- Pronouns
- He/Him
Written by Sopo
Opinion Editor
This piece is the second in a series of "thoughts" articles on the ongoing April 2016 Europeian Presidential. The FA Questionnaire was drafted by Sopo and sent to candidates on April 15th. It was additionally sent to the Netz/Rachel ticket on April 16th, after they stood for election. ENN received responses from Kazaman, Calvin Coolidge, and Common-Sense Politics. Unfortunately due to my own timing issues, I wasn't able to assemble a panel to analyze responses, but a couple people may get their analysis back to me, at which time I will add it.
1. Europeia currently has a number of treaties with regions that we do not regularly interact with. One of these regions is Osiris, a Sinker GCR. If elected President, how would you seek to take advantage of our treatied relationship with Osiris and other regions like it? Has our past view of treaty obligations and how we have carried them out been sufficient? Why or why not?
Note: This question was written and answered before the current coup situation in Osiris.
I am happy with how recent presidents have handled keeping or rescinding treaties. I see two prevailing trends: 1) a sensitivity to unique traits of each case, and 2) a general goal to have impactful treaties that benefit our interests. I'll use instances of rescinding to illustrate. Cerian's repeal of the treaty with the NPO was a proportionate and shrewd response to the NPO's usual political posturing after the usefulness of our alliance faded, and WL's repeal of the treaty with Kantrias was respectful of our old friend, yet pragmatic in its analysis of the military consequences of keeping the treaty live. Sharp reasoning of this sort is why Europeia has consistently been a leader on the world stage.
As you said, there are a few active treaties on the books with regions we don't interact with much. Ainur is very quiet and years past its heyday, and I think it's worth reviewing the benefit we get from the treaty, and whether we suffer from it at all. The decision in this case doesn't have high stakes. Keeping the treaty doesn't obviously commit us to anything inconvenient and repealing it doesn't accomplish any particular foreign policy objective. As a preliminary judgement I'd say it is probably worth keeping simply because Ainur is still somewhat active, and we do have ties of friendship with some of its players.
Osiris is a more difficult decision with broader consequences. Feeders and sinkers, as long as they are friendly toward us, are better to have than not to have. There will be some concern that Osiris was involved with the use of Predator along with TBR, and the evidence for those allegations has to be weighed before moving forward. Cormac and Tim's response to the scandal in the Gameplay thread leads me to believe that Osiris is clean. The mods conceded Cormac's point that little evidence had been presented before lumping Osiris in the list of unpunished suspects. And Tim, later in the thread, is seen to be very unsympathetic toward TBR and other offenders. Incidentally, Osiris' visible participation in the discussion, along with their active military force, demonstrates that they could be a valuable partner in interregional affairs. All this is not to say that we can go forward and initiate a closer bond; the impact of such a move on our tense relations with TNP and TEP would first need to be assessed.
As you said, there are a few active treaties on the books with regions we don't interact with much. Ainur is very quiet and years past its heyday, and I think it's worth reviewing the benefit we get from the treaty, and whether we suffer from it at all. The decision in this case doesn't have high stakes. Keeping the treaty doesn't obviously commit us to anything inconvenient and repealing it doesn't accomplish any particular foreign policy objective. As a preliminary judgement I'd say it is probably worth keeping simply because Ainur is still somewhat active, and we do have ties of friendship with some of its players.
Osiris is a more difficult decision with broader consequences. Feeders and sinkers, as long as they are friendly toward us, are better to have than not to have. There will be some concern that Osiris was involved with the use of Predator along with TBR, and the evidence for those allegations has to be weighed before moving forward. Cormac and Tim's response to the scandal in the Gameplay thread leads me to believe that Osiris is clean. The mods conceded Cormac's point that little evidence had been presented before lumping Osiris in the list of unpunished suspects. And Tim, later in the thread, is seen to be very unsympathetic toward TBR and other offenders. Incidentally, Osiris' visible participation in the discussion, along with their active military force, demonstrates that they could be a valuable partner in interregional affairs. All this is not to say that we can go forward and initiate a closer bond; the impact of such a move on our tense relations with TNP and TEP would first need to be assessed.
