Taijitu

Government of Taijitu => The Ecclesia => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: Eluvatar on December 27, 2014, 01:00:42 AM

Title: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Eluvatar on December 27, 2014, 01:00:42 AM
I feel like our discussion in the Citizen-Delegate Debate (http://forum.taijitu.org/officer-elections/december-2014-citizen-delegate-debate/) has veered off into a digression on regional foreign policy.

(click to show/hide)

I'll try and explain what I see going on around us, where people see us, and where we might like to be.

First, for some overview. This afternoon I made a couple of charts of relations and treaties in NationStates relevant to us. In these charts, ovals are regions or organizations and rectangles are multiregional treaty organizations. In these charts also, bold lines are membership of a multiregional organization, solid lines are bilateral alliances, dashed lines are embassies (on an offsite forum), and dotted lines are other forms of diplomatic relations such as onsite embassies and consulates (also on an offsite).

First, and most helpful, is this chart of treaties, in which those regions which have relations with us and those they have alliances with are included in the graph (as are any alliances I could find between regions on the graph).

(http://www.taijitu.org/gp/treaties.svg) (http://www.taijitu.org/gp/treaties.svg)
(I strongly suggest examining this chart in its own tab as the SVG file will then let you click the nodes to get region pages and will give you tooltips over the lines identifying what regions / organizations they are between.)

A second chart which has a bit too much information in it is also available:
(http://www.taijitu.org/gp/relations.svg) (http://www.taijitu.org/gp/relations.svg)
(This chart includes all the relations of our diplomatic partners).

What do these pictures illustrate? The incomplete but notable division of the section of Gameplay we're connected to into defenderish and imperialist/raider alignments. TNP and Osiris connect us, indirectly, to the imperialist diplomatic sphere. The East Pacific and the South Pacific sit in between, with us, and are connected to two separate defender alliances through the Rejected Realms and Lazarus. Of course, the UDL is also in there, as is the somewhat peculiar alignment of the NPO (the Pacific) today. I say peculiar because the NPO used to be aligned with Europeia and The New Inquisition: they seem to have changed their mind about TNI after TNI's invasion of the Rejected Realms a little while back.

Of these regions, we have in the past had dealings with a good few. We used to have diplomatic relations with most of the older regions in these charts. We were once allied with The Pacific, and with TNP and TSP as well through the "Azure Alliance" of 2008-2010.

I should note also declared states of war. For a very long time, The New Inquisition and The Land of Kings and Emperors have been in a declared state of war with the Founderless Regions Alliance. More recently, they both declared war on the United Defenders League. Earlier this year Osiris declared war against Lazarus, but later made peace. Then-Pharaoh Cormac has since (after ending his term and leaving Osiris) acknowledged the war was a mistake, explaining that the intention was to unite Osirans against an external enemy and to give them something to work toward. With no directly declared state of war, relations between Lazarus and UIAF members are nevertheless tense. (Two of three UIAF members are in a state of war with the FRA, that Lazarus is a member of, to be clear.)

As discussed in the Citizen-Delegate debate, there are some notable organizations to point to. I will explain them below.

The FRA is the Founderless Regions Alliance, founded shortly before Taijitu as an alliance of then-founderless North Pacific (not to be confused with The North Pacific), Jethnea, and Global Right Alliance. It morphed over time from an alliance for defense of member regions, many of which might be founderless, into a defender organization. Today, founderless regions (besides Game-created ones) generally consider joining FRA to be risky due to many invaders, particularly the UIAF deliberately targeting FRA members for attack. The FRA Rangers, Rejected Realms Army, Lazarene Liberation Army, and Global Right Alliance Defence Force are among the defender armies affiliated with the FRA.

The XYZ Treaty is "kind of like a wider version of the FRA without a formal institition" -- it is a multiparty treaty, but there is no organization established by it. It includes the expectation that its signatories will be defender, and promises mutual defense. It's the most recent interregional "organization" to be shown on this chart, and I don't know all that much about it.

The UIAF is the United Imperial Armed Forces of The Land of Kings and Emperors, The New Inquisition and Albion: they have a treaty of mutual cooperation with The Black Riders, but do not consider themselves to be raiders: instead they see themselves as imperialist. They have a long standing feud with the FRA, and more recently with the UDL as well. In February 2012 The New Inquisition copied our old maneuver by, after invading belgium and gathering assorted raiderish friends to support them there, ejecting the entire pile of invaders and seizing the Rejected Realms' delegacy for 12 hours. (In this they had the support of the LKE, but neither the UIAF as a formal entity nor Albion as a region existed yet). More recently UIAF figures have expressed hostility to the government of Lazarus, which they view as illegitimate following the expulsion of NES and Griffin (TNI's founder) from Lazarus. Europeia is allied with the regions in question, but is not part of the UIAF, perhaps because it does not consider itself Imperialist.

There are a few terms often used in Gameplay foreign relations:

Defender is pretty straightforward, and is generally defined as military support for native rights and/or regional sovereignty.

Raider is defined as groups that invade "for fun" (with no foreign-affairs purpose in mind). Raiders typically do have the 'foreign policy' of Raider Unity which consists of not attacking fellow raiders, supporting other raiders' raids, opposing Defenders, and not defending non-invaders.

Imperialist regions invade but claim not to be part of R/D, instead saying their invasions are part of their foreign policy. They will still invade regions that they have no foreign policy reason to, or no significant cause.

