6th Security Council Session

[matthewleitch]

Good Morning, today I am going to propose a resolution to resolve the issue of New Endralon and their unmotivated embargos which have caused an economic and humanitarian crisis.

Resolution 20

Guided by the principles of peace and prosperity for all Terra,

Firmly believing in the values and principles of the democracy and the equality of all human beings in dignity, duties and rights,

Expressing grave concern about the actions of the New Endralonian government and lack of remorse,

Acknowledging the unmotivated actions of embargoing Istalia and Baltusia have caused economic and humanitarian concerns, and despite this, the New Endralon government remains to show no remorse
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=513396 (Baltusian Embargo)
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=513361 (Istalian Embargo)
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=513908 (New Endralonian Presidents visit to Baltusia)

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

1. Condemns the Government of New Endralon for embargoing Istalia and Baltusia with no motivating and in the process destroying livelihoods and displacing families.
2. Demands that the New Endralonian Government put a stop to their hostile and unpredictable behaviour and apologise to Baltusia and Istalia.
3. Failing article 2 of this resolution, the Security Council recommends the freezing of New Endralonian assets and recommends the international community to remove its embassies from New Endralon.

[jamescfm]

Given that there has been a change in the provisions of Resolution 19, I invite all nations to confirm whether or not they wish to vote in the same way as before.

-Naasif al-Salah, General Secretary of the World Congress

[Axxell]

Istalia vote Yes to the Resolution 20.

We are facing a liar regime whose behavior is the same we saw presented by many other regimes that turbed the world peace.

Furthermore, we would just informe the SC that my Government proposed a ceasefire of 72 hours to the involved parties and forces in Rutania to allow to the humanitaria convoy sent by Selucia to reach the Rutanian cost and offload the humanitarian supplies for the civilians.

~ Riccardo Malzi di Arenese, Istalian Ambassador to the World Congress

[colonelvesica]

OOC: I would have done this more indepth response earlier, but I was on my phone at work when I wrote it lol... this is the respond I REALLY wanted to make.

IC:

In regards to Resolution 19 I have endeavored to highlight our issues. We are not against all of this Resolution. It indeed has some merits, but there are things in that regard that we think overreach our mandate. Do we support democracy; absolutely. Do we support the self determination of nations and the power to decide their own paths; without question. But when we go from the realm of supporting democracy and the freedom to choose. However this Proposal goes from supporting the will of the Rutanian people into enforcing "our" will upon them.

I have highlighted the Articles we take exception with.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

1. Condemns the Monarchical Forces of Rutania for their actions which threatens the national peace and stability of Rutanian and went against the democratically expressed will of the rutanian people;

2. Demands to the Monarchical Forces to put an immediate end to hostilities, to dissolve any militia or paramilitary monarchical force end to recognize the executive of Rutania expressed by the last Parliament as the only legitimate Government of Rutania;

3. Supports the Republican Forces for their determination to make respect the will of the people democratically expressed;

4. Declares to recognize the government which the Republican Forces expressed after the last elections as the only legitimate Government of Rutania;

5. Requires that the leaders of the Monarchical Forces will be officially accused to be war criminals and will be therefore judged by a court which will demonstrate their responsibilities and will condemn them adequately for their actions;

6. Requires furthermore that all the foreign nations involved directly or indirectly in the conflict will withdraw their forces by the Rutanian territory and their indirect support to both the warring forces.

