Post by: Servant Corps on May 10, 2009, 10:03:14 am
The Model United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_United_Nations) is a very simulation of the real United Nations we know and love. People roleplay as Nations and seek to advance their own interest. It is good to do research on your country's position on world issues, so that you can better advance them, of course.
I can be the "President/Moderator" for this game. Here are the list of members on this year's Security Council.
Permenant Security Council Members (All has Veto Power)
*China---Pandarsenic
*France---Strife26
*Russian Federation--BigFatDwarf
*United Kingdom---Little
*United States--inaluct
Non-Permenat Security Council Members:
Austria
Japan---Emperor_Johnatan
Uganda---Jetman123
Burkina Faso---Aqizzar
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya---Zasit Alebath
Viet Nam
Costa Rica
Mexico---mainiac
Croatia--Dwarmin
Turkey
Pick whatever you want. I don't think we'll get 15 people to play though, in that case, I'll adjust the amount of people we need to be what we need. If we have more than 15 people, we can turn the security council into a General Assembly though.
The rules are semi-simple.
*There are "Agenda topics" by which the UN Security Council can focus on, altough I will be lienant on what the topics are about. After talking to each other about the issues, you can write a Proposal that will seek to resolve the Agenda topic. There will need to be 4 people Sponsoring the Resolution, and 3 people Signatories. Sponsors support the resolution in its entirty, Signatories do not need to support the resolution but want to have the UN consider it. Once you get 4 Sponsors and 3 Signatories, it becomes a "Proposed Resolution".
*A Proposed Resolution can be brought up for consideration if someone motions to "Consider a Resolution". I will give some time for people to debate the motion. A majority is needed for the motion to pass, and the Resolution to be Considered.
*There are are a couple of motions that can be done to Proposed Resolutions that are being considered...
---You can "Amend the Resolution", changing the text of the resolution. A majority is needed for the motion to pass, amending the Resolution. If all the Sponsors of the original Proposed Resolution are Sponsors of the Amendment, the Amendment gets passed without any vote.
---You can "Divide the Question", dividing the resolution into sections to be voted on separately before voting on the final resolution. Dividing the Question requires a majority vote.
---You can vote close debate, preventing anyone from amending or dividing the Question. Closing debate requires a majority vote. The Proposed Resolution gets into the voting procedure, where it needs the support of 2/3rds of the Security Council (and no Vetos from the Permenant Security Council members) for it to pass.
---You can vote to "Adopt by Consensus" the Draft Resolution, bypassing regular voting procedures if everyone supports the proposal. It requires the support of all security council members.
---You can vote to "Table The Issue", setting aside the proposed resolution without a final vote. This requires a 2/3rd majority vote.
Hopefully, this is a simplified version of the MUN Security Council rules. There may be other complications that may arise, but we'll deal with them later, I hope. There are also "Presidental Statements", which are adopted by consenus, but are weaker than that of resolutions, which are technically binding on all UN members.
Some Guides to Help Play:
*How To Write a UN Resolution (http://www.unausa.org/Page.aspx?pid=522)
Post by: Squeegy on May 10, 2009, 10:10:56 am
Bay12Court
doing quite well
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Post by: Dwarmin on May 10, 2009, 10:22:21 am
Post by: inaluct on May 10, 2009, 12:13:25 pm
Anyway, can I be the United States?
Post by: BigFatDwarf on May 10, 2009, 12:38:18 pm
Post by: Zasit Alebath on May 10, 2009, 01:19:48 pm
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ... always had sympathy for colonel Gadaffi :)
Post by: Servant Corps on May 10, 2009, 02:48:37 pm
Post by: Squeegy on May 10, 2009, 02:49:50 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on May 10, 2009, 02:51:47 pm
Post by: Squeegy on May 10, 2009, 02:59:58 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on May 10, 2009, 03:01:59 pm
I'm callin' Burkina Faso.
Post by: inaluct on May 10, 2009, 03:12:52 pm
Fuck.
I was thinking "Well, looks like they don't have Burkina Faso on here, so I'll go for the United States."
Anyway, we still need a lot of people in here.
Post by: Servant Corps on May 10, 2009, 03:27:54 pm
However, Burkina Faso is on the security council. Lolwut?
Quote
Ten other members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms starting on 1 January, with five replaced each year. The members are chosen by regional groups and confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly. The African bloc chooses three members; the Latin America and the Caribbean, Asian, and Western European and Others blocs choose two members each; and the Eastern European bloc chooses one member. Also, one of these members is an Arab country, alternately from the Asian or African bloc.[8]
There was one open African bloc seat, so the African bloc chosen Burkina Faso to fill that seat.
Germany was last on the Security Council in 2003-2004. I'm not sure how I can put Germany on the Security Council now, though I guess you could pick Austria, because it's right next to Germany.
According to Wikipedia, there is an alliance between the G4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) with the expressed goal of "supporting each other’s bid for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council". However, there is a larger alliance, the "Uniting for Consensus", with 40 members, who are opposed to the goals of the G4, so I don't see how that can be feasibly possible.
EDIT: I got a better idea. Kick Austria out, let Germany onto the Security Council. Um, would the current players who already sign up agree to this?
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 10, 2009, 03:38:27 pm
I don't approve of altering the country list from the real-life list. :|
Post by: Little on May 10, 2009, 03:48:52 pm
The issue we're discussing could be a North Korean invasion of South Korea.
Post by: Strife26 on May 10, 2009, 04:02:15 pm
I guess that I'm the Frenchies then?
Post by: Servant Corps on May 10, 2009, 08:26:03 pm
Do you think you want to start off with a 'Crisis Simulation', or no? A Crisis Simulation is like Little stated (a war between North Korea and South Korea), a sudden 'random' event that forces the Security Council to react to this event. If you want to do that, I'm for it, but crisis simulations usually work when they are unexpected.
Here's five random Agenda topics I picked out:
---Peace and security in Africa
---The Situation in Georgia
---Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict
---Nuclear Non-Proliferation
---Post Conflict Peacekeeping
I did avoid some Agenda topics that I was afraid could lead to some heated arguments, but if you got any Agenda topic you wish to suggest, just state it, and I'll add it to the list.
Post by: inaluct on May 10, 2009, 08:50:19 pm
Post by: Strife26 on May 10, 2009, 08:54:46 pm
Post by: Emperor_Jonathan on May 10, 2009, 08:57:03 pm
Post by: inaluct on May 10, 2009, 09:04:34 pm
A resolution to remove the NPT?Yeah, but that's retarded and the second you baguette eating pansies propose that, I will personally push the Big Red Button.
Just being in character here.
Post by: Little on May 10, 2009, 09:07:14 pm
Post by: Squeegy on May 10, 2009, 09:30:02 pm
Post by: Strife26 on May 10, 2009, 09:34:22 pm
A resolution to remove the NPT?Yeah, but that's retarded and the second you baguette eating pansies propose that, I will personally push the Big Red Button.
