UN Security Council Discussion

[lkfht]

I would like to reiterate the Prime Minister of The Commonwealth of Canada's remarks. The United Nations must work for the common good of all countries, not just those with much power. All nations must be able to have a say in this organization in order for it to be a unifying body that work towards diplomacy not war. The UN cannot be a means of dictating ultimatums to enemy nations but rather look to more peaceful solutions to world problems.

- Secretary Scavo

Edited November 1, 2013 by lkfht

[Imperator Azenquor]

Russia votes aye on both proposals.

[Lestari]

"This 'UN Security Council' is nothing more than a pathetically transparent attempt by Tianxia and its bloc to achieve some sort of 'legitimacy' before the international community. But the core tenets are still there-- the right to enforce Tianxia's power upon all other nations, nulling the right to self-determination guaranteed to all nations. The Hierarchy does not recognise the authority of this UN Security Council nor its right to enforce its resolutions upon non-member states."

- Executor Alex Valverde

[Ian Smith]

Protest march against the "Anti-White immigration Bill" in Rhodesia Nyasaland

To the attention of the United Nations Security Council,

 

THE Afrikaner and Anglo-British community of Rhodesia Nyasaland is being discriminated by an Anti-White Immigration Bill partially enforced by the Provisional Military Government of Rhodesia Nyasaland. We, the members of the Afrikaner, Anglo-British and White-African community of Rhodesia Nyasaland, petition the Security Council and request that our most basic human rights shall be enforced and respected regardless of our skin color.

Our families have lived on this land for over 200 years. If we are not Africans, what are we? 

 

The Anti-White Immigration Bill makes it extremely difficult for our families to reunite, our friends and our parents, our sons, our daughters, our relatives are constantly denied access to Rhodesia Nyasaland due to the color of their skin. If this Security Council is the true heir of the United Nations Security Council, given the right of victimized, marginalized groups within a country to petition, we hereby submit the following case:

 

PETITION TO DECLARE THE "Anti-White Immigration Bill"
A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY

 

GIVEN the fact that a human right violation occurs when actions by state (or non-state) actors abuse, ignore, or deny basic human rights (including civil, political, cultural, social, and economic rights).

 

CONSIDERING the following articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948, in Paris:

 

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

 

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

 

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

 

And CONSIDERING the fact that on November 30, 1973, the United Nations General Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,

 

WE ASK the United Nations Security council to declare the Anti-White Immigration Bill a crime against humanity and enforce its abolition on the territory of the South African Republic of Rhodesia Nyasaland.

 

Signed,
For Afrikaner Solidariteit, Clem Tholet (Singer)

For the Rhodesian African National Congress, The Righ Honourable Winnie Mandela (Member of Parliament)

For the Afrikaner Nasionale Party, The Right Honourable Hendrik Verwoerd (Member of Parliament)

Edited November 1, 2013 by Ian Smith

[Evangeline Anovilis]

"As the Security Council stands now, it is simply a bloc of allied superpowers. I fear that without there being a diversity of un-allied nations on the Security Council, this tool which could help the world will be used as a device to manipulate the international community not for the good of the world, but for the good of a few nations. The Security Council can easily be used for a group of allied nations to rule the world with an iron fist but legitimatize their actions because they are part of an organization that should represent the entire world but is realistically just another avenue for a global dictatorship.  

 

The Athenian Federation and the Empire of Tianxia have not wronged the Commonwealth of Canada which is why I am more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have the best interests of not themselves but the world politically, economically, and socially. Others, however, are not as open or trusting and it may very well be for rightful reason which is why diversity is needed to help resolve global issues. A one sided hierarchy is like a one-party country - it has no need to compromise and thus can easily misuse power and resources. 

 

Diplomacy involves communicating with one's enemies and being willing to compromise for a greater good. If no compromise is present, then diplomacy turns into threats and ultimatums and is no longer diplomacy. A 'United Nations' would in fact require the nations of the world being united, within this organization,  for it to function for the better of the planet and not just the few."

 

 

-Tesla LeBlanc, Prime Minister of The Commonwealth of Canada 

"We already now have large parts of the world united under a coalition of powers that are willing to cooperate and to find a peaceful solution. We already now have a grand international front of this coalition that can settle its disputes with little need of threat and force. But if we decline Tianxia's offer to establish a similar order in the whole world, can we then claim them being unwilling to cooperate and compromise? What we see here is that single countries decline an offer for cooperation, for the establishment of a forum that tries to work out problems in a forum of all nations (where there will be non-permanent members within the security council that are not from what some here try to portray as the "Evil Empire"), out of reactionary fear that their rights (which arguably even can be claimed to exist) could be violated by this new forum. The nations of this world should not go on and cling to a westphalian system, claiming full sovereignity and zero accountability, when this neither de jure nor de facto is in effect. And why do we abhore the idea that states are accountable towards the rest of the international community for their actions?"

