NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: Move all the damn freakin OCC remarks to main thread, this is a freakin IC thread...for goodness stakes.

OOC: Well your comment is OOC, so :p

OOC: Moving on, my response is on the OOC thread.

IC (1965): The delegation from the Republic of India once again points out that Bengal is on India's Eastern border with Burma, and not on India's Western Border with Pakistan and Kashmir (ooc: is Kashmir UIR or independent? All I know is India does not control it). India further notes that there is no real reason to oppose this binding resolution to establish permanent unalterable borders and a five mile de-militarized zone on either side and plenty of reasons why it should be passed, the foremost being the Regions violent history.

OOC: When the fuck did this happen?

I hate how you and GB made a series of totally weird events happen in my own country without my consent! Nowhere did I read that Nehru, who was democratically elected and supported the war with Russia, appointed his daughter Prime Minister and died of natural causes in 1965. Why do you assume that all Hindus were against the war? The elite of Pakistan were all for the war; it wasnt the Hindus who were against the war; it was the poor. Thats why most communists voted against it, but the politicians in the other parties, all being members of the elite, voted for it.

I'm the only person who really understands why this war was declared; it was in order for the Pakistani economy to receive a war-time economy boost during the great depression, because without it the economy was falling to pieces fast. Also, the Pakistanis figured having a buffer state between them and Russia was better than Having a russian-puppet (or even Russia itself) on its border, since in EVERY SINGLE war India had been involved in since the turn of the century, Russia invaded (Great War 2) or did catastrophic damage to the cities and agriculture (Great War 3). Thirdly, as you will soon find out, there is a balance between the Military and the People in the Indian subcontinent. The military is, and always has been, a key role in Indian society. However, there are hundreds of millions of people; a very powerful force. One needs to appease both; therefore, I tried to do so; I gave the military more funding and gave them a war to fight, and I gave the people contintuing (eventually it was going to be increasing) social services. Unfortunatly, I overestimated my armies ability to hold the most defensive terrain on earth, and I underestimated the almost non-existant Hindu extremism movement, but since GB said that the group went from almost non-existant to the dominant political force, I must be going crazy...


ooc
when you chose to enter a war against the wishes of the bulk of your people, advice from players and all but said you wanted to play something else besides India, I decided to act. So I did.

Remember, the US funded a Hindu democrat movement for several years, and the core of a movement would still exist. Indira Ghandi did actually start the movement I used as her party, created it, and in this game would have had access to money, influence and had opportunity to mold it to her own desires. A solid core of professionally trained revolutionaries can move mountains in days... look at Red October in real life in the Russian Revolution.
Educated and motiviated minorities lead revolutions, often for their own ends, and have done it successfully over and over throughout history.

You also chose to send your army into the middle of Central Asia, which is steppe for much of it, and therefore got caught without air support in the open. A good look at the 1st Gulf War, and the various desert campaigns in World War II in North Africa, and the Arab Israeli wars will demonstrate clearly the fate of armies without aircover when facing an army supported by a strong air force.

Campaigns are decided within days in that circumstance. The FNS actually was slowed more by distance then your ability to stop them.

It also troubled me as a referee the way that the Indian government since you took it over as had a dedcidedly pro Moslem outlook and has ignored tradional Hindu concerns, and the teachings of Ghandi, which was a far stronger influence historically then we have had in this game. Which is a problem as far as realism goes.

I am very satisfied with Amestria gameplay, and realism and historical knowledge and am happy to see her run with the situation.

Now all of this probably should have been in the main thread, but it needed to be addressed.

Nigeria supports India's proposals.

The 8 nations of North America all seek admission in the UN, pointing out that the nations have provided a great deal of help to the world during the Twilight Years, and the former US and Canada helped bring about an end to the Twilight War and helped defeat CSPS aggression.

Therefore, all 8 nations seek admission.

ooc
I want Safehaven and Parthini to discuss the matter and decide for the NPC nations regarding this as Sharina and I have too much tied into the reason why the US left the UN in the first place (me nuking the hell out of him)

Nigeria welcomes the American nations into the UN and supports them whole-heartedly.

OOC: I'll talk with Safehaven about it and hopefully we can get back to you tommorow.

France endorses the American states entry proposal, citing the efforts of American and Canadian forces to support the European to uphold international law and Minimising the Effects of a potential Nuclear Holocost.

Most Supported are the Huron who have contributed much to the post war effort.

Mexico is pushing for a reorganisation of the UN Security Council to reflect the current situation. Mexico suggests that UK, France, Germany, China, and FNS have permanent seats, whilst a permanent seat is also reserved for a NA nation, and is rotated between Huron, New England, and Columbia.

The 8 nations of North America all seek admission in the UN, pointing out that the nations have provided a great deal of help to the world during the Twilight Years, and the former US and Canada helped bring about an end to the Twilight War and helped defeat CSPS aggression.

Therefore, all 8 nations seek admission.

ooc
I want Safehaven and Parthini to discuss the matter and decide for the NPC nations regarding this as Sharina and I have too much tied into the reason why the US left the UN in the first place (me nuking the hell out of him)

The UIR will happily allow the North American nations in

Mexico is pushing for a reorganisation of the UN Security Council to reflect the current situation. Mexico suggests that UK, France, Germany, China, and FNS have permanent seats, whilst a permanent seat is also reserved for a NA nation, and is rotated between Huron, New England, and Columbia.

Australia disagrees (partly b/c they want a permanant representative, but whatever).

Instead of three European powers, it makes much more sense to replace at least one with an African nation--Nigeria or South Africa come immmediately to mind.

The 8 nations of North America all seek admission in the UN, pointing out that the nations have provided a great deal of help to the world during the Twilight Years, and the former US and Canada helped bring about an end to the Twilight War and helped defeat CSPS aggression.

Therefore, all 8 nations seek admission.

ooc
I want Safehaven and Parthini to discuss the matter and decide for the NPC nations regarding this as Sharina and I have too much tied into the reason why the US left the UN in the first place (me nuking the hell out of him)

OOC: I think enough NPC"s would vote to let the American and Canadian states in. For one, they played a massive part in staving off a number of famines worldwide and saved countless millions of lives, at no cost tot he nations they were feeding. And then Huron is paying to help rebuild both Russia and Germany, in turn saving the CSPS nations from paying crushing reperations(And getting their votes).

Also the fact that each successor state is not guilty for what happened, and the fact that America actually broke apart because of the guilt of what happened should play a part. Being 6 years later people will be looking at what happened more objectivily and not with as much emotion(At least people not from China and Indochina). As long as the American states have not made any threatening, or agressive moves against anyone no matter how minor(Which I haven't seen them do) then I think they will be accepted. A lot of nations in this world(Especially in the Carribean, Central America, Africa) have a lot they owe the American's. The only other thing I can think of that would block an American entrance is if the Asian nations, especially China and Indochina(Sorry, I can't remember the new name) would make a big effort and a lot of noise to stop an American entrance, and even then it would be close. But should the Asian nations, especially China or Indochina, vote yes, then the American and Canadian states would be basically gauranteed entrance.

So, yes I think the American and Canadian states would be readmitted in 70 or 71. Anyway...

IC: The Scandic Union votes to readmit the various American an Canadian succesor states. (OOC: I'd assume the rest of the CSPS would as well as you saved us from reperations, even though you did end the war early.)

The UIP agrees to allowing the former US states to join the UN, though wonders what status they wish to start at? Any permanent seats would be unadvised.

Rumania supports the reentry of the American states.

FNS will endorse the new American Countries into the UN.

Korea abstains from voting on the matter of the Successor States. The new Ambassador does so to avoid offending his allies or the new States, should they become members.

A note is handed to the new Korean Ambassador as he seems uncomfortable in his new situation. The older Filipino Ambassador writes, "Do not worry about this current vote. We doubt it will be too contested, and we also think that the Former States of the US might be more diplomatic than their earlier manifestation.

The UN can not ban a book. Simple as that, and the FNS will not support any idea of doing so.

However, FNS will vote to recognize the current border between the UIR and India along with a demiliterized zone.

The UN can not ban a book. Simple as that, and the FNS will not support any idea of doing so.

However, FNS will vote to recognize the current border between the UIR and India along with a demiliterized zone.

The Korean Ambassador does vote to recognize the current UIR-Indian Border, with DMZ.

The Indian delegation thanks both the FNS and Korean delegation for agreeing to the Indian proposal to establish the Indian/UIR border unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent with a demilitarized zone in the interests of peace.

Quebec will only vote to accept the current UIR-India border with DMZ if the option of having the border change, with the consent of the local population, left over.

(OOC: Example: Let's say Kashmir votes to join the UIR, and it's a free and fair election. Then the border could change. Or, say, if the Indian province of Gujarat voted to change sides, which it probably wouldn't, but just giving an example.)

The UIP agrees to allowing the former US states to join the UN, though wonders what status they wish to start at? Any permanent seats would be unadvised.

ooc
better way to put that "Allowing the North American nations to have a permanent seat would seem ill-advised."

IC
All of the North American nations indicate no interest in permanent Security Council seats. (except maybe Quebec and New England, they are PC nations beginning in 1970)

Quebec will only vote to accept the current UIR-India border with DMZ if the option of having the border change, with the consent of the local population, left over.

(OOC: Example: Let's say Kashmir votes to join the UIR, and it's a free and fair election. Then the border could change. Or, say, if the Indian province of Gujarat voted to change sides, which it probably wouldn't, but just giving an example.)

India points out that the border with Kashmir would not change and would also be left unalterable even if the political situation changes in Kashmir. The proposal concerns India's border with its neighbors. India does not presently control Kashmir or have any intent to.

India also has no objections to the North American States joining the UN, pointing out how important a role they play in the world.

(1965) The UIP wishes to state that it will vote to recognize the border with provisions. If the new India Government starts to persecute or harm it's Muslim's in any way, the border dispute shall become null and void. Therefore we vote that the border shall be solidified unless India abuses a portion of it's people. Therefore a semi-binding vote for the UIP.

(1970: Sorry)

In relation to the book, we would like to denote that we support banning it, but do not believe it shall stick. Therefore, currently we wish to ask if this book is allowed, if the goverment of the Philippines may allow it's Muslim population to produce it's literature around the world. If the "INdian" government believes in "harmless" books. THen they will love the Muslim Book that has been constantly badgered the UIP government to be published, but has been told is too controversial at this time.

The Indian delegation thanks both the FNS and Korean delegation for agreeing to the Indian proposal to establish the Indian/UIR border unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent with a demilitarized zone in the interests of peace.

The UIR delegate notes they recognized the border, not the fact that it can be changed

The UIR delegate notes they recognized the border, not the fact that it can be changed

This proposal concerns making it so the border cannot be changed.

(1965) The UIP wishes to state that it will vote to recognize the border with provisions. If the new India Government starts to persecute or harm it's Muslim's in any way, the border dispute shall become null and void. Therefore we vote that the border shall be solidified unless India abuses a portion of it's people. Therefore a semi-binding vote for the UIP.

(1965) That is not relevent to the proposal, which is to make it so the border, which seperates an area with an Indian majority from an area with a Central Asian Muslim majority, be declared the final border. India also points out that ethnic conflict is best solved by peacekeepers rather then moving a border when the majority of people do not wish it moved.

OOC: Yep illegal, Article 2, section 7: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

IC: (1970) India declares the UIR proposal illegal under the UN Charter, a waste of vital UN time, and a waste of paper.

