NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: This will be our official UN thread. All international disputes can and should be resolved here. This will be mainly for disputes, not Geneva Conventions and stuff like that.

For those who want to signup for 21C, see this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467830).

The UN will work like this: any nation may bring a complaint about another nation to the UN. Whoever is on the Security Council will discuss and vote on resolving the dispute. This list is not the list of who is in the UN. Every nation is in the UN.:

Permanent Members:
Russia-Sel Appa
China-Comunisticturkeys
United States-No Taxes
United Kingdom-Huahin
France-Naktan

Elected Members: (2009)
Kurdistan-NPC (controlled by Sel Appa)
Chile
Dominican Republic
Iceland
Kenya
Mexico
Portugal
Switzerland
Turkey
Yemen

IC: January 1, 2008-Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai has been sworn in to the position of Secretary-General, replacing Kofi Annan after his second term expired. S-G Sathirathai has announced he has big plans for the United Nations that would increase its authority over other nations, such as the United States, that seem to ignore it.

OOC: Is Israel a part of the UN?

OOC: I think every nation is part...I believe Switzerland is now a full member. There may be a few Oceana Islands that aren't members...

OOC: I think every nation is part...I believe Switzerland is now a full member. There may be a few Oceana Islands that aren't members...

there are 191 nations in the UN...

(OOC: *Canada waves for attention*

also here is a map of UN nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_map.png), with thanks to Wikipedia)

Umm is Australia going to be in the UN, cause I was not listed as even an elected member, or was this simply a mistake?

Just a note to all future people...

The fifteen people who are on the "elected" list are the members of the UN Security Council [including the five permenant members]. Just because you are not on this list does not mean that you are not a part of the UN.

That said, if your nation is really not in the UN [i.e. Taiwan, if it is going to exist in this scenario or China concocts a way to unite Taiwan without causing furor from the USA or the Holy See], you can apply for observer status from God [i.e. Russia - I keep calling him that cause he says in the intro that he is God :)], and eventually because a permanent member of the UN.

Again, the fifteen countries on the UN site are the current members of the UNSC. Don't assume that you aren't a part of the UN [unless your country as of 2006 isn't really in the UN].

And thanks to Canada for the map :)

The French Ambassador to the United Nations has submitted a working paper, concerning the resolution of the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan. Since militants began acting out two months ago, the French liaison in Sudan expressed his doubts that the Sudanese government could or would prevent another crisis in Darfur, and it has finally come to a consensus in the government that Sudan must make action to protect these people, or submit to having UN peacekeepers in the region.

France looks for support in this resolution.

The French Ambassador to the United Nations has submitted a working paper, concerning the resolution of the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan. Since militants began acting out two months ago, the French liaison in Sudan expressed his doubts that the Sudanese government could or would prevent another crisis in Darfur, and it has finally come to a consensus in the government that Sudan must make action to protect these people, or submit to having UN peacekeepers in the region.

France looks for support in this resolution.
Russia supports this proposal and was planning to send troops to stabilize the area very soon. However, we could allow UN troops instead.

Russia supports this proposal and was planning to send troops to stabilize the area very soon. However, we could allow UN troops instead.

An attempt to act without a U.N. resolution would be a direct violation of the soverignity of Sudan.

President Bush has announced today that the US will support France's proposal to the UN to send UN peacekeeping forces to Sudan. He said that this has been needed for some time and applauds France for finally getting the UN moving.

The Resolution has been introduced on the floor, with some resistance from Sudan and other Islamic nations, not to mention other nations. In general, the Resolution passed onto the floor with a strong majority, and we expect to see good debate to resolve this issue.

Intense debate lingers on the world.

The delegate of Sudan:

"It is the explicit desire of the Islamic Republic of Sudan to maintain our sovereignty of our people. The UN has no right to send foreign troops to police our state when we have our own perfectly capable force of dealing with internal crises. As far as we are conncerned, this hasn't become as grave a crisis as the delegate from France was stating. In fact, if anyone needs help, it is them, since they are acting so belligerent upon our fair nation. Our military has the situation well under control; there is no reason that this be allowed.

The delegate of France:

While we respect the sovereignty of the Sudan, we cannot respect its negligence in the maintenance of its people's civil rights to libertty, equality, and fraternity. By allowing these acts to perpetrate, they condone the actions of these variouus Islamic groups to slaughterr thousands of people. And while we debated this topic the last time it occurred [in Rwanda], people were suffering horribly. France cannot tolerate that suffering anymore, and we implore that UN peacekeepers maintain the peace and safety of those who reside in the Darfur region.

The Russian Federation cannot allow ethnic cleansing and genocide to continue. The systematic murder of any group of people will not be tolerated and may be classified as state-sponsored terrorism.

While the French mission in the UN continues to press the necessity to pass the resolution, authorizing UN peacekeepers in the Sudan Darfur region, the recent attacks between Venezuela and Brazil (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10482107&posted=1#post10482107) have sparked alarm inn the government, prompting a new working paper to the UNSC, authorizing the UN to permit sanctions [political and economic] on the two nations.

PM Villepin offered his remarks:

"It is the opinion to the French government that both Brazil and Venezuela have committed many errs, disregarding current international laws. The government in Venezuela has been most uncooperative, perpetrating acts against the sovereignty of Brazil, prompting likewise justified but illegitimate actions by the government in Brasilia. We therefore condemn both nations and submit to the UNSC to authorize sanctions on the said nations before this crisis grows out of hand."

The resolution is sparking some debate on the nature of the legitimacy of economic sanctions on Brazil and Venezuela.

Qatar: "Economic sanctions do not hurt the government! They only hurt the people because they are most affected by the economy. As we see it, we would be hurting the Brazilian and Venezuelan people, not their governments who are causing these actions. Yes, we believe that there must be action, but it must be within reasonable limits and not damaging to the people of those states!"

France: "While we most solemnly affirm that the people of a state are subject to the economy more than their government, we stress that a goverrnment is directly tied to its people. Sanctions are a method to encourage a nation to follow international law and standards by realizing a part of the consequences on the people. It is the international duty to make the people of a state realize the errs of their state and enforce the laws that bind a state. By this, we wish to authorize sanctions.

And in the event that Brazil wants to have a strong economic state after this, sanctions will not allow this, since as we have noted, sanctions do indeed damage their economic state."

PLEASE POST MORE OPINIONS ON THE IDEA [even if you're not on the UNSC...]

Being the closest UNSC member to the warfare, Argentina has the following statement to make;

"As previously stated, we officially condemn this senseless warfare. An economic sanction in the end will have little effect on the two countries. As it stands, major shipping and trade to South America for the most part, has been diverted to other non-warring countries. Colombia and Mexico are examples. Colombia lacks the industry to be a full trade partner, however. This leaves retailers with only one choice for trade with South America. That is Argentina.

Although Argentina is greatly, greatly profiting from this war (I'd estimate that about 60-75% of exports/imports into Venezuela and Brazil are being diverted to other countries like Mexico and Argentina.. since you don't send merchant traffic into a warzone) we still must demand an end to it.

These ill-gained profits are being put directly back into the economy of Argentina, to prepare the country for potential war with the north. As these aggressive countries continue their war-mongering, there is little doubt that once they have finished with each other they will turn on each other.

Argentina puts forth a suggestion for a military operation aimed at ending the fighting, based from somewhere in the Americas. It would be unacceptable for a foreign power from across the ocean to do so."

Israeli UN ambassador:

"Israel does not necassarily agree with either side. On one side, sanctions would impose the UN's will in this matter, but is that what we want? Do we really want to have control over the situation of two countries that are going at each other's throats, amidst civil war even! On the other side, the citizens will be hurt by these sanctions...

Israel will abstain from this argument from here on.

Israeli UN ambassador:

"Israel does not necassarily agree with either side. On one side, sanctions would impose the UN's will in this matter, but is that what we want? Do we really want to have control over the situation of two countries that are going at each other's throats, amidst civil war even! On the other side, the citizens will be hurt by these sanctions...

Israel will abstain from this argument from here on.

I don't know how we'll decide on what to do...but keep on giving opinions...

additionally, in the original draft, it says sanctions...which includes economic sanctions, diplomatic sanctions, military sanctions, humanitarian sanctions, judicial sanctions, et cetera... I brought up the issue of economic sanctions because I know a lot of Arabic countries are not friendly to economic sanctions...and furthermore, any member of the UNSC can amend the said "sanctions" to include specific sanctions...and then we can decide on this somehow...

US Ambassador to the UN:

"The US feels that sanctions against Venezuela and Brazil would not be enough in light of the fact that Brazilian troops took over several military outposts in Venezuela. The best thing that the UN could do would be to send UN peacekeeping troops to Venezuela to make sure Brazilian troops do not take over more of Venezuela, and to make sure that Venezuela does not attack Brazil. These peacekeeping forces could leave after the conflict is over, and the US would be willing to send some of its troops to join whatever peacekeeping force is sent. The US also urges the UN to decide on this matter as quickly as possible so some action can be taken before the conflict worsens."

US Ambassador to the UN:

"The US feels that sanctions against Venezuela and Brazil would not be enough in light of the fact that Brazilian troops took over several military outposts in Venezuela. The best thing that the UN could do would be to send UN peacekeeping troops to Venezuela to make sure Brazilian troops do not take over more of Venezuela, and to make sure that Venezuela does not attack Brazil. These peacekeeping forces could leave after the conflict is over, and the US would be willing to send some of its troops to join whatever peacekeeping force is sent. The US also urges the UN to decide on this matter as quickly as possible so some action can be taken before the conflict worsens."

So would the US be in favor of military sanctions in both Brazil and Venezuela, to prevent the other from attacking the other? [i.e. peacekeepers]

the great irony of it all is that Brazil is one of the world's largest contributors of peacekeeping forces, only after India I believe...

It is expected that the vote on Sudan will soon come to a close.

The resolution contains the following:
1. Proposes to send peaccekeeping forces to Darfur [around 5000 men in all for the first stage, more if needed];
2. Encourages the Sudanese government to cooperate with UN peacekeeping forces in Darfur;
3. Further encourages the Sudanese government to uphold its commitment to the peace accord set in 2005;
4. Requests UN inspections to reveal the extensive nature of the Darfur events for the following information:
a) number of people affected,
b) number of people killed,
c) influence of the factions in Darfur, and
d) the general need for UN humanitarian aid;
5. Invites humanitarian NGO's to assist the UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur.

On the floor, France is certain to vote in favor.

YAY-2 [France, USA]
NAY-0 []

The US ambassador has once again assured France that the US will vote for the Sudan proposal. He says that something like this has needed to be done for a long time.

[ooc: all nations in the UN!!! this is a rersolution for vote!!! On Sunday 26FEB2006 0000GMT, this vote closes! In the future, we might make new threads for polls :) to make it more realistic...]