Treaties are acts of friendship. This is a game, the only real loss of not following a binding clause of a treaty is losing the friendship. So the friendship between regions is really what glues them together, and what is at stake in any treaty. If we look at it that way, it all comes down to relation building, treaty or no treaty. Classically, there have always been cultural and military ties to regions and we've used these activities as “ins” to build rapport, but with the new FA framework of deputies and their ambassadors supporting them more actively than before,
it's very possible we could use Europeian presence to assist with this process in such regions as Osiris, while being careful to ensure these members aren't spending too much time outside of Europeia, of course.
it's very possible we could use Europeian presence to assist with this process in such regions as Osiris, while being careful to ensure these members aren't spending too much time outside of Europeia, of course.
I would, in part, reject your premise that Osiris is a good example of our less active treatied alliances. We have worked with Osiris on a number of occasions militarily and they have generally been very willing to contribute on that front, though their resources have been limited for a time. There is value in that and I think we would do well to refrain from diminishing it.
That being said, the prominence of Tim and the return of Cormac (players that have had little love for us in recent years) bring a substantial degree of uncertainty to this dynamic as we move forward. I think Osiris is an important ally and I also think it's important for us to demonstrate that we can continue to work to the mutual benefit of our respective communities when our interests are aligned, even when the personalities in question are not. We're not turning our backs on Osiris and it will be my job to ensure we give them no legitimate cause to turn theirs on us.
The last part of your question, about how we interact with our allies, is a mixed bag. As someone who has been on the "inside" when it comes to our foreign policy mechanisms for a very long time, I know exactly what we do well and what we don't do well. Our strength is represented by our values and our ability to articulate them. When we craft our foreign policy to reflect our values, we are at our most effective and are able to arrive at the right answer. We are good at focusing on one objective or challenge at a time. Where we struggle, is in timely, assertive action. We especially struggle when attempting to do these things on multiple fronts simultaneously.
The way to change all that is by electing a president that can define and execute a broad strategy and someone with an intimate understanding of Europeian foreign policy prerogatives but also to elect a president that is capable of action without a weeks-long discussion in the EAAC. I know for a fact that I am that president and I hope I can convince others of that as well.
That being said, the prominence of Tim and the return of Cormac (players that have had little love for us in recent years) bring a substantial degree of uncertainty to this dynamic as we move forward. I think Osiris is an important ally and I also think it's important for us to demonstrate that we can continue to work to the mutual benefit of our respective communities when our interests are aligned, even when the personalities in question are not. We're not turning our backs on Osiris and it will be my job to ensure we give them no legitimate cause to turn theirs on us.
The last part of your question, about how we interact with our allies, is a mixed bag. As someone who has been on the "inside" when it comes to our foreign policy mechanisms for a very long time, I know exactly what we do well and what we don't do well. Our strength is represented by our values and our ability to articulate them. When we craft our foreign policy to reflect our values, we are at our most effective and are able to arrive at the right answer. We are good at focusing on one objective or challenge at a time. Where we struggle, is in timely, assertive action. We especially struggle when attempting to do these things on multiple fronts simultaneously.
The way to change all that is by electing a president that can define and execute a broad strategy and someone with an intimate understanding of Europeian foreign policy prerogatives but also to elect a president that is capable of action without a weeks-long discussion in the EAAC. I know for a fact that I am that president and I hope I can convince others of that as well.
Sopo: I found it very difficult to really compare these answers, which is pretty much the same way I felt through the end. Kaz's answer is objectively good and includes a number of examples, but it doesn't for me address the heart of the problem. I want to know how we can better utilize current allies, not simply when to repeal treaties. Calvin comes a bit closer to getting at my intent with the question, but ultimately CSP is the only one who really tackles the specific situation in Osiris, as well as the obstacles we face in relationships with other regions. He had the best answer here.
2. The Predator scandal rocked the NS raiding community, and saw a number of tough punishments coming from the NS mods. Was the response by the Europeian government sufficient? If a punished nation joins our forums and applies for citizenship, what action would you take? Should we be working with The Black Hawks or groups descended from the former DEN?
