Embassy of the South Pacific

[North Prarie]

Oh....that, that wasn’t my intention

It was a joke about your phrasing, relax

I know *shrug*

[Syberis]

I do have a question, though.

Will The South Pacific continue to respect the autonomy and self-determination of non-democratic governments, and continue their traditional work to value the sovereignty of said established governments?

Yep! Those amendments were proposed, but not put in the package

Those amendments being proposed but not put forward as actual statements isn't actually much more meaningful and reassuring than if someone more... Tim-like responded with a shrug emoji, I hope you know.

Is your statement that TSP will continue to do that a statement from you, as a player, or a mission statement of TSP's government moving forward?

[Daytime to Night]

You’re probably best directing your questions at the responsible member of the TSP government but it’s already set out in the previous statement:

develop a pro-democracy program that advocates for the adoption of democratic forms of government across NationStates.

I don’t think the language is unclear there, TSP will advocate for non-democratic regions to adopt democratic forms of government.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I don’t think the language is unclear there, TSP will advocate for non-democratic regions to adopt democratic forms of government.

I think the question was about how forceful that advocacy will be. It's one thing for TSP to hold as its own principle that democracy is best for every region, and to apply that principle to how it conducts relations with other regions, etc.

I think what Syberis is asking is whether TSP is going to respect the sovereignty and self-determination of regions that prefer non-democratic forms of government -- including but not limited to the Pacific, the West Pacific, Lazarus, and Osiris -- or if TSP is going to interfere and subvert or even use outright force if the opportunity arises in order to impose democracy on such regions.

I'm confident, based on my discussions with people from TSP as well as watching the public debate over the alignment change in TSP, that the answer to that question is no. Nonetheless, for people who were less tuned in, it would be good to see an official clarification from someone in the Cabinet (presumably the Minister of Foreign Affairs).

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think what Syberis is asking is whether TSP is going to respect the sovereignty and self-determination of regions that prefer non-democratic forms of government -- including but not limited to the Pacific, the West Pacific, Lazarus, and Osiris -- or if TSP is going to interfere and subvert or even use outright force if the opportunity arises in order to impose democracy on such regions.

Forcefully invading a region because it has a non-democratic form of government is antithetical to both the democratic and the defending principles espoused in our laws. So that question kind of answers itself. TSP doesn't have a history of doing so, and becoming defender is weird time to think that we might start doing it... What North Prairie said is accurate-- there were suggestions, not from many people, that TSP should forcefully spread democracy to oppressive regimes. Those were shot down, which does mean that TSP broadly rejected the idea.

To the extent that "respecting the autonomy and self-determination of non-democratic governments" includes not openly or vocally criticizing those governments and advocating change, then I would say no. TSP intends to be a vocal proponent of both democratic governance and defending, and that includes criticizing and critiquing non-democratic monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, as well as raider and imperialist regions of all stripes. That's a far cry from subversion, but I can foresee some reactionaries trying to claim that it's "interference" or subversion if TSP criticizes non-democratic regions and advocates that they become democracies. After all, that's what got TSP proscribed in Osiris.

[Cormactopia Prime]

To the extent that "respecting the autonomy and self-determination of non-democratic governments" includes not openly or vocally criticizing those governments and advocating change, then I would say no. TSP intends to be a vocal proponent of both democratic governance and defending, and that includes criticizing and critiquing non-democratic monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, as well as raider and imperialist regions of all stripes. That's a far cry from subversion, but I can foresee some reactionaries trying to claim that it's "interference" or subversion if TSP criticizes non-democratic regions and advocates that they become democracies. After all, that's what got TSP proscribed in Osiris.

As a reminder of what actually happened, you advocated that Osirans throw out their government officials, including the Delegate. But that can only happen in Osiris by coup d'etat, as you well knew at the time and as you well know today. So, in effect, you advocated a coup d'etat in Osiris. This isn't complicated.