1965: India's delegate, Vijaya Lakshmi Nehru Pandit, explains that given the past conflicts in the region, the breakup of the FAS, the breakup of Pakistan, countless Central Asian wars, that the present border is in the best interests of the region and should be declared unchangable and unalterable by this august body. It is pointed out that the only reason India or the UIR may go to war in the future is over the border and so this binding resolution would prevent conflict.

actually, according to your proposal, the resolution would declare the border unchangeable, not recognize the border

(1965) That is not relevent to the proposal, which is to make it so the border, which seperates an area with an Indian majority from an area with a Central Asian Muslim majority, be declared the final border. India also points out that ethnic conflict is best solved by peacekeepers rather then moving a border when the majority of people do not wish it moved.

but East Bengal is overwhelmingly Muslim, not Hindu

And yet, there have been no cries from the Muslim population there. Should they require it, a plebecite may be held.

(1965)
Yes it appears that India wishes for it's borders to remain the same no matter what it does. And what if it's population no longer wish to be part of the Indian government? And how do you truly define Indian? Similar culture? Similar Language? In truth India doesn't really have either of those. And so the question is, how do you keep a border solidified when it's based on the will of the people.

We vote for recognizing the borders, but find the very notion of a pure and permanent border for all time ludicrious.

but East Bengal is overwhelmingly Muslim, not Hindu

That does not concern this proposal as East Bengal is in East India and does not border the UIR.

actually, according to your proposal, the resolution would declare the border unchangeable, not recognize the border

The border is already recognized, this proposal makes it so it can't change, ever.

And if a Phillippine island wants seperation? We remember a time when your population was divided. Perhaps we should have split you up. Certainly quite a few Filipino's are Muslim and Christian. What then?

(1965)
Yes it appears that India wishes for it's borders to remain the same no matter what it does. And what if it's population no longer wish to be part of the Indian government? And how do you truly define Indian? Similar culture? Similar Language? In truth India doesn't really have either of those. And so the question is, how do you keep a border solidified when it's based on the will of the people.

We vote for recognizing the borders, but find the very notion of a pure and permanent border for all time ludicrious.

India notes the Philippines vote against its proposal.

India notes the past conflict between Central Asian States and the Subcontinent over lines of control going back 800 years, the most recent history being two civil wars. "We ask that the border be recognized by the world as unchangeable, vast majorities on either side being against any change, in the interests of peace in Southwestern Asia."

but East Bengal is overwhelmingly Muslim, not Hindu

East Bengal also willingly joined the Republic of India of its own free will, if it had wanted independence India could have done nothing to stop it.

And since when has the UIP ever stated that it's borders are permanent for all time? I believe whether we remain as a nation is up to god. And if a Filipino Island wanted independence and desired it legally without terroristic threats and a desire to hold hostage the rest of the Philippines, then we would allow them a plebescite. And whether the US split us up when they conquered us in 1898, that would have been up to them. (The entire statement in Spanish for the FNS representative. Unless that was Artista being pissed off at me OOC.)

(Second note: Due to the extremelly mixed ethnic background of the people of the islands, it makes it hard for one spot to seperate no matter how they may disagree. Even in RL Philippines, which is alot more disunionized than my Philippines, the Muslims and Christians disagree, but the Muslims have never really tried to seperate. Minus the whackos who go into the jungles and spout out Anti-US crap and want to become a strange conglomorate state of the Middle East or something. Not sure what they want. Don't think anyone does, not even other Filipino Muslims.)

East Bengal also willingly joined the Republic of India of its own free will, if it had wanted independence India could have done nothing to stop it.

ooc
Ireland and most of the other NPC UN member states are for an immediate relaxation of tensions and end of the war of words. They support the proposed border and the Irish idea of having the Sikhs monitor it. The North American nations throw in with that idea as well. South Africa points out that surely Asia has seen enough war in the last 60 years and urges calm.

naw it was in character.

ic:

India has not made a statement that would be opposite of what Phillippines has done in terms of National Unity.

FNS also recommends that any offensive action taken by either nation be dealt with by the United Nations. An Immediate emplacement of Sanctions upon the hostile country as well as possible UN intervention.

The Filipino took a drink of water and a calm breath. The Indians, kicking out the Filipino embassy had grated on most FIlipino nerves as racism at it's worse. And the begining of something more sinister. He must remind himself that the FNS was a trade partner and culturally similar as former colonies of the Spanish.

"I have no problem with recognizing borders. We would prefer that to seperate from a country is extremelly hard so that chaos and Civil War do not occur. We can give the Indians that for their want of peace. That is perfectly reasonable. But." He took another drink of water.

"But to make it impossible for people to escape is another matter. Nothing in this world is permanent. And an un-just war waged by the UIR would not be tolerated by her allies. What we do have a concern about is the future. What If? It seems such a cliche term now adays. A worriers question. But alot of What If's have come to pass. WHat if we have a full scare nuclear war? That occured. So my question is, what if a country abuses it's people? Which would be prefferable? If the borders of India are made unchangeable for all time, then they can do whatever they want to their people. And how would we enforce human rights in that country? We'd have to destroy the article we created in order to help those being abused. No country on earth is incapable of abusing it's people. Not even the UIP. We had an abusive government and we elected them out in 1961. THankfully that was peaceful and we remained a full country."

"The problem is, how as the UN can be enforce this? And how could we prevent abuse inside India by the govenrment? Our duty here is not to the Indian government, but to the people of INdia. That is why we do not support "Permanent Borders for All time." Nothing by human hands is ever permanent." His voice had been even and fair. His annoyance had fallen as he spoke to the FNS representative. It'd been an honost answer.

India once again points out that what the Filipino delegate is talking about is not relevant to the Indian proposed binding resolution, as it concerns borders, not human rights, and the vast majority of Indians on the Indian side and the vast Majority of Central Asians in the UIR do not wish the border moved either way, so by the articles of self-determination which the UN upholds, their decision should be recognized as binding upon both governments/nations.

"We completely understand your position, and the answer is not easy to come to. I doubt the answer we could present at this moment would appreciate the situation.

A Plebicite could be held in that region, but Hindu regions in UIR (not that there are any I believe) should also recieve plebecites.

Another option would be some sort of neutral country between the two. This demilitized zone does not appear to be enough in this situation. UN observers would surely be useful to ensure that the Muslim population of India is treated properly."

A Plebicite could be held in that region, but Hindu regions in UIR (not that there are any I believe) should also recieve plebecites.

"There are, but that would be impossible as the communities are scattered and surrounded by Central Asian Muslim majorities, just as Muslims in India are surrounded by Indian Hindu majorities, thus the border should be laid to rest once and for all. The UIR is opposed to this proposal because it wants to steal Indian land, expand at our expense in the future, and the UIP is speaking against us purely out of childish spite."

Ignoring the Indian representative since they constantly wanted their way, and perfectly honest the Filipino government didn't really agree they were a nation to begin with, decided to answer the FNS representative instead.

"We can agree to a dimilitarized zone. The 5 mile radius seems appropriate."

"And India seems to find it interesting to insult the UIP as childish, yet India is the one who at the first question towards a legitimate government, kicked out the embassies of the other nation. It seems if you go against India, they instantly turn to insults.

"Germany is curious to know if there are any other reasons than that the UIP had its feelings hurt that they are the only nation who hasn't recognized India.

Fools who take insults so seriously end up like the old tyrant Napoleon III."

It is pointed out that the UIR has annexed Pakistan without a plebiscite and has included certain Sikh communities in their country even though they want independence, yet NO ONE is discussing possible mistreatment of minorities by the UIR, even though its leader is currently a religious ruler and India's Government is a secular Parliamentary Democracy.

OOC: Everyone should remember that the proposal on borders is being made in 1965, the Indian Government is only a few months old, and its Hindu Nationalism has yet to become seriously apparent. There are also Commonwealth peacekeepers in the country.

(AHEM!!! Once again I have mentioned that the UIP recognizes the Indian government in 1965. It retracts it in 1970. SO please stop making that mistake. I've said it several times already.)

"Appointed by her father."

(Which is why I am trying to keep it purely on the border issue.)

It is pointed out that the UIR has annexed Pakistan without a plebiscite and has included certain Sikh communities in their country even though they want independence, yet NO ONE is discussing possible mistreatment of minorities by the UIR, even though its leader is currently a religious ruler and India's Government is a secular Parliamentary Democracy.

regard Bangladesh in the same spot.
Also, read the oold thread. GB said thr Sikhs were fine with semi-autonomy and not having to join the army
IC:

The UIR points out that the UIR constitution guaruntees all religions and sexes equal

"The point remains however that a demilitarized zone would make all those involved more comfortable. Simply because there are Muslim minorities does not mean that they desire to be independent. Why would they wish to leave everything they own? Stop clouding the issue."

THe UIP does not disagree with a demilitarized zone.

Parthini']"Germany is curious to know if there are any other reasons than that the UIP had its feelings hurt that they are the only nation who hasn't recognized India.

Fools who take insults so seriously end up like the old tyrant Napoleon III."


I repeat. You still are the only one to have not recognized them.

I Have Recognized Them In 1965!!!!!! If it is 1970 that you are talking about, then we should finish 1965 first.

The UIR points out that the UIR constitution guaruntees all religions and sexes equal

As does the Indian constitution, stop clouding the issue with deceitful propaganda.

As does the Indian constitution, stop clouding the issue with deceitful propaganda.

As are you, accusing us of wanting to invade you to get people not to vote with the UIR when there is no evidence to support your claim

OOC: Everyone should remember that the proposal on borders is being made in 1965, the Indian Government is only a few months old, and its Hindu Nationalism has yet to become seriously apparent. There are also Commonwealth peacekeepers in the country.

she is absolutely right.. consider the Twilight Years to consist of some bluster though, building to some possible more serious stuff in 1970

certainly the stage is set for it

But for NOW, the Sikhs agree to guard the border as long as someone else pays for their Army to do it with, and they retain autonomy within the UIR or Pakistan or India.

There are still FNS and Commonweatlh troops in India and Pakistan in 1965

OOC: And I still recognize India in 1965. I know I've said it twice in a row, but already no ones heard me.

IC: The UIP has voted against permanent borders, and for a demilitarized zone. That is it, so we are hereby ducking out of the debate.

But for NOW, the Sikhs agree to guard the border as long as someone else pays for their Army to do it with, and they retain autonomy within the UIR or Pakistan or India.

India will agree to grant communities with Sikh majorities on its side of the border a level of autonomy when India's Constitution is amended after the election to be held later this year. India requests that the UN fund the Sikh patrols, as it will be an international requirement, and to insure their impartiality.

India will agree to grant communities with Sikh majorities on its side of the border a level of autonomy when India's Constitution is amended after the election to be held later this year. India requests that the UN fund the Sikh patrols, as it will be an international requirement, and to insure their impartiality.

we have to pay for them

The following Binding Resolution is being voted upon.

Indian/Pakistan(UIR)-Kashmir Border Resolution

1. In the interests of preserving Peace in Southwest Asia and recognizing the majorities on both sides do not wish the border extended one way or the other, this resolution establish that the current India/Pakistan-Kashmir Border to be final, unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent.

2. A five mile demilitarized zone is to be establish with Neutral Sikh border patrols/observers paid for by the UN. Cost of setup would be 3 points in 1965 with a yearly maintenance of .75 points.

The UN will ponder the matter

ooc
as I am gone for a few hours

The following Binding Resolution is being voted upon.

Indian/Pakistan(UIR)-Kashmir Border Resolution

1. In the interests of preserving Peace in Southwest Asia and recognizing the majorities on both sides do not wish the border extended one way or the other, this resolution establish that the current India/Pakistan-Kashmir Border to be final, unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent.

2. A five mile demilitarized zone is to be establish with Neutral Sikh border patrols/observers paid for by the UN. Cost of setup would be 3 points in 1965 with a yearly maintenance of .75 points.

Quebec shall vote against the proposal unless the following clause is added:

If a border province wishes to join switch sides, then a vote is to be held, and if the population votes 60% in favor of joining the other country, or becoming independent, it should be. This is to prevent the will of the people from being denied. This applies to BOTH countries, India and Pakistan.