Just being in character here.
We have nukes too mon ami. Ultimate Resistahnce.
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 10, 2009, 09:37:44 pm
And just for reference, as a 4-year veteran of my high school's MUN club, it really is the most fun if everyone stays legitimately in character. :D
Post by: Servant Corps on May 10, 2009, 09:51:20 pm
And Squeegy: Ask to see if BigFatDwarf can exchange Russia with you. Otherwise, I can have you as backup in case Russia goes inactive.
Post by: BigFatDwarf on May 11, 2009, 02:59:38 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on May 11, 2009, 10:16:49 pm
Post by: BigFatDwarf on May 12, 2009, 04:27:32 pm
Post by: Dwarmin on May 21, 2009, 10:49:31 am
*bangs shoe on podium*
Post by: Servant Corps on May 21, 2009, 12:20:53 pm
BigFatDwarf, keep Russia, Squeegy isn't going to be posting I think.
Let start, if you can.
Post by: BigFatDwarf on May 22, 2009, 07:41:28 pm
Post by: Wild Goose on May 22, 2009, 09:01:32 pm
Wow, I've never done anything like this before. Maybe I should give it a try, for variety's sake, but I'd be completely unfamiliar with it.
What level does my representative have to be before he can cast Lightning Bolt? ;D
I suppose I could be a Security Council lurking nation, for a while, before I get active.
I'm not sure which nation to pick...I'm not particularly familiar with most of the available ones, unfortunately.
Mexico or Turkey, maybe?
Post by: Servant Corps on May 26, 2009, 03:36:48 pm
I can play as North Korea if you want to conduct any diplomacy with me.
Post by: Jetman123 on May 26, 2009, 03:47:07 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on May 26, 2009, 04:25:10 pm
Post by: Dwarmin on May 26, 2009, 04:29:22 pm
I demand that North Korea justify their actions to the security council.
Post by: Strife26 on May 26, 2009, 04:43:55 pm
I'd also like to find a specific sheet on exactly what they're testing (the PM mentioned cruise missiles, which is a very big deal to me).
Post by: Servant Corps on May 26, 2009, 04:54:21 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on May 26, 2009, 05:01:29 pm
Burkina Faso will abstain for the moment, until the situation and views of the Council clarify.
Post by: inaluct on May 26, 2009, 05:37:50 pm
Post by: Emperor_Jonathan on May 26, 2009, 07:14:41 pm
Post by: Jetman123 on May 26, 2009, 07:35:36 pm
This is like, totally uncool on the part of North Korea, man. Their nuclear test is obviously intended as a means of flexing their proverbial muscles in view of the rest of the world. Their growing audacity regarding nuclear proliferation and their trail of human rights violations miles long should make it clear to the council that we must resolve this issue once and for all.
However, I must point out that the North Korean government is NOT firing any sort of nuclear warhead as far as we can determine, merely attempting to grow their rocket program. Let us be reasonable.
Post by: Dwarmin on May 26, 2009, 07:53:56 pm
But, in return, we expect the same from North Korea-who has a history of breaking treaties they sign in good faith. They have shamed themselves in front of the international community time and time again. Their actions are indefensible.
Post by: inaluct on May 26, 2009, 07:58:32 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on May 26, 2009, 08:03:56 pm
Let the lessons of Africa be the lessons of the world. Irrational, unsatisfiable criminal dictators understand only force. North Korea is, as yet, a threat only to itself. It's leaders must be taught a harsh lesson, while they can still be safely taught anything.
Post by: Strife26 on May 26, 2009, 08:43:46 pm
Post by: Little on May 26, 2009, 08:47:22 pm
1A. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to terminate it's nuclear program
1B. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to allow UN inspectors access to it's nuclear plants.
Seeing as how neither of these options have worked in the past, I, with the full might of Britain behind me, suggest a new plan of action!
2A. Force North Korea to allow emigration to South Korea
2B. After all emigrants have been allowed to flee, the UN Security Council will impose an international blockade on North Korea.
Before the plan is voted upon, there will be a discussion in order to address any concerns. North Korea has degenerated to the pint where millions live in poverty so wretched it makes me want to rip open Kim Jong Il's little fantasy world and spit in his face. He has damned millions during famines while letting others perish in conditions many human rights organizations cringe at. The government is unstable, their leader is unstable, and the country is falling apart. This has progressed to the point where something needs to be done for the people in the country, damnit!
Post by: Aqizzar on May 26, 2009, 08:51:46 pm
Post by: Strife26 on May 26, 2009, 08:53:17 pm
Post by: inaluct on May 26, 2009, 08:53:47 pm
What lesson do you have to teach?And what lesson do you have to teach us, FRANCE?! Maybe we should let North Korea eat cake, maybe?! Or we should surrender our territory to them?! HUH?! FILTHY COMMUNISTS
This has progressed to the point where something needs to be done for the people in the country, damnit!Calm down, Britain. You're acting crazy. Also, your food is disgusting.
The United States echoes the opinion of Burkina Faso.
Post by: Servant Corps on May 26, 2009, 09:07:34 pm
DPRK seeks to defend itself against imperialism. That is our goal. We won't mince words. We believe the United States, working with its South Korean puppet regime, plans to invade our country. The US and South Korea are buying lots of weapons and are staging massive military excerises in order to prepare for this upcoming invasion, so as to create a new unipolar power. The South Koreans, in particular, have attempted to stage diplomatic provocations, such as spreading properganda and moving a border marker. The United States has also engaged in its own share of provocations, such as condemning our peaceful space program.
We have signed deals with the United States and South Korea, and it is both the United States and South Korea who would seek to tear these deals apart. The treaties are basically "dead documents", meaning absolutely nothing, due to the provocations by both the United States and South Korea.
We have conducted nuclear tests, because we know that it is these nuclear tests that would demonstrate the might of the DPRK's military, and would deter a military invasion. If imperialistic aggressors invade our country, we will do whatever it takes to defend our country. If South Korea and the United States do not attack us, then they should have no such worry.
If it is not for these nuclear weapons and the might of the People's Army, DPRK would have been defenseless, and would have fallen into the hands of imperialists. Do you expect us to give up these weapons, only to then get invaded by the United States? It is these nukes that has kept the entire Korean Peninsula safe, because without them, I would guarrante that there would have been another Korean War.
We are not the ones staging provocations, it is the United States and South Koreans who are. We are merely seeking to defend ourselves.
We will not enter into 6-party talks, as we believe them to a platform for undisguisedly pursuing the confrontation with the DPRK. We prefer instead to have direct talks with the United States of America, to face them down and to talk, face-to-face. The United States claim that they desire peace, despite the numerous provocations it has done. Let us see if the US is truly sincere this time.
(Oh, and Pandarsenic/China, since you are one of my greatest ally, please contact me ASAP. Thanks.)
