NationStates

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:58 pm**

Charles simply frowned, "That is quite an aggressive proposal for the New Roma Republic. While it is clear that the nation has been struck by a great tragedy taking over the nation is far from needed nor will it be in our best interests. While their government has lost it's head there is still enough people with the necessary skills and authority to maintain a stable government. Additionally, moving to simply administratively take over a nation will not do anything good for our international image nor win the hearts and minds of the locals. Instead we should work with the current interim government to help in any possible way to investigate these lapses in security and the threats and accusations leveled against the ethnic minority." As he paused, taking a drink of water and taking a cough drop for the annoying perpetual cough that plagued him he glanced at the second proposal. "This is certainly a good idea, and captures the spirit of the ADS and IFC alike. Yet it does not go far enough to work towards eliminating oppression of the common people. You guarantee the right to a trial yet not the right for peaceful assembly. As such, I can not in good faith vote yes for either. Pillowlandia votes nay for resolution 16 and nay for the amendment to the organizations charter until it is amended with stronger language."

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:35 pm**

Kirishima votes Nay against resolution 16 for reasons just mentioned and votes nay against the charter until a proper vote in council can be held with careful scrutiny and deliberation.

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:34 am**

The new dictator currently attempting to run the New Roma Republic has seized power in a manner which is unconstitutional, illegitimate, and illegal. He is currently stirring up prejudiced ethnic tensions that run completely counter to the fair justice and democratic principles that are expected of IFC members. It is absolutely vital to the New Roma Republic that the international community intervenes to remove this tyrant and replace him with a democratic government by administering elections.

The IFC is the best placed organization to take such measures, as the New Roma Republic is a member and we have a vital interest, but if the Council is going to be so short sighted as to refuse to approve action, the Aestorian Ministry will consider various other options ranging from executive action to action co-ordinated by a group of nations within and perhaps also outside the IFC - please do inform us if you would be willing to be part of such a coalition. Of course it will look bad if the IFC Council is again going to fail to co-ordinate, but if the Council does not move quickly on Resolution 16 they will be left behind, and, if necessary, left out of the whole process, which will do nothing for the Council’s ability to maintain and exercise influence.

Moving on to proposed Universal Declaration of Rights, which we can of course discuss at our leisure, it is our opinion that the right to peaceful assembly might well be misconstrued as the right to strike, picket, and get in the way of normal people. That is why we left it out of our first draft. However I would be very interested to hear suggestions on the matter.

As for the Flardanian comments, it is patently ridiculous to vote against on the grounds that you would like a proper vote with scrutiny. This is the time for proper scrutiny. I am not intending to call the vote until everybody (or virtually everybody) is happy with the proposal. So please do get scrutinizing, rather than just saying no to everything.

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:39 pm**

By very definition the New Roma Republic Constitution has no actual measure concerning the line of succession for such a large scale loss of leadership. While the civil goverment has taken quite a serious blow it is clear that there is still legitimate leadership at the top. Like it or not Bumicum has legitimate claim towards his nations Caesarship. Is he clearly directing the nation in a direction which will actively harm innocent people and follow a path of wanton destruction of the rights of people? Quite potentially.

However, simply marching in to remove someone from power, especially with the current context, will neither help our image nor help the nation. Further more, this proposal will set a very dangerous precedent if it is passed. To pass this measure means that the IFC does not recognize the sovereign rights of nations within the IFC to self determinate. The cause of Bumicum could be easily argued as being extrajudicial and legal simultaneously. But in total the facts remain, we have no reasonable grounds to intervene in a sovereign nation yet. Now I can easily see him doing things which will give us good reason to intervene directly, but as of now it is a foolhardy idea to simply march into a grieving nation and say that we are their new government. Even if we kept our promise of only a month we will have ravaged New Roma's public opinion of us and any true successor government would have good reason to leave the IFC.

Thirdly, your implied threats are, if anything, worse than the situation in New Roma. You may as a nation do nearly anything you please without real recourse as long as you follow international standards, but to try and force other member of the IFC to move together as a coalition to take over a nation. That in of itself is dangerous thinking. Threatening executive power if we do not follow is even worse. This entire situation will create a precedent for the rest of the IFC. Like it or not, it will set a precedent that will influence future actions of this council.