PM Villepin has announced in a private briefing with news reporters that France has officially dropped the support for the admission of the G4 into permanent seats in the UNSC. Due to the aggressive and uncalled acts by the state of Brazil, we are convinced that Brazil would not suit the role as a member of the UNSC. In place of Brazil, we would support the admission of their southern neighbor - Argentina - in their place if the G4 and Argentina agree to the proposal. In addition, France endorses the addition in the UNSC of another African nation, although the African Union has yet to agree on a nomination. We further extend our belief that the UNSC needs a larger committee to reflect the power shifts in tthe 21st Century [we suggest 25 UNSC seats, 10 seats being permenant]

[ooc: all nations in the UN!!! this is a rersolution for vote!!! On Sunday 26FEB2006 0000GMT, this vote closes! In the future, we might make new threads for polls :) to make it more realistic...]

[ooc: deadline past...perhaps bad time to call for it...]

The Resolution passed overwhelmingly in the GA, with minimal dissent [although the key dissenter was the Sudan...].

The days ahead will conclude how the Darfur crisis is resolved, as UN peacekeeping forces are organized to enforce the resolution.

Francec offers to commit two battalions [around 2000 men] to help police the region. If need be, we will increase our troop commitment to Darfur.

[ooc: there is still the UNSC resolution open for debate, and I anticipate that the debate will be longer, considering that people are decided that there is an error; the only thing that needs to finish out is the mean to enact a reaction to the crisis [what form of sanctions if any?]

The debate on the UNSC resolution to do something about the Venezuela-Brazil conflict:

Peru - "As a member of the UNSC at the moment, along with Argentina, we condemn the actions perpetuated by the states of Venezuela and Brazil. Bboth have acted contrary to international law - Venezuela, in violating the sovereignty of a neighboring country, in endorsing quasi-formal state-sponsored terrorist activities, in refusing to cooperate with that state; and Brazil, in refusing to acknowledge international law regarding violations of their sovereignty, in acting rashly without providing a means to prevent the conflict, and - in fact - in actively pursuing a state of conflict with the Venezuelan government. Both states have erred, and thus they should be brought to receive the penances of their actions.

"However, contrary to the statements of all the previous speakers - the United States, France, Argentina, and some others - the Republic of Peru would like to commit a resolution which demands that both Brazil and Venezuela stand on trial before the International Court of Justices [ICJ], for the violations of international norms. In a judicial setting, we could better administer justice to both sides and resolve this conflict without any further superficial damage to either country.

"It is therefore important that both the Brazilian and Venezuelan government cease their military actions and come to a meeting, to iron out their differences and provide a means to create dialogue between their governments. Realizing that the Venezuelan state may be exploiting the opportunity - whereas the Brazilian government is considerably more conservative than the Venezuelan government, thus bringing societal and political ideologies into tension, and whereas the Brazilian government is also currently running through some domestic unrest against the current state - we would still encourage Brazil to accept a ceasefire, open dialogue with Venezuela, and submit their case before the ICJ. In this, we feel that any resolution that gets passed from this council needs to include these matters, and it would be strongly encouraged to amend the resolution as stated above.

"We thank you for your time in the debate of this matter, which is obviously a pertinent matter that the Security Council should be discussing without a doubt. Andd we are glad that other nations express similar sentiments in the necessity to resolve this conflict in the most peaceful, most effective, and most reliable method available. We bid you good night!"

[The Peruvian Foreign Minister, speaking the the UNSC on the topic matter - the Venezuelan-Brazilian conflict.]

The Dutch representative to the UN has the following to say:
The hostilities between the Latin American neighbours, who used to be such great allies have to stop. There is no doubt about that fact. However, letting the United States move into Latin America with their army is not a solution to the problem. It is widely known that the United States wants to increase the secure supply of oil and that Venezuela is the nearest country to do so. So I suggest to increase the diplomatic stress on the two nations, but to refrain from UN-led military action.
On the matter of Darfur, even though the resolution has been accepted earlier, we agree. We also would like to send a small contribution to the peace-keeping force. 300 soldiers who have a lot of experience with peace-keeping missions, accompanied with the appropriate equipment.

It is expected that the vote on Sudan will soon come to a close.

The resolution contains the following:
1. Proposes to send peaccekeeping forces to Darfur [around 5000 men in all for the first stage, more if needed];
2. Encourages the Sudanese government to cooperate with UN peacekeeping forces in Darfur;
3. Further encourages the Sudanese government to uphold its commitment to the peace accord set in 2005;
4. Requests UN inspections to reveal the extensive nature of the Darfur events for the following information:
a) number of people affected,
b) number of people killed,
c) influence of the factions in Darfur, and
d) the general need for UN humanitarian aid;
5. Invites humanitarian NGO's to assist the UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur.

On the floor, France is certain to vote in favor.

YAY-2 [France, USA]
NAY-0 []
OOC: By the way, it is spelled YEA.
IC: Russia has decided to vote for the Resolution.
OOC: I'm thinking of withdrawing Russia from the UN, but probably won't. I might though, just so we aren't bound by UN rules anymore. We would still stay in the NPT and Geneva Conventions.

OOC: By the way, it is spelled YEA.
IC: Russia has decided to vote for the Resolution.
OOC: I'm thinking of withdrawing Russia from the UN, but probably won't. I might though, just so we aren't bound by UN rules anymore. We would still stay in the NPT and Geneva Conventions.

but YAY is more fun :(

and unfortunatley, the deadline was just midnight today... but it passed still...

Israel votes "Yea" on Sudan.

The US ambassador to the UN has announced that in the wake of the Sudan resolution being passed, the US will send about 5000 troops to Darfur to join the peacekeeping forces of the UN.

OOC: We should have another vote about what to do about Brazil and Venezuela, except maybe not just a yes and no vote. Maybe the options could be: military sanctions(peacekeeping forces), economic sanctions, trial in the ICJ, or nothing at all.

Lithuaniaian Government wants to also call up about sending peacekeeping troopers to Albania and Greece. We do not want this conflict to end up into a World War. We have sent 500 troopers as peacekeeping, but not under the UN direction. Also we are sending 400 troops to Sudan to help.

PEACEKEEPING FORCE TO SUDAN:

France [2000 +1500]
Lithuania [400]
The Netherlands [300]
Russia [7500]
USA [5000]

Israel would like to apply for membership and a chair on the UNSC.

OOC: Good point, Security council seats (the non-permanent ones) are elected in some sort of difficult replacement way in RL. What do we do about that?
OOC: Israel is a member of the UN, right? So what are you applying for?

IC:
Does the ambassador of Israel suggest that his country applies for a permanent or a temporary seat in the UNSC? In the first case, the Netherlands would strongly object. However, while we are on the matter. This might be a good time to start reforming the UNSC. I think the current system with 5 permanent members is outdated and should be replaced. What is the opinion of the other delegates?

OOC: Good point, Security council seats (the non-permanent ones) are elected in some sort of difficult replacement way in RL. What do we do about that?
OOC: Israel is a member of the UN, right? So what are you applying for?

IC:
Does the ambassador of Israel suggest that his country applies for a permanent or a temporary seat in the UNSC? In the first case, the Netherlands would strongly object. However, while we are on the matter. This might be a good time to start reforming the UNSC. I think the current system with 5 permanent members is outdated and should be replaced. What is the opinion of the other delegates?

The Republic of France currently supports the proposal to expand the UNSC 25 seats, with 10 permanent seats bearing veto power. The current G4 proposal [Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan] is also supported, with the exception of Brazil, which we wish to replace with Argentina - seeing as Brazil is currently a belligerent power in the South America with Venezuela. Therefore, we would have USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Argentina, Germany, India, and Japan [along with one more nation from Africa], along with 15 non-permanent members in the UNSC.

OOC: Actually... according to Wikipedia Israel IS a member of the UNSC... Israel should be on the front page.

The Netherlands are not able to convey any real enthusiasm about this proposal.
We think that, to increase the strength of the council, the number of members should actually be decreased and our proposal is the following:

Permanent seats:
United States,
European Union,
China,
India

Non-permanent seats (elected every two years):
1 African nation
1 Nation from the Arab Liga
1 Latin-American nation
1 other nation

8 nations should be enough for the UNSC.

OOC: Which of the nations on the first page should not be there?

Israel thinks that decreasing the UNSC would be a very bad move... we need more opinions not less. Leave it like it is.

Leaving it like it is seems like the worst idea. There is no doubt that a country like India must get a seat in the council.

And the Dutch government simply doesn't see why countries like France or the UK should have a place at the table (OOC: No offence France, I just really think it is insane :confused:). That is the main reason why there should be a change.

OOC: Also, if it is not changed, we would need a system to replace the non-permanent members on a regular basis...

Russia will send 7500 troops to Sudan.

Russia strongly opposes the Dutch plan for SC reform. Russia is the biggest nuclear power and will withdraw from the UN if the Dutch plan goes through. Russia believes that the current plan for the SC is very effective and does not require reform.

OOC: As for electing new members, I'm going to pick it out of a pot(lots of work) or maybe assign each nation in the world a number and use a random number generator. I'll have new ones by tomorrow.

The US Ambassador to the UN has announced that the US will support the plan about the UNSC put forward by France. The UNSC needs more opinions on world matters and the US thinks the countries proposed by France are good candidates to be permanent members.

OOC: Well, for this switch we'll keep it the same. The next one may be different. How often is a new SC elected? I'm going with when the SG is elected.

OOC: Well, for this switch we'll keep it the same. The next one may be different. How often is a new SC elected? I'm going with when the SG is elected.

The UNSC is chosen by lottery every year...

the UNSG is elected every 5 years I believe...or whenever...I'd have to check...

The Republic of France notes with disdain at the recent attacks by Australia against the sovereignty of fellow African states. In accordance, we have granted them a warning before we submit their case to the UNSC for our judicial reply. Seeing as the crisis in Brazil-Venezuela has yet to resolve, we may consider to combine the resolutions to attack the two situations with one resolution.

Submitted is the UN Report on the actions of Australia in Africa.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10508008&posted=1#post10508008

OOC: Elected members are chosen for 2 years (with a certain division per group etc, more info here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Council))

OOC: Actually... according to Wikipedia Israel IS a member of the UNSC... Israel should be on the front page.

OOC: Uhm, that is actually not true... Check the previous link... In fact, Israel has never been a member of the UNSC


IC: The Dutch government insists once more that India and the EU deserve to become permanent members of the UNSC

The Dutch government wants to strongly protest the Argentinian solo action of attacking the Australian Military! I call for the UNSC to condemn this action!

Of course we understand that Australia was provoked and we appreciate the fact that someone is trying to stop their aggresive behaviour, but a more organised international action would have been preferable.

We also call for a ban on all weapon sales to both Australia and Argentina.

The Dutch government wants to strongly protest the Argentinian solo action of attacking the Australian Military! I call for the UNSC to condemn this action!

Of course we understand that Australia was provoked and we appreciate the fact that someone is trying to stop their aggresive behaviour, but a more organised international action would have been preferable.

We also call for a ban on all weapon sales to both Australia and Argentina.

OOC: So far, the world doesn't even know the attack happened. And also, by who. Stop with the godmodding.

OOC: So far, the world doesn't even know the attack happened. And also, by who. Stop with the godmodding.

