NationStates Jolt Archive

NATO VIDEO LINK MEET-UP DISCUSSING OF RESOLUTIONS AND VOTING

The nations Prime Ministers, Presidents and leaders of the NATO world were told that the President of the United States had organized a meeting for all NATO nations – over a secure video link. They would not need the hassle of formally meeting, but could vote on issues. And so, he introduced himself to the NATO nations of the world - and presented the resolutions at vote.

RESOLUTIONS AT VOTE:

1) If you wish to put forward a nominee for the Sectary General of NATO please do so now. If you nominate someone you cannot vote for him or her. The US, for now, will not put forward a nominee. The Sectary General will play a role in the write up and organization of these meetings, and will represent NATO to the International World.

Nominees:

- David Jadin, Prime Minister of Sweden
- Kim Anyard, South Korean Prime Minister

Votes:

2) Italy recent sold weapons and a battleship to a terrorist organization which sole aim is to spread communism and kill off agents of NATO’s various intelligence agencies. Which of the following actions should be taken

a) A stern warning shall be directed to Italy from all NATO nations telling them not to ever sell to organizations like this again.
b) Economic sanctions are placed on Italy and a state of military awareness is declared around them, much like the UK has done. This will last for say a year.
c) Italy is removed from NATO

We wish to highlight the issue of the developing Narguance-Hondarus war. NATO will allow each nation to make there own opinion of this war, however if there opinions are publicly different it will make us look divided. Therefore we purpose that all nations remain neutral to the conflict and only pass comment and commit troops to help or stop the Niguarian offensive if another nation tries to attack Niguara.

We also wish to announce that Saudi Arabia have withdrawn it’s threats against America, though we hope NATO supports the US stance of trying to prevent a country so anti-American and so pro-nuclear from beginning it’s nuclear weapons program.

3)Two proposal have been put forward by Sweden that could provoke the USSR. We have decided not to allow nations to abstain on these issues as they are important. Sweden wishes to mask itself as pirates and possibly damage nearby USSR ships exporting goods. It also wishes for America to build nuclear weapons silos on it’s nation, which may threaten the USSR. Please vote on these issues and preferable state your reasons.

Swedens proposal of damaging ships in black sea exporting and importing USSR goods.

YES:
NO:

Swedens proposal of the United States building Nuclear Missile silos on there land.

YES:
NO:

4) Two nations have been official classed as ‘Heads of NATO’. These are the U.S.A. and the U.K. These nations duties will allow them to Veto any resolution, and also they are the sole nations who can induct a member into NATO without having to go through it with other nations of NATO. Firstly, do all nation votes in confidence of these two nations having permanent seats on NATO so to say. If not, state your reason why:

Yes:
No:
Abstain:

5) Along with this, the United States of America would like to propose that one more nation is allowed these privileges along with the US and UK – each NATO nation will receive one vote, and one nomination. You may nomination your nation to be one of the ‘Three Heads’ so to speak, however you may not vote for yourselves. It is likely nations will more political standing, and military and economic power will be voted in – however if you wish to stand, do so – NATO is a free alliance.

Nominees:

- Sweden
- South Korea

Votes:

6) Finally, the USA would like to propose that all weapons sales and oil, uranium and various other natural resources of popular demand are sold only to NATO nations and neutral nations with a pro-NATO stance. This will allow us the best resources in times of need:

Yes:
No:
Abstain:

Each nation is allowed one vote on each issue. The USA and the UK can veto.

(Warsaw Pact, don’t even try and break the video link. Also, if you have a proposition please say and I will add it. It’s mostly concerning America and current affairs, so if you have something of your own please say.)

The Swedish delegate arose to give his account of the issues.

1. We wish to nominate Swedish Prime Minister David Jadin to be Secretary General. We will thus abstain from voting.

2. We say that a is the best choice. Sanctions may be a little extreme for the first time. If such actions are shown by any member again, we will vote with a harsher tone.

3. Yes, and Yes.

4. Yes. The most powerful nations in NATO deserve that right.

5. We will nominate Sweden, and abstain from voting. We do wish to see ourselves there, but for now we see no nation worthy. If Japan were to enter NATO, we would thus reccommend them for this spot.

6. Yes. It is always good to keep things in family.

The South Korean stood up to address the issues:

1. We wish to nominated South Korean Prime Minister Kim Anyard for Seccretary General of NATO.

2. We want to go with option a, we don't want to drive Italy into the Warsaw Pact after all.

3. Yes, and Yes

4.Yes, we also think that the most powerful nation's in NATO should have that right.

5. We nominate the United Kingdom of South Korea to be one of the Three Heads, but we will not vote for ourselves as per instruction's, but for Spain instead.

