UN Security Council Discussion

[Centurius]

We vote against and therefore veto the measure.

"It is comforting to see that Tianxia does not trust the institutions of the organization it pioneered. We will remember it on future matters"

[lkfht]

"It is comforting to see that Tianxia does not trust the institutions of the organization it pioneered. We will remember it on future matters"

Yes, the Paraguayan government agrees. If the UNSC is unable to reach a diplomatic solution simply because of tianxia's veto power, than we suggest that the international community take other actions in the defense of international peace and security.

- UN Ambassador Silandra Lopez

[OOC: this is exactly why I didn't back this institution in the first place.]

Edited November 30, 2013 by lkfht

[Triyun]

"It is comforting to see that Tianxia does not trust the institutions of the organization it pioneered. We will remember it on future matters"

 

Tianxia has said and it continues to say that we will sit down and discuss the matters on a bilateral basis, currently both complaining parties have flat out ignored any further dialogue.  We reject in principle the idea that one can simply try and turn international negotiations into a popularity contest rather than sit down and have an actual conversation.  Right now Paraguay is talking to seemingly everyone except the people with whom they are actually having the dispute.  Further more they are flat out ignoring the important point that the sole reason they are not invited to participate in it.  The UN is not designed to be a substitute for other negotiations as was evidence in multiple international incidents throughout its existence.

 

We once again call for the other parties to respond to what is currently the sole proposals for dialogues by claimants.  Further we note that rather than take appropriate steps to talk Paraguay is calling for military action against your ally.  Unless I missed my reading of the Sovereign Initiative Treaty, Athens is way out in left field as far as its obligations.

[lkfht]

Tianxia has said and it continues to say that we will sit down and discuss the matters on a bilateral basis, currently both complaining parties have flat out ignored any further dialogue.

We once again call for the other parties to respond to what is currently the sole proposals for dialogues by claimants.  Further we note that rather than take appropriate steps to talk Paraguay is calling for military action against your ally.

 

"First, we would like to point out that "sitting down for actual negotiations" has been tried mostly on the part of Republica. Republica was the only country to be willing to pull back its military forces in the disputed lands and exposing itself, while Tianxia and Japan refused to budge. We have continually expressed our greatest interest in continuing dialogue and looking for a peaceful end to this conflict. That is why we support UNSC Resolution #3.

 

Secondly, we in no way promoted military force against you or your allies."

 

- UN Ambassador Silandra Lopez

[Centurius]

 
Tianxia has said and it continues to say that we will sit down and discuss the matters on a bilateral basis, currently both complaining parties have flat out ignored any further dialogue.  We reject in principle the idea that one can simply try and turn international negotiations into a popularity contest rather than sit down and have an actual conversation.  Right now Paraguay is talking to seemingly everyone except the people with whom they are actually having the dispute.  Further more they are flat out ignoring the important point that the sole reason they are not invited to participate in it.  The UN is not designed to be a substitute for other negotiations as was evidence in multiple international incidents throughout its existence.
 
We once again call for the other parties to respond to what is currently the sole proposals for dialogues by claimants.  Further we note that rather than take appropriate steps to talk Paraguay is calling for military action against your ally.  Unless I missed my reading of the Sovereign Initiative Treaty, Athens is way out in left field as far as its obligations.

"You will note Paraguay is neither our ally nor have we supported their call for military action. For that matter the Athenian Federation has made no call to arms at all. Nice try though."

[Evangeline Anovilis]

 

"First, we would like to point out that "sitting down for actual negotiations" has been tried mostly on the part of Republica. Republica was the only country to be willing to pull back its military forces in the disputed lands and exposing itself, while Tianxia and Japan refused to budge. We have continually expressed our greatest interest in continuing dialogue and looking for a peaceful end to this conflict. That is why we support UNSC Resolution #3.

 

Secondly, we in no way promoted military force against you or your allies."

 

- UN Ambassador Silandra Lopez

 

"We would like to note, that even as we speak now, the Renpōgun has mostly demilitarised the Bolivian Littoral, apart from Military Police, in order to be considerate of our neighbours' sentiments. This we did rather early in this conflict, without anyone demanding it on our own initiative. To state that we are merely taking, but not giving, when deescalation measures have been also made by our side, though without pressure by the Republica, is quite insulting and one of the reasons we discontinued negotiation attempts for as long as we are met with such ungrateful attitude. What Tianxia and the Dai-Tōhoku Renpō ask for in this negotiations is what we already offered on our own volition: Drawing back military forces, sitting down and talking without any further interference to get matters settled. But instead of taking our offer for what it is, the Republica simply stonewalls. Excuse us, when we then decide it is not worth talking with a party that denies our efforts to peacefully resolve this matter and only shows similar gestures when asked to and after trying virtually all other avenues to avoid even the slightest concession."