OOC: what? Would an attack on Perth not immediately be known by the entire world? I admit, they might not know who hit them. But a missile bombardment is rather difficult to miss, so it would definitely be known there has been an attack...
And why am I godmodding? I am just saying my government protests (a lot of governments protest a lot of things... especially in the UN. Nobody ever seems to give a shit, but the protests still occur. I do not even have a seat on the UNSC: I am just voicing some random righteous opinion (very typical for Dutch governments), which will probably be ignored (even more typical). I do not see how that is godmodding.... :confused: )

OOC: So far, the world doesn't even know the attack happened. And also, by who. Stop with the godmodding.

[ooc: I would agree...except that I wonder why Argentina would be attacking Australia and not Brazil...heck, I don't even know who's attacking who now...]

OOC: He claims to have complete control over his media. Until he makes some sort of public statement, it doesn't exist.

[ooc: I would agree...except that I wonder why Argentina would be attacking Australia and not Brazil...heck, I don't even know who's attacking who now...]

OOC: A few reasons. One reason is .. practice before taking on Brazil.

OOC: He claims to have complete control over his media. Until he makes some sort of public statement, it doesn't exist.

OOC: By "he", you refer to Australia, right? All right then, I withdraw my statement. I just missed the part where Australia became a totalitarian regime in full control of all media (incl. phones and internet) needed to block all communication out of Australia/Perth.
But, whenever this comes out, the attack on Australia is totally uncalled for, right? (as the mission in Africa was so far disguised as a humanitarian mission, as far as I understood).

OOC: By "he", you refer to Australia, right? All right then, I withdraw my statement. I just missed the part where Australia became a totalitarian regime in full control of all media (incl. phones and internet) needed to block all communication out of Australia/Perth.
But, whenever this comes out, the attack on Australia is totally uncalled for, right? (as the mission in Africa was so far disguised as a humanitarian mission, as far as I understood).

OOC: It was originally disguised as that. But you can't hide tanks and jets as a humanitarian effort. He used the disguise to cowardly attack a weak country.

Russia condemns Australia and Argentina for their recent military actions. Russia has frozen all transport of weapons to Argentina. All money for weapons bought by Argentina will not be refunded.

Russia condemns Australia and Argentina for their recent military actions. Russia has frozen all transport of weapons to Argentina. All money for weapons bought by Argentina will not be refunded.

OOC: Once -again-. No one knows it was me. Also, Argentina has no pending arms trades with Russia. They've been getting their stuff from Ukraine lately, and there's nothing pending there either.

[ooc: In the thread...Argentina says his fleet is moving to the west through the Straits of Magellan...not only would it uber-godmod to land all of his troops instantly in Australia, it's also smart not to say that they're going to Australia...for all that France knows, the Argentinians are conducting war exercises for a potential attack on Brazil...

And a note on practice...Brazil has a much simpler and easy-to-beat military compared to Australia...

AND PLEASE STOP USING THE UN TO DISPLAY THESE MESSAGES!!!]

Yes, please keep this out of the UN. This is for resolution-related things only.

OOC: I'll have a new security council soon. I'm assuming Quebec is part of the UN as well.

IC: Kurdistan has joined the UN.

UNSC RESOLUTION

On the conflicts occuring in the world:

THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL,

Noting with horror as nations across the world blatantly and without regard attack other nations,

Concerned the rising tensions in the world that could potentially lead to a global conflict,

1. Condemns the following states for failure to apply diplomacy adequately and effectively, and instead using military force to engage the other nations:
a) the Republic of Brazil,
b) the Republic of Venezuela,
c) the Commonwealth of Australia,
d) the Republic of Argentina;

2. Endorses sanctions of the said nations by any of the following methods:
a) diplomatic sanction,
b) military sanction,
c) ecocnomic sanction,
d) political and social sanctions;

3. Declares that any sanctions against any of the said states must be approved by the Secretary General in writing [i.e. submit it to the UN thread and let Sel Appa decide its worth, unless wee have a Sec Gen...];

4. Encourages peaceful resolution of the conflicts involving these nations and other nations affected;

5. Decides to remain actively seized in the matter.

[AMENDMENT 1: Add "the Republic of Argentina to clause 1, subclause d]

YAY - 5 [France, Russia, US, CBAA, Israel]
NAY -

UNSC RESOLUTION
Yea!

New Security Council:
Kurdistan-NPC (controlled by Sel Appa)
Chile
Dominican Republic
Iceland
Kenya
Mexico
Portugal
Switzerland
Turkey
Yemen

OOC: I cut up all 190 or so tiny pieces of paper into a pot and had my family pick two slips each(I picked 4) to decide what it would be. So it is basically the most perfect randomness one can achieve. Hopefully some of these nations will be filled up by people soon.

The US will vote in favor of the resolution proposed by France, although the US would also like to ask that the sanctions be extended to Argentina.

The CBSS (Coalition of Black Seas States *see my thread*) votes Aye on this measure. the use of force before diplomacy should result in sanctions. We do however recomend the same as France, that the sanctions involve both Austrilia and Argentina as they have both comitted the offense.

The CBSS (Coalition of Black Seas States *see my thread*) votes Aye on this measure. the use of force before diplomacy should result in sanctions. We do however recomend the same as France, that the sanctions involve both Austrilia and Argentina as they have both comitted the offense.

[ooc: while I respect your vote, unfortunately your country is not listed in the UNSC...]

heh.. according to Sel Appa... none of us are ^.^ just the only controled state in the USNC is a NPC.

Anyone can vote on a resolution in our RP...whether they are on the SC or not.

Israel votes "yea" on this resolution.

Anyone can vote on a resolution in our RP...whether they are on the SC or not.

[ooc: what's the purpose of the UNSC?]

[ooc: what's the purpose of the UNSC?]

They're pretty much the ones who carry the most weight.

OOC: Once -again-. No one knows it was me. Also, Argentina has no pending arms trades with Russia. They've been getting their stuff from Ukraine lately, and there's nothing pending there either.


OOC: I had no idea he was carrying on here...and yes I just ignored him back, since you can't attack a nation under the conditions he did and get away with it. Thing is I didn't say it here in the UN thread about me going after Somalia, but his thinking of 'jets' is also wrong. I'm using ships and ground forces. Obvious yes, he puts words in peoples mouths and forces crap on people when they could reasonably have muc much more. Well...now I know this thread exists, onto the IC post.

IC

Australia is attempting to secure Somalia under Operation Humanity, which we did not recieve permission for. Specifically the un-recognized nations of Puntland and Somaliland, which are not recognized by any nation in the world or by the UN.

Australia wishes to seek permission to move into Djibouti as part of Operation Humanity, however due to USA's War on Terrorism has a military base in this nation and we are seeking permission to unite the incredibly small nation, and still keep the USA base if they choose, otherwise Australia is willing to settle for buying the base if it no longer poses of importance to them.

Israel would like the UN to take not of the UAE's partial breaking of our treaty in the Middle East:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469944&page=2

It seems they've taken over the Palestinians.

Australia is outraged at the UAE for their action and moves that a harsh punishment rain down upon the UAE to teach them a lesson for annexation and stripping of people's rights.

Australia is outraged at the UAE for their action and moves that a harsh punishment rain down upon the UAE to teach them a lesson for annexation and stripping of people's rights.

[ooc: oh the irony...]

France demands that the UAE honor her agreements with the Israeli government and the Palestinian peoples.

OOC: All I can say is lol! Though yep....

IC:

Australia announces they will soon break ties to the alliance of the UAE and Israel and enter into a new pact if the UAE does not stop all action immediately.

Please vote on this resolution:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10515707&postcount=60

What the hell does that mean?

[ooc: did you check the link?]

Is Argentina still agressing or did we nullify it.

[ooc: i wouldn't mind nullifying it, except that we never said it...]

I'm giving this another two hours before the vote is up on this resolution...

all UN nations can vote on it...

I'd propose adding Italy to the list. South Africa will vote aye

Seeing as the thread isn't quite attractice, I've copied and pasted it here for convenience...

THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL,

Noting with horror as nations across the world blatantly and without regard attack other nations,

Concerned the rising tensions in the world that could potentially lead to a global conflict,

1. Condemns the following states for failure to apply diplomacy adequately and effectively, and instead using military force to engage the other nations:
a) the Republic of Brazil,
b) the Republic of Venezuela,
c) the Commonwealth of Australia,
d) the Republic of Argentina,
e) the Republic of Italy;

2. Endorses sanctions of the said nations by any of the following methods:
a) diplomatic sanction,
b) military sanction,
c) ecocnomic sanction,
d) political and social sanctions;

3. Declares that any sanctions against any of the said states must be approved by the Secretary General in writing [i.e. submit it to the UN thread and let Sel Appa decide its worth, unless wee have a Sec Gen...];

4. Encourages peaceful resolution of the conflicts involving these nations and other nations affected;

5. Decides to remain actively seized in the matter.

[AMENDMENT 1: Add "the Republic of Argentina" to clause 1, subclause d]
[AMENDMENT 2: Add "the Republic of Italy" to clause 1, subclause e]

YAY - 7 [France, Russia, US, CBAA, Israel, South Africa, Lithuania]
NAY -

one hour

15 minutes...

Yay for Lithuania.

With an overwhelming majority voting in favor, the Resolution passes...

[applause is in order :)]

Denmark will impose economic and military sanctions on Italy. We will refuse to provide any assistance to them until they pull out of Tunisia and apologise for their unprovoked attack.

Economic sanctions will be placed on all other countries as per France's conditions.

Denmark also wishes to bring to attention that Algeria is currently suffering from a coup and action should be swiftly taken to bring the legitimate government back to power. We have reason to believe that it is their military that is behind their terrorist attacks.

EDIT: typo error. Algeria changed to Tunisia where bolded. Later attention concerning Algeria is about Algeria.

Denmark will impose economic and military sanctions on Italy. We will refuse to provide any assistance to them until they pull out of Algeria and apologise for their unprovoked attack.

Economic sanctions will be placed on all other countries as per France's conditions.

Denmark also wishes to bring to attention that Algeria is currently suffering from a coup and action should be swiftly taken to bring the legitimate government back to power. We have reason to believe that it is their military that is behind their terrorist attacks.

FYI - Italy is doing Tunisia, not Algeria...

France supports Denmark's sanctions on Italy, although we are a little more cautious about military force. France will pursue economic pressure to persuade the Italian government in desisting their aggressive actions. France proposes economic sanctions on both Venezuela and Brazil [seeing as they haven't been doing anything recently...] France is more inclined to use military force to oust Australian forces from Somalia, although economic and diplomatic pressures should be all exhausted before this occurs.

FYI - Italy is doing Tunisia, not Algeria...

Algeria is suffering from an internal rebellion of some sorts, that is what I am referring to.

Denmark will impose economic and military sanctions on Italy. We will refuse to provide any assistance to them until they pull out of Algeria and apologise for their unprovoked attack.


I havent invaded Algeria, and i dont like the way you altered the resolution without restarting the vote

Economic sanctions should be voted on by the security council, IIRC.

[OOC: What are the steps to becoming a S.C. member?]

France is a little late....Somalia doesn't exist as Somalia anymore :O

[ooc: Read God's notes about UNSC stuff... it's pretty funny...

And to Italy, I little doubt that any votes would change severely...although if you'd like for us to vote, we could divide the question and revote...again, I little doubt that the results would be different, but just to maintain a certain level of fairness...]

