ASEAN+ Summit

[Bossza007]

"I see what Korea and Vietnam are talking is makes sense. The ASEAN Business Visa can be used by ASEAN Plus member's citizen who is interested in business to invest to ASEAN. They might be able to hold business meetings, purchase supplies or materials, and interview and hire staff inside the ASEAN member state.

Regarding trade outside of the ASEAN, I believe ASEAN as a whole to gaining access through the Suez canal. I see that if all of us can have access through the Suez canal, we could have some discussion with Egypt about this since Vietnam has some agreement about non-interference, we can discuss more this, but I am not sure if it will be a success since our government has a possible change to involve in many events."

Jay HeadlessSeeker

 

[Thomas R. Jones]

The Egyptian Minister would speak.

"Well, as I understand it, Egypt is keen to let all ASEAN+ members into the agreement. As long as you all follow the basic terms we gave to Vietnam, I can allow a joint agreement applicable to all ASEAN member states. I hope that satisfies ASEAN?"

Jay Bossza007 HeadlessSeeker

 

[Bossza007]

"I can allow a joint agreement applicable to all ASEAN member states. I hope that satisfies ASEAN? It would satisfy ASEAN well since we can have access to the Suez canal. We can trade more easily since Suel Canal is a shortcut to the Mediterranean and Europe. Can I know other opinions on this?"

Thomas R. Jones Jay HeadlessSeeker

 

[HeadlessSeeker]

"I believe that the current in verbal agreement prior to being written down was that Vietnam would not provoke Egypt nor it's allies. But, should an ally of Egypt provoke Vietnam, it would not effect access to the Suez canal. I think that a more detailed written agreement could be used here. But, in general I agree with the principle of having all of ASEAN agree to it with it's formation. But, there should be circumstances accounted for obviously to avoid situations where access can be denied arbitrarily."

Thomas R. Jones Bossza007 Jay

 

[Jay]

"Korea would prefer the text of this agreement be presented before giving any opinions on the matter. Korea has had a long standing tradition of the maintenance of the innocent passage and that no State can selectively or unilaterally impose restrictions without due cause or reason. While we hold nuances and recognize specific issues and cases, this general principle as outlined in international law is a position Korea can not move away from.

However, in this spirit of cooperation, Korea is willing to review specific language on an agreement, however, its terms and provisions should be clearly outlined and consistent with international law and global conventions. Nevertheless, I wish to continue to highlight Korea's basic position on the rights of innocent passage and associated provisions of UNCLOS."

HeadlessSeeker Bossza007

 

[Bossza007]

If the ally of Egypt provokes Vietnam, it will not affect access to the Suez canal since it is not Vietnam's fault. I agree that a more detailed written agreement could be used here. I would love to know who is Egypt's ally right now, so it can make me decide more easily. I also would love to hear the text of this agreement to be presented too like what Korea has said. If we all can find a deal in this agreement, it would benefit us all.

Thomas R. Jones HeadlessSeeker Jay

 

[Thomas R. Jones]

The Minister thought for a moment, then nodded. “Whilst we do not expect you to follow our lead simply because we have the Suez, I agree with Thailand. Currently, we support Israel in the Middle East, Sweden in the Global Assembly and Russian Empire in the Civil War. However, unless you fully support our enemies, or oppose our allies, the Canal will be open to all.” He paused, waiting for a response.

 

[Bossza007]

"My friend from Korea and Vietnam, let's be open and tell who your friends are and possibly tell whom you are opposing, we three are friends, and I believe we can open to it." Surin Pitsuwan would open his laptop and read the report from the Ministry "Thailand currently supports Sweden in South Africa, we talk with Sweden Ambassador and he tells us that Sweden is investing in South African dire need as well as free healthcare for minor injured people in South Africa. I have heard about Korea proposing an Emergency Resolution on Sweden's Occupation of South Africa, I guess Korea is opposing Sweden, but Korean do not need to worry about us support Sweden to occupy South Africa for a long time, we only support them to help people there. In the Middle East Region, our ministry is trying to hear both side's perspectives. About Russian Empire, we are trying to contact them to hear about the situation.

I would like to hear about Vietnam and Korea too, but I think this is a bit uncomfortable right? We have Egypt here, which expanded our matter far to the middle east."

