WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
Have we violated against the Indochine protocol ? NO !

Yes, actually, China has violated the Indochina Protocol, and repeatedly. For years, China refused to negotiate with France over the disputed Paracels, citing that they'll wait for an independent Indochinese regime. This position by China flies in opposition to Point 2.A of the Protocol, identifying France as the source of political and military authority in Indochina. Because China has refused to negotiate so many times in the past, the French feel 2.A has been ignored. On at least two occasions, France has warned China and the rest of the signatories that China's actions are interpreted as violation of the Protocol, and yet China continued to ignore French offers for negotiation. Even after France offered an all-Indochinese negotiating team, China continued to refuse to negotiate with them. Despite China's repeated violation of their treaty commitments, France is still going forward with its commitments to the Protocol, and providing informational updates on Indochina to the Chinese and the rest of the other signatories - because unlike China, France made a commitment they intend to uphold.

The fact that China dismissed their claim to the Paracels in the recent statement does not mean everything is somehow fixed in regards to China's relationship with France or Indochina.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Yes, actually, China has violated the Indochina Protocol, and repeatedly. For years, China refused to negotiate with France over the disputed Paracels, citing that they'll wait for an independent Indochinese regime.

Why should China discuss this point with France, when there is no need for China to discuss it at THIS time, because China could wait, till Indochina gets independent. China accepts the status quo in the past, and said it will be discussed in the future.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
This position by China flies in opposition to Point 2.A of the Protocol, identifying France as the source of political and military authority in Indochina. Because China has refused to negotiate so many times in the past, the French feel 2.A has been ignored.

Again. NO !! Okay, how you it spelled, it looks like China has violated, but again ... China has accepted the status quo and has told to France there is NO NEED for a discussion NOW AND IN THE FUTURE because China dismissed their claim !

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
On at least two occasions, France has warned China and the rest of the signatories that China's actions are interpreted as violation of the Protocol, and yet China continued to ignore French offers for negotiation. Even after France offered an all-Indochinese negotiating team, China continued to refuse to negotiate with them. Despite China's repeated violation of their treaty commitments, France is still going forward with its commitments to the Protocol, and providing informational updates on Indochina to the Chinese and the rest of the other signatories - because unlike China, France made a commitment they intend to uphold.

The fact that China dismissed their claim to the Paracels in the recent statement does not mean everything is somehow fixed in regards to China's relationship with France or Indochina.

For China it looks like, if you didn't share the opinion of France , you are an evil and a warmonger.

The American Reaction from Washington:

The United States government is deeply disappointed that the Government of China went and undertook this seemingly rash move. It is in the view of the United States that the rationale for the Chinese departure was poorly thought out, especially considering that they declare they were not given a seat as a Permanent Member yet did not formally petiton for one or make a proposal for a change to the Membership.

The United States government has therefore requested an audience with either the Chinese Emissary in Washington, or with senior members of the Chinese government so the Chinese government can give a full detailed explanation as to the real reason behind this move.

China has followed the Bharati bandwagon and left the League using Bharat's thin excuse, but having never raised the issue once in twenty-odd years it seems rather like scrabbling around for an excuse to cover the withdrawal. Not only that but China has shown itself as untrustworthy. Who would sign a new Treaty, or wish to remain part of an existing one with China when they are obviously fickle and will walk-out under the flimsiest of excuses? Whatever word China gives is meaningless.

France's pointing out of the Indochina Protocol and China's continued attempt to bury its head in the sand is another proof China's unreliability in the eye's of the British Goverment.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
For China it looks like, if you didn't share the opinion of France , you are an evil and a warmonger.

And from my point of view, it just looked like China was trying to be an twit.

Due to the issue with the Spratleys, I requested to discuss the disputed islands in-character and was rebuffed. In an attempt to work with you, I offered to send a commission solely from Indochina, and was rebuffed. You told me that you will never negotiate so long as France is involved in any way in Indochina. In-character, I had to come up with some justification for that: and I made it clear that, if China continued to refuse, it would appear as if China intended to wait for Indochinese independence in order to pressure a small weak border state. Knowing that, and knowing that France viewed a refusal to negotiate as violation of the Protocol, you again refused to negotiate.