The Europeian government's decision to freeze relations temporarily was wise. And, given the repercussions if a rule-breaking nation were to join us and, well, break the rules again, I would deny their citizenship application and have their nation ejected from the region.
One point of tension I have with the current administration's stance is the lack of public follow-up on The Black Hawks. The other regions whose embassies we froze were decimated by the mods, making the decision of whether to reopen straightforward. TBH, on the other hand, faced no punishment by the moderation team except a parenthetical mention in the OP of the Gamplay thread where the scandal was discussed. TBR, its successor organisations, and many of its most prominent members are all out of the picture. That leaves TBH as one of the strongest raiding regions, wielding a lot of influence over lighter-weight organisations like Auralia and The Knights of Ren. Ignoring this new dynamic in the raiding community by leaving TBH relations "temporarily frozen" and not commenting on the aftermath of punishments is a mistake.
It's debatable whether the use of Predator in TBH was systematic or not. Either way, I'd launch an investigation through diplomatic channels, and place the existence of the investigation in the public record with a brief announcement of intent. If TBH is rank with rule-breaking, then I would want to leverage our military resources to convince allies of TBH to rely on us. And if they mostly did not break the rules, I would reopen relations and see what sort of relationship is viable from there given input from our other allies. The aim in any case would be to let Europeia have a strong say in the future of the raiding community, and ideally to point the community in a direction of Europeia's choosing.
One point of tension I have with the current administration's stance is the lack of public follow-up on The Black Hawks. The other regions whose embassies we froze were decimated by the mods, making the decision of whether to reopen straightforward. TBH, on the other hand, faced no punishment by the moderation team except a parenthetical mention in the OP of the Gamplay thread where the scandal was discussed. TBR, its successor organisations, and many of its most prominent members are all out of the picture. That leaves TBH as one of the strongest raiding regions, wielding a lot of influence over lighter-weight organisations like Auralia and The Knights of Ren. Ignoring this new dynamic in the raiding community by leaving TBH relations "temporarily frozen" and not commenting on the aftermath of punishments is a mistake.
It's debatable whether the use of Predator in TBH was systematic or not. Either way, I'd launch an investigation through diplomatic channels, and place the existence of the investigation in the public record with a brief announcement of intent. If TBH is rank with rule-breaking, then I would want to leverage our military resources to convince allies of TBH to rely on us. And if they mostly did not break the rules, I would reopen relations and see what sort of relationship is viable from there given input from our other allies. The aim in any case would be to let Europeia have a strong say in the future of the raiding community, and ideally to point the community in a direction of Europeia's choosing.
The response from the Europeian government was definitely sufficient. Right after the scandal broke, we couldn’t afford to work with the involved regions, both in terms of the bad press, and the ethics that our military has. When we’re considering whether or not to give citizenship to a nation that was punished as a result of this scandal, we have to consider the severity of the offense. Was this a nation that was one of the many who used Predator without knowing the illegality of it? If so, I would have no problem granting them citizenship, as I doubt they would be a security risk. If the nation was involved on a greater level (DoS level), than we will deny their application, and not allow them into the region. With the ruling now dealt, and the guilty players/regions punished, I would pursue reopening relations with the affected regions. Not necessarily immediately, but I would like to open talks with these regions, if elected. We would have the option to work with TBH and DEN descendents when their services would be beneficial, but we would in no way be strengthening our relationship beyond that.
I was very much involved in our response to the PREDATOR scandal, particularly in the drafting of the statement we released. In large part, President Trinnien has adopted my advice into our policy on this matter so yes, I fully support it. We stated our values in the context of the controversy and we further backed our rhetoric with concrete diplomatic action. Further, we did so in a way that left no questions about where we stand while maintaining our ability to act in our regional interest in the future through a strong but measured message. That's how we should be operating on the world stage and it's how I will conduct my administration's response to similar events.
