2014 STGOD OOC Commentary Thread 1

[Siege]

Siege's input is highly relevant, and I'd like the words of his characters to affect how such an organization defines terrorists.

I'm finding it difficult to articulate the San Doradan position on terrorism. A major element of the common definition of 'terrorism' is the intimidation of government through (threat of) force. But San Dorado rejects the paramountcy of the nation-state, so where does that leave us?

Many definitions of 'terrorism' are quite easily applied to the megacorporations of San Dorado too: after all, they regularly arm-twist national governments too. Simply put we don't agree with the commonly held axiom that government has a monopoly on force but it's obvious that we're a minority in that respect and we aren't so daft as to argue on behalf of terrorists in the capital a big business partner that was hit by a major terror attack only a few weeks prior. So for now we're just going to silently watch and learn and object to anything too invasive.

[Simon_Jester]

International cooperation on determining what actually makes an organization an international-scope terrorist group that needs international cooperation to take down is fine. Cascadia will not be party to any agreement that places requirements upon its own justice system in terms of terrorism suspects, though. We won't be extraditing suspects without trial for King Alexander to shoot on international TV.

It would be nice to hear this in character, because the whole conference has ground to a halt, and this is a very relevant concern that the Cascadian delegate(s) would be wise and in-character to raise.

What is the particular of the "international insurance" plan? Is it something like a World Bank or international reconstruction fund?

Nobody knows, because literally nothing has been said about the matter since Maddoctor brought it up. Have any suggestions? I'd be very interested to hear them in character.

Siege's input is highly relevant, and I'd like the words of his characters to affect how such an organization defines terrorists.

I'm finding it difficult to articulate the San Doradan position on terrorism. A major element of the common definition of 'terrorism' is the intimidation of government through (threat of) force. But San Dorado rejects the paramountcy of the nation-state, so where does that leave us?

Many definitions of 'terrorism' are quite easily applied to the megacorporations of San Dorado too: after all, they regularly arm-twist national governments too. Simply put we don't agree with the commonly held axiom that government has a monopoly on force but it's obvious that we're a minority in that respect and we aren't so daft as to argue on behalf of terrorists in the capital a big business partner that was hit by a major terror attack only a few weeks prior. So for now we're just going to silently watch and learn and object to anything too invasive.

Well, you've already had an impact on the debate by having your guy argue for "outlaw by actions, not by concepts." So even if you just hang around and maybe pop in with that one or two more times, it counts. I'm glad you're in on this conference.
_________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT NOTE:

Perhaps ironically and amusingly, the Umerians might actually be among the few people you could feasibly ally with in acknowledging that this whole 'well gee, what about non-state actors that are worried about terrorism being defined to prevent them from ever doing anything ever because governments don't like competition?

This is because they have just as many bitter experiences of being screwed by foreign governments as by foreign corporations. And because they reserve the right to say 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck' to any entity powerful enough to move and shake on a national scale.

The flip side of that is that they reserve the right to... hm. Let me give a purely random example. The Umerians feel that they would be well within their rights to declare war on SinGen and use literally all available resources pursuant to that aim, if they think the megacorp is facilitating an alien invasion. Just as they would declare war if, say, Shinra were doing such a thing.

Now, they wouldn't do that just because Acheron pissed in their Champan coffee once or twice, or anything dumb like that. But if they feel like they're facing an existential threat from a problem that is not a state (or even not a human entity, something like climate change)... well, they have no more problem declaring war on Monsanto or war on drugs than they do declaring war on Hakistan.

On the other hand, unlike, say, the US, they would really prosecute this war with the serious intent of securing their own people from the problem, using whatever strategies their analysts can devise, and accepting considerable sacrifices and tradeoffs in order to do so. That's what war means to a Umerian technocrat. It means a lot of pain's going to be going around, and that the only way to ensure that the bulk of the pain doesn't land on your own side is by being very, very clever and resourceful and organized.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

International cooperation on determining what actually makes an organization an international-scope terrorist group that needs international cooperation to take down is fine. Cascadia will not be party to any agreement that places requirements upon its own justice system in terms of terrorism suspects, though. We won't be extraditing suspects without trial for King Alexander to shoot on international TV.

It would be nice to hear this in character, because the whole conference has ground to a halt, and this is a very relevant concern that the Cascadian delegate(s) would be wise and in-character to raise.

What is the particular of the "international insurance" plan? Is it something like a World Bank or international reconstruction fund?

Nobody knows, because literally nothing has been said about the matter since Maddoctor brought it up. Have any suggestions? I'd be very interested to hear them in character.

