WesWorld

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

I'll have to look through everything (both here and on the net) but having quickly looked at wiki, it mentions fortifications and a military installation does not nesessarily have to be fortifications so they could be legal if that is right.

The version I looked at (and which I believe Bruce quoted) says "fortifications or military and naval bases". To me, that implies no particular distinction between a military base with fortifications, and a military base that does not have fortifications. Are you reading a Dutch language version which translates that phrase differently, perhaps?

What wiki says is "However, in every case the Mandatory power was forbidden to construct fortifications or raise an army within the territory of the mandate, and was required to present an annual report on the territory to the League of Nations." Of course it is wiki and we all know how reliable wiki is. But like I said, I'll have to look through everything.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

What wiki says is "However, in every case the Mandatory power was forbidden to construct fortifications or raise an army within the territory of the mandate, and was required to present an annual report on the territory to the League of Nations." Of course it is wiki and we all know how reliable wiki is. But like I said, I'll have to look through everything.

This is the text from which I provided the citation.

Interesting domain name.

Thanks. Will look through it a bit later.

“The British Government accepts that while reconnaissance flights in international airspace and waters are common occurrences, it would like to point out that given recent events elsewhere in the western Pacific region that tensions have undeniably risen and that tolerance of intended or unintended overflights have lessened. It would be good for general international relations to have this matter settled amicably. There is so far insufficient proof on either side to prove or disprove the claims. However, we would question the motives of the German force, who undertaking a routine transit, in admittedly unfamiliar waters, decided to spend resources on conducting reconnaissance of port installations in the Admiralty Islands. Were they actively trying to avoid RAN patrols? What would their response be had they spotted RAN vessels? We call on the German government to hand over its intelligence reports to the League so all members can read any reports and see any photographs for themselves to ascertain what the aircrew saw and where they must have been to make these reports.

In answer to my honourable French and German colleagues points regarding military installations in Mandated territories, I remind them that the text reads as follows ‘the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory’. I call on them to prove that any harbour installations observed are fully military and intended for anything other than local security. Let the Germany delegation to present any evidence they have that such installations are offensive and not defensive. I would ask how one defines a harbour as defensive or offensive in nature? It my government’s view that any RAN, RAAF and Australian Army forces are only there to offer local policing and security. Well within the letters of the law. Given the dangers from Satsuma historically and now it seems resurgent European imperialism of the last-century kind, that such security is fully justified.”

All OOC...

Quoted

Oh really? Two can play at that game. This being the case, the Republic of France wishes to lodge their own complaint against the Royal Australian Air Force for conducting underhanded and invasive surveillance of territory not belonging to them - evidence for which the French government could produce in spades. Certainly more evidence by far than Australia can produce to support their claim that German aircraft violated their airspace.

Personally, I think that France should focus on resolving their mess with China fist before diving headlong into such a mess with Australia.

Quoted

However, the answer may lie in the fact that the territories that Germany has admitted to conducting reconnaissance overflights of, where once German territories. It is now clear to the Australian Government that Germany has designs on these territories. Recent German re-armament has focused on long-range naval operations and amphibious warfare, two military requirements incompatible for a nation with limited coastlines and no external territories. Clearly Germany intends to reclaim her lost territories and has begun preparations to do so, including basing rights in nearby nations and military reconnaissances of the areas. The calls by Germany for the revocation of the Australian mandate clearly demonstrate Germany's intentions.

With all that has been happening, I would think that Pacifica is thinking the same way.

Quoted

No, actually - it doesn't. Not technically. It does demand "well-being and development", however. While you can argue that well-being and development comes as a penumbra of 'defense and protection', the treaty clearly does not say that anywhere.

Actually it does... well the 'allows' part of it that is. The treaty says "and the prevention of [...] military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory" so that to me is a good indication that it is allowed. Also I do not see anything that prohibits Australia from sending 500,000 of its own troops to the area for defense.

On the other hand, there is no indication in the text that it is required. There is also no indication that it is allowed to do this with fortifications and bases, although I find it a bit odd that you are allowed to train the natives for defense of the territory but you are not allowed to build bases to train them at and station them at...


Now I am not sure how it would work out with Pacifica and never looked into it. According to the treaty, Japan would need to prevent establishment of fortifications and bases, but those things are vital to be present before Pacifica's Independence. Would that mean that Japan would have filed a request to the LoN to change the status of the South Pacific Mandate so it would be something similar to the Class 'A' mandates (which, if I read it correctly, does not have the fortification/bases limit)?

Quoted

I haven't read the Treaty in depth, but does it define what a military establishment is?

What it says is " fortifications or military and naval bases" so that to me says that anything military related that is not a base or fortification is allowed to be there. Thinking of it now, I would think that if there was an old German military base there then it would be legal as well to use it (as it was established prior to the treaty) and nothing says that you are not allowed to expand such a base.

