Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Blut Und Eisen. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The United Nations; To promote diplomatic cooperation
Topic Started: Mar 23 2015, 07:07 PM (427 Views)
Crimdal

House of Lords
The United States of America welcomes all ambassadors of foreign nations to this gathering.

The United Nations is an American plan for diplomatic cooperation and a means of promoting economic growth throughout the world.

Nation states may apply for membership and/or permanent membership. As we imagine nations like the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and North Germany would require some semblance of veto power over referendums of war or sanctions in order to join, we keep open the option for that.

This will be American lead at the start however I welcome initiative from any and all members of the United Nations. While no nation will be withheld membership at the start, Permanent membership (veto power) may only be granted to a select few. The initial selection of Permanent members will be overseen by America, with future amendments to the Permanent members open to reinterpretation through EFS or Military/economical scores if the members vote it so.

The types of Measures we will address in this committee are acts of war, post colonial claims and disputes, and anything else ambassadors wish to address.

:BIUSA:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
Current Applicants:

Portugal - Non Veto Member
Brazil - Wants Veto or Veto Removed
Italy - Wants Veto or Veto Removed
Mexico - Silence is Acquiescence - Non Veto Member




Accepted Applications:

Portugal
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
:BIPOR1:

The Portuguese Crown formally requests entry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
The Mexican Government fully support any initiative to bring peace to the world and formally requests membership in the United Nations.

:BIMEX:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CynicalLiberal
Member Avatar

House of Commons
The British government respects the formation of this organization, but declines membership.

:BIENG:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
CynicalLiberal,Mar 23 2015
08:46 PM
The British government respects the formation of this organization, but declines membership.

:BIENG:

We are saddened by your decision but we understand completely. If the UK joins at a later date after the initial formation they will be grandfathered in as a Permanent Member due to their impact on our governments formation and the world in which we live in at the formation of this membership.




:BIUSA:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yenzen
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Italy sees no reason for itself, or indeed any nation across the Atlantic or Pacific without veto power, to subject themselves to the will of Washington.

:BIITA:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
icendoan
Member Avatar

House of Commons
[align=center]:BITUR:

The Ottoman Empire applauds the spirit of this organisation, but must concur with the Italian ambassadors. It seems eminently likely that the only things that members would discuss would be vetoed by some major power, deeming it 'in their sphere of influence'. With this realisation, it becomes apparent that this organisation serves no purpose but to showcase the political grandstanding of the major powers.

With that, we must decline invitation.

:BITUR:
[/align]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shampoocat
Member Avatar

House of Commons
While the Brazilian government welcomes all attempts to promote peace and cooperation on the international stage, we have to concur with the Italian and Turkish ambassadors.
Brazil will not join unless the blatantly unfair veto rights are reworked.
:BIBRZ:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erthel
Member Avatar

House of Commons
:BIRUS2:

Russia finds this issue to be a movement from the US to increase their meager influence in international affairs. We respect the initiative but won't be joining in the coming times.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Otto of England
The Free State of Kiev
Viceroys
:BINET:

The Netherlands does not see the need for this organization, especially when some members get an unfair and absurd right to veto while the remainder cannot.

- Queen Whilhelma I
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
:BIPOR1:

Portugal frankly does not see the difference between large nations bullying smaller ones whether it is institutionalized or not, and many powers in this thread thinking such an organization not existing would improve such a situation, when in fact having representation (equal or not) is better than what existed previously.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
The Veto system can not be removed, those with great power have great responsibility.

USA can offer defensive help to any member of the United Nations if their sovereignty is threatened.

:BIUSA:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CynicalLiberal
Member Avatar

House of Commons
United Kingdom is rescinding all previous statements on the formation of The United Nations and withdrawing itself from all future talks on the matter.

:BIENG:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yenzen
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Indeed. Italy concedes to the reality of the realpolitik that Portugal is pointing out. However, we do not consider the United States of America to have any real position as a "first amongst equals" of the Great Powers and it is rather suspect that they portray such a leadership role, when they themselves have recently been at war with other great powers. We believe there is now a "King in the North, lord of the Maples leaves and protector of the 49th parallel"?

