Sanctions Against Australia

[Moe]

Brazilian Representative, Juan DeSilva would approach publicly dais and declare;

"The actions of the Australian government in Canberra have been disgusting and disgraceful. Everything about this debacle is wrong. From stating nations had to surrender firearms meant to protect embassies to seemingly target the vehicles of nations that would not comply, with poorly trained Federal Police, who, from the bodycam images seen throughout the world, had to ask the Polish bodyguards if they were even armed first. They then fired on a car carrying the family of the Polish Ambassador. Australia also claimed that their government has no control over the Federal Police. How is this so? Is this going to turn into another Swedish Incident? Where one country can claim to attack another's embassy with an ICBM and everyone just stands arounds with their hands in their pockets?

I recommend that Australia be barred from purchasing an type of weaponry, foreign or domestic. Furthermore, there should some boots on the ground from nations, eliminate the current government and hold elections in a year. Not only to show Australia that these authoritarian types of governments will not be allowed to flourish, but to the rest of the world as well."

 

[Connor]

Ann Linde, Minister for Union Affairs and Trade, incumbent representative for Sweden issues a statement condemning the unreasonable action from Brazilian representatives.

Sweden will not support the bullying of other nations and promotes bilateral communication without military intervention - escalation cannot be deescalated and disrupting a democratically elected government will cause civil unrest.

 

[Moe]

"You will not support bullying, but you have no problem with diplomats or members of their family being shot in the street? What an idiotic response.

Then again, you represent a country that just months ago claimed to use an ICBM against my embassy. So, I guess the Australian response was not heavy-handed enough for you."

 

[Connor]

Ann Linde, Swedish Minister for Union Affairs and Trade:

"Sweden is in no position to support anybody, much like yourselves, the death of diplomats and innocent civilians is obviously devastating; your response to the death of these people is to march troops on foreign soil, overthrow a government and demand the re-election of a new one? That is a civil war waiting to happen and the deaths of thousands upon thousands of completely innocent locals.

Your political techniques are unhinged to say the least, the language you use in this assembly is disgraceful and should you work under me I would be embarrassed to call you a representative.

You are dangerous and out for blood, this is the modern world, we've put down our swords and learnt to sort things out with our voices."

 

[Jamie]

The British Government has and will oppose any military action against Australia. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs releasing the following statement:

"A war occurring over a shooting is a notion that isn't productive nor supportive to the peace. We believe that no law enforcement would engage unless they see a threat to life. Furthermore, the Australian Government had confirmed no military-grade weapons were to be hosted in-country. The Australian Government was recently entering office through a Democratic vote, and if weapons were aimed at British police, we would also expect them to respond appropriately."

 

[Teikoku]

Upon hearing of DeSilva's announcement, Japan would release this official statment in response:

The situtation taking place within Australia and the violence the Australian government conducted is atrocious. These actions most certainly must be met with sanctions placed upon by the international community. Not only have Australia attempted to remove embassies abilities to protect themselves, but have also violated soveriegn territory and assualted, and murdered, numerous foreign state officials in their attempts.

However, what Brazil is currently proposing is that of a far worse nature. To deploy military and depose of the Australian government is that of complete occupation, and would most certainly create a major conflict, one that would defy the era. This sort of response from the international community is by far not one that matches up to the sanctions that should be placed. The human cost of Australia's actions would seem minor to the unimaginable costs of what Brazil is proposing. Japan will not only refuse to support this level of response, but will also openly oppose it.

 

[Connor]

"The position of Australia is on a knife edge. They took what they believed to be the necessary and appropriate action against a reasonably held belief that there was a threat. I will emphasise that again. They took what they believed to be the necessary and appropriate action. There is no doubt that the death of anybody, friend of foe, is devastating to family, friends and states around the globe.

Violence and conduct violations are a too common occurrence in foreign states and I cannot stress enough how your diplomatic meetings prior to the establishment of diplomatic missions abroad dictate how your premises are operated. Should your negotiates have included the presence of armed personnel then Australia has violated a contractual agreement and is ethically and legally in the wrong - notice should have been given.

I'm fairly confident that a large majority of the diplomatic missions established worldwide are without written contractual agreement and there was probably very little dialogue between states regarding the logistical necessities of these sites.

Swedens position here is very simple. Damage control.

We don't want a world war, we don't want boots on the ground and we certainly don't want more death. This is an opportunity to develop globally and I strongly believe that Sweden can be a platform for change in this field.

I strongly advise that Australia step up to the table, explain yourselves for the good of the world. This is an essential first step to change."