On the subject of the charter amendment, if one wishes to create something it would be best to fully create something instead of a half measure. Personally I support the idea that a person should have the right to reasonably strike. By not including the right to peaceful assembly from that fear is silly, by the time that a picket or strike becomes a problem it is usually no longer simply a peaceful assembly. However, if we wish to assure those among us who fear the striking commoner then we could amend it to explicitly not protect their right to strike. As it stands this 'universal' declaration is nothing more that a moderately strongly worded letter. It requires more meat. Very specific meat in my opinion, but more meat nonetheless.

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2016 3:13 pm**

The trouble with the old sovereignty argument is that it makes no allowance for the removal of dictators by the international community, even while those dictators threaten the international community. We have a duty to intervene in failing states - eliminating oppression of the common people, as you put it. If we wait we will probably be too late. If we fail in our responsibility - well, you may fail, Ausitoria does not. We will of course proceed with caution.

On the proposed Musrum Declaration, as for striking, in Ausitoria we have high minimum wages instead, as blocking major roads is highly annoying due to our mountain and consequent road layouts. For a declaration to be 'universal' it must not be too exclusive of different points of view... but we would welcome further opinions on the subject.

The thing is, a moderately worded letter can be more powerful - it depends entirely on how it is enforced. The proposal, if enforced in the proactive manner in which Ausitoria will intervene in New Roma, could be a very powerful declaration. But if the enforcement hides in apathetic impotency, pleading national sovereignty as an excuse for appeasement, morale ambivalence, non-interventionism, and abdication of international responsibility, then any declaration, in any wording, would be almost useless.

But please, by all means continue stating your opinions - and that applies to all members. Just because Ausitoria has largely made up its mind of course does not mean the IFC has. When to intervene and when not to intervene is a tricky question and a subtle question on a continuous grey scale. For us to govern properly, we need to know where IFC members stand - and how many of them stand in what place, and whether we can reach an agreement on a policy or policies.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:16 pm**

"We will vote NAY to both resolutions put on the table at this time. The Federal Union of Guadalupador firmly believes that it should be able to defend all of its territorial boundaries. That is all I can say at this time."

Posted: **Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:41 pm**

"Quite why the Federal Union sees fit to claim what should be shared in the common interest is beyond our understanding. We do not recognize their claim.

While we consider other measures suitable for a unity of purpose, we would welcome comments (please, no voting at this stage) on this draft proposal for enabling further economic co-operation. Please note the provisions regarding free movement of people are entirely optional in this draft, and we see no reason why they should be mandatory."

Aestorian Commonwealth
Frederick Styles

Draft Act for the Free Movement of Goods, Services and Capital and Other Optional Single Market Provisions

Resolution Number: 18

This resolution hereby adds after the end of Part 1, Section 1 of the Administrative Act the following:
-

Section 2: Reserved Rights

Any person or legal entity who is resident or partly owned from any IFC member may not suffer discrimination on the basis of their nationality in their economic rights at the hands of any IFC member; in matters regarding:

Subsection 1:
The right to own property, and to be fairly compensated for any damage or confiscation by any entity responsible,

Subsection 2:
The right to free movement of:
(a) goods,
(b) services, and
(c) capital,
which shall be normally tariff-free, and subject only to such charges and laws as are naturally incurred upon domestic entities, and shall include the freedom of innocent navigation, and

Subsection 3:
The access to free movement of labour and people, but only among those IFC members which (a) are members the time of the passage of this act, and opt-in to this subclause; and (b) IFC members who join after the passage of this act and do not opt-out from this right;

Subsection 4:
All IFC members shall maintain the following additional general freedoms:
(a) the freedom of the media,
(b) right to vote for official representatives,
(c) the freedom for other IFC members to pass military forces through their waters and airspace, according to reasonable traffic control,

Subsection 5:
Any breach of these rights by any IFC member shall be considered grounds for suspension for that member or signatory while a further investigation is carried out, and the Council shall initiate a vote to expel the member within one month of the matter being officially raised in the Council.

-
And renumbers the remaining sections as appropriate.

Signed,

Frederick Styles, Aestoria

Posted: **Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:47 pm**

"The OS Delegation votes nay to Resolution 18, and urges other delegations to do so. Property Regulations have no place in an international body that should be returning its focus to its defensive mission."