France is a little late....Somalia doesn't exist as Somalia anymore :O

France begs to differ...We don't recognize the claim...

France begs to differ...We don't recognize the claim...
It's basically been what...two years? You may not recognize the claim, but do you want to risk a war with Australia?

OOC:I would like you to split the question and vote again, we really have to do this by the book.

It's basically been what...two years? You may not recognize the claim, but do you want to risk a war with Australia?

I doubt that France would accept this unwarranted seizure of territory, seeing as you're still struggling for control and most in the world condemn it anyways...this is the belated "GET OUT" resolution...

Seeing as the Republic of Italy was not satisfied with the quick resolution on the matter, this resolution has been divided to accommodate them:


THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL,

Noting with horror as nations across the world blatantly and without regard attack other nations,

Concerned the rising tensions in the world that could potentially lead to a global conflict,

1. Condemns the following states for failure to apply diplomacy adequately and effectively, and instead using military force to engage the other nations:
a) the Republic of Italy;

2. Endorses sanctions of the said nations by any of the following methods:
a) diplomatic sanction,
b) military sanction,
c) ecocnomic sanction,
d) political and social sanctions;

3. Declares that any sanctions against any of the said states must be approved by the Secretary General in writing [i.e. submit it to the UN thread and let Sel Appa decide its worth, unless wee have a Sec Gen...];

4. Encourages peaceful resolution of the conflicts involving these nations and other nations affected;

5. Decides to remain actively seized in the matter.


YAY - 2 [France, Russia]
NAY - 1 [Spain]

I doubt that France would accept this unwarranted seizure of territory, seeing as you're still struggling for control and most in the world condemn it anyways...this is the belated "GET OUT" resolution...

That statement is false.....(OOC: if you go back in the thread) we were praised for our actions to fix the unstable nation by force. Our own lashbacks from the Somalian Warlords is a result of this, but France is treading on very thin water in the eyes of Australia.

That statement is false.....(OOC: if you go back in the thread) we were praised for our actions to fix the unstable nation by force. Our own lashbacks from the Somalian Warlords is a result of this, but France is treading on very thin water in the eyes of Australia.

I've seen Russia, USA, Lithuania [you know him...], Spain and some other countries condemn the attack...it's not warranted and furthermore, France doesn't even recognize the claims...unfortunately, it seems that Australia is intent on keeping Somalia as its own territory, which will lead to some confrontation...

[OOC: If France really wanted to it could organize a defense and liberation of Somalia through the EU or NATO. Frankly, Spain would be behind it all the way, and would even lend some of its mechanization to operations in Somalia. In fact, war with Australia at this point really isn't that big of a risk, seeing as French and Spanish naval power alone could cut you off from your African territories. Australia should be doing what it can to appease European countries, and avoid such cocky attitudes that are derived from false stipulations.]

With the 'sanctions' variables set so wide Spain can do nothing but vote nay. Spain, however, would support diplomatic and social sanctions, as well as political sanctions, should this resolution pull through and either of the two options be chosen.

[ooc: that would be nice :) but i just wanted to get it out first, as some sort of initiative...]

I havent invaded Algeria, and i dont like the way you altered the resolution without restarting the vote

Deeply sorry, that was a typo. We did mean Tunisia. This has been corrected.

Our later reference to Algeria relates to their internal rebellion, which seems to be led by their military and has currently involved a nuclear bomb on the capitol of Algiers.

India requests a permanate seat on the SC ((technically all nuclear powers have it and we are supposed to have nukes))

[OOC: So does Pakistan and Israel - perhaps they should be on the Security Council as well. IMHO, new SC seats should be based on international influence, not on nuclear power.]

France would support India's admission into the SC, but not because they have nuclear weapons... [that is honestly a very stupid reason...when they made a SC back in 1945, there was only one nuclear power, and even then, they signed the Charter before it was used in force...]

OOC: Naktan, seems though you are running this thread. I designate you Official UN Mod.

IC: Russia supports India's bid for a permanent seat on the SC. (We also need a Muslim nation...maybe Pakistan or IF...)

OOC: Naktan, seems though you are running this thread. I designate you Official UN Mod.

IC: Russia supports India's bid for a permanent seat on the SC. (We also need a Muslim nation...maybe Pakistan or IF...)

Pakistan is kinda out of the picture since UAE took over it I think.

Pakistan is kinda out of the picture since UAE took over it I think.
When did this happen? I'm really behind.

When did this happen? I'm really behind.

Umm...whenever the UAE went...It happened a long long time ago. Whoever plays the UAE said it. Though nothing really became of it.

OOC: The UAE took Pakistan...

[ooc: i thought Pakistan was a live player...]

South Africa calls for the condemnation and sanctions to be placed against the hostile takeover of Algeria's government by a rogue general

South Africa calls for the condemnation and sanctions to be placed against the hostile takeover of Algeria's government by a rogue general

Denmark repeats their old call for the same condemnation.

South Africa calls for the condemnation and sanctions to be placed against the hostile takeover of Algeria's government by a rogue general.

Y - 6 [South Africa, Denmark, France, Spain, Australia, Russia]
N -

Spain votes Y.

Australia votes Yay!

Poland would like to join the United Nations.

Poland would like to join the United Nations.

[ooc: Poland is a member of the UN...don't let that front list fool you; that's the supposed UNSC list...]

[ooc: Poland is a member of the UN...don't let that front list fool you; that's the supposed UNSC list...]

I still have no idea how to get on that list or even what it is.

The list on the front is the United Nations Security Council...

I don't know how Sel Appa works it; you'd have to ask him, but I believe that it's by random lottery...

OOC: I picked them from slips of paper in a pot. For the fifty-thousandth time, the SC is more of a figurehead in this game.

South Africa calls for the condemnation and sanctions to be placed against the hostile takeover of Algeria's government by a rogue general.

Y - 5 [South Africa, Denmark, France, Spain, Australia]
N -
Seeing as the Republic of Italy was not satisfied with the quick resolution on the matter, this resolution has been divided to accommodate them:
Yea on both.

[ooc: thank you for replying, Russia; your votes have been noted :)]

At midnight [GMT], these resolutions will close...vote ASAP
=========================================================
South Africa calls for the condemnation and sanctions to be placed against the hostile takeover of Algeria's government by a rogue general.

Y - 6 [South Africa, Denmark, France, Spain, Australia, Russia]
N - 1 [Algeria]
==========
THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL,

Noting with horror as nations across the world blatantly and without regard attack other nations,

Concerned the rising tensions in the world that could potentially lead to a global conflict,

1. Condemns the following states for failure to apply diplomacy adequately and effectively, and instead using military force to engage the other nations:
a) the Republic of Italy;

2. Endorses sanctions of the said nations by any of the following methods:
a) diplomatic sanction,
b) military sanction,
c) ecocnomic sanction,
d) political and social sanctions;

3. Declares that any sanctions against any of the said states must be approved by the Secretary General in writing [i.e. submit it to the UN thread and let Sel Appa decide its worth, unless wee have a Sec Gen...];

4. Encourages peaceful resolution of the conflicts involving these nations and other nations affected;

5. Decides to remain actively seized in the matter.


YAY - 3 [France, Russia, Australia]
NAY - 5 [Spain, Portugal, Italy, Algeria, Iran]

Portugal votes Nay on the Resolution concerning Italy.

Italy Votes nay on the resolution concerning the embargoes on Italy
OOC: One Hour, 34 Minutes

Australia votes Yay and supports to have a military sanction on Australian military technology to Italy.

Australia votes Yay and supports to have a military sanction on Australian military technology to Italy.

[ooc: if the resolution passes, that is your choice...and no one is voting on the first resolution on Algeria...]

Seeing as Algeria supports Italy's counter measures against Tunisia for harboring Algerian terrorists, General Moussarn tells his ambassador to argue the resolution.

Is that a vote?

Is that a vote?

[ooc: yes...and I assume that that was ooc...be glad that Moussarn likes you...]

Iran votes nay.

the CBSS Votes Yay on the measure. The invasion of an independent country should not go un-punished.

Saudi Arabia votes Nay

Resolution on Algeria passes [applause in order]

Resolution on Italy fails

==========

IC [not SIC] to Spain from France:

If we tone down the language a bit [i.e. revert sanctions to a simple arms embargo or something of your suggestion], would Spain support a condemnation of Italy for their actions in Tunisia?

SIC: The truth is that Spain is juggling its weight on a very precarious thin wire. Italy is an all important ally and partner in many future weapons programs, including an anti-shipping missile and a future main battle tank, and it's money is something we need. Nevertheless, this brings likely competition between us and Italy, but the benefits of a friendship far outweigh being foes; although, again, Spain foresees pressure to always be one step ahead of Italy, especially as it seems as Rome is not one to trust. On the other side of the hill, we have the West, including France, that we want to keep on our good side. Spain, regardless of her government type, will always remain a western nation, even despite our apparent alliances with Iran and such. But we are going off on a tangent. The point is that Spain, at this point, finds it extremely hard to do anything without offsetting the very unstable balance that has been forged. That said, it's very difficult for us to undergo a military embargo on Italy, especially with all these joint projects, and even an economic embargo could damage Spain in the long run. Nevertheless, Madrid would be happy to work as much as possible with the European Union to do all it possible can.

SIC: The truth is that Spain is juggling its weight on a very precarious thin wire. Italy is an all important ally and partner in many future weapons programs, including an anti-shipping missile and a future main battle tank, and it's money is something we need. Nevertheless, this brings likely competition between us and Italy, but the benefits of a friendship far outweigh being foes; although, again, Spain foresees pressure to always be one step ahead of Italy, especially as it seems as Rome is not one to trust. On the other side of the hill, we have the West, including France, that we want to keep on our good side. Spain, regardless of her government type, will always remain a western nation, even despite our apparent alliances with Iran and such. But we are going off on a tangent. The point is that Spain, at this point, finds it extremely hard to do anything without offsetting the very unstable balance that has been forged. That said, it's very difficult for us to undergo a military embargo on Italy, especially with all these joint projects, and even an economic embargo could damage Spain in the long run. Nevertheless, Madrid would be happy to work as much as possible with the European Union to do all it possible can.

[SIC: The EU can only do so much...suppose that Italy votes to leave the EU [although considering the various projects that Spain has with Italy, I doubt this...]? We should pursue international networks, such as the UN, to persuade Italy back into a peaceful arrangement. Otherwise, France might end up with a belligerent neighbor to its southeast, and we get extremely anxious nowadays when that happens [last time, we totally ignored it and look what trouble that got us into!]. If Spain is not willing to issue any kind of UN resolution, Spain should then pursue a harder approach to persuade Italy from its military actions, seeing as peace is necessary for a cooperative relationship in the EU; furthermore, France sees it pointless to cling to the hope of a few military projects with Italy, seeing as their becoming militaristic presently...pursuing these projects would give more fodder to Italy's military and less of a reason to desist its operations in Tunisia...

In all, France sincerely hopes that Spain will contribute more actively to curtailing Italy's militaristic aggression, even if these future projects end up on hold - considering it all, Spain has a perefectly good friend across their northern border who would be willing to assume any roles that Italy formerly held anyway, so let not that threat hinder the peace process in Italy and Tunisia.]

