MUNSCM - Abandoned

[Narninian]

Point of Information to the Chair:

if a delegate from a veto country were removed from office (for example due to their country being nuked) would a delegate from another country be given that veto power? Can we make a resolution granting that veto power?

[cuban smoker]

We will pretend the

speaker's list is open

for MUNSCM 009, although we cannot move to the speaker's list until the motion to caucus is resolved.

Delegate from Angola, you are out of order. We are not hearing any more speakers on the motion to caucus at this time.

Speaker's List

France
USA
Germany

Delegates, please continue voting on the motion to Caucus
3 Favour (Phillipines, China, Chile,
4 Opposed (Benin, USA, France, Germany)

[PolarBoy]

The United Kingdom

votes against

the motion to caucus.

[cuban smoker]

Delegate from Angola, no other delegation would be granted veto power without a resolution. And, resolutions can grant veto powers to non-veto power countries.

Also, we have another resolution on the Agenda now, MUNSCM 010, submitted by the USA.

The delegate from Russia, Fishbulb, is being replaced by Caveman, who will be joining us in about a week.

The delegate from Spain is being replaced by Uraj45, who will be joining us immediately.

[Uraj45]

Spain votes

Against

the motion to caucus and requests to be added to the speaker's list.

[the silent speaker]

I wonder why China has not requested addition to the Speakers' List?

[Narninian]

*notices he has not been added to the vote list*

The delegate from Angola

VOTES: AGAINST

The motion to Caucus.

[cuban smoker]

3 Favour (Phillipines, China, Chile)
7 Opposed (Benin, USA, France, Germany, UK, Spain, Angola)

[Flying Dutchman]

I wonder why China has not requested addition to the Speakers' List?

I agree some people will want to question me..........

Requests to be added to the speaker's list

[Uraj45]

As the delegete from China clearly needs to speak before much more action can be made, Spain requests that China be placed before Spain on the speaker's list.

[cuban smoker]

vote vote vote on the motion to Caucus

Speaker's List

France
USA
Germany
China
Spain
Phillipines

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines would like to be added to the Speaker's List.

The delegate from the Phillipines would also like to rescind the motion for caucus, as the original motion for caucus detailed an end of caucus at a time that will probably pass before all members vote on the motion.

[cuban smoker]

Well, let's call the motion failed, since it has more votes opposed and was rescinded. I'm still a little disappointed we only got 11 votes in 4 days. Sigh.

We now go to the first speaker on the speaker's list, France!

[Dasquian]

Thank you, Mr Chair.

I am pleased that the council is being given a chance to reconsider MUNSCM 009. France has two problems with China's previous veto of it - firstly that it disagrees with China's vote and wishes to see the resolution implemented, and secondly that China did not provide any explanation as to why it vetoed the motion which had widespread support amongst many of the other nations. France will however allow China to explain its own actions, and instead focus on the issue at hand.

MUNSCM 009, after its various permutations, removes the power of veto in resolutions to target a nation for sanctioned nuclear strikes. France believes that this power of veto in nuclear strike resolutions is far more powerful in the hands of Axis nations than in the hands of non-Axis nations, and removing it thus benefits the good nations.

The single instance France believes a pro-town nation is justified in vetoing a lynch is when that veto-empowered nation knows that the nation being considered for nuclear strikes is innocent via weapon inspectors - however in that situation the nation can and should divulge its results to the same effect of using its veto, causing the resolution to fail.

France stands for points of information for a very short period of time, being required to return to its capital in less than 24 hours time, then will stand down as speaker.

[Narninian]

POI to the speaker:

One potential information gathering advantage of leaving the veto power in tact is that we can 'catch' veto empowered nations in the act of vetoing a nuclear strike on a nation that the whole thinks of as axis controlled. Do you believe the potential advantages of this information gathering tool is outweighed by the difficulties it would provide?

[Flying Dutchman]

POI to the speaker:

As the delegate from Angola pointed out, it is impossible for an evil veto nation to veto the nuking of another member of the Axis of Evil without getting himself in the spotlights.

However, for a country who wishes the best for the town it's a powerful tool to avoid mass-destruction of innocents, as 2 veto-powers can avoid any nuke planned.

Why do you still wish to remove this advantage of the good people here?

[Dasquian]

Delegate from Angola, it is the belief of France that there is unlikely to be clear correlation between the vetoing of sanctioned nuclear strikes and the motives of the nations involved - it is safe to assume that as in any such situation, the informed minority will see clear to not give the uninformed majority such clear or consistant signals, while the innocent veto-empowered nations will be confusing the issue with our own personal beliefs of the use of the veto power. As such, I do indeed believe the potential advantages of this information gathering tool are outweighed by the difficulties it would provide.

