The Case for Multilateral Treaties

[Elegarth]

Uno's misunderstanding of the GCR SAs basics ruins any prospect of expecting a decent analysis of it.

While I do believe multiregional agreements are a useful tool, nothing prevents a "fully democratic" region as you like to call them, Uni, to subscribe the accords as well. It was actually one of the details discussed in the original conversation.

I'm sure, however, that their distrust dor their own membership would not leave them to sign into them

[Cormactopia Prime]

While I do believe multiregional agreements are a useful tool, nothing prevents a "fully democratic" region as you like to call them, Uni, to subscribe the accords as well. It was actually one of the details discussed in the original conversation.

I'm sure, however, that their distrust dor their own membership would not leave them to sign into them

I have to disagree with this as well. What likely prevents the Feeders and Sinkers that Unibot describes as "democratic" from joining the GCR Sovereignty Accords is the ambiguity in regard to what the four current signatories will do if a Delegate from a "democratic" Feeder or Sinker goes rogue and overthrows their government. Would they just ignore the coup because it was launched by the sitting Delegate? Would they support the coup because it was launched by the sitting Delegate? Neither of those scenarios would be at all helpful to the constitutional government that is struggling against the rogue Delegate to restore the rule of law, and the latter scenario would be actively detrimental.

Until that ambiguity is resolved, the GCR Sovereignty Accords aren't a viable framework for including Feeders and Sinkers that are grounded in the rule of law. I think it has a lot more to do with that than biases or distrust toward the existing signatories.

[Canton Empire]

Unibot, and to everyone else, Do you think it would be possible to organize the Feeders, Sinkers, Warzones, and prominent GCRs into one, United Nations-esqe, organization? Is it needed?

[Cormactopia Prime]

Unibot, and to everyone else, Do you think it would be possible to organize the Feeders, Sinkers, Warzones, and prominent GCRs into one, United Nations-esqe, organization? Is it needed?

Including the Warzones in anything would be lulzy. Let's not.

Moving on to the meat of your question, there are a number of problems with it. First of all, there is a massive difference between what Unibot is advocating -- which is a multilateral mutual defense pact -- and the creation of an interregional organization with its own bureaucracy. Under the right conditions, the former may have merit. The latter does not. Such organizations have failed, and done damage to their signatory regions, time and again. It is high time for us to learn the lessons of past interregional organizations and stop repeating such failures.

The other issue is that a "United Nations"-like organization would be unenforceable. There are unlikely to be consequences for Feeders and Sinkers that violate the terms of the organization, and there definitely wouldn't be any consequences for user-created regions with founders. If the only consequence you can hope to impose is the loud sound of "tsk tsk" for violation of an agreement, the endeavor is not worth pursuing unless you can trust the other region(s) not to violate the agreement. In this case, no such foundation of trust would, or could, exist, between very diverse regions.

[Cerian Quilor]

Until that ambiguity is resolved, the GCR Sovereignty Accords aren't a viable framework for including Feeders and Sinkers that are grounded in the rule of law. I think it has a lot more to do with that than biases or distrust toward the existing signatories.

I'm curious, are you saying that Balder and Osiris don't have the rule of law?

*genuine confusion as to your intent*

[Belschaft]

While I do believe multiregional agreements are a useful tool, nothing prevents a "fully democratic" region as you like to call them, Uni, to subscribe the accords as well. It was actually one of the details discussed in the original conversation.

I'm sure, however, that their distrust dor their own membership would not leave them to sign into them

I have to disagree with this as well. What likely prevents the Feeders and Sinkers that Unibot describes as "democratic" from joining the GCR Sovereignty Accords is the ambiguity in regard to what the four current signatories will do if a Delegate from a "democratic" Feeder or Sinker goes rogue and overthrows their government. Would they just ignore the coup because it was launched by the sitting Delegate? Would they support the coup because it was launched by the sitting Delegate? Neither of those scenarios would be at all helpful to the constitutional government that is struggling against the rogue Delegate to restore the rule of law, and the latter scenario would be actively detrimental.

