NationStates Jolt Archive

the protests seem to speak differently, and a vocal minority can adversly change the course of history

Yes, and those vocal minorities are often funded by nations with something to gain, like keeping a city that does not want to stay.

China seconds the Japanese delegate.

"If there was no desire for independence, then there wouldn't be massive protests taking place in Siberia and Causcaus. If the people truly wanted to stay with Russia, then they wouldn't be speaking out en-masse. The protests would be isolated to several minor villages or a couple of cities. There would have been anti-protest / pro-Russian protests, but do we see or hear about them?

Nay, we do not.

Again, if Siberia and Causcaus wanted to stay with Russia, we'd be seeing pro-Russian protests of similiar magnitude as the anti-Russian ones. People are speaking out, and they want to be heard."

Yes, and those vocal minorities are often funded by nations with something to gain, like keeping a city that does not want to stay.

China counters the Syrian delegate.

"Using this same logic, several great nations today would not exist.

America.

Republic of France.

Egypt / United Republics.

And even Syria."

To a point this is true. However, the King, one of the chief fighters against the MEU in Syria, was motivated by the ideals of freedom for the people, not money from a foreign bank account. The farmers and workers who fought in the American revolution were similarily motivated. While France helped, they were moved to arms by their own conviction. If every person with a complaint against his government founds his own, we will need to enlarge this room, as I doubt we can fit the few billion resulting nations inside.

China seconds the Japanese delegate.

"If there was no desire for independence, then there wouldn't be massive protests taking place in Siberia and Causcaus. If the people truly wanted to stay with Russia, then they wouldn't be speaking out en-masse. The protests would be isolated to several minor villages or a couple of cities. There would have been anti-protest / pro-Russian protests, but do we see or hear about them?

Nay, we do not.

Again, if Siberia and Causcaus wanted to stay with Russia, we'd be seeing pro-Russian protests of similiar magnitude as the anti-Russian ones. People are speaking out, and they want to be heard."

The US points out that by using that logic, nuclear power and its potential critical role in ensuring the world doesn't exhaust its energy reserves would be eliminated. After all, significant protests are occuring in regard to that as well. As are protests regarding nuclear arms, which are indeed dangerous, but have helped keep the peacel.

A large protest does not a majority make, it simply means a large number of people, which can very well be a minority, wish to make their voices heard. Most people don't have time to go to protests, they have to work and feed their families, or simply don't see a reason to protest.

A large protest does not a majority make, it simply means a large number of people, which can very well be a minority, wish to make their voices heard. Most people don't have time to go to protests, they have to work and feed their families, or simply don't see a reason to protest.

This logic of course could go either way. Perhaps there is truly a majority of people wanting secession in Causcaus and Siberia, however they have other things to do. Even if a majority of people didn't want to leave, why have we not seen any pro-Russian protests?

There could be any number of reasons, not the least of which the fact that they see no signifigant threat of leaving the nation they are part of. We would propose that after the current round of plebecites is finished (ooc: St. Petersburg) a second round be held in these Russian lands and any other lands to be determined at a later date.

The US is against forcing another Plebiscite at this time on Russia when they haven't even gotten St. Petersburg back. For that matter, Siberia is overwhelmingly ethnic Russian in population. Although there are sizeable numbers of other ethnic groups in the area, as a percentage of the population, they are greatly outnumbered.

The US is as unwilling to force a Plebiscite on this matter as the US would be to allow the Apaches, Sioux etc to force a plebscite on continued US rule over North Dakota or Arizona.

If the minorities are so small, then a UN funded plebecite that would presumably confirm Russian rule would only be an inconvience to the order of a few hours per person to go vote at most, wouldn't it?

OOC:Syria, you realise voting never took place in the SU.

"This issue has nothing to do with Petrograd, this issue has to deal with the various ethnicities in the Cauacsian and Siberian regions who care enough about achieving their independence that they made the trips to the U.N. and have staged multiple protests. In Belarus, a place where they actually voted to be freed from Russian rule, there have been massive riots where hundred where wounded and millions in damage was caused because the people have not gained thier independence. Petrograd is not the issue so do not make it so, the people of Petrograd have not rioted or even protested, no one from Petrograd has come before the U.N.

If th people of Petrograd truly wanted to be seperated from the Scandic Union they why have they not taken it upont hemselves to make it known? The people of Belarus actually voted for their independence years ago but had the results ignored. The people of Belarus yearn for their independence enough that they have went as far as to stage massive protests, and then on top of that riots which serve to only hurt both sides. The Caucasian and Siberian peoples care to the point that they've gone throught he trouble of sending delegates to the U.N. to see something done about it, that is the real issue."

ooc: Yes, thats why I said after this round is finished

Belarus is on a several year program preparing it for independence. The program is something not far different from the plan in Belgium, a plan most nations have at least limited support for.

How can we be sure the people in Petrograd are not unhappy. Perhaps they are not able to afford passage to Dublin, despite living in what was once Russia's busiest city. Perhaps they are not allowed to present themselves here. Perhaps protests and riots are covered up, or put down but the government there. I have never personally been there, I would not be able to say for myself, but these are possibilities not to be ruled out.

To a point this is true. However, the King, one of the chief fighters against the MEU in Syria, was motivated by the ideals of freedom for the people, not money from a foreign bank account. The farmers and workers who fought in the American revolution were similarily motivated. While France helped, they were moved to arms by their own conviction. If every person with a complaint against his government founds his own, we will need to enlarge this room, as I doubt we can fit the few billion resulting nations inside.

The Chinese delegate nodded and shook his head at differing intervals during the Syrian's speech.

"Sometimes assistance is necessary to fight off oppressors or gain independence. For instance, suppose the French did not support the Americans during their Revolution. Britain would have destroyed George Washington and his army, and the nation of America would probably be called 'British Provinces of America' or some such thing."

The Chinese gave the American delegate a pointed look as he made the statement. He returned his gaze upon the Syrian.

"France helped America because of French interests in weakening Britain. Remember, this happened before Frence became a Republic and Napoleon. As a result of this conflict between France and Britain, the super-power nation of America was born.

America has contributed quite a bit to global history and heritage in the brief time it has existed as compared to older European nations. America helped win the three World Wars. America contributed technological and cultural advances, especially medicines and the ideals of democracy. Quite a few American things like its foodstuffs, cultural mixing, phrases, sports, and so forth spread throughout the world, making it a more interesting place. We would not be having the American delegate here, or know and experience American things in today's world if America was unable to gain independence."

The Chinese turned his gaze back on the American.

"America owes its existence and independence to foreign assistance. Lets set aside foreign assistance for a bit. The Americans had two 'parties' during the Revolutionary War, the 'Rebels' and "Tories', if I am not mistaken? The 'Rebels' were the most outspoken faction, similiar to the situation the anti-Russians in Siberia and Causcaus are in today. The Rebels held protests like the Boston Tea Party, which was quite outspoken for that era, yes?"

The Chinese delegate cleared his throat before facing the rest of the assembly.

"The UN has supported and actively pursured granting independence to various nations. After the war, we helped several nations gain independence from the former Soviet Union, namely the Ukraine, Poland, Romania, and so forth. We also are in the process of helping the Congo gain independence from Belgium. We had to deal with the plebisicites between Germany and the Scandic Union. The UN also dealt with the various nations in the Middle East.

Now we are listening to Siberians and Causcausians request support for independence. We have yet to hear any pro-Russian factions in Siberia and Causcaus speak out or hold similiar massive protests to demand to stay in Russia. If there was either a majority or a substantial minority (roughly between 25% - 49%) of Siberians or Causcausians truly wanted to stay with Russia, they would fight back aganist the secessionists. We would be hearing about anti-secessionist rallies and we would have Siberians and Causcausians here at the UN asking to stay with Russia along with these who are asking to secede.

Yet, we do not. That should speak for itself. Perhaps the majority in Siberia and Causcaus does want their independence in the same way the Ukraine and Poland gained from the former Soviet Union?"

The Chinese delegate sat down and took several gulps of water, slightly exhausted from his long speeches.

"America owes its existence and independence to foreign assistance. Lets set aside foreign assistance for a bit. The Americans had two 'parties' during the Revolutionary War, the 'Rebels' and "Tories', if I am not mistaken? The 'Rebels' were the most outspoken faction, similiar to the situation the anti-Russians in Siberia and Causcaus are in today. The Rebels held protests like the Boston Tea Party, which was quite outspoken for that era, yes?"



After hearing that part the Scandic representative decided to add something," Interestingly enough, the "Rebels" as you called them were actually a substantial minorit and an outspoken one at that. While they had substantial support, they were not a majority in America at the time, in fact after the war hundreds of thousands of Americans, out of a population of only 3 million, actually fleed America to go to Canada and other British territories. The only reason that substantial and vocal minotiry survived and won its independence on top of their dedication, was foriegn support. The French and the Spaniards bankrolling, supplying, training and even fighting side by side with the American minority, and look where it got them to today."

In many big cities, both in Syria and throughout the world, there are those who decide to preach extremist ideologies, whether racist, communist, or anarchist. I presume they have the type in China as well. Pretend one in one thousand people have those sympathies. In China, that is over six hundred thousand people. While small compared to the entirety of China, it isn't much smaller than our neighbor to the south, Jordan, and is equal to a decent sized city in Syria. Perhaps we should grant them a nation as well. Some nice farmland along the Yangtze perhaps?

But to address the issue of America. Foreign support is crucial to making an independence movement succeed, but we should not take a handful of men with a complaint and grant them a nation. What we need is facts and statistics, how many Siberians want independence, how many Caucasians, and why. If they left for economic reasons, and then St. Petersburg was restored to Russia, causing an economic boom, perhaps they would resent leaving.

In many big cities, both in Syria and throughout the world, there are those who decide to preach extremist ideologies, whether racist, communist, or anarchist. I presume they have the type in China as well. Pretend one in one thousand people have those sympathies. In China, that is over six hundred thousand people. While small compared to the entirety of China, it isn't much smaller than our neighbor to the south, Jordan, and is equal to a decent sized city in Syria. Perhaps we should grant them a nation as well. Some nice farmland along the Yangtze perhaps?
.

These numbers may be so, but how many people are there in Siberia? The answer would be an extremly small number, and many of them in small villages in the middle of nowere. The protests, marches and rallies show a much larger percentage of people than we think there are who are vocal in their wanting to leave Russia

Which is why I suggested finding out exactly how many want to leave, and why. It is pointless to debate about what people thousands of miles away might be thinking.

The American Ambassador smiles a bit at the misunderstanding of American History. "True, the French helped, but only after Patroits won victories on the battlefield at Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Princeton and Trenton. Nearly 300,000 Americans fought on the Patriot side at one time or another during the 8 year War of Independence, as did about 50,000 Americans on the Loyalist side. But it was mostly American blood that was shed for American freedom, and although French assistance was crucial, it wouldn't have come without American blood and endurance. American independence came just as much because many Englishmen realized that their cause was unjust as because the French Crown wanted to embarrass the English Crown.

That said, American History has little to do with the matter of Russia and Siberia. Ethnicity information from censuses conducted in Siberia from the 19th Century, Union period of control, and postwar period all confirms that the majority of Siberians are ethnically Russian, and a majority of those that aren't Russian are Inuit or Lapp type peoples who have a large amount of freedom in any case, and only benefit from Russian assistance like hospitals, food during hard times, communications and similar advantages of modernity.

The US sees no point in the UN intervening in the internal affairs of Russia in this matter. Particularly as there is no evidence of oppression."

The Chinese delegate listened attentively to the American's statement before making his own.

"The concept remains the same, though. How many more years of war would American Revolutionaries under George Washington have fought and how many more Americans would have died without French assistance? You might not even have won the war by yourselves. Maybe you could have won the war, but at such an extreme cost- what was it called? Yes, a 'Pyhrric Victory'.

Therefore, sometimes it is necessary for independence or rebellions to recieve foreign aid or support to succeed, otherwise there would be no success. I believe that is the point that the Japanese and Scandic representatives were attempting to make along with my own point."

The delegate turned away from the American to address the UN once again.

"The Siberians and Causcausians who are here before the UN are here to seek independence from Russia.

We need to listen to their grievances. I recommend that the diplomatic banter be put on hold until we know more about the grievances of these groups. They might feel left out in all this diplomatic manuevering between the various UN nations.

Let us return our attention back to these people themselves and grant them the opporunity to make their case, yes?"

The American delegation does some vote checking to see if the SCT and Scandic Union has enough votes to get their plebiscite.

The Chinese delegate listened attentively to the American's statement before making his own.

"The concept remains the same, though. How many more years of war would American Revolutionaries under George Washington have fought and how many more Americans would have died without French assistance? You might not even have won the war by yourselves. Maybe you could have won the war, but at such an extreme cost- what was it called? Yes, a 'Pyhrric Victory'.

Therefore, sometimes it is necessary for independence or rebellions to recieve foreign aid or support to succeed, otherwise there would be no success. I believe that is the point that the Japanese and Scandic representatives were attempting to make along with my own point."

The delegate turned away from the American to address the UN once again.

"The Siberians and Causcausians who are here before the UN are here to seek independence from Russia.

We need to listen to their grievances. I recommend that the diplomatic banter be put on hold until we know more about the grievances of these groups. They might feel left out in all this diplomatic manuevering between the various UN nations.

Let us return our attention back to these people themselves and grant them the opporunity to make their case, yes?"

So you are saying that when the communists rose in your country we should have supported them, the Manchurians, the Mongolians, and the Tibetans?

So you are saying that when the communists rose in your country we should have supported them, the Manchurians, the Mongolians, and the Tibetans?

The Chinese ambassador arched an eyebrow.

"The UN did not exist back then as it exists today.

The UN was formed by the victorious LTA forces, and these uprisings were done by the enemies of the LTA, the communists and the Soviets. Why would the LTA give their enemy, the Soviets, even more allies or allow the communists to grow even stronger? That does not make any sense at all, because if the LTA and pre-UN supported the communist uprisings in China, it would only strengthen the Soviets and communism, two things that the LTA were trying to defeat on all levels."

The diplomat chuckled before continuing.

"Let me put it another way.

The Mongolians and Manchurians were indeed supported by a foreign power, namely the despicable Soviet Union, as well as the Soviet-backed Japan. That is why they were able to secede from China."

So you are saying that when the communists rose in your country we should have supported them, the Manchurians, the Mongolians, and the Tibetans?

OOC: Yes :p

Well, at least I wanted Tibet to be free. I had funneled nearly 100 points into that country, turning it from a backwater to an industrialised nation with level 5 services, and BAM, it goes over to China.

USEA agrees with our freinds the Japanese and Chinese that the Siberians should be allowed to choose whether they govern themselves.
We cite as evidence of their plight, the last elections in which the Siberians where denied any seats in the Duma through which they coukd be represented in what was a highly suspicous election. Looking back even further the Siberians have been used and abused by Moscow, their lands plundered for precious resources and then devastated because of the soviet mistakes in World War Three.

The USEA suspicions are bold and serious, considering they have no expert analysius of the political situation in Russia.

We have to be careful gentlemen not to to start up a rag-tag unorganised rabble on its way to insurgency, rather as a comprimise we could ask the Russians to initiate some sort of reorm to keep everybody happy, if reform is nessecery at all.

And enough with the history lessons, to mention one would do it injustice as the conditions which they took place also differ.

The Russian ambassador to the UN, oddly quiet through most of these proceedings, is passed a note by an aide and rushes out, heading to the Russian Embassy in Dublin, not far from the UN complex.

Returning not long after, he is ready to give a speech on the issues.

I apologize for having to leave so quickly, but there was an urgent message from Moscow I had to get immediately. The KGB has conducted an inquiry into the groups in Siberia and the Causcaus. We found two foriegn governments behind this, China and the Scandic Union. This action cannot be tolerated. Scandanavia has shown time and time again that they have no respect for this organization. The ignore its calls for plebecites, threaten to break its NPT, and try to abuse the system to weaken their neighbors. China is attempting to divide their neighbors into weaker, smaller states so they can slowly annex them, something their neighbors should watch out for in coming years, especially those not protected by the SCT.

We believe the motions for plebecites and separation in the Causcaus and Siberia should be immediately dropped, and that the plebecite in Sankt Petersburg, denied for many years, should be moved forward at full speed. We consented to the resolution in Vladivostok, and the one in Belarus, which will have independence by year's end. Scandanavia is the only one overdue for its plebecite. The have shown no respect for the Russian nation, how much respect do you think they show for the Russian people in their nation?

The Russian ambassador to the UN, oddly quiet through most of these proceedings, is passed a note by an aide and rushes out, heading to the Russian Embassy in Dublin, not far from the UN complex.

Returning not long after, he is ready to give a speech on the issues.

I apologize for having to leave so quickly, but there was an urgent message from Moscow I had to get immediately. The KGB has conducted an inquiry into the groups in Siberia and the Causcaus. We found two foriegn governments behind this, China and the Scandic Union. This action cannot be tolerated. Scandanavia has shown time and time again that they have no respect for this organization. The ignore its calls for plebecites, threaten to break its NPT, and try to abuse the system to weaken their neighbors. China is attempting to divide their neighbors into weaker, smaller states so they can slowly annex them, something their neighbors should watch out for in coming years, especially those not protected by the SCT.

We believe the motions for plebecites and separation in the Causcaus and Siberia should be immediately dropped, and that the plebecite in Sankt Petersburg, denied for many years, should be moved forward at full speed. We consented to the resolution in Vladivostok, and the one in Belarus, which will have independence by year's end. Scandanavia is the only one overdue for its plebecite. The have shown no respect for the Russian nation, how much respect do you think they show for the Russian people in their nation?


The USEA's representative stood up in outrage:

We cannot stand for such slanderous and unfounded accusations foucused upon our great ally and friend, China. Do you sir have proof of your so called findings? This very timely 'revelation' by your secrity services can be nothing more than the cornered thrashings of the Russian government unwilling to give democratic freedom to the people who cry out for it.

I am quite sure that the same applies for the same baseless accusations against our Scandic colleauge's fair country. I would advise this organization to pay no heed to the Russians and their name calling. While they sit here stalling for time our Asian brothers in Siberia are starved of the freedom they so desire.

