I'm Running For Minister of Foreign Affairs (Again)
It's true

Philosophy

I've written extensively in the past about my foreign affairs philosophy, so a dissertation thankfully isn't necessary here. The broad strokes of my philosophical approach to foreign affairs are: dedicated to democracy, advocacy of defending, and the primacy of the long-term. These might be self-explanatory, but let me lay them out in a bit of detail for those who've never seen me discuss these topics before.

TSP has long valued democracy as not just a fundamental pillar of our existence, but an important value in our alliances and who we're willing to work with on the inter-regional stage. Democracy is a cornerstone of defending, as well. Aside from cultural exchange, one of the main goals of forming alliances is the ensure that we'll have assistance when our democracy comes under threat. If a government goes rogue, we have allies who will come to our aid and restore the legitimate Coalition. Democracies may value this commitment more than non-democratic regions, though democracy alone doesn't guarantee an ally will keep their promise. Autocratic regions in NationStates tend to be organized around Hobbesian (brute) power, "might makes right" philosophy, and thus are more likely to view, for example, a Delegate coup d'etat as an "internal matter." They will gladly wait it out and support the coup government if they win, or if the resistance wins claim they were always on our side. Or, they might just outright support the coup altogether. Democracies, on the other hand, have an innate belief in the rule of law, legitimacy being conferred through consent of the governed, and are less likely (not guaranteed, again) to support any claims of legitimacy that a coup government makes.

Democracy goes hand-in-hand with defending, which is why defending comes natural to TSP. Even when we were "independent" most TSPers were generally uncomfortable with raiding, and definitely opposed to region destruction. Our foreign policy needs to advocate for defending, I think everybody (except maybe any revanchists in the audience) would agree with that. I think it's important to take that one step further and say that our foreign policy needs to advocate defenderism. It's not the mechanical act of stopping raids or liberating occupied regions, but the ideological reasons why we do it that are really important. Without embracing ideology -- whether you call it "moralism" or not -- defenders are going to struggle maintaining long-term relevancy and recruitment. And with that means we can't shy away from disagreement and debate about what defenderism means, how defenders should act and behave, what should motivate us, what we can and cannot do, etc., in order to "maintain unity." A hollow unity isn't worth it, in my opinion.

Furthermore, I don't believe it's in our long-term benefit to depoliticize or avoid ideological positions in order to keep more moderate Independent or non-aligned regions/military organizations in the defendersphere. If those regions/orgs feel that ideology is alienating, then defenders shouldn't be centering their participation as all-important. Because in the long run, R/D isn't so fun that doing it for no reason is viable. There's a reason why these orgs never last as long as their true-blue counterparts. I've long argued that NS Gameplay needs to be organized around a "good vs evil" narrative, otherwise we just devolve into "OOC" social cliques and we're no longer playing a political simulation. There's no neutral ground in a battle between good and evil. Maybe it's just because I've been playing NationStates for nearly 14 years that makes me more willing to take short-term losses for long-term gain, so I don't view non-aligned orgs shifting to raiders because we're "too defender" as the end of the world. Time is a flat circle, etc etc.

Ok, that's interesting... But what would I actually do as Minister?

So, yeah, my philosophy is important to know because it gives an idea of how I think we should handle anything that pops up in the foreign affairs realm. But being a philosopher sitting around waiting for something to react to, as cushy of a job that sounds, isn't what we elect a Minister to do. Here's the tangible goals I think are important enough to promise:

• Revival of a defender multi-lateral security treaty. Defenderdom cannot rely on Libcord to be what unifies us. Doing so would be relying on hyper-specific social bonds among individuals who are in Libcord, rather than true alliances between regions that are meant to outlast any single administration. I can't stress enough how much I fear that defenders will decide that Libcord is enough. Without the actual political simulation of negotiating and signing treaties, and the belief that we ought to honor those treaties as matter of inter-regional law and goodwill, I don't see the game being worth playing much longer.
  
• Renegotiation of the proposed treaty with The Grey Wardens. I think the treaty is flawed and I'm not entirely convinced that a bilateral relationship would be one among equals. Meaning that I'm not convinced that TGW is a region as opposed to a Discord-based military org, and that the treaty itself seems more like a vehicle to legitimate single-purpose recruitment Frontiers as sovereign territory equal to the homeland (where we could be called to war over them), than an actual mutual security alliance.
  
• Appoint of a Deputy to oversee Secretaries of State. It's no secret that I'm not interested in overseeing the bureaucracy of the ministry. I don't really think it should exist, but I'm also not interested in waging a battle against it. 
  
• Work towards developing and publishing an official policy on the upcoming Frontier/Stronghold change.
  