SIC: Indeed, and Spain is doing as much as possible. This shouldn't be widely paraded, but Italy did have machinations on Algeria until Spain made very clear that it was off limits, namely because of too many conflicting interests on the country, including French - especially after these latest rounds of talks in Paris. In other words, this is exactly why Spain is striving to be one step ahead of Italy, and why Spain is attempting to bring in nations into its zone of influence - so that Italy always has the idea that its power is dependent on Spain's wellbeing and friendship. Meaning, Madrid is constantly shifting itself to make sure Italy understands that its life thread is directly dependent on Phillip's whim. In this way, we do pull strings, and the Tunisian campaign was more or less to feed the dog. Publically, Spain can do very little against Italian, although we can condemn them. A very large secret amongst Italians is that they are planning two, possibly three, large aircraft carriers, which would rival the size of the Nimitz. Even Spain sees this as a threat, explaining our dual carrier project; the first ship destined for comission in 2020 and our second ship to be comissioned 2022 [being laid down in 2019]. Furthermore, Madrid is hoping that London does pass the sale of the Invincible. Although this might seem cocky, it is all possible to believe that stability in the Mediterranean Sea depends entirely on Spain's dominance over Italy. It's not to say that Spain is the greatest force - Spain can't hope to match the size of the French Army, or of her Air Force. But the active role Spain has been playing has really made it one of the most influencing governments - especially over Portugal and Italy. Our greatest ally, however, is Iran, and through Iran we control the flow of oil. Had Australia not come to the peace table Australia faced her oil flow cut off in New Zealand, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. In any case, it's this thin thread that Spain so dearly holds onto, and what stability in the Mediterranean depends on.

Of course, there are methods of curtailing this. And Spain would be more than willing on working with France on the side to develope weapons that could possibly match those of Italy. The only singular project we know Italy is carrying out now is its carrier project; but most frightful of all, the conquest of Tunisia will give it its own oil fields. This nullifies Spain advantage in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we have made too many friends in Italy, with too many personal ties, to just cut them and make sure that Tunisia never falls, but Spain, nevertheless, always keeps a wary eye on its Mediterranean neighbor.

[OOC: Bah, my answer is very confusing - whch sort of gives an image of the IC situation!. It was IC mixed with OOC and more or less an explenation of what Spain has worked to do. Politics is very interesting. :) Portugal and Italy want to take this tripartite further, although (again, very OOCly) Spain is working to reel them back and maintain the integrity of the EU. It's all very complicated.]

[ooc: I'll post in your thread to continue this discussion...]

Im new to all this stuff. What exactly does "OCC" "IC" and "SIC" mean?

Im new to all this stuff. What exactly does "OCC" "IC" and "SIC" mean?

OOC: Out of character.
IC: In Character
SIC: Semi-In Character

---

The first would denote when something is between players, not the characters in the roleplay. The second would denote something completely open, between characters and more or less public. The latter is like the second, but is secret between certain characters.

OOC: Out of character.
IC: In Character
SIC: Semi-In Character

---

The first would denote when something is between players, not the characters in the roleplay. The second would denote something completely open, between characters and more or less public. The latter is like the second, but is secret between certain characters.

[ooc: I though that SIC was secret-in-character?]

[ooc: I though that SIC was secret-in-character?]

[OOC: Either or; the definition would be the same. I guess it's secret.]

OOC: Out of character.
IC: In Character
SIC: Semi-In Character

---

The first would denote when something is between players, not the characters in the roleplay. The second would denote something completely open, between characters and more or less public. The latter is like the second, but is secret between certain characters.

OOC: Thanks alot.

and here's an IC:

Following recent developments in the US and possibly the outcropping of new space ideas, Denmark would like to re-confirm that Space is to be banned for commercial and military exploitation.

Realizing: That the orbit around earth has already been heavily polluted by debris

Anticipating: That mining operations, military installations and tourism are all harmful to the pristine state of space.

Realizing: That only a few nations have full access to exploit spatial resources.

And finally demanding: That space should be regarded as an area unspoiled by the greed of man.

We would like to propose an International Law banning non-UN endorsed commercial (incl. mining operations, mass tourism and claiming property) and military (incl. space weapon programs and "invading" space) exploitation of space.

We hope that other nations will agree that space should remain as unspoiled by the more greedy nature of human spirits.

We also would like to note that scientific missions and peaceful operations that do not lay claim to any part of space are perfectly acceptable under this law.

and here's an IC:

Following recent developments in the US and possibly the outcropping of new space ideas, Denmark would like to re-confirm that Space is to be banned for commercial and military exploitation.

Realizing: That the orbit around earth has already been heavily polluted by debris

Anticipating: That mining operations, military installations and tourism are all harmful to the pristine state of space.

Realizing: That only a few nations have full access to exploit spatial resources.

And finally demanding: That space should be regarded as an area unspoiled by the greed of man.

We would like to propose an International Law banning non-UN endorsed commercial (incl. mining operations, mass tourism and claiming property) and military (incl. space weapon programs and "invading" space) exploitation of space.

We hope that other nations will agree that space should remain as unspoiled by the more greedy nature of human spirits.

We also would like to note that scientific missions and peaceful operations that do not lay claim to any part of space are perfectly acceptable under this law.

[ooc: This is on the floor now :)]

Y - 7 [Denmark, Spain, Australia, CBSS, Yugoslavia, South Africa, Austria]
N - 2 [Iran, USA]

[ooc: out of arbitrary need for some time constraint, I'm limiting this resolution to a 1 year - 1 week RL - time for people to make their votes. At the moment, France is abstaining, but will consider a vote soon.]

[EDIT: until I get official word otherwise, Yugoslavia has a yea vote...]

Spain votes a very hard nay, noting it's own aspiring space projects, and the fact that SPASAT launched in 2006 with much success.

Space is a fronteir of science and research, not of war. Jugoslavia strongly opposes militarizing space because it is a threat to humanity.

Space is a fronteir of science and research, not of war. Jugoslavia strongly opposes militarizing space because it is a threat to humanity.

[ooc: is that yea or nay?]

Please monitor this, as Australia details their plans in Somalia

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10581625

Saudi Arabia votes Yay

OOC: Presentation of the report to the UN on Australia leaving Somalia.
IC:
Australia to Leave Somalia by 2016

Current Operations in Somalia
Remove Warlords
Stop terrorist attacks from Somalis
Reestablish the Somalian Border
Replace Mogudishu as the capital and center of the Somalian Government
Modernize Somali with western goods

Currently 30,000 Australian Troops are stationed throughout Somalia they are the overseer's of the project by Australian businesses and industrial factories. The plan is to rebuild Somalia as a powerful nation, complete with full electricity and water availibity to all citizens. The project includes a total social and welfare revamping.

120 Hospitals
12 Power Plants (Coal/Gas Powered)
Reconstruction of 4,000,000 homes and businesses
Laying down 1,800,000 miles of wire
Digging in 800,000 miles of sewage/water systems
Clearing 400,000 hexacres for farming
Paving 250,000 miles of road

Another operation is to purge bacterial sources from lakes and rivers to make them drinkable, this operation is expected to last 5 years. The plan is to make the water in Somalia safe to drink without the threat of water-borne sickness the currently plagues the people. Since the troops moved into Somalia the problem has been largely quelled with mass distribution of water purifiers and pumps that would allow the impurities to be removed easily. Such operation had an economic boom on the Australian market which was the sole producer of water purifers, so much so that the companies stock rating increased by fourteen times as 4 million units were ordered from the military to aid in Somalia. These water purifers are being paid for by Somali's that are currently helping to rebuild their shattered nation. The production of water purifiers started three years prior to the invasion along with Australia's movement to Somalia with Operation Humanity. Such interests helped to boost Australian businesses and their economic power with such demand of equipment.

The purification of the rivers is helped largely by building cleansing plants. The water purifiers will be completed in 2012 that will completely make Somalia's water supply safe and accessable as soon as the sewage/water system is completed. Somalias are currently funding this project on the side with the Australian military as this is one of the most potential life-saving operations in Somalia to fix the problem of water-borne illness and provide farms with plenty of safe water to grow plants and crops. The removal of the diseases will largely reduce the medical costs and problems of the Somali people on the largest and most viewable short-term scale that is being seen every day. What used to be brownish or dank water is now clear blue and the Somali's like the ablity to produce their own clean water from dirty water.

The engineers that are currently over seeing the operation, upgrade and functioning Somali power plants report a 20% increase in efficent production of power. The energy demands currently met the needs of Somalia in the past, but the next operation have put major strain on this and thayt is why twelve additional power plants began construction two years ago and they are just coming online now to give Somalia a massive power supply that is able to be sold to nearby countries to actually begin the restoring process in nearby Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti. Australia is currently suggesting that power be sold for little charge or no charge to the countries, until things in Somalia pan out. The energy grid for Somalia is only 30% complete, but by 2015 it will be completed.

Businesses in Somalia are largely run by Australians and the key export of Somalia is becoming a huge success. Agriculture is showing a massive boom, with the previous two years harvests being over 500% more successful and profitable for Somalia. Farmers were worried that the crops might be too plentiful and would reduce cost, but they agreed to subsidizing the farm to sell the food to starving Somalis and a business. This agriculture business is highly successful and is making many villages profitable by feeding the cities. Already there has been a 40% reduction in the cases of mal-nutrition as food becomes plentiful and cheap across Somalia.

Australia's troops are aiding in setting up medical facilities until the hospitals are completely supplied and stocked.While the demand of the troops is overwhelming the ability to care for the Somali's diseases is dire, so dire that the new medical students of Somalia are allowed to begin practicing medicine and surgery and care of patients with only four months of training. These are specifically met to the current issues at hand. Malnutrition, sickness, disease and other forms of bacterial illness. The current system is that medical officers of Australia identify what the probable illness is and sends the sick person to the specific doctor to be healed in the area that they are suited to. Medicine is a big problem, antibotics are being heavily abused and are being taken when not needed. Other patients are unable to recieve the medicines they need as a result of others infront of them that need the pills. The medical part of Operation Humanity is severely lacking and if Australia was not under trade embargos, would be able to procure the medical supplies they so dearly need. Australia has been providing stainless steel knifes and medical equipment to Somali hospitals, but sterlization of the tools is not often done, most are rinsed with purified water before surgeries and examinations, but this is a drawback of the influx of patients that are coming to the hospitals.

The Education System proposes by Australia is severely lacking and as a need to have more skilled workers in Somalia, the military is currently offering courses and information to Somali's on how to teach others, it is hoped that by 2017 that the beginning of a national school system is going to be run by the Somali government. Though this process is a long one, Australia is assured that it cannot care for this sector completely and is relying heavily on the local government to make this happen.

The reconstruction of housing is a joint effort by the proper government and the Australian government to meet the demands of the cities, which have been severely abused in recent years. Ever since the fall of the Somali government in 1991, the proper maintaince and operation, construction and care for the buildings have been up to the people that occupied them. In many cases the housing of the cities is inadequet and must be torn down and rebuilt, though the conditions may be bad, the livablity of the buildings still stands and only severely damaged buildings are being torn down and rebuilt in small economic sizes with non-descript cookie-cutter features.