I second this. Please go and write up something to state your objections in the story thread. Nothing is moving at all at the moment. Please do something about it.

[Siege]

AxumFinans would naturally be interested in (making money from) this international insurance fund, depending on how it works, how it's set up and who pays into it. They're not at the conference though.

And I also second the call to action.

[Steve]

Posts have been made. And I've replied to Siege IC too.

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

While I try to work out just how that hostage crisis storyline will go down, have some half-baked musings from the peanut gallery.

[Siege]

Quick note before this conference derails horribly: the point I'm trying to get across is that for San Doradans the freedom to do business is sacrosanct. Attempts to infringe upon that cannot be tolerated. Megacorporations (and their PMC subsidiaries) don't see themselves as companies so much as miniature states. Asking them to apply for exemptions is to make them beholden to other nations, in essentially turning them into vassals. To people who've grown up with San Doradan ideals that suggestion is utterly insulting.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well frankly that isn't the King's problem. If they want to act like micro-states, set themselves up as one. If they want to be a corporation, that's fine, but if you do business in another state you're going to be subject to someone else's jurisdiction anyway, whether it's that nation or the hypothetical international court.

EDIT: This is where we're hitting problems with the megacorporation and PMC idea. You have them acting as nation-states (even attending international conferences representing themselves, not San Dorado) and yet they are not. There must be limits on what a corporation can do. Frankly I find it amusing that these companies are only now confronting the fact that they are subject to laws other than San Dorado's (whatever the hell they are) when doing business on a global stage.

[Simon_Jester]

The Umerian perspective, meanwhile, is that given what these PMCs' business is, it really ought to be possible to separate the bulk of their work out from 'terrorism.' No need to apply for exemptions, just need to get some decent case law on the books to set the appropriate precedents.

Now, if Acheron hires mercenaries to machine-gun unarmed villagers for going on strike at the nearby gold mine or something like that, that might well be different. Because it's not part of an actual war, it is directed against innocents... and potentially it could become a matter of international concern.

But again, Acheron (and its Stormbrink mercenaries) aren't asking for a waiver here; they don't need to. It's just that if you massacre a bunch of helpless gold miners and their dependents the host nation might choose to call that 'terrorism' against their citizens- if Acheron plays rough, so can the host nation, potentially. That's between Acheron and the local government... and only comes to an international terrorism court if multiple nations show up to complain.

But Nightfall, by contrast- they do a lot of maritime escort which is obviously not terrorism even if it brings you into conflict with actual national navies. They may also hire on to assist someone else in a military campaign- again, that is not terrorism, that is part of an actual war. OGRE Solutions, likewise, offers services that are not very useful outside the context of a de jure or at least de facto war.


EDIT: Of course, Dr. Mahogany's hidden motivation is to get everyone so busy listening to the grandfatherly voice that they don't strangle each other at the conference table.

EDIT MK II: Furthermore, as alluded to earlier, the Umerians don't actually have a problem with the idea of treating a corporation like a state- they just reserve the right to treat a corporation like a state when that is not to the corporation's advantage. Turnabout is fair play, and the Foreign Intelligence Bureau and the GAV can play hardball... adequately.

Given that San Dorado actually exists in our world, we almost have to take for granted that there exist transnational corporations (probably a lot of them not based in San Dorado itself) which have a higher degree of independent latitude in dealing with national governments. To a large extent that's a reality in our world, but it's even more true here- the only way to really ensure that your government has full power to regulate a transnational company's actions is to accept that it won't be doing business with you.

[Siege]

Well frankly that isn't the King's problem. If they want to act like micro-states, set themselves up as one. If they want to be a corporation, that's fine, but if you do business in another state you're going to be subject to someone else's jurisdiction anyway, whether it's that nation or the hypothetical international court.

The hidden assumptions behind that stance is, of course, the primacy of the nation-state and their violence monopoly. San Doradan corporations reject these two ideas categorically and have for centuries. That they blow you off when you make their modus operandi into a problem should then come as no surprise.

EDIT: This is where we're hitting problems with the megacorporation and PMC idea. You have them acting as nation-states (even attending international conferences representing themselves, not San Dorado) and yet they are not.

Nobody represents San Dorado. San Dorado is not a state. How many times do I have to repeat this point? San Dorado is the city that these corporations happen to be based in. 'San Dorado' is a colloquialism for the cartel of megacorps that de facto control it. But there is no formal 'government of San Dorado'. There hasn't been one since 626 AD.

