| Welcome to World1945. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Egyptian - British War In Sudan | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 29 2008, 06:03 PM (1,003 Views) | |
| India | Jul 31 2008, 02:33 PM Post #31 |
|
Satyameva Jayate
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Indian representative has “accidentally tripped” over the microphone wires of the United Kingdom and the United Soviet Socialist Republic unplugging them both. It will take awhile to re-plug and configure the microphones back. During this time India suggests negotiations concerning the two de-militarized zones is discussed. After a conference with the Soviet representative; India alongside the USSR proposes the following to resolve the Egyptian-Britain dispute: First Egypt will withdraw their troops from the Sudanese land. A de-militarized zone (the location to be discussed later but the Egyptian boarder sounds the most reasonable) will be set up and maintained by the Polish and Canadians. Also a de-militarized zone will be set up in Tibet, this will be negotiated separately. On the Egyptian DMZ the Soviet Forces will supply the Polish with whatever is needed to fulfill the Peacekeeping mission except for actual manpower at the de-militarized zone while Canada will supply its own forces. Once the UN Peacekeeping forces establishes the DMZs, and the intern administration system which will be chosen a separate UN commission and aided by Britain’s suggestions is in place the British will leave Sudan. Edit: After a discussion with the British ambassador, I can see because of the British stubbornness that nothing is going to get done concerning a de-militarized zone anywhere. The British government has places too many constraints on negotiating and has threatened to use its veto power if they do not get things how they want it. I see no way to get any peaceful solution in Sudan. |
![]() |
|
| Great Britain | Jul 31 2008, 03:48 PM Post #32 |
![]()
Land of Hope and Glory
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If the governments of the world wish to think us stubborn, they are free to, they should have realized we were tenacious from the way we defended out Island against the fascist threat. We set some conditions for the peaceful closer of the Soudan issue, and we, His Majesty's Government do not believe that we can settle for anything less for it would bring many side effects that certain people do not wish to recognize. We are wiling to change our view if there is substantial evidence it would be for the best that the proposal be carried through. Up until now our pointed questions have been skirted, and we will not change the policy of His Majesty's Government obtains proof that our policy is harmful. We will continue to act as an independent government, and will not adversely change our policies at the mere pressure of other nation. |
![]() |
|
| USSR | Jul 31 2008, 04:32 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Proletarii vsekh stran, soyedinyaytes!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In front of the World, the British showed their real, their imperialist and belligerent, face. World should neither accept nor tolerate this shameless behaviour. Soviet Union made a lot of suggestions to improve the life of the poor Sudnese people, but those bullheads in London are not willing to agree to the worlds opinion. The world should exclude Great Britian from these negotiations and should pass a resoultion regardless of a British veto. This is the onliest way to find a fast and peacefull solution in Sudan. |
| Soviet Union | |
![]() |
|
| Great Britain | Jul 31 2008, 04:39 PM Post #34 |
![]()
Land of Hope and Glory
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We gave a fair counter-offer, if anything, it is you who turned down peace. For if you want peace in one place, should we not have the same in the other? |
![]() |
|
| USSR | Jul 31 2008, 04:45 PM Post #35 |
![]()
Proletarii vsekh stran, soyedinyaytes!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Your comments are scandalous, Mr. Foreign Secretary. Indeed I see little hope for a peaceful solution because of the intolerant british behaviour. Indeed our suggestion is, that UN runs the first elections after an Egyptian and British withdraw. Under UN control there will be a running administrative system and free elections, where people can decide if they choose the communist or the imperialist way of life. But, to repeat our fears, there will be not solution because of your bullheads in London. |
| Soviet Union | |
![]() |
|
| Great Britain | Jul 31 2008, 04:53 PM Post #36 |
![]()
Land of Hope and Glory
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We set out our nonnegotiable points, as we should have the right to, the area rightfully being under British Jurisdiction, and if those conditions are not met by the opposing party, we, His Majesty's Government, do not feel we have the right or the need to give in to the Communist demands. In case my colleague did not put these points before you, I shall do so here. 1) That the Sudan Demilitarized Zone would only be put into place, though a ceasefire could be arranged, if a Tibetan one, even if it is separately negotiated, is previously put into place. 2) We, the sovereign country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland would have no restrictions placed on us, by the United Nations, about of method of bringing self government to the people of Sudan. If you do not trust us to fulfill our promise to the people of the Sudan and the world, I am not sure how you can trust us to keep our word in and not violate the DM zone you proposed. |
