Changes/Additions to Foreign Policy - MPPs and Embargos

[chiefpaco]

With the advent of Nationalism, we gained the ability to form Military Protection Pacts and Trade Embargos. I shall address both, because I believe both partly fall under the Department of Foreign Affairs' domain.


Military Protection Pacts
I think it should be a joint or independent decision from the Military Department and/or FA to propose these, accompanied by a citizen vote based on the following guidelines. Should our nation be approached by another during a round, the following guidelines shall be applied, to be followed by a citizen spot vote:

MPPs may not be signed:
- With Rogue States*.
- To drag us into a war with a Common Neighbour, Able Partner, or Favoured Neighbour.

MPPs may be signed:
- With Suspect Nations on high military emergency, accompanied by an investigation.
- With Common Neighbours when a large gain can be made.
- With Able Partners when a small gain can be made.
- With Friendly Neighbours on fair trade.


Trade Embargos
I think it should be a joint or independent decision between the Trade Department and/or FA to propose these, accompanied by a citizen vote based on the following guidelines. Should our nation be approached by another during a round, the following guidelines shall be applied, to be followed by a citizen spot vote:

Trade Embargos may not be signed:
- With Suspect Nations, Common Neighbours, or Rogue States.
- On Favoured Nations, Able Partners, or Common Neighbours.
- With nations to embargo a nation higher than or equal to public opinion.

Trade Embargos may be signed:
- With nations to embargo other nations lower on our opinion scale.
- With Able Partners and Favoured Nations.
- On Suspect Nations and Rogue States.


Addition to Foreign Policy
- The FA Department shall support operating under the same government by our most Favoured nations.

I believe this article will help our relations with our friendly neighbours. This article does not supersede any poll or decision, but shall be the stance of the Foreign Affairs in order to remain as diplomatic as possible in Foreign relations.

Please share your opinion on these matters. A separate poll on any of the MPPs, Trade Embargos, and new Foreign Policy proposals will follow if there is at least one objection for these.

*Public Opinion and ratings refers to the official FA list of opinion ranks.

 

[chiefpaco]

Note, we shall go purely by voting until these measured are discussed and approved. Hopefully by the next couple turn chats, we will have these measures sorted out.

 

[Shaitan]

MPP's can be quite dangerous. Once the MPP is signed we're at war with anybody who our protection partner goes to war with. I'd say put suspect nations in the "never" category. I'd hate to end up at war with a most favored nation because we have a MPP with a scumbag suspect nation.

Other than that it looks good!

 

[Cyc]

cp, personally, I am against MPP all together. The simplest, weakest, most peace-loving nation will declare in a heartbeat if you've signed an MPP with them and the world sees our nation sprint out to a good lead. It is only asking for trouble and war weariness.
I rarely use trade embargos as that would make me feel as if I was using a powerful nation to determine the fate of a weaker one. If they are more powerful, then sure, I don't have a problem with that.
And because I can choose my own wars (because I don't sign MPP's), I always go for Democracy and it's benefits. I see no diplomatic advantage or benefit from matching governments.

 

[eyrei]

I am absolutely against signing MPPs with anyone! If we need protection, we sign an alliance with someone. We can do the same to defend a friendly nation. MPPs will only result in us being at war with our friends.

 

[punkbass2000]

I agree, no MPP's. I see no reason not to use TRade embargoes in any situation that is advantageous to us, however.

 

[chiefpaco]

I think what I was saying in the Addition to Foreign policy proposal (the government part) was that I think the FA should strive to keep our favoured nations on good terms with us. Rather than pin the FA down to one specific aspect, I think there is more than one way we can do this:
- Support trading
- Gifts
- Establish Embassies
- Choosing like governments
- Keep our troops out of their territory
- Diplomatic agreements

I think the main of a new proposal would be like this:
The FA will support actions to create a polite or gracious attitude from our Able Partners and Most Favoured Nations. This includes....(above)

Perhaps a revisal of this proposal shall come in a bit. I'll keep the debate open, but probably repropose it to the above.

Meanwhile, I am accepting the anti-MPP sentiment as valid criticism on proposed Foreign policy. I want to make it clear that making it allowable to sign MPPs under certain conditions does not imply we ever will. I am quite certain the respondants were aware of that, but I just wanted to be clear.

Shaitan's suggestion was included in my rough draft, but I changed my mind to throw out the military emergency/investigation. Upon reflecting a bit, I think I agree with Shaitan's good advice.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I am opposed to MPP's with any nation.

We should acquire the knowledge of building infantry and artillery, which will enable our wise generals to secure Phoenatica's borders for the next several hundred years without the need for risky partnerships with nations who would stab us in the back.

Bill
...in PDX

 

[Eklektikos]

The only thing I've ever really found MPPs to be reliably useful for is getting myself into wars without taking a reputation hit when playing an aggressive militaristic style of game. Otherwise they tend to be a liability, as many people have pointed out in this thread. Personally I think it would be in the interests of the Empire to rule out this dangerous diplomatic option...

 

[chiefpaco]

I withdraw the initial proposal and submit this revised FA Policy proposal for review:

By reversing the logic of this article, I think this amendment better outlines a basis for any proposal if we need assistance in war:

Current Article #2:
We will seek military alliances with civilizations of an equal or higher rating than our opponents.

Amendment:
We may not seek military alliances, military protection pacts, or trade embargos with civilizations of a lower rating than recognized or potential victims.
/end #2 amendment


Based on the mainly negative response to MPPs:

New Article #9
Unless specifically previously proposed and accepted by the citizens, Military Protection Pacts, Alliances, and Trade Embargos shall be rejected during the course of a turn. They will be noted and put to a vote for us to decide if we wish to initiate them for turn 0 of the next round.
/end #9

Scrap the rest of the rules on MPPs. The new article #2 will cover the basic guidelines and #9 shall only permit them to be signed between turns upon public approval. Also, if it is determined during chat that a MPP, Alliance, or TE may be beneficial, I think that would be only under emergency, and already be cause for stopping the chat.


The following article covers the scope of FA better, I think, and basically defines what we are trying to do.
New Article #10
We will attempt to achieve and maintain a polite or gracious attitude from our Favoured Nations and Able Partners. We will also attempt to avoid a furious attitude from our Common Neighbours. This may involve any of the following with such nations, subject to a proposal and citizen acceptance:
- Promoting trade
- Small Gifts
- Establishing Embassies
- Right of Passage Agreements
- Limiting troop movement in their territory

 

[Cyc]

I like it, chiefpaco. Good job.