6.Yes, we agree to that, that we have more resources to use in wartime, and anyway some of the neutral nation's we've sold stuff to, might go Warsaw.

OOC: A word of advice Kamp, Swiss is when your from Switzerland, and Swedish (or Swede, though that sounds a bit funny) is for Swedish people. :p

OOC: A word of advice Kamp, Swiss is when your from Switzerland, and Swedish (or Swede, though that sounds a bit funny) is for Swedish people. :p

OOC: damn it thats what I thought... But it sounded so awful...

Italy would like a chance to explain her reasons for selling a military boat to a terrorist organization.

1. By earning the trust of a Warsaw Pact nation early on, we could easily gather information from that country about the Warsaw Pact, maybe not enough to win it if it comes to war, but enough to give us some warning should an attack come.

2. Italy does not discriminate against terrorists, for there have been no attacks on Italy by a terrorist organization/nation.

Bearing these reasons in mind, Italy would like to call for the trust and support, instead of hostility, of fellow NATO nations in her decision to sell a military boat to a terrorist organization.

Italy also recognizes that the boat could be used against us if it came to war, but Italy doubts that by earning the trust of the terrorist organization, it's use can be minimal.

Very good,i can replace Italy in the supplies of weapons to terrorists if you wish

Very good,i can replace Italy in the supplies of weapons to terrorists if you wish

OOC: No, you arent in cold war.

1. Seeing as there are only 2 current candidates we will wait for more.
2. We vote for option a) with the assumption that if they do so again there will be consequences
3. No, Yes
4. Yes
5. The Federal Republic of Germany is applying for this position. Being the second strongest economy and one of the militarily strongest nations in NATO we believe that a position is deserved. Needless to say we are also of central importance to this cold war.
6. Yes, but with no guarantee of supply to non-NATO members during a time of war.

OOC: No, you arent in cold war.

So?Let them come to my storefront then,hahaha

We believe that it should become one of NATO's top priorities to rectuit new members. With France and Mexico having sided with the communists, and Indonesia leaning ever more in that direction, we are beginning to become outnumbered. We must recruit new members, with particular emphasis on Japan, India, and the Middle East. These may be beacons of hope in a dark world.

So?Let them come to my storefront then,hahaha

OOC: How about no. If you keep entering threads you have no right to be in I will be forced to get a mod. I don't think you want that do you?

We believe that it should become one of NATO's top priorities to rectuit new members. With France and Mexico having sided with the communists, and Indonesia leaning ever more in that direction, we are beginning to become outnumbered. We must recruit new members, with particular emphasis on Japan, India, and the Middle East. These may be beacons of hope in a dark world.

Japan and India are what we hope to be American friends. Recruiting though is a fragile business - we do not want to pressure them into it, forcing them away. Both of these countries requirer assistance from America - we understand India wants economic assistance with their poor, and Japan may be looking into buying American weapons. Whilst this will not sway them to join, it may help them become far more pro-NATO.

Plus remember minus the USSR and China there are no major threats to NATO in the Warsaw Pact.

Italy would like a chance to explain her reasons for selling a military boat to a terrorist organization.

1. By earning the trust of a Warsaw Pact nation early on, we could easily gather information from that country about the Warsaw Pact, maybe not enough to win it if it comes to war, but enough to give us some warning should an attack come.

2. Italy does not discriminate against terrorists, for there have been no attacks on Italy by a terrorist organization/nation.

Bearing these reasons in mind, Italy would like to call for the trust and support, instead of hostility, of fellow NATO nations in her decision to sell a military boat to a terrorist organization.

Italy also recognizes that the boat could be used against us if it came to war, but Italy doubts that by earning the trust of the terrorist organization, it's use can be minimal.

The United States actually finds some of the things quite laughable that you just said. The US still views you as an ally, and when are votes are made it will likely not be for option C, yet to say 'Italy does not discriminate against terrorists' - as if they are some kind of racial minority, not someone that kills innocent people, and in this case our agents. Now these 'terrorists' have even denied this transaction ever took place, so even if you did sell them it, this plan of yours to get them on your side has gone spectacularly wrong. All in all Italy, we have sympathy for you in some ways - cause your decision was foolish bordering on stupidity, and your reasons for it rather, well, poor. However, you, as a NATO nation will always have our support - trust however will have to be gained again.

America has done some deals we regret in the past, though a wise word to Italy is this - a) don't announce it publicly on your news network and b) don' sell to terror organizations that are not under your influence and will work against you.

OOC: America still supports you and we are sure you will remain in NATO, however the whole series of events was pretty strange on your part…

[[OOC: First, pretty much all of these propositions are completely unrealistic. But hey, I guess that is besides the point.]]

