Motion on the Status of the Strait of Adventuranza
-
As the representative of a nation whose warships are currently deployed in the Strait of Adventuranza, I feel it is my duty to at least weigh in on this discussion.
The Empire of Inimicus and its Imperial Navy responded to a call from the government of the Kingdom of Spain to patrol the Strait of Adventuranza while a diplomatic solution to the ownership dispute was sought. The Imperial Navy has not engaged another nation's vessels, it has not conducted inspections of other nations' vessels, it has not blocked other nations' vessels from entering the Strait, that is not why they are in the region. They are there to respond in case of escalation and to increase the Spanish Armada's ability to conduct whatever operations it deems necessary. Our vessels have been present in the Strait for nearly two weeks as of today, and no incidents or issues have been reported.
As we know, discussions between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Yosai are ongoing. Hopefully, these talks will conclude with a peaceful resolution as soon as practicable. I think everyone in this room, perhaps barring representatives from the Kingdom of Reitzmag, see a peaceful, diplomatic solution as the only possible way out of this situation.
It is therefore even more surprising that the Republic of Yosai would have requested the additional presence of Reitzmic vessels in the Strait -- would the Republic not have recognised that this is an intensely inflammatory action to take? Perhaps, as a new member of our European family of nations, the Republic of Yosai is somewhat more unfamiliar with the antics and dangerous threats and deployments of Simon Bridges' Reitzmic government, and this, if anything, is understandable. It will no longer be understandable, however, if human lives are lost because of Reitzmic involvement in the Straits.
I would be grateful for clarification from Cllr Miwako on the following: 1) did her government request the presence of Reitzmic forces in the Strait? 2) if so, why did her government think this was a prudent step to take? 3) what were the aims of her government when asking for Reitzmic military presence in the area, if they in fact did so?
I also utterly and wholeheartedly reject the statement made by the government of Reitzmag in which the suggestion is made that Imperial Navy vessels have entered the territorial waters of Yosai. This is a falsehood. I can unequivocally confirm that no Imperial Navy vessel has entered, or will ever enter, the territorial waters of the Republic of Yosai. Claiming that this is the case is nothing but a disgusting smear on the integrity and professionalism of the Imperial Armed Forces, which, as you all know, are only deployed at the highest possible standards of efficiency, leadership, and prudence.
As for this Motion itself, the Empire of Inimicus sees no particular issue with it, except that I feel a temporary legal status of the Straits would not factually help the resolution of the situation we find ourselves in. The only thing that would help that is the withdrawal of Reitzmag from the region. Given that the Reitzmic navy has confirmed it will not do so unless the Imperial Navy vacates the Strait, you may keep an eye on the Imperial Press Briefing Room for a timely response.
Cllr Nicholas Benfield
Empire of Inimicus -
Thanks for the clarification, Councillor Tilkanas. Spain will be then supporting this motion.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Councillor Izumi Miwako spke
"Let it be known that the only reason why we called Reitzmag's navy over is to help assist us in maintaining territorial integrity in the face of both Spanish and Inimicus ships fleet being present and having the potential to encroach in further into Yosai's potion of the waters. Yosai's portion being totally ignored when the Kingdom of Spain unilaterally claimed without any consideration of its neighbor in the South, waters which include our coastline. Yes there is not agreement prior, but what they are automatically saying with this claim of the entire Strait for themselves is that might makes right and they can o as they wish. I ask any of you, deep down, Does this make for good policy? Does this foster good relations? If you were in Yosai's position what would you think? "
What happens if there is no resolution met by either parties? Does Spain take it all regardless by force? What message does that send. Would might make right? Is that a Europe that people want to live in for those who are less powerful to maintain their claims to sovereignty? The fact is that Spain claims the entire Strait, purely out of the principle that yes might makes right and everyone else just needs to get out of our way and comply with our rules of taxation and maritime procedure. Without any consideration that they have a neighbour who disagrees with that assessment.
Therefore I show my support with this motion. Until such an agreement where both parties agree to a peaceful resolution where both parties can benefit. The waters will be an international zone. "
Izumi Miwako
Councillor of the Federal Republic of Yosai -
I may suggest Cllr. Miwako to stop playing a victim role in the European Council and say all the truth instead than the one she is interested on telling the European Union member states. A few minutes ago, the honourable member has stated that "Yosai's portion being totally ignored when the Kingdom of Spain unilaterally claimed without any consideration of its neighbor in the South", which is incorrect. Yosai joined the European Union after the claim was already done, therefore this is complete manipulation. But there is something more, and this situation has been taking place for months without anybody complaining. Maybe ignorance or victimising, what is the real purpose of this unsustained accusations, Cllr. Miwako?
I will not comment the other unsustained accusations, as it seems our newest member came here to start a theatre show that this Council did not see since Councillor van Allen from Reitzmag left the house, someone who always sticked to this principle: "Spain bad, everyone who supports them bad, myself good". Seems like self-criticism is no longer a thing in our newest members, ladies and gentlemen.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Izumi then replied "Ok Mr Tusk, lets asume that talks break down. Hypothetically, what happens when neither side can agree to a solution that benefits both of them mutually? What happens then? Does the situation stay as it is? Does the EU intervene? Is it left for both Spain and Yosai to what? Take military action which neither side would want? What happens? I'm merely asking questions here."
