WesWorld

January 1st, 1946

The Australian ambassador to the League of Nations presents the following:

"On the morning of December 9th 1945, an Arado Ar196 float-plane operating from one of the cruisers of the German East Asia Fleet undertook an armed reconnaissance overflight of strategic Australian military facilities in the Admiralty Islands of the coast of New Guinea. This flight conducted without a formal request or prior warning, is seen by the Australian Government as very provocative and as a deliberate breach of Australian sovereignty. In the interest of peace Australia has refrained from using military force against this unwarranted incursion. However, Australia demands both an explanation and an apology from the German Government as to their actions and breach of trust. Australia would also like to make clear that any further military incursions into Australian airspace will be dealt with to the full extent of the law up to and including the use of deadly force. If the German Government does not agree to said conditions, Australia will move that full economic sanctions be levied against the German Nation. The sovereignty rights of all nations should be sacrosanct in the eyes of this assembly, we can not allow even the smallest infringement of said rights, lest we forget the pain and suffering of the Great War."

Quoted from "Desertfox"

"On the morning of December 9th 1945, an Arado Ar196 float-plane operating from one of the cruisers of the German East Asia Fleet undertook an armed reconnaissance overflight of strategic Australian military facilities in the Admiralty Islands of the coast of New Guinea."

OOC: This is your petard that you are hoist upon.

IC: The Republic of France wishes to note for the record that the Australian government has admitted to constructing military facilities in a territory administered under a League Mandate, contrary to the treaty restrictions placed upon the construction of military facilities in Mandate territories. The Republic of France speculates that, since Australia has flagrantly breached the Mandate restrictions to the point of admitting to such in the League Assembly, that their Mandate holder status be revoked in favor of Great Britain, who has shown more integrity in administering Mandate territories. Alternatively, the territory could be remitted to Pacifica...

The German Foreign Minister, Thomas Dehler, waited until he had been recognised by the President of the Assembly and then walked to the rostrum.

“Delegates of the League, a most serious charge has been laid against my country, one that if true would deserve the deepest condemnation by the community of nations. However the statements made by the representative of the Commonwealth of Australia are far from true, and coloured with more than a great deal of conjecture.”

“The German Government admits that vessels of its East Asia Squadron, operating in international waters north of Manus Island, did carry out reconnaissance flights over international airspace in the vicinity of Seeadler Harbour, Manus Island. At no time did such aircraft cross into the airspace of the mandated territory – that is, the air above the three-mile limit pertaining to territorial waters. The German Government categorically denies the charge made by the Australian Government of a violation of the air space over the mandated territory of the Admiralty Islands. This being so, the German Government does not see any reason to offer apologies for actions taken in international waters and international air space.”

“From the distance at which the flights were conducted – well outside the three-mile limit – no evidence of the ‘strategic Australian military facilities’ could be seen; perhaps this was a function of the distance from which the observations were made; perhaps it was a function of the skill with which the Australian military had camouflaged its development of the facilities in question. Yet as the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has admitted to the construction and development of such facilities in secret, by virtue of the claim of the overflight of such facilities, I would call the attention of the delegates here assembled to Article Twenty-two of the Treaty of Versailles, which provides:”

““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.””

““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.””

““In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.””

“The construction of ‘strategic Australian military facilities’, the existence of which is admitted by the Australian Government, violate the provisions under which that Government was entrusted with the mandate to prepare its inhabitants for eventual self-government. Further, what progress has the Government of Australia made in the development of the territories entrusted to its care? When was the last time this body received a report elucidating conditions in the territory committed to its charge?”

“Unlike the Government of Australia, the German Government makes no specific demands for promises and apologies. It does call upon this body to consider the extent to which Australia has violated the terms and the spirit of the Treaty, and to determine whether it is appropriate to consider revocation of the mandate to which Australia has been entrusted.”

OOC: Since no other player is submitting annual reports on mandates, I see no reason to assume Australia has not been doing so. It is one of the many, many areas of minutiae to which I see no reason to hold hobbyist players to the paperpushing workload of an actual State Department/Foreign Office/etc. Likewise, as I mentioned in the news thread, I find your implied declarations of what does or does not exist within other players territory a very slippery slope.

IC: The Dominion of Canada finds the German government's open admittance of conducting underhanded and invasive surveillance of territory not only belonging to another power, but one so far afield and removed from their own to be incredibly worrisome. It is a matter that the Dominion of Canada will have to consider with Grave Concern.

