REJECTED [GA] Emergency Resolution Occupation of South Africa

[Axis12]

Ambassador Aytug, surprised by the Brazilian response would respond to the Secretary General

“In the short time that Turkey has been an official member of the Global it has been truly shocking to me how much bureaucracy this institution allows to continue. If the so-called Global Assembly was really global then I think it should stop catering towards the European Powers, after the various preceding cases it’s become obvious to the Turkish Government and Myself that the only ones who really benefit from this Assembly are the wealthy nations in power within Europe. From cases such as the Egyptian Government v Sweden, where Sweden successfully evaded a GA ruling by simply ignoring it and the GA did nothing to this very case it’s obvious that the GA has no power here worldwide and it’s truly saddening that the the UN successor is so weak as mentioned by the Brazilian Ambassador.

Therefore I concur with the Brazilian Ambassador and Turkey will not participate in a clearly rigged institution that only serves to benefit the powerful within it and feed off the weak, I suggest everyone who agrees that the actions of Sweden are despicable should leave this room now, there is no point in further participation and I suggest that we act, not on behalf the GA with little power but by ourselves. Therefore I encourage the South Korean and American Governments to hold a separate conference to discuss action against Sweden for this heinous crime against humanity since the GA obviously is fine with the occupation of millions of South Africans at this very moment. Thank you.”

The Ambassador would pick up his binder and briefcase Before proceeding to follow the Brazilian Abassador out the door where he would be picked up by his private chauffeur and driven to his place of residence.

JakeDorent Hollie Dutchy Odinson Alex Bossza007 Connor Zak Der_Strix HeadlessSeeker Bruno Thomas R. Jones Jamie braddiepie Baer ManBear VBCFan Mansoas Jay GingeOrCringe

 

[Jamie]

Having retained silence for the duration of the debate, the storming out of certain delegates had caused the British Delegate to speak. "It is clear there are a number of representatives here are eager to send forces to South Africa, and if my counterparts from Brazil and Turkey had not walked out, I would be curious to know how many of their forces they intended to send and how much financially they would both commit to such a war. Unless the chamber may have forgotten the Turkish Government only recently shot down the South African airliner with the South African president on... but in the same breath, is opposing Sweden's presence in South Africa.

By no means are we against the resolution but a resolution to deploy a military force to take control of another country is not and should never be mandated by the Global Assembly, this platform should be used for diplomacy and 'peacekeeping' - and despite this word been used in the resolution, it would not be peacekeeping, but an invasion force. I'm not sure about others in the chamber who have remained quiet, but the United Kingdom is certainly not looking to deploy troops half way across the world in a rush.

Therefore, I would like to ask my colleagues from Korea and America as to the reason for their objections for amending the resolution to remove the only aspect causing a problem - which is a GA force to take sovereign territory. Granting the Global Assembly the ability to take sovereignty is a dangerous ploy that could be abused yet legal. Despite how it was acquired, it is sovereign (as per the rules). I am certain if there was a resolution for a GA force to take control of North Korea, or territory within the US, or anyone else here, we would all be opposing the Global Assembly stating it has too much power.

I would like to extend a question to the Swedish delegate in relation to their presence in South Africa, in the hopes we will be able to prevent dismissal and see this session discussed properly. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the South Africans had requested your presence? and support your operation?"

Odinson Jay Hollie Dutchy Alex Bossza007 Connor Zak Der_Strix HeadlessSeeker Bruno Thomas R. Jones braddiepie Baer ManBear VBCFan Mansoas GingeOrCringe

 

[Hollie]

MOGLOBAL ASSEMBLY ANNOUNCEMENT MOBY THE SECRETARY GENERAL

__________________________________________________________

The objective of the Global Assembly is to prevent an aggravation of the situation, not to give rise to one. As we cannot sanction the use of force, the most common measures which we have at our disposal include sanctions. These can be imposed on any combination of states, groups or individuals. The range of sanctions can be comprehensive and targeted such as arm embargoes, travel bans and diplomatic restrictions. We shall open a case against the Kingdom of Sweden, to determine whether their occupation of South Africa breached international laws. Meanwhile, the best outcome is the observance of a referendum, creating the conditions necessary to deliver humanitarian assistance.


.
​

 

[Connor]

Marc Kvet flips open his conference folder and slides some papers across his section of table in a fan-like fashion allowing a number of coloured label tabs to become visible. Packs of printed documentation would be passed around the assembly for each representative. He stands, buttoning his blazer and leaning into his microphone for the chamber to hear him clearly.

