Welcome. This guide is dedicated to all honest RPers, especially from the Modern Tech / Realism community, although I have little issue with it being applied to other types of roleplays; I kind of have fascination with the Chinese warring states period myself, so if one wants to implement it to even fantasy roleplays, I have little issue. Still, my point is that this guide, greatly connected to what is my real life field of work, is aimed at teaching roleplayers at how to roleplay the state - and the international politics it carries behind it. As much as it is understandable, judging by the fact that very few people posses that knowledge, I seen multiple forms of absurdities arise on international incidents subforum - ones so grave that I honestly thought that it is good that those people do not rule over us. Political leaders squabbling like little children, behaving on level of sandbox, going to war over few words and fighting virtually everyone over... well, nothing except personal grudges and ideological differences. At the same time I noticed great drop in quality of MT RPing on II, one that saddens me greatly. What I see, however, is aside from better policing of II sub forum, including zero tolerance for behaviors not beneficial for RPing community, such as godmodding and uncooperativeness, I firmly view that learning about how real states function could actually enrich view of multiple roleplayers, giving them new perspectives and above all, allowing them to explain WHAT are their governments interested in and WHY are they doing what they are doing - often helping them build deeper geopolitical stories.
Of course, as I begin to write this lecture, I always have to add what I mention in my every lecture - there is a golden rule in thinking about your nation, and that rule is what the economy calls scarcity of resources. Your nation can NOT have everything, it must have holes, it must have problems that the leadership will be attempting to solve. I for example always roleplayed Nifon as a state with virtually zero natural resources - no oil, no gas, no REMs, no gold, not even a thing. That is why Nifon to stay afloat as a major power, needs to secure them somehow - and here comes the question of securing the sea lanes of communication (SLOCS) to transport them back home, as well as finding proper partners who will deliver them. If necessary, who knows, maybe an option is to secure some of them by force... And here the entire game begins. Just like individuals, states have needs too - and how they manage to fulfill those needs is the essence of the story.
Before we go to looking at how can you interact with other states, we will briefly discuss how can we view the situations we are likely to meet. I managed to single out three dominant worldviews among real life politicians and - very briefly - present them for you here. It is a note that you should not be surprised that those descriptions are very brief - my purpose here is merely to introduce them for the reader. Those theories should be treated as sort of glasses - when head of your government puts them on, he sees simplified reality through them. The three dominant schools of thought are: Liberalism, Realism and Marxism.
Liberalism descends from thinking of the Enlightenment age, but one of greatest contributors to this idea was Woodrow Willson, 28th president of the USA - thus why sometimes it is called Willsonian Idealism. One of key assumption of liberalism lies in it's view of humans as capable of being good, and result of the grievances - such as wars and bad policy management - lying not in the individuals, but in the institutions such as authoritarian governments. At the same time, liberals believe that there is a huge difference in interests between the societies and governments, especially in authoritarian and totalitarian states - aiming at their own best interest, societies are not, by their nature, interested in participating in conflicts and thus have to be forced into it, by some way, by the political structures ruling them.
Most adherents to this theory firmly believe that natural goodness of humans makes social progress, and thus peaceful coexistence and harmony in the international system is possible by mutual cooperation. Liberals believe in model of "rational egoist" who by understanding what is good for him, acts for good of a whole. This sort of thinking is especially visible in how liberals view economic relations, where many of them pursue ideas of interdependence - that mutual reliance on each other in economic affairs will block possibilities of conflicts between the states from arising. Another important interest - of everyone - is, according to the liberals, peace.
In terms of resolving international disputes, liberals tend to rely primary on international institutions, collective security systems and diplomatic techniques such as mediation or arbitration. Ideas of collective security are especially pursued in terms of security policy - and perfect example of this thinking is the alliance called International Freedom Coalition. A very important element of this theory is the idea of democratic peace - t.m. that democracies do not go to war with each other, and are by their very nature more peaceful than other forms of government. Therefore existence of democracy in as many countries as possible - including, often, export by military means - is seen as one of primary goals which would aim at creation of world peace. Of course even as internal changes progress, liberals do not deny that international system may be anarchic, thus why certain processes are seen as necessary:
- Expansion of possibilities existing in current system of states
- Expansions of collective security systems blocking possibility of a conflict.