Posted: **Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:49 pm**

"Also, mostly addressing Salderia's complaints:"

Aestorian Commonwealth
Frederick Styles

Musrum Universal Declaration of Rights

Resolution Number: 17a

This resolution hereby amends everything up to the end of Section 1 of the Administrative Act to read as follows:

-

IFC Charter

Resolution Number: 0

The IFC,

In freedom everlasting,

Believing in the voluntary co-operation of sovereign states, in matters from economic to military interests,

Reaffirming its abhorrence of egregious acts of violence and crimes against humanity, including acts of genocide, torture, and mass attacks upon civilians,

Reaffirming its allegiance to the principles of liberty and self-determination, in all times and in all places, and

Reaffirming its commitment to actively support the security of the free world,

Hereby declares, for ourselves, and for the world, this our charter:

Part I: Declaration of Rights

Section 1: Universal Rights

Except where the exercise of such rights would likely be actively and imminently prejudicial to the rights and/or safety of others, and/or of debilitating and global significance to the rights and/or safety of others, any person who is a citizen or resident of any member or observer nation, and/or a citizen or resident of any nation that signs and abides by this declaration of rights, shall henceforth enjoy, at all times and in all places:

Subsection 1: Liberty

1. The right to life and to security of their person, including protection from any personal violation or unwarranted attack,
2. The right to liberty, i.e. to do anything not forbidden by law,
3. The right to own property, and to be fairly compensated for any damage or confiscation by any entity responsible,
4. The right to pursue happiness, education, and enterprise,
5. The right to a supportive government,
6. Their freedom from slavery, and to enjoy rest and leisure,
7. Their freedom of movement of their person within a nation,
8. The right to peaceful assembly,
8. Their freedom to enjoy innocent movement through the high seas and high skies,
9. Their freedom from discrimination in any such human rights on the basis of their nationality, race, gender, or sexuality,

Subsection 2: Legal Rights

1. The right to a fair legal trial and legal counsel, including presumption of innocence, and the absence of post ex-facto law,
2. The right to habeas corpus,
3. Their freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, including torture,
4. Their freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment,
5. Their right to asylum from unjust persecution,
6. Their right to a nationality, and not to be deprived of it or forbidden from changing it,

Subsection 3: Conscience

1. Their freedom of opinion, thought, and belief,
2. Their freedom of self-expression, association, and assembly,
3. Their freedom to refuse to kill,
4. Their freedom from slander,
5. Their right to marry, or not, according to personal choice,
6. Their freedom of privacy, within reason,

Subsection 4: Conduct of War

1. All persons involved in any war or international dispute shall enjoy all the rights and liberties listed above, except for the right to life when mortal combat is absolutely necessary, or the right to free-movement if in conquered territory,
2. Those persons surrendering shall be considered prisoners of war, and shall enjoy all the rights and liberties listed above, except for free movement,
3. Neutral and civilian organizations must be afforded every reasonable assistance in support for wounded, and not purposefully or negligently targeted if they are straightforwardly identified,
4. The evacuation of those not party to the conflict must not be hindered, except to ensure equitable provision of potential hostages,
5. Areas declared to be free zones by either party must not be attacked or defended by any party, but may be used for movement of forces,

Subsection 5: Exceptions

Note these freedoms shall not neccessarily apply in the following disputable areas:
(a) the right to bear weaponry
(b) freedom of prostitution
(c) ownership and sale of drugs and similar substances
(d) abortion of the unborn
(e) the passage of submerged craft
(f) innocent passage through the high seas within 25 kilometers of any land or territories, except within natural channels
(g) innocent passage through the high skies or space within 3 kilometers of any land or territory, or near any man-made craft capable of permanently supporting human life without outside intervention
(h) innocent passage outside designated routes of travel designed for ensuring safety during innocent passage
(i) military passage within 75 kilometers of any land or territories
(j) the ability for states to identify and check craft that pass within 75 kilometers of their land or territories
(k) the right to exclusive other commercial use of EEZ waters
(l) the ownership of slave futures performing only an economic function
(m) the right to strike
(n) the right to picket
(o) the right for homosexuals to enter into a religious marriage (as opposed to enter into an equivalent civil partnership)
(p) any other areas where the exercise of such rights would likely be actively and imminently prejudicial to the rights and/or safety of others, and/or of debilitating global significance to the rights and/or safety of others.

Subsection 5: Enforcement

1. Any breach of these universal rights sanctioned by any nation shall be considered an act of war against the IFC; and, after peaceful resolution has been attempted, the IFC may recognize hostilities.
2. This Declaration of Universal Rights shall be maintained at the IFC Capital as a treaty for signatories outside the IFC to sign.
3. The Treaty may be referred to as the Musrum Universal Declaration in honour of our former Secretary-General.
4. Other undersigned signatories outside the IFC shall also be expected to assist in the enforcement of these rights.

