We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Jakanian Imperial Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: March 2494
Description[?]:
| OCC: I'm sorry that I can't get this into the forums but I can't join or log in so its being done here. - Dr. George Falco, United Jakinian Foreign Minister "Welcome delgates of the Sixth Jewish Homeland of Beiteynu and the Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth to the Jakanian sponsored peace confence. We hope that the neturality that we have provided in the conflict will bring about a swift conclusion to the Gran Tadraki conflict." "I would also like to give thanks to the international community and the other observing foreign delegates watching the conference, I will say welcome and I hope the United Jakinian has treated you well. I shall present our Supreme Governor, Peter Wallack. Peter Wallack, Supreme Governor of United Jakania: "Greetings members of Beiteynu and Pontesian Commonwealth and the international observers. I shall be brief, I hope that you will enjoy your stay in our country . I hope that George Falco shall do his best moderating the conference and I shall drop in from time to time to check progress. Thank you." George Falco: "Ok, there are some conference rules. 1. Don't go off topic 2. Observers must have permission to speak before addressing the conference 3. No put-downs, infammatory comments, anti-Jewish language, anti-Pontesian language, etc. 4. Please don't rant 5. Compromising is highly encouraged 6. Debate! Those are the rules. Violators shall be removed immediately from the conference until they or group calms down. Repeated violations will result in the following, return to hotel for the rest of day and the most severe punishment is to flown out of Jakania." "Roll call" Treaty Draft: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewtreaty.php?treatyid=853 |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:55:33, November 15, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | United Jakinian Delegates: - Dr. George Falco, Foreign Minister - Peter Wallack, Supreme Governor - Fred Johnson, Foreign Affairs expert on Gran Tadraki region - Cabinet Minister of Defense, and Prime Minister - One spokesman of Foreign Policy from the SResP, UJDP, UCM, NSP, SRelP |
| Date | 22:07:08, November 15, 2007 CET | From |  Ma'avak | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Minister of Foreign Affairs Shimon Ish-Shalom shall be attending on behalf of the nation, the Beiteynu Resistance Committee and the Ma'avak movement. We except further cabinet ministers to attend as well. |
| Date | 22:36:20, November 15, 2007 CET | From | Lourenne Democratic Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | The President of the Free Republic of Lourenne, Thomas McNamara has arrived as a spokesman from the nation. |
| Date | 23:52:49, November 15, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I, Tomas Mcdoogle, will attend Minister of Defence for our holy land will attend. I, John Hegee, religous leader of the CZP, John Hegee will also attened. |
| Date | 01:02:04, November 16, 2007 CET | From |  Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Chancellor of Defence Andrea Belknap with Pontesian Army Commander and Chairman of the Pontesian Control Commission in Tadraki General Neil Webb shall be representing the Pontesian Government and Armed Forces including the Tadrakian Security Forces. We expect more cabinet member to attend shortly. |
| Date | 09:55:51, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | As delegates are coming in, I think the first order of business is to proceed to claims of territory of Gran Tadraki and evidence to support such claims. |
| Date | 09:59:14, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OCC: Discuss among your selfs the different reasons and accusations you are pitting against one another. I have to leave for the weekend, fishing trip. I shall return! |
| Date | 13:49:10, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Coburan delegates Paul Hackman, Former Foreign Minister |
| Date | 15:09:49, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Yellow Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | "Good afternoon delegates. We hope for a peaceful and comprehensive solution to your two nation's problems." -Dr. Kenn Nixon Former Foreign Minister, Democratic Republic of Ikradon Foreign Adviser, Yellow Party |
| Date | 15:40:05, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | First of all we will hear the demands from both the Beitnyu delegation and the Pontesi delegation -Paul Hackman |
| Date | 17:08:21, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Ma'avak | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | "Greetings honourable delegates of Jakania, Lourenne, Cobura and Ikradon as well as the representatives of the five region of the Pontesian Commonwealth. I will attempt to state the view of the Ma'avak movement, the Ma'avak political party and the Lohamei Herut Kahina paramilitary organisation. I also seek to represent the nation as Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as a spokesperson for the Beiteynu Resistance Committee however wish to first state that I do not assume I speak for all concerned in the government or the organisation, I welcome internal criticism as much as foreign debate. It is our opinion that Beiteynu has an inaliable right to sovereignty over the Mehozot of Tadraki and Endild on several fronts; 1. Historically they regions have been under Beiteynuese control for as long as a stable Beiteynuese state has existed. Since the foundation of the First Jewish Homeland in 908 the only times in which they have been under the control of any other power were during three seperate Pontesian occupations, all militarily led and not supported by the people of Tadraki and Endild. 2. The population of these two Mehozot are majority Jewish in faith, the traditional faith of Beiteynu. Additionally Hebrew is recorded as the most commonly spoken language. 3. Whilst citing self-determination for the Pntek people as reason for the current occupation, it was a military invasion of Beiteynuese land and an act of war. This was a clear violation of internationally accepted notions of sovereignty and should have attracted much more criticism. 4. The only party within Beiteynu that was in favour of the occupation has recently been overrun by far leftists and transformed into a communist, pro-Beiteynuese party. We would further like to state that since their occupation of our land Pontesi has routinely tortured and killed innocent Beiteynuese citizens whilst at the same time destroying any civil liberties they may have had and persecuting members of the Jewish faith. They citied for their invasion false demographics and a bill in the Knesset that was never due to pass. As such we see the entirety of their actions as illegal and unjust and call for the immediate withdrawal of all Pontesian troops from Tadraki and a resolution in the August Parliament stating their recognition of our sovereingty over the Mehozot of Tadraki and Endild." -- Shimon Ish-Shalom, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Sixth Jewish Homeland of Beiteynu |
| Date | 18:24:06, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | How about this, the territory is categorised as a neutral zone, patroled by peacekeepers from both sides. Beitnyu will have control of one side and Pontesi will control another, After 5 years of this, there shall be a referendum in the region, with the people deciding which side they want governing them, the referendum shall be monitered by the international community -Paul Hackman |
| Date | 19:40:57, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Nuclear Militarist Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Lets take over the world!!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAA..........HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAA |
| Date | 20:16:01, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Greetings Esteemed Delegates: My late arrival was beyond my control, but I do apologize. I have recently assumed the post of Chancellor of Foreign Affairs for the Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth, but I am well abreast of the situation at hand. I have read carefully, also, through the historical and available information provided to me concerning the ongoing conflict in Gran Tadraki. With all due respect to Minister Ish-Shalom, it is my understanding that Gran Tadraki declared its sovereignty and willingly joined the Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth because, at the time of this decision, there were far more Pnteks living in the contested territory than there were any other nationality. To date, there are still many Pnteks living in the region and they continue to suffer horribly under Beitenyu rule. That since this time the Beitenyu government has rescinded Gran Tadraki's sovereignty is another matter. We recognize and respect the Beitenyu government's right to rescind the sovereignty of the territory in question, but we cannot honor such when it goes hand in hand with the ongoing relegation of Pnteks into inferior positions and brutalized through open acts of hostility and hatred. We therefore must insist that the Pntek people's interests be met and therefore ask that any Pntek representative from the region please speak at this conference so that we may all hear the will of those people instead of hearing of it through other other people who have reason to relay information with bias. Before I comment further, then, I would like, therefore, to hear from a member of the party in Beitenyu that represents the Pntek desire to join the Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth. I would also like to hear from Minister Ish-Shalom with regards to how his government plans to treat the Pntek population in the territory in question if Pontesi adopts a standing neutral zone territory order akin to the one former Foreign Minister Hackman proposed. And I would like to hear from Chancellor Belknap as to the likelihood of such an adoption. Sincerely, James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 20:39:07, November 16, 2007 CET | From | SPIDER PIG REPUBLIC | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Sorry I am late! I am Fred Fredburger and I am from the SPR! |
| Date | 21:26:46, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | "The only party within Beiteynu that was in favour of the occupation has recently been overrun by far leftists and transformed into a communist, pro-Beiteynuese party."] That is a false statement from my Jewish friend, I would like to point out that they are not communist but are still anti-Jewish Homeland. --Tommas McDoogle |
| Date | 21:30:47, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | What about my Proposal? the territory is categorised as a neutral zone, patroled by peacekeepers from both sides. Beitnyu will have control of one side and Pontesi will control another, After 5 years of this, there shall be a referendum in the region, with the people deciding which side they want governing them, the referendum shall be monitered by the international community -Paul Hackman |