"Secretary General, Ambassadors... let me first make it abundantly clear that never in my career have I ever seen such disgusting behaviour in these chambers - never in my experience, even within the former United Nations, have I ever witnessed member states promote the overthrowing of our global legislative body. I want to be clear that the Kingdom of Sweden condemns the disgracefully embarrassing decisions of the Brazilian and Turkish representation and we commend the professionalism of the South Korean and American representation in their decision to remain for debate and the progression to some form of resolution.​

​

This assembly will always be a room of sensitive subjects, conflicting opinions and difficult decisions. That does not permit the misbehaviour we have seen today. I ask one simple question - how does that help?​

​

Nonetheless, now that our concerns have been addressed by the Secretariat I will now take an opportunity to answer some of the questions presented to this chamber and make the position of Sweden clear.​

​

Firstly, we are not against a resolution in this extremely controversial situation and we strongly believe, as we did with Antarctica, that the development of peace as we know it requires the collaboration of nations across the globe to meet in the middle, in these chambers. Do I believe that the motive behind the resolution we see presented by the representation of South Korea and the United States of America is as pure as it appears? No, absolutely not, and I will take this opportunity to explain why and what we can do to level the playing field.​

​

Under the oppressive apartheid regime lead by a racist leader and an equally racist cabinet governing a segregated and damaged community. A declaration of war was made by the then incumbent government against the Kingdom of Sweden with no form of casus belli and initially without retaliation by Sweden. The international community stood silent whilst our territorial claim of the Prince Edward Islands, governed by the Global Assembly Resolution on Antarctica, remained under threat. This promoted an ongoing Swedish military deployment to ensure that adequate provisions were made for the protection of our sovereign territory in the form of in a show of force which in-turn promoted a telephone call between the then Ambassador for Sweden to South Africa, the Prime Minister of Sweden and then South African State President P.W. Botha following which he abandoned his country leaving it to unwind into civil war; which it rapidly began to do. We had been made aware during this telephone call that South Africa retained no armed forces whatsoever leaving the country in a state of decline and open to hostile foreign intervention.​

​

During this time we received a number of correspondence from the United States of America, who have co-written this resolution, which I encourage you to read for yourselves. From this correspondence you can see clearly that our values were laid in concrete despite the United States repeatedly attempting to escalate the situation with the deployment of a Carrier Strike Group and even offering to provide deployment of armed forces into South Africa. Despite repeatedly being told not to, they then deployed the Carrier Strike Group against our advice and it was only upon our rejection that they turned their backs to the situation.​

​

To prevent serious loss of life, limb or property and to prevent the ongoing risk of civil war engulfing the country, our forces moved into South Africa as part of a maliciously planned operation. I must stress that this was done without a single shot being fired. Immediately upon our arrival we saw on overwhelming amount of support for our presence. Military infrastructure we were using soon became surrounded by members of the public supporting our forces, offering gifts and wanting to speak to personnel present.​

​

It was around this time that we discovered State President P.W. Botha had fled to Turkey before attempting to relocate to Israel on a civilian aircraft. A civilian aircraft that was shot down by the Turkish Air Force and saw to the loss of at least twelve confirmed dead which included the Captain, First Officer, Second Officer and two Flight Attendants amongst P.W. Botha's family.​

​

In time we began the Citizen Focus Program which would allow us to begin the rollout of free healthcare to South Africans and the provision of vaccinations and immunisations by highly trained medical professionals. In order to remain accountable we sought to see representation from every continent or major demographic region on the globe which saw assistance offered by the Israeli Defence Force representing the Middle East and the Royal Thai Armed Forces representing Asia. We offered this program to the United States Armed Forces to represent North America and was rejected. We also saw support by the Egyptian Armed Forces however in the interest of respecting this emergency resolution we put a hold on their deployment.​

​

We have received reports that throughout their time in South Africa the Royal Thai Armed Forces have too seen an overwhelming representation of support for Sweden in South Africa... and this is in an area on the opposite side of the country where we, at the time, had no physical deployment whatsoever.​

​

South Korea has worked closely with the Kingdom of Sweden since the day their administration took office and their soon succession to the international organisation, the Nordic Council of which they assumed member-state status. We their annexation of North Korea which was taken in extremely similar circumstances to our activity in South Africa, yet without condemnation from any country on the globe? South Korea is condemning colonial rule yet promotes their own colonial rule of what was, in the eyes of international law, an independent state? What makes your scenario any different? You had the support of the North Koreans, we have the support of South Africans.​

​

So to summarise...​

​

Sweden has acted in a peaceful capacity, without a single shot being fired and has the support of the South African population.​

South Africa has seen representation from a nation from almost every continent on the globe to remain accountable for our actions.​

​

United States of America continuously attempted to escalate the situation and then rejected opportunity to partake in humanitarian efforts.​

Turkey shot down a civilian aircraft in international airspace murdering the entirety of the flight.​

South Korea annexed North Korea in similar circumstances and hypocritically promotes an unlawful resolution to this assembly.​

​

I think the evidence we have provided speaks for itself, and I encourage those present to consider the evidence rather than the rumours and misinformation South Korea and the United States present this chamber. As I said before, please do not fall into their buzzwords and lies, especially when they have no evidence to support it.​

​

Thank you."​

 

[Baer]

Mister Ambassador Muhammadu Buhari, would rise from his chair.