-Katsura Kaede, permanent representative of the Dai-Tōhoku Renpō

[Triyun]

"It is comforting to see that Tianxia does not trust the institutions of the organization it pioneered. We will remember it on future matters"

Yes, the Paraguayan government agrees. If the UNSC is unable to reach a diplomatic solution simply because of tianxia's veto power, than we suggest that the international community [b]take other actions in the defense of international peace and security.[/b]

- UN Ambassador Silandra Lopez

[OOC: this is exactly why I didn't back this institution in the first place.]

 

Read your own words.  Paraguay is increasingly showing that its not even a rational actors but rather a screaming child.  Anyone who looks at your words can see this.  This is the [i]second time[/i] you've flat out lied about what you've said.  The first time was when you claimed you never made claims to territory  in Bolivia.  That was also a demonstrable lie.  You merely ignored it and continued what is amounting to be frank sir, verbal non-sense, which is based on pure emotion rather than substantive policy.  

 

Lets look at the facts as they are, rather than your slanderous words.  

 

1)  I would point out you're the country that characterized this situation as I quote an 'atrocity', absent there being a single shot fired by any side.  Absent there being any evidence of mass human rights violations.  And absent there being any suspension of due process for anyone.  You sir are careless in your rhetoric using words you seem to not know the meaning of, to draw up fear mongering.  Further you're proving your outright unreasonableness by the fact that you simply refused to have [b][i]any[/i][/b] bilateral discussions with other parties and instead are solely resorting to demanding the international community force the other claimants to accept your position.

 

On balance it is you who are being unreasonable and not negotiating with other states as sovereign entities.

 

2)  The reason that Tianxia and Dai-Tohoku have not withdrawn their military forces is we have no ground forces in Mainland Argentina save for I believe what can be characterized as an extremely small presence by Dai Tohoku.  Substantial military formations were deployed into areas by Republica and Republica specifically referred to these as part of its territory.  Therefore they were creating facts on the ground and allowing themselves to take up a strong defensive position which would have given them added leverage at a negotiation making it one of unequals rather than one of equals.  We therefore insisted they withdrew.  However, once the withdrawal happened we promptly gave them the opportunity to negotiate as an equal, with everyone in an equal position.

 

Because again, Republica specifically articulated unilateral rather than regional claims to areas in question, we did not invite other regional actors to discuss it, because its a bilateral or in this case trilateral issue.  We're willing to have equally fair dialogues with any other regional actor who wishes to put forward a claim.  That includes you.  

 

3)  [b]You have no basis to judge the spirit of our negotiations with you as you've outright refused anything resembling a negotiation, just supported others giving a ultimatum to us.[/b]  I would note that the Paraguayans are ignoring the fact that we made absolutely zero claim or dispute with Colombia who is also in South America, and we've specifically excluded them because of both their behavior and their actions.

 

You're taking one data point and trying to make it a trend with zero evidence that you have anything to expect.  However, I will say with the immaturity which Paraguay is approaching this issue, the willingness of HIM Government to negotiate and treat Paraguay on favorable terms is receding.

 

We once again call upon the international community to stay out an allow the norm of bilateral negotiations to actually run their course before adopting this double standard.  Think on that the next time someone complains about our veto usage.

 

"You will note Paraguay is neither our ally nor have we supported their call for military action. For that matter the Athenian Federation has made no call to arms at all. Nice try though."

 

Then we ask Athens to condemn it, and articulate your obligations under the Sovereign Initiative Treaty.  We call on Athens to show the rest of the Community how to negotiate politely and how at least for a time, partners could negotiate without resorting to personal attacks and snark.  You should know us well enough to know how we respond to such things.

[lkfht]

Read your own words.  Paraguay is increasingly showing that its not even a rational actors but rather a screaming child.  Anyone who looks at your words can see this.  This is the second time you've flat out lied about what you've said.  The first time was when you claimed you never made claims to territory  in Bolivia.  That was also a demonstrable lie.  You merely ignored it and continued what is amounting to be frank sir, verbal non-sense, which is based on pure emotion rather than substantive policy.

We did AT ONE TIME claim land for Bolivia in order to restore law and order. We however DID NOT claim it AGAIN. We again did not call for military action.

 

We're willing to have equally fair dialogues with any other regional actor who wishes to put forward a claim.  That includes you.

In your terms of negotiations, you flat out denied Paraguay a voice in them. Now you state we may speak? If so then we are open to negotiations, fair ones.

[Triyun]

1)  You were the one who said [b]never[/b], never includes the past.  Use words properly or don't use them at all.  I'm having little patience for this, you're talking sloppily when lives are at stake and making charges on the highest stage.  You need to conduct yourself as such.

 

2)  You'll need to expand then on what actions you're calling the international community to undertake.   Because it seems like you are asking for punitive actions which are acts of war.  

 

3)  Further you clearly have not read what we've said in any of our statements.  We're willing to talk to you, we never denied we were.  We merely are not willing to talk to you about unilateral claims that Republica has made that conflict with ours.  We are willing to talk to you about any conflicting claims between us and you.  Republica does not claim its territory claims for you and it, but for it alone.  Its been explicit on it.  Therefore you're not party to it, and any change now is merely for convinience sake which again we don't accept on principle.  

 

If Paraguay wants to discuss its own borders and claims we've said (and you've just denied in your statement right before this that you'd participate) in a dialogue of its own with Tianxia and Dai Tohoku.  Hardly an unreasonable position.

[lkfht]

[OOC- now im just getting confused]

 

"We would like to ask a very simple question, if Republic recedes all of its military forces to its traditional borders and you remove your forces from Chile and Argentina, who will be the administrative body?"

[Evangeline Anovilis]

"What would the Paraguayans think we were going to discuss in the negotiations?"

-Katsura Kaede, permanent representative of the Dai-Tōhoku Renpō

[Captain Enema]

"The simplest solution would be for the United Nations to fund the old South American Organization as it was run at the founding. The organization was quite versatile and kept the peace for quite some time without once resorting to a long term military presence. It wasn't until funding levels dropped and political agendas drove the SAO off course that it became the sick man of South America."

[Centurius]

 

 

Then we ask Athens to condemn it, and articulate your obligations under the Sovereign Initiative Treaty.  We call on Athens to show the rest of the Community how to negotiate politely and how at least for a time, partners could negotiate without resorting to personal attacks and snark.  You should know us well enough to know how we respond to such things.

"We condemn all threats of force in the ongoing dispute from all parties, furthermore we would gladly negotiate politely if the Tianxian delegation would stop using implicit threats"

[Triyun]

"We condemn all threats of force in the ongoing dispute from all parties, furthermore we would gladly negotiate politely if the Tianxian delegation would stop using implicit threats"

This is not accurate, we explicitly threatened force and for good reason, namely to deter an attack on our kindred ally Dai Tohoku when Republica moved military forces into the area and claimed the whole of South America unilaterally.  That is a legitimate basis to threaten force.  Further no negotiation could proceed had they had forces in place after that.  You know very well at the moment we've refrained from significant ground operations and have been using air power with its lighter foot print to keep watch after those forces were rolled back.  You also know very well we've put forward terms of discussion, that you may not agree with, but that's not an indication of being unreasonable, for if people merely are being unreasonable by disagreeing we're all unreasonable and that's a rather nihilist view.

 

We now hope both Paraguay and Republica will immediately take up the generous call to dialogues which recognize the others position and do not insult or belittle or seek to hijack the UN to dictate absent a legitimate resolution passed by this body.  

[lkfht]

when Republica moved military forces into the area and claimed the whole of South America unilaterally

They did so when Argentina and the SAO collapsed. They did this to ensure law and order, and they were going to make it a protectorate, not sovereign soil of the Republica.
 

You also know very well we've put forward terms of discussion, that you may not agree with, but that's not an indication of being unreasonable, for if people merely are being unreasonable by disagreeing we're all unreasonable and that's a rather nihilist view.

Negotiations involve all involved parties. They also involve EVERYONE on BOTH sides to make compromises. Is Tianxia and Dai Tohoku ready to compromise?

 

We now hope both Paraguay and Republica will immediately take up the generous call to dialogues which recognize the others position and do not insult or belittle or seek to hijack the UN to dictate absent a legitimate resolution passed by this body.

First dialogue means that all those involved have the right to speak what they wish. Secondly what is the "others position"? Third, if you are accusing us of trying to "hijack" the UN in order to settle an international incident than that is quite sad. Most UNSC members and non-embers alike have voiced their support for UNSC Resolution #3, the one that you vetoed. To say that WE are the "hijackers" is wrong.

 

- UN Ambassador Silandra Lopez

[Triyun]

They did so when Argentina and the SAO collapsed. They did this to ensure law and order, and they were going to make it a protectorate, not sovereign soil of the Republica.
 

Negotiations involve all involved parties. They also involve EVERYONE on BOTH sides to make compromises. Is Tianxia and Dai Tohoku ready to compromise?

 

First dialogue means that all those involved have the right to speak what they wish. Secondly what is the "others position"? Third, if you are accusing us of trying to "hijack" the UN in order to settle an international incident than that is quite sad. Most UNSC members and non-embers alike have voiced their support for UNSC Resolution #3, the one that you vetoed. To say that WE are the "hijackers" is wrong.

 

- UN Ambassador Silandra Lopez

 

Your fundamental problem on your first point is that sovereign is not my word but theirs.  So go read a newspaper instead of continuing to not to the most basic work of checking your work.  It is annoying.

 

Second as we say and please this will be the last time we explain this to you because we've said the same thing.  We are including everyone, but we'll address unlinked claims in separate forums.  It was Republica who made claims without them.  Thats on them.  It is not on us.  Further it is not our job to negotiate for you.  We will not agree to any diplomatic outcome before negotiations begin.  That's the [b]point[/b] of negotiations.  

 

Lastly you are wrong both about this being in the security councils jurisdiction and more importantly in support on the council, there are two in favor, two opposed, and one expressing sympathy with the opposed.  

 

We're growing tired of your amateurism.  If you wish to talk with us you may but we do not have to deal with constantly reasserting our considered position with your bumbling to be frank and I apologize for this, but what equates to verbal diarrhea which you so spew without consideration to the meaning or consistency of your words.

[lkfht]

unlinked claims in separate forums

what do you mean by this? and where are these forums?

 

Lastly you are wrong both about this being in the security councils jurisdiction

Then what is in the UNSC's jurisdiction?

 

Article 24: its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security

How does the security and future of an entire continent not constitute the UNSC's jurisdiction?

[Zoot Zoot]

The Norse representative would stand.

 

"Whilst we hold no seat on the council, we urge all parties to cool their tongues, on both sides of this disagreement. I would not be so bold as to give orders, or seek to usurp the authority of this council, it is my strong belief, that the Prussian suggestion, Resolution #3, is the best course of action for the moment, a temporary measure if you will.

 

This would allow all involved to scale back, and return to the discussion table behind closed doors, and come to an agreement, at which point, the fate of the disputed territories will be decided by Tianxia, Dai-Tōhoku Renpō, Paraguay and the Republica, and can then be enforced, legally, and transparently.

 

This is simply a suggestion to those with the authority to decide on. Our offer to act as mediator still stands."

[Triyun]

Resolution # 3 or mediators are non-starters for negotiations.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Resolution # 3 or mediators are non-starters for negotiations.

"We share this position."

-Katsura Kaede, permanent representative of the Dai-Tōhoku Renpō

[lkfht]

“Honorable delegates, ladies and gentlemen,

 

It is with great sadness that I personally come to this body to report that the sovereign nation of Paraguay has been invaded by Tianxian military forces without provocation. Several hours ago I personally ordered all Paraguayan Armed Forces back to their barracks and installations in an effort to ease tensions. I also issued a formal apology to Tianxia and Bolivia for making this situation worse than it already was. Yet the acts of violence and war have continued to be used against our nation.

 

Tianxia can be quoted as saying, “The latest of these incidents occurred on full display before the security council.” The problem with this is that the UNSC never adopted a Resolution to invade our nation nor was formally addressed on the very matter of invasion.

 

I would like to make a personal plea on behalf of my people to the United Nations Security Council, especially the Athenian Federation and Russia, to intervene diplomatically and not militarily in this situation. The answer to violence is not more violence, but rather a diplomatic solution with no more bloodshed.

 

No country is perfect, especially Paraguay, however all nations deserve the right to protection from unwarranted and unprovoked acts of violence from foreign powers. I ask this body to please address this incident immediately, knowing that innocent civilians are the ones being the most affected by this.”

 

- President Celestina Scavo

Edited December 1, 2013 by lkfht

[Lestari]

"I had supposed a reborn United Nations would be a benediction for the nations of the world-- a method of maintaining peace and diplomacy rather than the law of might makes right. But nothing I have actually beheld in the course of its own actions has led me to believe this iteration is anything but a farce, a pale mimicry of a peacekeeping body. This is certainly nothing the Javanese Federation wants anything to do with."

Chief Executive Lestari Iskandar

[Triyun]

Lets get several facts straight:

 

Claiming civilians are being effected is a lie, there have been precisely zero shots fired at civilians.  Adding civilians into this is an insult and a lie.  Further its irresponsible to represent situations in matters of war and peace as existing which do not.  Its further proof why we needed to take this action.

 

Firstly we request unanimous consent of the council to appoint the Chair of this meeting to the American Commonwealth and maintain a moderated discussion based on security council members alone, we'll gladly explain our reasons for action before the security council in a constructive dialogue.