Post by: inaluct on May 26, 2009, 09:26:19 pm
You have made no public advances in your space program, and yet you have conducted numerous ballistic missile tests.
Your ongoing weapons testing threatens the safety of innocent people living all across Asia and the world, and is unacceptable.
You want talks? Fine. Exclusively between you and the United States? Unacceptable. This issue threatens countries such as Japan and Burkina Faso; not just the U.S. If you want peace talks, you'll have to talk to everyone involved. We are willing to work for peace, but both sides must be open, and we must talk in plain view of the world.
(Oh, and Aqizzar/Burkina Faso, since you are one of our most respectable allied countries, contact me immediately.)
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 26, 2009, 09:58:58 pm
Post by: inaluct on May 26, 2009, 10:03:50 pm
such as
"Such as" isn't exclusive.
Post by: Aqizzar on May 26, 2009, 10:13:28 pm
((Sorry folks, but I've got a real job to go to. Burkina Faso has spoken it's piece for now.))
Post by: inaluct on May 26, 2009, 10:17:04 pm
Post by: Strife26 on May 26, 2009, 10:19:39 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: mainiac on May 26, 2009, 11:32:31 pm
If you guys are doing the Koreans crises, here's a great article that discusses the DPRK/American back and forth on the issue from '94 to 2004:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
It's definitely the best article on the topic I've ever read. It gets into the tasty political undertones behind the actions. While it doesn't discuss the Chinese policy enough, it really shows how the situation got to the point where the Koreans were ready to throw caution to the wind with their first test. There's also some interesting history, like how before the '94 accord Clinton was making serious threats of war and mobilizing for a serious campaign.))
Post by: Servant Corps on May 26, 2009, 11:37:51 pm
In April 2009, we have attempted to launch another peaceful satellite into orbitKwangmyŏngsŏng-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy%C5%8Fngs%C5%8Fng-2), and we have succeded in this launch, just as we have succeded in 1998. In both cases, we have a demonstrated a functioning space program, by placing satellites into orbit. We believed that when the UNSC condemned our peaceful space program, the UNSC is insulting the people of the DPRK and is displaying double-standards, only allowing some nations to launch satellites while condemning others. We believe that the UNSC is also violating the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty which states that:
Quote
Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law
We have made great advances in our space program, but you seek to deny it by claiming our space program is a cover. We do urge the UNSC to retract its insult, but this can be negogiated with during the Talks.
I concur with the People's Republic of China in that I do not believe that Burkina Faso has a stake in the situation. The DPRK does believe that having direct talks with the United States is the way foward, but, after some internal discussions, we are willing to consider the creation of a Three-Party Framework instead of the Five-Party Framework. The United States, the PRC, and the DPRK will be able to communicate with each other so as to come up with an agreement.
Spoiler: OOC to Mainiac (click to show/hide)
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 26, 2009, 11:53:44 pm
Post by: Emperor_Jonathan on May 27, 2009, 12:09:38 am
Post by: inaluct on May 27, 2009, 12:37:48 am
I'm busy now, or I would write more. :<
Post by: mainiac on May 27, 2009, 12:41:41 am
Mexico
The representative from Mexico strongly disagrees with the sentiment that nuclear proliferation is a regional concern. The government of Mexico strongly maintains the policy that nuclear proliferation is a threat to all people worldwide. This alarming event is already being felt across the world and could have disastrous consequences towards millions. The U.N. should recognize that nuclear proliferation is a global affair and support the efforts of it's members who are best able to resolve this issue. Therefore we propose:
3A: Resolved: Preventing nuclear proliferation is a matter of global urgency which all nations of the world have an interest in.
4A: The U.N. Security Council urges the continuation of six party talks
5A: The U.N. Security Council urges the DPRK to re-enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as part of a framework for peaceful nuclear development and normalization of relations.
5B: The U.N. Security Council urges the U.S. to revisit the 1994 Accord as part of a framework for nuclear disarmament.
The Mexican government feels that proposals 1 and 2 are counter productive and opposes these measures.
Recognizing the effectiveness of sanctions undertaken in 2006, the security council should encourage the same measures be considered again. These measures have a proven track record of success. We urge that all neighbors of the DPRK give these sanctions their full support ((translation: that's you, China!)) as they have proven the most successful means of discouraging nuclear proliferation in the past.
6A: Encouraging the neighbors of the DPRK to swiftly agree to an immediate freezing of DPRK finances and a cessation of all trade excluding humanitarian supplies.
Post by: Little on May 27, 2009, 12:45:09 am
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 27, 2009, 12:46:15 am
((There you go. :P))
Post by: mainiac on May 27, 2009, 12:59:54 am
Mexico's insult to the People's Republic of China will not be taken lightly. We shall disregard his input until we receive a formal public apology.
((I put stuff in double parenthesis if it is out of character. I put that in there because it's not something that would be bluntly stated, but everyone would read between the lines, given the history of the 2006 sanctions. In 2006, China sat on the fence for a few months before deciding to freeze North Korea accounts. This action by the Chinese was quickly followed by North Korea agreeing to new talks.))
Further sanctions will accomplish extremely little. Sadly, your plan follows the failed policy of it's predecessors. I was chosen by the Prime Minister to represent Britain, and I don't think following failed policy is a shining example of foreign policy by any standard.
I strongly disagree. The 2006 sanctions were very successful and paved the way for the first negotiations in 12 years. Clearly similar measures should be quickly undertaken.
Post by: Zasit Alebath on May 27, 2009, 03:09:37 am
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya proposes:
7A. Nuclear weapon proliferation, but allowing every country to use nuclear energy in peaceful purposes. And yes, that includes the Islamic republic of Iran
7B. Economic help for DPRK people.
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 27, 2009, 03:15:18 am
Post by: Jetman123 on May 27, 2009, 03:26:17 am
Uganda once again publically condemns North Korea:
"The Ugandan government fully understands and supports the North Korean space effort and their efforts to explore space. We are reasonable. We understand. However, if North Korea wishes to avoid repercussions, it must remain more open about it's launches, provide full launch information to the UNSC, and give us their personal assurance they are not attempting to create any sort of tactical short range nuclear weapon.
"In addition, North Korea does not exist in a vaccum. This is a multipolar situation. It does not merely involve the US and North Korea. Uganda will fight hard to ensure that this situation is not resolved in the back channel.
"Uganda strongly urges North Korea to prove that it has nothing to hide in regards to it's rocket program, and severely condemns it's attempts at nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction are NOT the answer in ANY case. This is a worldwide constant. North Korea is not being treated specially. ANY nation with suspicious rocket weapons would be asked the same.
"Uganda also reminds North Korea that having a nuclear weapons program _increases_ the chance that military actions against North Korea will take place. It is not a deterrent. It is a causus belli. This is not a threat, merely a reminder.