![]() |
|
| Peoples Republic of China | Aug 1 2008, 03:40 AM Post #37 |
![]()
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The People's Republic of China has, through despatch to be brought to the UN via our Soviet friends, to be read independently by neutral faction, prepared the following statement: The People's Republic of China's internal affairs, despite warlike aggression and internationalisation by western powers, has no bearing whatsoever on events in Sudan. The Egyptian people, while freely chosing to align themselves with the world view of socialism and communsim, are not a a member of the communist bloc per se, and are thus acting within the constraints of their previous agreement. As far as we are aware, the terriotires of Sudan are a joint protecorate of the British and Egyptian people and governments. It seems therefore that, unlike Tibet where sole legal administartion is held by the People's Republic as per previous treaty, this issue has more to do with British attempts to limit soviet influence, and maximise British territory. We, the representatives of the People's Assembly and Government here in Beijing, believe that these matters should be settled independently, as they are independent issues. We have often stated, toward Great Britain in particular, that we are open to negotiations, both with the coalition and with the Tibetans. To date, these have been turned down, apparently on the grounds that more can be gained by fighting a needless war. We are quite content to negotiate regarding Tibet, but we do not believe that western unwilligness to see a peace there should put at risk other people of the world. We continue to support the Egyptians in their cause, as they have every right to increase their military representation within the regions they administer. We are aware that it was the British who started this conflict, for it was not the Egyptians who crossed into British administered areas of Sudan. The Egyptians should have just the same rights as the british, under the terms of their treaty regarding Sudan. Thus, since Suden is the question, and not Tibet, it is Sudan that should be addressed. We urge all the involved to cease their squabbles, and work for a solution- we believe that a joint agreement can easily solve the matters here. Tibet, however, remains a matter off limits to the UN. The UN was forbidden from interveneing, and the issues are not related. We are still, however, and let the world hear this, prepared to negotiate the Tibet issue. |
| [URL=http://z15.invisionfree.com/World1945/index.php?showtopic=1336&st=0]Embassy of the People's Republic of China[/URL] | |
![]() |
|
| Greece | Aug 1 2008, 04:56 AM Post #38 |
![]()
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Greece would like to have it known its public support for the UK. From the start the UK has said it will sit down to talk there as long as the same talks happen in Tibet. The self styled People's Republic of China is going on and on about how it is an internal affair but considering that Tibet is an internationally recognized sovereign country I fail to see how that can be termed as internal. Unless of course acting on claims you have on other countries has now become an "internal" matter in which case no one should stand in the way when you decide to make good on these claims. But if that is the case then the entire conflict in the Sudan is an internal matter for both the UK and Egypt and therefore the UN and the entire international community has no business in the matter at all and this should be closed and finished. Considering that the UK has vetoed any suggestions other then its own and the entire Communist bloc is pretending that the UK has not sat down to offer a fair suggestion then this will go no where. I see no point that has been brought up by the UK to be far fetched, but the USSR is ignoring it and the self styled PRC is claiming that Tibet is part of their country conveniently forgetting that Tibet is a sovereign nation that is being invaded by the PRC. I have a question to the Indian representative, please name the ways that your suggestion differs from that of the UK. Both call for a DMZ in both Tibet and Sudan, both call for separate negotiation of Tibet and Sudan, and both call for British help for setting up a self government of Sudan. So I fail to see how your proposal is any different. |
![]() |
|
| Peoples Republic of China | Aug 1 2008, 05:17 AM Post #39 |
![]()