The labor provided for the housing effort, much of the same along with the agricultural, medical, engineering, educational, law enforcement, and services is being provided largely by the Somali's with local governments at the head of the decision making process, except for areas of Somaliland and Puntland, which are under control of the military.

The Transitional Federal Government consisting of a 275-member parliament was established in October 2004 of Mogudisho is currently at the center of Australian and Somalian plans to fix the nation. The unicameral government is the primary driving force for repairs of Somalia. Although an interim government was created in 2004 other governing bodies continue to exist and control various cities and regions of the country, including the self-declared Republic of Somaliland, Australia's forceful removal of the twin nations within Somalia has made the hand of the Transitional Federal Government powerful.

Australian military officals can only help keep the peace and oversee the operation of the Transitional Federal Government that is currently being overwhelmed and is trying to grab full control of the northern parts of Somalia.

There is talk of placing the former Prime Minster Dishu at the head of a democratic party with the cabinet members made of the clans in a form of democratic/federalism style government. Australia only encourages that Prime Minister Dishu be made head of Somalia as his record to keep Somalia under control has been successful. Australia will not attempt to remove Prime Minister Dishu from his position and believes that Somalia will recognize the leader as the proper ruler of Somalia.

Australian troop removal will commence at 2012 will a steady reduction of 10,000 troops by 2013. These troops will lower the amount stationed in Somalia from 40,000 to 30,000 after the Dome of the Rock issue is solved.

In 2013 a proposed reduction of an additional 5,000 troops is being heard of. This is depending largely on Somali's ability to take charge of itself with Dishu at the head. Although Dishu promises he will not back down from Australian aid and businesses, he wishes the troops leave even if their is severe problems as long as they do not threaten the Federal Government.

In 2014, another 10,000 troops are expected to return home, dropping the total number of troops in Somalia to just 15,000. This is largely do to the military's optimistic response to Dishu wanting to get Somalia under control, by 2014 the military believes that a large part of troops will not be needed to secure Somalia.

In 2015, all 15,000 troops are expected to return home by 2016, as economic aid to Somalia is continued, but the established law enforcement and central production of the country is transferred back into Somalia. Somalia will be its own sovereign nation will a direct tie to Australia as an ally and economic trade partner for many decades to come.

OOC: For more see the thread Naktan posted a link to above.

[ooc: This is on the floor now :)]

Y - 1 [Denmark]
N - 2 [Spain]

[ooc: out of arbitrary need for some time constraint, I'm limiting this resolution to a 1 year - 1 week RL - time for people to make their votes. At the moment, France is abstaining, but will consider a vote soon.]

Nay

Space is a fronteir of science and research, not of war. Jugoslavia strongly opposes militarizing space because it is a threat to humanity.

He's AGAINST it. So that will be a Yay. (I am really sure on that because of the last sentance)

Also Australia is a Yay!

Yay

Taiwan votes Yay. Other planets are not in our mind meant to be taken over as colonies of certain nations. If it were an International colony, that would be fine. Also, many countries would pose a much greater threat to the Earth were they able to fight from/in space. Also, we see a threat that is combined through both of these: A country slowly moves all to space, untill there is only a bit of it left on the Earth. They then use military action and don't care what happens to the Earth, as they no longer live there. Therefore, we vote Yay.

Does this mean that previously built reconnaissance satellites will have to be brought down?

Recon....as in informational gathering? No. This is more of a store military weapons in space, like a giant laser or nuclear missiles or claim places like the moon or asteroid belt for a specific nation. Least that's what I gather. (Exploitation of space)

In that case I might change my vote - but I was worried about putting reconnaissanc satellites under the category of military satellites, since that's what they are.

In writing my answer, I was thinking that the things that are banned are (well I get the comercial one) but that only things that can cause harm from space (ex. guns, lasers, not military sattelites) would be banned. Am I correct?

Taiwan votes Yay. Other planets are not in our mind meant to be taken over as colonies of certain nations. If it were an International colony, that would be fine. Also, many countries would pose a much greater threat to the Earth were they able to fight from/in space. Also, we see a threat that is combined through both of these: A country slowly moves all to space, untill there is only a bit of it left on the Earth. They then use military action and don't care what happens to the Earth, as they no longer live there. Therefore, we vote Yay.

[OOC: I'm sorry to say that Taiwan is not a member of the UN...you have yet to be recognized as an independent country by the UN - as well as many othe nations in the world...either you join with China [which would be bad for you playing as Taiwan...], or declare your independence officially as the Republic of Taiwan [which would make China really, really, really, really, REALLY angry and possibly lead to a world war itself...]. Otherwise, your opinion as a part of China is respected, despite the fact that Beijing has the final say...]

Australia wishes to extend the offer to help rebuild Somalia. Though the total costs for the rebuilding and reconstruction is equivolent to $5,000,000,000,000 ($5 Trillion). Australia has completed its militaristic mission and has destroyed Puntland and Somaliland to take over Somalia, the Prime Minister is back in proper control of his country with Australia still acting as a driving force in the process.

Somalia offically ends its anarchy state in May 6th 2011!

OOC:What $5 trillion is this, Asbena? Your GDP can only be around $700 billion USD, including growth from 2006-2011..

OOC:What $5 trillion is this, Asbena? Your GDP can only be around $700 billion USD, including growth from 2006-2011..

OOC: Why you think we are asking for help!? This is a 30 year project (possibly 20 year if we get all $5 tril to Somalia) to fix it.

France proposes the following resolution:

The UN GA:

Noting with approval the Australian desires to quit Somalia,

Noting further with approval that Australia's current forces are attempting to improve the Somali condition,

Concerned that the previous actions by the Australian military may lead to scars in the Somali people,

Recalling the past resolution condemning Australia for their invasion of Somalia,

Aware of the various tensions between many nations in the world about the Somalia crisis,

1. Authorizes the organization and deployment of UN peacekeeping forces to assist Somalia and Australia in the following manners:
a) Reconstruction of damaged infrastructure and territory,
b) Construction improvements and modifications to better serve the Somali people, to include:
i) Hospitals,
ii) Schools,
iii) Residential buildings,
iv) Police and fire stations,
v) Government buildings, and
vi) Basic infrastructure,
c) Military training and equipment of the Somali forces,
d) Monitoring of free and fair plebiscite elections for a new Somali government,
e) Assisting the interim and elected government organize and implement Somali policy and enforcements effectively,
f) Providing welfare and humanitarian aid to Somali citizens in dire need of nutrition and medical supplies,
g) Offering personnel to assist in implementing these actions and orders, and
h) Assisting Australian main troops in their withdrawal from Somalia;

2. Encourages all UN members to contribute actively in resolving Somalia's return to national sovereignty in the following manners:
a) Economic assistance,
b) Diplomatic encouragement, and
c) Political assistance;

3. Further encourages those UN states that currently hold sanctions on Australia to cease sanctions upon passage of this resolution;

4. Calls for the creation of a UN oversight committee - the United Nations Committee for the Peaceful Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of the Somali Republic - to monitor UN peacekeeping efforts in Somalia;

5. [U]Decides to remain actively seized in the manner.


This resolution has one week to pass...or fail.

Y - 10 [France, Spain, Saudi Arabia, United States, South Africa, Singapore, Australia, Somalia, Denmark, Austria]
N -

Saudi Arabia votes Yay on the Somalia resolution.

Spain votes Y.

OOC:What $5 trillion is this, Asbena? Your GDP can only be around $700 billion USD, including growth from 2006-2011..

[ooc: $5 tril is definitely a gross miscalculation...if you read the my post on that thread about the road construction jig, this whole project according to Australia should be in the tens of trillions...if not hundreds]

The United States votes Yay on France's proposal. We only hope that the other members of both the Security Council, and General Assembly agree as well.

Australia should note that should they desire to act in the future, they will do so with UN approval.

[ooc: $5 tril is definitely a gross miscalculation...if you read the my post on that thread about the road construction jig, this whole project according to Australia should be in the tens of trillions...if not hundreds]

OOC- At the moment, realisticly Australia would be in at minimum a trillion in debt to begin with.

OOC- At the moment, realisticly Australia would be in at minimum a trillion in debt to begin with.

[ooc: I would agree...]

The CBSS suggests that perhaps a discussion of Austrilia's finances could wait. The middle east may soon become hell on earth.

(OOC: Yeah, I really need to get into that. Here's a rare opportunity. Nations of the world, what do YOU think the Unites States should do?)

Considering who is your president currently. I believe she would stand by Israel.

[ooc: I would agree...]

OOC: Its $1.5 trillion, and will be $2 trillion if we are alone in Somalia by the end of this NS year.

South Africa votes Yes, and will send peacekeepers or aid if necessary

[ooc: just an FYI to all out there, there are two resolutions on the floor; they have one week to pass or fail:

The first is a resolution by Denmark to curtail the commercialization and militarization of space, and ensure that science and research can be peacefully conducted by all nations. The post is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10581408&postcount=149).

The second is a resolution to help resolve the Somalia crisis, seeing as Australia is willing to leave the country. This authorizes UN peacekeepers in Somalia to stablize the country. The post is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10582162&postcount=168).

Yes to both

The US votes Nay on Denmark's proposal. While its intentions are just, it fails to realize that much of the future of manned space flight can do without additional red tape.

Singapore's delegate to the UN must vote yes on this resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10582162&postcount=168).

After much deliberation within and much viewing of the Australian proposal, it has concluded that the proposal does offer material benefit. But, it must agree with Statements made by the United States and the French Governments that the Australian public works seem to promote a pattern of long-term dependency on Australian business interests for stability.

To begin, much of the aid is done in a paternalistic top-down fashion. No local experience in management is fostered. Local government is involved, but management for many projects seems to be dominated by Australian personnel, at the expense of locals who could use training and even perhaps Somalian émigres with the necessary experience. The only training we saw was for military, law enforcement, and teachers.

The introduction of the Australian Dollar as the official currency is especially troubling, as a stable Somalia will, by right of nationhood, have at least a somewhat stable currency, rendering a dependence on a foreign currency unnecessary.

Singapore's delegate to the UN must vote yes on this resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10582162&postcount=168).

After much deliberation within and much viewing of the Australian proposal, it has concluded that the proposal does offer material benefit. But, it must agree with Statements made by the United States and the French Governments that the Australian public works seem to promote a pattern of long-term dependency on Australian business interests for stability.

To begin, much of the aid is done in a paternalistic top-down fashion. No local experience in management is fostered. Local government is involved, but management for many projects seems to be dominated by Australian personnel, at the expense of locals who could use training and even perhaps Somalian émigres with the necessary experience. The only training we saw was for military, law enforcement, and teachers.

The introduction of the Australian Dollar as the official currency is especially troubling, as a stable Somalia will, by right of nationhood, have at least a somewhat stable currency, rendering a dependence on a foreign currency unnecessary.


Umm...you realize that Somalian currency is printed by the businesses themselves? And that in ONE YEAR they had 370% inflation on their goods? There is NO REGULATION or order for it. You have a better idea? (Changing currency can take 10+ years, but until whatever happens tons of Aussie money is in Somalia...)

IC: Australia votes Yay....Somalia would Vote yay to!

