Jump to content

A Modern Foreign Affairs Primer


The Zigur

Recommended Posts

8myp1xR.png

 

Tonight on the Factor: A Primer for The New Leaders on Modern foreign affairs

 

Thank you for joining us tonight. With the Disorder War seemingly over, many were left wondering why exactly the war was necessary in the first place, and The Factor worked overtime to provide perspective to our viewers. Despite recent rumors, The Factor pledges to continue providing news and information for our audience.

 

We have extensively covered the developments involving DBDC, however tonight we will take a break from our coverage to provide this primer on the New Way of foreign affairs. The Factor places great importance on the education of our future leaders, and realize that the new nation leaders of today will be the alliance leaders of tomorrow.

 

 

The Importance of the Disorder War

 

Since returning to the world, the overall trend of things have generally oriented towards stability. Before the Disorder War, the international community united to counter the lulzism in Mushqaeda, and after the war questions were raised: Instead of simply reacting to a disaster, how can we take the initiative to defeat these trends before they actualize? What if a world court was formed to handle instability as a 3rd party?

 

Although nothing came of it, the international community once again had to work together to defeat the rising neo-imperialism in NSO and its Pacifican allies. NSO in particular proved its menace after plotting to attack Polaris, and bullying numerous alliances, including House Baratheon. After realizing the threat, I proposed preemptive action be taken, and eventually various alliance leaders formed a battle plan lead by Polaris. Throughout the war, alliances volunteered like military units, with reserve units capable of rapid deployment and redeployment against emergent threats (such as HB's actions against NoR and R&R).

 

After the coalition finally found victory, the international community began to endorse Polardoxia as the global leader of stability and prosperity. With the ties forged in fire by the Disorder War, a new revolution was born in the form of TOP-Polar dual leadership. So long as this union holds dominant, peace and the abolishment of uncertainty from war will prevail.

 

How Important are treaties?

 

Treaties are not automatically mandatory. It always depends on the circumstances of the situation, and the wording of the treaty. Too many alliance governments don't even read the language of the treaty and make assumptions. For example, the concept of non-chaining treaties were new to me, however, they are a stabilizing treaty element and sure to be popular in the future. Let's say DBDC was targetted as part of a stability oporation, and DT reacted. The nonchaining clause would protect any nonchaining ally of DT from mandatory response clauses.

 

However, it is not just special clauses that can offer protection from the actions of a bad ally's government. "Mandatory" treaty clauses have no special value above "optional" clauses. Thus, under international law, a mutual defense action is of equal value to an optional aggression action. This is where it comes to options for alliance leaders where two treaty partners are requesting treaty activation.

 

As MD and oA actions are equivalent, it is the duty of alliance governments to determine which treaty activation is better for the alliance overall. Only after careful analysis should a decision between multiple treaty options be taken. Generally, the right option will be the one that enhances global stability and the prosperity of the alliance.

 

When it is time for surrender negotiations, it is generally good to weight the terms according to the treaty options the defeated alliance had: those alliances which had the legal option to not fight against stability operations should be treated more punitively, while those who sincerely had no option but to defend their ally should receive the lightest terms. In this way, over a period of wars, wars will become more minimal and controlled in nature, resulting in greater certainty and stability.

 

Good Foreign Affairs Personnel are educated

 

Too often alliances, after recruiting new nations, do not provide a warrior leadership course to their nations. Instead, the focus is isolated to nation growth. This number-crunching approach often leaves many alliances without enough membership educated in foreign affairs, and the government drifts between wars unable to control their own fate. Training new nations to be leaders is far more important, and good leadership takes good FA education. This is the key to the future.

