11-21-2019, 11:35 PM
1. What should be our stance towards the World Assembly, and should this be a major part of our stance?
I think that our stance should be reflective of a neutral position as well as our long-standing alliances, which means that the World Assembly Delegate can make the choice to cast their vote with the majority, to abstain, or vote against if they strongly feel against a certain resolution.
If for instance a resolution was put forward to attack Osiris or Lazarus then we'd definitely want to vote against, though realistically I doubt we'd really be called on to make that sort of decision.
So far Treadwellia is probably following the best policy, which is to vote with the majority of World Assembly members within Lazarus.
2. What should we strive to accomplish, in the sense of expanding our influence beyond our borders (or not) or building strong alliances with everyone (or not) or protecting certain values in the wider world (or not)?
We should only expand influence so much as it helps Lazarus and not build ties with regions that might harm us later, as there is a danger in tying Lazarus down to foreign obligations, which was one of the problems of the Founderless Regions Alliance as we were tied down to foreign obligations, even if they were of no benefit to our internal activity or security.
3. What should be our approach to foreign affairs? Do we wish to befriend as many people as we can, or only those we find ourselves to have things in common with? Should we perhaps befriend no one and be a force of our own?
Realistically it depends on what our stance would be in the scheme of Raider and Defender affiliation, as some regions would be more amenable to us following a particular affiliation, which in turn has dangers that come with it. If we were to approach a more Defender lean then in my opinion that could ultimately lead to a new Founderless Regions Alliance like situation bringing in other regions, though that would not happen right away as organizations like that would take time to gradually come into existence again, and if we were to adopt a more imperialist or raider mindset, then I could see us being more independent (or more reckless) in policy, as we'd not be tied down as much as if we created a defender affiliation more tied down to the opinion of other regions.
I think that both of those options are not the best path for Lazarus in foreign affairs though as it would limit our options if we heavily leaned in either direction, and what works more effectively is signing treaties with other GCRs such as Osiris, and signing treaties with regions aligned our shared goals such as the Anti-Pacific Coalition. We should form alliances that help our own security, and not get involved with regions that could damage our image, least we repeat past mistakes of the PRL, or the past mistakes of the HRL that was too naive about the threats it really faced.
4. What should be our approach to current ideologies and stances? Do we wish to take a similar stance, or will we be our own thing?
We should do our own thing, whether that means keeping out of ideology entirely and having no military, or being an active military force.
If we ever were to change our stance significantly though, then it would be perhaps better to confront raiders and defenders than just one faction, as such a stance would encourage more military activity and not tie us down to one ideology.
I think that our stance should be reflective of a neutral position as well as our long-standing alliances, which means that the World Assembly Delegate can make the choice to cast their vote with the majority, to abstain, or vote against if they strongly feel against a certain resolution.
If for instance a resolution was put forward to attack Osiris or Lazarus then we'd definitely want to vote against, though realistically I doubt we'd really be called on to make that sort of decision.
So far Treadwellia is probably following the best policy, which is to vote with the majority of World Assembly members within Lazarus.
2. What should we strive to accomplish, in the sense of expanding our influence beyond our borders (or not) or building strong alliances with everyone (or not) or protecting certain values in the wider world (or not)?
We should only expand influence so much as it helps Lazarus and not build ties with regions that might harm us later, as there is a danger in tying Lazarus down to foreign obligations, which was one of the problems of the Founderless Regions Alliance as we were tied down to foreign obligations, even if they were of no benefit to our internal activity or security.
3. What should be our approach to foreign affairs? Do we wish to befriend as many people as we can, or only those we find ourselves to have things in common with? Should we perhaps befriend no one and be a force of our own?
Realistically it depends on what our stance would be in the scheme of Raider and Defender affiliation, as some regions would be more amenable to us following a particular affiliation, which in turn has dangers that come with it. If we were to approach a more Defender lean then in my opinion that could ultimately lead to a new Founderless Regions Alliance like situation bringing in other regions, though that would not happen right away as organizations like that would take time to gradually come into existence again, and if we were to adopt a more imperialist or raider mindset, then I could see us being more independent (or more reckless) in policy, as we'd not be tied down as much as if we created a defender affiliation more tied down to the opinion of other regions.
I think that both of those options are not the best path for Lazarus in foreign affairs though as it would limit our options if we heavily leaned in either direction, and what works more effectively is signing treaties with other GCRs such as Osiris, and signing treaties with regions aligned our shared goals such as the Anti-Pacific Coalition. We should form alliances that help our own security, and not get involved with regions that could damage our image, least we repeat past mistakes of the PRL, or the past mistakes of the HRL that was too naive about the threats it really faced.
4. What should be our approach to current ideologies and stances? Do we wish to take a similar stance, or will we be our own thing?
We should do our own thing, whether that means keeping out of ideology entirely and having no military, or being an active military force.
If we ever were to change our stance significantly though, then it would be perhaps better to confront raiders and defenders than just one faction, as such a stance would encourage more military activity and not tie us down to one ideology.