Your statement has now muddied the waters to such a degree that I'm not sure TSP won't in fact be advocating coups in non-democratic regions. Because while you're saying TSP won't do that, you're also citing an instance in which you did do that as the kind of "criticism" TSP will be engaging in.

In an effort to once again get unequivocal clarification, then, will TSP be advocating the illegal overthrow of four GCR governments, or not? While we're at it, will you be advocating the overthrow of monarchies such as the monarchy of Wintreath? You did say you're going to be critical of "non-democratic monarchies" -- so does that include defender monarchies? How about the enormously powerful but unelected Chief Executive of 10000 Islands? Or the unelected First Warden of the Grey Wardens? Will you be working with the RRA, despite it having no accountability to TRR's democratic institutions?

[Syberis]

In particular, I'm reminded of Ikania's repeated "Advocacy for Democracy," and rather hopeful that TSP will continue to avoid and condemn actions like that.

[Ikania]

In particular, I'm reminded of Ikania's repeated "Advocacy for Democracy," and rather hopeful that TSP will continue to avoid and condemn actions like that.

Sorry, you'll have to remind me what you're talking about. I have, on multiple occasions when I was younger, embarked on various 'crusades' to thrust my idealism on a few regions- some efforts more boneheaded than others.

[Glen-Rhodes]

As a reminder of what actually happened, you advocated that Osirans throw out their government officials, including the Delegate. But that can only happen in Osiris by coup d'etat, as you well knew at the time and as you well know today. So, in effect, you advocated a coup d'etat in Osiris. This isn't complicated.

Propaganda rarely is complicated. In any case, Osiris should become a democracy.

Your statement has now muddied the waters to such a degree that I'm not sure TSP won't in fact be advocating coups in non-democratic regions. Because while you're saying TSP won't do that, you're also citing an instance in which you did do that as the kind of "criticism" TSP will be engaging in.

And see, the reactionary nonsense has already started! "Advocate democracy" is now "advocate coups".. because that somehow makes sense. I'm not going to do this same song and dance-- been there done that too many times. TSP will show what our foreign policy is through actions, not by constantly reassuring the creative interpreters of Gameplay that we aren't saying something we.. well, haven't said.

I'm very familiar with the old game of putting words in TSP's mouth. And I've been aware that the minor love affair GP has had with TSP will soon be over now that we've declared our defender alignment. After all, the whole point of your praise was that we could now organize conflict along alignment/ideological lines, instead of personal ones

[Lord Dominator]

That isn't exactly a 'no, we won't be advocating pro-democracy coups'

[Roavin]

It's not terribly surprising that the only ones pressing that point and having trouble understanding are peeps from the one region that proscribed TSP for a reason that makes Balderian proscriptions seem sensible in comparison.

[Miporin]

It's not terribly surprising that the only ones pressing that point and having trouble understanding are peeps from the one region that proscribed TSP for a reason that makes Balderian proscriptions seem sensible in comparison.

Non-osiran here. It isn't exactly hard to give a straightforward reply, so the fact that it hasn't been done is interesting

[Roavin]

It's not terribly surprising that the only ones pressing that point and having trouble understanding are peeps from the one region that proscribed TSP for a reason that makes Balderian proscriptions seem sensible in comparison.

Non-osiran here. It isn't exactly hard to give a straightforward reply, so the fact that it hasn't been done is interesting

I thought Glen's answers were perfectly straight-forward as they were. Is the presence of that one particular two-letter word that important to y'all? A sentence can be parsed for its semantic meaning rather than the presence of one syntactic element, ya know.

But fine. I'll translate:

I think what Syberis is asking is whether TSP is going to respect the sovereignty and self-determination of regions that prefer non-democratic forms of government -- including but not limited to the Pacific, the West Pacific, Lazarus, and Osiris -- or if TSP is going to interfere and subvert or even use outright force if the opportunity arises in order to impose democracy on such regions.