 

As an aside note, University of Foreign Affairs is under construction and will soon offer an FA course for new leaders willing to learn the subtleties and intrigue of politics. My hope is for the university to become the central FA school of this world, with future leaders taking the initiative towards stability and prosperity. We will also offer course instruction to any alliance leaders seeking to implement it within their alliances.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i agree with you on the education of our younger nations. far too many times i've met come to meet rulers who have been in this game for some time and faithfully serving an alliance, only to see they are not being given good instructions on how to approach other alliances for discussions/consultations nor are they educated on the treaties/allies that their mother alliance has worked so hard to mature.  new nations aren't the only ones that are negligent..some very old nations also have no idea what is going on, but are still hired to do FA work for their alliance. i support the idea of FA courses for new leaders and i hope that you can get some people willing to join up and learn :D there has long been discussions of "worldy" universities where anyone from anywhere can learn but are brought down by politics. good luck with this venture!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an additional note, over the course of the week I plan to offer department leadership positions across multiple FA disciplines, including IRC communications, International Relations, (ooc)OOC Studies(/ooc), Alliance History electives, and many others. If you would like to propose heading a department please PM me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it is time for surrender negotiations, it is generally good to weight the terms according to the treaty options the defeated alliance had: those alliances which had the legal option to not fight against stability operations should be treated more punitively, while those who sincerely had no option but to defend their ally should receive the lightest terms. In this way, over a period of wars, wars will become more minimal and controlled in nature, resulting in greater certainty and stability.


Just to clarify a section of what you wrote, are you saying you would support reinstating the old NPO policy of pushing for "punishment" (i.e. higher "reparations" I assume, you really don't seem like the "beer review" kind of guy after all :P) for alliances that join in a fight under an optional treaty as opposed to a mandatory one. Correct?

If that's the case, then I would also assume that you would support likewise "punishing" alliances that join in a war under a oA clause. By all means, correct me if I'm wrong but explain the difference in your opinion in that case.

Also, I'm NOT saying that *I* agree with either of the above. Just want to make sure we all understand what you are actually proposing as something that should occur within our community. Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After realizing the threat, I proposed preemptive action be taken, and eventually various alliance leaders formed a battle plan lead by Polaris. Throughout the war, alliances volunteered like military units, with reserve units capable of rapid deployment and redeployment against emergent threats (such as HB's actions against NoR and R&R).

 

 

I really don't think you should be teaching anyone anything. You are too biased and you claim anything that happened was your doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't you know? Tywin created the entire plan.

Im far too careful with my wording for you to sincerely come to that conclusion, Charles.

Also, I plan to recruit a diverse faculty. For example, Id like NPO to be involved in the school, and offer a professor position for at least a Francoist/Pacifican elective.

Once I can get to a desktop, I will answer everyones questions in detail. :) Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I really don't think you should be teaching anyone anything. You are too biased and you claim anything that happened was your doing. 

 

The line before that is best.

 

"NSO in particular proved its menace after plotting to attack Polaris, and bullying numerous alliances, including House Baratheon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do I sign up?

 

It is still under construction, but the forum can be found here.

 

Just to clarify a section of what you wrote, are you saying you would support reinstating the old NPO policy of pushing for "punishment" (i.e. higher "reparations" I assume, you really don't seem like the "beer review" kind of guy after all :P) for alliances that join in a fight under an optional treaty as opposed to a mandatory one. Correct?

If that's the case, then I would also assume that you would support likewise "punishing" alliances that join in a war under a oA clause. By all means, correct me if I'm wrong but explain the difference in your opinion in that case.

Also, I'm NOT saying that *I* agree with either of the above. Just want to make sure we all understand what you are actually proposing as something that should occur within our community.

 

It all depends on the situation. Generally, I am opposed to excessive reparations and alliance crippling terms such as NPO has utilized in the past. I think white peace and white surrenders are quite valid in most situations where an alliance entered a conflict to defend an ally honorably, after they had been properly reduced. This was the case with most cases in the Disorder War, besides NPO which had not been comparatively reduced and was providing the most political resistance to the Coalition.

 

Ideally terms should be based by the behavior of each defeated alliance. I would like to see an alliance that is honorable and cooperative receive help from the victors with rebuilding and education. This is not a popular philosophy among those who view wars as purely punitive, but I think as wars progressively shape into stability operations we will see more rehabilitation efforts towards cooperative defeated parties.

 

Thus, on the one hand the victor holds the carrot and in the other, a stick. From a rational point of view, it makes far more sense to offer help and assistance to those who cooperate and are sincere in their intentions, and only pursue the war punitively against those who actively and deliberately oppose a coalitions objectives. The highest form of warfare is to win without fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, Tywin -- I'm off the treaty web and had no dog in the fight in the Disorder War. Ostensibly, though my alliance matters not in the grand scheme of things, I'm the guy you want to convince.  Couple questions:

 

1. I get there was some plotting to "Roll Polar." The logs, Rayvon's sig, the BF1 thing.  However, that stuff had been going on for months, and seemed like it was largely a dead issue by the time the Disorder War was actually carried out.  I'm not against pre-emtption, but why the long wait to deal with a problem that had largely gone by the wayside?