- Creation of some kind of international governance forms.
Opposing school of thought is Realism. It is a school of thought as ancient as the world itself - it's ideas were already known to Thucydides (author of the "Peloponesian war"), Chinese politicians from the Warring States age and Kautilya, Indian author who wrote famous "Arthashastra". Contributions were later done by such famous figures as Niccolo Machiavelli or Cardinal Richelieu, and major re-emergence happened after World War II, which seen many question the idealistic thought of the liberals.
Basis of this way of thinking is focused on idea of "international anarchy" - t.m. that the international system has no centrum or stronger regions. States - seen by realists as the primary actors - function within this realm of international anarchy, having no one above themselves to dictate them their behaviour. Even grandest international organizations, such as WA, are seen only as "forums" for inter-state discussions.
Realists believe that states are rational actors - t. m. ake decisions by calculating the weaknesses and strengths of the solution pinned against their goal. Man - and thus state by extension - is viewed rather negatively by the realists, leading to conclusion that most often it seeks it's own good above everything else. Thus primary function of the state is pursuit of the national interest in a way fitting the state.
Because there is no "central power structure" akin to power that state has over it's citizens to judge between the states, pursuit of security matters is one of most important affair. This leads states to constantly increasing their own power to guarantee themselves a better standing in the international system. Of course, power politics are relative - rise of one state's strength always attracts attention of other states which may unite against it, as happened in Warring States period or against France in XVIII and early XIX century.
This however does not mean that in every situation we are facing a game sum of which must equal zero, or that in every situation interest of the counties are absolutely contradictory. Realists are not rejecting cooperation or even creation of international norms and laws, as long as it will serve the state's national interest. SACTO, one of major alliance on II, is classic example of this thesis - realist thinking powers as Riysa or Nifon eagerly create a collective aid structure aimed at mutual shielding (both militarily and from economic sanctions) because it is simply in interest of both powers (Riysa delivers Nifon oil, so needed by state with virtually no reserves!). Likewise, Nifonese have little issue in maintaining close ties with Kirishima, even with liberal ideas being prevalent in that society.
One example of this thinking in action is famous COSTAL maritime crisis. Nations such as Inyursta or Nifon concluded that the current international system is creation of colonialism and thus and outdated one, requiring direct revision to cope with new threats and circumstances. In fact, in Nifon it went far beyond maritime security; Kojiro actively aimed at demolishing the "leftist-liberal international system" and replacing it with his own, and successful demonstration that Nifon can actively resist policing actions by Hayesalian navy concludes victory in the Shogun's eyes, because no matter of the situation, Nifon not only retained it's claim, but also humiliated Hayesalian navy in doing so. Hayesalia, on the other hand, was fighting to preserve the order it seen as beneficial by it's ideas of transnationalism & international cooperation.
Another important element of realist foreign policy is the idea of balance of power. Balance of power not as much decreases tensions, but rather prevents them from happening due to both states being respectfully unable to carry out any hostile actions. One of grandest - and best functioning applications - was in China during warring states period, where invasion of one state instantly caused counter-invasion from several others.
Primary concern of Marxism, alongside with view of history that Karl Marx proposed us, is that history of mankind is the history of struggle over control of the means of production - which, in one word, can be specified in short sentence that "economic factors dictate all". Indeed, when roleplaying a communist politician, one must think as one and act as one - and this means acknowledging certain set of ideas as true. Marxists tend to view states, societies, etc. etc. as sort of "outgrowth" of capitalism - soviet military theorists attempted to use this fact to justify their idea of "corelation of forces" where the entire military & foreign policy was based on the idea of constant, permanent struggle between "progressive forces of socialism" and "reactionary capitalism", which had to end in victory of the first ones. Ironically, when we look at historical communist regimes we often discover that they had frequently fought with each other. Existence of "revisionist forces within revolution" is what allows one communist thinker to justify fight against his brother in the ideology.