The South African representative holds up his hands. "Come now, let our Russian colleague have a moment to present his case. After all, it is not fair to say they are stalling, as they have already agreed to plebiscite results in Vladivostok and Belarus. Though I must say I am curious as to how his country found out this information."

While he is speaking, an aide quickly jots down notes on a piece of paper.

INTEL UPDATE:

Russia

The independence groups gather more funds but find that some of them are being cut off (presumably by the KGB) via several banking loopholes. Several large rallies are scheduled and publicity created. However the lead organisers occasionally feeling that they are being followed by mysterious dark cars (!) and that some of their number are increasingly being arrested by local police units for minor offences such as speeding tickets and parking misdemeaners. These people are refused bail by several judges and remanded in custody for lengthy trials on their traffic violations in Moscow which removes them from the independence scene. All intel agencies more than 10 years old (experience counts for a lot) will get wind of this and make the obvious assumptions, though no violations of Russian human rights have been seen to be made.

Our revealing information here adds perhaps a day or two to the debate. While you may call this stalling, what do you call delaying a plebecite for years, as Scandanavia has done?

You ask for proof. While bringing evidence in active treason trials out of the country is of course forbidden, I will try to obtain mimeographs of these documents. It may of course take a few days to get the information declassified.

Our revealing information here adds perhaps a day or two to the debate. While you may call this stalling, what do you call delaying a plebecite for years, as Scandanavia has done?

You ask for proof. While bringing evidence in active treason trials out of the country is of course forbidden, I will try to obtain mimeographs of these documents. It may of course take a few days to get the information declassified.

This is of course stalling for more time whilst you fabricate such evidence against our honorable allies. If you had truly discovered such proof of China's transgressions, then surely you government would be eager to reveal it to the world. Instead you protect it as if it was a national secret, I think that there is in fact no such proof!

"While the Russian Ambassador may not have any substantial evidence to support his claim, he is very right."

The Ambassador steps forward and places a stack of over 500 pages of correspondances between Scandic, Ukranian and SCT "citizens" and Siberian and St. Petersburgian officials. Along with this substantial evidence are hundreds of pages of traces from various bank accounts of which large sums of money transferred around to Siberians. Several recordings are also put forward, as well as pictures of secret talks.

"Germany was a victim of something similar. However, we recovered; that is not something Russia may have the pleasure of."

He returned to his seat and watched the rest of the proceedings.

Parthini']"
The Ambassador steps forward and places a stack of over 500 pages of correspondances between Scandic, Ukranian and SCT "citizens" and Siberian and St. Petersburgian officials. Along with this substantial evidence are hundreds of pages of traces from various bank accounts of which large sums of money transferred around to Siberians. Several recordings are also put forward, as well as pictures of secret talks.



The Scandic ambassador got a chuckle out of that one. "Of course there is correspondance between Scandic citizens and St. Petersburgian officials...St Peteresburg is Scandic. As for Siberia, I do not think it would be odd for Chinese citizens to have dealings with Siberians, they do share a very long border, one that dwarfs our own border in size and yet thousands of Scandic and German citizens deal with each other daily and millions in dollors worth of goods and capital flows freely between that tiny border.

As for the Caucas', we have no shame in admitting that there are Scandic citizens who have passed funds to groups in that area. But we would like everyone to notice how we've passed funds to democratic groups who have gone about there bussiness in a speacefull of a fashion as humanly possible. Not one report of violence has reached us, instead they have peacefully demonstrated and even taken the time to come before this great organization to see there goals come about in a peacefull and democratic manner. It is no different than America's backing of democratic groups in India.

Now I will say, the Scandic Union, nor any of its citizens, have funded any groups in Siberia, although they have our full moral support. So the evidence presented by Germany in that manner is entirely false."

Moving on, the Scandic rep passed around his own folders. "I'm sure many of your nations already know about this, but for those that don't I would like to bring this out. Over the past few days, people who have been organizing peacefull demonstrations have been getting arrested, stalked, and harrassed by the Russian government. Of course getting arrested and sent to a jail in Moscow for a traffic violation isn't "Illegal", but isn't it odd that it seems only those who participate in what have so far been entirely peacefull demonstrations are punished so severely for such simple things? It is a very thinly veiled attempt at punishing people for voicing there opinions, Moscow is just looking for the smallest excuse to crack down. Moscow is bordering on a thin line, and they are very close to crossing over into opression. If targetting people for peacefully marching and demonstrating, one of the cornerstones of any true deomcracy, isn't opression, I do not know what is."

The US Ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, speaks up. "The US has also verified independently the information presented by the Russian government and accepts it completely as genuine, as the US has investigated the matter as well. Without going into sources or methods, the US agrees with Russia in its claim that foreign governments are interfering with its internal affairs. The US supports completely the Russian position in this matter."

To respond to the USEAN's claims, I would like to use a similar example. Scandanavia has long proclaimed they will never fire a nuclear weapon in anger. However, they do not display their entire military strategies for all to see to prove it. However, as I said before, we cannot bring evidence in active trials out of the country, but I can have copies in hand by tommorow.

We grow tired of blatant accusations against our nation. The Free Siberia party did not win any seats in the last election, this is true. Their extremist tone, often cooperating with the Party for the Restoration of the Union, led them to lose support among the people. Someone must lose an election.

To clarify about our crackdowns. The only arrests that have been made have been those arrested for violent crimes. For example, a Mr. S. Ardoshov was arrested because, in one riot, he threw a stone and broke the arm of an elderly bystander. When he was pulled over for a traffic violation, we arrested him for that assault.

As to the moving of trials to Moscow, Siberia has never had infrastructure comparable to that in the rest of Russia, and with an unusually large amount of cases, the legal system has been swamped. Only major cases, mainly those of agitators, along with those we found who had committed crimes under the Union, are being sent to the central justice system.

To respond to the USEAN's claims, I would like to use a similar example. Scandanavia has long proclaimed they will never fire a nuclear weapon in anger. However, they do not display their entire military strategies for all to see to prove it. However, as I said before, we cannot bring evidence in active trials out of the country, but I can have copies in hand by tommorow.

We grow tired of blatant accusations against our nation. The Free Siberia party did not win any seats in the last election, this is true. Their extremist tone, often cooperating with the Party for the Restoration of the Union, led them to lose support among the people. Someone must lose an election.

To clarify about our crackdowns. The only arrests that have been made have been those arrested for violent crimes. For example, a Mr. S. Ardoshov was arrested because, in one riot, he threw a stone and broke the arm of an elderly bystander. When he was pulled over for a traffic violation, we arrested him for that assault.

As to the moving of trials to Moscow, Siberia has never had infrastructure comparable to that in the rest of Russia, and with an unusually large amount of cases, the legal system has been swamped. Only major cases, mainly those of agitators, along with those we found who had committed crimes under the Union, are being sent to the central justice system.

The Japanese delegate stands:
"Why then did the Free Siberia have 5 seats in the Duma before the last elections? Only to lose all of them in the next election is something I find very hard to believe. The Russian delegate recognizes that he cannot win this debate, so he begins accusing our friends the Chinese, and other delegates, who do not wish to see the SCT strong, agree with them. These accusations, and "evidence" is nothing more than an outrageous insult"

"Be that as it may," Stevenson replied, "Where in the UN Charter does it give Indochina or the SCT the right to intefere in the internal affairs of Russia?"

ooc
actually no such right exists, only the right to intervene if genocide is taking place or Russia is waging an aggressive war.

IC
"The US has close ties with Russia, and has seen no evidence that Russia is suppressing illegally or immorally Siberian seperatists, nor any evidence of other activity warranting intervention or interference by the UN. The US has seen however evidence that other nations are interfering with Russia however."

"Interfere? The UN imposes sanctions on nations it does not see as a protector of freedom, an approach that is not exactly hands off. Even so, we find these reports of demonstrators being arrested and taken away as a deisturbing one indeed. Even if these people did recieve money, they are doing what they see as right and just for Siberia or the Caucasus."

"Interfere? The UN imposes sanctions on nations it does not see as a protector of freedom, an approach that is not exactly hands off. Even so, we find these reports of demonstrators being arrested and taken away as a deisturbing one indeed. Even if these people did recieve money, they are doing what they see as right and just for Siberia or the Caucasus."

The US reminds Japan that the UN has yet to impose sanctions on anyone, and the US would vote against such a step taken toward Russia.

"Interfere? The UN imposes sanctions on nations it does not see as a protector of freedom, an approach that is not exactly hands off. Even so, we find these reports of demonstrators being arrested and taken away as a deisturbing one indeed. Even if these people did recieve money, they are doing what they see as right and just for Siberia or the Caucasus."

"The Communists of Russia believed that dropping atomic weapons in China, India and America was right. If democracy is letting everyone do what they think is right, total anarchy would ensue. This body is a world goverment, not world anarchy."

"Be that as it may," Stevenson replied, "Where in the UN Charter does it give Indochina or the SCT the right to intefere in the internal affairs of Russia?"



"Where in the U.N. charter did America gain the right to interfere int he internal affairs of Pakistan(India?)? Just a coincidence Pakistan in a very large member of the SCT."

"
"The US has close ties with Russia, and has seen no evidence that Russia is suppressing illegally or immorally Siberian seperatists, nor any evidence of other activity warranting intervention or interference by the UN.

Now the ambassador turned to the rest of the U.N, "Notice how he did not mention the Caucases, where I might add al of you have been given proof of an, if not illegal, immoral crackdown on protestors and those who have gone about there bussiness disgreeing witht he government in a peacefull manner."

Parthini']"The Communists of Russia believed that dropping atomic weapons in China, India and America was right. If democracy is letting everyone do what they think is right, total anarchy would ensue. This body is a world goverment, not world anarchy."

"The Communists did not believe it was right, they believed that it would save themselves. Democracy is not letting people do what they want, it is letting the people decide what to do"

"With the overwhelming evidence presented by the honorable delegates of Germany and the United States, Nigeria must condemn the governements of both China and the SU for attempting to interfere in the inner workings of the Russian government! We throw our full support behind Russia."

"Where in the U.N. charter did America gain the right to interfere int he internal affairs of Pakistan(India?)? Just a coincidence Pakistan in a very large member of the SCT."

We remaind the SU that not only the US was upset with Indian actions in their civil war where Chemical weapons were used against our friends the United Islamic Republics. Which can be classified under genocide.


Now the ambassador turned to the rest of the U.N, "Notice how he did not mention the Caucases, where I might add al of you have been given proof of an, if not illegal, immoral crackdown on protestors and those who have gone about there bussiness disgreeing witht he government in a peacefull manner."

We are eager to see the so-called "proof" of this So-called "Crackdown", even as we speak Rallies are being held and Russia continues to face destablisation caused by the political agendas of other nations.

We would support the Russian Cause and would advise them to take this matter to the international court of law against those involved. Justice -as defined by international law- must be served.

"The Free Siberia party had 5 seats in the Duma at one point, yes. Of those seats, two went to the banned Party for the Restoration of the Union, one to the United Russia Party, and the others to Christian Russia. Their tone, as publications here show," he said, with a selection of Free Siberia literature, "grew gradually more extremist in the months before the election. Those who were sympathetic to the extremist position voted either in seats that lost or for the PRU. Others did not support this new, extremist tone, and voted for other groups."

EDIT:

He continued, "Peaceful demonstrators do not break the arms of old women, nor the windows of stores. Peaceful protestors "doing what they feel is right" do not try to restore the Union, as this Free Siberia pamphlet advocates.

The ambassador from the Ukraine once more speaks up. "It is a sorrowful occassion when those who enjoy the blessings of liberty do not defend those who have had it stolen from them. And it is an utter tragedy when those same people refuse to stand up not once, but twice for those who groan beneath the cruel weight of the heel of despotism."

The Ukrainian ambassador dismisses the accusations of Ukrainian subversion as utter fearmongering to undermine those who are standing up for their freedom. How could a country directly adjacent to Russia not have communications with this huge nation? How could the Ukrainian people simply ignore the refusal to grant the Caucasian and Siberian people their right to self-determination, when not too long ago it was they as well who had their rights stolen from them?

"With the utter elimination of democratic representation in the Duma, and the deliberate, focused suppression of peaceful dissent showing the surface of the Russian government's refusal to give their own people their natural rights, is it not the right, nay, the duty of the Ukrainian people as those who now enjoy liberty in their independence from those who stole it from them, not endeavor to make sure that such same oppression for other peoples end as well?"

The amassador reminds the assembly that the Ukraine has undergone tremendous growth and is now prosperous since its separation from Russia and the beginning of its beloved independence. It swears itself to aiding the peoples of those nations who are represented here today, so that they, too, will be able to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, and that those who have suffered under Russia may at last be returned to their original freedom that is their right.

Adlai Stevenson asks what Russian despotism the Ukrainians are discussing? "Russia has a democratic government, just as the Ukraine does, and unlike some of its neighbors, has lived peacefully alongside them since the Third Great War, and moreover, isn't trying to subvert its neighbors either."

Adlai Stevenson asks what Russian despotism the Ukrainians are discussing? "Russia has a democratic government, just as the Ukraine does, and unlike some of its neighbors, has lived peacefully alongside them since the Third Great War, and moreover, isn't trying to subvert its neighbors either."

The Ukrainian ambassador questions what kind of so-called "democratic" government would eliminate all democratic representation for a group in its parliament, and would deliberately attempt to eradicate public assembly that dissents against the ruling government. "How is this any better than a one-party state or dictatorship, if the populace are forced to keep silent and not speak out against what their leaders put forth? The Russian government obviously feels insecure about maintaining its stranglehold on power- why else would it work to destroy and suppress dissent, if it were simply a handful of malcontents expressing such sentiments? The United States Constitution acknowledges and defends the right of the people to public assembly and freedom of expression. Does the American ambassador wish to say that this only applies to Americans, and not necessarily apply to others and may be ignored when politically convenient?"

The Ukrainian ambassador again condemns the accusations of subversion, and that these so-called conspiratorial contacts are actually just the Ukrainian people working to free those who do not enjoy the liberty that independence from a hegemonistic power- much as intellectuals in Europe supported the American movement for independence. The Ukraine also calls into question the moral authority of the United States concerning the issue. "The Ukrainian people were abandoned by the rest of the world to live under the shadow of Russian tyranny for years, while the United States enjoyed its independence and its liberties. Because of this, our people suffered and died because of this refusal to defend the rights of others. The movement for independence is a movement against the continuing unjust Russian hegemony, which must end much as it ended for various nations of Europe. Others may not care for the liberties that they have been able to keep and ignore the plight of others and their pleas for freedom. But the nation of Ukraine will not forget this, and we will not allow this slavery to continue so long as we enjoy our liberties."

"Refusal to fight for the right of others?", reflected the French Ambassador, "an interesting thought, a clear disregard for the ideas of national soverignity, but still an interesting thought, I take it there are some people in the UKraine who wish to rejoin the good old Motherland, no?"

He grinned, "But that would be clearly straying away from the topic, I find it most, how do you say?, simplifying if we examine the facts carefully, so:

Fact: Siberian and Caucasus seperatist groups contact the UN to "attempt to gain support for a devolution or independence of their regions."

Fact: German and American Intel provide conclusive evidence that these protests are indeed funded by Forign governments.

Fact:Implicated nations deny "Subversion" and justify their acts against the Russian government as for "Freedom", citing a so-called "Despotisim" as that these groups lost their seat in parlament, However no evidence is given on that this is due to "Undemocratic" behaviour.

Are there any Relevent others I am forgeting? other than the customary historical debate.

When was the last time the American Whig Party won a seat in the US Senate? The fact that a party was not voted for shows lack of support, not lack of a democratic process. Perhaps forcing some Siberians to vote for a party they do not support would better fit the Ukrainian definition of democracy.

Correspondence between citizens of neighboring nations is understandable, but there is a difference between friendly letters and those out to incite violence. (OOC: fast forwards to next day so info from Russia can arrive)

These letters here are not cheerful notes to acquaintences abroad. This letter, from Malmo, was sent to Irktusk. It calls for the recipient to "incite demonstrations" to "sway international opinion" against the Russian government in order to "deliver them a crushing blow."

The letter is not signed, but we can track it back to Malmo. We would ask for Scandic assistance in capturing the responsible people, as well as the authors of the other letters in this stack. We would also ask for Chinese help in finding those responsible for letters from Hainan, Ulan Bator, and Guangzhou.

We remaind the SU that not only the US was upset with Indian actions in their civil war where Chemical weapons were used against our friends the United Islamic Republics. Which can be classified under genocide.


The Pakistani delegate responds to this accusation of genocide. "While everyone agrees that the dictator Yahya Khans use of chemical weapons was horrific, it does not count as genocide. Genocide is when one targets a specific group of people due to race, religion, etc for extermination, and he did no such thing. If he was guilty of genocide, then Russia and the United States are guilty on Genocide on the grandest scale in the history of humanity.

"Also, the United States has continually tried to interfere in my nations inner workings. Claiming that foreign powers are interfering with Siberian independence and using that as an attack against them, when your own country did the very same (and for all we know is still doing it) is hypocrisy on the greatest scale. Even Yahya Khan, the brutal dictator that he was, wasn't a hypocrite."

The Pakistani delegate responds to this accusation of genocide. "While everyone agrees that the dictator Yahya Khans use of chemical weapons was horrific, it does not count as genocide. Genocide is when one targets a specific group of people due to race, religion, etc for extermination, and he did no such thing. If he was guilty of genocide, then Russia and the United States are guilty on Genocide on the grandest scale in the history of humanity.

"Also, the United States has continually tried to interfere in my nations inner workings. Claiming that foreign powers are interfering with Siberian independence and using that as an attack against them, when your own country did the very same (and for all we know is still doing it) is hypocrisy on the greatest scale. Even Yahya Khan, the brutal dictator that he was, wasn't a hypocrite."

The Kennedy Administration denies any such interference into Pakistan and asks what proof the Pakistanis have for such an allegation and whether there are any independent agencies willing to support its claim. After all, the Russians have other nations backing up their claim to foreign interference.

The SU ambassador brought up the record of prvious cessions on the Russia matter. "Well, the SU has already brought the Pakistani issue up, multiple times as you can see in the record, we have brought forth the American backings of several groups in Pakistan during and after the civil war."