-

Signed,

Frederick Styles, Aestoria

Posted: **Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:15 pm**

The revision to the universal declaration is strong enough, though could be further stronger, that Pillowlandia can reasonable support it. We additionally support resolution 18, though are puzzled at the inclusion of freedom of media rights in something more related to trade. While we do not oppose it, it is a curious place to locate such language.

Posted: **Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:31 pm**

The delegation from the Timocrtic Republic votes nay on resolution 18.

Posted: **Wed Jun 22, 2016 9:02 pm**

The Roskian Federation votes NAY on Resolution 18. The wording of the resolution makes it sound voluntary, and thus the document has no water and passing it would essentially be a waste of valuable time.

Roski potentially supports an IFC action to topple a dictatorship in the New Roma Republic, but pleads for all sides to understand that there will be responsibilities to help this nation return to its former standing instead of bombing and then leaving.

Roski supports the Universal Declaration Charter, and wishes to ratify the charter.

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:33 am**

The Aestorian Government would like to welcome the increasing support for the Universal Declaration. We regard it as an absolutely necessary step to ensure unity of purpose in the IFC, so that we know that we are all on the same page in our pursuit of freedom, and so that we can use the declaration as a casus belli to oust tyrants from power and pressure foreign nations into abiding by our rules. There is a great advantage to be made from setting the international standard, since we can make it entirely in our shared interests, and we can and should set that standard.

Similarly the draft Resolution 18 should be viewed in the context of defensive arrangements. It is our opinion that among certain members there is considerable reluctance to support their allies. This is, of course, largely a result of insufficient anti-discriminatory provisions in business matters, and a corresponding lack of business links. Perhaps the title of the draft Resolution 18 has caused some confusion: it would be much better to call it "The Discriminatory Tariff Abolition Act".

Note that we are not going for a full single market - even though the RealLife^TM show has clearly become entirely unrealistic*, it would hardly be fair to force members to open their borders to free movement of people, although it is of course to be recommended in their own interests.

Moving on to matters in the New Roma Republic, and in Bluewell, we urgently seek opinions on the creation of an IFC peacekeeping force, including provision for the deployment of humanitarian aid, administration, and government.

[*OOC: I plan to publish an Ausitorian newspaper review criticizing RealLife, in the same way as one would critique a TV show. Should be fun...]

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:59 am**

While we should still not quite fully conduct the proposal given in resolution 16, the most recent actions by the New Roma government in their appointments clearly indicate a path of power consolidation. I belive that while we should not simply apoint an arbitrary temporary government, we should begin making extensive plans for what is increasingly appearing as a situation needing IFC involvement. Though me must be carful in our approach, we should start with an IFC back impartial investigation into events.

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:39 pm**

Until now, the Salderian and Vikdenian delegates had been quiet. This sudden change in New Roma Republic had taken them off guard, and they were worried about any repercussions to their nations. Salderia especially. Archer knew that the USN had a base on Salderia, and with the collapse of that alliance, all nations had withdrew forces. Except New Roma Republic. They still had to give the order to remove the 5 ships and Legion. Even Vikden, Salderia's closest ally had all but pulled their troops off. The Vidkenian contingent was now only a company, for island security.

The Vikdenian military command felt there was no overt threat to Salderia. The NRR seemed to be more interested in killing their own citizens than killing other citizens. Nevertheless, the Archer felt worried. She spoke up "I must agree with Frederick. Salderia votes AYE on Resolution 16. We shall also vote AYE on 17a."

The Vikdenian President said "We vote NAY on 16. It is too over bearing for what they are going through. We vote AYE on 17a."

Posted: **Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:46 am**

"Well, if there are no further comments, I would like to open our final version of Resolution 17 for voting. We have clarified a few potential areas of dispute in it, namely on what to do if the treaty is amended, limits on the timescales of abortion, and a clause establishing the right of passage outside the disputed areas.

