39th General Assembly Session

[John Cracker]

Delegate representing The Federal Republic of Likatonia

the Federal Republic of Likatonia strongly condemns slavery and we hope that evil nations never acquire nuclear weapons. However the fact that strong countries should have to give up defense because of a bad apple is outrages, we are building up Likatonias military and hope to acquire nuclear and atomic weapons. Therefore if this resolution passes Likatonia will not comply nore will we place sanctions on any nations that do not comply.

Likatonia votes NO on resolution 35-01!

[Doc]

Louis Stevens, Ambassador to the World Congress Security Council from the United Republic of Kalistan:

As expected: there is no commitment for peace in this body. Powerful nations wish only to keep their weapons of war, which threaten the lives and well being of all nations around the globe. The example that nuclear powers set for nations like Lodamun is this: We have nuclear weapons and nuclear powered weapons. We gave ourselves the right to have them and we created international regimes where that right will never be challenged. War is war, and even in bodies OSTENSIBLY committed to the cause of peace and peaceful resolution of conflict without resort to war, we still want to possess the things that start and successfully prosecute war, and we wish to be able to use those weapons whenever we please. But you never attempt to acquire these things. If we deem you a "bad actor" we will threaten you with war, or in some more recent cases, actually go to war to stop you, emphatically stop you from getting to be like us.

It is water under the bridge, at any rate. The Kalistani Government has instructed us to withdraw this resolution titled 35-01, due to hostility on the part of the other members of this Assembly toward its provisions. We have further been instructed to offer to work with any nation on the globe in drafting a more specific resolution condemning the acquisition and possession of nuclear and atomic payload weapons, such as per the suggestion that the representatives of Deltaria made.

We will stand by for further comment.

[ChengherRares1]

Marin Preda, ambassador to the General assembly for Kizenia:

It came in our attention that two nations, Lodamun and Dundorf have legalized slavery. The two nations present a dictatorship and a breachment on human rights and we call for actions in these nations. These nations are a threat to freedom and stability and we propose peer pressure for them to change policies, diplomatically and economically, if needed militarily. One thing is for sure, we should not tolerate such governments to operate at the expense of people. This is a threat and a shame we did not took yet actions to truly help the people in need in these nations. Therefore, we propose the following resolution to be debated and voted upon by the members of this assembly:

Given the undemocratic nature and abusive legislation of Dundorf and Lodamun, we call for

1) Economic sanctions and embargo on Dundorf and Lodamun

2) World condemnation on Dundorf and Lodamun

3) Cut of all diplomatic relationships with Dundorf and Lodamun

4) Sensible sanctions for nations that disrespect the articles above and continue trading with these two nations

5) Refugees coming from this nation shall be helped and provided safety

Hope we can agree and if needed we can compromise and talk on some of the articles.

[Maxington]

Gunhild Martinsen, Kazulian Ambassador to the World Congress.

The Kingdom of Kazulia recognising the valiant intentions of the Kalistani delegation in pushing for a WMD-free world. Our nation has long refrained from offering commentary on this sentiment for multiple reasons; the primary being that there have been no real attempts by states to curb the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons through the black market. It is no secret to the international community that said weapons can find themselves in the hands of rogue states, in a similar fashion it is no secret that the development of these weapons is becoming easier amidst advanced in technology and the ease by which information can be obtained through sources such as the internet. Thus this creates an extremely difficult paradox whereby the threat of rogue states or rogue actors (might they be terrorist organisations or ultra-nationalist groups) possessing these nuclear weapons and their chemical and biological counterparts is increasing. Whilst we believe that a healthy discussion on the sentiment is important, we do not believe that name-calling and pushing scandalous accusations and allegations should be the modus operandi of this discussion. In the address to withdraw the proposed agreement, the Kalistani representative stated: War has been brought to us by nuclear empires like Lourenne, Indrala, Kazulia and Dorvik who were not content to allow Kalistan to live at peace, but to this day insist that Kalistan be treated as a public sidewalk. Recognising that this discussion is clearly focused on the possession, development and/or procurement of nuclear weapons in the international domain it is safe to state that the Kalistani representative was not referencing nations who use nuclear fission and fusion reactions as a form of electricity generation. Thus it is assumed that the Kalistani representative is making a bold claim that the Kingdom of Kazulia possesses weapons of mass destruction. Whilst we would not like to believe that such a bold accusation was made by the Kalistani representative as they are an extremely capable and respectable people, that sadly appears to be the case. The Kingdom of Kazulia has always maintained laws against the development of nuclear weapons and their use in warfare. We invite the Kalistani representative to either adjust its statement to fit with the facts or provide evidence to support its allegations of Kazulia's possession of nuclear weapons. We take these types of instances seriously because we, as a nation, have maintained a strict policy against the development and use of nuclear weapons. We recognise that in the heat of the discussion the Kalistani representative might have made a mistake, but recognising the seriousness of such labelled we wish that those sentiments be either withdrawn or backed up with evidence, lest they are viewed as fictitious conspiracy theories being concocted by the representatives whom we have come to respect.

[Doc]

Louis Stevens, Ambassador to the World Congress Security Council from the United Republic of Kalistan:

With regard to our inclusion of Kazulia in the list of nuclear empires, that inclusion was based on a mistaken belief on our part that the modern submarines and aircraft carriers possessed by Kazulia did indeed possess nuclear fission reactors as power sources. Those weapons have menaced our nation in the past, and we have no reason to believe that a nation which remains in possession of such an abundance of such weapons has adopted a unilateral policy of peace and comity with other nations in the world. We may be mistaken on that particular point. But we do admit our mistake when it comes to including the Kingdom of Kazulia in with those other nations which possess massive aircraft carriers and who have pried open the Straits by threat of war. Kazulia's navy appears, after staff research, to be powered by conventional powerplants.

