Europeian Foreign Policy
Recently, Europeia’s Foreign Policy has been criticized for advancing “Imperialism” which members say has created a Europeian (and in some cases Europeian/TNI) hegemony. Hence, I think it’s a worthwhile expenditure to look into Europeian Foreign Policy.
Briefly, Europeian Foreign Policy can be summed up as:
Seeking to establish stronger ties with regions that share our interests while promoting our values without compromising another regions sovereignty*
*This does not include regions which are not able to hold their territory sovereign. I realize that many defenders offer a different approach.
Europeia has never engaged in a policy of Empire building or the setting up of puppet regimes. It goes against our strongly held belief that we should concentrate our time at home. Now, recently people have countered this proposal through two examples: Unknown and The Kodiak Republic. I’d like to take the time to say that both examples re-enforce my brief EFP description.
Unknown
Firstly, my own dealings with Unknown was heavily influenced by the actions they took to influence Europeian Presidential candidates during the second last election of 2011. The resulting bad diplomacy was due to personal anger as well as concerns on our side of Unknown’s attitude towards us (ie: influencing our elections etc etc).
Their own concerns were from the events of the South Pacific. It is widely accepted that feeders and sinkers are not the same as ordinary regions. We supported Southern Bellz, the sitting delegate. Unknown supported Devonitions, the person who couped it. Unknown has stated that this action means that we are not very raider.
This argument, does not hold much water:
Europeia supports Southern Bellz (aka Of Crazed), a well-known raider of DEN.
Unknown supports Devonitions (aka Sedge), a well-known defender.
Since TSP, Europeia has rejected a treaty with TRR (a FRA defender region) while having a new treaty with the Imperialistic Land of Kings and Emperors. Unknown has a new treaty with Equilism, a well-known defender region. Europeia has participated in countless raids. Unknown has participated in very few, even in support (although this is likely due to Unknown lacking activity and/or leadership to support such actions).
Europeia values its relationship with raider groups, as well as it’s right to raid and supports raider groups in their own endeavors. Griefing regions however, is not supported at home and for the Euro Navy to remain reflective of Europeian society it needs to avoid griefing. As well, in order to be as strong as possible… the Euro Navy must chart a moderate path else only a few will serve.
Hence, in this instance with Unknown it was a clear example of Europeian values (we will not be influenced) as well as personal relationships that were the factors involved in that Foreign Policy decision. We tried to fix it, which is also part of our Foreign Policy (good relations).
The Kodiak Republic
Now, The Kodiak Republic. This was another instance of Europeian Foreign Policy being dictated by our values, namely our views on foundership and his/her pledge to the region. It was nothing different from previous stances, such as with another region we had a treaty with: TUK. The Founder may own the region, but s/he also has a responsibility to uphold the promises he makes to the community (ie: constitution).
This situation involved the founder of TKR, Ryykland, removing the government and re-starting the region. This was done with what (seemed) to be the majority support of core Kodiakers. Previously, Crist Seymour (a core Kodiaker) had led a government in which he brought in his friends to run the region given the lack of active core Kodiakers.
The fact that many of these friends were Europeians, did make it a slightly tricky issue. However, the fact that I was President at the time that Crist Seymour did this should be enough to dispel any notions of “Europeian” moves. After all, my relationship with Crist Seymour was not a co-operative one then. Crist’s actions in Kodiak were done by him as a long time Kodiaker to try to revive his region.
Hence, the strong stance taken by Europeia to disapprove of the move to usurp the government was in line with its values and motivated as such by them.
Europeia’s Ideal World
From an FA perspective, Europeia has a strong core of allies and has a good-neutral relationship with every region. However, the Raider/Defender game and our raider choice will result in some groups opposing us.
Europeian Opposition, what causes it?
Raiding
The UDL’s actions in places like Balder and their moves against Europeia have resulted in us taking a more hardline stance towards them. While other groups such as the FRA look at the world as more than simply raiding and defending which allows for movements like Skizzy Grey's cultural overtures, the UDL does not as it is much more hardline.
Internal System
Other groups criticize Europeia’s internal politics, which are perceived as very rough at times. What does this have to deal with Foreign Affairs? Nothing. Many times this is the result of personal dissatisfaction, which members then use against Euro (ex: Oliver). We respect a regions right to govern itself (note however, that this does not include small founderless regions as they are not sovereign according to our own definitions... as well... making statements based on whose right it is to govern such a TKR, do not infringe on this).
Tone and Attitude
Europeia has been criticized for its tone and attitude towards other groups and groups. Recent disagreements on the FA scale have been very bitter in nature, with a lack of respect on both sides. I believe that this is the strongest reason for current opposition attitudes.
Conclusion and Recommendations for the Future
In conclusion, Europeian Foreign Policy is motivated by it’s internal values. Fears that it’s democratic system will result in defending are not reflective of the population and have been consistently debunked. Europeia will remain on the raider side in the future.
Europeia will always look for new allies and opportunities, as exampled by recent operations with The South Pacific and Exshaw. These opportunities must be consistent with our own internal values as set by our population.
We cannot prevent people from taking their experiences in Europeia (and in some cases, these people were the worst perpetrators of what they claim to disagree with) to use against us on the FA stage. It’s unfair to us. However, what we can do better is have a better tone with such groups. A tone that is more reflective of our own Foreign Policy and will be of more benefit to Europeia's image abroad.
It is a Foreign Policy that is not readily understood because it is based upon a more complex notion than most regions. However, it is a policy that is consistent and one that will remain to be consistent.