"To the people of this clearly broken assembly, all of you should be ashamed of yourselves."

"The UK representative finally asked after 50 days does have South Africa a local mandate? How could you be so obtuse? I guess being a colonizer runs in the blood. This assembly is a joke. If my government were in charge three years ago, this whole fiasco would have never transpired. Because we would have e finished off the colonizing Swedes.

Global Assembly. what do you actually, do?

Your inaction only leads to my nation seeking further ways to defend and protect itself.

Odinson Jamie JakeDorent Jay

 

[Odinson]

"Mister Secretary General, the United States supported the Kingdom of Sweden defending its territory when South Africa declared war - which I think everyone in this room can see was a political gesture. They did not appear to have any kind of significant force that prevented the Swedish invasion of South Africa, nor are we aware of a single shot that was fired while Swedish forces were crossing into South African waters or airspace. What we did not, and do not, support is the total invasion, occupation, and integration of South Africa into the Swedish Realm. This would be the equivalent of the United States invading and integrating Sri Lanka as the 51st State, or the United Kingdom invading and forcing Mongolia to become a constituent country of the United Kingdom, or Korea invading and forcing Wales to become part of the Republic of Korea. A sovereign government would have to be beyond blind - or willfully looking past a crime against mankind - to think that this is somehow a good idea, or something that is defendable. If we are to allow this kind of colonial imperialism to begin then this is the largest step back mankind has taken since the mass genocides that took place in Europe and Asia this century," he said.

"Furthermore, in regards to what my British colleague has asked, the answer is simple: the entire point of this resolution is to remove all Swedish political, economic, and military influence from South Africa. Unless our Swedish delegate can confirm that his country is willing to negotiate a full withdraw - on all fronts from again political, economic, and military influence - then there is no room for negotiation. The reasonable position to have here, for a first-world nation as well as a third-world nation, is that colonialism is wrong. The occupation of a nation and a people who are not the same culture and race is morally bankrupt. The blatant annexation of a sovereign nation on the other side of the damned planet is insane. This - is - indefensible. We are willing to fight to prevent the reintroduction of colonialism and imperialism into the world - we proposed this resolution to make this a global effort, to show that the world is united in preventing this kind of evil, and to show that this organization is capable of maintaining the global order. But if nothing but half-compromises or empty threats can be made through resolution, then we truly are just sitting in the halls of a new League of Nations - I don't want that to be the case, because a place for all of us to come together like this is crucial.

"Mister Secretary General, we are not here to appease. Centrism is not always objective. If we were to amend this resolution to allow Sweden to continue to occupy a country on the other side of the world, in Africa, and subjugate 59,000,000 Africans, then we will have failed. The South African people are not Swedish, South Africa it is not Swedish territory, and the United States cannot in good faith ever recognize it as such - we would be complicit in one of the most baffling crimes of the late 20th century, and I'll be damned if I have to one day tell my grandchildren that I was the one to do it.

"I will repeat what I said before. If Sweden's intentions are only to help the South African people then the only need to do the following to win over the rest of the planet: declare South Africa an independent nation with not political or economic ties to Sweden, withdraw all armed forces from South Africa, allow the South African people to be solely in charge of their politics and their finances, and then work with the world to deliver humanitarian aid to South Africa. But Mister Secretary General, they aren't going to do this. Why? Because Sweden wants to own South Africa - that is their motive. They do not want to help, they want ownership. Well I've got news for you: sovereignty belongs to the South African people alone."

 

[Connor]

"Ambassador, perhaps you would make better use of your time if you addressed the substantial amount of physical evidence we have just provided this chamber which not only displays your own hypocrisy and internal desires to escalate the conflict in South Africa but also the undeniable basis of your political view changing; the loss of benefit to the United States of America. You are making only one thing clear to this chamber... you have no evidence to support the claims you are making.

Perhaps you would like to review the annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii or perhaps even the Battle of Guam and explain to the chamber why your movements are any different? I can. Thousands of people die in your causes... and if we had allowed you to escalate the South African conflict no doubt we would be telling families that their loved ones had passed here too.