Until that ambiguity is resolved, the GCR Sovereignty Accords aren't a viable framework for including Feeders and Sinkers that are grounded in the rule of law. I think it has a lot more to do with that than biases or distrust toward the existing signatories.

Indeed - TSP has had that exact problem with TWP in the past, and for quite some time refused to recognize it's government as a result. The ambiguity on this issue is readily apparent in the SA, and it's thus clear why most of the GCR's with a constitutional basis of government want nothing to do with it.

[Unibot III]

While I do believe multiregional agreements are a useful tool, nothing prevents a "fully democratic" region as you like to call them, Uni, to subscribe the accords as well. It was actually one of the details discussed in the original conversation.

I'm sure, however, that their distrust dor their own membership would not leave them to sign into them

I have to disagree with this as well. What likely prevents the Feeders and Sinkers that Unibot describes as "democratic" from joining the GCR Sovereignty Accords is the ambiguity in regard to what the four current signatories will do if a Delegate from a "democratic" Feeder or Sinker goes rogue and overthrows their government. Would they just ignore the coup because it was launched by the sitting Delegate? Would they support the coup because it was launched by the sitting Delegate? Neither of those scenarios would be at all helpful to the constitutional government that is struggling against the rogue Delegate to restore the rule of law, and the latter scenario would be actively detrimental.

Until that ambiguity is resolved, the GCR Sovereignty Accords aren't a viable framework for including Feeders and Sinkers that are grounded in the rule of law. I think it has a lot more to do with that than biases or distrust toward the existing signatories.

My problem with this: if I were a FA Minister in TSP, TRR etc. I would see basically zero value in a security pact with at least 3 out of 4 of the current GCR Soverignty Accord members; they have a history of disregarding treaty law if they sense the couper will fit their military/political goals. Joining the GCR Sovereignty Accords is, as far as I'm concerned, a lamb joining a pack of wolves and expecting civility, protection and the rule of law. The behaviour of the democratic GCRs is more law abiding and thus shoring up political support with legal obligations amongst the democratic GCRs is important and valueable. I could see the value in signing both the GCR Soverignty Accords and a separate Democratic Pact but that's an entirely different question - the moment, say NPO or Balder ignored the terms of the Accord during a crisis it would weaken the whole legitimacy of the Accord for all parties.

Edit: I'll add that it wasn't a bad question to ask.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Until that ambiguity is resolved, the GCR Sovereignty Accords aren't a viable framework for including Feeders and Sinkers that are grounded in the rule of law. I think it has a lot more to do with that than biases or distrust toward the existing signatories.

I'm curious, are you saying that Balder and Osiris don't have the rule of law?

*genuine confusion as to your intent*

To be clear, no, I'm not. I think they now feel so secure in their Delegacies that they are no longer concerned about the possibility of a rogue Delegate, which renders concern about maintaining the rule of law less vital. Very few, if anyone, in the communities of Balder or Osiris believe Rach or Neo Kervoskia will overthrow their constitutional governments, and they believe their monarchist systems will provide the stability that they will never again need to be vitally concerned about that prospect.

Whether that sense of security is misplaced is open to debate, but I do think that's why Balder and Osiris are comfortable with the GCR Sovereignty Accords, despite the agreement offering them no guaranteed protection against a rogue Delegate. The more pressing threats to the signatories of the GCR Sovereignty Accords, as they perceive them, are external rather than internal forces. There is some validity to that, as the challenges to the regimes in all four regions have largely come from other regions rather than from within.

My problem with this: if I were a FA Minister in TSP, TRR etc. I would see basically zero value in a security pact with at least 3 out of 4 of the current GCR Soverignty Accord members; they have a history of disregarding treaty law if they sense the couper will fit their military/political goals. Joining the GCR Sovereignty Accords is, as far as I'm concerned, a lamb joining a pack of wolves and expecting civility, protection and the rule of law.

