I've been thinking - rather than just reacting to alliance offers we should generate the type of alliance we would like to have in advance. Then we can be proactive in locating the regions what would be the most desirable to partner with.

So I would like to hear what type of partnerships the council is most interested in forming...

Mainly, I'm not so much into alliances, as I am into intelligence gathering through an exchange of ambassadors.

Hence, I'd want to have relations with the pacifics, and the larger more significant regions...

If we do decide to enter any alliances, they should probably be mutual defense, that way we aren't expected to help with attacks on regions.

I'm also more in favor of friendly relations than alliances.

Right - "alliance" is really the wrong way to discribe a partnership with other regions.

Sharing of regional happenings through the exchange of ambassadors would be the core of the aggrement. Is there anything else we would hope to be able to agree to with other regions?

To tie in the UN discussion, we may ask for cooperation on UN issues of joint interest.

Ambassadors, and things like the Alberta issue. Offer diplomatic help in as neutral a manner as possible. Which will also help show Canada as a progressive nation with good intentions, opening us up for more relations.

This is one of the main areas I hope The North Pacific and Canada can co-operate.
Anything to try and improve the quality of UN resolutions is a positive move, in my book.

On the issue of formal alliances, even though I've successfully negotiated a few, I find they're really just a bunch of role-playing. There's no real way to enforce the provisions of an agreement. On the other hand, friendly and open conversation through ambassadors can bind regions together in a more tangible and effective manner than any signed paper can ever hope to do. You're more likely to co-operate with someone you know than a complete stranger.

Thanks Blackshear. The voice of experience is always welcome. Would you be willing to share any details on the tasks that you are assigned as ambassador? I'm thinking it would be a good idea to develope a standard job discription fo the post.

You post also gave me and idea for holding a monthly meeting in the forum for an cultural exchange. One month maybe everyone shows off tourist attractions and the next maybe an art display, something like that...

My job description, here, is frighteningly simple:
1) Answer any questions my fellow North Pacificans have about Canada
2) Answer any questions Canada has about the North Pacific

Of course that's over-simplified, but my job is really to keep the lines of communication open between regions and to put a face on The North Pacific. For example, if there's a UN proposal we'd like Canada to consider, it's easier to gain that support from a known source than from some unknown entity.

A specific job description for the job sounds like a good idea, though. I'm currently organizing the North Pacific diplomatic corps into something more coherent and I should put some thought into posting such a description. As Micon has noted, we can be disorganized, but in such a large region with so many voices trying to be heard it can be difficult to gain consensus. Hopefully, I'm making progress to change this in my small area.

I love the cultural exchange idea. I could set up a special section in our foreign dignitaries forum. Perhaps we could alternate hosting duties and put up links from one region to the other. The Commonwealth of Blackshear would love the opportunity to show-off its world-class tourist facilities.

LOL love those facilities! That type of post is exactly like what I had in mind. Thanks for all your help. I'd be glad to work with you to develop the job discription.

We are very excited to tour your lovely nation. Just wish the train would get here:

http://www.jackbishop.com/images/waiting.jpg

Hey HB is that you with the blue socks. They're real stylish. LOL

Do you like that "portable radio" next to him? Those socks almost glow in the dark!

Nice radio, who are your friends. Are they someone we all know. Maybe you should post in the Real Life Picture thread. It might go over real well.

If only I had a digital camera or scanner. Lucky for you I don't... ;)

* pinches pennys even harder *

Here's my initial draft:

Cultural Attaché Responsibilities:

• Establish friendly and open conversation with the assigned region with the goal of improving the partnership between the two regions.
• Answer any questions members of the assigned region have about Canada.
• Answer any questions Canada has about the assigned region.
• Communicate any significant events that occur in either region in the appropriate forum.
• Report the status of the assigned region to the Foreign Affairs Minister on a weekly basis.
• Offer pro-democracy, diplomatic support for fair play, the rule of law, and mutual respect in as neutral a manner as possible.
• Should a regional dispute occur, offer even-handed assistance in negotiating the dispute and the use of the Canadian forum as a neutral meeting place.
• Ensure that the assigned region understands that the Cultural Attaché does not speak for the region of Canada, that only the Council can make commitments for the region.

