NationStates Jolt Archive

The Charter of the historic United Nations will be used for now.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
(with some changes, like 'twice' changed to THREE TIMES)

Chapters 12 and 13 (Decolonization) and Chapters 14 and 15 (International Court) have not yet been added.

The permanent Security Council Nations are the United States, Great Britain, South Africa, China and Colombia.

threads will be added for relevant treaties that need to be reaffirmed.

The United Nations headquarters is established at Dublin, Ireland. The first UN Secretary General is Michael Collins of Ireland (who wasn't killed in this time line as no Irish Revolution or civil war or Easter Uprising).

It is assumed you are already in the UN unless you choose not to be

for now at least.

In an effort to establish his Kingdom in the modern world, King Abdullah II, King of Syria, would apply to enter the General Assembly.

(OOC: Unless of course I'm already in it)

OOC: Are we following standard UN procedure in relation to peacekeeping forces (blue helmets) etc. Just in case it ever comes up. Oh and most blue helmets tend to be drawn from poor countries (such as Nigeria, Bangladesh etc) as it is cheaper to wage and supply their troops.

Speaking of which, what sort of budgetary system are we using? If we use the RL system can we implement some sort of measure to assure that all arrears are paid? So that we don't end up the current situation where the US owes $1.3 billion to the UN?

I know, I know a lot of questions, I just want to get a few things straight at the start...

Yuck... the UN...

So what happens if I don't join...

OOC: Are we following standard UN procedure in relation to peacekeeping forces (blue helmets) etc. Just in case it ever comes up. Oh and most blue helmets tend to be drawn from poor countries (such as Nigeria, Bangladesh etc) as it is cheaper to wage and supply their troops.

Speaking of which, what sort of budgetary system are we using? If we use the RL system can we implement some sort of measure to assure that all arrears are paid? So that we don't end up the current situation where the US owes $1.3 billion to the UN?

I know, I know a lot of questions, I just want to get a few things straight at the start...

working on how the UN will be budgeted, but providing it with money would allow the creation of a World Bank, fund World Health Organization etc

The Fourth Republic of France would like to apply for the UN and plans to petition the reversal of the decision that forbids the republic from having an army in favour of allowing the republic to have a small army of no more than 100,000 members.

also the Republic would to petition for the return of some of the paintings taken from the Louvre during the war in exchange for reparations by by money (points)

Major Organizations (as they are created)
1941
Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (along with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, distributes aid to refugees and displaced persons. Post war handled the repatriation of civilians to their homelands or new homes)

1943
International Civil Aviation Organization (airline routes, safety, navigation aids, pilot standards)

Universal Postal Union (agreements on mail)

International Telecommunications Union (Telegraph for now, eventually telephone and the internet)

World Meteorological Organization (shares weather and climate information)

World Food Program (distributed food aid during the 'hungary years' 1942 - 44, and retains the mission)

World Health Organization (assisted in efforts to fight the Anthrax and Black Plague outbreaks created by the war, now working on Smallpox and Polio and Malaria)

1945
World Bank (starts with 24 points, has 45 by 1946). World Bank invests in lesser developed nations to help them improve their economies. The World Bank is located in New York City at this time.

International Atomic Energy Agency


ooc
modern day UN organizations can be found here
http://www.unsystem.org/

The Fourth Republic of France would like to apply for the UN and plans to petition the reversal of the decision that forbids the republic from having an army in favour of allowing the republic to have a small army of no more than 100,000 members.

also the Republic would to petition for the return of some of the paintings taken from the Louvre during the war in exchange for reparations by by money (points)

The UN accepts France (and pretty much anyone who joins at any time).

However, the UN still hasn't set up an International Court yet. Ireland, Belgium and Costa Rica make that proposal.

The United States proposes the establishment of a World Bank for International Development, and the creation of the UN International Monetary Fund (to be handled by the World Bank)

Parthini']Yuck... the UN...

So what happens if I don't join...

Popular opinion in Germany is to join, and your advisors point out that not joining leaves Germany WITHOUT A VOICE in International affairs. In addition, your advisors remind you that during the Third Great War, the Americans used the UN to create an alliance that crushed the Pact. The Americans found it easy to do as the Pact had withdrawn from the League of Nations before the war and actually physically occupied the Hague, where the Leage of Nations had been housed.

the United States makes the following proposals in the UN

Reaffirmation of the Antarctic Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463115

Reaffirmation of the International Convention for the safety of life at sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for_the_Safety_of_Life_at_Sea

Passage of this treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

Reaffirmation of this treaty
http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/keytext/genprot.htm

Popular opinion in Germany is to join, and your advisors point out that not joining leaves Germany WITHOUT A VOICE in International affairs. In addition, your advisors remind you that during the Third Great War, the Americans used the UN to create an alliance that crushed the Pact. The Americans found it easy to do as the Pact had withdrawn from the League of Nations before the war and actually physically occupied the Hague, where the Leage of Nations had been housed.

OOC:

*Grumble, grumble*

Damned beaurcratic bullshit...

IC: The Kaiserreich applies for admition to the UN.

OOC2: At least it's not all far away like the real one...

Parthini']OOC:


OOC2: At least it's not all far away like the real one...

Says you!

The UN faces its first test as war breaks out between the Greeks and Turks in Thrace and Anatelia.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10400218&postcount=175

historical background (what happened in real life in a similar situation)
http://ase.tufts.edu/hemispheres/2000/seth_blacksburg_2000.htm

The Republic of Poland applies to the UN.

It is assumed you are already in the UN unless you choose not to be

for now at least.

reminder

[tag]

The FNS is not in the United Nations, never having joined.

The FNS is not in the United Nations, never having joined.

Chile and Peru however were in the UN, as part of the general alliance against the Pact, and Argentina was given authorization to deal with Uruguay by the UN, so de facto you are in the UN. Remember, being in the UN was advantagous during the war

In addition, remember, we just fought the second global war in a generation. People, as in the common people, are going to want UN memebership for their country in hopes of peace. IC, not being in the UN isn't going to be popular.

The UN was considered historically in its time as the hope of mankind to avoid the horrors of the historical world war ... 2 atomic bombs, cities destroyed, genocide.

This timeline had even a worse war, with double the death toll, 8 atomic attacks, and biological warfare.

the United States makes the following proposals in the UN

Reaffirmation of the Antarctic Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463115

Reaffirmation of the International Convention for the safety of life at sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for_the_Safety_of_Life_at_Sea

Passage of this treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

Reaffirmation of this treaty
http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/keytext/genprot.htm

China seconds the "Safety of Life at Sea" resolution.

China also seconds the "Refugees" resolution but raises an issue to be discussed, namely expatriation of criminals such as drug dealers or criminals who flee across international lines to escape justice. Therefore aslyum should not be granted to these individuals.

China also strongly seconds the biological weapons resolution, being the victim of biological attacks, not once, but twice. However, China suggests discussion of biological retaliation, should the aggressor nation employ nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons aganist the victim nation.

The Kingdom of Bulgaria would like to apply for full membership into the United Nations and all of its daughter organisations...as of the 1st January of 1946.

the United States makes the following proposals in the UN

Reaffirmation of the Antarctic Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463115

Reaffirmation of the International Convention for the safety of life at sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for_the_Safety_of_Life_at_Sea

Passage of this treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

Reaffirmation of this treaty
http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/keytext/genprot.htm

Australia reaffirms the chemical weapons treaty, the Safety of Life at Sea Convention and the Antarctic Treaty. However, we share China's points on the proposed treaty concerning Refugee Status.

Colombia will reaffirm all the preposals placed before it.

In regards to China's comment regarding criminals being Extradited, is a matter between national governments. The United Nations has no right to force Colombia to send a criminal to another country where he will be executed, if we do not believe in the death penalty.

If we were to do so, it would undermine the laws and our very constitution that protects the cititzens of Colombia.

Colombia will reaffirm all the preposals placed before it.

In regards to China's comment regarding criminals being Extradited, is a matter between national governments. The United Nations has no right to force Colombia to send a criminal to another country where he will be executed, if we do not believe in the death penalty.

If we were to do so, it would undermine the laws and our very constitution that protects the cititzens of Colombia.

China clarifies its position on the refugee issue.

1. Drug dealers or overlords could theoretically use the refugee asylum loophole to escape prosecution and justice.

2. Mafia can also abuse the asylum status to murder someone on one side of the border, then claim themselves as "Refugees according to UN" to seek asylum on the other side of the border.

3. Diplomatic Immunity can be easily merged and abused with the "Refugee" asylum-granting.

-----------------------

OOC:

Just trying to close up any loopholes that allows someone to do criminal and illegal acts on one side of the border like drugs, murder, rape, mafia stuff, etc. then hop across the border and claim themselves as refugees or such.

A similiar thing happens in RL with RL criminals committing crimes in the USA then flees to Mexico to avoid prosecution and the serving of justice.

The US accepts the proposals as is, as does Canada, Mexico, Guetamala, Nicuaragua, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras, the Philippines, and Japan.

The US also brings the Greco-Turk War to the attention of the Security Council and recommends a resolution calling for a cease fire.

All measures are acceptable to the Syrian delegation.

(OOC: where is this UN based?)

All measures are acceptable to the Syrian delegation.

(OOC: where is this UN based?)

Dublin, Ireland.. a pleasant city, close to Europe, convenient to the various American nations by air and sea, as well as reasonably close to Africa and Mideast. Also reasonably close to GMT.

the UN World Bank has 20 points available in 1946, and begins loaning money to Jordan, Ethopia, Liberia, Oman, and Cuba, (4 points each). This will allow them to develop production centers and provide growth potential.

Major contributors to the World Bank in 1945 and 1946 include Burgundy, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands (2 points each), USA 4 points, Japan 4 points, Iceland 1 point, Switzerland 3 points.

China clarifies its position on the refugee issue.

1. Drug dealers or overlords could theoretically use the refugee asylum loophole to escape prosecution and justice.

2. Mafia can also abuse the asylum status to murder someone on one side of the border, then claim themselves as "Refugees according to UN" to seek asylum on the other side of the border.

3. Diplomatic Immunity can be easily merged and abused with the "Refugee" asylum-granting.

-----------------------

OOC:

Just trying to close up any loopholes that allows someone to do criminal and illegal acts on one side of the border like drugs, murder, rape, mafia stuff, etc. then hop across the border and claim themselves as refugees or such.

A similiar thing happens in RL with RL criminals committing crimes in the USA then flees to Mexico to avoid prosecution and the serving of justice.

1. Drug dealers aren't often sentenced to murder, so thats not a problem.

2. Refugee status does not apply under the definition. If they do flee, then we will protect them and keep them in jail for as long as they live.

3. Whats the point of this?

You cannot enforce your beliefs regarding capital death on another nation - it violates their sovereignty.

1. Drug dealers aren't often sentenced to murder, so thats not a problem.

2. Refugee status does not apply under the definition. If they do flee, then we will protect them and keep them in jail for as long as they live.

3. Whats the point of this?

You cannot enforce your beliefs regarding capital death on another nation - it violates their sovereignty.

ooc
check out the punishment in Malaysia and Singapore for drug smuggling

IC
The UN again calls for a cease fire in Turkey

1. Drug dealers aren't often sentenced to murder, so thats not a problem.

2. Refugee status does not apply under the definition. If they do flee, then we will protect them and keep them in jail for as long as they live.

3. Whats the point of this?

You cannot enforce your beliefs regarding capital death on another nation - it violates their sovereignty.

China points out an example. Suppose a citizen of Mexico chooses to cross over into either the US or Belize, then commits a robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping or other crimes. The criminal then flees back into Mexico or a Mexican embassy in the US or Belize, and pretty much claims "I am a refugee fleeing from prosecution. UN, please protect me so that I can get away with my crimes!" Therefore the victims of the crime, let it be the family of the murder or kidnapped victim, a store's business ruined from a robbery, or raped women will never be able to get justice as the criminal will simply laugh at them behind the "shield" of UN refugee asylum.

This issue does need to be addressed though. Otherwise, criminals will easily abuse the refugee loophole in the UN to escape justice. If we close this loophole, then victims all over the world will rest safe in knowing that criminals cannot escape justice by fleeing the nation or abuse legal and bureaucratic technalities to get away scot-free.

China points out an example. Suppose a citizen of Mexico chooses to cross over into either the US or Belize, then commits a robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping or other crimes. The criminal then flees back into Mexico or a Mexican embassy in the US or Belize, and pretty much claims "I am a refugee fleeing from prosecution. UN, please protect me so that I can get away with my crimes!" Therefore the victims of the crime, let it be the family of the murder or kidnapped victim, a store's business ruined from a robbery, or raped women will never be able to get justice as the criminal will simply laugh at them behind the "shield" of UN refugee asylum.

This issue does need to be addressed though. Otherwise, criminals will easily abuse the refugee loophole in the UN to escape justice. If we close this loophole, then victims all over the world will rest safe in knowing that criminals cannot escape justice by fleeing the nation or abuse legal and bureaucratic technalities to get away scot-free.

the United States recommends that China propose a seperate resolution concerning this matter.

ooc: I know the cases involving the mother and daughter, and the australian in Singapore and so forth. But that only serves as an example that a Nation does not have to extradite someone if it violates their sovereignty.

ic: The criminal will not get off "Scot free" as we said, he would be imprisoned and probably be returned with a garauntee that he not be killed or tortured.

Robbery - Not punishable by Death, so returned.
Murder - Depends what kind of Murder, and generally does not carry death penalty, so returned
Rape - Generally not punishable by Death, returned.
Kidnapping - Not punishable by Death, so returned.

Britain votes for the acceptance of the proposals into the UN charter as is.

Anyone interested in the text of the Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea passed historically on 12 August 1949 can find it here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/370?OpenDocument

Britain also proposes the following treaty:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument)

The British government wishes to introduce at least some protection for PoWs in the civilised (ie. United Nations) world.

Finally the British delegate adds his voice to that of the American in asking for UN intervention in the Greek-Turk affair.

Britain votes for the acceptance of the proposals into the UN charter as is.

Anyone interested in the text of the Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea passed historically on 12 August 1949 can find it here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/370?OpenDocument

Britain also proposes the following treaty:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument)

The British government wishes to introduce at least some protection for PoWs in the civilised (ie. United Nations) world.

Finally the British delegate adds his voice to that of the American in asking for UN intervention in the Greek-Turk affair.

The US, and the nations that voted with it above, all support both treaties.

The Union of South Africa supports both proposed treaties.

The Empire of Germany supports all treaties proposed.

The German Ambassador also presents the idea of Russia. With Russia's history of destructive violence and blatant disregard for international law, it is in the General disposition of the German people that the Russian state be divided so that no single Russian entity will be able to become so deadly as it was in the last tragety.

australia supports both new treaties up for vote

China votes 'Aye' regarding both treaties proposed by the British.

Parthini']The Empire of Germany supports all treaties proposed.

The German Ambassador also presents the idea of Russia. With Russia's history of destructive violence and blatant disregard for international law, it is in the General disposition of the German people that the Russian state be divided so that no single Russian entity will be able to become so deadly as it was in the last tragety.

The United States opposes that, and feels Russia is on the way to democracy.

The United States opposes that, and feels Russia is on the way to democracy.