The SU ambassador brought up the record of prvious cessions on the Russia matter. "Well, the SU has already brought the Pakistani issue up, multiple times as you can see in the record, we have brought forth the American backings of several groups in Pakistan during and after the civil war."

But failed to provide evidence as far as the US is concerned.

ooc
Kennedy won't acknowledge it, and even if it is eventually accepted that the SU has proof, Kennedy will simply blame the Eisenhower Administration and point out that such activities have long since ended, while the Russian situation is ongoing

When was the last time the American Whig Party won a seat in the US Senate? The fact that a party was not voted for shows lack of support, not lack of a democratic process. Perhaps forcing some Siberians to vote for a party they do not support would better fit the Ukrainian definition of democracy.

Correspondence between citizens of neighboring nations is understandable, but there is a difference between friendly letters and those out to incite violence. (OOC: fast forwards to next day so info from Russia can arrive)

These letters here are not cheerful notes to acquaintences abroad. This letter, from Malmo, was sent to Irktusk. It calls for the recipient to "incite demonstrations" to "sway international opinion" against the Russian government in order to "deliver them a crushing blow."

The letter is not signed, but we can track it back to Malmo. We would ask for Scandic assistance in capturing the responsible people, as well as the authors of the other letters in this stack. We would also ask for Chinese help in finding those responsible for letters from Hainan, Ulan Bator, and Guangzhou.

You are wrong in assuming that the American Whig party lost support, it merely blended into another American political party, and it didn't simply dissapear.

As for the notes, if you are the free country you say you are, why are you intercepting and reading mail? Besides, letters mean nothing. if I wrote you a letter saying that kamis and foul demons lived in the world, would you pay them any heed, or regard them as threatening? These letters are simply either:
1. The fabrication by KGB agents
2. Leters written by Russian and ex-Russians to support freedom

The US releases some transcripts of phone conversations supporting the Russian position

ooc
Which is possible to do this tech level through intercepting and listening to the signals on the telephone wires using specialized aircraft like the RC135.

Its like when Adlai Stevenson produced aerial photos of the missiles in Cuba during the historical Cuban Missile Crisis.

This should by the way THOROUGHLY alarm military and civilian leaders unfriendly to the US and even those friendly as they realize only coded or scrambled communications have any degree of security.

You are wrong in assuming that the American Whig party lost support, it merely blended into another American political party, and it didn't simply dissapear.

As for the notes, if you are the free country you say you are, why are you intercepting and reading mail? Besides, letters mean nothing. if I wrote you a letter saying that kamis and foul demons lived in the world, would you pay them any heed, or regard them as threatening? These letters are simply either:
1. The fabrication by KGB agents
2. Leters written by Russian and ex-Russians to support freedom

The Whig party blended into other parties, similar to the Free Siberia party being replaced by the Party for the Restoration of the Union and Christian Russia, along with others.

We are intercepting mail of those convicted of crimes. I presume Japan needs evidence to convict criminals, we do in Russia. And to answer your second question, we would if there had been credible reports of the same happening in Germany and other countries, and if Kamis were denying the UN over the fate of one of our most important cities.

There is a reasonable solution for this. Scandanavia calls for two plebecites in Russia, and denys two in Russia. If plebecites are allowed im Murmansk and St. Petersburg, we will accept plebecites in Siberia and the Causcaus.

(OOC: We'd feel likely to win in all of them, except perhaps the Causcaus.)

The Whig party blended into other parties, similar to the Free Siberia party being replaced by the Party for the Restoration of the Union and Christian Russia, along with others.

We are intercepting mail of those convicted of crimes. I presume Japan needs evidence to convict criminals, we do in Russia. And to answer your second question, we would if there had been credible reports of the same happening in Germany and other countries, and if Kamis were denying the UN over the fate of one of our most important cities.

There is a reasonable solution for this. Scandanavia calls for two plebecites in Russia, and denys two in Russia. If plebecites are allowed im Murmansk and St. Petersburg, we will accept plebecites in Siberia and the Causcaus.

(OOC: We'd feel likely to win in all of them, except perhaps the Causcaus.)

You first said Free Siberia had a radical message to liberate Siberia. Does that mean the parties that took over their seats have the same radical message? if people vote radical, they will not simply change to a moderate attitude immediately

The German Ambassador quietly asks if the Russians gave the US approval to fly such intrusive planes through their airspace.

Parthini']The German Ambassador quietly asks if the Russians gave the US approval to fly such intrusive planes through their airspace.

ooc
The US has bases in Russia, and its already been said those bases are used by US intelligence gathering aircraft that are providing intel support to Russia.

That information was later turned over to the Russians by the way (by TG).

US U2s were operating out of Russia in the early 1950s in this RP to monitor the situation during the seccession of Afghanistan and Persia from Indian rule.

During that time, Russia was an NPC nation, but it also occured when Kordo was running it. So its kind of old news at this point.

Incidently, although the information was released regarding the phone calls, the actual agent of collection was not indicated. Although it might be inferred.

The German ambassador nods and politely asks if it is in American policy to "listen" in places other than Russia?

Gentlemen, I believe we are missing the main points:

1-Forign nations have been interfering with the internal affairs of the Russian Federation, no matter the justification, it is still a matter of violation of international law which some persons must be held accountable.

2-A certain Plebicite has still to be forced through.

Once this is dealt with, we would gladly participate in disscussions about the history of the last 50 years. From who started the great war, to to why Romania was nearly invaded, to the outcrys of the Polish people, to the who made the first stinkbomb, why are the yugoslavs evil and so on and so forth.

Parthini']The German ambassador nods and politely asks if it is in American policy to "listen" in places other than Russia?

The American Ambassador is unable to confirm or deny such information, which is the policy of the United States and has been for many years not to discuss ongoing or potential ongoing intelligence gathering.

The American Ambassador is unable to confirm or deny such information, which is the policy of the United States and has been for many years not to discuss ongoing or potential ongoing intelligence gathering.

Uh huh... just don't go crying to me when your precious U2s get shot down. Don't be attacking me either. Please.

You first said Free Siberia had a radical message to liberate Siberia. Does that mean the parties that took over their seats have the same radical message? if people vote radical, they will not simply change to a moderate attitude immediately

When the party turned radical, radical supporters voted for them, as well as for the PRU (Party for the Restoration of the Union). The moderate voters switched to more moderate parties.

But to answer the German question, we are supportive to any US aircraft in our nation, as they have been extremely helpful in rebuilding from the mess the Union left behind.

When the party turned radical, radical supporters voted for them, as well as for the PRU (Party for the Restoration of the Union). The moderate voters switched to more moderate parties.

But to answer the German question, we are supportive to any US aircraft in our nation, as they have been extremely helpful in rebuilding from the mess the Union left behind.

Then what you're saying is there weren't enough radicals to gain even one seat, which meant the moderates would have had enough power to change the party's stance

There were not enough radicals to win one seat, but there were enough to mount close campaigns for two seats. We cannot be blamed for a political party's lack of strategy.

Siberia Update (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084559&postcount=1039)

Siberia Update (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084559&postcount=1039)

The US harshly condemns outside aid being provided to rebel groups in Siberia and indicates that it is willing to assist Russia in defending its borders.

The Scandic Union just as harshly condems the kidnappings of Siberian's by the Russian government and the KGB.

The US harshly condemns outside aid being provided to rebel groups in Siberia and indicates that it is willing to assist Russia in defending its borders.

China points out several things.

First, it re-initerates its statement that the Americans would never exist if not for foreign aid in gaining its independence from Great Britain during its Revolutionary War. Instead it could very well have been "British Commonwealth of America" or some such thing.

Second, if America is adamant about assisting Russia in defending its borders aganist rebels, it is pure hypocriscy. It would be similiar to the French assisting the British in destroying all American rebellion during the Revolutionary War. Thus, again, America would not exist today.

Third, Siberia and Cascausu has as much right to be independent as America had the right to become independent from Great Britain with French aid.

Finally, if the people of Belarus are able to be independent of Russia, then why cannot Siberia and Cascaus? Why isn't America and Russia oppressing and subjugating Belarus as they are doing in Siberia and Cascaus?

The US points out that by that reckoning, Manchuria, Mongolia and Tibet have similar rights to independence. In addition, the US is not interfering with the internal affairs of Russia, but if invited, will help Russia defend itself from that outside interference.

ooc
I know who is responsible as a player, and the US knows through its intelligence efforts. A backchannel 'accidental' release of information indicates that the US is willing to provide Russia with IRBMs and nuclear warheads for those missiles if it continues or escaluates. This of course is denied by if questions come up in the press, although the possibility isn't ruled out.

The US points out that by that reckoning, Manchuria, Mongolia and Tibet have similar rights to independence.

China counters this.

Mongolia and Tibet chose to re-join China through democratic means. There was no revolt, rebellion, and such in Mongolia and Tibet, unlike what is occuring in Siberia and Cascaus.

Manchuria broke away from China under Russian (Union) aid. In the twenty years since Manchuria has returned to Chinese rule, there has not been rebellions and revolts, nor any motion to secede from China a second time. The people there appreciate the far better security, social services, education, technology, and living standards than they would have had otherwise.

And the SU would like to point out that the Tibetan's, Mongolians and Manchurians aren't rioting and demanding for independence, instead they are complacement, much like the Navajo, Commanche's, Kiowa's, Sioux and other Indian peoples in America are complacement being part of America, although they are ethnically and historically different. Tibet, Manchuria, the Navjo and the Kiowa's sole difference from teh Caucasian's and Siberian's, and the thing that makes the Siberians and Caucasian's alike with the Belarussian's and the American's who rebelled against England, is the fact that they WANT independance and are ACTIVELY trying to get it.

ooc
I know who is responsible as a player, and the US knows through its intelligence efforts. A backchannel 'accidental' release of information indicates that the US is willing to provide Russia with IRBMs and nuclear warheads for those missiles if it continues or escaluates. This of course is denied by if questions come up in the press, although the possibility isn't ruled out.

OOC: Isn't it illegal to give other nations nuclear weapons/nuclear weapons technology? Didn't a measure pass the U.N.?

OOC: Isn't it illegal to give other nations nuclear weapons/nuclear weapons technology? Didn't a measure pass the U.N.?

ooc
I don't remember, probably though. Someone should research it.

China points out several things[...]

Third, Siberia and Cascausu has as much right to be independent as America had the right to become independent from Great Britain with French aid.

Finally, if the people of Belarus are able to be independent of Russia, then why cannot Siberia and Cascaus? Why isn't America and Russia oppressing and subjugating Belarus as they are doing in Siberia and Cascaus?

The South African delegates rises to speak. "The Russian ambassador has already stated that Russia is willing to hold plebiscites in both Siberia and the Caucaus, when and if the Scandic Union allows the same to take place in St. Petersburg and other areas. The Russians here have the additional moral backing because a plebiscite in St. Petersburg was ordered by the United Nations; the Scandic Union has simply chosen to ignore this august body. No similar mandates have been made to the Russian nation, and so it is ludicrous to demand that one nation take no action to defend its borders or its citizens, while allowing another state to totally ignore an international mandate for self-determination.

"Until the Scandic Union finally allows a plebiscite in St. Petersburg, South Africa stands in full solidarity with the Russian people on the issue of the terrorists in Siberia and the Caucaus."

A note is secretly passed to the Russian delegation, offering the assistance of the South African FVD in the Caucaus and Siberia. The offer is little more than a gesture of goodwill, as the KGB (and possibly CIA?) seem to have the situation under control.

ooc
I don't remember, probably though. Someone should research it.

OOC:
I'm almost positive one was passed, because Egypt and Syria(Russia) pulled it on me when I wanted to give Turkey some after Egypt armed.

"South Africa stands in full solidarity with the Russian people on the issue of the terrorists in Siberia and the Caucaus."

.

Now the Scandic ambassador rose his voice for the first time, "And what are the Russian KGB officers who routinly kidnap Siberian's and Caucasian's in their own home? Out of their own beds! If that is not terrorism, if that is not opression then what is? These people are not safe in their own homes, they can not go to sleep in their own beds feeling comfortable, instead they must sleep half awake worried about their safety. Dozens of Siberian's have died and dozens more have disapeared and only God and the Russian's who kidnapped them know what has become of them, and the situation in the Caucases is no better, if not worse.

Not one march, not one demonstration has occured in St Petersburg. Just as the Kiowa's and Navajo of America, the residents of St Petersburg are complacement as they are, they do not yearn for independence the way the people of Siberia and the Caucases do.

These people are dieing for their independence, and while in the reports there deaths may just come up as numbers and statistics these are real people with real lives, families, hopes and dreams, who are sacrificing all for their independence, and that is the core issue here. Are you willing to deny these people something they want so bad they are willing to die for? Something the Voortrekkers of old would have admired, as they did the same thing. And just like the Voortrekkers, these people are being ignored by the world, by the decedents of the Voortrekkers to boot. It is shamefull, these people WANT independence, they are begging for it, and they have tried every single peacefull avenue to get it possible, but they are still being denied, and that is a blackmark on any nation that value's democracy and freedom."

OOC: Under the new guerrilla rules (check Military thread) 4 guerrilla brigades are operating in Siberia and a similar number are ready to spring up in the Caucauses if violence occurs in Siberia.

OOC: Under the new guerrilla rules (check Military thread) 4 guerrilla brigades are operating in Siberia and a similar number are ready to spring up in the Caucauses if violence occurs in Siberia.

OOC: When is a Caucas update going to be ready?

The Polish Ambassador stands "this update disturbs my government and my people. We feel for the Siberians and Caucasians, and we know how they feel. We support our Scandic friends and partners and we will follow their suggestions

Ooc: in my D/N thread i am posting about this

The US continues to make clear that it will vote against any resolution providing independence to either Siberia or the region of the Caucasus mountians under discussion as long as Petrograd has not had a plebiscite regarding rejoining Russia.

And the Scandic Union continues to see no point in plebiscites in St Petersburg when the people of St Petersburg do not seem to want to leave, there have been no marches, protests, movements or anything of the sort to suggest they want it. Unless of course America holds plebiscites for its various Indian nations, and the Canadians the Quebecois, the Brits the Welsh and Scots, the French the Normans and so on and so forth. These people do not want it and are not trying to get it just like the various other peoples world wide including those example already stated, but the Caucasian's and Siberians do want it, to the point they are dieing for it.

The US continues to make clear that it will vote against any resolution providing independence to either Siberia or the region of the Caucasus mountians under discussion as long as Petrograd has not had a plebiscite regarding rejoining Russia.

China retorts.

"China will vote aganist any resolution denying independence to either Siberia or the region of the Caucasus."

If the Scandic nation is so confident that Petrograd wishes to remain Scandic, the South African delegate inquires, why will they not hold a plebiscite to prove it to the world?

Why not give Denmark a plebiscite? And Finland and Sweden, why not go a step further and give Malmo a plebiscite and every other city in the Scandic Union? Why not give every cit in the world a plebiscite? I mean, if the nations that they are a part of are so confident they would wish to remain whats to stop the world from giving every city its own plebiscite?

Why don't you give Windhoek and Kaapstad there own plebiscites, I'm sure you must be confident they'd stay with South Africa, right?

By you way of thinking everyone should get there own plebiscite. A plebiscite is not being held in St Petersburg because the people of that city have not campaigned for one, as the Siberian's and Caucasians have.

Why don't you give Windhoek and Kaapstad there own plebiscites, I'm sure you must be confident they'd stay with South Africa, right?

The Scandic delegate has a point. However, there has been no UN mandate for a plebiscite in either Windhoek or Kaapstad, either.

Why not give Denmark a plebiscite? And Finland and Sweden, why not go a step further and give Malmo a plebiscite and every other city in the Scandic Union? Why not give every cit in the world a plebiscite? I mean, if the nations that they are a part of are so confident they would wish to remain whats to stop the world from giving every city its own plebiscite?

Why don't you give Windhoek and Kaapstad there own plebiscites, I'm sure you must be confident they'd stay with South Africa, right?

By you way of thinking everyone should get there own plebiscite. A plebiscite is not being held in St Petersburg because the people of that city have not campaigned for one, as the Siberian's and Caucasians have.

I agree with the Scandic Union. We cannot give plebicites to every single city on Earth. If nations complain that St. Petersburg has not been given a plebicite, then why not give one to Siberia? or Caucasia? They are the ones who demand it, who need it. It would be useless to give a plebicite to a place that doesnt want it, instead of an important region

The Scandic delegate has a point. However, there has been no UN mandate for a plebiscite in either Windhoek or Kaapstad, either.

But then again, there has not been any resolution for on either, so there has not been a chance for a mandate to be given or not. The only reason one was ever given for the Scandic Union was because there are many nations out there who wish to do the Scandic Union and our allies harm.

ooc
I don't remember, probably though. Someone should research it.

that measure was proposed by me and died quickly thanks to the FNS and the US

[QUOTE=Malkyer] South Africa stands in full solidarity with the Russian people on the issue of the terrorists in Siberia and the Caucaus."
QUOTE]

You stand in solidarity with them after they begin arresting people and having the dissapear? These are no less acts of terrorism then the so called "terrorists" who want independance

OOC: The NPT was one of the first things we passed, which I believe covers it, however "hey thats against international law" isnt the best argument when you arm terrorists in other nations.

IC: Lack of protests does not mean lack of discontent. There were few protests in St. Petersburg under the Union, but there were certainly many discontent.

Something we have failed to look at is the long term effects. This was forgotten in dividing up Russia after the Great War, leaving us with few major ports and severe economic trouble. If Siberia were granted independence, we would have a large, resource rich state, with little industrial capability and few skilled workers, a problem that would take years to correct. In the meantime Siberia will fall into a severe economic crisis. While China owning large portions of the Siberian debt may not have been one of the original causes of their support for terrorist groups, it certainly is a perk for them.

The Causcaus is a collection of dozens of ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups. Russia has provided a stable government, preventing feuds from different groups from becoming genocide and massacres. If the Causcaus were to become independent, there would be two options. There could be one large nation, unable to keep feuding groups from becoming violent, or dozens of small city-states, who could declare war and massacre one another before the UN could intervene. The present crisis in Rwanda shows that such considerations are serious indeed.