A Personal Note

I spoke of this in confidence with some, but I want to share it as a kind of disclaimer. I can't in good faith put myself up for election without discussing it, especially because I'm sure some of those people might be wondering why I'd run after speaking with them about maybe leaving. With Roavin's resignation and retirement, I found it difficult to find a reason to keep playing NationStates and seriously tossed the idea around of leaving as well. Let's be honest, our leadership has been decimated. It's going to be difficult to recover, and I'm skeptical that we can entirely avoid a serious decline in our power and influence in the game. That alone wasn't why I've considered leaving, though. Rebuilding TSP's capacity and power is something I've helped do before, and in some ways I think we thrive as an underdog. But that task is made downright daunting when the community doesn't seem to care about much of anything. Seeing empty Assembly halls, lack of political differences and cleavages, chronic yes-men/"full support" attitude, decline in creativity, among other things is demoralizing. Before that, I've watched the decline of NS Gameplay as a pol-sim, where we invented ideologies and debated theories of legitimacy and nativity and all that, and turn into a series of Discord social circles and it turned me off from the game for a long time.

I mulled running for MoFA at the same time as all those other thoughts were swimming around in my brain. I wouldn't run if I wasn't going to commit to finishing out the term, be assured of that. Being asked to run was a tipping point that made me think, "I can give things one more go." I'm still very much interested in a NationStates that's actually a pol-sim, debating the ideological points of defenderism, and crafting foreign policy strategy in that world. I hope it's still possible. 

Conflict of Interests Disclosure
I hold no membership in foreign regions or organizations. I hold the titles of forum admin, Discord owner, and CRS member in TSP.

(This post was last modified: 03-24-2022, 08:59 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

1. Regarding a multilateral defender security treaty, what avenues will you pursue this from? Will this be attempted first through the PfS, or by directly approaching prospective signatories as a separate matter?

2. Recently, we have seen a revival in raiderdom, most notably led by The Brotherhood of Malice. While it is unlikely their model will remain sustainable indefinitely, it is presently undetermined just how long they can stick around. Given Malice's history pre-death and revival in regard to GCR provocation, and their recent provocations of TNP (culminating in a raid of Stargate accompanied by other antagonistic behavior), what do you think the best way to combat these organizations and their corrosive nature is, namely in regard to rhetoric?

3. Independents have been cutting ties with raiders left and right (TNP, Thaecia, and so on) and have actively engaged them in the public sphere and on the battlefield on numerous occasions, namely due to raiders (BoM in particular) actively threatening them as a manner of attempting to commence relations. How do you see TSP's cooperation and potential expansion of relations both with Independent and unaligned regions going forward, in your term and beyond?

New Quebecshire,
Full Player Résumé
Discord: Cubic#1608

Reply

Work towards developing and publishing an official policy on the upcoming Frontier/Stronghold change.

What would you personally work towards including in that policy? I suppose we can guess, to some extent, from your comments on the treaty with TGW — but I'm curious as to your thoughts on them more generally.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

1.. You’ve linked democracy with Defenderism very strongly in your philosophy, and stated it as a core tenet of TSP, so how will this translate to your approach to non-democratic foreign regions?

2.. You’ve mentioned taking a harder stance on independent and unaligned regions. What will that look like in specific decisions and policies? Will you be less inclined to deal with those sorts of regions?

3.. I believe I’ve asked you this via discord, but I also believe I’ve not received an answer, swept up in all the messages, so I’ll say it here, too: Will your multilateral fenda treaty be achieved through Libcord of independent of it? Will it be a stepping stone or an obstacle to this goal? Do you think there’s a way to bring ideas and sentiments from both PfS and Libcord together into this treaty?

4.. What will your renegotiation with TGW entail? It appears you’re dissatisfied that there’s more “take” than “give” on the part of the Wardens, so how will you strive to produce a more fair, balanced alliance?

5.. You say a Deputy will oversee Secretaries of State, which I understand oversee groups of ambassadors, but recently it appears Roavin changed the role so that Secretaries of State instead jointly look over ambassadors, which I believe to be a role more suited for Deputies. Will their roles change if you are elected? How will this extra layer of bureaucracy help the Ministry? Since you’ve mentioned you don’t support such bureaucracy, why not cut out the second middle man?

6.. How will an official F/S policy factor into renegotiation with TGW?

“Consuming, purchasing, selling, or holding poison-free food substances is hereby considered Treason against the people and the government of A poisoned apple. Mangoes are exempt from this clause. Poisoned fruits other than apples will not be permitted.”

