Independence in the South Pacific

[Escade]

I recently read an interesting discussion by Bachtendekuppen of The East Pacific.  I will quote the part that struck me most in terms of what I feel the role of the South Pacific is:

 

"In conclusion, I think both the change itself and it's manner of execution deserve a lot more consideration. The East Pacific doesn't need to run after radicalized Raider/Defender ideologies. Sure, we are traditionally more sympathetic to the defense of sovereignty, but that doesn't need nor justify a profound political and military change like this. Individuals can be Defenders or Raiders, The East Pacific as a region has no business with this. Inevitably this will change the political climate to one less diverse, less open and inherently judgmental about people with other beliefs."

 

In a GCR, like the South Pacific, we value independence. Now independence means many things but in this particular case I think it means allowing citizens to choose whether or not they partake in GP and to allow them to elect a Minister of the Army who presents their vision of what they wish to do in GP since the NSA is the primary way for them to officially partake in R\D as citizens.

 

Personally, I did start out leaning towards defense\defenders because I am more sympathetic to the concept of peacefulness and because there is a "knight in shining armor" quality.  However, the practical realities are anything but that simple. 

 

Raiders can work to defend others against hate groups and while I don't know what the relative impact is of their efforts, it still feels good to be able to deny bullies or people who spread intolerance. 

 

I'm always going to dislike griefing, the word itself implies enjoyment earned from harming others and causing them grief. However, I feel that there isn't much difference between the two sides (defender and raider) in terms of tactics, strategies, honesty or the lack of it. I have no interest in joining or being identified with either side.

 

My only interest in this debate is that citizens of TSP be allowed to partake in both, if they so wish, without judgement.  

 

If we are being quite honest, true independence is very difficult to come by. A simple look at our treatied allies shows that we have far more that are part of one sphere.  That in itself doesn't destroy our independence and I believe we have chosen allies that are strong enough to help us in our times of need such as the former coup.

 

At least under my tenure, allies are of interest in terms of what they offer to the South Pacific in terms of security, stability, and friendship without underhanded tactics or manipulation.  I feel that our current allies have all proven that they are willing to support us and have the backing to do so. 

 

As for any future allies, when someone whether a cabinet member or a citizen proposes a new ally or treaty my only thought is, "Is this person advocating on behalf of the South Pacific and only the South Pacific?"  If I feel this not to be the case then one, that person has just lost a great deal of respect, and two, my perception  of the potential ally has now been tainted by the simple fact that they are not putting the interest of our regions\organizations on an equal footing.

 

Now that I've shared only an excerpt of my thoughts on this issue, I welcome informal civil discussion on the topic. Since this is my personal area, respect it and each other as such. 

 

[Unibot]

I think the idea that TNI, Europeia and Kantrias, and otherwise only the imperialist-invader sphere can defend The South Pacific, while any power from the defender sphere isn't "strong enough to help us in our times of need" is not well substantiated. If this wasn't what you meant to imply then, I'm sorry, but I found your argument unclear.


Likewise I get a real sense of naming-and-blaming from your final paragraph -- of course, citizens should only pursue treaties with TSP for TSP. What is wrong, however, is when people assume that if they are defender-leaning that obviously their support for say, a UDL treaty, or a FRA treaty or a LLA treaty or a Wintermoot or Spiritus treaty are self-serving -- when in fact, defenderdom would be a strong ally for TSP, as opposed to isolating ourselves solely to the imperialist sphere for protection. 

[Belschaft]

Except that alliances between TSP and 'defenderdom' have proven futile due to the inability of defender groups to accept and respect our own Independent ideology. TRR, FRA and XKI have all rejected diplomatic proposals from us in the past, citing our military alignment and existing allies. UDL has been willing to work with us in the past, but utterly discredited itself repeatedly by its actions and lack of diplomatic tact. You can crow on all you like about the desirability of defender alliances... but to do so ignores the reality that TSP has gone down that path and has nothing but discord to show for it. We tried to get defenders to work with us; by and large they refused to do so. The only defender group that has been willing to ally with us, UDL, consistently infringed upon the sovereignty of us and other GCR's in attempts to adjust their military stances to hard-defending, whilst under your leadership. For obvious reasons TSP decided we wanted nothing more to do with UDL at the time, though Mahaj's modern UDL looks like it might be a credible diplomatic partner.

 

In contrast, among the Independent-Imperialist sphere we have had no problems finding friends and allies who respect us and our sovereignty. What is more, they are allies who seek us out, considering us a desirable diplomatic partner. We did not go cap in hand to TNI, Europeia or Kantrias asking for them to ally with us, only to be told that to even be considered as an ally we would have to alter our foreign policy and military alignment. They accept us for who we are, not who they wish we could be. What is more, they are reliable and trustworthy. Europeia has not been caught spying upon TNP, nor has NES attempted to stack an Assembly vote here.