| Date | 21:58:08, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Although the spirit of Mr. Hackman's proposal is acceptable to me, I would like to hear more from Mr. McDoogle with respect to the Pntek people. Would Mr. McDoogle care to elaborate on his party's position? I would also like to hear from Chancellor Belknap. -- James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 22:37:37, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I would like to reach an agreement, is the agreement drawn up by Mr Hackman acceptable to both sides? Yes or No |
| Date | 22:52:02, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Before we can agree with Mr. Hackman's proposal, we would need more information on how the referendum will be conducted and who will specifically conduct it. We would also like to know the short and long term consequences of said referendum on the Pntek people currently living in the area in contest spelled out aforeheand. -- James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 22:56:17, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | The referendum shall be conducted by the international community, to ensure a free and fair election. Peacekeeping force will be stepped up in the runup to the election. Six months after the election power will be handed over to whoever wins the election. The border area will be declared a neutral zone and both sides must withdraw military presence along the border |
| Date | 23:01:12, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | How about Tadrikai being a nutral teratory and we leave enlid alone. |
| Date | 23:02:20, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Besides that things will work! |
| Date | 23:05:15, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I think that a referendum settle the matter satisfactorily, As long as both parties agree to respect the democratic right of the people of Gran Tadrikai? |
| Date | 23:19:02, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | So is this agreement agreeable to you? |
| Date | 23:33:31, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | yesh |
| Date | 23:47:56, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Okay, and the Pontesi delegation? |
| Date | 00:39:27, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | So we have reached an agreement? |
| Date | 04:15:39, November 17, 2007 CET | From | One Nation Conservative Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Sir Winston Stanley-Marshall MP (Knight of the Commonwealth) Chancellor-Vizier of the Commonwealth Conference, the idea of initiating a referendum is pure nieve folly - it will not decide whether whose claim to Gran Tadraki is the strongest but only who is most able to mobilise their voters. Decisions should not be based on these kinds of procedures. My party believes in the possibility of shared sovereignty - Pontesi and the Jews would share powers which would be agreed upon by both sides. A Gran Tadraki assembly would be established and the Cabinet positions filled strictly equally. The first minister would of course be decided upon by popular vote. |
| Date | 04:20:59, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Ma'avak | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | "We do not accept either joint sovereignty or a referendum. The region is historically, ethnically, religiously and culturally Beiteynuese and just because Pontesi has chosen to invade it by brute force does not give them some say over its future. Tadraki and Endild are Beiteynuese Mehozot and that is the only conclusion we can accept. We can work to secure equal right for the Pntek minority but we can never support the signing away of our soverignty." -- Shimon Ish-Shalom |
| Date | 04:27:24, November 17, 2007 CET | From | One Nation Conservative Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Sir Winston Stanley-Marshall MP (Knight of the Commonwealth) Chancellor-Vizier of the Commonwealth Conference, the idea of initiating a referendum is pure nieve folly - it will not decide whether whose claim to Gran Tadraki is the strongest but only who is most able to mobilise their voters. Decisions should not be based on these kinds of procedures. My party believes in the possibility of shared sovereignty - Pontesi and the Jews would share powers which would be agreed upon by both sides. A Gran Tadraki assembly would be established and the Cabinet positions filled strictly equally. The first minister would of course be decided upon by popular vote. |
| Date | 06:24:49, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I am waiting on further input from the August Parliament of the Cedar Throne before entering into formal negotiations about this matter. Please be advised that it is my intention to avoid the continuation of war at all costs and that I have placed before the Pontesi parliament the two options currently being discussed at the peace conference: 1) joint sovereignty or 2) 5 year neutral zone with referendum by international community. In the meantime, I welcome any overture by the Beitenyu Minister of Foreign Affairs to indicate his countries preference between the two options currently on the table. Sincerely, -- James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 09:27:17, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | After a talk in the CZC, we decided to remove our approval of the plan! |
| Date | 12:47:26, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Okay, how about this. The region will remain a neutral region and peacekeepers will remain there for 2 years, after this time the region shall be placed under a power sharing executive with voices from both sides, the Beitenyu majority and the Pntek minority, the power sharing executive would be answerable to Beitenyu, but Pontesi will have some authority, We need a compromise, Is this agreement okay with you, yes or no? |
| Date | 14:39:07, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Ma'avak | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | "With all due respect, as we have stated, we will accept nothing less than full Beiteynuese authority over the running of both Tadraki and Endild. Honourable delegate of the Crazy Ruairi Party this is the equivalent of Zardugal invading Egato, occupying it, torturing and killing the majority Coburan population then being given international approval for a part say in the running of the province. Not only will any solution that does not give full sovereignty to Beiteynu be a violation of international law and of self-determination it will also be giving tacit approval to genocide and set a precedent with end results we dare not imagine. We are more than willing to discuss possible ways in which the Pntek minority can have their rights protected in Tadraki and Endild but this must be under Beiteynuese authority and Beiteynuese laws." -- Shimon Ish-Shalom |
| Date | 14:41:29, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | We have to reach a compromise, full Beitenyese authority will not be acceptable to the Pontesi delegation, And as I said, under the new agreement proposed by me, the region would still be part of Beitenyu, the power sharing executive is just to ensure that the Pntek people have their rights -Paul Hackman |
| Date | 15:37:25, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Ma'avak | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | "We are not here to support what is favourable to the Pontesian delegation we are to push forward what is fair, just and right. Did Pontesi support what was favourable to us when they invaded our land back in 2309? When they committed genocide against our people? When they burnt Tadraki upon their expulsion from Beiteyu? When during the Fifth Homeland they refused to accept our sovereignty over the area? When they supported Islamist rule? When they re-invaded our land again only a few years ago? No they did not and so why should we offer anything more to them? Gentlemen the facts here are that this was an unjust and illegal military invasion and by supporting anything other than full Beiteynuese sovereignty you will be giving your support to future military invasions. We are not duty bound to help the Pontesians and we are not duty bound to follow the rulings of this conference. Whilst we hope it will come to fruition if it gives support to anything other than the expulsion of all Pontesian control from Beiteynu and the restoration of the Homeland as a land of five Mehozot we will be forced to resort back to military measures in order to take back what is rightfully ours." -- Shimon Ish-Shalom |
| Date | 15:53:13, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | With all due respect the war will continue unless both sides compromise, And anyway, if the other members of the Beitynu delegation accept my proposal then Beitnyu will sign the proposal, I am not here to do what is fair, I am here to do what is right, bring peace to the region -Paul Hackman |
| Date | 16:29:20, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | What about the idea of dual Citizenship. or of p'tnek setelments put under dual-national control, withe rest under Jewish control. --Roy Stevens, vice-chairman of CZP |
| Date | 16:48:00, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Okay, that is good idea, But I think that we could have some kind of power sharing executive in the Pntek settlements to ensure that both sides have a voice, the Executive would be democractically elected of course Is that acceptable to you CZP? Paul Hackman |
| Date | 17:51:27, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | "I hear very clearly from the Beitenyu's Foreign Affairs Minister that he is not willing to compromise on the issue of Gran Tadraki sovereignty, and I sympathize with his position. However, with all due respect, I also note that his party, though very vocal, is not the largest in his parliament by any means. I have been authorized to enter negotiations with Beitenyu to offer the following: 1) immediate neutral zone/demilitarized zone of the contested territories 2) five year occupation of the contested territories by peacekeeping forces 3) the immediate establishment of dual citizenship for all Pntek in the contested territories 4) referendum of the population in the contested territories conducted by an objective panel of international representatives after five years to determine whether or not they wish to remain under the Beitenyu or Pontesi flag and be considered the "territory" of one or the other nation 5) the establishment of a special executive contingent made up of a Beitenyu governor and a Pontesi governor and a third objective party governor placed by the MCTO that will rule over the area indefinitely until this peace treaty alters These are the terms we offer. We would like to know if your parliament will pass the measure and thereby abide by them. When I have the Beitenyu's tentative approval, I will submit the treaty." James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 18:10:02, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Ma'avak | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | "As has been stated whilst I hold the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs I do not speak for the whole cabinet and my political party is indeed not heavily represented in the Knesset so can by no means speak for Beiteynu as a whole. However I can say now that I and the wider Ma'avak movement shall with all our strength and heart vote against any such proposal that recognises a Pontesian claim of any sort to Tadraki and Endild. That is our final comment on the issue and we shall leave this to others to debate. Honourable delegates I announce my immediate departure from the conference." -- Shimon Ish-Shalom |