HeadlessSeeker Jay Thomas R. Jones

 

[Jay]

"I must reiterate Korea's position. We do not believe any nation has the right to unilateral close its waters on a selective basis to other nations. Korea will take any of these infringements to international legal courts if needed. This is Korea's basic position as outlined in the Global Assembly Charter and its relevant treaties on maritime relations. That includes Egypt.

Korea will not sign any agreement acceding this universal principle of freedom of navigation. Whilst in the spirit of cooperation and pan-Asian unity, Korea is willing to review the proposed agreement of ASEAN as a collective of nations, Korea will not sign any agreement of this kind. As alluded to by these discussions, it is clear that such an agreement is not in the betterment of the global community.

As for the situation in South Africa, if Thailand seeks to join Sweden in this colonization project, this is your national prerogative. I must say that I am personally disappointed that you have decided to join the Swedish in their expansionist agenda. This disappointment will surely be reflected by President Kim in Thailand's actions. I understand that we all wish to help the South African people. As does Korea. This is why the emergency resolution must pass. I understand that Thailand's intentions are pure in their genuine desire to help the South African people. However, the ends to not justify the means by which we accomplish them. Korea will also value the means by which we achieve our ends.

Unilateral colonial actions by Sweden will not save the South African people. Their occupation of South Africa is wrong. Korea will not support it. As a victim of colonization ourselves, we can not turn a blind eye to this blatant act of conquest by Sweden. Without consultation with its partners or without a mandate, it has taken over South Africa. It has done so without the care of international law nor the consultation with its close partners.

The era of the White Man's Burden and Civilization Mission are over. Korea will not be a party to these white supremacist values. We will never support the forceful seizure of other peoples land for the "betterment of their lives". We are all equals as States. No one State should be above the rules that govern our world. If we agreed that Iraq's conquest of Kuwait or Romania's conquest of Moldova were wrong, then Sweden's conquest of South Africa is equally wrong.

I can not urge you to rethink your countries positions. As these matters are your own national interests. All I can do is relay Korea's position. Nonetheless, Korea's views of those that join this Swedish effort will of course be negative."

HeadlessSeeker Bossza007

 

[Bossza007]

Thank for the Korean opinion. I see, so it looks like we are taking advantage of the Global community by having access to Suez Canal, and Korea is taking seriously with this situation. I do respect Korea and your opinion on this.

I see that Korea is trying to help the global community, and it is a great mindset for people in your government. Let's ask if you and I don't sign the agreement to have access to Suez Canal, and let Vietnam has access to it, would you still sign the ASEAN Plus declaration treaty? I am ready to hear your needs.

I am very sorry to disappointed Korea about us joining Sweden. We didn't mean to weaken our relationship, and I hope it can be better when things are done by the Global Assembly decision. Also, thank you for understanding that our intention is pure to help the people of South Africa. Even though our country has never been colonized, but we understand that the ear of colonization is bad for all of us. Let's move on and wait for the Global community at Global Assembly to decide what is the right thing.

Can I hear Vietnamese's opinion next?

HeadlessSeeker Jay

 

[Jay]

"I wish to clarify if I may." The Korean Foreign Minister would ask the floor to speak again, if allowed she would continue "I did not mean to imply you are taking advantage of the global community. Let me apologize if this was the misinterpretation of my words. On the second item, Korea will continue to cooperate and its role as a member with ASEAN+ regardless of our diplomatic disputes and issues. Korea continues to pride multilateralism and diplomacy. Whether your countries sign a separate deal with other countries, Korea will continue its role in ASEAN as long as it is welcomed by our partner nations. We will respect your sovereign right to make these decisions, even if we disagree with the decision. Thank you for the extra time."

Bossza007 HeadlessSeeker

 

[HeadlessSeeker]

"While I agree in principle that nations should not be free to close their waters on a arbitrary basis when ever they feel like. I am speaking from a realistic perspective. Egypt has stated that they are willing to let us use their canal, but I think it would become a complicated matter should ASEAN be adversarial at any point to them. Economically or otherwise. While under the rule of law we can use the canal, realistically the only way to enforce that right is through lengthy legal procedure should it be challenged. It has been stated that giving into this would set a precedent for other nations to exploit. You may very well be correct there, but the matter of the canal itself is very important to our collective future economic success. Egypt has come here to in a civil manner discuss the situation, and we can respect that. They did not have to agree to come here."