Representatives we have shown you clearly with a wealth of evidence, physical evidence, not only from Swedish sources but also from foreign independent parties and even from some of South Korea and the United States closest allies. They continue to bang the drum of 'colonization' and 'occupation' but ignore the continued expression of the South African people that want us in their country. It is their right to choose.

It is abundantly clear by the way the United States and South Korea refuse to re-write this resolution that their own intentions are not pure and fundamentally come down to greed. We have shown you clearly that the United States not only wanted to escalate the situation with a Carrier Strike Group but also prompted the deployment of physical boots on the ground way prior to us even having dialogue with the South African government at the time. - supporters of this resolution have seen to civilian aircraft being shot from the sky in international airspace prompting the murder of the entire flight, they have seen to the desperate escalation of force against a nation with no armed forces whatsoever, and they themselves have all experiences the process of adopting a foreign independent state under their belt for their own gain. Yet we sit here hearing them bang the drum of 'colonization'.

Secretary General, the time allocated to the re-writing of this resolution has passed significantly. I would like to give the South Korean and United States representation a time extension of a further twenty four hours to consider whether they want to re-write this resolution as a gesture of good-will, otherwise the Kingdom of Sweden will present our own amendment for vote."

Odinson Hollie

 

[VBCFan]

Ambassador Shamir S. Shihabi of the esteemed kingdom of Saudi Arabia would speak into his translator for all of the representatives to hear.
“May I interject for one moment fellow ambassadors? If I could ask the Swedish ambassador a question that I think hasn’t been addressed thus far. Abassador Kvet, may I ask why Sweden has a desire to have control over the former state of South Africa? It seems like many of the arguments you have made are purely defensive or pointing out the… mistakes of some of the other members even though this seems to be a session based on actions committed by the Swedish Government, not the United States or Korea. It’s seems highly peculiar that Sweden would even want to be in South Africa in the first place, it’s certainly a huge burden on the Swedish Economy and from what I’ve heard South Africa didn’t pose a real threat to Swedish Interests anywhere in the world anyway so a short explanation would be quite helpful. Thank you and that will be all”
Connor

 

[Jay]

"The Kingdom of Sweden unfortunately shows both historical ignorance and a lack of understanding of international law. Their entire remark proved no physical evidence that the a legitimate entity invited the Swedish Government to assume control over the country. Rather, Sweden relies on ignorance of this chamber to justify its statements. One, it distracts members on two points; it attempts to establish that the United States is an agent of instability and desires conflict as opposed to peace due to “carrier diplomacy”. However, the correspondence between the United States and Sweden only showed one thing, that the United States supports the territorial integrity of Sweden against aggression. When Sweden became the aggressor, not the defender, the United States sought to redress its concerns through diplomatic then international forums. Second, Korea is hypocritical for its actions. Why, because based on an ignorant analysis of the history of Korea; the Kingdom of Sweden ignores numerous agreements signed by the two Koreas prior to 1995 regarding unification, the UN mandates for the unification of Korea, and the Korean constitution which under Articles 3 & 4 outlines the requirement of Korea to achieve the reunification of Korea.

The Republic of Korea is the sovereign entity with sovereign control over the Korean peninsula. This has been the basic position of Korea since it was reestablished in 1948 as a successor to the Great Korean regimes of the past. This was a basic goal of the UN Mandate for the reunification of Korea in 1950. Korea has a right to self-determination, free from Japanese colonial rule. Just as South Africa has the right for self-determination, free form white minority rule in all forms, whether they are the Apartheid regime or they are Sweden. Just as every member is the sovereign entity with control over their territory, such a conclusion is both a mischaracterization of international law. The instruments available to the peoples separated by artificial boundaries created by European and Japanese colonial powers is the basis of self-determination. Sweden as a colonial power chooses to overlook the right of colonized people to achieve their rights for self-determination; which was the guiding philosophy for the Treaty of Unification signed by the two Koreas, a treaty submitted to the Global Assembly alongside a formal letter from the Korean Foreign Ministry. A treaty signed and approved by the Korean people and their representatives. A Treaty drafted through negotiations. Only when the Treaty was approved by the Korean people, did the unification of the Korean people occur. We explain this, because, Sweden has spent its entire time deflecting the conversation on numerous occasions. We do not want further member states to fall into the ignorant views of Sweden in their blatant disregard for the legal right of indigenous people to have autonomy over their affairs and determine their own destiny.

First it attempted to suspend debate prematurely and through an unjustifiable intervention by the Secretariat beyond their role outlined in the charter. Secondly it attempted to force a redraft of a resolution which has clearly the support of the Global Assembly members. Thirdly it attempts to discredit the members of this chamber as either childish for their justifiable anger with the double standards imposed or for their alleged hypocrisy for writing this resolution.