OOC: Even though Pakistan didn't vote to join the UIR, it's obvious they would; all the Muslims who can would flee there, seeing how Hindu Nationalists took over. The East Bengalis stay where they are because: A, the government hasn't given them a reason to flee yet, B, they're close to Burma, so they can always flee there, and C, they're mostly too poor to leave. This is, however, in 1965. Once the Little Green Book is published, that'll probably change, with the East Bengal independence movement going into full-swing.

Quebec shall vote against the proposal unless the following clause is added:

If a border province wishes to join switch sides, then a vote is to be held, and if the population votes 60% in favor of joining the other country, or becoming independent, it should be. This is to prevent the will of the people from being denied. This applies to BOTH countries, India and Pakistan.

OOC: Even though Pakistan didn't vote to join the UIR, it's obvious they would; all the Muslims who can would flee there, seeing how Hindu Nationalists took over. The East Bengalis stay where they are because: A, the government hasn't given them a reason to flee yet, B, they're close to Burma, so they can always flee there, and C, they're mostly too poor to leave. This is, however, in 1965. Once the Little Green Book is published, that'll probably change, with the East Bengal independence movement going into full-swing.

OOC: I agree with that
IC:

The UIR agrees with this statementand echoes Quebec's statements, however we would rather see a majority vote because it will express the will of the people

OOC: Even though Pakistan didn't vote to join the UIR, it's obvious they would; all the Muslims who can would flee there, seeing how Hindu Nationalists took over. The East Bengalis stay where they are because: A, the government hasn't given them a reason to flee yet, B, they're close to Burma, so they can always flee there, and C, they're mostly too poor to leave. This is, however, in 1965. Once the Little Green Book is published, that'll probably change, with the East Bengal independence movement going into full-swing.

OOC: Pakistan would likely have voted to remain independent, so I do not believe them joining was "obvious."

IC: India, remarking that the proposed Quebec clause is utterly ill advised and will result in chaos and both sides lobbying/funding successionist groups on either side, refuses to ammend the proposal. It is further pointed out that India does not have "border provinces" but "States," India being a Federal Republic. All the States except one have a vast Indian and Hindu Majority.

The proposed Quebec clause would also utterly undermine the idea and very point of final, unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent borders.

Germany will vote in favor of the proposal as India proposed it simply because otherwise would provide loopholes for which either side to exploit.

The proposed Quebec clause would also utterly undermine the idea and very point of final, unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent borders.

The problem is then of course areas that wish to leave but are forced to stay

OOC: Pakistan would likely have voted to remain independent, so I do not believe them joining was "obvious."

IC: India, remarking that the proposed Quebec clause is utterly ill advised and will result in chaos and both sides lobbying/funding successionist groups on either side, refuses to ammend the proposal. It is further pointed out that India does not have "border provinces" but "States," India being a Federal Republic. All the States except one have a vast Indian and Hindu Majority.

There is no such thing as an "unchangeable" border. Circumstances can change borders. Such a proposal without allowing for changes is doomed to failure, and will only undermine the UN.

Also, what do you mean the states have vast "Indian" majorities? If they are part of India, then they are Indians. Indian is not a culture, it is a nationality; for you share the same culture as former Pakistan. At least, the North does. You even share the same language; Hindustani. Are you assuming that only Hindus are loyal Indians, and all Muslims are evil and subversive?

OOC: Pakistan wouldn't have voted for independence, since it was unable to support itself on its own, and is very culturally similar to the UIR, which would provide money and services and safety.

The problem is then of course areas that wish to leave but are forced to stay

Small communities surrounded by majorities who wish the border to stay as it is and which succession of on either side would produce a jagged ungovernable unworkable border that would harm commerce and increase tensions. Many minority communities in the North DO NOT directly border the UIR, so that is unworkable and just an excuse for the UIR to oppose this resolution for its own expansionistic desires.

The problem is then of course areas that wish to leave but are forced to stay

That is also why Quebec made the proposal, to protect democracy and self-determination. For years, the Quebecois were not allowed to leave Canada, and probably wouldn't have been able to leave if it weren't for the collapse of said nation. We were a minority that wasn't able to be free, and we do not wish for the same to happen in India or the UIR.

Such a proposal without allowing for changes is doomed to failure, and will only undermine the UN.

No it would not.

Also, what do you mean the states have vast "Indian" majorities?"

Excluding East Bengal, Muslims make up make up only 12% of the total Indian population.

Are you assuming that only Hindus are loyal Indians, and all Muslims are evil and subversive?

"No."

OOC: Pakistan wouldn't have voted for independence, since it was unable to support itself on its own, and is very culturally similar to the UIR

Ummm...no.

Small communities surrounded by majorities who wish the border to stay as it is and which succession of on either side would produce a jagged ungovernable unworkable border that would harm commerce and increase tensions. Many minority communities in the North DO NOT directly border the UIR, so that is unworkable and just an excuse for the UIR to oppose this resolution for its own expansionistic desires.

The UIR is outraged that India would deflect the problem it causes by accusing the UIR of expansionist desires. We fail to see how the government could be unworkable, we in fact see it as easier to rule if resistive groups who cause problems leave the nation.

Excluding East Bengal, Muslims make up make up only 12% of the total Indian population.
.

That was after the big moves of Hindus and Muslims

The UIR is outrage that India would deflect the problem it causes by accusing the UIR of expansionist desires. We fail to see how the government could be unworkable, we in fact see it as easier to rule if resistive groups who cause problems leave the nation.

As stated earlier most communities in question do not border the UIR, so they would not have land transit, they would be islands, an utterly unworkable solution. In addition what defines community or "group", a neighborhood, a village, a subsection of a State, a State?

Excluding East Bengal, Muslims make up make up only 12% of the total Indian population.


Muslim and Indian are not mutually exclusive. One can be a Muslim and an Indian. Only a xenophobic fool would try and say that because of ones religion, they cannot be a nationality. Hindu's and Muslim's do not have to be enemies, but you're government seems to believe that is the way it is.

As stated earlier most communities in question do not border the UIR, so they would not have land transit, they would be islands, an utterly unworkable solution. In addition what defines community or "group", a neighborhood, a village, a subsection of a State, a State?

Lets take a State for example. Thsi state does not wish to stay with the mass of people not of the same religion, and they wish to leave. East Bengal for instance, which seems to be the region of discussion is bordered by the sea, India, and Burma

That was after the big moves of Hindus and Muslims

ooc: India lacks many northern areas and Kashmir, and there is evidence that the RL Muslim population was overestimated by both sides for political reasons, Hindus used it as a scare tatic, Muslims to talk up their strength, and there was a Revolution and an earlier civil war that might have resulted in displaced people. Anyway, those are the Indian Governments IC figures, and no one can challenge them whether they are true or not.

Muslim and Indian are not mutually exclusive. One can be a Muslim and an Indian. Only a xenophobic fool would try and say that because of ones religion, they cannot be a nationality. Hindu's and Muslim's do not have to be enemies, but you're government seems to believe that is the way it is.

It is the UIR that is pushing for an unworkable voting scheme, not India.

ooc: India lacks many northern areas and Kashmir, and there is evidence that the RL Muslim population was overestimated by both sides for political reasons, Hindus used it as a scare tatic, Muslims to talk up their strength, and there was a Revolution and an earlier civil war that might have resulted in displaced people. Anyway, those are the Indian Governments IC figures, and no one can challenge them whether they are true or not.

We can challenge the falseness of them if they do not seem real

It is the UIR that is pushing for an unworkable voting scheme, not India.

not really unworkable. As you say yourself, the only Muslim dominant region is Bangladesh, so its not like India's breaking up into hundreds of pieces

Lets take a State for example. Thsi state does not wish to stay with the mass of people not of the same religion, and they wish to leave. East Bengal for instance, which seems to be the region of discussion is bordered by the sea, India, and Burma

All the Indian States wish to stay within the Republic at this time, including East Bengal, which joined us by its own free will, it was not forced, nor could India force it with our puny surviving military. East Bengal is also, AS WE SAID BEFORE, completely irrelevent to this proposal, which deals entirely with the UIR/Indian Border and only the UIR/Indian border.

It is the UIR that is pushing for an unworkable voting scheme, not India.

You are ignoring the point. We, Quebec, asked what you meant by Indian, and you said, "only 12% of India is Muslim", thus implying that Muslims aren't Indians.

not really unworkable. As you say yourself, the only Muslim dominant region is Bangladesh, so its not like India's breaking up into hundreds of pieces

East Bengal, which is completely irrelevent to this proposal, which joined India by its own free will, and which does not border the UIR. East Bengal will not be discuss as it is irrelevent.

All the Indian States wish to stay within the Republic at this time, including East Bengal, which joined us by its own free will, it was not forced, nor could India force it with our puny surviving military. East Bengal is also, AS WE SAID BEFORE, completely irrelevent to this proposal, which deals entirely with the UIR/Indian Border and only the UIR/Indian border.

just because an independance movement hasn't been widely publicised or well coordinated doesn't mean there isn't one, or the popularity for it

You are ignoring the point. We, Quebec, asked what you meant by Indian, and you said, "only 12% of India is Muslim", thus implying that Muslims aren't Indians.

"No, by Indians we meant non-Central Asians. We did not in anyway mean that Muslims are not Indian citizens, of course they are."

East Bengal, which is completely irrelevent to this proposal, which joined India by its own free will, and which does not border the UIR. East Bengal will not be discuss as it is irrelevent.

If East Bengal is irrelevant, so is your previous argument about isolated areas.

just because an independance movement hasn't been widely publicised or well coordinated doesn't mean there isn't one, or the popularity for it

"We will see how they vote later this year then in the elections, which will take place with Commonwealth peacekeepers in the country."

ooc: What happens, East Bengal does not vote for independance parties, it votes in Communist parties, the only real opposition group to the future Parliament.

"No, by Indians we meant non-Central Asians. We did not in anyway mean that Muslims are not Indian citizens, of course they are."

"Then why when we asked how you defined Indians, did you say only 12% of India was Muslim? Do you somehow associate Islam with Central Asia? Granted, Islam was brought to India by Central Asians, but that was well over 1,000 years ago. They are now firmly from the South-Continent. On a related topic, Hinduism is believed to be a mix of local religion and the religion of the Aryans, who came to India 4,000 years ago. Granted, it is from a longer time ago, but it is still the same. The only religions that are truly Indian are Buddhism and Sikhism, although the later arose from a mix of Hinduism and Islam."

OOC: Ok, debate this stuff in the India-UIR thread, but vote in here.

If East Bengal is irrelevant, so is your previous argument about isolated areas.

"The UIR's entire line of arguement is utterly irrelevent to the Binding Resolution in Question, which is the following:

Indian/Pakistan(UIR)-Kashmir Border Resolution

1. In the interests of preserving Peace in Southwest Asia and recognizing the majorities on both sides do not wish the border extended one way or the other, this resolution establish that the current India/Pakistan-Kashmir Border to be final, unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent.

2. A five mile demilitarized zone is to be establish with Neutral Sikh border patrols/observers paid for by the UN. Cost of setup would be 3 points in 1965 with a yearly maintenance of .75 points."

Voted for (so far): All of the members of the FNS, Germany, India
Voted against: UIR, UIP, and Quebec

"East Bengal does not enter into anything, stick to the proposal that is on the floor."

"We will see how they vote later this year then in the elections, which will take place with Commonwealth peacekeepers in the country."

ooc: What happens, East Bengal does not vote for independance parties, it votes in Communist parties, the only real opposition group to the future Parliament.

OOC: To be honest, this is what I see:

In the first election, East Bengal votes mostly for the commies (as should west bengal as well; it may be the location of the capital, but it is still one of Indias poorest areas, and is in RL a communist party stronghold), but if the Green Book gains a lot of sway (instead of slowly dissapating, once realpolitik kicks in and people realize they dont want a huge Muslim rebellion on their hands), then independence parties gain more hold.