Osiris has always respected its treaty commitments to defend its allies. I don't know if Osiris was the one you were thinking about when you said "at least 3 out of 4," but I felt that clarification was worth noting. Whatever domestic instability Osiris has endured, it has always honored its treaty commitments, e.g., defense of the South Pacific against Milograd (even while fellow SovCon members were supporting his regime), assistance to The East Pacific during its recent crisis, etc.

I won't speak in regard to the other three signatories, as I'm less familiar with their comprehensive histories and the internal decision making that went into past decisions related to coups.

[Unibot III]

Osiris was the one I was referring to but I would feel a lot less secure about Osiris under its new leadership than under your leadership to be blunt.

[Cerian Quilor]

I'm curious, are you saying that Balder and Osiris don't have the rule of law?

*genuine confusion as to your intent*

To be clear, no, I'm not. I think they now feel so secure in their Delegacies that they are no longer concerned about the possibility of a rogue Delegate, which renders concern about maintaining the rule of law less vital. Very few, if anyone, in the communities of Balder or Osiris believe Rach or Neo Kervoskia will overthrow their constitutional governments, and they believe their monarchist systems will provide the stability that they will never again need to be vitally concerned about that prospect.

Whether that sense of security is misplaced is open to debate, but I do think that's why Balder and Osiris are comfortable with the GCR Sovereignty Accords, despite the agreement offering them no guaranteed protection against a rogue Delegate. The more pressing threats to the signatories of the GCR Sovereignty Accords, as they perceive them, are external rather than internal forces. There is some validity to that, as the challenges to the regimes in all four regions have largely come from other regions rather than from within.

Appreciate the clarification. ^^

[Elegarth]

While I do believe multiregional agreements are a useful tool, nothing prevents a "fully democratic" region as you like to call them, Uni, to subscribe the accords as well. It was actually one of the details discussed in the original conversation.

I'm sure, however, that their distrust dor their own membership would not leave them to sign into them

I have to disagree with this as well. What likely prevents the Feeders and Sinkers that Unibot describes as "democratic" from joining the GCR Sovereignty Accords is the ambiguity in regard to what the four current signatories will do if a Delegate from a "democratic" Feeder or Sinker goes rogue and overthrows their government. Would they just ignore the coup because it was launched by the sitting Delegate? Would they support the coup because it was launched by the sitting Delegate? Neither of those scenarios would be at all helpful to the constitutional government that is struggling against the rogue Delegate to restore the rule of law, and the latter scenario would be actively detrimental.

Until that ambiguity is resolved, the GCR Sovereignty Accords aren't a viable framework for including Feeders and Sinkers that are grounded in the rule of law. I think it has a lot more to do with that than biases or distrust toward the existing signatories.

Exactly: their mistrust of their own membership, embodied in the election of a Delegate that goes "rogue". We are saying the same, C, just that you are being more polite

[Cormactopia Prime]

Osiris was the one I was referring to but I would feel a lot less secure about Osiris under its new leadership than under your leadership to be blunt.

I don't want to digress too far, but I will note that Osiris' diplomatic network -- which you've identified as the strongest in your analysis -- didn't happen overnight or exclusively during my term(s), and endured despite instability largely because there was no question that our external commitments would continue to be honored. Whatever the motives of various present or future leaders, they would have to be stupid to throw that away to support a coup in an allied region that would be likely to fail, and stupid is one thing I think we can agree Neo Kervoskia is not. I'm confident that Osiris will continue to honor its treaty commitments to both present and future allies.

This is the problem, frankly, with painting Feeders and Sinkers with such a broad brush -- "democratic" vs. "not democratic," "rule of law" vs. "rule of the sitting Delegate," or "raider" vs. "defender." The situation is often far more complicated because each Feeder or Sinker community has diverse interests and complex history. Despite some basic common principles, Osiris is not the same as the Pacific, Balder is not the same as the West Pacific, the West Pacific is not the same as the Pacific, Osiris is not the same as Balder, etc. We should not create divisions between Feeders and Sinkers based on oversimplification.