China points out that democracy itself could be twisted back into socialism and communism, as it was democracy itself that voted the communists into power in Russia in the first place.

China points out that democracy itself could be twisted back into socialism and communism, as it was democracy itself that voted the communists into power in Russia in the first place.

Australia must side with the United States on this matter. The division of Russia makes little sense--that nation is of little danger to any of its neighbors now. Had China lost a war, would it have been fair to partition that nation into a number of smaller groups, earning the emnity of all these groups and making them even more likely to wish revenge after reunification in the future?

Parthini']The Empire of Germany supports all treaties proposed.

The German Ambassador also presents the idea of Russia. With Russia's history of destructive violence and blatant disregard for international law, it is in the General disposition of the German people that the Russian state be divided so that no single Russian entity will be able to become so deadly as it was in the last tragety.


Sweden would like to point out that Germany hasn't exactly been neautral for most of the century itself. Russia was only one part of the Union, and so can only be given part of the blame.

The US UN Ambassador, Averill Harriman, suppresses a chuckle after the Swedish comment.

The Russian Ambassador is less amused but points out that the former Russian Empire, the original state that created the Union, has lost Estonia, Lithunia, Latvia, the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, all of Central Asia, Vladivostok, the Kuriles, Petrograd, and the Karellian pennisula.

Which in his view is plenty, as the Ukraine alone is bigger then France and almost as large in area as Germany.

Sweden would like to point out that Germany hasn't exactly been neautral for most of the century itself. Russia was only one part of the Union, and so can only be given part of the blame.

German ships were unlawfully attacked by Italian submarines in the Great War. The German people were thrown into revolution by Russian spies. They unlawfully struck down the Hohenzollern Dynasty, which, only by the grace of God and our British allies, escaped to retake their proper God-given place as Emperor of Germany.

By the Swede's thinking, the new President of the SU should be blamed as well, him being part of the Union at one point.

Australia must side with the United States on this matter. The division of Russia makes little sense--that nation is of little danger to any of its neighbors now. Had China lost a war, would it have been fair to partition that nation into a number of smaller groups, earning the emnity of all these groups and making them even more likely to wish revenge after reunification in the future?

Then what guanatree will there be to prevent Russia from re-arming and striking back at its oppressors, then? China is keen on the Russian issue as we share a significant border with Russia and we have been victims of terrible Russian atrocities such as nuclear and biological attacks. We simply do not want to suffer another attack such as that, hence our desire to keep Russia weak and incapable of mounting such an attack ever again.

Then what guanatree will there be to prevent Russia from re-arming and striking back at its oppressors, then? China is keen on the Russian issue as we share a significant border with Russia and we have been victims of terrible Russian atrocities such as nuclear and biological attacks. We simply do not want to suffer another attack such as that, hence our desire to keep Russia weak and incapable of mounting such an attack ever again.

The United States points out that it too lost people to Union atrocities, and that the culprits who survived were punished. In addition, the Russians have the reminder of Omsk, a city likely to be unfit for human habitation for at least a generation due to radioactivity spread when atomic strikes destroyed the atomic weapons and production facilities located there. In addition, Russia is still under US occupation, and American and Russian troops continue to fight Communist guerillas as we speak, and are winning.

The US points out that the Central Asia Republic and Mongolia now seperate most of the Chinese border from Russia, vast expanses of desert, and the Russians are not likely to be invading anyone for some time to come.

The United States points out that it too lost people to Union atrocities, and that the culprits who survived were punished. In addition, the Russians have the reminder of Omsk, a city likely to be unfit for human habitation for at least a generation due to radioactivity spread when atomic strikes destroyed the atomic weapons and production facilities located there. In addition, Russia is still under US occupation, and American and Russian troops continue to fight Communist guerillas as we speak, and are winning.

The US points out that the Central Asia Republic and Mongolia now seperate most of the Chinese border from Russia, vast expanses of desert, and the Russians are not likely to be invading anyone for some time to come.

Granted China is safe, argues the German Ambassador, but what about Germany or even the SU? Nothing separates Russia from the SU and nought but a brand new nation of a people who haven't had experience in ruling themselves for two centuries keeps the vengeful Slavs from the Teutonic people.

The Americans can be as self-righteous as they please but they forget that they have two vast bodies of water keeping them from the bloodbath that is Europe. They have not been forced to rise, as the great Chancellor said "by iron and blood".

the United States and Russia sign a peace treaty on December 25, 1945. Russia agrees to honor the borders that exist as a result of the war, and not to buid an ocean going navy, or construct nuclear or biological or chemical weapons. The United States and Russia also sign a mutual defense treaty, and the US agrees to continue to assist Russia in fighting Communist insurgents.

The Russians agree to allow the US to permanently station up to 100,000 US military personnel in Russia and pay the basing costs. The US will maintain Air Force, Army and Navy bases in Russia (a Navy base at Sakkalin and Petropovlovsk).

The United States feels the presence of US troops and partnership with the US should prevent expansionism by Russia in the future.

ooc
evil grin at Germany

The Fourth Republic accepts and supports the treaties proposed.

The emissary of the Fourth Republic wishes to renew the Republic's requests for opening negtioations to allow France to field a democratic defensive army. Aswell as negotiations for the return of paintings - at least thosewhich were drawn by French artists- taken from the Louvre during the Eurasian War.

To quell fears and to show that France is true to the democratic roots on which it was based upon. The republic is pleased to announce that it will be commiting 15 points this year to the UN fund to be distributed as the Majority decides, although the Prime Minister expresses his hopes that they will be used in restoring peace between the Greek and the Turkish in their unfortunate conflict.

The emissary of the Fourth Republic to the United Nations, puts forward a suggestion by the French government for the creation of a body to regulate research in the area of Nuclear Energy to encourage the development of peaceful uses for this incredible new frontier in science and discourage the use of it for millitary purposes.

Britain agrees with the US stance on Russia, she's already suffered enough and won't be a threat to world peace again in the forseeable future. The old Union has been partitioned off already anyway and there is little sense in smashing up Russia as well.

Britain also supports the French proposal for a UN led World Atomic Agency. In the belief that the peaceful useage of atomic power is in the interests of the world as a whole.

Britain also pushes for a vote on immediate UN intervention in Greece and Turkey. The troubles in Cyprus are depicted as vidence of the trouble spreading out of the area and affecting other nations. Whilst British troops are belived to have the area under control it has taken a small fleet of ships and a whole division of infantry to do so. If the UN were to intervene in Greece and Turkey action is needed as soon as possible and decisively with a large number of troops involved.

South Africa remains neutral in the Russia debate, understanding German, Scandic, and Chinese concerns, but also realizing that Russia has been stripped already of vast tracts of land, and is no position to harm any nation for many years.

South Africa agrees with Britain on the need for intervention in the Greco-Turk conflict. If the UN votes to intervene, South Africa will commit troops to Cyprus or other areas of conflict as part of a larger UN force.

The Union supports as well the proposed World Atomic Agency. (SIC: South Africa wants nukes, and figures this agency will make access to the requisite scientific knowledge easier and cheaper)

sufficient votes to create the Internatioal Atomic Energy Agency are easily gained

http://www.iaea.org/

(note there is not a test ban treaty, nor a nuclear nonprofileration treaty)

Ireland proposes the reestablishment of the International Court of Justice to resolve disputes short of war (in other words, add Articles 14 and 15 to the charter)

Ireland also proposes Articles 12 and 13 (which call for decolonization). The Belgian Congo and Portuguese Africa are pointedly used as examples.
Cuba, the Central Americans, Ethiopia and Iceland strongly support all four Irish proposals.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Needless to say, Portugal and Belgium are opposed to the decolonization suggestions.

ooc: Just you wait...

IC: Germany is opposed to this "decolonization" nonsense. While our British friends have done a sufficent job in providing for the welfare of their African and Asian Bretheren, the Belgians and Portuguese have been too occupied by marauding communist forces to begin seriously contemplating decolonization.

And as if the ownership of colonies is not an issue of national rights.

The German ambassador also pointedly notes that if the Belgians should be forced to let go of their colonies, so Russia should be forced to let go of Siberia. It would only be fair. China would be just as forced to rid itself of Mongolia and Manchuria, and Sweden Karellia. One might even argue for Colombia to abandon Venezuela and Ecuador. I'm sure those nations would be so willing to abandon their holdings.

The German Ambassador also presents the issue of Austria and Schleswig-Holstein. Austria, he argues, was rightfully German territory since 1908 (I think) and has been rightfully, and to the pleasure of Austrians, ever since. The forceful segregation by the US is, he argues, both illegal and immoral. It is as separating two brothers from each other. No doubt the Americans would feel the same should Texas be forced to leave the Union.

Schleswig-Holstein, he argues has been territory of Prussia, and therefore of the Kasier of Germany, since 1860. Previous to that it had been a Duchy of the now disposed King of Denmark. Therefore, any claim, other than the obvious one of current occupation, is null. Germany is not necissarily arguing for returning of Schleswig-Holstein, but rather a fully legal and honorable recompensation for the loss.

Scandinavia will not vote on these issues as they are subjects that do not concern us at the moment, but we would like to point out that Karelia is not a colony but a province of the state of Finland, and as such is equal in status to any other province in the Union.

Schleswig-Holstein was taken by force of arms over a series of wars much to the chagrin of most of Europe, including England, from Denmark. It was a land grab conducted by a militaristic and imperialistic nation, no reperations will ever be made for the recently liberated province of Schleswig-Holstien.

OOC: Damn jerks ganging up on me...

IC: The German Ambassador, after receiving a report, brings the Council to another point of attention. The waters around Denmark and Sweden, once legally international waters, free from taxation an restrictions, have recently been declared national waters of the Scandinavian Union.

Germany is appalled with the blatant attempts by the SU to enclose the German people and their brand new merchant fleet and calls out to the international community to ensure a safe trading environment for the German people.

Gran Colombia, and paticularily, the Venezualans, are quite insulted that Germany would consider them a colony of Gran Colombia, when they voted to join in Union. Infact, most Venezualans enjoy better treatment, services, and all around better life than your average German.

Gran Colombia, and paticularily, the Venezualans, are quite insulted that Germany would consider them a colony of Gran Colombia, when they voted to join in Union. Infact, most Venezualans enjoy better treatment, services, and all around better life than your average German.

OOC: Well excooooose me for trying to prove a point.

IC: The German ambassador apologizes for calling the Venezuelans "colonies." However, he was simply trying to prove a point, explaining how the Venezuelans and Colombians are united under one lawful government, just as the Africans and Belgians or Portuguese are united.

Parthini']OOC: Damn jerks ganging up on me...

IC: The German Ambassador, after receiving a report, brings the Council to another point of attention. The waters around Denmark and Sweden, once legally international waters, free from taxation an restrictions, have recently been declared national waters of the Scandinavian Union.

Germany is appalled with the blatant attempts by the SU to enclose the German people and their brand new merchant fleet and calls out to the international community to ensure a safe trading environment for the German people.

If this is true Australia must make known its alarm. Freedom of the seas should always be protected, as an island nation (who just happens to be occupying a massive archipelago) we would like to see the German claim investigated.

If this is true Australia must make known its alarm. Freedom of the seas should always be protected, as an island nation (who just happens to be occupying a massive archipelago) we would like to see the German claim investigated.

China seconds this. China wants to explore the motives behind the Scandivian Union's claim, and to ensure that international trade is not effected by this claim whatsoever.

If the SU is going to tax German Shipping through those straights, then the Kiel Canal must be tariff free, lest the SU is attempting to strangle the German People...

Parthini']ooc: Just you wait...

IC: Germany is opposed to this "decolonization" nonsense. While our British friends have done a sufficent job in providing for the welfare of their African and Asian Bretheren, the Belgians and Portuguese have been too occupied by marauding communist forces to begin seriously contemplating decolonization.

And as if the ownership of colonies is not an issue of national rights.

The German ambassador also pointedly notes that if the Belgians should be forced to let go of their colonies, so Russia should be forced to let go of Siberia. It would only be fair. China would be just as forced to rid itself of Mongolia and Manchuria, and Sweden Karellia. One might even argue for Colombia to abandon Venezuela and Ecuador. I'm sure those nations would be so willing to abandon their holdings.

The United States points out that the population of Siberia is overwhelmingly ethnic Russia, and before Russian settlement, was lightly populated by races and peoples who are still there. Karellia is predonominately populated by the Laplanders, who are ethnically more akin to the Finns then the Russians, while Mongolia was mainly populated by the Mongolians until the last few decades and their hostility toward China was very apparent during the war.

China has a UN Mandate to place Mongolia on the road to independence, and it is not a Colony of China. Manchuria was part of China for hundreds of years and in no way can be considered a colony. Karellia belonged to Sweden prior to the 18th Century and was stolen by Peter the Great. Siberia was colonized and populated by Russians over the course of 4 centuries.

Angolia on the other, to use an example, is mostly inhabited by peoples who share no common lingustic or ethnic ties to Portugal, and although it has been a colony of Portugal for nearly 400 years, in no way could a Angolian be considered a Portuguese or vice versa by the policies and history of the two peoples.

However, the German Ambassador has a point. If Portugal and Belgium need assistance in developing their colonial territories, I am sure the World Bank could assist with that. The Irish proposal does not call for colonial powers abandoning territories to their fate, but instead, calls for colonies to be converted into UN Mandates and prepared for self government and independence. Therefore, if a colonial power cannot do that with its own resources, then the UN should assist it.

Parthini']OOC: Damn jerks ganging up on me...

IC: The German Ambassador, after receiving a report, brings the Council to another point of attention. The waters around Denmark and Sweden, once legally international waters, free from taxation an restrictions, have recently been declared national waters of the Scandinavian Union.

Germany is appalled with the blatant attempts by the SU to enclose the German people and their brand new merchant fleet and calls out to the international community to ensure a safe trading environment for the German people.

The US Ambassador notes the Scandic move and the US government has filed a protest with the Scandic Union and will do so here as well.

However, as Germany has port facilities in Hamburg, which is on the North Sea, it is not cut off from the sea even if the Scandic Union did insist on tariffs. However, the US feels the Kattegat is considered an international waterway, just as the Straits of Molocca (Singapore area) and English Channel.

France agrees with the proposal of decolonisation, but however, as our German collegue points out, careful thought must be put in what may be determined as a colony and what could be national territory or claims.

Careful research must be made by a responsible, impartial and competent body into an area in question, we must look into the history, heritage, compesition of the population, the level of ethnecity, the treatment of all populace by the colonial body, the abillity of a stable democratic government to exist without the colonial body...So on and so forth.

This way, we believe, we stand a better chance of reaching a fair agreement with the nations in question.

Also we support the International Court and ask the court to adress the French request for allowing an army.

Britain would also like to investigate the Scandinavian Union's claim to the seas around Denmark and Sweden. In particular there is concern that shipping taxes could be levied on previously international waters and that the Royal Navy could be hampered in her trade protection exercises on previously free routes.

Britain cautiously votes in favour of the Irish proposal concerning the development of Belgian and Portuguese colonies. Britain has led by example with her technological development of African interests, her previous granting of independence to her dominions and the forthcoming peaceful independence of Burma. It is Britain's intentions to grant independence to all of her colonies that desire it by 1965 and to continue developing them until then so that democracy and civilisation can be maintained there once Britain pulls out.

the Christmas season Cease Fire in Turkey breaks down and the Greeks and Turks return to fighting, which spreads to terrorism in Cyprus.