-
Councillor Miwako, it is all written in the motion Cllr. Tilkanas has submitted and that we are debating, I think its wording is pretty understandable, and suggesting that other things might happen is not a great sign coming from the other side of this negotiation. If the Republic of Yosai is not interested to look like a poor victim of a said "Spanish imperialism and thoughtlessness", then I do not understand why it is so difficult for you to read. As it says in Section I, Article I of this motion, "Until the production of a final settlement of the ultimate sovereignty of the Strait of Adventuranza, agreed to by both the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Yosai, the European Union declares the Strait of Adventuraza a zone over which no entity holds sovereignty over. Traffic and trade in this zone may be regulated only by treaty that all state actors conducting trade and traffic through the zone agree to while this motion is active."
Now, the question is: does the Republic of Yosai really want an agreement or are they just playing the role of the negotiating hand to look like a victim or a disrespected country, to sell that impression to the rest of our European colleagues? Because if we take the words from their Councillor here and we take into account the actions Yosai has taken in the last 2 days that made everything escalate, it seems not. Once again, I am making clear the Spanish stance, we want to reach an agreement on the Strait, and my country is working hard to achieve it. But again, it is impossible and even concerning when the other part leaves a door open for not reaching an agreement.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Izumi Miwako
"Let it be known that my government has no objection to the Straits of Adventuranza being an international zone where not entity hold sovereignty over. I made that stance perfectly clear at the start of the motion. What we have trouble with is one nation claiming sovereignty over the entire Strait without considering the other party. I can assure you that if positions were reversed we wouldn't make such a claim. I wish we can say the same about the Spanish position but here we are. I ask again. What happens if an agreement is not reached? If the Strait of Adventuranza strait just stays as an international zone which no nation holds any sovereignty over then my government would support such a motion. Is that the correct interpretation Mr Tusk? Again merely asking questions."
-
Section I, Article I of the Motion on the Status of the Strait of Adventuranza.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
The Kingdom of Spain has announced an intention to propose an amendment to this motion, which in all likelihood will allow it to impose its tax in international waters. Given that this is piracy, I will not vote for any such amendments.
I would, however, be happy if the Kingdom showed maturity in its actions and does not do such things; this, however, seems unlikely.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I'd like to raise the concern regarding sovereign integrity for both the Kingdom of Spain and Federal Republic of Yosai. The wordings under Section I, Paragraphs 4 to 5, will make this motion effective to all their coasts. I believe that this motion shall only extend to a certain part of their coasts within the Strait of Adventuranza. Therefore, I urge my fellow councilors to submit amendments to reflect such necessary specifications. Without these, it will effectively prevent both countries from exercising sovereignty over other parts of their coasts that are not within the area of concern.
Yuridiana Yahontov
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
I would like to request a debate extension.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Councillor Izumi Miwako spoke her peace.
"I would second the request from Councillor Tilkanas for a debate extension. We support any resolution which allows both the Federal Republic of Yosai and the Kingdom of Spain equal share of the Strait of Adventuranza or Red Strait and allowing both nations the freedom to conduct and impliment their own laws in their respective portions of the waters in said Strait. Nothing more or less. It's that simple."
-
Debate will be extended for 24 hours, until 22:52 GMT on November 8th, 2021.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
[OOC: edits for formatting issues]
I propose the following amendments:
AMENDMENT I
The name of this motion shall be changed to "Motion on the Status of the Red Strait," in place of its present name.
AMENDMENT II
PREAMBLE
A motion to temporarily create an international zone in the
Strait of AdventuranzaRed Strait in order to prevent an outbreak of conflict, in consideration of the recent deployment of Inimican and Reitzmic naval forces, as well as the current dispute, in the region.SECTION I: The Internationality of the Strait
I. Until the production of a final settlement of the ultimate sovereignty of the
Strait of AdventuranzaRed Strait, agreed to by both the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Yosai, the European Union declares theStrait of AdventurazaRed Strait a zone over which no entity holds sovereignty over. Traffic and trade in this zone may be regulated only by treaty that all state actors conducting trade and traffic through the zone agree to while this motion is active.II. The above excludes the harbors and ports of the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Yosai, as well as associated islands in the
Strait of AdventurazaRed Strait.III. A moratorium on the exploitation of maritime resources 12 nm from any coastlines as long as the territory remains without defined sovereignty, will exist.
IV. The Kingdom of Spain will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
V. The Federal Republic of Yosai will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
SECTION II: On a Final Settlement
I. Upon the creation of a final settlement on the ultimate sovereignty of the
Strait of AdventuranzaRed Strait, agreed to by both the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Yosai, this motion will be made null and void, and will be superceded by said final settlement.