The Australian foreign minister, Alexander Downer, appeared on the screen from a conference room in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He was wearing a suit, with his tie slightly undone as it was late at night Australia time. He was a bit concerned over some of the proposals put forth, and the support given to those some proposals.

"Ladies and gentlemen, first let me apologise on the behalf of Prime Minister Howard. He had a meeting to attend to tonight, and therefore was unable to make it. I, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, shall represent Australia in his place tonight.

"On candidates for the Secretary-General, we believe it would be best if someone not currently in office was to take that role. It would allow them to be much more active and hands on, and it would give them the ability to better lead this organisation. As such, Australia wishes to nominate former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Australia and respected diplomat, Gareth Evans.

"Mr. Evans served as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1988 to 1996. Upon retiring from Parilment, he was nominated to become the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Unfortanally, this bid failed. Instead he became the CEO of International Crisis Group, an independent non-governmental organisation which works to prevent and resolve deadly conflict. In 2000, Mr. Evans was appointed co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. He also served on the Secretary General's Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, and he is a member of the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Going on with his resume, he served on the International Task Force on Global Public Goods and is a member of the Board of Advisors of the Global Panel Foundation. As you can see, he is very qaulified for the job.

"On the second proposal: while the sale of arms to a terroist organisation is a very huge deal, we can not simply push them away. We, as an organisation, must work with Italy and each other to determine why they did this and make sure they will never do it again. Sanctions and expulsion are not the way to go for a first time offender. Australia votes nay on Resolution two.

"Provoking the Soviet Union will only lead to a nuclear war, and mutaually assured destructrion or MAD. It is concerning to see that members of this body actually wish for war with the U.S.S.R., and not peace and disarmerment. Should a war come out of these actions, the Commonwealth is unsure if we could contribute to the side of NATO. We vote nay on the first matter and nay on the second. Though, it seems these matters are utimately up to the Swedes and Americans to decide.

"The idea of permanent seats is proposterous! That is not the way NATO was designed, and I do not believe that it will benefit this organisation. We have such a small body anyway, Australia sees no need for these perament members. We are disgusted that other members of this organisation are voting in support of such a act. I also believe it would require an amendment to the charter to be put into force. NAY on resolution 4. Australia refuses to nomination or vote for a nation to take a permanent seat that has not yet been created. I would also like to clarify that our qualms are with the permanent seats, not those nations choosen to fill them.

"Australia votes aye on resolution six, though we wonder how 'pro-NATO stance' will be choosen.

"On your last staement to begin this meeting, I would like to express my disgust of already claiming that the United States and the United Kingdom can veto. That was not decided on by this body, and is currently being put to a vote. Such actions are illegal and highly concerning to Australia."

The United States actually finds some of the things quite laughable that you just said. The US still views you as an ally, and when are votes are made it will likely not be for option C, yet to say 'Italy does not discriminate against terrorists' - as if they are some kind of racial minority, not someone that kills innocent people, and in this case our agents. Now these 'terrorists' have even denied this transaction ever took place, so even if you did sell them it, this plan of yours to get them on your side has gone spectacularly wrong. All in all Italy, we have sympathy for you in some ways - cause your decision was foolish bordering on stupidity, and your reasons for it rather, well, poor. However, you, as a NATO nation will always have our support - trust however will have to be gained again.

America has done some deals we regret in the past, though a wise word to Italy is this - a) don't announce it publicly on your news network and b) don' sell to terror organizations that are not under your influence and will work against you.

OOC: America still supports you and we are sure you will remain in NATO, however the whole series of events was pretty strange on your part…

While Italy understands your position, we did not intend for this to be so...foolish, on our part. I assure you that President Napolitano's intentions were good, although somewhat misled. His advisers agreed with him, and now issues a sincere apology to the nations of NATO, and Italy is prepared to accept whatever punishment the council deems appropriate.

We also did not mean to make it sound as if the terrorists are merely a racial group, we meant that we are not against or for them. We merely were trying to open a possible bridge to the other side. But now that the group is denying the fact that we sold it to them, that is absurd. If they were truly one-hundred percent against us, they would come out in the open and say that we sold it to them, which Italy admits openly that it did indeed sell the boat the the organization.

We are also grateful that many of you are voting that we are not to be expelled from NATO. Once again, we are prepared to take whatever punishment seems necessary.

President Giorgio has also asked me to abstain from all voting until this problem is resolved.

