CHAPTER III
FIGHTING OBADIAH STANE

I explained in an earlier chapter how I was passionate about foreign affairs, early in my NationStates career. As I rose progressed and rose through the ranks, first as Minister of Foreign Affairs and then as Vice Delegate, I came to realise that diplomacy is quite complex and delicate, and seemingly innocent or inconsequential actions or statements could wreck entire relationships. Such was the nature of NationStates Gameplay; one that, over time, I have come to intensely dislike.

Just as I did with regional affairs, my approach to foreign affairs involved a mixture of policy and administrative priorities. I wanted to continue developing the foreign policy that Escade had pushed forward, but I also wanted to ensure that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs worked well, within the parameters set by Sandaoguo. To that effect, while I focused much on forging friendships, having a foreign presence and defining our role within the Independent Sphere, I initially focused on the administration of the Ministry. In particular, I sought to define our policy towards embassies and consulates, an issue that I had long wanted to address.

Implementing our Embassy Policy

My involvement in the definition of our embassy and consulate policy was limited, but I feel it still merits a mention, since it does relate to the more mundane, but still present aspect of governing and coordinating policy with individual ministers, something that comprises a key and often overlooked, as far as the public is concerned, side of leading. At the time, our policy granted embassies –that is, a gameside embassy and a subforum– to Game Created Regions and treaty allies, but limited other regions to a consulate, which consisted of a single thread within our Embassy Row section. In addition, consulates were subject to a monthly posting requirement, with the logic that consulates were there because regions were going to keep a semblance of activity in the bilateral relationship.

Shortly after the start of my delegacy, I started a thread in the Cabinet Office to express my concern about this posting requirement. I was worried that it would be hypocritical to keep it, considering that Glen, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, had decided that we would no longer have a foreign service or release foreign updates. If we weren’t keeping our embassies abroad active, how could we possibly require the same from other regions? A brief discussion followed, where Glen made the case that there was no hypocrisy, and that this requirement only affected consulates, rather than embassies. I remained sceptical. There was still hypocrisy, but I relented. This wouldn’t negatively affect major regions or treaty allies, which was the more urgent concern, so I opted to defer to him, rather than have a prolonged argument. Thus, we kept the requirement that consulates needed monthly updates for them not to be archived.

This section, while short and mostly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, is a good opportunity to show that, as I mentioned, some of the work done within the Cabinet isn’t seen by the public, nor is it glamorous enough to be of interest to the public, but is still necessary to keep things moving. There are policies to be set and discussed, concerns to be addressed, competing interests within the Cabinet to be resolved, and the Delegate had a key role in ensuring that the environment remained collegial, peaceful and cooperative.

Out There

I am not an extroverted person. Not by a long shot. Not even if I tried. I can definitely be open and reasonably extroverted with friends, but I don’t feel at all comfortable mingling in an event, engaging in small talk or partaking in the horrendous practice of networking. It’s not how I’m wired; it’s not what I like to do. If given a choice between going to the party and having a quiet dinner with a couple of friends, I wouldn’t even hesitate to pick the latter. I say this because, all things considered, I had a mixed relationship with networking, or just being present in the various major channels, during my two terms as Delegate.

To be clear, I was present in all active GCR channels, and would occasionally be present in some major UCR channels, when necessary. I made a point to engage with other leaders, and be reasonably well acquainted with them. I had decent working relationships with some, and had closer and friendlier ties with others. I had, for instance, a strong initial relationship with Europeian President Kraketopia. I was a member of the Montresor Family, and thus formed decent ties with East Pacifican leaders like Xoriet and Severisen. I had a strong relationship with Joshua Ravenclaw, and was the initial head of government in Alexandria, a region he created during that time. I had an excellent relationship with Reject Delegate Unibot, who was key in helping us develop our alliances with Lazarus and the Rejected Realms, and always found him very approachable and engaging.

I also had less than stellar relations with other leaders, as our relations with their regions deteriorated, particularly during my second term. I had a decidedly bad relationship with OnderKelkia, whose posts I find so long, legalistic and pedantic that even to this day I prefer to skip them. I also had a less than ideal relationship with Europeian President Malashaan in my first and only contact with him, shortly after his inauguration. I made it clear that, in the aftermath of the Conferences Crisis, I was not comfortable with how we had been treated. That was the only time we ever spoke.

Just as important as being out there and representing the region is also knowing when to stand up for it, to defend its interests, and how strongly to do so. When we thought our interests were being threatened, we didn’t hesitate to defend them. We did that when OnderKelkia attacked Minister of the Army Geomania for his skilful use of diplomacy to lead a liberation into success. We did that when Europeia tried to force us to insult Lazarus, our newest ally, by declining to attend the Regional Sovereignty Conference. We did it when The New Inquisition and Kantrias denounced their treaties with us. In all those cases, I felt that we were making the right calls, and we stood up for the region. As I will explain later in this memoir, I feel that history has vindicated this stance.