~ Offices ~ Awards ~ RP Nations ~

Reply

What (if any) sinecure are you prepared to offer me?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

Because in the long run, R/D isn't so fun that doing it for no reason is viable. There's a reason why these orgs never last as long as their true-blue counterparts.

Lone Wolves United is 17.

Benevolent Thomas-Today at 11:15 AM
"I'm not sure if Altmoras has ever been wrong about anything."

Reply

I want to echo the earlier questions about what your suggested "new F/S policy" would include. The idea of an F/S policy is promising, but what would it include? Would it require changes to the laws or the Charter?

I have several more specific questions:
1. You are, for better and worse, extremely adamant and vocal in your beliefs. How will you address a situation where you disagree with the Prime Minister's foreign affairs direction?

2. You say you would like to renegotiate our proposed treaty with TGW.

First, you say the agreement as written would not be "among equals". How is this the case? In terms of fundamentals, we get security for our home region and they get security for their Frontier protectorates. In my opinion, this is a fair trade: we both get critical and powerful military protection for something that is important to our interests, in our case it is our home region itself. In fact, I view this kind of bargain as essential for South Pacifican security going into the Frontier/Stronghold update, as our endorsement numbers will begin to decline as our spawns decrease. You seem intent to draw scare quotes around TGW due to philosophical disagreements, and I think those philosophical agreements are valid and can be a part of how we consider the broader utility of this potential alliance, but the core of the trade here is fair to both sides (if not being biased towards us, given how much more essential the security of our home region is than their Frontiers) and I fail to see your argument for why it is "unequal".

Second, why do you think TGW would agree to a renegotiated treaty which did not include protection for their Frontiers (i.e. the thing which they get out of the treaty which is central to their interests)? Is there a middle ground you have in mind to prevent a situation where everyone walks away?

Third, going into Frontier/Stronghold, it is undeniable that the security of the South Pacific itself will be at greater risk due to lower endorsement levels and influence in the region. From my perspective, it is prudent to expand and solidify our treaty network in advance. If not TGW, where will you be fortifying our current treaty network?

3. You say you want a multilateral defender security treaty. I think it's pretty well established that I'm a skeptic of this idea, but I want to hear, in your ideal world (ignoring practicality), what you would like this to include and what your long-term vision is for a defender multilateral security treaty.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

1. Regarding a multilateral defender security treaty, what avenues will you pursue this from? Will this be attempted first through the PfS, or by directly approaching prospective signatories as a separate matter?

2. Recently, we have seen a revival in raiderdom, most notably led by The Brotherhood of Malice. While it is unlikely their model will remain sustainable indefinitely, it is presently undetermined just how long they can stick around. Given Malice's history pre-death and revival in regard to GCR provocation, and their recent provocations of TNP (culminating in a raid of Stargate accompanied by other antagonistic behavior), what do you think the best way to combat these organizations and their corrosive nature is, namely in regard to rhetoric?

3. Independents have been cutting ties with raiders left and right (TNP, Thaecia, and so on) and have actively engaged them in the public sphere and on the battlefield on numerous occasions, namely due to raiders (BoM in particular) actively threatening them as a manner of attempting to commence relations. How do you see TSP's cooperation and potential expansion of relations both with Independent and unaligned regions going forward, in your term and beyond?

1. Based on statement from the Prime Minister in the Assembly, work is already underway for reviving the treaty, with a new draft started. So I'd start there. The Partnership for Sovereignty is likely going to remain a non-military diplomatic alliance focused on the World Assembly. When the alliance was first formed, there was a hope/idea that it could evolve into a kind of pan-defender alliance. But it's not necessary to use it as a vehicle, it can remain what it is. There can be a WA alliance and a military alliance, even maybe an inter-regional organization (think NATO) if we want to get wild. Kind of like how before the EU there were the separate European Communities.

2. If the Brotherhood of Malice can organize and be more than a handful of friends secretly plotting in the background, then from a meta viewpoint that's good for the health of the game. For our in-character response, TSP needs to ensure we're out there condemning their actions, like the raid on Stargate, and actually treating it like a big deal. I've always been a fan of statements, though in the modern era we take too long to write and release them. The existence of a raider region (org?) like the Brotherhood provides ample recruitment opportunity, and the Ministry of Defense should capitalize on a fight between defenders and the Brotherhood.