To this end, Sweden has filled its response with irrelevant packets of information from correspondence to anecdotes of selective public support by the population. They provided no physical agreements signed prior to their colonial occupation. They provided no legitimate instruments by which we can observe their colonial rule as something other than what it truly. This must because it does not exist or Sweden’s diligently withholding evidence. Therefore, Sweden will argue anecdotal evidence, selectively sampling the population to justify their colonial project. They will use the people under their colonial administration to justify their prolonged and unending presence. Sweden acknowledges in its own remarks that the idea that the Apartheid regime poised a realistic risk to its territorial integrity was false, the Apartheid regime had no military capabilities at that point. Once again, showing, that Sweden’s actions were done in full awareness that there was no force to oppose their occupation and that they could act with impunity.

The Republic of Korea fully understands both Brazil and Turkey’s frustrations. They are justifiable. From rejecting International Court arbitrations to annexing a foreign country. Sweden has consistently acted with impunity. We disagree fundamentally with the United Kingdom’s framing of this situation. International Law under such a frame of mind as Sweden is attempting to push leads to such views. This chamber to understand why it is important we move away from Sweden’s legal view. The peacekeeping force is both clearly needed to oversee the withdrawal of the Swedish colonial forces and assist in the building of local institutions that the people construct. They are needed to end this continuous state of war perpetuated by what is clear to us now, by Swedish colonial ambitions.

It is overwhelmingly clear that in this chamber, the majority of members present condemn to different degrees Sweden’s actions. It is clear this is the case. Sweden’s demands to redraft this resolution are not acceptable to this chamber, and the members present can concur with this. This is why Sweden is trying to shut down the debate in this chamber without vote. This is why they wish to delegitimize this resolution as not appropriate for a vote, because, they know, the globe stands with the South African people and their right to be independent from colonial rule. I ask, why hasn’t the Secretary General recognized this. This institution has been cracked by the blatant double standards, and pushes the global community to look to alternative measures to achieve the consensus of the global community, the complete and unconditional withdrawal and removal of the Swedish colonial authority in political, economic, military, and social domination over South Africa.

Should this chamber fail to reject Sweden’s actions through the unjustifiable intervention of the Secretariat into the matters of the Assembly, as the members have already stated, then, the Global Assembly is truly not the successor to the United Nations. It is just a shell of the League of Nations which justified the colonial domination over Asia, Africa, and the globe. To be complicit in the disgusting act of colonization is something Korea will not be apart of. Sweden has attempted to fling weak and incoherent statements. If the Secretary General will not bring this resolution to a vote, then Korea, believes that as the Ambassador of Brazil has already stated that then there can be no recourse achieved in this forum. We believe that as the Ambassador of the United States has already stated that we can not appease a colonial power. At the turn of the 21st century, rather than embracing a new century for humanity, we are allowing the continuation of centuries of domination by Europe on the globe.

They have provided no evidence regarding the legality of their annexation. Because, no evidence or justification can be give. As a result, they have gone down the disgraceful path of degrading other nations to justify their colonial actions only further showing their colonial attitudes regarding the rights of indigenous people such as Korea. They point to a history beyond the scope of this resolution. They point to examples beyond the scope of this resolution. They deflect and distract to buy time to further entrench their colonization. We can come to the following conclusion, there is no justification in international to annexing another peoples, occupying their country, and administering their affairs, in simpler English, colonization can not be justified by international law."

 

[Connor]

"We refuse to repeat ourselves for the benefit of the South Korean representation whom, as the chamber an quite clearly see, continues to repeat themselves with the banging of the same-old drum. The allotted time for this resolution to be redrafted has passed and it's quite clear that the proposing nations have no intention to make this legislative change lawful - why? because they have their own objectives and fundamentally repeatedly ignore the fact that the South African's have the right to choose their own destiny... and the South Africans have chosen for Sweden to remain. No foreign body has the right to tell South African's what decision is right or wrong.

Ambassador Shamir S. Shihabi, thank you for your question, and a very valid one that that. I am sorry you have seen our statement as a trip to deconstruct the essence of this resolution, we sought to explain the reality of the situation rather than the false lie-infested agenda set forth by the United States and South Korea in a plea to drum up support for their drafted resolution. In all honesty we originally had no intention to remain in South Africa or even have boots on the ground at all, as you can see from our correspondence... however with developing situations come developing working strategies and in the moment we pursued the fundamental value of preserving life, limb and property whilst preventing the complete collapse of the local political and justice systems as the country collapsed into civil war. Sweden is fortunate in that it has the strongest economy on the planet with secure investment portfolio seeing our net value surpass $200 billion dollars. This is not a brag, let me be clear. But there is absolutely no circumstance in-which South Africa becomes a burden on our state - and in fact we support the actions of Israel, Egypt and Thailand that have also projected vast investment in humanitarian aid in the country.