But to the Polish ambassador, we will give plebecites to the regions in question when Scandanavia bows down to the will of the UN and accepts plebecites in the areas it has occupied since the war. Siberians did not want independence before they recieved large amounts of money from China and Scandanavia. I know I'd be willing to secede from Russia if someone paid me enough.

OOC: The NPT was one of the first things we passed, which I believe covers it, however "hey thats against international law" isnt the best argument when you arm terrorists in other nations.

IC: Lack of protests does not mean lack of discontent. There were few protests in St. Petersburg under the Union, but there were certainly many discontent.

Something we have failed to look at is the long term effects. This was forgotten in dividing up Russia after the Great War, leaving us with few major ports and severe economic trouble. If Siberia were granted independence, we would have a large, resource rich state, with little industrial capability and few skilled workers, a problem that would take years to correct. In the meantime Siberia will fall into a severe economic crisis. While China owning large portions of the Siberian debt may not have been one of the original causes of their support for terrorist groups, it certainly is a perk for them.

The Causcaus is a collection of dozens of ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups. Russia has provided a stable government, preventing feuds from different groups from becoming genocide and massacres. If the Causcaus were to become independent, there would be two options. There could be one large nation, unable to keep feuding groups from becoming violent, or dozens of small city-states, who could declare war and massacre one another before the UN could intervene. The present crisis in Rwanda shows that such considerations are serious indeed.

But to the Polish ambassador, we will give plebecites to the regions in question when Scandanavia bows down to the will of the UN and accepts plebecites in the areas it has occupied since the war. Siberians did not want independence before they recieved large amounts of money from China and Scandanavia. I know I'd be willing to secede from Russia if someone paid me enough.

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't give them independance since they're small. You're overlooking the fact that they will recieve aid

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.

Right there it was killed, and as far as I know, it was never brought back

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't give them independance since they're small. You're overlooking the fact that they will recieve aid

"No, I believe he is saying that they do not currently have the infrastructure nor industry to be independent. However, the point remains that China and the SU have interefered illegeally with another nation! International law must be upheld."

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't give them independance since they're small. You're overlooking the fact that they will recieve aid

Despite the fact we do not believe the populace as a whole wants independence , we were merely addressing the possibilities that may be in store. However, Uganda recieved substantial aid, as did Palestine, but that did not stop armed conflict from emerging there. China has used aid to bribe Tibet and other nations into reentering their nations. We fear this may simply be a plot to fund the needs of the growing Chinese economy. The resources in Siberia have been for sale, a much easier and cheaper route we would encourage the Chinese to try.

"No, I believe he is saying that they do not currently have the infrastructure nor industry to be independent. However, the point remains that China and the SU have interefered illegeally with another nation! International law must be upheld."

Japan points out that Nigeria didn't have much of an infastructure at independance. Perhaps this is a reason for the groups wanting independance: The Caucus and Siberia have been neglected by the Russian government.

Siberians did not want independence before they recieved large amounts of money from China and Scandanavia. I know I'd be willing to secede from Russia if someone paid me enough.


Enough to sacrafice your life and the lives of your neighbors for it? Because money is extremely usefull to someone who is dead, and if the Siberian's did not want independence, why was there a Free Siberia party dating back to the days of the Union?

Despite the fact we do not believe the populace as a whole wants independence , we were merely addressing the possibilities that may be in store. However, Uganda recieved substantial aid, as did Palestine, but that did not stop armed conflict from emerging there. China has used aid to bribe Tibet and other nations into reentering their nations. We fear this may simply be a plot to fund the needs of the growing Chinese economy. The resources in Siberia have been for sale, a much easier and cheaper route we would encourage the Chinese to try.

Japan will be the first nation to do something if we thought this was aggression

Despite the fact we do not believe the populace as a whole wants independence , we were merely addressing the possibilities that may be in store. However, Uganda recieved substantial aid, as did Palestine, but that did not stop armed conflict from emerging there. China has used aid to bribe Tibet and other nations into reentering their nations. We fear this may simply be a plot to fund the needs of the growing Chinese economy. The resources in Siberia have been for sale, a much easier and cheaper route we would encourage the Chinese to try.

No, what you fear is that you will not be able to take advantage of Siberia's wealth the way you have been for years.

There has been a Free Siberia party, but since the fall of the Union, it has lacked popular support, as have independence movements in Norway, Finland, and Estonia.

Siberia's wealth has not been lost to the Siberian people. Most in Siberian cities have higher incomes than those in western Russia, especially with the loss of vital industrial areas. While the nomadic tribes do not earn much, yak herding has its limits in providing a stable income.

There has been a Free Siberia party, but since the fall of the Union, it has lacked popular support, as have independence movements in Norway, Finland, and Estonia.

.

That just proves the fact that the Siberian people have yearned for independence since before the 3rd Great War, decades ago. As for Finland and Estonia, there indpendence movement died away because they actually gained their independence from Russia.

There has been a Free Siberia party, but since the fall of the Union, it has lacked popular support, as have independence movements in Norway, Finland, and Estonia.

Siberia's wealth has not been lost to the Siberian people. Most in Siberian cities have higher incomes than those in western Russia, especially with the loss of vital industrial areas. While the nomadic tribes do not earn much, yak herding has its limits in providing a stable income.

That completely contradicts your earlier statements that Siberia would be a porr nation.

You also said that the moderates all left the party. This means that most of Siberia's voters (the Duma is proportional on population, so Siberia probably wouldn't have more than 5 or 6 seats) want independance but have been alienated

Japan points out that Nigeria didn't have much of an infastructure at independance. Perhaps this is a reason for the groups wanting independance: The Caucus and Siberia have been neglected by the Russian government.

"Actually, the United Sates and great Britain had our nation fully electrified with an extensive road network by the time we achieved independence. I do not belive they have been neglected. They are part of Russia and thus have no need for independent industry."

They would be a poor nation because, compared to most European nations, we are very poor. Siberia would lose direct contact with the sea, without direct access to the Black Sea or Vladivostok. Other northern ports are very frequently unusable. As it was seen when the same thing happened to Russia as a whole, that can ruin an economy. Repeating it for the same people will not be good.

Switzerland is a nation dead center in Europe, a nation with no access to the sea, but Switzerland is amazingly prosperous. Hungary is another such nation, and another prosperous nation. Neither Hungary or Switzerland have half the mineral wealth Siberia enjoys, and on top of that, for many months of the year Siberia would enjoy access to the sea. Siberia would indeed be prosperous, just as Switzerland and Hungary are with half of the resources Siberia has.

They would be a poor nation because, compared to most European nations, we are very poor. Siberia would lose direct contact with the sea, without direct access to the Black Sea or Vladivostok. Other northern ports are very frequently unusable. As it was seen when the same thing happened to Russia as a whole, that can ruin an economy. Repeating it for the same people will not be good.

yet Siberians have higher income than other Russians as you said. Siberia would not necessarily poor. They would have a merchant fleet, mineral wealth, and aid from friendly nations. And Caucasia would have access to the Black Sea

Switzerland and Hungary have other industry beyond simple natural resources. Many Siberians opt not to participate in the education system, and participate in a more traditional nomadic lifestyle. Switzerland exports textiles, not yaks.

EDIT: We have recieved aid from other nations, have a merchant fleet, and signifigant resources, but we are Europe's poorest nation. Separating Siberia from Russia would be a deathblow to both.

They would be a poor nation because, compared to most European nations, we are very poor. Siberia would lose direct contact with the sea, without direct access to the Black Sea or Vladivostok. Other northern ports are very frequently unusable. As it was seen when the same thing happened to Russia as a whole, that can ruin an economy. Repeating it for the same people will not be good.

China points out that the sea isn't necessary for wealth, trade, and commerce. Several alternatives include the following...

1. Railroads linking Siberia to Russia, China, and Korea.

2. Airports and the use of air freight services.

3. Use ice-breakers to open up shipping lanes in the Pacific portions of Siberia.

Just as many people in Hungary and Switzerland are farmers, milk and cheese aren't exactly cash crops, but yet those nations prosper. And, yet you continue to ignore Siberia's massive mineral wealth, mineral wealth that many nations in the Middle East seem to prosper just fine on. Huge amounts of both oil and natural gas, gold and many different metals.

EDIT: We have recieved aid from other nations, have a merchant fleet, and signifigant resources, but we are Europe's poorest nation. Separating Siberia from Russia would be a deathblow to both.

Russia is Europes poorest nation because Russia ruined itself. Once you were one of the worlds two superpowers, but you threw it away in the last Great War, you threw it away along with millions of lives. Russia's economic state is no ones fault but Russia's, even if the policymakers Moscow are different nowadays.

ooc
Ok, time to intervene from the realism point of view.

Russians would be willing to fight for Siberia. Period. It is their patromy. Ethnically, it is predominantly Russian settlers from the period going back to the 1600s. There are ethnic Inuit and Mongolian type peoples living there (about 10% of the population) who are living much like the Inuit in the US and Canadian Arctic and Native Americans in Northern Canada and Alaska. In addition, a sizeable Mongolian and Chinese population (another 5% of the total) would be living in the Amur valley (left overs from the 18th Century and some migration since).

80% of Russias oil, iron ore, uranium, natural gas is found in Siberia, not to mention its gold and diamonds.

At this point, even the hint of allowing independence would bring down the government as the Russian people view it as theirs. The Union would have extensively surveyed it, and they built a 4 track rail line to Manchuria via Central Asia, and another to Vladivostok along the historical trans Siberian route.

Under no circumstances would a Russian government give it up without a fight. It would be like the British giving up Scotland, the US giving up everything west of the Mississippi or China giving up Manchuria.

In addition, Scandic and SCT intelligence is picking up information that the US will not under any circumstances allow Russia to be stripped of Siberia as the US views that inevitably it would be annexed by China or Japan or the SCT as a whole.

If you review US policy over this RP, note that the US has fought EVERY time a single power threatened to dominate either Europe or Asia or both.

This is historic US policy, and I haven't deviated from it.

the real question is, are you willing to use nukes?

the real question is, are you willing to use nukes?

ooc
only one way to find out isn't there?

The US never ruled out or specified if they would use nuclear weapons to defend NATO in real life. So going to go with that historical tradition.

OOC:

A couple of things, GB.

The Orient has just as much claim to Siberia as Russia does. Siberia was within Asian sphere long before any "White Europeans" settled there. It would be similiar to the Native Americans having a legimitate claim over the whole of the USA. Only this time if war does erupt, it would be like the Native Americans having equal weapons and training and economy as the colonial USA (17th, 18th, and 19th centuries)

Put this into perpsective...

Russian claim to Siberia goes back to 1600 AD.

Chinese (and Mongol and Korean) "sphere" and claim to Siberia goes back to B.C. times (about 2000 years longer than Russians).

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

China isn't interested in attacking or genocide or whatever aganist Russia. It would not be "total war" with the goal of extermination of the Russian people. Even though Russia savaged China during WW-3, China still doesn't wish "Total War" and "Total Extermination of Russian people in Revenge" thing. Far from it. The war would be very much like the following (comparison)

China / SCT = France
Russia = Britain
Siberia (and possibly Cascaus) = Young America

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

Besides, the US *WILL* be the first to use nuclear weapons, and the US will be responible for making mankind extinct through the use of nuclear weapons.

This is because China will refuse to be the first to use nuclear weapons, thereby placing the entire responibility and atrocity of nuclear weapons on America. The only reason China has nuclear weapons is because of America's nuclear weapons (so that America can't nuke China or the SCT with impunity). If America and all of its allies were to destroy and eliminate all of their nuclear weapons then China will do so as well (as the reason for China having nuclear weapons will not exist anymore).

ooc
Sorry, as a historian claim to Siberia is debateable.

However, as the US player, the US isn't willing to let China have it. The Russians certainly wouldn't be willing to let China have it either. Keep pushing and there will be war. Its inevitable. I have to play the US as the US would act in this instance, and that is the stand it would take.

OOC: China, all of that...doesn't really matter. Who has a claim to what, or what historical references we can pull up.

As far as nukes, thats all up to America, regardless of what we say, all I know is, I won't launch first.

Siberian Crisis Thread

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11087286#post11087286

any specific actions regarding this situation should go here

In addition, time needs to slow to 1 day = 1 week. Crisis date as of now is the first week of August 1961.

On the plus side, it gives the new players longer to figure out their builds.

ooc
Sorry, as a historian claim to Siberia is debateable.

However, as the US player, the US isn't willing to let China have it. The Russians certainly wouldn't be willing to let China have it either. Keep pushing and there will be war. Its inevitable. I have to play the US as the US would act in this instance, and that is the stand it would take.

OOC:

I am aware of that.

I understand the US is obligated to help Russia in the inevitable war over Siberia. I'm not opposing or denying the right and reasoning for Russia and US to fight for Siberia. In fact, I agree with the reasons and the "why's" and "how's". I'm not gonna challenge any of that whatsoever.

My only serious issue here is nuclear weapons. Its not the nuclear weapons themselves, but rather the consquences of using them.

I'm only saying that the USA will be forced to become the first ones to launch nukes, and thereby doom humanity. This is simply because China will never (and refuse) to be the first to launch nuclear weapons aganist anyone. Therefore, it is entirely up to America whether to keep humanity and civilization alive by not using nuclear weapons, or end civilization in a nuclear war exchange between OA and SCT (and consquently ALL cities are wiped off the face of the Earth).

China is going to repeatedly make this clear IC'wise about nuclear weapons, who will use them first, and the consquences of using nuclear weapons. This will be done so to hopefully prevent nuclear war if there are any rational people around IC'wise.

We are distraught by the lack of action by the UN against the violation of international law by these nations. Continued illegal shipments of supplies to the insurgency in Siberia has led to the violance now seen. If action was taken before then there is a likely chance that this would not have happened. Instead the UN emmersed itself in meaningless debates about American and Chinese history, controversial allegations, meaningless interpretations, accusations with no real proof and the ignorement of hard evidence.

Siberia, as a census would show, is a high majority ethnic Russian negating the claims for a Siberian nation consisting of all of Siberia. The protests we are seeing would not have even started if it were not for this covert action, these are illeagal by international law. No matter what flimsy excuse they give, it is still violation of agreed international law. Which they still are exercising as a complete disregard to the ideas of international law and national soverignity.

Therefore we forward a course of action:

Sanctions are to be placed on the commerce -including oil- of all nations involved untill they learn to abide by the law and cease and desist from disregarding the national soverignity of Russia.

---------------------------
OOC: I don't seehow is the situation in Siberia is like the American revolution, I mean the majority is Russian and the Siberian Minority has been allowed representaion throughout the years and I think have been well off and if no forign interference had occured they wouldn't have rebelled.

In the American civil war, although I am not fully knowledgable, I think that the revolution first occured, then Forign powers intervened, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but as a golden chance to hurt britain.

I compare that the majority of the americans wanted to rebel with the minority of the Siberians who want to rebel, I compare with the fact Britain was an ocean away, while siberia is in Russia, I compare how colonial america had its own government even before the revolution and how Siberia has been part of the Central government of Russia, I compare how the Americans rebelled first by extending a few olive branches then seeking conflict as the last resort and how Siberia was protesting without trying peaceful means first.

Then I would say the American Revolution is much more different than this Insurgency, If I would think of an example close to this situation then I would say it is like when the USSR supported the unpopular Leftiest Regime in Afghanistan.

I compare how the Americans rebelled first by extending a few olive branches then seeking conflict as the last resort and how Siberia was protesting without trying peaceful means first.


OOC: Err.. the Siberians did come to the UN and stage peaceful protests before they started to Riot. I think that somehow constitutes as 'extending an olive brach'.

The Rwandan Crisis yields several thick reports on genocide offences, several suspected war criminals being in his custody the British commander asks for confirmation to fly them to the Hague to begin war crimes trials. He also enquires into additional officials to look into war crimes cases in Rwanda and also the refugees flooding into neighbouring countries. The refugee situation seems to be adequately covered at the moment with many tons of supplies being flown in daily and proper refugee camps coping with the current numbers.

OOC: Abbassia, I don't want to get into a historical argument as there is no point, but I just wanted to say, only around a third of American's actually supported the rebbellion, with an equal amount being Loyalists. The majority of American's remained neutral. And just like this situation where the majority of Siberian's are Russian, the majority of American's were British.


IC: Western Arabia is almost entirely Arab, no? But so is Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, but, but then if they are ethnically and for the most part religously the same, why are they seperate nations? Saying that the majority of Siberian's are Russian means nothing, being part of an ethnic group doesn't mean you have to be part of a certain country, there are plenty of French in the Scandic Union, but the places they live in are not French territory. Being Russian or not, these people still want independence.

As far as sanctions go, we propose sacntions be placed on Russia untill such a time when the oppression in the Caucases and Siberia ends.

[QUOTE=Abbassia]

Therefore we forward a course of action:

Sanctions are to be placed on the commerce -including oil- of all nations involved untill they learn to abide by the law and cease and desist from disregarding the national soverignity of Russia.
QUOTE]

You do realize that this won't pass? Sanctions I think are under the Security council, and i think China has a veto power.
IC:

Japan agrees with the SU's proposal, and seconds this

A note is passed to the Russian Ambassador. He grows pale, and stands up.

"Excuse me, friends, but I have just recieved important orders from Moscow, and must leave at once. Sergei is completely authorized to fufill my place, and I leave him in charge."

Hurriedly leaving the building, he is immediately brought to the Russian Embassy. As part of Russia's nuclear defense plan, ambassadors may need to fufill the role of foreign minister if nuclear war were to occur, and the central government were lost. As head of the second largest embassy (after DC) he is placed on high alert, remaining under guard, monitoring the situation.

The Japanese delegate shifts uncomfortably in his seat, and passes a message to an aide who delivers it to the Japanese government, telling them of what has happened (wherever my government is, they're all in hiding)

A note is passed to the Russian Ambassador. He grows pale, and stands up.

"Excuse me, friends, but I have just recieved important orders from Moscow, and must leave at once. Sergei is completely authorized to fufill my place, and I leave him in charge."

Hurriedly leaving the building, he is immediately brought to the Russian Embassy. As part of Russia's nuclear defense plan, ambassadors may need to fufill the role of foreign minister if nuclear war were to occur, and the central government were lost. As head of the second largest embassy (after DC) he is placed on high alert, remaining under guard, monitoring the situation.

