Canberra Naval Conference

Here embassies reside and treaties are posted.
Post Reply
User avatar
Useful Dave
Hoxhaist
Hoxhaist
Posts: 38
Joined: 19:19:41 Saturday, 20 August, 2016

Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Useful Dave » 22:28:55 Thursday, 13 October, 2016

Image
Given the recent programs of naval expansion from many Asian states, and the issues which have arisen from such, Australia feels that it has reached such a point that official talks should be placed upon such matters, and so it is that we invite those nations, and others bordering the Pacific – though more may attend – to Canberra for a conference regarding just what these efforts of military expansion mean for the region, what concerns us, how we may allay such feelings, and hopefully, come to a collective treaty to be placed into law regulating naval armament throughout the region to prevent further disarray.

In particular, we would wish for delegations from the following nations specifically to attend in order to deal with the current affairs.
  • China
    India
    Japan
    North Korea
    Russia
    South Korea
    Taiwan, China
    United States
While we may continue without the listed nations attending, we feel that their absence may either result in a less comprehensive view of the situation, or stemmy attempts for a mutual agreement when parties in region whom would be effected fail to apply themselves. We are sure however, that all nations agree that action should be taken upon this situation.
Last edited by Useful Dave on 21:08:33 Thursday, 20 October, 2016, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Zhukar
Anarcho-Communist
Anarcho-Communist
Posts: 51
Joined: 00:18:39 Tuesday, 23 August, 2016

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Zhukar » 23:32:09 Thursday, 13 October, 2016

Chinese Taipei shall be sending a delegation to attend, and hopefully achieve a lasting de-escalation of the hostile climate reigning in the Pacific.
Russian Republic, KR
South Korea, MG
Polish People's Republic, 85

Huojin
General Secretary
General Secretary
Posts: 3399
Joined: 07:30:29 Thursday, 02 August, 2012

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Huojin » 23:52:33 Thursday, 13 October, 2016

Image

Republic of India
The Republic of India is eager to attend any conference that will seek to address the dangerous growth of military power in the Pacific region. However, before we can confirm our attendance, we must request that the proper listing of invited parties be amended to include "Taiwan, China". While we recognise the use of the phrase "Chinese Taipei" for sporting endeavours, it prompts considerable confusion to include it in this present listing. Further, in accordance with the mutually agreed 1992 Consensus, the Republic of India maintains our agreement with One China principle - as do many other nations, including, it should be noted, every other invited nation. We do not wish to muddy the waters in this regard, nor open this debate to the appropriate terminology to be used - and therefore request the standard convention be adhered to.

It would be unfortunate for these proceedings to devolve into a terminology dispute, after all - and we are certain that all parties are eager to discuss these matters productively.

User avatar
Serenissima
England Expects Every Man Will Do His Duty
Posts: 1223
Joined: 23:49:08 Wednesday, 17 April, 2013
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Serenissima » 16:17:05 Friday, 14 October, 2016

Image

Japan supports this Australian initiative fully, and recognises the confusion around the proper reference to the governing body on the island of Taiwan. We do believe that the precise terminology used, while important, is a distraction, and the actual intent and meaning of the Australian proposal and wording - clearly intended to avoid causing offence to any party involved - is clear. We suggest continuing with business rather than being tied up and delayed with semantics.

We do, however, suggest the invitation of the governments of the Korean peninsula would be a good step towards making this conference more complete, though other armament programmes that are presently in progress sadly appear to be outside the remit of this naval conference.

As an initial proposal, we believe that an agreement along similar lines to the Washington Naval Treaty establishing a ratio for each naval force would be the most sensible option to avoid an arms race. Tonnage limits are no longer meaningful in the twenty-first century, due to the changed nature of warfare and navies in the present day. We believe that Japan has an equal right to defend its coastline and international trade - as well as Japanese territories across the Pacific - as any other nation.
"Imagine lies, and then write them down in order. That is literally all authors do!"

Serenissima's WW2 BoP: The GM (obviously)
Metal Gear BoP: Japan
V4: Hubèrt d'Amboise
Interesting Times: Rektor Hedvika Nováková of the Universita
Reconquista: King Vermudo of Leon-Galicia
1985 BoP: ☭☭☭☭

Cephal
The Commandant
Posts: 183
Joined: 22:26:56 Friday, 03 August, 2012

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Cephal » 15:00:29 Saturday, 15 October, 2016

The United States will attend the conference.
France BoP 1968

User avatar
Coin
Mise, Pangur Bán agus PILOT WHALES
Posts: 1500
Joined: 14:15:01 Thursday, 02 August, 2012

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Coin » 10:40:39 Sunday, 16 October, 2016

Provided the issues over the Chinese province of Taiwan are resolved, we shall gladly attend.

User avatar
Tellos
Stalinist
Stalinist
Posts: 323
Joined: 22:24:36 Sunday, 31 March, 2013

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Tellos » 11:00:15 Sunday, 16 October, 2016

The Russian Federation has a concern given we maintain trade in more than one body of water. Pacific, Atlantic and black sea. So how might this affect any such ratio?
United States of America - BOP 1830

United States of America - BOP 1935

Russian Federation - BOP Metal Gear

Huojin
General Secretary
General Secretary
Posts: 3399
Joined: 07:30:29 Thursday, 02 August, 2012

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Huojin » 12:49:31 Sunday, 16 October, 2016

Image

Republic of India
We would anticipate that any limitations placed on the Russian Federation would be limited to the size of the Russian Pacific Fleet as based out of Vladivostok.

However we feel it important not to get ahead of ourselves - few nations, if any aside from Japan, have endorsed the idea of a cap or ratio quota that nations are permitted to maintain. As the world saw in the last World War, such methods are hardly foolproof. Indeed, they may be obsolete in the 21st century. Unless an acceptable proposal on the matter can be decided, such talk may prove fruitless.