But furthermore the SECURITY COUNCIL in order to

ensure the compliance with the provisions of this resolution by the parties in conflict,

ensure that the provisions of this resolution will be respected especially by the Monarchical Forces, in order to assure the respect of the will democratically expressed by the Rutanian people,

avoid however any form of vengeance or retaliatory actions outside of the principles of a fair and impartial justice by part of the Republican Forces,

invests the GENERAL SECRETARY of the responsability to

1. organize a peacekeeping mission to pacify the Rutanian territory in cooperation with the Republican forces,

2. support the extension throughout the Rutanian territory of the authority and sovereignty of the legitimate Government represented by the Republican Forces,

3. ensure afterwards a comprehensive disarmament of the military as well as paramilitary forces of the Monarchical Forces but also a considerable reduction in the forces of the legitimate Government,

4. supervise the normalization of the situation is carried out with respect for democratic rules in cooperation with the legitimate Government

5. supervise on the organization of a fair and impartial trial by part of the legitimate Government for judge the leaders of the Monarchical Forces for war crimes and for the responsability of the civil war.

Section 1, Article 1 is fine as is. We do condemn Monarchist Forces who their use of violence against the Democratically elected government Rutania.

However Section 1 Article makes outright demands for the forced de-militarization of the Rutanian people. We can not make those demands unless they lay in contravention of Rutanian law. If it is within their law, and a democratically elected government chose to invoke this law and not change it, then we will not speak on this, especially as Republican forces themselves utilize paramilitary and loyalists forces of their own.

Article 3 and 4 are fine as is, they represent the democratic will of the Rutanian people; they did indeed elect a majority Republican government and we should absolutely acknowledge them as the legitimate government of Rutania. We also fully support Article 6; this was an internal Rutanian matter and international actors involving themselves in the process are in fact making it worse and drawing the conflict out.

However we will not support the unilateral declaration of the Monarchist as War Criminals; aside from beginning the conflict we have NO proof they committed war crimes, and may in fact followed all traditional and accepted International Rules of War. At best we should appoint an international fact finding mission to ascertain whether or not War Crimes have been committed.

Multiple articles in Section 2 however we have serious concerns with; Article 4 is the only one we support in its current writing. Every other article has this Council overstepping its mandate; organizing a peacekeeping force with the specific purpose of supporting Republican forces against Monarchist forces is declaring a side within the Civil War. Unilaterally declaring the Monarchist leadership war criminals without an investigation is declaring a side. Enforcing Republican control over areas of Rutania that may have voted in favor of Monarchism during a democratic election is declaring a side and going directly against the will of the Rutanian people. Article 3 on principle we can never support; demanding the unilateral disarmament of military forces in Rutania steps directly into their own national laws; if there is going to be a general disarmament let it be at the will of the democratic elected government, not at the end of a Securty Council Resolution, especially as we are also demanding a reduction in forces of the "recognized legitimate government."

It is for these reasons, and the innumerable issues with have this with Resolution that the Federal Republic of Hutori continued to vote Nay on Resolution 19.


In regards to Resolution 20, the Federal Republic of Hutori considers New Endralon one if its closest allies. Further we seriously have any belief that New Endralon embargoing Baltusia and Istalia, two nations with significantly stronger economics and innumerable international trading partners have been seriously harmed or affects by the New Endralon Embargo; if anything these economics measures likely had a bigger negative impact on New Endralon.

As this Resolution demands that we unilaterally remove our Embassy from New Endralon, which we will not do, we will not support.

Further the fact that this is a matter that affects TWO members of this Council as far as we are concerned means they will not be able to vote impartially and feel any Aye vote from them is tainted by their own national concerns and request they Abstain on this matter as we would inevitably be asked to Abstain on any matters where Hutori was a named party in the matter.

The Federal Republic of Hutori votes Nay on Resolution 20.

We however are concerned by the unilateral detainment of Istalian and Baltusian and we would support a Resolution returning them to their homes and would even be willing to make the request directly to the New Endralon government directly.


Jonathan Dean
Hutorian Ambassador to the World Congress Security Council

[matthewleitch]

Firstly I thank Hutori for their input on Resolution 20. However,

As this Resolution demands that we unilaterally remove our Embassy from New Endralon, which we will not do, we will not support.

The bill does not demand that you remove your Embassy from New Endralon and rather recommends it. Additionally, may I add that this would only be if New Endralon did not show any remorse for detaining Istalians and Baltusians and forcing them out of their homes in 72 hours. New Endralon merely have to apologise and admit that what they did was a mistake.

We thank Hutori for being willing to make a request to directly ask the New Endralon government to return people to their homes.

I ask the Hutorian Ambassador now, would he consider voting yes to this resolution? I thank him again for his co-operation in trying to resolve this issue diplomatically.

Patricia Grayson
Baltusian Ambassador to the World Congress Security Council

[Axxell]

Ambassadoe Dead,

I understand your remarks and I understand also that I forgot an essential details, my bad, sorry.

All the provisiom about the disarmament, this could be a temporary measure, not a permanent measure, to allow a pacification process more safe, more safe for the involves parties and for the possible peacekeeping mission to semd in the area.
After the complete pacification of Rutania of course the rutanians will be free To decided what they want.
About the crime wars, in effect I had to modify with more attention the draft, in a sense that the monarchists will be accountable for the responsability of the war, not of crime wara, something caused by an initial misunderstanding.

For the rest, a support for the Republicans side for my government should be grant, why? Because, as said, were not them to began the conflict, were not them to led a coup in Vanderbourg, and because they have all the right to Govern Rutania at the light of the result of the last elections.

The Democracy worked! The Rutanians expressed their choise. The minority side of the monarchists had only to respect these results, respect the installed Government and act at the opposition like in any other nation that we can recognized as a Democracy.
Here the problem is not to declare a side, the problem is to abstain ourself to do it!

And what are you saying here:

Enforcing Republican control over areas of Rutania that may have voted in favor of Monarchism during a democratic election is declaring a side and going directly against the will of the Rutanian people.

Who voted in favor of the monarchist simply didn't gain the elections! In Hutori Mr Dean, the people that didn't vote for the parties that forms the current Government should they decide to not recognize it and stop to respect the law? Are they authorized to take up the arms? The violent actions of the monarchists against the will of the people don't give them any right to pretend nothing!
Here we are not facing two factions with same stances and that compete between them, here we have a side victime of an aggression with all the right to enforce their policies all over the territory (or in Hutori depending by the electoral choice the citizens may chose to respect or not a law made by the Government or by the parties that they didn't vote?) and a part that didn't accept a democratic results and take up the arms to impose with the violence policies clearly minoritary.

Today we are not facing a situation where some citizens are in fear for their lives due to the action of an oppressive Government or that want fight against a dictature to establish a democracy or because the rulers don't respect the will of the People, the only situation where the people has all the right to rise up.

A neutral stance simply will give recognition to the motivation which aimed the monarchists, as accepted by this Organization which with a neutral stance will express to not believe in the values and the principles which aimed the creation of this organization, which aim the members of the Security Council and, if we want say so, which aim the majority of the nations which decide to vote for the current members of the SC.
The WC wants to avoid any imposition throught the violence of the will of a subject against the will of others, and this should be true at the international level as well as at the national level.
Or do we want recognize any dictature of this world as legitime expression of their peoples? Or do we want consider the Governements as separate entity respect the peoples of their nations?

In a simple question:

What should do this Organization when a Democracy is menaced and attaked by a force which want to tear it?
And in this case, if the monarchists believed in the Democracy then... they would have respected the result of the elections and the expression of the will of the people which clearly rewarded the parties in favor of the republic and against the transformation of the Commonwealth into a Monarchy.
The maintaining of a republican government form would not have menaced the lives of those who voted in favor of the monarchist parties nor their right which would not have changed after the elections compared to those of the other rutanian citizens.
Maybe the Republican Government began a persecution against those who voted for the monarchist parties? Or started to apply form of discrimination against them? Idon't think and we have any evidence of this.