China makes another statement.

"China has no intention whatsoever to use nuclear weapons aganist Russia. Therefore there is no need for Russia to go to nuclear alert. In fact, the only reason we have nuclear weapons is because of America and its nuclear stockpile. If America did not have nuclear weapons then China would not have its own nuclear weapons as China would not see the need to possess any.

Therefore, it will be America that destroys us all if they decide to employ nuclear weapons. America will be the first to use nuclear weapons, I promise you, as China refuses to the first one to initate a nuclear exchange. The Chinese nuclear arsenal is for defense aganist American nuclear arsenal ONLY.

Is America willing to see hundreds of cities, dozens of priceless historical centers, and the cradles of civilization destroyed in nuclear fire? Washington, Moscow, Beijing, London, Paris, Rome, Cairo, Jerusalem, Delhi, Tokyo, Rio-De-Janeiro, New York City, and so on, all destroyed? Billions of people dead from nuclear fire? World War 3 magnified by ten-fold?

This is exactly why China refuses to use nuclear weapons unless it is attacked by nuclear weapons. We do not wish to see the world destroyed by nuclear weapons. I personally hope that the Americans aren't so hot-headed to sign the death warrant of humankind as we know it.

Simply put, nuclear weapons should have never been invented and developed in the first place. If every nation in the world were to destroy their nuclear weapons, China would be much more than happy to destroy its own nuclear weapons as the need will no longer be there to possess any."

"It is simply standard procedure to prepare for a threat if any non-allied neighbor increases their nuclear alert. We also believe nuclear weapons should be reduced and eliminated, which is why we have not built any since the end of the Union. We believe talks to this end should begin as soon as possible."

OOC: Some arms-limitation talks occured around this time, and since we have more nuclear states the need is greater than in RL, in my opinion.

"It is simply standard procedure to prepare for a threat if any non-allied neighbor increases their nuclear alert. We also believe nuclear weapons should be reduced and eliminated, which is why we have not built any since the end of the Union. We believe talks to this end should begin as soon as possible."

OOC: Some arms-limitation talks occured around this time, and since we have more nuclear states the need is greater than in RL, in my opinion.

China offers yet another statement.

"We only raised our nuclear alert because the Americans did so. If they did not raise or deploy their nuclear forces then China would have kept its nuclear forces at Defcon 1 analog. China is forced to match every move America makes otherwise America would easily vaporize the entirety of China and China will be unable to stop it. Therefore, China needs to deter the Americans from vaporizing 600 million Chinese in nuclear fire.

In addition, we have not mobilized any troops nor made any aggressive actions or movements towards Russia or any foreign powers. Otherwise your spy satellites, spy planes, and intelligence services would have seen hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers amassing near Siberia. This is not the case. In addition, China is maintaining readiness comparable to Defcon 2, while most nations are going to Defcon 3 or 4. This should speak for itself."

OOC: Err.. the Siberians did come to the UN and stage peaceful protests before they started to Riot. I think that somehow constitutes as 'extending an olive brach'.

To the UN for action against Russia not to the Russians for negotiation


OOC: Abbassia, I don't want to get into a historical argument as there is no point, but I just wanted to say, only around a third of American's actually supported the rebbellion, with an equal amount being Loyalists. The majority of American's remained neutral. And just like this situation where the majority of Siberian's are Russian, the majority of American's were British.

But I would think the Russian majority would like to stay Russian, wouldn't you say? I don't think they would sit neutral while they are taken to a new country ruled by the minority Siberian.

To the UN for action against Russia not to the Russians for negotiation




But I would think the Russian majority would like to stay Russian, wouldn't you say? I don't think they would sit neutral while they are taken to a new country ruled by the minority Siberian.

Except I don't think Siberia is even a ethnicity, but just because you're Russia doesn't mean you want to stay that way, many Russians in Siberia may just want to seceede

Except I don't think Siberia is even a ethnicity, but just because you're Russia doesn't mean you want to stay that way, many Russians in Siberia may just want to seceede

I don't know, Siberia is still Russian in RL, isn't it?

And if so, there would be no reasonable cause for dissent in the first place.

I don't know, Siberia is still Russian in RL, isn't it?

Yes, in RL. In RL Russia didn't fight to the last outposts in Siberia, Russia didn't devestate the world. Russia was devestated in the war and lost much power and prestige. The people in Siberia wish for freedom now after being oppressed for so long, remember that money can only go so far to change people's minds.

To the UN for action against Russia not to the Russians for negotiation


Where the peaceful protests, pamplets and all the other stuff they spent 30 bloody points on comes in.

I don't know, Siberia is still Russian in RL, isn't it?

OOC: In real Chechnya and Dagestan are still Russian to, but they definetely don't want to be.

Yes, in RL. In RL Russia didn't fight to the last outposts in Siberia, Russia didn't devestate the world. Russia was devestated in the war and lost much power and prestige. The people in Siberia wish for freedom now after being oppressed for so long, remember that money can only go so far to change people's minds.

Then Germany in RL (WWI period and maybe WWII period (although was partitioned)) did not break up to its individual states, even after being devestated, lost power...etc. The reality is that things aren't that bad for Siberians as recovery was pretty good with the help of the Americans, who spent a lot of aid to get Russia back on its feet, leading to stability.

The "Oppression" can also be alleged, what hard evidence of oppression can you give? Getting a few hundred people to protest does not represent the hundreds of thousands who live there.

You are right in one thing, money can only go so far to change people's minds and I stand by my saying that all of this wouldn't have happened if not for forign intervention.

Where the peaceful protests, pamplets and all the other stuff they spent 30 bloody points on comes in.

Did they now? I thought we had hard evidence that the SU and China paid for these.

OOC: In real Chechnya and Dagestan are still Russian to, but they definetely don't want to be.

I thought we were talking about Siberia? Just because you paid so much for them to cause trouble that does not mean that the majority will all of a sudden throw away all the work had done rebuilding their country and become "Siberians", if as Han says Siberian is not an ethnicity. If it is, I still don't see Russians accepting to be ruled by the Minority Siberian.

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

IC: We are concerned by the violation of international law and give no opinion regarding the Siberian matter, as it is and should be a matter of Russian internal affairs. NOT French, NOT Scandavian, NOT Chinese BUT Russian internal affairs.

We are dissapointed that the UN has proved to be lacking in facing this balatant disregard to international law and instead focusing on pointless historical debate of a time where International law did not exist and was not enforced.

Also many allegations made here are without a firm basis but were still built upon, We are most concerned by the effectiveness of the UN.

The Scandics and the Chinese have no right whatsoever to judge the Russian Federation.

ooc
be careful to mark OOC as OOC to avoid confusion. As far as the RP goes, no one has admitted anything as far as I know. Evidence exists that the Scandics and Chinese are behind it, and the US and Russians are accusing them of it.

incidently, I recommend that Abbessinia handle NPC reaction for now, as both Sharina and I are involved heavily in this, and Parthini and Malkyer and several other players are busy with real life.

Which is another reason slowing time is useful at this point.

ooc
be careful to mark OOC as OOC to avoid confusion. As far as the RP goes, no one has admitted anything as far as I know. Evidence exists that the Scandics and Chinese are behind it, and the US and Russians are accusing them of it.

incidently, I recommend that Abbessinia handle NPC reaction for now, as both Sharina and I are involved heavily in this, and Parthini and Malkyer and several other players are busy with real life.

Which is another reason slowing time is useful at this point.

OOC: Oh sorry about that. So should I handle NPC reaction?

OOC: Oh sorry about that. So should I handle NPC reaction?

I think so, wait for an opinion from Sharina

The US pushes to a vote a resolution censuring the Scandic Union and China for violations of the UN Charter regarding their interference in the internal affairs of Russia and their violation of the Hague Convention calling for nations not to fund rebel forces in other nations.

Nigeria votes in support of the resolution.

Pakistan shall vote against this resolution.

France votes for.

OOC: about me handling NPC, I am afraid I must decline as it turns out I am going to have a busy schedule myself.

The US pushes to a vote a resolution censuring the Scandic Union and China for violations of the UN Charter regarding their interference in the internal affairs of Russia and their violation of the Hague Convention calling for nations not to fund rebel forces in other nations.

China pushes to a vote a similiar resolution, but to censor every nation in the modern world that has funded rebellions, aided various nations gain independence, and such. Nations included in this list include:

1. America for funding and supporting rebellions in Pakistan and Brazil, aiding many nations in the Pacific and Africa gain independence, supporting the USEA and Philippines gain independence, and splitting the former USSR between Russia and Germany.

2. Britain for helping many of her colonies gain independence.

3. Colombia for funding the "Gran-Colombia" process, taking over non-Colombian lands, and the eventual unification of South America.

4. South Africa for annexing various lands north of it.

5. Australia for annexing New Zealand and various islands around it.

6. Even China itself for annexing Tibet and Mongolia peacefully.

7. America, Britain, South Africa, Germany, and France for their role in the Congo and "breaking it away" from Belgium.

8. Russia for granting Belarus independence.

9. Germany and the Scandic Union for holding plebiscites in Scwlesig-Holstein.

10. And so on.

Basically, two can play at this "censoring" game. The censors mean nothing at this point, as what's done is done and what already happened cannot be undone.

South Africa votes for the American resolution, and the ambassador later (in private) refers to the Chinese counter-resolution as "silly."

OOC: I can handle NPC stuff for now, since I'm done with school and whatnot. I'll wait for the official "okay" before I do anything, though.

Basically, two can play at this "censoring" game. The censors mean nothing at this point, as what's done is done and what already happened cannot be undone.

OOC: Sorry to be tedious but for those who might not know, "censure" is a legal term meaning an expression of official disapproval by an organisation. For example the UN censuring a member would be just to show their official distaste at that nations lack of judgement or whatever. It seems to be largely used in the US than anywhere else, I only vaguely recall the word being used once or twice over here in the UK but it seems to proliferate US newspapers somewhat (from what I gather from occasional readings on the net). Anyway, just clearing that up.

IC: Britain votes in favour of this resolution, her ambassador stating his regrets that such nations could even consider interfering illegitimately with another nation. Whilst carefully avoiding any mention of Britain's interferences elsewhere.

OOC: Thanks, LR. I know very little of UN terminology and such.

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

China will not recongize the resolution for the simple reasons as follows.

1. There are no Chinese troops in Siberia.

2. There are no Chinese weapons in Siberia- no Chinese tanks, planes, heliocopters, missiles, and such both officially and unofficially.

3. China has not mobilized for war aganist Russia or the OA or any nation for that matter. In fact, our mobilization and DEFCON levels have been the same in the past several days as it has been for over 10 years (factoring in new military units and such).

4. China is not a belligerent nation in this situation as evidenced by the three points above. It is the majority of the OA (with a few exceptions) who are the belligerents, as they are mobilizing for war, and raising their DEFCON levels towards nuclear war whereas China is / has not.

5. China has already stated for the record that it will not use nuclear weapons, destroy Russia, attack any Oceanic Alliance nation, or invade the homelands of any Oceanic Alliance nation.

For all intents and purposes, China is simply an observer of the events unfolding and providing commentary or making strong suggestions to the parties involved. However, China will be ready to defend itself if it is invaded or attacked.

China will not recongize the resolution for the simple reasons as follows.

OOC: This is somewhat off-topic, but it needs to be addressed at some point. What happens if UN members ignore UN resolutions? I mean, countries get away with it all the time in RL (Saddam Hussein, anyone?), but is E20 going to be the same?

OOC: This is somewhat off-topic, but it needs to be addressed at some point. What happens if UN members ignore UN resolutions? I mean, countries get away with it all the time in RL (Saddam Hussein, anyone?), but is E20 going to be the same?

ooc
it took General Assembly resolutions, several of them, to eventually get sanctions in place on South Africa during the aparthid period. In this case, it depends on how we play it how. Sufficient votes for example could amend the charter or whatever else.

If the Censure vote passes, the next thing the US would press for would be Security Council action and along with a vote stripping China of its veto powers. Which would require amending the UN Charter.

incidently, Malkyer handling NPC reactions, with Kilani handling any situtation where Malkyer has a conflict of interest, would seem reasonable to me.

ooc
to figure out voting results, just figure out how many PC nations are in favor of something, and generally NPC allies will vote the same as they.

Current PC Votes
For:
United States
Nigeria
France
South Africa
Britain
FNS
Russia

Against:
China
Pakistan
USEAS
Japan
Scandic Union

Abstain:
Bulgaria

Current NPC Votes
For:
Gambia
Ghana
Senegal
Togo
Cyprus (both)
Kenya
Uganda
Tanzania
Congo-Brazzaville
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Burundi
Gabon
Guinea-Bissau
Equitoreal Guinea
Canada
Mexico
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Haiti
Nicaragua
Honduras
Morocco
Algeria

Against:
Indonesia
Kashgaria
Central Asian Republic
Azerbaijan
Armenia and Georgia
Burma
Turkey
Kashgaria

Abstain:
Rwanda
Oman
Yemen
Brunei
Malasyia
Ireland
Nepal
Bhutan
Belgium
Netherlands
Belarus

Total For: 32
Total Against: 13
Total Abstain: 12

For the NPCs, I figured that since Pakistan voted against the resolution, most of the Commonwealth countries that either border Pakistan or are close to it would probably abstain, since Pakistan and the SCT are very close, and Britain is very far away. The numbers are so far skewed in favor the US (the Commonwealth has a lot members), but once votes come in from other areas it will probably even out.

The USEA votes against the resolution.


OOC: As a correction, Burma would most likely vote against as well since it is not only in the SCT, but we have been very, very nice to it recently (Paying for rural electrification, buying its shipping units for it and constructing the Kra Canal from which it benefits.)

FNS will vote for.

Bulgaria's new delegate to the UN, Stefan Kloresev voted to abstain from censuring China, yet understands that something should be done about the problems in Siberia and the Caucauses immediately and with care and consideration to the people of the said regions involved in the conflict.
It is clear that answering this question by using any nuclear weapons would only lead to complete and utter ruin for every one involved.

_Kloresev's predecessor just died of natural causes in a Dublin hospital and is being flown back to Bulgaria for a state funeral..._

Russia wholeheartedly votes for.

OOC: On the Arab world's votes, I'd expect Syria and Jordan follow Egypt's lead, the AF follows Germany, and Morrocco and Algeria go with the US.

Japan votes against the resolution.

OOC: I haven't seen Warta Endor around, but I'm guessing he would vote against

ooc
it took General Assembly resolutions, several of them, to eventually get sanctions in place on South Africa during the aparthid period. In this case, it depends on how we play it how. Sufficient votes for example could amend the charter or whatever else.

If the Censure vote passes, the next thing the US would press for would be Security Council action and along with a vote stripping China of its veto powers. Which would require amending the UN Charter.

incidently, Malkyer handling NPC reactions, with Kilani handling any situtation where Malkyer has a conflict of interest, would seem reasonable to me.

OOC:

Bold emphais = mine.

If this does occur, then there will be no point on having the UN around if the SCT and CSPS cannot be represented effectively in it. Might as well disband the UN and then call it "Extended Oceanic Alliance" or something of the sort.

---ANN News Update---

In light of the recent events the Abbot of the largest Buddhist monastary in Saigon has reportedly visted Prime Minister Yen Mai Tuyet in her private rooms at the Federal Palace.
Prime Minister Tuyet is a very devout Buddhist and the two have apparently been talking for hours, though the subject of thier conversation is unknown at this time it is believed to be focused on current relations with the West.


In other news mobilisations of Army units has stopped and high level military sources say that a full standown may be on the horizon, however several units of the 1st strategic......


President Phirun Sunan of the USEA turned the radio off. He continued to pace the room, his younger colleuage had shut herself in her quarters with that damned monk for over three hours now. This was a crisis how could she be wasting time praying now?
Several military aides alternately rushed in to give huim updates on the developing situation, damn this was going to get messy.

Inside her private quarters Yen Mai Tuyet sat cross legged acros from the old Abbot while around her incense burned and the small altar and pictures for Buddhist meditation were iluminated by the flickering candles.
The Abbot breathed in heavily, inhaling the sweet smelling incense.

"You know you must do what you feel is right my Child, follow your heart and stay true to your belief and we may yet servive this crises."

Yen Mai hung her head.

"I know Father, but what I am I to do if what I choose is wrong and we all suffer for it?"

The Abbot gave her a stern look.

"We all have to take responsability for our actions, much more so in your position of great power."

The Prime Minister sighed, her choice was difficult and both choices would have possibly terrifying consequences. Staring into the guttering flames of the firelight she knew what she must do. Some time passed.

"I know what I must do Father, and I will do it now."

The Abbot smiled warmly.

"Good, desciveness is always best after making a difficult descision, I only hope the choice you have made is the right one, for if it is not, the we if not the whole world will be doomed because of it."

Yen Mai grimaced at this as she rose and went for the door. Gracefully the Abbot got up in a single motion and followed her. After going into the Waiting room she turned to the old man.

"I have enjoyed our talk Father and look forward to when we will be able to talk again."

The Abbot smiled.

"As do I my Child and I can only hope that the world is in a better state when we do next talk."

With that he stode down the hall where two waiting monk were to escort him back the monastery.
President Sunan scolwed at his retreating shape.

"Care to tell me what that was all about Yen Mai?"

The Prime Minister sighed again.

"Not now Phirun, but in good time." She turned to an aid "Get the news crews and and put them in the conference room, I need to make a very important announcement."

The President did a double take.

"You can't do that! We will be ruined, everything will be ruined!"

Yen Mai Whipped round.

"I can and I will Phirun, this is the only way."

The President gave an angry shout and stormed out of the room. Leaving his Prime Minister alone in the room. She quickly composed herself for her coming task and the ineveitable bombardment that would follow.




The Conference room's simple wood panels and white washed walls were lit up harshly by the litghs for the television cameras. Stepping onto the podium and into their glare Yen Mai felt like her final judgement had come, her small frame was seemingly engulfed by the silence as the people gathered in the room waited for her to speak.

