tyranny, and that the voices of many speaking as one are stronger than many speaking in discord...". Through the early years, PADA resolved minor conflicts, and created an open forum for communication between the new world powers. When PADA supported democratic movements, it rarely faced opposition from rival external organizations.
However, perhaps the breadth of PADA's mandate was what eventually led to its decline. By promising to respect both the self-determination and independence of nations, as well as the importance of the democratic system of governance, PADA's founders unwittingly created a then-unseen conflict which would haunt their organization in the years that followed. What is one to do when a member state falls from democracy to despotism? Is one to respect the sovereignty of a state, even under new, potentially illegitimate or undemocratic governments? When is an intervention to restore democracy acceptable? Is it ever acceptable?
These problems would come to tear PADA apart- the aftermath of the Portuguese invasion of Jamaica would see Brazil's angry departure from the Accord, marking the beginning of an inexorable decline for the alliance. While early conflicts had been met with swift voting and decisive action by the PADA High Commission, these later conflicts would be beset by inaction and internal criticism. Meanwhile, Brazil swiftly established itself as the center of the rising power of the Moralist International, and began an active project of disassembling the alliance it had once helped to build.
Just as destructive was the gradual cooling of relationships between the founding states of PADA, the superpowers of the new world. The troubled Wallace Presidency, and its unclear connection with the assassination of the Brazilian PADA Ambassador Terence Glas, was one of the major issues that alienated Brazil prior to its final departure. As Brazil turned from white coat liberalism to more conservative moralism, America returned increasingly from an idealistic internationalism to a more revanchist nationalism. Argentina and Vinland remained comparatively the same, although the gradual decline of PADA would prove to be embittering and disheartening for both.
Increasingly, PADA came to be seen less as an open forum for democracies, and more as an irritatingly interventionist organization, proselytizing a doctrine of democracy and secularism. The exact reasons for this are unclear. Perhaps it was because Argentina and Vinland were the only remaining voices in PADA after Brazil left and America fell silent, perhaps it merely appeared to be more radical in contrast to moralism, or perhaps there was a genuine shift, as the organization aged. Regardless of the truth of the matter, perceptions rule, and PADA began to grow from a source of collective strength, to a source of collective liability.
During the time of PADA, we have seen the last vestiges of colonial control over the new world disappear. We have seem democracy flourish and grow in many places which have not seen it for many years. But the issues we face today are much different than those we faced when our alliance was born. The motivations to isolate our continents from the outside world have largely disappeared, and a great many of the independent states of the Americas have loudly expressed their hostility towards PADA. When nations within PADA respect the organization so little as to declare war against their erstwhile allies, our problems are serious. When other nations within the Accord actively set out to prevent PADA from mounting a defense for its stricken member, it is clear the the time of PADA, as we knew it, is over. PADA is dead. The Pan-American Democratic Accord has served its purpose, and now we must move on.
We look back with heavy hearts at what might have been, but we may look back with pride and happiness at what has been accomplished. PADA presided over an extended period of peace on the continent, and its actions have improved the lives of the peoples of the New World. It made mistakes, to be sure, a great many, but ever did the Accord carry on in pursuing the tenets each member state had vowed to uphold.
For those who remain true to the ideals of PADA, we will learn from our mistakes, and carry on. We shall continue to support the ideals of democracy, and we shall continue to support one another, by whichever means we may. PADA's age may be over, but PADA's ideals shall never die.
-Vinlandic Ambassador to PADA, Erik Vasiliev
When the Pan-American Democratic Accord was founded, the New World was a very different place. The United States were just beginning to return to their feet after years of chaos and a half-century of dictatorship, and moralism was still unrealized in South America. The Japanese held colonies on the North American mainland, and held much of the Pacific Coast in their sway, through the Pacific Concord.
