Why We Pick Active Neutrality Over Passive Neutrality

Day 1,056, 23:24 • Published in New Zealand Bolivia • by Arjay Phoenician
(TL😉R ALERT: This article argues that there are two kinds of neutrality, active and passive, and I reflect on my time in South Korea to prove passive neutrality will doom us to destruction, but active neutrality will mean sovereignty and independence. By signing MPP’s with countries of our own choosing, and by working with our neighbors for the sake of diplomacy and sincerity, we will not only create an active and vital community in this part of the world, but we will be able to do so without superalliance influence, and hence will be a richer and more rewarding experience. I opt for active neutrality over membership in EDEN or Phoenix, and I ask you to consider my arguments before you just go along with the crowd.

There’s a lot of talk in the New Zealand media about what neutrality is, where this country is going with its early lip service to neutrality. supabeasty claims, and I quote, neutrality is for losers. Devoid makes the distinction between neutrality on one hand, and being non-aligned and outside the influence of either Phoenix or EDEN on the other. Carr de Vaux tell us how difficult it is to maintain neutrality.

My offering to this discussion is the following thesis:

There are two different kinds of neutrality: active neutrality and passive neutrality. Passive neutrality is a proven failure, but active neutrality, if done by a tight-knit community and with neighbors we work with to forge deep and meaningful relationships, not only works, but is more rewarding than becoming a pawn for one superalliance or another.

Passive neutrality is defined by doing everything conceivably possible to stay out of the ways of the wicked world, sticking your head under the covers, and hoping no one picks on you. You don’t sign MPPs with anyone at all for fear that such a signing implies a bias toward the superalliance that country is part of. You don’t make the effort to foster diplomacy with your neighbors.

This was the sort of neutrality the leaders of South Korea employed for months after the Theocrats left the country. The premise was, because South Korea is a small and harmless country that poses no threat to its neighbors, because it’s destitute and without iron or titanium or any other resource aggressors might want, they’re not going to waste their gold or weapons by invading us.

What we didn’t count on was a neighbor country attacking us because they were bored and needed something to do. Of all our neighbors, Japan was the least likely to betray our neutrality, after assisting us for the longest time, but yet, once their “trollocracy” got into power, fresh with membership in Brolliance and a decided itch to try out its war machine, they looked for an easy military win. After a few taunts of “West Japan”, they declared war and invaded. That proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that passive neutrality does not work, because, no matter how hard you try to be small and insignificant, someone is eventually going to take a shot at you.

During our time of passive neutrality, there had been an offer on the table to sign an MPP with Russia, something that was voted down by our Congress for the very reasons that define this sort of neutrality; because an MPP with Russia would look like we were siding with Phoenix. No one had attacked since the Theocrats left, we were bland and broke, hence we were safe, right?

Of course, when Japan escalated the war and whittled us down to two regions, the MPP with Russia was no longer an option to ignore for the sake of remaining insignificant, but a necessity for survival. Within a week after the signing, we regained our regions by way of resistance wars, even getting back Jeju in the process. South Korea won the war against Japan because of the MPP, and at the end, they had more regions than before.

We abandoned passive neutrality for active neutrality. We realized that having an MPP did not define us as a member of a given superalliance, despite the will of the wicked world to make it so. We maintained the MPP with Russia, and so long as we had it, Japan was not going to waste the effort on us; at the time, Russia still had over 20,000 citizens, a constantly active military presence, and the ability to decimate Japan at whim. We made more of an effort to make contact with our neighbors, having a stand-out Minister of Foreign Affairs in Caley. We also tried on several occasions to talk with Japan to sign a peace treaty, ending the state of war, something that overshadowed everything we did.

When we talk about neutrality in New Zealand, this is the thing I’m thinking of, not staying out of the world’s way, not trying to hide in the shadows and hope no one picks on us, but signing MPP’s of our own choosing, working out relationships with our neighbors on our own efforts, without having to answer to the big boys in EDEN or Phoenix for permission.

I’m not naïve, I know that because this country is dominated by Australians and Americans, there’s going to be an EDEN bias. Even with that, an MPP with the US does not imply membership in EDEN of Brolliance, any more than the MPP with Russia implied South Korea’s membership in Phoenix, so long as we retain our ability to call our own shots. Once our leadership starts taking orders from the larger countries of one alliance or another, that’s when our sovereignty erodes, and we become a puppet.

One of my final acts in South Korea, working in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was to secure an MPP with a major military power, and with Russia dawdling with renewing, I took it on myself to ask several government, Phoenix and EDEN, about the possibility of signing with them. I approached the US and President St Krems, troll extraordinaire, about signing with them; though he said he would just simply looooooove to do just that, he was tied to Brolliance, which means he wouldn’t consider it until the trolls in Japan stopped talking crap and started talking peace. In other words, instead of seeing this as an opportunity for our two countries to start a new relationship and to pull us away from the Phoenix sphere of influence, the US’s official stance was to remain obedient to the wishes of their allies. We eventually renewed with Russia, but we proved two things by trying this:

1. Officially, South Korea was willing to work with anyone, regardless of alliance membership, for the sake of mutual benefit and maintenance of our sovereignty, and

2. Officially, the US would rather maintain the status quo and not seek better relations with us, for the sake of Brolliance.

Hence, in a very real way, South Korea was more independent than the US.

From January to October, while South Korea maintained its neutrality, passive and active, our neighbor, North Korea, never knew a single day of sovereignty. For the whole of 2010, North Korea was either a Russian puppet dominated by the “Belarussian” PTO community, or an EDEN puppet with Chinese and American leaders assuming control. While South Korea was fighting for its sovereignty against Japan and winning, North Korea remained under Russia’s thumb, without an identity of its own; while we were experiencing a baby boom, North Korea was PTO’d by EDEN and manipulated from that point on. The neutral South Korea might have flown under the radar of the rest of the world, but we struggled to call our own shots; the superalliance-dominated North Korea lost what real community it ever had because Russia’s, China’s, and the US’s dominance was so strong and unrelenting.

South Korea is an example to show the argument that passive neutrality will eventually lead to a neighbor taking a shot at us, and that active neutrality will allow us to cultivate our own culture of independence.

Yes, it’s a whole lot easier to just sign our sovereignty away to EDEN or Phoenix and let them do the thinking for us, but it’s also a much emptier existence. Independence is hard work, but in my opinion, I’d rather be in a free country run by patriots than a superalliance pawn run by trolls on the other side of the e-world.

I pick active neutrality, how about you?