NationStates Jolt Archive

The Japanese delegate feels that the resolution will put a quick end to the conflict and hopefully calm tensions between the UIR and the ultra-nationalists.

If the resolution is passed, Japan can dispatch a temporary peace-keeping force (2 Transport Helicopters with Elite Pilots and either 2 Elite L. Infantry Brigades or 2 Elite Parachute Brigades) to help prevent another major terrorist attack until a long-term peacekeeping force (like the French Legion) can be organized and dispatched.

If the resolution is passed, Quebec shall transfer control of its 3 F-4 Phantom II squadrons in the UIR over to the UN peacekeeping force.

Columbia offers up the use of largeportions of our army and airforce for duty in South Asia should the U.N. help cover the cost.

Once the UN has passed the resolution the Netherlands will turn over the Elite Light Infantry Division over to the UN Peacekeeping forces.

Brazil offers to send one Highly Trained Infantry Division to join UN Peacekeeping forces for South Asia.

China makes a statement.

"We have two things to say.

1. We will lift our veto on the peackeeping mission on the condition that no European Economic Community (EEC) or Treaty of Daresaalam (ToD) forces are involved in any UN peacekeeping efforts between the UIR and India. This is due to a conflict of interest, given that the UIR is now a member of the ToD and the EEC favors the UIR over India. For a true peacekeeping mission, it must be made up of forces that are entirely neutral towards BOTH the UIR and India, otherwise effective peacekeeping won't occur with ToD or EEC favoritism.

2. China will also lift our veto if fully netural plebsicites are held in all the disputed territories in this UIR-India conflict. Again, for the veto to be lifted, EEC and ToD nations cannot participate in observing or operating of the plebiscites owing to possible favoritism and even vote fixing in favor of EEC and ToD interests.

That is all we have to say on this issue right now."

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

OOC:

Most likely my last IC RP in E20 (see E20 main thread)

China makes a statement.

"We have two things to say.

1. We will lift our veto on the peackeeping mission on the condition that no European Economic Community (EEC) or Treaty of Daresaalam (ToD) forces are involved in any UN peacekeeping efforts between the UIR and India. This is due to a conflict of interest, given that the UIR is now a member of the ToD and the EEC favors the UIR over India. For a true peacekeeping mission, it must be made up of forces that are entirely neutral towards BOTH the UIR and India, otherwise effective peacekeeping won't occur with ToD or EEC favoritism.

2. China will also lift our veto if fully netural plebsicites are held in all the disputed territories in this UIR-India conflict. Again, for the veto to be lifted, EEC and ToD nations cannot participate in observing or operating of the plebiscites owing to possible favoritism and even vote fixing in favor of EEC and ToD interests.

That is all we have to say on this issue right now."

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

OOC:

Most likely my last IC RP in E20 (see E20 main thread)

Quebec points out that this will be an INTERNATIONAL force, under the control of the United Nations, not any one nation. Although Quebec is not a member of the EEC or the ToD, many nations with the potential to send peace-keepers are.

The Netherlands will gladly let make our troops leave as long as peace comes back to this region.

As a clarification, all security in the disputed areas shall be handed over to UN forces, including at Police and Paramilitary level. This is to prevent the continuation of the war, because once government forces have been replaced with international forces in the rebelling areas, then the rebels won't have an enemy they wish to fight, so they shall lie low and begin to contribute to the peace process.

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

We agree plebcites in East Bengal would be even more difficult to hold to the higherl but local level violence.

"We have two things to say.

1. We will lift our veto on the peackeeping mission on the condition that no European Economic Community (EEC) or Treaty of Daresaalam (ToD) forces are involved in any UN peacekeeping efforts between the UIR and India. This is due to a conflict of interest, given that the UIR is now a member of the ToD and the EEC favors the UIR over India. For a true peacekeeping mission, it must be made up of forces that are entirely neutral towards BOTH the UIR and India, otherwise effective peacekeeping won't occur with ToD or EEC favoritism.

2. China will also lift our veto if fully netural plebsicites are held in all the disputed territories in this UIR-India conflict. Again, for the veto to be lifted, EEC and ToD nations cannot participate in observing or operating of the plebiscites owing to possible favoritism and even vote fixing in favor of EEC and ToD interests.

That is all we have to say on this issue right now."

We have come to an understanding that drawstrings for the return of peace to the UIR and India are coming through, We understand the desire for neutral plebicites, We also understand that this crisis was between India and the UIR.

What we do not understand is why does China should retain its veto powers, let alone its membership in this body at all.

On a certain day which shall live in infamy, the nation of China suddenly and deliberatly participated against the United Islamic Republic, not only did they kick an ally who was down, they kicked and spat in the face of an ally that had sticked by them in their time of need and dispatched major amounts of food and supplies to help ease their suffering. They attacked those who they swore on the most solumn of oaths to protect and even worse they were trusted with the highest honour to keep the peace which too has been betrayed. Instead the Chinese government decided to enroll itself in Belligerent actions which have costed thousands of lives already.

We move to recommened to the security council to strip the Chinese from their permanant seat -which would go to its predecessor Japan- and review their membership in the United Nations in general.

As for Quebec's proposed plan of action we support it entirely and hope the UN would see the wisdom in removing China's veto powers before they eliminate any chance of peace.

We also point out further material presented by NORAD on behalf of Kashgaria of Chinese military build up in order to go on an offensive. Clearly not a security council backed operation to say the least.

The Indochinese offer their Carrier battlegroup and several UIMC brigades for peace keeping duties in both countries.

China counters the French statement.

"We have stated we will support the peacekeeping mission and the plebisicites within the UIR and even East Bengal as long as the peacekeeping missions and plebisictes are not manned or administered by EEC and ToD members and no ToD / EEC involvement in any way whatsoever.

This is because the UIR is essentially a member and allied to the EEC and ToD, which effectively destroys any credibility of neutrality and impartiality by the EEC and ToD in the matter. EEC and ToD favoritism in the peacekeepering and plebiscites will be obviously far more pro-UIR than pro-India which is counter-productive to the crisis. It is supposed to be equal preference between both sides of the conflict, hence the aforementioned neturality necessary for total unbiased resolution of the crisis. It will only worsen the situation otherwise with blatant and biased favoritism of one side.

China desires to see purely neutral parties involved who will not engage in any favoritism that may occur. Candidates may include Brazil, FNS, or perhaps even the North American Alliance if deemed necessary."

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

OOC:

In RL, the US and NATO was unable to kick out the USSR from its UN seat despite how much the US and NATO wanted to. If I remember correctly. the USSR helped North Korea invade South Korea and used its UN powers to aid that endeavour, yet it wasn't kicked off the UN seat by the US and NATO.

China counters the French statement.

"We have stated we will support the peacekeeping mission and the plebisicites within the UIR and even East Bengal as long as the peacekeeping missions and plebisictes are not manned or administered by EEC and ToD members and no ToD / EEC involvement in any way whatsoever.

