Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby stuntmonkey » Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:02 pm

I thank Mr Aslan for his response and will attempt to answer his questions:

Point One: the DMZ is proposed on both sides of the border, if agreed our defensive troops will withdraw 2km into Baltusian territory too. This is surely not unreasonable?

Point two: Again, I say it is no secret about our nuclear capability. You will see from this defence review three years ago that this is well recognised and overwhelmingly supported by the vast majority of parties in our country.
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=482217

Point three: I stand to be corrected but according to my records Mr Benn fled shortly after sentencing had taken place, although perhaps the Supreme Court justice who sentenced could answer this or you could review the court clerk's records. (OOC: I can't properly tell if it was between the guilty verdict and sentencing or after sentencing but the bill order suggests it was after sentencing and the dialogue in the sentencing bill suggests Mr Benn was in situ for sentencing). I say again though he had been in prison for 15 months on remand up to and including the trial, in which time he was unharmed and treated well – as is every prisoner in Baltusia. So why would this have been different after sentencing?

Thank you.

I am sorry but I must now return to Baltusia to recommence my departmental duties. A Patriotic Party delegation party will arrive shortly to assist the conference.
“I venture to suggest that patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

― AES II

Current party - Haruzuterēchisuku Refonpātī
stuntmonkey
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby jamescfm » Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:47 pm

Serhat Aslan: The DMZ has been ruled out, there is almost no support for the proposal within Kalistan so it is a complete non-starter. Whether or not it would be enforced either side is irrelevant, Kalistani land is for the Kalistani government to administer not for the Baltusian government to dictate conditions around. The insistence that Kalistan's laws are not palatable to the governing parties of Baltusia is what caused this entire situation in the beginning. The point I made remains, though, why should Kalistan be forced to demilitarise its border when:
a) the Kalistani armed forces haven't participated in any war games, unusual activities, rogue behaviour etc.
b) Kalistan has an extensive tradition of free and open borders with all of its neighbours
c) it is the Baltusian military that has currently congregated along the border, not Kalistan's
Baltusia is quite welcome to enforce a de facto DMZ by asking its soldiers to stand down but Kalistan will not commit to demilitarisation.

Point two: Again, I say it is no secret about our nuclear capability. You will see from this defence review three years ago that this is well recognised and overwhelmingly supported by the vast majority of parties in our country.

This bill shows that it is no secret in Baltusia but it doesn't answer several important questions in regards to Baltusian nuclear capability. For example, where did they gain this technology? How long have they had it? Why were other nations not made aware of it? Unless Baltusia commits to nuclear disarmament, these talks won't reach a conclusion from our side.

A review of our records shows a communication from the Revolutionary Anarcho-Communist Party which states 'i am seeking asylum in kalistan because i could be executed or at least sent to prison' sometime in July 4076, followed by another communication about a year later informing us that Mr. Benn had been sentenced to eighteen and a half years.

So why would this have been different after sentencing?

I believe we I said in an earlier statement that whether or not he was genuinely at risk of being persecuted is actually not that relevant, more important is whether he believed he was at risk. Our own correspondence with Mr. Benn combined with his speech to Congress would suggest he did and that this was the primary reason why he fled across the border.

Please, though, let us focus on how we progress. What is the Baltusian response to the Labour Party of Kalistan's conditions for a settlement?
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 1857
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby Doc » Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:19 pm

stuntmonkey wrote:Baltusia does have nuclear weapons, that is a fact. It is also well known we have submarine based nuclear weaponry which is approved by Congress. At all times, we have at least one nuclear-based submarine at sea as a matter of security, which is attached operationally to our main naval fleet. I was giving details of that fleet's position.

(snip)

Baltusian Defence Secretary Colonel Octavius Black


We are curious as to where Baltusia acquired such technology.