"Lately the world in which we live has become an increasingly tense and hostile place due the actions of several nations We are building inevietably to a point where we will also suffer equally no matter our colour, creed or nationality.
I have decided that it has to stop and that there is only one way to achieve this. The truth must be told.
There have been accusations against some of our allies and friends that have been meddling with the afairs of other nations, more specifically Russia.
Such accusations are grave and serious and I can tell you now, false.

The accusations against our great allies such as China are false because they are directed at the wrong party. It has in fact been Indochina behind the rise of the Siberian Sepratists.
We have since 1956 supplied them with funds to mount the political campaign fo independance and recently their guerilla campaign against the Russian governement.
In hindsight such actions should never have been taken and I can tell you know they were carried out on my explicit orders.
I come before you today to apologize to the people of the world, the people of Indochina and most especially to the people of Russia who have been most affected by this situation. I also take complete and sole responsibility for the acts carried out under my command.
I stress that our Allies in China though they had knowledge of our activities had nothing to do with it. Their scape goating by the Americans and their allies is despicable but no more despicable than the acts that Indochina has carried out.
Once again I completely give my apologies to the Russian people whom I have harmed and my own people and country which I have failed.
I am fully prepared to accept the consequences of my actions and as of this moment the Armed forces are undergoing a complete stand down to normal alertness.

I also apeal to the UN to through out the resolution to censure China as it can be proven that they are not responsible. It would be crime worse than the ones I have commited to punish them for what they have not done.

Thank you and good evening."

With that Prime Minister Yen Mai Tuyet stepped off the podium and retreated through a door, leaving her audiance in the onference room and nationwide in silence.


Meanwhile a general stand down order is issued to all units of the armed forces, the battlegroup in the Bearing sea is ordered to hold position for the time being but not to do anything else unless explicitly ordered.

The SU votes against.

OOC: So would Turkey and Kashgaria, likely Belarus would abstain as their stuck in the middle.

Upon hearing of the USEA admission of culpability in the Siberian crisis, the South African ambassador to the UN calls for an immediate end to voting on the US resolution censuring China and the Scandic Union, in the hopes of easing tensions between the various nations involved.

"The Scandic Union would like to see action taken against both America and Russia for lying to the world and actively falsifying evidence against both the SU and China in an attempt to agrravate the world situation in such a way the world opinion would be turned against both the SU and China. Such a thing is unheard of and is disgusting, especially coming from such a nation as America."

"The Scandic Union would like to see action taken against both America and Russia for lying to the world and actively falsifying evidence against both the SU and China in an attempt to agrravate the world situation in such a way the world opinion would be turned against both the SU and China. Such a thing is unheard of and is disgusting, especially coming from such a nation as America."

Japan agrees with the SU ambassador. These actions by the U.S and Russia were warrantless and only served to create more tension

Japan agrees with the SU ambassador. These actions by the U.S and Russia were warrantless and only served to create more tension

Ambassador Stevenson chuckles, "Apparently recordings and photographs are falsehoods then?" He asks the Japanese pointedly.

Ambassador Stevenson chuckles, "Apparently recordings and photographs are falsehoods then?" He asks the Japanese pointedly.

The Indochinese representative rather humbly points out that the recordings and photographs were most likely of IIA agents of various nationalities.

The Indochinese representative rather humbly points out that the recordings and photographs were most likely of IIA agents of various nationalities.

Stevenson points out that a number of those photographs and recordings were taken by Alliance aircraft and spacecraft. Which can easily be confirmed by other nations with spacecraft.

Stevenson points out that a number of those photographs and recordings were taken by Alliance aircraft and spacecraft. Which can easily be confirmed by other nations with spacecraft.

The representatives smiles weakly and says that maybe Stevenson has misunderstood him, the subject matter of the recordings and photographs are most likely of IIA agents involved in the Siberian debacle.

Ambassador Stevenson chuckles, "Apparently recordings and photographs are falsehoods then?" He asks the Japanese pointedly.

"We are not doubting that you have the pictures, however illegally. We are merely pointing out that you may have blamed the wrong people for this situation

Ambassador Stevenson chuckles, "Apparently recordings and photographs are falsehoods then?" He asks the Japanese pointedly.

"Obviously so, as there have been absolutely no dealings between the Scandic government and any Siberian seperatists. For a nation of your size and with your technological achievements it doesn't suprise me that you have the ability to falsify such things."

Ambassador Stevenson chuckles, "Apparently recordings and photographs are falsehoods then?" He asks the Japanese pointedly.

These photographs and recordings will clearly show that Chinese forces have *NOT* moved from the general area of Harbin or Ulaanbaatar in the past decade. There are no Chinese forces moving towards Siberia, and there are no Chinese mercenaries, soldiers, or weapons in Siberia.

Russia withdraws from the censure statements.

EDIT: Belarus doesnt exist for three more months. I posted that early, and before time slowed.

The US will withdraw censure motions for China and not offer them against the SCT.

However, it condemns harshly flagrant Scandic Union intrusions on Russian air space.

ooc
I can't imagine Armenia would be very happy either.

The Scandic Union must make note of the fact that American aircraft have been violating Scandic airspace for weeks, Scandic Migs crossed into Russian airspace only for a day. It is America who is escalating this conflict, in fact the Scandic Union has stepped down its conventional ground forces to Defcon 3.


OOC: Way to steal my word, flagrant

The Ukraine votes against censure measures against China, vehemently.

The Scandic Union must make note of the fact that American aircraft have been violating Scandic airspace for weeks, Scandic Migs crossed into Russian airspace only for a day. It is America who is escalating this conflict, in fact the Scandic Union has stepped down its conventional ground forces to Defcon 3.

Proof? After all if American Planes were in international territory that does not qualify a violation of airspace.

China wants to know what exactly constitutes where international airspace meets up with national airspace. Is the airspace "border" 10 kilometers from a nation? 20 kilometers? 50 kilometers?

Also, do the airspace over land correspond directly with land borders down to the exact centimeter?

Also, do the airspace over land correspond directly with land borders down to the exact centimeter?

yes and international airspace is the same as international waters

yes and international airspace is the same as international waters

China would like to know how far the international waters and airspace extends from a nation's coastline.

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

OOC:

I forgot whether we made a UN resolution about international waters *OR* airspace earlier or if we haven't done so yet.

Proof? After all if American Planes were in international territory that does not qualify a violation of airspace.

Radar depicting various American aircraft clearly crossing over into Scandic airspace is presented to the French representative and the rest of the U.N.

OOC: GB posted his planes doing so on one of the first pages of the Siberia thread.

IC:The SU would like to know why, after it has been proven we did not support the seperatists, even though we do heavily sympathize with them, does it seem like America and the OA are still trying to antagonize the SU? China got an apology for the CIA"s mistake but the SU didn't, instead the American ambassador demanded an apology fronm us for his mistake? And Even though we began demoblizing over a week ago(From 4 to 3 last week in game, 3 to 2 this week) America has not taken one step down, instead furthering deployments in such a way as to threaten the SU. American bombers and intelligence aircraft continue to violate Scandic airspace, and their interceptors routinly harras our planes over international waters, many times over our own oil rigs in the North Sea.(At this point radar evidence is presented to prove the claim)

From: Bulgaria's Ambassador to the UN Stefan Kloresev
To: The Balance of the Delegates of the United Nations.

The Kingdom has started another drive with the help of the International Red Cross to help those who were drawn into the Congo conflict and the latest set of conflicts in Russia and nearby lands... The Kingdom would now ask the relief organizations of the UN to do the same to maintain and improve the way of life for the innocent civilians of these nations involved. I am sorry about the way things have gone in the last few weeks... My heart is heavy and overburdened after my predecessor's death and my "coronation".

Note: The Funeral Service will be in Dublin for my predecessor and every nation is welcome to send condolescences and the like. The service would be on August 28, 1961 at 11 hours Dublin time...

From: Bulgaria's Ambassador to the UN Stefan Kloresev
To: The Balance of the Delegates of the United Nations.

The Kingdom has started another drive with the help of the International Red Cross to help those who were drawn into the Congo conflict and the latest set of conflicts in Russia and nearby lands... The Kingdom would now ask the relief organizations of the UN to do the same to maintain and improve the way of life for the innocent civilians of these nations involved. I am sorry about the way things have gone in the last few weeks... My heart is heavy and overburdened after my predecessor's death and my "coronation".

Note: The Funeral Service will be in Dublin for my predecessor and every nation is welcome to send condolescences and the like. The service would be on August 28, 1961 at 11 hours Dublin time...

China will support such a UN relief effort.

China will also send a representative to the Bulgarian funeral, probably either Prime Minister Chiang Kai Shek, or the venerable ambassador, Song Jiaoren.

Radar depicting various American aircraft clearly crossing over into Scandic airspace is presented to the French representative and the rest of the U.N.

OOC: GB posted his planes doing so on one of the first pages of the Siberia thread.

IC:The SU would like to know why, after it has been proven we did not support the seperatists, even though we do heavily sympathize with them, does it seem like America and the OA are still trying to antagonize the SU? China got an apology for the CIA"s mistake but the SU didn't, instead the American ambassador demanded an apology fronm us for his mistake? And Even though we began demoblizing over a week ago(From 4 to 3 last week in game, 3 to 2 this week) America has not taken one step down, instead furthering deployments in such a way as to threaten the SU. American bombers and intelligence aircraft continue to violate Scandic airspace, and their interceptors routinly harras our planes over international waters, many times over our own oil rigs in the North Sea.(At this point radar evidence is presented to prove the claim)

OOC: I cannot seem to find any posts by GB for this. However, There is a situation where US aircraft was shot upon in roughly international area on August 21st while SU aircraft violated Russian airspace. Then there is that unfortunate collision incident over the atlantic but since it was in international waters it should be considered an unfortunate accident.

OOC: I cannot seem to find any posts by GB for this. However, There is a situation where US aircraft was shot upon in roughly international area on August 21st while SU aircraft violated Russian airspace. Then there is that unfortunate collision incident over the atlantic but since it was in international waters it should be considered an unfortunate accident.

Here...

The US Navy shifts forces around:

(snip)

US RC135 Rivet Joint aircraft operating out of Alaska, Siberia, Iceland, Morocco and Diego Garcia keep close tabs on the periphery of the SCT and CSPS while SR71 flights are also conducted just outside (and sometimes inside) the airspaces of those nations (usually just long enough to activate defense radars but not long enough for an intercept at Mach 4)

Alliance commercial shipping is ordered to leave SCT and CSPS waters for the duration of the crisis. Further economic pressure is also considered.

Note the bold + underline emphasis = mine.

This post can be found here...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11092883&postcount=35

Here...



Note the bold + underline emphasis = mine.

This post can be found here...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11092883&postcount=35

Oh, my mistake.

Radar depicting various American aircraft clearly crossing over into Scandic airspace is presented to the French representative and the rest of the U.N.

OOC: GB posted his planes doing so on one of the first pages of the Siberia thread.

IC:The SU would like to know why, after it has been proven we did not support the seperatists, even though we do heavily sympathize with them, does it seem like America and the OA are still trying to antagonize the SU? China got an apology for the CIA"s mistake but the SU didn't, instead the American ambassador demanded an apology fronm us for his mistake? And Even though we began demoblizing over a week ago(From 4 to 3 last week in game, 3 to 2 this week) America has not taken one step down, instead furthering deployments in such a way as to threaten the SU. American bombers and intelligence aircraft continue to violate Scandic airspace, and their interceptors routinly harras our planes over international waters, many times over our own oil rigs in the North Sea.(At this point radar evidence is presented to prove the claim)


ooc
its doubtful you got good radar fixes on a SR71, its a semi stealth aircraft. However, it does have a rather impressive heat signature, so photographs of that are very likely. Problem is, that they will be vague as to location (perspective issues dealing with a very high altiutude aircraft moving at mach 4 as there isn't anything to compare it too except black sky (60,000 feet is nearly in space after all)

IC
The US denies violating Scandic airspace, but does admit to keeping a very close eye on the Scandic Union, which evidence indicates at least one of its submarines fired upon a British submarine.

The US does point out that its nuclear forces have returned to a lower state of readiness, and if the Scandic Union will withdraw its forces that it recently sent to the Ukraine, the US will return to Defcon 2 (lowering the level of tension).

Satellite photos of Scandic Union Migs in the Ukraine are provided.

ooc
incidently, the RC135 that was shot at was in international waters (generally considered beyond the 12 mile limit under the treaty). The RC135 is just a converted airliner (a Boeing 707) and radar data on it would indeed show it to be in international airspace.

OOC:So the proof presented by the SU does not prove anything

OOC: Might not prove anything, don't know how good of a radar image it would be on a SR71, but I didn't make it up thats for sure as Sharina pointed out.

OOC: Might not prove anything, don't know how good of a radar image it would be on a SR71, but I didn't make it up thats for sure as Sharina pointed out.

ooc
I never said you did, just IC wise, the US firmly refused to confirm or deny (standard real world US practice on intelligence operations)

*Watches the precedings.*

Major-General Richard Davies, commanding the British 3rd Division and coordinator of the Commonwealth peacekeepers, in Rwanda draws the UN's attention to his earlier message regarding the trials of genocide suspects currently held by his forces.

The Rwandan Crisis yields several thick reports on genocide offences, several suspected war criminals being in his custody the British commander asks for confirmation to fly them to the Hague to begin war crimes trials. He also enquires into additional officials to look into war crimes cases in Rwanda and also the refugees flooding into neighbouring countries. The refugee situation seems to be adequately covered at the moment with many tons of supplies being flown in daily and proper refugee camps coping with the current numbers.

South Africa offers to open refugee camps in Northern Rhodesia, to supplement those already run by the UN in other nations.

Major-General Richard Davies, commanding the British 3rd Division and coordinator of the Commonwealth peacekeepers, in Rwanda draws the UN's attention to his earlier message regarding the trials of genocide suspects currently held by his forces.

China asks the UK this.

"What do you want the UN to do about the Rwandan crisis, and what steps does the UK think the UN nations should take besides war tribunals (as it is a given)?"

The Belgian Congo, with US assistance, is already providing airlift support to UN Refugee agencies and non governmental refugee agencies operating on the Rwandan Border.

China can contribute food to the relief effort, as we are more than capable of feeding tens of millions of additional mouths.

The refugee crisis is fairly stable at the present time thanks to large camps in very cooperative neighbours and foreign/UN assistance in running camps and supplying aid. However getting aid to Rwanda itself is proving a difficult process with few roads and only one railway line in operation. With occasional violence closing one or more of these routes from time to time. Regular patrols and escorts from the peacekeepers keeping these occurances to a minimum.

The military situation is in hand and the civil airport has been repaired, but is mainly being used to resupply the peacekeeping forces, with any patches of flat ground being used as makeshift helicopter/STOL landing areas. If possible the Commonwealth forces request aid in the form of low bulk foods (especially tins and ration packs) and water purification tablets.

The rebuilding program is also scheduled to begin and UN assistance in providing engineers and materials to construct emergency shelters, sanitation systems, fresh water supplies, electricity and other services would be more than welcome. Medical provisions are also welcomed as many of the government run hospitals are still operational but running low on many essentials (including medical personnel, many of whom fled from the violence which was directed against high income groups as well as different ethnic groupings).

OOC: Rebuilding will probably be quite costly bearing in mind that pre-crisis Rwanda had a sizeable tourist industry and provided Level V social services for its people. Meaning a lot of service facilities to rebuild and government buildings to reconstruct.

ooc
I never said you did, just IC wise, the US firmly refused to confirm or deny (standard real world US practice on intelligence operations)

OOC: I know you didn't, that was for Abbassia, his ooc post sounded like he thought I did.

Currently the UIP wishes to ask what is being done to prevent the current crisis in Rwanda, rather than just helping those who are capable of fleeing. If a note of Genocide is being practiced, do we not have some obligation here?

OOC: Rebuilding will probably be quite costly bearing in mind that pre-crisis Rwanda had a sizeable tourist industry and provided Level V social services for its people. Meaning a lot of service facilities to rebuild and government buildings to reconstruct.

South Africa will send food and medical supplies, and is willing to shoulder some of the cost of reconstruction. In addition, it is suggested that once the crisis is resolved, a peacekeeping force of Commonwealth troops be maintained in Rwanda for a few years at least, in order to prevent another such tragedy from occuring.

EDIT: As of 1 January, 1962, Ambassador Nicolaas Diedierchs shall be replaced by Jeremiah Sithembile, a Zulu from Pietermartizburg, as South Africa's ambassador to the UN.

China can contribute food to the relief effort, as we are more than capable of feeding tens of millions of additional mouths.

Just a bump to describe Chinese contribution to Rwanda. China is also willing to send medical aid as well as we have excellent medicine that dates back for thousands of years (anpuncture, herbal medicine, and others as well as more modern medicine and supplies)

Russia can provide any necessary fuel to maintain peacekeepers or begin reconstruction. (OOC: 7 oil, 10 coal, 10 gas to spare)

However, on the issue of war crimes trials, what would be done with those convicted? Returning them to the nation in question may be appropriate in this situation, but returning criminals to a friendly nation, who may pardon them, is not something we should do. Any trials we conduct will set precedents for the future, thus we must establish a set of guidelines. We should pick a small number of nations designated to hold UN prisoners. We would propose Australia, Korea, Nigeria, the FNS, Canada, and Burgundy, unless the court decides to relocate to another nation for whatever reason. To avoid controversy, perhaps the court should be banned from delivering the death penalty.

(OOC: tried to pick non-controversial nations, but feel free to edit that list.)

The US suggests Ethiopia or Liberia.

(both are NPC countries)

Japan offers its country to hold prisoners if the UN wishes

Currently the UIP wishes to ask what is being done to prevent the current crisis in Rwanda, rather than just helping those who are capable of fleeing. If a note of Genocide is being practiced, do we not have some obligation here?

Rwanda is currently being policed by several divisions of troops from Commonwealth nations (largely neighbouring African nations) with logistical support from several other nations (USA, Germany, France, a few others). The peacekeeeping is under the command of a British general and regular helicopter flights provide airborne support and transport across the heavy terrain of the nation.