"As for the matter involving Sweden we have mixed feelings on the situation. We have entered talks with Sweden and it has become evident that they are not making any moves to undo the colonial sins of the past. They refuse to commit to land redistribution, a matter stained by apartheid. All they are seeking to do is seemingly have a installed government which to my knowledge was not elected what so ever. Vietnam is interested is supplying aid to the South African people, but we think that Sweden should not be heading the matter. Also, we dislike the fact that multiple supposed allies have made moves on the matter without discussing anything with us. America, Thailand, Korea, and Sweden all made decisions without involving us."

Thomas R. Jones Bossza007 Jay

 

[Bossza007]

"Well, it is an unexpected situation for Vietnam that all his friends have to make a move without asking Vietnam if it is good or not. How about this Vietnam, do you want me to send a situation report about our Foreign Affairs? I hope you will share some information with us as well.

So, we are not going to sign an agreement about us having access to Suez Canal? An E-mail will be sent to Surin Pitsuwan Laptop. "I see, Egypt ambassador is trying to call to a phone in my office, but I am not there. Look like we are going to have a trade agreement, Mister Egypt. Let's discuss our ASEAN Plus matter next. Anyone has a suggestion or something wish to discuss more ASEAN Plus? About Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, we just need to edit some text in Article 18."


Thomas R. Jones Jay HeadlessSeeker

 

[HeadlessSeeker]

"Normally the situation would not merit us informing one another of actions, however the fact is that Thailand and Korea have seemingly taken up separate sides of the issue. If we had been informed of this ahead of time the awkward situation and diplomatic opposition could have been discussed. As it stands nations have very clearly found out that ASEAN even prior to formation is susceptible to division. During a meeting with said nation they began to attempt to undermine the cohesion we have before we have even formally begun this renewed ASEAN. Trying to pit us against one another. To isolate Korea and keep us away from possible future allies. If we are to pursue a prosperous Asia we have to when it comes to sensitive matters such as Russia or South Africa come to a understanding so we are not blind sided with information."

Bossza007

 

[Bossza007]

"I can't believe nations are attempting to undermine our cohesion before we have even formally begun this renewed ASEAN. Can I know who are they? And why do they have to do it? Korea is a world power, so I guess this might be a reason for them to isolate Korea and keep us away. I agree that we need to discuss sensitive matters such as Russia or South Africa to pursue a prosperous Asia. It's like if we can discuss and share information about a sensitive matter, it means we trust each other."

HeadlessSeeker

 

[Jay]

"Thank you for this wisdom and insight." Foreign Minister Baek said to the Vietnamese Foreign Minister. "I must say that as you were speaking I was misunderstanding of where you were coming from. However, I see now the plethora of wisdom you endow upon us. Thank you. I do concur, that, this situation which both all three of our countries entered in with good faith has put us in opposing camps of a critical piece of global politics.

As you said, if we are to truly see ASEAN be a global entity, we must maintain a level of cohesion and cooperation in our public affairs, even if in private we may disagree and work out the tough realities of geopolitics. I hope that Korea's actions do not come off as inconsiderate of this body and wish to say that Korea's intentions were not to sow discord amongst this organ nor allow foreign powers to take advantage of our disagreements.

Whilst we should need to consult each other over every action in our foreign policy, important issues such as Russia, The Global Assembly, etc...should be discussed amongst each other. Consulting one another should become a norm when we take such actions. While we may have limitations placed on how much we can share or what we can share, being able to maintain an open dialogue is important. I thank the Vietnamese Foreign Minister for his insights and depth of knowledge from his experience. I hope you can continue to shed your knowledge to us throughout this summit.

On this note, I hope I can speak frankly when I say that Korea will continue its actions inside the Global Assembly. However, as you Foreign Minister alluded to, we must begin to act more and more like an interconnected bloc. Korea would also propose alongside the formation of the economic organs of ASEAN, we create a political organ of ASEAN headquartered in either Hanoi or Bangkok where our Ambassadors can convene to exchange important matters and informations. This will ensure another incident such as Sweden's occupation will not catch us in the blind. On the note of the Global Assembly, Korea hopes that your inputs, although we are wrong in asking late, can be constructive and helpful, and I am sure that Ambassador Oh will be supportive of your feedback.