(OOC: as far as I understand, there is a gameplay regime around RPing nukes. Does the Minister know where those weapons were acquired given that it is not a given that all nations or even most nations in the world possess the technology for nuclear weapons?)
Primary: Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), Old School Since 2591

Inactive: Parti des Frères Lourenne, Since 4109
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: Primary: Kalistan/ Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK); Inactive in Lourenne and Telamon

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby Doc » Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:31 pm

I would reiterate the comments made by Comrade Aslan,

1) There will be no DMZ. Such a proposal is quite beyond the pale. We are not a conquered nation, and so Baltusia may not dictate terms over a single inch of Kalistani National Territory.

2) Mr Benn will not be returned against his will to Baltusia. He is free to remain in Kalistan as long as he feels it to be in his interests to do so. For that matter, all of Baltusia is welcomed to expatriate to Kalistan and live there peacefully, if they wish. To propose that we violate our own law is unconscionable, whatever Baltusia's law is.

3) The nuclear capability of Baltusia, I am surprised has not raised red flags with the Celestial Empire. I wonder if Indrala is/was aware of the nuclear capacity of Baltusia. If not, I would certainly appreciate a statement from Indrala, as the regional hegemon, as to what they intend to do about the fact that Baltusia has weapons of mass destruction. It would also be a reason for Kalistan to institute sanctions against Baltusia to attempt to encourage them to change their minds about such a dangerous and menacing tool of war. The revelation that Baltusia has nuclear weaponry, which has been confirmed by the Defense Ministry of Baltusia, creates a security crisis in the Region, and I will ask the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister to notify nations surrounding Baltusia to inform them that they have nuclear capacity which requires a regional response.

The only outstanding issue therefore seems to be Baltusia's willingness to menace its neighbors with a mobilization and an occupation of the mutual border between our two countries and the implied threat of nuclear holocaust. I don't see any other issues immediately on the table.
Primary: Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), Old School Since 2591

Inactive: Parti des Frères Lourenne, Since 4109
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: Primary: Kalistan/ Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK); Inactive in Lourenne and Telamon

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby Liu Che/Zhuli » Wed Aug 24, 2016 9:00 pm

Zhong Lan, Chief Counselor of the Celestial Empire of Great Indrala

We have noticed a few areas here that need to be clarified for all sides, so that productive discussion may occur:

1. Kalistan is demanding a great many things from Baltusia in exchange for nothing. While this would merely be the status quo, the rhetoric should try to highlight that so as to not appear inflamatory and demanding.

2. Kalistan allowed militias, which are clearly political in nature and affiliated with some of the political parties of Kalistan, to conduct drills near the Kali-Baltusian border, after a failure to investigate a Baltusian bill, sponsored and supported by a minor party and voted against by an overwhelming majority of Baltusian parties, that proposed a declaration of war on the Yeudish Republic (not Kalistan). The Kalistani government could have used its connections to the militias, through the political parties and other back-channels, to stop the militias from escalating the dispute.

3. In response to Kalistan, Baltusia reacted in kind. However, their reaction, instead of ignoring Kalistan so as to keep the dispute as diplomatic as possible, continued to heighten the aggression surrounding the Benn Incident.

4. According to our analysts, Baltusia has no nuclear weapons. They do not have a history of nuclear weapon development, nor has a great power sponsored a nuclear program in Baltusia or gifted Baltusia nuclear weapons. (OOC: This is based on the presumptions of the RP Accord and the RP Team where nuclear weapons are very limited, especially to the Great Powers, which Baltusia is not.) Thus, Kalistan has no need to fear nuclear provocation. Furthermore, Indrala is committed to a policy of non-proliferation.

5. Knowing more information about the Benn Incident, the Kalistani government should not have maintained contact with Mr. Benn. While we respect the national laws of both Baltusia and Kalistan, the interaction with Mr. Benn at a political level showed poor judgement.

6. Both nations do not appear to be respectful of each nation's national laws. Kalistan has no right to intervene in Baltusian affairs and should avoid it as much as possible, especially regarding high profile political issues, while Baltusia should do the same with regards to Kalistan.

