Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

Burkina Faso agrees with the American representative.  How can one placate an actor who refuses to uphold their agreements and thinks itself strengthened by antagonizing the very nations that attempt to nonviolently pacify it?

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.

[Strife26]

Coming from Burkina Faso? What lesson do you have to teach? You want nothing more than to use the power and prestiege of the powers for your own goals.

[Little]

I would like to divide the referendum!!

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!

[Aqizzar]

Calling again on the dire memories of Africa's past, Burkina Faso lodges it's opposition to referendii 2A and 2B.  Any opening of borders between North and South Korea will quickly degenerate into either a bloodbath in the North as Kim Jong Il attempts to make any rhetorical or physical evidence of emigration sentiment disappear, or the South is forced to take in thousands, if not millions, of starving, desperate, maladjusted refugees.

[Strife26]

France seconds the response of BF.

[inaluct]

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.

[Servant Corps]

The Great Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kim Jong-il, has told me to convey a message to the UN Security Council.

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.)

[inaluct]

DPRK, in 1998 you claim to have attempted to launch a peaceful satellite into orbit. You used a Taepodong-1 ballistic missile to launch it, and claimed that inserting the satellite into orbit had failed. We doubt that the missile ever contained a satellite at all. It was most likely yet another thinly veiled missile test.

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.)

[Pandarsenic]

The People's Republic of China fails to understand Burkina Faso's stake in the situation. However, the PRC feels that excluding us from the talk would be an attempt by the U.S. to dominate our somewhat vulnerable ally through military and economic might, and we will have none of it.

[inaluct]

such as

"Such as" isn't exclusive.

[Aqizzar]

((They all laughed, laughed, when I promised that the United Nations would turn to Burkina Faso for authority on deterrent force.  But I showed them!))

((Sorry folks, but I've got a real job to go to.  Burkina Faso has spoken it's piece for now.))

[inaluct]

Well, they're still more reliable than France.

[Strife26]

 I resent that!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 

[mainiac]

((It's interesting that in this DPRK is demanding 2 way talks while historically they demanded 6 way talks from 2000-2006.  But I sense that in both cases, the motivation is the same.  So S.C. gets a coveted 8/10 realism points on the mainiac scale of international diplomacy impersonation.

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.))

[Servant Corps]

USA, it is true that in 1998, we have claimed to attempted to launch a peaceful satellite into orbit. However, you have failed to mention that we have stated that we have actually succeded in launching said satellite into orbit, the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-1. This communication satellite is broadcasting the ‘Song of General Kim Il Sung’ and ‘Song of General Kim Jong Il’, as well as recording the tempature of space. We have celebrated the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-1 in many events in North Korea.

In April 2009, we have attempted to launch another peaceful satellite into orbitKwangmyŏngsŏng-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:

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)

((OOC: mainiac: The reason that I am calling for 2 way talks is because the DPRK have just pulled out of 6-way talks, and show no inclination of going back to them. There has been news articles with people promoting direct talks, as well as rumors indicating that the Obama presidency is planning to do such a thing, I decide to just have the DPRK advocate for that.))