I like this. Very well thought out.

I like the idea Hudson. I do though, have a few questions though.

"Should a regional dispute occur, offer even-handed assistance in negotiating the dispute and the use of the Canadian forum as a neutral meeting place."
What would happen for example, if a Region used this to their advantage - as in the neutrality of Canada would provide leverage to sway a siutuation and this would be unfavourable, or favourable, to Canada for whatever reasons: be those diplomatic or otherwise?
A second question arising from this is: Would there be international aws or treaties put in place to preserve Canada's neurality in the event of arragements being made by one party that would jeopardise . Maybe I'm being dumb but I just wondered how these eventualities would be dealt with?

Rather than conversation in point one, I feel that dialogue may be a better choice of word. Also, it needs to be clarified as to whether it refers to Canada or Canada acting as a mediator. "...improving the partnership between the two regions..." could be interpreted as two Regions that are currently at odds. Is this how it's meant..?

I can't see if there are any other interpretational problems, but will add them if they appear (I don't think there will though). :huh:

Carbanousa thanks for the questions.

Not sure how to address this question. Creating a general purpose document that covers "whatever reasons" is beyond my skills but I can address a couple of points.

Neutrality - Canda's position is not neutral; we are pro-democracy. Our intent is to be even-handed if there is a dispute. If a region or regions asked us to mediate a dispute, I'm sure we would lay down some ground rules based in that specific case. Will that cover a situation where a region is tring to take advantage of us? I don't know. I would say the most of the folks active in this forum are pretty sharp. With only a very few exceptions, most of the nations in NS that I've seen aggressive enough to cause a regional dispute tend to be "a few bricks shy of a load". IMHO the odds are in our favor.

As the last point covers, creating treaties is beyond the responsibilities of the Cultural Attaché. Any treaty put into place would be done by the council. The only treaties that I've seen being put into place are either RP trade or are "military" agreements to recover from an invasion. As Blackshear has said, having a couple familiar nations between two given regions is much more useful in NS than a treaty.

I for one do not want to see Canada get involved in binding military arrangements or committing to counter-invasions. On the other-hand, if the region is opposed to placing the region controls in a founder there would be no other way to improve our security.

I think that "conversation" sounds closer and more friendly than "dialogue" but this is a job discription so the wording is not extremely critical.

No. The two regions in question are the region "assigned" to the Attaché and Canada. That half of the sentence is refering to the motivation directing the first half of the sentence "Establish friendly and open conversation".

Excellent job description HB. I have a question about the following point:

I take this to mean Canada would offer a neutral meeting place for its cultural partner and another, unaffiliated, region. Doesn't Canada's pre-established relationship with one side of the dispute preclude it's ability to remain neutral?

I'm not questioning the ability of your government to remain above the fray, even when a friend is involved, but it would be difficult to maintain an appearance of neutrality in such a dispute. I know you said offer even-handed assistance and that doesn't mean anyone has to take you up on it, but perhaps Canada should recuse itself from such disputes, if it's unclear whom the wronged party is. This will eliminate any claims of bias levelled against Canada.

That said, I think you did a great job on this and I look forward to reading the final draft. (I'll probably nick the first half for my official North Pacific diplomat's job description. :D )

You are correct. It would be hard for Canada to appear neutral. My hope is that if Canada says out of counter-invasions we can gain a reputation for being even-handed. Our forum space can appear as neutral territory IF Canada is perceived as even-handed.

I'm sure there will be cases where that is an appropriate response. In order for Canada to have a positive influence we can't back off every dispute. My hope is that NS can benefit from our example and we have to be involved for that to have any impact.

Cheers Hudson, that cleared a few things up.
"As the last point covers, creating treaties is beyond the responsibilities of the Cultural Attaché.".
So it would be necessary to either have, or be in the process of pursuing diplomatic realtions/negotitations with the assigned Region(s)?

I just thought that dialogue was more constuctive that's all but if it's only the job description it's probable a moot point.

"That half of the sentence is refering to the motivation directing the first half of the sentence"
I thought as much but just wanted to be sure.

I think the reference to Canada gaining a 'reputation' is as close to the mark as it's going to get. Reputation, prestige etc., speak far louder than all else.