| Date | 19:19:32, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | So you will agree to my agreements? |
| Date | 19:28:08, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Is the CRP addressing Pontesi or Minister Ish-Shalom? Pontesi will offer the aforementioned points for negotiation and ratification by the Beitenyu parliament. When I hear from the Beitenyu government that the points are acceptable, we can move forward drafting the treaty. -- Chancellor Kirk |
| Date | 19:32:05, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Both sides, is my agreement, 1) Gran Takrandi as a neutral zone 2) a referendum 3) a power sharing executive 4) Dual citizenship for the Pntek people Is this agreement acceptable? -Paul Hackman |
| Date | 19:55:59, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | This is acceptable to Pontesi. -- Chancellor Kirk |
| Date | 19:58:59, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Who shall be drafting the treaty? -- Chancellor Kirk |
| Date | 20:41:21, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | When the Jakainain-Internationalist-Right Wing Party returns we will ask him to draft the treaty, faling this, I will get the Coburan HoS to draft it |
| Date | 21:05:21, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Very well. -- Chancellor Kirk |
| Date | 11:40:55, November 18, 2007 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OOC: Sorry for the absence :( I've been out of town, but it seems that UUP got it all covered. How will the referendum happen? I don't know any game mechanic that will work. |
| Date | 11:46:23, November 18, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | First of all the referendum will only be for the Pntek people, on whether which flag they want to live under, and whose territory they want to be considered part of Pontesi or Beitenyu, The Pntek settlements will be governed by a power sharing executive, and the results of the referendum will be decided by (OOC) by a coin toss, unless anyone else has a better idea about how it would be conducted? |
| Date | 16:23:00, November 18, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I think is should be on what party wins each mehezot. IF the RAF, PPP, or RNP, win any of them they go to Pontesi until the next election. If BRC member nations win any mehozot it will stay. |
| Date | 18:03:23, November 18, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Okay, that could work |
| Date | 20:57:14, November 18, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | We vote yes on this idea! |
| Date | 03:08:31, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OCC: Sorry that I have been gone, fishing and all. So to jump right back into business. Thank you CRP for spearheading the peace conference efforts while we were absent. I like that the CRP and UUP proposals. Our Beiteynu delegates are a bit stubborn, but I see their point of view. I can write up a treaty proposal in the next two days or so. Response to the Beiteynu delegation: Although the Gran Tadraki region is officially Beiteynu territory, the region has declared itself separated from Beiteynu. Technically, its free from Beiteynu rule and sought protection from the Pontesian Commonwealth. It is up to the various nations from the international community to either approve Gran Tadraki independence from Beiteynu rule or support Beiteynu long standing rule of the region. I, George Falco, see that separation resolution, although conducted by one party, established legal separation status. So I see a couple steps in conducting the future steps of this conference. 1) International support for continued Beiteynu sovereignty of Gran Tadraki or recognize Gran Tadraki sovereignty from Beiteynu. 2) Continued dialog with the nations of Beiteynu and Pontesian Commonwealth 3) Set up peace treaty draft and accord with the following - Establishment of neutral zone of Gran Tadraki - Peacekeeping force administrating the Gran Tadraki neutral zone for 5 years - Set up for citizen's of Gran Tadraki sovereignty referendum - Objective international observers of referendum vote to ensure fair voting - Dual citizenship 4) Measures of improved well-being of the Pntek people if under Beiteynu control if elected That's all my ideas right now. |
| Date | 03:17:31, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | to determine sovereignty I think is should be on what party wins each mehezot. IF the RAF, PPP, or RNP, win any of them they go to Pontesi until the next election. If BRC member nations win any mehozot it will stay. |
| Date | 03:38:42, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | As for the proposal by the Jakanian Internationalist-Right Party, We agreed with all of the step in the conference except for number one. In which we clearly believe that it should be left to the referendum. The government of Beitenyu have done nothing to create progress in this peace talk and we're still looking for the sign of goodwill from their government. Andrea Belknap, Chancellor of Defence |
| Date | 03:39:42, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | So what you are suggesting is that using the current split within Beiteynu political realm with the RAF, PPP, and RNP vs the rest of the parties to determine the sovereignty of the Gran Tadraki region as the way to decide the referendum vote. Good idea. |
| Date | 03:47:35, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Is the CZP suggesting, then, that sovereignty would fluctuate from one election to the next depending on what parties control the mehezot, or would the upcoming election determine the permanent association of the mehezot with Pontesi or Beitenyu? Pontesi does not support an election by election (too much flipping back and forth will only lead to more war) solution to this matter because such will only further the disruption both within the contested territories and within our domestic border. Pontesi would like to offer another option: 1) if the RAF, PPP, or RNP win any of the mehozot, Pontesi will adopt the contested territory for a period of 50 years (game time) as a protectorate (following the five years peacekeeping occupation). (OOC: similar to the Hong Kong/Great Britain solution). 2) The dual citizenship of all Pntek citizensand the enforcement of the neutral zone will be upheld no matter the outcome of the upcoming election. 3) An executive consisting of a Beitneyu, Pontesi and third, objective party will rule over the contested territory for 50 years no matter the outcome of the upcoming election--to ensure the peaceful reassimilation of the people's living there. 4) If the contested territory becomes a protectorate of Pontesi for a 50 year time period, the tri-part executive will decide at the end of such period by 2/3 vote whether the contested territory will become Beitenyu territory or remain part of Pontesi for another 50 year time period. Would something along these lines be acceptable to Beitenyu? James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs |
| Date | 04:32:29, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | No I think that if it will come to flipping it must resort to that then! |
| Date | 04:34:54, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | What if one year they want Pontesi and another they want Jewish state! We must allow them to change! |
| Date | 06:12:10, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | We can't be flip-flopping the territory between the Beiteynu and Pontesi. I think that James Kirk has stumbled upon something though. It might be a grand short-term solution before resting upon a permanent resolution. We planned something more elaborate in the event of either the Pontesians or Beiteynuese control it. 1) As stated by James Kirk, but 75 years as Pontesian protectorate. 2) As stated 3) As stated 4) As stated but citizens of the Gran Tadraki may take part in the election 5) The tri-party executive may present a permanent solution, but not before 15 years within the 75 years 6) No military equipment or personnel by either nation be present in the Gran Tadraki region at anytime until further notice 7) In the event that the RAF, PPP, and RNP do not win any of the contested mehozots, it automatically reverts back to Beiteynu controlled territory, all Pontesian forces must immediately withdraw. 8) In the event of article 7, all the above articles shall be void except article 2 and article 3 9) In relation of article 7, the tri-party executive will be used to oversee the long-term well-being of the Pntek population and encourage equality within the Beiteynuese population 10) If either side violates article 6, the appropriate use of force will be used. 11) If the Pontesians do not recognize the voting of the referendum in article 7, the appropriate use of force will be used. |
| Date | 06:26:24, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OCC: Well, found an old account I made for the forum, we could move it to the forums? |
| Date | 06:43:37, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OOC: Up to you, I do not mind continuing here . . . |
| Date | 06:52:50, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Esteemed Delegates: I find the terms we are discussing to be appropriate in scope, and I am encouraged to see a solution to this conflict resolving. I would, however, like the treaty to specify under article 11 that the "appropriate use of force will be used" against Beitenyu if the referendum falls in Pontesi's favor and Beitenyu refuses to secede protectorship to Pontesi. I would also like it more clearly defined who would, under articles 10 and 11, use such force and who would define "appropriate." I would also like the specific year and month election to be noted that will determine the outcome of article 1. -- James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 07:05:27, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I guess that the MCTO would be one that would the "appropriate" force. Under article 1, it would have to be a Beiteynu election year, it would have to be a closest election or some negotiated election year. -- George Falco, Foreign Minister United Jakinia OCC: I'll just place the whole discussion on there to make it legit and for the record. We can continue here. |