"As a final note, however, Uganda commends the North Korean government for establishing contact with the UNSC, and strongly hopes to work with the North Koreans towards a peaceful solution."
Post by: BigFatDwarf on May 27, 2009, 10:10:26 am
Russian Federation supports proposition 7B and is prepared to fund it. We would also like to state that besides economic help, the UNSC should work towards improving their economy besides merely supporting it. Russia also supports proposition 7B about spreading nuclear weapons globaly to more nations. We believe this would lessen the pressure in diplomacy, as any of the nuclear weaponry bearing nation poses a threat, and with it, a diplomacy penalty, to the nations not having nuclear weapons. We believe this will improve global diplomacy, as the nations with nuclear weapons will not be able to threat other nations so efficiently.
Ahem. As the representative of Uganda stated, North Korea should be more open towards all and any major space launches and tests. We urge North Korea to present a proof that what they're launching are really space exploring rockets and satelites, not some nuclear ballistic missles.
Post by: Servant Corps on May 27, 2009, 12:14:39 pm
Draft 1 (Little mentioned it, but I didn't see who actually proposed it)
Quote
1A. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to terminate it's nuclear program0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
1B. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to allow UN inspectors access to it's nuclear plants.
Draft 2 (Proposed by Great Britian)
Quote
2A. Force North Korea to allow emigration to South Korea0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
2B. After all emigrants have been allowed to flee, the UN Security Council will impose an international blockade on North Korea.
Draft 3 (Proposed by Mexico)
Quote
3A: Resolved: Preventing nuclear proliferation is a matter of global urgency which all nations of the world have an interest in.0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
Draft 4 (Proposed by Mexico)
Quote
4A: The U.N. Security Council urges the continuation of six party talks1 Sponsor, 0 Signatories
(Uganda)
Draft 5 (Proposed by Mexico)
Quote
5A: The U.N. Security Council urges the DPRK to re-enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as part of a framework for peaceful nuclear development and normalization of relations.0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
5B: The U.N. Security Council urges the U.S. to revisit the 1994 Accord as part of a framework for nuclear disarmament.
Draft 6 (Proposed by Mexico)
Quote
6A: Encouraging the neighbors of the DPRK to swiftly agree to an immediate freezing of DPRK finances and a cessation of all trade excluding humanitarian supplies.0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
Draft 7 (Proposed by Libya)
Quote
7A. Nuclear weapon proliferation, but allowing every country to use nuclear energy in peaceful purposes. And yes, that includes the Islamic republic of Iran1 Sponsor (I am assuming that Russia also supports 7A about spreading nuclear weapons globally), 0 Signatories
7B. Economic help for DPRK people.
(Russia)
I'm assuming that each of the numbered clauses represent a seperate draft. I have seen people support certain clauses in each draft.
To get a Draft promoted to a Resolution, you must get 4 Sponsors and 3 Signatories to sign upon a Draft. Sponsors support the resolution, while Signatories may not support the resolution but merely want the resolution to be discussed. Then, the UNSC must pass a "Consider a Resolution", which requires a majority vote.
Then the Resolution can be considered as normal. You can also seek to amend a draft as well...and if all the sponsors for the original amendment sign up to sponsor the amendment, then the amendment get passed without a vote.
I have attempted to determine if you are sponsoring a resolution if you state your support for it. If I have made a mistake, please alert me so that I may update this list of drafts.
Post by: Dwarmin on May 27, 2009, 12:44:23 pm
We must put a halt to this madness! Are they so willing are they to pretend to be defiant heroes in the face of evil they would plunge the region into chaos? Their actions show that this crisis was created for no other reason than to prop up a dying regime. Perhaps more manufactured enemies would take your peoples minds off their empty stomachs?
Surely even China can agree, North Korea is a failed state. Are not the thousands of refugees that stream into your border annually proof enough? We understand your need to flew your muscle to Washington, but do not let petty political games get in the way of progress.
Post by: mainiac on May 27, 2009, 01:20:21 pm
Part A appears to be pursuant of the same goals as the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, which the Islamic Republic of Iran has already signed and ratified. The NNPT clearly establishes the right of all nations to develop peaceful nuclear energy technologies. The peaceful power generation technologies promoted by the NNPT are being used by 27 nations operating more then 350 such plants. These light water reactors do not allow for weaponization and have risen to provide 30% of nuclear power generation since the adoption of the NNPT in the 90s while the number of nuclear weapons worldwide has declined. The security council should continue to promote this peaceful accord on nuclear power. A policy which would undermine this crucial document is clearly unacceptable.
Part B appears to undermine the economic sanctions this body has imposed on the DPRK. This body has acknowledged that plight of the North Korean people is a matter of grave concern. However economic assistance to the North Korean regime has not resulted in improvements for the North Korean people. Therefore this body should continue it's current policy of allowing only humanitarian aid of food, fertilizer and heating oil. If six party or two party talks offer an agreement for nuclear disarmament, economic aid should be agreed to as was in the 1994 accord. However economic aid without an agreement to disarm is completely unacceptable.
Post by: BigFatDwarf on May 27, 2009, 01:55:06 pm
1 Sponsor (I am assuming that Russia also supports 7A about spreading nuclear weapons globally), 0 Signatories
(Russia)
Russia also supports proposition 7B about spreading nuclear weapons globaly to more nations.
Ahh yes, sorry. I mistyped 7B again instead of 7A
Post by: Servant Corps on May 27, 2009, 04:14:16 pm
Quote from: Jetman123
However, if North Korea wishes to avoid repercussions, it must remain more open about it's launches, provide full launch information to the UNSC, and give us their personal assurance they are not attempting to create any sort of tactical short range nuclear weapon.
In return for giving launch information to the UNSC, we first must have the UNSC apologize for its insult, and affirm that our space program is for peaceful purposes. By removing this insult, we would be able to see the UNSC is negogiating in good faith, and we will be happy to provide all the information the UNSC needs to know about our space program.
However, we will not give personal assurance that we are creating any sort of tactical short range nuclear weapon. We will do what is necessary in order to defend the DPRK from any external threat, and at the moment, the danger of an invasion is very high indeed. Nuclear weapons does work in deterring imperialism and protecting the soverignity of the Korean people.
To Japan, we frankly don't trust you. Years ago, you colonized the Korean Pennisula and engaged in dreadful crimes against humanity, crimes that you have not yet apologized for. You are in alliance with the United States, and thus indirectly pose a threat to our security. There are radicals trying to convince Japan to gain nuclear weapons and re-invade Korea. Even now, you are engaging in human right abuses by suppressing the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryon), a pro-DPRK organization dedicated to the peaceful reunification of Korea. This strongly suggest discussions with your nation might be counterproductive. We however believe that your interests can be adequately represented by the United States in two-party talks, or three-party talks.
The DPRK will stress that new sanctions will not affect the behavior of the DPRK. We have been under sanctions from the UNSC and the imperialists for a long time, and thus we have experience in dealing with sanctions. The DPRK is self-reliant, and will continue to survive.