However, if the book slowly dissapears or Chapter 10 is removed for some reason, then East Bengal will stay firmly commie and the independence movement will dissipate.

"The UIR's entire line of arguement is utterly irrelevent to the Binding Resolution in Question, which is the following:

Indian/Pakistan(UIR)-Kashmir Border Resolution

1. In the interests of preserving Peace in Southwest Asia and recognizing the majorities on both sides do not wish the border extended one way or the other, this resolution establish that the current India/Pakistan-Kashmir Border to be final, unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent.

2. A five mile demilitarized zone is to be establish with Neutral Sikh border patrols/observers paid for by the UN. Cost of setup would be 3 points in 1965 with a yearly maintenance of .75 points."

Voted for (so far): All of the members of the FNS, Germany, India
Voted against: UIR, UIP, and Quebec

"East Bengal does not enter into anything, stick to the proposal that is on the floor."

FNS has 1 vote

OOC: To be honest, this is what I see:

In the first election, East Bengal votes mostly for the commies (as should west bengal as well; it may be the location of the capital, but it is still one of Indias poorest areas, and is in RL a communist party stronghold), but if the Green Book gains a lot of sway (instead of slowly dissapating, once realpolitik kicks in and people realize they dont want a huge Muslim rebellion on their hands), then independence parties gain more hold.

However, if the book slowly dissapears or Chapter 10 is removed for some reason, then East Bengal will stay firmly commie and the independence movement will dissipate.

OOC: That will not be until 1972 (when there are elections) at the least. And the Communist Parties will probablly delay it by monopolizing political power and using Machine politics... I say around the time East Bengal seperated from Pakistan in RL would be a realistic time.

OOC: That will not be until 1972 (when there are elections) at the least. And the Communist Parties will probablly delay it by monopolizing political power and using Machine politics... I say around the time East Bengal seperated from Pakistan in RL would be a realistic time.

OOC: I would say Bangladesh gaining independence in 1980 would be reasonable, and under far-better circumstances than in RL (no bloody genocidal civil war, peaceful separation, with Bangladesh being a key Indian ally.)

"The UIR's entire line of arguement is utterly irrelevent to the Binding Resolution in Question, which is the following:

Indian/Pakistan(UIR)-Kashmir Border Resolution

1. In the interests of preserving Peace in Southwest Asia and recognizing the majorities on both sides do not wish the border extended one way or the other, this resolution establish that the current India/Pakistan-Kashmir Border to be final, unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent.

2. A five mile demilitarized zone is to be establish with Neutral Sikh border patrols/observers paid for by the UN. Cost of setup would be 3 points in 1965 with a yearly maintenance of .75 points."

Voted for (so far): All of the members of the FNS, Germany, India
Voted against: UIR, UIP, and Quebec

"East Bengal does not enter into anything, stick to the proposal that is on the floor."


Nigeria supports this resolution.

After much delliberation, the government of Quebec changes its vote to Abstain, but it still maintains that if its clause is adapted, it shall vote yes.

Russia votes for, and, on a completely different track, issues the following idea for UN security council reform.
For the 5 Permanent Seats:
-Japan (to be replaced by China in 1970)
-UK
-FNS
-South Africa
-Rotation of the following (Russia, Australia, Huron, France) Each serving 2 year terms.

10 permanent members remain as same, with the following guidelines
-1 Americas (N. American states, Caribbean, Brazil)
-2 Europe (1 Eastern, 1 Western)
-3 Asia-Pacific (1 East Asia, 1 Central/South Asia, 1 Pacific/East Asia)
-2 Africa
-1 Middle East (Incl. Turkey, Cypruses)

Nigeria supports this resolution.

As does Korea.

Russia votes for, and, on a completely different track, issues the following idea for UN security council reform.
For the 5 Permanent Seats:
-Japan (to be replaced by China in 1970)
-UK
-FNS
-South Africa
-Rotation of the following (Russia, Australia, Huron, France) Each serving 2 year terms.

10 permanent members remain as same, with the following guidelines
-1 Americas (N. American states, Caribbean, Brazil)
-2 Europe (1 Eastern, 1 Western)
-3 Asia-Pacific (1 East Asia, 1 Central/South Asia, 1 Pacific/East Asia)
-2 Africa
-1 Middle East (Incl. Turkey, Cypruses)

The UIR will agree with the Russian proposal, but wonders why the Japanese lose their permenant seat.

The UIR will agree with the Russian proposal, but wonders why the Japanese lose their permenant seat.

Korea supports the Russian Proposal, even with the entry of the Successor States.

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.

an interesting historical footnote on why the US nuked China

an interesting historical footnote on why the US nuked China

Why they nuked the USEA is still somewhat of a mystery. Though Have some Idea it's not definate.

Ireland suggests that the entire charter be rewritten and NO nations have permanent seats or veto powers. Failing that, the Irish would recommend that Australasia be given the vacant seat.
.

Ireland again puts forward this resolution

Why they nuked the USEA is still somewhat of a mystery. Though Have some Idea it's not definate.
ooc
USEA actions during the Siberians Crisis, and because the Asians aren't blonde (which is why the Scandics weren't nuked). We are after all talking about Strom Thormund here

ooc
USEA actions during the Siberians Crisis, and because the Asians aren't blonde (which is why the Scandics weren't nuked). We are after all talking about Strom Thormund here

got to wonder why he remained senator til the nineties

Ireland again puts forward this resolution

The UIR, in the interest of a fair democracy and the turbulent times, wholeheartedly support's the proposal

ooc
USEA actions during the Siberians Crisis, and because the Asians aren't blonde (which is why the Scandics weren't nuked). We are after all talking about Strom Thormund here
OOC:
Ahh, I though it was my very stupid comment on how the USEA would strike back if China was attacked.
Anyway the point is moot now and the USEA has ceased to exist.

Japan temporarily assumed China's role on the security council, and we believe they will be prepared by 1970 to resume the role.

Germany (furious that France was chosen by Russia to get a Permanent seat), strongly supports the Irish resolution regarding no seat and begins garnering support from Europe (Italy, East Europe, BeNeBur), the Middle East and Africa, as well as attempts at persueding the US sucessor states.

At the same time, Germany asks the UN for a mandate over Egypt, perhaps to be shared with Italy.

The Irish solution does seem the best, it would eliminate the belief that one country or a group of countries has superiority. Or that a single country may veto a resolution and stop the world from progressing. SO we vote for the Irish solution.

France (Honored for being selected as a possible candidate) votes for the Russian Proposal, although expresses that should the Irish Proposal be chosen instead then there is no strong feelings.

Korea votes against the Irish Proposal.

Note to Korea: You'd support a solution that would allow those who nuked our allies with no provecation join a permanent council?

Note to Korea: You'd support a solution that would allow those who nuked our allies with no provecation join a permanent council?

A note is sent to the Filipino Ambassador's desk, explaining that it is not the desire of Korea to see the Security Council and the permanent bureaucracy replaced by a mob, and finds a simple refit of the existing system will be sufficent. Also, it was the Filipino Ambassador who suggested "We also think that the Former States of the US might be more diplomatic than their earlier manifestation."

However, it does note the ambassador's concern, and says this is why he avoided voting on letting the Successor States in on the first place.....with the addition of an expletive, and a change in its vote to reflect its concern about letting the Successor States into the proposed Security Council Reforms.

Parthini']Germany (furious that France was chosen by Russia to get a Permanent seat), strongly supports the Irish resolution regarding no seat and begins garnering support from Europe (Italy, East Europe, BeNeBur), the Middle East and Africa, as well as attempts at persueding the US sucessor states.

there is a lot of support from the African nations, Caribbean nations and the smaller European (NPC) nations.

(OOC: Historically, the biggest obstacle to UN security council reform has been the fact that the Security Council (including the veto-wielding members) must agree with the General Assembly to pass anything. Most countries won't be willing to give up the power of a veto.)

Another option would be to have 5 seats rotate with veto power, and 10 rotate without. Larger, more powerful nations would be the better candidates for the veto seats, while smaller nations, with lesser impact on global policy, would have the non-veto seats.

The current council arrangement represents the most powerful nation in each region as of 1945 (ooc: ish, not sure exactly when the charter was enacted). Since then, especially taking into account recent events, this is no longer the case. One system we could use would be to have regional veto seats, rotating between the more powerful members of the region.
Seats would rotate between the following (non a list set in stone by any means), serving 5 year terms (1 seat changing each year)
Africa/Middle East (1 Veto seat)
-Nigeria
-South Africa
-Syria
-Arab Federation (an objectionable choice, but those are the largest powers with Egypt gone)
East Asia
-China
-Japan
-Korea
-Indochina
Europe
-France
-UK
-Germany
-Italy
Americas
-FNS
-Huron
-Columbia/New England/Brazil (2 of those 3)
Misc.
-Australia
-Russia
-UIR
-India (both objectionable, but all are subject to change)

Note Returned to Korea: We can understand your logic. Though we do not think it would be a mob, we can understand your concerns. We still prefer the Irish way of thinking on this issue.

Indian/Pakistan(UIR)-Kashmir Border Resolution

1. In the interests of preserving Peace in Southwest Asia and recognizing the majorities on both sides do not wish the border extended one way or the other, this resolution establish that the current India/Pakistan-Kashmir Border to be final, unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent.

2. A five mile demilitarized zone is to be establish with Neutral Sikh border patrols/observers paid for by the UN. Cost of setup would be 3 points in 1965 with a yearly maintenance of .75 points."

Voted for (so far): All of the members of the FNS, Germany, India, Nigeria
Voted against: UIR, UIP
Abstain: Quebec

ooc: The state of this resolution?

Indian/Pakistan(UIR)-Kashmir Border Resolution

1. In the interests of preserving Peace in Southwest Asia and recognizing the majorities on both sides do not wish the border extended one way or the other, this resolution establish that the current India/Pakistan-Kashmir Border to be final, unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent.

2. A five mile demilitarized zone is to be establish with Neutral Sikh border patrols/observers paid for by the UN. Cost of setup would be 3 points in 1965 with a yearly maintenance of .75 points."

Voted for (so far): All of the members of the FNS, Germany, India, Nigeria
Voted against: UIR, UIP
Abstain: Quebec

ooc: The state of this resolution?

the neutrals throw in with it .. which would be enough to get it to pass. However, the Security Council has to agree on military force and actually spending money like this. If China, FNS, South Africa or UK veto it, it fails, otherwise its certain to pass.

(Which makes India the only country in the history of the world to have PERMANENT borders.)

(Which makes India the only country in the history of the world to have PERMANENT borders.)

ooc: looks to me like the UN just endorsed one border--that isnt unheard of in RL as I believe at one point Israel and Lebanon have (or had) something similar.

Besides, resolutions are made to be overturned if they have to be. Best to just let this one go.

even though its pointless, FNS has one vote, otherwise I would get 3 votes

You would have three and I would have 12.

France is unwiling to vote for upholding the status of the Indian Border as permenant, this due to the fact of the unstability of these borders throughout recent history and the prescence of several Ethnic or otherwise diverse groups along these borders.

Although not certain, several scenarios may arise where the alteration of borders may be nessecery in the future to ensure peace. Therefore we have to vote against this proposal until a later more feasable date.

You would have three and I would have 12.

seriously? That's awesome!

(Which makes India the only country in the history of the world to have PERMANENT borders.)

treaties do it all the time.. for example, the Germans signed a treaty that officially ended World War II pledging to honor the borders as they existed for all time.

A US/ Canadian / British treaty established the border of the US and Canada in the 1840s and it hasn't changed since either.

treaties do it all the time.. for example, the Germans signed a treaty that officially ended World War II pledging to honor the borders as they existed for all time.