Quoted

Also that installation would have been/ is protected by radar and that plot would prove conclusively where the German planes were. Of course, Australia might not be able to use that evidence publicly, unless some civil use was claimed for the radar - civil airfield etc.

Well, it could be me, but radar station does not scream 'military base' to me so a standalone military radar station would probably be legal.

Quoted

The under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles Germany formally renounced its former colonies; it has no intention or desire to recover them.

That is what Germany would claim but is that truly the case? (at least that is from a Paranoiastralia and Paranoiacifica point of view; I doubt either nation would believe Germany or trust their intentions)

Quoted

Germany is quite dependent on its alliance partners or other friendly nations for its activities in the Far East. Indeed the squadron in question was sailing from one French base to another, and does so under sufferance of that nation.

It would have been better if they had stayed at home in the Atlantic.

Quoted

In the real world, Russian aircraft operate in international airspace near the United States and other NATO nations all the time, sometimes provocatively. They do so legally, though the nations involved don’t like it. They may protest, but they don’t demand apologies at the United Nations and call for sanctions for just those actions.

Well, that is not what I remember from the news. Looking around a bit, it is indicated that Tu-95 actually entered Dutch airspace and have done so on numerous occasions over the years. Yes, those bad boys need to be spanked.

Quoted

With respect to the Australian 'strategic facility', well, my own reading of Article 22 is that it's mute on the point of military facilities in South Pacific mandates such as New Guinea. Only the paragraph on Central African mandates appear to have a specific reference about prohibition of military bases...

Having looked at it several times and combining the text of Article 22 with the wiki info you have

Class 'A' Mandate:

Quoted

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their
existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and
assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a
principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Class 'B' Mandate:

Quoted

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the
Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of
conscience and religion, subject only
to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as
the slave trade, the arms traffic, and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of
the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military
training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of
territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce
of other Members of the League.

Class 'C' Mandate:

Quoted

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness
of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical
contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the
Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the
indigenous population.

With the Class 'A' Mandates, there do not appear to be any limits. If there was, then France would be in trouble as well since the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon are Class 'A' and they have a 'Arsenal de Beiruit' and, if I am not mistaken, the 'Zone d'Opérations Aériennes Proche-Orient' (if my French is correct and it means Near East; the only thing the French have there is Lebanon). Seems fairly safe to assume that they would have army units there as well eventhough I can't find anything on that. All that stuff require bases which would have to be established.

With the Class 'B' Mandates, it is clearly indicated with the "the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory" bit.

With the Class 'C' Mandates, it is a bit vague depending on what the 'safeguards above mentioned' refer to. I think the whole section of text following the 'guarantee freedom' bit of the Class 'B' Mandate though I could be wrong.

Quoted

in order for the German flights to have confidence in their finds of little or none military activity they had to have been flight very close to the 3 mile limit, and while that can be done from international airspace for Seedler Harbor, the same can not be said for Rabaul as the waters surrounding Rabaul are internal waters.

Define 'waters surrounding Rabaul'. Having looked at the result google maps gave me with 'Rabaul' I would say that 'waters surrounding Rabaul' would be the bay it is on to the south. If "internal waters" is not applied there then I'm pretty sure that the 3 mile limit means that the whole bay is Australian territorial waters. I would think that if the Germans want to have a glimpse of Rabaul, they would either have to fly over the bay to the south, over land to the west or over land/territorial waters to the north or east.

Quoted

The concept of the Archipelagic State has not yet been formed or accepted by the International Community of Wesworld.

If it is going to be like OTL, then probably not for another 35-40 years. Still, Japan has applied it to its islands as of July 1, 1940 and called it "Archipelagic Waters" (even if it does not exist or is recognized/accepted by other nations).

I have been thinking about looking into Japan's 1940 claims and work on expanding that with certain rules, requirements and obligations added...

Quoted

As an OOC note - historically, the Pacific mandates were viewed by most nations to be included in that reference.

Kinda I guess... as mentioned above.

Quoted

If this is taking place at the General Assembly, then fine; if it's taking place at the League Council, then Hedjaz and Iberia ended their terms as rotating members the previous day and I actually have no in-character voice here.

Looking at a few things, it probably is being handled by the League Council, but I could be wrong about that.

Quoted

Quoted

If this is taking place at the General Assembly, then fine; if it's taking place at the League Council, then Hedjaz and Iberia ended their terms as rotating members the previous day and I actually have no in-character voice here.

Looking at a few things, it probably is being handled by the League Council, but I could be wrong about that.

Something that popped up in my mind. In the past, I have looked at photos of both League of Nations assemblies and council sessions and remembered that the council session images always looked rather crowded considering how small the number of council members actually was...