Those who wish to join Europeia need to be considered on an individual, case-by-case basis. In what I considered to be a thoughtful, fair ruling NS Moderation made several differentiations in their punishments. It would be a bad idea, in my judgement, to install a one size fits all policy on these players with that in mind. I recommended to the President that Coraxion and Wraith, players now considered DOS, be designated PNG here in Europeia and that's precisely what happened. Any applicants for Europeian citizenship excepting those two players will be considered on their merits, on their involvement with the use of the illegal script, on whether or not they colluded with the DOS player Halcones, their demonstration of remorse for their part in the scandal, and other relevant factors. Europeia is the land of second chances and those who would commit themselves here in a fashion befitting the title of Citizen of Europeia should not be turned away automatically but there are cases where past actions are so anathema to who we are and what we stand for that we must adopt a less forgiving stance. We need a president who can utilize that kind of nuanced judgement in the face of complicated decisions with far-reaching consequences.
Let me be unequivocally clear, there is no place in Europeian foreign policy for the now perpetually defunct DEN nor any community directly descended from it. The values of these organizations and players aren't just a little different from ours, they're wholly incompatible and from now on, our actions should reflect that. Europeia does not destroy regions. Europeia does not find joy in trolling. Europeia does take part in invasions and occupations to exhibit our skill, power, and influence, to further the objectives of our allies, and to provide a fun and engaging facet of gameplay for our citizens. We will work with regions and organizations who more closely share our objectives and values.
As president, I would seek to further distance ourselves from all purist raider organizations. The price we have paid in being associated with the unsavory activities and unexpected developments in the course of those operations has been too high historically. Far too high when you consider that we can replace those WAs with some additional effort and diplomatic savvy on our end. That's what I hope to bring to the table as president and in doing so, I think we can accomplish something much larger that will be beneficial for us and the game we play.
Those who wish to join Europeia need to be considered on an individual, case-by-case basis. In what I considered to be a thoughtful, fair ruling NS Moderation made several differentiations in their punishments. It would be a bad idea, in my judgement, to install a one size fits all policy on these players with that in mind. I recommended to the President that Coraxion and Wraith, players now considered DOS, be designated PNG here in Europeia and that's precisely what happened. Any applicants for Europeian citizenship excepting those two players will be considered on their merits, on their involvement with the use of the illegal script, on whether or not they colluded with the DOS player Halcones, their demonstration of remorse for their part in the scandal, and other relevant factors. Europeia is the land of second chances and those who would commit themselves here in a fashion befitting the title of Citizen of Europeia should not be turned away automatically but there are cases where past actions are so anathema to who we are and what we stand for that we must adopt a less forgiving stance. We need a president who can utilize that kind of nuanced judgement in the face of complicated decisions with far-reaching consequences.
Let me be unequivocally clear, there is no place in Europeian foreign policy for the now perpetually defunct DEN nor any community directly descended from it. The values of these organizations and players aren't just a little different from ours, they're wholly incompatible and from now on, our actions should reflect that. Europeia does not destroy regions. Europeia does not find joy in trolling. Europeia does take part in invasions and occupations to exhibit our skill, power, and influence, to further the objectives of our allies, and to provide a fun and engaging facet of gameplay for our citizens. We will work with regions and organizations who more closely share our objectives and values.
As president, I would seek to further distance ourselves from all purist raider organizations. The price we have paid in being associated with the unsavory activities and unexpected developments in the course of those operations has been too high historically. Far too high when you consider that we can replace those WAs with some additional effort and diplomatic savvy on our end. That's what I hope to bring to the table as president and in doing so, I think we can accomplish something much larger that will be beneficial for us and the game we play.
Sopo: Again, both Calvin and CSP benefit from being on the "inside." In my opinion, we're past the time for an investigation of TBH (and I'd be surprised if WL hadn't already done a bit of investigating). We pretty much know what went down. Cal and Kaz seemingly agree that we should move back toward working with regions like TBH and DEN's successors, if not now then sometime. CSP, on the other hand, stands firm in his belief that we're better off with more ideologically compatible partners, a stance I find pretty appealing. He's also not wishy-washy, but definitive. I again believe that CSP has the best answer here.
