[Tibet]

This is an open letter to all Nations that hold true to the ideals of Francoism.  The Dalai Lama is perplexed by the reading about the fundamental ideas behind Francoism vs the world's perception of the nations that abide by these ideas.  This meeting is not to debate the idea of Francoism, this meeting is to where the Dalai Lama can understand more about Francoism to where the perception of these nations can be included into the understanding that the Dalai Lama wishes to have of these nations to better the diplomacy between our nations and hopefully the world.

This is a reaching out to understand Fracoism, and questions will be asked that will be respectful, and are not intended to be judgemental, but to be used to help understanding and learning take place.  I hope to have all nations of Fracoism represented, to where all perceptions can be included, to where more of an understanding can take place.

All nations wishing to attend this meeting will be received in the Hall of Honor in Lhasa, Tibet

This post has been edited by Tibet: 25 September 2008 - 01:41 PM

[Subtleknifewielder]

OOC: I look forward to reading this thread. BTW, would you allow other nations to send representatives with observer status only? I can promise if you let me send one, he or she would be absolutely quiet and not interfere at all...

[Tibet]

OOC: Out of respect for these nations, I am keeping the matter behind closed doors as to not make a show of it, to where the intentions of the Dalai Lama cannot be thought of as being for anything other than what they are, for learning and understanding Fracoism. If I allowed observers of other nations, it could create an environment to defensiveness or "being judged" and it will not be a relaxed environment of openness and frankness. I also respectfully ask for no OOC posts in the middle of these discussions about the content of the discussions as well.

This post has been edited by Tibet: 25 September 2008 - 01:54 PM

[Subtleknifewielder]

Tibet, on Sep 25 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

OOC: Out of respect for these nations, I am keeping the matter behind closed doors as to not make a show of it, to where the intentions of the Dalai Lama cannot be thought of as being for anything other than what they are, for learning and understanding Fracoism. If I allowed observers of other nations, it could create an environment to defensiveness or "being judged" and it will not be a relaxed environment of openness and frankness. I also respectfully ask for no OOC posts in the middle of these discussion about the content of the discussions as well.

OOC: I understand. Well, I'll still enjoy reading it then.

[Emperor Mudd]

Representatives from the National Francoist Tahoe Workers Party (a small party associated with the Tahoe National Party...essentially the Francoist wing of the ruling National Party) and the Tahoe National Party will attend to discuss Tahoan Francoism with the Dalai Lama.

Neither are government representatives, and are being sent at the cost of the National Party. Dr. Otto Dietrich of the NFTWP and Paul McMillan of the National Party will attend. Both are considered to be experts on Francoism in Tahoe.

This post has been edited by Emperor Mudd: 25 September 2008 - 03:43 PM

[Tibet]

We are honored to receive them.

[Triyun]

Professor Quan Kifu of Peking University has been sent to meet with His Holiness.

[Tibet]

It is an honor to hold this meeting with him in attendence as well. We will leave the invitation open a little while longer to see if any other nations would like to attend, and then we will start. Until then, please make yourself at home in Lhasa.

[Tibet]

Other nations of Francoism are free to arrive at their leisure, but we will go ahead and get started.

What is the basic principle of Francoism? Who was the leader behind the idea and why?

(OOC: I have read the wikipedia, I'm looking for more detailed information and how that information is characterized in the CNRP world)

[Triyun]

Francoism is at its core a practical materialist ideology. While Buddhism is concerned with a realization on how to overcome the material world its trapping through craving. We are concerned with how material conditions effect the welfare of the people. Francoism in its origins was concerned with analyzing these conditions and determining how to best bring security to and serve the people. In Neo Triyunica we merge the rich traditions of Confucian Virtue with the Francoist ideology.

We believe that Francoism acknowledges a state of nature in which every man must fend for themselves. There is no compassion, no virture, no charity. It though also is at this time that man is at his most free. We believe though that man must escape from his freedom. He must choose to seek security, for it is through security that one must achieve a state of nature. One must ask then how this security will be provided.

We view that this must be created by a popular authoritarian who has support of the people. The Francoist Ruler is a sovereign who wields absolute power but has come to power through popular movement. As the people's leader he is tasked with mobilizing the population and it is through popular participation that he receives his legitimacy. The Sovereign must take this state of nature and bring order to it. In Order, the people may thrive.

Now here is where we apply the Confucian principle to the Ruler. We believe that the Ruler must be humane, he must rule by example like a pole star around which all other stars orbit. His job is not to exploit the people for power, but use the power to benefit the people. This is just because power fundamentally comes from the people. Now when the authoritarian sovereign fails to do this, he obviously as the old Confucians would say loses the mandate of heaven.

[Tibet]

So how do you balance a ruler being humane, who is loved by the people, with the wisdom to not exploit the people in an ideology where there is no compassion, no virture, no charity?