| Date | 07:15:05, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I guess that the MCTO would be one that would the "appropriate" force. Under article 1, it would have to be a Beiteynu election year, it would have to be a closest election or some negotiated election year. -- George Falco, Foreign Minister United Jakinia OCC: I'll just place the whole discussion on there to make it legit and for the record. We can continue here. |
| Date | 07:15:23, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OOC: Thank you _______________________ Once spelled out under the appropriate article(s), the MCTO would be acceptable as that body which will determine definition of "appropriate." If the treaty is drawn up more than 9 months before the upcoming Beitenyu election, then the upcoming election would be appropriate; if less than 9 months, then the second upcoming Beitenyu election month/year would be appropriate (second because it may take some time to ratify the treaty). -- JKirk |
| Date | 07:22:26, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OCC: You're welcome ____________________________ You're suggestion on how the election will work is a good idea and shall be put to use. Thank you UUP for your ideas. --GFalco |
| Date | 07:25:04, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OCC: You're welcome ____________________________ You're suggestion on how the election will work is a good idea and shall be put to use. Thank you UUP for your ideas. --GFalco |
| Date | 07:58:53, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Once the treaty is prepared, I will forward it to the Pontesi parliament. -- JKirk |
| Date | 07:59:19, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | And, most welcome. -- JKirk |
| Date | 08:04:22, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I will start work on it in tomorrow. |
| Date | 21:12:34, November 19, 2007 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OOC: "1) if the RAF, PPP, or RNP win any of the mehozot, Pontesi will adopt the contested territory for a period of 50 years (game time) as a protectorate (following the five years peacekeeping occupation)." How would this work? The RNP and PPP are both pro-Beiteynuese parties, who voted against handing control of Gran Tadraki to Pontesi. IC: "My apologies for not being able to attend this conference so far, however I must say the articles suggested for this treaty are completely ridiculous. The RNP and PPP, while we may have our disagreements, are patriotic defenders of Beiteynuese sovereignty, who would be insulted by the idea that their votes would be used to justify Pontesians occupation of our land, and even the RAF now recognises Beiteynus sovereignty over Tadraki and Endlid. We do not believe in rewarding acts of agression and brutality. Our sovereignty over Tadraki and Endlid, and the illegality of the Pontesian occupation, are not issues that we are prepared to debate at this conference, and any foreign minister I choose to appoint, I am sure, will come to the same conclusion. If Pontesi primary concerns are to protect the Pntek minority in Tadraki and Endlid, we are prepared to negioate on steps to ensure their safety, as well as looking into the idea of Dual citizenship, even to granting control to Pontesi over some Pntek majority towns. However i repeat, our land, which it is by culture, history and ethnicity, will not be stolen, and our people will not be enslaved." -Nesí Hamdiná Itamar Eitam |
| Date | 21:38:48, November 19, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | How would it work, I think it's very simple. If the RNP and PPP are truely pro-Beiteynuese, let them stay out the referendum vote. I guess the would leave the RAF to get it through, if they still wish to break apart. OCC: Because of such a difficulty to decide such things in RP, I think that the best course of action is to use the existing election mechanics in Particracy to decide such a vote. Because each province votes individually for parliament seats, the majority winner of Endlid or Tadraki or both would either revert to former Beiteynuese or Pontesian control. I see no problem in this because the CZP already commands the votes in Tadraki and Endlid would probably vote for some pro-Beiteynuese party. That was our suggestion. IC: I wanted to learn the Pontesian Commonwealth's reasons for getting themselves involved. Is it for the Pntek people? Is it a land grab? What exactly is it? I would like to hear from the RAF personally to hear their current position on this issue. |
| Date | 07:07:56, November 20, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Delegates: From my understanding of the history of the situation, the Pontesi interest is absolutely not land grab. We condsider the Pntek to be Pontesi people living in the contested territory, and the long-term documented hostility of the Beitenyuese government towards the Pntek has brought Pontesi to their aid--and, from my understanding, the Pntek people then decided to separate from Beitenyu and join Pontesi. For more information on these matters, I direct you to Andrea Belknap, Chancellor of Defense, of the Equalise People's Right Party of Pontesi. She knows far more of the details of this history than I do. I have read through the "Loyalty Oath" and see that although parties voted for the oath, some did not actually "take" it and must question the efficacy of such an oath, which in turn makes Pontesi question whether or not there are still parties loyal to the Pntek cause and the Pontesi nation in the contested territories. I, too, would like to hear from the RAF and any other party within Beitenyu who are loyal to the Pntek people and the Pontesi cause. I would also be willing to negotiate further with Minister Nesí Hamdiná Itamar Eitam regarding the points he brings up in his proposal. Since the purpose of this peace conference is the peaceful resolution of the matters at hand, it is Pontesi's primary concern not to "own" any contested land but, rather, to insist upon the fair and ethical treatment of the Pntek people. We still encourage the treaty to be drafted as it has been conceived up to this point, and then we can, together, work through the individual points of the treaty. James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth OOC: Can you make more definitive suggestions that will guarantee the ethical and fair treatment/assimilation of the Pntek people if terms of the treaty are not acceptable? |
| Date | 07:36:55, November 20, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | If the proposed treaty were to be written up, we would like to know which parties winning the contested territories would result in the establishment of the Pontesi protectorate. Also, as I previously stated, since the most important aspect of this treaty to Pontesi is the ethical and fair treatment and assimilation of the Pntek people, Pontesi welcomes the idea of shared executive, dual citizenship--and we may even forego the protectorate-via-election business entirely if: 1) certain Pntek cities were outright conceded by Beitenyu and granted Pontesi protectorate status for a period of 75 years 2) during which time the contested Mezorot would be ruled by a shared executive. 3) immediate dual citizenship of the Pntek people Sincerely, James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs |
| Date | 09:19:37, November 20, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Ok, so this boils down to the well being of the Pntek population within Gran Tadraki. Mr. Robert Brown, our main foreign policy professional on Beiteynu and Pontesian affairs has extensively studied this conflict for the Jakanian Foreign Ministry. From Mr. Brown's report, the Pontesian Commonwealth supported the Pntek Welfare Party in declaring sovereignty of the Gran Tadraki region. But now, the Red Anarchy Faction (aka former PWP) has stepped back from that, but the only way to truly know that is getting word from the RAF directly. I know that not many of the parties that exist within Beiteynu supported what the PWP did. The RNP, SPR, and I think the PPP rejected such a sudden breakaway. I think with recent events, the contested mezorots should be exclusively under the control of Beiteynu, we should recognize that they do have sovereignty of the mezorots. Because the Pontesian focus is on the well-being of the Pntek population, we should focus on that. I propose this: 1) All or most Pntek majority cities are handed over the Pontesian Commonwealth for protectorate status for 75 or whatever defined years. 2) Duel citizenship of the entire Pntek population 3) Undefined amount of years for keeping MCTO peacekeeping force in the Gran Tadraki region. Jakania will start withdrawing peace keepers from the current 85,000 to around 30,000 in a few years or earlier. All volunteer peace keepers shall withdraw immediately except for forces over 10,000 troops. The Gran Tadraki region stays a netural region for three years. 4) An tri-executive to oversee the long term well-being of the Pntek population within the contested mezorot. 5) Recognize Beiteynu sovereignty of the Gran Tadraki region 6) After three years, the border between Beiteynu and Pontesian Commonwealth is a DMZ patrolled by MCTO peacekeeping force for 5 years. 7) To ensure reduce tension, the Pontesi military maybe stationed in Pntek majority towns, but forces shall not exceed 1,000 light infantry in each town. No armored and offensive air units maybe stationed in them. 8) No major Beiteynuese military force may take control of the Pontesian protectorate areas for any reason. A suggested that no major Beiteynuese military presence should be placed near the protectorate areas. 9) If article 7 or 8 are broken, the MCTO shall use the 'appropriate' use of force to deal with the situation. 10) Progress on Beiteynuese legislation towards equality for the Pntek population 11) Use of the tri-excutive parties to insure further discussion promoting equality for the Pntek population That is all I have. Anything specific for the Pntek population well being? -- George Falco Foreign Minister of United Jakania |
| Date | 12:14:39, November 20, 2007 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | We suggest that the total number of Pontesian Military Force that shall remain in the area should be 20,000 mens with only light armored and transport vehicle along with the 43,300 Tadrakian Units that we have trained. We might deployed the Tadrakian unit in the city, but the main Pontesian forces will be station in the military base in the area of the protectorate. Andrea Belknap, Chancellor of Defence |
| Date | 12:40:36, November 20, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | What if we change if the state has drastically changed to a BRC member party. and in case the party changes it's patriotism we must let the ruling party divide. Also we say no troops! |
| Date | 18:58:56, November 20, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I accept Foreign Minister Falco's proposal as it is written, and would like to bring it to the Pontesi parliament for ratification. (OOC: we can work out particular Pntekl rights through RP) Sincerely, James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 19:09:37, November 20, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | There is no need to station 20,000 troops within a few cities, MCTO peace keepers shall still be in the area for some time. There needs to be some Pontesian troops within the protectorate, but not 20,000 or 43,000 Pntek milita members. -- George Falco, Foreign Minister United Jakania |