 

"This 'UN Security Council' is nothing more than a pathetically transparent attempt by Tianxia and its bloc to achieve some sort of 'legitimacy' before the international community. But the core tenets are still there-- the right to enforce Tianxia's power upon all other nations, nulling the right to self-determination guaranteed to all nations. The Hierarchy does not recognise the authority of this UN Security Council nor its right to enforce its resolutions upon non-member states."

- Executor Alex Valverde

 

"We should not abhore this accountability and actually, we should not hypocritically pretent it is not exercised by others in the same way as it is practiced by Tianxia internationally. Crimes against humanity, threats to regional and global stability, brutal oppression of the population, imperialism and dangerous radicalism, these are things that are not just enforced by the Tianxian hordes. Who still remembers what the SAO once did to Paraguay? And why she did that? So, why should any nation that poses a problem also outside this region be only accountable towards this region, instead of the world at large?

 

We can cling towards outdated ideals and our selfish wish to protect the rights of states at the cost of the rights of the people, but we should not afterwards pretent that Tianxia has never even tried to cooperate with us all. This is an offer. Sure, the structure of the security council does acknowledge that Athens, Russia and Tianxia are in this institution permanently, but just like in the UN of old, can any world order function without them? And even then, we find that there are still non-permanent members. Sure, they won't be in the council forever, but this can't realistically be seen as a weakening of the rest of the world in order to strengthen Tianxia. Because, for example, regardless of what nation South America elects to represent it at the Security Council, would it not be a part of the SAO? And should we not acknowledge for once the fact that in this organisation, Tianxia is offering participation, something that we cannot expect (and which we should not expect) from a world oder that would be the product solely of unilateral action. The non-permanent nature of security council seats will not profit Tianxia, but it will allow for something alike to that which is asked for by many: All nations have an equal chance to compete for the seat in their region. And this is a great compromise between equality and functionality, as while a security council of all states may sound great, but what could theoretically pass? Whoever thinks it realistic to just give every nation a seat in the SC is delusional or aims to merely obstruct the progress. And this we should not approve of."

-Omura Junichi, Prime Minister

[lkfht]

Public: Recent protests have broken out across Paraguay, urging the government to back fellow SAO members on not recognizing the Security Council and to defend Bolivia if invaded.

Diplomatic Cable: The government of Dai-Tōhoku has no true democracy in its country and is a mere puppet of the Empire. If it TRUELY believed in human rights and democracy then it would stand for its own, not for the overseeing power holder.

Paraguay has decided to continue to not recognize the UNs jurisdiction upon non-member states and will defend Bolivia if invaded, per terms of the MDP and the consent of the Chamber of Freedom. We call upon the rest of North/South America to take a stand with us, not as a rebellion but rather a voice for true democracy for all people. And the rights of nations to conduct themselves as they see fit for the benefit of their own citizens. We will not be held hostage by world superpowers.

- Secretary of State Scavo

[Evangeline Anovilis]

"Dai-Tōhoku does not support this measure because it is best for the Empire, but because it is the best for our people. Paraguay may slander our name, but it will not change the fact that the Paraguayan stance is short-sighted and that its own call for "democracy" is more of a call to allow rogue states to continue their existence as threats to global peace and as oppressive regimes towards the people Paraguay claims to protect with this measure. I doubt supporters of the UN will see the actions of Paraguay and maybe of other American countries as a rebellion, but it is reactionary, obstructive and shows why there are global powers that enforce global order with little regard for Paraguay: Because Paraguay seems not at all willing to even consider working with others on a global order.

 

Additionally, while we urge not for an escalation of conflict, it is worrying to see how aggressive the conduct of Paraguay and other SAO countries is, in this matter as well as the Bolivian one, where they seem to be inconsiderate of the national interest of Tianxia, Dai-Tōhoku and other countries that feel threatened (and with such a stance we have plenty of reason to assume hostility) by a country that aims to produce weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems to attack our holdings. I do not think anyone can be surprised or should deny that we have a right to ensure our national security interest. Be it via international institutions, or, if others want to use a westphalian system, via the execution of the right of sovereign nations to wage war, unimpeded by any UN-Charta and its articles."

[Aggressivenutmeg]

"The Saint Lawrence League will not recognise the authority of this organisation over non-member states, nor shall it participate in the Security Council." - Secretariat of Foreign Affairs.