Exactly: their mistrust of their own membership, embodied in the election of a Delegate that goes "rogue". We are saying the same, C, just that you are being more polite

A healthy level of caution when a region's Delegacy changes hands relatively frequently, and based on democratic election, is reasonable. These regions have had rogue Delegates in the past who were intent on overthrowing governments that enjoyed broad community support.

There is no reason for such regions to want to join the GCR Sovereignty Accords if their governments won't be defended, or if rogue Delegates may even receive support from other signatories based on the wording of the agreement.

[Consular]

What does the line between Albion and TNP represent?

The North Pacific and Albion Security Treaty? Or was that voided in Albion's semi-recent FA change. It's still hosted on TNP's forum as active...

It's still in force. The only treaty Albion voided was one with Osiris.

I just asked because I believe Albion has security treaties with The West Pacific and Balder that don't have lines... As well as with a rather large number of UCRs, Europeia, etc

[Myrth]

But there's obvious distinctions between NPO and other feeders:

The existing power elite have all the means to prevent their own dethroning. Transitions of power are entirely voluntary.

How is this different to how any other GCR operates? All GCRs are ultimately controlled mostly off-site by an elite that is quite distinct from the NS region as a whole, and have those same means to prevent their own dethroning. The only thing stopping a delegate from going rogue is them choosing not to.
The Pacific is just a little more transparent about this and doesn't bother to dress it up with popularity contests held on off-site forums.

[Wickedly evil people]

Forumite fantasy about what is democracy and what isn't passed off with reams of nonsensical analysis is boring.


There are no legitimate elections in NS except those sanctioned by Max, all others are but forumite scams.

[Unibot III]

The North Pacific and Albion Security Treaty? Or was that voided in Albion's semi-recent FA change. It's still hosted on TNP's forum as active...

It's still in force. The only treaty Albion voided was one with Osiris.

I just asked because I believe Albion has security treaties with The West Pacific and Balder that don't have lines... As well as with a rather large number of UCRs, Europeia, etc

That was silly of me: I thought " The Treaty of the Knights Who Say Ni" was for a UCR that didn't exist anymore; the "Knights Who Say Ni."

I'll add those new lines when I get the chance. Cool.

[Elegarth]

I just asked because I believe Albion has security treaties with The West Pacific and Balder that don't have lines... As well as with a rather large number of UCRs, Europeia, etc

As far as I remember, we do (TWP and Albion). That hasn't changed, unless I missed something big...

Also, what Eli said!

[Unibot III]

Unibot, and to everyone else, Do you think it would be possible to organize the Feeders, Sinkers, Warzones, and prominent GCRs into one, United Nations-esqe, organization? Is it needed?

Including the Warzones in anything would be lulzy. Let's not.

Moving on to the meat of your question, there are a number of problems with it. First of all, there is a massive difference between what Unibot is advocating -- which is a multilateral mutual defense pact -- and the creation of an interregional organization with its own bureaucracy. Under the right conditions, the former may have merit. The latter does not. Such organizations have failed, and done damage to their signatory regions, time and again. It is high time for us to learn the lessons of past interregional organizations and stop repeating such failures.

The other issue is that a "United Nations"-like organization would be unenforceable. There are unlikely to be consequences for Feeders and Sinkers that violate the terms of the organization, and there definitely wouldn't be any consequences for user-created regions with founders. If the only consequence you can hope to impose is the loud sound of "tsk tsk" for violation of an agreement, the endeavor is not worth pursuing unless you can trust the other region(s) not to violate the agreement. In this case, no such foundation of trust would, or could, exist, between very diverse regions.