The Dominion of Canada further finds no grounds for the German or French protests, objections, or whatever is being lodged against the Commonwealth of Australia; You object to Australia's establishment of military facilities in a region you have no business approaching with a battle squadron, yet the article you cite in your objection provides for the administration of the region as an integral territory of Australia, and indeed, the establishment of military facilities for "the defense of territory"....something obviously required given the German lack of respect for those territorial boundaries.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

OOC: Since no other player is submitting annual reports on mandates, I see no reason to assume Australia has not been doing so. It is one of the many, many areas of minutiae to which I see no reason to hold hobbyist players to the paperpushing workload of an actual State Department/Foreign Office/etc.

OOC: Why are you harping on this? This is a complete non-issue. It's mentioned in the treaty, yes - but it's completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. I am presuming (though given Australia's and Canada's cavalier attitude toward the League, perhaps that presumption is unwise) that Australia has dutifully been filing reports as demanded by the League Mandate Commission. Same as I presume France and Britain are filing them. So stop wasting our time on non-issues, please.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

Likewise, as I mentioned in the news thread, I find your implied declarations of what does or does not exist within other players territory a very slippery slope.

Again, irrelevant. We are not saying or that he does or does not have something existing in his territory. The fact is, he brazenly admitted to it with his own declaration.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

IC: The Dominion of Canada finds the German government's open admittance of conducting underhanded and invasive surveillance of territory not only belonging to another power, but one so far afield and removed from their own to be incredibly worrisome. It is a matter that the Dominion of Canada will have to consider with Grave Concern.

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.

It's a classic case of "He said, she said!" You need to produce evidence, not invective.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

The Dominion of Canada further finds no grounds for the German or French protests, objections, or whatever is being lodged against the Commonwealth of Australia; You object to Australia's establishment of military facilities in a region you have no business approaching with a battle squadron, yet the article you cite in your objection provides for the administration of the region as an integral territory of Australia, and indeed, the establishment of military facilities for "the defense of territory"....something obviously required given the German lack of respect for those territorial boundaries.

It's nice to know that the Commonwealth feels it necessary to demand that the LEAGUE MUST TAKE ACTION, but then openly derides the League's authority on long-standing treaty obligations!

"We wish to point out that the League Council is not the proper venue for Australia to lodge their complaint; this should instead be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Hague. The Australian government has not yet produced any solid evidence other than mere happenstance that proves their assertions, or disproves those of the German government. While the allegations are serious, the evidence presented so far is the stuff of a muckraking tabloid press, and not a matter relevant to the League Council. If the Permanent Court of International Justice is unable to investigate the dispute and arrive at a neutral decision, then it may become an issue for the Council; but until such a time, slinging muck is unproductive."

"Australia would like to question the motive for which Germany decides to openly confess the undertaking of aerial espionage of another country's territory.

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.

The league mandate under which these territories lie, clearly allows and requires the defense and protection of the people living in said territories. Said protection can only be accomplished thru the establishment of military facilities in the territories to provide defense against outside aggression and rapid military assistance in the case of natural disasters. Therefore the accusations made by Germany are both moot and groundless while distracting the discussion of the invasion of sovereign airspace and deliberate espionage by military forces of the Republic of Germany."

Quoted from "Desertfox"

The league mandate under which these territories lie, clearly allows and requires the defense and protection of the people living in said territories.

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.

Quoted from "Desertfox"

Said protection can only be accomplished thru the establishment of military facilities in the territories to provide defense against outside aggression and rapid military assistance in the case of natural disasters.

In other words, you're claiming that the only way to accomplish a goal that isn't in the treaty is by egregiously and flagrantly violating what the treaty obviously says.

France happens to own the complete original of the Treaty of Versailles. Perhaps Australia should read and attempt to understand it.

But that might be asking for too much.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

OOC: Since no other player is submitting annual reports on mandates, I see no reason to assume Australia has not been doing so. It is one of the many, many areas of minutiae to which I see no reason to hold hobbyist players to the paperpushing workload of an actual State Department/Foreign Office/etc.

OOC: Why are you harping on this? This is a complete non-issue. It's mentioned in the treaty, yes - but it's completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. I am presuming (though given Australia's and Canada's cavalier attitude toward the League, perhaps that presumption is unwise) that Australia has dutifully been filing reports as demanded by the League Mandate Commission. Same as I presume France and Britain are filing them. So stop wasting our time on non-issues, please.