| Date | 21:27:48, November 20, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | i am sorry i must not allow them to come. How about them gettin the setelments and we get all other lands. |
| Date | 21:45:40, November 20, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Can we scrap the troops, Mr. Kirk? -- George Falco |
| Date | 22:54:56, November 20, 2007 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | "While we do not specifically oppose a small number of the Pontesian troops remaining within Tadraki, if their skills are essential, so long as their actions are monitored by the MCTO peacekeeping forces, and they are forced to leave as soon as they are no longer required, we would request that the same amount of Beiteynuese troops be allowed to remain in Endlid. We also demand the Tadrakian Units, who have been used to hold all of Tadrakis residents in a state of fear, and in denying even their most basic civil liberties, be disbanded and disarmed as soon as the MCTO peacekeepers are ready to take over their duties. Nor can we agree to a sizeable force in any of the protectorates- the 1000 troops outlined seems satisfactory. For the most part, we can agree with this treaty. We do have a small list of concerns, however so long as there are no major objections from Pontesi I do not imagine these will cause any serious problems in ending this conflict. The first is in relation to article 1. At the moment it is very unclear, and we cannot agree with or refuse this article until it is clearer. (OOC: Thats probably an issue for Pontesian and Beiteynuese parties to discuss, to decide on demographics.) Article 2 we do not believe is the correct solution. While we have no problem with our Pntek population acquiring Dual citizenship, we believe this should be a voluntary process; there is no point forcing citizenship upon individuals who do not desire it. We would therefore request that the wording of article 2 be changed, making it clear Beiteynu would have no right to interfere with any Pnteks attempt to obtain Citizenship of Pontesi, or to revoke citizenship of any Pntek who becomes a citizen of Pontesi. Article 4 we do not have any major problem with, although we request that, since any action taken by this commitee will be on Beiteynuese soil, that the Beiteynuese government be given the power to veto any of its proposals, if approved by a majority of the Sanhedrin. Similarly, we would request that we be given some say on the welfare of our Jewish brothers in any of the towns entering Pntek control. Since perhaps not all Pntek majority towns will be transferred the wording in article 7 should be changed to make it clear Pontesi only has the right to station a garrison in its protectorates. Other than these concerns, we have no problems with this treaty, and look forward to the day that Beiteynu and Pontesi can resolve their disputes in the debate chamber, rather than the battlefield. In regards to the sovereignty oath, it was taken immediately by all parties, with exception of the PPPand RAF. The PPP saw the oath as a statement of the obvious, and so in that sense there was no need to take it since, by the fact they were Beiteynuese party, they would automatically support Beiteynuese sovereignty over its own land. In the end they probably only took the oath to shut us up, but the facts still stand that they do beleive in the details it outlines, if not the neccesity of taking it. The PWF initially refused to take the oath, however it changed this position when its leadership changed and the RAF. We may have some of our own doubts about the RAFs commitment to Beiteynu, but publically they state their loyalty to Beiteynu, and their belief in our sovereignty over the five mehozot. The idea that parties only took the oath to remain legal is wrong, since while they were technically illegal, both served in the government during this period, showing the oath had very little practical effect, other than as a delaration of loyalty." -Nesí Hamdiná Itamar Eitam |
| Date | 02:54:35, November 21, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Ministers Falco and Nesí Hamdiná Itamar Eitam: I am very pleased to see that our two countries are working towards this peaceful resolution. I would like to address, point by point, the concerns of Minister Eitam below: Minister Eitam has stated, "While we do not specifically oppose a small number of the Pontesian troops remaining within Tadraki, if their skills are essential, so long as their actions are monitored by the MCTO peacekeeping forces, and they are forced to leave as soon as they are no longer required, we would request that the same amount of Beiteynuese troops be allowed to remain in Endlid." I do not object to this proposal, and would accept as part of the treaty that Pontesi garrisoned troops exist only in those cities in article one which will cede authority to Pontesi. "the 1000 troops outlined seems satisfactory."--I agree with this as well. Pontesi will not insist on more than this amount per garrison per town or city ceded to Pontesi. We will, however, insist that the MCTO peacekeeping forces remain in all contested areas until the 75 years are passed and then said forces should withdraw over time until the Pontesi garrisons remain. I agree that article 1 is unclear because the cities are not delineated. Since I do not know, personally, the names of the cities occupied primarily by Pntek, I believe we should ask Chancellor Belknap to participate in clarifying this article. And then I will agree that only these cities/areas will be granted Pontesi protectorate status. "We would therefore request that the wording of article 2 be changed, making it clear Beiteynu would have no right to interfere with any Pnteks attempt to obtain Citizenship of Pontesi, or to revoke citizenship of any Pntek who becomes a citizen of Pontesi."--Pontesi has NO difficulty with this proposed change to article 2. "Article 4 we do not have any major problem with, although we request that, since any action taken by this commitee will be on Beiteynuese soil, that the Beiteynuese government be given the power to veto any of its proposals, if approved by a majority of the Sanhedrin." This article we cannot change in this manner. We respectfully request that the Beiteynuese government, just as the Pontesi government, allow the tri-executive to exist as a separate entity the wishes of which cannot be vetoed by Beiteynu or Pontesi. We will allow the will of the tri-executive to dictate what happens in the territory in our stead. If, however, Beiteynu is still uncomfortable giving authority to the tri-executive, I suggest that the number of executives increase to FIVE, limiting one appointed by Beiteynu and one appointed by Pontesi, leaving three appointed objectively by the MCTO. This should prevent any and all "stalemates." "Similarly, we would request that we be given some say on the welfare of our Jewish brothers in any of the towns entering Pntek control."--The Pontesi government will offer no less, and no more, than the protections offered by the Beiteynuese government with respect to Pntek citizens. If the Beiteynuese government wishes these to be spelled out, I will be more than happy to work with the Foreign Minister to do so. "Since perhaps not all Pntek majority towns will be transferred the wording in article 7 should be changed to make it clear Pontesi only has the right to station a garrison in its protectorates." -- We have no problem with this at all. If the Beiteynuese Foreign Minister agrees with the above edits/requests, I authorize you, Mr. Falco, to begin drafting this important treaty. Sincerely, James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 04:16:50, November 21, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Thank you for your great input. I couldn't have spelled it out any better. I pleased by our progress. I shall have our drafters on this immediately. -- George Falco Foreign Minister of United Jakania |
| Date | 04:51:03, November 21, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | "article 1 is unclear because the cities are not delineated. Since I do not know, personally, the names of the cities occupied primarily by Pntek, I believe we should ask Chancellor Belknap to participate in clarifying this article. And then I will agree that only these cities/areas will be granted Pontesi protectorate status." Well the cities that have large with a large population of ptnek are: Kiryas Ne'eman Antzarhe. Also i asked for settelemts, they might require to make districts in cities to become protectorates to pontesi because some cities have districts (OOC: similar to china towns) with mostly Pontesians and ptn'k |
| Date | 07:56:27, November 21, 2007 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | 20,000 Mens shall be the total forces combined from all protectorate cities. The number of troops in each cities will be up to the size and the population in the city. The Tadrakian Unit will be transfer into the command of the tri-executive. We still disagree with the article 5 which Recognize Beiteynu sovereignty of the Gran Tadraki region and still believe that this matter should be left to the referendum. Despite the RAF oath, we have been told that the only reason that they are forced to do the oath is becuase they which to retain their seat in the parliament, since refusing to take it will result in unconstitutional banning of the Party. I'm disappointed by the approach of the Beitenyu Government and that they have yet to make any attempt to improved the right of Pntek or POW. Pontesian Government called for a clarification in this issue. Dame Andrea Belknap, Chancellor of Defense Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 17:06:51, November 21, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | i said SETTLEMENTS not cites. I want you to know that most ptn'k are farm dwellers and if they live in a city they like in small ones. that is why i said settlements not whole cities. In whole cities districts should be protectorates! |