Secretary General, the presenting nations have had well in advance of their allotted time to redraft this resolution and they have shown no intention to do so. Much rather they have sought to overthrow the very foundation of this assembly which has seen incredibly success over the years and I will not allow this emergency resolution, brought before you in an illegitimate format, to damage the integrity or reputation of these chambers. On this basis, rather than provide our own resolution, we move to have this emergency resolution rejected on the aforementioned grounds. The chambers cannot be left in session forever whilst these nations argue an inarguable point - much rather this session should be suspended giving the opposition the opportunity to present a new resolution in a lawful format."

Hollie VBCFan

 

[Alex]

The Russian Ambassador, Yelizaveta Soloveva, would approach her microphone. "I stand with the representatives of the United States and the Republic of Korea on their stances and with the representative of the Empire of Brazil in their frustration with this clearly flawed 'Global' Assembly that cares nothing for the lives of those not within their Assembly. Swedish Ambassador Marc Kvet your arrogance towards the situation has not been missed by anyone in this room. You continue to promote that your state supposedly aids South Africa and its citizens yet when asked to show us proof, again and again you stumble in your words and attempt to divert attention to another subject - like a child caught in a lie. Where is the referendum, Ambassador? Where is the agreement? The treaty? Where is the proof that the people of South Africa wish for you to be there? The same people who have fought off European rule after rule. The same people who fear nothing more than to suffer under white rule once again. Where is the evidence to back-up your words, Ambassador?

There is none, is there? Because you aren't there peacefully, you didn't wish to 'liberate' the South African people, and you certainly do not wish to give up the territory. After all, had you cared about the Apartheid rule and how they made the South African people suffered, you would have reached to the Global Assembly - an Assembly that yourself and your nation praise's so much. No, instead you allowed this disgusting regime to continue until your nation saw a chance to dig their dirty talons into its neck - an opportunity for you not only to take territory but to force the people of South Africa not to suffer under Apartheid but to suffer under your own regime - a suffrage that would bring you monetary value through the various defense industries that the nation has and the amount of people that you would be able to tax and fill your nation's treasury with!

The majority of this chamber sees you for what you and your nation are, Ambassador. Nothing more than a nation stuck in the years of colonization. You have done it in Antarctica, you have done it in South Africa, and if the Global Assembly does not get its head out of its ass you are going to do it again. Ambassadors of the Chamber, I ask that we support the representatives from the United States and Korea not to be against Sweden but to support the people of South Africa - the people that Ambassador Kvet refuses to show evidence of wanting to be under Swedish rule.

Furthermore, Ambassadors," the Russian representative would reveal her phone - which was on Twitter. "May I show you the recent post made by Sweden's own Department of Foreign Affairs? This Tweet says the following: "Sweden condemns the actions of the Brazilian and Turkish representation in the Global Assembly. Promoting the overthrowing of a global legislative body is irresponsibly dangerous to the future of democracy." Need I remind you all of was said by the Representatives of Brazil and Turkey only recently in this very room? None of what they said advocated for overthrowing the legislative, they simply criticized the clear broken system. Sweden would rather spread false information in the hopes that it will better their image instead of providing the evidence that would show us the truth behind what is truly happening in South Africa! Sweden lies again and again because their occupation of South Africa is illegal and they know it!

Thank you." With that, Soloveva would lean back in her chair.

 

[VBCFan]

Ambassador Shihabi would reply to the Swedish Response using hIs translator
“Ambassador Kvet, thank you for your explanation. It appears to me that you explanation is that Sweden invaded the Nation of South Africa because of the Swedish belief that the Regime was corrupt and should be changed so Sweden seized the opportunity to invade South Africa and here is your problem, you simply do not invade a nation because you believe the government isn’t necessarily to your standards, i fact if the United States did that then half of the world would be invaded by now. You didn’t provide the truth, instead the lie that Sweden wanted to “help” the South African People is quite frankly insane, no hostile invader uses that reason unless they are desperate in my opinion and therefore I can tell you that you will not have the Support of the Saudi Arabian Government or myself.”
Connor

 

[Owen]

Julie Bishop, the Permanent Representative of Australia to the Global Assembly would enter the chamber.

​

"Ladies and Gentleman of the Assembly, it is clear to us that this bickering will not solve anything.

