Appointment: McChimp as Director of Public Relations

[McChimp]

Treaties require only a single person to draft and a second person to agree. It is not a show of a vibrant department.

It is mildly concerning to me that you disregard ambassadors as mere “niceties”, while they are what primarily makes up the department. While it is most certainly more flashy and significant to sign treaties, letting our allies and partners know what we’re up to, that we have not fallen inactive and that we are, in fact, a valuable and active partner and ally should not be underestimated or disregarded. It is also not exactly an inspiring recruitment message to call the majority of the department a mere “nicety”.

An action's importance is not measured by how many people it is undertaken by. Treaties are not just "flashy": they are essential to the security of the region. Again, you are massively overblowing my having decided to prioritise that over sending out a small regional report once a month into some kind of a big deal when it's really not. It was even presented to me as a perfectly normal decision to take when deciding what to do with an FA department when I asked those who had apparently distinguished themselves in that field for advice.

Compromises are, as you say, more practical. I have never known you to be particularly careful or compromising, though, which is my primary concern.

As I was saying, you have only ever dealt with me domestically.

I agree that things like inviting Unibot or the lack of communication between her and her MoFA were mistakes, but the tone of your post suggested you disagreed with her on broad policy. It is your job to further the agenda the Prime Minister sets, as well as advice the Prime Minister on matters of foreign policy, but not to dictate what that agenda should be.

Any such suggestion is your own invention.

First, we are allied with Osiris, which is raider, Thalassia, which is neutral, and TWP, which is independent. I am not sure what our second raider ally is.

Secondly, this sounds like a “friends for the sake of friends” argument. Sure, we can tie ourselves to as many foreign interests as we can, but why would we do that? How does it benefit us?

You've put it so well yourself, though. There is a conspicuous absence from your list, isn't there? Diversifying our alliances means that we have more reliable protection against a wider range of interests.

Can you cite examples?

I seem to recall them sending military aid when the Rahls last tried to make this region their plaything.

I have never heard you speak with particular care for alliances with UCRs. It is not hard to get to the conclusion you disregarded them. Furthermore, “I’ve told someone else to handle it” doesn’t strengthen your argument that you do care for alliances with UCRs.

You must not have been listening earlier this year when I told people that I had selected an FA deputy specifically because of their enthusiasm for UCR relations. As it happens, I haven't told somebody else to handle it. Your government did. It is still being handled by the person your administration appointed. Do you still think that represents a lack of interest?