Forcefully invading a region because it has a non-democratic form of government is antithetical to both the democratic and the defending principles espoused in our laws. So that question kind of answers itself. TSP doesn't have a history of doing so, and becoming defender is weird time to think that we might start doing it... What North Prairie said is accurate-- there were suggestions, not from many people, that TSP should forcefully spread democracy to oppressive regimes. Those were shot down, which does mean that TSP broadly rejected the idea.

To the extent that "respecting the autonomy and self-determination of non-democratic governments" includes not openly or vocally criticizing those governments and advocating change, then I would say no. TSP intends to be a vocal proponent of both democratic governance and defending, and that includes criticizing and critiquing non-democratic monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, as well as raider and imperialist regions of all stripes. That's a far cry from subversion, but I can foresee some reactionaries trying to claim that it's "interference" or subversion if TSP criticizes non-democratic regions and advocates that they become democracies. After all, that's what got TSP proscribed in Osiris.

Translation: "lol no totes not doing that (thats not how we roll) but we'll flex hard af if ur not a democracy fam". I hope that makes it easier to understand.

[Lord Dominator]

Thank you.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Thank you.

Amazing that Roavin just reiterates the same thing I said twice in a row.. and you magically understand it and accept it. Looks like we're back to the good ol' ways ahead of schedule.

[Lord Dominator]

Thank you.

Amazing that Roavin just reiterates the same thing I said twice in a row.. and you magically understand it and accept it. Looks like we're back to the good ol' ways ahead of schedule.

Oh no, I'm not really any more accepting of that as an answer to my question, I'm more resigned that I presumably not going to receive an answer to that. I quite honestly don't remember why I said 'Thank You' in response to Roavin yesterday.

Both your answers and Roavin's did not answer my questions of whether TSP would choose to advocate for pro-democracy coups. I did miss including or instead using the word 'support' however, since that seems reasonably more likely in general.

In regards to potential acceptance of what Roavin said over what you said, that would be due to easier comprehension. I have little animus towards you (and none in relative difference to Roavin), largely due to my own inability to retain grudges not based on OOC elements for longer than a day or so.

[Daytime to Night]

I'm going to use bullet points for you:

• firstly, why would you bother with the headache of advocating for or supporting a 'pro-democracy coup' when you can just advocate for democracy to those who are already responsible for constitutional reform. That's just common sense (and why the question is getting the eye-roll answers)
• if someone was legitimately seeking to promote democracy within a region then clearly you would advocate in favor of that promotion of democracy
• if someone illegitimately seeks pro-democracy constitutional reform using means outside of that constitutional system (i.e. a coup) then irrespective of the military or political decisions at that time (which would be judgement calls for the cabinet members elected at that point in time), that doesn't also mean TSP couldn't politically advocate in favor of the democratic principles they were seeking to promote, without supporting any coup itself, on the basis that the constitutional government could enact those reforms themselves all along or whenever they were returned to power
• in short, the South Pacific has committed itself to advocating for pro-democratic principles irrespective of the individual circumstances or judgement calls of any future cabinet. Beyond that decisions would be made on their individual merits (as they usually are, the status quo)

A future cabinet could make entirely different and opposing judgement calls on military and political options in any hypothetical you might want to throw up, whilst still staying true to the pro-democracy commitment made by the current government. It is not a detailed statement about every individual decision any future government of TSP might ever make. The fact is TSP could point at a pro-democracy coup and say 'actually we do support the more democratic approach they're promoting and think those reforms would be beneficial' without endorsing in any way the unconstitutional methods the hypothetical coup had adopted or suggesting one party is better than another to enact those changes. Whether that constitutes a lack of 'respect' for the sovereign government would differ from person to person.

Those attempting to tie one decision announced now to hypothetical future decisions is a reflection of their own poor grasp of their statement, not an avoidance strategy by those responding. Essentially, you're asking the wrong question.