A US/ Canadian / British treaty established the border of the US and Canada in the 1840s and it hasn't changed since either.

Yea but the Germans signed the formal border with Poland in the 1990's

Yea but the Germans signed the formal border with Poland in the 1990's

the Soviet Union and the Cold War was the barrier there

EDIT:

Disregard this post as explained below.

We were not aware that this was before the Security Council.

ooc: Not the best decision you've made.

ooc: Too late, GB said it passed.

ooc: Also, this resolution takes place in 1965, when Japan is representing China, so you can't veto. Japan supported this resolution.

IC: With the majority of votes in its favor and no vetos the below resolution passes.

1965 Indian-Pakistan(UIR)-Kashmir Border Resolution

1. In the interests of preserving Peace in Southwest Asia and recognizing the majorities on both sides do not wish the border extended one way or the other, this resolution establish that the current India/Pakistan-Kashmir Border to be final, unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent.

2. A five mile demilitarized zone is to be establish with Neutral Sikh border patrols/observers paid for by the UN. Cost of setup would be 3 points in 1965 with a yearly maintenance of .75 points."

We were not aware that this was before the Security Council.

ooc: Not the best decision you've made.

Actually, I was told that this vote was currently put before the security council. I was actually going to elaborate on the veto- China doesn't believe "Permament Borders" would work especially with refugee situations and mass migrations of people all around, but wouldn't necessarily veto a demilitarized zone.

So essentially I'd be vetoing #1 of the resolution but not veto #2 of the resolution.

Actually, I was told that this vote was currently put before the security council. I was actually going to elaborate on the veto- China doesn't believe "Permament Borders" would work especially with refugee situations and mass migrations of people all around, but wouldn't necessarily veto a demilitarized zone.

So essentially I'd be vetoing #1 of the resolution but not veto #2 of the resolution.

Sharina: See points one and two I have made, GB ruled the resolution has passed already AND it takes place when China does not have a seat on the security council.

Also, although it does not matter, the Indian side of the border is over 80% Hindu.

the neutrals throw in with it .. which would be enough to get it to pass. However, the Security Council has to agree on military force and actually spending money like this. If China, FNS, South Africa or UK veto it, it fails, otherwise its certain to pass.

China has the veto power according to GB

China has the veto power according to GB

OOC: GB apparantly forgot that the resolution took place in 1965, when Japan held Chinas security council seat. He also ruled it passed on Chatzy.

OOC: GB apparantly forgot that the resolution took place in 1965, when Japan held Chinas security council seat. He also ruled it passed on Chatzy.

Chatzy is OOC, and China has enough power in 1965, and if not Japan might veto as it is a SCT ally

Chatzy is OOC, and China has enough power in 1965, and if not Japan might veto as it is a SCT ally

It is January/Febuary 1965 and since China was gone during that time it apparantly did not and GB did not post on Japan vetoing it, his one post on the NPC's was that most if not all supported it, which likely included Japan.

After reading the latest, and being informed by E20'ers that this resolution passed in 1965, instead of 1970, I retract my vote. My apologies (I was out of the loop, considering I was away from E20 for 1 1/2 weeks).

Ehh, a major war between the UIR and India will make it a moot point anyways. And if you don't believe that won't happen eventually, well then I gather something's up. Whatever.

IC: THe UIP questions if all borders everywhere should be endorsed as permenant for all time in the cause of peace since it passed the earlier resolution. Actually starts the process to state that all borders of all nations should be written as permanent. It treats the point seriously, preparing a detailed rational for the new statement, using the Indian resolution as a standpoint.

(Aka, if India can have a permanent border with the UIR, why can not all borders currently in existance be seen as permanent?)

Ehh, a major war between the UIR and India will make it a moot point anyways. And if you don't believe that won't happen eventually, well then I gather something's up. Whatever.

IC: THe UIP questions if all borders everywhere should be endorsed as permenant for all time in the cause of peace since it passed the earlier resolution. Actually starts the process to state that all borders of all nations should be written as permanent. It treats the point seriously, preparing a detailed rational for the new statement, using the Indian resolution as a standpoint.

(Aka, if India can have a permanent border with the UIR, why can not all borders currently in existance be seen as permanent?)

the Ambassador from Ireland looks at the Filipino delegate and sighs

"The Charter maintains that border disputes shall be resolved peacefully. In addition, it also maintains that borders are de facto permanent, with only the UN and the nations in question supposed to have the power to change them."

So therefore would not the current resolution already have fallen under that jurisdiction? If not, then there needs to be a resolution for all nations. Or we can do each border individually. WIth the passing of this new resolution, we believe that everyone should have the right to declare their border permanent by UN law. Personally the UIP would like to declare all it's islands as permanetly under the jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines for all time as well.

And before the argument is raised, the Philippines has no border with anyone, and yet has been invaded countless times by other nations. We'd like to be assured by the UN council that our borders are permanent due to resolution as well.

(Which diplomatically, makes perfect sense. It's a statement that if you say the Philippines doesn't have the right to do it, then it's playing favorites and the Indian resolution therefore shows unfair favortism. Or you say the Philippines may do it, and have a dozen minor countries flooding the UN with permanent border resolutions.)

the Ambassador from Ireland looks at the Filipino delegate and sighs

"The Charter maintains that border disputes shall be resolved peacefully. In addition, it also maintains that borders are de facto permanent, with only the UN and the nations in question supposed to have the power to change them."

OOC: wait, so why does India get to make this resolution?

So therefore would not the current resolution already have fallen under that jurisdiction? If not, then there needs to be a resolution for all nations. Or we can do each border individually. WIth the passing of this new resolution, we believe that everyone should have the right to declare their border permanent by UN law. Personally the UIP would like to declare all it's islands as permanetly under the jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines for all time as well.

And before the argument is raised, the Philippines has no border with anyone, and yet has been invaded countless times by other nations. We'd like to be assured by the UN council that our borders are permanent due to resolution as well.

(Which diplomatically, makes perfect sense. It's a statement that if you say the Philippines doesn't have the right to do it, then it's playing favorites and the Indian resolution therefore shows unfair favortism. Or you say the Philippines may do it, and have a dozen minor countries flooding the UN with permanent border resolutions.)


Le Republique agree's with the points put forward by the Phillipines, and demands answers. While we were fine with solidfying the UIR-India Border, we assumed it wasn't that the UN was playing favorites, but that it was within the bounds of the UN charter.

OOC: wait, so why does India get to make this resolution?

ooc
why do you think the Irish delegate is sighing? lol... because it got sufficient support to get passed

So therefore would not the current resolution already have fallen under that jurisdiction? If not, then there needs to be a resolution for all nations. Or we can do each border individually. WIth the passing of this new resolution, we believe that everyone should have the right to declare their border permanent by UN law. Personally the UIP would like to declare all it's islands as permanetly under the jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines for all time as well.

And before the argument is raised, the Philippines has no border with anyone, and yet has been invaded countless times by other nations. We'd like to be assured by the UN council that our borders are permanent due to resolution as well.

(Which diplomatically, makes perfect sense. It's a statement that if you say the Philippines doesn't have the right to do it, then it's playing favorites and the Indian resolution therefore shows unfair favortism. Or you say the Philippines may do it, and have a dozen minor countries flooding the UN with permanent border resolutions.)

The Malaysian delegate looks down his nose (literally as he is wearing glasses) and asks "Countless times?" I am not aware of more then three.. once when the Spanish invaded you, once when the Americans kicked out the Spanish and conquered you, and once when those Americans and you both stopped the Japanese. Am I missing something?"

"There have been earlier invasions of people that have nothing to do with Westerners. But since that is in the realm of archeology, we believe it best left to the historians to debate how many times any location has been invaded. In truth it bears little weight if we were invaded dozens or three times. The Philippines simply desires the same rights as India in the UN. That we desire for our current islands to be recognized as a permanent border. We would recognize the current Malaysian border as a permanent and unchangable border right at this moment. We can vote on both resolutions at the same time." He seemed extremelly genteel about it, even giving the Malaysina diplomat a smile, and pushing his own glasses up with his pointer finger.

OOC: Just to point out, the resolution in regards to the Indian-Pakistan-UIR border passed in 1965 and there is nothing you can do about it Sukiaida.

OOC: Uh Amestria, I don't plan to do anything about it. But if in 1965 the Filipino borders can be unchangeable too, I see an opening to help myself. It has nothing to do with India now. It's with the UIP. It's called get it done while the iron is still hot and they can't back out of it.

The French Representative motions to repeal all excessive and Bureacratic resolutions from the UN legslation -including the Indian-UIR border resolution- as since as the esteemed Irish Representative pointed out earlier that it is already in the Charter at a more acceptable and flexable way.

OOC: Let's not get like the NS UN now shall we?

On a seperate announcement the Republic of France is willing to place all forces currently in the vicinity of the Middle East and India at the UN's disposal should the UN decide to Intervne to aid the locals in face of the insurgency there.

Begining from 1971, The Republic of France will begin to work on establishing a permenant peacekeeping force which the UN can use at its disposal.

The Target is:
-12 light Infantry Divisions (12 points)
-5 Special Forces Brigades (5 points)
-8 Garisons (24 points)
-3 Do 500 Air Transports (6 points)
-3 Amphibious Transports (18 points)

Total cost= 65 points

The Republic of France shall hope to train these in 5 Years maximum and will be willing to subsidise maintenance costs for these units once they are complete.

The French Representative motions to repeal all excessive and Bureacratic resolutions from the UN legslation -including the Indian-UIR border resolution- as since as the esteemed Irish Representative pointed out earlier that it is already in the Charter at a more acceptable and flexable way.

The Indian-Pakistan-Kashmir border resolution is not excessive or Bureaucratic as it establishes a demilitarized zone, ends border conflict, and provides for a neutral UN border patrol within the said de-militarized zone. If France cannot see the wisdom and relevance of that resolution, which has worked well for the last five years, then perhaps it should withdraw from the UN, as it is questionable France would see the benefit in any resolution and would be satisfied with a body that does nothing.

Beginning from 1971, The Republic of France will begin to work on establishing a permanent peacekeeping force which the UN can use at its disposal.

India objects strongly to the idea of a French force, as France is a UIR ally. If there is a peacekeeping force it should be set up and led by a neutral power (or powers) who could be trusted to keep the peace rather then spread chaos under the cover of the UN.

China flatly vetoes both French proposals.

China has reason to believe France is attempting to exert its influence within Asia, something akin to neo-colonialism, sending in French troops to act as peace-keepers when it is known that the French is not exactly "neutral" in the UIR-India dispute.

The French representitive indicate that these are serious allegations, refute them as simply wrong and that the Republic of France has its interests best served by the prevailence of peace in the area given that an outbreak of war may lead to an oil crisis similar to that of the fifties. Furthermore the Republic of France shall dismiss these allegations and think nothing further of it.

OOC: Did the Irish Proposal pass? if so China couldn't veto.

The Indian-Pakistan-Kashmir border resolution is not excessive or Bureaucratic as it establishes a demilitarized zone, ends border conflict, and provides for a neutral UN border patrol within the said de-militarized zone. If France cannot see the wisdom and relevance of that resolution, which has worked well for the last five years, then perhaps it should withdraw from the UN, as it is questionable France would see the benefit in any resolution and would be satisfied with a body that does nothing.

The French representative humbly declines the Indian offer in the same tone it was proposed, however the French representative recognises that perhaps a repeal would be excessive, therefore the suggestion is modified to Ammend the Inidan proposition to strike out the part about the border being permenant to resolve conflict with the UN charter.

India objects strongly to the idea of a French force, as France is a UIR ally. If there is a peacekeeping force it should be set up and led by a neutral power (or powers) who could be trusted to keep the peace rather then spread chaos under the cover of the UN.