Recently, Europeia’s Foreign Policy has been criticized for advancing “Imperialism” which members say has created a Europeian (and in some cases Europeian/TNI) hegemony. Hence, I think it’s a worthwhile expenditure to look into Europeian Foreign Policy.
Briefly, Europeian Foreign Policy can be summed up as:
Seeking to establish stronger ties with regions that share our interests while promoting our values without compromising another regions sovereignty*
*This does not include regions which are not able to hold their territory sovereign. I realize that many defenders offer a different approach.
Europeia has never engaged in a policy of Empire building or the setting up of puppet regimes. It goes against our strongly held belief that we should concentrate our time at home. Now, recently people have countered this proposal through two examples: Unknown and The Kodiak Republic. I’d like to take the time to say that both examples re-enforce my brief EFP description.
Unknown
Firstly, my own dealings with Unknown was heavily influenced by the actions they took to influence Europeian Presidential candidates during the second last election of 2011. The resulting bad diplomacy was due to personal anger as well as concerns on our side of Unknown’s attitude towards us (ie: influencing our elections etc etc).
Their own concerns were from the events of the South Pacific. It is widely accepted that feeders and sinkers are not the same as ordinary regions. We supported Southern Bellz, the sitting delegate. Unknown supported Devonitions, the person who couped it. Unknown has stated that this action means that we are not very raider.
This argument, does not hold much water:
Europeia supports Southern Bellz (aka Of Crazed), a well-known raider of DEN.
Unknown supports Devonitions (aka Sedge), a well-known defender.
Since TSP, Europeia has rejected a treaty with TRR (a FRA defender region) while having a new treaty with the Imperialistic Land of Kings and Emperors. Unknown has a new treaty with Equilism, a well-known defender region. Europeia has participated in countless raids. Unknown has participated in very few, even in support (although this is likely due to Unknown lacking activity and/or leadership to support such actions).
Europeia values its relationship with raider groups, as well as it’s right to raid and supports raider groups in their own endeavors. Griefing regions however, is not supported at home and for the Euro Navy to remain reflective of Europeian society it needs to avoid griefing. As well, in order to be as strong as possible… the Euro Navy must chart a moderate path else only a few will serve.
Hence, in this instance with Unknown it was a clear example of Europeian values (we will not be influenced) as well as personal relationships that were the factors involved in that Foreign Policy decision. We tried to fix it, which is also part of our Foreign Policy (good relations).
The Kodiak Republic
Now, The Kodiak Republic. This was another instance of Europeian Foreign Policy being dictated by our values, namely our views on foundership and his/her pledge to the region. It was nothing different from previous stances, such as with another region we had a treaty with: TUK. The Founder may own the region, but s/he also has a responsibility to uphold the promises he makes to the community (ie: constitution).
This situation involved the founder of TKR, Ryykland, removing the government and re-starting the region. This was done with what (seemed) to be the majority support of core Kodiakers. Previously, Crist Seymour (a core Kodiaker) had led a government in which he brought in his friends to run the region given the lack of active core Kodiakers.
The fact that many of these friends were Europeians, did make it a slightly tricky issue. However, the fact that I was President at the time that Crist Seymour did this should be enough to dispel any notions of “Europeian” moves. After all, my relationship with Crist Seymour was not a co-operative one then. Crist’s actions in Kodiak were done by him as a long time Kodiaker to try to revive his region.
Hence, the strong stance taken by Europeia to disapprove of the move to usurp the government was in line with its values and motivated as such by them.
Europeia’s Ideal World
From an FA perspective, Europeia has a strong core of allies and has a good-neutral relationship with every region. However, the Raider/Defender game and our raider choice will result in some groups opposing us.
Europeian Opposition, what causes it?
Raiding
The UDL’s actions in places like Balder and their moves against Europeia have resulted in us taking a more hardline stance towards them. While other groups such as the FRA look at the world as more than simply raiding and defending which allows for movements like Skizzy Grey's cultural overtures, the UDL does not as it is much more hardline.
Internal System
Other groups criticize Europeia’s internal politics, which are perceived as very rough at times. What does this have to deal with Foreign Affairs? Nothing. Many times this is the result of personal dissatisfaction, which members then use against Euro (ex: Oliver). We respect a regions right to govern itself (note however, that this does not include small founderless regions as they are not sovereign according to our own definitions... as well... making statements based on whose right it is to govern such a TKR, do not infringe on this).
Tone and Attitude
Europeia has been criticized for its tone and attitude towards other groups and groups. Recent disagreements on the FA scale have been very bitter in nature, with a lack of respect on both sides. I believe that this is the strongest reason for current opposition attitudes.
Conclusion and Recommendations for the Future
In conclusion, Europeian Foreign Policy is motivated by it’s internal values. Fears that it’s democratic system will result in defending are not reflective of the population and have been consistently debunked. Europeia will remain on the raider side in the future.
Europeia will always look for new allies and opportunities, as exampled by recent operations with The South Pacific and Exshaw. These opportunities must be consistent with our own internal values as set by our population.
We cannot prevent people from taking their experiences in Europeia (and in some cases, these people were the worst perpetrators of what they claim to disagree with) to use against us on the FA stage. It’s unfair to us. However, what we can do better is have a better tone with such groups. A tone that is more reflective of our own Foreign Policy and will be of more benefit to Europeia's image abroad.
It is a Foreign Policy that is not readily understood because it is based upon a more complex notion than most regions. However, it is a policy that is consistent and one that will remain to be consistent.