The DPRK also will make a statement in favor of nuclear nonproliferation.
Post by: Emperor_Jonathan on May 27, 2009, 04:58:09 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on May 28, 2009, 01:48:09 am
We have informed the south Korean regime that if they join up with the PSI, we would be treating it as if south Korea has violated the 1953 armistice, and thus, that south Korea would be declaring war on the DPRK. Despite our warning, the south Koreans has decided to enter into the PSI anyway, using the excuse of our recent nuclear test.
The 1953 Armistice specifically bans "any form of blockade" against the other belligerent party. Indeed, the main purpose of the PSI is to blockade the DPRK by intercepting our shipping vessels, so when the south Koreans has joined up with the PSI, it is engaging in such a blockade.
Since the south Koreans are violating the armistice, the DPRK no longer feel bound by it. The puppet south Korean regime, alongside with American imperialists, threaten DPRK's security, and while they call upon us to follow their wishes, the south Koreans do not even follow the armistice.
Since the armistice is no longer in effect, it is only natural that a State of War now exist.
We will alert the UNSC of the three actions that we are going to be engaging in, as a result of the current State of War that now exists between the DPRK and the south Korean regime:
1. The DPRK will deal a decisive and merciless retaliatory blow, no matter from which place, at any attempt to stop, check and inspect its vessels, regarding it as a violation of its inviolable sovereignty and territory and a grave provocation to it.
2. The DPRK will take such a practical counter-action as in the wartime now that the south Korean authorities declared a war in wanton violation of its dignity and sovereignty by fully participating in the PSI.
3. We will not guarantee the legal status of the five islands under the south side's control (Paekryong, Taechong, Sochong, Yonphyong and U islands) in our side's territorial waters northwest of the extension of the Military Demarcation Line in the West Sea of Korea and safe sailing of warships of the U.S. imperialist aggression forces and the south Korean puppet navy and civilian ships operating in the waters around there.
Spoiler: OOC (click to show/hide)
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 28, 2009, 02:09:17 am
Post by: Zasit Alebath on May 28, 2009, 04:25:28 am
Post by: Jetman123 on May 28, 2009, 07:00:34 am
Uganda calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities should they start, return to six party talks as a temporary measure to find a resolution to this conflict (NOT in terms of the nuclear weapons program - that can be resolved afterwards), and urges all nations in the theater to act calmly and rationally to this crisis. Peace must be preserved at all costs.
On another matter, the Ugandan government accepts the North Korean's terms. In response to the NK statement: "We are very glad you have accepted these terms and commend you for acting rationally. We remain dissapointed in your lack of openness about your WMD programs, however, we are convinced this is a step in the right direction. Further arrangements shall follow once the current diplomatic crisis is resolved."
Post by: mainiac on May 28, 2009, 08:04:15 am
Spoiler: China (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Libya (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Uganda (click to show/hide)
((I'm not saying that you guys should become experts on geopolitics for this game. But you really should get some basic familiarity with the nations you are playing as. You appear to be getting your information by S.C.'s North Korean press releases. His press releases are well written and I applaud him for that. However North Korean public statements are generally written without the slightest attempt at international credibility. Suggesting that North Korea be taken at face value would get you some funny looks on the security council. Just browsing a wikipedia article or two on your country and reading a news story on the games current crises is all it would take to make this game be more then random illogical threats. I can understand how I should be explaining any references to obscure stuff like, the 1994 accord, but this game kinda requires at least some background...
'Cause reactions like this indicate that your countries either think that North Korea is a great strategic asset or that you are trying to start either WWIII or a second cold war. I'm pretty sure that the "Hermit Kingdom" is a valuable strategic asset to nobody. The three nations that have replied so far all stand to lose a lot in WWIII or a second cold war.
A game of diplomacy can't work if the players don't do their research and schizophrenically undermine their own policies. And stop living in the cold war, it ended nearly 20 years ago. If you want to start a game about the cold war or a second cold war, I recommend you start a cold war game. These belligerent replies are what you'd expect from the 60's nuclear staring contests, not the new millennium.
Sorry if I went a little overboard, but I find international politics to be a very interesting topic. And the international community isn't exactly leaping to North Korea's defense... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/27/AR2009052702353.html?hpid=topnews)))
Post by: Servant Corps on May 28, 2009, 10:23:35 am
I would expect the South Korean to pull back to avoid a confronation with Pandarsenic/China, resolving this "crisis", but this would showcase that Pandarsenic/China will defend North Korea no matter what, providing a blank check, making inaluct/USA's job a whole lot harder than it is in real life.
I don't really like telling people though that they are roleplaying the countries badly, though.))
Post by: Aqizzar on May 28, 2009, 10:25:09 am
Did you really think this "game" would turn out any differently? What forum are you hanging around?))
Post by: Servant Corps on May 28, 2009, 10:43:05 am
Post by: Jetman123 on May 28, 2009, 11:03:31 am
The priority one for me is peace in the region. Everything else comes second. To maintain peace we must maintain communication.))
Post by: mainiac on May 28, 2009, 12:25:54 pm
I would expect the South Korean to pull back to avoid a confronation with Pandarsenic/China, resolving this "crisis", but this would showcase that Pandarsenic/China will defend North Korea no matter what, providing a blank check, making inaluct/USA's job a whole lot harder than it is in real life.
((It's an interesting hypothetical. I'd say, it boils down to who's got the guns and what everyone stands to win and lose:
-Militarily: there's no contest. China's military is ready for land, not naval, engagements. They can't take on someone working with the seventh fleet. Economically, the conflict would be far worse for trade dependent China. Even without the seventh fleet, that would make this conflict too dangerous.
-Korea: small victory vs. big defeat; Kim is watching, he's more dangerous to them then the Chinese navy. Korea really wants to win.
-America: pyrrhic victory vs. big defeat vs. hope for compromise; same as Korea, plus allies worldwide (Isreal, Taiwan, Afghanistan are watching) however America loses by alienating either side, so wants to make this incident disappear.
-China: Pyric victory vs. incidental defeat; China would be getting goodwill with Kim by destroying goodwill with much more important countries (i.e. most of the world). But they don't have a free press so...
My prediction: Europe and America do their best to downplay the incident. China quietly backpedals. A face saving compromise is quickly announced that reaffirms that Korea will not be boarding ships in Chinese territorial waters which is exactly what China wanted all along, what are you talking about? The incident never makes Chinese news, is off international news in a few hours but Korea get's a kick out of it between coverage of the more pressing issue in the north. China might quietly get a new ambassador.))
((I'm pursuing a policy of "encourage good behaviour". I don't actually hold out much hope for NK holding to it's demands. However, spitting in NK's face when we're pretty much lucky they're even TALKING to us at this point is pretty much useless and will do nothing except aggravate them until they cut off comms entirely.