If you want to look at this in a hopelessly conventional way, then these PMCs are for all intents and purposes the armies of entities that might as well be full blown states: Stormbrink is owned by Acheron Amalgamated, Knight Errant by Sibyline-Hargreave, Par-Sec by Helix Industries and OGRE by Coldstream Delta. Only Nightfall is independently owned, but only because it has a longstanding gentleman's agreement with SANDEX and its antecedents regarding the funding of their fleet going back to the advent of the ironclad warship.

This is officially a conference about 'terrorism', and the megacorporations are simply not interested in discussing that with nation-states because it has nothing to do with their core business. That's why they leave their representation to their respective PMCs, because if it's got to with violence then those are the people you want to talk to.

There must be limits on what a corporation can do.

Why? From an inside-universe perspective I bet there were East India Company analogs (Umeria probably suffered at the hands of a few). The history of San Doradan corporations goes even farther back in time. They have always operated like this. It's up to you to demonstrate why this should suddenly change. So yes, it is in fact the King's problem.

And from an OOC perspective of course I've sacrificed plenty (like the capability to actually engage in a full scale war) in order to play like I wanted to, so there are already limits on what these corporations can do. I'm playing within those limits like everybody else.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Fine, it's just getting a little grating to have San Doradan PMCs pop up and say "we don't agree with this, you have to listen to us because money."

[Siege]

Except of course they have said nothing like that at all. They have instead explained to you precisely why they find your ideas objectionable, and yet your king keeps insisting that they have to call themselves a nation to be taken seriously. It should be obvious that people who reject the idea that sovereignty is exclusive to nation-states will be disinclined to acceed to such demands.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I was referring to the objection to accepting jurisdiction of a hypothetical international court.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, under the Mahogany Proposal*...

There is no court to exercise jurisdiction.

There is only an international body that says "These guys? Yeah, we have given them a fair hearing and established that they're a bunch of international terrorists. Under the Paradise Treaty, the signatory powers agree to ruin their day."

Or, alternatively, said body will say "These guys? Uh, they're not actually terrorists. They're a local problem. Or you totally brought this on yourself. Or they're just a faction of an enemy army that you particularly dislike. They're not international terrorists, though, so you're on your own."

*(although that would as a practical matter need some firming up, the core of it is already outlined in my previous post)

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Fine, it's just getting a little grating to have San Doradan PMCs pop up and say "we don't agree with this, you have to listen to us because money."

You do realise that one could swop out some of the words and it would sound like "We don't agree with this, you have to listen because we are a sovereign country."?

[Eternal_Freedom]

That's a good point. Which means that the PMC's arguments aren't any better than the nation-states. "It's what we've always done."

[Siege]

The Mahogany Initiative (that sounds like a really fancy piece of furniture) is palatable. I mean, we could hem and haw over details and implementation but broadly speaking this council of his is something we could get behind.

I quite like the Champan idea of incorporating some means for disenfranchised groups to appeal to this tribunal. It shouldn't be just for nations, after all. As long as the institution's proclamations are strong but non-binding resolutions, more in the form of expert recommendations for conflict resolution... Sure, we could agree to that.

[Simon_Jester]

SUMMARY OF MY LATEST STORYPOST

There are probably a lot of conventions that fall under 'laws of war.' Some of them might well date back to the Age of Sail (such as those applying to the high seas). Others might be the result of formal declarations analogous to the Geneva Conventions; I didn't want to outright make up a name for SDNW6 Tellus' Geneva Conventions so I wrote Dr. Mahogany being nonspecific.

The "well, what does or does not constitute a de facto state of war" counterargument is one of the thorniest obstacles the Mahogany Proposal would face.

And the Umerians don't worry about the risk of 'terrorist' groups speaking in their defense and turning the anti-terrorist council into a platform for communicating their ideas. Because, well... frankly, they don't actually have a problem with making the council into a star chamber. They'd be just as content NOT sharing the proceedings with the outside world, unless of course one of the council's actual members decides to share it with their home country or something. Arguably they should have a problem with that idea, but they don't.

[Not that they'll try to stop other countries from making the council's proceedings open. They just don't care.]

And... Dr. Mahogany said nothing of the funding issue, because he feels that is a detail that can be worked out at a later time. And nothing of the idea of sub-state or non-state actors being able to appeal to the council, because he sees no particular problem with that, or at least nothing insurmountable.

[madd0ct0r]

it's interesting how san dorado changes the whole assumed mechanisims of the world. I'm half expecting declarations of war to be carried out with contracted limitations, that result in punishment (how?) if somebody breaches them.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, I decided to let Siege's latest post ninja mine, which was a direct reply by Dr. Mahogany to Volkov:
Spoiler

Dr. Mahogany frowned slightly, just a flicker. "Your Excellency, as to your first point, I question the relevance of a critique of the enforceability of the laws of war to the matter at hand. The point is that acts of war are a separate matter from acts of terrorism, be they international or otherwise. There is no need to confuse or conflate the two. If you have an objection to the wording of the ___________* Convention, we can concern ourselves with that at a later time."

