IFC Council (IC)

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Thank you all.

[Valaran]

"The Valaran Empire would politely like to point out that Atlas should be able to ensure its own stability, and that trade from the region will not be overly affected, barring one or two specific nations, with whom we doubt IFC members have much mercantile contact. If necessary we shall guarantee that trade does continue to flow largely unabated, though I doubt this guarantee shall be needed."

[Rentalla]

Emma Kitali, the current head of Intelligence for the IFC walked into the council chambers, and stood at the podium. She pulled out her tablet, brining up her prepared statement.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the council. We have compiled reports on the ongoing conflict in Atlas as requested by the Speaker. The Curente war as the conflict is known has engulfed much of the continent, and involves many of the nations in Atlas. The two original belligerents were Hayabusa, and Cydonia. Many hundreds of thousands of troops, and hundreds of ships have been dedicated to the war.

The nations that have given military support to Hayabusa are Roski, Valaran, Chazicaria, The confederacy of Bavarian States, and Sde Dov. The nations of Bratislav, Estenia, and Wolfbenz, have voiced support for Hayabusa, but have not engaged in hostilities.

The nations that support Cydonia are Carsodonia, Qubec, Stasnov, Adampia, and Leupola. The nations of New Chilokver, Versail, and Ordia have voiced support for Cydonia without engaging in hostilities.

It started with a border dispute between the nations of Hayabusa, and Cydonia. A Cydonian APC, and a number of soldiers crossed the border, and engaged in combat with Hayabusan border guards. It is unclear whether or not is was an accidental incident, or a provoked attack. No nation has performed an investigation into the incident. Sources within Hayabusa indicate that the Cydonian forces may have been carrying large amounts of ammunition. Far more ammunition than border guards are normally equipped with. This information however is unverified, and questionable.

Afterward both sides began deploying large amounts of troops at the border. Hayabusa then asked allies to send troops several did. The Imperial Republic of Chazicaria sent ships to the coasts of Carsodonia, an ally of Cydonia. Qubec sent ships to oppose the Chazicarian fleet. Roski also sends ships to the Carsodonian coast. The Roskian forces fired the first shots of the conflict as they attacked the ships from Qubec.

A massive naval engagement followed, spelling disaster for the Carsodonian fleet. Hayabusa then crossed Carsodinia's border, later followed by Chazicaria, and Valaran. In response Cydonia, and Stasnov launch an assault on the Northern border of Chazicaria, and Luepola attacked the coast

Meanwhile several nations invade Qubec, and according to our information Qubec will fall soon.

Most of this information was gathered from Chazicarian sources, hence the bias towards their conflicts. The war can be broken down into five theaters of conflict. The Carsodonian-Hayabusan Theater, The Carsodonian Naval/South Curentean Sea Theatre, The Qubecan Theatre, The Bay of Edenguard Theatre, The Cydonian/Chazicarian Theatre, and the Cetlaso Theatre.

As of now we are unable to determine any favored side for the various theatres except the Qubecan Theatre which seems to be ending with Qubec's loss.

Exact troop, and fleet numbers, and deployments are difficult with the large amount of ships involved, but the largest fleet buildup is along the Carsodonian coats where over five hundred ships have been amassed.

The conflict is massive in scope, and we cannot see any end in sight. If any members have questions we would be more than willing to answer them to the best of our abilities."

[Flardania]

"The Flardanian delegation thanks Miss Kitali for the well organized report that provides great insight to the conflict. We however have no questions at this time." Junko stated politely.

[Valaran]

"Indeed, this is well-researched and a concise summary of the conflict. I would like draw particular attention to the scale of the conflict, and that a peaceful resolution seems remarkably distant. Thus, I doubt there is very much the IFC could do at this time to resolve such a war, and any efforts, while well-intentioned, would likely only escalate matters further."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"By which you mean you want us to keep our noses out," riposted the Speaker, with a sly grin, looking up from his tablet. "Hopefully you will forgive me for representing the Ausitorian point of view in this debate, although as Speaker I would like to thank our Head of Intelligence for her impressively detailed and concise report, and thank all members contributing to this debate.