 

2.  Why, when the NSO threat was contained, did the war not end?  Why were reps given to NPO, who entered only via treaty, and not against NSO and NG, who seemed like they were the original plotters those months ago?  I think a reasonable person could make the case that the plot by NSO was merely a way to draw NPO into the war, and that they were the real target all along.  Or was this simple punishment for slights or perceived slights by NPO at the end of EQ?

 

3. How was House Baratheon (or any other alliance) being bullied by NSO?

 

4. Why should the rest of Bob be happier with a Polar-TOP hegemony any more than a MK-CnG hegemony or any other hegemony, other than having friends in high places?  One group will always be dominant for a few years, but except for a few alliances at the top jockeying for position, it all doesn't seem to affect the rest of us much. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  Why should I or anyone else without treaties to the players or a dog in the fight buy in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Tywin Lanister

 

 Can we assume that you shall be selecting your faculty from among all spheres?

May I ask if you are contemplating choosing from among the "neutral" or "semi-neutral" spheres?

 Given your supposition that Lulzism in the form of Mushqueda was defeat by a collection of nations including the targetted neutrals, I would assume for the sake of a all inclusive non-biased curriculum all will be invited even the "evil" NPOseems to be invited. :)

 

Respectfully

Dame Hime Themis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before going into detail, Remember, the Lannister News Network included a University pitch in this publication, but does not necessarily represent the position of the University as a whole. Dissolving the Party in favor for a University is an attempt to reduce polarization and politics within the University proper.

 

Alright, Tywin -- I'm off the treaty web and had no dog in the fight in the Disorder War. Ostensibly, though my alliance matters not in the grand scheme of things, I'm the guy you want to convince.  Couple questions:

 

1. I get there was some plotting to "Roll Polar." The logs, Rayvon's sig, the BF1 thing.  However, that stuff had been going on for months, and seemed like it was largely a dead issue by the time the Disorder War was actually carried out.  I'm not against pre-emtption, but why the long wait to deal with a problem that had largely gone by the wayside?

 

2.  Why, when the NSO threat was contained, did the war not end?  Why were reps given to NPO, who entered only via treaty, and not against NSO and NG, who seemed like they were the original plotters those months ago?  I think a reasonable person could make the case that the plot by NSO was merely a way to draw NPO into the war, and that they were the real target all along.  Or was this simple punishment for slights or perceived slights by NPO at the end of EQ?

 

3. How was House Baratheon (or any other alliance) being bullied by NSO?

 

4. Why should the rest of Bob be happier with a Polar-TOP hegemony any more than a MK-CnG hegemony or any other hegemony, other than having friends in high places?  One group will always be dominant for a few years, but except for a few alliances at the top jockeying for position, it all doesn't seem to affect the rest of us much. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  Why should I or anyone else without treaties to the players or a dog in the fight buy in?

 

1. In my opinion, it is the thought that counts, not just the actions. Neo-Imperialism in my mind was something that needed to be rectified, regardless of how much time had elapsed after the plotting itself. Defeating NSO coalition would more importantly provide a platform for stability and the university itself after the war.

 

2. I'm not going to claim the war was ended perfectly, especially since I left high government in early January and thus had little influence from within the coalition near the end of the war. I originally did not actively support terms on NPO while within high govt, and would have been content with victories broken down by front, but after some discussion I came to see how terms could be useful in NPO's case. With their use of upper tier peace mode, and attempt at leadership and obstruction of Coalition goals, I don't think the terms were unfair. Wars often evolve, and new objectives often become apparent. Did some alliances enter the war with punitive goals in mind? Certainly, and I am glad for their participation, but for me the war was ideological in nature.

 

3. Between the Mushqaeda and Disorder wars, there were some diplomatic incidents between HB and NSO. However, it all turned out well, the past is the past, and I hope NSO will reform and seek friendship with HB now that I am no longer in government.