The priority one for me is peace in the region. Everything else comes second. To maintain peace we must maintain communication.))
((That's a valid concern. However the Korean terms are a declaration that a state of open war now exists. What is there to encourage? To slip back into the game for a moment...))
The mexican ambassador comments to the ugandan ambassador during a recess. "Sadly, maintaining communication seems like a lost cause at this point. The North Koreans may be talking, but they are saying nothing. We have seen this in the past. At some point, they will let us know what they want and true communication can begin. Before that point, they simply wish to make the crisis as large as possible..." here he gives a sideways glance at certain members of the assembly before continuing. "Three years before the bank freeze brought them to the table. Today... who knows?"
((Burkina Faso is way too far behind to catch up now, but I have to ask.
Did you really think this "game" would turn out any differently? What forum are you hanging around?))
((You raise a valid point. But not much has passed, so I encourage the return of a voice of sanity.))
Post by: Jetman123 on May 28, 2009, 12:59:25 pm
Post by: mainiac on May 28, 2009, 01:30:03 pm
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 28, 2009, 03:18:12 pm
Spoiler: China (click to show/hide)
((If there's one thing I've learned in my 4 years of Model United Nations experience, it's that being outrageous and belligerent is more fun than being on-policy, but hell, if you're gonna piss and moan....))
The People's Republic of China has issued a statement of dual condemnation, against North Korea's disregard for its neighbors and the region with its nuclear weapons policy and South Korea's militant action giving the North Koreans a chance to provoke a war they can attempt, however weakly, to paint as legitimate.
Post by: Servant Corps on May 28, 2009, 03:20:58 pm
Quote from: Servant Corps
Current Drafts:
Draft 1 (Little mentioned it, but I didn't see who actually proposed it)Quote1A. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to terminate it's nuclear program0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
1B. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to allow UN inspectors access to it's nuclear plants.
Draft 2 (Proposed by Great Britian)Quote2A. Force North Korea to allow emigration to South Korea0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
2B. After all emigrants have been allowed to flee, the UN Security Council will impose an international blockade on North Korea.
Draft 3 (Proposed by Mexico)Quote3A: Resolved: Preventing nuclear proliferation is a matter of global urgency which all nations of the world have an interest in.1 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
(Crotia)
Draft 4 (Proposed by Mexico)Quote4A: The U.N. Security Council urges the continuation of six party talks1 Sponsor, 0 Signatories
(Uganda)
Draft 5 (Proposed by Mexico)Quote5A: The U.N. Security Council urges the DPRK to re-enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as part of a framework for peaceful nuclear development and normalization of relations.0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
5B: The U.N. Security Council urges the U.S. to revisit the 1994 Accord as part of a framework for nuclear disarmament.
Draft 6 (Proposed by Mexico)Quote6A: Encouraging the neighbors of the DPRK to swiftly agree to an immediate freezing of DPRK finances and a cessation of all trade excluding humanitarian supplies.1 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
(Crotia)
Draft 7 (Proposed by Libya)Quote7A. Nuclear weapon proliferation, but allowing every country to use nuclear energy in peaceful purposes. And yes, that includes the Islamic republic of Iran1 Sponsor, 0 Signatories
7B. Economic help for DPRK people.
(Russia)
I'm assuming that each of the numbered clauses represent a seperate draft. I have seen people support certain clauses in each draft.
To get a Draft promoted to a Resolution, you must get 4 Sponsors and 3 Signatories to sign upon a Draft. Sponsors support the resolution, while Signatories may not support the resolution but merely want the resolution to be discussed. Then, the UNSC must pass a "Consider a Resolution", which requires a majority vote.
Then the Resolution can be considered as normal. You can also seek to amend a draft as well...and if all the sponsors for the original amendment sign up to sponsor the amendment, then the amendment get passed without a vote.
I have attempted to determine if you are sponsoring a resolution if you state your support for it. If I have made a mistake, please alert me so that I may update this list of drafts.
Pandarsenic, does the nation who proposed the resolution also sponsor the resolution as well? My MUN knowledge is rusty.
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 28, 2009, 03:25:49 pm
The People's Republic of China shall be a signatory to Draft Resolution 4A.
Also, 3A is more of a preambulatory clause than anything else.
Post by: inaluct on May 29, 2009, 12:09:49 am
Post by: Servant Corps on May 29, 2009, 02:55:55 am
We thank Uganda for proposing terms that is suitable for us, as a basis for negogations. We do hope that Uganda would be able to follow up on those terms by pushing for a UNSC resolution that would apologize for its grevious insult of the people of the DPRK for their peaceful space program. We would greatly be in your favor.
We also thank members of the UNSC in condemning the south Korean government's provocations, and hope that the UNSC makes a firm statement declaring that south Koreans should withdraw from the PSI and end the blockade. If the south Koreans do withdraw from the PSI, then the armistice would be considered to be in effect again.
((I am posting this part, even though I don't think the DPRK has ever said anything about its nuclear weapons. This is how I would expect the DPRK to behave though on this issue. I am making an 'educated guess' if you will...))
The DPRK would today like to send another letter to the United Nations Security Council, this time, to discuss about DPRK's policies towards nuclear nonproliferation. We would wish to lay this demand, to prepare for the eventuality of talks with the United States.
We believe that the United States is wholly responsible for nuclear proliferation. The US is the first country to have manufractured nuclear weapons and the first country to have done a nuclear holocaust. The United States currently has the greatest stockpile of nukes and missles in the world, which it uses in order to blackmail other countries and threaten them. The U.S. keeps the DPRK within the striking range of its nuclear weapons and missiles in south Korea and in its vicinity and on its mainland, threatening the security of the entire Korean Pennisula and raising the possiblity of a nuclear war.
It is true that the DPRK has a nuclear weapons program, but its program is purely for self-defense against any threat to the Korean people. The DPRK is dedicated towards the idea of a denuclearized Korea, where nukes are banned, but as long as the United States and the south Korean government continues to threaten the DPRK, and engage in provocations, we have no choice but to keep these nuclear weapons. In an ideal future, the horrors of nuclear weapons must be abolished, but we live in the present day. The USA has nuclear weapons pointed at the DPRK, therefore, we must have nukes to defend the freedom-loving Korean people against aggression.
The DPRK is strongly against nuclear proliferation. We do not want other nations to end up gaining nuclear weapons and using them to aggressively intimidate other nations like us. We do not want anarchist organizations to gain control of nuclear weapons and kill innocent people. We are very willing to work in a international framework where the DPRK will be treated as equals in the international community, and where we can all work together to stop nuclear proliferation. We are in favor of allowing for nations to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
The DPRK is currently a Nuclear Weapons State, having acquired nuclear weapons through unity, skilled leadership, and hardwork, and we deserve to be treated like one. We will not disarm and risk letting the DPRK get invaded, but we will glady work with other nations in order to stop the evils of nuclear proliferation.