Aestorian Commonwealth
Frederick Styles

Musrum Universal Declaration of Rights

Resolution Number: 17b

This resolution hereby amends everything up to the end of Section 1 of the Administrative Act to read as follows:

-

IFC Charter

Resolution Number: 0

The IFC,

In freedom everlasting,

Believing in the voluntary co-operation of sovereign states, in matters from economic to military interests,

Reaffirming its abhorrence of egregious acts of violence and crimes against humanity, including acts of genocide, torture, and mass attacks upon civilians,

Reaffirming its allegiance to the principles of liberty and self-determination, in all times and in all places, and

Reaffirming its commitment to actively support the security of the free world,

Hereby declares, for ourselves, and for the world, this our charter:

Part I: Declaration of Rights

Section 1: Universal Rights

Except where the exercise of such rights would likely be actively and imminently prejudicial to the rights and/or safety of others, and/or of debilitating and global significance to the rights and/or safety of others, any person who is a citizen or resident of any member or observer nation, and/or a citizen or resident of any nation that signs and abides by this declaration of rights, shall henceforth enjoy, at all times and in all places:

Subsection 1: Liberty

1. The right to life and to security of their person, including protection from any personal violation or unwarranted attack,
2. The right to liberty, i.e. to do anything not forbidden by law,
3. The right to own property, and to be fairly compensated for any damage or confiscation by any entity responsible,
4. The right to pursue happiness, education, and enterprise,
5. The right to a supportive government,
6. Their freedom from slavery, and to enjoy rest and leisure,
7. Their freedom of movement of their person within a nation,
8. The right to peaceful assembly,
8. Their right to share the high seas and high skies to enjoy free passage,
9. Their freedom from discrimination in any such human rights on the basis of their nationality, race, gender, or sexuality,

Subsection 2: Legal Rights

1. The right to a fair legal trial and legal counsel, including presumption of innocence, and the absence of post ex-facto law,
2. The right to habeas corpus,
3. Their freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, including torture,
4. Their freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment,
5. Their right to asylum from unjust persecution,
6. Their right to a nationality, and not to be deprived of it or forbidden from changing it,

Subsection 3: Conscience

1. Their freedom of opinion, thought, and belief,
2. Their freedom of self-expression, association, and assembly,
3. Their freedom to refuse to kill,
4. Their freedom from slander,
5. Their right to marry, or not, according to personal choice,
6. Their freedom of privacy, within reason,

Subsection 4: Conduct of War

1. All persons involved in any war or international dispute shall enjoy all the rights and liberties listed above, except for the right to life when mortal combat is absolutely necessary, or the right to free-movement if in conquered territory,
2. Those persons surrendering shall be considered prisoners of war, and shall enjoy all the rights and liberties listed above, except for free movement,
3. Neutral and civilian organizations must be afforded every reasonable assistance in support for wounded, and not purposefully or negligently targeted if they are straightforwardly identified,
4. The evacuation of those not party to the conflict must not be hindered, except to ensure equitable provision of potential hostages,
5. Areas declared to be free zones by either party must not be attacked or defended by any party, but may be used for movement of forces,

Subsection 5: Exceptions

Note these freedoms shall not necessarily apply in the following disputable areas:
(a) the right to bear weaponry
(b) freedom of prostitution
(c) ownership and sale of drugs and similar substances
(d) abortion of the unborn (up to 7 months, or later if their is either a risk to the bearer's life or existent foetal abnormalities)
(e) the passage of submerged craft in EEZ waters
(f) innocent passage through the high seas within 25 kilometers of any land or territories, except within natural channels
(g) innocent passage through the high skies or space within 3 kilometers of any land or territory, or near any man-made craft capable of permanently supporting human life without outside intervention
(h) innocent passage outside designated routes of travel designed for ensuring safety during innocent passage
(i) military passage or intelligence gathering within 75 kilometers of any land or territories
(j) the ability for states to identify and check craft that pass within 75 kilometers of their land or territories
(k) the right to exclusive other commercial use of EEZ waters
(l) the ownership of slave futures performing only an economic function
(m) the right to strike
(n) the right to picket
(o) the right for homosexuals to enter into a religious marriage (as opposed to enter into an equivalent civil partnership)
(p) any other areas where the exercise of such rights would likely be actively and imminently prejudicial to the rights and/or safety of others, and/or of debilitating global significance to the rights and/or safety of others.
Note also that free passage of the types specified outside the respective distances specified as open for dispute should be considered protected by this declaration.