Spain is not in favor of decolonisation but does, however, support any attempt at helping to develop Portugese and Belgian Colonies.

The British UN delegate once more pleads for peacekeepers in the Greco-Turkish war. The fighting has spread to Cyprus and has required heavy handed British military intervention to maintain peace. The bulk of the Meditteranean fleet and around half of the British army are tied down there. Whilst UN troops are required for the rest of the region it is hoped that British troops can maintain peace on their own territory. If it is requred Britain will pledge two divisions, plus air and naval support to a UN peacekeeping operation.

An urgent vote on the issue is requested by Britain.

OOC: And British isolationism goes out the window again..

Spain supports Britains plea for peacekeeping forces and will send one division of mobile infantry to assist in current operations.

The Syrians do not have an ample military supply to draw from, and cannot therefore send troops at this time. However, we can open our borders to all refugees, and temporary housing can be provided.

The Turks claim the Greeks started it, and point out that Greece has annexed vast amounts of Turkish territory and committed atrocities, and easily provide evidence to that fact. The Greeks claim the Turks started it, and point out the Thrace and Smyrna (and for that matter most of the Turkish Aegean coast) have been Greek since before the time of Homer. (ooc The Trojan War was actually a spat between the Greeks living in what is now Turkey versus the Greeks living in what is now Greece over whether Aegamenon was going to essentially be overlord of all the Greeks... the recent movie with Brad Pitt has that part right).

Independent observers attest to the fact that both sides have been pretty horrific to one another. Military advisors ask if the UN (or their member nations) are willing to provide peace keepers for what may be decades.

The US supports the involvement of UN forces in seperating the combatants but is unwilling to supply troops, although it will provide logistical support (ships and aircraft to get them there).

The Turks claim the Greeks started it, and point out that Greece has annexed vast amounts of Turkish territory and committed atrocities, and easily provide evidence to that fact. The Greeks claim the Turks started it, and point out the Thrace and Smyrna (and for that matter most of the Turkish Aegean coast) have been Greek since before the time of Homer. (ooc The Trojan War was actually a spat between the Greeks living in what is now Turkey versus the Greeks living in what is now Greece over whether Aegamenon was going to essentially be overlord of all the Greeks... the recent movie with Brad Pitt has that part right).

Independent observers attest to the fact that both sides have been pretty horrific to one another. Military advisors ask if the UN (or their member nations) are willing to provide peace keepers for what may be decades.

The US supports the involvement of UN forces in seperating the combatants but is unwilling to supply troops, although it will provide logistical support (ships and aircraft to get them there).

Korea supports the UN intervention in Turkey, and offers a Mountain Infantry Brigade to support the effort, though it will need help in transporting the infantry to Turkey.

South Africa has offered to support Britain in the United Kingdom's peace-keeping efforts in Cyprus, and is awaiting permission from Britain to send troops.

Resolution 1(?)

With the formation of the Scandinavian Union much of Northern Europe has been solidified into one entity. Specifically in regards to the Skagerrak strait, the Scandinavian Unions formation has included the entire coastline of both the Skagerrack strait and its offshoot, the Kattegat.

1. With the Skagerrak strait being bordered by a single entity with the SU’s formation the need for the strait to be split and kept neutral has ceased, as such the Skagerrak strait and the Kattegat are to be considered the sovereign waters of the Scandinavian Union.

2. The Skagerrak strait is the only natural way for ships to enter the Baltic making the Skagerrack strait an important sea lane for the Poles, and a semi-important waterway for the Germans. As such it is unavoidable for foreign shipping, mainly German and Polish in nature, to use the strait so merchant shipping flying any flag will be allowed to use the strait as long as they comply with all Scandic laws. The Scandinavian Union does reserve the right to board and search ships acting suspiciously, or ships that had been red flagged by intelligence, passing through the straits and to turn back or refuse ships.

3. While the Skagerrak strait is an important waterway it is also dangerously close to several major and heavily populated Scandic islands and cities, namely Copenhagen. Because of the proximity of hundreds of thousands of Scandic civilians and several major economic and military centers to the straits military vessels are forbidden axis to the straits with the sole exception of Scandic, Polish and German vessels. German and Polish military vessels are required to first warn the Scandinavian government and military of their arrival before they near the strait or the islands it holds otherwise they will be forbidden access and turned back. The sole exception to this would be in the case of an emergency aboard the vessel in which case the vessel will be towed to port by a Scandic flagged navy vessel.

The United States is willing to support this resolution if it is amended to accept the fact that merchant, commercial and private vessels of all nations will be traveling into the Baltic Sea, and that the Scandic Union right of inspection be limited to only those vessels acting in a suspecious manner, or those ships and craft that a foreign government or UN agency has informed the Scandic Union is likely to be up to criminal or dangerous intent.

Schleswig-Holstein was taken by force of arms over a series of wars much to the chagrin of most of Europe, including England, from Denmark. It was a land grab conducted by a militaristic and imperialistic nation, no reperations will ever be made for the recently liberated province of Schleswig-Holstien.

OOC: Sorry, didn't really get to get to this.

IC: The German ambassador retorts saying that the same thing could have been said of the Scandic "land grab" during the Eurasian War. Sweden has no claim to the region, other than " a land grab conducted during a militaristic and, argueably, imperialistic operation. Therefore, the province of Schleswig-Holstein is just as much German as it is Scandic.

Germany must push for compensation for the loss of such a vitally important province.

The German Ambassador also brings forth the issue of Austria, repeating what he said earlier:

The German Ambassador also presents the issue of Austria and Schleswig-Holstein. Austria, he argues, was rightfully German territory since 1908 (I think) and has been rightfully, and to the pleasure of Austrians, ever since. The forceful segregation by the US is, he argues, both illegal and immoral. It is as separating two brothers from each other. No doubt the Americans would feel the same should Texas be forced to leave the Union.

China may be able to contribute 2 infantry corps towards the UN peace-keeping effort, but we do not have troop transports available to transfer these 2 infantry corps. If an UN nation is willing to offer the troop transports needed to deliver the 2 infantry corps, we would be eternally grateful.

Parthini']OOC: Sorry, didn't really get to get to this.

IC: The German ambassador retorts saying that the same thing could have been said of the Scandic "land grab" during the Eurasian War. Sweden has no claim to the region, other than " a land grab conducted during a militaristic and, argueably, imperialistic operation. Therefore, the province of Schleswig-Holstein is just as much German as it is Scandic.

Germany must push for compensation for the loss of such a vitally important province.

The German Ambassador also brings forth the issue of Austria, repeating what he said earlier:

The United States would accept the results of a plebisite concerning Austria by the Austrians under UN observation. However, the arguement the German Ambassador is interesting, but fallacious. The very same arguement could be used to allow Germany to reannex Poland because Germany acquired Poland through military force in the 18th Century. However it is unlikely the Poles would be willing to go along with that.

The United States feels that a final peace treaty between the UN and Germany calls for Germany to recognize the borders as they are at this time, not what Imperial Germany held 200 years ago, or what Union Germany included 10 years ago.

ooc
The US is going to be hardline on this issue, a lot of Americans were killed fighting Germans (not just Russians) over the last 20 years.

The United States would accept the results of a plebisite concerning Austria by the Austrians under UN observation. However, the arguement the German Ambassador is interesting, but fallacious. The very same arguement could be used to allow Germany to reannex Poland because Germany acquired Poland through military force in the 18th Century. However it is unlikely the Poles would be willing to go along with that.

The United States feels that a final peace treaty between the UN and Germany calls for Germany to recognize the borders as they are at this time, not what Imperial Germany held 200 years ago, or what Union Germany included 10 years ago.

OOC: Well, we can always ask the Poles :)

IC: The German ambassador reminds that the German Empire, and indeed the American Republic were not in existance 200 years ago, so any claims that far back are useless.

The German ambassador inquires whether it would be proper for the treaty to require what Imperial Germany held 30 years ago?

The German ambassador also points out that he is not demanding that Schleswig-Holstein be returned to Germany, but rather that compensation be given to Germany for the "transfer of power" in that province.

Lastly, the German ambassador thanks the American delegate and the entire UN body for their great sense in realizing that the Austrians may indeed wish to continue to be united with their German bretheren.

OOC: When would this plebicide be?

Parthini']OOC: When would this plebicide be?

Such a vote would only be held if
1. The UN General Assembly votes on a resolution calling for it
2. Austria agrees to hold it

Plus the US will vote against it in the General Assembly unless Germany agrees to the current borders, with any future adjustments handled by the UN

Britain is willing to contribute troops to a wider UN supported peacekeeping operation. Such troops would likely inclde the following: 1 jet bomber, 1 jet fighter, 2 infantry divisions. Plus the majority of the Mediterranean fleet, including specialised minesweepers to clear the Dardenelles. Plus whatever extra forces can be spared from the peacekeeping in Cyprus.

Britain is also willing to utilise her excess transport capabilities to allow other UN forces to reach the area quickly.

The Fourth Republic strongly supports the UN's decision to intervene, several groups former French war-veterans have stepped forward to take part in the peace-keeping force, we hope that the aid we gave to the UN earlier could be used to equip them for the peace-keeping mission. We hope that we will be able to assist more in the future.

Another point the Republic wishes to address is the fact that several nations have been backing either sides involved in the conflict. We insist that the UN peace-keeping force should not contain any of these nations or any nations directly neighboring the tense area this is to have a force which is as impartial and as objective as possible.

Also the UN should insists that nations backing either sides should form a plan with the UN to cut back aid to either sides as the peace-keeping mission comes into effect.

Ireland proposes an immediate arms embargo on both Greece and Turkey, requests that Italy not enter the war, and that an economic embargo be placed on both nations until such time as they cease committing mass murder.

Britain supports the Irish plan but not in lieu of an intervention in the war. The only way this violence can be quelled is with the threat of more violence. It is an unfortunate fact, but true. If we rely merely on an embargo the fighters will simply get their weapons and ammunition from illegal smugglers and hence more money will reach organised crime syndicates and the war will continue. The only way to stop this war is by a decisive peacekeeping action. Britain reaffirms her promise of troops for a UN multi-national force and supports the French in asking that no neighbouring or otherwise biased countries be allowed to participate in the peacekeeping.

It should be noted that Italia did not wish to enter another war so soon after World War 3, as we were not prepared for one (by dismantling most of our military). However, Turkey has forced our hand by attacking one of our historic ships, the Armando Diaz (and I would hardly call it accidental), when its presence in the Sea of Marmara was only to patrol and prevent weapon smuggling. Italia will not sit back and watch as our brave sailors are attacked without cause. We do not support the mass-murder of civilians, but the Turks have done it just as much.

With that said, the Italian government will back down under the following terms:
- The Turks pay the Italian government for the loss of the Armando Diaz
- The Turks pay reparations to the families of those who lost their lives aboard the Armando Diaz
- A cease fire is called between Greece and Turkey
- Greece is given back all land that Turkey has seized since the beginning of this conflict
- All Greek refugees are permitted to return to their homes

These terms are non-negotiable. Once these terms are met, and signed by the Secretary General of the UN and the Turkish Government, Italia will withdraw its troops that are already on the way to Smyrna.

The US puts forward the following resolution before the Security Council

Recognizing that Greek and Turkish military and paramilitary forces are committing atrocities in Thrace and Anatolia.

That both sides are guilty of warcrimes

That a permanent occupation by UN forces would be required to seperate the two sides

Proposes that the Turkish proposal for an exchange of population be approved and supervised by the UN. That all ethnic Greeks be relocated out of Anatolia to Thrace, and all ethnic Turks be relocated out of Thrace to Anatolia except for the population living in Constantinople.

That UN peacekeeping forces oversee the transfer and safe evacuation.

And that the UN Commission for Refugees and World Bank assist with relocation and rebuilding after the population transfer.

In addition, that British Commonwealth forces continue to maintain order in Cyprus.

That Turkey keep all of Anatolia and that Greece keep all of Thrace.

And that the UN maintain a peacekeeping force in Constantinople for 10 years and oversee the city government during that time.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10429735&postcount=226

Such a vote would only be held if
1. The UN General Assembly votes on a resolution calling for it
2. Austria agrees to hold it

Plus the US will vote against it in the General Assembly unless Germany agrees to the current borders, with any future adjustments handled by the UN

Germany agrees to sign a treaty nullifying any claims on Burgundy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Schleswig-Holstein and calling for a plebicide to be held in Austria calling for the reunification of Austria and Germany.

Meanwhile, several German officials head to Vienna to discuss reunification issues with the Austrian government. Promises of strong social services, economic benefits to Austria, religious freedom, and self-government on domestic issues are put forward.

Resolution 1(?)

With the formation of the Scandinavian Union much of Northern Europe has been solidified into one entity. Specifically in regards to the Skagerrak strait, the Scandinavian Unions formation has included the entire coastline of both the Skagerrack strait and its offshoot, the Kattegat.

1. With the Skagerrak strait being bordered by a single entity with the SU’s formation the need for the strait to be split and kept neutral has ceased, as such the Skagerrak strait and the Kattegat are to be considered the sovereign waters of the Scandinavian Union.

2. The Skagerrak strait is the only natural way for ships to enter the Baltic making the Skagerrack strait an important sea lane for the Poles, and a semi-important waterway for the Germans. As such it is unavoidable for foreign shipping, mainly German and Polish in nature, to use the strait so merchant shipping flying any flag will be allowed to use the strait as long as they comply with all Scandic laws. The Scandinavian Union does reserve the right to board and search ships acting suspiciously, or ships that had been red flagged by intelligence, passing through the straits and to turn back or refuse ships.

3. While the Skagerrak strait is an important waterway it is also dangerously close to several major and heavily populated Scandic islands and cities, namely Copenhagen. Because of the proximity of hundreds of thousands of Scandic civilians and several major economic and military centers to the straits military vessels are forbidden axis to the straits with the sole exception of Scandic, Polish and German vessels. German and Polish military vessels are required to first warn the Scandinavian government and military of their arrival before they near the strait or the islands it holds otherwise they will be forbidden access and turned back. The sole exception to this would be in the case of an emergency aboard the vessel in which case the vessel will be towed to port by a Scandic flagged navy vessel.


Revised according to American wishes.

Revised according to American wishes.

The Americans will support it (and their close allies) , more support will be needed

Turkey agrees to the UN cease fire. The situation is as follows around Smyrna (modern Izmer). The Greeks hold about a 20 mile perimeter around the city, while the Turks hold the hills overlooking the city and have artillery that can reach the harbor. The Turks inform the UN that it will honor the cease fire while the the American Resolution is debated. However, if additional military forces reinforce the city or attempt to, or combat operations are directed at Turkey, it will continue the war to be on again.

The Greeks do not like the American proposal, but accept the cease fire in hopes that Italian troops arrive in time.

The Americans will support it (and their close allies) , more support will be needed

Korea supports the resolution.

Australia supports the resolution concerning the Scandinavian Union as well. In addition, the proposed solution to the Greco-Turkish conflict seems most reasonable and this nation will vote in favor of it being enacted as well.

The US puts forward the following resolution before the Security Council

Recognizing that Greek and Turkish military and paramilitary forces are committing atrocities in Thrace and Anatolia.