This is because the UIR is essentially a member and allied to the EEC and ToD, which effectively destroys any credibility of neutrality and impartiality by the EEC and ToD in the matter. EEC and ToD favoritism in the peacekeepering and plebiscites will be obviously far more pro-UIR than pro-India which is counter-productive to the crisis. It is supposed to be equal preference between both sides of the conflict, hence the aforementioned neturality necessary for total unbiased resolution of the crisis. It will only worsen the situation otherwise with blatant and biased favoritism of one side.

China desires to see purely neutral parties involved who will not engage in any favoritism that may occur. Candidates may include Brazil, FNS, or perhaps even the North American Alliance if deemed necessary."

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

OOC:

In RL, the US and NATO was unable to kick out the USSR from its UN seat despite how much the US and NATO wanted to. If I remember correctly. the USSR helped North Korea invade South Korea and used its UN powers to aid that endeavour, yet it wasn't kicked off the UN seat by the US and NATO.

The UIR asks China where the troops will be coming from, as the EEC and ToD make up a large amount of the viable nations.

OOC: They didn't kick them off because Russia didn't block everything NATO nations brought up and alowed the U.N to intervene

The French remarks if neutral was wanted then why did the Chinese Extravegantly sends funds and arms towards seperatists, Inteligence that these actions are in no means cheap and indicate that a great deal of effort was made by the Chinese and the Indians to cause strife and promote the small seperatist minority.

Hardly actons to discourage "Favoritisim".

Quebec proposes that the matter of WHAT the peace-keeping force be debated AFTER the resolution is passed.

Quebec proposes that the matter of WHAT the peace-keeping force be debated AFTER the resolution is passed.

The UIR agrees

The French recommend that the Chines cease and remove their military build up near the soverign state of Kashgaria's border as shown by photos supplied by NORAD by a deadline of 30 days otherwise the UN security council is recommended to act.

The UIR declares it will uphold Kashgaria's independance and neutrality no matter what, and asks China to step down

France announces that it is now guranteeing the neutrality and independance of Kashgaria, Nepal and Bhutan.

After some deliberation, China is considering reducing the limit on EEC peacekeepers and plebiscite observers to just France and Germany, meaning these two EEC and ToD nations will not be allowed to participate in either effort in the UIR-India conflict. China is also considering whether to veto UK troops and officials, or just limit the veto to any French and German troops and officials.

In other words, any EEC or ToD nation may send troops and officials except Germany, France, and possibly the UK (still under IC debate) considering all three nations are major parts of the EEC and ToD.

In addition, China makes it clear that China itself will not be sending troops or officials to the conflict because of the need to maintain neutrality in the peacekeeping and plebsicite efforts.

China counters the UIR and French demands.

"We will not bow to European demands in Asian affairs. Would the Europeans like it if China demands Europe not to do something within Europe? Doubtful."

Rumania points out that by forcing Germany and France out of a peacekeeping role, the effectiveness of the force will be greatly reduced. Germany and France have two of the most modern and effective militaries, and are able to commit more troops then other countries on the continent.

Rumania points out that by forcing Germany and France out of a peacekeeping role, the effectiveness of the force will be greatly reduced. Germany and France have two of the most modern and effective militaries, and are able to commit more troops then other countries on the continent.

China points out that France is an ally of the UIR, which throws French "neutrality" into question during the peacekeeping and plebisicte missions. Germany is the leader and spearheads the ToD alliance, of which the UIR is a member of, so Germany's neutrality cannot be guanatreed either.

China points out that France is an ally of the UIR, which throws French "neutrality" into question during the peacekeeping and plebisicte missions. Germany is the leader and spearheads the ToD alliance, of which the UIR is a member of, so Germany's neutrality cannot be guanatreed either.

Nigeria agrees with the esteemed diplomat from China and states that it would be willing to deploy peackeeprs to India and the UIR should it become neccessary. However, it's own forces are also busy with troubles in Africa, so at best it could only provide one or two divisions.

China counters the UIR and French demands.

"We will not bow to European demands in Asian affairs. Would the Europeans like it if China demands Europe not to do something within Europe? Doubtful."

The UIR asks when it became part of Europe

The UIR asks when it became part of Europe

OOC:
Since you buddied up to the French, duh :p

The UIR asks when it became part of Europe

China explains slowly.

"Kashgaria is Asian, within the continent of Asia roughly halfway around the world from Europe.

China is Asian, within the continent of Asia roughly halfway around the world from Europe.

Therefore the current Kashgaria - China dispute should be of no concern to Europe.

China does not demand anything of European nations in regards of European affairs within Europe. Meaning if there was a revolt or border dispute in Europe, China would not intervene because it is none of China's business. Europeans should do the same courtesy towards Asia."

China explains slowly.

"Kashgaria is Asian, within the continent of Asia roughly halfway around the world from Europe.

China is Asian, within the continent of Asia roughly halfway around the world from Europe.

Therefore the current Kashgaria - China dispute should be of no concern to Europe.

China does not demand anything of European nations in regards of European affairs within Europe. Meaning if there was a revolt or border dispute in Europe, China would not intervene because it is none of China's business. Europeans should do the same courtesy towards Asia."

And yet the UIR is asian, and has declared it will uphold Kashgaria's independance and neutrality no matter what

(Stays out of this one.)

The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations, or by the Security Council, or by a state which is not a Member of the United Nations in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 2, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations with regard to any such questions to the state or states concerned or to the Security Council or to both. Any such question on which action is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after discussion.

The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security.

Therefore we submit the situation in the Sino-Kashgarian matter as likly to endanger international peace and security, our recomendation is to take action against China to protect the soverignty of the people of Kashgaria.

But Before this, A resoulution is presented in the GENERAL ASSEMBLY for the suspension of the rights and privileges of the membership of China in the United Nations until further notice over their actions to instigate war in Central Asia and more specifically in the UIR.

France and the UIR are the first to vote for this action

Indochina votes against this resolution
(Most likely as will Burma)

Rumania votes in favor of this resolution, stating that "China's imperialistic designs must be halted before war once again comes to the world."

Therefore we submit the situation in the Sino-Kashgarian matter as likly to endanger international peace and security, our recomendation is to take action against China to protect the soverignty of the people of Kashgaria.

But Before this, A resoulution is presented in the GENERAL ASSEMBLY for the suspension of the rights and privileges of the membership of China in the United Nations until further notice over their actions to instigate war in Central Asia and more specifically in the UIR.

Huron supports this, as does Texas. The remaining North American states (the NPC ones) defer for the moment to see what Columbia wants to do.

Russia is still deciding as well (ooc trying to wait for him to come back before committing Russia to anything)

Ireland brings up their resolution ending veto power in the Security Council and eliminating permanent Security Council seats

France and the UIR votes for the Resolution ending veto powers aswell.

The UIP also votes for the end of veto power's resolution. *Stays silent on the other one.*

The Chinese diplomat walks back into the UN conference room with a solemn look on his face.