Delegate from China, it appears that you are suggesting that there never be any UN-sanctioned nuclear strikes. While France finds the destruction of innocent nations as distasteful as any civilized country, you appear to be advocating the "no lynch" strategy. It is my hope that you will elaborate on this stance when you are the speaker.

To answer your question, France believes that the crux of the issue resides in the ability of non-Axis nations to make use of the power of veto vs. the ability of Axis nations to make use of the power of veto. Non-Axis nations are unsure of the motives of any of the other nations (weapons inspections notwithstanding), so any use of veto power does not necessarily advance the council's cause - they may veto the nuking of Axis nations, or veto the nuking of innocent nations without any way to prove they did the right thing. On the other hand, Axis nations know who is evil and who isn't,

and

what the non-Axis nations know, and a veto-empowered Axis nation could use that veto tactically to spread confusion.

In summary; quite apart from protecting fellow Axis nations, the Axis will be able to make far better use of the veto power with respect to nuclear sanctions than non-Axis nations, and as such it is not an advantage at all. In addition, the veto-empowered nations are in no stronger or more deserved a position to veto resolutions than the non-veto-empowered nations, and there is no reason for these nations to have the ability to overrule over half of their peers.

France steps down as a speaker (OOC: I have to catch a flight home! Back in a day or two )

[cuban smoker]

Thank you delegates for a very professional exchange.

We now call on the next speaker on the speaker's list, the United States of America.

[cuban smoker]

Nanookthewolf will be replacing melch, delelgate from Pakistan, effective immediately.

[Vraak X]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

MUNSCM 009 should be passed in its entirety. I reiterate the concerns of the French delegate as to the issues with the Chinese ambassador.

We must pass MUNSCM 009. Why? It is for the sake of rooting out the Axis of Evil and allowing the free nations to win. The United States feels that those who are willing to block the passage of MUNSCM 009 should be investigated as possible suspects in the Axis of Evil and thus, wish to retain their rights of veto.

How long are we to fall prey to the misconduct initiated by countries in the Axis of Evil? How dare we have terrorism hold our beloved council hostage, because their vote will mean veto. One vote can overturn eleven, including others who can veto as well. If the council be in full agreement, aside from that one, the nation should be held accountable and receive the consequences for being a member of the Axis of Evil. How long will rogue nations hold the Security Council hostage? Members of the Security Council, it is now time to take action. We MUST pass MUNSCM 009; the fate of the civilized world rests in your hands.

The United States also would like to disagree with the idea of a 'no lynch' strategy. We feel that there is ample evidence already to indicate a member of the Axis of Evil, and therefore, if the possibility arises that a member could be removed, then we should take that chance. Not to do so, would be the ultimate grievance. Do be reminded that regardless of your decision here, people will die. Will it be your citizens? Or will it be those who wish to participate in a spur of terror? If you can stop a crime before it happens, then you should do so. One of the worst feelings in the world is the inability to stop a crime from happening even though it is occurring before your very eyes. With this abuse of veto power, we are sitting in front of the crimes of terrorism that are taking place, but we are unable to do anything about it. Change this.

It is rather sad and grief-causing to see that justice is being denied because of a misuse of the power of veto. End that injustice.

The United States now stands open for points of information.

[EnPaceRequiescat]

POI to the speaker

As shown recently in the last attempt to pass MUNSCM 009, no matter how reasonable this proposal is, a nation with veto power still has the right to veto it. If MUNSCM 009 can't be passed, then the merits it holds will not be put into effect. How else, other than through persuasion, would you suggest to ensure the proposal's passing? Otherwise, I simply see a never ending chain of resolutions, unless we put a broad, overall, maybe even temporary solution into effect (for example, temporary removal of veto power, or to suggest nuclear striking a country that vetoed the amendment).

Or would you wish to hear from china first?

-Brazil

[Flying Dutchman]

POI to the speaker:

Why do the USA fail to see that the veto-right is one of the few pro's of our situation? Either 0 or 1 veto-nations have veto powers, which means 4 or 5 of them will try to use it to the best interest of the town.

I can understand some of the non-veto nations are unhappy with their current situation, but giving everyone veto power will result in an inevitable draw, and as I've tried to point out removing all veto-powers only hampers the people here who mean the best for us all.

Why do you still wish to carry on with this very bad resolution?

[shadyforce]

[Hehe, the power of Veto has realyl gone to his head, just like in real life LOL!]

[Narninian]

POI to the Speaker

Its obvious a majority of the assembly see the merits of this resolution. Do you believe a temporary removal of China's Veto powers would be appropriate?

[cuban smoker]

Thank you delegate from the USA for you speech. All delegates may continue to ask POIs of the speaker.

Another resolution has been added to the Agenda, MUNSCM 011 - "End-Game Tactics", submitted by China.