I agree with what Cormac has said. But I'll add a bit more, coming from an unrepentant Political Science major ... what makes United Nations work and not work, its fundamental structure, is that it has legitimacy because of its size: the number of member-states. You've got the whole the G77 in there. It's a wild party. For that reason, major powers don't consider the UN as a viable or effective avenue for their agenda because they're grossly outnumbered in the GA by every banana republic and TPLAC (Tin-Pot Little African Country.)

Where the UN succeeds is as a forum, a platform for issues that can unite powers, big and small; typically issues that apply to small states: poverty, health, social issues.

For that reason, I think a Gameplay equivalent would be difficult to establish. GCRs and big powers are notoriously dismissive of multilateral arrangements where they're outnumbered. They see them as fluffy talk-shops. I would argue that a fluffy talk-shop isn't so bad - that a lot of the democratic GCRs (TNP, TRR, TSP, TEP, Lazarus) would benefit from a large fluffy talk-shop that carries legitimacy; a memorandum from the UN, a collection of, say fifty UCRs, would carry a lot of legitimacy in a crisis if you were couped. But it would be difficult to set up. Even if it is in their interest, the realist sees international organizations as something decrepit and naturally un-pragmatic.

But there's obvious distinctions between NPO and other feeders:

The existing power elite have all the means to prevent their own dethroning. Transitions of power are entirely voluntary.

How is this different to how any other GCR operates? All GCRs are ultimately controlled mostly off-site by an elite that is quite distinct from the NS region as a whole, and have those same means to prevent their own dethroning. The only thing stopping a delegate from going rogue is them choosing not to.
The Pacific is just a little more transparent about this and doesn't bother to dress it up with popularity contests held on off-site forums.

"This is the argument we've had since we met," says a perishing Davros with a hint of resignation.

Let's use a personal example. TRR's electorate got fed up with me - I was trashing TNP-TRR relations - I had been in power for a year, it was time for change. So they held an election and I lost. And I begrudgingly gave up power and assisted in the transition of power to my successor, Guy. Meanwhile, NPO's own senate was largely fed up with its Emperor, Krulltopia, who had been in power for, what, five/six years? Dethroning an emperor is a lot different than a transition of power in TRR. It's all done in whispers amongst senators - whispers that have consequences when you get caught (unilateral removal from Pacifica) - the result is a series of unsuccessful civil wars, a whole swath of ambitious players culled overnight, or those ambitious players piss away their talent couping somewhere else in the hopes of pleasing the motherland (Milograd, Feux, Stu, Karp, AMOM and presumably many, many others).

The NPO is not a meritocracy, it abhors ambition; it's political devolution. The weak survive, the strong get tied up and kicked out. No Pacificspeak can ultimately mask your boredom with the old guard forever.

That's the distinction between TRR and NPO and that's why TRR is a democracy and NPO is an autocracy: the peaceful transition of power. It's why TRR is a functional political unit and why NPO is dysfunctional and perpetually inactive - its only claim to success is its deceptive stability. It's a lake that looks undisturbed above the water, but underneath lies currents of its own.

Osiris was the one I was referring to but I would feel a lot less secure about Osiris under its new leadership than under your leadership to be blunt.

I don't want to digress too far, but I will note that Osiris' diplomatic network -- which you've identified as the strongest in your analysis -- didn't happen overnight or exclusively during my term(s), and endured despite instability largely because there was no question that our external commitments would continue to be honored. Whatever the motives of various present or future leaders, they would have to be stupid to throw that away to support a coup in an allied region that would be likely to fail, and stupid is one thing I think we can agree Neo Kervoskia is not. I'm confident that Osiris will continue to honor its treaty commitments to both present and future allies.

This is the problem, frankly, with painting Feeders and Sinkers with such a broad brush -- "democratic" vs. "not democratic," "rule of law" vs. "rule of the sitting Delegate," or "raider" vs. "defender." The situation is often far more complicated because each Feeder or Sinker community has diverse interests and complex history. Despite some basic common principles, Osiris is not the same as the Pacific, Balder is not the same as the West Pacific, the West Pacific is not the same as the Pacific, Osiris is not the same as Balder, etc. We should not create divisions between Feeders and Sinkers based on oversimplification.