"It has come to my attention that evidence of Kashgarian atrocities aganist Chinese refugees have surfaced in more detail."

He proceeds to put on display pictures and videos of various Kashgarian atrocities committed aganist the refugees. Several pictures demostrate Chinese refugees whose faces were nearly unrecongizable from severe beatings, while some others show Chinese children hung upside down covered in whip-caused wounds with laughing Kashgarians in the background. Several videos demostrate Kashgarian mobs chasing Chinese refugees who were only begging for food or basic living necessities. Several interviews show badly beat women describing Kashgarian rapes through sobs and pure emotion. Other pieces of video and photographs highlight various other atrocities ranging from more beatings to actual hangings and even scenes where Kashgarian police stood by idly while fellow Kashgarians ruthlessly attacked innocent Chinese refugees. An even more disturbing video shows Kashgarians whipping Chinese refugees in chains in what resembled a labor gang. Pictures show mass graves with at least fifty Chinese refugees packed in like sardines. Yet some more pictures detail young Chinese girls with mauled clothing and doctors with indifferent expressions.

The Chinese diplomat swallowed and exhibited quite grave concern on his face with underlying tones of cold rage.

"This is why China is forced to take action aganist Kashgaria. The Kashgarians have treated the Chinese horribly, not once but twice. They committed genocide aganist the Chinese in the 1930's under the support of the former Soviet Union, and their attitudes have not changed that much even today. When the 1964 Holocaust occurred, the Kashgarians took in Chinese refugees, and then committed atrocities upon them not limited to rape, beatings, hangings, genocide, and even as far as enslaving the refugees.

We have tried to leave the memories of the 1930's genocides behind, and try to give Kashgaria a chance to stand on its own. However, its people still end up committing these atrocities aganist Chinese even though we respected their independence for nearly 40 years. The evidence grows month by month, and the Chinese people demand action. Therefore, China must act before more Chinese refugees are killed, maimed, or ruined.

What bothers China the most is the UIR, a Chinese ally, was allied to this despicable nation of Kashgaria and did not do anything about it, nor pressured Kashgaria to stop the genocides and atrocities as far as several years ago. I cannot comprehend why the UIR would willingly support a nation that commits these acts upon civilians of one of its other allies.

I grow more and more furious every time I watch these pictures and videos, at the sheer atrocity and the evil that the Kashgarians are doing unto the Chinese refugees who thought they were gaining sancutary in Kashgaria from the Holocaust. What do they find? Murder! Rape! Mobs! Genocide! This cannot be allowed to stand.

The Chinese people demand the Kashgarians are brought to justice for their crimes. And the Chinese government listens to the will of its people, and the deed shall be done."

The ambassador makes a visible effort to calm down, in a herculean effort in controlling his emotions.

Britain votes for the suspension of Chinese rights in the UN.

However it feels that some permenant membership on the security council is vital so that it represents the nations best able to make decisions with regards to military action on behalf of the UN. Imagine a hypothetical situation whereby Quebec, Rwanda, Nepal, Andorra, Indonesia and other such nations hold the rotating security council seats, would the world be happy for them to make the most important decisions in the organisation?

Instead Britain proposes that the security council experiences several reforms with the membership representing the nations holding most military power and experience becoming members and that a periodic reform is held every 5 or 10 years to ensure that the most suitable candidates are always at the helm of the UN peacekeeping system.

You are proposing that the most militarily powerful nations sit on the seats? That's not reform, that's turning the Security Council from an oligarchy to a Dictatorship. How is that any different than those countries simply using military might to force the other countries to do what they want? I'd rather have Quebec, Rwanda, Nepal, Andorra, and Indonesia on a permanent council than that dark idea. If we'd have that rule, the Soviet Union would have had much more power than it did. Personally I find this recommendation disturbing.

Germany points out that only the Chinese have seen evidence of these "atrocities" and groups such as Amnesty International have shown no such evidence of widespread "rape and murder." Germany condemns the Chinese government for falsifying information to spread lies and deceit.

Germany also supports the resolution to oust China from the UN, as well as to abolish the veto.

Indochina Vote in favour for abolishing the Veto

So far this is how I've counted the Abolishment of the Veto votes.

For: UIR, France, Germany, UIP, Indochina, Arab Federation
Against: Great Britain, South Africa

THat's what I've seen so far. If anyone wants to add. Go for it. Of course those who have veto power can veto it. Therefore showing the problem with the veto in the first place.

Therefore we submit the situation in the Sino-Kashgarian matter as likly to endanger international peace and security, our recomendation is to take action against China to protect the soverignty of the people of Kashgaria.

But Before this, A resoulution is presented in the GENERAL ASSEMBLY for the suspension of the rights and privileges of the membership of China in the United Nations until further notice over their actions to instigate war in Central Asia and more specifically in the UIR.

The Arab Federation supports this resolution as well as the resolution for the Abolishment of the Veto.

South Africa votes for the resolution censuring China, and against the resolution abolishing permanent seats on the Security Council.

OOC: Sukiaida, the veto powers are specifically granted to the five permanent members of the Security Council. Unless I'm mistaken, resolutions before the General Assembly cannot be vetoed per se, only killed through endless debate and an unwillingness to compromise.

Then why have their been several General Assembly Issues that have been vetoed, and no one said that they couldn't be? Well except for a single voice, which then got squashed.

Then why have their been several General Assembly Issues that have been vetoed, and no one said that they couldn't be? Well except for a single voice, which then got squashed.

OOC: Which ones have been vetoed? If you're talking about the peacekeeper ones that China vetoed, those were before the Security Council, because they involved issues of international peace and security, and the possible deployment of UN-controlled military forces.

India votes against the resolution abolishing permanent seats on the Security Council.

Rumania votes for the resolution abolishing permenant security council seats.

Alright updating what I wrote. Alrighty.

Ohhhh just about every resolution has had someone in the security council try to veto it.

Here's the updated version.

For: UIR, France, Germany, UIP, Indochina, Arab Federation, Rumania, Japan
Against: Great Britain, South Africa, India, Nigeria, The Netherlands

The Netherlands votes against the resolution abolishing permenant security council seats.

Japan votes for the abolishment of veto powers, as they go against the very principles of democracy.

Nigeria casts it's vote against the resolution calling for the abolishment of permenant security council seats.

OOC: Out of curiousity, why is Nigeria so Pro-India? It's a legitimate question. I'm curious.

IC: Currently on the abolishment of the veto powers, we have 8 for and 5 against. (And actual debate on it, not just one overwhelming thing. Though in truth if this fails, this UN will be just as ineffective as the real one.)

USCA abstains from this vote.

Columbia offers up the use of large portions of our army and airforce for duty in South Asia should the U.N. help cover the cost.

Columbia restates its offer, pointing out its complete neutrality in the affair unlike most of the world(Being either ATO, EEC, ToD or some other organization with ties to the situation.)