3. President Trinnien promised in his Presidential platform to get our International Paper back on track, but progress on that front has been nonexistent. Would you seek to implement an international paper or something like it? What lessons can we learn from its failure when it comes to future such FA projects?
I've heard very little about the International Paper recently. It's unclear to me what sort of work is being done ... is its first issue in development? Is it somehow in the planning stages? If so, what do these extensive planning stages look like? Since I don't have answers to these questions, it's hard for me to judge what I would do with the work that's been done so far.
That said, the International Paper would serve some of the function that a foreign update used to. More on that in the next question.
That said, the International Paper would serve some of the function that a foreign update used to. More on that in the next question.
I would not seek to implement an International Paper as it currently exists, but I would love to pursue dispatches that show off our media prowess, through use of EBC/private media articles, as well as mixlr pieces that highlight our technology, and potentially exclusive collaborations with foreign players of note. For the old paper, I just have this to say: The Euro Standard has always been Kraken's pet project, and he seems to be the only one currently capable/interested in seeing it thrive. I'm not going to make promises about it or put resources into it, but if Kraken is able to make it thrive next term of his own volition, I wouldn't stand in his way. We’ve learned a hard lesson with this project, that while many claim to be able to assist with this project, they either don’t have the time, or don’t have the FA wherewithal to follow through, and this has gone on long enough that we have to accept that for now. For future FA projects, we have to seriously consider our pool of highly capable individuals (because that’s what we need to really run this), and we don’t have a large enough amount to sustain a project, we need to invest some serious time and effort into training a new pool, or else future International Papers like the Euro Standard won’t succeed.
Having a media presence in NS Gameplay is massively beneficial because it allows you to build and reinforce a narrative that can enhance the interests of yourself and your allies. It's also, as we've learned, a difficult undertaking. We have succeeded in producing the type of quality material necessary to accomplish our objectives here but we have failed to do so for any extended period of time.
I'll be frank and tell you that I do not have a comprehensive answer to this challenge but I do feel that the rewards reaped from success in this endeavor are too large to be abandoned. We will seek to conceive of a product that serves the same purpose that is balanced with our ability and willingness to produce it, whether that means changing the character of what we're trying to post or how we approach it's production or both. It's my expectation that there will be some trial and error there but I'm confident that the creativity of Europeians coupled with a president who will provide them with the resources they require can make this happen.
I'll be frank and tell you that I do not have a comprehensive answer to this challenge but I do feel that the rewards reaped from success in this endeavor are too large to be abandoned. We will seek to conceive of a product that serves the same purpose that is balanced with our ability and willingness to produce it, whether that means changing the character of what we're trying to post or how we approach it's production or both. It's my expectation that there will be some trial and error there but I'm confident that the creativity of Europeians coupled with a president who will provide them with the resources they require can make this happen.
Sopo: I can't really blame Kaz for not knowing about the Europeian Standard (issues 1, 2, & 3) considering the last issues was published way back in August, well before he returned. The other two candidates are understandable noncommittal, given the lack of success past Presidents have had maintaining the project. However, Calvin (likely due to more intimate knowledge) seems to have a better grasp of the roadblocks: specifically the need to widen our talent pool through training. I give this one to him.
4. Under President Kraketopia, the ambassador system was abolished in favor of a system with four deputies. Are ambassador positions beneficial to junior diplomats? Have the World Affairs Hub and diplomatic training materials been a suitable replacement for the ambassador system? As President, would you maintain this new system? If so, what changes would you make (if any)? If not, what would you replace it with?
I haven't looked into this carefully, but yesterday I was wondering how we manage to keep embassies open. Usually regions close them after a certain period of inactivity, and we haven't had any foreign updates in a while. After peaking at a few of our embassies in different forums I'm still not sure ... there are some activity gaps spanning several months in some cases.
Anyway, I can see the advantages of this move. The demands of the FA office have changed over the years as Europeia expanded its interregional influence into the feeders. A handful of Deputies can receive more focused training in FA than a swarm of ambassadors, making them better future candidates for the position. Having fewer underlings also relieves a considerable management burden from the Minister, allowing them to focus on more detailed policy work.