1. For the Swedes.

2. Sanctions.

3. Yes, and yes.

4. Yes.

5. Abstain.

6. Yes.

The US understands Australia's concerns, and we were worried if nations would agree with this - and that is why we put the whole descision up for a vote of confidence. Essentially, if enough nay votes are registered against the US and UK as heads of NATO, we can discuss removing the whole idea or placing two other members at the helm.

The Greece committee was still assembling when US led-video conference begun. President Karolos Papoulias, Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis were there, but the foreign affairs minister Dora Bakoyannis was on her way from the helipad. She entered the room in time to hear Downer, trashing the two “Heads of NATO’.


...

Mr. president, said Dora off the microphone, as the “your turn” light lit, the hornet’s nest awaits you.

Good day to you, from Elada. Big words have been said, please allow a moment for our views:

About Italy. We think there is truth in all the declaration about Italy’s actions: yes, it would be wise to have friends inside. But supporting them with weapons is hardly the way. In the same time, Mr. Downey is right: sanctions are not the way for this first offender. We will vote A. But since the question was raised, we consider the other two options valid, so US did nothing wrong when they propose them.

About Sweden: We cannot support ANY action of piracy. Given our commercial fleet, you were expecting that. Further more, even if Sweden was to do that… “undercover”, if discovered, NATO could end up being the… escaping…
What’s the English word?
Goat

goat for all the piracy happening in the world, for all the undercover funding of Pact enemies. Not that it wouldn’t be true, but I think secrecy on that helps us.
I want to state something: Sweden shouldn’t have brought this up at a conference. Because this is likely to end up with a yes/no, and the latter is worse: if Sweden is caught and exposed, we will have to take actions against it or face a war, because NATO would have already warn Sweden not to go on with that.

-Man, he's slaughtering the English language, said Dora to Kostas, off the microphones
As for the nuclear weapons, we cannot be objective on that. We were going to ask for some nukes ourselves, since our neighbor developed the bomb, and we consider him inclined to Russia more than to NATO. For the MAD scenario… yes, it is possible. Yes it is to be considered. But MAD is expected with the USSR, not Yugoslavia or France. We would like to suggest that not 20 bombs, but 2 bombs or 4, or 5 for instance, a small number, with the declared purpose of self defense from France, let’s say, in Sweden’s case, or Yugoslavia in our case, be delivered “publicly”. We don’t need bombs for USSR. US have enough to bomb them. If USSR decide to understand this reasonable request for self defense, ok. If not… I don’t know, I’m expecting options. Mr. Downey, I understand your point of view, but please understand ours: we are here, in USSR’s grab area. If the Warsaw Pact was on the verge of collapsing, we would support you on this. But France gave it a maybe much needed impulse. We cannot ignore that.

About the two “permanent” leaders. We will oppose such an idea, and this time we ask for US/UK understanding:
Yea, see if they’ll give you nukes after this.
-at this first meeting we found out that Two nations have been official classed as ‘Heads of NATO’. By who? With what right? And who gave them those Veto rights?
-you have decided not to allow nations to abstain on some issues. You might request us not to abstain. You have no right to impose.
This being stated, we oppose to point 4 and 5. It wasn’t stated in the original principles, and it will upset the balance even more. We are all thankful to US and UK for what they did in WW2, but there is no need for this
That's such a French thing to say
Karolos gave Dora a quick,short,"shut up" type of gaze. Even though her comments couldn't be heard, she wasn't helping him either.

While we do not forget that this is a WAR, albeit a cold war, we ask ourselves if we are not too… into it, us, the Europeans, and the Americans. We think an Australian, with it’s less involvement, but backed by NATO would live a door opened for diplomacy. Especially one as esteemed as mr Evans. We support him for Secretary-General.

As for the economic part, I fully support the uranium/plutonium embargo. But I wouldn’t transform NATO into a Warsaw Pact, and I certainly wouldn’t want to upset the Oil Market. Already states are announcing taxes to different states. Let that be the problem of that state, and let this market work. So we move to strike anything but uranium and plutonium from that list.

So, summarizing:
1. Gareth Evans
2.A
3 No and Yes with amendments
4. No
5. No (but if nr.4 is approved, we support Australia)
6. Yes with ammendaments.
7. No to that “The USA and the UK can veto” line. There is no need for that.

Ok. I suppose that, if need arises, Australia could lend us some nukes….
I’m not sure they have something like that..
Karolos gave a looong gaze to the screen depicting the American delegation.

Before we end our moment,Karolos moved his gaze back to the camera
we would like to move forward an official request for UK to back down on it's actions against the NATO ships, or face a similar treatment. We move for a resolution of this conflict here and now. There is no need for sparks to go public.

Plus remember minus the USSR and China there are no major threats to NATO in the Warsaw Pact.


Um there are other nations that are a big threat including France and Poland