 

[Owen]

Relations with Brazil would sour pretty quickly with this statement. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong and Minister for Home Affairs, Anne Aly would release a joint statement in response to the Brazilian one.

"The statement from the Federative Republic of Brazil is abhorrent. To merely suggest that military action needs to be taken against Australia is absurd. The Australian Labor Party won the last election on a landslide against the abhorrent policies of the Liberal Party who advocated separation of white and Aboriginal Australians. We now have an Aboriginal Deputy Prime Minister and the Government has changed from what was previously authoritarian and apartheid in nature to one which respects the rights of all Australians to live with the rights and freedoms that are fundamental to this country. To suggest that the Labor Party is advocating 'authoritarian' style Government is absurd. The separation of powers is still strong in this country. We have the Queen, the Governor-General, the Cabinet, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the High Court to all hold nearly equal amount of power in this country. That is not the definition of authoritarian. The Government doesn't even control the Senate at the moment, it has a minority there. The Australian Federal Police do fall under the Australian Government's Department of Home Affairs, everyone employed by the AFP are public servants. But it is an independent agency within the Department of Home Affairs, they do their job independently of Government control and they merely are given Government funding and administrative directive. We do not, especially the Minister for Home Affairs, in anyway, control the day to day operations of the Australian Federal Police and we do not have the prerogative to dictate how they should do their job. That would be the definition of authoritarian and undemocratic. We are, as the Government, also accountable to the Police, both federal and state.

We also want to make it clear that the Embassy was not originally attacked, the Embassy was only attacked when it became apparent that Polish Guards had begun firing at police officers who were OUTSIDE of the Embassy from inside the Embassy. This obviously required a response from officers to neutralise that threat and we believe, as most of the international community believes, that would be a completely acceptable reason to revoke this notion of "sovereign territory". The car which was carrying the Ambassador was at no point the intended target and body cam footage shows that the Polish Ambassador was shot from a ricocheting bullet which was fired at the Polish Guards, who were the intended target because they posed a significant threat to Police Officers OUT ON THE STREET, which is Australian territory, and not within the grounds of the Embassy. Let me make it clear, they brought military-grade weapons, into the street, outside of the Polish Embassy and proceeded to aim it at Police Officers when officers directed them to put their weapons down. At that point, officers had no choice but to fire because in that situation, seconds matter to the lives of those officers. There was absolutely no time to negotiate a peaceful resolution. The Polish Guards had the opportunity to resolve it and put their weapons down, instead they took it one step further, one step too far, and aimed them at police officers and threatened them.

We also make it clear that sanctions are pointless. If you are going to put sanctions onto another country, it should not be an attempt to punish but an attempt to change something. There is nothing to change. This situation is almost over and we are in the last stages of negotiations with the Polish Government. Sanctions would also do nothing but harm the 25 million Australians who live here. And again we ask for what? In attempt to get rid of a democratically elected Government who has done simply nothing wrong in this situation? Absurd. This Government will not be going anywhere until the next election. That's a fact. We won't bow down to international bullying because you simply cannot understand complex situations and want to jump quickly onto a bandwagon without reading through all the facts first."

 

[Apingdaldal]

Presidential Spokesperson (SPOX) Atty. Harry Roque would issue an official statement regarding to Australian debacle:

“While our diplomatic mission in Australia fully complies with their respective federal policies, we do want to express our disappointment on how this supposed-to-be simple situation ended in violence, which is comparable to the disaster meeting in the Global Assembly which sparked the Iran crisis. Unfortunate events like these are bound to happen again and again when people unfit in statecraft are prevalent."

SPOX Roque would also make a statement to Brazil :

“While we understand Brazil’s sanction against Australia is rational given it has legal ground based on Global Assembly’s resolution, we do not support the call for foreign military intervention. This is just an issue between foreign embassies and the Australian Federal Police – civilian matters. Military intervention will just make it worse; and will be a lot more worse if it’ll involve foreign militaries. Hence, we sincerely advise you to “fine tune” your official statement regarding this matter.”

 

[Connor]

Sweden has recommended that Brazil come forward and retract their initial statement, a revised statement will better level the playing field. The clear majority of states providing statements on the situation have condemned the use of military force against Australia and have instead opted for negotiations.

Sanctions against a foreign state should not be made off the back of a governments hand, these are major decisions that will significantly economically damage both Australia and your own states.

 

[Moe]

The Brazilian Representative would make a statement. "It seems as if the world and the GA, much like when the former Swedish government claimed to attack my embassy with an ICBM, will do nothing more than offer weak statements of condemnation and nothing else.