 

What is Independence? Independence is to act in your own regions interests at all times. The duology of meaningless raider/defender conflict is not in our interest and never will be; if you spend another ten years trying you will never force this region to accept your ideology as its own.

[Escade]

I think the idea that TNI, Europeia and Kantrias, and otherwise only the imperialist-invader sphere can defend The South Pacific, while any power from the defender sphere isn't "strong enough to help us in our times of need" is not well substantiated. If this wasn't what you meant to imply then, I'm sorry, but I found your argument unclear.


Likewise I get a real sense of naming-and-blaming from your final paragraph -- of course, citizens should only pursue treaties with TSP for TSP. What is wrong, however, is when people assume that if they are defender-leaning that obviously their support for say, a UDL treaty, or a FRA treaty or a LLA treaty or a Wintermoot or Spiritus treaty are self-serving -- when in fact, defenderdom would be a strong ally for TSP, as opposed to isolating ourselves solely to the imperialist sphere for protection. 

 

Edit: The sentence with the strike through was out of turn and inappropriate. I allowed personal conflict to supersede my political neutrality. The rest remains true as to how I feel.

Let me be clear then, the UDL as an organization is neither the premiere defender organization, not a particularly reputable one and nor does it have strength in numbers or recommendations (even within the broader defender sphere, UDL is spoken of in mixed terms).

 

Any discussion from the UDL perspective begins with an attack on our treatied ally TNI. I dislike this incredibly.  Why? Simply, what is UDL offering to us in practice other than an attack on our ally?  I don't know how it works for other people but I believe an ally is an ally and should be treated with some modicum of respect.  

 

An ally is someone who has shown through proof positive that they are there for us.  As I said to someone privately, "When discussing TSP or trying to convince me of something that is important to the sake of TSP - I want to hear what the benefits are for TSP.  I don't want to hear UDL this and that. If the UDL ends tomorrow, I will not shed a tear."

 

As for Spiritus, Mordor, Lazarus, etc. - I'm am willing to speak with them and discuss relations, particularly because their members and representatives aren't trying to force defender ideology upon us and also, so far, have allowed room for multiple perspectives and viewpoints.  I've actually "hung out" or spoken to people from all three regions. There's something to be said about people who don't try to force their will on others. 

 

The NSA has worked with different factions on different projects. Independence is not about 1 to 1 balance, its about what works best for the South Pacific. Alignment to one side completely may be working well for some regions. TSP is trying something different, something more difficult and I think until citizens as a whole speak to a sea change then we will do our best on the path we are on.

[Unibot]

I love how any post simply noting the benefits of having defenderdom as an ally as opposed to an outsider to TSP's lovefest with imperialists, is thus grounds for you to throw another accusation that I am trying to "force this region my ideology as its own". 

 

FRA likely is simply worried about allying with TSP with its close relationship to TNI -- given TNI has invaded TRR and run an attempted coup of Lazarus, I think all of these actors have reason to be worried about TSP's close relationship with TNI. That's quite reasonable really of a concern of FRA's, TRR's and Lazarus's. On the other hand, TNI's concerns are completely unreasonable, they declared war over "colonies" that were never legitimately their's -- which TSP is forced to respect, despite those regions being in TNI's possession solely because of targeted griefing. 

[Unibot]

Let me be clear then, the UDL as an organization is neither the premiere defender organization, not a particularly reputable one and nor does it have strength in numbers or recommendations (even within the broader defender sphere, UDL is spoken of in mixed terms).
 
Any discussion from the UDL perspective begins with an attack on our treatied ally TNI. I dislike this incredibly.  Why? Simply, what is UDL offering to us in practice other than an attack on our ally?  I don't know how it works for other people but I believe an ally is an ally and should be treated with some modicum of respect.

 
 
I would disagree there is a clear premiere defender organization in NS - thus questioning whether UDL is or is not is silly question. Likewise, I think you're severely underestimating UDL's strength in numbers based on a turnout in April 2013 during UDL's leadership change and my retirement. Despite those serious setbacks, UDL still provided a good amount of numbers equatable with TSP's existing allies (someone said Europeia earlier).
 
Furthermore, UDL does not care whether TSP is allies with TNI and did not speak of TNI in our negotiations.  The discussion was brought up by TSP, not by UDL.

[Rebel-topia]

I would disagree with your notion that you're not here to further UDL ideals. Every post you make has something to do with either an attack of another user of this forum, or some form of, 'TSP needs to stop talking to raiders, and heres an ever changing list of defender-leaning regions to ally with".

[Sandaoguo]

Except that alliances between TSP and 'defenderdom' have proven futile due to the inability of defender groups to accept and respect our own Independent ideology. TRR, FRA and XKI have all rejected diplomatic proposals from us in the past, citing our military alignment and existing allies.