Overall, even if I don’t enjoy it much, I will agree that being out there is an important part of leading. It was important then, and today it’s even more important, given how interconnected and dynamic gameplay has become. This doesn’t mean that one has to be friends with everyone, nor does it mean that one must become a major participant in gameplay. Instead, it simply involves knowing one’s counterparts in our allies and other major regions, and being strategic about when and how to form good ties with other players. Much of this is simply random luck, other times it involves becoming gameplay literate. In all cases, it involves going only as far as one feels comfortable, and knowing when a relationship isn’t just not worth the time, but even actively detrimental to oneself and the region.

Standing Up for True Independence

Independence, to those unfamiliar with the term, is an ideology wherein the dichotomy of raiding and defending is rejected, replaced by a belief that regions should be free to engage in either or both activities according to their interests. We were officially Independent for around two years, due to a provision in the Special Forces Code of Conduct that so declared. Initially I was supportive of this: it was entirely logical that our military should work in pursuance of our regional interests, rather than align itself with specific ideologies and act solely based on the expectations attached to them. Over time, however, I came to realise that Independence was detrimental to our regional interests, and supported a subsequent effort, halfway through my second term, to repeal the provision that codified it.

One of the key concepts of Independence is the claim that it isn’t an ideology, but rather the lack of one, and the constraints that come with it. Instead of an ideology that limits how a region can act, Independence allows regions to pursue their true interests, and act solely based on them. Gone were the days when a region could only defend or raid out of some misguided obligation, replaced by a freedom to pursue either, and align itself with both sides. At least that is how it was supposed to work. In reality, defining our “regional interests” was an incredibly complex endeavour. How to define them? What if they evolve and conflict with the stances of our allies? What if we decided it was in our interests to align ourselves definitively with raiders or defenders? I came to believe that Independence was plagued with several issues that were never answered by its most ardent supporters, who insisted that there was no ideology, and that interests were the only goal to be followed.

Comes August 2014, well into my second term, and we were invited to two interregional conferences. We received an invitation to co-host with Europeia an Independence Conference, which we promptly and enthusiastically accepted. We also received an invitation to attend a Regional Sovereignty Conference, organised by Lazarus, then our most recent treaty ally. We obviously accepted that invitation as well, considering that it was well within our interests to attend both conferences.

I remember I had just finished a class, and was walking past the cafeteria on my way out, when I received a Skype message from Kraketopia. He wanted to talk, and I jokingly responded that I hoped it wasn’t anything bad. He said it was. This was the start of the most stressful episode of my delegacy, and the one defining moment that convinced me of the failings of Independence as model for the region. He had been informed that we planned to attend the Regional Sovereignty Conference, and intended to let me know that Europeia considered that unacceptable.

Over our next several conversations, and over the next several conversations between him and Glen, we found out that Europeia felt there was a fundamental incompatibility between our attendance of the Regional Sovereignty Conference and our co-hosting of the Independence Conference, a sentiment that was apparently shared by other Independent regions. They argued that this was an affront to Europeia, and that others were uneasy about our increasingly close ties with defender region, which was why we were asked to forsake our attendance to the Regional Sovereignty Conference, to prove our “commitment” to the Independence Conference.

We in turn found those terms unacceptable, a gross violation of our sovereignty and a violation of the good faith that we had in our alliance with Europeia, and we made sure to let them know that these weren’t terms that we could accept. Glen and I insisted that there should be no reason why we couldn’t attend both conferences, and made clear that under no circumstances would we snub an ally by declining to attend their conference, while attending the other. These arguments fell on deaf ears, and we realised that we would have to make a decision about our attendance to both conferences.

We had an extensive discussion in the Situation Room, but we couldn’t reach an agreement. Should we defy Europeia and keep our word with Lazarus? Should we submit and abandon Lazarus, even if it meant being subservient to a foreign power? Should we refuse to attend either conference? Each option had its drawbacks, and were clueless as to their implications, both in terms of reception within the Assembly and broader reaction among our allies. In the end, we decided the best option was to inform the Assembly, and have a discussion with it about how we should proceed. This resulted in the decision to insist on attending the Regional Sovereignty Conference, despite Europeian threats that we were moving away from Independence in doing so.

There were some important lessons from this episode, but I think the most important one is that regional friends remain so right up to the moment when they stop. I considered Europeia our closest and most reliable ally, until they threatened us with ultimatums, and accused us of moving away from their own conception of Independence, even though the very concept of Independence was for each region to follow its own interests. We had been following our interests by attempting to participate in both conferences, to spread our message about the importance of GCR sovereignty, but apparently our interests were only valid if they didn’t involve being too close to defender regions.