Hope the link works...

http://www.indiana.edu/~librcsd/nt/db.cg…ID=567&ID-opt==

Looking at an image like that (there are more crowded ones like that one of LoN council sessions) I'm fairly sure other nations are there as well besides the permanent members and elected non-permanent members of the council (seems logical that other nations would be keen to find out as quickly as possible what decisions the council make). Not sure what limits there are on those nations and if they would be allowed to butt in like you did.

I will not make any IC comment for the UKN nations or Argentina until we're clear whether its the Council or Assembly being addressed.

However, in the lobby outside I think those views would be clear.
Belgium - probably would back Australia and Pacficia on their interpretations of what's happened, would claim that if anything Australian bases need more concrete, bunkers, howitzers, minefields and 20in guns!
Netherlands - probably would seek to have a definitive proof presented but would not probably believe claims of wider German neo-colonial actions at this time, would agree that Australian installations are defensive and thus allowable
Argentina - neutral, wants its resolved quickly and peacefully but takes no side, does not read installations as being offensive and thus allowed for security

As a non-permanent member, Yemen, (Kirk it seems was the Saudi and Yemeni voice) would want clear proof offered on either side and if none could be the found then the case should be thrown out as irrelevant bickering. Independence for all Mandates should be the ideal goal, but to achieve that they should be developed and other land and power hungry nations should try and avoid impinging on this process. Yemen is not entirely sure why the Germans are poking around, but if anyone's willing to pay for an all-expenses paid holiday - ahem fact-finding mission - then the Yemeni team would gladly go for a couple of months to find out why.

Without making IC comments the mood would be the following....

Turkey, would likely side with Germany, accepting their interpretation of events and dismiss Australia's claims as grandstanding. Turkey would also be very interested to know just what kind of strategic military facilities are on the Admiralty islands but wouldn't press for that info as they feel that this discussion is a big waste of time. They would more likely be pressing the Iberian delegation for some Cuban cigars in exchange for Turkish cigarettes......

Colombia, while allied to Germany via the Grand Alliance, they would for the most part be neutral, yet disappointed that a goodwill cruise would actually have the opposite effect that it intended.

Byzantium, more or less the same as the other two and glad that they are no longer a mandate themselves and as such no longer a pawn to be used for squabbling....

Quoted

Netherlands - probably would seek to have a definitive proof presented but would not probably believe claims of wider German neo-colonial actions at this time, would agree that Australian installations are defensive and thus allowable
Argentina - neutral, wants its resolved quickly and peacefully but takes no side, does not read installations as being offensive and thus allowed for security

I'm pretty sure fortifications (which aren't allowed either) are for defensive purposes only so it does not matter if installations are for offensive purposes or defensive purposes, if it is determined to be a military base then it is a military base and thus not allowed according to Article 22. If it is determined that it is not a base then it doesn't matter either whether the installations are for offensive purposes or defensive purposes. It would be allowed.

Quoted

I will not make any IC comment for the UKN nations or Argentina until we're clear whether its the Council or Assembly being addressed.

I'm not sure about who would handle it. Looking at wiki, with territorial disputes part the Council is mentioned but with the other incidents it just seems to says 'the League' every time.

Still looking at the information on that LoN Photo Archive site, with the exception of a few special sessions, almost all sessions of the Assembly are held in September. Council sessions are much more common so that could be an indication that the matter would be handled by the Council as I don't think that this incident is serious enough that a special session would be held by the Assembly.

http://www.indiana.edu/~league/tcassemblies.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~league/tccouncils.htm

... so unless someone has other ideas about it, I think we should assume that it is being handled by the Council.

Just seen Brock's revised list of non-perm members.

Belgium - "We feel that Germany's intentions and actions should be investigated further due to the danger of destabilising the current peace in the Pacific. We do not stand by our French and German colleagues that Australia has broken her promises to the Versailles Treaty in regards to Mandates and that this is a shameful attempt to sideline the real issues."

Kongo - "We want this matter resolved peacefully and quickly. If no evidence can be produced by either side then the case should be dismissed."

Paraguay - "We want this matter resolved peacefully and quickly. Australia and it seems Pacifica feel their honour has been stained, but the world's oceans are free, but every nation has the obligation to treat that freedom respectfully. Using a goodwill cruise for the pretence of espionage is not using that freedom responsibly."

Yemen - "We would want clear proof offered on either side and if none could be the found then the case should be dropped and both sides should shake hands and make up. Independence for all Mandates should be the ideal goal, but to achieve that they should be developed and other land and power hungry nations should try and avoid impinging on this process. We do not know why Germany has developed such a sudden re-interest in the area, but perhaps a fact-finding mission should be sent."

Mexico has been surprisingly quiet, any questions directed at Mexico will be met with either "got to get to an important meeting" or "there's a family emergency".