You're berating me for saying not all authoritarian GCRs are the same by saying not all authoritarian GCRs are the same.

There's two features of interest in this blurb:

(1) You assume that just as you were able to revive Osiris' tradition of rule of law and diplomatic soft power that the Empire will not equally be able to reverse this tradition of good government. They will possess the same power that you did; with more ruthlessness and more of a stomach for the machinations of political domination. Anything that we could have assumed about Osiris went out the window the moment that NK became Pharaoh. History suggests Osiris will return to the worst of the KRO's dying days, undoing your work in the OFO.

(2) You assume that it's smart to obey treaty law. It's only smart if your interest is first and foremost in the region, Osiris. That is at the heart of the Empire's penchant for maladministration. Their interests are in themselves, not their home region(s) and possessions. Decisions of whether to support native GCR governments in crisis will be made on a strategic, not legal basis. They will ask a couple of broad questions: (1) what are the chances of the couper's success? (2) Is the couper more desirable for us in power than the deposed government? The answer to the second question for the Empire is almost always 'yes' - coupers in power are desperate for allies and they're typically friends with aggressive types - it's really only the first question that complicates matters.

[Sedgistan]

We would be better off ultimately working toward something like the Pan-Sinker Security Pact for all Feeders and Sinkers, minus the flaws that eventually brought down the PSSP.

The flaw that brought the PSSP down was most of its signatories not liking each other. If one region doesn't like another, it's easy to find an excuse for avoiding intervention against a coup / invasion, as even the most amateurish of ones (e.g. Devonitians) attempts a smokescreen of "native support" and the like.

It's why I'm skeptical of Unibot's argument that the traditional route to treaties/multilateral pacts should be reversed, with the alliance first, and niceties last. If TRR thinks Osiris is full of coup-loving attention seekers who break up / get back together more than a soap opera couple, it's not going to get off its backside to help them; equally if Osiris thinks TRR is full of self-important armchair defenders who need to be packed off to the retirement home so the region finally does something, a paper alliance doesn't mean jack.

For a GCR to help another against a coup, it needs to actually like some people there, and care about them staying in power.

[Unibot III]

It's why I'm skeptical of Unibot's argument that the traditional route to treaties/multilateral pacts should be reversed, with the alliance first, and niceties last.

Oh, I don't disagree with this, Sedge. I'm saying the traditional route should be flipped on its head only because of this very particular context.

The regions involved have a history of respecting law, international and not, for the most part. (I would consider BLT a surprising aberration.) An agreement between these regions would be worth the paper it was written on, and that's a start. The regions could work together in the abstract, it's on a bilateral basis - TNP with TRR, TEP with TRR, TEP with TSP etc. - that they've had problems mostly due to personalities involved. But in the abstract, none of the regions have any reason to oppose mutual recognition of one another and support each other in times of crisis - and that's where a multilateral arrangement comes into play. It's a pragmatic way of overcoming the fact that specific regions don't get along well with each other.

And ultimately, none of the regions involved lose anything if the pact falls apart, I should add.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting TRR should alliance with Osiris any more than it's existing NAP. I'm very specifically suggesting TRR-TEP-TNP-TSP-Lazarus.

[Solorni]

Laz-TRR are similar for being defender, TSP is defender leaning. But TSP and Laz are similar for being shaky democracies with systemic issues of corruption and weak institutions. Both have had multiple coups in recent years and each actually had a communist dictator take charge. The corruption in TSP was so bad at one point that there was a popular coup to get rid of it. Many of those who were widely held to be responsible for that corruption are still in the region and still doing what most developed regions would consider 'shady'.

If one were truly worried about the stability of Lazarus and TSP, the correct response would be to work on improving the institutions in each and removing those who are felt to be corrupting influence from those institutions.

I can't say why any region would want to be in a multilateral alliance with them until they improve.