The direct implication by the German statement asking if they've been filed or not, when it should be a rather simple clerical matter to find out, seems wholly out of place unless there's a serious expectation that they haven't been filed. It reeks of playing for a game of "Gotchya!" oneupsmanship based in pedantic minutia to a standard that is unreasonable for our playerbase to maintain. If it's well and truly a non-issue...I see no reason for it to have been brought up, period. If it's Bruce's intent to make it an issue....then it's not a non-issue, and I won't hold Foxy or any other player to that standard of detail in areas that are not the focus of this sim, or otherwise see it used against them.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

Likewise, as I mentioned in the news thread, I find your implied declarations of what does or does not exist within other players territory a very slippery slope.

Again, irrelevant. We are not saying or that he does or does not have something existing in his territory. The fact is, he brazenly admitted to it with his own declaration.

I find his IC statements declaring what was or was not observed there to be close to the edge for my comfort....though admittedly they could be false or misleading IC. Ultimately, the nature and extent of facilities within Australian territory is soley at the control of the Australian player. Before continuing this exchange, I highly suggest you coordinate with him privately to establish what you're all fighting over, and to what extent.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

IC: The Dominion of Canada finds the German government's open admittance of conducting underhanded and invasive surveillance of territory not only belonging to another power, but one so far afield and removed from their own to be incredibly worrisome. It is a matter that the Dominion of Canada will have to consider with Grave Concern.

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.

It's a classic case of "He said, she said!" You need to produce evidence, not invective.

The Dominion of Canada has been provided no compelling reason to believe Australia's claims are false...especially when the German representative admits to being in the region, and having conducted unauthorized surveying of territory under Australian jurisdiction, not theirs. The Dominion of Canada subsequently finds itself unable to condemn Australia from taking reciprocal measures in the interests of their national security and territorial sovereignty, which seems to be of questionable importance to your German guests, so far from home.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

The Dominion of Canada further finds no grounds for the German or French protests, objections, or whatever is being lodged against the Commonwealth of Australia; You object to Australia's establishment of military facilities in a region you have no business approaching with a battle squadron, yet the article you cite in your objection provides for the administration of the region as an integral territory of Australia, and indeed, the establishment of military facilities for "the defense of territory"....something obviously required given the German lack of respect for those territorial boundaries.

It's nice to know that the Commonwealth feels it necessary to demand that the LEAGUE MUST TAKE ACTION, but then openly derides the League's authority on long-standing treaty obligations!

At what point does any treaty obligate Germany or France to violate Australian territory without their knowledge or permission? At what point has any member of the Commonwealth denied the league such authority? The League has not at any point moved to conduct any survey of the Australian mandates. What invasive measures Germany chooses to take towards other powers on their own initiative cannot be given some retroactive shield of League authority, when none was ever given. Had Germany any valid concerns in this matter, the proper way to address it was through the League, not some lone cowboy mission with a full squadron of warships.

I'll only make a couple of OOC points at this juncture as I currently don't have time to draft an IC response, but will do so probably later this week or on Saturday when I have more time.

I haven't read the Treaty in depth, but does it define what a military establishment is? I would not expect a harbour used for stationing and refuelling naval vessels alongside civilian use to count as a naval base. How would one define a naval base, one used 100% of the time by the navy or a port with fortified defence or one with arsenals of shells and torpedoes? Same with airfields too.

Also, if and I stress if it was a military installation, I would guess with SAER etc. that Britain and France and Russia and the Dutch would have known about it. 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.

Quoted from "Hood"

I haven't read the Treaty in depth, but does it define what a military establishment is? I would not expect a harbour used for stationing and refuelling naval vessels alongside civilian use to count as a naval base. How would one define a naval base, one used 100% of the time by the navy or a port with fortified defence or one with arsenals of shells and torpedoes? Same with airfields too.

Also, if and I stress if it was a military installation, I would guess with SAER etc. that Britain and France and Russia and the Dutch would have known about it. 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.

Also speaking in OOC, I would think "strategic Australian military facilities" would be rather important and/or permanent, as the word Strategic implies part of a strategy, but for what alliance or treaty?

I find it highly convenient that Canada would simply jump in on the complaint and state it "has been provided no compelling reason to believe Australia's claims are false" rather than wait for actual evidence to prove such claims. They merely come to the same conclusion as Australia using circumstantial evidence without giving Germany the due process that any other nation (most certainly a fellow commonwealth nation) would receive. That to me personally smells of power gaming and is at the very least skipping quite a few talking points to get to the point where they can form an opinion. Who is really looking for a gotcha moment?