China seconds this.

That both sides are guilty of warcrimes

China seconds this as well.

That a permanent occupation by UN forces would be required to seperate the two sides

China raises the question of how long is defined by "permanent". China has concerns that this may result in a drain on the resources of the UN members involved in the peace-keeping.

Proposes that the Turkish proposal for an exchange of population be approved and supervised by the UN. That all ethnic Greeks be relocated out of Anatolia to Thrace, and all ethnic Turks be relocated out of Thrace to Anatolia except for the population living in Constantinople.

China strongly supports this.

That UN peacekeeping forces oversee the transfer and safe evacuation.

China agrees to this.

And that the UN Commission for Refugees and World Bank assist with relocation and rebuilding after the population transfer.

This is acceptable to China as well.

In addition, that British Commonwealth forces continue to maintain order in Cyprus.

China raises a question about this. Should the evacuations apply to this? Perhaps evacuate BOTH groups from Cyprus and establish the island as an independent colony of a third party, such as Arabs, Italians, Egyptians, British, or such so that there will be no conflicting claims or genocide in Cyprus, thus eliminating another spark for a war.

That Turkey keep all of Anatolia and that Greece keep all of Thrace.

This is perfectly acceptable to China and China will support this resolution to its fullest.

And that the UN maintain a peacekeeping force in Constantinople for 10 years and oversee the city government during that time.

This issue is in question as is the "permanent" peacekeeping force.

China raises the question of how long is defined by "permanent". China has concerns that this may result in a drain on the resources of the UN members involved in the peace-keeping.

This issue is in question as is the "permanent" peacekeeping force.

Ambassador Harriman clarifies the point and indicates that US military officials, including Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur feel it would require many, many years of occupation by troops from outside the region in large numbers to ensure the peace is maintained. Therefore, the US feels this is a bad option, and calls for the population exchange instead.

Australia supports the resolution concerning the Scandinavian Union as well. In addition, the proposed solution to the Greco-Turkish conflict seems most reasonable and this nation will vote in favor of it being enacted as well.

Canada and Ireland will then follow the Australian lead on both resolutions, as will Brazil.

meaning that the US, Ireland, Canada, Brazil, Russia, Australia, Iceland, Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, Guetamala, Liberia, Honduras, Nicueraga, Virgin Islands, the Philippines, Japan are in favor, plus the Scandic Union plus Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Oman. The Netherlands, Belgium and Burgundy as well will sign on to the Scandinavian Union proposal. The Czechs sign on as do the Rumanians. The Ukraine, Armenia and Kurdistan are ok with it as are the Central Asians. 34 votes for, which is a majority.

The Greeks are against it unless the nations who side for it vote against the US resolution concerning Greco-Turk war. Turkey however signs on to the Scandic Union one to get support for the US resolution on the Greco-Turkic conflict.

The Scandic Union Resolution concerning the Baltic Sea and the Kattegatt is approved by the UN. This gives it the force on an international agreement and Germany and Poland are effectively bound by it.

The Greco - Turkic Conflict is before the Security Council, not the General Assembly.

There are 5 permanent members plus 13 other nations on the Security Council right now.
Permanent Members -- United States, Great Britain, South Africa, China and Colombia.
Presently on the Security Council are the Scandic Union, Burgundy, Italy, the USAE, Mexico, the Philippines, Australia, Liberia, Morocco, Oman, Kashgaria, Spain, and Ireland.

The US, Australia, China, Burgundy, Mexico, the Philippines, Liberia, Morocco, Oman, Kashgaria and Ireland are for the Resolution sponsered by the US regarding the cease fire, arms embargo, and population exchange regarding the Greco-Turkic War. Which is a majority.

However, if South Africa, Colomiba or Great Britian say no, it fails due to veto.

Portugal will support the SU resolution.

China raises a question about this. Should the evacuations apply to this? Perhaps evacuate BOTH groups from Cyprus and establish the island as an independent colony of a third party, such as Arabs, Italians, Egyptians, British, or such so that there will be no conflicting claims or genocide in Cyprus, thus eliminating another spark for a war.

If this is done, the Polish delegate asks, how exactly would we choose who repopulates Cyprus?

Colombia will agree to both the Scandic Union's proposal and the Ceasefire Proposal

The SU supports the ceasefire proposal except for the relocation clause. We willnot support the forced relocation of people, if people wish to relocate than the UN should help but no one should be forced, so untill that issue is dealt with the SU will vote against the proposal.

China raises a question about this. Should the evacuations apply to this? Perhaps evacuate BOTH groups from Cyprus and establish the island as an independent colony of a third party, such as Arabs, Italians, Egyptians, British, or such so that there will be no conflicting claims or genocide in Cyprus, thus eliminating another spark for a war.

ooc: hoot for security council membership!

ic: The Australian delegate quotes Tacitus--"they make a desert and call it peace." The forced evacuation of everybody from Cyprus seems like a very poor idea. However, their replacement by another group is an even worse idea, and the logic behind both must be seriously questioned. It is not the purpose of this organization to engage in population management, and this nation for one is not happy with it being necessary in Anatolia and Thrace. To expand the refugee issue unnecessarily is pointless.

Italia will respectfully vote against the US Greco-Turkish resolution. It meets several of the criteria outlined in our terms for withdrawal, but we strongly disagree with the border realignments. It would be one thing to let the borders stand where they are now, even though the Turks have been seizing territory left and right. It's even worse to just kick the Greeks off of Asia minor completely - I hardly call this fair. If the rest of the world values the status quo as much as it lets on, then the borders should revert back to what they were before the Greeks and Turks started fighting.

It is a shame that the world has turned its back on Greece, a member of the LTA and WW3 war ally.

The US puts forward the following resolution before the Security Council

Recognizing that Greek and Turkish military and paramilitary forces are committing atrocities in Thrace and Anatolia.

That both sides are guilty of warcrimes

That a permanent occupation by UN forces would be required to seperate the two sides

Proposes that the Turkish proposal for an exchange of population be approved and supervised by the UN. That all ethnic Greeks be relocated out of Anatolia to Thrace, and all ethnic Turks be relocated out of Thrace to Anatolia except for the population living in Constantinople.

That UN peacekeeping forces oversee the transfer and safe evacuation.

And that the UN Commission for Refugees and World Bank assist with relocation and rebuilding after the population transfer.

In addition, that British Commonwealth forces continue to maintain order in Cyprus.

That Turkey keep all of Anatolia and that Greece keep all of Thrace.

And that the UN maintain a peacekeeping force in Constantinople for 10 years and oversee the city government during that time.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10429735&postcount=226

what is actually in the US resolution on the Greco-Turkic War. A forced repopulation of Cyprus was not mentioned and fails to gain acceptance as an amendment.

The SU supports the ceasefire proposal except for the relocation clause. We willnot support the forced relocation of people, if people wish to relocate than the UN should help but no one should be forced, so untill that issue is dealt with the SU will vote against the proposal.

The US points out that it this point it is needed to save lives, and if the UN doesn't at least address it, it is likely to happen in any case but far more brutally. At least this way the relocatees will receive UN assistance to rebuild their lives.

The US points out to Italy that the overwhelming body of evidence is that Greeks are committing just as many atrocities then the Turks (ooc historically it was pretty even... think of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia last decade, but on a larger scale).

What of the reunification of Austria and Germany?

Parthini']What of the reunification of Austria and Germany?

not on the floor at the moment.. make a resolution proposing it and see how it flies

The German Ambassador proposes the following:

RESOLVED, The German Empire and Austria, once being a united force, are now separate and for the worse.

STATING THAT, post WWIII, Germany and Austria were segregated in ways that were against all Germans.

PROPOSES THAT, the nation of Austria commit to a general plebicide to decide whether or not to reunite with the German Empire.

ALSO, Germany promises to relinquish any claims to Burgundy, Belgium, the Netherlands or the SU province of Schleswig-Holstein.

The US points out to Italy that the overwhelming body of evidence is that Greeks are committing just as many atrocities then the Turks (ooc historically it was pretty even... think of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia last decade, but on a larger scale).

If we're trying to be neutral, and both sides are committing about the same atrocities, then why should the Turks benefit from the resolution and get even more territory?

Parthini']The German Ambassador proposes the following:

RESOLVED, The German Empire and Austria, once being a united force, are now separate and for the worse.

STATING THAT, post WWIII, Germany and Austria were segregated in ways that were against all Germans.

PROPOSES THAT, the nation of Austria commit to a general plebicide to decide whether or not to reunite with the German Empire.

ALSO, Germany promises to relinquish any claims to Burgundy, Belgium, the Netherlands or the SU province of Schleswig-Holstein.

China will second this next resolution when the Greco-Turkish issue is resolved.

Colombia will also back the German Proposal.

Parthini']The German Ambassador proposes the following:

RESOLVED, The German Empire and Austria, once being a united force, are now separate and for the worse.

STATING THAT, post WWIII, Germany and Austria were segregated in ways that were against all Germans.

PROPOSES THAT, the nation of Austria commit to a general plebicide to decide whether or not to reunite with the German Empire.

ALSO, Germany promises to relinquish any claims to Burgundy, Belgium, the Netherlands or the SU province of Schleswig-Holstein.

Portugal will back the German resolution.

If we're trying to be neutral, and both sides are committing about the same atrocities, then why should the Turks benefit from the resolution and get even more territory?

Ireland will point out that Anatolia was not formerly awarded to Greece after the 3rd Great War, it was simply occupied by Greek troops along with Thrace. No actual formal treaty resolving that situation has actually been signed. In addition, the Greeks are a minority in Anatolia, while the Turks are a minority in Thrace and the majority in Constantinople until recent events.

Britain will support the US resolution regarding the Greco-Turkish war.

However it will not support the Chinese amendment of a forced reoccupation of Cyprus. Especially as Cyprus is part of the British Empire (an actual part, not a protectorate or anything), and it's people are subjects of the King and Parliament. Britain will not forcibly remove any of her people from their homes.

The Republic of France officially announces that it will respect the current border of Burgundy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany, also France France will recognise, if passed, the German Plebicite over Austria.

The Republic wishes also to propose placing Constatinople under neither Turkish nor Greek hands but rather maintain it permenantly as an internationally run terriory run by the UN. We feel that this is nessecery since not only Constatinople is an area rich with many cultures but also because the city itself is on the Golden Horn the only water way enterance to the black sea.

The Republic urges Italy to reconsider its position on the matter, echoing the concerns that both sides have commited atrocities and that seperation and relocation seems the best option. Unless a better one is proposed?

the Security Council has jurisdiction over the Greco-Turkish crisis and the US resolution passes (as it has a majority and no one vetoed it, see NPC thread for details).

Austria holds an election, and the pro annexation party wins 80% of the vote, and formerly requests annexation into Germany. By the end of June Austria is once again part of Germany.

Italia is divided over the UN's action. A decent percentage of the population (the far right) wants to go against the UN and attack anyway, but the majority just accepts what the UN resolved and wants their government to back down. Under the pressure from the UN and the majority of the population, the Italian government withdraws it troops. There is a general belief throughout the population that it is good that the conflict didn't get any bloodier, and Italia was able to stay out of the war, but also that Greece still got the short end of the deal.

The first seeds of doubt and dislike of the UN have been planted within the Italian populace...

The SU would like to state that it is completely against the reunification of Austria and Germany. If Germany goes through with the reunification it will only serve to damage what relations remain between the SU and Germany.

the United States remains quiet on the issue, and when the vote comes approving it, abstains.

Rumor has it that leadership in the US has been somewhat tentative regarding foriegn affairs since the death of Truman.

Syria has no official position on the German issue at this time.

Among the general populace, discomfort with the UN is beginning. Intervening in the Greek-Turkish conflict was welcomed, but the idea of forced resettlement unnerved many. The idea that they themselves could experience the same thing, given the Palestinian claims over much of the nation.

OOC: Elephantum, get on chatzy

South Africa supports the American resolution concerning Greece and Turkey, but opposes the Chinese amendment involving forced relocation of the Cypriots (both Greek and Turkish).

the United States remains quiet on the issue, and when the vote comes approving it, abstains.

Rumor has it that leadership in the US has been somewhat tentative regarding foriegn affairs since the death of Truman.

that wont affect the transfer of the carrier to the RAN will it?

that wont affect the transfer of the carrier to the RAN will it?

no, that transfer has essentially already been carried out and the ships are under refit at the moment.

no, that transfer has essentially already been carried out and the ships are under refit at the moment.

thought so, thanks. Out of curiousity, do you know what carrier it was? It got renamed, but just for the record?

thought so, thanks. Out of curiousity, do you know what carrier it was? It got renamed, but just for the record?

formerly USS Mobile Bay, an Essex class carrier

formerly USS Mobile Bay, an Essex class carrier

and proudly rechristened HMAS Curtin
:p

Japan would like to apply for membership to the U.N

Japan would like to apply for membership to the U.N

Japan is accepted into the UN

Syria would call upon the UN to sanction the nation of Palestine. Reasons are as follows:

They have laid claim to Syrian lands in the Golan Heights and Lebanon
They maliciously attacked Syrian troops in the above areas
They persecute those who refuse to accept hard-line Islamic law


We would ask for any support possible in removing this menace to humanity, and propose that afterward the city of Jerusalem is placed under UN control.

Japan would like to propose a nuclear non-proliferation amendment be added in order to prevent a future nuclear war

Mexico and Oman cosponsor a Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate cease fire in Palestine, withdrawal of all forces back to their base areas, and the border dispute referred to the World Court.

The US, Mexico, Oman, Burgundy, the Philippines, Liberia, Morocco, Kasgharia, and Ireland are in favor (meaning it will pass unless Colombia, South Africa, China or the Scandi Union vetos it).

A Moroccon Amendment calls for an arms embargo against Palestine as well to be enforced by naval forces from Security Council Nations. It also will pass unless Vetoed.

ooc
There are 5 permanent members plus 13 other nations on the Security Council right now.
Permanent Members -- United States, Great Britain, South Africa, China and Colombia.
Presently on the Security Council are the Scandic Union, Burgundy, Italy, the USAE, Mexico, the Philippines, Australia, Liberia, Morocco, Oman, Kashgaria, Spain, and Ireland.

Japan would like to propose a nuclear non-proliferation amendment be added in order to prevent a future nuclear war

ooc
that would go to the General Assembly, and needs to be specific... suggest you look at the real world treaty

Mexico and Oman cosponsor a Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate cease fire in Palestine, withdrawal of all forces back to their base areas, and the border dispute referred to the World Court.

The US, Mexico, Oman, Burgundy, the Philippines, Liberia, Morocco, Kasgharia, and Ireland are in favor (meaning it will pass unless Colombia, South Africa, China or the Scandi Union vetos it).

A Moroccon Amendment calls for an arms embargo against Palestine as well to be enforced by naval forces from Security Council Nations. It also will pass unless Vetoed.

ooc
There are 5 permanent members plus 13 other nations on the Security Council right now.
Permanent Members -- United States, Great Britain, South Africa, China and Colombia.
Presently on the Security Council are the Scandic Union, Burgundy, Italy, the USAE, Mexico, the Philippines, Australia, Liberia, Morocco, Oman, Kashgaria, Spain, and Ireland.


OOC: South Africa is a permanent member but not I? That blows.