Columbia restates its offer, pointing out its complete neutrality in the affair unlike most of the world(Being either ATO, EEC, ToD or some other organization with ties to the situation.)

India accepts the Columbian offer and states that only neutral Nations should be part of the peacekeeping force.

OOC: Out of curiousity, why is Nigeria so Pro-India? It's a legitimate question. I'm curious.

IC: Currently on the abolishment of the veto powers, we have 8 for and 5 against. (And actual debate on it, not just one overwhelming thing. Though in truth if this fails, this UN will be just as ineffective as the real one.)
They're both anti-arab and anti-muslim.

They're both anti-arab and anti-muslim.

OOC: Nigeria has a Muslim majority, but is anti-Arab.

China points out that the UN resolution calling for abolition of veto power will put nations on different continents or half-a-world away at the mercy of politics of alliance blocs. This is outlined in several points.

1. If the veto abolition passes, there can be no stopping the ToD from simply "majority voting" UN resolutions that are beneficial to the ToD only like "UN Resolution to allow ToD Nations to station military in all nations", or voting on a pile of UN resolutions that will negatively impact Asia or any targets of ToD dislike like "UN Resolution to Lower ToD Tariffs and Increase Tariffs on non-ToD nations". In other words, the ToD can simply pass votes on all UN resolutions to whichever the ToD prefers, which effectively destroys the UN as a global body.

2. It shouldn't be allowed for nations in Europe and Africa to combine up (ToD) and pass their votes upon American nations, Australia, Oceania nations, or Asia nations and these non-ToD nations can't do anything about it in the UN because they would lack the 50% majority to do so. Again, this will destroy the function of the UN as a truly global organization as it will end up becoming a ToD puppet.

3. China may be inclined to support the dissolution of veto power only if a resolution is made to amend the amount of votes needed to pass a UN resolution to 75% majority instead of just 50%.

4. To check the ability of major alliance blocs from controlling the UN, the veto power needs to stay in place (albeit with a 2/3'rds overriding ability) to allow nations not part of "major alliance blocs" a voice able to equal the major alliance blocs. Otherwise there will be no point to the UN anymore as it will essentially become a puppet or an "arm" of the alliance bloc (like the ToD).

5. An alternative would be to grant major alliance blocs only one vote, as if they were a nation into themselves. This shall still allow for non-allied nations to have their say and equality in the UN instead of being strong-armed.

6. If veto power manages to be abolished, China shall withdraw from the UN because by then, the UN will only be a ToD puppet and measures that the ToD doesn't like will never take effect. The ToD will attempt to impose their will on non-ToD nations in the UN, which must not be allowed. By withdrawing from the UN, China will not be obliged or be forced to obey the wishes of the ToD and the puppet-string pulling.

Parthini']Germany points out that only the Chinese have seen evidence of these "atrocities" and groups such as Amnesty International have shown no such evidence of widespread "rape and murder." Germany condemns the Chinese government for falsifying information to spread lies and deceit.

Germany also supports the resolution to oust China from the UN, as well as to abolish the veto.

OOC:

We don't exactly have Adobe Photoshop or these fancy computer generated graphics yet in E20, so these photos and videos are authentic as far as anyone knows.

Besides, Germany doesn't have to worry about ousting China because China will leave the UN of its own accord should the veto resolution pass because by then the UN will be a puppet of the ToD, and China refuses to submit to ToD policies or directives in the non-veto ToD controlled UN.

Brazil Vote in favour for abolishing the Veto

OOC: Then it makes sense. Sorta, but everything in life only makes sorta sense. Update the votes later.

Germany, realizing that India may not wish to have allies of its rival assist in the democratic process of said rival politely withdraws the use of German soldiers as Peacekeepers in the UIR, if only to speed along the peace process.

Germany also recommends that France, and if needed, other EEC members also ask to have their soldiers not chosen.

Parthini']Germany, realizing that India may not wish to have allies of its rival assist in the democratic process of said rival politely withdraws the use of German soldiers as Peacekeepers in the UIR, if only to speed along the peace process.

Germany also recommends that France, and if needed, other EEC members also ask to have their soldiers not chosen.

The Indian Ambassador thanks Germany for its very reasonable stance and provided France follows suit has no further objections to the Quebec Resolution.

With the developments with India-Germany and possibly India-French diplomacy and peackeeeping issue, China chooses to withdraw its threat of veto and allow the resolution to proceed (and will actually vote "aye" in favor of the peackeeping and plebisicites)

As for peacekeeping issues, France agrees to follow suit and issues new hope for peace and stability in UIR-Indian relations.

Later the French representative meets secretly with the Indian representative indicating that war is out of French best interests and should the UIR be the aggressor then the Republic of France shall not support them and even halt all aid.

It is noted however that France already has a airbase in the Region, but it hopes that this shall not be a major nuisance as they pledge they will keep to themselves unless nessecery to act.

With the Chinese threat of veto withdrawn completely, the resolution should easily pass, and both peacekeeping and plebisicites should proceed without any problems (from China at least).

China changes its votes for the peacekeeping mission to "Aye!"

China changes its votes for the UN sponsored Plebiscites to "Aye!"

With this matter handled, The Republic of France calls a much more serious issue to the United Nations; The Invasion of the soverign Nation of Kashgaria by the Chinese over dubious claims of Human rights abuse.

We present a Reolution condemning Chinese unilateral action without resoritng to Diplomacy or the United Nations thus violating articles of Chapter VI and VII of the United Nations Charter.

We recommened that China withdraws from Kashgaria IMMEDIATLEY to pre-determined internationally set borders, Pending this a UN Fact Finding mission shall be dispatched to look into dubious Chinese claims which only came to light after an extensive military build up in preperation to this action.

Upon Chinese failure to do this, we demand that sanctions be placed on them and that Millitary action be taken as this is not only a violation of the soverignty of an internationally recognised nation, as you know the UIR and France have publically guranteed the independance of Kashgaria and such have a legal Cause for conflict with China.

We come to the UN in hopes of resolving this matter, however if suitable action is not undertaken then we threaten military action should the Nation not withdraw.

Later the French representative meets secretly with the Indian representative indicating that war is out of French best interests and should the UIR be the aggressor then the Republic of France shall not support them and even halt all aid.

During the secret meeting the Indian UN Ambassador, a senior female Vanara Sena Party member, angrily reproaches France for its “failure to keep its Muslim dog on a tight lease,” making it very clear she considers the French Government ultimately at fault for the conflict.

“The French government is at fault for the situation in that it allowed the UIR to swallow Pakistan without a vote, violating the Pakistani and Sikh people’s right to self determination. The French Government allowed the UIR to take on an aggressive posture in regards to the newly independent Indian Republic, allowed it to make veiled threats, allowed it to diplomatically challenge India’s territorial integrity. France opposed the UN Pakistan-Kashmir-Indian Border Resolution and has attempted its repeal, actions that would, if successful, have undermined India’s national security and territorial integrity. France has also allowed the UIR to smuggle weapons to rebels in East Bengal and Burma, destabilizing Southwest and Southeast Asia, showing that your Government was either directly working with the UIR to harm our interests or completely ignorant, we will assume you were all ignorant.”