View that "economic factors define all" puts primary actors as classes, social structures and international corporations rather than independent states, which Marxists see only agents of the economic forces. For second, important factor, Marxists do not see the "capitalist system" as an equal one, but rather an extremely hierarchical one - this theory became a major point of the political thought of Mao Zedong, who actively pursued the idea of "third world", "second world" and "First world". According to this sort of thinking, overproduction at the "core" (first world) leads to imperialism and conquest of the foreign lands as a sole way of ensuring profits appropriate to production. Once weaker markets of the undeveloped states have been conquered, the capitalists begin fighting each other for profit - which is how Marxist theorists attempted to explain the great wars between imperialist powers in first half of XX century.
Therefore Marxists see a need for armed revolution to topple the hierarchical structure of international system and establish a new one, based on principles of equal redistribution of wealth. Previously mentioned idea of "Corelation of forces" as stated by Vasily Sokolovsky meant that every move done by a communist state was aimed at destroying the forces of "reactionary capitalism". Even when peace was made, it was only because soviet leadership believed that the proletarian revolution will eventually win in the West, which is why there is little need of pursuing armed conflict...
Now, let us take a short look at example of the situation: famous Nifonese bombing campaign of Mawani. How would politician representing those three schools of thought explain that event?
- Liberal would see the cause of the incident in nature of governments involved: for them Nifon would be seen as Authoritarian state waging aggressive foreign policy, exploiting the fact that equally radical Mawani government weakened itself through undemocratic rule enough to fall prey to Nifonese foreign policy. Liberal would conclude total failure of mechanisms of international governance and collective security: not only where there no mechanisms to deter the bombing in first place (such as international law), but subsequent reaction shows that many governments would have even sided with the Nifonese. However, a liberal would see hope with involvement of other states in reaction to Nifonese bombing: and thus attempt to form some sort of collective problem - solving mechanism out of it, aimed at stabilizing domestic conflict in Bashriyya, ending the sectarian and jihadist threats and creating stable democratic form of government. Some liberals would likely disagree of what to do with Nifon - some will point at aggressive nature of the bakufu and point out that bombing government personnel was a war crime and Nifonese tendency to assume that domestic law is superior to international law, some however will say that Nifonese campaign was aimed at regimes violating human rights, and including Nifon in the peace process can open path to democratization and cooling down hostilities.
- Realist would see reason for the action in national interest of Nifon. Bashriyya, one of key players involved in the region, is a key Nifonese ally and oil supplier. In addition to that, Nifonese government considers spread of international communism a threat to national security, and allowing the jihadists to spread would in long term threaten security of Bashriyya, and thus Nifonese oil supplies. The very fact that Nifon planned to cooperate with tribes that secured oil fields means that gaining access to local oil reserves was likely as important factor. Now, what to do with it, would depend on national interest on county involved.
- Marxist would look at it from economic perspective. In his view, Nifon is "at the center" of the pyramid of the global capitalist hierarchy; Bashriyya attempts to move in the middle, while Mawani is a periphery, important only because of natural resources is possesses. Therefore, Nifonese capitalist class and their Bashriyyan proxies exploited the fight between their enemies: local feudal class (Islamists) and workers attempting to create a socialist state (the government) to eliminate the government (representing progressive forces of socialism) and both secure their economic interests as well as seize control over local means of production (oil fields, mines) formerly belonging to local feudal class or collectivized during the worker's revolution. Of course, Marxist would defend the "government's brave fight against Nifonese fascism" and recommend supporting it's loyalist to re-establish a socialist state.
Now, goal of it is merely to give you some basis in theoretical thinking over WHAT your nation is doing and WHY your nation is doing it; because this can greatly affect your nation's idea of foreign policy. For example, Nemawashist nation of Nifon is far less inclined to believe that democracy is important element in world system; on the contrary, it openly scorns the idea of universality of "Enlightenment age institutions" and itself is closer to meritocracy where leadership is selected on basis of skill, virtue and result of the exams rather than by popular choice. For another nation, democracy will however be vital - but can as well lead to major dilemma. Liberal will defend deposing of Arab dictator in the name of human rights and democracy - while realist will argue against, citing costs of doing it, lack of any political power with authority and support enough to replace him, risk of his nation becoming a failed state and thus terrorist haven, fact that he may be useful ally against terrorism or theory that liberal democracy is not best working in the Arab world. On the other hand, I seen communist and capitalist states being best friends: if this happens, you are no marxist! Sole reason why we had "coexistence" in 1960s was based on idea that communist revolution will ultimately win in the west. Of course not all communist counties will perfectly realize Marx's will, but revolution is, after all, aimed at some one...
