Taijitu Foreign Policy

[McMasterdonia]

I beg to differ McM. I keep an eye on TSP and learn a great deal as of late. They're independents, but they lost an alliance with 1 of the UIAF member regions upon signing a treaty with TRR. I'm sure they knew it might happen, nonetheless it cost them an ally because they want to be part of all alignments. Unfortunately that's a pipe dream. In all honesty and with all due respect, I think it is in Taijitu's best interest to pick 1 extreme or the other.

You think the best bet is to side with extremism? I strongly disagree.

I wouldn't simplify the loss of the alliance to the simple signing of the treaty alone. I believe there were communication issues and fault on both sides. Simply losing one treaty isn't enough to totally write off a type of alignment either, not all defender regions like each other, not all raider organisations like each other, and likewise, not all independent regions like one another.

[Eluvatar]

I'm an independent, though I wouldn't say a particularly hard line one.

How can one be a hard line independent?

I'm a defender all the way. To be honest, I shudder to think we could be independents. It's such a difficult alignment to justify to non-independents and makes foreign affairs difficult. Of course I feel we should not have alliances/embassies with invaders.

It doesn't make foreign affairs difficult, not at all. It is only misunderstood by people who haven't taken the time to analyze it or by people who deliberately mislead others about it. I am not advocating that Taijitu take a independent stance, I prefer our neutral stance, and would advocate against changing from that path.

Firstly, I think Taijitu's alliance with TNP is more important to us than TNP's perceived alignment.

Secondly, I think that Independent often turns into an effectively raiderish stance because raids are much easier to organize: There are about 500 unpassworded founderless user-created regions, and the vast majority of them are quite vulnerable to invasion. Defending against invasions takes either excellent intelligence or constant attention, and liberating against an active occupier is definitely much harder than invading against an unprepared native delegate (or even no delegate at all).

I also like Taijitu's current stance, but I think it's neutral in much the same way as most independent regions' stance is independent: symbolically.

I definitely don't think we should go "extreme." Usually when people talk about "extreme" defenders, for instance, they mean Unibot or even The Red Factions. "Extreme" raiders, on the other hand, generally means griefers, which I would definitely not want to see us doing.

[Funkadelia]

Once again Eluvatar posts so I don't have to. 

[Cormac]

My suggestion is to worry less about labels that mean different things to different people, and more about concrete objectives for external policy.

If we find that it's in Taijitu's interests to join an invasion with our allies in the NPA, do that. If we find that it's in Taijitu's interests to join a liberation, as has recently been the case, do that. If we find that the actual people joining TaiMil don't want to do one kind of operation but prefer another, concentrate on the latter because at the end of the day it's about what the people in your region actually participating in the activity want to do. There isn't any need to label it; just call it a regionalist foreign policy, or simply "Taijitu's foreign policy."

[Bustos]

Well said.

[The Church of Satan]

When I say "extreme" I mean we should pick either raiding or defending. Of course I can't raid for2 important reasons, personal preference and obligation since I'm already in some defender armies.

You're right though Eluvatar. Taijitu's neutrality is symbolic. Does it remind you of anything familiar? TRR had this exact discussion before. We weighed the pros and cons of our choices, even going independent. I think the word "sovereigntist" may have come up too. In the end, we decided it was best to make our defender stance official. It's working out well too. It could work even better here since there is a founder. I'm not saying our alliance with TNP should be jeopardized. It doesn't have to be.

[Funkadelia]

I beg to differ McM. I keep an eye on TSP and learn a great deal as of late. They're independents, but they lost an alliance with 1 of the UIAF member regions upon signing a treaty with TRR. I'm sure they knew it might happen, nonetheless it cost them an ally because they want to be part of all alignments. Unfortunately that's a pipe dream. In all honesty and with all due respect, I think it is in Taijitu's best interest to pick 1 extreme or the other.

You think the best bet is to side with extremism? I strongly disagree.

I wouldn't simplify the loss of the alliance to the simple signing of the treaty alone. I believe there were communication issues and fault on both sides. Simply losing one treaty isn't enough to totally write off a type of alignment either, not all defender regions like each other, not all raider organisations like each other, and likewise, not all independent regions like one another.

It is disingenuous to claim that the catalyst behind the treaty cancellation was not the treaty with TRR.

[Eluvatar]

My suggestion is to worry less about labels that mean different things to different people, and more about concrete objectives for external policy.

If we find that it's in Taijitu's interests to join an invasion with our allies in the NPA, do that. If we find that it's in Taijitu's interests to join a liberation, as has recently been the case, do that. If we find that the actual people joining TaiMil don't want to do one kind of operation but prefer another, concentrate on the latter because at the end of the day it's about what the people in your region actually participating in the activity want to do. There isn't any need to label it; just call it a regionalist foreign policy, or simply "Taijitu's foreign policy."

I think we can go a little farther than that. Certainly the Militia is Taijitu's first, and ideology's second (that happens to be my ideology ) but we can make sure it serves a regional mission more meaningful than "whatever sounds like a good idea at the time."

Funkadelia, Myroria, and I are working on putting some of our thoughts together. I think that once we have a text, it would be best to offer it for critique in a new topic, leaving this one for more general foreign policy discussion.

[Cormac]

I look forward to seeing what all of you come up with!

[McMasterdonia]

I beg to differ McM. I keep an eye on TSP and learn a great deal as of late. They're independents, but they lost an alliance with 1 of the UIAF member regions upon signing a treaty with TRR. I'm sure they knew it might happen, nonetheless it cost them an ally because they want to be part of all alignments. Unfortunately that's a pipe dream. In all honesty and with all due respect, I think it is in Taijitu's best interest to pick 1 extreme or the other.

You think the best bet is to side with extremism? I strongly disagree.

I wouldn't simplify the loss of the alliance to the simple signing of the treaty alone. I believe there were communication issues and fault on both sides. Simply losing one treaty isn't enough to totally write off a type of alignment either, not all defender regions like each other, not all raider organisations like each other, and likewise, not all independent regions like one another.

It is disingenuous to claim that the catalyst behind the treaty cancellation was not the treaty with TRR.

I suggest you read what I said again.
I didn't say that it wasn't the catalyst, only that it wasn't the *only* thing that led up to that. Had those other issues not been present, then it is unclear where that potential relationship could have led.

I think that "whatever sounds good at the time" can work for a region like Taijitu where the government system is fluid enough for constant movement and change. As long as we keep the Ecclesia involved and informed, I am okay with a take it as it comes approach.

[Eluvatar]

I look forward to seeing what all of you come up with!

Look forward no longer, it's  here.