7. At this point the DMZ proposal is a non-issue.

Knowing these, Indrala proposes an accord between Kalistan and Baltusia affirming mutual respect for the national laws of the respective countries, a promise to abstain from intervention in one another's political affairs, hotlines between the presidents and military hotlines, a pact of non-aggression, and making the effort to curb non-government actions that could negatively impact the Baltusian-Kali relationship.
Image
User avatar
Liu Che/Zhuli
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:41 pm
Location: Indrala (P1) Jing (P3)

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby jamescfm » Wed Aug 24, 2016 9:59 pm

Serhat Aslan: I'd like to thank the Chief Counselor for his intervention at this time and for moving the discussion forward significantly. The reason Kalistan has been making what could be perceived as demands was to try and outline what our ultimate goals were for these discussions- we apologise if this was perceived otherwise. I want to make clear that Kalistan, or at least the Labour Party, does not absolve itself from blame in these matters. We understand that it was a breakdown in effective communication which escalated the situation to the point where the Baltusian military intervened. However, we would like to pick up on the Chief Conselor's comments that,

In response to Kalistan, Baltusia reacted in kind. However, their reaction, instead of ignoring Kalistan so as to keep the dispute as diplomatic as possible, continued to heighten the aggression surrounding the Benn Incident.

Whilst we accept that the Kalistani government is not completely removed from the actions of the militias (specifically the Revolutionary Socialist Militia of Kalistan and the People's Army), it is ultimately out of our control what they do. It was emphasised at the time that the exercises were conducted, that they were purely defensive manoeuvres and evacuation procedures in the case of a Baltusian first strike. We would also like to draw attention to the fact that the Kalistani Armed Forces have not been mobilised in any way, in spite of the fact that our neighbours remain so. Kalistan is not the aggressor in this situation, despite being the more militarily capable nation.


Indrala proposes an accord between Kalistan and Baltusia affirming mutual respect for the national laws of the respective countries, a promise to abstain from intervention in one another's political affairs, hotlines between the presidents and military hotlines, a pact of non-aggression, and making the effort to curb non-government actions that could negatively impact the Baltusian-Kali relationship.

We are open to pursuing such an accord but we maintain that any agreement must contain a commitment to nuclear disarmament or, as the case now appears to be, a commitment never to allow nuclear weapons.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 1857
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby Doc » Thu Aug 25, 2016 6:43 am

Commisar Philander:

We thank the Chief Counselor for their appraisal of the talks thus far. But there are a few things the SP delegation needs to add.

To be clear: and this is the position of the Premier of the Republic, who I speak for here, The Government of Kalistan's refusal to extradite a person from Kalistan is not interference in Baltusian affairs. It is instead respect for Kalistani laws. We have no extradition as a national law. While the Chief Counselor urges us to respect Baltusian laws, we maintain that we respect Kalistani law, over all other law. Over international law. Over Baltusian law, and forgive my presumtion, but even over the law of the Celestial Empire. We are gracious for the opportunity to meet here in Indrala, but within Kalistan, and over all people residing in Kalistan, it is Kalistani law, and not Baltusian law, which exists. The acts of their government notwithstanding, the law of Baltusia only exists in Kalistan when they violate our national sovereignty by force and we must respond in kind. In all other cases, we do not even acknowledge Baltusia's right to pass laws with regard to the inhabitants of Kalistan. So respecting Baltusia's laws means to our government respecting their right to pass laws for their territory, and insisting on that same respect in return.

Secondly, the Counselor is absolutely correct in that the RSMoK is under the absolute control of the SP, as a political organization- Each unit, for example, has a political commisar who serves as XO, throughout the entire chain. Thst said, we would mentiin thst we have heard zero requests from any party that we disengage our militia from the front. Only this business of a DMZ, which the SP will never agree to or help construct. But for the Record, if Baltusia wishes to arm the border, it is better for Kalistan that our Regular force meet them there rather than the paltry force that the SP has contributed to the exercise. Two battalion of arty, while we may be exceptionally well trained, are at the end of the day, just 36 guns, or half of the Sudanor Regiment of the RSMoK. Not really proportional to the response of mobilization.