Now, to return to my nation's viewpoint, Ausitoria believes it is not in our interests to stand idly by while a region which we have so many members in descends into total war while we can make a few easy provisions. Peace and stability should be in the definite interests of the majority of IFC members: at least 29 of us conduct active trade in Atlas, and having customers killed, shipping searched, and infrastructure destroyed is bad for business; and at least 25 members in the IFC are located in Atlas and consequently their militaries are too distracted to be able to really contribute to extra-regional incidents; and on a purely humanitarian basis, the IFC should be able to act in its own back-yard.

There are two straightforward acts that the IFC could take. It has been suggested in the Ausitorian government that the IFC could easily ... encourage .... IFC members to acquiesce to an investigation into the opening incident of the conflict to establish the aggressor. By ... encourage ... I mean we could consider short term suspensions of IFC members who do not allow the investigation free access.

It is also possible that the IFC could undertake to guarantee that they will punish any egregious acts of violence during the war, e.g. acts of genocide, torture, major attacks upon civilians, crimes against humanity, and WMD attacks on non-nuclear states, which I think would be a sensible standard for any major neutral power to adopt in any wars. These two actions should speed the end of the war and a return to peace and stability; and if there is any support for these ideas, we will propose two bills.

There is also the third possibility of generally threatening to blockade any nation which holds up peace negotiations, but that might be too difficult to enforce. We would welcome comments on the possibility.

Otherwise I agree that the IFC should remain neutral; although perhaps the Secretary General or Atlas Representative believe we should join either side? That would certainly speed up the end to the conflict, although non-Atlas members - Ausitoria included - my not wish to participate."

[Valaran]

Helghan wore his own smile in response "Only if we were to resort to blunt terms Mr Speaker."

"Let me assure you that the Valaran Empire has no wish for trade to be meaningfully disrupted; this would be rather harmful for us as well as the IFC as a whole. Steps are being taken to prevent this getting out of hand; only non-IFC members are currently under blockade, notably Carsodonia and Qubec, and we shall ensure it stays that way. This is no light promise; we shall back this guarantee with our full diplomatic and military might."

"An investigation makes sense, though we will need more than IFC assent for it do accomplish anything meaningful. Since it revolves around Cydonia's action we would need their assistance, something not helped by the minor inconvenience of them being at a de facto state of war with several member-states. However, we support this idea in principle, and if deemed necessary, in practice."

"Similarly, a guarantee like that would also make theoretical sense, and again this would be something my nation would be willing support."

The smile returned. "I think you can guess our view on the third option."

"Neutrality would also be preferred by the Valaran Empire, though I'm not here to advise ruling out an intervention. We would just feel that this would only actually occur under exceptional circumstances."

[The High Lords]

"The Rentallan report has covered the Curente front quite well. I would also like to bring to attention to the IFC of another front to this war, in the Sempit continent. This is so far, in my nation of the Dominion of the High Lords. However, I do not feel the need to inform the IFC fully in this matter, since I will not allow the IFC to enter in this front in any form.

Additionally, I would like to voice my blunt condemnation of the "Grand Fleet" that has been stationed in Atlas waters, and would like to demand it's removal, immediately. I will confer with my fellow Atlas nations, if that is what the IFC so desires. Lastly, any IFC actions concerning Atlas will be blocked by the Dominion in every capacity that we can provide. Atlas is capable of sorting out their problems, and the IFC should turn their heads to more needy areas that would benefit from IFC support much greater than Atlas."

I'm too tired to type anything out in an official capacity, ICly, so here you go - if you're interested in reading about the Sempit front and it's recent developments, click the link. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=322332 Let me remind you, it's ATLAS ONLY - so don't post in it, unless if you're in Atlas.

[Valaran]

Helghan nodded his assent. "Indeed. Any IFC intervention in the war will not bode well. For anyone." The point was left hanging; implication was always more refined than crude statements.