The cause of the dispute is irrelevant now that you've withdrawn Chinese claim to the Paracels, but your actions (or lack thereof) have results. If you don't like the results, you should have listened to me earlier when I tried to offer a more mutually-agreeable alternative.

Gentlemen, watch your diction. Don't forget to be gentlemen.

Thanks.

At length, Don Luis Varela, delegate of the Republic of the Philippines, rises to speak in response to the announced withdrawal of the Chinese Empire from the League of Nations.

“The Republic of the Philippines is in no way surprised by the abrupt decision of the Chinese Government to announce its withdrawal from the League of Nations; to our sorrow my nation has learned that the commitment of the Chinese Government to a solemn treaty means nothing if there is advantage in appeal to the force of arms or the threat thereof.”

“According to the statement issued by the honorable representative of the Chinese Empire, the proximate cause of China’s decision to withdraw from the League is the perceived inequality of the apportionment of seats on the League’s permanent council, an inequality perceived only following the decision of the Empire of Bharat to withdraw from this august body. Indeed, the careful wordsmith can see many conscious parallels between the statement offered by Bharat in June of this year and the one offered by China today. In both cases, neither aggrieved party chose to bring their perceptions to the attention of the League Assembly, preferring the theatre of a staged-managed démarche to open and honest exchange of views and talks to address the perceived inequality. By their respective decisions to ignore the deliberative process and their choices to depart from the League both nations have offered grave insults to all the members of the League – from highest to lowest – and to the League Assembly as a whole. In like manner they have robbed their arguments regarding the inequality of membership in the Permanent Council of any force – nay, they have shown these to be the specious reasoning of expansionist regimes that care nothing for international law or the commitments they have undertaken in the past.”

“The calumny circulated by the representative of the Chinese Empire in the vain attempt to soothe its wounded amour-propre can be refuted in great detail by examination of the actions of the Chinese Government over the past years and its continuing program of expansionism and military adventurism today.”

“In 1932 the Chinese Empire willingly signed the Indochina Protocol, Article 2A of which states, “A. SATSUMA commits to recognize and respect the existing boundaries of Indochina and the role of France, subject to the outcome of the plebiscite cited in 1D above, as the source of political and military authority within Indochina. SATSUMA will cooperate with France, in a mutually agreed upon manner, to preserve the well-being of Indochina where circumstances may require cooperation.”

“Yet as early as 1935 the true Chinese position vis-à-vis the Indochina Protocol was made clear to this assembly through the words of the Chinese delegate, Dong Sen Fen, who stated, inter alia , “In this course China would like to reiterate that the situation of the Paracel Islands is still not settled. Currently, the islands are a fiduciary - mandate in the hands of the League and Iberia was commissioned to watch over the islands. This is for China now an unsustainable situation! The islands were traditionally held in Chinese hands, and only by the results of the Great War led to this situation. China, however, has proved that it is a stable country with peaceful intentions, and certainly make his contribution to the stability in the region. This gives China to the League the following: The review of the continue of the mandate over the Paracel Islands - We think it's time that the islands are handed over back to China.” No clearer statement of Chinese intentions to negate any claim of Indochina to sovereignty over the Paracel Islands is required.” [Source]

“Since that time China has refused to enter into negotiations with France, which under Article 2A of the Indochina Protocol, is responsible for the foreign affairs of Indochina, on any matters relating to the resolution of the disputed islands. As a signatory to the Indochina Protocol, the Republic of the Philippines has observed is provisions and must condemn in the strongest terms the intransigence of the Chinese Empire in failing to fulfill in good faith the obligations it has undertaken. If the Chinese Government no longer considers itself bound by the provisions of the Indochina Protocol, then the Philippine Government calls upon the other signatory powers to either (a) assure Chinese compliance with its provisions, (b) enter into fresh negotiations in good faith to revise the agreement to the satisfaction of the parties in question or (c) determine that the agreement is null and void, terminate the current Iberian mandate, and recognize the possession of the islands by Indochina.”