We have no illusions of being the most mighty of Great Powers, but even so, we have been able to work out agreements with our neighbors to mutual benefit of both parties. We will not be dictated from across the Atlantic and we do not need American suzerainty to guide our relations.

If anyone wishes to discuss matters of state, we have an embassy. If anyone wants to talk of more sensitive matters, we have the same private channels as most. If someone wants to have an open forum to debate international matters, We've heard that the Swiss alps are beautiful all times of the year.

And the Swiss only dictate punctuality. Something many nations around the world could learn from.

:BIITA:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kristjan
Member Avatar
Administrator
Head Administrator
His Imperial Majesty Napoleon IV and the French cabinet and people have no desire to dominate the world or even to be ranked in some first among equals system. We do not need a veto over world affairs as offered. What would this American organisation have done to solve the recent conflict peacefully and fairly between the North and South German powers in Europe? And would both sides have even listened to the pronouncements of some third parties? These are the kind of practical questions that must be addressed, if this United Nations is to be worth joining.

:BIFRA:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
We see no reason why it would be assumed that America is 'leading' this coalition simply because it is the first signer and founder, as veto power is equal. The leadership seems to be merely in name. If America said directly that only it would be granted veto power to start, there would be grounds, but it very clearly stated that there would be other powers granted it at the beginning (if the US doesn't, then the faction is powerless anyway as no one will continue to be member), and Portugal's advisers guarantee those of you with issues with veto powers would be granted them, such as the UK, Russia, Italy- great powers who have changed the course of Europe.

Portugal also does not understand this animosity towards the United States. Is it merely the name of the President? The US has been one of the least aggressive and most conciliatory nations in the world, leading the liberation of Canada (now a free nation under Canadian rule), making lawful agreements with Mexico, attempting to stem European imperialism in Asia, and others. This animosity towards the republic seems to be some biased misguided attempt to continue European hegemony in a changing world.

If veto power is such an issue to the great powers of the world, perhaps you should all consider actually making decisions that benefit the world as a whole instead of only your governments?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
Felicity,Mar 25 2015
05:13 PM
We see no reason why it would be assumed that America is 'leading' this coalition simply because it is the first signer and founder, as veto power is equal. The leadership seems to be merely in name. If America said directly that only it would be granted veto power to start, there would be grounds, but it very clearly stated that there would be other powers granted it at the beginning (if the US doesn't, then the faction is powerless anyway as no one will continue to be member), and Portugal's advisers guarantee those of you with issues with veto powers would be granted them, such as the UK, Russia, Italy- great powers who have changed the course of Europe.

Portugal also does not understand this animosity towards the United States. Is it merely the name of the President? The US has been one of the least aggressive and most conciliatory nations in the world, leading the liberation of Canada (now a free nation under Canadian rule), making lawful agreements with Mexico, attempting to stem European imperialism in Asia, and others. This animosity towards the republic seems to be some biased misguided attempt to continue European hegemony in a changing world.

If veto power is such an issue to the great powers of the world, perhaps you should all consider actually making decisions that benefit the world as a whole instead of only your governments?

While your kind words are appreciated, it seems cooperation among powers great and secondary alike is impossible.

We do not pretend to be first among equals, only to be the first to attempt to bridge the divide growing between the great powers of the world. I never stated any nation is unable to obtain veto power status, I merely stated to inform me whether you would be willing to join with or without veto status.

I suppose since USA has already extended an arm to all those minor nations in need this attempt at mulilateral diplomacy may seem redundant or unnecessary to some, however that is a shortsighted view of the way in which nations would form a common bond through this type of 'redudant diplomacy'.

The United Nations could be used as a tool of power for all, however the United Nations is in no way America's attempt to create a rubber stamp factory for American foreign policy.

:BIUSA:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
icendoan
Member Avatar

House of Commons
[align=center]:BITUR:

Perhaps some further clarification and debate is required, and we shall
endeavour to provide it.

As the Portuguese diplomats astutely note, it is absolutely the case that
stronger powers bully the weak: this is international politics, and it is
inescapable. The distinction, however, is that this bullying must remain
minimal: it is not a respectable course of diplomacy, it is just unreasonably
effective. What happens, then, when a nation bullies another nation, but this
time within a framework as the United Nations, using this framework as
the mechanism for influence? Instead of being legitimately rebuffed by smaller
nations, who are able to build their own network of support, by breaking a UN
Charter the bullying nation now gains legitimacy in their continued assault of
the smaller nations, diplomatic or otherwise. With this distinction in mind,
it does not make sense for smaller powers to join such an institution, as they
would be required to relinquish some diplomatic freedoms, but not be rewarded
any new powers.