That said, the ambassador system is better able to sustain a regular foreign update, since sending it out is a lot of time for few people. There is a reason that foreign updates have been ubiquitous in NS history. They're essentially another way of recruiting new citizens, and a way of putting our name out for potential allies. I would seriously consider reviving this practice, although I won't make a preemptive commitment toward it.
Anyway, I can see the advantages of this move. The demands of the FA office have changed over the years as Europeia expanded its interregional influence into the feeders. A handful of Deputies can receive more focused training in FA than a swarm of ambassadors, making them better future candidates for the position. Having fewer underlings also relieves a considerable management burden from the Minister, allowing them to focus on more detailed policy work.
That said, the ambassador system is better able to sustain a regular foreign update, since sending it out is a lot of time for few people. There is a reason that foreign updates have been ubiquitous in NS history. They're essentially another way of recruiting new citizens, and a way of putting our name out for potential allies. I would seriously consider reviving this practice, although I won't make a preemptive commitment toward it.
Ambassadors as we know them in Europeia are mail-carriers, and I think we know that. Transitioning to the deputy/World Affairs Hub system was a smart move, and has really paid dividends in terms of making the wider populace of Europeians aware of the wider NS world. The training materials made by Kraken have provided a lot of “general” FA knowledge that a lot of higher ups have known for a while, but that the lower-level FA AMs would never have a chance to know, unless they did some serious outside research, which they shouldn’t have to do. I would most definitely maintain this system. Some changes that I will make include having the deputies file internal reports to make their fellow FA AMs aware of what they do, so if they ever have to step into their shoes, they won’t be going in blind. Also, we will be bringing back the foreign updates (in some form) from past terms by compiling our recent activities (Executive updates, ERN operations, media articles) into a dispatch that will be distributed at least twice a term. This method puts less strain on FA workers to create new content (as opposed to the old system), and instead puts the emphasis on bringing attention to what our region has already done, and highlighting that, which I feel is a much more worthwhile endeavor.
Well the system currently in place is the one I proposed and sought to implement before I was forced to resign my most recent tenure as Minister of Foreign Affairs in favor of an unexpected change in my RL career-related responsibilities. I think Minister Kraketopia and his deputies have done good work with this new infrastructure and my administration will build on that work with his help and that of many others.
The next step comes in improving what is offered in the World Affairs Hub and continuing to develop how we communicate with and utilize our deputies with their respective portfolios. The purpose of the WAH is to eliminate or significantly diminish the knowledge gap between the average citizen and leaders of our foreign affairs establishment. I think we can provide more information that is easier to absorb and I think we can use our deputies, by virtue of their positions on the front line, to complement that kind of instruction more frequently.
The bottom line is that the traditional NS ambassador is all but a useless position. It does not necessarily train diplomats. It certainly doesn't enhance our capability to effect foreign policy. We have never been able to make these realizations any less true though not for a lack of trying. This new formula is the way forward, I'm sure of it. By providing more formal instruction and engagement with citizens, by elevating more citizens to positions of importance within our FA establishment, and by streamlining our flow of information and communication, we move forward in a way that puts us in a better position to assert ourselves internationally and to raise a new generation of Europeians who are equipped to become stakeholders.
The next step comes in improving what is offered in the World Affairs Hub and continuing to develop how we communicate with and utilize our deputies with their respective portfolios. The purpose of the WAH is to eliminate or significantly diminish the knowledge gap between the average citizen and leaders of our foreign affairs establishment. I think we can provide more information that is easier to absorb and I think we can use our deputies, by virtue of their positions on the front line, to complement that kind of instruction more frequently.
The bottom line is that the traditional NS ambassador is all but a useless position. It does not necessarily train diplomats. It certainly doesn't enhance our capability to effect foreign policy. We have never been able to make these realizations any less true though not for a lack of trying. This new formula is the way forward, I'm sure of it. By providing more formal instruction and engagement with citizens, by elevating more citizens to positions of importance within our FA establishment, and by streamlining our flow of information and communication, we move forward in a way that puts us in a better position to assert ourselves internationally and to raise a new generation of Europeians who are equipped to become stakeholders.
