McEntire
Well-known member
- Pronouns
- she/her
Editor’s Column: On Dependence
by McEntire
Just when you thought everything that could be said about the MadJack Affair had been said, I have one last hot take in the can. I have waited to compose my thoughts on this matter until I could come up with something cogent to say. I hope this will also shed some light on my actions last term, and why I felt it was so important for us to treat the Rejected Realms as a true ally. This column will contain swear words, for those who may be uncomfortable with that.
Are we Independent? And is Independence fraudulent?
What is the future of Europeian Independence when Europeia is a self-identified Defender region? This was a question weighing heavily on my mind when the Senate ratified our entry into the Aegis Accords last term. Through the course of that questioning, then-Vice President Writinglegend talked about how our relationships with raiderdom had been increasingly “fraudulent” over the course of years.
It seemed to me that we had been continually accused on the world’s stage of having fraudulent interregional relationships, and our detractors said that “Independence” was a fig leaf for a non-committal attitude that allows us to leverage our allies. To use a real-life metaphor, we’d be the Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema of NationStates: because we know we sit in the balance of power, we are able to make demands and punch above our weight.
According to the traditional view, Independence allows us to prioritize regional interest over ideology, thus we are not locked into the R/D psychodrama but free to disavow the fringes of raiderdom or defenderdom as suits our current position. It seemed to me that Writinglegend’s admission about our fraudulent relationship with raiders validated the caricature of Independence that our detractors promoted. This is certainly a cynical view of our foreign policy practices, but I am sure that our FA heavies may agree with elements of the characterization, even if they view it as good clean geopolitics.
Independence in the Context of Aegis
In the Aegis ratification thread, I said all of this in so many words. I said that I “hope that we will not allow our relationships to be as fraudulent as they were on the Raider side” and noted that “Independence can exist without the strategic ambiguity that we adopted as Raider-aligned Independents.”
This was part of why the MadJack issue made my head spin. I felt that we were being weirdos for no reason other than to show TRR that they couldn’t lead us around by the nose. I had influential foreign policy people lobbying me to shut up, with one saying that “if you give them a taste of blood [t]hey will want more. Every morning. And then again for supper.” Is that really what we think of our allies? And if so, why are we getting into bed with them in the first place?
Maybe TRR was blowing a small issue up as a pretense to cause problems with us and our new Aegis allies. We certainly acted publicly like that was what they were doing. Of course, TRR’s only recourse was to kick us out of Aegis, and if they didn’t have the votes to do so, we could always give them the middle finger without much consequence. And that, in my view, is what we did by walking away from the talks.
Were TRR’s Initial Demands Reasonable?
Could we have avoided this whole kerfuffle by simply acceding to their initial requests? TRR’s starting demands were an apology for using information gained from their citizens-only area, and the name of the person from whom we received this information.
Our official position on their first demand was that we could apologize for mishandling the information, but never for using it, for fear of setting some sort of precedent that could rob us of our sovereignty somehow. This is a bit of silly FA hair-splitting that seems more like a negotiating position than a true principle.
As for their second demand, by refusing to reveal our source for the MadJack post, we were prioritizing our relationship with a still-unnamed third-party ally over our relationship with TRR. It stands to reason (although I have no private information to this affect) that the ally who provided us with the MadJack post was somewhere in the “Independent-sphere,” and that we didn’t want to cause more problems with those historical allies than those caused by our Aegis entry. Again, we are prioritizing another relationship to shore up our geopolitical position.
What Does it Mean to be Independent-Aligned Defenders?
While walking away may have been good statecraft (my professor from my negotiations class would have given Kazaman an A+), it was also a signal that we would operate in the same way but with new allies. This is directly at odds with our official government position, as President Rand put it in the Aegis thread, “Independent-aligned Defenders,” not just Independents but now with new friends.
I would posit that it is fine to be a part of an interregional community without needing to punch above our weight or show our allies that we can leverage them. Can we be Independent-aligned Defenders without engaging in the same decade-long dick-measuring contest that we had with Raiders?
Can we have close alliances with Independents without, ourselves, being Independent any longer? From where I stand, it’s okay to be dependent, and in fact mutual dependence and trust is the foundation of a healthy community.
A Rough Sketch of a Different Model
Our security is now paramount. Yes, through geopolitical leverage and treaty agreements we can coerce people to our aid in dire circumstances. But wouldn’t it be better to be more firmly rooted and let our relationships with our fellow Defenders blossom organically into a hedge of protection? To mix metaphors, could we enter this new marriage without having one foot out the door?
Our foreign policy caginess has led to a relatively isolationist Europeia, and one where foreign policy decision-making is restricted to a closely held establishment. I am certainly not proposing to burn that establishment down or throw out years of effort. I am proposing that there may now be an opening for a different strain of foreign policy thinking in Europeia: one that is more ideological, more comfortably defender aligned, and more rationally moralist.
Because ultimately, when it comes down to it, raiderdom is a dumpster fire right now and we have gained a lot by galvanizing the world against it. We could benefit further from a more democratized foreign policy that is truly representative of the ideological spectrum contained in Europeia, rather than one that ducks ideological questions entirely in favor of an all-realpolitik approach. And we could benefit from close interregional relationships based in mutual trust and dependence, rather than rigid adherence to a traditional neutrality and strategic flexibility.
The MadJack Affair may ultimately have been, as the kids say, not that deep. But going forward, I would encourage every Europeian to think critically about how we deal with these kinds of foreign policy situations. What kind of ally does Europeia want to be? And what do we expect in return?
Last edited: