03-10-2014, 10:56 PM
Hey guys. I've been working on this today and I want to get your thoughts and input. I imagine this will sound completely foreign and wrong to some of you, but I think we've gone way too long making terms like "hostility" and "regional security" kitchen-sink terms. I want to give them meaning.
Â
----
Â
The Assembly has spent the last few months debating the issue of what to do with people who are ââ¬Åhostileââ¬Â to the Coalition. Throughout the debate, it became clear that a core issue has gone unaddressed in the Coalition's foreign policy doctrine. That issue is: what does it mean to be hostile to the Coalition? This memorandum serves as a defining document for what hostility means in the context of our foreign affairs.
Â
Current definition of ââ¬Åhostilityââ¬Â
Â
While there is no concise written definition of what counts as ââ¬Åhostilityââ¬Â to the Coalition, there are a common set of characteristics people mention when discussing hostile persons, regions, and organizations. The following actions have at times been considered hostile:
Â
- Declaring war against the Coalition
- Declaring war against our allies and strategic partners
- Engaging in espionage against the Coalition, our allies, or our strategic partners
- Engaging in heated arguments and debates, especially when one resorts to name-calling
- Being perceived as advocating for a position on the basis of how it would help foreign groups
- Engaging in (or being perceived to be engaging in) propaganda efforts, no matter how mild or severe
- Blocking or otherwise undermining the military missions of the New Southern Army or its partners
- Advocating against the Independence ideology
- Advocating for the adoption of a concrete position in NationStates military gameplay (e.g. raider, defender, imperialist)
- Harshly criticizing the members or policies of the Cabinet, especially in official documents and statements
- Encouraging members of foreign groups to vote for or against Assembly bills
- Having leadership or vocal members that dislike or hate the Coalition's leadership
- Working against ââ¬Åthe interestsââ¬Â of the Coalition
- Participating in a coup d'etat of the Coalition, our allies, or our strategic partners
- Not recognizing the legitimacy of forum-based regional governance
- Being generally unpleasant to deal with
Â
The list is by any means not exhaustive. Accusations and declarations of hostility have been guided by little in the way of a real doctrine. Instead, as the list above shows, hostility as a characteristic is a beast of many natures: military, political, personal. The myriad ways in which an individual or group can be labeled hostile proves that hostility has little to no meaning. There are legitimate entries on that list, but there are also activities that are not at all hostile, even though they might be annoying or harmful to diplomatic and political relations.
Â
Â
Â
A new doctrine for hostility
Â
Defining hostility
Â
Going forward, the Cabinet of the Coalition will use this document when considering the label of any individual or group as hostile.
Â
The basic definition of hostility is:
Â
<p style="margin-left:40px;">Behavior that severely and directly threatens the territorial integrity and information security of the Coalition of The South Pacific, including the region itself and its forums.
Â
To better understand the implications of this definition, consider the following breakdown of its meaning.
Â
<p style="margin-left:40px;">ââ¬ÅSeverely and directly threatensââ¬Â
One common mistake made when discussing hostility is the assumption that all actions are of equal hostile status. This is how a individual can go from flaming on the forums during an argument, to being labeled hostile to the Coalition. When considering if an individual or group is hostile, we must analyze their behavior in the context of not only its severity, but how it actually threatens the core security of the region. This helps prevent mistaking politics and personality for true hostility.
Â
Additionally, we must consider if the severe behavior directly threatens our security. That means, for example, one group causing tensions between the Coalition and another one of our allies ââ¬â causing the potential for the Coalition to lose an important security partner ââ¬â does not mean the group is hostile. That is a political problem for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to handle, not a severe and direct security threat. Voting fraud is a very serious problem, but it is a criminal matter for the Assembly to deal with, and it will carry serious diplomatic repercussions if coordinated by foreign groups, but it is not a threat to the core of our regional security.
Â
ââ¬ÅTerritorial integrityââ¬Â
This term is borrowed from ideas of real-world national security. In the real world, one of the defining features of a state is that it has territory, and the most basic goal of a state is to maintain the integrity of that territory against foreign threats. This translates well into NationStates. The ââ¬Återritoryââ¬Â of the Coalition is the region itself within NationStates. To defend the integrity of the region, we must ensure that foreign forces and domestic rogues do not usurp control of the Delegate seat.
Â
ââ¬ÅInformation securityââ¬Â
This term encompasses all secure communications and information produced and perused by the Coalition. Some common examples of those are: Cabinet discussions, military mission plans, Committee on State Security communications, secure IRC discussions, forum passwords, and IRC channel passwords. Maintaining information security is mostly concerned with preventing espionage, hacking, and leaking of secure communications and information.
Â
To some, this may seem to leave a lot out. Certainly, it does. Redefining hostility this way ensures that the label has meaning and is not used a political bludgeon against undesirable elements in the region. However, it is important to realize that this document does not seek to define regional security in general nor how to deal with other regional security matters.
Â
The limited definition of hostility does not prevent the Cabinet from issuing persona non grata status to spies found working against our allies, or condemning the violation of the sovereignty of other regions. Nor does this doctrine prevent the Assembly from declaring war on regions perceived to by hostile for reasons not within this definition. The limited definition is for the purposes of domestic policy, should the Cabinet ever be requested to review the hostile status of any individual or group.
Â
However, it is the hope of myself and the Cabinet that the main thrust of this doctrine will have a normative impact on those who are all too eager to throw around accusations of hostility. We must take politics and personality out of the equation. Hostility against the Coalition is a serious security matter, and we are all done a disservice when the label is used inappropriately.