Independent regions are defined by acting based on "regional interests". An attempt has been made at a recent Independent Conference where TNP had a prominent role of defining this more precisely in a Manifesto (http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7258694/1/). The South Pacific used to define its military as Independent, but no longer does so.

For the sake of transparency, I should acknowledge that I myself am an active defender. I am an officer in the United Defenders League, as well as the North Pacific Army, separate from my work in the Taijitu Citizens' Militia. I am also a citizen in the South Pacific, and am serving as a Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (for "upperleftward" relations, in terms of my chart).

This post will see further edits from me, both in response to replies and as I find time to add more to it.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Myroria on December 27, 2014, 01:08:28 AM
Excellent summarization, Eluvatar.

If we're declaring our allegiances, I am a defender and a Lazarene citizen (albeit an inactive one). I would strongly oppose any alliances between Taijitu and an invader or imperialist region.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Gulliver on December 27, 2014, 01:56:38 AM
I'm not a Lazarene, but my alignments largely are in line with those of Myroria.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Funkadelia on December 27, 2014, 02:13:42 AM
I'm glad you decided to do this. It's a great summary. :)

I am also an ardent defender.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Delfos on December 27, 2014, 03:04:05 AM
are we discussing/voting if this region is a fenda or raida?

This makes no sense that each of us name things if the options for a vote are quite clear. I'm opposed to raider alliances or alliances with raiders, but I'm not defending defenders. Taijitu has had something of a mix position, so Independent would make more sense, although tending to defense we should prob discuss our options case to case.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Funkadelia on December 27, 2014, 03:17:01 AM
There is no vote here at all.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Eluvatar on December 27, 2014, 03:20:42 AM
are we discussing/voting if this region is a fenda or raida?

This makes no sense that each of us name things if the options for a vote are quite clear. I'm opposed to raider alliances or alliances with raiders, but I'm not defending defenders. Taijitu has had something of a mix position, so Independent would make more sense, although tending to defense we should prob discuss our options case to case.

The chart I generate shows that we're clearly in between the 'pure' defenders and the raiderish Independents. I'm fine with staking that out as our ground. I'm thinking about maybe inventing a term for the category we're in, and suggesting extending it to TSP, TEP, etc.

I see us as leaning Defender but not primarily defender.

The legislation we have, the Militia Act, points in this direction in that it requires Ecclesia votes on 'holds,' but not on operations that don't involve us controlling a region for long.

I wouldn't be opposed to, following an informed discussion, passing a resolution of some kind that lays down the principles of our foreign policy.

PS: "fenda" is actually a slightly offensive term to defenders, so I'd prefer if people don't use it. It was coined to mean the same thing as "devader" -- someone who calls themselves defender but is morally equivalent to invaders.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Myroria on December 27, 2014, 03:37:18 AM
"Sovereigntist" is a possibility - sovereign in our own affairs from strict defenderism, but also dedicated to preserving the sovereignty of other regions from invaders.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Bustos on December 27, 2014, 04:45:39 AM
Good choice.  I like the term, Sovereigntist.  Never knew that was even a word.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Eluvatar on December 27, 2014, 04:50:28 AM
I suggest we hold a poll after some more discussion with "Sovereigntist" and Funkadelia's "Regional Sovereigntist" as options.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Cormac on December 29, 2014, 06:35:41 AM
With no declared state of war, relations between Lazarus and UIAF members are nevertheless tense.
For the sake of clarity, I just wanted to note that a state of war does still exist in that, as you noted, The New Inquisition and The Land of Kings and Emperors of the UIAF have declared war against the Founderless Regions Alliance, of which Lazarus (as well as The Rejected Realms and several UCRs) is a member. That means that the war against the FRA extends to Lazarus, and as one of the only founderless members of the FRA, Lazarus should probably be considered one of the more likely targets of that war should an opportunity arise for the UIAF.

You did note the FRA war, but I wanted to make it explicitly clear for anyone who may not be familiar with the wars and who might have missed the point.

This was a good summary. For disclosure, as others have done, I'm also defender, though more of a pragmatist. I'm a defender because I opted to join the military of a defender region, not because of any significant ideological commitment to defending.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: McMasterdonia on December 29, 2014, 09:29:29 AM
I'm an independent, though I wouldn't say a particularly hard line one.

Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: The Church of Satan on December 29, 2014, 12:48:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: McMasterdonia on December 29, 2014, 12:58:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: The Church of Satan on December 29, 2014, 02:15:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: McMasterdonia on December 29, 2014, 02:18:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Eluvatar on December 29, 2014, 04:00:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Funkadelia on December 29, 2014, 04:27:09 PM
Once again Eluvatar posts so I don't have to.  :-P
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Cormac on December 29, 2014, 04:57:06 PM
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."
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Bustos on December 29, 2014, 05:25:02 PM
Well said.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: The Church of Satan on December 29, 2014, 06:15:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Funkadelia on December 29, 2014, 06:24:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Eluvatar on December 29, 2014, 08:47:53 PM
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 :P) 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.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Cormac on December 30, 2014, 05:00:34 AM
I look forward to seeing what all of you come up with!
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: McMasterdonia on December 30, 2014, 07:10:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Taijitu Foreign Policy
Post by: Eluvatar on December 30, 2014, 07:01:29 PM
I look forward to seeing what all of you come up with!
Look forward no longer, it's  here (http://forum.taijitu.org/foreign-service/on-regional-sovereignty/).