Ok, UK suggests the following, NATO forces in the region deal with the Iranian situation, Russian and Saudi forces look to assist the Syrians? If Russia diverts forces from Iran (NATO should be able to handle that side of things) then that should allow them to help fight back and stabilize Syria.

Are any other player nations looking to contribute militarily?

Germany applauds Indian achievement and suggests that inspectors be sent from IAEA and from countries like Indonesia and/or Bangladesh o course should they accept the mission), both being muslim countries (to avoid suspicacies) and not involved in the zone.

Also, should security troops be needed to help restablishing stability, Germany suggests those same countries for the same reasons.

We have previously discussed UN Security Council Reform - I think now (whilst the management get on with the work and we're not distracted by turn orders) to discuss this - Since all P5 members now have players I'm pretty sure we can get this done without PAs

UK Proposals are as follows

1) Expansion of the current permanent members - additional Permanent members to be

Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa

2) Veto powers of permanent members is removed - no more veto

3) Motions require a 2/3rds majority of Permanent members to vote in favour or abstain and a simple majority of the whole council.

4) Total number of Members to be 24 (so 14 non permanent members)

Thoughts? Would any P5 Member Veto this?

In reply to UK (msg # 15):

Germany has been advocating for something like this since decades, so you have German support.

In reply to UK (msg # 15):

Nigeria feels Africa is underrepresented this way. Being the country with the largest population in Africa should merit also a place, or at least being discussed.

In reply to Nigeria (msg # 17):

First I'd like to get feelings from the P5 before throwing this out to others

In reply to UK (msg # 15):

Russia can see no particular reason to support this and a signficiant reason to oppose this. The UNSC is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states, to agree to this proposal is to fundamentally surrender national sovereignty to the other UNSC members. The UK may be ready to sell for nothing having its national policy dictated from Beijing, but Russia is not ready to sell so cheaply having its national policy dictated from Johannesburg.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:10, Tue 09 Feb 2016.

In reply to Russia (msg # 19):

We are not changing the role of the security council - we are looking to prevent an individual nation halting security council action against the will of most of the world. We would hope that the requirements of both a simple majority and the agreement of 2/3rds of 10 permenant members would act as a safeguard.

The UNSC, as you state, is the only body that can pass binding resolutions - but these powers are still restricted by the original terms of the founding charter as to the duties and responsablities of the UNSC.

Security council reform is long overdue - the UK would love to hear any Russian thoughts on how we might proced with reforms and what form Russia would see them take.

To protect Russia and other nations we might suggest that the original P5 be allowed to retain their Veto when it comes to amendments to the UN Charter to assure them that the UN is not about to reform into some form of world government or that national sovereignty is to be devolved to it by stealth.

I hope that Russia would agree that reforms to make the UNSC more effective are necessary to promote peace and global stability.

In reply to UK (msg # 20):

Okay but the proposals you have made cannot happen without the unanimous consent of the 5.  One vote no and its over. BTW raising the certain nations to the security council is impossible without starting from scratch.  Bad enough the UK is being used as a patsy to unravel the UN by attempting to put nations that are specifically and irrevocably forbidden on the UNSC. Please read the charter and remember why it was made. We are certain their are still some people that recall what London looked like from 1942thru 1946. For shame to lose your diligence.

In reply to UK (msg # 20):

This subject can get really fascinating really quickly, but I have to ask that we put a pause on it for now. There are several factors currently in progress which I foresee could impact how things turn out, starting with that we have not yet heard from David on any of his orders, but there are other things as well.

In reply to China (msg # 21):
OOC:
Just fyi no nation is prohibited from being on the Unsc and all of the proposed have previously been as non permenant members. There is nothing in the charter I know of that can be interpreted in this way.

The ideas I'm proposing are based off ones that have been around for nearly half a century now (game time) and in that time have received widespread support from all the P5 to some extent (we're talking pre divergence)

There's lots of really interesting stuff out there about reform of the SC and why pretty much everyone says that it needs to happen and why it hasn't. Hell, I'd suggest the Annan plan if it wernt too fiddly to be worth it for the game.
_------------_

We'll put the debate on hold then. Hope David is OK as its not like he went silent on here whilst we were going through the turn.

His last log in was on February 2^nd. I also hope he's wellnd cna send his turns son. Has anyone tried to contact with him by mail?

The UNSC veto has always seemed, to me, to go against the spirit of the UN. "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others." Purely by virtue of being one of the founding members, certain countries get to dictate to the entire planet how a debate should form. It seems, lately, that they are unwilling to part with this disproportionate power.

France is happy to support the UK's proposal, with the proviso that the veto is retained with regards to changing the Charter.

Happy to wait to get into the debate proper until David's return, though.

Just a point here. Veto power is not for being funding members, as there were 51 members at its fundation, but to be one of the main countris in the winning side of WWII.

So, in fact veto power is due to have won a war, reinforcing the might makes right vision many have about diplomacy, and fully against the UN founding spirit.

In reply to Germany (msg # 26):

That's what I get for posting after 43hrs awake... Correction noted :)

In reply to France (msg # 27):



Continuing our debate we note China and Russia have expressed worries about the UKs proposals.

We hope that these nations would agree that USC reform is a worthwile goal - what form would they like to see reforms take?

In reply to UK (msg # 28):

When a world body can vote without a protection for those who dissent on the use of force, thus giving legal cover for an invasion, THAT IS A WORLD GOVERNMENT.

I do not think you understand how deep of a moral hole you have to dig yourself out of first before anyone is going to agree to this. There are still men alive today who can strip their shirts and bare the scars of the horror of what happens when the West given the opportunity to act without the restraint of a veto because in 1950 the West got the USSR out of the room long enough to ram through its latest crusade. The disgrace of what you did in Korea will not be forgotten, not in 85 years, not in 100 years, not in 500 years as it shows what the West actually feels about the sanctity of the UN and about respecting rights. You had your one chance to prove that you actually cared about principles, and you blew it. The West does not get to pretend that it is the moral centre of the universe. So I ask again, ‘Why should Russia bother with this? What will you give up to see this through?’ You could not even be bothered to include Indonesia in your proposals, the world’s 9th largest economy, so why should anyone believe that this is anything other than another attempt to stuff the council with another western European power? For starters, you could volunteer to take France, merely the 10th largest economy, entirely off the UNSC, or the UK will suffice as a leader should be willing to make sacrifices; one European power in in exchange for one out. Prove that you actually care about the UN to make sacrifices.

If you just want to expand the list of permanent, veto wielding, members of the UNSC then fine, the price is going to be a lot less:
-There has to be a recognition that the centre of gravity of the world has shifted, and it is not to the West. It is only going to be the top 10 economies allowed in, too many makes it impossible to get things done.
-For Russia, Indonesia, Japan and India; You and all the rest of the ESA have to agree to the Glob plan as discussed, *exactly* as discussed, we will not be the providers of more charity for a German Space Navy. Oh, look; the Germans just built another spaceship to seal their domination of space! If Germany has the money for a new ship then they bloody well have the money to maintain that ship and not abuse our hospitality. The entire idea of the Glob plan was to ensure harmony in space, do not think it has not gone unnoticed that as is, your plan does everything to ensure there will be no cooperation. No, you do not get to claim that you have just been excluding everyone else from that Mars base because you wanted to avoid problems with mixed ownership; you just brought in the Nordic Federation to that base, you can let in India, Russia and Indonesia.
-For my friend China, there has to be a complete forgiveness by the West of everything that went on in the ME2028 conflict, no more lingering sanctions, no prisoners, no charges, no more sniping and snide remarks, no hesitation on sporting events, no more that you taught them a lesson, etc, nothing. When the Chinese ambassador invites you his house for tea you say ‘I would like cream with sugar please’.
-Japan is not getting anywhere near the Security Council until Japan makes reparations for drilling in Russian territory. WWII was not so long ago that Russia will forget about it. Canada: contact me later, we have much to discuss about the Arctic, lets get rich together.
-Germany is not getting anywhere near the Security Council until there is an investigation and Germany can adequately explain what the hell is going on with how it is getting its oil. Again, WWII, not forgotten. The West has tainted the UNSC badly enough, it will not be degraded further with allowing a thief into its fold.

And why so?

Any redifinition of the UNSC pertains to ghe General Assembly, not the UNSC itself:

While this is true i ntheory, practice shows us otherwise.

How many wars has UNSC stopped? How many conflicto has it solved?

Very few, if any, and mostly by the liberal (usually unilateral) use of veto power by the P5. This has made UNSC the least effective of the UN organs and agencies.

The only instances where the defying it has lead to a resolución authorizing hte use of force have been fiascos (OOC: I hope I don't forget any, feel free to add to the list if so):

• Korea, 1950: see Russia talk about it. Fact is that the war is still technically on
• Iraq, 1990: lead to another war 10 years after whose consequences we're still payin
• Caliphate 2029 (OOC: I understand): yet to see to see

UNSC must be redefined, and veto power must be somewhat limited, if not outright taken off, if we want it to have any use. Otherwise, it will be a nice entertaining for those watching the news, but of little true use, as it has been to now.

In reply to Germany (msg # 31):

Article 108

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.


And here lies the part I am referring to .. You need the consent of all 5 permanent members to give up the veto.

So, you're saying that other countries must abide to this world government but you not...

Please, could you explain us exactly what the UNSC is for?

Is it a forum to discuss international conflicts and to try to reach a paceful sortie, or it is a way for a handful privilegees to courtail others' sovereignty while being themselves immune to it?

Ok - debate ends then - there is obviously no consensus on UNSC reform and I refuse to continue to allow to give a floor to Russia to continue to insult us and others.

We hope other nations will keep in mind Russia's little speech on the floor of the UN and her stated positions on these and other matters - we believe they certainly set out Russia's foreign policy in stark terms for all to see.

To address a few of the points you have made



You are aware that the UNSC can do this currently, don't you? And that you recently made use of this along side us in the invasion of Iran to protect the Kurds. This makes it sound as if you are saying that the UNSC should just be disbanded?



No and any attempt to do so will be Vetoed - this is the exact opposite of what we are trying to do - we want to make the security council work better - not increase the number of Vetoes that can derail any attempts to actually do something to help the world.

We also note that for all your posturing about our greed and self serving attitudes - we're not the ones demanding a price for much needed modernization and reform to make the UNSC a more modern and representative body



Nor-Fed has always been a member of that project - they're a member of the ESA.

This also has nothing to do with UNSC reform - you are not going to blackmail us into anything here on the floor of the UN. Nor are we going to even discuss this matter here. Talk to us at the correct negotiating table for this.


None of the above we are accused of is happening - following the UKs investigation into the circumstances China was absolved of blame following the discovery of the Iranian false flag operation - STOP MAKING THINGS UP.


smooth - very smooth. 'stop hating China for a war that happened less than 10 years ago (which no one is doing anyway) but NEVER FORGET WW2!' is that what we're saying


It is clear from the Russian position there is no common ground on this matter and so the dream of a more inclusive UNSC dies on the floor as Russia demands less a pound of flesh and more a human sacrifice for even the most basic of reforms


Here ends the debate

We'll save you the investigation: Germany obtains its oil from various sources.

But we guess you're asking about Germany securing the oil fields in the MIddle East conflict zone. If so, don't be afraid to ask openly.

True, Germany has occupied them to deny them to the terrorists of the Caliphate, and yesm they are beign exploited, and its due prices paid to their legitimate owners (the Iraquí and Kurdish governments), so that the income form them goes to their legitimate owners, not to the terrorists (something we guess even you will agree to). This is all in accordance to Ocupation and Internationalhumanitarian law (point 4, last paragraph): https://www.icrc.org/eng/resou...ents/misc/634kfc.htm

Maybe you should ask others, that obtain it by overpaying it manyfold, wihtout caring about where does it came from. This increases the prices (but, oh, this really benefits you) and favours oil smuggling from dubious sources (embargoed countries, stolen by pirates, terrorists, etc...)

And ,as we're giving explanations, maybe you could explain us how the revolt in Azerbaijan turend into a full fledged invasión, or why you keep supporting a government that is using chemical weapons (sonething that really is against International Law)...

Au contaire, this must be debated, more so now that Russia has admited that the UNSC is a way for a handful of nations to limit others' sovereignty while being themselves immune to it. The discussion has been delayed for too long, allowing it to be the most inefficient organ of the whole UN, while it should be its main one.

But we must be careful, if we want it to be more efficient instead of even less (if that can be).

So, those should be (in German opinion) some of the guidelines:

• If there are too many members, it will be inoperative, if too few, it won't be representative.
• If permanent members are selected only by National GDP (and is assumed contribution to UN Budget), as Russia suggests, then it will become a tool for the powerful to subject the weak, insted of the other way as it should be
• Veto power may be aceptable if properly used, but it should be limited, so that it can no be liberaly and unilateraly used as to now. Maybe instead of it a blocking minority should be decided

Feel free to add more guidelines, as surely htere are some Germany has not thought about, or to discuss those given by us, as they can sure be improved.

In reply to Germany (msg # 36):

Russia has stated what it basically sees as non negotiable points from its tone - given this and its ability to Veto any proposals the only thing continuing this debate will grant us is continuing to invite the kind of speaches Russia has so far provided us.

I have better things to do that slam my head repeatedly against a brick wall - We are tired of continually having to be the brokers - to find common with someone who continually denigrates any proposal we make or the idea that compromise can be reached only when cold hard cash is payed to one side by the other along side of a compromise in position

This is not happening - I am not spending ages in worthless debates, continuing to discussions with no hope of any results

The Russian position on these matters are so divorced from what we can see as being practicable, fair or even workable that it really appears there is no common ground we can reach for.

The UK proposals disadvantage the UK in several ways - we are proposing them because the current situation is not sustainable and is therefore detrimental to the stability of the United Nations - not because they gain us advantage

I have no intention of being told I must also bow to Russian demands on unrelated matters when I am already offering to give up a privilaged position for the benefit of the international community.

Unless Russia is able to say it is willing to at least negotiate on some of the points it has already made then any debate is stillborn and pointless.