((I'm also going to be making a list of DPRK's currnet international demands, just to make it easier like Aqizzar for people to follow along without having to read long press releases:
*Space Program=
North Korea promises to remain more open about its launches. North Korea will provide full launch information to the UNSC...IF the UNSC apologizes for condemning the North Korean Space Program and will affirm that the North Koeran Space Program is peaceful.
*State of War=
North Korea will consider the 1953 Armistice (this armistice ended the Korean War) to be once again in effect...IF South Korea withdraws from the PSI.
*Nuclear Weapons=
North Korea will promise to assist in stopping nuclear nonproliferation IF they enter into an agreement where they are treated as equals. North Koera plans on keeping its nukes for the time being.
*Diplomatic Talks=
North Korea will not enter into six-party talks. North Korea will enter into two-party talks with America, or three-party talks with America and China.
I think that's about enough North Korean demands. For now anyway.))
Post by: Jetman123 on May 29, 2009, 11:44:12 am
Resolution 8A. An apology will be made by the UNSC directly to North Korea for condemning their space program. Should the North Korean government later fail to honor the agreement, sanctions will follow.
Uganda hereby supports this resolution and wishes it to be voted upon.
Resolution 8B. Limited sanctions shall be imposed upon South Korea in an attempt to resolve the current crisis. Diplomatic attempts will be made to attempt to prevent South Korea from conducting any sort of search and seizure of NK ships. A joint statement of condemnation should be issued to the South Koreans by all signatories.
Uganda hereby supports this resolution and wishes it to be voted upon.
Uganda also publically requests that the US and China begin their own diplomatic attempts with North Korea. "I realize this may seem like an unpopular choice - bowing to the wishes of a dictator - but the fact is right now we cannot afford another Korean war. The results would be disastrous. Peace must be maintained, and to do that, we must make a deal with the devil, so to speak - even if it is only temporary. The nuclear weapons point may be resolved once this current crisis is sorted out. I urge all UNSC members to immediately begin talks with South Korea and attempt to get them to cease their provocative actions."
To this end, Uganda issues another statement condemning South Korea:
"Uganda calls for South Korea to immediately back out of this provocative agreement and cease all provocative moves towards the North Koreans. Peace in the region must be maintained and to that end Uganda is extremely dissapointed in South Korea's unilateral, foolish action. Uganda will push hard to make sure there are consequences should South Korea attempt to go on with this."
Post by: mainiac on May 29, 2009, 11:57:03 am
Post by: Servant Corps on May 29, 2009, 02:41:37 pm
Our Unification Minister spokesperson, Lee Jong-ju, has released a press release about this issue: "The PSI is part of global efforts to curb the flow of weapons of mass destruction. Seoul's participation does not specifically target North Korea nor was it decided in consideration of current inter-Korean relations." Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT) has released a press release about why we have joined the PSI: "The administration decided to join the PSI on May 26th in order to cope with serious threats to world peace and security which are being caused by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missiles."
The PSI is a general agreement to prevent weapons trafficking. The PSI does not single out any specific country. Therefore, it is not a 'blockade' as the DPRK is calling it. The DPRK is merely overreacting to this issue and is using this as a provocation. Our military is on high alert to prevent the DPRK in engaging in provocations.
Previously, we have held to the position that joining the PSI was a valuable part of international cooperative efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMDs, but was waiting for an appropriate time to join. We have considered long and hard about the PSI, and have refrained from joining in the PSI in order to not anger the DPRK. However, the recent nuclear test has showcased the problems with nuclear proliferation within the region. We has also joined up with the PSI so as to solidify our good relations with our ally, the United States.
We must make it clear our policy: We will not board any DPRK ships unless they enter into our territorial waters. That has always been our long-standing policy, and it will not change as a result of joining the PSI. If DPRK ships do not enter into our territoral waters, there will be no confrontation. The North Koreans themselves do not adhere to this policy though: We have had naval confrontations within the Yellow Sea in bloddy battles, during June 1999 and June 2002. We expect that the DPRK will engage in another naval confrontation in this summer.
If the Republic of Korea is forced to withdraw from the PSI, this will be a symbolic blow to the cause of nuclear nonproliferation. We hope Uganda will reconsider its position.
Post by: Jetman123 on May 29, 2009, 03:51:50 pm
"Thank you for responding. We shall take your point of view into account. However, Uganda's official position remains unchanged. We ask you to consider putting actions against North Korean shipping on hold while the UNSC goes through deliberations."
Post by: Zasit Alebath on May 29, 2009, 04:20:24 pm
Post by: BigFatDwarf on May 30, 2009, 04:42:43 am
Post by: Emperor_Jonathan on May 30, 2009, 04:51:56 am
Post by: Servant Corps on May 30, 2009, 01:11:25 pm
Quote from: Servant Corps
Current Drafts:
Draft 1 (Little mentioned it, but I didn't see who actually proposed it)Quote1A. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to terminate it's nuclear program0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
1B. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to allow UN inspectors access to it's nuclear plants.
Draft 2 (Proposed by Great Britian)Quote2A. Force North Korea to allow emigration to South Korea1 Sponsor (Great Britian), 0 Signatories
2B. After all emigrants have been allowed to flee, the UN Security Council will impose an international blockade on North Korea.
Draft 3 (Proposed by Mexico)Quote3A: Resolved: Preventing nuclear proliferation is a matter of global urgency which all nations of the world have an interest in.1 Sponsor (Mexico), 1 Signatories (Crotia)
Draft 4 (Proposed by Mexico)Quote4A: The U.N. Security Council urges the continuation of six party talks1 Sponsor (Mexico), 2 Signatories (China, Uganda)
Draft 5 (Proposed by Mexico)Quote5A: The U.N. Security Council urges the DPRK to re-enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as part of a framework for peaceful nuclear development and normalization of relations.1 Sponsor (Mexico), 0 Signatories
5B: The U.N. Security Council urges the U.S. to revisit the 1994 Accord as part of a framework for nuclear disarmament.
Draft 6 (Proposed by Mexico)Quote6A: Encouraging the neighbors of the DPRK to swiftly agree to an immediate freezing of DPRK finances and a cessation of all trade excluding humanitarian supplies.1 Sponsor (Mexico), 1 Signatories (Crotia)
Draft 7 (Proposed by Libya)Quote7A. Nuclear weapon proliferation, but allowing every country to use nuclear energy in peaceful purposes. And yes, that includes the Islamic republic of Iran1 Sponsor (Libya), 1 Signatories (Russia)
7B. Economic help for DPRK people.