If we deem it in Kalistan's interest to do so, those 36 guns will return to barracks. Nobody has ever asked us to do so, and so, we continue to fire accurate and we'll timed indirect fire in support of our Comrades in the PA, and will continue to do so as long as we please.

If it will help Baltusia sleep better at night, we will turn our guns 1600 mils and fire north for a while. This is one thing we will do, for peace.
Primary: Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), Old School Since 2591

Inactive: Parti des Frères Lourenne, Since 4109
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: Primary: Kalistan/ Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK); Inactive in Lourenne and Telamon

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby stuntmonkey » Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:56 am

OOC: I guess the nuclear arms situation would come down to Baltusian players signing up to the Global RP accord, which we are not at the moment. That would also mean taking on board all the other suggestions such as economic ranking being "low" and military ranking being "middle". So before being able to RP this further we would have to take a vote on this, I guess.

Any suggestions on how to proceed? Thanks.
“I venture to suggest that patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

― AES II

Current party - Haruzuterēchisuku Refonpātī
stuntmonkey
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby Liu Che/Zhuli » Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:43 am

Chief Counselor Zhong Lang:

Indeed, Mr. Philander is correct in saying that, by upholding current Kalistani laws, Kalistan is not interfering in Baltusian affairs. What I stated, was that the contact between the Kalistani government and Mr. Benn, a politically controversial figure who had just undergone a trial in Baltusia was poor diplomacy and could be seen as meddling. What should have happened is that the government of Kalistan ignore Mr. Benn's contact, simply allowing him to move to Kalistan. That would, the government of Kalistan would be viewed as less meddlesome from a Baltusian viewpoint. Certainly, if an Indralan individual who had been tried for heinous crimes against the people of Indrala fled to Kalistan to take advantage of their citizenship, the Indralan government would be most upset. So, at the end of the day, we see this issue from both sides and pin the incident on a lack of mutual respect for one another's sovereignty, even if it was merely a momentary lapse in respect. However, this goes to show how much respect is needed between the two countries, making some sort of agreement to avoid these incidents at the government and at the level of political party necessary. Neither Kalistan or Baltusia has the authority to pass laws that can or should be enforced upon any other nation. Both are sovereign entities.

Regardless of no request from the parties, the parties, who are part of the Kalistani government and legislature, should not be engaging in actions that risk escalating diplomatic disputes towards violence. I understand Kalistan is a unique nation and is proud of their culture. That is not a bad thing, oftentimes it is more good than not. However, restraint and prudence should be upheld. Such a situation currently exists regarding Kalistani piracy in the Anantanese Ocean, which, as both Kalistan and Indrala know, led to war. A similar situation could exist regarding Kalistani paramilitaries, at least in cases where Kalistani diplomacy is at stake.

OOC: On the RP Accord, I always think it is a good idea to accept it to better ensure a degree of realism that is actually enforceable. I think Baltusia does not necessarily have to sign on to it (that is up to the players), but seeing as Kalistan and Indrala are both part of it, the precepts of the Accord and the RP Team are going to be held, at least de-facto.
Image
User avatar
Liu Che/Zhuli
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:41 pm
Location: Indrala (P1) Jing (P3)

Re: Baltusian-Kali Tian'an Talks

Postby stuntmonkey » Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:12 pm

OOC - Ok thanks. Obviously not up to me. I will see what all players think in Baltusia about this and our nationmaster (Racer5). Personally happy to RP within such guidelines so we are consistent on an international level, but we will have to unravel quite a few things to make this work. Thank you.
“I venture to suggest that patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

― AES II

Current party - Haruzuterēchisuku Refonpātī
stuntmonkey
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Conferences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron