WesWorld

Dong Sen Fen stood up and says ....


"After we have found a solution for the baltic problem, there is also another problem which needs to be solved !!! I only say PARACEL - ISLANDS.

The Chinese government would like to explain that they continue their course about the principle of friendly neighbourhood. If this action in various countries caused concern and displeasure, China regrets this very much. But the campaign has also shown, that the suspect which China had was justified and that further steps are needed to get the piracy in these waters under control and make the sea safer.

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 LoN 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 LoN 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.

China agrees to the following points should be observed:

1) China establishes a patrol by air and by sea.
2) No military facilities are build
3) The research station could also used by other nations.
4) Each vessel, no matter what nation it belongs, has the right to navigate through these waters, or to anchor nearby one of the islands
5) The memorial to the liberation of the islands is to be held always in good condition by China and there will be an annual ceremony"

Mexico agrees that the issue of the Parcel Islands must be brought to discussion.

Is only Europe important enough for the LoN?

India seconds Mexico. The need to resolve another flashpoint before it turns into another threat of a Great War is a must for the League.

OOC: I think Great War should be the correct way to mention a world wide conflict. No WW2 yet.

Iberia welcomes this request from China to the League for formal, legitimate talks concerning the future of the Paracel Islands, and looks forward to discussing the issue within the League's auspices.

...Open bag, insert cat, await multiple pigeon cardiac arrests!!

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
OOC: I think Great War should be the correct way to mention a world wide conflict. No WW2 yet.

Aw, but I wanted to call it the World-Wide War.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Is only Europe important enough for the LoN?

In order of priority, yes. The Paracels was not a region torn apart by conflict, now that the conflict is over priority's can be shifted.

We disagree with India however that the paracels is another flashpoint, unless China is willing to start a war over un-inhabited islands in its impatience?

Frank Reuter, Netherlands LON delegate :

The Chinese delegate is correct in stating his position. I would like to take note of the generous additional measures China has included in her proposal to ensure fears as to her intentions are set at ease.

I think we can all agree with China's position that once the reason for a League Mandate has passed, the territory should be returned to the historic nation to which it belongs.

This sets before us several points which define the path on which to proceed.

Before we venture much further, and the League formally honors the Chinese claim, we should clarify if there are other outstanding claims.

For example, our early records from that area, while admittedly young by Chinese standards, record the islands as being the Hoàng Sa islands, under the control of what is currently French Indochina. Indeed, we have records of a Vietnamese garrison there in the late 1700s. Would France care to waive Indochina's claim? Are there any others?

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Frank Reuter, Netherlands LON delegate :
Indian delegate speaks:

The Chinese delegate is correct in stating his position. I would like to take note of the generous additional measures China has included in her proposal to ensure fears as to her intentions are set at ease.

I think we can all agree with China's position that once the reason for a League Mandate has passed, the territory should be returned to the historic nation to which it belongs.

This sets before us several points which define the path on which to proceed.

Before we venture much further, and the League formally honors the Chinese claim, we should clarify if there are other outstanding claims.

For example, our early records from that area, while admittedly young by Chinese standards, record the islands as being the Hoàng Sa islands, under the control of what is currently French Indochina. Indeed, we have records of a Vietnamese garrison there in the late 1700s. Would France care to waive Indochina's claim? Are there any others?

Why France needs to waive a right of the Indochinese people? I don't see an Indochinese delegation to the League being present at this time, not the fault of the gallant Indochinese people, so the point presented is moot. Why the Dutch don't ask our South Africans friends to just surrender in South America just because the Argentinians had a claim to Buenos Aires long time ago? Or as a matter of fact why they don't put their own claim to that region themselves? Or why not they allow the Iberians to reclaim their lost territory of the Low Countries perhaps?

We will embrace the delegation of a free Indochina the moment they arrive to these chambers but the Dutch proposal is a very good joke indeed because they know very well that Indochina is not currently a free nation and only free sovereign nations could put a claim at this time.

Frank Reuter, Netherlands LON delegate :

My dear sir, this is not a joke but a matter of historical record(1). Your references to unrelated matters are not relevant.

We agree that when a League Mandate expires, the land should be returned to the historical owner. However, the League should exercise due dillegence to ensure the mandate is returned to the correct owner.

There may be other claims, but the one we are aware of is the Vietnamese. The last historical record we have of a continuous presence on those islands is a vietnamese garrison on woody island. France is the soveriegn entity responsible for Vietnamese Indochina at this point. Now, if China refuses to recognise that I am afraid we can not conclude this business, but otherwise, it is France who may waive the claim and allow the islands to be awarded to China.


(1) From wiki : In 1700s, State-sponsored occupation of the islands can also be traced to the reign of the Nguyen lords. Salvaging operations became formalized with the establishment of the Hoang Sa detachments or brigades, units comprised of 70 men from the village of An Vinh, the recruitment and organization of which were regulated by the Vietnamese government.Portuguese and Dutch maps drawn by navigators in the early 17th century identify the islands as Vietnamese.

The LoN shouldn't only watch on europe. Asia is also a part of our world.