[Lord Zephyr]

"Dai-Tōhoku does not support this measure because it is best for the Empire, but because it is the best for our people. Paraguay may slander our name, but it will not change the fact that the Paraguayan stance is short-sighted and that its own call for "democracy" is more of a call to allow rogue states to continue their existence as threats to global peace and as oppressive regimes towards the people Paraguay claims to protect with this measure. I doubt supporters of the UN will see the actions of Paraguay and maybe of other American countries as a rebellion, but it is reactionary, obstructive and shows why there are global powers that enforce global order with little regard for Paraguay: Because Paraguay seems not at all willing to even consider working with others on a global order.

 

Additionally, while we urge not for an escalation of conflict, it is worrying to see how aggressive the conduct of Paraguay and other SAO countries is, in this matter as well as the Bolivian one, where they seem to be inconsiderate of the national interest of Tianxia, Dai-Tōhoku and other countries that feel threatened (and with such a stance we have plenty of reason to assume hostility) by a country that aims to produce weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems to attack our holdings. I do not think anyone can be surprised or should deny that we have a right to ensure our national security interest. Be it via international institutions, or, if others want to use a westphalian system, via the execution of the right of sovereign nations to wage war, unimpeded by any UN-Charta and its articles."

 

Perhaps then, instead of launching munitions at Bolivia and destroying legitimate facilities you should approach them or the SAO with your concerns about their weapons programs so we can address them in a peaceful manner. Instead Tianxia and its allies have violated the rights of a nations sovereignty and possibly forcing them into a situation where they would feel nuclear attacks are necessary. Their blatant disregard for diplomacy has had the reverse effect desired and cause more instability in a nation that was already struggling in the first place.

[Triyun]

SAO has no recognized authority over the Security Council or privilege of where to operate.  It will not be ever a factor in decision making, that will be determined by our own documents.  

Edited November 1, 2013 by Triyun

[Triyun]

"As the Security Council stands now, it is simply a bloc of allied superpowers. I fear that without there being a diversity of un-allied nations on the Security Council, this tool which could help the world will be used as a device to manipulate the international community not for the good of the world, but for the good of a few nations. The Security Council can easily be used for a group of allied nations to rule the world with an iron fist but legitimatize their actions because they are part of an organization that should represent the entire world but is realistically just another avenue for a global dictatorship.  

 

The Athenian Federation and the Empire of Tianxia have not wronged the Commonwealth of Canada which is why I am more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have the best interests of not themselves but the world politically, economically, and socially. Others, however, are not as open or trusting and it may very well be for rightful reason which is why diversity is needed to help resolve global issues. A one sided hierarchy is like a one-party country - it has no need to compromise and thus can easily misuse power and resources. 

 

Diplomacy involves communicating with one's enemies and being willing to compromise for a greater good. If no compromise is present, then diplomacy turns into threats and ultimatums and is no longer diplomacy. A 'United Nations' would in fact require the nations of the world being united, within this organization,  for it to function for the better of the planet and not just the few."

 

 

-Tesla LeBlanc, Prime Minister of The Commonwealth of Canada 

 

The United Nations was a military alliance before it eventually spanned the whole globe.  In regards to your point about diplomacy, compromising for the sake of compromise is contrary to the historical experiences of the UN and its purpose.  While its true it aims at expanding dialogue it also has enforcement mechanisms and an edge which distinguish it from the League of Nations.  

[Vidarr the Terrible]

The Republic of California recognizes the authority of the UN Security Council. We hope that it brings humanity a step closer to a unified globe, in order to focus on the destiny of our species: interstellar expansion.

[Kevin Kingswell]

The United Nations will continue to act and react to events in the world as they see fit and necessary, this is an undeniable fact. Therefore it would be a foolish move to state a nation's complete disregard to this organisation and it would in turn be better to be a member of the United Nations thus allowing the opportunity for diplomacy to take place before it becomes necessary for military action.

 

- Solomon Mufumisi, Grand Republic representative to the United Nations.

[lkfht]

Paraguay would like to reiterate that we do not believe in the use of nuclear weapons and we are willing to work with the international community concerning Bolivia, however outright military action is uncalled for. We will defend Bolivia if it is UNJUSTLY invaded without exhausting ALL diplomatic ways.

- Secretary Scavo

[Triyun]

In nuclear weapons, there is a time issue which cannot be denied by any reasonable person.  We struck before they could test and only targeted their manufacturing and testing capabilites.  There was zero diplomatic options that did not involve allowing them to enrich more uranium and assemble more bombs at which point we'd have difficulty mopping them up in a counter force strike.

[PresidentDavid]

The United Nations will continue to act and react to events in the world as they see fit and necessary, this is an undeniable fact. Therefore it would be a foolish move to state a nation's complete disregard to this organisation and it would in turn be better to be a member of the United Nations thus allowing the opportunity for diplomacy to take place before it becomes necessary for military action.
 
- Solomon Mufumisi, Grand Republic representative to the United Nations.

"From what the Canadian Government understands regarding this matter, this is not the United Nations but the Security Council and a loose group of nations that will represent others regionally.