The veto system is similarly problematic: not all powers will be given a veto.
Nobody has suggested a veto for Persia, or Portugal, or the Ottoman Empire.
What should happen if these nations have legitimate grievances, but against a
veto-wielding 'greater' power, such as the United States, or Japan? Any
complaints made within the United Nations will be vetoed, and only the
veto-wielders will be able to profit from the proposed frameworks. The mere
existence of this system naturally implies that the world must be
governed by a small collection of these nations, and not by any nation that is
fit to rule.

The United States, as the founder of this institution, actually possesses a
unique power: presently they are the only legitimate source of these
vetoes, and while we hear assurances that they will be handed out even to
nations in perennial quarrels with the United States, such as Russia, there is
no guarantee. While we are sure that the United States will not risk such a
diplomatic upset as to refuse the United Kingdom a veto, it seems eminently likely that the United States will prioritise
its allies for vetoes and attempt to disqualify its enemies.

We also vehemently disagree with the Portuguese Diplomats' characterisation of
the United States. The United States has thus far endeavoured only to empower
itself in the Pacific with its continued talks of European decolonisation,
either in order to directly maintain its own influence or to further
strengthen that of its now old ally, Japan. Furthermore, the Portuguese seem
to discount the wondrous improvements that European domination over Asia has
brought about: Persia and Japan have both aligned themselves to Western
culture, and thus have increased the wellbeing of their citizens and their
national strength manyfold. The arrival of new European technologies such as
medicine and sanitation to India, which previously had been in a
centuries-long struggle to maintain self-rule from rampant internal strife,
has had a transformative effect. Likewise with the European colonies in
Africa, Portugal's included. With this new perspective, it is simply false to
claim that the United States' actions have benefited the poor native
populations in Asia and Africa: they seek to grow their own power in the
region, and in doing so they deprive the natives of the guiding European hand
they so desperately crave to bring them on the path of Western civilisation.

Within the context of the actions of the United States over the last few
years, with this act of unfounded aggression towards the peaceful and
stabilising international force, the United Kingdom, on incredibly trumped up
charges. The United States seeks to legitimise a war against a population, all
of whom were quite content with their status within the British Commonwealth,
with a perceived minor slight nearly 70 years ago, of no consequence and
barely within living memory. We cannot but condemn such actions as ruthless
grandstanding and ungentlemanly conduct, and we cannot but help see the
creation of this institution as a continuation of such behaviour.

We hope that this sheds much clarity onto our actions and our refusal, and we
encourage other powers to refrain from signing the binding Treaty.

:BITUR:
[/align]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Otto of England
The Free State of Kiev
Viceroys
Felicity,Mar 25 2015
08:13 PM
We see no reason why it would be assumed that America is 'leading' this coalition simply because it is the first signer and founder, as veto power is equal. The leadership seems to be merely in name. If America said directly that only it would be granted veto power to start, there would be grounds, but it very clearly stated that there would be other powers granted it at the beginning (if the US doesn't, then the faction is powerless anyway as no one will continue to be member), and Portugal's advisers guarantee those of you with issues with veto powers would be granted them, such as the UK, Russia, Italy- great powers who have changed the course of Europe.

Portugal also does not understand this animosity towards the United States. Is it merely the name of the President? The US has been one of the least aggressive and most conciliatory nations in the world, leading the liberation of Canada (now a free nation under Canadian rule), making lawful agreements with Mexico, attempting to stem European imperialism in Asia, and others. This animosity towards the republic seems to be some biased misguided attempt to continue European hegemony in a changing world.

If veto power is such an issue to the great powers of the world, perhaps you should all consider actually making decisions that benefit the world as a whole instead of only your governments?

