My fellow Canadians,

Friends, we live in a great land. A nation whose natural beauty stretches from coast to coast and whose inclusion of newcomers different than we is without parallel in the world. We are a country proud and able to celebrate diversity, willing to put ourselves on the line to speak for freedom, truth, and democracy. Canada is a country that recognizes the importance of national sovereignty while at the same time is cognizant of its limitations. We are a land where there is no taboo attached to skating around on frozen bodies of water, drunk out of our minds. We have so much to be proud of Canadians and, because of what our land is and what it represents, we have the responsibility to share it with the world. And we can do better.

My name is Gordon Klein, and it is with that in mind that I announce my candidacy for the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Canadian cabinet.

While I congratulate the incumbent minister for the impressive accomplishments of the last term, I ask Canadians to measure the successes of the minister not against what has been done (a new embassy in 10000 islands), but what could and must be done in order to fulfill the implicit Canadian mandate to share our unique way of life with the world. There are 12,961 regions in this world and, with Canada's stellar international reputation, there is no reason that we should not be able to expand our presence in all of them. Not only will this increased presence make more aware of Canada's uniqueness and beauty, it will also aid in the recruiting efforts we as Canadians agree are so important.

As your Minister of Foreign Affairs, I pledge to double the number of foreign Canadian embassies currently in existence.

Columberta is a new member of the Canadian population, a concession I am willing to make from the outset of this campaign. What that means, however, is that I have far more immediate experience with life in other regions. It also means that I have the ability to truthfully say that the work of this Minister of Foreign Affairs had nothing to do with my decision to immigrate. COming from the Pacific, that signifies a huge lack of presence on the part of this region. That I, a young nation, had to listen to the wind for news of a better place like Canada is unacceptable.

This election is the time to hold the incumbent Minister, BCC, responsible to the shortfalls of the last term. It is the time to breathe new life into the foreign relations of our great country. It is the chance for new energy, new vision, and new esteem for Canada abroad. With your help, I can make Canada a true presence in the world at large and augment our capacities to attract tourists and migrants.

Oh boy - a race.

I'll go first:

Questions for the Candidates:

1. Canada has had much trouble staffing its current complement of embassies. Where are we going to find the staff for an additional ten embassies?

2. What criteria will be used to determine whether a prospective region is worthy of diplomatic relations with Canada?

3. Should Canada have embassies in other Pacific regions, and why?

4. Both candidates seem to have an active interest in bringing migrants into the region from abroad. Whats each of your opinions/goals/ideas to get members of the region at large active in the forums? Is it a priority with the goal to get 10 more ambassadors together? And what are some of the prospective regions?

As a relatively recent arrival to Canada, I can say honestly that the reason there is a shortage of willing ambassadors is that the MFA has failed to make new members adequately aware of the opportunities inherent in ambassadorial positions. In order to stimulate interest in ambassadorships, I would, as MFA, form a small committee responsible for ambassador recruitment. The committee members would, among themselves, devise a formula for telegramming new Canadians about the possibilty of ambassadorships and inviting responses. The formula would follow that, should no response to this initial soliticiation be recieved, a follow-up would be undertaken. In short, I would, as MFA, ensure that no Canadian refuses an ambassadorial position without cause or communication, and certainly without knowing that ambassadorships exist!

Jurisprudence vis-a-vis the assesment of prospective diplomatic affiliates states that as much information that can be garnered from the members of a region, the region's websites and postings, and former inhabitants, should be used. The most important criteria is perhaps the mainstream factor. That is, we should not be establishing relations with single-nation regions or with regions that exist only to serve fascist-minded nations. As MFA I would steer Canadian foreign relations away from the fringe and toward the mainstream.

To answer this question without reservation would be to unfairly assume uniformity where there is none. Whether or not Canada should have embassies in other Pacific regions depends on the regions themselves. As MFA I would endeavour to submit to Cabinet detailed reports on prespective embassy host nations prior to taking a decision, regardless of the regions characteristics.

How does one plan to take the shotage of ambassadorial interest, yet manage to devise a commitee out of apathy as well as form ambassadors for at least 10 other regions - all while recognizing that there is too few interest in ambassadorships.

How come also you haven't adressed the other question posed to you?

Isn't this deemable as harassment?

Once again, isn't this harassment? If someones personality is more aloof than others, is it fair to continue to pester them just because they haven't responded? Would this be counterproductive to getting people to stay in the region?

Just a few questions:

What was your original motivation for running for office?

Will you be participating in other aspects of the forum outside of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? If so, which areas most intrigue you?

What skills and experiences do you possess that make you suitable for this position?

The personnel for a committee charged with recruiting ambassadors can easily be found among current ambassadors. It follows that as more ambassadors are recruited, the workload for committee member (ambassador) diminshes, providing an inherent incentive to recruit. The fact is, the job of ambassador is a rewarding one and one that will be well recieved if people were just to be told about it. We have an information deficit in Canada that needs to be addressed. Dealing with that deficit is what I aim to do.

To answer MrPopo's earlier question about involvement in the forums, I think it's only fair to say that the more our members are active in our forums, the healthier our region will be. I'll return to what I've stated about an information deficit. Cabinet needs to be more communicative in Canada.

This leads to the concern about harassment. It is not unreasonable to ask that Canadian mamber nations respond to communications from Cabinet members. That's common courtesy. My point is not that we should be assaulting new members with communications and telegrams. That's not reasonable. What I've suggested is better communication from the MFA about the opportunities administered by the ministry. This could be a formalized first correspondence from cabinet that has more details about Canada and opportunities. At any rate, this doesn't exist and it has to if our diplomatic profile and outlook are to improve.