| Date | 19:45:57, November 21, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | With all due respect to the Chancellor of Defense regarding article 5, I hereby authorize Mr. Falco to begin drafting the treaty as discussed. I do not think that 20,000 total troops depending on size of Pntek city/settlement is too great a force, as long as the peacekeeping forces outnumber Pontesi forces at least three to one. In the spirit of compromise, I ask the Beitenyuese government to consider allowing the 20,000 Pontesi total force in exchange for article five to remain as it is written. Also, if the cities and settlements are spelled out in the treaty, that will make ratifying it from both coutries more feasable. If Chancellor Belknap has any other cities or settlements in mind aside from the ones listed by the CZP above, please make them known now so that they can be incorporated into the treaty itself. -- James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 20:22:30, November 21, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I see that the hot button right now is the Pontesian troop numbers and the protectorate issue. To the ETPRP: 20,000 troops for all the protectorate cities and settlement shall be all you need. I see no problem with that. As for the Tadraki milita units, I think disarming them a good portion of them is warranted about half to a quarter of the 43,000 milita units should still serve under the tri-executive council. I strongly support article 5, you are getting protectorate districts from cities and settlements that are of Pntek majority. Jews still live in Gran Tadraki and Beiteynuese sovereignty should be recognized, so the referendum vote is not necessary. I can add for the well being of Pontesian POWs. I think that I have stated clearly in the treaty draft for improvements mof the well-being of Pntek people. To the CZP: Thank you for clarifying that with us. To the UUP: Thank you Mr. Kirk, we'll take that suggestion and place that in the draft soon. |
| Date | 00:30:22, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | The Ministry of Defence is currently investigating all cities and settlement in Gran Tadraki for a brief population report. Dame Andrea Belknap, Chancellor of Defense Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth OOC: I'm going to school so I'll come back and check it. |
| Date | 02:04:50, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OOC: Thank you EPRP |
| Date | 08:06:46, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OOC: Thank you. |
| Date | 14:52:09, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Ir Shalom, Nantashem, Antzarhe, Givat Aliyah have been identified as a city with majority Pntek. As of this moment there will be no withdrawl until the treaty have been signed and we believe that some of the point in this treaty is entirely unfair to Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth and heavily favour Beitenyu so we hope that the Chancellor for Foreign Affairs should continued on this following issues. Aritcle 13: All Tadraki militia units must be disarmed and disbanded. Disarming will be overseen by the MCTO. Some milita units maybe requested to serve under the tri-executive council if necessary. We still firmly believe that this unit are not a militia, but a professional soldier trained by Pontesian Armed Forces and we would like to transfer all unit in to the commandeer of the tri-executive council. The weapon that we supply to the forces will be lend to the council until state furtherwise. Article 7 Section a: MCTO peacekeepers will monitor Pontesian troops on a regular basis We request that Beitenyu troop are also monitered Article 7 Section b: MCTO troop levels will maintain a 3 to 1 ratio to the total number of Pontesian troops We failed to see the necessity of this article seeing that the treaty have already restrict the number of Pontesian troop Article 8: Beiteynu may deploy 20,000 troops in the areas around the protectorates, but no concentrations of more than 1,800 troops maybe deployed within 4.5 km of any protectorate zone. We believe that the small length of 4.5 km won't guaranteed the safety of our troops and ask that the new length shall be 15 km Article 10: Progress on Beiteynuese legislation towards equality for the Pntek population This article is loosely written and don't have a time restriction. Article 1: All or most Pntek majority cities and settlements are handed over the Pontesian Commonwealth for protectorate status for 75 years. After 75 years, renewal status shall be placed on a referendum vote. All cities have both Pntek population and Jewish population and we believe that all of them shall be placed under the referendum vote. Dame Andrea Belknap, Chancellor of Defense Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 14:58:43, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Article 5: Recognize Beiteynu sovereignty of the Gran Tadraki region We still believe that this issues should be left until the following discussion after this treaty. Dame Andrea Belknap OPC, Chancellor of Defense Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 15:23:43, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Beiteynu? Your response? OOC: I'm tired, Thanksgiving Day... |
| Date | 15:45:45, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OOC: Understandable, although we don't celebrate it where I live. :P |
| Date | 17:31:08, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | it is ours we should give them the settlements (not Cities)! |
| Date | 19:27:39, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | With all due respect to the CZP, we do not really see the difference between granting protectorship status to settlements or cities or both to Pontesi. Since the entire area will be governed under this treaty by a 5-man objective executive council, the cities, or settlements, or both, that have Pontesi protectorship status will ensure the proper treatment of Pntek citizens during the 75 years, but the five man executive will be the governing body. I also find that Dame Belknap's suggestions regarding ammending articles 1, 8 and 13 above to be in order and request that the treaty be ammended to reflect her suggestions. As for the other articles she notes: in article 7, I agree that the Beiteynuese troops should be monitored equally as the Pontesi troops, and this should be reflected in article 7, however the 3 to 1 ratio of troops (MCTO peacekeeping forces to Pontesi forces) is a necessary element to ensure the area not become charged militarily once again. We suggest that, for fairness, the article also state that at no time will the Beiteynuese troops allocated to the contested areas be more than 1/3 of the MCTO peacekeeping force as well. Article 10 is indeed loosely written, and I suggest that we make the length of time equal that of the protectorate status itself, that is 75 years. After 75 years, we will need to revisit this treaty, its effectiveness, purpose and future implementation anyway, so that seems like the proper amount of time to allow. Article 5: I believe that as long as the cities and settlements are granted Pontesi protectorate status, and a fiveman executive governs the area of Gran Tadraki for 75 years, the issue of soveriegnty is a moot point but one that means a great deal to the Beiteynuese government and therefore I am willing to keep article 5 as written in the treaty in the pursuit of peaceful resolution. James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs\ Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth OOC: I will be stuffing my face with turkey and cranberries today and may not get back on here for a bit . . . may we suspend the conference for 24 hours? |
| Date | 20:47:45, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | That was not diceided or talked about. The area is not going to be given to you. It is going to be a neutral zone and then and then all land except for settelemnts will go to the the jewish homeland. Also the difference is that settlements will be towns, large ptnek cities and districts of mostly jewish cities. if we give thgem whole cities it iwll not be fair. Also our party has an HQ and deep relation to Ir Shalom, so demand that all pontesian troops leave the city at once. |
| Date | 21:38:41, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Coburan Reform Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | How about this: the Cities will be divided along lines of majority, IE Pntek majority in one district: Rule by the power sharing executive Jewish Majority: Rule by Beitenyu -Paul Hackman |
| Date | 22:33:10, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | okay so, does that mean if a district is by majority ptnek, it will be under pontsi. control and/or represented by a pontisian leader |
| Date | 23:49:38, November 22, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I like that idea. I think that was what the CRP suggested. Sort of like a West Bank deal in RL, but smaller. |
| Date | 04:25:47, November 23, 2007 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | It's also not decide and talk about that the area will be given to Beitenyu. We only allowed a neutral region under the protection of MCTO. We question the CZP that there party relation with Ir Shalom have nothing to do with the fact the the presence of the Pntek there is undeneidable Dame Andrea Belknap OPC, Chancellor of Defense Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 04:27:24, November 23, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | our relationship is because of it's large Messianic Jewish and Chrisian population. all by they way strong Jewish homeland supporters. |
| Date | 05:35:12, November 23, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | We have given into plenty of requests from both sides. I think article 5, although controversial in nature to Pontesi, its the biggest request from the Beiteynuese. I should clarify this article, this region, Gran Tadraki was governed by Beiteynu and should continue to do so. Under article 1, Pontesi is getting Pntek settlement zones in existing concentrated Pntek population zones in both rural and urban areas. The authority of these areas is under the future Pontesian protectorate. Meanwhile, article 5 defines what the rest of Gran Tadraki becomes, under the continued authority of Beiteynu. These non-protectorate areas are going to where the population will be a Jewish majority. Yes, some Pntek people will be living in these areas, they might choose to voluntary move to Pontesi, the protectorate areas, or stay. Can the Mr. Kirk define what the heck the tri-executive council's authority is? And how long does Pontesi want MCTO peace keepers in Gran Tadraki? The entire duration of the treaty? One of main things I'm pushing for is eventual withdrawal of MCTO forces within 25 years. The treaty defines the timeline of transfer. Currently, the region is a neutral zone under the MCTO. Once the treaty is ratified, the Gran Tadraki region shall continue to be a neutral zone for three years as the various Pontesian protectorates are established and Pontesian control is established. After the three years, MCTO forces will move to the former Beiteynu, Pontesian Commonwealth border and will be established as a DMZ for the next 25 or longer years. All areas within Gran Tadraki that are not under Pontesian protectorate status shall return to the authority of Beiteynu. After so many years, the last of the MCTO forces will leave and then return if conflict arises again. |
| Date | 14:43:17, November 23, 2007 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | We still must take issue with the tri-execuitve. If we are to divide up Tadraki and Endlid into areas controlled by one state or the other, why should we then deny our sovereignty by giving it away? We think the threat of war, and action by the MCTO is enough to keep both nations in line with the treaty. The details outlined by the JIRP we will support, and provided Pontesi has no objections, we would like to move on to discussing which areas will be turned into Pontesians proctectorates. -Itamar Eitam |