[Pergamon]

The NPO is not a meritocracy, it abhors ambition; it's political devolution. The weak survive, the strong get tied up and kicked out. No Pacificspeak can ultimately mask your boredom with the old guard forever.

lol
K

[Unibot III]

Laz-TRR are similar for being defender, TSP is defender leaning. But TSP and Laz are similar for being shaky democracies with systemic issues of corruption and weak institutions. Both have had multiple coups in recent years and each actually had a communist dictator take charge. The corruption in TSP was so bad at one point that there was a popular coup to get rid of it. Many of those who were widely held to be responsible for that corruption are still in the region and still doing what most developed regions would consider 'shady'.

If one were truly worried about the stability of Lazarus and TSP, the correct response would be to work on improving the institutions in each and removing those who are felt to be corrupting influence from those institutions.

I can't say why any region would want to be in a multilateral alliance with them until they improve.

This is really lovely coming from someone who maintains Balder and TSP are still in an alliance.

You're correct that the people responsible for the corruption are still in the South Pacific, but those people are Belschaft and company. Made worse, of course, by the amnesty granted. I wrote the aspects of the criminal code related to corruption, organized crime and electoral fraud - I know there are issues with internal justice and due process in the South Pacific.

Getting rid of your cronies in the South Pacific would aid a lot in the South Pacific's stability (i.e., the folks who couped TSP last time) but that won't happen because there's always a reluctance in TSP to remove Belschaft and others known for corruption; a multilateral pact is a good alternative way to help protect the Coalition's diplomatic situation however.

The NPO is not a meritocracy, it abhors ambition; it's political devolution. The weak survive, the strong get tied up and kicked out. No Pacificspeak can ultimately mask your boredom with the old guard forever.

lol
K

I don't think you're helping your case, Consul.

[Drop Your Pants]

If one were truly worried about the stability of Lazarus and TSP, the correct response would be to work on improving the institutions in each and removing those who are felt to be corrupting influence from those institutions.

Last time that was tried it didn't work so well. The problem we had was we had two sides of corrupting sides trying to remove each other

[Solorni]

This is really lovely coming from someone who maintains Balder and TSP are still in an alliance.

You're correct that the people responsible for the corruption are still in the South Pacific, but those people are Belschaft and company. Made worse, of course, by the amnesty granted. I wrote the aspects of the criminal code related to corruption, organized crime and electoral fraud - I know there are issues with internal justice and due process in the South Pacific.

Getting rid of your cronies in the South Pacific would aid a lot in the South Pacific's stability (i.e., the folks who couped TSP last time) but that won't happen because there's always a reluctance in TSP to remove Belschaft and others known for corruption; a multilateral pact is a good alternative way to help protect the Coalition's diplomatic situation however.

Actually, if I recall correctly Hileville couped because of the corruption of Glen-Rhodes. I do not believe he cited Belschaft who actually worked with Glen-Rhodes to help end that coup. Although I suppose if they were working together, that would seem to suggest they are both part of the same corrupting influence.

Also, I love the idea that I have cronies in The South Pacific. But that is absurd. If you recall, Belschaft was actually not allowed in Balder for awhile because of his planned coup of the region with Luxembourg and Sovereign Liberties.

The best thing TSP could do were to remove players like Glen-Rhodes from its institutions and work closer with more stable democracies. TSP has already started to reform by copying Balder's system, but it would do even better to get rid of players like Glen-Rhodes from influential posts who quite simply are the most major source of instability for the region. The idea that a coup could occur because it was felt corruption was simply that high, is quite frankly not an acceptable situation. By remaining in his posts, Glen-Rhodes and others have shown they do not care about the region. Which is always dangerous.

But I am glad that we agree that the systemic corruption in the region is a major issue.

---

One of the reasons why WALL works so well, is that each region involved has a strong set of institutions, is internally strong and active and stability as well as strong relationships between all leaders. Call it Bismarckian, but there should be efforts at improving internally before expanding outward.