(OOC: Make that OOC, Assbena. Plus, you didn't see everyone jump to tie their economies to WWI's German economy did you?)

IC:
The United States must state that it shares the same concern as Singapore over the move to Australian currency. It is recommended that a new currency be introduced.

Umm...you realize that Somalian currency is printed by the businesses themselves? And that in ONE YEAR they had 370% inflation on their goods? There is NO REGULATION or order for it. You have a better idea? (Changing currency can take 10+ years, but until whatever happens tons of Aussie money is in Somalia...)

IC: Australia votes Yay....Somalia would Vote yay to!

[ooc: if you're willing to tag on the weak power of the Somali economy to your currency, go ahead...otherwise, leave the currency to its own and let the Somalis choose their currency...]

[ooc: This is on the floor now :)]

Y - 6 [Denmark, Spain, Australia, CBSS, Yugoslavia, South Africa]
N - 2 [Iran, USA]

[ooc: out of arbitrary need for some time constraint, I'm limiting this resolution to a 1 year - 1 week RL - time for people to make their votes. At the moment, France is abstaining, but will consider a vote soon.]

[EDIT: until I get official word otherwise, Yugoslavia has a yea vote...]

Israel votes Yay! on the space proposal.

Israel votes Yay! on the Australian resolution.

OOC: Hey Naktan, want to write one for the Lebanon crisis, helping Israel establish peace there?

[ooc: if you're willing to tag on the weak power of the Somali economy to your currency, go ahead...otherwise, leave the currency to its own and let the Somalis choose their currency...]

Their money is worthless....it'll take a few years to purge, cleanse, re-make, and adopt a new form to make it valuable. Australia offered a temporary solution, putting real money behind the money.

Their money is worthless....it'll take a few years to purge, cleanse, re-make, and adopt a new form to make it valuable. Australia offered a temporary solution, putting real money behind the money.

(OOC: The thing is, by doing this, your making your announced plans even more unreasonable, as you're killing your own economy, and making it incapable of supporting your plans. As much as I, as the US would like to see this, what you're doing is just hurting yourself.)

As the current trend seems to point towards Denmark's resolution passing, the United States must announce that does not intend to follow.

(OOC: Will we follow through and have this happen in the NS UN as well?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4810538.stm)

(OOC: The thing is, by doing this, your making your announced plans even more unreasonable, as you're killing your own economy, and making it incapable of supporting your plans. As much as I, as the US would like to see this, what you're doing is just hurting yourself.)

OOC: Nevermind not going to go into it here....

OOC: Nevermind not going to go into it here....

(OOC: Stop hurting yourself!!)

[ooc: my last post in the UN on the matter of currency...

Australia's currency isn't strong enough to support the Somali economy and the Australia economy. It isn't as widely accepted as a trade commodity - granted, it would help the Somalis somewhat, but it would definitely hurt Australia more. The dollar, the UK pound, the euro, maybe even the yuan and the yen [although I'd say they're a bit too devalued to serve a significant purpose] have more power than the Australian dollar, and are used in international norms as the standard currencies for exchange

woot for support of banning exploitation of space. I do believe recon sats would be allowed and that most secondary commercial use would be as well, but primarily, it should be neither commercial nor militaristic (so in other words, no company who has the sole purpose to send people into space).

Denmark votes yay on the Somalia resolution.

Austria's Stance:

Somalia Resolution: YAY
Space Resolution: YAY

[OOC: I'm sorry to say that Taiwan is not a member of the UN...you have yet to be recognized as an independent country by the UN - as well as many othe nations in the world...either you join with China [which would be bad for you playing as Taiwan...], or declare your independence officially as the Republic of Taiwan [which would make China really, really, really, really, REALLY angry and possibly lead to a world war itself...]. Otherwise, your opinion as a part of China is respected, despite the fact that Beijing has the final say...]

So even though this UN recognizes all countries as members, it doesn't recognise Taiwan?

So even though this UN recognizes all countries as members, it doesn't recognise Taiwan?

[ooc: the UN recognizes and follows the One China Policy [ironically set by the ROC...], and the UN currently recognizes the One China government in Beijing...if Taipei wishes to have a seat in the UN, they must declare a separate state...as it stands, there is only ONE China [which is up to foreign governments which one they recognize] - to have a seat, you need to make TWO Chinas - of which the PRC will vehemently hate and likewise forcefully attempt to reseize Taiwan...]

[OOC EDIT: I guess I could say this bluntly...YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY... the problem stems from the 1946 Chinese Civil War; when the Communists beat the KuoMinDang off in 1949, the Nationalists fled to Taiwan. Before the Communists could invade Taiwan, China intervened in the Korean War and the USA stepped in on Taiwan to defend the KuoMinDang from the Communists. Seeing as the KuoMinDang government in Taipei was the one that signed the UN charter and Chiang Kai-Shek insisted on a One China Policy [in order to exclude Beijing's influence on international politics], the Republic of China [Taiwan] retained the UN seat. Then in 1971, the UN reversed and then recognized Beijing as the one China, which now turned the tables on Taiwan, seeing as neither Beijing nor Taipei claimed that the other was not within their jurisdiction [i.e. both governments claimed authority of both the Mainland and Taiwan], Taipei was now the excluded member. Since that time, especially in recent years, there has been an increased by hard-line KuoMinDang members to declare independence as the Republic of Taiwan - although there is still a majority in the KuoMinDang party still want to cleave to the One China policy. However, Beijing has stated that they will forcefully reacquire Taiwan if they declare independence, since they have long agreed on the One China policy [meaning that there will not be two Chinese states]. Nonetheless, if you want to have a seat in the UN, get on becoming a country...

if you didn't know this in advance and would like to change states, tell to Sel Appa when he gets back on that because Taiwan is a pretty hard issue even today... quite frankly, I don't see Taiwan declaring independence, but I don't see China taking back Taiwan either so this thing will likely persist until there is enough of an opinion to reassimilate into China or to separate as the Republic of Taiwan...]

OOC: hey Naktan, would you like to create a UN resolution to deal with Lebanon?!

[ooc: maybe, if I have the time...]

The US votes Nay on Denmark's proposal. While its intentions are just, it fails to realize that much of the future of manned space flight can do without additional red tape.

Already Russia and the US are the cause for many disabled satellites containing radioactive materials. These satellites will eventually lose orbit, as they are decommisioned, and their radioactive material will then be spread upon the earth.

Initially, space debris was a minor concern and astronauts rarely risked minor meteorites striking them and the satellites and space stations hardly ever risked destruction. With the space debris increasing as waste and decommisioned satellites continue to clutter our orbit, space travel is getting increasingly dangerous.

Furthermore, an application of military technology in space will result in a similar situation which we have on Earth. It seems stupid to attempt to control space, when everybody can easily agree to avoid sending any military technology into space (this is hard enough to do to keep most countries from doing it, but no one country should ever start).

While space agencies with the primary goal of research can help fund their programs through limited tourism and advertisement, a mass tourism at this stage would merely serve to vastly increase the pollution levels on earth, increase debris and also pose direct threats to large areas of earth with the continued use of nuclear powered space ships.

Present-day manned space cannot be limited by this law, but the future of manned space is not mass tourism and spatial nuclear missiles. At best, that is the far future, as space related technology is still under development.

Israel proposes the following resolution:

Concerned that the assasination of the Lebanon leader (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472663) has plunged the country into anarchy.

Alarmed that the Lebanese civilians and military have attacked Israel in the Shebaa Farms.

Recognizing the rights of Israel to defend herself against a country that attacks without due cause.

Further Recognizing Israel's right to take offensive actions against such attacks.

This Resolution Affirms:

1. That peace must be resolved in Lebanon as soon as possible.

2. That the UN will oversee the creation and establishment of a new Lebanese government.

3. That the UN will send peacekeeping forces to Lebanon, so that Israel does not have to prolong its occupation of Lebanon.

4. That Israel will pull all military forces from Lebanon as soon as the UN Peacekeepers arrive.

5. That the UN will continue monitor Lebanon and its new government.


Israel votes Yea to this resolution

Y - Israel, Denmark, CBSS, Spain, Argentina, Naktan
N - Iran

Denmark votes yea on the Israel-Lebanon issue.

We also propose sending a force of 100 Danish peacekeepers to the area.

the CBSS votes Yay

[ooc: the UN recognizes and follows the One China Policy [ironically set by the ROC...], and the UN currently recognizes the One China government in Beijing...if Taipei wishes to have a seat in the UN, they must declare a separate state...as it stands, there is only ONE China [which is up to foreign governments which one they recognize] - to have a seat, you need to make TWO Chinas - of which the PRC will vehemently hate and likewise forcefully attempt to reseize Taiwan...]

[OOC EDIT: I guess I could say this bluntly...YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY... the problem stems from the 1946 Chinese Civil War; when the Communists beat the KuoMinDang off in 1949, the Nationalists fled to Taiwan. Before the Communists could invade Taiwan, China intervened in the Korean War and the USA stepped in on Taiwan to defend the KuoMinDang from the Communists. Seeing as the KuoMinDang government in Taipei was the one that signed the UN charter and Chiang Kai-Shek insisted on a One China Policy [in order to exclude Beijing's influence on international politics], the Republic of China [Taiwan] retained the UN seat. Then in 1971, the UN reversed and then recognized Beijing as the one China, which now turned the tables on Taiwan, seeing as neither Beijing nor Taipei claimed that the other was not within their jurisdiction [i.e. both governments claimed authority of both the Mainland and Taiwan], Taipei was now the excluded member. Since that time, especially in recent years, there has been an increased by hard-line KuoMinDang members to declare independence as the Republic of Taiwan - although there is still a majority in the KuoMinDang party still want to cleave to the One China policy. However, Beijing has stated that they will forcefully reacquire Taiwan if they declare independence, since they have long agreed on the One China policy [meaning that there will not be two Chinese states]. Nonetheless, if you want to have a seat in the UN, get on becoming a country...

if you didn't know this in advance and would like to change states, tell to Sel Appa when he gets back on that because Taiwan is a pretty hard issue even today... quite frankly, I don't see Taiwan declaring independence, but I don't see China taking back Taiwan either so this thing will likely persist until there is enough of an opinion to reassimilate into China or to separate as the Republic of Taiwan...]


OOC: No, I like all this debate about Taiwan being a free country and whatnot. It makes the RP interesting :)

Already Russia and the US are the cause for many disabled satellites containing radioactive materials. These satellites will eventually lose orbit, as they are decommisioned, and their radioactive material will then be spread upon the earth.

Initially, space debris was a minor concern and astronauts rarely risked minor meteorites striking them and the satellites and space stations hardly ever risked destruction. With the space debris increasing as waste and decommisioned satellites continue to clutter our orbit, space travel is getting increasingly dangerous.

Furthermore, an application of military technology in space will result in a similar situation which we have on Earth. It seems stupid to attempt to control space, when everybody can easily agree to avoid sending any military technology into space (this is hard enough to do to keep most countries from doing it, but no one country should ever start).

While space agencies with the primary goal of research can help fund their programs through limited tourism and advertisement, a mass tourism at this stage would merely serve to vastly increase the pollution levels on earth, increase debris and also pose direct threats to large areas of earth with the continued use of nuclear powered space ships.