:BINET:

Canada, poor sweet little Canada was liberated from itself, taken from its mother breast in the midst of its infancy barely able to stand on its own. The Canadian people and army fought and bleed for it to stay by its mother side, only to be ripped away by its jealous and rebellious brother. Poor Canada had no choice, poor Canada was just a little kid, no permanently taken from it's mom and forced to endure the at best neglect and, at worst corrupting influence it's older brother seeks to provide.

Poor Canada was not asked what he wanted, poor Canada was spoken for by its brother it shares little with. Poor Canada was taken away from its mother at too young of an age.

- Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
icendoan,Mar 26 2015
04:40 AM
[align=center]:BITUR:

Perhaps some further clarification and debate is required, and we shall
endeavour to provide it.

As the Portuguese diplomats astutely note, it is absolutely the case that
stronger powers bully the weak: this is international politics, and it is
inescapable. The distinction, however, is that this bullying must remain
minimal: it is not a respectable course of diplomacy, it is just unreasonably
effective. What happens, then, when a nation bullies another nation, but this
time within a framework as the United Nations, using this framework as
the mechanism for influence? Instead of being legitimately rebuffed by smaller
nations, who are able to build their own network of support, by breaking a UN
Charter the bullying nation now gains legitimacy in their continued assault of
the smaller nations, diplomatic or otherwise. With this distinction in mind,
it does not make sense for smaller powers to join such an institution, as they
would be required to relinquish some diplomatic freedoms, but not be rewarded
any new powers.

The veto system is similarly problematic: not all powers will be given a veto.
Nobody has suggested a veto for Persia, or Portugal, or the Ottoman Empire.
What should happen if these nations have legitimate grievances, but against a
veto-wielding 'greater' power, such as the United States, or Japan? Any
complaints made within the United Nations will be vetoed, and only the
veto-wielders will be able to profit from the proposed frameworks. The mere
existence of this system naturally implies that the world must be
governed by a small collection of these nations, and not by any nation that is
fit to rule.

The United States, as the founder of this institution, actually possesses a
unique power: presently they are the only legitimate source of these
vetoes, and while we hear assurances that they will be handed out even to
nations in perennial quarrels with the United States, such as Russia, there is
no guarantee. While we are sure that the United States will not risk such a
diplomatic upset as to refuse the United Kingdom a veto, it seems eminently likely that the United States will prioritise
its allies for vetoes and attempt to disqualify its enemies.

We also vehemently disagree with the Portuguese Diplomats' characterisation of
the United States. The United States has thus far endeavoured only to empower
itself in the Pacific with its continued talks of European decolonisation,
either in order to directly maintain its own influence or to further
strengthen that of its now old ally, Japan. Furthermore, the Portuguese seem
to discount the wondrous improvements that European domination over Asia has
brought about: Persia and Japan have both aligned themselves to Western
culture, and thus have increased the wellbeing of their citizens and their
national strength manyfold. The arrival of new European technologies such as
medicine and sanitation to India, which previously had been in a
centuries-long struggle to maintain self-rule from rampant internal strife,
has had a transformative effect. Likewise with the European colonies in
Africa, Portugal's included. With this new perspective, it is simply false to
claim that the United States' actions have benefited the poor native
populations in Asia and Africa: they seek to grow their own power in the
region, and in doing so they deprive the natives of the guiding European hand
they so desperately crave to bring them on the path of Western civilisation.

Within the context of the actions of the United States over the last few
years, with this act of unfounded aggression towards the peaceful and
stabilising international force, the United Kingdom, on incredibly trumped up
charges. The United States seeks to legitimise a war against a population, all
of whom were quite content with their status within the British Commonwealth,
with a perceived minor slight nearly 70 years ago, of no consequence and
barely within living memory. We cannot but condemn such actions as ruthless
grandstanding and ungentlemanly conduct, and we cannot but help see the
creation of this institution as a continuation of such behaviour.

We hope that this sheds much clarity onto our actions and our refusal, and we
encourage other powers to refrain from signing the binding Treaty.

:BITUR:
[/align]

We respect your opinions and your fears of transparency and power sharing inside the United Nations, a conversation is all we asked and from some of you that is exactly what we got. It does not seem the world is ready for the United Nations in it's infant form at this stage, however this gathering has laid the groundwork hopefully for future cooperation between nations from different parts of the world.



:BIUSA:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Age of Empire VI · Next Topic »
Add Reply