Both India and China are reminded that the force will be completed by 1976, hopefully by then all disputes will be resolved, furthermore the force isn't specific to the Middle east as we indicated is to be used at their disposal; we are merely providing resources, the UN security council can choose to recruit from wherever they like.

OOC: Did the Irish Proposal pass? if so China couldn't veto.

OOC: The Irish clearly did not have a proposal, they were simply responding to a comment by Philippines. In fact I believe they voted for the Indian-Pakistan-Kashmir border resolution. It is OOC agreed that in 1965 the border resolution passed overwhelmingly and it has been in effect now for five years btw. As I said the Irish did not make a proposal and since we are no longer in time warp it must be assumed the Philippines proposal that its own borders be made permanent was rejected as absurd and meaningless (unlike India, the Philippines does not have the specter of future territorial disputes).

IC

The French representative humbly declines the Indian offer in the same tone it was proposed, however the French representative recognizes that perhaps a repeal would be excessive, therefore the suggestion is modified to Amend the Indian proposition to strike out the part about the border being permanent to resolve conflict with the UN charter.

"There is no conflict with the UN charter, as the UN has the power to set final borders, no Government has suggested until now that there was a conflict with the Charter, in fact it has been generally agreed that the Resolution was very much WITHIN the bounds of the Charter (ooc: true), that the UN existed for such actions. The Resolution in question also passed overwhelmingly, with majority support from the Assembly and no objections from the Security Council. Why France feels it must reverse an already settled issue is beyond curious...perhaps it is because the UIR opposed that portion of the Resolution out of a desire to annex Indian territory. There will be NO changes made to the resolution, it is perfect as is."

OOC: meant Irish proposal which proposes removing powers of Veto

The French requests politely from his fellow asian collegues to not flaunt serious accusations towards the republic as it neither professional nor helpful.

"The Charter maintains that border disputes shall be resolved peacefully. In addition, it also maintains that borders are de facto permanent, with only the UN and the nations in question supposed to have the power to change them."

The Indian Proposal:

"1. In the interests of preserving Peace in Southwest Asia and recognizing the majorities on both sides do not wish the border extended one way or the other, this resolution establish that the current India/Pakistan-Kashmir Border to be final, unchangeable, unalterable, and permanent."

Clearly this proposal takes away the power of India, UIR, Kahmir and UN's power to alter the border should the need arise in the future, also the permenance of these borders and all borders should remain De Facto Permenant so as to reflect that the status of borders have always fluctuated since the begining of time.

We find it conflicting that the bill was passed depite the objection of the UIR, since the Charter says that they should have a say in their own borders with India.

Finally we express our opinion that the UN should move to mediate the dispute rather than impose one nation's will over the other and proposes a comitee be formed to study the situation more closely and using the feedback the UN can produce a more satisfactory solution to all.

OOC: meant Irish proposal which proposes removing powers of Veto.

OOC: I assume it was not resolved and nothing came of it. It is now 1970.

"The Charter maintains that border disputes shall be resolved peacefully. In addition, it also maintains that borders are de facto permanent, with only the UN and the nations in question supposed to have the power to change them."

"The UN clearly has the power to settle/change borders."

Clearly this proposal takes away the power of India, UIR, Kahmir and UN's power to alter the border should the need arise in the future

"Nonsense, the UN need merely alter the resolution, and there is no need to."

We find it conflicting that the bill was passed depite the objection of the UIR, since the Charter says that they should have a say in their own borders with India.

"The UIR recognizes current borders but claimed it had the right to alter them in the future by war and made vague threats, hence the first part of the bill."

Finally we express our opinion that the UN should move to mediate the dispute rather than impose one nation's will over the other and proposes a comitee be formed to study the situation more closely and using the feedback the UN can produce a more satisfactory solution to all.

"At this time the UIR has no claim to Indian territory along the Pakistan-Indian border, no territory is in de jure dispute as all the States in question support being part of the Indian Republic by over 80%, France clearly does not know what it is talking about and should drop this matter."

OOC: I assume it was not resolved and nothing came of it. It is now 1970.

OOC: I think the Mods got too busy to write up the results.

The French Representative asks the Indian representative politely to refrain from belittling their collegues in the UN and allow for constructive dialogue rather than the customery hostile Indian tone.

The UN clearly has the power to settle/change borders.

True, but the Charter still maintains that borders will always remain De Facto permenant.

Nonsense, the UN need merely alter the resolution.

So we are in agreement, there is a part which needs a mere adjustment to elevate this small bit of nonsense.

The UIR recognizes current borders but claimed it had the right to alter them in the future by war and made vague threats, hence the first part of the bill.

We would advise that Diplomacy and Action should not be based on Vagueness and speculation, as for the UIR claim to right of a say in the borders, they are guranteed that right by the aforementioned UN charter.

At this time the UIR has no claim to Indian territory along the Pakistan-Indian border, no territory is in de jure dispute as all the States in question support being part of the Indian Republic by over 80%

Either the UN demilitrised zones ends border conflict, or there is no need for a comitee to be formed to study the situation more closely.

The confusion this matter is causing is more a better reason to allow the UN to investigate to clear matters up, Therefore the following resolution is presented in the UN:

The Pakistani Fact-Finding Expedetion

A group of sufficiently qualified UN observers are to be dispatched to the vicinity of Pakistan to determine fully whether a UN peacekeeping force is in fact needed there and whether or not more efforts are needed by the UN to preserve peace in the region.

After careful assesment of the situation, The experts will forward their results to the UN security council and release a brief summary to the General Assembly.

The UN Security Council would then act accordingly.

The UIR will support the U.N resolution and responds that it made no such remarks about changing the border during a war. We mentioned the possibility of groups in a country wanting freedom, and the resolution would not allow them to do so.

We do point out to what the Irish delegate said, that the borders are de facto permenant and subject to change them. Since the UIR did not agree to this, clearly the Indian resolution cannot be upheld

The UN World Health Organization (WHO) makes its annual report and is proud to announce that Smallpox has been all but eridicated. Only a few samples in Atlanta (CDC research) and Geneva (WHO research) remain.

In the small print toward the back of the report some notice is paid to a strange ailment reported in parts of the Congo River valley, including parts of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and neighboring areas. It is some kind of immune deficiency that results in opportunistic diseases killing the patient.

OOC
AIDS has reared its ugly head. In fact AIDS has already spread to Europe, North America and Latin America and is rapidly on its way to Asia and Oceania. It is unnoticed, as it has similar symptoms and results as radiation illness as both attack the immune system. By 1971 it will have spread throughout the world. Diagnosing it will be tricky and will not occur for a few more years until medical researchers discover that it isn't radiation sickness, its a virus, and it is caused by fluid to fluid contact like an STD or blood disease.

OOC: Actually yes Amestria, GB never said what came of the Philippines or the Irish solutions. So no, it may not have been seen as disolute or whatever. It hasn't been stated by the mods what happened in 1965.

OOC: Actually yes Amestria, GB never said what came of the Philippines or the Irish solutions. So no, it may not have been seen as disolute or whatever. It hasn't been stated by the mods what happened in 1965.

major UN events were the deliniation of the UIR/Indian border, agreement to cover costs of Sikh border guards and the Missile Treaty that year and cease fire and treaty ending the Twilight War

Also accomplished in that time was entry into UN of the North American nations.

Security Council Reform again failed to achieve a decision, so debate continues

(So basically it wasn't voted on, but it was symbolic. Ok. And if the real world is anything, we'll be debating the Security Council thing til 2070.)

This is a question to the French represenative, but currently does not the UN already have a peacekeeping force? So what need is there for another? (I thought this was like the real UN< so is that one of the differences?)

Well, the UN had the French Forign Legion as its Permenant Peacekeeping force, but I am afraid that has dissolved since the US stopped subsidising their maintenance costs.

Hoping to correct this problem and carry on with the now French Tradition of helping restore peace, we would offer the UN resources to build and maintain an objective and impartial interventionary Force which would answers to no oneother than the UN, this would greatly aid peacekeeping efforts and reduce the dependancy on foriegn equipment to restore peace.

Germany finds India's remarks about France contemptuous and dishonorable. The French, Germany reminds the UN, has been for justice and peace for the entirety of this century. Even under the banner of Communism, France came to the aid of the Chinese who were under attack of militant fascists.

Therefore, Germany supports the recreation of the French Foreign Legion and the placing of it under the discretion of the UN Security Council, which Germany reminds the UN, has many needed reforms to be made.

Germany suggests that the Permanent seats with veto be abolished in favor of a less oligarchic UN.

We continue to support the end of the oligarchy of the Security Council. So our support continues for it's abolishment.

We agree to the return of the French Foreign Legion, but offer a compromise should people not want to support it. Could not each country in the UN offer a unit for specific UN forces. Such as each country must supply a division or a ship or an air force unit to the Unit and maintain it along with it's regular military. This is only an offered compromise for those who do not wish the return of French units.

Britain supports the French proposal and states that the Foreign Legion seems to be a good idea and can be backed up by forces drawn from the militaries of member nations as peacekeepers when necessary.

Britain opposes any review of security council permenent seats that would abolish the British presence there or else reduces the security council's power in some way.

The Republic of South Africa agrees with the British statements.

Why? For what purpose does the Permanent Seats play that allows the UN to either run more smoothly or be more secure is some fashion? I can say what it does cause, it gives a single country the ability to defy the world by having the veto power. It allows for a certain sect of countries the ability to completely delegate to the world. How is this anything short of a new wave of IMperialism? Ahh because all continents are included. But if the Permanent Seats are permanent, that means there is no variety. It means we have no new ideas. The UN becomes stagnant. I think if the UN had been more equal and capable it could have prevented the Twilight War instead of being caught by complete surprise.

So how does the Permanent Seats prove important? Honostly alot of nations want to know how it is anything other than countries will to continue to have power. And if that's all it's worth than it should be disolved immedietly. Or at the very least revised better. I do remember an alternating Permanent Seat legislation in this office before. If we keep it, then we should allow for this. Therefore NO nation can become so powerful that it is able to Veto the world.

But if the Permanent Seats are permanent, that means there is no variety. It means we have no new ideas. The UN becomes stagnant.

The South African quietly reminds his Filipino colleague that of the 15 seats on the Security Council, only five are permanent. The other ten are on a rotating basis, so that new ideas are brought to the Security Council with every rotation. In addition, it is pointed out that the veto power has been used very few times through the life of the UN.

(OOC: Out of curiosity, what happened to the US' seat on the Security Council?)

The South African quietly reminds his Filipino colleague that of the 15 seats on the Security Council, only five are permanent. The other ten are on a rotating basis, so that new ideas are brought to the Security Council with every rotation. In addition, it is pointed out that the veto power has been used very few times through the life of the UN.

(OOC: Out of curiosity, what happened to the US' seat on the Security Council?)

They were given to Huron, New England, and Dixie I think on a rotating basis

But the very idea that it can be used is detrimental to the notion of nation as equals. (Also quietly told to the South African Delegate.)

China points out that should the French troops be used as peacekeepers in the UIR-India conflict, what's to stop the French troops from being pro-UIR and not being impartial to the Indians, considering France is allied to the UIR? The French might as well merge with the UIR forces aganist India if this resolution was somehow passed. Thus, China's veto of the French resolutions (and veto's will continue until a true neutrality is reached when peacekeeping forces are chosen who are not aligned to UIR or India).

However, if the resolution somehow does pass, China requires that the peace-keeping force be non-French, or comrpised of nations *NOT* allied to the UIR and India for true neutrality. Otherwise, it will only reinforce one side aganist the other (French troops being pro-UIR and anti-Indian for instance).

China points out to Germany that France was part of the Warsaw Pact in WW-2 and WW-3 supporting the Union, and that the US, Australia, and the UK were the ones who aided China retake land lost to the despicable Soviets in the last years of WW-3.

WOuld China find the UIP's compromise to their liking?