| Date | 22:05:29, November 23, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | It is my understanding that the purpose and scopre of the tri-exectuive (which has now morphed into a penta-executive) is to ensure the fair treatment of Beiteynuese and Pntek citizens living in Gran Tadraki, and to oversee the assimilation of the people's living in the area for the duration of the treaty. I suggest that the penta-executive answer directly to the MCTO and that it has the "authority" to call upon the MCTO to enforce any and all policies it feels is necessary to ensure the peaceful assimilation of the people's living in the region. I imagine that those areas which will be turned into Pontesian protectorates will enjoy Pontesian citizenship protections, those areas which will remain Beiteynuese territory will enjoy Beiteynuese protections, and the entire Gran Tadraki region will submit to the careful rule of the penta-executive as supported by the MCTO peacekeeping troops. I believe that 25 years is long enough for the MCTO to have full peacekeeping forces in the region, after which time a phasing out of MCTO troops will occur. I would like to have the entire region declared a DMZ for the duration of the treaty as outlined above (eg: the garrisoned Pontesian and Beiteynuese troops and the MCTO peacekeeping forces are allowed) and give the penta-executive to call upon MCTO fpeacekeeping orces ONLY if and when they are needed should conflict arise in the region. After 75 years, referundum of the civilians in Pontesian protectorates will decide if they will remain Pontesian or become Beiteynuese. I agree with Minister Eitam that we now should begin discussion of what areas are to be deemed Pontesian protectorates. James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 23:50:03, November 23, 2007 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | We see the penta-executive (to be honest we would be fine with a tri-executive, so Beiteynuese and Pontesian views are not drowned out by the international community) as a body that should monitor the region of Tadraki and Endlid, to ensure neither side has broken the articles of the peace treaty; if it is deemed to, then it should inform the MCTO of this and advise the MCTO on what it believes would be the appropriate response. In addition it could advise either Pontesi or Beiteynu on policies it believes it should implement in the region, however we are not comfortable with giving it the power to override our sovereignty. Other than that, we seem to have reached an agreement on a resolution to this conflict, and will begin looking into demographics to designate Pontesians protectorates. -Nesí Hamdiná Itamar Eitam (OOC: The CZP has (or used to have) a map of city positions in Beiteynu, which since its the only one I know of, seems like the best thing to use.) |
| Date | 23:55:56, November 23, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | map http://s217.photobucket.com/albums/cc201/Funnington/?action=view¤t=map-1.jpg |
| Date | 00:02:41, November 24, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Let me just get this streight. We will get all but the settlements Ir Shalom, Nantashem, Antzarhe, Givat Aliyah is right except for the City of Ir Shalom. Ir Shalom is the biggest Christian City in our Jewish land. 2 International organization are housed there. Our party's HQ is there. It is a Pro-jewish city. I say that the little pontesi district should be counted as a settlement. but the city should not! |
| Date | 00:08:10, November 24, 2007 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | (OOC: Okay, well obviously this is all up for discussion since we have no demographics, but I'd imagine it would make sense for at least one of the cities on the Pontesian border to have a majority Pntek population, with Y'seah also having a fairly significant majatran population. In Endlid, there is also a region ruled by Luthori as the Kingdom of New Jerusalem, although i dont think this occupies any of the cities, and is really anew city formed out of a massive refugee camp. Im not entirely sure where it is supposed to be, but I'd also pictured it as to the North West of Antzarhe. Really the regions to form protectorates in Endlid can be decided to be anywhere.) |
| Date | 01:19:24, November 24, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | OOC: Ir Shalom is important to me so lets keep it as a jewish homeland city. |
| Date | 02:36:02, November 24, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | We will cede Ir Shalom to Beitenynuese rule in the spirit of peace for the duration of this treaty as long as one of the other cities along the border in Tadraki which is majorly Pntek become part of the Pontesi protectorate. The areas listed by the CZP are acceptable to Pontesi. The regions in Endlid are still under discussion. James Kirk |
| Date | 08:29:09, November 24, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | This is good discussion, we need the cities in Endlid though to finish the discussion. George Falco |
| Date | 08:30:28, November 24, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | This is good discussion, we need the cities in Endlid though to finish the discussion. George Falco |
| Date | 14:44:00, November 24, 2007 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | If The UUP is infering that we should give up all cities in Tadraki except for Ir Shalom, then we are not in agreement. Tadraki and Endlid, while having a significant Pntek minority, is still majority Non-Pntek, short of forced migration or war crimes commited during the war that we are unaware of. Beth Haccherem is, we believe, a majority Pntek city, probably more so than our pre-war census indicates. As such, we would be prepared to cede it as a proctectorate. Y\'Seah is a very mixed city ethnically, with none making a majority. Again, we would be prepared for this to become a Pontesian protectorate. As for Endlid, our census indicates no city has an absolute Pntek majority, although again we accept these could be inaccurate due to Beiteynus unstable history. To avoid a scattering of small Pontesian protectorates, we believe the best solution is to create a Pontesian protectorate in Givat Aliyah and surrounding areas, and encourage migration of Pontesians in and Jewish people out. -Nesí Hamdiná Itamar Eitam. (OOC: Again, demographics are still open to dicussion. The only demographics of the whole country I remember seeing put numbers at Jewish 65-70%, Pntek 20-25%, Majatran 10-15%. Beth Haccherem, being right next to the border and to the North of the country, would make sense as majority Pntek. Since our muslim population would be mostly in our 3 southern most cities, Y\'seah would probably be a very mixed city ethnically, say 40%Pntek, 40% majatran and 20% Jewish. Still all the stuff in this post is up for discussion, so let me know if you have any problems with it.) |
| Date | 00:19:59, November 25, 2007 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | An issue that should have been mentioned earlier; Beiteynu is currently carrying out a blockade of the Kingdom of New Jerusalem in Endlid, due to Luthoris declaration of War on our nation. While we are working on a diplomatic solution to ths conflict, we request that this operation be allowed to continue during the peacekeeping mission, if a solution has not been reached by then. -Nesí Hamdiná Itamar Eitam |
| Date | 02:39:55, November 25, 2007 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | As for the blockade of the Kingdom of New Jerusalem in Endlid, due to Luthoris declaration of War. The Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth support the action by Beitenyu government and is willing to allow the troop to continued the blockade. Dame Andrea Belknap OPC, Chancellor of Defense Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 03:04:00, November 25, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I believe we can allow Ir Shalom to remain Beiteynuese if Beth Haccherem and surrounding territories become protectorates of Pontesi. I thought that the CZP had listed all territories in Tadraki that were heavily populated with Pnteks--though I may be misreading the CZP's message. What about Nantashem and Antzarhe, then. It is my understanding that these areas are in Tadraki and are or have significant Pntek settlements/cities. If I am mistaken (OOC: I can't really make heads or tails of the map sent), please clarify. As for areas in Endlid, I concur with Beiteynu's Minister of Foreign Affairs in all stated matters: Pontesi will be satisfied with Givat Aliyah and surrounding area as protectorate. However, I would like to stress that it is NOT Pontesi's intention to mandate any Jewish people living in the protectorate to leave, nor overly encourage Pntek's in Endlid outside Givat Aliyah to move into Givat Aliyah. I see this treaty as an opportunity to help our people's reach a better understanding of one another, and encourage assimilation rather than division--though this is my own personal desire, and I am not sure how many members of my parliament share it. However, as long as I remain Chancellor of Foreign Affairs, I will not encourage that in Endlid, nor in Tadraki, that dividing lines and walls be built between peoples living there; rather, I will work with the tri-executive (OOC ok, we are back to a tri-executive) and the MCTO peacekeeping forces and with Beiteynuese officials to bring mutual respect and tolerance. James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 14:49:37, November 25, 2007 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | (OOC: Sorry before when I said Beth Haccherem I meant to say Nantashem. Beth Haccherem isnt in Tadraki or Endlid so I must have read the map wrong.) We thank Pontesi for their cooperation on the Luthori matter. While Antzarhe does have a significant Pntek population, it is still we believe majority non-Pntek. Of course this is just a projection, since we havent controlled the region since the start of the war. The handing over of Nantashem and Y'seah also has the advantage of allowing a small connecting area back to Pontesi, due to their proximity to the border. Beiteynu has no intention of forcing Pntek to move to the protectorate in Endlid, but we do believe many will choose to and many Jewish people will choose to leave. We must face facts; that we are arbitarily dividing up territory can only be seen as a sign to our population that we do not feel they can live together, and that it is best they live seperately. While we hope that those that choose not to move will be able to live together peacefully, this will not occur because of decisions made at this conference, but by the actions taken by both governments afterwards. Beiteynu may offer financial aid to Jewish people who wish to leave but cannot afford to, and perhaps in this new spirit of equality, offer the same to Pntek wishing to move to the protectorates, however currently there have been no plans or discussions to do so. --Nesí Hamdiná Itamar Eitam |
| Date | 20:34:59, November 25, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | We fully understand Minister Eitam's concerns, and hope that the decisions made by both governments after this conference will further allow the peaceful resolution we are currently discussing. We agree that most Jews will probably opt to leave the protectorate zone, and that many Pntek's will choose to move to the protectorate due to the nature of this treaty. Pontesi may also offer financial aid to those people who cannot afford this move on their own if they wish it. -- James Kirk OOC: Not to rush you Falco, but if there is a treaty written up floating around, I haven't seen it. Are we about ready to begin to put this all into a document? It SOUNDS like we are approaching consensus. |
| Date | 22:00:18, November 25, 2007 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Then, as we seem to have reached an agreement, I will just list the articles to make sure the two sides are in agreement, and so any further concerns can be aired by any of the parties involved: -All POW shall be immediately returned to their home nation. -All Pntek citizens of Beiteynu shall be allowed to apply for citizenship of Pontesi; Beiteynu shall take no action to interfere with their application, or revoke citizenship based on their gaining citizenship of Pontesi -Pontesi shall recognise Beiteynuese sovereignty over Gran Tadraki, the Mehzot of Tadraki and Endlid -The cities of Y'Seah and Nantashem (and surrounding area) in Tadraki shall be made protectorates of Pontesi. Additionaly a 1km wide corrider shall be given control to Pontesi, to connect them to the Pontesi Commonwealth -Givat Aliyah and surrounding area in Endlid shall be made a protectorate of Pontesi. -Pontesi forces in each protectorate shall not exceed 7000 men, and shall consist only of light infrantry,with no heavily armored ground units or offensive air units to be stationed within them -Beiteynuese armies shall observe a 10km radius around the protectorates, into which they shall be forbidden from entering. -Tadraki units not deemed essential to peacekeeping by the MCTO shall be disarmed and disbanded. Similarly, all Pontesian army units not deemed essential shall return to Pontesi -All Beiteynuese troops not deemed essential shall leave Endlid, with the exception of those involved in operations around New Jerusalem -Beiteynu shall work toward equal rights for its Pntek population, and Pontesi shall maintain equal rights for Jewish people in Pontesi protectorates -Any Pontesian or Beiteynuese troops deemed neccessary by the MCTO for peacekeeping shall be placed under the command of the MCTO, and their actions monitored appropriately. At no time shall the number of Pontesian or Beiteynuese troops exceed 1/3 the level of MCTO peacekeeping forces. -Upon the passing of this treaty, Gran Tadraki/ Tadraki and Endlid shall be a neutral zone administered by MCTO peacekeeping forces for three years. After three years, MCTO forces shall move to the Beiteynu/Pontesi border to establish a DMZ for at least 25 years. After 25 years, the DMZ may be removed if both the Pontesian and Beiteynuese governments agree, or if the MCTO deems it to be no longer neccessary. -A tri-executive shall be established, consisting of a Beiteynuese, Pontesian and MCTO delegation. It shall monitor both Pontesi and Beiteynu to ensure that neither side violates any articles in the treaty. If, by a 2-1 vote, either side is deemed to have broken the treaty, it shall notify the MCTO, who shall take appropriate action. It shall also advise both governments on policies it deems will help with peacekeeping efforts, improve equality or ease diplomatic tensions between the two nations. My apologies if I have left anything out. We are not entirely sure if, after 25 years, Pontesi wishes to have referendums in its protectorates, however that is an issue we are prepared to allow Pontesi to decide whether to include in the treaty. -Nesí Hamdiná Moshe Ne-anyahu |
| Date | 02:50:11, November 26, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | First of all, my sincere thanks to the Minister from Mizrachi Ligat for writing out/spelling out the points of this treaty. Secondly, my only request in terms of a change is, may we consider increasing the 1km wide corridor to 2.5km. Pontesi has no difficulty with adding the referendum into the treaty, which would be conducted after 50 years, not 25. After 25 years, the DMZ may disappear if Pontesi, Beitenyu and the tri-executive agree it is best for the peoples involved. After 50 years, we can have the referendum, after which time if it is decided that the people living in the protectorate wish to return to Beiteynu, Pontesi will cede the areas back to Beiteynu. If the referendum shows the people in the protectorate are highly undecided or favor Pontesi rule, the protectorate should be extended another 25 years (to the completion of this treaty), after which time we can draw up another treaty or, perhaps as is my hope, drop the matter completely and allow our people's to embrace one another without hostility. If these terms sound good and fair to the esteemed Beiteynuese Minister, we are in agreement, and now we can seek ratification from our respective parliaments. In peace, James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 02:57:48, November 26, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I am thinking also that, even if the referendum after 50 years show the people in the protectorates wish to remain under Pontesi rule, and the protectorate status is extended for 25 years, I would be open to putting int the initial treaty document that after 75 years, no matter what, the territories in question will cede back to Beiteynu (OOC: Like Hong Kong in RL). This will also, hopefully, force our peoples to work towards assimilation and mutual respect. I realize, of course, that the above matter may make the treaty more difficult to pass through my parliament, so I will leave it up to the Minister from Mizrachi Ligat to decide on whether or not to include this automatic post-75 year return of the protectorate territories to Beiteynu, or if it is wiser for us to include language allowing for referendum after every 25 years following the initial 50. -- James Kirk |
| Date | 04:14:11, November 26, 2007 CET | From | Nrzi Prta (Democratic Party) | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | We suggest that the treaty also state the Beitenyu acceptence of our sovereignity over Abure, Xanduley, and Dandratur seeing that the CZP and the former Mavaak once stated there interest to take over some of the area in this 3 regions along with two regions of Bermanistan. -- Dame Andrea Belknap OPC, Chancellor of Defense Pontesian Dynastic Commonwealth |
| Date | 08:15:23, November 26, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Thank you Mizrachi Ligat for clarifying the treaty points. I shall place them in the treaty draft immediately. To UUP: I think it would be better if it went to a referendum vote after 50 years. That would surely ensure passage in your country. To ETPRP: Yes, Beiteynu did express that a long time ago. If Beiteynu doesn't mind, I'll place it in the treaty. |
| Date | 15:37:24, November 26, 2007 CET | From | HaLeumit Tikvah | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | We are happy with a referendum after 50 years, and a further one 25 years after that. The issue of automatic handing back would perhaps be too controversial to pass through the Pontesi College at present, so we are prepared to leave that issue for now, to be discussed and put in a further treaty or a renewal of this one. We would suggest a compromise of 2km for the corridors. While we do not accept that the Beiteynuese Government has ever claimed sovereignty over any Pontesian land, we are happy to state in the treaty that we accept Pontesian sovereignty over the three regions. We do not feel it neccessary for us to accept Barmenistan sovereignty over Ikegaru and Murdhild, since we have never denied it, Barmenistan has never claimed we have and they have no involvement in this treaty. Other than that, we have no problems with the treaty as drafted, and thank the JIRP for taking the time to draft it. -Nesí Hamdiná Moshe Ne-anyahu OOC: Just for grammar sake, its Dual rather than Duel. |
| Date | 17:57:37, November 26, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Pontesi will accept the 2km corridor. Thank you JIRP for drafting the treaty. -- James Kirk |
| Date | 18:43:09, November 26, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I guess this is it then, I'll make the final revisions and start the ratifying process. Thank you Beiteynuese Head of State Nesi Hamdina Moshe Ne-anyahu, Foreign Minister of Pontesi James Kirk, Pontesi Chancellor of Defense Dame Andrea Belknap, the CZP, and others for attending the peace conference and forming this peace treaty. I will give personal thanks to Paul Hackman of the CRP of Cobura for temporarily moderating the meeting. -- George Falco |
| Date | 02:39:52, November 27, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | before the end the convention we must go to our nations and let them vote on the treaty descripion. any disagreements will be brought back here to change. |
| Date | 02:43:48, November 27, 2007 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Also we would like the words Gran Tadrikai taken out of the treaty. that is by request of former head of the BRC |
| Date | 04:12:16, November 27, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Ok |
| Date | 03:48:02, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | I have forwarded the treaty to Pontesi's August Parliament of the Cedar Throne for a brief review/debate period, and then I will forward it for ratification, barring no major impediments. On behalf of the Pntek and Pontesi people, I sincerely thank all delegates for their gracious, flexible and fair dealing here and I, personally, look forward to working with any and all of you in the future to bring greater accord to our region and to Terra en largesse. Sincerely, James Kirk, Chancellor of Foreign Affairs |
| Date | 10:04:11, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Imperial Party | To | Debating the The Beiteynuese / Pontesi Peace Accord Conference (To be archived in late 2493) |
| Message | Thank you all for all those attending. I thank you all for this peace conference to have a successful conclusion. I believe the spirit of compromise was use well on both sides. We look forward to a peaceful Gran Tadraki and I hope we shall continue to work together in the future on other pressing issues. Once again thank you. This conference is adjourned. ~George Falco United Jakanian Foreign Minister |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 206 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 44 |
| Random fact: If you have a question, post it on the forum. Game Moderators and other players will be happy to help you. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Those looking for ideology in the White House should consider this: for the men who rule our world, rules are for other people." - Naomi Klein |