stuntmonkey wrote:Otto Vanderijk Blick, Chief Baltusian Ambassador to the General Assembly:
First of all I have to announce that Sally Smith has resigned as a Baltusian ambassador to this fine establishment, which means you have to deal with the old boy again *** points at self with wry smile ***
Secondly, let me express regret over the direction this conversation has headed. The more we bicker over semantics the more we divide our power and ability to be able to do something about this dreadful situation.
Ambassador Malga, I agree with your definition of a concentration camp, and agree that the Ewout Concentration Camp meets that definition. And whether I did or didn't is irrelevant as these citizens are being detained for no reason other than being Istalian and that is the undisputable issue.
The point is how do we ensure the safety of the 410 Istalians illegally confined there, as laid out in the Anti-Istalia Act.
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=502444 and made to carry out forced labour
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=502348At one end of the scale is war - no one wants that. Not even Ambassador Bartholomeus with all his talk about a nuclear programme wants that. At the other end of the scale is that the international community requests of Saridan that they release those held illegally. Again, this is not forthcoming while sanctions are in place.
So I ask this question of compromise: would Saridan allow for these detained Istalians and all other Istalians to be immediately free to leave their country if Istalia suspended their embargo and sanctions against the Republic of Saridan?
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=502348 The second clause of this proposal is that if the above is agreed upon then Saridan would also automatically agree to allow an international team to immediately enter their country to carry out a full assessment of their segregation policies to see what it means in terms of human rights on the ground in Saridan. Afterwards, we could reassess sanctions - the need for them or otherwise - based on what is happening in that nation.
I believe there is some wriggle room here. I note for instance, some of the segregation bills have been voted down in democratic fashion:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=496928If the Saridanese Ambassador is favourable to these proposals, then I suggest we move to the next stage and ask Ambassador Malga if Istalia would be favourable to a suspension of sanctions while Istalians are freed and the international team does its work.
Laurens Bartholomeus:
These proposals are not satisfactory. Istalia could revoke the sanctions, get their citizens back, and then reestablish sanctions. At that point, Saridan would be backed into a corner without any leverage.
We are in favor of trading the citizens for an end of sanctions, but we would need a garuntee that they are not to be applied once again. Secondly, I am opposed to a team of international observers unless a majority or all of them are from a nation which is at least cordial with Saridan. For example, if Istalian or Selucian observers were in Saridan, their views would be twisted, is that not so?
If Ambassador Malga would stop his whining and propose some kind of compromise like you did, that would be most refreshing indeed.
Finally, I would like to note that the "Little Separation Bill" was passed by the Volksraad 88-87. It still remains in place.