The Secretary-General has made clear to us that they will not strip another country of territory. We must use the tools we have at our disposable in order to be pragmatic and sensible about this situation. Arguing with the Secretary-General is not productive in the slightest.

The Australian Government agrees, to the fullest extent, that the previous South African Government was horrendous. We had been trying for decades to rid it of its Apartheid system. We must commend Sweden on that act, they did get rid of the Apartheid system and they freed Nelson Mandela. However, and a big however, we do not believe that their intentions were pure. We do not believe Sweden cared either way if the Apartheid regime remained or fell. To them, it was an opportunity for neo-colonialism, the same neo-colonialism we saw in Antarctica and in the sovereign Australian territory of the Heard and McDonald Islands. It is clear to us that they have a goal of colonising the Southern Hemisphere. They can do this because our hemisphere is not as populated as the Northern Hemisphere, where they would undoubtedly face opposition. We as an assembly must come together to condemn Sweden's neo-colonialism in the strongest of terms. Whilst the assembly cannot strip them of their colonial possessions, there are other avenues which we can explore.

Notably, sanctions. This assembly must pass sanctions to their fullest extent. The Swedish economy is massive right now and we need to cripple that if we are going to force them to relinquish control of their possessions. We believe that this must include Antarctica and the Subantarctic Islands which they took control of and we would like to move forward on a session looking at repealing the Antarctic Resolution which enabled Sweden's neo-colonialism. We do not agree with the Secretary-General's position that "We shall open a case against the Kingdom of Sweden, to determine whether their occupation of South Africa breached international laws." It should not be up to the International Court of Justice to determine whether we implement sanctions or not. It should be up to this representative body whether that is done or not. The nations of the world are ultimately the best judges on whether a country is not living up to the international norms which have been set by decades of precedence. Laws are ultimately made by norms and precedence and by people themselves as to what we believe is morally right and just. We're afraid the laws of the assembly might be outdated and not open to alteration by this assembly, hence they are not truly representative of the norms and morals of the member states.

Nelson Mandela WILL become the next President of an independent and free South Africa governed by ALL South Africans, regardless of race. That is what we wish to achieve and the Global Assembly should be fully onboard with that.

Thank you."

 

[Axis12]

After the last few days without any further debate within the Assembly and nearly a month after the late Turkish Ambassador stormed out of the Assembly a new Representative for Turkey would be flown in for discussion after Mr. Aytug was fired due to misconduct by the new ruling party. Newly appointed Ambassador Yaşar Halit Çevik who was one of the youngest ever appointed ambassadors to any worldwide assembly for Turkey would enter the Assembly wearing an MHP party pin and a jet black suit and red tie with a star and crescent in the center. He will be representing Turkey from now on and has a much more far right than likely any other ambassador present, as determined by the NSC of Turkey. He would give Ambassador Kvet a nod before sitting down with a small briefcase of notable information needed.
Connor Hollie Odinson Jay

 

[Axis12]

“Excuse me, fellow ambassadors I would just like to first of all apologize for Mr. Aytug’s actions that misrepresented the Republic of Turkey completely and was an international disgrace. I condemn on the behalf of the Turkish people and the MHP of Turkey the actions of Brazil and I hope that they too come to their senses and return to this assembly so that we can once again discuss this matter.
I have seen both sides from official coverage and I understand the viewpoints of the United States and Korea as well as the Swedish Representative in this matter and I think that no progress will be made whatsoever. Even with a GA ruling one way or another I doubt this will affect the actions of each state involved and it is looking like the American and Swedish Government’s are gearing up for war. In fact I want to present this disturbing information: Recently, the Turkish Government purchased majority stake in the company Roketsan, which was originally owned by the Swedish Government and we found after going through past purchases that are now available due to our government having majority ownership in the company that the Swedish Government has been purchasing J600T III IRBMs. This was only after the very recent declaration in the GA by Sweden on the closing of this matter as well asjust after the unconfirmed reports that Sweden may be amassing its own territorial South African Army to hold on to its claims. therefore it has been determined by the National Security Council using public and our own private information that Sweden may be acting in a way similar to a power about to go to war. In fact why would a secure nation in Europe need Ballistic Missiles that can only reach its neighbors in Western Europe? Do they expect the Norwegians to make a surprise attack on Swedish Soil? The answer is that they must be transporting these missiles to their territory in South Africa to defend themselves against an attack. I do not take any side but as you all see, I think we should be focusing on a resolution to prevent a war like that could resemble the Antarctic Conflict or worse.“
Connor Odinson Jay Hollie

 

[Axis12]

The Ambassador would look around, wondering if the Assembly had fallen into a sudden trance that kept them from speaking, Or maybe it was something in his hair and they were too embarrassed to say anything because they would burst our laughing when they spoke… Nonetheless he would proceed to speak.

