Foreign Policy Objectives for the next month

[Belschaft]

Ok, the new cabinet is now in place which means it's time to discuss Foreign Policy.At present we have two firm offers of alliance, and two possible opportunities.The Modern Pacific Alliance is currently only between TP and TEP, but their very keen for TSP to join, as am I. Getting the MPA treaty ratified here is my No. 1 objective for the next few weeks.Lone Wolves United are very keen to agree to an alliance with us, similar to the one they have with Lazarus. They have already provided us with intelligence regarding Frak, and I'm keen to go through with it. However, I want to balance any raider alliance with a defender one, and vice versa. We have two potential options there; UDL and FRA.I know from talking to Unibot that UDL is open to the idea, and he can go into more detail about that here. As for FRA, as MoS I developed an un-official arrangement with them, and they were willing to deploy during Frak's attempts if we had requested that. I'm currently in the FRA cabinet, and my opinion of the situation is that they are open to an alliance with us, and possibly even membership if we so desire, though I think an alliance is where we should start if we choose to formalise that relationship.So, I want peoples opinions on the subject. I'd like to go ahead with all four if we can make that work, and if anyone else has any other suggestions, please put them forward.

[Southern Bellz]

Full support on MPA being the number 1 goal, I was actually going to try to push that forward myself.Very keen on working with both the UDL and LWU.

[king j]

Being part of the MPA would be a good move in bringing the pacifics together, especially with our history with TP.To keep close contact with all would be good but im not sure of the FRA membership i wouldnt like to lose our independance.

[Belschaft]

FRA membership is a two sided sword. On one hand, we have to give up certain things - mainly our right to raid, which we don't currently do, but may want to at some point in the future - but in return gain influence and a degree of control over the alliance.I think it may be worth considering in the future, if we can make an alliance work first.

[Southern Bellz]

Joining the FRA would be a huge mistake in my eyes. First thing right off the bat is they want us to give up something, second we would be partly under the influence of The Rejected Realms which is absurd, and honestly I think it would piss off our neutral/raider allies.Joining the FRA is a commitment to being a defender org where I don't see TSP getting any benefit. Why do we even want influence over them?Most importantly dealing with the FRA during the coup left a bad taste and my mouth, where as Unibot and a lot of the UDL folks were really supportive and helpful to me.Where with the UDL, Unibot seems to be willing to give us a lot of things that would DIRECTLY benefit us and I don't think he wants to see TSP transform into anything that it isn't.With LWU I'd have to hear more, but they have taken a good first step with providing us with intel.

[Belschaft]

Joining the FRA would be a huge mistake in my eyes. First thing right off the bat is they want us to give up something, second we would be partly under the influence of The Rejected Realms which is absurd, and honestly I think it would piss off our neutral/raider allies.

Conversely, we would gain influence over TRR or at least reduce their influence in FRA.


I'll see about getting a drat treaty out of EW/Tikal.

[Unibot]

The UDL ultimately will provide a lot more help than the FRA will provide, frankly, since we're interested in a more robust security package. I know as RRO, you can't speak about the lack of amenities that the FRA has in its provisions for FRA members, but as a former AC, I'm well aware that membership with the FRA is mostly a lemon deal (less so for feeders but only because FRA treats feeders as substandard regions).

[Antariel]

I think I'd favour UDL over FRA. Same reasons as Bellz.And you thought all we did was disagree

[Belschaft]

The UDL ultimately will provide a lot more help than the FRA will provide, frankly, since we're interested in a more robust security package.

I know as RRO, you can't speak about the lack of amenities that the FRA has in its provisions for FRA members, but as a former AC, I'm well aware that membership with the FRA is mostly a lemon deal (less so for feeders but only because FRA treats feeders as substandard regions).

That is, conversely, why I think we may get more out of a FRA alliance than a UDL one; UDL will defend us anyway, whilst getting help out of FRA would require an alliance at the bare minimum.