"As to your second point, the entire purpose of our exercise is to establish at least the broad outlines of a definition of terrorism. One that can be agreed upon by notables from states of widely differing systems of law, with differing customs and differing ideas of the state's duty to the individual. I would be pleased to hear any specific recommendations you have on that matter."

"As to your third point, the matter of interventions... I don't know about you, but were my own government to quietly harbor a gang of international bandits and refuse to yield them up, then I would fully expect the angry victims of those bandits to descend upon us in wrath. Who could blame them? We would have chosen war, and gotten it. If 'sovereignty' does not mean that one actually will preserve order and combat crime within one's borders, then it means nothing at all. What more is there to say?"
________________________

*Dr. Mahogany knows the name of the SDNW6 equivalent of the Geneva Convention. I don't.

Basically, Dr. Mahogany views the first and second points as little better than trolling and blowhardism on the Minister of the Interior's part. The first is (in his eyes) irrelevant to the question at hand. The second, while relevant, is little more than a restatement of the exact problem he just spent about eight minutes speaking about a solution to. Was Volkov paying attention? Mahogany no longer knows.

The third point is relevant, but as you may have noticed, the Umerian attitude towards these things is often "Oh, I'm sorry, your nation did something blatantly provocative and now people want your head on a pike? Here's the world's tiniest violin playing a sad tune for you..."

[RogueIce]

So, the thing about the corporations getting a seat at the international table will be a contentious one. After all, where do we draw the line? Can anyone who forms a corporation through whatever avenues they choose be up for election to this Terrorism Council? Could the same be said for that "United Nations" which was proposed as well? And while they are technically distinct entities, one can say that the San Dorado Megacorps and PMCs might share certain views and values; could giving each of them their own voting representation grant "San Dorado" multiple votes while mighty nations like Rheinland and Cascadia have but one?

And before Siege jumps in on me, let me say this is mostly a summary of my IC arguments. And that we make these arguments not because we value the supremacy of the nation-state above all else. Hell, an argument can be said that these same questions easily apply even to so-called nations. AFAIK we don't have any "Republic of China" type of thing going on in our world...but what if we did? The contentious issue of whether they'd be "recognized" to have a seat on an international body - and by whom, and how many shall be necessary- would rear it's ugly head. And after all, what are treaties but contracts between nations, essentially?

But then I refer you back to my earlier motivations with regard to our participation in the eventual formation of our 'notUN' (whenever that rolls around): we don't really want it to be around, and if it does form we want it to be so hopelessly deadlocked by bureaucratic and diplomatic inertia that they can never accomplish anything remotely binding on anyone. Thus, perpetuating this argument over the Megacorps vs Nation-State is to our interest.

Actually during the recess we might even enlist some of the PMC's aid to this. After all, do they want some supranational body to be able to (potentially) declare what they did terrorism? Or - and this is looking ahead, to Rheinland's notUN proposal - be able to pass some regulatory regime they don't like, but couldn't muster the votes to stop? And thus we muckrake about our "concerns" over Corporations being given explicit voting power to create some sort of international oversight whatever that could potentially infringe upon all our sovereignties. And with the San Dorado corporation's help we can make a show of this argument to basically ensure these proposals never get off the ground.

Because we're kind of jerks like that. Plus we love our sovereignty and don't want some voting bloc of Cascadia, Rhienland, Umeria, Tianguo or whoever (random examples) getting to dictate international standards of who's a terrorist, or whatever sort of things our not-UN might try to come up with, and so on.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

If you are so concerned about this, then pop it up in the story thread.

[RogueIce]

I will. I just sent Siege a PM so I could make sure my representative goes to the right PMC representative because presumably they'd be smart enough to pick the one would most likely agree to and/or have enough pull to influence the others. Then I can write about said representative approaching the proper delegate.

[Simon_Jester]

Unfortunately, due to the amount of time I have left today I REALLY SHOULDN'T participate heavily in all these goings-on much further tonight, or for that matter until some time tomorrow afternoon. I kind of suspect events will outrun me, but please be advised that realistically...

Dr. Mahogany is still around and is still sincerely trying to make his proposal workable. I may be able to provide OOC commentary, or even a one or two-paragraph post.

[Siege]

I don't think it'll end up being anything Dr. Mahogany immediately needs to be concerned about (or must worry about, or even know of). It's more of an... ongoing concern / long-term proposition, I feel.