“In 1938 the Republic of the Philippines and the Chinese Empire, pursuant to the treaty to which both governments were then parties, reached a temporary agreement regarding the use of certain territories of the Republic of the Philippines – commonly known as the Spratly Islands – by Chinese air and naval forces. Upon the basis of this temporary agreement the Chinese Empire undertook to fortify the territories in question and establish major air and naval bases therein. When in the course of events the Republic of the Philippines withdrew from the SATSUMA alliance it sought the termination of Chinese activities within the region in question and the withdrawal of those Chinese forces stationed therein. The history of the conflict precipitated by the Chinese refusal is all too well known to the international community; only the efforts of the Republic of France to mediate a settlement brought that sanguinary affair to a close.”

“Since that time the Chinese Empire has spared no effort to increase the size of its naval and military forces. It has doubled the size of its aircraft carrier force – an arm it used so freely in the terror bombing of the city of Olongopo in the final days of the recent conflict. It has purchased powerful dreadnought battleships to add to its already substantial collection of capital ships. It has collected cruisers and destroyers by the handful from nations all too willing to divest themselves of unnecessary warships and unmindful of China’s predatory intentions. Not content to scour the shipyards of the world for bargains, China has also undertaken the construction of ocean-going submarines capable of penetrating to distant waters – to Africa, to the Americas; perhaps even to Europe. These actions are not those of a nation dedicated to peace – they are those of a nation bent upon a program of military expansion directed at its neighbors near at hand and at the interests of all nations in the Far East.”

“It is now well-known that China, which has developed its own chemical warfare program under the guise of ‘pesticides’, is supplying that same technology to the Kingdom of Chosen, a nation which has openly advertised for chemical weapon delivery systems – allegedly for civilian use. What nation could consider the use of chemical weapons a legitimate civilian use? Obviously the Chinese Empire does, as it appears it sees no reason to refrain from transferring such capability to Chosen. Press reports from Beijing have shown the world the ability of Chinese artillerists, whose ‘Zhu’ mortars are among the largest siege guns constructed by the hand of man. What purpose do such weapons serve? Is it to reduce fortifications erected to protect a nation’s borders from Chinese aggression? Or is it to shower death upon the civilian populations that live in the shadow of those protective fortifications?”

“The Republic of the Philippines warns the international community that the Chinese decision to withdraw from the League of Nations should put it on notice that China will – at a time of its choosing – act to take by force those territories it considers to be its own. To do so it will spare no expense, nor abide by any agreement beyond the time such treaties cease to serve China’s interest. This painful lesson the Philippines has learned.”

OOC :
Way back when, Red Admiral made Mussolini boss of Italy, and played the bad guy.
Folks seemed to wind up blurring the line between the Italian Player, and the Wesworld nation of Italy.

Parador has indicated that this is, in part, to take Wesworld away from this happy place where everyone gets along. I've certainly had my qualms about that as well, so I applaud that.

My efforts to play the distasteful ally were ineffectual until the end, when I recapped and pointed stuff out. I don't post enough, and I wasn't willing to go far enough to make it work. Plus the Dutch aren't a major power and couldn't afford to drive away allies, so folks didn't care that much.

From an IC view, I will note that back when the Chinese refuse to recognize France's right to negotiate on behalf of Indochina, the Dutch gleefully pointed out this was a breach of the treaty. Further, they suggest the Permanent Court of Arbitration was the appropriate venue for resolution...which neither side embraced (heck no one's embraced).

IC:
The Dutch delegate will consult some papers and then ask for the floor :

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I will remind this body that the 1907 Hague convention generally prohibits naval bombardment of undefended cities, etc, with exceptions for Military facilities. Gas warfare of course was addressed in the 1899 Hague convention. These conventions also recognized the legal equality of nations. If there have been breaches, a International Commission of Inquiry or the World Court would be appropriate venues to prove such." (1)


(1) China signed the 1899 version on 7/29/1899 and signed the 1907 version on 5/10/1917. OTL the Phillipines was part of the USA and so were signatories that way, here I at least generally presume that any pre-game treaties that applied to a nation's territory OTL applies in WW, and that Atlantis is probably part of all of them.