 

4. From my experience with leadership in both Polar and TOP, I have found them both rational, competent and favorable to global stability. In my opinion, however, TOP and Polar should not be the sole major partners in this relationship. Ideally, I would someday like to see NPO, IRON, DT and others become core members of the political relationship, thus providing further stability, but there are major hurdles to overcome. The more alliances who join the current Polardoxia arrangement, the more certain the outcome of future wars and more stable the global environment.

 

Good Tywin Lanister

 

 Can we assume that you shall be selecting your faculty from among all spheres?

May I ask if you are contemplating choosing from among the "neutral" or "semi-neutral" spheres?

 Given your supposition that Lulzism in the form of Mushqueda was defeat by a collection of nations including the targetted neutrals, I would assume for the sake of a all inclusive non-biased curriculum all will be invited even the "evil" NPOseems to be invited. :)

 

Respectfully

Dame Hime Themis

 

Indeed, I would love for all spheres to be represented within the faculty, including neutrals, Pacificans, and many others. Everyone has something to bring to the table, and a diverse faculty will offer diversity in course subjects, creating a more complete educational experience for new students.

 

Currently three departments exist, and each department/school will offer numerous courses which count towards variable numbers of credits. Associates, Bachelors and Masters diplomas are in the works, with each step require more credits for completion.

 

 

 

Do you have a syllabus?

 

A syllabus and coursework is currently in the works, however a quick look at our forum will reveal three primary subject areas: Foreign Affairs, History and Culture, and Military Science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Between the Mushqaeda and Disorder wars, there were some diplomatic incidents between HB and NSO. However, it all turned out well, the past is the past, and I hope NSO will reform and seek friendship with HB now that I am no longer in government.


The issue was between NSO and you, it's only you that continually tries to make it about NSO-HB - or even make it a repeated topic of any sort. There was no bullying of HB, no matter how many times you try to claim so. There is no standing issues between TSK and NSO nor had there been. No one except you even talks about it or thinks about it. Give this one up already, move on to other 'issues.'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue was between NSO and you, it's only you that continually tries to make it about NSO-HB - or even make it a repeated topic of any sort. There was no bullying of HB, no matter how many times you try to claim so. There is no standing issues between TSK and NSO nor had there been. No one except you even talks about it or thinks about it. Give this one up already, move on to other 'issues.'

 

Actually, I have moved on, and am trying to focus on the University here, but you continue to dredge up your interpretation of events. The behavior of NSO in the embassy and your implicit threats are on record, but for some reason you just can't let it go. NSO surrendered, NSO will hopefully reform, and lets leave it at that,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here:
 

When it is time for surrender negotiations, it is generally good to weight the terms according to the treaty options the defeated alliance had: those alliances which had the legal option to not fight against stability operations should be treated more punitively, while those who sincerely had no option but to defend their ally should receive the lightest terms. In this way, over a period of wars, wars will become more minimal and controlled in nature, resulting in greater certainty and stability.


you seem to be saying that alliances that enter a war based on a "lesser" treaty (i.e. optional vs mandatory) should be "punished" more than those who are involved due to mandatory obligations.

While here:
 

Ideally terms should be based by the behavior of each defeated alliance.


you seem to back of somewhat using a generic term "behavior."

What I want to know is do you place entering a war through an optional treaty as "behavior" that should be "punished" or do you think it's okay all of the time. If you're answer remains "it depends" - then provide some concrete (as opposed to just using broad terms like "honorable" and "cooperative") idea of what it depends on.

---------------

Also, my personal opinion is that if you teach that peace terms (imposed by winners - not by some neutral 3rd party) should be based on some sort of behavior of the alliance during the war, then you are doing your students harm. War, by it's very nature, involves what would normally be considered bad behavior and thus will and from a strategic standpoint often should occur. Both "sides" will act badly. That's why nations and alliances generally work hard to resolve matters diplomatically. War is not a continuation of proper behavior, it's a failure to behave properly.

If as a community we REALLY want to punish bad behavior, then terms would be based on how both parties behaved prior to the war - i.e. whether or not it started based on a good CB and the offending alliance failed to meet reasonable "terms" to avoid war. Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before going into detail, Remember, the Lannister News Network included a University pitch in this publication, but does not necessarily represent the position of the University as a whole. Dissolving the Party in favor for a University is an attempt to reduce polarization and politics within the University proper.