IC: The Federated Asian States are in favor of sanctions against Palestine. We are also in favor of using force if Palestine refuses to bow to U.N. demands.

It would go to the General Assembly because i don't have a seat on the Security Council (sorry if i didn't make that clear)
here's a link to the NPT in RL
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/npttext.html

each nuclear powered nation is not to assist in the building of nuclear weapons of other nations, safeguards on nuclear weapons are to be required, this amendment would not stop people from making nuclear weapons, just stop them from helping other nations. Japan also proposes that hotlines be set up (like in the cold war) between nuclear capable nations to ensure nuclear wars do not start because of an accident. The amendment will also propose that nuclear weapons not be test-detonated near populated areas. the distance should be long enough that radiation not sweep into the area

We will back down, if the resolution passes, but until a decision is made we cannot afford to let down our defenses.

Mexico and Oman cosponsor a Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate cease fire in Palestine, withdrawal of all forces back to their base areas, and the border dispute referred to the World Court.

The US, Mexico, Oman, Burgundy, the Philippines, Liberia, Morocco, Kasgharia, and Ireland are in favor (meaning it will pass unless Colombia, South Africa, China or the Scandi Union vetos it).

China, after heavy debate and consideration, feels that it must veto this issue, citing Palestinian aggression and the fact that China believes that the Golan Heights would experience better governance under Syria. To China, Syria apparently is more liberal and democratic than the extremists in Palestine who force their own will upon a possibly unwilling populace.

A Moroccon Amendment calls for an arms embargo against Palestine as well to be enforced by naval forces from Security Council Nations. It also will pass unless Vetoed.

China agrees to this amendment, but points out that China does not have any naval forces.

It would go to the General Assembly because i don't have a seat on the Security Council (sorry if i didn't make that clear)
here's a link to the NPT in RL
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/...t/npttext.html

Each nuclear powered nation is not to assist in the building of nuclear weapons of other nations, safeguards on nuclear weapons are to be required, this amendment would not stop people from making nuclear weapons, just stop them from helping other nations. Japan also proposes that hotlines be set up (like in the cold war) between nuclear capable nations to ensure nuclear wars do not start because of an accident. The amendment will also propose that nuclear weapons not be test-detonated near populated areas. the distance should be long enough that radiation not sweep into the area.

China supports Japan's proposal, strangely enough. However, there is one point of contention that China raises. What about sharing nuclear technologies between allied nations?

The US, Irish and several other nations point out to China that the UN principal of Self Determination prevents the UN from condemning the Palestinian government as long as it does not practice genocide or state sponsored murder (ooc so far it hasn't, it just talks a lot). In addition, it is not clear which nation actually started the fighting (ooc, it isn't actually, no unbiased observers were on the ground). Finally, it is pointed out that if the resolution is vetoed, then the amendment is as well.

The World Court should have a chance to mediate the dispute and a cease fire would allow that to happen.

the Japanese resolution, now having a second, goes to the UN committee on legal affairs, where several US allies and the US itself stall it.

ooc
The US isn't ready just yet for that, after all, the US and British are secretly conducting joint research. I spent several years in High School and College involved in the Model UN, and there are lots of ways to stall a resolution without killing it, or coming right out and saying you are against it.

OOC: Ahh, Model UN.... I almost succeeded in getting Brazil a permanent seat on the security council. Too bad the North Koreans nuked Tokyo in the middle of it... :rolleyes:

Japan sees no problem with sharing nuclear power amongst allies, however, if the nation seems to be on the warpath, or is supporting international terrorists, then they should not be allowed to share information
For example: Britain and the U.S sharing nuclear technology is fine, because they are solid, fair nations

The US, Irish and several other nations point out to China that the UN principal of Self Determination prevents the UN from condemning the Palestinian government as long as it does not practice genocide or state sponsored murder (ooc so far it hasn't, it just talks a lot). In addition, it is not clear which nation actually started the fighting (ooc, it isn't actually, no unbiased observers were on the ground). Finally, it is pointed out that if the resolution is vetoed, then the amendment is as well.

The World Court should have a chance to mediate the dispute and a cease fire would allow that to happen.

China raises a counter-point.

Threats and big-talk shouldn't be taken lightly. Suppose someone or a group decides to talk or boast that they are going to kill the US President, the Royal Family of Britain, or even a group of co-workers? The talk is dismissed, then suddenly the President, Royal Family, or the co-workers are murdered. People would ask "Why didn't you act on it sooner? Then these people would still be alive."

Another example is crying fire in a crowded place. You cannot take the chance that it's a real fire, a prank, or bluster. A person isn't willing to gamble that the fire isn't real when in fact it is real, then dies in the process.

Therefore, it is China's belief that these threats of genocide or harm should be aggressively addressed before these threats could possibly be carried out.

The SU will backt he Nonprofliation ammendment but is against the arms embargo against Palestine unless it is extended to Syria and all other combatants as well.

Japan sees no problem with sharing nuclear power amongst allies, however, if the nation seems to be on the warpath, or is supporting international terrorists, then they should not be allowed to share information
For example: Britain and the U.S sharing nuclear technology is fine, because they are solid, fair nations
Colombia openly wonders how Japan could determine whether or not a country is on the "warpath" or simply seeking a form of defense. We will heavily consider this proposal. (ooc: And prolly Veto it, as I wish to have plans with SU)

In regards to China, unfortunatly we cannot act without evidence that they are both capable and willing to commit such atrocities. Having UN Forces monitering the situation in force, prepared to step in should work rather well, rather than break International Law.

a nation is "on the warpath" if it shows open signs of aggression, or is funding international terrorist groups. a nation may be on the warpath if it has regional/international disputes. granted, they may be using the nuclear weapons as defense against invaders, but if the other nations do not have nuclear weapons, or are weaker than the nation constructing nuclear weapons, then using them defensivley does not seem likely.
If many nations are opposed to this plan, then can an amendment be made to ban nuclear test explosions near areas of human build up that might be harmed by radiation?
OOC: the SU does not seem to share Colombia's view on this matter

the Nuclear Non Proliferation Resolution is before the General Assembly, and cannot be vetoed. However, it hasn't gotten out of committee yet either (so I will assume Colombia helps the US stall it).


The Resolution before the Security Council concerning the Syrian - Palestinian conflict is tabled as it is now irrelevent (as the Egyptians and Syrians have destroyed the Palestinian Army and occupied the country).

A new Resolution is brought before the General Assembly by Algeria and Morocco calling for Syria to be granted a UN Mandate over Palestine. Oman, Eastern Arabia, Kurdistan, Turkey, Central Asia, Kashgaria quickly line up behind it as well, while the Sultanates of Baghdad, Basra and Saudi Arabia oppose the measure and demand an immediate withdrawal of Syrian and Egyptian forces.

Sufficient support exists for the resolution to get out of committee and it makes it to the floor of the UN for general debate and a vote.

If passed, Syria will essentially run Palestine with the goal of preparing it for independence in 10 years.

Egypt is requesting UN peace keeping forces for Jerusalem. Ok, all of you Catholic countries, plus Germany as well, this is your chance to get Christian troops to garrison Jerusalem. In character absolutely you would want this.IC

IC
Ireland, along with Burgundy and Mexico co-sponsor a resolution calling for Jerusalem to be placed under UN protection. The US President suddenly finds himself under a lot of pressure by Christian groups to support it, even though he would rather abstain.

Egypt formally requests that it be given the rights for southern Palestine, at least Gaza and the surrounding areas.

In a seperate but related issue, why give the Palestinian state independence again? Look at how short of time it's been around and it's already attacking it's neighbors! I say Jerusalem and the surrounding areas be declared a UN neutrality, with the rest of Palestine divided between Egypt and Syria. If you're concerned about Jewish-Muslim relations, UN inspectors can check in on how pilgrims and the non-muslim population is faring.

OOC: If you keep on rebuilding Palestine/Israel, the same thing as in RL will happen. If you'd like to bring a little peace to the Middle East, don't create a nation that's the exact opposite of the rest of the countries.

Egypt formally requests that it be given the rights for southern Palestine, at least Gaza and the surrounding areas.

In a seperate but related issue, why give the Palestinian state independence again? Look at how short of time it's been around and it's already attacking it's neighbors! I say Jerusalem and the surrounding areas be declared a UN neutrality, with the rest of Palestine divided between Egypt and Syria. If you're concerned about Jewish-Muslim relations, UN inspectors can check in on how pilgrims and the non-muslim population is faring.

OOC: If you keep on rebuilding Palestine/Israel, the same thing as in RL will happen. If you'd like to bring a little peace to the Middle East, don't create a nation that's the exact opposite of the rest of the countries.

Egypt hasn't been around much longer but it has already conquered one of its neighbors. Palestine was provoked into action by calculated Syrian actions, they are no more guilty than Egypt and Syria.

a nation is "on the warpath" if it shows open signs of aggression, or is funding international terrorist groups. a nation may be on the warpath if it has regional/international disputes. granted, they may be using the nuclear weapons as defense against invaders, but if the other nations do not have nuclear weapons, or are weaker than the nation constructing nuclear weapons, then using them defensivley does not seem likely.
If many nations are opposed to this plan, then can an amendment be made to ban nuclear test explosions near areas of human build up that might be harmed by radiation?
OOC: the SU does not seem to share Colombia's view on this matter

Colombia is only pointing out that it maybe difficult to distinguish, and may even lead to inappropriate accusations. We do not support the ammendment... as we'd rather have it as the proposal itself. If a country submits a decent amount of evidence that another country is 'hostile' then, and only then, can nuclear technology be barred. The Onus is on the accusing country, not the defendant.

Anyways; In regards to Palestine, Colombia agrees with the Scandic Union. Perhaps a UN Force should look after Palestine?

ooc: The SU doesn't have to share views with me on the proposal, but I do want to share nuclear research with him.

ooc: The SU doesn't have to share views with me on the proposal, but I do want to share nuclear research with him.

OOC: Don't worry, I'll be sharing with you. I just don't want to see half the world with nukes.

Egypt hasn't been around much longer but it has already conquered one of its neighbors. Palestine was provoked into action by calculated Syrian actions, they are no more guilty than Egypt and Syria.

"Conquered"? I aided my ally, who was attacked by Palestine for moving in soldiers to defend it's border. Would you not do the same for your ally? Would you leave your border with a hostile neighbor unguarded? Besides, the UN was already "looking after Palestine". In other words, Palestine will go unpunished for it's act of aggression and the deaths of Egyptians will be in vain.

Try not to completely ignore the countless more Palestinians who died defending their own land from an Egyptian invasion. Syria acted in a move calculated to agrivate Palestine into action, whether or not they meant for a war to break out is not the point, the point being Syria pushed palestine into action. Palestine can not accept the entire blame for the start of this war, and Palestine should not be punished any more than it already has been.

On the subject of Palestine, the SU is willing to provide troops for the U.N. mission in the country.

And why are we punishing the people of Palestine when the government was killed in the fighting?

OOC:

A little overwhelmed with the tons of posts since my last post. From what I understand it, Palestine has been defeated and its people are happy that their oppressive government is gone, correct?

What UN resolutions are open for discussion regarding Palestine, Syria, and Egypt at this time? I'm not sure about the exact resolution.

I suck at politics and I have very little experience with UN stuff so please bear with me. Its a learning experience for me.

OOC: South Africa is a permanent member but not I? That blows.

OOC: TLS, it's because I rock. Everyone else, I'm a little behind on some of the threads, so assume for now that ICly South Africa will back the British and Americans on the current proposals.

The German delegate proposes that a plebicide be held in Palestine to decide what should be done. After all, we have all seen how well it has worked with Austria.

Britain supports the resolution to turn Palestine into a UN mandate territory for the next 10 years.

Britain will also attempt to stall the Non-Proliferation Treaty whilst it is still in the committee phase.

The Republic somewhat concurs with the German proposal, the inhabitants of the contested area should decide for themselves. A mandate for Syria on Palestine could be troublesome if the locals view it as imperialisim, but if they choose to accept it then there should be no problem.

An alternative to a Syrian mandate could be a mandate to a neutral body in the conflict, a body which the people of Palestine could choose for themselves.

We must recognise the value of the area of the Golan Heights to both sides and a comprimise must be worked out to perserve the area against future conflicts.

A question is asked about the Japanese proposal about the possibillity that larger nations that can develop large amounts of nuclear weaponry and use them to influence smaller ones that can only develop small amounts or none without outside help?

Gavelston: is it possible to put part of the NPT resolution, the part that doesn't allow nuclear testing near human areas, forward in some way? cause no one seems to reject that part. Or would I have to create another resolution?

Gavelston: is it possible to put part of the NPT resolution, the part that doesn't allow nuclear testing near human areas, forward in some way? cause no one seems to reject that part. Or would I have to create another resolution?

Another resolution may be required at this point... bottom line, nuclear limitations are caught up by national interests at the moment.

yea.... in that case Japan proposes a Nuclear Testing Amendment. the amendment calls for nuclear wepons not to be tested within 100 miles of major human activity, as it will cause radiation damage to the people, or if there is no other alternative to nuclear weapons being tested there, then only to be tested when the winds will push the radioactive material away from human activity

We have our own solution for Palestine. Over the next year, a plebicide could be conducted, with those areas that wish to join Syria, Egypt, or Jordan doing so. The remainder, if any, including the city of Jerusalem, regardless of the outcome of the plebicide, could be ruled in the following manner.

A bicameral legislature, with one house, being elected from the populace in a system and numbers to be determined later, would deal with domestic matters, foreign policy, and the like. The second house would consist of the following:

One Representative of the Jewish Faith
One Representative of the Islamic Faith (one Shia, one Sunni)
Two Representatives of the Orthodox Faith (one Roman Catholic, one Orthodox)
One Representative from Syria
One Representative from Egypt
One Representative from Jordan
Two Representatives appointed by the UN

This house would administer to the holy sites, including Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem. The religious members could, where applicable, be appointed by central authorities of the religion, specifically the Pope and Patriarch. Otherwise they could be selected from local leaders. The representatives from neighboring nations, along with the UN representatives, would help guide the policy, and keep the regime from overstepping the rights of the constitution.

Basic framework for the constitution can be decided on, but it should include relinquishing any claims to foreign territory and equal protection and rights for all citizens, regardless of race or religion. Defense could be managed by a special UN task force.

We, however, object to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as it stands, not because we wish to obtain the horrible weapons, which I can assure you we do not, but on moral issues. If you will permit me using nations as examples, Scandanavia could, in theory, be punished by the UN for selling a nuclear device to Mexico, but go unpunished for using the device against Mexico instead. The ideal solution would be to ban use of nuclear weapons, unless the nation, or an ally, has been attacked by a similar weapon, and make any other wartime use a crime against humanity, with the threat of prosecution in the World Court.

Most nations striving to obtain nuclear weapons do so to counteract the presence of nuclear powers in their vicinity. If the current nuclear powers sign the treaty, and have respect for international law, they should have nothing to fear.