With virture, compassion, and charity at his core, what motivates the Ruler to use his power to benefit the people. It sounds like a delicate balancing act of two things that in essence could oppose each other.

[Tibet]

The Dalai Lama sipped from his water glass, trying to understand this balance.

[Triyun]

It is through knowing the people that one may know virtue. Compassion and charity are admirable traits in ones personal life, yes. This is very true. However, when one rules, they must seek to be just to the maximum number of people. It is through maximizing justice that one can do the most good. Rulers must make the choice often, if I do one action I bring harm to one group of people, if I do another I bring harm to another, there is no way to be compassionate and charitable all the time. Instead one must focus on how does one bring about the best conditions for the people as a whole. If someone seeks to his entire village, why should we be compassionate to him? Why should we be charitable?

The Emperor must always seek to rule justly and with virtue. He must always seek knowledge in how best to serve the people, he must act as an example that all the people may follow. If he is compassionate to the enemies of the people, than the people will be weak. If he is charitable to the enemies of the people, than the people will not know a wolf until the wolf strikes. Compassion and charity are admirable virtues, but they are not something which the Emperor can be burdened with towards the individual, only towards the people.

[Tibet]

These are very wise words. I guess the difference in our philosophy is what we understand by "people as a whole". The Dalai Lama holds the ideas of what is best for the people of Tibet, but tries to balance this with the world being the "people as a whole". I am not the leader of the world by any measure, but what is best for the people of the world in whole is also important as we are all intertwined together. Something that happens in one part of the world affects another part. I agree that compassion is best used when dealing with people as a whole, however there are times when compassion can be used on an individual basis when doing so will not take priority over the masses.

By understanding what is best for the world I can understand threats to the people of Tibet on a global stage, not just internally. By understanding the people of the world, and their perceptions, it allows me to take better care of my people than I could if I excluded myself and my nation from the politics of the world. By being a diplomat for peace, since we have no ambition, Tibet doesn't have to worry about being the target of nations that are aggressive. In the absence of technology, power, and strength, Tibet has found protection through the actions of peace, charity, and compassion.

I think we both want what is best for our people, we both just have a different ideology to accomplish our objective. Not to say that either is wrong, as each leader's path is their own.

Why, in your understanding, do you think that Nations in Francoism are perceived as "aggressive" by some other nations of the world?

This post has been edited by Tibet: 29 September 2008 - 09:21 AM

[Triyun]

This is because of the fundamental flaw in international liberalism. It creates a zone of peace and a zone of war, it assumes that when one refuses to conform to their so called "Zone of Peace" we must fundamentally be an aggressive destabilizing force. This is hardly the case. The only time the Empire has acted with military force, was to secure order for the inhabitants of the Empire. In regards to Neo Japan, they attempted to undermine sovereignty so we counter attacked and used what we judged as sufficient force to deter any future attacks. This is not aggressive but rather it is a move to warn others against being aggressive themselves.

If one wishes to claim that we are aggressive, then they would need to ask themselves, why the Neo Triyunican Government does not take actions beyond its own immediate border regions. Every military action undertaken by our Francoist government has fundementally been about defending our immediate borders so that we can preserve unity and order within. Never has the Empire sought to involve itself in the politics of another country which does not lie in the near abroad and never have the reasons been any less than those I just stated preserving the order and unity of the Empire. We would only project our power over long distances if required to by an ally or invited to and deem it in our interests. Fundamentally we are not aggressive but strongly defensive. We are not a threat to any other government unless it wishes to make itself a threat to us.

What we find aggressive is when you have nations which involve themselves beyond what they are obligated to do through treaties in the military undertakings of another country. This is at the end of the day an obvious attempt by what we have deemed the liberal interests to spread a single ideology and undermine what should be the legitimate sovereign right to exercise coercion as a means of state power. Now, one may say, if both sides agree not to use force that they are being fair. However, in our experience this fundamentally is not the case today. The liberal interests of today assert that the Zone of Peace by its very nature is justified in applying its subjective morality to pacify the Zone of War. The Zone of Peace uses the same weapons as the Zone of War, but because they define themselves as fundamentally better, they can justify their wars as a war of improvement. We find this inherently aggressive and disturbing because it lowers the bar ultimately of what is an acceptable war. The Francoist view of war is that war should be used as an instrument to defend the people's sovereignty, unity, and order as well as the same principles for an allied nation-state. War can never be justified based on what one feels is right through a moral lens, but only through strictly defined violations of sovereignty or severe damages to the national interest. We do not believe it should be our business what another country is doing on the other side of the world.

[Tibet]

Triyun, on Sep 29 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

We do not believe it should be our business what another country is doing on the other side of the world.

So at what point would you get involved? If there is evidence to suggest that their aggression will not stop in their own region and could spread to your doorstep, at what point do you see making it your business for the sake of defense?