[Southern Bellz]

There is a HUGE difference between making a defense pact with the UDL and joining the FRA.Joining the FRA is a commitment to defenders and you know it Belshaft. A treaty with the UDL is not. Lets make a pros/cons listro:Gain influence over the FRA (which personally I don't think is a desirable thing for TSP)Added WA support (maybe according to unibot)Cons:Throw away neutrality Makes our army only defenderOffend traditional alliesGet influenced by TRRHonestly I am sick of talking about the FRA, they have shown zero interest in us until their recruiter became our delegate. Now we want to give them gold badges and jump and bed with them?This idea is especially fucked up when we can make an alliance with the UDL, who has shown an interest in our region when we had NOTHING to offer them. I can't stress how great Unibot was during the coup, and he likes us for what we are, a sovereign, neutral democracy. That's enough for Unibot. Its not enough for the FRA. So we have a chance to make a pact with the UDL and get way more while giving up way less and you still want to push for FRA membership? Is there something I am missing? I am truly puzzled by this Belshaft.Ok I missed a comment you made which makes this even more absurd. UDL is willing to defend us AS IS, and the FRA is not. And we are going to focus on the FRA?! That is a slap in the face to the people who are our friends, I don't want to get in bed with a group who doesn't give a shit about us unless we are one of them and conform to their standards.

[Belschaft]

SB, I'm talking about agreeing to an alliance with the FRA, not joining them. I stated that I think an alliance with them, not membership, is the best course if we want to purse closer ties with them in the <em class='bbc'>first</em> post;

they are open to an alliance with us, and possibly even membership if we so desire, though I think an alliance is where we should start if we choose to formalise that relationship.

Did I say anything about focusing on the FRA? No. There seems to be consensus on the idea of an alliance with UDL and I am very much in favour of such a paring, but I do not see why that means we should count out an alliance with FRA.

they have shown zero interest in us until their recruiter became our delegate

Nope. They have shown interest in us since before UDL existed, defending us when we called on them for aid, and the last cabinet expressing their willingness to deploy in our aid both times I informed them of an attempted coup as MoS.

[Antariel]

I don't want to get in bed with a group who doesn't give a shit about us unless we are one of them and conform to their standards.

Me neither, I'm not that kinda gal.


On a more serious note. If we ally to both, do we need to ally to two raider orgs too?
If there's going to be defender infighting/arguing, if we ally to both we could get torn apart, but one and look biased...

[Belschaft]

On a more serious note. If we ally to both, do we need to ally to two raider orgs too?

If we were allied with just defenders that might be the case, but having an alliance with a raider group should balance that. I don't think there's an issue with having 2/1 rather than 1/1.

If there's going to be defender infighting/arguing, if we ally to both we could get torn apart, but one and look biased...

Well, I know that FRA has nothing but respect for UDL, and as far as I'm aware most UDL members have similar respect for FRA.

[Antariel]

I *may* have been referring to the somewhat heated argument over the TCT awards I think I'd be fine with an alliance with either...but I wouldn't want to accept any stipulations by FRA, to clarify my position

[Belschaft]

Ok, I'm gonna put this matter to a cabinet vote. Do we pursue alliances with the following groups;

MPA: 5/0
LWU: 4/1
UDL: 5/0
FRA: 2/2

My personal preference is yes to all four.

[Hileville]

MPA: YesLWU: YesUDL: YesFRA: Abstain

[Unibot]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="unibot"> The UDL ultimately will provide a lot more help than the FRA will provide, frankly, since we're interested in a more robust security package.



I know as RRO, you can't speak about the lack of amenities that the FRA has in its provisions for FRA members, but as a former AC, I'm well aware that membership with the FRA is mostly a lemon deal (less so for feeders but only because FRA treats feeders as substandard regions).

That is, conversely, why I think we may get more out of a FRA alliance than a UDL one; UDL will defend us anyway, whilst getting help out of FRA would require an alliance at the bare minimum.
</blockquote>Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not out to trick TSP. UDL Treaties aren't really meant to be about 'defense' usually, UDL will deploy already for any sort of usual threat, <em class='bbc'>barring extra-judicial but perceivably native uprisings that are last resorts; things I don't foresee happening any-time soon here in TSP.</em>



One treaty we have has the region declaring its preferred defence group as the United Defenders League (so in the situation it gets raided, the UDL should be given priority over the FRA, RRA or TITO). But I wouldn't ask of that in the South Pacific.



Treaties I had in mind for the South Pacific involved a <em class='bbc'>security programme</em>, to assist your Ministry in analysing for coupers and just 'doing stuff' around the place to help out (one idea that SB hinted at and I thought about later was the UDL helping or running the telegram system when the delegate needs to contact members about security threats or voting information). If anything a <em class='bbc'>defence treaty</em> would just help to keep the UDL safer from bad press (*cough* TRR *cough*), since any military intervention by us in the future would be a little more legitimate and expected; but realistically, I don't give a crap, if a region is in need, I'm sending the merrymen in, that was the whole point to making a more '<a class='bbc_url' href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage'>morally courageous</a>' counterpart to the other defender-organization-that-shall-not-be-named.



