International Relations is for cool kids (Gaius writes an article)

Day 888, 13:04 • Published in USA USA • by Gaius Julius

Man Jon Stewart is cool!!

I would say that today's current international landscape (especially in EDEN) could at best be summarized as a clusterf*** of foreign policies. While I don't consider myself a diplomatic expert in real life or in game I have learned some interesting lessons that I have always stuck by. For a long time the US's power was not in real terms of coercion and force. Instead it was soft power of media presence, economic viability and potential. For a long time we applied these concepts to our diplomacy and our allies and neutral states were very receptive. However, I think it would be good if we discussed the simple lessons we have learned throughout eUS history, on how to use and focus what we have. Furthermore it is my larger intention to maybe give a hint at why nations embark on polices that seem illogical to others, especially in the case of the history of EDEN block relations. Sorry in advance for the wall of text, did you expect anything less from me 😁


Managing Perception
I cannot speak about how important perception is in terms of relations between states. Perception is as simple as whether one leader perceives another to be stupid or smart. If one thinks that someone is stupid then you are more likely to push your point and your self assessed superior knowledge on an individual. Likewise if you think another leader is equal or greater than you you will act radically different. Now lets take this idea of perception to a much larger scale than just interaction between leaders.
At the end of WW III the US attempted a sort of warming of relations with several countries, one of these countries was France. The US perceived that France had the potential to not only work against Phx/old PEACE but to completely realign with EDEN. Spain, our very good ally at the time, did not have this same perception. They perceived France as untrustworthy and as their primary enemy post WW III. We all know how this story ends, there was some trolling and some harsh words, later mitigated by some cool heads. However this is a crucial lesson in how much perception matters. We perceived Spain as an evil aggressor and we could not understand their aggression towards France. Only when we put France in the context of our hatred for the UK, did things become clear. Likewise Spain thought we were just being lovey dovy hippies. In reality the US simply thought that EDEN should focus on taking out larger and more serious threats such as Indonesia and Hungary. No one was wrong and no one was right, however both sides perceived a wrong until intentions and opnions were made clear.
Now lets apply this concept to an even greater issue of US-Polish tension. Once again we all know the basic story. Both sides trolled, both made mistakes along the way and now we have very icy relations. However, once again perceptions got the better of us. Leaders and citizens on both sides saw what they wanted to see, that there nation was in the right and that the other was wrong.
US citizens saw Poland as a big bully who would go as far as too wipe out the US to please their insaciable lust for resources. On the other side Polish citizens saw the US as an obstruction to the growth of the Polish state, always saying no at every turn.
Once again was either side totally right? No, the US was there fighting with Poland in Saarland and in North of Brazil (a good deal of the Indian, Belgian and Bosnian citizenship is US ato units), however we did not show up 100% of the time. Likewise, while some polish leaders truly disliked the US, a number of them would never consider invasion and their citizens were firmly against the idea. The problem was not with the ideas on either side, but because no one stood up to mitigate tensions and cooler heads did not prevail.
You can apply this idea of different perceptions to countless other issues; taxes, TAF spending, military movements. The key is that it all boils down to the idea that rarely is any one side at fault. Furthermore countries which wish to cooperate with each other (especially larger powers) have to take steps to make their intentions clear, otherwise we will continue to see a rash of confusion about who is a friend and who is a foe.



The role of power
A world power in the new world is one that can extend its domestic strength beyond its borders in sizable quantities, either through direct occupation or a strong military. To say the US is a world power is absolute truth. To say we are a declining world power is also a truth. This is decline is mostly in relation to relative power gained by countries such as Serbia and Poland. While we are certainly stronger than we were going into WW III, the battles in HLJ and the war vs the UK showed the extent of our power. It is crucial however that we understand where this power comes from and how we use this power.
First where does our power come from? While it comes primarily from our active population, our organized military and our superb economic planning has made us a dominant factor many of times. One place we have not considered where our power comes from is in our relationships. The US had countless MPPs lined up against it for months, PEACE could have rolled into our borders at any time. The problem was that as long as Atlantis existed the US had a great deal of potential power in the form of the alliance relationships we had fostered. PEACE attacked exactly when these relationships seemed their weakest. As long as they believed the Atlantis states could coordinate and cooperate they knew their job would be significantly harder. Likewise Phx today took the chance to strike EDEN when distrust and misperception (applying stuff I said above 😁) were rampant. The fact is that for a long time Atlantis/EDEN nations have taken the time to foster long term relationships. While these are not perfect relationships or anything near that, they are very much the root of our power and should not be forsaken due to short term squabbles.



No power can act alone
As strong as any nation is, it can never afford to act unilaterally in the international system (unlike IRL). Due to the distribution of power in this game no country is a hegemon. When the next two largest countries can take down a power then it is only logical that relationships spring up. This is something the US needs to remember. Neutrality or non-alignment is always a favorite of some US citizens. However, as my friend GF likes to point out while neutrality has its unique advantages it has just as many disadvantages.
Lets assume even the most powerful country decided to go out on its own and work its foreign policy on a case to case issue. This would work for awhile but then the question comes up, who will really be there when the power needs it? As it gets more powerful more countries perceive it as a a threat and so its list of enemies grows.
Likewise the same thing problems happen for the eUS(which is conveniently not a hegemon or anything near that) when we try to strike out on our own). While initially we may like the freedom, what happens when we inevitably piss someone off? We no longer have an established structure to run back to. What happens when our case to case basis just creates more enemies? We may make country A happy this week, but next week we may make them just as mad when we side with country B. The result is that we have probably pissed off more than one country all in an attempt to judge each situation with an equal weight.
In a world where countries have institutionalized memories of events (which often remember the worse events not the best) it is hard to find any semblance of a middle point between bipolarity. If we are fuzzily supporting one side, then they may see no incentive to care if we get wiped out. Furthermore just giving up on some relationships or disengagement is very silly when you consider that events will occur without us. Long term relationships😛ower in this game.
I once heard a guest lecture at college describe non-alignment as a quitting a movie three scenes in. While we can ignore the movie and the actors influencing it. The movie will keep going along without us whether we like it or not. We can choose to stay involved and maybe influence the outcome of the end or stick our head in the sand and accept the eventual outcome.

So What?
Well the answer is simple, foreign relations is nothing more than controlled anarchy. What matters is who tries to manage this anarchy, who gives up and how we apply the lessons we learn. The eUS is really good at learning lesson the hard way on the second or third time around. We have to remember that ultimately every nation cares more about its long term survival than anything else. We also have to remember how other countries perceive our actions truly matters, we cannot assume that people will just see our intentions as kind spirited or logical. Finally we and our allies have to remember that the US is certainly not perfect. We cannot be expected to always make logical decisions or to understand every action. The eWorld is a perilous place for any eNation, especially those that do not remember the past and apply it to the future.