OOC I am not sure if the technology of the time allowed for directly recording radar tracks. That said, revealing radar tracks would both reveal the capabilities of Commonwealth radar systems and the specific locations of the radars. So no radar tracks will be available to anyone other than allied countries. Properly sanitized and annotated maps will be available for the council members.

Quoted from "Desertfox"

OOC I am not sure if the technology of the time allowed for directly recording radar tracks.

I think it may have been technically possible, but the radar system would have to be set up with that function in mind. But I'd concur with you that generally it's not a feature that makes its appearance on standard equipment.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

... so unless someone has other ideas about it, I think we should assume that it is being handled by the Council.

Well, France will reiterate their belief that the correct venue for the dispute should be the Permanent Court in the Hague, not the Council or the Assembly. The Court was expressly created for resolving such disputes, after all.

Since you mentioned that I looked a bit further into it. When you look at the assembly list, the "Special Session of the Assembly Convened in Virtue of Article 15 of the Covenant at the Request of the Chinese Government" has most likely to do with the Mukden incident.

Looking at Article 15...

Quoted

If there should arise between Members of the League any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, which is not submitted to arbitration or judicial settlement in accordance with Article 13, the Members of the League agree that they will submit the matter to the Council.

With Article 13 mentioned, looking there it says:

Quoted

The Members of the League agree that whenever any dispute shall arise between them which they recognise to be suitable for submission to arbitration or judicial settlement and which cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will submit the whole subject-matter to arbitration or judicial settlement.[] For the consideration of any such dispute, the court to which the case is referred shall be the Permanent Court of International Justice, established in accordance with Article 14, or any tribunal agreed on by the parties to the dispute or stipulated in any convention existing between them.

So based on that, it looks like you're right Brock. This incident would most likely fall under Article 13 and be handled by the Permanent Court of International InJustice. If it were to get worse and end up falling under Article 15, then it would end up with the Council (if I read things correctly).

On a practical OOC note, we have a League board, and not a PCIJ board....and the PCIJ is a creation of the League... For matters of simplicity and practicality, I find this board (and probably this thread) sufficient for both.

Quoted from "Desertfox"

OOC I am not sure if the technology of the time allowed for directly recording radar tracks. That said, revealing radar tracks would both reveal the capabilities of Commonwealth radar systems and the specific locations of the radars. So no radar tracks will be available to anyone other than allied countries. Properly sanitized and annotated maps will be available for the council members.

No, such equipment is probably not included in such equipment in this timeframe (though there were ASDIC plotters by 1944, so its probably technically possible but there is probably no need given the human plotting table set-up), and being an outpost I guess it might be older equipment too. The plotting room might have kept a written contact report, unless they thought it was routine traffic or something. Anyway, it was just a thought I had.

British delegate: "My government feels that the actions of the German commander of the naval squadron in question was probably most unwise to have decided to take the opportunity to indulge in intelligence gathering exercises whilst en route to his destination on a goodwill visit. Especially in view of recent circumstances in involving French aircraft near Chinese airspace. While there is no proof of direct guilt of violating the three-mile limit, and therefore no reason for Germany to offer or concede apologies, perhaps my German counterpart will agree that the purpose of the flight was ill-timed and mis-judged and the operational judgement of the fleet commander was less than ideal on this occasion.
While this may be so, Britain cannot stand aside and let the resolve of the Commonwealth and its desire to maintain the peaceful status quo be misunderstood. I must draw the Court's attention to a press communiqué issued today in London, stating that from midnight tomorrow that no German warship or armed-vessel will be permitted to enter or make use of British-owned naval facilities in the region between sixty degrees and one-fifty degrees longitude for the next six months, excepting for emergencies where the vessel and its crew are in peril. This restriction will be reviewed at the end of that time taking into account events at that time. We hope this will send the message to Berlin that abuse of international freedoms will not be tolerated."

France IC: "The Republic of France concurs with our British colleagues. Without clear evidence to the contrary, France does not accept Australian claims that German aircraft entered their airspace; but the Republic of France feels German aerial reconnaissance flights so close to Australian territory may have been ill-advised given the timing."

Russia and Ireland, the latter being on the council this year, basically concur with the above.

OOC: I know Foxy's having the Australians conduct very close surveillance flights toward Noumea, and is staging a big saber-rattling war-game in the Coral Sea. I do not intend to take notice of this as canonical.

OOC: You've confused me there.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

OOC: You've confused me there.

See this post. Foxy wants to conduct aerial surveillance of Noumea (with the caveat of not entering French airspace), and an accompanying live-fire naval exercise nearby - presumably for chest-beating purposes and to intimidate the French and Germans. I decline to accept his provocations. I do not see them. I do not acknowledge their existence. :)