Some governments have said they believe in possible sanctions, but have offered nothing concrete. We saw an injustice and decided to speak out and offer solutions. If you do not agree that is fine, but attacking Brazil for speaking out when no one else in the world actually did, is not a solution, either.

And to quote the representative from the Philippines, Unfortunate events like these are bound to happen again and again. if the world continues to idly sit around.

And to the representative of Sweden, you have spent more time attacking the Brazilian solution to this situation, than either condemning the actions of Australia or providing a solution of your own."

 

[Connor]

“Brazil, you are simply out of line.

Our solution was clearly outlined, Australia has acted in a way the majority would in such a situation. This mistake here is the states that have no contractual agreement in place when deliberating on diplomatic missions. The next step for Australia is to get in a room, one-on-one, with each of their foreign counterparts and understand the security needs of each state on an individual basis. This is not a difficult task and the Brazilian delegation are trying to aggravate this debarckle unnecessarily. The police action was justified. The police acted exactly how our armed officers are trained accross the world, firearms were raised to armed officers and they eliminated the threat.

Military action is absolutely not a consideration.
Economic sanctions will punish the innocent.

Brazilian representation need to calm down. Your political technique is to bully your way through foreign affairs and it will simply land you in hot water without a life line.

Australian representation - can you advise us on your stance with foreign security within your state and how you propose to ensure the safety of foreign diplomatic missions?”

 

[Owen]

The Minister for Home Affairs would release a statement for the Swedish.

"Foreign Security personnel are allowed in Australia to protect embassies and are allowed to be armed with weapons which are exclusively allowed to be carried by security guards such as batons and capsicum spray. Firearms and Tasers can only be carried by law enforcement, defence force personnel and authorised security personnel belonging to designated sectors such as armoured transport companies for transportation of currency. The Australian Federal Police carries out routine patrols at embassies and monitors CCTV surveillance outside of embassies. Generally if there was an incident at the embassy and they rang the police, they would be there quite quickly as there would definitely be at least two patrols in the embassy district around Deakin and Yarralumla."

 

[Bruno]

The Portuguese Government would condemn the actions partaken by the Brazilian government towards Australia, and would repudiate the way that Brazil as been conducting it self recently in world affairs. Furthermore, Portugal would respect Australia in its decisions, regarding its own security. And as a response towards the Brazilian Sanctions, the Portuguese Government would temporarily decrease tariffs on goods coming and going from Portugal and Australia in a attempt to lessen the blow by the recent sanctions.

What can one expect from a Government which acts as a child in world affairs like Brazil as been doing.

 

[Connor]

Sweden offers the statement to both Poland and Brazil, noting the support of foreign nations.

“We believe the security provisions offered by Australia are more than adequate and I’m not entirely sure why this has erupted under the circumstances. It’s clear the world do not want to impose sanctions against the Australians for, what is without doubt, an act of protecting their own people from armed foreign nationals.

This argument should cease, nations should return their travel advice to a normal standard and economic sanctions should be trashed. Australia is not a threat.

Does anyone object to such?”

 

[Zager]

"No. The Polish sanctions will stay in place, as long as Australia decides to harbour Polish bodies.

Swedish officials seemingly are unable to comprehend what has occured. You do realize that these 'police' put a small child and numerous innocent Russians at risk, correct?"

 

[Connor]

“Absolutely, does this justify economic sanctions that punish the poor and risk international business profit falls? No. Does this justify international reform regarding the use of firearms abroad? Yes.

Once again we are met with the ideology that you punish until you get your own way, it doesn’t need to be that way.

Australia, for the good of the world and the economic climate, what reason are you holding the bodies of foreign nationals?”

 

[Owen]

The Minister for Home Affairs would release another statement.

"At this point in time we're not able to retrieve the bodies of the deceased because there's still two polish guards held up inside the embassy who are armed. Once we neutralise them, we will be able to retrieve the bodies and a chartered LOT Polish airplane will retireve them, as agreed between the Prime Minister and the Polish President."

 

[Connor]

The Swedish representative rolls her eyes and simply looks at the Polish.

“Wel that’s why they’re losing the bodies... my god are you hunting for a reason to cause a war? It seems to me like the Polish and the Brazilians are stirring as much rubbish as they can to make Australia appear as the bad guys. Stop with the childish politics!”

 

[Zager]

"A war? Excuse me? A fucking war? No. Are you some sort of imbecile? Do you think I want a war? No. Are you mindless? My God, you Swedes are the biggest pricks of the bunch. Listen. We only enacted economic sanctions. I'm not sure how that gets mixed up with war. They don't even sound similar, for Christ's sake."