User avatar
Zhukar
Anarcho-Communist
Anarcho-Communist
Posts: 51
Joined: 00:18:39 Tuesday, 23 August, 2016

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Zhukar » 02:36:56 Tuesday, 18 October, 2016

If permitted, the Republic of Korea will gladly send a delegation.
Russian Republic, KR
South Korea, MG
Polish People's Republic, 85

User avatar
Useful Dave
Hoxhaist
Hoxhaist
Posts: 38
Joined: 19:19:41 Saturday, 20 August, 2016

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Useful Dave » 23:58:48 Tuesday, 18 October, 2016

Image
The mistaken wording regarding Taiwan has been corrected to the currently understood standard, and the twinned Koreas are certainly welcome, encouraged even to join in the discussion. Now that those primarily concerned have confirmed their attendance, I feel we can move onto the meat of the subject.

That is the current perceived state of naval tension within the Pacific, understanding that this was brought forth by the recent expansion of the Japanese and Taiwanese navies, the question that I would wish to pose to those currently assembled is, what makes these developments so apparently destabilising? This question has to be asked, given that neither navy expanded past an extent of two-thirds the size of the Chinese navy in region. Further viewpoints should allow for a more rounded view on the situation.

User avatar
Coin
Mise, Pangur Bán agus PILOT WHALES
Posts: 1500
Joined: 14:15:01 Thursday, 02 August, 2012

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Coin » 15:43:47 Thursday, 20 October, 2016

Useful Dave wrote:
Image
The mistaken wording regarding Taiwan has been corrected to the currently understood standard, and the twinned Koreas are certainly welcome, encouraged even to join in the discussion. Now that those primarily concerned have confirmed their attendance, I feel we can move onto the meat of the subject.

That is the current perceived state of naval tension within the Pacific, understanding that this was brought forth by the recent expansion of the Japanese and Taiwanese navies, the question that I would wish to pose to those currently assembled is, what makes these developments so apparently destabilising? This question has to be asked, given that neither navy expanded past an extent of two-thirds the size of the Chinese navy in region. Further viewpoints should allow for a more rounded view on the situation.
Image
We would ask that it be amended correctly, to "Taiwan, China", before continuing. If corrected, we shall answer the point regarding the naval expansion by 100% of these two forces, with further increases planned.

It is further our position to welcome the two governments of the Korean Peninsula to the discussions, should they be willing.

User avatar
Useful Dave
Hoxhaist
Hoxhaist
Posts: 38
Joined: 19:19:41 Saturday, 20 August, 2016

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Useful Dave » 21:31:43 Thursday, 20 October, 2016

Image
Alterations regarding phrasing made, we feel it is worth noting that Japan has stated their intent for no further increase past the current, although we cannot speak for the Taiwanese, we would agree with the notion that expansion past their current point of production might be seen as excessive.While each case of naval expansion was certainly large relative to itself, in comparison to their direct counterparts – North Korea in Japan's case, and China with regard to Taiwan – neither navy gains an especially impressive lead. Where before Japan's navy was two-thirds the size of North Korea's, now it is that third larger, merely a shift in the previously existent dynamic to the other foot. Taiwan however, goes from being a third of the size of the Chinese navy, to two-thirds. An insufficient margin to launch an offensive strike for example, but enough to ensure a solid deterrent against all but the most determined assault – and yet in doing so, tying down the majority of the Chinese navy, given the slim margin for supremacy.

Here, while a case can be made for Japan's requirements regarding a nation which has placed multiple threats of destruction both against Japan and other nations, we ultimately must note that China has not placed such notions before Taiwan regardless of political differences, and understanding the concept of the fleet in being, the Taiwanese navy ties down a force relative to it's own size. Thus, we would, from this perspective, personally recommend the Taiwanese build-up to be halved, ultimately leaving the navy half the size of China's. Given that rarely are 100% of a fleet's units ready at any one time, this should be suitable for both nation's needs.

User avatar
Tellos
Stalinist
Stalinist
Posts: 323
Joined: 22:24:36 Sunday, 31 March, 2013

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Tellos » 23:19:28 Thursday, 20 October, 2016

The Russian Federation withdraws from the conference.
United States of America - BOP 1830

United States of America - BOP 1935

Russian Federation - BOP Metal Gear

User avatar
Serenissima
England Expects Every Man Will Do His Duty
Posts: 1223
Joined: 23:49:08 Wednesday, 17 April, 2013
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Canberra Naval Conference

Post by Serenissima » 18:26:09 Sunday, 06 November, 2016

Image

The continued refusal by the People's Republic of China to discuss any sort of terms, nor even make any proposals, is deeply concerning, especially given the revelations about their relationship to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the recent nuclear test, and the lack of any diplomatic response.

Our concern, at present, is that the People's Republic is merely paying lip service to the cause of peace, while being unwilling to resolve matters through diplomacy and discussion. The refusal to attend the Hiroshima Conference, similarly, is a cause for worry. The hand of peace, diplomacy and friendship has been extended.

We urge China to either respond to the proposals made, present a proposal of its own, or make its refusal to speak of peace clear, and withdraw from the conference.

Update statement Q1 2007: Given the continued refusal of the Chinese government to negotiate on this matter, we will have unilateral parity.
"Imagine lies, and then write them down in order. That is literally all authors do!"

Serenissima's WW2 BoP: The GM (obviously)
Metal Gear BoP: Japan
V4: Hubèrt d'Amboise
Interesting Times: Rektor Hedvika Nováková of the Universita
Reconquista: King Vermudo of Leon-Galicia
1985 BoP: ☭☭☭☭

Post Reply

Return to “International Diplomacy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests