Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

Providing an update...

Current Drafts:

Draft 1 (Little mentioned it, but I didn't see who actually proposed it)

1A. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to terminate it's nuclear program
1B. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to allow UN inspectors access to it's nuclear plants.

0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories

Draft 2 (Proposed by Great Britian)

2A. Force North Korea to allow emigration to South Korea
2B. After all emigrants have been allowed to flee, the UN Security Council will impose an international blockade on North Korea.

0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories

Draft 3 (Proposed by Mexico)

3A: Resolved: Preventing nuclear proliferation is a matter of global urgency which all nations of the world have an interest in.

1 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
(Crotia)

Draft 4 (Proposed by Mexico)

4A: The U.N. Security Council urges the continuation of six party talks

1 Sponsor, 0 Signatories
(Uganda)

Draft 5 (Proposed by Mexico)

5A: The U.N. Security Council urges the DPRK to re-enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as part of a framework for peaceful nuclear development and normalization of relations.
5B: The U.N. Security Council urges the U.S. to revisit the 1994 Accord as part of a framework for nuclear disarmament.

0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories

Draft 6 (Proposed by Mexico)

6A:  Encouraging the neighbors of the DPRK to swiftly agree to an immediate freezing of DPRK finances and a cessation of all trade excluding humanitarian supplies.

1 Sponsors, 0 Signatories
(Crotia)

Draft 7 (Proposed by Libya)

7A. Nuclear weapon proliferation, but allowing every country to use nuclear energy in peaceful purposes. And yes, that includes the Islamic republic of Iran
7B. Economic help for DPRK people.

1 Sponsor, 0 Signatories
(Russia)

I'm assuming that each of the numbered clauses represent a seperate draft. I have seen people support certain clauses in each draft.

To get a Draft promoted to a Resolution, you must get 4 Sponsors and 3 Signatories to sign upon a Draft. Sponsors support the resolution, while Signatories may not support the resolution but merely want the resolution to be discussed. Then, the UNSC must pass a "Consider a Resolution", which requires a majority vote.

Then the Resolution can be considered as normal. You can also seek to amend a draft as well...and if all the sponsors for the original amendment sign up to sponsor the amendment, then the amendment get passed without a vote.

I have attempted to determine if you are sponsoring a resolution if you state your support for it. If I have made a mistake, please alert me so that I may update this list of drafts.

Pandarsenic, does the nation who proposed the resolution also sponsor the resolution as well? My MUN knowledge is rusty.

[Pandarsenic]

Any nation who contributed operatives is a sponsor; any nation who did not, is not. Any nation who wishes it to be voted upon is a signatory.

The People's Republic of China shall be a signatory to Draft Resolution 4A.

Also, 3A is more of a preambulatory clause than anything else.

[inaluct]

Just saying, China, you should really be cracking down on this. It's dangerous for you, too.

[Servant Corps]

((I gave some time after mainaic posted to make sure if any nation wishes to reverse its statement. China seemed to have been the only nation that has done so, so I'll take it that Libya and Uganda has made statements))

We thank Uganda for proposing terms that is suitable for us, as a basis for negogations. We do hope that Uganda would be able to follow up on those terms by pushing for a UNSC resolution that would apologize for its grevious insult of the people of the DPRK for their peaceful space program. We would greatly be in your favor.

We also thank members of the UNSC in condemning the south Korean government's provocations, and hope that the UNSC makes a firm statement declaring that south Koreans should withdraw from the PSI and end the blockade. If the south Koreans do withdraw from the PSI, then the armistice would be considered to be in effect again.

((I am posting this part, even though I don't think the DPRK has ever said anything about its nuclear weapons. This is how I would expect the DPRK to behave though on this issue. I am making an 'educated guess' if you will...))

The DPRK would today like to send another letter to the United Nations Security Council, this time, to discuss about DPRK's policies towards nuclear nonproliferation. We would wish to lay this demand, to prepare for the eventuality of talks with the United States.

We believe that the United States is wholly responsible for nuclear proliferation. The US is the first country to have manufractured nuclear weapons and the first country to have done a nuclear holocaust. The United States currently has the greatest stockpile of nukes and missles in the world, which it uses in order to blackmail other countries and threaten them. The U.S. keeps the DPRK within the striking range of its nuclear weapons and missiles in south Korea and in its vicinity and on its mainland, threatening the security of the entire Korean Pennisula and raising the possiblity of a nuclear war.

It is true that the DPRK has a nuclear weapons program, but its program is purely for self-defense against any threat to the Korean people. The DPRK is dedicated towards the idea of a denuclearized Korea, where nukes are banned, but as long as the United States and the south Korean government continues to threaten the DPRK, and engage in provocations, we have no choice but to keep these nuclear weapons. In an ideal future, the horrors of nuclear weapons must be abolished, but we live in the present day. The USA has nuclear weapons pointed at the DPRK, therefore, we must have nukes to defend the freedom-loving Korean people against aggression.

The DPRK is strongly against nuclear proliferation. We do not want other nations to end up gaining nuclear weapons and using them to aggressively intimidate other nations like us. We do not want anarchist organizations to gain control of nuclear weapons and kill innocent people. We are very willing to work in a international framework where the DPRK will be treated as equals in the international community, and where we can all work together to stop nuclear proliferation. We are in favor of allowing for nations to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

The DPRK is currently a Nuclear Weapons State, having acquired nuclear weapons through unity, skilled leadership, and hardwork, and we deserve to be treated like one. We will not disarm and risk letting the DPRK get invaded, but we will glady work with other nations in order to stop the evils of nuclear proliferation.

((I'm also going to be making a list of DPRK's currnet international demands, just to make it easier like Aqizzar for people to follow along without having to read long press releases:
*Space Program=
North Korea promises to remain more open about its launches. North Korea will provide full launch information to the UNSC...IF the UNSC apologizes for condemning the North Korean Space Program and will affirm that the North Koeran Space Program is peaceful.

*State of War=
North Korea will consider the 1953 Armistice (this armistice ended the Korean War) to be once again in effect...IF South Korea withdraws from the PSI.

*Nuclear Weapons=
North Korea will promise to assist in stopping nuclear nonproliferation IF they enter into an agreement where they are treated as equals. North Koera plans on keeping its nukes for the time being.

*Diplomatic Talks=
North Korea will not enter into six-party talks. North Korea will enter into two-party talks with America, or three-party talks with America and China.

I think that's about enough North Korean demands. For now anyway.))

[Jetman123]

Uganda hereby proposes:

Resolution 8A. An apology will be made by the UNSC directly to North Korea for condemning their space program. Should the North Korean government later fail to honor the agreement, sanctions will follow.
Uganda hereby supports this resolution and wishes it to be voted upon.
Resolution 8B. Limited sanctions shall be imposed upon South Korea in an attempt to resolve the current crisis. Diplomatic attempts will be made to attempt to prevent South Korea from conducting any sort of search and seizure of NK ships. A joint statement of condemnation should be issued to the South Koreans by all signatories.
Uganda hereby supports this resolution and wishes it to be voted upon.

Uganda also publically requests that the US and China begin their own diplomatic attempts with North Korea. "I realize this may seem like an unpopular choice - bowing to the wishes of a dictator - but the fact is right now we cannot afford another Korean war. The results would be disastrous. Peace must be maintained, and to do that, we must make a deal with the devil, so to speak - even if it is only temporary. The nuclear weapons point may be resolved once this current crisis is sorted out. I urge all UNSC members to immediately begin talks with South Korea and attempt to get them to cease their provocative actions."

To this end, Uganda issues another statement condemning South Korea:

"Uganda calls for South Korea to immediately back out of this provocative agreement and cease all provocative moves towards the North Koreans. Peace in the region must be maintained and to that end Uganda is extremely dissapointed in South Korea's unilateral, foolish action. Uganda will push hard to make sure there are consequences should South Korea attempt to go on with this."

[mainiac]

Sanctions against South Korea would be completely unreasonable.  While the PSI is a matter of disagreement, it does not form the slightest basis for punitive action.

[Servant Corps]

The Republic of Korea, worried about Uganda's latest proposal, has to discuss about its involvement with the PSI.

Our Unification Minister spokesperson, Lee Jong-ju, has released a press release about this issue: "The PSI is part of global efforts to curb the flow of weapons of mass destruction. Seoul's participation does not specifically target North Korea nor was it decided in consideration of current inter-Korean relations." Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT) has released a press release about why we have joined the PSI: "The administration decided to join the PSI on May 26th in order to cope with serious threats to world peace and security which are being caused by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missiles."