The Indian Ambassador privately admits that Indian Intelligence funded, trained, and supplied the Pakistani and Afghan rebels, but that it did so purely in self defense.

“India wishes to live in peace with its neighbors, India has no imperial ambitions, India does not oppose European influence in Central Asia or the EEC, however India cannot accept hostile states such as the United Islamic Republic being allowed to hold a knife to its throat, cannot accept hostility being directed against it, cannot accept its sovereign territory being subverted. We have a right to defend ourselves by any means necessary, defend our nation before it is too late to act. India was not attacking the EEC, India was defending itself from UIR aggression.”

It is noted however that France already has a airbase in the Region, but it hopes that this shall not be a major nuisance as they pledge they will keep to themselves unless nessecery to act.

“India will be watching that base and it should not be a nuisance provided the French troops within do not stir from it.”

The Ambassador’s parting words are “India will play by the rules, but France has a responsibility to maintain stability in its areas of influence.”

OOC: Consider it a complement of sorts, given Frances condition in the 40s, beaten, disarmed, its economy in tatters, its European territory reduced, its colonial empire utterly gone; to be considered at fault for failing to maintain stability in an obscure part of the world is to be considered of great stature, which shows how far France has come since the start of the Fourth Republic. No doubt the French elite, with the exception of the President, the government (who will likely experience a fall in public support), and the Foreign Minister (who will likely be sacked by the government for incompetence), are quite pleased at this.

With a hint of acknowledgement, the meeting ends.

The French Representative declares his utmost pleasure of the handling of the matter by the UN and announces that it will lift the Embargo on India and asks its allies to do the same.

Meanwhile the situation in Kashgaria is again put forward to the security council and is urged to act.

Alright updating what I wrote. Alrighty.

Ohhhh just about every resolution has had someone in the security council try to veto it.

Here's the updated version.

For: UIR, France, Germany, UIP, Indochina, Arab Federation, Rumania, Japan
Against: Great Britain, South Africa, India, Nigeria, The Netherlands

OOC NOTE: For any reform to the Security Council, the Charter must be changed. Thus, according to the UN Charter, it must be approved by not only the General Assembly, but the Security Council as a whole. This means not only a majority (or perhaps 2/3, cant remember off the top of my head) must approve the change in the General assembly, but at least 4 elected (rotating) members and ALL 5 PERMANENT MEMBERS MUST VOTE IN FAVOR. This is why they haven't made any changes in RL. With "nay" votes from Great Britain and South Africa, this resolution would fail.

Any reform you try to achieve must be more moderate, and take into account the needs of the Permanent 5 members, or it will fail. The Permanent 5 were designed to provide a counter-balance, so even if the US got enough nations on the security council for a "re-unify Germany" resolution, it would be stopped, and prevent "tyranny by majority" in general. The G-77 (a collection of 3rd-world countries) and NAM (non-aligned movement) have historically been speedbumps to progress in the general assembly, voting against resolutions sometimes solely due to who proposed them.

The reform option most likely to be passed is an override process, where X% of the general assembly can override a UNSC veto. However, the UN general assembly is usually only in session from September-December, and unless the General Assembly also votes to quadruple its amount of work, that won't work very well.

Also, might I propose we create 2 UN threads. One for the General Assembly, where every nation may post, and resolutions are non-binding. The other would be for the UN Security Council, and only the current UN security council members (which really needs to be done regularly, perhaps through a UN mod?), mods controlling NPC action, and nations specifically invited to discuss a topic may post. The resolutions here are binding, and may be vetoed (as of now).

<snip.>

Thank you for that enlightenment. I agree that two threads is a good idea, so that there's some clear delineation between UNSC and UNGA matters. I'll volunteer for UN mod, since I'm not really doing economics anymore.

Britain votes for the French security council resolution to stop the Chinese occupation of Kashgaria.

Britain also notes that it is willing to compromise on its veto powers in the Security Council, perhaps a 2/3rds majority in the council overuling a veto decision? Thereby ensuring that too much power does not lie with the permenant members.

South Africa supports Britain's proposal of a 2/3 majority override of Security Council vetos.

Germany points out that it isn't so much the veto power, as who claims it.

At this point, the "victors" of World War Three hold the veto power as they were the obvious most powerful nations. Now, 25 years later, events have unfolded to where the balance of Power certainly is not the same. There IS no more United States and China has become unstable and a paraiah.

Thus, Germany feels that on top of the proposed "veto" elimination, Security Council membership should perhaps be reformed to include more nations that have taken a much more prominent role in World Politics.

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

When the meetings are dismissed, a reporter questions the German Ambassador: "Sir! If you could reform the Security Council, how would you do it?"

His reply was simple: "I would have seven Permanent and 14 rotating. The seven would be Columbia, Britain, Germany, Russia, South Africa, FNS and Australasia or Huron."

Parthini']His reply was simple: "I would have seven Permanent and 14 rotating. The seven would be Columbia, Britain, Germany, Russia, South Africa, FNS and Australasia or Huron."

The Japanese representitive speaks up:
"How about an Asian country get's at least one seat considering Asia is the largest continent on Earth with the largest population on Earth? And don't even say Russia is an Asian country. How about a country from each continent (excluding Antarctica) gets one seat and then a commonwealth representitive (most likely Britain). How about:
Columbia (North America)
Germany/France/Russia (Europe)
FNS/Brazil (South America)
S.Africa (Africa)
Asian Country (We'll have to see how the S.Asian War turns out)
Australasia (Pacific)
Britain (Commonwealth) or another Asian country
These seven seats helps balance out the major alliances and doesn't favor Europe.

The German Representative merely remarks that he was stating his preference.

He also remarks that most of Russia is in Asia, and that Australasia could be considered to be a part of Asia (hence the Asia).

Lastly, he remarks that China was a member of the SC, but has recently proved itself to be incapable of even retaining UN membership, and that India, the obvious next-in-line, as well as the UIR have proven themselves undesiring of peace and justice.

All the nations presented have shown their willingness to strive for peace and justice and the adhering of the UN charter, something which Asia, at the moment, strongly lacks.

Perhaps in 10 years, Asia will have changed its hostile stance, and further reform can take place. As a matter of fact, Germany suggests that every 10 years, the Permanent Members should be reviewed for their willingness to act with such responsibility and decided whether or not they should retain their veto status.

Although off handedly the Republic of France has no qualms with progressive and stable Asian nations to hold the permenant seat like the Indochines, The Philipines, The Japanese and the Koreans.

Although off handedly the Republic of France has no qualms with progressive and stable Asian nations to hold the permenant seat like the Indochines, The Philipines, The Japanese and the Koreans.

The South Africans share French sentiments, especially as far as Korea is concerned.

