I can definitely see pointing out that no other Founder had acted to keep the nation alive, but I disagree entirely with your assessment regarding the relevance of embassies (& treaties) vs other Gameplay matters.
The incidents with our onsite embassies are relevant because the opening and closing of onsite embassies is part of regional controls, and because the back and forth over embassies led to intention to coup. Treaties are relevant to this discussion insofar as some embassies are legally required by our treaties, and therefore use of regional controls to close those embassies is illegal. (Which treaties we ought to have, however, is actually not relevant to the conference, in my understanding.)
Military activity by Taijituans outside Taijitu itself does not involve Taijitu regional controls and therefore has nothing to do with the founder nation.
Regardless of whether the treaties are retained in the future, they are in force at present, and are relevant to the incident. I would like to see us come to an agreement to prevent such incidents in the future. This involves examining the incident itself and understanding both how and why it occurred and how the various escalating actions related to regional law and politics.
