You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Ubiwan

Unregistered

1

Thursday, June 22nd 2006, 5:41pm

A Question at the league of nations ....

The vice president of china presents the league of nations a document, in which the Chinese government would like to know , why the mandate on the Nansha Dao / Paracel-Islands and Hainan-Dao still persists.

......

Since centuries, if not even thousands of years, Chinese fishermen and merchants sailed over the oceans.

On their journeys they advanced into far areas.They did not only reached the coast of Africa, no also references in the Mediteranean sea were found,that China traded at that time already with the countries in the Mediterranean by the sea route.
Not only in the distance there is proof for the advanced culture of China, no also directly before the “door” there is referring to early settlements.As can be proved Chinese inhabited the above named islands and drew also first maps of their situation. The islands were used by Chinese fishermen for the fresh water admission in the last century.

We think it is now at the time, to give the islands back to the legal owners.
Naturally China is ready to grant both nations (Iberia; Philippines) stay-rights in the ports of the islands.
However the islands should be subordinated sovereignty finally by China again.

Many inhabitants of the islands feel the mandates as an "occupation", and that is a good fertile soil for criminal elements, such like pirates.
Therefore we have the fear, that the pirate-troubles in the south chinese sea only is finally fought, if this unfairness is eliminated.

There is no reason to keep up the two mandates.

How does the league of the nations stand to it? Wasn't the “L.o.N.” straight created to prevent and/or waive such “illegitimate occupations”? China would not like to appear as an aggressor, which tries to increase its sphere of influence ,it only would like to make its legal requirements valid.

Which always belonged to China should also again to China belong!

.......

Faithfully

Li Hoi
Vice President of China


2

Thursday, June 22nd 2006, 5:58pm

Sir,

Iberia is the legal possesor of both the Paracel Islands and San Hainando. Please would you kindly desist from stating otherwise.

M. Bergamasco
Italian Attaché to Geneva

3

Thursday, June 22nd 2006, 6:11pm

[OOC: might want to move this thread to the News thread, I'd think.... unless there's a category for discussions at the LoN.]

4

Thursday, June 22nd 2006, 6:27pm

Sir,

Nordmark would like to back up the statement of the the Italian Attache to Geneva. Iberia is the Legal possessor of the Paracel and San Hainando and unless China presents significant and plausable evidence to the contrary, they will remain so.

H Larson
Nordmark Attache to Geneva

5

Thursday, June 22nd 2006, 7:18pm

*grabs chair, sits down to enjoy the show*

6

Thursday, June 22nd 2006, 7:48pm

The German ambassador to the League of Nations, Gunther Schwietzer, spoke: "A point of order, gentlemen: the Paracells are a League of Nations mandate that Iberia is administering, NOT a possession of Iberia. That mandate was given in part to prevent a war between two previous claimants, Chile and the Phillipines, over the islands. On the subject of San Hernando/Hainan, how is it that it came into Iberian hands? Was it a lease or a purchase or an outright conquest?"

7

Thursday, June 22nd 2006, 8:11pm

The Atlantean Ambassador agree's with our German counterpart. It was our understanding that Iberia was granted administering powers over the Paracels and not a permanent territorial claim.

The situation in reguards to the Paracels and San Hainado is not one in the same and should not be emediately dismissed.

8

Thursday, June 22nd 2006, 8:32pm

Sirs,

I apologise for my offices mistake in this matter.

H Larson
Nordmark Attache to Geneva

9

Friday, June 23rd 2006, 7:04am

In reguards to San Hainado we would need clairification but to our knowledge it is indeed Iberian territory, be it from conquest or some sort of agreement between Iberia and China.

Either way it would seem China has now renewed its claim to the territory along with the Paracels.

OOC: it sure would be nice to have the orriginal information on Iberian holdings to determine just how Iberia aquired San Hainado, other than "it is what it is".

Ubiwan

Unregistered

10

Friday, June 23rd 2006, 9:29am

The Chinese Ambassador says that he does not have any proofs for a sales or war between Iberia and China, from whom would come out why Iberia announces requirements on Hainan Dao . He is strained, which lies Iberia will tell in order to justify its requirements for possession.

And as the german Ambassador says, the Paracells are a League of Nations mandate that Iberia is administering, NOT a possession of Iberia. And now it is time to give it back to china !

11

Friday, June 23rd 2006, 12:08pm

Goverment of poland reminds China ,with all do respect that demanding will get china no were, other that under the guns of Ibarian Armada.
However valid and just You claim is agrevating a empire may not be the best course of action.

12

Saturday, June 24th 2006, 1:14am

Chile will support China's claims to San Hainado and the islands of the South China Sea.