China points out that should the French troops be used as peacekeepers in the UIR-India conflict, what's to stop the French troops from being pro-UIR and not being impartial to the Indians, considering France is allied to the UIR? The French might as well merge with the UIR forces aganist India if this resolution was somehow passed. Thus, China's veto of the French resolutions (and veto's will continue until a true neutrality is reached when peacekeeping forces are chosen who are not aligned to UIR or India).

However, if the resolution somehow does pass, China requires that the peace-keeping force be non-French, or comrpised of nations *NOT* allied to the UIR and India for true neutrality. Otherwise, it will only reinforce one side aganist the other (French troops being pro-UIR and anti-Indian for instance).

China points out to Germany that France was part of the Warsaw Pact in WW-2 and WW-3 supporting the Union, and that the US, Australia, and the UK were the ones who aided China retake land lost to the despicable Soviets in the last years of WW-3.

Quebec points out that the French Foreign Legion isn't made up of just Frenchmen; it is made up of many nationalities. In fact, the French are a minority in the Foreign Legion. Also, the FFL would be under UN control, not French control.

Quebec points out that the French Foreign Legion isn't made up of just Frenchmen; it is made up of many nationalities. In fact, the French are a minority in the Foreign Legion. Also, the FFL would be under UN control, not French control.

China inquiries into the following...

"If this is so, then why is it called the *French* Foreign Legion, instead of the *United Nations* Foreign Legion, hmm?"

Because it retains the rich history that the FFL embraces as once being part of the French Army. Surely China, with as rich of a history as it claims, can respect that!

Germany also informs China that the FFL has loyalty only to the Legion, as described in their Motto: "Legio Patria Nostra" (The Legion is our fatherland), as well as "Honneur et Fidélité" (Honour and loyalty). A unit that has regularly served with such distinction and honor surely shouldn't be questioned for its dignity!

In concession to China, we propose the name of the Force be changed to "The United Nations Permenant Peackeeping Force".

In concession to China, we propose the name of the Force be changed to "The United Nations Permenant Peackeeping Force".

Quebec agrees that this is a sensible concession, although we ask that the culture of the Legion not be changed (basically, that it doesn't loose its cool mottos, songs, training-programs, etc)

To destroy the culture of the LEgion would destroy it's elite abilities, and therefore if it is chosen, then the UIP agrees with the name change and the retention of the other training, etc.

If the Chinese hadn't already vetoed the French Proposal, the FNS surely would have.

If the Chinese hadn't already vetoed the French Proposal, the FNS surely would have.

which one?

I think it's General Assembly

Once again the problem with the veto.

Once again the problem with the veto.

General Assembly has no veto problem

Yes it does, because every time the General Assembly has a meeting, the Security COuncil starts to veto no matter what. It's happened twice in less than a decade.

There are military aspects to the proposal that would have to go before the security council kthx.

Why may I enquire?

In concession to China, we propose the name of the Force be changed to "The United Nations Permenant Peackeeping Force".

Ireland and Huron both suggest that instead of interfering with the name and culture of the Legion Estranger, that instead the Legion simply be PART of the UN Permanent Peacekeeping Force

Huron pledges a wing of helicopters to support such a force (squadron each of attack, cargo and transport, and will probably simply hire a mercenary unit for that purpose) while the Irish pledge to provide a brigade of infantry.

The Philippines must withdraw from these precedings for week. If you please, we shall return within the week. Thank you. If a vote is returned we support the Foreign Legion, but also support a compromise. Thank you.

The Republic of France brings recent events into the view of both of the General assembly and the security council as these events may prove to be critical to the peace of the Middle East.

-The Violence which has broken out in the UIR are caused by a subversed insurgency

-The well trained insurgent troops equipped with first rate infantry and infantry support weapons, as well as plenty of mines and explosives

-Friendly intelligence determines that the insurgents are receiving massive amounts of aid from China and India, and have a sophisticated and well trained army.

-China has a permenant seat in the Security Council and appears to have violated the principles of this position.

France recommends that a Peacekeeping taskforce may be assembeled to help handle the situation.

The FNS questions why no such investigation occured in Bangladesh regarding the insurgency there.

The FNS questions why no such investigation occured in Bangladesh regarding the insurgency there.

The South African ambassador seconds the FNS' inquiry.

The FNS questions why no such investigation occured in Bangladesh regarding the insurgency there

We recognise that FNS has -just like us- brought another matter to the UN notice, however due to the nature of the crisis in the UIR since the government their faces what parallels a professional invasion rather than an insurgency and that this was instigated by a permenant member of the UN security council we feel these events should have priority.

India condemns the Insurgency in East Bengal as the work of the UIR and France and shows the intelligence information its agencies have collected (enough to prove the UIR is smuggling weapons to East Bengal, but not France, but the two are allies) and accuses the UIR of having planned the Bhopal massacre. India further points out that UIR weapons are also ending up in Burma and contributing to the rebellion there (true, some would be insurgents are selling their weapons to the Burmese rebels for drugs), and denies it is funding any insurgent groups in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

"What is happening in Pakistan and Afghanistan is a legitimate rebellion to achieve self determination and India has nothing to do with it."

Everyone is reminded that Pakistan never consented to be part of the UIR.

India condemns the Insurgency in East Bengal as the work of the UIR and France and shows the intelligence information its agencies have collected (enough to prove the UIR is smuggling weapons to East Bengal, but not France, but the two are allies) and accuses the UIR of having planned the Bhopal massacre. India further points out that UIR weapons are also ending up in Burma and contributing to the rebellion there (true, some would be insurgents are selling their weapons to the Burmese rebels for drugs), and denies it is funding any insurgent groups in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

"What is happening in Pakistan and Afghanistan is a legitimate rebellion to achieve self determination and India has nothing to do with it."

Everyone is reminded that Pakistan never consented to be part of the UIR.

The UIR snorted in derision, "You condemn the attacks in East Bengal, and with the same breath you praise the rebels in Pakistan and Afghanistan. What a hypocrisy. The UIR has no control over rebel actions as we have no advisors or aids in east Bengal. Howver, China and India have become more involved by sending advisors to direct the rebels' attacks against us, obviously with orders from the Indian government. You mention the attacks lead to war in Burma, yet you blatanlty forget that East Bengal doesn't border Burma (OOC: as you keep telling me) and you haven't shown us proof of such things having occured."

The Republic of Quebec believes that the UN is being turned from a union of nations into a tool by which certain members are enforcing their blind will on the rest of the world. It is our duty as UN members to ensure that this organization is used to ensure justice and peace in the world.

Therefore, Quebec proposes that Peacekeepers be sent to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and that plebiscites be held in all 3 areas. We understand that India and the UIR will probably not agree to these measures, but we are putting forth these suggestions in order to save the UN. Quebec has seen sufficient evidence that suggests that the insurgencies in the UIR and India are well-funded by the other nation, and that while the rebellions in Afghanistan and Pakistan may be "legitimate rebellions to achieve self determination", so is the rebellion in Bangladesh.

In order for peace, justice, and prosperity in South Asia to return, the UIR and India must both agree to these measures, for anything less than both having to submit to the will of the people and international peacekeepers will mean the bending of the United Nations towards one nations will without just cause, thus proving the UN to be ineffective in its duty.

India shows intelligence of UIR weapons being used in Burma (true btw, ask GB, and India does have that intelligence).

"Clearly the UIR is also assisting the Burmese Rebels as well as the Bengal Liberation Army."

The UIR snorted in derision, "You condemn the attacks in East Bengal, and with the same breath you praise the rebels in Pakistan and Afghanistan. What a hypocrisy. The UIR has no control over rebel actions as we have no advisors or aids in east Bengal. Howver, China and India have become more involved by sending advisors to direct the rebels' attacks against us, obviously with orders from the Indian government. You mention the attacks lead to war in Burma, yet you blatanlty forget that East Bengal doesn't border Burma (OOC: as you keep telling me) and you haven't shown us proof of such things having occured."

OOC: East Bengal DOES border Burma, or at least what is modern-day Bangladesh does.

France points out that these bits of "inteligence" seem dubious, as they come from a nation which has already violated the principles of the UN in cahoots with a permenant security council member.

So forgive us if we point out that these intel should not be considered "honest".

The UIR shook his head, "no, we cannot or will not alow plebescites to be held in any areas, be they UIR or India. If the seperate nations wish to hold them, then let them. However, this situation has been inflamed by arms shipped to rebels on both sides. We remind the U.N that even with armed rebels and fighting in Siberia, no plebescites were held because of the situation. As for the Indian delegate's response, any arms shipped to rebels are there's, we do not try to control them. We remind the U.N that the Indians didn't even attempt to argue the fact that they do have control over the rebels in Pakistan and Afghanistan as they have advisors recieving orders from the Indian government"

The UIR shook his head, "no, we cannot or will not alow plebescites to be held in any areas, be they UIR or India. If the seperate nations wish to hold them, then let them. However, this situation has been inflamed by arms shipped to rebels on both sides. We remind the U.N that even with armed rebels and fighting in Siberia, no plebescites were held because of the situation. As for the Indian delegate's response, any arms shipped to rebels are there's, we do not try to control them. We remind the U.N that the Indians didn't even attempt to argue the fact that they do have control over the rebels in Pakistan and Afghanistan as they have advisors recieving orders from the Indian government"

Quebec informs the UIR that this move is not being put forward in order to harm the UN (if you don't recall, Quebec has almost its entire airforce fighting to keep the United Islamic Republic together), however, we are trying to save the UN and avert a massive war.

Quebec informs the UIR that this move is not being put forward in order to harm the UN (if you don't recall, Quebec has almost its entire airforce fighting to keep the United Islamic Republic together), however, we are trying to save the UN and avert a massive war.

The UIR does not wish for a war, and it will not allow its country to be torn asunder by rebels

The Republic of Quebec believes that the UN is being turned from a union of nations into a tool by which certain members are enforcing their blind will on the rest of the world. It is our duty as UN members to ensure that this organization is used to ensure justice and peace in the world.

Therefore, Quebec proposes that Peacekeepers be sent to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and that plebiscites be held in all 3 areas. We understand that India and the UIR will probably not agree to these measures, but we are putting forth these suggestions in order to save the UN. Quebec has seen sufficient evidence that suggests that the insurgencies in the UIR and India are well-funded by the other nation, and that while the rebellions in Afghanistan and Pakistan may be "legitimate rebellions to achieve self determination", so is the rebellion in Bangladesh.

In order for peace, justice, and prosperity in South Asia to return, the UIR and India must both agree to these measures, for anything less than both having to submit to the will of the people and international peacekeepers will mean the bending of the United Nations towards one nations will without just cause, thus proving the UN to be ineffective in its duty.

India fully agrees with the Quebec proposal and praised Quebec for its commitment to the United Nations and world peace.

The UIR does not wish for a war, and it will not allow its country to be torn asunder by rebels

India points out that Pakistan has been a part of the UIR for only about five years and that it never agreed to join it.

The UIR cannot hold a plebescite when 300,000 Chinese and Indian sponsored rebels are roaming the country. perhaps when the situation is done with

France also agrees with Quebec, however with current violence and serious concern at the members of the Security council, we fail to see how can this be implemented right away.

India points out that Pakistan has been a part of the UIR for only about five years and that it never agreed to join.

The UIR points out the interim government agreed to join and a new governor with the Pakistani president (the UIR prez) reaffirmed this

The UIR does not wish for a war, and it will not allow its country to be torn asunder by rebels

All the more reason to accept the Quebecois proposal. With the addition of UN peacekeeping forces, the forces of order in the contested areas will have additional power to put down the insurgency, and plebiscites will show whether the common people truly wish to leave their respective nations, or if the insurgencies in both nations are simply well-funded and well-supplied by foreign powers.

