Asia and Oceania OOC

about the "registered" in the UN part, it was claimed by Forkorus Yaboisembut during his trial.
However, to my knowledge, the steps needed to register a country to the un is:

1. Submitting a request to the Secretary-general which contain acknowledgement to the UN Charter
2. UNSC responds to the application, it has to receive 9 approval from 15 members and no veto from any 5 permanent members
3. If approved by UNSC, it has to be approved by 2/3 of the General Assembly member
4. Wait for the resolution

Frankly, other than Indonesia, the one who lost the most if Papua is separated from Indonesia is, United States..
Hint: Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc

Because, the goal of the FPM (other than separation) is to reject economic development and modernity as well as to eliminate non-native populations in the island. source: wiki.

Where in that source does it specify that Japan's spy satellites can determine the identify of someone onboard an aircraft?

If the aircraft was painted bright pink and had been flown officially as Kim Jong-un's personal aircraft many times, sure, it would be possible. But since there is no mention that Kim Jong-un has any markers on his aircraft, it is impossible for you to determine the identity of who is onboard the aircraft through satellite reconnaissance. If we simply ignore the impossibility of this, that sets a rather dangerous precedence.

Also, satellite reconnaissance has not changed that much since 1997. The methods are still the same (Radar and Cameras) the resolution (Israeli spy satellites can supposedly get resolutions below .5 meters. But they still wouldn't tell you if an aircraft belonged to Kim Jong-un.

Also, said article from 1997 is still valid, as the result of resolutions does not change from 1997 to 2012.

I don't know why we are doing this, but ok, let's see...

Yes, this source does not specify that Japan's spy satellites can determine the identify of someone onboard an aircraft, but it does specify that a modern U.S. spy satellite can, given clear skies and a good viewing angle, probably read a license plate from space. If that 1997 article is valid, so does my one, it answer your next question about the resolutions, why don't you take my article into account?

We gather information from a variety of sources, unlike the United States government:D, do you agree I can gain Kim's information from other sources?(e.g. someone saw Kim's fat ass exit the aircraft in Seoul) If your answer is yes, the only problem we have here is I didn't mention every tiny detail in the newspaper, which it often happens in real world...

There's nothing thats going to be lost regarding that mine if West Papua gains independence.
It will be one of the main sources of income for the West Papua government.

And you can't just stop decades of human rights abuses like that, with a few trials of people who aren't the shot callers and some "training" program....the abuses go on imo.

Freeport is one of the main reason of why those rebellion and unrest happened in the first place. I don't believe they will accept a corporation that has been "robbing" them of their resources.

And that is why i called it "training program" and inviting international human rights organization. this will take a looongg time.
As for the usage of the word : "training", well.. I can't find any better word for it..

In other words, I still doesn't yet have any idea on what kind of "training" that needs to be done in order to reduce the human rights violation.
All I know is, the rules and regulation are already in place, but like all other Indonesian problem, the enforcement of the rules is flawed. But for the other reasons, i just don't know yet

as for the "shot caller", since this issues has already happened from Soeharto's era, it will be very hard to investigate, IMO

The freeport mine has only been in operation since 1973.
The first attack against it happened in 77.

The UN agreement with Indonesia and the Netherlands is from the 1960's.
1 year of UN rule. 6 years of Indonesian rule, at the end of which a referendum should have happened in West Papua.

The referendum did not happen, a mock/sham referendum happened where the people taking part were threatened to vote against independence or else.

The oppression, killings, torture, rape has continued to this day.

Why wouldn't they attack Indonesia's economic interests on their lands?

The contract was signed in 1967.

and here's article that show the general attitude towards freeport :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14417718

Your article vindicates my position.

And the US is on side, here, IC, in the game. And US foreign policy reflects it's interests regarding natural resources. Aus, US, allied troops on the ground, means protection for Freeport mine.
Supporting the West Papuan struggle, also relieves a lot of the anti-Freeport(US) sentiment.

That's all I'm saying, I'm not going to deal with this OOC.
It is an IC thing.

Stop it. Both of you seem like you are influenced by your real world opinion, which should definitely not be the case when role-playing a country. Indonesia and Australia have gotten along despite differing stances in the West Papua situation ever since it began.

Role-play it realistically guys.

^Problem starts now when people interfere because they think there is a problem.
We are having a civil discussion on the issue, which I don't really wish to continue in an OOC context because it distracts from the IC stuff. Hence why I said so.
I personally could not care less, beyond general sympathy, for West Papua. Sp no, I'm not influenced by my personal opinion.

Being realistic and doing a carbon copy of the real world are two different things.
The point of nation role play is to simulate a country within certain parameters. Nothing we have done so far, has been outside of those parameters.
Australia raising the issue with Indonesia and other allies, is within those parameters.
Australia declaring war on Indonesia over the issue is outside of those parameters.

What makes you think Australia and Indonesia are not getting along IG?
Read my news posts, it's not the government saying anything about canceling agreements etc.
Indonesias government also, has not said anything negative about Australia.

I don't see a problem.