 

We all know that the story with the UDL is more complicated than that, and is centered mostly around personal feuds and butting heads, rather than any real political conflict. At the very least, it was TSP that broke off the relationship because of a completely unrelated event in The North Pacific, not because the UDL didn't like it when TSP raided. I don't know why I need to keep saying this ad nauseam... Almost every single defender group we've talked to has agreed that TSP raiding isn't a deal-breaker -- it's not even harmful to a relationship. The latest group to let me know that was Spiritus. XKI doesn't agree, but they are an outlier. TRR, to the best of my knowledge, rejected a treaty due to our alliance with TNI, not simply because the NSA raids and TNI is imperialist, but because TNI participated in a coup in TRR.

 

The idea that our "Independent-Imperialist" allies respect our sovereignty more than defenders is just political demagoguery. Europeia agreed to include a clause in our treaty allowing us free reign in military operations, without that hurting the relationship. Kantrias isn't a military partner. Those are our Independent allies. When you look at our Imperialist ally (TNI), not only does that language not exist in the treaty, but TNI is hostile to the very notion of including one. By that measure, everybody but TNI is more respectful of our sovereignty when it comes to the use of our military. You have an unreasonably rosy picture of what TNI will and will not allow us to do, without putting the alliance on the line.

 

Support or oppose the alliance, we need to stop spreading misinformation about it. It's not a no-strings-attached security agreement. It comes with many caveats, including one that supporters keep denying.

 

As for the rest of the debate, we had it back in November. Hileville made a post in the Private Assembly Hall about Independence. My position is still what I said back then. I can't imagine much more can be said about Independence. :\

[Commonwealth of Callistaire]

I am fairly new to this but I feel this issue in very simplified terms is sort of similar to gender or racial equality issues in the workplace- whether they are a raider or defender should not be the core concern in choosing our allies. They should simply be the best most reliable ally for the job regardeless of which narrow ideological camp they choose to confine themselves to.

 

Furthermore, we should not be seeking to ally with "token" defenders just for the sake of having a defender ally- that would be similar to hiring someone of a different race or gender in the workplace just for the sake of having a more politically correct selection of workers.

 

 

I hope it is okay for me to weigh in here and speak my mind, and I mean no offense to anyone. Forgive me for my crude metaphors.

[Kris Kringle]

I am fairly new to this but I feel this issue in very simplified terms is sort of similar to gender or racial equality issues in the workplace- whether they are a raider or defender should not be the core concern in choosing our allies. They should simply be the best most reliable ally for the job regardeless of which narrow ideological camp they choose to confine themselves to.

 

Furthermore, we should not be seeking to ally with "token" defenders just for the sake of having a defender ally- that would be similar to hiring someone of a different race or gender in the workplace just for the sake of having a more politically correct selection of workers.

 

 

I hope it is okay for me to weigh in here and speak my mind, and I mean no offense to anyone. Forgive me for my crude metaphors.

 

It's completely fine to weigh in. We always appreciate when people do that, so thanks a lot.

 

I think the issue is a bit more complicated than that, but you are right in that we shouldn't want to deal with both sides just for the sake of appearing independent. We do need to look for regions that will be good allies, independently of whether they are raiders, imperialists or defenders.

[Rebel-topia]

I hope it is okay for me to weigh in here and speak my mind, and I mean no offense to anyone. Forgive me for my crude metaphors.

 

You have a nation in TSP, its your right to post here

[Lord Ravenclaw]

Reading this has momentarily caused me to lose the ability to function. I'll be back following a restart.

 

*claps approvingly*

[Sopo]

Escade, I think that is exactly correct. Spot on.

[Letoilenoir]

The two main components of Military Gameplay are attack and defence.

 

In the NS environment these two elements have been corrupted to produce "Raiders" (organisations primarily engaged in attacking) and "Defenders"(primarily groups dedicated to protecting regions). However this apparent polarisation is only superficial, and many of the techniques employed are common to both sides. 

 

Prior knowledge of the "battlefield" is a pre-requisite of any engagement, but mounting a defence has one distinct disadvantage, namely that it is constrained to a "reactive" response. As a consequence, the defending organisation must forego the luxury of democracy to retain any hope of being effective in the field. The commanding officer has to take the readiness and availability of his subordinates as a given - he cannot afford to await a decision by committee to deploy. As most "Defenders" hold the values of democracy and self determination to lie at the foundation of their ethos, it is a paradox that to maintain an effective fighting force they are obliged to subsume the very democracy they value so highly.

 

An attacking force does not have this limitation - consensus will have been sought with the participants in advance and if insufficient nations can be mobilsed then the attack simply cannot commence. Although this seems to go against the accepted wisdom that the Defender is a noble upholder of democratic values and the Raider is an unprincipled tyrant, logic dictates otherwise