 

 

1. In my opinion, it is the thought that counts, not just the actions. Neo-Imperialism in my mind was something that needed to be rectified, regardless of how much time had elapsed after the plotting itself. Defeating NSO coalition would more importantly provide a platform for stability and the university itself after the war.

 

 

2. I'm not going to claim the war was ended perfectly, especially since I left high government in early January and thus had little influence from within the coalition near the end of the war. I originally did not actively support terms on NPO while within high govt, and would have been content with victories broken down by front, but after some discussion I came to see how terms could be useful in NPO's case. With their use of upper tier peace mode, and attempt at leadership and obstruction of Coalition goals, I don't think the terms were unfair. Wars often evolve, and new objectives often become apparent. Did some alliances enter the war with punitive goals in mind? Certainly, and I am glad for their participation, but for me the war was ideological in nature.

 

This seems to confirm my suspicious -- that the listed CB was not the true reason for the conflict.  It was a means to gain supremacy over a potential rival, not to counter an immediate threat. No real difference then between this war and a ton of other coalition wars that people rail against.  The end is neither here nor there -- the motivations are what was suspect.

 

3. Between the Mushqaeda and Disorder wars, there were some diplomatic incidents between HB and NSO. However, it all turned out well, the past is the past, and I hope NSO will reform and seek friendship with HB now that I am no longer in government.

 

So diplomacy prevailed. Doesn't seem inherently destabilizing.

 

4. From my experience with leadership in both Polar and TOP, I have found them both rational, competent and favorable to global stability. In my opinion, however, TOP and Polar should not be the sole major partners in this relationship. Ideally, I would someday like to see NPO, IRON, DT and others become core members of the political relationship, thus providing further stability, but there are major hurdles to overcome. The more alliances who join the current Polardoxia arrangement, the more certain the outcome of future wars and more stable the global environment.

 

Not being flip, but you seem to be saying that you want people in power because you like the way they think and act, and the means to those ends is justified.   That doesn't strike me as significantly different than what everybody wants -- their friends in power.  It doesn't strike me as a particularly "revolutionary" line of thought. Stability under your terms doesn't appeal to me any more or less than stability under anyone else's terms.  Your people may or may not be in power until people get tired of them, and then someone else will take over via the same political/treaty machinations.  And I'm not sure anyone in my alliance will notice or care. Right now it is like the last page of Animal Farm: I look from man to pig and pig to man, and I cannot see a difference.  DBDC, Polar-TOP and NPO-CnG may all be playing a grand game, but it is like World Cup soccer -- no one's good, no one's evil, and I don't care two whits about the outcome. A world dominated by Rayvon doesn't look much different to me than a world dominated by Dajobo or Cuba or Brehon or anyone else.   Revolutions are born of need, and I don't think most of us on Bob feel that need. Have fun, and good luck, but I'm watching other things on my TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will get to everyone's concerns shortly, however first an update on future curriculum requirements:

 

 

 

Associates in Arts Leadership Degree:

25 Credits
15 Credits from School of Foreign Affairs Core Requirements
10 Elective Credits from any Discipline
At least one Writing Intensive Course
Cumulative GPA of 2.5 or higher

Bachelors Degree in Foreign Affairs:

40 Credits
25 Credits from School of Foreign Affairs Core Requirements
15 Elective Credits from any discipline
At least two Writing Intensive Courses
Cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher

Masters Degree in Foreign Affairs:

60 Credits
60 Credits total
Three Writing Intensive Courses
Cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher

 

Generally, most courses will include open book reading, discussion and a final open book exam. Some courses will be fairly brief (i.e. half hour tops), while others will be more exhaustive. Courses will typically be worth between 2-6 credits depending upon course intensity. Students will be allowed to progress at their own pace, however faculty must study other disciplines while also administering their own, and thus in time earn a Masters Degree as the curriculum develops. In many cases, such as the IRC Communications course, those familiar with IRC can simply skip forward to the final exam and knock it off in a few minutes.

 

The AA degree will be targetted at beginners seeking government and diplomatic work, the Bachelors degree is going to target senior government types, while the Masters Degree will mostly target those who enjoy faculty work.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...