Most cases of genocide to be brought before the courts will be from teh period prior to or during the occupation. Few cases of genocide occur now as the entire nation has been brought under control by several divisions of troops based around the country. Occasional attacks are made against the troops who are seen as foreign invaders interfering in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation, though many Rwandans can see the need for such measures in the light of the number of Rwandan Hutu extremists. The use of native African troops also helps to relieve the situation somewhat with similar tribal customs and values linking the peacekeepers to the locals.

Efforts will be made to start the process of building up a parliamentary system from scratch for Rwanda, with constituencies being drawn up and voter registration taking place in view of having a democratic system of rule in effect with a couple of years. Though Major-General Davies would rather ensure the safety of the people through the elimination of remaining Hutu activists prior to the start of this process.

Russia can provide any necessary fuel to maintain peacekeepers or begin reconstruction. (OOC: 7 oil, 10 coal, 10 gas to spare)

However, on the issue of war crimes trials, what would be done with those convicted? Returning them to the nation in question may be appropriate in this situation, but returning criminals to a friendly nation, who may pardon them, is not something we should do. Any trials we conduct will set precedents for the future, thus we must establish a set of guidelines. We should pick a small number of nations designated to hold UN prisoners. We would propose Australia, Korea, Nigeria, the FNS, Canada, and Burgundy, unless the court decides to relocate to another nation for whatever reason. To avoid controversy, perhaps the court should be banned from delivering the death penalty.

(OOC: tried to pick non-controversial nations, but feel free to edit that list.)

ooc: I DO have a history as a penal colony... :)

IC: the Australian government would be willing to do this if it is requested of them by the international community, but isnt going to volunteer for it otherwise.

However, on the issue of war crimes trials, what would be done with those convicted? Returning them to the nation in question may be appropriate in this situation, but returning criminals to a friendly nation, who may pardon them, is not something we should do. Any trials we conduct will set precedents for the future, thus we must establish a set of guidelines. We should pick a small number of nations designated to hold UN prisoners. We would propose Australia, Korea, Nigeria, the FNS, Canada, and Burgundy, unless the court decides to relocate to another nation for whatever reason. To avoid controversy, perhaps the court should be banned from delivering the death penalty.

Saddam should be taking control of the Arab Federation soon. I can almost promise they'll never commit a crime when (if) they get out of there. :D

OOC: But seriously, southern Arabia would be a perfect place for the UN prision. You wouldn't even need expensive security. If the prisioners want to live, they'll stay in the prision. Escape would be suicide.

Saddam should be taking control of the Arab Federation soon. I can almost promise they'll never commit a crime when (if) they get out of there. :D

OOC: But seriously, southern Arabia would be a perfect place for the UN prision. You wouldn't even need expensive security. If the prisioners want to live, they'll stay in the prision. Escape would be suicide.

Or build a prison in Antarctica or in outer space.

Outer space is too impractical. Siberia would work if USEA funded terrorists weren't running all over the place.

We would propose Australia, Korea, Nigeria, the FNS, Canada, and Burgundy, unless the court decides to relocate to another nation for whatever reason. To avoid controversy, perhaps the court should be banned from delivering the death penalty.

(OOC: tried to pick non-controversial nations, but feel free to edit that list.)

Korea has experience holding war criminals and other controversial military figures; we technically still have some Rebels from the Civil War serving life sentences. So, we'd be willing to take them in.

China puts forth a resolution to be voted upon by the various nations of the UN. The Resolution is called "Barring Nuclear First Strikes".

The Resolution calls for the following points.

1. A nation may not launch a first strike with nuclear weapons unless the nation in question has been attacked by nuclear weapons. Once a nation has been attacked first by nuclear weapons, such as an ICBM missile with a nuclear warhead originating from the offending nation, then the victim nation shall be allowed to return fire with its own nuclear weapons without penalty.

2. A nation that launches a first strike with nuclear weapons is to be removed from the United Nations. If the nation has any UN responibilities such as Security Council, General Assembly, or such, these responibilities are to be stripped from the offending nation.

3. Severe economic sanctions are to be placed on the nation that launched the first strike with nuclear weapons. Sanctions include resources, minerals, consumer goods, and essentially all economic activity and trade.

It is hoped that this resolution will discourage nations from initating devastating first strikes with nuclear weapons aganist other nations. This resolution also hopes to save millions of potential lives that would be lost otherwise.

The United States informs China that the only time it would use nuclear weapons first is if it, or a nation it is allied with, is invaded and nuclear weapons were necessary to offset a sizeable numerical inferiority.

OR

If the United States felt that it was likely to be attacked by nuclear weapons and a first strike was necessary to prevent such an attack.

Therefore, the US will not vote for this resolution, and urges its allies to vote likewise.

The United States feels that previous resolutions and the UN Charter adequately provides for the full force of international law if an unjustified nuclear strike is carried out.

France Abstains, echoing that UN Charter adequately provides for the full force of international law if an unjustified nuclear strike is carried out.

China points out to the US and France that the Oceanic Alliance, of which the United States and France are members of, has more than plenty of resources and manpower to defend aganist a conventional invasion, therefore the use of nuclear weapons in such a situation as the US stated would not be necessary. So if an anti-OA force decides to invade France, then France and the rest of the OA does not require nuclear weapon as American, French, British, Canadian, FNS, etc. troops can easily rescue France from the invaders. Evidence of this is proved by the enormous LTA successes during WW-2 and WW-3 in "liberating" France.

China also presents two scenarios.

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

Scenario #1:

Nation A and Nation B possesses nuclear weapons.

Nation A decides to strike Nation B first with nuclear weapons, even though Nation B has pledged never to use nuclear weapons in a first strike, and clearly demostrates this by not having its [Nation B] nuclear forces on high alert after war is declared.

Nation A kills millions of innocent civilians (non-combatants) in the first strike, far more casaulties than an conventional invasion of Nation B would inflict upon Nation A's troops (all combatants).

Then Nation B has no other course of action but to launch its own nuclear arsenal aganist Nation A, inflicting complete destruction of Nation A's cities and population centers as well as any nuclear assets of Nation A.

Scenario #2:

Nation A has nuclear weapons. Nation B doesn't, but has a nuclear "umbrella" or allies with nuclear weapons.

Nation A attacks Nation B with nuclear weapons. Nation B has no means of striking back to avenge the millions of innocent civilians killed in a nuclear attack by Nation A.

However, Nation B's allies launch nuclear weapons at Nation A in retilation. Nation A is destroyed utterly as every one of its cities become burning and molten wrecks, with practically every living man, woman, and child dead from nuclear fire.

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

In both scenarios, even if the UN intervenes it is possibly a lost cause, because by then it will be too late to save the millions of civilians already killed by nuclear weapons, and a potential escalation of nuclear war erupts with multiple nations attacking each other with nuclear weapons through activation of alliance and mutual defense clauses.

A perfect nuclear first strike is not possible, given that all major alliance blocs have spy satellites and early warning systems. This will provide all the major alliance blocs ample time to prep their nuclear weapons and launch them aganist whoever launched the first strike nuclear weapons.

Therefore, China is making a serious attempt to prevent this destruction from occurring in the first place by making it illegal to use nuclear weapons in a first strike if the other side has not used nuclear weapons. In addition, this resolution will make nations think twice before employing nuclear weapons due to the severe economic sanctions and other UN action that may be taken. If this resolution saves a million lives that would otherwise be lost in a nuclear first strike, then this resolution would be worth more than its weight in gold.

Japan will vote for the resolution, as it feels no other previous UN resolution has gone far enough to prevent nations who do not posses nuclear weapons with getting hit by them

OOC: I'm guessing a lot of non-nuclear countries would vote for on this, cause they don't want to get hit by them

In relation to the argument presented, it is the UIP's thoughts that this resolution should be voted on as well. Simply put the UIP would like any use of nuclear power in a hostile manner made certifiablly illegal by the UN, but shall not push for such a thing at this time.

Japan will vote for the resolution, as it feels no other previous UN resolution has gone far enough to prevent nations who do not posses nuclear weapons with getting hit by them

OOC: I'm guessing a lot of non-nuclear countries would vote for on this, cause they don't want to get hit by them

The USEA also feverently supports this resolutuion.
(As will Burma)

China points out to the US and France that the Oceanic Alliance, of which the United States and France are members of, has more than plenty of resources and manpower to defend aganist a conventional invasion, therefore the use of nuclear weapons in such a situation as the US stated would not be necessary. So if an anti-OA force decides to invade France, then France and the rest of the OA does not require nuclear weapon as American, French, British, Canadian, FNS, etc. troops can easily rescue France from the invaders. Evidence of this is proved by the enormous LTA successes during WW-2 and WW-3 in "liberating" France.

However it is pointed out that there are many benifets to keeping the option open to act as a deterant and preventative for aggressive action in the first place and potentialy avoiding the casualties suffered in WW-2 and WW-3 by either ending the conflict quickly or preventing it in the first place.

Then Nation B has no other course of action but to launch its own nuclear arsenal aganist Nation A, inflicting complete destruction of Nation A's cities and population centers as well as any nuclear assets of Nation A.

Another choice can be to turn to the UN and seek help against the unjustified nuclear strike. as with scenario no.2.

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

In both scenarios, even if the UN intervenes it is possibly a lost cause, because by then it will be too late to save the millions of civilians already killed by nuclear weapons, and a potential escalation of nuclear war erupts with multiple nations attacking each other with nuclear weapons through activation of alliance and mutual defense clauses.

Therefore, China is making a serious attempt to prevent this destruction from occurring in the first place by making it illegal to use nuclear weapons in a first strike if the other side has not used nuclear weapons. In addition, this resolution will make nations think twice before employing nuclear weapons due to the severe economic sanctions and other UN action that may be taken. If this resolution saves a million lives that would otherwise be lost in a nuclear first strike, then this resolution would be worth more than its weight in gold

We feel that this resolution only reiterates the natural response and already exsisting international law when an unjustified nuclear attack is carried out upon a soverign state and does not actually *do* anything it persumes to do (as punishment would be only appropriate when a first strike is made and by then it would be too late and the resolution wouldn't have made a differanc) and would be only extra red tape.

However we honour the motives behind it, at least the noble ones, and would vote for a more effective resolution that would secure the goal intended. Perhaps a treaty of Nuclear non-prolifiration maybe feasible at this time? or perhaps a limitation on Mid-range nuclear weaponry?

Russia will vote against the treaty for the same reasons stressed by France. In addition, China's own "Scenario B" is made illegal by the treaty, severely deflating the treaty's value for members of defensive pacts.

Russia will vote against the treaty for the same reasons stressed by France. In addition, China's own "Scenario B" is made illegal by the treaty, severely deflating the treaty's value for members of defensive pacts.

The Chinese ambassador was showing 2 examples, and saying how this could help be prevented.

The United States again reaffirms that it will not sacrifice the deterrent effect of its military forces that provide it and its allies with security from attack.

In short, it will not support the Chinese Resolution and continues to campaign actively against it.

(When was the last Geneva convention in E20)

Germany proposes, instead, a Strategic Arms Limitation all across the globe. Even a small margin, such as 5% of such weapons would be a good start for eliminating the perils that go along with nuclear arms.

However it is pointed out that there are many benifets to keeping the option open to act as a deterant and preventative for aggressive action in the first place and potentialy avoiding the casualties suffered in WW-2 and WW-3 by either ending the conflict quickly or preventing it in the first place.

China points out that keeping the option open for a nuclear first strike will make matters WORSE instead of better. If a nuclear first strike is initated, then all bets are off as the victim nation will retaliate with its own nuclear weapons, and a nuclear war erupts, killing everything. Compare that to the amounts of people who survived in the world wars before nuclear weapons.

Take WW-2 for example. Roughly 20 million people died as casaulties without nuclear weapons. However, if nations did possess nuclear technology back then, the casaulties would have easily broken 100 million as major urban centers are destroyed in nuclear first strikes- suppose the Allies vaporizes Berlin, Moscow, Hamburg, Kiev, Warsaw, etc. in WW-2, killing millions of civilians, then the Union returns nuclear fire, vaporizing all Allied cities, killing even millions more.

Another choice can be to turn to the UN and seek help against the unjustified nuclear strike. as with scenario no.2.

The UN cannot help those nations that already initated a nuclear attack and the victim nation, put simply, because its too late to do so. By that point, everything in Nation A and B will be destroyed by the nuclear exchange. China is seeking to establish a resolution that will allow the UN to act before any nuclear strike is initated by making the nations who desire to initate a nuclear strike think twice before doing so through consideration of the consquences in the UN before doing the nuclear strike.

We feel that this resolution only reiterates the natural response and already exsisting international law when an unjustified nuclear attack is carried out upon a soverign state and does not actually *do* anything it persumes to do (as punishment would be only appropriate when a first strike is made and by then it would be too late and the resolution wouldn't have made a differanc) and would be only extra red tape.

Not necessarily.

This resolution seeks to make the various nuclear-owning nations think twice BEFORE initating their nuclear wars. This is mainly a preventative resolution based in "fear of severe punishment should the illegal action take place".

However we honour the motives behind it, at least the noble ones, and would vote for a more effective resolution that would secure the goal intended. Perhaps a treaty of Nuclear non-prolifiration maybe feasible at this time? or perhaps a limitation on Mid-range nuclear weaponry?

It does not look like the United States will support any treaty involving nuclear weapons, as they are too afraid to take that leap of faith.

On the other hand, China is fully willing to pursure various resolutions and treaties concerning reduction, elimination, and preventation of nuclear weaponary. In fact it was China who never raised its nuclear forces beyond Defcon 2 in the Siberian Crisis, while the United States raised its nuclear forces to Defcon 4.

This should say something about China's and the US's intentions with nuclear weapons.

Russia will vote against the treaty for the same reasons stressed by France. In addition, China's own "Scenario B" is made illegal by the treaty, severely deflating the treaty's value for members of defensive pacts.

China addresses the Russian by highlighting the clause in the resolution...

1. A nation may not launch a first strike with nuclear weapons unless the nation in question has been attacked by nuclear weapons. Once a nation has been attacked first by nuclear weapons, such as an ICBM missile with a nuclear warhead originating from the offending nation, then the victim nation shall be allowed to return fire with its own nuclear weapons without penalty.

This can be amended to allow for Nation B's allies to counterattack Nation A with nuclear weapons should Nation B not possess any in lieu of Nation B itself returning nuclear exchange.

It is our belief that seeing your nation's major cities destroyed in a nuclear counter-attack is reason enough to think twice before launching a nuclear strike. Most nations in areas of conflict are members of a defensive pact that includes one or more nuclear-armed nations. Even those smaller nations that are not in a pact, like the new nations in Africa, are protected under the Truman Doctrine. A nuclear counter-attack will do more damage than all the sanctions the UN can muster.

Perhaps if the SCT was not so aggressive in its foreign policies it would not have to worry about the threat of nuclear retalitation.

The UIP takes offense to such accusations. We have never been an invading force, nor have we been a major agressor with anyone. To implicate the SCT as an aggressive unit is to state that all it's members act as such. The UIP therefore finds that it is being accused by Germany of aggression as much as any other SCT. We request that the German representative re-word his statement.

Parthini']Perhaps if the SCT was not so aggressive in its foreign policies it would not have to worry about the threat of nuclear retalitation.

That won a chuckle out of the Scandic ambassador, the Germans calling someone else aggressive.

The Scandic Union will vote for this resolution.

OOC: I'd assume the Turkics would to, none of them want to be on the recieving end of Egyptian nukes.

The United States again reaffirms that it will not sacrifice the deterrent effect of its military forces that provide it and its allies with security from attack.

In short, it will not support the Chinese Resolution and continues to campaign actively against it.

China once again explains to the US about the treaty.

1. The US and its allies has some of the world's most advanced conventional weapons.

2. The US has plenty of allies to support it should the US ever get invaded. Allies include most of Europe, practically the entirety of South America, Australia, and Russia. The manpower and forces these allies provide would be more than enough to push back any invasion of US soil back into the sea.

3. The same holds true for US allies. They can count on the US's technology, manpower, and industrial power to help them repulse invasions. In fact, the United States is apparently third most populous nation in the world after China and India.

4. If the nation in question has no nuclear technology, or it has already pledged and demostrated its willingness NOT to use nuclear weapons, there is no need for nuclear deterrant as the nation in question will not initate a first strike on the US or its allies, thereby eliminating one of the major reasons for initating a first strike of their own.

5. First strikes will not destroy the opposing nation's nuclear weapons before these nuclear weapons (of the opposition) are already launched in retaliation, thanks to spy satellites, radar networks, and early warning giving the victim nation ample time to detect such missile launches from the aggressor nation, and immediately launch theirs [victim nation].

Parthini']Perhaps if the SCT was not so aggressive in its foreign policies it would not have to worry about the threat of nuclear retalitation.
OOC:
It is not nice to paint everyone with the same brush..... your making the Burmese rice growers upset. :p

It is our belief that seeing your nation's major cities destroyed in a nuclear counter-attack is reason enough to think twice before launching a nuclear strike. Most nations in areas of conflict are members of a defensive pact that includes one or more nuclear-armed nations. Even those smaller nations that are not in a pact, like the new nations in Africa, are protected under the Truman Doctrine. A nuclear counter-attack will do more damage than all the sanctions the UN can muster.

Except that this resolution attempts to prevent the first strike from occurring in the first place, thereby NOT NECESSITATING a counter-strike with nuclear weapons that will destroy civilization.

That won a chuckle out of the Scandic ambassador, the Germans calling someone else aggressive.

The Scandic Union will vote for this resolution.

OOC: I'd assume the Turkics would to, none of them want to be on the recieving end of Egyptian nukes.

OOC: I would too, especially if the SU voted so.

IC: The German Ambassador sardonically grinned at the Scandic Rep and then sent him a note.

"It seems we are starting to ring a cord. A chuckle instead of an insult! By God I might think you are civilized!"

Well that certaintly didn't go well. Germany and the rest of the world still saw the Philippines as some backwater nation. Was it any wonder that the SCT was becoming so popular in the UIP populace. The Chinese, Japanese, and the rest treat them with a form of respect that the Germans, and even the USA were seeming to lack now.

"The UIP simply supports the resolution."

Well that certaintly didn't go well. Germany and the rest of the world still saw the Philippines as some backwater nation. Was it any wonder that the SCT was becoming so popular in the UIP populace. The Chinese, Japanese, and the rest treat them with a form of respect that the Germans, and even the USA were seeming to lack now.

