The Concerning Rise of Defenderism

[McEntire]

One of the primary concerns of Independence over the years has been containing Defender influence over foreign policy. Defenders are primarily interested in locking down and gatekeeping all military activity. Everything they have done, from forming new alliances to reforming their militaries and conducting a renewed flurry of espionage, has been to tip the balance of interregional power in their favour and break the morale of regions who want to conduct military operations Defenders don't approve of. This is antithetical to Independence, which stands for self-determination and mutual respect between regions within reasonable limits. Responding to this effectively would take a large, concerted effort and would in fact drive our foreign policy for the duration of that effort.

This is a fair point. Although it does feel a bit "we're not the ones undermining regional sovereignty, they're the ones undermining regional sovereignty." Perhaps someone could point me towards the sinister intent behind the moralizing so that I can understand what they have to gain. And I am not talking about whataboutism, examples of self-interested defenders of the past, but what is their incentive structure? Ultimately, this is a side point for me, because Kaz has made an important point, which I bolded in the quote above. Regardless of whether it ought to be our policy to contain defender influence, it is and has been.

That's certainly not something spelled out in the tenets of independence. It's been our policy because we've judged that it's in our own interests in terms of "maximizing regional activity and stability; increasing the region’s influence and impact in the interregional stage; developing strong ties with like-minded communities and regions; and protecting the sovereignty of friendly and aligned regions." (Taken from the Independent Manifesto). The conversation we ought to be having is not the reflexive need to push back and regroup against the encroaching communist defender threat, but to reassess in light of global events. This large, concerted effort you speak of should not be Europeia's equivalent of the Vietnam War. If that's the project we are embarking on we should be told so and assent to it as a people (after all, this is the statement of our Grand Admiral).

I agree that Defender rhetoric about Independence is a serious problem, but I don't think the solution is to deemphasise opposition to Defender foreign policy. If anything, I think Defenders would vastly prefer a situation where Independence was a kind of passive neutral position that had no interest in pursuing military objectives, or that saw military activity as a competitive game to be conducted with low stakes. This would take all the teeth out of our advocacy for our vision of regional self-determination, leaving the Defenders' vision without any serious rival.

This is exactly my point. The conversation should be centering on the solution, if a "solution" is what's needed. I hope this is the conversation we can have together as a region.

 

[Kazaman]

This is a fair point. Although it does feel a bit "we're not the ones undermining regional sovereignty, they're the ones undermining regional sovereignty."

That is sort of what's happening, but I think there's a more sympathetic way to explain it. Our disagreement with Defenders is partly about what "regional sovereignty" means, and what should be done to secure it.

Personally, I've always been excited by the fact that NationStates is a game rich enough to allow entire worldviews with multiple levels of substantive disagreement, and have these unfold into a complex history (and have disagreements about how to narrate that history, as well!).

Perhaps someone could point me towards the sinister intent behind the moralizing so that I can understand what they have to gain. And I am not talking about whataboutism, examples of self-interested defenders of the past, but what is their incentive structure? Ultimately, this is a side point for me, because Kaz has made an important point, which I bolded in the quote above. Regardless of whether it ought to be our policy to contain defender influence, it is and has been.

The threat is actually very concrete. A Defender future is one in which every region has to clear military operations with the Libcord update commander on duty. It's a future where a small, elite committee with no accountability decides what the true interests of every region are, decides what the appropriate means to pursue those interests are, and enforces these decisions with overwhelming military force and diplomatic censure. And it's a future where propagandistic slants, like the PfS statement on Commend King HEM, go largely unchallenged, where regions are not respected to determine for themselves who and what has brought value to their communities.

The conversation we ought to be having is not the reflexive need to push back and regroup against the encroaching communist defender threat, but to reassess in light of global events. This large, concerted effort you speak of should not be Europeia's equivalent of the Vietnam War. If that's the project we are embarking on we should be told so and assent to it as a people (after all, this is the statement of our Grand Admiral).

I agree that we shouldn't go into some sort of frenzy and forget ourselves, and that this is ultimately a matter that the people should decide. This is partly why I spent so much time in my previous post correcting inaccuracies in Lime's post. I think it's important not to do Defenders an injustice by misrepresenting their views and actions. I also think it undermines our own ability to respond to those views and actions if we don't understand them correctly.

It's a funny thing about this game that our communities are driven by political debate between citizens, but most people end up being officials of some sort as well. Obviously I participate in conversations about foreign policy and military matters, and advise the President as the Grand Admiral. And obviously I can't disclose the nature of those conversations in a public discussion. Here, though, I'm primarily trying to speak as a concerned citizen with an interest in Europeia's future. Take it as you will!

This is exactly my point. The conversation should be centering on the solution, if a "solution" is what's needed. I hope this is the conversation we can have together as a region.

I've found this discussion incredibly promising so far, and I'm glad we're having it.

 

[McEntire]

It's a funny thing about this game that our communities are driven by political debate between citizens, but most people end up being officials of some sort as well. Obviously I participate in conversations about foreign policy and military matters, and advise the President as the Grand Admiral. And obviously I can't disclose the nature of those conversations in a public discussion. Here, though, I'm primarily trying to speak as a concerned citizen with an interest in Europeia's future. Take it as you will!

The rest of your post aside, I want to be clear that I wasn't taking your remarks as official government policy or in your capacity as GA! Was just suggesting that people of positions of power in this region may hold certain views or see our place in the world from a specific perspective. Nothing wrong with that, but we should all be transparent. And while I respect the nature of private conversations with the President (begrudgingly), I have long held that our FA/Intel/Military hierarchy should have a higher degree of transparency. This information is privileged with a higher degree of confidentiality (rightly or wrongly) than other policy matters, and certainly the lack of disclosure of the real machinations of foreign affairs is a reason behind the region's relative disengagement with it, compared to other political matters.