Subsection 6: Enforcement

1. Any breach of these universal rights sanctioned by any nation shall be considered an act of war against the IFC; and, after peaceful resolution has been attempted, the IFC may recognize hostilities.
2. This Declaration of Universal Rights shall be maintained at the IFC Capital as a treaty for signatories outside the IFC to sign.
3. The Treaty may be referred to as the Musrum Universal Declaration in honour of our former Secretary-General.
4. The IFC may amend this Treaty but signatories outside the IFC shall not be required to comply with the newer version, but must retain compliance with the older version unless they wish to state their intent to sign the newer version.
5. Other undersigned signatories outside the IFC shall also be expected to assist in the enforcement of these rights.

-

Signed,

Frederick Styles, Aestoria

Since the modifications have been fairly slight, unless otherwise requested, and unless votes are changed, I will be counting all votes so far cast; and similarly all expressions of support or disapproval. Currently the vote is at 4*-3 in favour."

[*OOC: Note that since Salderia and Vikden have both voted in favour, I am ICly not counting Ausitoria's vote to compensate for that, which is equivalent to me OOCly counting only one vote per person.]

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:30 pm**

The Organized States of America
Kyle Noshimuri

Condemnation of the Ardokian Government and Clarification Regarding Usage of Military Force in Space

Resolution Number: 19

This resolution, if passed, hereby condemns the Ardokian Government for its false reporting of the true intention of its orbital platforms. False reporting of a satellite's true intentions and capabilities creates a legitimate barrier to the free and safe use of space for commercial and peaceful purposes, and indeed, has created the unfortunate situation seen on the International Stage. Additionally, this resolution hereby supports the use of Military force to defend interests in Orbit, particularly if it would in any way,

a) Minimize Collateral Damage
b) Support Joint I.F.C. Military Operations and the Military Operations of its members, particularly in situations wherein the National Security of a Nation is threatened by a foreign power
c) Support Concurrent Space Operations, carried out by Scientific Agencies (such as the O.S. Air Force Space Defense Force, the O.S. National Aerospace and Science Administration, or the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency)
d) Safeguard Commercial Space Flight (operated by organizations such as the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, Blue Origin, Inc., or the United Launch Alliance)

Additionally, this resolution supports any future use of Military Force in Orbit if any of the above criteria are met. Additionally, as to mitigate future Space-based Defense Threats, this resolution proposes the creation of an I.F.C. Military Committee on Space, headed by a nominated Space Operations Officer/Senior Astronaut/Senior Extra-Orbital Pilot or Combat Systems Operator.

Signed,

Kyle Noshimuri, Organized States of America

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:42 am**

"Nay to Resolution 19. Funnily enough, the Ausitorian government is not of the opinion that aggressively shooting down spacecraft makes space flight more peaceful or less hazardous."

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:53 am**

"Aye, an absolute Aye for Resolution 19. Protection and the right to protect both member-nations ground and space assets should be integral to this coalition's policy."

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2016 6:36 pm**

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:"Nay to Resolution 19. Funnily enough, the Ausitorian government is not of the opinion that aggressively shooting down spacecraft makes space flight more peaceful or less hazardous."

"Ambassador, I'd like to ask you who's side you're on right now? As of this moment, the Ardokians, the Big Red Dog, is digging in our backyard as we speak. This delegation, and many others are not particularly interested in letting that Big Red Dog dig up our yard. Now, we have three options. Let that big red dog take over our yard. Kill the dog. Or simply take a stand and remove the dog right now, and build a fence. What we are proposing here, is the third option. We don't want a war, particularly not with Ardoki. However, we need to show that there is a line that they cannot cross. This delegation sees it as imperative that the Peace is assured through deterrence. In the words of Thomas Paine, these are indeed 'the times that try men's souls'. However, to quote him once more, 'Give me peace in our time!'" stated passionately Kyle Noshimori, new OS Delegate. A former Military man, the Nihonese-American had broken many of the color barriers in the OS Navy's Submarine force, and had rapidly become a rising political star. He was a different kind of delegate, no longer content with hit and run voting, much preferring to confront other delegates on the floor.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:27 pm**

Frederick was understandably incensed by the warlike manner of the OS delegate. The Ausitorians could be a surprisingly peaceable lot, as shown by their careful exhaustion of all diplomatic avenues before they ever went to war.

"Ambassador, much as I respect your diplomatic and civilian inexperience, modern spaceflight would be impossibly expensive if nations could claim beyond an altitude of 75 km. I refer you to the series of Austorian position statements regarding ASA-725.

If the Ambassador really desires to keep Ardoki in line, it would be much better to draw a line over something actually worth defending, for instance, Ardokian affairs in Aanglandia, which the Aestorian Commonwealth's Ministry of Intelligence and Statistics is currently investigating."