We apologize for our error.

[Doc]

Louis Stevens, Ambassador to the World Congress Security Council from the United Republic of Kalistan:

With regard to the resolved points from the Representative of Kizenia

We are sympathetic to the cause of human rights, we find it difficult to justify intervention into the domestic affairs of other nations. Given other nations' willingness to intervene in the domestic affairs of Kalistan, especially with regard to the protection of the Straits, it would be difficult for us to complain about foreign interference in the Straits, and at the same time, practice interference in Lodamun.

I would propose we attempt to contact Lodamun and work with them to find a mutually agreeable solution to the problem, rather than immediately slapping sanctions on the nation. We emphatically oppose slavery, but we also emphatically oppose violation of the norms of sovereignty. So how do we meet those two competing norms?

[colonelvesica]

James Delamont, Hutorian Ambassador the World Congress General Assembly

Honourable Delegates

If I may bring attention to one particular International Agreement; the International Rejection of Slavery Agreement (http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreat ... atyid=3260). This Agreement already does has the Honourable Ambassador from Kizenia has suggested; it immediately institutes economic sanctions and embargos against nations that legalize slavery or involve themselves in the slave trade, and restores them when the nation no longer involves itself in this vile business. I would urge member nations that haven't already ratified it to follow suit. I'll note to the Kalistani Ambassador, this issue of slavery has already been brought up to Lodamun by our Government and has been promptly ignored.

I would ask the Kalistani Ambassador what could possible be a "mutually agreeable solution" into anything when it comes to the topic of chattel slavery.

[Doc]

Louis Stevens, Ambassador to the World Congress Security Council from the United Republic of Kalistan:

With respect to the Hutorian Representative, we hold that offering a nation an incentive to change their policy is preferable to sanctioning them if they do not. The coercion that our friends are for is a violation of sovereignty. And so I say, first, Kalistan opposes slavery, and seeks a world free of the practice. But, either we acknowledge sovereignty, or we do not. There is no such thing as "half sovereign." Either a state controls its own domestic policy or it does not. Forcing them to do so will violate their sovereignty, and as a county who has their sovereignty routinely violated by nations of the world, we can also see the side of a country that doesn't want foreign powers messing with its domestic laws.

We are not suggesting to make peace with "some" slavery, because we acknowledge that the half way point between slavery and no slavery is still slavery. What Kalistan is calling for is for the nations of the world to think of a way to get those countries to abandon slavery on their own, without us forcing them to do so. We need to have more imagination than to simply slap down sanctions and threaten war. There has to be a different way.

If you ask Kalistan what that way would be, I can tell you, we do not know. But we're hoping that we could figure some other way than to simply violate sovereignty of yet another nation. Either we take sovereignty, and other international norms seriously, or we do not.

[colonelvesica]

James Delamont
Hutorian Ambassador to the World Congress General Assembly

With respect to the Honourable Ambassador from the United Republic the International Rejection of Slavery Agreement is such an incentive to rid themselves of slavery; we do not threaten war, we have not cut off diplomatic relations, we are simply doing business elsewhere. Much like Kalistani nationals are free to purchase goods from one business or another, they may chose to do business elsewhere if the company in particular has chosen to partake in "seedy" business practices or poor working conditions to their staff.

This Agreement both lets nations that involve themselves in slavery know our displeasure, and let them know we simply refuse to do business with them. If they chose as a nation to reject slavery, we will in turn chose to again do business with them again.

I would ask the Ambassador to suggest a possible fix, rather simply state we should find one. We have offered one solution, now we are willing to hear another.

[Doc]

Louis Stevens, Ambassador to the World Congress Security Council from the United Republic of Kalistan:

Do we even understand why these nations have adopted slavery or why they refuse to give it up? While the statement of the Hutori representative is persuasive, we would note that there is currently a resolution before the Security council that EXPLICITLY calls for an embargo of Lodamun. The language is specifically:

IMPLEMENTS the following sanctions to be done on a permanent basis for pro-slavery nations:

1. 25% reduction of trade/aid/financial support/material support within 6 months, 50% trade within 1 year, 75% trade within 1.5 years and 100% trade within 2 years;
2. Conducting inspections by the multinational Department of Peacekeeping and Assistance of the World Congress to ensure any cargo departing nation does not posses humans;
3. Allow governments to apply other sanctions locally to ensure compliance.

This is not a voluntary matter. The resolutions from the SC are binding on all members, and if a member opt not enforce them, as would be suggested by the Hutori Representative which would be our prerogative, we could indeed be subject to sanctions to force us to comply. Furthermore, Kalistan is under the same sort of pressure, and nations will be forced to comply with the terms of the treaty, despite the myriad of bi- and multi-lateral free trade agreements we have, as treaties with many nations who will be forced by this Security Council Action to abide by the terms decided by a few positive votes from imperialists rather than observe their own national interests and continue to freely trade with Kalistan.

If there is a solution, knowing that these coercive clauses will likely be forced down everyone else's throats by great powers in the Security Council sort of makes any accommodation we may suggest absolutely moot. While we acknowledge the persuasive argument made by the Hutori representative, that persuasion is undermined by the action of the Dorvish.