 

1)  Tianxia has well allowed its ultimatum to expire and awaited actions before we launched our operation, a bloodless operation I may add which has not mandated regime change.  Such ultimatums have been used by council members in the past as part of negotiation positions with and without council authorization, and never has a resolution been passed stopping them in the whole of the history of this council dating back to the second world war.

 

We waited till the point when negotiations could take place.  When negotiations took place, we had an agreement to do two things.  Number one, these negotiations were bilateral in nature, they were to discuss specifically the conflicting claims between the Commonwealth States for the Holy American Empire, and Paraguay's government.  Number two, they were to be considered separate from any multi-lateral meeting with Republica.

 

Now state here can deny that we've belabored these points through our statements to know end.  This constituted an extremely laborious attempt to find a pacific settlement.

 

Upon the start of the negotiations we found that both these terms were violated.  Rather than actually articulating any claims, Paraguay did not present any sort of proposals but merely making generic demands.  

 

2)  In light of the deadline expiring the Empire and the active campaign to include statements by the Paraguayans on this very council floor to call for the international community to take actions absent a security council resolution against the Empire we've taken this action to be most aggregious step and a stall tactic which is intolerable.  

 

The fact here is that words do matter and that the Paraguayans have not shown they can be negotiated with or keep their word.  They've vacillated violently between positions and have shown that their behavior is unpredictable, further they flat out change their position entirely between statements.  We've been very clear that we had an ultimatum to discuss, we've been very clear on what sort of dialogues we've had, and when talked to with solid points of action and fact, we've been willing to discuss things.  What we're not willing to do is tolerate stalling while a nation goes abroad looking for allies, and pretends to negotiate only giving non-sense in return.

 

We would point out that their state is a proliferator of a number of weapon systems whom they sell without care around the world.  Even to states which are rogues.

 

This is not an unreasonable position, but rather the only logical one a state in our position can enact.  We are not without benevolence though nor are we unreasonable.  We stand ready to answer specific questions from any security council members about reasons for our actions and can hereby right now lay out a process of acceptable behavior on Paraguay's part that will finally end its ceaseless provocations at the Empire, while then running back and playing the victim.  

 

God willing it will also allow us to bury the endless Paraguay matter once and for all.

 

Let me by crystal clear though, Paraguay has poked us in the eye a number of times.  It needs to reconcile with us, not some other state to hide behind.  If other states are ready to play a role as a facilitator of reconciliation with Tianxia, and not as a shield against Tianxia, and work in concert with Tianxia to achieve our objectives, we'll welcome their input from the outside in any bilateral dialogue with Paraguay.

 

Lastly we'd like to introduce into evidence our clear communication to Paraguay:

 

 

 

Tianxia will not negotiate away a policy option before a negotiation begins.  Further as made crystal clear (and explained OOC on IRC) we will treat Republica and Paraguayan negotiations as separate as they have made explicitly separate and not joint claims.  Tianxia finds this insulting that Paraguay continues to ignore it.

Tianxia therefore finds itself after repeating itself on these issues time after time with the same thing, that it appears Paraguay has zero intention to negotiate.  Unless Paraguay immediately comes to the table without conditions recognizing the legitimacy of Tianxia and Dai Tohoku's purpose and the clear articulation, that Tianxia and Dai Tohoku will be in the right, having sought and not gotten a pacific outcome, to materially create the conditions for an acceptable political outcome through all elements of national power..

 

Paraguay clearly did not fulfill these conditions in addition to our original ultimatum.  Instead it merely moved forces back to base that should never have been deployed in the first place.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Triyun

[lkfht]

Paraguay did not present any sort of proposals but merely making generic demands.

"Generic demands.., interesting... I guess asking not to be invaded by you is suddenly a provocation to do exactly that."

 

- Secretary of State Carmen Torres

[Zoot Zoot]

Paraguay may have "poked Tianxia in the eye" many times, but in order to resolve a situation that was made worse by its actions, it stood down and returned its military to barracks, issued a formal apology, and it was invaded.

 

It would seem that Paraguay was stepping out of the dispute all together, only to be violently brought back into it by an unprovoked attack on its statehood.

 

Perhaps if these ultimatums and threats were done within the United Nations, and not behind closed doors as Tianxia wanted, then the situation may be differently entirely.

 

We urge Athens and Russia to intervene in this crisis with all the diplomatic power they can wield to stop the bloodshed spreading any further. We urge Tianxia and Dai-Tōhoku Renpō to re-vote on Resolution #3 and allow diplomacy to continue, and not these aggressive negotiations that have been instigated by the Empire and its Commonwealth.

 

Peace must win out.