Australasia is based in Australia (which is the continent it represents) and Russia is Europen in politics, culture, and historically. Like France said, Asia does not mean China and India.

OOC: Erm, I didn't say that exactly, but I would consider Australasia a part of Asia and Australia.

India points out that the parts of the resolution concerning voting are vague and should be more specific otherwise it would be meaningless.

Proposed Amendment: Voting in the contested regions of the UIR

Votes will be held in the Sikh autonomous region, Blochistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

The choices will be as follow.

[] Become part of an independent Pakistan (independence)
[] Become part of an independent Afghanistan (independence)
[] Become part of an independent Blochistan (independence)
[] Become part of a fully independent Punjab region (independence)
[] Remain part of the United Islamic Republic

Areas that vote 50% or more for independence will receive it, joining the area that received the highest amount of popular support.

India points out that the parts of the resolution concerning voting are vague and should be more specific otherwise it would be meaningless.

Proposed Amendment: Voting in the contested regions of the UIR

Votes will be held in the Sikh autonomous region, Blochistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

The choices will be as follow.

[] Become part of an independent Pakistan (independence)
[] Become part of an independent Afghanistan (independence)
[] Become part of an independent Blochistan (independence)
[] Become part of a fully independent Punjab region (independence)
[] Remain part of the United Islamic Republic

Areas that vote 50% or more for independence will receive it, joining the area that received the highest amount of popular support.

The UIR points out that the "suggestion" by India to vote in Balochistan and the Sikh region was defeated as there were no violence or any upheavel in either of the regions, in fact the Sikhs had previously stated they were happy the way they were.

The Sikh region is not Pakistani yet should be allowed a vote of independence, the matter of Blochistan we leave to the UN. India however cannot support this resolution if it does not give the Sikhs region a vote.

The Sikh region is not Pakistani yet should be allowed a vote of independence, the matter of Blochistan we leave to the UN. India however cannot support this resolution if it does not give the Sikhs region a vote.

The UIR is outraged by this attempt to hijack the U.N proposal. The proposal called for up and down votes in Pakistan and Afghanistan. India is merely trying to weaken the UIR. These regions have not expressed an interest in leaving, and the Sikhs have been content staying Semi-Autonomous. Balochistan has commited its own troops to fight the rebels.

The resolution concerning votes was vague and no where did it say "up or down," this is just to clarify things.

The resolution concerning votes was vague and no where did it say "up or down," this is just to clarify things.

If the resolution was vague, then the Indian ammendment should have included the up and down vote, not trying to slip in 2 more areas in the UIR

If the resolution was vague, then the Indian ammendment should have included the up and down vote, not trying to slip in 2 more areas in the UIR

Why not?

Rumania votes against the Indian resolution unless the Sikh region and Blochistan are dropped from the plebiscite list.

Why not?

The resolution was clear enough what areas were to have plebescites, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and East Bengal.

The UIR delegate points out India only mentioned it was vague about the "up and down" part

India points out that it only recently realized how vague it was, that the voting formula was not laid out, and that it should be as inclusive as possible.

India points out that it only recently realized how vague it was, that the voting formula was not laid out, and that it should be as inclusive as possible.

There was no reason to add the Sikhs or Balochistan, the orignal resolution was quite clear as to what regions voted. This is a cheap ploy to add more UIR regions to try to dismantle us

There was no reason to add the Sikhs or Balochistan, the orignal resolution was quite clear as to what regions voted. This is a cheap ploy to add more UIR regions to try to dismantle us

Perhaps a UN team should be dispatched to the Punjab Autonomous area to verify that they indeed want a vote and do not wish to be part of Pakistan, the UIR, or India.

Perhaps a UN team should be dispatched to the Punjab Autonomous area to verify that they indeed want a vote and do not wish to be part of Pakistan, the UIR, or India.

The UIR points out that India has admitted they are a part of Pakistan, and Pakistan is included in the plebescite resolution. If Pakistan does indeed want independance, than a later vote can be held concerning the Sikh region. However, at present, the resolution calls for votes in East Bengal, Pakistan, and Afghanistan

At present the resolution is too vague and needs to be clarified.

At present the resolution is too vague and needs to be clarified.

We notice the Indian's never attacked any of our points, so they still stand. The resolution may have been vague in the up and down opart, but not what areas were to be voted upon

We notice the Indian's never attacked any of our points, so they still stand. The resolution may have been vague in the up and down opart, but not what areas were to be voted upon

It is also vague in how the vote shall be structured, what would be the options, and if it were at a national or regional level. None of that is mentioned in the resolution.

It is also vague in how the vote shall be structured, what would be the options, and if it were at a national or regional level. None of that is mentioned in the resolution.

Mentioning Pakistan and Afghanistan shows it is on a national level, and the options are quite obvious, independance or UIR. Even if the up and down and where to go wasn't obvious, the areas was

Mentioning Pakistan and Afghanistan shows it is on a national level, and the options are quite obvious, independance or UIR. Even if the up and down and where to go wasn't obvious, the areas was

Pakistan and Afghanistan are made up of various local entities and as the resolution no where says "national" it clearly meant the geographic areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The South African delegate points out that the regions initially included in the plebiscite resolution were those which had displayed an obvious desire among the people for independence. Adding more regions within the UIR is a move supported by dubious reasons at best. South Africa moves that no further changes be made to the present resolution, so that international peacekeepers may be moved in quickly and plebiscites occur as soon as is practical. Especially in regards to current events throughout Asia, the UN act efficiently, rather than being tied down in endless debate and stalling measures.

The Sikh region has displayed an obvious desire among the people for independence from the UIR and a desire not to be part of an independent Pakistan (although technically it is part of the geographic area of Pakistan). Therefore a separate vote should be held in the Punjab Autonomous area.

The Punjab Autonomous area is part of geographic Pakistan and therefore is covered by the Resolutions geographic mandate concerning plebiscites; the issue of how those plebiscites should be conducted was however overlooked in the resolution and should be clarified. India seeks to do just that.

The Indochinese delegeate supports the Indian resolution. Citing that all peoples should be given the chance to chose their own path and those willing not to give it are guilty of oppression.

Britain pushes for the approval of it's veto resolution (2/3rds majority in Security council can overule a veto) so that urgent measures can be imposed on China who have so flagrantly ignored national sovereignity and international condemnation.

If this fails then Britain states that the UN itself has failed in its aim to uphold peace and cooperation in the world in allowing the Chinese occupation of Kashgaria. Britain will then have no choice but to persue other lines of action in bringing this torrid state of affairs to a close, and has already begun discussions with allies over the nature of this conclusion.

France puts its support behind the British Proposal

USCA also puts it's support behind UK's proposal.

The UIR supports the British resolution

OOC: Is the Indian addition in the security council? If so, It got veto'd by South Africa

The Indochines vote against the British resolution.

China points out the following.