But banning international cooperation on nuclear weapons is antithetical to the purpose of the UN, which is, if I am not mistaken, international cooperation itself. It also sets a horrible precedent. If international cooperation over nuclear weapons is unacceptable, what makes cooperation over any weapons acceptable? International trade? The problem with drawing a line in the sand to distinguish right from wrong is that you could have drawn it in an infinite number of other places.

the Coptic Church (Egypt has the largest), Ethopian Copts, and a number of various Protestant Dominations want to know why they are excluded (which is expressed in the media and in demonstrations at various places)

The Ethopians in particular point out that they already are part of the governing council that runs the Church of the Holy Sepulchar. (this is pointed out in the UN)

Several Central American nations as well as Canada are strongly against the partition of Palestine in any case, and feel that the UN Charter specifically precludes that.

The US remains silent on the issue, as apparently political issues in the US are preventing a decision on it.

Tibet recommends that a Buddhist run the city as the UN governor, as he would be able to be objective.

This of course does not sit well with the NPC Moslem nations

ooc
you didn't really think Palestine as an issue would be that easy did you?

Does Syria oppose the Nuclear Testing Amendment?
OOC: the NPT is dead anyway....

In our initial plans, we thought it unwise to give 4 votes to Christian denominations, as this would overrule the 3 votes given to other religions. While numbers could be changed, we would hope the different Christian denominations could work together. While we are reluctant to let a denomination that is disconnected with the diverse issues to maintain a city that is holy to so many religions, perhaps two members from both the Hindu and Buddhist faiths could be appointed as well. Would a layout along these lines work better?

6 Christian Representatives (1 Coptic, 2 Catholic, 2 Orthodox, 1 Protestant (perhaps rotating denominations))
6 Muslim Representatives (4 Sunni, 2 Shia)
3 Jewish Representatives
1 Hindu Representative
1 Buddhist Representative
2 Representatives each from Syria, Egypt, and Jordan
3 UN appointed representatives


The Austrian plebicide was supposedly acceptable by the UN. This plebicide would retain the existence of the Palestinian state, but allow those parts that would prefer separation to leave. Dividing a nation into four parts, while allowing it to remain in existence, is better than dissolving a nation entirely, is it not?

Nuclear Testing should be limited to areas as far from habitation as possible.

After much consideration, Egypt has decided that it shall not pursue land gains from this complicated issue. Current occupation forces shall withdraw in 30 to 60 days, depending on diplomatic issues. Strikes against withdrawing Egyptian forces shall be answered with full military force. If attacks against Egyptian forces are authorized by Palestinian authorities, Egyptian occupation shall continue until peace can be arranged. We hope this conflict will pave the way for a better future between our nations.

However, Egyptian forces shall remain in some areas of Palestine for tactical and diplomatic purposes. While Egypt understands that a new Palestinian government may be less aggressive, by occupying these areas Egypt can maintain open diplomatic ties between our two nations. The areas are a modified version of the Gaza Strip (Ghazzah and Nevitot shall be the outermost occupied cities) and a small region in southern Palestine. Unarmed Palestinians will be allowed to enter and move through the regions and a small Palestinian patrol force will be allowed along the borders of the occupied territories. Along with that, a small Egyptian military base shall be maintained within Palestine to quickly act if Palestinian forces attack once again. MAP (http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/2728/15fc.png) The Red Star is the Egyptian military base.

These occupied territories are not permanent and Egypt has full intentions to slowly return these lands to Palestinian control as conditions between our countries improve. If relations improve greatly between our nations, all Egyptian forces should be removed from Palestine by 1960, although leaps in diplomacy and relations could set the deadline as early as 1950. Although announced to the UN, this issue is between the Egypt and the Palestinian people and forced progress by other nations will only harm the diplomatic process. May peace befall both of our nations.

Oman suggests that Palestine be annexed by Jordan to form a new nation called Palestine, but with the territories of both. This would relieve Egyptian and Syrian concerns, increase the economic viability of both nations, and bring about a longer term solution. UN Forces from Algeria and Italy would remain on occupation duty for 2 years to assure a smooth transition, with those forces arriving in the country within 60 days to replace Syrian and Egyptian troops.

Jerusalem would remain under the control of this new state, although a UN monitoring team organized under the guidelines suggested earlier to monitor the safety, security and access of all of the Holy City.

The US, Canada, and Central American nations, along with Morocco and Liberia support this, followed by Iceland.

(which isn't a majority, but a big step toward one)

Egypt would also like to make a small suggestion. Our opening of Jerusalem to UN forces seems to have ignited a flood of Christian soldiers, threatening the balance of the Middle East. We recommend a limit be placed on how many soldiers each nation should be allowed to have, especially during peace times. While the nation is unstable in current times, we understand that the UN may try to garrison as many soldiers as possible. But once the area has been reorganized, there will be no need for thousands of soldiers to protect one city. With the current situation, a nation could place a small army in Jerusalem, which would inevitably cause neighboring nations to build up their militaries in response and this entire issue could replay itself.

Britain supports the resolution to turn Palestine into a UN mandate territory for the next 10 years.

Britain will also attempt to stall the Non-Proliferation Treaty whilst it is still in the committee phase.


The SU also supports the resolution to turn Palestine into a U.N. mandate for the next 10 years. The Palestinian people and nation should not be punished for what there leadership did, a leadership that happens to have been wiped out. Russia and Germany were not torn apart at the end of the great war so why should the Palestinians suffer such a fate. The U.N. was brought about to end war and bring peace, not tear nations apart and dictate to peoples how and by who they should be governed.

The SU is also offering up troops to help the U.N. mission in Palestine.

Oman suggests that Palestine be annexed by Jordan to form a new nation called Palestine, but with the territories of both. This would relieve Egyptian and Syrian concerns, increase the economic viability of both nations, and bring about a longer term solution. UN Forces from Algeria and Italy would remain on occupation duty for 2 years to assure a smooth transition, with those forces arriving in the country within 60 days to replace Syrian and Egyptian troops.

Jerusalem would remain under the control of this new state, although a UN monitoring team organized under the guidelines suggested earlier to monitor the safety, security and access of all of the Holy City.

The US, Canada, and Central American nations, along with Morocco and Liberia support this, followed by Iceland.

(which isn't a majority, but a big step toward one)

Oman and the US suggest that this resolution and the UN Mandate Resolution be merged, and that Jordan handle the Mandate instead of Syria.

Syria has concerns about putting Jordan in charge of a country that is at least equal, if not superior, to it economically. Financial concerns could lead Jordan to exploit the Palestinians. Even if it were honestly managed, we do not believe they would be able to run it adequately due to a lack of funds and manpower.

Colombia doubts that Syria could do any better; We're not to sure how the Palestinians would be treated under Syrian rule after this war.

Syria has concerns about putting Jordan in charge of a country that is at least equal, if not superior, to it economically. Financial concerns could lead Jordan to exploit the Palestinians. Even if it were honestly managed, we do not believe they would be able to run it adequately due to a lack of funds and manpower.

The US, Canada and Algeria all suggest monitors from the World Bank as well as other UN organizations to assist Jordan.

King Abdullah II of Syria would request a date to give a speech before the general assembly.

King Abdullah II of Syria would request a date to give a speech before the general assembly.

ooc
permission isn't required for a speech

France would support the Omani proposal aswell, as long as the Palastenians agree to it.

China asks the UN the following.

"Is Oman attempting to recreate a new MEU so soon afer the collapse of the original MEU established by the Ottomans?"

The USEA votes in favour of the Omani proposal and reminds China that the unification of two small states is no great cause for concern.

The Federated Asian States believes that Palestine should be left as an indepedendent state, minus the areas claimed by Syria and Egypt. The problems in Palestine that led to the rise of such radicals is due to the fact that Palestine needs help; if the country is improved, the risk of radical islamists coming to power is minimized. After liberating themselves from the rule of the M.E.U, the Palestinian people are probably weary of being controlled by another nation. Therefor, we propose that all the members of the United Nations chip in to help "fix" Palestine, as it were, so that in 1950 the Palestinian people can be fully under their own control, and won't be forced to resort to radicalism.

Egyptian forces have begun withdrawing from most areas (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10482401&postcount=171) of Palestine, having already surpassed it's 60-day occupation time. Just be warned that next time Palestine strikes, it will be annexed (despite how much crying the Scands do).

Britain is concerned by the Omani proposal and by the rapid spread of "Super-States" around the world. History has shown us that some of these large nations are highly unstable and prone to trouble. Especially in the political and religious melting-pot of the Middle East. Perhaps other options should be examined first?

That said, Britain is happy to abide by a majority decision from the UN.

The proposal by the FAS seems to make the most sense to us. We take a similar stance as that of our Egyptian allies. We will not claim any current Palestinian lands, but we will annex Palestine if attacked again. We would like to amend the idea of UN support, with full independence to be acheived by 1950. To prepare the Palestinians for this, we would ask that our system, for a provisional elected government with UN and regional influence, that would be responsible for establishing the new constitution. Our only points of concession would be relinquishing all claims to current Syrian land, and allowing no upper-level Palestinian government officials to retain their position.

The Omani plan simply makes no sense. After the Third World War, you removed Russian land, and Russian power. You did not give it control over China. Making a warmongering power larger and stronger will only make the situation worse.

(OOC: King Abdullah's PO'ed speech will wait until this idea is blocked, of course if it isn't then it wont happen)

Egyptian forces have begun withdrawing from most areas (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10482401&postcount=171) of Palestine, having already surpassed it's 60-day occupation time. Just be warned that next time Palestine strikes, it will be annexed (despite how much crying the Scands do).

the US asks if Egypt is willing to go along with the Omani proposal

Egypt believes that Jordan would be a stable and wise watcher over Palestine.

Why don't we simply put the nation under UN watch status for a period of time, perhaps for the next three years, to monitor the re-establishment of an independent government. It seems like this would me the most suitable situation overall. Palestine will remain independent, a new government will come to power, and the Holy Cities will again be available for the regular public.

Why don't we simply put the nation under UN watch status for a period of time, perhaps for the next three years, to monitor the re-establishment of an independent government. It seems like this would me the most suitable situation overall. Palestine will remain independent, a new government will come to power, and the Holy Cities will again be available for the regular public.

sufficient NPC votes, along with the Americans to get that passed.

Palestine regains its independence and the UN calls for withdrawal of all foreign troops from Palestine. Palestine is allowed 1 militia unit (representing its national police force), and 3 light infantry brigades, plus a coast guard (a few patrol boats not worth anything as a combat unit). The US and Jordanians oversee reeastablishment of the national police.

Egypt would like to request the World Bank's aid in the development of Sudan. Due to current issues (such as the Europeans using the ME as a military playground), Egypt must focus its funds elsewhere currently leaving Sudan quite undeveloped. Perhaps a new industrial center or rural electrification, both which are cheap, could aid Sudan’s development. While Sudan is far from able to support itself independently, this would be a major step towards independence.

Egypt would like to request the World Bank's aid in the development of Sudan. Due to current issues (such as the Europeans using the ME as a military playground), Egypt must focus its funds elsewhere currently leaving Sudan quite undeveloped. Perhaps a new industrial center or rural electrification, both which are cheap, could aid Sudan’s development. While Sudan is far from able to support itself independently, this would be a major step towards independence.

the UN is willing to kick in 26 points (repayable beginning 1950 at 1 point a year)

Britain would support aid Egypt's to the Sudan in terms of economic capital. This will have to be delayed until 1949 at the earliest though and will consist of around 10-12 points as the British budget is quite strained at the moment.

The Sudan has benefitted this year (1948) from British investment. A tourist airline has been set up there to encourage potential growth of industry in the area.

Sorry for the triple post, mostly the bit about UN mandates is relevent here:

In a major speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, announces plans to introduce funding for social services into her UN mandate territories (Northwest Africa, Equatorial Ghana), these services are likely to be on par with those currently supplied to British colonies (level 4). 20 million people live in these areas and will recieve many social security and healthcare benefits courtesy of the British government. This is intended to allow local resources to be spent on improving the area prior to independence. Financial aid to newly independent Burma, and the British territory of Ceylon is also expected to be included, as is the usual aid to India.

The budget announcement also alluded to the possibility of manned "sub-space" missions later in 1949, an exciting opportunity made by the combined efforts of the Anglo-Germanic Queen Victoria research station on Heligoland. Sir Cripps also stated that the British and German work into Nuclear Power was coming along quickly and that a functioning power station could be in place as soon as 1950.

(OOC: What, out of curiosity, is the new Palestinian goverment like, both in terms of structure and ideology?)

Egypt will accept 12 points of UN aid for Sudan and thanks Britain for it's contributions. Concerning Palestine, Egypt would also like to learn more about it's new government and would like to begin diplomacy talks.

Considering I:
-Occupy Palestine's main mining area
-Occupy a large portion of Palestine's land
-Have most of Palestine's military supplies
-Have a military base right in the middle of the country

I don't think they'll refuse. Also note that this isn't a ransom meeting or anything like that. I fully intend to start returning land as soon as we get some diplomacy going.

The Palestinians are having elections, and moderates win power. They have no army except a national police and small coast guard and a couple of light infantry brigades the US is equipping with surplus World War II weapons. Everything else in they had was taken by the Syrians or by Egypt unless specifically given back.

The Palestinian Air Force consists of a few Piper Cubs and a couple of ambulance helicopters.

The Palestinian government gives up claims to the Golan and wishes to know exactly what the Egyptians want

The Fourth republic of France wishes to offer the services of the newly reformed French Forign Legion (1 light Infantry Division) to the UN Security Council. Also the Republic would like to apply for membership in the security council.

1949 Egyptian-Palestinian Armistice
This arrangement is to stand until 1955, unless an alteration is proposed and passed by both nations.
-Peace Treaty between Palestine and Egypt.
-Semi-Open Trade Pact between Egypt and Palestine (no embargoes, etc.)
-Palestinian reconition of Egypt's control over the Gaza Strip.
-Egyptian reconition of the new Palestine State.
-Egyptian return of all unused military equipment salvaged from Palestine.
-Egyptian withdrawl of forces from occupied Palestinian territory.

The Fourth republic of France wishes to offer the services of the newly reformed French Forign Legion (1 light Infantry Division) to the UN Security Council. Also the Republic would like to apply for membership in the security council.

And for what reason should you be considered?

And for what reason should you be considered?

The US is ok with the Legion Estranger acting as a permanent Security Council peacekeeping force, although modifying the UN Charter to add more nations as permanent members of the Security Council is a trifle premature.

The US will even take over upkeep (maintenance costs) for the Legion (figure 2 points a year to France to cover all expenses beginning 1949)

1949 Egyptian-Palestinian Armistice
This arrangement is to stand until 1955, unless an alteration is proposed and passed by both nations.
-Peace Treaty between Palestine and Egypt.
-Semi-Open Trade Pact between Egypt and Palestine (no embargoes, etc.)
-Palestinian reconition of Egypt's control over the Gaza Strip.
-Egyptian reconition of the new Palestine State.
-Egyptian return of all unused military equipment salvaged from Palestine.
-Egyptian withdrawl of forces from occupied Palestinian territory.

1949 Syrian-Palestinian Armistice[/U]
This arrangement is to stand until 1955, unless an alteration is proposed and passed by both nations.
-Peace Treaty between Syria and Palestine.
-Semi-Open Trade Pact between Syria and Palestine (no embargoes, etc.)
-Palestinian reconition of Syria's control over the Golan Heights and all other lands under Syrian control in 1946.
-Syrian reconition of the new Palestine State.
-Syrian return of all unused military equipment salvaged from Palestine.
-Syrian withdrawl of forces from occupied Palestinian territory.