The PSI is a general agreement to prevent weapons trafficking. The PSI does not single out any specific country. Therefore, it is not a 'blockade' as the DPRK is calling it. The DPRK is merely overreacting to this issue and is using this as a provocation. Our military is on high alert to prevent the DPRK in engaging in provocations.

Previously, we have held to the position that joining the PSI was a valuable part of international cooperative efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMDs, but was waiting for an appropriate time to join. We have considered long and hard about the PSI, and have refrained from joining in the PSI in order to not anger the DPRK. However, the recent nuclear test has showcased the problems with nuclear proliferation within the region. We has also joined up with the PSI so as to solidify our good relations with our ally, the United States.

We must make it clear our policy: We will not board any DPRK ships unless they enter into our territorial waters. That has always been our long-standing policy, and it will not change as a result of joining the PSI. If DPRK ships do not enter into our territoral waters, there will be no confrontation. The North Koreans themselves do not adhere to this policy though: We have had naval confrontations within the Yellow Sea in bloddy battles, during June 1999 and June 2002. We expect that the DPRK will engage in another naval confrontation in this summer.

If the Republic of Korea is forced to withdraw from the PSI, this will be a symbolic blow to the cause of nuclear nonproliferation. We hope Uganda will reconsider its position.

[Jetman123]

Uganda responds:

"Thank you for responding. We shall take your point of view into account. However, Uganda's official position remains unchanged. We ask you to consider putting actions against North Korean shipping on hold while the UNSC goes through deliberations."

[Zasit Alebath]

Lybian Arab Jamahiriya will sponsor resolution 8A but not 8B

[BigFatDwarf]

The Russian Federation too stands for 8A but not for 8B.

[Emperor_Jonathan]

The Japanese stands for 8A but not 8B too.

[Servant Corps]

Current Drafts:

Draft 1 (Little mentioned it, but I didn't see who actually proposed it)

1A. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to terminate it's nuclear program
1B. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to allow UN inspectors access to it's nuclear plants.

0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories

Draft 2 (Proposed by Great Britian)

2A. Force North Korea to allow emigration to South Korea
2B. After all emigrants have been allowed to flee, the UN Security Council will impose an international blockade on North Korea.

1 Sponsor (Great Britian), 0 Signatories

Draft 3 (Proposed by Mexico)

3A: Resolved: Preventing nuclear proliferation is a matter of global urgency which all nations of the world have an interest in.

1 Sponsor (Mexico), 1 Signatories (Crotia)

Draft 4 (Proposed by Mexico)

4A: The U.N. Security Council urges the continuation of six party talks

1 Sponsor (Mexico), 2 Signatories (China, Uganda)

Draft 5 (Proposed by Mexico)

5A: The U.N. Security Council urges the DPRK to re-enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as part of a framework for peaceful nuclear development and normalization of relations.
5B: The U.N. Security Council urges the U.S. to revisit the 1994 Accord as part of a framework for nuclear disarmament.

1 Sponsor (Mexico), 0 Signatories

Draft 6 (Proposed by Mexico)

6A:  Encouraging the neighbors of the DPRK to swiftly agree to an immediate freezing of DPRK finances and a cessation of all trade excluding humanitarian supplies.

1 Sponsor (Mexico), 1 Signatories (Crotia)

Draft 7 (Proposed by Libya)

7A. Nuclear weapon proliferation, but allowing every country to use nuclear energy in peaceful purposes. And yes, that includes the Islamic republic of Iran
7B. Economic help for DPRK people.

1 Sponsor (Libya), 1 Signatories (Russia)

Draft 8A (Proposed by Uganda)

Resolution 8A. An apology will be made by the UNSC directly to North Korea for condemning their space program. Should the North Korean government later fail to honor the agreement, sanctions will follow.

1 Sponsor (Uganda), 3 Signatories (Libya, Russia, Japan)

Draft 8B (Proposed by Uganda)

Resolution 8B. Limited sanctions shall be imposed upon South Korea in an attempt to resolve the current crisis. Diplomatic attempts will be made to attempt to prevent South Korea from conducting any sort of search and seizure of NK ships. A joint statement of condemnation should be issued to the South Koreans by all signatories.

1 Sponsor (Uganda), 0 Signatories

I'm assuming that each of the numbered clauses represent a seperate draft. I have seen people support certain clauses in each draft.

To get a Draft promoted to a Resolution, you must get 4 Sponsors and 3 Signatories to sign upon a Draft. Sponsors support the resolution, while Signatories may not support the resolution but merely want the resolution to be discussed. Then, the UNSC must pass a "Consider a Resolution", which requires a majority vote.

