[Daehanjeiguk]

The Emperor had been consulted by foreign diplomats, asking for alliances. His Majesty was considered that forming alliances in haste would spell bad news for the Empire, and in his thoughts reviewed the political conditions. He saw no reason to decline an alliance, but likewise, remembering the instruction of Marshal Ma, he called for an audience with the Marshal, to determine the best decision.

(馬 - Ma)
(皇 - Emperor)

皇: I have been asked by nations of the West to form alliances with them. I do not feel that forming alliances with them is in bad taste, but I see little purpose in making an alliance with them. I have realized that alliances are a common tradition in the West, and I wish to make friendly relations with the West without making an alliance with them. In the matters of making friends, how do we make the situations suitable for making an alliance with them?

馬: His Majesty ought to be his own judge when determining friendly relations. He is the Sovereign of the Land and should not be influenced by what makes a friend different from his foes. But it is wise for His Majesty to question the purpose of an alliance before accepting it. He must analyze the situation independently, to ensure that our allies are our friends. Our friends will be the states that share mutual interests that benefit us – without them, we each suffer greatly, and with them, we profit even greatly. They will support us in the lowest of times, share our cheer in the highest of times, and whether we are allied, they will come to our aid.

皇: Then the friends among states are already allies.

馬: What is an ally if not a friend bound by written contract to come to your aid? The true friend stays by your side regardless of the circumstances. They have pledged their life for yours, as you for theirs. It is as the bond of kinsfolk, by blood and by law. They go to war for our cause, not because it is their cause, but because they feel obliged to aid you.

皇: But you spoke of a friend as one who shares our interests. Wouldn’t an ally therefore share our interests?

馬: It is true – but the true friend shares these interests out of their merit. The ally shares these interests because it also serves them well. The truth of an alliance is that you pledge to support each other in achieving your state interests, removing the threat of competition among one another. And it is possible to determine the range of your obligations and the amount of competition eliminated. Bilateral support implies that the agreement is between only two states and involves no one else; these are highly favored to massive multilateral agreements, which lose political stability while increasing the diversity of members and potentially increase political and military force.

皇: Is it possible to conceive of an alliance where the support is not military?

馬: It is possible, but otherwise foolish. Alliances bind states together by interdependence; they not only support each other, but they come to need each other. It is for this reason the sovereign must choose his allies carefully, for he must live with them. The unwelcome alliance is as an ill-conceived marriage – the divorce is painful, and neither partner is satisfied.

皇: But are there not other types of alliances?

馬: Indeed, and it does his Majesty well to use them accordingly.

A mutual protection agreement is strictly military and binds the defense of the parties together. It uses the concept of strength in numbers to help deter against larger threats than what any individual member could muster. Often, equal states will ally against a larger threat to defeat it, and their friendship is forged by mutual conflict with the same enemy. Sometimes, larger states will invite smaller states to increase their political power against other large states, to make their political will realized upon the world. Such alliances are considered “neo-colonialist” and sometimes end disastrously when the hegemon abuses its power. To employ a mutual protection agreement, you must consider one of three options: Do we share common political and military interests? Do our threats share a common origin? And does the agreement enhance our political and military power while negating obvious costs for its creation? I urge his Majesty to consider the last option carefully, for it is the most important of the three; if his Majesty cannot answer positively to any of the options, the agreement is not in the best interests of the state or of His Majesty.

A free trade agreement is an economic alliance, aimed at reducing competition with each other and increasing the productivity of all parties involved. It is usually accompanied with political attachments, but it can also stand alone as a simple regional agreement to open trade fairly for each other. It is the weakest of political agreements, but when strategically employed, it can turn potential enemies into willing allies, leading to other stronger political agreements. When making friends, it is best to open trade with each other, for affluence makes great friends. There are very few reasons why not to open free trade; it expands our economic markets, advancing our criterion of superiority, and even when employed against our enemies, it warms our relations. If in doubt, offer trade instead of military support; it casts better and more certain results, and such efforts can be checked before advancing to other levels of interdependency.

A confederation is a league of states aligned politically to support each other. It is strong union of the states, in which each member sacrifices a portion of its sovereignty to share political benefits of such a union. While not strictly militarily aligned, it brings the states closer than a free trade agreement, and even more so than a mutual protection agreement. It is beneficial for several small states to join together to share political strength against more prominent members of the world community, although such strengths are often employed poorly, due to internal discontent. Unless His Majesty wishes to test the system of confederacy, I strongly urge to avoid confederations of all sorts, and further to avoid allying with one, as it is certain to bring you many headaches.