OOC: How did we come up with such similar treaties? :)

The US is ok with the Legion Estranger acting as a permanent Security Council peacekeeping force, although modifying the UN Charter to add more nations as permanent members of the Security Council is a trifle premature.

The US will even take over upkeep (maintenance costs) for the Legion (figure 2 points a year to France to cover all expenses beginning 1949)

We understand and thank the US for its Generous Offer.

After the recent disturbance eminating from the north, Kaiser Wilhelm travels to Dublin to the distress of his doctors. It is not well known that his recent illnesses are due to high levels of radiation due to the Scandic Test. Only high level German and some British Officials know.

The Kaiser steps up to the General Assembly and begins to speak.

"Germany has recently allotted funds to the development of nuclear weapons. While Germany feels it is only right that it joins the ranks of the Nuclear Club, several other nations, including the Scandinavian Union feel that such a club is too exclusive for Germany. The SU has even threatened war with Germany, solely on the basis that the SU wishes to remain the only nuclear capable nation in Europe. They wish to hold a monopoly on the technology, reminicent of the vile Communist ideals which we all just recently finished defeating. Where are the ideals of free market which we all hold so dear? Under the Scandic wishes, they are crushed underneath the boot of Scandic Elitism.

Who are they to deny a soverign nation its own ability to have in possession nuclear weapons? They are not ones to be lecturing on the proper use of such weapons. It was not but 3 years ago that they detonated a weapon in unsafe levels which contaminated my own country!

Thus, I bring to you this problem. The Scandics are abusing their powers as a nuclear power and denying nations their right to defend themselves from those who wish to destroy us. I plead the nations of the world to see the sense of Germany and the oppression of the Scandics. Otherwise, it seems that there is little that can be done but pray that the President of the Scandics are not as trigger happy as another Union which was recently destroyed..."

Parthini']After the recent disturbance eminating from the north, Kaiser Wilhelm travels to Dublin to the distress of his doctors. It is not well known that his recent illnesses are due to high levels of radiation due to the Scandic Test. Only high level German and some British Officials know.

The Kaiser steps up to the General Assembly and begins to speak.

"Germany has recently allotted funds to the development of nuclear weapons. While Germany feels it is only right that it joins the ranks of the Nuclear Club, several other nations, including the Scandinavian Union feel that such a club is too exclusive for Germany. The SU has even threatened war with Germany, solely on the basis that the SU wishes to remain the only nuclear capable nation in Europe. They wish to hold a monopoly on the technology, reminicent of the vile Communist ideals which we all just recently finished defeating. Where are the ideals of free market which we all hold so dear? Under the Scandic wishes, they are crushed underneath the boot of Scandic Elitism.

Who are they to deny a soverign nation its own ability to have in possession nuclear weapons? They are not ones to be lecturing on the proper use of such weapons. It was not but 3 years ago that they detonated a weapon in unsafe levels which contaminated my own country!

Thus, I bring to you this problem. The Scandics are abusing their powers as a nuclear power and denying nations their right to defend themselves from those who wish to destroy us. I plead the nations of the world to see the sense of Germany and the oppression of the Scandics. Otherwise, it seems that there is little that can be done but pray that the President of the Scandics are not as trigger happy as another Union which was recently destroyed..."

China strongly seconds this speech by Germany as it does not wish any elitism that may lead to future wars. Basically what it comes down to is...

"If you (non-nuclear nation) refuse to comply with my demands, I will use nuclear weapons on you and you can't do anything about it!"

"If you (non-nuclear nation) declare war on me, I detonate nuclear weapons all over your nation in the first day, destroying you and your capacity for war, and to hell with the millions of civilian casaulties!"

And so forth. This will only encourage "spoiled" nations to get everything their want because the possession of nuclear weapons by the "spoiled" nations and the non-possession of nuclear weapons by the rest of the world makes such idiocy possible.

Rivals with nuclear weapons isn't as dangerous as it seems. This will actually lower the danger of another great war in Europe due to the theories of Deterrence and Mutually Assured Destruction. Additionally, the multiple surrounding nations would probably unite against the aggressor therefore causing a nuclear offensive to be a suicide attack, which a nation and it's people would never allow. Egypt fully supports nuclear possessions by Germany.

South Africa supports the German nation as well, stating that the new German government cannot be held responsible for the aggressions of the old Worker's Republic. South Africa also notes that since Germany has proven willing to cooperate with other nations of the international community, there is no reasonable warrant for depriving Germany the pursuit of nuclear weapons, especially since the Kiaser has emphasized that such weapons would be used only as a self-defence and a deterrent.

Rivals with nuclear weapons isn't as dangerous as it seems. This will actually lower the danger of another great war in Europe due to the theories of Deterrence and Mutually Assured Destruction. Additionally, the multiple surrounding nations would probably unite against the aggressor therefore causing a nuclear offensive to be a suicide attack, which a nation and it's people would never allow. Egypt fully supports nuclear possessions by Germany.

China points out that the mutual assured destruction does work if both nations have nuclear weapons. But this does not apply if one nation has nuclear weapons and the other one doesn't. In this case, the nuclear nation can intimidate the non-nuclear one with impunity and initate all sorts of blackmail aganist the non-nuclear nation. This must not be allowed to stand.

The Irish submit a resolution calling for a limitation on the use of nuclear energy so that it may be used only for peaceful generation of electricity, or for self defense when a nation that has nuclear weapons is invaded or its civilian population is attacked by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or its armed forces are attacked by nuclear weapons.

In short, the use of nuclear weapons for retaliation is legal, and so is the defense of national territory.

Canada seconds the resolution and it goes before the relevent UN committee for further discussions.

ooc
This is a General Assembly Resolution and cannot be vetoed.

IC
In the Security Council, the US calls for Security Council sponsered talks between Germany and the Scandic Union, to be held in St. Louis or Omsk (ooc both places were nuked during the 3rd Great War)

The Irish submit a resolution calling for a limitation on the use of nuclear energy so that it may be used only for peaceful generation of electricity, or for self defense when a nation that has nuclear weapons is invaded or its civilian population is attacked by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or its armed forces are attacked by nuclear weapons.

In short, the use of nuclear weapons for retaliation is legal, and so is the defense of national territory.

Canada seconds the resolution and it goes before the relevent UN committee for further discussions.

ooc
This is a General Assembly Resolution and cannot be vetoed.

IC
In the Security Council, the US calls for Security Council sponsered talks between Germany and the Scandic Union, to be held in St. Louis or Omsk (ooc both places were nuked during the 3rd Great War)

China raises an point for the general assembly resolution involving nuclear weapons. The point is as follows...

"Nuclear retaliation should only be legal if nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are used aganist the defending nation. If conventional forces are employed or attacks the nuclear nation, nuclear retaliation should be illegal."

------------------------------------------

China seconds the security council talks between Germany and the SU (meaning it will either vote "yea" or abstain on the security council proposal, no veto'ing will occur from China).

China raises an point for the general assembly resolution involving nuclear weapons. The point is as follows...

"Nuclear retaliation should only be legal if nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are used aganist the defending nation. If conventional forces are employed or attacks the nuclear nation, nuclear retaliation should be illegal."

The United States disagrees, and places reliance on its nuclear arsenal to deter any enemy from even considering an invasion of US National Territory. As the UN Charter allows for self defense, the United States feels confident in its rights on this matter.

The United States disagrees, and places reliance on its nuclear arsenal to deter any enemy from even considering an invasion of US National Territory. As the UN Charter allows for self defense, the United States feels confident in its rights on this matter.

China counters with the following statement.

-----------------------------------------------

Thus, this could be considered blackmail. Suppose there are skirmishes between conventional forces of a nuclear and non-nuclear nation. Then under this policy, it will supposedly give the nuclear nation the go-ahead to kill millions of innocent civilians in cities just for the lives of 100 soldiers or such in a border skirmish. Such travesty must not be allowed to stand.

In addition, what is there to prevent nuclear capable nations from using their weapons to intimidate or blackmail non-nuclear nations into doing what the nuclear nations want or desire?

Suppose a nuclear nation, termed Nation A, demands the non-nuclear nation give up territory, release prisoners who belong to Nation A such as expatriates who have committed crimes within the non-nuclear nations, demand favorable trade concessions, extort resources or money, and so forth. If the non-nuclear nation refuses to comply with Nation A's demands or blackmail, then what's there to stop Nation A from simply threatening to detonate nukes over the non-nuclear nation to force the non-nuclear nation to comply with demands it would otherwise refuse to do so.

Basically it can be summarized to these.

"If you do not comply with our wishes, we shall detonate nuclear weapons aganist you!"

"Our words are backed by nuclear weapons. Obey us or die."

"You attack me with 100 soldiers and 5 tanks? Fine. I destroy your entire nation with nuclear weapons! Die, scum!"

These actions and behavior should not be allowed at all.

-----------------------------------------------

The republic voices its concern over nuclear weaponry aswell, The weapons have proved to be devestating to both sides in a conflict; in a flash, two cities were wiped off the face of the earth and this was done by basic models, in a few years time who knows what they can do?

They point out that it would be not too comforting knowing that only a selected few in the world can own nuclear weaponry allowing them to dictate world affairs without fear of retaliation.

On the other hand, if a great majority of the world owned nuclear weaponry it would be equally disturbing as the world would be nothing but a powder keg waiting to be set ablaze by some lunatic who wants to rule the world.

But perhaps the limiting of research could be a first step, but we would ask that the nuclear arsenals of all nuclear countries be placed under observation and partial countrol by the IAEA.

Suppose a nuclear nation, termed Nation A, demands the non-nuclear nation give up territory, release prisoners who belong to Nation A such as expatriates who have committed crimes within the non-nuclear nations, demand favorable trade concessions, extort resources or money, and so forth. If the non-nuclear nation refuses to comply with Nation A's demands or blackmail, then what's there to stop Nation A from simply threatening to detonate nukes over the non-nuclear nation to force the non-nuclear nation to comply with demands it would otherwise refuse to do so.


I will fix this for you, so it makes sense.

Suppose a nuclear nation, termed Nation A, demands the non-nuclear nation give up territory, release prisoners who belong to Nation A such as expatriates who have committed crimes within the non-nuclear nations, demand favorable trade concessions, extort resources or money, and so forth. If the non-nuclear nation refuses to comply with Nation A's demands or blackmail, then the UN security council steps in, slaps Nation A with an embargo, and essentially tells him to piss off. That or Nation B gets himself a Nuclear ally.

And also, we'd like to remind Germany of two things... those evil nuclear communist weaponry that the Scandic Union is using? The one designed by German Engineers, in the great Union between Russia and Germany? That communist weaponry? So you are saying, the weapons developed by Germans, used by a Union that Germany was in, which killed millions of people with these German weapons, should be given to Germany? Ok. Just making sure.

Second thing: You should be paying back your debt before adventuring into the nuclear level.

But perhaps the limiting of research could be a first step, but we would ask that the nuclear arsenals of all nuclear countries be placed under observation and partial countrol by the IAEA

Britain will not, under ANY conditions, relinquish even partial control of any part of her military to another nation or organisation. However UN officials and inspectors are welcome to investigate the UK nuclear research and development program. I am sure that they will find that the health, safety and security methods used are amongst the best in the world and that no breaches of any treaties will be made.

-----------------------------------

Britain is in (cautious) support of the German nucear program. It is the British government's policy that any nation should be allowed to hold nuclear technology and weapons to use as a dissuasion tool in combination with the threat of mutual destruction. It is only when a nuclear country threatens a non-nuclear country that problems occur. In this case the Scandic Union has done just that. Britain states that she is against any sanctions for Germany and hopes for a fair threatment of the country despite her troubled past. Indeed the British delegate asks how we can sanction a country that has merely followed in the footsteps of others on this matter and further enquires how we can fail to punish a nation who has initiated a threat of nuclear war against said country just for their peaceful intentions of dissuasion.

THe British thought that this organisation was meant to stop such occurances from happening...

Britain will not, under ANY conditions, relinquish even partial control of any part of her military to another nation or organisation. However UN officials and inspectors are welcome to investigate the UK nuclear research and development program. I am sure that they will find that the health, safety and security methods used are amongst the best in the world and that no breaches of any treaties will be made.

South Africa supports the idea of UN inspectors monitoring the arsenals of nuclear powers.

Secret IC:
The South African delegate, Nicolaas Diedrichs, sends a note to the British delegate, stating simply that South Africa agrees with Britain that no supranational organization should have any control of a nation's military, and recommends that should such idea be seriously entertained, South Africa and Britain use their collective diplomatic strength to kill such a resolution.

The Irish submit a resolution calling for a limitation on the use of nuclear energy so that it may be used only for peaceful generation of electricity, or for self defense when a nation that has nuclear weapons is invaded or its civilian population is attacked by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or its armed forces are attacked by nuclear weapons.

In short, the use of nuclear weapons for retaliation is legal, and so is the defense of national territory.

Canada seconds the resolution and it goes before the relevent UN committee for further discussions.

The US points out that the Resolution submitted addresses the Chinese concerns. In short, if a nation attempts nuclear blackmail, then it would fall to the UN Security Council to intervene, and some of the nations in the Security Council do have the ability to face a nuclear armed opponent on equal terms.

As submitted, the US can vote for the resolution. The United States also feels that its nuclear program and arsenal are needed for its defense, and points out that as it is only one of four nations attacked by nuclear weapons, it feels justified in retaining full authority over ALL of its defenses.

The United States is willing to accept German nuclear arms ONLY if this resolution is accepted

We believe the Irish Resolution should include a clause allowing the defense of allies. Many nations, including ourselves, and the Irish themselves, have no desire to develop these weapons. This should not make us suspect to attack. Once again, we apologize for the example, but, say America and Mexico have a disagreement. If America were to provoke a war, and were able to claim they were attacked first, they would be justified in "nuking" Mexico city. However, if Mexico were allied with a nuclear power, say China, the threat of retaliation could help prevent an attack.

This would make us, along with many of the smaller nations of the world, feel safer.

We believe the Irish Resolution should include a clause allowing the defense of allies. Many nations, including ourselves, and the Irish themselves, have no desire to develop these weapons. This should not make us suspect to attack. Once again, we apologize for the example, but, say America and Mexico have a disagreement. If America were to provoke a war, and were able to claim they were attacked first, they would be justified in "nuking" Mexico city. However, if Mexico were allied with a nuclear power, say China, the threat of retaliation could help prevent an attack.

This would make us, along with many of the smaller nations of the world, feel safer.

Australia seconds this.

The South African delegate, Nicolaas Diedrichs, sends a note to the British delegate, stating simply that South Africa agrees with Britain that no supranational organization should have any control of a nation's military, and recommends that should such idea be seriously entertained, South Africa and Britain use their collective diplomatic strength to kill such a resolution.

The British delegate concurs with his South African counterpart and will vote against any such motion.