I wouldn't put it against the shrewd politicians that led the FRA at once time to framework feeders as naturally lacking the same right to defence as other regions, simply to use defence as a bargaining chip. So what do we get if we take the bargain? Influence over the FRA + Defence? Sure you can try to use our natural hatred towards TRR to convince us we should try to steal some of their influence. But would TSP <em class='bbc'>really</em> be a 'powerhouse of influence' in the FRA? I find that dubious. The two 'powerhouses of influence' in the FRA are TRR and the GRA, you can draw a web between various individuals involved in these organizations and that is the ghost in the machine that ultimately runs the FRA. Frattastan will only be the respected leader of the FRA as long as he follows what his <strong class='bbc'>fellow SFBA founder</strong> and <strong class='bbc'>beloved TRR delegate</strong> wishes for him to do. As Foreign Affairs Minister of Dharma, you should know this well that the FRA doesn't care about how much a region contributes to the FRA, the regions with influence keep that influence by birthright. It's the invisible constitution, if you will.



And secondly, --frankly-- what great defence force are we talking about? Two or three other defenders not already affiliated with the UDL (i.e., Lep, Fratt and Tupe)?

[Belschaft]

Uni, we've already discussed FRA and your problems to death. I put this to a cabinet vote to decide which parings we bring in front of the Assembly. If you don't think an alliance with the FRA is a good idea, just vote against it.

[Unibot]

<strong class='bbc'>MPA:</strong> Yes

<strong class='bbc'>LWU:</strong> No (I'd rather not have relations with a group that commits to gross denial of native rights and has destroyed native communities without hesitation).

<strong class='bbc'>UDL:</strong> Yes

<strong class='bbc'>FRA:</strong> No

[Antariel]

MPA: Yep! And we should drag the rest of the pacific in after us!LWU: Based on their help I'd consider something, but I think we need to be clear on the termsUDL: Yep!FRA: provided we maintain our sovereignty I'd say yes, because I don't want us favouring just one defender faction and looking favourtist I assume as MoFA I'll be taking a joint role in this with you?Lets face it, if the alliances don't work out we can always ditch them In terms of foreign policy objectives, just to be clear, I'm sorting out our final peace treaty with TWP and trying to reopen negotiations for something more (which will need assemby approval to do an alliance, and I'd like your views too; at the moment I'm trying to keep the new delegate from declaring a pointless war). I'd also be interested in trying to deal with the TRR situation; has our current policy been to ignore them all since the coup?EDIT; have since revised my idea of the MPA.

[Belschaft]

I assume as MoFA I'll be taking a joint role in this with you?

Yup. Uni might as well handle UDL, and I'll handle LWU and FRA for now if we decide to discuss alliances with them. Can you get yourself over to <a class='bbc_url' href='http://z13.invisionfree.com/NS_Alliance/index.php?act=idx'>the MPA forum</a>?

In terms of foreign policy objectives, just to be clear, I'm sorting out our final peace treaty with TWP and trying to reopen negotiations for something more (which will need assemby approval to do an alliance, and I'd like your views too; at the moment I'm trying to keep the new delegate from declaring a pointless war). I'd also be interested in trying to deal with the TRR situation; has our current policy been to ignore them all since the coup?

I'm going to make it very clear right now that any sort of alliance with TWP is not on my agenda. Reopening embassies with them, maybe.

As for TRR, Sedge will do as Sedge will do. I've discussed the mater briefly with him before, and he'll try and reopen relations with us if he wants to. I have no intention of approaching him formally on that matter.

[Antariel]

I'll head on over in the next coupla daysWhat's the problem with TWP; wiht Punk out of the picture surely the feeders can get on now? I'll admit I've found the whole feud utterly pointless from beginning to end.And so yes, we WILL be ignoring TRR

[Belschaft]

There is a difference between 'get on' and 'sign any sort of agreement with them'. Whilst PD was he main force behind the war he had a lot of support for his actions from TWP. So long as TWP believes the 'war' was justified I will not be accepting any kind of alliance with them.

[Belschaft]

I'll leave the vote open for another couple of days, then create a thread in the RA. Anyone who hasn't voted, do so.

[Belschaft]

PS: That means hurry up and vote Carta and KingJ.