When the Accord was young, the democratic trio of America, Brazil and Vinland, soon to be joined by Argentina, formulated the idea of an organization to promote democracy throughout the new world, and to prevent the incursions of extracontinental powers seeking to restore the shackles of foreign domination over the new world. At the time, these founding nations of the Accord shared a common vision for the new world, and sought to create PADA to encompass all of it. These founders looked to the League of Continental Nations, studying it closely to learn and avoid the pitfalls that had doomed the organization. Thus, PADA was founded with means of guaranteeing quorum, a clearly-defined system to add and remove member nations, and a clear guiding vision.
The tenets of the Accord strove towards high ideals of self-determination, continental independence and peaceful conflict resolution. The Charter recognized "... that cooperation is superior to division, that democracy is superior to tyranny, and that the voices of many speaking as one are stronger than many speaking in discord...". Through the early years, PADA resolved minor conflicts, and created an open forum for communication between the new world powers. When PADA supported democratic movements, it rarely faced opposition from rival external organizations.
However, perhaps the breadth of PADA's mandate was what eventually led to its decline. By promising to respect both the self-determination and independence of nations, as well as the importance of the democratic system of governance, PADA's founders unwittingly created a then-unseen conflict which would haunt their organization in the years that followed. What is one to do when a member state falls from democracy to despotism? Is one to respect the sovereignty of a state, even under new, potentially illegitimate or undemocratic governments? When is an intervention to restore democracy acceptable? Is it ever acceptable?
These problems would come to tear PADA apart- the aftermath of the Portuguese invasion of Jamaica would see Brazil's angry departure from the Accord, marking the beginning of an inexorable decline for the alliance. While early conflicts had been met with swift voting and decisive action by the PADA High Commission, these later conflicts would be beset by inaction and internal criticism. Meanwhile, Brazil swiftly established itself as the center of the rising power of the Moralist International, and began an active project of disassembling the alliance it had once helped to build.
Just as destructive was the gradual cooling of relationships between the founding states of PADA, the superpowers of the new world. The troubled Wallace Presidency, and its unclear connection with the assassination of the Brazilian PADA Ambassador Terence Glas, was one of the major issues that alienated Brazil prior to its final departure. As Brazil turned from white coat liberalism to more conservative moralism, America returned increasingly from an idealistic internationalism to a more revanchist nationalism. Argentina and Vinland remained comparatively the same, although the gradual decline of PADA would prove to be embittering and disheartening for both.
Increasingly, PADA came to be seen less as an open forum for democracies, and more as an irritatingly interventionist organization, proselytizing a doctrine of democracy and secularism. The exact reasons for this are unclear. Perhaps it was because Argentina and Vinland were the only remaining voices in PADA after Brazil left and America fell silent, perhaps it merely appeared to be more radical in contrast to moralism, or perhaps there was a genuine shift, as the organization aged. Regardless of the truth of the matter, perceptions rule, and PADA began to grow from a source of collective strength, to a source of collective liability.
During the time of PADA, we have seen the last vestiges of colonial control over the new world disappear. We have seem democracy flourish and grow in many places which have not seen it for many years. But the issues we face today are much different than those we faced when our alliance was born. The motivations to isolate our continents from the outside world have largely disappeared, and a great many of the independent states of the Americas have loudly expressed their hostility towards PADA. When nations within PADA respect the organization so little as to declare war against their erstwhile allies, our problems are serious. When other nations within the Accord actively set out to prevent PADA from mounting a defense for its stricken member, it is clear the the time of PADA, as we knew it, is over. PADA is dead. The Pan-American Democratic Accord has served its purpose, and now we must move on.
We look back with heavy hearts at what might have been, but we may look back with pride and happiness at what has been accomplished. PADA presided over an extended period of peace on the continent, and its actions have improved the lives of the peoples of the New World. It made mistakes, to be sure, a great many, but ever did the Accord carry on in pursuing the tenets each member state had vowed to uphold.
For those who remain true to the ideals of PADA, we will learn from our mistakes, and carry on. We shall continue to support the ideals of democracy, and we shall continue to support one another, by whichever means we may. PADA's age may be over, but PADA's ideals shall never die.
-Vinlandic Ambassador to PADA, Erik Vasiliev