So, my Government is disponible at least to change all the other parties of the Resolution highlighted by you Mr Dean, but we firmly believe that we cannot take a neutral stance and if there is a part whorty of all the reasons and of the support, this is the coalition of the Republicans and the legitimate Government, because here we have a legitimate Government, also if forced away the Capital and part of the Nation, which fight against a subversive group, a criminal group clearly guilty to be attemping to the democratic order of the State against the will democratically expressed by the rutanians during their last elections in respect of the constitutional provisions.

* * * * * * * * *
Regarding the case of New Endralon, the Istalian Government want specify that no istalians currently are detainend in New Endralon.
And we want informe you that New Endralon seems ready to reppeal its embargo against my Nation.
In anyway, we fully support Baltusia.
Have New Endralon showed any kind of evidence or proofs that the Baltusian citizens they are detaining is a spy? Or was there any reasonable suspect of this?
We are conscious that an embargo of a nation like New Endralon against Istalia or Baltusia will not affect greatly our economies, we said this also to New Endralon.
We simply believe that if a citizens is in danger, his government should commit itself to save him, it shall do this!
Then if New Emdralon wants show to Baltusia some evidence and this may result reliable, in this case our position would change totally.
Without any kind of evidence but only the word of New Endralon, Baltusia has all the right to pretend what it want.
If New Endralon is sure of what is saying, it should not be afraid and should be able to easily show also to Baltusia the evidence of the crimes of this individual. If not, it is only an unfair and arbitrary decision against an innocent.
And I'm quite sure that this Organization should be also aimed by the protection of the weaks and the innocents who suffer because of the injustice.

Thank you

~ Riccardo Malzi di Arenese, Istalian Ambassador to the World Congress

[matthewleitch]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I ask for the recommendations of the Security Council.

Baltusia was sent the following message by Aldegar:

Attention all Baltusian parties. It has come to our attention that one of your warships has intruded into our territorial waters. The crewmen were captured by our Aldegar Coast Guard. We demand 10 million ACR for release of the captives by April 30th, 4301 or they will be shot as spies.

DO NOT TRY TO MAKE A FALSE MOVE ON ALDEGAR!

Yazdan Willing, Ardeshir Nankebim
Aldegar Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Pādshāhi-ye Amjad-e Aldegār
Aldegar Unity Party

We urgently ask for international input and assistance on how to resolve this matter peacefully. Thank you.

Graham Burgmuller
Foreign Minister of Baltusia
Standing in for Patricia Grayson- Baltusian Ambassador to the Security Council

[Axxell]

What is it this? A ransom? Are they pirates or what? But apart this, does result to Baltusia the desappearing of one of its ships? And if yes, I'm obliged to ask to the Government of Baltusia why a warship of Baltusia was into the territorial water of Aldegar?
Said that, we need to know the dynamics of what happened. Have the Aldegarians warned the baltusian ship that it was in aldegarian waters? maybe the baltusian ship could have a problem with the navigation and/or positioning system; or did the Aldegarians act wiyhout any warning?
In any case Istalia thinks that there are more suitable ways to solve similar situations than asking a ransom!
Why didn't Aldegar requested to see the baltusian ambassador or reported the event to the international stage and especially here to the WC?
Or why not to present the situation toward the Organization of The Law of the Sea?

Here both Aldegar and Baltusia have to present their evidences, requests, motivations to deal with this situation.
If a baltusian warship entered in effect into the territorial waters of Aldegar, it should have had a very good reason because in this case this could be see as a violation of the international law on the sovereignty and violation of borders of another nation.
While we Ask to Aldegar to stop to act like a vulgar pirates and start to act like a sovereign nation, and th sovereign nations never stoops to such behavior, suitable for criminals and terrorist.
And we ask to Aldegar this: have you warned the baltusian ship of its position inside your borders? Maybe it didn't respond to you? Did it ignored your warning? Because if you acted without warning the baltusian ship, also this could be see as a violation of the most basic and internationally recognized rules of engagement.

We attend to hear the position of the two Nations.

Thank you.

~ Riccardo Malzi di Arenese, Istalian Ambassador to the World Congress