Then the Resolution can be considered as normal. You can also seek to amend a draft as well...and if all the sponsors for the original amendment sign up to sponsor the amendment, then the amendment get passed without a vote.

I have attempted to determine if you are sponsoring a resolution if you state your support for it. If I have made a mistake, please alert me so that I may update this list of drafts.

I have reworked the Signatories and Sponsorship rules thanks to Pandarsenic's replies (Sponsors add in operative clauses, while Signatories merely signed on). Let me know if you wish to revert back to the original rules. It seems that nobody is willing to add in operative clauses onto the Resolutions, which may mean we may only have Signatories under Pandarsenic's rules. Draft 8A has the most Signatories at the moment, so, I am wondering if I should rule that it is possible for Draft 8A to be promoted to a Resolution (and can thus be considered and voted upon).

[Little]

The United Kingdom supports draft 8A.

[mainiac]

Is this a debate club or is this a security council?  We have nothing to apologize for.  Nor can we back down from the clear stance this body has taken in the past.  The DPRK never has had the slightest interest in space exploration.  It is nothing more then a label they apply to tests that are completely military in nature.  No, no, a thousand time no.

Proposition 8A says that the DPRK is allowed to develop weapons platforms for nuclear warheads without consequence.  Such a statement is absolutely unacceptable in every way.

((It is also something the security council would never vote on since the south korean secretary general is hardly going to let a proposal throwing korea to the wolves make it out of the general assembly...))

[Servant Corps]

Current Drafts:

Draft 1 (Little mentioned it, but I didn't see who actually proposed it)

1A. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to terminate it's nuclear program
1B. Diplomatically attempt to reason or force North Korea to allow UN inspectors access to it's nuclear plants.

0 Sponsors, 0 Signatories

Draft 2 (Proposed by Great Britian)

2A. Force North Korea to allow emigration to South Korea
2B. After all emigrants have been allowed to flee, the UN Security Council will impose an international blockade on North Korea.

1 Sponsor (Great Britian), 0 Signatories

Draft 3 (Proposed by Mexico)

3A: Resolved: Preventing nuclear proliferation is a matter of global urgency which all nations of the world have an interest in.

1 Sponsor (Mexico), 1 Signatories (Crotia)

Draft 4 (Proposed by Mexico)

4A: The U.N. Security Council urges the continuation of six party talks

1 Sponsor (Mexico), 2 Signatories (China, Uganda)

Draft 5 (Proposed by Mexico)

5A: The U.N. Security Council urges the DPRK to re-enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as part of a framework for peaceful nuclear development and normalization of relations.
5B: The U.N. Security Council urges the U.S. to revisit the 1994 Accord as part of a framework for nuclear disarmament.

1 Sponsor (Mexico), 0 Signatories

Draft 6 (Proposed by Mexico)

6A:  Encouraging the neighbors of the DPRK to swiftly agree to an immediate freezing of DPRK finances and a cessation of all trade excluding humanitarian supplies.

1 Sponsor (Mexico), 1 Signatories (Crotia)

Draft 7 (Proposed by Libya)

7A. Nuclear weapon proliferation, but allowing every country to use nuclear energy in peaceful purposes. And yes, that includes the Islamic republic of Iran
7B. Economic help for DPRK people.

1 Sponsor (Libya), 1 Signatories (Russia)

Draft 8A (Proposed by Uganda)

Resolution 8A. An apology will be made by the UNSC directly to North Korea for condemning their space program. Should the North Korean government later fail to honor the agreement, sanctions will follow.

1 Sponsor (Uganda), 4 Signatories (Libya, Russia, Japan, United Kingdom)

Draft 8B (Proposed by Uganda)

Resolution 8B. Limited sanctions shall be imposed upon South Korea in an attempt to resolve the current crisis. Diplomatic attempts will be made to attempt to prevent South Korea from conducting any sort of search and seizure of NK ships. A joint statement of condemnation should be issued to the South Koreans by all signatories.

1 Sponsor (Uganda), 0 Signatories

By Pandarsenic's new rule, Draft 8A is now offically a Resolution. You may propose for this Resolution to be considred by the Security Council.

Is Aqizzar and Inaluct still active and playing in this game? I wouldn't want to miss the deterence expert of Burkani Faso, and the United States is a very important Veto Power, after all.