China thanks for the support from all countries. As summary, i think we could really say, that there is no more reason to keep on the mandate.
And so it should be handed over back to China. But how can this hand over take place ?

China has no problem if, for a short time, there is a common patrol (China & Iberia). But after a special date, the islands should be official
belong to China. And after that date, it's an order for China to make the sea around the paracels safe.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Frank Reuter, Netherlands LON delegate :

My dear sir, this is not a joke but a matter of historical record(1). Your references to unrelated matters are not relevant.

We agree that when a League Mandate expires, the land should be returned to the historical owner. However, the League should exercise due dillegence to ensure the mandate is returned to the correct owner.

There may be other claims, but the one we are aware of is the Vietnamese. The last historical record we have of a continuous presence on those islands is a vietnamese garrison on woody island. France is the soveriegn entity responsible for Vietnamese Indochina at this point. Now, if China refuses to recognise that I am afraid we can not conclude this business, but otherwise, it is France who may waive the claim and allow the islands to be awarded to China.


(1) From wiki : In 1700s, State-sponsored occupation of the islands can also be traced to the reign of the Nguyen lords. Salvaging operations became formalized with the establishment of the Hoang Sa detachments or brigades, units comprised of 70 men from the village of An Vinh, the recruitment and organization of which were regulated by the Vietnamese government.Portuguese and Dutch maps drawn by navigators in the early 17th century identify the islands as Vietnamese.

"We are not discussing the historical matter. We are discussing the reason a free Indochinese delegation can make that claim. And if according to our esteem Dutch representative they can't govern themselves, how they can make a claim to the islands? The idea is to find a responsible government for the region and France", he turns on the direction of their delegation and nods, "have no territorial claim due to not being in the area during the period in question. No offense to them, we applaud the small progress made since the Indochina Protocol was reached between Satsuma and France, but even the French delegation have to admit Indochina is not ready to lay that claim and France have no historical right to do so."

He stooped to sip some water and continued. "On the other hand China have an older historical precedent to the islands (1) and they are a viable and modern nation with representation in this chambers. Even the current nation in charge of the mandate agrees that China is ready to take care of the islands, a nation tied to the Netherlands by treaty. If they are in favor, what the rest of the world is waiting for to validate China's claim."

(1) at least to the historical Chinese records.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
"We are not discussing the historical matter. We are discussing the reason a free Indochinese delegation can make that claim. And if according to our esteem Dutch representative they can't govern themselves, how they can make a claim to the islands? .

Frank Reuter, Netherlands LON delegate :
The proposition you put forward is that the peoples of French Indochina have lost all territorial rights and claims before this body? Do you mean you would recognise their claim if they had a different governance structure?

I find that a bewildering stance. France is the legally (1) recognised representive, as implicitly recognised by your own nation by signing the Indochina protocol, and thus the proper guardian for those claims(1).

As such it is to France we turn to waive them, thus sparing this body from choosing between ancient claims of various nations, albeit it has been the peoples of Indochina that actually exercised control within the past three centuries.


(1) This is where Wesworld Alt history becomes murky. OTL history is this : On 6 June 1884, France consolidated her occupation of Vietnam, which began in 1852, by forcing the Nguyen Dynasty to sign the Patenotre Treaty.[31] Under terms of that agreement, France was to represent Vietnam's interest in foreign affairs and was "bound to protect Vietnam's sovereignty and territorial integrity."[32] The French began to conduct patrol trips of the East Sea, especially in the area of the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa islands in order "to ensure security and committed customs ships to combating smuggling."[33] Vietnamese claims

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
"We are not discussing the historical matter. We are discussing the reason a free Indochinese delegation can make that claim. And if according to our esteem Dutch representative they can't govern themselves, how they can make a claim to the islands? .

Frank Reuter, Netherlands LON delegate :
The proposition you put forward is that the peoples of French Indochina have lost all territorial rights and claims before this body?

I find that a bewildering stance. France is the legally (1) recognised representive, as implicitly recognised by your own nation by signing the Indochina protocol, and thus the proper guardian for those claims(1).

As such it is to France we turn to waive them, thus sparing this body from choosing between ancient claims of various nations, albeit it has been the peoples of Indochina that actually exercised control within the past three centuries.


(1) This is where Wesworld Alt history becomes murky. OTL history is this : On 6 June 1884, France consolidated her occupation of Vietnam, which began in 1852, by forcing the Nguyen Dynasty to sign the Patenotre Treaty.[31] Under terms of that agreement, France was to represent Vietnam's interest in foreign affairs and was "bound to protect Vietnam's sovereignty and territorial integrity."[32] The French began to conduct patrol trips of the East Sea, especially in the area of the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa islands in order "to ensure security and committed customs ships to combating smuggling."[33] Vietnamese claims

Indian delegate smiled and responded:

"When the time comes a free Indochinese representative asks for mediation on this matter we will be the first to welcome them and hear their case. Sadly is well know the current arrangement was coerced by the French government in 1884, not 300 years ago and if the European consider them not able to rule themselves how they expect them to be put in charge of the mandate in the first place. First they use that logic to deny China their rightful ownership of the region and now they use that same logic to their advantage. Typical Dutch use of the loopholes.We agreed that France is the so-called representative of Indochina, but if a nation can't represent themselves how they could get awarded ownership of a region. In our point of view France already waived their so-called rights when they voted in favor of the Iberian mandate of the islands."