Â
----
Â
The Assembly has spent the last few months debating the issue of what to do with people who are ââ¬Åhostileââ¬Â to the Coalition. Throughout the debate, it became clear that a core issue has gone unaddressed in the Coalition's foreign policy doctrine. That issue is: what does it mean to be hostile to the Coalition? This memorandum serves as a defining document for what hostility means in the context of our foreign affairs.
Â
Current definition of ââ¬Åhostilityââ¬Â
Â
While there is no concise written definition of what counts as ââ¬Åhostilityââ¬Â to the Coalition, there are a common set of characteristics people mention when discussing hostile persons, regions, and organizations. The following actions have at times been considered hostile:
Â
- Declaring war against the Coalition
- Declaring war against our allies and strategic partners
- Engaging in espionage against the Coalition, our allies, or our strategic partners
- Engaging in heated arguments and debates, especially when one resorts to name-calling
- Being perceived as advocating for a position on the basis of how it would help foreign groups
- Engaging in (or being perceived to be engaging in) propaganda efforts, no matter how mild or severe
- Blocking or otherwise undermining the military missions of the New Southern Army or its partners
- Advocating against the Independence ideology
- Advocating for the adoption of a concrete position in NationStates military gameplay (e.g. raider, defender, imperialist)
- Harshly criticizing the members or policies of the Cabinet, especially in official documents and statements
- Encouraging members of foreign groups to vote for or against Assembly bills
- Having leadership or vocal members that dislike or hate the Coalition's leadership
- Working against ââ¬Åthe interestsââ¬Â of the Coalition
- Participating in a coup d'etat of the Coalition, our allies, or our strategic partners
- Not recognizing the legitimacy of forum-based regional governance
- Being generally unpleasant to deal with
Â
The list is by any means not exhaustive. Accusations and declarations of hostility have been guided by little in the way of a real doctrine. Instead, as the list above shows, hostility as a characteristic is a beast of many natures: military, political, personal. The myriad ways in which an individual or group can be labeled hostile proves that hostility has little to no meaning. There are legitimate entries on that list, but there are also activities that are not at all hostile, even though they might be annoying or harmful to diplomatic and political relations.
Â
Â
Â
A new doctrine for hostility
Â
Defining hostility
Â
Going forward, the Cabinet of the Coalition will use this document when considering the label of any individual or group as hostile.
Â
The basic definition of hostility is:
Â
<p style="margin-left:40px;">Behavior that severely and directly threatens the territorial integrity and information security of the Coalition of The South Pacific, including the region itself and its forums.
Â
To better understand the implications of this definition, consider the following breakdown of its meaning.
Â
<p style="margin-left:40px;">ââ¬ÅSeverely and directly threatensââ¬Â
One common mistake made when discussing hostility is the assumption that all actions are of equal hostile status. This is how a individual can go from flaming on the forums during an argument, to being labeled hostile to the Coalition. When considering if an individual or group is hostile, we must analyze their behavior in the context of not only its severity, but how it actually threatens the core security of the region. This helps prevent mistaking politics and personality for true hostility.
Â
Additionally, we must consider if the severe behavior directly threatens our security. That means, for example, one group causing tensions between the Coalition and another one of our allies ââ¬â causing the potential for the Coalition to lose an important security partner ââ¬â does not mean the group is hostile. That is a political problem for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to handle, not a severe and direct security threat. Voting fraud is a very serious problem, but it is a criminal matter for the Assembly to deal with, and it will carry serious diplomatic repercussions if coordinated by foreign groups, but it is not a threat to the core of our regional security.
Â
ââ¬ÅTerritorial integrityââ¬Â
This term is borrowed from ideas of real-world national security. In the real world, one of the defining features of a state is that it has territory, and the most basic goal of a state is to maintain the integrity of that territory against foreign threats. This translates well into NationStates. The ââ¬Återritoryââ¬Â of the Coalition is the region itself within NationStates. To defend the integrity of the region, we must ensure that foreign forces and domestic rogues do not usurp control of the Delegate seat.
Â
ââ¬ÅInformation securityââ¬Â
This term encompasses all secure communications and information produced and perused by the Coalition. Some common examples of those are: Cabinet discussions, military mission plans, Committee on State Security communications, secure IRC discussions, forum passwords, and IRC channel passwords. Maintaining information security is mostly concerned with preventing espionage, hacking, and leaking of secure communications and information.
Â
To some, this may seem to leave a lot out. Certainly, it does. Redefining hostility this way ensures that the label has meaning and is not used a political bludgeon against undesirable elements in the region. However, it is important to realize that this document does not seek to define regional security in general nor how to deal with other regional security matters.
Â
The limited definition of hostility does not prevent the Cabinet from issuing persona non grata status to spies found working against our allies, or condemning the violation of the sovereignty of other regions. Nor does this doctrine prevent the Assembly from declaring war on regions perceived to by hostile for reasons not within this definition. The limited definition is for the purposes of domestic policy, should the Cabinet ever be requested to review the hostile status of any individual or group.
Â
However, it is the hope of myself and the Cabinet that the main thrust of this doctrine will have a normative impact on those who are all too eager to throw around accusations of hostility. We must take politics and personality out of the equation. Hostility against the Coalition is a serious security matter, and we are all done a disservice when the label is used inappropriately.
tsp
minister of foreign affairs