Present-day manned space cannot be limited by this law, but the future of manned space is not mass tourism and spatial nuclear missiles. At best, that is the far future, as space related technology is still under development.


Nuclear Powered Space Ships!? WHAT!? Nukes in space are forbidden!

Nuclear Powered Space Ships!? WHAT!? Nukes in space are forbidden!

[ooc: there are nuclear POWERED spacecraft - not nuclear ARMED spacecraft. They have a longer battery life than solar-powered crafts, and they can handle the temperature discreptancies better...]

[ooc: thanks Israel for the resolution :)...one less to worry about...]

France votes YAY :)

OOC: No, I like all this debate about Taiwan being a free country and whatnot. It makes the RP interesting :)

[ooc: ok...well I wish you good luck in your ventures... :D]

Argentina votes Yay on the Isreali resolution

[ooc: ok...well I wish you good luck in your ventures... :D]
I hope for good luck too in my future ventures with Taiwan :)

OOC: Enough ooc posts for now in the un forum :)

Spain votes yes on the Israeli-Lebanese resolution.

With the complete annexation of Tunisia by Italy, we are thoroughly appalled that a member of the international community would perform such an action as this, without even any reason for action. We move to pass the following resolution in response:

THE UNSC [everyone can vote on this, even though it's UNSC; for reasons, see Sel Appa's explanation]

Noting with regret the failure of the previous resolution on the attacks on Tunisia by Italy,

Disturbed by developments leading to the annexation of Tunisia by Italy,

Reaffirming the sovereignty of all nations,

1. Condemns the Republic of Italy for its unwarranted seizure of Tunisia;

2. Demands that the Republic of Italy withdraw from Tunisian territory and full restore Tunisian sovereignty;

3. Further demands that Italy pay for any damages incurred on the Tunisian state and people during their attacks;

4. Encourages all nations to employ diplomatic pressure on Italy to comply with this resolution;

[I]5. Authorizes the implementation of UN peacekeeping forces to Tunisia upon passage to insure the security and safety of the people and of the government for the following purposes:
a) To protect Tunisia from further incursions of its sovereignty,
b) To maintain a stable form of government, and
c) To moderate any plebiscites in the country;

6. Decides to remain actively on the issue.

Y - 4 [France, Spain, Australia, Denmark]
N - 3 [Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel]

Saudi Arabia votes Nay on the Italian Resolution.

Iran votes nay on the Lebanon resolution and is ashamed at the world for letting Israel pursue what is obviusly an anti-Muslim and Arab policy.

Spain votes yes on the Italian issue.

Israel votes Nay on the Italian resolution until Italy makes a statement.

Iran votes nay on the Lebanon resolution and is ashamed at the world for letting Israel pursue what is obviusly an anti-Muslim and Arab policy.

OOC: At least your sticking with your countries policies! ;)

Although it looks like it may pass.

Saudi Arabia votes Nay on the Lebanon Resolution.

Israel votes Nay on the Italian resolution until Italy makes a statement.

they already did

OOC: What are we doing about the fact that the EUs borders have just been extended now that Tunisia has surrendered?

Add this to the list...

Im calling the surrender of Tunisian forces, add it to my territory please

The Republic is shocked that the Un would bring such a resolution against it.
Firstly withdrawing the Italian forces currently present on Tunisian territory would simply allow the country to slip into chaos as there is no central government who could assume control of the country. Also several armed groups have popped up after arming themselves from looted Tunisian Army Depots that we are unable to guard.

There have been NO Civilian casualties in Tunisia as a result of the fighting, the total lack of ground combat assured this.
In five months time the Italian government will carry out a free plebicite amongst the Tunisian people that will deside the fate of tunisia, if the result should be unfavorable the Italian Miltiary will withdraw its forces from Tunisia.

OOC: Nuclear powered is still a little much for me...but whatever.

IC: Australia votes Yay on the Italy resolution.

It is the opinion of France that Tunisia wouldn't have any problems if Italy hadn't maliciously attacked her.

It is the opinion of France that Tunisia wouldn't have any problems if Italy hadn't maliciously attacked her.

Australia holds France's opinion as its own.

OOC: Nuclear powered is still a little much for me...but whatever.

IC: Australia votes Yay on the Italy resolution.

(OOC: Official vote to follow later. Note, that radioactive materials in small amounts are used in many things, from gun sights to keeping the electronics in space from freezing over. Nuclear powered, but not propelled. It's not really a full fledged nuclear reactor.)


IC:
The United States understands Denmark's position, and would like to point out that it is well aware of the problems in space, and that its main purpose for voting against the resolution is that it does not feel that the UN should hold power over commercial endeavours.

We maintain our established position for the time being.

Poland feels bad for Italy. Everyone has condoned them for an attack that they felt good about. They may have had bad intentions, but it is done. We must move on. Italy, explain how you plan to leave the country you invaded. Also explain why you have done this.

Israel holds the opinion that Italy must stay in Tunisia until peace is resolved there. Then the UN should intervene to establish a government. Therefore we believe that the current resolution should be replaced by one stating the above.

Israel holds the opinion that Italy must stay in Tunisia until peace is resolved there. Then the UN should intervene to establish a government. Therefore we believe that the current resolution should be replaced by one stating the above.

[ooc: an amendment in order?]

OOC: Ammending it would work... yes.

Denmark agrees with both Israel and France.

Italy must be condemned, but Tunisia should not be left in chaos.

(that's a yea, regardless of amendment or not)

OOC: Has the Somalian vote thing come to an end yet?

OOC: Has the Somalian vote thing come to an end yet?

[ooc: not really, but unless a whole bunch of people vote against it, it's going to pass unanimously...]

France proposes the following resolution:

The UN GA:

Noting with approval the Australian desires to quit Somalia,

Noting further with approval that Australia's current forces are attempting to improve the Somali condition,

Concerned that the previous actions by the Australian military may lead to scars in the Somali people,

Recalling the past resolution condemning Australia for their invasion of Somalia,

Aware of the various tensions between many nations in the world about the Somalia crisis,

1. Authorizes the organization and deployment of UN peacekeeping forces to assist Somalia and Australia in the following manners:
a) Reconstruction of damaged infrastructure and territory,
b) Construction improvements and modifications to better serve the Somali people, to include:
i) Hospitals,
ii) Schools,
iii) Residential buildings,
iv) Police and fire stations,
v) Government buildings, and
vi) Basic infrastructure,
c) Military training and equipment of the Somali forces,
d) Monitoring of free and fair plebiscite elections for a new Somali government,
e) Assisting the interim and elected government organize and implement Somali policy and enforcements effectively,
f) Providing welfare and humanitarian aid to Somali citizens in dire need of nutrition and medical supplies,
g) Offering personnel to assist in implementing these actions and orders, and
h) Assisting Australian main troops in their withdrawal from Somalia;

2. Encourages all UN members to contribute actively in resolving Somalia's return to national sovereignty in the following manners:
a) Economic assistance,
b) Diplomatic encouragement, and
c) Political assistance;

3. Further encourages those UN states that currently hold sanctions on Australia to cease sanctions upon passage of this resolution;

4. Calls for the creation of a UN oversight committee - the United Nations Committee for the Peaceful Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of the Somali Republic - to monitor UN peacekeeping efforts in Somalia;

5. [U]Decides to remain actively seized in the manner.


This resolution has one week to pass...or fail.

Y - 12 [France, Spain, Saudi Arabia, United States, South Africa, Singapore, Australia, Somalia, Denmark, Austria, Italy, Argentina]
N -

[ooc: I'm saying this thing passes... thanks to all who voted on this...]

The Republic votes Yay

Argentina votes YAY

The Resolution on Australia passes!!!

Please note all of the various changes on this resolution that are authorized...

To Italy:
This is our space program link Italy. We hope you will participate with us.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10592438#post10592438

As to comply with the new resolution Spain has dropped its sanctions policy on Canberra.

Denmark wishes to send 200 peacekeepers to Somalia as part of the UN force.

It also lifts its economic sanctions towards Australia in full. Normal trade can resume with Australia.

Denmark considers sending foreign aid to Somalia as part of the reconstruction.

With the passing of this resolution, France formally declares an end to the barring of trade between France and Australia. As far as UN peacekeepers go, we havev not decided on a final force to send, but we are agreeing on a minimum 5000 troop presence. We will update this when it comes around.

UN Peacekeeping forces for the Somalia resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10593094&postcount=234):

Denmark - 200
France - 5000
USA - 8000 [+2000]
Saudi Arabia - 250
Singapore -7000

UN Peacekeeping forces for the Somalia resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10593094&postcount=234):

Denmark - 200
France - 5000
United States - 8,000 increasing to 10,000 in the next 2 years.

UN Peacekeeping forces for the Somalia resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10593094&postcount=234):

Denmark - 200
France - 5000
United States - 8,000 increasing to 10,000 in the next 2 years.


[ooc: as far as I know, they haven't even assembled for departure yet...]

[ooc: as far as I know, they haven't even assembled for departure yet...]

Yep. They will? How should I say, the USA by now (2011) will be able to move light forces, soldiers only (All we're sending at first.) anywhere in the world within 96 hours. Not that I will use that capability for a simple peace op, but just saying that if I can do that, then this is going to be a cakewalk.

Wait, what do you mean? Who assembled wha-?

EDIT: New sentence to clarify my statement.

(OOC: Nothing to do with Somalia, but...)

Fellow Nations of the World:
As I am sure you know, The Republic of Peru has come under attack by guerilla fighters bent on destroying democracy in our nation. These terrorists... blah... blah.. blah.
President Garcia

(OOC: To lazy to actually write a speech, but basically asking the UN to send troops to help root out the guerillas - or at least the US.

NOTE: I used terrorists and democracy in the same sentance - that means the US HAS to help:) :) :) )

Yep. They will? How should I say, the USA by now (2011) will be able to move light forces, soldiers only (All we're sending at first.) anywhere in the world within 96 hours. Not that I will use that capability for a simple peace op, but just saying that if I can do that, then this is going to be a cakewalk.

Wait, what do you mean? Who assembled wha-?

EDIT: New sentence to clarify my statement.

[ooc: ehh...I was talking about France...

and the US first strike capability is actually much shorter... 101st or 82nd Airborne troops can be where they need to be in 72 hours min... but they're used in combat situations, so I'd lay off the combat part and just go with plain and simple deployments. France will take about two weeks to send their force, after we've decided on a final count...]

(OOC: Nothing to do with Somalia, but...)

Fellow Nations of the World:
As I am sure you know, The Republic of Peru has come under attack by guerilla fighters bent on destroying democracy in our nation. These terrorists... blah... blah.. blah.
President Garcia

(OOC: To lazy to actually write a speech, but basically asking the UN to send troops to help root out the guerillas - or at least the US.

NOTE: I used terrorists and democracy in the same sentance - that means the US HAS to help:) :) :) )

[ooc: that should be in the US D/N thread...]

(OOC:Well, it was basically adressed to the entire UN, but I'll post it in the US thread too)

(OOC:Well, it was basically adressed to the entire UN, but I'll post it in the US thread too)

[ooc: ok...post it also in your main D/N thread too, so that you can find it if someone asks for it later...]