Jump to content

UN Security Council Discussion


Triyun

Recommended Posts

This is a situation Paraguay placed itself in.  It is not one we sought to make.  Paraguay could have simply stayed out, it could have when it acknowledged the bilateral dialogues not then immediately turned around and tried to create a multi-lateral one, it could have accepted multiple UN resolutions, it could have stuck to its first apology way back when, it could have at minimum responded to both ultimatums.  Paraguay did not.  

 

The problem with Paraguay is it seems to be ignoring our statements, ignoring the whole of the conversation, make demands of us, and only focusing on what it wishes too.  Then it complains when this strategy bites it in the ass.  

 

We beg the rest of the Council's pardon for sounding demeaning, but Paraguay should known its place and should not have gotten involved in affairs beyond its own borders even in South America if it is ill prepared to conceive of or discuss the larger issues, and that's the best case.  More probably there is some degree of malevolence.

 

But the point I again must emphasize is that Tianxia believes an outcome here must be one where Paraguay reconciles with the Emperor, not run to others.  What we're not prepared to accept is one where Paraguay tries to negotiate with the rest of the world to be its shield against us.

 

We also remind others that dialogue here will solely be done with Paraguay and the Security Council.  Non-SC members should respect the traditional rules of order in the council, we've been lax in enforcing these rules but dialogue has also suffered for it.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 631
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Paraguay could have simply stayed out, it could have when it acknowledged the bilateral dialogues not then immediately turned around and tried to create a multi-lateral one, it could have accepted multiple UN resolutions, it could have stuck to its first apology way back when, it could have at minimum responded to both ultimatums.  Paraguay did not.

First of all that apology was for the situation in United Bolivia, a different situation than the one now. Also what were the multiple UN Resolutions? Because last time I checked Paraguay supported UNSC Reolution #3, you vetoed it.

 

Secondly in reference to weapon systems sales, Paraguayan private companies conducted arms deals with the government of United Bolivia BEFORE the Paraguayan government knew it was developing nuclear weapons. We will say again as we have throughout recent history, Paraguay DOES NOT support nuclear weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UNSC #3 is not a resolution of the Security Council.  Only resolutions that pass with the majority of this body and great power unanimity are UNSC resolutions.  You can think of it as a difference between a proposed bill and a passed law in domestic politics.  I would once again warn people generally that the security council members are free to vote however they wish on any resolution, just because someone introduces it does not make it law.

 

Paraguay offered repeated insults and obstinance when this body was resurrected to deal with the Bolivian Nuclear Crisis and again attempted to make land grabs in Bolivia.  [i]It only apologized when it was losing.[/i]  Something that for the Imperial Delegation at least lacks true sincerity of purpose.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UNSC #3 is not a resolution of the Security Council.  Only resolutions that pass with the majority of this body and great power unanimity are UNSC resolutions.  You can think of it as a difference between a proposed bill and a passed law in domestic politics.  I would once again warn people generally that the security council members are free to vote however they wish on any resolution, just because someone introduces it does not make it law.

 

Paraguay offered repeated insults and obstinance when this body was resurrected to deal with the Bolivian Nuclear Crisis and again attempted to make land grabs in Bolivia.  It only apologized when it was losing.  Something that for the Imperial Delegation at least lacks true sincerity of purpose. 

Quote

First, yes we know the difference.

 

Second, the reason Paraguay was hesitant at first was because we feared it would not fairly express the opinions of the many nations of the UN. And we were afraid that powerful nations would use it as an excuse to get what they wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Athenian Federation must inquire what motivated Tianxia to commence military action against a member of these United Nations without a proper Security Council resolution and absent any overt motivation that would require quick military action to be taken outside of the legal framework"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, yes we know the difference.

 

Second, the reason Paraguay was hesitant at first was because we feared it would not fairly express the opinions of the many nations of the UN. And we were afraid that powerful nations would use it as an excuse to get what they wanted.

 

The reasons are not an excuse for your consistent erratic behavior.  Nor may I add are those reasons valid, as we needed no legal framework to take any action prior to the reinstatement of the UN.

 

"The Athenian Federation must inquire what motivated Tianxia to commence military action against a member of these United Nations without a proper Security Council resolution and absent any overt motivation that would require quick military action to be taken outside of the legal framework"

 

Under Tianxia's interpretation, similar to that of the historical national security documents of the permanent members United States and People's Republic of China with whom we share territorial history and one of whom we consider our successor state, preemption is justified in the event that a hostility is clearly stated.  It is our position such a one was here with the request to mobilize members.