For any reform to the Security Council, the Charter must be changed. Thus, according to the UN Charter, it must be approved by not only the General Assembly, but the Security Council as a whole. This means not only a 2/3 majority must approve the change in the General assembly, but at least 4 elected (rotating) members and ALL 5 PERMANENT MEMBERS MUST VOTE IN FAVOR.

Any reform the UN tries to achieve must be more moderate, and take into account the needs of the Permanent 5 members, or it will fail. The Permanent 5 were designed to provide a counter-balance, so even if EEC got enough nations on the security council for a "Heavy Tariffs on non-EEC nations" resolution, it would be stopped, and prevent "tyranny by majority" in general.

The reform option most likely to be passed is an override process, where X% of the general assembly can override a UNSC veto. However, the UN general assembly is usually only in session from September-December, and unless the General Assembly also votes to quadruple its amount of work, that won't work very well.

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

OOC:

Took the liberty of tweaking Elephantum's OOC post into an IC post as it does have substantial importance to the UN process being discussed IC'ly.

OOC: Is the Indian addition in the security council? If so, It got veto'd by South Africa

OOC: I haven't veto'd anything...

OOC: I haven't veto'd anything...

No I think that since the resolution is in the Secuirty Council, you struck the add-on down. The main resolution still stays, but the Indian add-on is dead I think

No I think that since the resolution is in the Secuirty Council, you struck the add-on down. The main resolution still stays, but the Indian add-on is dead I think

OOC: He just said he did not veto it!

OOC: He just said he did not veto it!

But a security council nation that has the veto power and votes against it is an automtic veto I believe. I'm still waiting on your change to the resolution by the way, unless you need me to post something

No I think that since the resolution is in the Secuirty Council, you struck the add-on down. The main resolution still stays, but the Indian add-on is dead I think

OOC: South Africa argued against the Indian amendment, it didn't veto it.

But a security council nation that has the veto power and votes against it is an automtic veto I believe. I'm still waiting on your change to the resolution by the way, unless you need me to post something

OOC: He never really voted against it, just said it lacked his support, and a vote is not a veto.

Without withdrawing the first amendment India proposes a second stating an up or down vote on independence be held in the Punjab Autonomous area. The first amendment will be altered to take into account the approval of the second.

Without withdrawing the first amendment India proposes a second stating an up or down vote on independence be held in the Punjab Autonomous area. The first amendment will be altered to take into account the approval of the second.

The UIR would support a vote in the Punjab area provided the Balochistan vote was taken off the list

OOC: I think that's what you meant, just clarifying my position

The UIR would support a vote in the Punjab area provided the Balochistan vote was taken off the list

OOC: I think that's what you meant, just clarifying my position

The Indian delegation officially takes the proposed Balochistan vote off the list (withdraws it).

Ireland, as well as Cuba, Spain, and Iceland propose that China be expelled from the United Nations for its blatant violation of the UN Charter in waging an aggressive war of conquest against Kashgaria, and for numerous war crimes committed since.

A ground swell of support from other nations (the NPCs) follows

OOC: Didn't we already kindof agree to this?

IC: Germany supports the Irish resolution, as well as the withdrawl of the Balochistan on the independance ballot.

More quietly, the German ambassador approaches the Indian about the issue of the newly formed states, should they appear. He refers to Indian non-interferance in those new states and concludes that either India should sign a treaty or add an amendment in the resolution about it. He states that India will not interfere in the policies of the newly formed states at all. This includes, but is not limited to:

-Political involvement other than simple embassies
-Economic involvement other than simple trade
-Military involvement
-Espionage of any sort

The ambassador states that Germany will accept no less and will agree to convince the UIR to agree to similar measures with India's new puppet, should India become agreeable.

Parthini']
More quietly, the German ambassador approaches the Indian about the issue of the newly formed states, should they appear. He refers to Indian non-interferance in those new states and concludes that either India should sign a treaty or add an amendment in the resolution about it. He states that India will not interfere in the policies of the newly formed states at all. This includes, but is not limited to:

-Political involvement other than simple embassies
-Economic involvement other than simple trade
-Military involvement
-Espionage of any sort

The ambassador states that Germany will accept no less and will agree to convince the UIR to agree to similar measures with India's new puppet, should India become agreeable.

India finds the German proposal most agreeable provided they apply to the UIR as well... As to the form of the agreement, India favors a treaty separate from the UN Resolution, as using the UN to divide up spheres of influence at present would look somewhat unseemly given recent events.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11539883&postcount=1611

Important issue for the UN regarding the veto-override resolution. The veto-override requires an amendment to the UN Charter, which must be approved by a majority of the General Assembly, and the uniamonious approval of the security council members as well.

South Africa supports the Irish resolution, and has already stated its support for the British resolution (concerning veto overrides).

Korea is against any modification to the veto power.

Why? FOr those who are for the veto power as it is, why do you not want it changed? We believe an explanation should be forthcoming. THose who support the change have made their cases, why do those who support the old way wish to keep it?

Why? FOr those who are for the veto power as it is, why do you not want it changed? We believe an explanation should be forthcoming. THose who support the change have made their cases, why do those who support the old way wish to keep it?

Korea, after reviewing the facts, changes its vote to support of the British Resolution (OOC: The one that allows for a 2/3rds overruling). The UN Ambassador explains simply, "I had a long day..."

Why? FOr those who are for the veto power as it is, why do you not want it changed? We believe an explanation should be forthcoming. THose who support the change have made their cases, why do those who support the old way wish to keep it?

To put it simply...

Without a veto power in the UN, the EEC + ToD dominance of the UN will be guanatreed. And if the EEC + ToD wants to pass anti-Asian or anti-American (unlikely, but just citing an example) or anti-"whoever EEC + ToD hates" resolutions, the EEC + ToD can do that easily if the veto power is overriden.

Therefore, the veto power is needed for the Asians, Americans, and non-EEC / ToD nations to prevent these two "blocs" from unfairly imposing UN laws and such that would be enormously beneficial for the EEC + ToD while being enormously negative for the "victim" nations or other alliance blocs.

What it boils down is three words.

"Tyranny by Majority".

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11539883&postcount=1611

Important issue for the UN regarding the veto-override resolution. The veto-override requires an amendment to the UN Charter, which must be approved by a majority of the General Assembly, and the uniamonious approval of the security council members as well.

ooc
which is another reason the Irish want to kick China out.. so they won't have to deal with a Chinese veto preventing China from losing its veto

The German delegate remarks that he is insulted when the Chinese describe the ToD as a tyrranical alliance.

For one, he remarks, the ToD does not require members to politically support each other. It is merely a way of protecting those who still care about justice and liberty.

The German delegate then stresses the need for the UN to come to a quick decision on whether or not to oust China from the UN.

someone with some time if they could post in this thread all of the nations in the world, both PC and NPC, it would be helpful and save me some time

PC -
Australia
Korea
Russia
Poland
UK
France
Germany
Netherlands
Arab Federation
Japan
UIR
India
Phillipenes
Indochina
Nigeria
South Africa
Brazil
FNS
Federation of America (dunno what its called)

Rumania votes in support of the British resolution.

someone with some time if they could post in this thread all of the nations in the world, both PC and NPC, it would be helpful and save me some time

PC part is easy, hard part is the NPC

The British Resolution seems fair enough.

