(06-02-2022, 08:44 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: Are you content with the interregional defender institutions we have now, or do you think there is something we can do to further our cooperation with other defenders and expand the defender world at the same time?

I'm content with the institutions we have now but not how they have developed. PfS is a good political force for the World Assembly. Aegis will be a strong security agreement and a powerful incentive to bring other regions into the fold of defending. The institutions are there, we just need to use them appropriately. In the case of PfS, that means correctly using its brand and platform as a place to promote the ideology and thought of defending. In the case of Aegis, that means utilizing a strong set of mutual defense commitments as an incentive for Frontiers and founderless regions to join the cause of Defending. Outreach to regions which are new to defending/gameplay or relatively disconnected from the broader gameplay environment will be essential to the growth of both institutions.

At the same time, not all functions for the growth of Defending or defender institutions should be internationalized. Our ultimate priority must be the internal growth of the South Pacific Special Forces. I remain adamantly opposed to any proposal which would surrender ultimate South Pacifican sovereignty over the deployment of our military. The SPSF should make steps forward in terms of interregional promotion and outreach, but must remain a sovereign and autonomous military force. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I will never negotiate any agreement which would forego our ultimate sovereign military prerogative.

Regarding our detente with Osiris--

(06-02-2022, 09:40 PM)Quebecshire Wrote: but I want to raise the issue of our relationship with the region/regime in the context of the recent months.

I do not agree with your characterization that the fundamentals of the relationship have actually changed in the last several months. While raiderdom, including Osiris, has strengthened militarily in recent times, this does not represent a variation from what we expected when we settled on our detente with Osiris. Many of the specific examples you use were also priced-in at the time of our detente (for example, a knowledge of TBH, and by extension Souls', relationship with Osiris; Osiris' support for destructive military practices; etc.) or are simply natural extensions of the divergences we already knew existed (e.g. a treaty with the Brotherhood of Malice). While the "Raider Unity" ideology's resurgence, along with the return of several influential raiders under the banner of the Brotherhood of Malice, has meaningfully changed the balance of the South Pacific's relationships with several regions, it has not actually altered the fundamentals of our relationship with Osiris.

To quote the announcement:

Detente Statement Wrote:It is likely we will end up in conflict with one another yet again, after all, we are both leaders in opposing factions. In spite of that, we want to ensure when conflict does arise communication channels are open for both of us.

That is why the Coalition and Fraternal Order are committing to two things:

• We will maintain embassies with one another in peacetime
  
• We will maintain ambassadors with one another in peacetime
  

To a large extent, what we are witnessing in recent months is exactly what is assumed by our detente: that "we will end up in conflict with one another yet again". It does not diminish the importance of maintaining open communication channels so that Osiris and the South Pacific can cooperate in addressing any potential crisis where we have mutual interests, as unlikely as one might be. It is also worth noting this detente is not as broad or sweeping as the ones we settled on with The West Pacific or Balder (prior to our treaty). The only thing guaranteed by our detente is embassy and ambassador exchange, something which carries no cost for the South Pacific.

(06-02-2022, 09:40 PM)Quebecshire Wrote: Furthermore, the newly appointed Moshir (military commander, basically their equivalent to our Minister of Defense), Wascoitan, has a history of... interesting comments in public/semi-public spaces regarding our region. These include but are not necessarily limited to expressing a desire to support a coup of TSP, saying laziness is the only thing stopping them from actively infiltrating TSP, and brazen encouragement/defense of TBH's previous interference in our World Assembly vote (and encouraging similar behavior to reemerge). While these comments were made prior to their appointment, I don't think anyone familiar with this individual believes they are any less sincere about those beliefs today.

While Wascoitan's comments are concerning, they are frankly not to be taken with great seriousness. Public shitposting about a potential coup is not equivalent to an actual effort to overthrow the Coalition, in fact it is often the opposite of that. If Wasc were engaged in a well-planned and well-executed effort to destroy the Coalition, they would keep it under wraps, rather than spouting it off in various entirely public servers and summoning heightened suspicion and attention.

In actuality, Wasc's organizations have long been opposed to TSP (which is already known) and Wasc is venting to let off some steam. It's not nothing, but it's also not something to burn any bridges over. Not to mention, Wasc made these comments while out of office, and there is no credible evidence that Wasc's leadership of the Sekhmet Legion would meaningfully advance a military effort against the Coalition. The decision by the new Pharoh to appoint Wasc as Moshir should instead be understood in context of the lack of other available personnel, rather than an effort to change the interests of Osiris in opposition to the Coalition. Lastly, if such comments continued post-appointment, the correct course of action would be a private dialogue with Osiris, per the channel of communication set up by our detente agreement, rather than a unilateral decision to revoke our detente, which would itself be interpreted as an act of hostility beyond normal opposition in raiding/defending.

(06-02-2022, 09:40 PM)Quebecshire Wrote: How do you see our relationship (or lack thereof) with the Osiris Fraternal Order in the future, both during and beyond your term?

Exactly as it is. We exchange ambassadors and an embassy, we chat sometimes. We will not invest more into it (politically, culturally, or militarily), but we also will not destroy for little cause.

(06-02-2022, 09:40 PM)Quebecshire Wrote: What benefits do you believe we confer from that detente/relationship, if any?

An open line of communication, mutual respect between game-created regions, and a baseline understanding that our hostilities are not intended to reach into serious attempts to undermine the sovereignty of each other's home regions. Not to mention, identifying that Osiris is lower on our priority list of enemies than many other regions.

(06-02-2022, 09:40 PM)Quebecshire Wrote: Do you believe the governments of the Osiris Fratneral Order and the Coalition of the South Pacific are compatible enough to maintain a coherent and pleasant foreign affairs relationship?

I believe OFO and the Coalition are compatible enough to maintain the status quo.

While these questions may be true for defending's position more broadly, I don't think they make sense for TSP's particular interests as a region, which support a line of communication with Osiris.

(06-05-2022, 12:45 PM)Roavin Wrote: I can't overstate just how fantastic HS has been to work with on FA matters. I'm very excited to see this.

No u.