Sopo: Points to Kaz for questioning how our unmanned embassies are remaining open and suggesting a return to a foreign update, but more points to Cal for suggesting an actual plan for a more dynamic foreign update. All the candidates stress a need for improvement of the current system while respecting its ingenuity. These were good answers across the board, but the foreign update plan and deputy reporting system from Calvin had a bit more substance.
5. What is unique about your foreign policy viewpoint or agenda that differentiates you from your fellow candidates?
The Navy has been one of our most important diplomatic tools recently. We've used it to help our allies in the feeders in times of routine change of power and in crises. We've used it to promote continuous friendship with our old friends such as the LKE, to retain amicable relations with the Communists, and to unite swathes of NS behind the anti-Nazi cause. As I've indicated in earlier stages of this interview, there is room for further use. The Navy, if its training regimen and documentation were improved as I set out in my platform, could become an attractive partner for raider organisations searching for direction in the sudden absence of DEN. Moving Europeian influence into this sphere would serve several existing foreign policy objectives, such as bolstering the fight against the Nazis and promoting ethical raiding practices. That is what is unique about my foreign policy.
More than the rest of the field, this ticket has been uniquely positioned in recent administrations by being intimately involved in the major FA decisions for many terms now, as a multi-term Vice-President. We have the most detailed plan, we know what needs to be done, and we know what is possible. We’re aware of the opportunities, and where there are problems. There is great importance in continuing the FA seminars, and getting more newcomers the experience they need to deal with the world of NationStates.The deputy system provides a great framework for the Ministry, without compromising our policy. It is important to recognize that there is far more to FA than just military matters. Providing legal and logistical support is a great way to build relationships, and with the other tickets, you don’t get anything close to that. We have the broadest experience with the different aspects of FA. When choosing who to vote for, look to the ticket with the most holistic approach to and experience with FA. We will make use of all the tools available to us and not overlook important aspects in favor of focusing on one specific area.
To be plain, I understand what we're talking about here. It's become clear to me through the course of this election so far that there is only one other candidate that does but also that I am the only one who's done it.
It is my firm belief that I am the only candidate for president that has demonstrated the ability, knowledge, and judgement necessary to take the reins of Europeian foreign policy on day one and the only candidate for president with a record of accomplishment in doing so. Rach would certainly fall into that category but vice presidents don't carry that load, presidents do.
You can't reasonably expect that in the next seventy days Europeia's position in the world will develop and improve if we elect someone who doesn't understand our values or our history or if you elect someone who hasn't demonstrated the ability or willingness to make moves as a part of a larger strategy or if you elect someone that has no experience in this type of work at all. I got into this race because I feared the prospect of us standing still in the coming term, particularly in the arena of foreign affairs. As your president, I won't allow that to happen.
It is my firm belief that I am the only candidate for president that has demonstrated the ability, knowledge, and judgement necessary to take the reins of Europeian foreign policy on day one and the only candidate for president with a record of accomplishment in doing so. Rach would certainly fall into that category but vice presidents don't carry that load, presidents do.
You can't reasonably expect that in the next seventy days Europeia's position in the world will develop and improve if we elect someone who doesn't understand our values or our history or if you elect someone who hasn't demonstrated the ability or willingness to make moves as a part of a larger strategy or if you elect someone that has no experience in this type of work at all. I got into this race because I feared the prospect of us standing still in the coming term, particularly in the arena of foreign affairs. As your president, I won't allow that to happen.
Sopo: All three candidates do their best to sell their own outlook and candidacy. Kaz points to the Navy and building relationships with purist raider orgs. Cal emphasizes incumbency and a "holistic" approach. CSP argues that only two of them are fit for the presidency, and that he'll be ready on day one. I find Cal and CSP to be more convincing, and Kaz suffers from being an outsider with a large gap in his historical timeline. CSP provided the best answers rhetorically, was the most inspirational and sounded like a leader. Cal didn't sound quite as pulled together, but I appreciated that he was generally succinct. Overall, I have confidence in both Cal and CSP, but feel that Kaz could benefit from working in the MoFA and generally just being around longer.