-------------------------------

Britain will accept the Irish proposal as it stands, but would like to add an inspectorate proviso whereby UN inspectors must check up on a country's nuclear development say every 6 months?

current status
For Irish Proposal (with amendment allowing UN inspections, and allies defending other allies)
US, Canada, UK, Australia, Philippines, Costa Rica, Nicuaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, Iceland, Liberia, Morocco, Algeria, Burgundy, Belgium, Netherlands, Russia, Ukraine, Rumania, Czechslovakia, Turkey, Oman, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Central Asia, Azerbajian, Georgia & Armenia, Kashgaria, Tibet, Nepal, Burma, Brazil, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Western Arabia(38 votes)

have not voted so far
USAE, Japan, Korea, China, Poland, Portugal, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Egypt, Basra, Baghdad, Kurdistan, India (FAS), Argentina (and its federation), Colombia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Scandic Union, South Africa, (22 votes)

Basra, Baghdad, and Kurdistan are leaning toward the resolution, which will be sufficient to give it a 2/3rds Majority (more then enough to pass it)

Japan will vote for this resolution

Germany votes against the resolution as the prospect of nuclear retaliation for conventional invasion is absurd.

However, in light of the Colombian debt, Germany has agreed to indefinately delay its nuclear production, citing that nuclear protection is provided by Britain.

The Republic of Poland votes for the Irish Resolution.

South Africa will abstain from voting on the Irish Resolution, as the Union does not feel that either side of the argument has proposed an adequate solution.

United South East Asia also abstains, on the grounds that no clear solution will be reached by either arguemrnt.

current status
For Irish Proposal (with amendment allowing UN inspections, and allies defending other allies)
US, Canada, UK, Australia, Philippines, Costa Rica, Nicuaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, Iceland, Liberia, Morocco, Algeria, Burgundy, Belgium, Netherlands, Russia, Ukraine, Rumania, Czechslovakia, Turkey, Oman, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Central Asia, Azerbajian, Georgia & Armenia, Kashgaria, Tibet, Nepal, Burma, Brazil, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Western Arabia(38 votes)

have not voted so far
USAE, Japan, Korea, China, Poland, Portugal, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Egypt, Basra, Baghdad, Kurdistan, India (FAS), Argentina (and its federation), Colombia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Scandic Union, South Africa, (22 votes)

Basra, Baghdad, and Kurdistan are leaning toward the resolution, which will be sufficient to give it a 2/3rds Majority (more then enough to pass it)

Poland and Japan vote for the Resolution, while Germany votes no, which leads to Saudi Arabia voting no as well. USAE and South Africa abstain.

votes are 40 for, 1 against, 2 abstaining and 18 still deciding (which means it has the 2/3rds needed for a resolution of this type).

A General Assembly Resolution has the status of an international treaty if a 2/3rd majority votes for it, so if passed, ALL UN member nations are bound to it.

We will vote for.

The Republic votes for

India whole-heartedly votes against the current proposal. Even though India was hurt by nuclear weapons more than pretty much any nation here (save China), we firmly believe that if India had said weapons, we deffinetly could have used them before Russia, which in the long run would have saved many more lives.

Poland and Japan vote for the Resolution, while Germany votes no, which leads to Saudi Arabia voting no as well. USAE and South Africa abstain.

votes are 40 for, 1 against, 2 abstaining and 18 still deciding (which means it has the 2/3rds needed for a resolution of this type).

A General Assembly Resolution has the status of an international treaty if a 2/3rd majority votes for it, so if passed, ALL UN member nations are bound to it.

Thus Resolution 16, Concerning the Use of nuclear weapons, is passed and becomes international law

Syria would call for Egypt to be given some or all control over a mandate for independence of Libya, Somaliland, and any other African territories. Egypt has more than proved itself in industrializing itself and the Sudan, and putting the lands under control of a culturally similar power would be beneficial for the populace. We would ask all nations, especially those in the Arab League, to support us in this motion.

South Africa asks for clarification as to what Egypt means by "any other African territories." Does this imply just those territories which are predominately Arab and Islamic, or other areas as well?

Egypt reconizes the Arab League's plea. Egypt itself is focused on Libya's decolonization from a European Power as not only a fellow African people once under European control, but as a fellow Arab Republic. We call for Italy to reconize the Libyan Republic and it's confederation with Egypt and Sudan.

As for Somaliland, I'm not quite sure why it would concern the Arab League, and believe the league should discuss that issue with Ethiopia or perhaps Western Arabia.

By any other African territories, we meant exactly that, any other territories in the continent of Africa under Italian rule. While we understand that Somaliland may be hard for Egypt to run, Ethiopia or Western Arabia may be economically unable to run a mandate. Perhaps a UN fund could be set up to help Ethiopia run the UN mandate there.

The United States recommends an United Nations poll in Libya to determine if Libya is interested in independence, or wishes to retain its status with Italy (which at this point, seeing as they get the same social services as Italians, relations are probably fairly good...ooc, we need the Italian player to indicate what political rights Libya has).

In addition, the US places before the UN Security Council a resolution calling for a cease fire in the FAS Civil War and UN elections to determine whether Persia and Afghanistan wish to remain under FAS Mandate.

"I would like to take this moment to announce a new piece of legislation, fresh from the Majlis al-Chaab, ratified by the King this morning. It reads:

In light of a considerable amount of criticism resulting from our actions in the war against the Palestinian government, and now, our support of Egypt in the war against the Sauds, the following will be enacted as law, to make Syria fully compliant with all United Nations guidelines:

Under no circumstances shall Syria move to help an ally or neighbor in need, for that is what the UN wants.
Under no circumstances shall Syria try to remove war criminals from positions that allow them to continue to commit said crimes, for that is what the UN wants.
Under no circumstances shall Syria move troops to defend its citizens, especially Christian and Druze communites that face attack from hostile forces, for that is what the UN wants.
The only group Syria will be allowed to move troops to help will be the rich white Christians who wrote the UN charter, for that is what the UN wants.
Syria will, by 1953, have replaced all schoolyards with large pits for said hostile forces to bury Syrian Christians and minorities in, for that is what the UN wants.
The heir to the throne will not risk his life for his people, for that is what the UN wants.
Syria will remain quiet about nuclear tests spreading radiation over much of a continent, because that is what the UN wants.

Of course it is not all of the UN that feels this way, but certainly a vocal minority does, which forced us to enact this.

(OOC: Your move SU)

China watches the UN proceedings quietly, reserving judgement for a future date.

"I would like to take this moment to announce a new piece of legislation, fresh from the Majlis al-Chaab, ratified by the King this morning. It reads:

In light of a considerable amount of criticism resulting from our actions in the war against the Palestinian government, and now, our support of Egypt in the war against the Sauds, the following will be enacted as law, to make Syria fully compliant with all United Nations guidelines:

Under no circumstances shall Syria move to help an ally or neighbor in need, for that is what the UN wants.
Under no circumstances shall Syria try to remove war criminals from positions that allow them to continue to commit said crimes, for that is what the UN wants.
Under no circumstances shall Syria move troops to defend its citizens, especially Christian and Druze communites that face attack from hostile forces, for that is what the UN wants.
The only group Syria will be allowed to move troops to help will be the rich white Christians who wrote the UN charter, for that is what the UN wants.
Syria will, by 1953, have replaced all schoolyards with large pits for said hostile forces to bury Syrian Christians and minorities in, for that is what the UN wants.
The heir to the throne will not risk his life for his people, for that is what the UN wants.
Syria will remain quiet about nuclear tests spreading radiation over much of a continent, because that is what the UN wants.

Of course it is not all of the UN that feels this way, but certainly a vocal minority does, which forced us to enact this.

(OOC: Your move SU)

The Scandic representative shook his head before asking if he could have the floor. Recieving permission he stood and commenced his own little speech.

"To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which three times in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small

To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

To unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

To ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest"

He paused and looked around, making sure to look at the Syrian before continuing.

"That comes directly from the United nations charter, a charter signed and ratified by every nation represented in this room. If any nation here does not wish to follow the charter, then they should feel welcomed to quit the U.N.

Further more, as far as I know, none of Syria's neighbors are at war or have been since the last great war, so I am puzzled as to how Syria is surounded by "War" criminals? Wouldn't "war" criminals need to participate in a war to become "war" criminals?"

He stopped and turned to sit down, but just before he sat he wipped around and spoke directly to the Syrian delegate.

"I'm sorry, but I must ask, if us rich white people who wrote this charter, which by the way your people signed, are christian, then why would we wish to stand by and watch other such christians be killed? I am shocked to hear news of such actions and would like to propose that should evidence of such actions be presented that this organization act immediatly before more christians are killed."

The German Ambassador retorted, "It is interesting that the SU points out that the use of armed force should be illegal, especially considering its recent threat towards Germany when it tried to peacefully develop nuclear weapons."

"None the less, Germany promises, as an ally and friend of Syria, to protect those minorities in Syria which might come under attack."

The United States files a formal protest at the UN General Assembly and provides limited intelligence data showing that Germany is providing chemical weapons technology to several nations.

In the US view, this is a violation of the spirit of the Hague Treaty and reaffirmed UN Treaty prohibiting the use of those weapons.

http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/keytext/genprot.htm

While the German action may be technically legal, it is certainly in violation of the spirit of that treaty. The US therefore proposes a new resolution forbidding the export of chemical and biological weapons, and calling for the UN to put forward its best efforts in preventing the transfer of this technology from nation to nation.

The United States recommends an United Nations poll in Libya to determine if Libya is interested in independence, or wishes to retain its status with Italy (which at this point, seeing as they get the same social services as Italians, relations are probably fairly good...ooc, we need the Italian player to indicate what political rights Libya has).

In addition, the US places before the UN Security Council a resolution calling for a cease fire in the FAS Civil War and UN elections to determine whether Persia and Afghanistan wish to remain under FAS Mandate.

Italian player is not playing anymore--too much hw to keep up so we need an NPC reaction to this. For what it is worth, I believe that Libya is considered in this time line as Algeria was to France in RL--an actual part of the nation. There may be more success at decolonization attempts in somalia.

-snip-

When we moved to protect those Christians, from the Islamic dictatorship of Palestine, you were not shocked by the Palestinians, but by our agressive actions. Perhaps war criminals was not the best choice of words, but these people persecuted Christians, Jews, and atheists. You claim you are shocked to hear it, but when we stated this before the UN during the Palestinian war, you mustn't have been listening. To spare the remainder of the assembly from another full briefing, the Grand Mufti had both made official statements and legal actions punishing religious minorities. When he began massing forces along the Golan, filled with Christian and Druze communities, we sent troops to protect our citizens, protecting two of the most basic human rights, the right to live and the right to worship. These actions were cited by nations, including yourselves, as our proking Palestine to war. Why you would wish to stand by and watch is something your government decided, perhaps you should ask them.

Now other nations, namely the UIR and Saudi Arabia, do the same thing, trying to turn Islam into a weapon. A citizen of Riyadh deserves the same rights as a citizen of Damascus, Berlin, or Copenhagen, and when war broke out, first with the Saudis attacking the Federation of Asian States, who has helped us before, and then with our Egyptian allies stepping in to help, we felt morally obligated to step in and help, especially to protect the holy city of Mecca, which could come under attack, but still we are criticized for helping. We are no more guilty than Britain, the United States of Southeast Asia, or the United States of America.

You point out parts of the charter in your defense, but "good neighbors" do not let fascist regimes murder civilians, and I for one would consider religious freedom to be in the common interest, as does the UN, when it says "To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small" In Syria, the right to have any religion you choose, or none at all, and to not fear prosecution is the first right in our Constitution.

And now there is a British motion to destroy part fo the charter that my Scandanavian friend and I both quoted. Banning sales of chemical and biological weapon technology only harms the small nations, who cannot afford to pay for a full program by themselves. Does Britain not have a partnership to research nuclear technology? The Seoul Conference Treaty has their own program. Now many nations, including China, have invoked British and American ire for doing the same thing. The law applies to us all, and none among us is worthy of judging the others.

Dear Leaders of the World,

I would like to inform the UN that there has been a military coup in Brazil. This is only due to the fact that there was a corrupt government in place and the dent it was putting in the nation was unacceptable. I would like to explain these flaws to you. First off, government officials were pocketing government funds at the expense of the nation. Secondly, in order to do this, the government cut back on military spending. The fact that the government did this when there was almost no military in Brazil is just absurd. They said this was to go towards building an airport to cater to the increasing tourist industry. It was in fact built, however, the surplus funds were used to fill the presidents "retirement fund". Moreover, the president that was in power, Getulio Vargas, was a former dictator of Brazil. These all finally pilled up on January 4th 1951. I come before you today so that you may see the truth behind these actions and that you will not take this as a slap towards democracy. I believe in democracy. I plan on giving control back to the people by the end of the year. If I am able to do what is necessary and have the support of the nations of the world, I believe Brazil will be a place of freedom and prosperity. I would like to thank all countries for hearing my plea.

Pereira da Costa - former Minister of War

---Chemical Weapons---
The United Republics fiercely oppose the chemical trade ban and agree that chemical weapons are the nuclear weapons of the third world. I openly admit that the United Republics hold a chemical weapons arsenal however, we have sworn never use them offensively. They are for defensive purposes only, and will even then be used only when the survival of the nation is at risk. It seems that those nations that oppose trading of chemical/nuclear weapons technoligy are those that either don't need them or have few allies to trade with. I suggest we modify the proposal so that it bans trade with nations that use them offensively or are known for their aggressiveness.

---Libyan Independence---
The United Republics aren't trying to force Libya's independence. We simply ask for a vote among the Libyans whether they would like independence or even a dual-republic with Italy. We just simply wish that any colonies in Africa that wish for independence aren't supressed or ignored.

---Arabian Liberation War---
Although I cannot speak for the other members of the coalition, Egypt have two reasons for war; stopping the Saudi Army from aiding the Islamists, and installing a representitive government, whether the people want democracy, socialism, or even communism. Our war is not with the Arabian people, but with the monarch. If the Saudi Family accepts the creation of a constitutional monarchy (like the RL UK-style one today), Egypt will pull out of the coalition.

---Brazilian Revolution---
Although the United Republics don't know much about this issue, if it was a true move towards democracy, we salute you. We are solid supporters of democracy and, had we known of the issue and been asked for help, would have aided you in your fight for freedom.

The German ambassador quickly reads an announcement reminding the UN World Body that Germany is not involving itself in the Arabian War. Our troops are merely there to prevent any further bloodshed spilling over into neighboring countries. Basra, Baghdad and Oman have all asked for protection and thus, German troops are watching the borders and preventing combatants from passing the borders.

The German Government, however, is willing to help the new Arabian Government rebuild itself.

The Republic of France also voices its concerns about the matter of chemical knowledge noting their imoractical use as anything but weapons of terror and inhumane conduct.

We urge said nations to reconsider their positions.

On the Libyan matter we wish to point out that we will be supporting Italy in the matter as it seems that the area remains quite prosperous in the hands of our Italian friends, but we recommend that more measures be made to recognise the Libyan culture suhc as recognising the Arabic Language as the official language of the region, allowing inexcessive religous tradition to take place and allow the locals to take part in the pollitical system.

We hope that this matter can be handled in the most extreme civil matter
--------------------------------------------------------------

The Democratic People's Republic of South Asia, formally requests that a resolution be put forward to confirm that the UN will take part in the process of destabliseing the situation in India.

The Syrian delegate asks for the French opinion on nuclear weapons, which, in the nations that use them, fill the same role Chemical weapons do in others. (ooc: was that an actual english sentence?)

Syria hopes the UN will try to stablize the Indian situation, not destabilize it.