At the risk of sounding like a Miss America pageant contestant, I felt that there was something to be improved upon in the MFA, and that I could do the job of implementing it. I felt and feel that I have something to offer my fellow Canadians in terms of resourcefulness, intellectual zest, organization, ideas, and energy. There is a job to be done, and I feel I am the person to do it.

Of course, I will be extending my forum involvement beyond the MFA regardless of the electorate's decision this month. As a borderlien policy wonk, the areas of the forums that best intrigue me are those that deal with UN activity and regionally-important topics of debate (such as the House of Commons). Of course, should my credentials be accepted by Canadians (and I sincerely hope that they are) and I am elected, the lion's share of my time will be dedicated to conducting MFA business in MFA forums and elsewhere.

Besides years of experience in negotiation outside of the NationStates simulation, I am the leader of a nation that is moderate in all respects that, despite ideological differences with other nations and regions, has no characteristics that could preclude the healthy conduct of business. As stated elsewhere in this release, I am extremely well-organized, diligent, and hard working. I am open to counsel and input, a characteristic that would not only be a crucial part of any healthy negotiation, but would also allow me to carry out my duties in the most democratic way possible.

I stand open to further questions! Thanks to Bweezy, MrPopo, and Blackshear for their queries thusfar.

Thank you for answering my questions, Columberta. I appreciate the time and effort you (and all the other candidates, for that matter) invested in your replies.

What is your response to the new defensive alliance proposal in the Pacifics?
Do you believe this new proposal will fundamentally change Canada's foreign policy direction?
What do you believe our foreign policy toward stable, mainly democratic, and large regions should be?
Finally, what would be our main reason to entice nations in other regions to Canada?

I don't believe that pursuing defensive alliances is a good way for a minister of foreign affairs to spend his or her time when war games exist at this point outside the larger NationStates simulation. If a change to the NS game were to take place, I would, as Minister, act strictly in the best interests of Canadian security in coming to a decision on this particular matter.

No, I don't, and I'll tell you why. Canadian foreign policy is about building bridges across the NS world and not with building walls around regional alliance groups. As minister of foreign affairs, I would pursue a foreign policy that, in keeping within the parameters of the NationStates game, takes into account the interests of Canadians, which means the MFA spending its time looking after pertinent foreign affairs matters rather than allowing itself to be drawn into the wild and wonderful world of unofficial NS onsite forum wargames.

This is a tricky point. In an ideal world, we would strive both to keep healthy relations open with them while at the same time taking away all their member nations and having them become Canadian. The way I think we can have the best of both worlds is to use good relations as a means of recruiting immigrants. By presenting Canada in the best light possible, our calls for immigration will never fall on deaf ears. We therefore have to in the short term kowtow to a small extent to these regions, with our eyes on the long-term prize of building a strong enough reputation abroad to allow for the recruitment of new migrants to Canada.

New Havarad, this is your easiest question by far. The reason for that is that the answer is simple: Canada defines the balancing act between democracy and anarchy. We are a region whose democratic process is healthy, that epitomizes the qualities of openness and welcoming that make Canada a wonderful country beyond the NS simulation. As MFA my line would be simple: In Canada, you will be free to simply be a resident of our great, non-crappy region, but you never be without the chance to become involved in the invigorating life of the region, its politics, and its incredible people.

Having said all that, I should add that our line to members of different regions would necessarily be different. As MFA I would see to it that the time was taken to analyse the differences between regions and the qualities that would persuade nations to "stay put" before crafting a recruitment line that speaks directly to the target nation. In short, I will never preside over a rubber-stamp and form-letter Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Thank you for your questions, New Havarad. I sincerely hope to be given the chance to serve you as your Minister of Foreign Affairs.

From what I can tell, spamming other regions boards has been shunned upon from Cabinets back as far as I remember. I hope if you are elected you plan to maintain this integrity and not put recruitment messages on other regions Civil HQ forums.

Spamming other regional boards is an offence that could get you deleted. It is only permitted in the five pacifics and in the RR.

Telegramming nations individually has not yet been subject to an official ruling, but I subscribe to the same standards - its ok to telegram Pacific and RR nations - I think it is a greyer area in user regions (I did try to convince the "voices of reason" in one user created region to come over last month in a targetted strike to try to avert a civil war there)

I believe that I read somewhere, that you may only send one unsolicited recruiting telegram to a nation. Otherwise, if they complain to the mods, you can get deleted.

I read that thread too - it was my understanding that this was not a policy of the mods, but a suggestion by a user. Now that we have the ability to block other users, that rule likely is moot - if you don't want to hear from a nation, you can just block them, thereby allowing the mods to worry about real problems - like those who spam Canada's CHQ :).

On the last recruiting drive, the first nation I tg'd had me blocked! :(

Apparently I had tg'd them before! :blush:

:D

At any rate, not being able to telegram individual nations without solicitation only means that we'll have to rely upon the official diplomatic channels to get the name "Canada" on other regions' lips. The information deficit can be rectified by establishing ties and doing all that we can legally to use those ties to our recruiting advantage.

For clarification - you CAN telegram individual nations - you CAN'T post recruiting messages on the Civil Headquarters of User Created Regions (which means that you can only post to the five pacific regions and the Rejected Realms).

So a suggestion of individually contacting nations is sound, and not necessarily in contravention of any rules.

There is a thread somewhere in the NationStates Forum that explains this. Although some Nations may complain about this, there is nothing that can be done. If the Nation doesn't wish to be contacted again, then they add the senders name to their 'Ignore' population.

Without this facility, user-created Regions would be non-existent or contain very few resident Nations.

Ignore button or no, nations are allowed to complain if you send them more than one telegram on the same subject without receiving a response. It is an ejectable offence to do so and was exercised more than once by the mods in the NP.