If the question is "are you going to help invade and overthrow a non-democratic government" then there is an easy and obvious answer, but Syberis chose not to ask that.

If the question is "will you treat democratic and non-democratic regions as equally deserving of defending" then there is probably a fairly simple response that too.

Instead they asked a wishy washy question about whether TSP will 'respect' non-democratic regions without defining WTF they meant by respect, that the Foreign Minister has sensibly responded by reiterating the agreed points made by the Government in their agreed Statement rather than giving a bespoke response that you or any of the nations that visit this forum (wherever they are on the wide intelligence spectrum found here) could interpret however they fancy because Syberis asked a shitty question in the first place.

[Wabbitslayah]

tl;dr version please?

[Lord Dominator]

[*] firstly, why would you bother with the headache of advocating for or supporting a 'pro-democracy coup' when you can just advocate for democracy to those who are already responsible for constitutional reform. That's just common sense (and why the question is getting the eye-roll answers)

Common sense is not an abundant resource in Gameplay, nor is the suggested advocation of democracy to those who can change the constitution necessarily a good position to take. You know, looking quite a bit like attempted foreign meddling if done beyond statements and such here.

[*] if someone was legitimately seeking to promote democracy within a region then clearly you would advocate in favor of that promotion of democracy

Nothing has suggested that TSP would do otherwise.

[*] if someone illegitimately seeks pro-democracy constitutional reform using means outside of that constitutional system (i.e. a coup) then irrespective of the military or political decisions at that time (which would be judgement calls for the cabinet members elected at that point in time), that doesn't also mean TSP couldn't politically advocate in favor of the democratic principles they were seeking to promote, without supporting any coup itself, on the basis that the constitutional government could enact those reforms themselves all along or whenever they were returned to power

In essence, this would be the ideal yes, presuming a non-ally in question.

[*] in short, the South Pacific has committed itself to advocating for pro-democratic principles irrespective of the individual circumstances or judgement calls of any future cabinet. Beyond that decisions would be made on their individual merits (as they usually are, the status quo)

I am aware of that. The question has been willingness of (the current cabinet I guess) to not engage in reactive military operations should such an opportunity to promote democracy as it were.

Those attempting to tie one decision announced now to hypothetical future decisions is a reflection of their own poor grasp of their statement, not an avoidance strategy by those responding. Essentially, you're asking the wrong question.

If the question is "are you going to help invade and overthrow a non-democratic government" then there is an easy and obvious answer, but Syberis chose not to ask that.

And oddly enough, I did and yet the answer has not exactly been easy or obvious, going by Glen's textwalls on the matter, nor does Roavin summarizing such really answer my question about if TSP would choose to support a pro-democracy coup (my earlier mispeaking with use of the word 'promote' is apologized for, given the differences in meaning).

(wherever they are on the wide intelligence spectrum found here)

Not exactly a needed addition to your post.

[Daytime to Night]

tl;dr version please?

"TSP will show what our foreign policy is through actions"
"Forcefully invading a region because it has a non-democratic form of government is antithetical to both the democratic and the defending principles espoused in our laws"

If the question is "are you going to help invade and overthrow a non-democratic government" then there is an easy and obvious answer, but Syberis chose not to ask that.

And oddly enough, I did and yet the answer has not exactly been easy or obvious

Not for some apparently, see the quote above.

Person number four will be along shortly to explain the same thing to you.

[Lord Dominator]

Invasion is different from coup promotion. Regardless, I believe my concerns about such promotion have been decently answered. Not actually sure by who & when, for reasons related to my own line of questioning being slightly different from what I typed.

Concerns about coup support haven't, but I guess that's a wait & see kind of thing, isn't it?