3. This is where I've diverged most from previous Cabinet administrations. There's a tendency to view Independents as fleeting opportunities-- we need to jump on this turn of events to get them on our side and convince them to be defenders. Things like that. It tends to happen to the detriment of developing defenderdom, both because less time is spent on it but also because there are so many compromises defenders have to do to win over Independents. My approach to Independents are that I'm all for them defending, but I'm not willing to change my views (and don't want any defender region to change their's) in order to 'make room' for them. Defend on our terms or don't. My focus is and always will be building defenderdom with defenders. Where defenders go wrong is that they view the population of updaters as this finite group, where everyone who will update is already a member of a military. So they feel this pressing need to do whatever it takes to get Independents into the fold, otherwise we lose out and the finite pie of updaters tilts towards raiders. Maybe in the short-term sure, but all of NationStates is a recruitment pool. There are vastly more new potential updaters than there are current ones. (Where the hell do you think these new Indy regions come from?) Our #1 focus should be on reaching those players.

##########
 

Work towards developing and publishing an official policy on the upcoming Frontier/Stronghold change.

What would you personally work towards including in that policy? I suppose we can guess, to some extent, from your comments on the treaty with TGW — but I'm curious as to your thoughts on them more generally.

The biggest question is what we're going to view a legitimate sovereign territory, where we can called upon into a war more or less, versus what are essentially exploratory colonial possessions where you take on the risk of losing them if you overextend yourself. I'm not sure there's an easy objective definition we can write. But in the short-term, we need to avoid accidentally tying ourselves to the most expansive view of territorial sovereignty possible.

##########
 

1.. You’ve linked democracy with Defenderism very strongly in your philosophy, and stated it as a core tenet of TSP, so how will this translate to your approach to non-democratic foreign regions?

2.. You’ve mentioned taking a harder stance on independent and unaligned regions. What will that look like in specific decisions and policies? Will you be less inclined to deal with those sorts of regions?

3.. I believe I’ve asked you this via discord, but I also believe I’ve not received an answer, swept up in all the messages, so I’ll say it here, too: Will your multilateral fenda treaty be achieved through Libcord of independent of it? Will it be a stepping stone or an obstacle to this goal? Do you think there’s a way to bring ideas and sentiments from both PfS and Libcord together into this treaty?

4.. What will your renegotiation with TGW entail? It appears you’re dissatisfied that there’s more “take” than “give” on the part of the Wardens, so how will you strive to produce a more fair, balanced alliance?

5.. You say a Deputy will oversee Secretaries of State, which I understand oversee groups of ambassadors, but recently it appears Roavin changed the role so that Secretaries of State instead jointly look over ambassadors, which I believe to be a role more suited for Deputies. Will their roles change if you are elected? How will this extra layer of bureaucracy help the Ministry? Since you’ve mentioned you don’t support such bureaucracy, why not cut out the second middle man?

6.. How will an official F/S policy factor into renegotiation with TGW?

1. I suppose the most operative thing is just that TSP shouldn't be allying with non-democratic regions.

2. "Harder stance" isn't an accurate description of my approach to Independents or non-aligned regions. If anything, I'd describe it as having less of a stance at all, because at the end of the day I am okay with ignoring these regions if trying to court them comes at a cost of compromising defenderism or taking time and energy away from relations with actual defenders.

3. I can't imagine Libcord will ever be formally institutionalized in a treaty, mostly because those who have social power there would probably see that as a personal threat (unless their region/org can come out on top, I guess). I'd refer to my statements on Discord about my feelings on Libcord, namely that I think a socially-defined ops management server is a long-term problem. I would prefer ops management and coordination happen on in a venue created by and through an alliance. Whether or not I'd be able to exercise any influence over the use of Libcord, I'll leave all you to answer. When it comes to that server, the best I think I can personally hope for is explaining why I think it's a long-term problem, and hopefully convincing some defenders. I would certainly hate to see a collective security organization, or some other form of multilateral defender alliance, explicitly avoid their own server because Libcord exists.

4. Like I said in the Assembly debate, I'm not entirely convinced an alliance with TGW is something we should want in the first place, because TGW isn't really a "region." I'd reevaluate its strategic value and go from there. The Minister of Foreign Affairs isn't an island though, I'm not the sole determiner of what happens with it.

5. I don't have a strong opinion on how it's done. If an existence Secretary of State wants to take on leadership of the corps, that's probably the ideal. It's not a part of the ministry I would focus on, personally.

6. I imagine a great deal, since the purpose of the treaty on TGW's part seems to be about ensuring we recognize their Frontiers as sovereign territory.

##########
 

What (if any) sinecure are you prepared to offer me?

Whatever would get you to not actively oppose me My PMs are open (legally this is a joke)

##########
 

Because in the long run, R/D isn't so fun that doing it for no reason is viable. There's a reason why these orgs never last as long as their true-blue counterparts.

Lone Wolves United is 17.

LWU isn't Independent nor non-aligned.