If I may speak on this item, Korea's reasoning as I said earlier is that, this occupation is both illegal and colonial in nature. Sweden's appointment of a Governor-General, assumption of basic civil duties of South Africa, forceful occupation of its territorial integrity, etc...was all done in violation of international law. In Sweden's brazen act of unilateral impunity, Korea determined it was required to ensure equality before the law. Just as Romania was wrong to invade Moldova to adjudicate its disputes, so to was Sweden. Going further by colonially administering South Africa, Sweden's actions are unacceptably to Korea.

As for the item of Egypt, like I said earlier, Korea will be willing to review the language of the agreement and offer our inputs. However, I must ensure that we do not have any misunderstandings. Korea is willing to have this discussion in the spirit of open diplomacy we have established through ASEAN. But, Korea's interests are not aligned in giving tacit consent to Egypt that it may close its waters to foreign nations at its discretion. A length International dispute is none of our interests, however, if bilaterally our legal offices can not come to a consensus, Korea will have to proceed with such measures. But, Korea will be sure to consult our ASEAN partners before we take any measures. ASEAN's collective interests and success are involved, and to not consult our partners is inconsiderate.

HeadlessSeeker Bossza007

 

[HeadlessSeeker]

"I thank you both for understanding the Vietnamese perspective and insight on this issue. I hope this leads to better cooperation in the future. I agree that a political organ should be formed in Bangkok, so that our Ambassadors may convene to discuss these issues. I suggest Bangkok over Hanoi as Bangkok was the founding location of the original ASEAN. Symbolically it is where nations came together for one purpose originally, and to have it be that once more would be perfect."

"As for the question of which nations were the ones attempting to wedge a divide between those wishing to reform ASEAN... It was Sweden. For rather obvious reasons. They view ASEAN as a threat and saw an easy opening by trying to exploit the fact that each of our nations went a separate way. Not only that but trying to ruin the good faith of the premise of ASEAN+ by stating Korea is an undermining bad actor."

"I believe that in order to preserve cohesion that Thailand should abstain from voting in the GA due to their position in assisting Sweden at this time. Vietnam shall let the arguments play out but we are leaning towards approving the resolution. We cannot let colonialism return, this imperialism shall not stand. Not now, and not ever."

"Currently no agreement has been signed. For the agreement to be... agreeable what would need to be involved within it? So far verbally they only we request that we do not provoke them, which is somewhat vague. On top of that, they do not wish for us to provoke their allies. So, a strict definition would need to be included for your agreement yes?"

Jay Bossza007 Thomas R. Jones

 

[Bossza007]

"A political organ can be formed in Bangkok if both Korea and Vietnam agree. We can prepare an office for a political organ that will be formed in Bangkok with the best facilities to work with us.

Sweden is the one attempting to wedge a divide between us? It is unexpected for me. Some people in our ministry have guessed that Sweden contacts us for something at first, but only one guess that Sweden will do this to us. I didn't believe it at first, but now I believe it. I will be honest, during a call between of Permanent Secretary of the Ministry, and the Swedish ambassador, he has accuse Korea and United States. I think Sweden has succeeded to make us abstain from voting in the GA, but if we have any information that they injure and molest South African citizens, we will vote for the Resolution to pass.

I believe a strict definition would need to be included in an agreement. I can say that somtime the word provoke doesn't have the same meaning. Let's say I speak something for fun to cheer you up, but you see it as I provoke you, and now our provoke aren't the same."

Jay HeadlessSeeker Thomas R. Jones

 

[Thomas R. Jones]

The Foreign Minister nodded slowly, and then spoke. “How about this- provoking shall be defined as ‘an act of war or hostility againt the Arab Republic of Egypt, whether directly or indirectly, by one or more of the Parties of this Agreement’. He looked around him. “Of course, what defines indirectly can be worked on, possibly to mean ‘an act that harms the integrity and/or sovereignity of Egypt’”

Bossza007 HeadlessSeeker Jay

 

[Bossza007]

"Provoke definition from Egypt is a direct definition, which I believe we can understand easily. If anyone thinks that the meaning of provoking in this agreement is incorrect or should be validated, please let me know. Placing the meaning of terms in an agreement is important in ensuring that the parties in the treaty understand the meaning in the same way. Can I hear an opinion from Korea and Vietnam? Does Korea think Bangkok is the best place to settle our political organ for our ambassador to discuss matters?"

HeadlessSeeker Jay