"The UIP simply supports the resolution."

OOC: I'm nice to no one! I gotta keep my street cred up...

Pakistan votes whole-heartedly for this resolution. In the last Great War, our nation lost 40 million people to WMDs, and included in those WMDs were nuclear warheads, dropped on the heavily-populated city of Bombay, killing hundreds of thousands. Those 40 million died due to Washington and Warsaw dragging the rest of the world down with them, and we will not stand by and let America drag the world down once more. Pakistan frankly sees that any nation that does not support this resolution has one thing in mind; that they wish to initiate a nuclear war themselves. Why else would someone oppose a resolution so simple and worthy? It punishes those who begin a nuclear attack, and allows the affected party to respond in kind with the backing of the international community.

Please note that France is not against the resolution but is currenly abstaining from voting, also the possibility of the limitation of nuclear prolifiration is asked about in private.

The United States points out to China that a member state of the SCT did commit a military act of aggression against the Russian Federation, and only a military alert and clear threat of war ended that action, along with acceptance of responsibility by the nation in question.

The United States also points out that the Truman Doctrine, as it is called, states that the United States will use whatever weapons are necessary against nations that use weapons of mass destruction such as chemical, biological or nuclear weapons unprovoked.

However, the United States is not willing to wait until such weapons are actually used if bombers are in the air, missiles have been fueled, and other clear and obvious measures are being taken toward initiating an attack against the US or its allies have been made and a clear and obvious intent to use those weapons exists.

Nor is it willing to allow an allied state to be invaded, particularly by powers that have much larger conventional forces, and probably face conquest when the United States does have the military force to end such an invasion and prevent reoccurence

Deterrence is about ensuring that a would be aggressor against the nations that are allies of the United States remain convinced that the US will use whatever weapons are necessary to defend either itself or its allies.

In order to prevent aggression to begin with.

As to Pakistans continued ignorance of the true events of the Third Great War, the United States reminds the Pakistanis that if they had not entered the war on their own choosing it is unlikely that the Union would have launched nuclear and biological weapons strikes against them.

At least the Chinese were true victims of aggression, and the US doesn't remember China blaming the US for helping China destroy the Union and bring about a measure of security.

On that note, the UIP requests that no nuclear weapons be used on the UIP to throw an invader off. Though appreciated the UIP does not wish to have any nuclear detinations over it's skies.

And with the continued threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, the UIP questions whether such weapons should be banned from being made in the first place. For an organization like the UN to not completely restrict any biological, chemical, or nuclear agents being created, it raises a major question. Maybe the true discussion should not be a dterrent, as we know that some loose cannons will not care how much we deter them, but to prevent anyone from having these kinds of weapons in the first place. Conventional war is deadly enough, do we need to have any of these other weapons?

On that note, the UIP requests that no nuclear weapons be used on the UIP to throw an invader off. Though appreciated the UIP does not wish to have any nuclear detinations over it's skies.

And with the continued threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, the UIP questions whether such weapons should be banned from being made in the first place. For an organization like the UN to not completely restrict any biological, chemical, or nuclear agents being created, it raises a major question. Maybe the true discussion should not be a dterrent, as we know that some loose cannons will not care how much we deter them, but to prevent anyone from having these kinds of weapons in the first place. Conventional war is deadly enough, do we need to have any of these other weapons?

ooc
there is a chemical and biological weapons ban, especially since both were used in the Third Great War. Nonetheless, someone may have biological weapons as far as the players know (its certainly possible to make them) and definitely its known that chemical weapons are held in stockpiles by various nations.

The United States points out to China that a member state of the SCT did commit a military act of aggression against the Russian Federation, and only a military alert and clear threat of war ended that action, along with acceptance of responsibility by the nation in question.

China counters.

China did not mobilize its military at all during the Siberian Crisis, nor mobilized its nuclear forces. China only raised the conventional and nuclear forces to Defcon 2, whereas the majority of the OA began mobilizing for war.

China was not mobilizing, despite the fact that prior to the USEA's admittance of guilt it was believed that China was responsible for the situation in Siberia.

The United States also points out that the Truman Doctrine, as it is called, states that the United States will use whatever weapons are necessary against nations that use weapons of mass destruction such as chemical, biological or nuclear weapons unprovoked.

China understands that, and is not opposed to the United States using nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as long as the United States is the victim of a first strike with these weapons of mass destruction.

However, the United States is not willing to wait until such weapons are actually used if bombers are in the air, missiles have been fueled, and other clear and obvious measures are being taken toward initiating an attack against the US or its allies have been made and a clear and obvious intent to use those weapons exists.

What if the bombers are merely carrying conventional bombs?

What if the missiles are conventional warheads?

Besides, once the missiles are being fueled, a first strike wouldn't do anything because in the time American missiles themselves are fueled and launched at the targets, these missiles would have already left their silos and hit American soil.

As for the threats, China doubts the SCT or allied states would threaten "We will attack the United States with nuclear weapons". For one thing, China has repeatedly made it clear that it will not launch its nuclear weapons until it is a victim of a nuclear first strike.

China is not the "Shoot first, ask questions later" type. In fact, we are the "Ask questions first, shoot later" type.

Nor is it willing to allow an allied state to be invaded, particularly by powers that have much larger conventional forces, and probably face conquest when the United States does have the military force to end such an invasion and prevent reoccurence

Take France in WW-2 and WW-3 for example.

The US and its allies were able to liberate it from the Union, of which had a clear numerical superiority in military personnel and equipment before any nuclear weapons were used.

In addition, Europe is pretty more or less united now with various nations entering the Oceanic Alliance. The only exception is the CSPS alliance, but the EEC (European alliance) is roughly equal with the CSPS in terms of power, without any non-European allies like the US or FNS aid. Thus, the "massively larger conventional forces" argument doesn't hold water here.

Deterrence is about ensuring that a would be aggressor against the nations that are allies of the United States remain convinced that the US will use whatever weapons are necessary to defend either itself or its allies.

In order to prevent aggression to begin with.

A large conventional force works just as well to deter aggression, and doesn't result in as widespread destruction towards innocents as a nuclear strike would do. In addition, with a large conventional force, entire cities and centers of civilization will not be leveled and millions killed with a push of a single button. With a large conventional force deterrant, assuming nuclear weapons are not used, planet-wide nuclear war will not occur.

This is because the aggressor nation(s) would be afraid to attack or conquer the nation it wants to attack because the victim nation can have its allies send in large amounts of conventional forces to repulse an invasion from the aggessor nation.

The United States clarifies its position: It will vote against this resolution and urges its allies to do the same. If the resolution passes, the United States will not accept it, and if pressed, the United States with withdraw from the United Nations.

The United States will not sacrifice its security or the security of its allies to China.

Nuclear weapons are indeed horrible. So however is war.

ooc
seriously, this was a bad idea. The US has no option then to act as it is acting on this

The United States clarifies its position: It will vote against this resolution and urges its allies to do the same. If the resolution passes, the United States will not accept it, and if pressed, the United States with withdraw from the United Nations.

The United States will not sacrifice its security or the security of its allies to China.

Nuclear weapons are indeed horrible. So however is war.

ooc
seriously, this was a bad idea. The US has no option then to act as it is acting on this

China is not asking the United States to sacrifice its security to China. In fact, China is not the warmongering type to go after every nation in sight, therefore, there is no reason for the US to fear China.

What China is asking to do is to ensure security and safety of the entirety of humankind, and something that transcends petty national differences. Namely, the preservation of humankind from self-destruction in a nuclear war begun through first strikes and counter strikes.

Besides, having a large conventional force is a deterrant just as effective as a nuclear one, without the terrible side-effects of a nuclear war. What nation (say its Nation A) would want to fight a nation (say its Nation B) who has allies who could defend Nation B with enormous conventional forces such as thousands of jet fighters, thousands of tanks, thousands of arillery, and hundreds of thousands of infantry soldiers?

Nation A knows it will lose, thus, war is averted through "stockiples" of large conventional forces instead of a nuclear deterrant.

The same can be said for OA-allied nations or SCT-allied nations defending their allies with enormous conventional forces. Even the Non-Aligned nations will have just as effective a deterrant with conventional forces.

Besides, the US has threatened to withdraw from the UN before when things do not go in its favor in the UN. China calls up examples of the UN during the era of the LTA and Pact. China will not withdraw from the UN if resolutions it does not favor passes- for instance, China would not withdraw from the UN if the censure aganist China did in fact pass during the Siberian Crisis.

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

OOC:

What I'm trying to do with the resolutions is to take the first steps to prevent nations from starting nuclear war.

China puts forth a resolution to be voted upon by the various nations of the UN. The Resolution is called "Barring Nuclear First Strikes".

The Resolution calls for the following points.

1. A nation may not launch a first strike with nuclear weapons unless the nation in question has been attacked by nuclear weapons. Once a nation has been attacked first by nuclear weapons, such as an ICBM missile with a nuclear warhead originating from the offending nation, then the victim nation shall be allowed to return fire with its own nuclear weapons without penalty.

2. A nation that launches a first strike with nuclear weapons is to be removed from the United Nations. If the nation has any UN responibilities such as Security Council, General Assembly, or such, these responibilities are to be stripped from the offending nation.

3. Severe economic sanctions are to be placed on the nation that launched the first strike with nuclear weapons. Sanctions include resources, minerals, consumer goods, and essentially all economic activity and trade.

It is hoped that this resolution will discourage nations from initating devastating first strikes with nuclear weapons aganist other nations. This resolution also hopes to save millions of potential lives that would be lost otherwise.

The Republican representative is enraged at this proposal.

"China must think about the whole world when proposing such resolutions. Sure losing a war is fine in Asia or Europe when all that means is that a country loses some land and prestige. Think about in the Middle East. What if Islamists took control of a nation and invaded the nation I represent? Those barbarians, with their twisted views of the Prophet's book, would steal the freedoms and technology of our people. And what of the minorities? My nation is one of the most diverse nations in the Middle East but that wouldn't last long under Islamist rule. The Christians, Jews, Animists, Pagans... all slaughtered because of their beliefs! Don't forget about the racial diversity of my nation! What if they started killing off white and black civilians, believing that Muhammed's children are the only people worthy of life!

Just stop and think about the rest of the world. Land and international prestige are the long-term consequences of your wars. Oppression, death, and the loss of freedom are the results of ours. My president and his followers are currently waging a war to spread freedom and tolerance across the Middle East, removing judgements of nationalities, races, or even religions. What if another group tried the exact opposite? If an extremist group attempts conquest of our creation, we will use any means neccessary to stop them. This resolution would be void in the eyes of our people, no matter how many old, rich politicians approve of it."

OOC: I'd assume the Turkics would to, none of them want to be on the recieving end of Egyptian nukes.

OOC: If they don't shoot nukes at us, they won't have to worry about that. ;)

The South African representative echo's his Egyptian counter-part's sentiments, but does not cast a vote at this time.

Egypt can easily deter any Islamic invasion or any foe hostile to it through allied assistance. If Egypt was invaded, it is certain that various nations would supply Egypt with sufficient forces to push back the invasion.

Germany, Britain, America, and so forth could easily crush any foreign invasion taking place aganist Egypt through conventional forces. Thus, nuclear and mass destruction weapons are not needed for deterrant or action.

Nor is it willing to allow an allied state to be invaded, particularly by powers that have much larger conventional forces, and probably face conquest when the United States does have the military force to end such an invasion and prevent reoccurence

The Australian ambassador catches the eye of the American at this with a small smile.

Like any terrible weapon of war, nuclear arms act as a deterrent to aggression in peacetime. Speaking as the representative of a nation with powerful allies who are too far away to help should invasion come in a conventional war, these weapons are a necessity to maintain the global balance of power. Man has proved he will go to war in the face of the most terrible conventional obstacles--the cataclysm of the early 1940s as an example. It has not yet been proved that a nation will go to war in the face of nuclear arms. I pray it will never be so, but there is no reason for this resolution.

Australia firmly votes against it and is appalled that something so radical would find a place in this forum.

ooc: LR, check your TGs please.

Thus, nuclear and mass destruction weapons are not needed for deterrant or action.

Ambassador Sithembile points out that though the Chinese delegate is correct in stating that the Americans, British, and whoever else may have the ability to repell a conventional invasion with conventional forces, that does not take into account the vast numerical disparity that can occur between armies on the modern battlefield.

Even assuming that an invasion is repelled with conventional forces, elaborates Sithembile, a foreign power has still occupied the defending nation. Rather pointedly, Sithembile states that the last time a foreign power occupied South Africa, twenty-four thousand people, over 80% of them children, died in concentration camps. If the South African Republic had possessed nuclear weapons in 1899, it would not have hesitated in the least to destroy the invading army before it could murder so many innocents.

It is clarified that South Africa does not condone the unnecessary use of nuclear weapons, but in cases of national survival extreme measures must be taken.

China responds to the Australian first.

"You are not likely to be invaded conventionally any time soon, within the next 1, 5, 10, 50, or 100 years. You have friendly neighbors to your north, namely the SCT, and neighbors to the west and east, namely the OA.

Australia does not have any 'enemies', so there is no need to fear any invasion. Besides, if Australia gets invaded for some strange and unfathomable reason, it can count on help from China to repel the invaders.

Again, China refuses to even contemplate the possibility of invading Australia, and surely the rest of the SCT feels the same, and the SCT is the closest neighbor to Australia. Why would the SCT want to invade or attack a nation it has good relations with?"

China then addresses South Africa next.

"You say that should a conventional invasion be repelled, the foreign nation occupies the defending nation in question. Is that not a complete and utter contradication in itself?

Repelling an invasion means the foreign nation does not occupy the defending nation. If a defending nation is occupied, that means the invasion is successful.

However, the success of any kind of invasion is denied should conventional forces serve as deterrant instead of nuclear and mass destruction weapons. Again, I repeat my earlier statement that should Nation A think about invading Nation B, then three possible outcomes will occur.

Outcome 1:

Nation A invades Nation B. Then Nation B has its own defense forces and also has allies. The allies of Nation B provide Nation B with sufficient conventional forces to defeat Nation A's invasion soundly and decisively.

Nation A loses, but its people in its cities will live to create a new government or such. In a nuclear exchange, both Nation A and B's people WILL NOT BE ABLE to have even this possibility because they all die as their cities burn from nuclear weapons.

Outcome 2:

Nation A gets ready to invade Nation B. Stern warnings from Nation B and its allies about massive conventional forces, or Nation B's allies start mobilizing its conventional forces and send them to Nation B.

Nation A realizes its folly, and calls off the invasion.

Thus, the invasion is deterred through conventional means without nuclear or mass destruction threat.

Outcome 3:

Nation A doesn't even consider invasion because it will know in advance that its invasion will fail due to the sheer number of tanks, planes, infantry, etc. that Nation B's allies will provide to Nation B should it get invaded.

Thus, the invasion is deterred through conventional means without nuclear or mass destruction threat.

Now lets take your example about the massacre of 24,000 people and children. Suppose you suffered the massacre and launch a nuke at London in retaliation. You kill more than a million innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the war in South Africa in 1899. Then the British uses their nuclear weapons aganist South Africa in retaliation. Virtually every South African dies with no survivors. All South African cities are leveled.

So the deaths of 24,000 people, a fraction of South Africa's populace, turn into the death of the ENTIRE South African people if nuclear weapons are involved in this scenario. However, should the war remain conventional, your entire people will not die, as they will be able to rebuild South Africa and avenge the deaths of these 24,000 people on British soldiers."

China then addresses South Africa next.

"You say that should a conventional invasion be repelled, the foreign nation occupies the defending nation in question. Is that not a complete and utter contradication in itself?

Sithembile rolls his eyes. "Of course not. Parts of China were occupied by Soviet forces during the last war, was it not? And yet that invasion failed, in the end."

Now lets take your example about the massacre of 24,000 people and children. Suppose you suffered the massacre and launch a nuke at London in retaliation. You kill more than a million innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the war in South Africa in 1899. Then the British uses their nuclear weapons aganist South Africa in retaliation. Virtually every South African dies with no survivors. All South African cities are leveled.

So the deaths of 24,000 people, a fraction of South Africa's populace, turn into the death of the ENTIRE South African people if nuclear weapons are involved in this scenario. However, should the war remain conventional, your entire people will not die, as they will be able to rebuild South Africa and avenge the deaths of these 24,000 people on British soldiers."

"I did not say South Africa would attack a city full of civilians. Please do not take my words out of context. My statement was that South Africa would destroy the invading army before it was able to commit such atrocities. Otherwise, it would not be a 'first strike' and would thus be a moot point. Surely you are not saying that destroying a legitimate military target, even if done with nuclear weapons, is worse than slaughtering civilians?"

Sithembile rolls his eyes. "Of course not. Parts of China were occupied by Soviet forces during the last war, was it not? And yet that invasion failed, in the end."

Song Jiaoren responds.

"Allow me to clarify.

What I meany by my earlier statement is such that the foreign power could not hold onto the territory it conquered indefinitely if the defender nation has allies to help. Even if no nuclear weapons were used in WW-3, then the Soviets would still be kicked out by the combined LTA force.

Nevertheless, even if China did possess nuclear weapons back then during the Soviet invasion, we would NOT use them until the Soviets destroyed Chengdu with their nuclear weapons."

"I did not say South Africa would attack a city full of civilians. Please do not take my words out of context. My statement was that South Africa would destroy the invading army before it was able to commit such atrocities. Otherwise, it would not be a 'first strike' and would thus be a moot point. Surely you are not saying that destroying a legitimate military target, even if done with nuclear weapons, is worse than slaughtering civilians?"

"This is a problem.

The nation you attack with nuclear weapons might consider or believe that you are going after its cities, thus, they will attack your cities. The enemy might think 'Okay, Africa just nuked my troops. What's next? My cities? No. I won't have that- I must eliminate Africa before they do that to me'.

Boom. Nuclear exchange. Nuclear war.

Attacking military targets with nuclear weapons invites the enemy to attack your civilian centers with nuclear weapons because the enemy will believe you might attack his cities next. Therefore, instead of killing the enemy's military, you end up killing yourselves and the enemy at the same time in the resultant nuclear war."