The UIR cannot hold a plebescite when 300,000 Chinese and Indian sponsored rebels are roaming the country. perhaps when the situation is done with

First come the peacekeepers, THEN the plebiscites. Once the peacekeepers route out the rebels, or the rebels agree to peacefully join the democratic process, then the votes shall be held.

Let's just get peacekeeping forces into the area and then argue about other issues. Every minute we waste, more people will be killed or injured.

India proposes that plebiscites also be held in the Sikh Autonomous region and that the plebiscite in Balochistan ask whether they wish to be their own country as well.

First come the peacekeepers, THEN the plebiscites. Once the peacekeepers route out the rebels, or the rebels agree to peacefully join the democratic process, then the votes shall be held.

Unfortunately we believe that China veto'd the peacekeepers

The Netherlands is sending a Light Infantry Divison to the former Pakistan part of UIR to help the police and milita located there. The Netherlands just wants peace to reign in the area and the fighting to end here.

Quebec's plan is possibly sound, but however thanks to the efforts of India and China these are not any ordinary Insurgents but are more equivilent of a professional army and would therefore require more than the ordinary peacekeeping force.

Also, all military action has to be approved by the Security Council, something which would be difficult with China still at the helm armed with the notorious veto powers.

Unfortunately we believe that China veto'd the peacekeepers

Why the hell did he get the security council seat? Who gives a SC position to an ultra-nationalist, fascist nation? Really. Who's idea was that? :headbang:

India proposes that plebiscites also be held in the Sikh Autonomous region and that the plebiscite in Balochistan ask whether they wish to be their own country as well.

Quebec points out that there are no rebellions in either of the areas, and if we included the plebiscites in the current proposal this proposal shall be unfairly balanced towards India, unless 2 more plebiscites are held in areas of India.

OOC: disregard my last post
IC:

The UIR will need at least 5, maybe 10 years before we can fully call these regions safe from rebel atacks

Why the hell did he get the security council seat? Who gives a SC position to an ultra-nationalist, fascist nation? Really. Who's idea was that? :headbang:

OOC: we gave one to Stalin in RL...
but disregard my post

Quebec points out that there are no rebellions in either of the areas, and if we included the plebiscites in the current proposal this proposal shall be unfairly balanced towards India, unless 2 more plebiscites are held in areas of India.

The UIR will not allow plebescites there, and sees it as a cheap ploy by India to break up the UIR

India delegate is exasperated that no one has considered that the rebels could be asked to honor a ceasefire if elections are held, however for that to work the Peacekeepers would have to be independent of Government Forces…

India delegate is exasperated that no one has considered that the rebels could be asked to honor a ceasefire if elections are held, however for that to work the Peacekeepers would have to be independent of Government Forces…

If the rebels are cold-blooded enough to kill 100,000 people then they certainly won't just stop

Why the hell did he get the security council seat? Who gives a SC position to an ultra-nationalist, fascist nation? Really. Who's idea was that? :headbang:

OOC: China got it after World War 3, and they deserved it then.

The UIR will not allow plebescites there, and sees it as a cheap ploy by India to break up the UIR

OOC: The UIR doesn't HAVE to allow the plebescites, the UN can force them. I know that you would never allow them, hence why I said that they should be excluded from the proposal.

Perhaps the governments of the ToD would surely realize that all the rebels want are plebecites and a chance at democracy, which has not been granted by EITHER country.

And who is to ensure that the UIR will hold a plebecite after the rebels have been defeated?

Perhaps the governments of the ToD would surely realize that all the rebels want are plebecites and a chance at democracy, which has not been granted by EITHER country.

And who is to ensure that the UIR will hold a plebecite after the rebels have been defeated?

The UIR will not allow plebescites to be held while rebels roam free in the country.

They do not wish for peace and a chance for democracy because they struck and did not make their cause known, nor did they make any attempt for anyone to address their grievances

Perhaps the governments of the ToD would surely realize that all the rebels want are plebecites and a chance at democracy, which has not been granted by EITHER country.

And who is to ensure that the UIR will hold a plebecite after the rebels have been defeated?

The "Rebels" are merely the selected Minority armed to the teeth by the Chinese and India and set loose upon the nation, they are not freedom fighters they are tools used by India and China to forward their ideological and Radical ideas, this is backed by the fact that no peaceful attempts were made to forward their grievences to the UIR Government.

Why else would India support these insurgents which they themselves denounce in their radical ideologies and publications if not to destablise its neighbor?

The "Rebels" are merely the selected Minority armed to the teeth by the Chinese and India and set loose upon the nation, they are not freedom fighters they are tools used by India and China to forward their ideological and Radical ideas, this is backed by the fact that no peaceful attempts were made to forward their grievences to the UIR Government.

Why else would India support these insurgents which they themselves denounce in their radical ideologies and publications if not to destablise its neighbor?

If they are merely the selected Minorty armed to the teeth by the Chinese in Indians, then why does the UIR fear a vote? After all, if they have no support like you claim, then the pro-UIR voters shall win by a land-slide in the plebiscite, and all shall be well.

Because the "Harmeless" band of rebels which you have so generoiusly supported has the whole area gripped in fear as the local economy is being destroyed and many citizens are getting caught in the resulting fray, you cannot expect an adequete turnout during these times of turbulance.

The same can be said of the Bengali Rebels and the UIR government.

The same can be said of the Bengali Rebels and the UIR government.

The UIR government has been always and will remain a democracy with a Pakistani president. You will note that the UIR has said nothing to the contrary about Bengali rebels, we believe plebescites should be held of in East Bengal as well until the rebels have been quashed. A minimum of 5 years must be had first, more if the rebels persist

I have a question. The borders of India and the UIR were both made permanent and unchangable. In order to have plebiscites, would that not have to be revoked? It's the borders being discussed and made "changeable" so therefore a plebiscite is illegal based upon earlier UN discussion.

Therefore legally all we can do is quell both rebellions with a peacekeeping force.

(How come no one mentioned that yet?)

I have a question. The borders of India and the UIR were both made permanent and unchangable. In order to have plebiscites, would that not have to be revoked? It's the borders being discussed and made "changeable" so therefore a plebiscite is illegal based upon earlier UN discussion.

Therefore legally all we can do is quell both rebellions with a peacekeeping force.

It would not be illegal as the resolution covers the borders between India-Pakistan (which happens to be part of the UIR currently)-and Kashmir, not the borders between the UIR and Pakistan.

I have a question. The borders of India and the UIR were both made permanent and unchangable. In order to have plebiscites, would that not have to be revoked? It's the borders being discussed and made "changeable" so therefore a plebiscite is illegal based upon earlier UN discussion.

Therefore legally all we can do is quell both rebellions with a peacekeeping force.

(How come no one mentioned that yet?)

Actually we can't legally send a peacekeeping force thanks to China. All the UN can do is send medical aid and even that's questionable since the UIR/India would have to allow UN forces to travel through their territory.

OOC: And Haneastic, I thought you were a theocracy ruled by Islamic conservatives (in fact, I think it said that in the old UIR factbook). Why do you keep claiming you're a democracy (which is a secular government)?

Ahh, so we have many roadblocks before we cna get involved at all.

Actually we can't legally send a peacekeeping force thanks to China. All the UN can do is send medical aid and even that's questionable since the UIR/India would have to allow UN forces to travel through their territory.

OOC: And Haneastic, I thought you were a theocracy ruled by Islamic conservatives (in fact, I think it said that in the old UIR factbook). Why do you keep claiming you're a democracy (which is a secular government)?

Old factbook was run by Warta Endor and hardly ever updated though he mentioned elections at one point. Elections were held in 1966 and 1970, bringin in a Pakistani President, a Iranian VP, Afghan Sunni leader and Iranian Shiite leader

It would not be illegal as the resolution covers the borders between India-Pakistan (which happens to be part of the UIR currently)-and Kashmir, not the borders between the UIR and Pakistan.

but the reason I voted against was that there was no provision for that happening

Well then the veto of CHina still remains a problem.

Germany finds the entire situation to be absurd.

Both sides are obviously funding each other and violating the principles of national sovreignty.

Thus, both sides are equally at fault, as is China for instigating revolution in both an Ally and a neighbor.

The Revolutions, if they were peace-driven or desired anything but the utter destruction of the UIR, would have asked for plebicides and a chance at self-government. However, neither groups have asked, and simply began murdering the other sides. Germany condemns both groups as terrorists and murdering anarchists seeking nothing but the death of as many people as possible.

Thus, Germany puts forward a resolution calling for the condemnation of both rebellions, and calls for peacekeepers to be sent to BOTH areas, Pakistan/Afghanistan and Bangladesh, so that peace can be restored to both areas. Once peace is re-established, then a resolution calling for plebicides may be instigated.

Parthini']Germany finds the entire situation to be absurd.

Both sides are obviously funding each other and violating the principles of national sovreignty.

Thus, both sides are equally at fault, as is China for instigating revolution in both an Ally and a neighbor.

The Revolutions, if they were peace-driven or desired anything but the utter destruction of the UIR, would have asked for plebicides and a chance at self-government. However, neither groups have asked, and simply began murdering the other sides. Germany condemns both groups as terrorists and murdering anarchists seeking nothing but the death of as many people as possible.

Thus, Germany puts forward a resolution calling for the condemnation of both rebellions, and calls for peacekeepers to be sent to BOTH areas, Pakistan/Afghanistan and Bangladesh, so that peace can be restored to both areas. Once peace is re-established, then a resolution calling for plebicides may be instigated.

The UIR is in favor of this, neither rebellions clearly want democracy or peace if they are slaughtring civilians

The UIR is in favor of this, neither rebellions clearly want democracy or peace if they are slaughtring civilians

Quebec points out that this was what it proposed, and trying to give the credit to Germany is insulting.

Quebec points out that this was what it proposed, and trying to give the credit to Germany is insulting.

The UIR meant no insult to Quebec, however the situation got muddled by nations arguing (OOC: and some misconceptions). We also point out the German resolution asks for a resolution calling for a plebescite to be had after peace is achieved

The Netherlands agrees with Germany. The rebels are just fighting for the sake of causing the country trouble. They don't not want plebicide or they would have asked for it. For now the Netherlands just want the fighting to stop and the UN to send peacekeeping, but the Netherlands will keep the Infantry Division in the UIR right now to help fight the rebels and act as peacekeeping troops.

Quebec-German Proposed UN Resolution on the South Asian Wars

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the South Asia,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the brutal supression of rebellions, violating various conventions on human right,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the South Asia which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Indian and UIR armed forces from rebelling territories in said nations;

The introduction of peace-keepers to said rebellious areas to put a quick end to the conflict;

For plebiscites to be held in the rebelling areas of Pakistan (UIR), Afghanistan (UIR), and East Bengal/Bangladesh (India) one the situation has been brought under control by aformentioned UN Peacekeepers;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the self-determination problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to South Asia to establish and maintain contacts with the States and parties concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

The UIR meant no insult to Quebec, however the situation got muddled by nations arguing (OOC: and some misconceptions). We also point out the German resolution asks for a resolution calling for a plebescite to be had after peace is achieved

Our resolution said so, although we realise that our proposal was a bit informal, so we submitted a formal proposal for you sake.

OOC: so none of my troops in the rebel areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

OOC: so none of my troops in the rebel areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

OOC: It's to keep the conflict from escalating; since the Rebels wont be fighting UIR troops, but international troops, their fire will be diminished since they WANT the int'l community to help, thus calming them and allowing the conflict to finish sooner.

The same applies to India, too; all Indian troops leave Bangladesh as well.

OOC: It's to keep the conflict from escalating; since the Rebels wont be fighting UIR troops, but international troops, their fire will be diminished since they WANT the int'l community to help, thus calming them and allowing the conflict to finish sooner.

The same applies to India, too; all Indian troops leave Bangladesh as well.

The UIR agrees to this resolution