I don't see a problem right now either. TheOne isn't exactly using a news paper of well repute in some of his antics (on par with The Guardian) and it would be unsurprising to see some of this stuff in that tabloid anyhow. Bleeding hearts and all.

If that really is the case, then i'm glad. I must have been reading the posts wrong then.

By the way, I would be completely supporting Australia right now and be vocal about it in the UNGA if I hadn't just purchased dozens of APC's and other military goodies from Indonesia

Australian newspapers and media in general has taken a bit of a dive in recent times, I'm trying to continue the downward spiral sort of.

Anyway, it's all good.

I think you will find that there is only one police service in New Zealand due to its size, individual cities do not run their own as in America.

District - Department, I regard those as interchangeable.

I'm surprised how little attention the announcement of Australia potentially getting nuclear subs has gotten in the region.
Good in that it can embolden the government to go further.

I'll pencil you in for a Ford class.

You must have read my mind, because in the back of my mind I was actually wondering what reaction I would get if I ordered a Queen Elizabeth Class from the UK.

I sure as hell wouldn't mind. It'd be a more viable suggestion than a Ford, and could come with EMALS too

Just a shame it would take about 30 years to get into service. They're looking at mid 2020s before the QEII becomes fully operational, only in Britain...only BAe...Try not to cry Bugs. There's plenty more on it, the program is a shambles and there's nothing that can be done about it (That's a reference to us poor Brits and not you.)

At this point, Britain really would stand the best benefit by utilizing that new Treaty on Strategic Cooperation with France to jointly-develop sophisticated defense equipment. In fact, all of Europe would stand to benefit from more comprehensive military integration. None of them can afford to go it alone anymore, absent the threat of Soviet invasion.

Yeah, I saw about the rumours on the QEII. It'd make sense to have the first QE come in for operating the F-35B, while the later one gets equipped with EMALS and the C for use with the RAF and FAA. I'm curious as to how things will change. That SDSR came out in the middle of an economic crisis afterall. Presuming Britain is on some everlasting fucktrip is a bit base I think.

I believe you are mistaken Chris the carriers themselves are ahead of schedule, the shipyards are really doing a good job, the only delays are the decision of what they are putting on the top. HMS Queen Elizabeth will be delivered in 2016 ready for training (long term due to the size of the thing).

Its not the program but the politicians in shambles.

On Dax that would probably never work at the moment, Eurosceptism is already growing - the words 'further european cooperation' will send your party down the polls.

Just a shame it would take about 30 years to get into service. They're looking at mid 2020s before the QEII becomes fully operational, only in Britain...only BAe...Try not to cry Bugs. There's plenty more on it, the program is a shambles and there's nothing that can be done about it (That's a reference to us poor Brits and not you.)

A third QE would have to be built by a third party, say Korea, as neither Australia nor Britain will have enough shipyards. All of Britain’s main warship yards are presently occupied by the Queen Elizabeth or the remaining Type 45s with the latter gradually switching over to the Prince of Wales. In 2015/2016 the QE yards will be finished and will begin to transition to the Type 26 and also the second wave of new RFA vessels which are likely to be built in Britain, things like the Argus replacement, the Diligence replacement (An easy job for RR/H&W) and maybe a couple of new tankers depending on need. Meanwhile in Australia it is very clearly AWD-FFG/H with the heavy landing craft requirement and probably some new patrol boats filling the slight void in the middle.

Again on the comment regarding their operating capacity of the Queen Elizabeth, Chris you read too much of the scaremongering in the Guardian and similar tabloids. This blog you will find tends to cover more of the actual issues taking out all the politics and nonsense from Fleet Street. As long as the decision is made within the next six months or so the carriers will be ready on schedule leaving it solely up to the Americans to have the aircraft raring to go.

Libya demonstrated in full that even with their reduced numbers Britain and France maintain an impressive naval projection ability and are still very potent forces. The SDSR has increased the availability of the carriers, surprisingly, as the scrapping of HMS Ark Royal removed all crewing issues and has meant that already this year HMS Illustrious has made her first major overseas deployment to Norway taking a substantial fleet with her and that HMS Ocean is prepping out for the Olympics come the Summer. The vessels will then deploy together alongside at least two French carriers/LHDs, with one more than likely to be the Charles de Gualle so long as maintenance is not an issue, throughout the Mediterranean before returning home for the Summer Olympics where HMS Ocean will be actively deployed alongside the Bulwark and HMS Illustrious will be sitting with the response force conducting training exercises off the British coast.

Australia is going to get more then "some patrol boats" to fill the void.
A bunch of vessels are going to be replaced by a single multipurpose vessel.
I don't know if I'll go that same route. Seems a head fuck to me as opposed to doing my own thing.

I feel like getting BAE(UK) in on developing a light-medium 'proper' carrier, but as we know rounds don't last that long and that would therefore be a rather big waste of time and resources. But it would be nice having a HMAS Australia flagship and HMAS Gallipoli sistership.

I was basing it on the
SDSR

It's not so much listening to the scaremongering as knowing that if there is one company on the planet capable of delivering something late, badly constructed, not fit for purpose and way over budget it's BAe.