The Hague being the home to Academy of International Law, I figure the Dutch rep should know this stuff

Speaking OOC,

I agree that blurring the line between player and nation is detrimental to the flow of the game. My intent is to maintain that, particularly in playing three different countries with different policy objectives.

Parador has said that he is willing to play the bad guy; that's fine too - but expect different reactions from different people. That is why we trade verbal barbs.

I note the Dutch concern for the Permanent Court of Arbitration; alas, the Indochina Protocol has its own provisions for arbitration:

Quoted

Part 3: Conflict Resolution

A. In the event that the parties disagree on the interpretation of any clause in this contract, an arbitration panel shall be appointed to resolve the dispute. The panel shall consist of a representative from France or Indochina, a representative from one of the SATSUMA signatories, and a chairman to be selected by the French/Indochinese and SATSUMA representatives.

B. Decisions rendered by the arbitration panel shall be binding.

Thus it could be construed that an appeal to the Permanent Court is in itself a violation of the Protocol. This is a step that the Philippines, as a signatory, is not willing to take at this time.

Likewise, the applicability of the Hague Conventions has been debated here in the past. The positions taken by the Philippines vis-a-vis Chinese actions are colored by their perceptions and are for rhetorical purposes.

OOC :
Well, they first signed treaty A agreeing to abide by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and then at a later date have a subset of signatories sign a private agreement B would seems unlikely to void Treaty A.

However, as I recall, the Permanent Court only is applicable if all parties choose to use it. So Treaty B is binding to them to actually USE arbitration and sacrifice their right to use Treaty A.

As for the applicability of pretty much all treaties..it's a bit vague. Those "pregame" appear to apply, but the issue of OTL vs. WW history crops up. Then we seem to have forgotten to game out several significant treaties post-WWI.

However, much as the Filipino statement was rhetorical, so was mine. No one bothers to use them, I can't think of anyone who wants to be judge, but they existed, and it would make sense for the Dutch rep to point out that there's a mechanism to address the Filipino Rhetoric.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

However, much as the Filipino statement was rhetorical, so was mine. No one bothers to use them, I can't think of anyone who wants to be judge, but they existed, and it would make sense for the Dutch rep to point out that there's a mechanism to address the Filipino Rhetoric.

Rhetoric has no place before a court, save that of public opinion, and it was to that body that the Philippine remarks were addressed. At the moment, the Philippines has no issue to bring before the Permanent Court, nor any other. If it did so, it would so so.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
The American Reaction from Washington:

The United States government is deeply disappointed that the Government of China went and undertook this seemingly rash move. It is in the view of the United States that the rationale for the Chinese departure was poorly thought out, especially considering that they declare they were not given a seat as a Permanent Member yet did not formally petiton for one or make a proposal for a change to the Membership.

The United States government has therefore requested an audience with either the Chinese Emissary in Washington, or with senior members of the Chinese government so the Chinese government can give a full detailed explanation as to the real reason behind this move.

The chinese ambassador Sun Ji Guoming at Washington is available for discussions.

The Kingdom of Nordmark regrets the departure of China from the League of Nations as a lessening of the brotherhood of mankind, but does not regard the agitation and alarm of its fellow league members as appropriate to the existing provocations.

Quoted

Originally posted by Valles
The Kingdom of Nordmark regrets the departure of China from the League of Nations as a lessening of the brotherhood of mankind, but does not regard the agitation and alarm of its fellow league members as appropriate to the existing provocations.

The SAE delegate nods towards his fellow colleague from Nordmark.

Quoted

Originally posted by Valles
The Kingdom of Nordmark regrets the departure of China from the League of Nations as a lessening of the brotherhood of mankind, but does not regard the agitation and alarm of its fellow league members as appropriate to the existing provocations.

Agitation and alarm? Definitely confusion and dismay, and maybe a bit of glee at being proven right, but not agitation and alarm.

True, the glee may be inappropriate too...