Obviously, this left a lasting impact and, while I can’t speak for others in the Cabinet, I know I was severely disillusioned with the concept of Independence, and its main actors, by the whole ordeal. I stopped believing that Independents truly believed in their claims about regional interests, which was evident by the hypocrisy of supporting close relations with raider-leaning regions, but strongly denouncing, to the point of presenting ultimatums, any proximity with defender regions. Were defender-leaning interests any less valid than others were? This, along with the way in which we had already been treated by The New Inquisition and OnderKelkia, only reinforced my growing perception that we were seen by the Independent Sphere as a junior partner, a useful addition to their circle, but not an ally or a partner in equal footing; hence our horrendous treatment.

Less than one month later, following broad agreement within the Cabinet, we introduced a bill to remove the Independent label from the Special Forces Code of Conduct, and replacing it with language that kept the Special Forces from adopting any particular ideology. This way we would be free to implement our own version of Independence, or non-alignment, without the baggage of having to conform to a definition of Independence with which we disagreed, and that had little resemblance to the concept that we had in mind when developing our foreign and military policy. We felt this was the best course of action, and I am happy to say that not only did the Assembly agree with our assessment, but that time seems to have confirmed our stance, now that the South Pacific has developed and thrived without the pressure of having to conform to the definitions and preconditions set out in the Independent Manifesto.

Making New Friends, Forsaking Old Ones

It would be arrogant on my part to claim sole credit for the way in which our alliances developed during my delegacy. As will have become clear by now, this development depended on the actions of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Army, and most definitely on the actions of foreign actors, who either sought our partnership or broke ties with us. However, I did have a privileged position from which to observe these developments.

During my delegacy we gained two allies and lost two others. We signed treaties with the Rejected Realms and Lazarus, the two defender Game Created Regions of the time. We also lost our alliances with The New Inquisition and Kantrias, as a direct result of our signing of a treaty with TRR. This is perhaps the most significant foreign policy shift we have experienced in recent years, since one can trace a direct line from these developments to our current defender-leaning stance.

It might escape the reader, and understandably so, the extent to which The New Inquisition was considered an untouchable alliance, during 2013 and 2014. It was very difficult to criticise it, and any attempt to suggest that they alliance was not worth its cost was responded with the claim that it was in our interests to keep it. I, along with others like Glen and Unibot, found that claim dubious at best, but tried my best to give TNI the benefit of the doubt. When I became Vice Delegate, Escade and I had a series of meetings with the leadership of TNI and the United Imperial Armed Forces (UIAF), the combined militaries of TNI, the Land of Kings and Emperors (LKE) and Albion. It did not go well, in retrospect, and we continually were left with the impression that we were treated as junior partners. That was only strengthened as OnderKelkia publicly criticised Geomania, our then-Minister of the Army. Geomania had made a skilful use of diplomacy and leadership when rivalries between Imperialist and defender forces risked endangering a liberation, something that we felt deserved commendation, rather than condemnation.

When we signed the treaty with the Rejected Realms, TNI and Kantrias denounced their respective treaties with us, indicating that us having treaties with both regions was impossible, given the incumbent war between the Founderless Regions Alliance and the UIAF. That was a fair point, and I would tend to agree that relations were indeed incompatible. Obviously we made no such concession at the time, and insisted that TNI was being irresponsible. We had finally lost the alliance with The New Inquisition, the untouchable alliance, and we hadn’t even meant to. This incident was, of course, one of the arguments used by Europeia when, months later, they accused us of becoming too close to defenderism, even despite our insistence that the alliance with TRR was reasonable and well within our interests. It was hopeless to try to convince them, however.

It has been nearly four years after we lost these alliances and gain new ones, so this offers a good chance to see, with the perspective of time, if they were worth it.

I would say that they were. We did lose two alliances, one with a region that was, back then, very important in gameplay, but these were damaging alliances, with regions that treated us as foreign policy trophies rather than equal partners. We gained little from them, despite the claims otherwise, and it was more than good riddance when they decided to abandon us. In turn, we gained alliances with two regions that, at least for their time, were fairly active and important defender regions, who treated us as truly equal partners, and were genuinely interested in engaging us, not only in the military plane, but also in the cultural plane, something that led to the development of our gameside festivals, as has been explored in a prior chapter.

It is said that there are no friendships in foreign policy, only interests. That’s true, but when there is a choice between two powers, one of which treats you as a junior and rebellious partner, the choice becomes clear. We decided that our interests were different, and acted accordingly. I have no regrets, and given how these incidents enabled our future development, I feel that history has vindicated the decisions that we made, all those years ago.