"The Ausitorian fleet is an interesting development. We are not averse to its presence on principle, and it is good to see our fellow member-states and trading partners taking such an... active interest in regional affairs. However, any attempt to enforce a settlement on an ally of the Empire, or otherwise intrude militarily in specific conflicts, may create unfortunate complications, and I'm sure such additional concerns are the last thing anyone wants. Co-ordination and clear communication are key in this regard."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"Thank you for your comments. Regarding the Ausitorian fleet, the Ausitorian government would like me to refer the Valaran and High Lords delegation to WA Resolutions 168, 209, and 255; and in particular to the Right of Freedom of Navigation. We thank the Valaran Empire for their assurances, but the Ausitorian government would like me to inform the Council that Ausitoria also probably conducts some trade, via our enormous trading networks, with Carsodonia and Quebec, so naturally Ausitoria desires a faster end to the conflict. It is well known that Ausitoria's Foreign Policy is largely determined by trade."

"As Speaker, in relation to the Bratislavan address, which has been made to the Summit, I would like to thank the Bratislav President. While we will discuss the particular matters he raised there, no doubt, there is one particular point: he requested a vote on Economic legislation at that summit. Now I can find nothing which says that we have to meet here, and myself have no objection to passing the Speaker baton to one of the Ausitorian delegates at the scene. But perhaps some members would prefer to keep legislation here and general discussion there?"

[Valaran]

"I also thank you for your swift reply. Indeed, I am not questioning the specific legalities of its presence, though it should be noted Resolution 168 has little de facto holding in the Valaran Empire. And trade is similarly a significant factor when determining our own foreign policy. However, the relatively unannounced arrival of some 250 vessels of war is an unexpected turn of events, and I'm sure you understand how this can be perceived as threatening.

Furthermore, while some trade may be conducted with those nation, one would politely imagine Ausitoria to have far greater economic and mercantile links to its fellow IFC member states. Thus, to use that as your primary reasoning for an intervention seems to support rather than allay any fears of this fleet being used active capacity to influence the outcome of the conflict.

Therefore, with all due respect, I must ask what is the purpose of such a fleet being present in Atlasian waters, and how does it intend to carry out this purpose?"

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"Its purpose is threefold. First to act as a statement of our dedication to the preservation of our trade, and it already appears to have achieved that objective. Second to be able to back up that desire, which we expect to be unnecessary for as long as the fleet is actually present and on the minds of Atlas nations - thus the fleet will familiarize itself with Atlas sonar conditions and gather commint. Third, to be able to support our allies, if they need it.

I do not see why this should be considered an important subject for discussion in this Council; and again, I refer the Council to the two questions before us: what action, if any, should the IFC take to speed the end of this debilitating war; and would it be considered appropriate for economics legislation to be passed at the summit?"

[Valaran]

There were a quite a few nations who hearts and minds it didn't appear on, but Helghan let that slide; it would have been counterproductive to bring that up. He was still riled though, and so was the new Valaran government. They wanted assurances the fleet wouldn't be used to interfere on the war. It was honestly the most interest the Valarans had shown in the IFC in a month, which was hardly a good precedent. But something had undeniably spooked superiors into pressing him to do this. Whatever it was, it warranted his full attention.

"Concerning the two other issues you have set before the council, I stand by my nation's support of humanitarian aid and an investigation, and nothing else, least of all a fleet. We are not present at the summit, but it seems a reasonable topic to discuss. Now, returning briefly to the fleet, am I to thus understand that it won't interfere in this conflict, unless trade from an IFC member or other ally is directly threatened?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

[OOC: Pending retcon. This was Resolution 56.]

[OOC: Pending retcon retconned. This still is Resolution 56.]