AMENDMENT III
III. A moratorium on the exploitation of maritime resources 12 nm from any coastlines along and within the Red Strait as long as the
territoryRed Strait remains without defined sovereignty, will exist.IV. The Kingdom of Spain will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines along and within the Red Strait, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
V. The Federal Republic of Yosai will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines along and within the Red Strait, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
Firstly, I do not think it is appropriate for the Union to be using the name "Strait of Adventuranza," which was a name first developed by Spanish explorers in the 1400s before promptly disappearing into the annals of history for the next 600 or so years, resurfacing only in the year 2020, when it was used by the Kingdom of Spain after it claimed major parts of the strait. This name is presently being used to justify the claims to the Strait; the EU should not endorse any claims at all, and thus should not be using this name. The name "Red Strait" has been used in its place, as it predates the Spanish name, if I understand it correctly, was more common prior to 2020, and does not carry the same political connotations.
My third amendment addresses the concerns of Councillor Yahontov.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
It seems that someone in the room has turned crazy about imperialism and piracy, trying to even accuse me of such things without knowing what my amendment will be about. It is, in fact, insulting to me that I am accused or my country is accussed of piracy for trying to submit an amendment. However, I love to prove people wrong from time to time, and today Councillor Tilkanas, I think it will be you who will be proved wrong, as it is not on the Spanish interests to establish a European level tax. These are my amendments:
Amendment I
IV. The Kingdom of Spain will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines along and within the Strait of Adventuranza, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
Amendment II
V. The Federal Republic of Yosai will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines along and within the Strait of Adventuranza, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
Amendment III
IV. The Kingdom of Spain will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines along and within the Strait of Adventuranza, having sovereignty over this area.
but will not have sovereignty over this area.
Debate is now over. It is time to vote on amendments. There are SIX amendments, which have been proposed by Councillor Tilkanas and myself, Councillor Tusk. The amendments are thus:
Amendment I - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
IV. The Kingdom of Spain will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines along and within the Strait of Adventuranza, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
Amendment II - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
V. The Federal Republic of Yosai will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines along and within the Strait of Adventuranza, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
Amendment III - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
IV. The Kingdom of Spain will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines along and within the Strait of Adventuranza, having sovereignty over this area.
but will not have sovereignty over this area.Amendment IV - Proposed by Cllr. Tilkanas
The name of this motion shall be changed to "Motion on the Status of the Red Strait," in place of its present name.
Amendment V - Proposed by Cllr. Tilkanas
PREAMBLE
A motion to temporarily create an international zone in the
Strait of AdventuranzaRed Strait in order to prevent an outbreak of conflict, in consideration of the recent deployment of Inimican and Reitzmic naval forces, as well as the current dispute, in the region.SECTION I: The Internationality of the Strait
I. Until the production of a final settlement of the ultimate sovereignty of the
Strait of AdventuranzaRed Strait, agreed to by both the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Yosai, the European Union declares theStrait of AdventurazaRed Strait a zone over which no entity holds sovereignty over. Traffic and trade in this zone may be regulated only by treaty that all state actors conducting trade and traffic through the zone agree to while this motion is active.II. The above excludes the harbors and ports of the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Yosai, as well as associated islands in the
Strait of AdventurazaRed Strait.III. A moratorium on the exploitation of maritime resources 12 nm from any coastlines as long as the territory remains without defined sovereignty, will exist.
IV. The Kingdom of Spain will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
V. The Federal Republic of Yosai will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
SECTION II: On a Final Settlement
I. Upon the creation of a final settlement on the ultimate sovereignty of the
Strait of AdventuranzaRed Strait, agreed to by both the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Yosai, this motion will be made null and void, and will be superceded by said final settlement.Amendment VI - Proposed by Cllr. Tilkanas
III. A moratorium on the exploitation of maritime resources 12 nm from any coastlines along and within the Red Strait as long as the
territoryRed Strait remains without defined sovereignty, will exist.IV. The Kingdom of Spain will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines along and within the Red Strait, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
V. The Federal Republic of Yosai will be recognized as having exclusive rights for the exploitation of maritime resources conducted within 12 nm from its coastlines along and within the Red Strait, but will not have sovereignty over this area.
Voting on amendments will commence NOW and will last until 22:52 GMT on November 11th, 2021.
I vote FOR amendments I, II and III and AGAINST amendments IV, V and VI.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
The intention is for this to be impermanent, not a permanent solution. I vote FOR Amendments IV, V, and VI, and AGAINST all other amendments.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I vote FOR Amendments IV, V, VI and AGAINST all other amendments.
Yuridiana Yahontov
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
I vote FOR Amendments I,II and III and AGAINST all other amendments.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe,Councillour for United Duchies -
The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR Amendments I, II, and III, and AGAINST all other Amendments.
Nicholas Benfield
Cllr for Inimicus -
The Archrepublic of Vayinaod votes as follows: FOR Amendments IV, V, VI and AGAINST all other amendments.
Carita Falk
Councilor for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod
The Kingdom of Spain