Draft 8A (Proposed by Uganda)QuoteResolution 8A. An apology will be made by the UNSC directly to North Korea for condemning their space program. Should the North Korean government later fail to honor the agreement, sanctions will follow.1 Sponsor (Uganda), 3 Signatories (Libya, Russia, Japan)
Draft 8B (Proposed by Uganda)QuoteResolution 8B. Limited sanctions shall be imposed upon South Korea in an attempt to resolve the current crisis. Diplomatic attempts will be made to attempt to prevent South Korea from conducting any sort of search and seizure of NK ships. A joint statement of condemnation should be issued to the South Koreans by all signatories.1 Sponsor (Uganda), 0 Signatories
I'm assuming that each of the numbered clauses represent a seperate draft. I have seen people support certain clauses in each draft.
To get a Draft promoted to a Resolution, you must get 4 Sponsors and 3 Signatories to sign upon a Draft. Sponsors support the resolution, while Signatories may not support the resolution but merely want the resolution to be discussed. Then, the UNSC must pass a "Consider a Resolution", which requires a majority vote.
Then the Resolution can be considered as normal. You can also seek to amend a draft as well...and if all the sponsors for the original amendment sign up to sponsor the amendment, then the amendment get passed without a vote.
I have attempted to determine if you are sponsoring a resolution if you state your support for it. If I have made a mistake, please alert me so that I may update this list of drafts.
I have reworked the Signatories and Sponsorship rules thanks to Pandarsenic's replies (Sponsors add in operative clauses, while Signatories merely signed on). Let me know if you wish to revert back to the original rules. It seems that nobody is willing to add in operative clauses onto the Resolutions, which may mean we may only have Signatories under Pandarsenic's rules. Draft 8A has the most Signatories at the moment, so, I am wondering if I should rule that it is possible for Draft 8A to be promoted to a Resolution (and can thus be considered and voted upon).
Post by: Little on May 30, 2009, 02:00:29 pm
Post by: mainiac on May 30, 2009, 05:53:22 pm
Proposition 8A says that the DPRK is allowed to develop weapons platforms for nuclear warheads without consequence. Such a statement is absolutely unacceptable in every way.
((It is also something the security council would never vote on since the south korean secretary general is hardly going to let a proposal throwing korea to the wolves make it out of the general assembly...))
Post by: Servant Corps on May 31, 2009, 01:57:29 am
Draft 1 (Little mentioned it, but I didn't see who actually proposed it)
Quote
1A. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to terminate it's nuclear program0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
1B. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to allow UN inspectors access to it's nuclear plants.
Draft 2 (Proposed by Great Britian)
Quote
2A. Force North Korea to allow emigration to South Korea1 Sponsor (Great Britian), 0 Signatories
2B. After all emigrants have been allowed to flee, the UN Security Council will impose an international blockade on North Korea.
Draft 3 (Proposed by Mexico)
Quote
3A: Resolved: Preventing nuclear proliferation is a matter of global urgency which all nations of the world have an interest in.1 Sponsor (Mexico), 1 Signatories (Crotia)
Draft 4 (Proposed by Mexico)
Quote
4A: The U.N. Security Council urges the continuation of six party talks1 Sponsor (Mexico), 2 Signatories (China, Uganda)
Draft 5 (Proposed by Mexico)
Quote
5A: The U.N. Security Council urges the DPRK to re-enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as part of a framework for peaceful nuclear development and normalization of relations.1 Sponsor (Mexico), 0 Signatories
5B: The U.N. Security Council urges the U.S. to revisit the 1994 Accord as part of a framework for nuclear disarmament.
Draft 6 (Proposed by Mexico)
Quote
6A: Encouraging the neighbors of the DPRK to swiftly agree to an immediate freezing of DPRK finances and a cessation of all trade excluding humanitarian supplies.1 Sponsor (Mexico), 1 Signatories (Crotia)
Draft 7 (Proposed by Libya)
Quote
7A. Nuclear weapon proliferation, but allowing every country to use nuclear energy in peaceful purposes. And yes, that includes the Islamic republic of Iran1 Sponsor (Libya), 1 Signatories (Russia)
7B. Economic help for DPRK people.
Draft 8A (Proposed by Uganda)
Quote
Resolution 8A. An apology will be made by the UNSC directly to North Korea for condemning their space program. Should the North Korean government later fail to honor the agreement, sanctions will follow.1 Sponsor (Uganda), 4 Signatories (Libya, Russia, Japan, United Kingdom)
Draft 8B (Proposed by Uganda)
Quote
Resolution 8B. Limited sanctions shall be imposed upon South Korea in an attempt to resolve the current crisis. Diplomatic attempts will be made to attempt to prevent South Korea from conducting any sort of search and seizure of NK ships. A joint statement of condemnation should be issued to the South Koreans by all signatories.1 Sponsor (Uganda), 0 Signatories
By Pandarsenic's new rule, Draft 8A is now offically a Resolution. You may propose for this Resolution to be considred by the Security Council.
Is Aqizzar and Inaluct still active and playing in this game? I wouldn't want to miss the deterence expert of Burkani Faso, and the United States is a very important Veto Power, after all.
Post by: Emperor_Jonathan on May 31, 2009, 02:10:04 am
Post by: Servant Corps on May 31, 2009, 02:18:32 am
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 31, 2009, 02:23:39 am
Post by: Servant Corps on May 31, 2009, 02:29:34 am
When the resolution actually does go to a vote, China finally will then be able to veto 8A.
But the statement that China will veto 8A will more than likely prevent anyone from making the motion to consider 8A, at least until they somehow find a way to convince China to abstain or if the supporters of 8A is able to change 8A to sastify China.
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 31, 2009, 02:41:28 am
Post by: mainiac on May 31, 2009, 04:23:15 am
The People's Republic of China is vetoing 8A for obvious reasons.
Did you ever know that you're my hero?
Post by: Pandarsenic on May 31, 2009, 04:41:39 am
I didn't. Am I now?The People's Republic of China is vetoing 8A for obvious reasons.Did you ever know that you're my hero?
Post by: mainiac on May 31, 2009, 04:44:45 am
Post by: Servant Corps on June 01, 2009, 05:16:36 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on June 02, 2009, 05:31:54 pm
Post by: Little on June 02, 2009, 05:39:52 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on June 02, 2009, 08:57:14 pm
Post by: TheNewerMartianEmperor on June 03, 2009, 12:03:37 am
Post by: Emperor_Jonathan on June 03, 2009, 12:10:43 am
Post by: Servant Corps on June 03, 2009, 10:44:31 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: inaluct on June 03, 2009, 10:47:19 pm
Post by: Servant Corps on June 05, 2009, 12:05:18 am
Post by: Jetman123 on June 06, 2009, 07:44:59 am
Post by: Servant Corps on June 12, 2009, 06:37:18 pm
It's funny that the real life Security Council is moving faster than the MUN.
Post by: Servant Corps on September 26, 2009, 12:55:08 pm
Of course, if South Korea actually tries to attack a North Korea ship...North Korea will be very angry.
Post by: Servant Corps on December 10, 2009, 10:15:16 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aQRB0UFcj_po
/me sighs. Good times at the MUN.