Libraria and Ausitoria His Grace Alexias Stella Leadership and Interpretations Act [Resolution Number: 56] Believing that the present Executive currently has a flattering but tedious and sometimes unnecessary habit of waiting for Councils to rubber-stamp their wishes and waiting for Summits to invent their policy, The IFC members in Council hereby: 1. Clarifies that the Council: (a) Possesses the ability to make in a vote the final ruling on any interpretation of their own Resolutions, (b) May not under any circumstances be dissolved or otherwise inhibited from making and interpreting resolutions, except with its express permission, 2. Permits the Cabinet and any appointed Executive Ministers, under the direction of the Prime Minister, to otherwise interpret Council Resolutions and to take any measures not contrary to Council Resolutions that such empowered persons may consider necessary and proper for carrying out the delineated tasks of government, without waiting for the Council to discuss such matters, 3. Reiterates that a Prime Minister should, where possible, only permit fully reversible measures, and that any Prime Minister overusing these executive powers without sufficient support in the Council should be subject to a no-confidence motion and dismissed from office, and 4. Charges the Speaker & Vice President and any other specifically elected protectors of the Senate with ensuring that these rights are protected. Signed, [ His Grace Alexias Stella, The Imperial Commonwealth of Libraria and Ausitoria]

[The High Lords]

I vote no on all three proposals. L&A is going too far - trying to insert the IFC and it's policy in areas where it shouldn't be. The whole purpose of the RRF is to respond to threats that the IFC's help is requested. Currently, I see no requests, and yet, actions are being made.

OOC: Any attempt to involve yourself in the Sempit Front War, or anything related to such, in Atlas will be met with the mighty power of the Ignore Cannon.

[Bratislav]

The Bratislavian delegates votes NAY on resolution 56 given the preamble statement "Believing that the present Executive currently has a flattering but tedious and sometimes unnecessary habit of waiting for Councils to rubber-stamp their wishes and waiting for Summits to invent their policy," we request that the statement be clarified.

We ABSTAIN from resolution 57.

We vote NAY on resolution 58. The protocols for the use of the RRF is already clearly outlined and this resolution goes against the governing document of the IFC, and is not in line with the founding principles of the Coalition.

[Valaran]

"In that case The Valaran Empire votes the following:

Aye on Resolution 57 sine I have already stated my nation's assent to this. However I will note with not inconsiderable concern how it ignores whether non-IFC nations should help such investigations, but forces all Atlas based member-states to comply.

Nay on Resolution 58. We strongly reject any attempt to tell us when it is suitable to go to war.

And we shall Abstain on Resolution 56."

[Novo Wagondia]

César Emilio respectively votes Aye, Nay, and Abstain on the three previous Resolutions.

[Flardania]

Flardania has broken it down to this:
We Vote Aye for Resolution 56 as we do need a more useful role for the P.M.
We Vote NAY on Resolution 57 as we have more important matters we can be researching and resolving rather than investigating anything in Atlas because no matter what unless there is a violation by a member or someone calls for democracy the IFC will not be getting involved!
We Vote NAY on Resolution 58 for three reasons.

1. We like Valaran reject any attempt to tell us when it's suitable to go to war as that is established in our own nation's constitution.
2. Attempted improper usage of the R.F.F
3. Once again reaffirming Flardania strong stance against donating anything towards the R.F.F

[United States of Devonta]

"The United States of Devonta votes AYE in regards to the three above resolutions"

[The Nation of Ceneria]

The Cenerian Delegate to the IFC Council votes Nay for the first resolution, Nay to the second resolution, and abstains from voting on the third resolution.

[New Carloso]

"The Carlossian Federal Votes Aye to resolution 56, Abstain from resolution 57 and would also like to Abstain from resolution 58."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

The Bratislavian delegates votes NAY on resolution 56 given the preamble statement "Believing that the present Executive currently has a flattering but tedious and sometimes unnecessary habit of waiting for Councils to rubber-stamp their wishes and waiting for Summits to invent their policy," we request that the statement be clarified.

[...]

We vote NAY on resolution 58. The protocols for the use of the RRF is already clearly outlined and this resolution goes against the governing document of the IFC, and is not in line with the founding principles of the Coalition.

"If I may address the points raised by the Bratislavan delegation, it certainly wasn't necessary to have three acts dealing with the Blue Cross - indeed, I would go so far as to say none of them were necessary: I would much have preferred that the Prime Minister simply got on with it. It was really not a very contentious issue and hardly worthy of taking up so much time and discussion and bureaucracy.

As for resolution 58, a majority in the Council can add/subtract whatever it pleases with governing documents, although so far it seems to please a majority in the council to vote like you.