The Zone of Peace as you call it is a little different under Tibet's perception. Tibet has no right to say what happens inside another nations borders, but once one nation's aggressive action pour through their borders to another the situation must be accessed to see if it could pose a threat. This Zone of Peace is used as a buffer to protect nations that have similar interests in peace from Nations that potentially pose a threat. The Zone of Peace is not here to act as an aggressor against any nation or to impose any ideas or interest onto a soverign nation. The labeled Zone of Peace nations wish to have the same security that you wish to have.

If we are all seeking security, what is it that is the main obstacle in the way?

[Triyun]

If a nation seems to represent a credible and willing threat to us or our allies, we would involve ourselves in a conflict, but that would fall under our requirements for war. We would not get ourselves involved if someone represent no credible threat to an area we have no interests in.

The Zone of Peace is inherently a violation to the Sovereign Order. The Zone of Peace creates a area that is assumed to be near perfect. Let us take Neo Japan as an example. The Fundamentals of the war with Japan were easily justifiable. Neo Japan first claimed Kyushu and Shikoku as soon as the Shillan and the Neo Triyunican Empires merged, despite that those islands were long a part of Shilla and Neo Japan had acknowledged that. This was outrageous but Neo Triyunica negotiated a very peaceful solution there. Then Neo Japan claimed islands which were part of our Empire. We gave them a chance to leave the islands peacefully.

Instead they chose to try and found a completely new country on Islands which we had claimed as our own without giving us any knowledge before hand. They then claimed that because it was a new island chain we should no longer have claim. Suppose if our troops paratropped into Lhasa, took over it, and while you objected we declared a whole new country. Under no circumstances would this have been considered responsible behavior.

It is clear that it wasn't, BUT the Zone of Peace automatically sided with their member over what was clearly a fair casus belli by any standard definition of a violation of sovereignty. That is why the Zone of Peace disturbs us. It is based on an assumption of superiority that tends to state coercion from the Zone of Peace is defensive, but coercion from the Zone of War is always aggressive. Therefore the Zone of Peace is always justified. If one goes back and deconstructs the vocabulary used in organizations that promote a democratic or collective defense ideology typically characterized by liberalism, one can see that the assumptions behind them are actually quite bellicose. They are a successor of the just religious wars of old.

What is needed in the world today is a greater understanding of sovereignty. If one wants world peace, there needs to be less not more effort to police the world. Ultimately this creates a stand off in which those in the Zone of War become uncertain because of the threat to security the Zone of Peace represents. This causes those in the Zone of War to increase their defense spending as well as get in bed with parties they normally wouldn't to confront the Zone of Peace. The Zone of Peace sees this through their lens of justice and through the ends justify the means philosophy also increases its defense spending and also backs parties it normally wouldn't. This ultimately yields to a greater proliferation of weapons in the world, increasing the power of extremist groups that normally would be fringe players, and takes away spending that normally would be used on economic development. These people disenfranchised by lack of economic development and by wars caused by the proliferation of the weapons ultimately become more embittered and join extremist groups.

Thus ultimately by attempting to police the world, one inevitably creates a violent backlash and a less safe poorer world, falling deeper back towards that state of nature which Francoism originally opposes. That is why it is important that we focus on creating zones of order within our own sovereign realms, rather than concerning ourselves with the affairs of others and creating more insecurity in the world.

[Tibet]

So how would this Zone of Order be different than a Zone of Peace. Your perception is understandable and is valid in the way that it is presented, but terminology is the key to understanding. How is what you call a Zone of Order any different than what others see as a Zone of Peace?

[Triyun]

The Zone of Order is concerned with preserving its own sovereignty and improving itself within. The Zone of Peace is concerned with rendering moral judgement and is inherently expansionistic. While both have admirable goals within, they diverge when it comes to the abroad. The Zone of Order bases its obligations on two specific things, fulfilling treaty obligation, and protecting national sovereignty. The Zone of Peace as I have discussed considers its obligation to expand itself by policing the Zone of War. This goes back to your original question, would we interfere half way around the world, a nation in the Zone of Order we believe would be much less likely to than those in the Zone of Peace.

Now unto the subject of morality in the abroad. Morality does have a place in the international sphere, but it is not something we believe needs to be imposed. Rather the Francoist State should seek to show through its actions the virtue of its way. If the Francoist State can provide for the needs of its people, if it can provide an escape from the state of nature, it follows that the Francoist State would serve as a model for people around the world. We support revolution around the world, because we believe our government system is best, but we do not believe that our military should be used as a proselytizing force. We should rather focus on being a model for a successful revolution and through example give strength to our comrades.

This post has been edited by Triyun: 29 September 2008 - 11:29 PM

[Tibet]

So if a International Organization was setup to bring nations together under the intention of bettering themselves, focusing on preserving their soveignty, purely defensive, and they didn't try to police the actions of other nations, but only focused on maintaining order within the treaty bloc, would you perceive this organization as a Zone of Peace or a Zone of Order? Would you be a part of such an organization?