TNP is still the single region we have the most members in common with, as far as I know. We have been allied with TNP for some time now, and TNP has stood by that alliance, even when it might have been convenient not to during times of our inactivity. Leaving aside my personal involvement in TNP, I would be ashamed if we were to drop an alliance which the other party had respected through thick and thin, as it were, on a "but what have you done for me lately" basis.
I don't mean it in a "what have you done for me lately" sense more as in the sense of what do we really have in common with them? Shared citizens, yes. But both our political and community culture are very different from The North Pacific's. We are much more laid back and they are much more political. Our community is far less interested in gameplay than theirs. Our community hates the kind of bureaucracy that thrives in TNP. And once again, and I'll get to this point below, our military primarily defends and theirs primarily raids.
Yes, we're more laid back. I like that we are.
We don't have to expect everyone we're friends with to be like us in every way.
As far as I'm concerned, the only internal political expectation we have any right to of our allies is that they respect the sovereign rights of their people: that they are fundamentally democratic. I believe TNP qualifies.
It's a shame that United Celts left The North Pacific when it did, as the makeup of operations undertaken by the NPA has changed. While the ongoing delegacy transfer(s) following mcmasterdonia's unanticipated resignation have limited the NPA's mobility, I have it on good authority that it has participated in update defenses recently as well as warzone attacks, and indeed helped defend the region of European Union from a raid orchestrated by The Black Hawks which was many months in the making.
Eluvatar, with all due respect, that you are currently Minister of Defense because Gladio wouldn't take the job again does not represent a significant change in TNP policy or military operations. This is an anomaly. The NPA for the past several years has been more actively involved in raiding than in defending, and TNP's political community has also taken every opportunity to stick it to defenders -- the UDL, XKI, TRR -- whenever a reasonable opportunity presents itself. The idea that TNP is on the verge of becoming much more friendly to defenders is absurd. TNP's treaties and the continued activity of the people who have made TNP so hostile to defending indicate otherwise.
I suspect you're confusing some cause and effect. Both mcmasterdonia and I in our platforms in January said that the NPA needed to defend more, and take more care when attacking. One might surmise that Gladio decided he didn't want to be responsible for implementing such a mandate. I couldn't say, one way or the other.
Regarding conflict between TNP and the UDL, I have to say it's strange to see you call that a black mark on TNP. Unibot made that happen. Ties were strained by Unibot's frequent belligerence and ultimately broken in the fallout of Ravania leaking to the UDL's command staff the contents of a private NPA discussion about a very dubious order by Blue Wolf II as Acting Delegate and Unibot's aggressive misuse of this information. I believe I recall that you left the UDL following the Ravania incident that ended cooperation between UDL and NPA and allowed A.G. Gaspo (later revealed to be in TNP to mess with its Judiciary) to go looking for ways to get rid of more UDL members.
10000 Islands is one region where I deeply regret how Blue Wolf II was allowed to mess with those relations. However, before he broke them, they were not close. I'm not aware of any instance where TNP has actually harmed 10000 Islands.
The Rejected Realms have come into contention with TNP for the same reason the UDL did: their Delegate, Unibot. Unibot is a committed defender, he invests great effort and substantial intellect into his projects, but a diplomat he is not.
I have no idea who you mean by "people who have made TNP so hostile to defending," so I cannot counter that criticism.
I beg to differ. Bureaucratic TNP may be, but that is not an undemocratic thing. To the contrary, carefully detailed procedures are often a mark of a pursuit of fairness and the removal of official discretion a mark of limited authority. While it is certainly true that there are persons in The North Pacific whose arguments and advice are more often considered, such respect does not an oligarchy make.
The North Pacific is quite like Taijitu in its fierce commitment to democracy. Arguments like "but they took away Unibot's free speech" are somewhat ridiculous given that Unibot left TNP of his own choice years ago, and was faced with diplomatic consequences to a tendency to habitually denigrate The North Pacific in outside publications while Delegate of the Rejected Realms. Does Taijitu respect the free speech rights of, say, Govindia? No, because Govindia is not a Taijituan.
Nonetheless, the point is that TNP's system has very little in common with our own. There are other regions -- like our current ally, The Rejected Realms, or The South Pacific -- that have much more politically in common with us, as well as militarily. So I question why we're pursuing TNP.
First, I object to the notion that TNP is not our current ally.
That said, while I would support pursuing an alliance with the South Pacific, I am confused as to why you think tSP is more like Taijitu than TNP is. From my observations, tSP has
more drama and conflict in it than TNP does at this time.
I don't think one alliance gets in the way of the other, either. After all, the South Pacific is allied with TNP, and the current leadership there considers this alliance a priority. Being allied with TNP is a plus, not a minus, in approaching tSP.
History is by no means an invalid reason. That aside, however, in my studies of our foreign policy the alliance with The North Pacific stands out as one of 3 links between The North Pacific and the less imperialist-friendly independent regions, themselves closely linked with outright defender regions. From a strategic standpoint, I think this linkage is beneficial. Breaking it could push TNP to embrace the imperialists outright, which I would argue is about as far from our interests in this regard as can be imagined. Our part is not negligible in this role.
I think it's silly to assume that the treaty with us is going to have any impact on a decision TNP has already made. It is independent, leaning heavily in favor of raiding, and that is not going to change. If anything, what is more likely to happen is that changes will occur here, and not changes for the better. You're looking at this from the perspective of our influence on them, but they're not only a Feeder, but the largest and most influential Feeder. We need to be looking at this from the perspective of their influence on us as well. I don't want people migrating here after this treaty draws more attention to Taijitu pushing TNP's crappy political, military, and community culture in Taijitu.
I disagree. TNP does not want to be a raider region, and is not one. I also didn't say that renewing this treaty will cause TNP to change to be more like us. I said that ending our alliance with TNP could help push it to change to be
less like us, which is a different concern.
I'm
generally not opposed to migration to Taijitu. I think we should be open to anyone who wants to be part of our community and does not disrupt it (beyond our level of tolerance). That said, I don't think anyone would think Taijitu renewing a many-year-old treaty with TNP is a sign that it wants to become more like Europeia. We did fairly recently tell Europeia exactly what we thought of its diplomatic and military policies. Adopting this replacement alliance treaty with TNP will not in any way push us to reexamine that.
TNP has different culture from us, but so does every other region in NationStates. I don't think TNP is more different from us than most other regions we could consider allying. I think that for reasons of historical ties, a common belief in democracy as opposed to a person or group owning a region, and the strategic purpose of maintaining and strengthening diplomatic ties between political defenderish regions and the feeders, we should continue this alliance.