While Chile would still like to use the Paracells as a forward coaling station/rest area for long range anti-piracy patrols such as was done in the time leading up to the incident with the Philiapines and the Iberian Mandate of said islands, the claim by China is as valid as Chile's as from our knowledge, the islands were unclaimed until 1926 when Chile claimed them for anti-piracy use. Given the heavy piracy in that region, the more help the locals get seems the wiser course of action.

13

Tuesday, June 27th 2006, 12:33am

India has little doubt that China has a valid claim to Hainan. That being said, if the Italian attache's statement speaks to European attitudes in general, China is highly unlikely to get Hainan back without resorting to war.

India notes that China's domestic situation prevented its participation in the discussions related to the Paracels a few years back. Recognizing that our Filipino allies hold a claim to the islands, and that Iberian and Danish blood has been spilt to maintain their status as a League mandate, it may still be best to re-open the discussion on the Paracels.

India recognizes the Philippines' legal annexation of the Spratly Islands.

14

Tuesday, June 27th 2006, 12:45am

Foreign Minister Marcos:

"The Philippines supports China's claim on Hainan Island. However, we share India's concerns regarding war. China must find a diplomatic solution.

"In any case, the Philippines would prefer that we forward the Paracels issue to a serious League of Nations vote. Perhaps a solution can be found. What exactly is the proportion of Chinese in the population of the Paracels?"

15

Tuesday, June 27th 2006, 1:52am

Population of the Paracels is zero last I checked. Sure there are fishermen who go out to them to fish, but there are no inhabitants on those islands.

16

Tuesday, June 27th 2006, 2:11am

According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islands

Quoted

The islands have no indigenous inhabitants.


Australian reply: Interesting, very interesting. *leans back on chair*

Mexican reply: What are the Paracels? *looks up Parcel in dictionary* Your arguing over boxes?

17

Tuesday, June 27th 2006, 4:58am

The Dominion of Canada feels compelled note the fairly consistent matters of piracy in these waters, with the noticable incidents in recent months that have resulted in several nations supplying their own naval forces to combat them, including the unfortunate loss of the HMAS [i[Cairns[/i] with significant loss of life, in addition to the loss of several merchants of all nationalities. Currently, this body regards the territory as an Iberian mandate, but I do not recall the Iberians doing anything to address these matters. Furthermore, We would suggest to the Chinese government at the very least detail it's plans to deal with this situation if they intend to assert their claims to these territories.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

18

Tuesday, June 27th 2006, 9:03am

The SAE chosed to remain neutral in first place but after listening to both sides arguments we feel the Chinese have a legal claim on the Hainan.

The Paracels however are a different thing and here we support the Philippines in that these islands belong to them - as well as the Spratty islands.

So in general we share our Indian allies view of the situation.

Ubiwan

Unregistered

19

Tuesday, June 27th 2006, 9:20am

China does not understand the doubts of India. The island Hainan Dao nevertheless already belonged since the Kaiser era to the Chinese realm. Iberia occupied thus the island illegitimately. On the other side is ready China to negotiate, if Iberia submits the basis of its requirement on Hainan Dao.

China does not want to begin a war, only to get the island back. We look for a diplomatic solution,however Iberia should prefer the war, thus China will seize also to the weapons to defend its requirements.

China is the opinion that the other nations use the internal-political problems, which China had in the past to strengthen their illegitimate possessions. I mean the occupation of Hainan Dao by Iberia, the phillippini mandate on the Paracel islands as well as the occupation of the Nansha Dao by the Phillippines.

China submits gladly its plan, as it wants to get the Piraten problem into the grasp. However China does not understand, why always they must justify themselves and everyone assume that, the Iberia and/or the Phillippinen are in the right.

And by the way, the paracels are still a l.o.n. - mandate not a part of the phillippines !!!!!!!!!

20

Tuesday, June 27th 2006, 9:46am

Honourable Gentlemen,

The United Kingdom perceives that the Iberian Mandate on the Spratly and Paracel Islands exists to safeguard the islands against misuse by the pirates then - and now - roaming the South China Sea, and to ensure that the islands were not in the hands of certain unstable local powers - for example, the warlords dominant in southern China until lately.

However, the threat posed by the latter has diminished of late, although it has not entirely disappeared. Addittionally, the Chinese Empire has a claim on the Spratly Islands dating back millennia, and to the Paracel Islands, several hundred years. We severely doubt that any other nation can match the seniority of these claims; therefore, I propose that if China can demonstrate that it is ready, willing and able to at least match the Iberian efforts to counter piracy - by whatever means are felt appropriate - then the Iberian Mandate should be ended, and the islands wholly transfered to Chinese soverignty.

On the matter of San Hainando, we believe that this island has been successfully held by Iberia quite independently of any mandate for many years, with no notable objections from the local population, and thus can be considered Iberian soverign territorry. As such, it should be settled by the usual means for disputes over territory: if diplomacy fails, the available options are limited to military action or abandonment of the claim.

The United Kingdom strongly recommends the latter option.