During the negotiations that ultimately resulted in treaty of Versailles, European leaders attempted to restore peace by means already known to them such as balance of power and alliances. This was turned upside down by Woodrow Willson who decided that instead of following European tradition, USA will play by it's own rules, beginning first grand confrontation of liberalism with realism. Now imagine how much this could improve our roleplays if we actually understand WHAT our political leaders want, WHY do they want it, and HOW are they going to reach it.
I will allow myself to include as well a short note on diplomacy and how to conduct it. Diplomacy is weapon very often disregarded by NS players, despite the fact that many empires – like ancient China or Byzantine empire – relied on it instead of force of arms to keep their enemies at bay. Both of these countries mastered manipulating their enemies, often turning one barbarian tribe against other, thus ensuring their mutual destruction. Traditional diplomacy is influencing other counties through negotiations, trying to convince them to take specific course of action. Some methods, used by diplomats, include:
- Expressing unhappiness to target state’s actions, publicly or privately
- Offering better relationships with target state if certain actions done by target state would change
- Threaten negative consequences
- Adhere to international body seeking recognition for one’s actions
- Give target state something it needs ( Diplomatic recognition, economic aid) for exchange of specific action.
- Remove what target state wants (international aid, support )
Diplomacy usually begins with bargaining. Both states know that certain actions lead to reaction by other parties. Usually bargaining is repeated until a consensus is reached: or the negotiations are cut. Many players however are totally not seeing the fact that culture, religion, ideology, international situation etc. have big influence on what the state wants, and how it would behave. Rational move for one player will be totally irrational move for second player. Let’s take look at fictional situation.
Two counties are engaged in economic talks. Both are economic powerhouses, but have different systems of economy. Country B sells a lot of X to country A, but does not accepts other products from country A. Now, country A, world liberal benchmark, tries to support economic liberalization of county B, to balance trade. However County B sees no interest in changing their policies, because liberalization opposes their political interests of being economically and politically independent. Thus both players have much different perspectives about the situation, often not understanding what second side wants.
Interesting concept is also Public diplomacy. Goal of this concept is to create a diplomatic look around the country as diplomatic power. Example of it is series of travels undertaken by leaders, to promote certain image of the country.
Second important mean of influencing other states is through economic sanctions. Economic sanctions can be positive or negative, and are generally carrot or stick game. Positive sanctions are often carrot, trying to reward moves in desired direction. Negative sanctions are stick, trying to punish moves in not wanted direction. State economic ability depends on it’s economic potential and possible use of all economic assets it has. For example, key resource in weaker state can be useful way of negotiation with stronger state. Weaker states also can use mediators as mean to influence stronger state in certain direction they want.
Generally, economic sanctions may be divided into:
POSITIVE:
Give the nation status of Most Favored Nation (MFN), which includes a lot of privileges
Give them allowance to trade sensitive materials ( Military technologies, atomic technologies)
Invest in target state when it seems too risky
Allow key product of target state into your market at best terms
NEGATIVE:
Freeze banking assets in your banking system
Blacklist certain country
Boycott goods and services
Sanction certain products
Third, and most often – sadly – practiced mean on NS is use of force. Most of NSers use force like it was nothing, totally disregarding military and political realism. However, two major strategies used by counties are COMPELLENCE and DETERRENCE.
COMPELLENCE – trying through use of force or threats make the target undo something It has done.
DETERRENCE – Discourage target from use of force.
This in short concludes my short lecture, which I hope will help you improve your skill to roleplay the state, as well ease the amount of OOC tensions when players will distance themselves from their nations - and finally become good writers. Thank you!