[Cormactopia Prime]

Glen and Roavin, you went from 0 to 60 in assuming hostility and bad faith engagement from me in a hurry after I've been perhaps the biggest non-TSP cheerleader for TSP's alignment change. I initially asked for clarification primarily for others to see TSP has no intention of supporting subversion or coups against other regions based on their form of government. Instead, I got Glen giving an ambiguous answer that involved him saying no, TSP wouldn't do that, while citing an example of him advocating the overthrow of Osiris' government as a model for how TSP would behave. Then and only then did I start to become concerned myself, because this ambiguity from you two on this subject is not what was seen while you were campaigning for the alignment change.

Honestly, you could have just unambiguously answered the question, but don't go accusing me (or other Osirans) of engaging you in bad faith because you opted not to do that. I've been supportive of the alignment change every step of the way, and defended you against your own regionmate about it. I also supported your statement on TEP and defended it from detractors. So maybe just consider the courtesy of a straight answer instead of offering up an answer that's clear as mud, then saying I'm the one engaging in bad faith. I do want conflict in gameplay, but it would be nice if it could be over something substantive rather than just you two being oh so typically smug and too full of yourselves to tell the difference between genuine questioning and real hostility.

I doubt I'll ever get a straight answer now that you've both convinced yourselves any questioning is just bad faith hostility, so just forget it. I just wanted to take a minute to register my frustration with your attitudes.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You perceive the response to be “0 to 60 in assuming bad faith.” I viewed the questions to be kind of ridiculous in the first place. What Syb asked was, essentially, “With TSP declaring its commitment to democratic and defender principles, will it now engage in these obviously anti-democratic actions and start invading other regions?”

Coming from you it’s even more ridiculous, because you out of anyone in GP actually read my end of term address that kicked off the defender alignment debate, wherein I explicitly stated, “Changes in government must be made according to the rule of law.” You also closely followed the debate in the Assembly, where the idea of “spreading democracy by force” or otherwise attacking non-democratic regions was aggressively shot down.

This is the same old, same old. The ministry, under my leadership, releases a statement. Certain Gameplayers take that statement, extrapolate with their wildest imaginations, then demand that either a) I disclaim and denounce something I never said or a policy we never announced, or b) that the Cabinet disavow me and then disclaim and denounced something that was never said. I wouldn’t be surprised if Step B is just around the corner. Just take Syb’s comment about Ikania as an example— TSP has to reassure Osiris that we aren’t going to follow the beliefs of someone who has never been involved in TSP government, let alone a part of TSP at all? It baffles the mind.

The answer given to Syb was abundantly clear: “Forcefully invading a region because it has a non-democratic form of government is antithetical to both the democratic and the defending principles espoused in our laws.” There’s nothing ambiguous about that. The rest of my comments acknowledge that GP has stupidly considered criticism to be “subversion” in the past, so if you think criticizing a non-democratic region and saying “you should be more democratic” is interference, then obviously TSP will be guilty of “interference.” That also is not ambiguous— just possibly not the answer Osiris and other non-democratic regions want, considering Osiris is the perfect example of taking criticism and calling it a subversive attack on its sovereignty.

Your comment about Osiris deserves the response it got, because Osiris’ claim that anyone in TSP — particularly me — advocated for a coup against the Pharaoh was never legitimate in the first place. Everyone knows that it was propaganda, and even our Osiris counterparts say so right up until it needs to be used a point of propaganda again. TSP never took the proscription seriously, and we never will. So trying to use it as an example when questioning our foreign policy statements won’t get you the answer you desire— especially when those questions have an absurd premise in the first place.

[Jar Wattinree]

It should surprise little when TSP's response to GP assumes bad faith. They have little reason to assume anyone not an ally is acting in good faith when historically everyone and their mother dogpile TSP for every single action they take. When it happens all the time, it should amaze no one (especially Cormac) that the default response is "yeah, no, we are not going to play the game of being nice and here's a list of reasons you can twist later why".

[Unibot III]

Perhaps Osiris could just embrace democracy and save Gameplay an argument. A democratization of Osiris would put pressure on the East Pacific, an ally, to walk the talk on civil rights and democratic governance.

*shrugs*