 

We assert that military literature makes little distinction between political and military preparations, indeed if one goes back to Clausewitz, the source of many modern military literatures one sees he refers o the center of gravity for some smaller nations as alliances.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The reasons are not an excuse for your consistent erratic behavior.  Nor may I add are those reasons valid, as we needed no legal framework to take any action prior to the reinstatement of the UN.

 

 

Under Tianxia's interpretation, similar to that of the historical national security documents of the permanent members United States and People's Republic of China with whom we share territorial history and one of whom we consider our successor state, preemption is justified in the event that a hostility is clearly stated.  It is our position such a one was here with the request to mobilize members.

 

We assert that military literature makes little distinction between political and military preparations, indeed if one goes back to Clausewitz, the source of many modern military literatures one sees he refers o the center of gravity for some smaller nations as alliances.

"We both realize that a call for action can be anything from moral opposition to economic sanctions and only in its most extreme form military aggression, did Tianxia attempt to find out what Paraguay meant with its call for action and how did it conclude the most extreme interpretation was intended when Paraguay in fact had been demobilizing prior to the action?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Empire would argue that in the extraordinary case of the Paraguayans constantly changing their story and outright lying about previous statements one after the other the circumstances justify an internal analysis of the meanings to their words rather than relying on the word themselves as that word has been proven to be neither reliable or worth very much.  In such case of spoiling trust, the executive authority of a sovereign state has certain rights not inherent in ordinary circumstance to make judgements necessary to that State's interest and security.

 

Further when taken into the context of demanding negotiations for their territorial claims and then having no claims once discussions begin but rather try to start a form of negotiation which was made clear to them would not be done, tha tactic according to internal Tianxia political intelligence and verified by our foreign ministry, indicated they were stalling necessitating preemptive action as a counter measure as negotiations were already being used as a form of stalling.  You well remember the instance we both nearly came to nuclear conflict with regarding Mogatopia, we find the actions analogous.

 

Demobilization could very well be a ruse, it was the character of the negotiations which mattered.  Our statements to them were not about their position of military forces within their own territory, it was about the political issues being discussed.  They totally ignored his and instead did a demobilization which was neither requested or sought.  To us this seemed to fit the tactic of stalling and whining to the outside world when it had little to do with the actual outcome.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We understand that reasoning however we do not yet see how a threat was posed to Tianxia that justified actual military action, the use of force should remain a measure used only when defending oneself and not to force a negotiating position. That defeats the purpose of negotiating"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Which we're happy to agree to in general with some caveat for freedom of action in the event that the other side seems to actually be an honest negotiating partner.  You saw on live display how many times we had to repeat the most basic concepts of negotiating for them to even respond to a request.  At such a point though after saying they understood our position, they flat out ignored it.  Further their claims at concessions were nothing to do what we asked of them.  You see the fundamental problem there, as their government simply did not respond to negotiations in anything but the broadest and most functionless of terms.

 

We'll note the nature of our intervention is very measured, we used ground forces to seize assets as bloodlessly as possible.  Athens knows how much specialized airborne ground forces cost Tianxia in blood and treasure, that we used these forces should indicate the measuredness of our response.  We as you well know would have had the capacity to risk much less in a bloodier but even more effective and cheaper decapitating air strike, we chose not to."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You violated our nation's rights and invaded sovereign territory. We will not stand for this."

- President Celestina Scavo

"We would like to ask the Paraguayan representative to please calm down and to not disrupt others, unless it wants to make a reasonable argument. We understand that your nation is facing a crisis in some sense, but the Security Council needs to calmly discuss and review this issue, a process where such intermissions, which sadly do not add anything to the debate, are counter-productive. I would however be very willing to share some sencha with you, if it helps you to keep a calm and cool head. I found it helps a great deal during some of these sessions."

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I would like to apologize to the permanent representative of the Dai-Tōhoku Renpō. I am currently under immense pressure from my government in Capital de San Tomas, and so I hope a solution to this crisis may come soon. And I appreciate your offer of some Sencha, but I think ill decline for now."