The Canadian government neither rejects nor recognizes the current Security Council until Parliament and the Senate agree on a resolution together. We respectfully wait in solitude for the legislature to act."


-Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Edited November 1, 2013 by PresidentDavid

[lkfht]

Paraguay strongly condemns recent military strikes taken by the Empire against Bolivia. While Paraguay does not agree with Bolivia's nuclear program, we also do not support the killing of innocent civilians. According to recent reports by FPPF commanders and officers at the Northern Border, an excess of 20,000 Bolivians are trying to escape Bolivia due to fears of an all out war. While Paraguay will currently allow some refugees into the country, we simply do not have the resources for a humanitarian crisis. We currently do not know the civilian casualty count, however the government of Paraguay calls on the Empire to halt all military operations on Bolivia in order to allow for a diplomatic solution.

 

- Secretary Scavo

[High Emperor Aggron]

SAO has no recognized authority over the Security Council or privilege of where to operate.  It will not be ever a factor in decision making, that will be determined by our own documents.  

 

The Security council has no recognized authority over the SAO, nor does it have privilege to operate within the SAO. It will not be ever a factor in decision making, that will be determined by our own documents.  

 

 

In nuclear weapons, there is a time issue which cannot be denied by any reasonable person.  We struck before they could test and only targeted their manufacturing and testing capabilites.  There was zero diplomatic options that did not involve allowing them to enrich more uranium and assemble more bombs at which point we'd have difficulty mopping them up in a counter force strike.

 

False, at this very moment Bolivia continues to make nuclear weapons. Your blatant disregard for humanity, being terrorist attacks against are nation are uncalled for.

Edited November 1, 2013 by High Emperor Aggron

[lkfht]

The Security council has no recognized authority over the SAO, nor does it have privilege to operate within the SAO. It will not be ever a factor in decision making, that will be determined by our own documents.

Agreed

 

- Secretary Scavo

[Centurius]

"Through its charter the United Nations and its security council carry responsibility for global peace, order and the conventions under it. This is a global mandate which supercedes all other considerations, especially regional formations which are often biased to an offending party. As such the SAO has no position in UNSC deliberations and decisions"

[High Emperor Aggron]

"Through its charter the United Nations and its security council carry responsibility for global peace, order and the conventions under it. This is a global mandate which supercedes all other considerations, especially regional formations which are often biased to an offending party. As such the SAO has no position in UNSC deliberations and decisions"

Nor will a biased coalition have any mandates on the SAO. You do not have a UN council you have a fancy title for a coalition which terrorizes those who cannot fight. We denounce your coalition and any terms they wish upon the SAO. We are unto our own.

[Centurius]

"Sovereignty of a state can never supercede the rights of groups and global stability"

[lkfht]

"Through its charter the United Nations and its security council carry responsibility for global peace, order and the conventions under it. This is a global mandate which supercedes all other considerations, especially regional formations which are often biased to an offending party. As such the SAO has no position in UNSC deliberations and decisions"

Hahaha this almost comical! The Security Council has no right to infringe upon sovereign nations. Paraguay believes in the rule of law, order, and peace. We will not however be undermined by foreign powers when it comes to a country so geographically close to us.

 

- Secretary Scavo

[High Emperor Aggron]

"Sovereignty of a state can never supercede the rights of groups and global stability"

You talk back on yourself. How is Tianxian bombing and invasion not an infringement on your own need for Global Stability. Do you mean that the rights of terrorist 'groups' such as yourself, the DTK and Tianxia are superseding the rights of Sovereign nations? Because your coalition does not represent Global Order! You represent tyranny, terror, and carelessness, tianxia itself has continually bombarded CIVILIAN infrastructure falsely assuming it was Military infrastructure. You should never be the face of global order, no. You and your friends should be the sad reminder of failed civilizations. It is truer than anything that you do not represent what is good in humanity but the dark shadowy reminders of what could've been paragons of justice.

[Centurius]

You talk back on yourself. How is Tianxian bombing and invasion not an infringement on your own need for Global Stability. Do you mean that the rights of terrorist 'groups' such as yourself, the DTK and Tianxia are superseding the rights of Sovereign nations? Because your coalition does not represent Global Order! You represent tyranny, terror, and carelessness, tianxia itself has continually bombarded CIVILIAN infrastructure falsely assuming it was Military infrastructure. You should never be the face of global order, no. You and your friends should be the sad reminder of failed civilizations. It is truer than anything that you do not represent what is good in humanity but the dark shadowy reminders of what could've been paragons of justice.

The Empire of Tianxia has only targeted infrastructure of significance involved in the production of nuclear weapons, with your own past history the threat of your state possessing nuclear capabilities is a greater threat to stability than the limited strikes.