A commonwealth is much like a confederation, except that political power is usually consolidated in one hegemon, which commands the loyalty of the members and employed the sole active force in the union. Like a confederation, it is a political union, and while not necessarily militarily active, the hegemon may call upon the military forces of members as it sees fit. A commonwealth is much sturdier, but just as a confederation, its members have political interests not necessarily shared among all members. Members may leave, if the hegemon permits it. If the commonwealth is strong, its political and military strength is enhanced, but the dynamics of the political structure make it unstable – hence, I would avoid serious alliances with commonwealths as well. If His Majesty wishes to form a commonwealth, he must be kind to the other members – as to his own subjects, for he pledges their protection. Together the political union of a commonwealth is as an alliance made to form a country under His Majesty’s supervision. But first, the state must be strong to form a commonwealth – while we are still growing, I would not advise forming a commonwealth.

The last sort of alliance is a treaty organization. It is the most active militarily, since it pledges military support according to conditions set in a treaty. It is the most stable of alliances, since by mutual agreement a treaty carries a strict legal obligation while allowing some extraneous conditions to permit members to withhold obligations. It is usually a military alliance, although under certain circumstances, it can be expanded to non-military functions related to security. As this is the most binding alliance of armed forces, I would strongly suggest avoiding joining a treaty organization, unless His Majesty is firmly satisfied with the constituency of the organization and is further satisfied with the conditions of the treaty. Nonetheless, a treaty organization is the most stable form of alliance, and any agreement with a treaty organization is likely to last long.

皇: You mentioned earlier that it is possible to turn our foes to allies, both by being the generous victor and opening trade. But you also mentioned that states that abuse their power often can make enemies from their friends. Is there any nature of political and military authority that can manage friends and foes?

馬: There are the three contingencies – trade, power, and humanity. By trade, His Majesty can favor his friends and isolate his enemies. He increases his economic wealth while leaving his enemies destitute. In this manner, they have no choice but to turn to His Majesty’s excellence and cease being hostile. If they make other alliances, we must improve the strength of our allies by opening free trade. Our friends will have no option but to become dependent upon us as we will be to them, while our enemies are left to either join or oppose us.

By power, His Majesty can command political and military force by controlling the seas, the skies, and the lands. The lands of the enemy shall not be immune to our will, and they have no choice but to accept the will of His Majesty. If they make alliances with others, we must make our alliance stronger by cultivating mutual defense policies and treaty obligations that recognize our shared conflict with the enemy. They must either join or oppose us. By skillful administration, we can manage our political and military allies while leaving our enemies without any support.

By humanity, His Majesty imparts his mercy and generosity upon the enemy and its populace. We make our state respected and we command the favor of the people of our enemy. By this, we oblige the state to fight itself while fighting us, for we have shown our moral and human excellence to them; they must turn to His Majesty’s excellence and become our friends. If they make alliances against us, we must demonstrate our generous and virtuous character to our allies and our enemies alike, to show our nature as a compassionate state. They must either reciprocate our actions or accept our moral excellence as superior.

If His Majesty employs these three contingencies, His Majesty’s state will command the respect and friendship of all. We become stronger by skillful administration and uniform employment of policies. However, if we lose our favor by trade, power, or humanity, we lose our friends and make new enemies. Therefore, it is important to maintain all three. We must trade with all our friends; we control the vital military and political accesses; we must demonstrate our virtuosity. In this manner, His Majesty shall become the true Regent of All under Heaven.

His Majesty must take caution however against all states. In the end, we compete against all states, even our friends. His Majesty must therefore judge when and where it is appropriate to abandon friends to accomplish greater objectives, and likewise use it strategically, where it employs a great benefit to us. Otherwise, abandoning alliances at random will hurt us worse than forming irrational alliances.

SUMMARY
- Friends can easily become foes so guard against it carefully.
- Don’t become too easily snared into alliances that serve no beneficial purpose to your state.
- Bilateral alliances are stable and small; easy to manage.
- Multilateral alliances bring many states together, increasing the potential political and military force of your state, but it also carries a higher cost of maintenance.
- Mutual Defense is a good simple military alliance, but it works well if you trust them.
- Free Trade builds trust that can be used to form military alliances later on.
- Confederations are big bulky masses of political conventions that have little political force.
- Commonwealths are confederations with a hegemon at the apex of power among the members.
- Treaty Organizations – while wildly popular and relatively stable – demand a lot of trust and respect for the individual members.
- Alliances can be made for trust, convenience, or both.
- Break alliances when it serves your interests, but be wary that it decreases your trustworthiness in international politics and may make you more vulnerable than before.