- President Celestina Scavo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recognition of Imperial claims would end the crisis immediately and preserve a large degree of domestic autonomy as well as provide reassurances through the recognition of the Holy Imperial Crown of protection against further destabilizing in the continent due to erratic action.  Say a slightly modified form of Athenian terms for the last French state?  With the Holy American Emperor, dual hatted from our Imperial Crown providing some oversight as well as some protection.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

The Irish state has taken the necessary steps to mitigate a disaster by terrorist forces. Prussia sees no reason that the Security Council needs to involve themselves in this situation, so long as the Irish government remains in control. There is no need to take military action against the Irish, and indeed the quick response from the Danes to use aggressive military force against a fellow European nation is worrying. Self defense is approved under the United Nations charter, but the invasion of a fellow European state before a full and extended diplomatic effort is put forth is not acceptable to Prussia, nor should it be acceptable to any civilized state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In hindsight, our will to respond against Ireland with military force has been reduced. A nation as a whole cannot be held responsible for the actions of a crazed few individuals. Our military did respond by destroying the threat as it neared Jutland.

 

However, Irish aircraft and vessels are not welcome in Norse Ports for five years and Irish companies seeking new markets within the Kingdom, will be not be permitted for five years. We also request a formal state apology from Ireland as well as anybody associated with Mr Bree to be extradited to the Norse Kingdom to be interviewed for an investigation Mr Bree and his failed attack, with the aim to bring criminal charges against any others involved in the plot, as Mr Bree, could not have acted alone.

 

Our military will be stood down and the current survivors of the attack, of which there are four, are being treated aboard one of the vessels that sail with CVBG: Raider for injuries sustained following the loss of their aircraft. They will be flown to the mainland and treated in hospital under Police Guard before being transported to prison when stable. At which point they will be interviewed and trialled as part of the investigation into Mr Bree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Government of the Republic of Ireland formally apologizes for what has happened in recent events. We accept your terms and will immediately extradite any individuals involved in the attack to your country. Please be assured that this government is doing everything possible to ensure the safety and security of not just Ireland, but also all surrounding nations."

- Minister of Foreign Affairs Mary Baron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As a matter of principle, the Fourth Republic of Poland offers to assist Ireland's internal security forces with a small police advisory group from the Polish Standing Contingency Task Force. This advisory group specializes in assisting constabulary forces with counterterrorism and legal internal surveillance, which will greatly strengthen the ability of Ireland's security forces to foil internal security threats and plots.

 

This unit can be utilized in a number of different cooperative measures, and can be deployed for an indefinite amount of time."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Republic of Ireland welcomes this offer from the Forth Republic of Poland. The Ministey of Justice accepts this offer and will accommodate a small police advisory group in Dublin."

- Minister of Foreign Affairs Mary Baron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The Prussian representative would stand up to address the room, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Security Council, I bring grave news from the heart of Europe. Poland has declared war on Prussia and Denmark. Such actions are a clear violation of the charter of these United Nations. Just weeks previous, representatives of the Prussian nation were invited to the Polish capital, where the Polish government demand - through bribery and outlandish historical claims, Prussian Baltic land. I need not remind any of you, that the Prussian people united together in the wake of Greater Germany's collapse, and the rise of Austrian power to the south to form a nation under the banner of the Prussian eagle." A text of these discussions would be handed out to the representatives in the room.  

 

"The Danish and Prussian states have cooperated through economic and military programs for years now. As such, in line with previous agreements, the Prussian nation was hosting Danish elements for war games in five states. These states are: Brandenburg, Silesia, Posen, West Prussia and Berlin. Understanding the need for regional security, my government sent notices to the Greater Russian Empire, Greater Sith Empire, Austria and Poland informing them that live fire exercises would be held away from five kilometers of their border, as well as an increased Prussian border guard presence to ensure no complications or misunderstandings from these war games would occur. The Polish response has been an aggressive attack against Prussian and Danish forces within Prussian borders.

 

We demand the Security Council take action to prevent the Polish aggressors from counting their unprovoked attacks against the Prussian and Danish people. Equally, we demand the Polish aggressors pay reparations to the Prussian and Danish governments for the loss of life and property their actions have caused. Justice demands these United Nations unite to the defense of Prussia."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the Prussian representative finished the Athenian one would rise. "It is the opinion of the Athenian Federation, as was stated in our original announcement, that both parties in this dispute have cause for concern and complaint. While the Prussian state was in its right to reject a hand-over of territory and to launch exercises within its sovereign territory it is understandable that the Polish state would consider such an act provocative. In any case armed conflict is an undesired result and we note a willingness from Prussia to agree to a diplomatic solution. We would like to invite a Polish delegation to elaborate on their motivation and their willingness to consent to peace talks under the superivision of this Security Council to seek a peaceful solution before proceeding to a vote on a resolution"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...