Imperialism in Nationstates: An Essay
This is something I have been considering writing for a long time but I feel now is the right moment to actually do it. Over the past few weeks and months we have seen the general recognition of an imperialist sphere, not only by its protagonists and supporters, but also by more general raiders and also by defenders, who had previously lumped us in with raiders as one mass, ignoring the nuances and even stark differences between different groups and regions. For me, as one of the leading advocates of imperialism in Nationstates, as well as one of the architects of an imperialist sphere, I feel it would be a worthwhile exercise for both myself and hopefully anybody who is interested, to write by thoughts and ideas on this often difficult and misunderstood ideology. I hope you enjoy it.
To begin with, it is worthwhile to just define what imperialism means in the context of Nationstates. It is important not to confuse it with, or necessarily even associate it with, colonialism. Colonialism today in Nationstates, is in general a futile exercise that is detrimental to the home region and is only really practised by fringe groups and regions in any serious way. There was a window for it to be pursued during the period when auto-recruitment scripts were legal, and there may be a time again when they are worthwhile depending on how the proposed new telegram system works but for the moment colonialism is not a real force in Nationstates or a necessary part of an imperialist strategy and outlook.
Instead, for me imperialism in Nationstates means the policy of extending the power and influence of your region through whatever means available, be they military or cultural or some other alternative (colonialism could fall under this as it did in its heyday under Great Britain & Ireland and the Land of Kings and Emperors in the 2005-7 era). Imperialism is necessarily regionalist in outlook, even if many of its members are quite cosmopolitan and members of many regions. It is also primarily raider though it is not tied to notions of raider unity, or to ideas of every founderless region being a target, and when necessary an imperialist region will defend, for example when allies are threatened. An imperialist region need not necessarily be primarily raider but given defending is primarily a reactive process, rather than proactive, I think it would me much harder to pursue an imperialist policy without at least a general willingness to raid sometimes.
In the study of history, a much debated concept is that of Primat der Außenpolitik, the primacy of foreign affairs. Descending from the father of the modern discipline of history, Leopold von Ranke, it is the idea that the interactions between states are the driving force behind history. It is a very contested theme, with others arguing for Primat der Innenpolitik, the primacy of domestic politics, while others take a more determinist line, for example stressing that things such as geology are the key factors behind all history. In Nationstates, for imperialist regions the conflict between Außenpolitik or Innenpolitik can just be shortened to Primat der Politik, the primacy of politics. Imperialist regions are driven by intensely competitive political systems, and their interactions with the wider world of Nationstates are determined by these politics. On the battlefield it is most definitely a case of Primat der Außenpolitik though. Imperialist regions reject the moral defender attitudes to natives as a concept and reject the idea that all raiders should stand together. Instead choices of battles and targets, allies and enemies are all driven by the regions foreign policy objectives. It is pragmatic realpoliticks, stemming from a system where it is politics, rather than the fun of raiding or the desire to protect natives for example, that is the dynamic motivation behind the regions actions. People may be involved in the military because it is fun, I know Ive always enjoyed update raiding, and it may be deemed suitable to take a less extreme line towards natives, but the reasons behind are pragmatic political decisions.
An imperialist region pursues its foreign policy with the ultimate aim of being a great power, a force within Nationstates. This means not only a large and successful military, the primary tool of an imperialist region, but also a large population, lots of activity on the forum and a rich and diverse culture. All of these considerations are vital to an imperialist region. The result is necessarily an active foreign policy, building up alliances with likeminded regions to buttress each others strengths and compensate for each others weaknesses. This is seen clearly in the much decried policy of piling. That tactic has come about by imperialist regions ready and willing to aid others in return for both interregional prominence and in anticipation of future aid when that might be required. Likewise, cultural provisions are included in treaties, to show off your own culture and buttress it with input from other regions. The driving factor though in all of this is the politics of the home region.
Some of these things are characteristics of other, non-imperialist, regions of course. Most regions are concerned with culture, many are concerned about population and some are interested in being prominent on the battlefield. However, I believe that it is the unique distinction of those regions within the imperialist sphere to unite all of these under the pursuit of power and for the greatness of each region. Imperialism today is an ideological force in its own right in Nationstates. Imperialist regions demonstrated their strength militarily with a deployment of almost 50 units for the occupation of Christmas, a number that Im certain can be surpassed in future. Under this banner falls not only old and storied regions with rich histories, but new and exciting ones too. These regions have the power and the capability now to help reshape Nationstates and move gameplay away from the same bilateral raider-defender battle that has dominated for so long. It would not surprise me, and most certainly would not disappoint me, for me to look back this time next year and be able to say that 2013 was the year of the imperialists.