"The Chinese are a modern nation and a current member of the League. I sadly don't see a representative of a free Indochina standing by us today. As such I say the Chinese motion should be put forward and we vote aye to the terms China put forward in regard to the transfer of the islands."

Romania's delegate, Mr. Titulescu stands:

Gentlemen, the legal questions regarding the state of past nations is not up for debate here. While Romania does agree that the Chinese government does have a historic claim to these islands, and was she allowed to vote on the proposal, then her vote would be aye.

That being said, it is also recognized that the Indochinese nation also can have a claim upon the islands in question. It is also quite clear that the Indochinese people cannot speak for themselves. However the French nation is considered the protector and guardian of the Indochinese nation, and as such Romania believes does have the right to speak for the Indochinese nation. Should we not therefore wait for the French response to this discussion before commencing in a vote?

Also, what do other nations in the area say about this proposal? While Romania does not have any real interest in the region, that cannot be said of other members of the League. Perhaps it would be wise to wait for their view on the matter before putting this proposal before a vote.

Frank Reuter, Netherlands LON Delegate :

While I won't stoop to the pejoratives of my colleague from Bharat, let me see if I can summarize the situation.

We all agree that the Mandate can likely be dissolved, and we all agree that when a League mandate is dissolved, the territory should be returned to it's historic owner.

However, if there is more than one claim, then that historic owner can not be established. It would be a terrible precedent for the League to award territory held under mandate to a nation, which in hindsight, was not entitled to it. Hence I suggested France waive the claim so we could consider awarding the territory to China.

Granted, I fail to see how Bharat's position accords with article 2A of the Indochina Protocol, or with the Patenotre treaty. However, if the Vietnamese claim can not be waived, since China is the co-claimant and potential benificiary and would not recognize a waiver; we have to recognize the French can not effectively resolve this.

IF we can not disregard the Vietnamese claim, then this leaves us with at least the two claims for the League to consider and judge between. The League has a body especially for this purpose, the Permanent Court of International Justice.

I believe that is therefore the proper venue to adjudicate this matter. The Court can examine the historic record in light of International law, and make a recommendation to the League, after which we can vote to dissolve the mandate and satisfy the Chinese claimant.

If there is such a facility, then we should use it !

China just wondering, of course, that some see an independent, modern country as the same as a colony. Of course it is actually the opinion and the will of the people, but represents the mother country of a colony really the same interests as the elected government of an independent nation ?

China sees the existing of the temptation, that the mother country is trying to enlarge its influence on these "underhand" way ?

I want to emphasize again, that China is ready to represent the case before the Permanent Court of International Justice !

With a smile on his face, he continues with his speech.

But then MUST France also recognize the independence of Indochina. The case can only handled on the International Court of Justice if Indochina is an independent country.

Germany agrees that the time is right to discuss the lifting the Mandate on the Paracels.

Frank Reuter, Netherlands LON Delegate :

I am pleased we have come to a means to resolve this and dissolve the mandate, and hopefully give China a clear legal title. It is almost humorous, as on our old maps these islands are primarily denoted as navigation hazards.

As for the court, I do believe Sir Cecil Hurst has replaced the honorable Mineichiro Adachi as chief justice, but I am sure he will do the same quality job as his predecessor. I would suggest this body entertain the notion of some fiscal contributions should research or, considering the antiquity involved, archaeological expeditions be necessary.

Now as to the separate issue of France and Indochina. I was simply going to let matters rest, as unless waived, the Indochinese claim must be examined regardless of whom exercises control of Indochina, The Indochinese have claimed the islands for three hundred years and maintained a garrison there into the 1800s, they certainly consider it Indochinese territory. It is simply that the Chinese claim ostensibly predates that.

However your latest statement, combined with the ones early makes me seek clarification. France has been recognized for half a century as the sovereign entity responsible for Vietnamese affairs, as outlined in the 1884 Patenotre treaty between the sovereign Vietnamese Nguyen rulers and France. Let me remind you that the Republic of China, along with the Empire of Bharat and the remainder of SATSUMA, are signatory to the 1932 Indochina Protocol, which states
<checks notes>
"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."

So how is France not the responsible party in this matter?

The government of Atlantis agrees. Is the indochina protocall no longer recognised?

France as protector of Indochina and it's present and future interests, while having no particular stake in the disputed islands itself, must give serious consideration to Indochina's historic claims to the islands. To that end we are creating a special governmental investigation committee drawn from French and Indochinese advisors to determine the best resolution to China's claims, without prejudice to Indochina's position.

The government of France have made a committment to the peoples of Indochina that plebecites on their status and relations with France shall be held in 1945. If these peoples judge that their interests will be served best by independence, France will accept their judgement without reservation.

This being the case, the French government fails to see why this issue is so urgent that it must be resolved at this moment. Surely the government of China, with its view developed over its five millenia of culture and history, can exercize patience?