Britain supports the Irish proposal in theory to kick the Chinese out for violation of the charter, but asks whether the implications of such a matter had been examined. Would a China removed from the UN not become more aggressive, having been freed from peer review of her actions? Without the UN to oversee them would they not look to other nations to stamp their brand of imperialism upon? Britain abstains from voting on the matter for the time being.

Britain instead pushes for the UN to give diplomacy a chance, to await the outcome of the British resolution (must be about passed by now) regarding vetoes, before getting the security council to vote (effectively without Chinese veto powers due to 2/3rds majority support) on a resolution to force China out of Kashgaria prior to installing UN aid agencies and peacekeepers. Surely the Chinese are not so deluded that they think they can stand up to the might of the entire UN?

Here's my attempt at a complete nation list:

Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Armenia
Austrasia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Bhutan
Bolivia
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Crimea
Cuba
Cyprus
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Federated States of East Africa
Federation of South American Nations
Fiji
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indochina
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kiribati
Korea
Kosovo-Albania
Kurdistan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Moldova
Monaco
Morocco
Mozambique
Burma
Nepal
Netherlands
Nigeria
North American Federation
Oman
Pakistan
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and The Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Scandic Union
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Switzerland
Syria
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
United Islamic Republics
United Kingdom
United States of Central America
Vatican City
Yemen

Undoubtedly some errors in it (complied very quickly) particularly in Asia and Eastern Europe, but it's a start and if everyone checks it we can improve on the list...

What about Kurdistan, and isn't Panama part of the FNS?

Oh and for the record USCA =/= Mexico.
USCA consists of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador.

OOC: USEA is now known just as Indochina

OOC: India is not an NPC.

OOC: Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland are all a part of South Africa.

Australia includes Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. And Africa has those Federation things, and there's Caricom as well.

OOC: Does the Scandic Union still exist?

Here: I'll try a shot at places that aren't Africa.

Europe:
Portugal
Spain
Andorra
France
Belgium
Netherlands
Burgundy
Britain
Iceland
Germany
SU
Poland
Czechoslovakia
Russia
Ukraine
Crimea
Rumania
Hungary
Bulgaria
Greece
Albania-Kosovo
Yugoslavia
Switzerland
Italy
Liechtenstein
Vatican City
San Marino

Asia:
Cyprus
Jerusalem
Arab Federation
Western Arabia
Yemen
Oman
Kuwait
Basra
Kurdistan
Turkey
Azerbaijian
Armenia-Georgia
UIR
India
Bangladesh
Burma
Indochina
Malaysia
Indonesia
Australasia
Phillippines
Singapore
China
Korea
Japan

Americas:
American Federation
USCA
Costa Rica
FNS
Brazil
Cuba
Domincan Republic
Haiti
Jamaica
Belize
(Refer to LR's list for Africa/little American islands/Oceania)

everyone, please see main thread about embargoes

Crimea, Tuva, Chechnya-Dagestan for Asia.

Crimea, Tuva, Chechnya-Dagestan for Asia.
Wait I thought Checyna-Dagestan and Tuva are still part of Russia, but they have self government from Moscow?i

Europe
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bulgaria
Crimea
Cyprus
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
France PC
Germany PC
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland PC
Italy
Kosovo-Albania
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Moldova
Monaco
Netherlands PC
Poland PC
Portugal
Romania
Russia PC
San Marino
Scandic Union
Slovenia
Spain
Switzerland
Ukraine
United Kingdom PC
Vatican City

Americas
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil PC
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Federation of South American Nations PC
Grenada
Haiti
Jamaica
North American Federation
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and The Grenadines
Sao Tome and Principe
Trinidad and Tobago
United States of Central America

Africa
Algeria
Angola
Burkina Faso
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Côte d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Federated States of East Africa
Gabon
Gambia, The
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Liberia
Libya
Mali
Mauritius
Morocco
Nigeria PC
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa PC
Sudan
Togo
Tunisia

Asia
Arab Federation PC
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Burma
Ceylon
China PC
Georgia
India PC
Indochina PC
Japan PC
Jordan
Korea PC
Kurdistan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Nepal
Oman
Pakistan
Philippines PC
Syria
Turkmenistan
United Islamic Republics PC
Yemen

Oceania
Australasia PC
Brunei
East Timor
Fiji
Indonesia
Malaysia



That's the revised list, divided by continent. Of everyone could check their own nations and those nearby we can build a more acccurate list. i have already made all of the recommended changes, but some confusion still exists in Asia and a few other places.

Federated States of East Africa
(Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi)
Central African Customs and Economic Union (CACEU)- Gabon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Central African Republic, Chad.
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)- Burkina, Togo, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Senegal , Gambia,
CARICOM (ex-British Carribean territories)

I'm not sure which of the above count as countries, but they are posted in the Economic thread.

The only one which is a full country is the Federated States of East Africa. The others are just economics unions (I post their builds together as it was much easier than working out the food, pollution, energy etc for each one).

Isn't Denmark in the Scandic Union?

Europe:
Portugal
Spain
Andorra
France
Belgium
Netherlands
Burgundy
Britain
Iceland
Germany
SU
Poland
Czechoslovakia
Russia
Ukraine
Crimea
Rumania
Hungary
Bulgaria
Greece
Albania-Kosovo
Yugoslavia
Switzerland
Italy
Liechtenstein
Vatican City
San Marino

Asia:
Cyprus
Jerusalem
Arab Federation
Western Arabia
Yemen
Oman
Kuwait
Basra
Kurdistan
Turkey
Azerbaijian
Armenia-Georgia
UIR
India
Bangladesh
Burma
Indochina
Malaysia
Indonesia
Australasia
Phillippines
Singapore
China
Korea
Japan

I didn't know if you made Malta independant or not, and Monaco is part of Italy, I believe, since Nice was annexed post WWIII. Moldova is a part of Rumania and Denmark the SU Jerusalem is Palestine and Jordan and Egypt doesn't exist. Lebanon is part of Syria and I don't think Pakistan is independant yet.

As far as I know, the Lateran Treaties were never signed in this RP so Vatican City is part of Italy.

I've put the nations list on a seperate thread, so that we do not continue to clutter up the UN thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11554151#post11554151

Please post anything further pertaining to it there.

Thanks

----

Back to UN business...

(what's the state of affairs regarding China's suspension and my veto resolution?)

Australia votes in favor of the British veto modification resolution.

As does Poland.

As does Poland.

As does Korea

The UIP votes for the British resolution as a good compromise.

(OOC: In regards to the Indian/UIR peacekeeping/plebiscite Resolution)

India puts forward an amendment dropping East Bengal from the Resolution given East Bengal’s recent change in status, which makes peacekeepers and plebiscites unnecessary.