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In response to the greek addition, we have prepared a second despatch for independent presentation: Tibet is, historically a province of China, thus the internal nature of events there is confirmed, as we are merely reunifying a nation torn apart by a civil war and Japanese invasion. While, as we have said, we are content to negotiate a settlement with the Tibetan people, on very favorable terms to them, we have been turned down at all our attempts to open negotiations. It should also be remembered that the UN does not recognize Tibet as an independent nation, regardless of the feeling of certain member states. As it stands, Tibet remains a province of China, albeit with a temporarily independent leadership. Regardless of the future of Tibet, the Sudan conflict is in no way linked- and thus the resolution of conflict there should most definitely not be in any way linked, or reliant upon, any other event, whether in Tibet or elsewhere. At this time, we offer once again to open negotiations with the Tibetan people and the invading coalition. We have no doubt that it will be turned down again, as it appears the western nations are more interested in war than peace and resolution. As demonstrated by British refusal to deal with Sudan, and resolve the issue there. We here therefore suggest that Tibet and Sudan be treated as seperate. The UN is forbidden from interferring in the situation in Tibet, although we are prepared, as we have so often said, to negotiate. Sudan is a matter that need not occur as it is, and should be settled- without tying it to irrelevant matters elsewhere. |
| [URL=http://z15.invisionfree.com/World1945/index.php?showtopic=1336&st=0]Embassy of the People's Republic of China[/URL] | |
![]() |
|
| Israel | Aug 1 2008, 06:33 AM Post #40 |
![]()
Medīnat Yisrā'el
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We support the British arguments, and declare official support for the United Kingdom on this matter. The United Nations cannot force a nation to conduct governing on its own sovereign territory one way or the other, neither it can "ignore" a veto. - Abba Eban, Israeli UN representive |
![]() |
|
| Peoples Republic of China | Aug 1 2008, 06:39 AM Post #41 |
![]()
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
ooc: a veto doesnt mean they cant discuss it- merely do nothing about it, unless the vetoing party reneges upon its veto (which is occasionally done when a better deal comes up) /ooc |
| [URL=http://z15.invisionfree.com/World1945/index.php?showtopic=1336&st=0]Embassy of the People's Republic of China[/URL] | |
![]() |
|
| Israel | Aug 1 2008, 06:55 AM Post #42 |
![]()
Medīnat Yisrā'el
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OOC: I was refering to the proposal that the British veto could be ignored regarding the DMZ decision. |
![]() |
|
| Peoples Republic of China | Aug 1 2008, 06:57 AM Post #43 |
![]()
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
ooc: ah right, sorry. missed that /ooc |
| [URL=http://z15.invisionfree.com/World1945/index.php?showtopic=1336&st=0]Embassy of the People's Republic of China[/URL] | |
![]() |
|
| USSR | Aug 1 2008, 09:04 AM Post #44 |
![]()
Proletarii vsekh stran, soyedinyaytes!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We understand that the Greek representative has to announce his, because his country is addicted to British financial aids. Just to point it out clearly: It was the USSR which brought this issue up, It was the USSR which made a clear suggestion how to solve this conflict. We suggested a UN lead mission in a DMZ. A UN leaded administration system for elections in Sudan. But those imperialist have vetoed it, because of their fear that their beloved democracy may loose against the preferences of communism. This is the onliest reason. They are scared. Just to show up, where the differences, maybe our greek friends had a long night in the taverna with some ouzo and did not get what the India-Soviet suggestion was: 1) Withdraw of Egyptian and British forces from Sudan 2) Establishing a DMZ of 10 km wide along the Egyptian - Soudanese Bourder 3) Establishing a UN-lead administration system, which prepares for elections which have to be held within the next 4 years after the start of the UN mission. 4) Control of the elections and guarantee equality between the different parties and systems. 5) Withdraw of UN members from Sudan one year after the new goverment has been sworn. All members of the UN are naturally allowed to bring in suggestions in that Administration system. It has always been the policy of the Soviet Union not to make problems more complex than they are. Thus we see t he needs for talks about the Tibet issue but condemn the mixing of two completly different problems. This is not very effective in finding a solution. |
| Soviet Union | |
![]() |
|
| Great Britain | Aug 1 2008, 01:37 PM Post #45 |
![]()
Land of Hope and Glory
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Unfortunately, we still have not received a satisfactory non-rhetorical reply to why the British setting up of an administration, which worked to fine effect in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other places, is not suitable also for the Sudan? Unless perhaps Mr Stalin wishes force communism on the people also? Either way, his statement is correct, I will take no chances that a Communistic Government will be set up on British held territory. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The United Nations · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)








7:24 PM Jul 11