Atlantis could take Germany at its word and declare this whole discussion a non start as the Germans were flying outside the 3 mile limit, yet the Government of Atlantis has yet to make any statement in favor of any sides claims even after the assertion that mandate rules may have been broken. Perhaps Canada should take the blinders off and stop chomping at the bit to look for a gotcha moment vs Germany....

At this juncture of the discussion, I will reply OOC for sake of clarity.

1. Australia has claimed that Germany violated its sovereign air space. If you read the relevant German news items the flights were made in the vicinity of the places named. In point of fact there were no overflights of Australian territory – merely flights outside of Australian airspace. In protesting as fact that overflights occurred, Australia has created a false strawman argument and gone to the League seeking satisfaction for its hurt pride.

2. Australia, having asserted the existence of strategic military facilities at Manus, opened itself to protest under Article 22 of the Treaty. If you read the relevant German news items the flights conducted in the vicinity of Manus and Rabaul found little or no indication of military activity – consistent with Article 22 – but if Australia wishes to create for itself a strawman with which it can be beat, so be it.

3. Australia insists that Germany intends to reclaim its former mandated territories. This certainly is paranoia. The under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles Germany formally renounced its former colonies; it has no intention or desire to recover them. It has merely suggested that the League might consider whether Australia should remain as a mandatory power – a part of the strawman argument cited above.

4. Appraised dispassionately, 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.

5. 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.

Iberia: "Does Australia have evidence to introduce that will verify German intrusion into Australian airspace?

Hedjaz: "I have no specific comment on the alleged overflight at this time. 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..."

OOC Regarding 2) 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.

Quoted from "Desertfox"

OOC Regarding 2) 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.

OOC: Please see the definition of Internal Waters here. They are not what you think they are.

OOC: On a mostly unrelated note - I just noticed the date of the thread. 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.

OOC

Quoted

Archipelagic states are states that are composed of groups of islands forming a state as a single unit, with the islands and the waters within the baselines as internal waters. Under this concept ("archipelagic doctrine"), an archipelago shall be regarded as a single unit, so that the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the state, and are subject to its exclusive sovereignty.

Archipelagic States

New Guinea, Maritime Claims

Quoted from "Desertfox"

OOC

Quoted

Archipelagic states are states that are composed of groups of islands forming a state as a single unit, with the islands and the waters within the baselines as internal waters. Under this concept ("archipelagic doctrine"), an archipelago shall be regarded as a single unit, so that the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the state, and are subject to its exclusive sovereignty.

Archipelagic States

The concept of the Archipelagic State has not yet been formed or accepted by the International Community of Wesworld. I recall no recognition by the League of Nations as Papua New Guinea as a archipelagic state - indeed, one half of that area is Australian territory and one half a LoN mandate. Some time ago the question of territorial waters and limits was raised in the LoN but died for lack of interest.

Quoted from "thesmilingassassin"

I find it highly convenient that Canada would simply jump in on the complaint and state it "has been provided no compelling reason to believe Australia's claims are false" rather than wait for actual evidence to prove such claims. They merely come to the same conclusion as Australia using circumstantial evidence without giving Germany the due process that any other nation (most certainly a fellow commonwealth nation) would receive. That to me personally smells of power gaming and is at the very least skipping quite a few talking points to get to the point where they can form an opinion. Who is really looking for a gotcha moment?

Also OOC: You assume consultations amongst the Commonwealth did not occur before the matter came to the floor. Regardless, Canada is convinced Australia's concerns are genuine. If you wish to question Canada's motives or integrity in supporting their Australian cousins, knock yourself out. If one were to corner the Canadian representative and ply him with enough alcohol, he'd admit bringing the matter before the League is about as useful as any other matter that's been brought here. Nevertheless, one supports family.

I may be looking for a "Gotchya!" moment (I believe numerous people are, in their own way), but I'm not doing anything to manufacture or manipulate anyone into one.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

Hedjaz: "I have no specific comment on the alleged overflight at this time. 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..."

As an OOC note - historically, the Pacific mandates were viewed by most nations to be included in that reference. Many of the Mandate powers, in the expectation of someday having to use those islands as bases (but unable to actually build the base they wanted in peace-time) stockpiled resources and gear suitable for rapidly assembling a base once war actually was declared. This was part of the rationale for the creation of the US Construction Battalions, aka the Seebees; and the development of prefabricated metal runways, Nissin huts, that sort of thing. I believe the Japanese did much the same sort of thing, although their efforts don't get much in the way of press.

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.