Foreign Affairs - From idealism to power politics

Day 3,068, 05:04 • Published in Finland Finland • by TheJuliusCaesar

Management of the foreign affairs of a nation is of crucial importance - no matter how distant it might seem for a citizen mainly concerned about nation’s internal affairs. The way your administration plans and operates in foreign affairs determines how well your nation utilizes the resources she has - and that, well, determines largely the circumstances encompassing the nation. Resources (not the food, weapon or house resources) are not evenly distributed and consist of attributes of a nation. For example, the size of the population, magnitude of damage coordination and economic power among others. Administration then utilizes the resources and makes a certain impact with them - outcome of which depends on how the resources in hand were used. In this article my aim is to explore different manners of utilizing these resources of a nation in foreign affairs.

One approach, exemplified for instance in here, concentrates on moral justification and deep personal feelings. Whether the background lies in real life nationalism or nations’ past acts in the game, the result is often a polarized and inefficient outcome. It is perfectly okay to conduct one’s affairs this way, but it is amusing to witness the endless complaints of nations using the methodology regarding unfair ganging up or dishonesty of other countries (not that the article linked above is doing that, it was just an example outlining this FA approach). If you choose to utilize your resources inefficiently, I suggest you rather take a long look in the mirror than blame others for your own decisions. In short, the approach could be labeled as an idealism of sorts - fighting for what you think is right, even at the cost of your nation’s wellbeing. There is no guarantee that what you think is right is indeed objectively right, though. While nearly every country, and their administrations respectively, have certain prejudices and negative feelings towards a country or two, resorting fully into this manner of organizing foreign affairs can easily be exploited by others.

This exploitation and the second approach to foreign affairs has been illustrated, for instance, by Serbia’s and Asteria’s foreign policy during the last few years. As traditional enemies Hungary and Romania managed to find mutual cooperation and interests in spite of negative personal feelings and conflicts, it was possible to play with the policies of their opponents and incite them to take stance against each other. Divide et Impera. This doctrine consists, in essence, of pragmatism. Differences and conflicts can be reconciled and resolved for the benefit of each nation. Generally, it leads to more efficient usage of resources than aforementioned idealism and, hence, to more preferable outcomes.


And third, there is realpolitik - power politics. In practice it consists of pragmatism taken to the extreme - anything is justified if it leads to power, ends justify the means. A recent example of power politics can be found from the happenings of Pacifica during spring of 2016. The treaty of the alliance was breached in order to get a certain member nation in. This approach of FA leads to, it can be contended, to the most efficient usage of the resources in hand. But if the doctrine is used without taming it by the virtues of other approaches, there is a danger it leads to a major backlash and a broad coalition against the one operating this way should the approach be taken too far.

Of course, every nation has different conditions to start operating in foreign affairs. The resources of countries differ in magnitude and multitude, as the player base and coordination vary. Resource base determines certain conditions for the FA approach which cannot be overcome easily. Further more, none of these approaches are alone functional in every situation. For a country or nation to get into a good position - in terms of foreign affairs - globally, it requires a skilful administration to determine which approach - or combination of them - is applicable to the near future and situations emerging.

But this all boils down to the single most important lesson there is in the world of foreign affairs that overlaps all the three models prescribed above: actions have appropriate consequences. They always do, no excuses. American reputation was extensively tarnished by the happenings called ‘Persian Plunder’. Serbia and Asteria dominated the world because they managed to operate in foreign affairs with the approach which enabled them to divide their opponents and unite their friends despite of their differences. Opposition of Asteria has not been able to counter their enemies due to their coalition being divided as a result of certain approach in foreign affairs.


SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Apparently this is a hard concept to grasp - at least it looks like it when reading articles published by the head of states of strong countries or analyzing their actions. Yes I am looking at you, countries complaining about the current alliance system. If you really want to defeat Serbia or change the world order, bickering among yourselves is not going to solve your problem. I know it is hard to look for the failures of one's own past, but it needs to be done if you want to move forward and get to the driving seat again.

Exactly that is the beauty of foreign affairs - you either successfully play the game or get played by others.

- Caesar