I would be very interested to know when - if ever - members actually want the RRF to be used? Resolution 58 is partly designed to ensure that the RRF is not used except in certain circumstances, and can be used to initiate a liberal intervention in some circumstances, if approved by the Council. Currently it seems to be underused in the sense that there are plenty of cruel genocidal maniacs at large in the world today and overused in the sense that there are at present practically no limits on its use, except that somebody must ask for it.

As for the general principle, I presume members feel that the IFC should be prepared to combat crimes against humanity, to defend the trade of its members, and not to rule out intervening to end humanitarian disasters, improve stability, and spreading democracy? Currently the IFC seems to be becoming depressingly uninterested in affairs outside our membership, and seems to be becoming - I never thought I would say this - unambitious.

Anyway, voting continues..."

Resolution 56

5 AYES *^S
1 ABSTENTIONS
3 NAYS

Resolution 57

3 AYES *^S
2 ABSTENTIONS
4 NAYS

Resolution 58

2 AYES *^S
3 ABSTENTIONS
4 NAYS

[Bratislav]

The Bratislavian delegates votes NAY on resolution 56 given the preamble statement "Believing that the present Executive currently has a flattering but tedious and sometimes unnecessary habit of waiting for Councils to rubber-stamp their wishes and waiting for Summits to invent their policy," we request that the statement be clarified.

[...]

We vote NAY on resolution 58. The protocols for the use of the RRF is already clearly outlined and this resolution goes against the governing document of the IFC, and is not in line with the founding principles of the Coalition.

"If I may address the points raised by the Bratislavan delegation, it certainly wasn't necessary to have three acts dealing with the Blue Cross - indeed, I would go so far as to say none of them were necessary: I would much have preferred that the Prime Minister simply got on with it. It was really not a very contentious issue and hardly worthy of taking up so much time and discussion and bureaucracy.

As for resolution 58, a majority in the Council can add/subtract whatever it pleases with governing documents, although so far it seems to please a majority in the council to vote like you.

I would be very interested to know when - if ever - members actually want the RRF to be used? Resolution 58 is partly designed to ensure that the RRF is not used except in certain circumstances, and can be used to initiate a liberal intervention in some circumstances, if approved by the Council. Currently it seems to be underused in the sense that there are plenty of cruel genocidal maniacs at large in the world today and overused in the sense that there are at present practically no limits on its use, except that somebody must ask for it.

As for the general principle, I presume members feel that the IFC should be prepared to combat crimes against humanity, to defend the trade of its members, and not to rule out intervening to end humanitarian disasters, improve stability, and spreading democracy? Currently the IFC seems to be becoming depressingly uninterested in affairs outside our membership, and seems to be becoming - I never thought I would say this - unambitious.

"I may have misunderstood you. When you said 'Executive' were you referring to the Secretary General?

"As for the RRF, we believe it is essential that RRF be kept in its current form and purpose, because member-states have contributed to the RRF with those missions and goals in mind. You state that IFC be prepared to 'spread democracy'? I believe many IFC members will disagree that the RRF should be tasked with doing that. Sure, humanitarian disasters can stipulate the use of the RRF, but RRF has been created for a given purpose."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"I may have misunderstood you. When you said 'Executive' were you referring to the Secretary General?

"As for the RRF, we believe it is essential that RRF be kept in its current form and purpose, because member-states have contributed to the RRF with those missions and goals in mind. You state that IFC be prepared to 'spread democracy'? I believe many IFC members will disagree that the RRF should be tasked with doing that. Sure, humanitarian disasters can stipulate the use of the RRF, but RRF has been created for a given purpose."

"I was referring to the Cabinet as a whole, which I presume constitutes the Executive. I would be interested to know whether you would count yourself as part of the Cabinet, or beside it?

Resolution 56 passed 5-3 with one abstention, Resolution 58 failed 4-2 with three abstentions. Thank you all who have voted, and thank you in particular to those who have explained: it is always useful to know exactly where nations stand. I shall leave Resolution 57 open for a while longer.

Moving on... there seems to be nothing to debate."