“Secretary General, are we going to close this session or carry on? I see little action and no response from any ambassadors currently present and we need to decide the result of this resolution immediately or else conflict will certainly ensue over this resolution where certain states claim or do not claim that their actions are legal in regards to this matter.”
Hollie

 

[HeadlessSeeker]

"There are many who have come to question the effectiveness of the GA and given the 'diplomacy' and 'negotiations' I have seen here I can see why that is the case. The era of making a line in the sand and being unwilling to compromise or blink is over. It is that kind of political strategy that nearly brought the end of the world as we know it during the cold war. Thus, I would like to in the spirit of diplomacy ask three questions of Sweden."

"Does Sweden have an estimated pullout date? What does Sweden require to allow a coalition force to be established to see to the stabilization of South Africa and thus pullout of South Africa? What compromises are you willing to make at this time?"

Connor

 

[Connor]

“Stockholm have provided me with a final statement to distribute to these chambers which I will relay in just a moment, but first allow me to address representatives on our position regarding the discord in this session.

Unfortunately this resolution, like so many before it, has seen a real divide in the chamber which has fractured friendships, altered alliances and eradicated executives. Conflicts never will see a one-hundred percent agreement in these chambers and frankly that is the very foundation of the organisation which will continue, undoubtedly, for many years to come in a very similar capacity serving the globe for the most complex of situations. Let me remind you that these chambers have previously seen changes to protect our diplomats, halt weapons of mass destruction, alter territorial lines, bring a stop to war and effective remedies to legislation. We built this organisation, we signed the charters, we represented our modern democracies in these chambers; not for us but for our people.

So as I have said previously, let me express my deepest condemnation for the attempts made by the former Turkish and incumbent Brazilian representatives who have, by no feat of the imagination, attempted to overthrow the Secretariat, and bring utter discord to these chambers. You have disgraced yourselves, disgraced your country and disgraced your people with your actions; and your attempts to draw in other represented countries to encourage ignorance to this organisation only further undermines your right to respected representation. I will reiterate: you agreed to the charters, if you don’t like them, change them. Do not attempt to fracture this fine establishment as a result of you essentially not getting your own way in a fair democracy.

I am saddened to see the dissolve of the South Korean representation whom were one of the two representing nations bringing this resolution to the chamber. But given that this chamber has seen no new amended resolution to the chambers I encourage the Secretary General to bring this session to an end On that basis that Stockholm is cooperating with peace talks.

Now, let me be clear, we do not have a timeframe for our time in South Africa - we remain in situ with the permission of the South African people, lawfully. We are actively working with partners worldwide to provide services within South Africa; one of which being a fundemental ally to South Korea: Thailand who have expressed themselves the ongoing support Swedish forces have in South Africa. Whilst it is clear there are many nations that do not support our position in the continent, the buck stops with the people...- and the people want Sweden in South Africa thus we will remain”

 

[HeadlessSeeker]

"We would like this process to be very open and allow for foreign observers to check in on things. The reason for this is that we of course don't want apartheid elements reasserting control at any point, and the more eyes the better. My Government deeply opposes fascists like the apartheied government, and given they managed to reassert control once, we want to help ensure it does not happen again. I would also like to ask what percentage of the population has to ask you to leave before you will do so? I would like to suggest a two year referendum which every two years takes place. The only question being whether or not the people of South Africa feel that they no longer need the Swedish government. I believe that would be fair yes? Very unintrusive. I also believe that it will help ensuring that there are no bad feelings afterwards.."

"Are you open to any of these suggestions?"

Connor

 

[Connor]

"We have remained open and transparent with our operations from the very beginning and I redirect you to our opening statements in-which we disclosed our invitation to a state from every continent to oversee our time in South Africa. We are open to the idea of a referendum and this is something we will refer onwards to the Department of Home Affairs who govern the Electoral Commission; we will of course need to liaise and discuss this with the incumbent administration in South Africa as well as the Governor-General. All early indications suggest that there is still a heavy reliance on Sweden being present in South Africa - to date we have invested just under $30 billion as part of our Citizen Focus Program which I am sure you will agree is a phenomenal contribution to an otherwise forgotten state stuck in a vicious racist cycle.

I welcome and encourage any represented state within these chambers to contact the Office of the Governor-General of South Africa for further comment or suggestion - as I said we are currently going through peace talks externally which I do not intend to undermine.

Secretary General, I think we can conclude this session here?"

HeadlessSeeker
Hollie