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:32 pm**

Roski votes nay on resolution 19, because policy and condemnations should not be on the same bill.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:22 am**

"Safe Spaceflight, particularly by human occupants, can only be achieved if the security framework exists to support it. In fact, I would be more than willing to pursue an open-skies treaty, allowing for the unhindered movement of spacecraft, however, we cannot allow such transgressions committed by the Big Red Dog to go unchecked. However, more inmportantly, it would appear that the Ausitorian delegation simply refuses to answer a very simple question. Mr. Ambassador, who's side is Ausitoria on? It's evidently not on the side of the I.F.C. You've refused to back one of our members in a time of crisis against a foreign power that has displayed hostile intent towards an I.F.C. nation. I'd like to bring to the attention of the council, a a document that openly states the Commonwealth's intention to defend a state hostile to a member of the I.F.C. This ladies and gentlemen, is the great betrayal of our time. The Ausitorians are backing a regime that has committed heinous crimes against humanity simply because it can. It pains me to see that a country that prides itself on the rule of law, openly defending and taking the side of such a nation, for its own personal gain. Your leadership is to be greatly admired, however, you must understand that, once again to quote the great Thomas Paine, 'Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.' The Commonwealth must abandon its support of a dictatorial regime if it truly respects the bylaws that it wishes to pass on the rest of us!" replied Noshimori.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:36 am**

"Given that Ausitoria has always been very explicit about maintaining the balance of power, and was voted back in office on the back of plenty of arguments on the subject, we have decided to be very explicit about continuing to maintain the balance of power.

Whether we like it or not - and I can assure you, we don't - Ausitoria has a duty to protect the remainder of the left in the interest of avoiding a world where the Nihonese and their cronies are dominant. In case you have a selective memory, they have attacked the interests of IFC members, carried out cyber attacks against our members, sunk our members fleets, and more recently have blocked our members free trade. We see no reason why we should kowtow to them or stand idly by while they attempt to destroy all those who oppose them. Therefore the International Commonwealth Agency has explicitly declared its temporary protection of the major nations of the left.

Of course some of these nations on the left are odious, and if the IFC becomes sole hegemon, then we will be able to deal with them. But the aim of our foreign policy is to ensure that all nations can choose what sort of free society they are, irrespective of whether they are socialists or capitalists. To maintain that diversity and freedom we must be willing to protect societies on the left with less freedom than we would like against fascists. In any event, if the Nihonese and their cronies invaded hell itself, we would give a favourable reference to the devil.

I know this may be unpopular among those of you who consider themselves to be Nihonese cronies, or those of you who would like to expel all socialists or non dual-members from the IFC, but that is current IFC policy. All we desire is to protect free societies, irrespective of whether they are socialists or capitalists. But if you don't like it, you are more than welcome to bring a motion to change the IFC. That is how democracy works."

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:36 am**

Frederick drank from a glass of water, and then continued.

"In any event, the Roski delegation is perfectly right: Resolution 19 is really several proposals, and should be split up into:

1. An explicit clarification that the defence agreement covers the spacecraft of member nations, which is a good idea.
2. A condemnation of Ardoki for carrying out intelligence gathering like all reasonsable governments do (honestly, there are much suitable things to condemn about Ardoki, you could condemn literally anybody for intelligence gathering). So that's a silly idea.
3. A decision to to create new IFC agencies, which I would prefer the Council not to do of its own initiative, since the Council will just make a mess of the government departments, and make it more difficult for the government to be streamlined into a mandatory defence half and an optional projects half. So that's a good idea done in a bad way.
4. A decision to support further collaboration among nations (this time with regard to space agencies), an idea which I thought OS has been agitating against. (So you don't mind collaboration after all?) Anyway that's also a good idea.

Incidentally, open skies is already covered by the Musrum Universal Declaration - see Subsection 5, clause (g) and (h). Presumably your delegation didn't read the proposal before voting against it."

Here Frederick rolled his eyes. Then he continued, with a sly smile creeping on to his face.

"5. An expression of support for starting a space war, which would no doubt fill the skies with runaway debris, leading to Kessler Syndrome and the end of civilization as we know it, which is a really really really bad idea.

So, since it's really several proposals, we will propose an amendment, splitting it up. And removing the bad bits..."

NationStates

8th IFC Council-in-Summit [IC] [IFC Only]