##########

 

I want to echo the earlier questions about what your suggested "new F/S policy" would include. The idea of an F/S policy is promising, but what would it include? Would it require changes to the laws or the Charter?

I have several more specific questions:
1. You are, for better and worse, extremely adamant and vocal in your beliefs. How will you address a situation where you disagree with the Prime Minister's foreign affairs direction?

2. You say you would like to renegotiate our proposed treaty with TGW.

First, you say the agreement as written would not be "among equals". How is this the case? In terms of fundamentals, we get security for our home region and they get security for their Frontier protectorates. In my opinion, this is a fair trade: we both get critical and powerful military protection for something that is important to our interests, in our case it is our home region itself. In fact, I view this kind of bargain as essential for South Pacifican security going into the Frontier/Stronghold update, as our endorsement numbers will begin to decline as our spawns decrease. You seem intent to draw scare quotes around TGW due to philosophical disagreements, and I think those philosophical agreements are valid and can be a part of how we consider the broader utility of this potential alliance, but the core of the trade here is fair to both sides (if not being biased towards us, given how much more essential the security of our home region is than their Frontiers) and I fail to see your argument for why it is "unequal".

Second, why do you think TGW would agree to a renegotiated treaty which did not include protection for their Frontiers (i.e. the thing which they get out of the treaty which is central to their interests)? Is there a middle ground you have in mind to prevent a situation where everyone walks away?

Third, going into Frontier/Stronghold, it is undeniable that the security of the South Pacific itself will be at greater risk due to lower endorsement levels and influence in the region. From my perspective, it is prudent to expand and solidify our treaty network in advance. If not TGW, where will you be fortifying our current treaty network?

3. You say you want a multilateral defender security treaty. I think it's pretty well established that I'm a skeptic of this idea, but I want to hear, in your ideal world (ignoring practicality), what you would like this to include and what your long-term vision is for a defender multilateral security treaty.

1. We'd have a spirited debate and hopefully they would end up seeing things my way, unless they're very convincing and get me to adopt their view! If they want to take the reins and supersede my preferences, I suppose that's in their power (as far as I view the power of the PM). That wouldn't be healthy and I'd probably resign if it's over something I felt that strongly about, since I wouldn't be able to do my job effectively with that kind of dynamic.

2. I don't think it is a fair trade, and I'm not ready to commit TSP to viewing all Frontiers as legitimate territory we should be treaty-bound to defend. Unlike in the real world, forming a colonial Frontier is just filling out a form and hitting submit. We need to have a realistic conversation about when a Frontier territory should be seen the same as a home region. In my mind, it requires a bit more than TGW (or whoever) just declaring it so. As the treaty is written, TGW benefits vastly more-- they are getting something they otherwise might not get, meanwhile it's not likely that should TSP fall to a coup or invasion that TGW would shrug and say oh well. TGW isn't a traditional region, so maybe we shouldn't be pursuing a traditional treaty with them. They're an organization with a nominal regional presence, and that really changes how we should approach treaty writing and not use the same territory-focused template.

If TGW says we have to take the treaty as is or leave it, my preference is to leave it. I hope they would be amenable to renegotiation. I don't think bilateral treaty is where we define our approach to F/S and the legitimacy of colonial territory. So in a practical sense, I think the cleanest solution would be an annex of which regions in particular we'd be treaty-bound to defend.

As for TSP's security with the F/S change, I don't agree that it poses a "great" risk. We have, like all other feeders, a huge surplus of endorsements and influence compared to what's actually needed to maintain security. For our security to be at any significant risk, F/S would have to lead to our WA population and endorsement levels declining to the point where a piling force can usurp the Delegate. (Who knows, maybe admins will screw the change up so much that this does happen!) From my perspective as a member of the Council on Regional Security, I don't bank our security on our alliance networks. I've seen those networks be next to useless, or even actively harmful, in responding to a security crisis all the way up to a coup. Prevention is better than reaction. Alliances are 20% security, 80% mutual benefits of military and cultural activity. That 20% can be vital, especially if we can land a multilateral security alliance. But from the perspective of ensuring our security against all possible eventualities (including ones where we don't have any help), I wouldn't support going into an alliance based on the idea that we need the ally for our security.

3. Boiling it down to the tangibles, take what Libcord is now and envision it as a product of a formal alliance and organization, then add on actual diplomacy with government-to-government communication, head of state summits, etc. A multilateral defender alliance would be like NATO: part collective security, part military cooperation. We run ops through the alliance. We come to each other's aid. The alliance provides a formal platform for developing defender military and political strategy.

##########

(This post was last modified: 03-27-2022, 06:19 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply