Philips Christiaan Visser

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Philips Christiaan Visser

Ambassador Philips Christiaan Visser (P.C. Visser) was the the Knootian representative in UnAPS and the UnAPS Director of Membership before Knootoss resigned. He endeavoured to negotiate a compromise between the 'anti-imperialists' (the position Knootoss had taken) and those who wanted to occupy Allanea pre-emptively. To this end, he forced a vote in UnAPS that effectively vetoed the occupation of Allanea. The speech below was adressed to the UnAPS council in order to find a solution out of the crisis.

Vissers Compromise

“First of all, I would like to apologise for calling for such an emergency vote yesterday. I am not disappointed with the turnout and it appears that member nations have spoken. As it stands now, the option to allow UnAPS nations to conquer, and annex parts of Allanea has been rejected as a minority view of about 30 percent of the member nations and almost 70% of members gave support for what has been described as temporary occupation and military presence. Understandably, we need a coherent plan for a post-war Allanean Republic.

I do not think the matter solved, however. I think we have a democratic decision now on what not to do, but I would like to heal the wounds of this debate and come together united as one alliance. Therefore I think we do need to get some form of consensus within the political bounds as they have appeared as a result of last nights vote. I hope my opponents in this matter respect the vote, and agree to work together on a workable compromise. In this spirit, I hope we can refrain from making personal attacks and questioning each others lack of patriotism. I hope this can be a constructive, ethical and realistic debate.

Now, what is important I think is to look at the situation carefully here, because we face a very difficult dilemma indeed. A counter invasion of the Republic Allanea was made primarily as the result of a military need, and not as a political decision. The Allanean population is zealous, and our analysts have done some work on possible situations.

Forced disarmament of the population would bring almost certain rebellion. Occupation by Edolian forces would do the same. I’m sorry to say so, but Edolian soldiers patrolling Allanean streets would seem to be a surefire way to a full-scale revolutions. Even if the occupation is not done by Edolians, but instead by non-hated peacekeepers from Goobergunchia of Knootoss, the revolt risk would still be about 30%. Any occupation will require finesse, and respect for cultural differences. At all times we should prevent the notion that there is an imperial boot to crush them. These figures, by the way, are supposing a temporary occupation; in Annexation the theoretical risk of firm resistance would be even higher. Quelling sustained resistance is a virtual impossibility.

I think the issue of disarming civilians deserves further elaborate discussing. There are more sides to this argument, and I’m not about to take sides on that yet until we have a framework to work with. I would request a study-group on this subject. We should above all do what is wisest.

I understand the Edolian security concerns. I really do. However the Edolian proposal supposes annexation and just presents “Knootoss” with a political fig leaf. I do not think that the opinion that annexation was not an option is held by just the government of the DDR. Instead it is shared by almost 70 percent of the UnAPS nations. As such I don’t think it would reflect the will of the alliance, nor does it do right to the idea of ‘compromise’. I do hope to find common ground with the Edolians and make sure their security concerns are properly addressed.

To quote the lofty words of the charter, we as an alliance “are brought together in the pursuit of universal human rights and for the promotion of progressive social and/or economic policies.” We have pledged “to respect the rights of all sentient beings and not to discriminate against such beings based on race or ethnicity” We have also pledged “ to oppose tyranny, aggression and imperialism wherever these vices make themselves known.”

We will have to walk a fine balance between what is possible in this spirit, and what has to be done to guarantee our fundamental security. Now, the essence of such a policy has been laid out by our Scandavian friends.

We all agree that there has to be a temporary military occupation of the country. Dividing it into occupation zones that will be "governed" by the participating UnAPS countries would also seem reasonable. However I would like to emphasise that such government would have infinitely more legitimacy if it involved local councils with local leaders prepared to work with the occupying forces. ((call it collaborators if you will.)) I think we can leave most of the day-to-day decision-making to the Allaneans themselves. They are an inventive people and they do not suddenly need UnAPS governments to decide everything for them. A facilitating role would be best. After all, their country will probably be devastated after the invasion. I would also suggest occupying forces actively aiding their regions in their rebuilding. Also; leaving most of their social institutions intact is vital to an effective rebuilding. The Allaneans have a culture that will allow them to rebuild if we help them.

However, I agree with the suggestion of military limitations as proposed to address the Edolian security risks. No fly zones, naval and infantry limitations, DMZ’s, etcetera. I’d like to leave the details in the hands of those more familiar with the local situation. The Edolians and Gooberbunchians have to share that border, after all. Permanently dismantling their nuclear capability would also seem like a good idea. Maintaining military bases in their nation as some sort of last security is also a good plan.

I’m not a proponent of referendums on my own accord, I think the results would be predictable, however If referendums are held on annexation after five years, I would suggest that Ackaxcal also gets a referendum on self-determination. They, too, would then be able to choose whether they wish to remain Edolian or become independent. This region is part of the problem, and doing this would give off a powerfull signal to the Allanean people that we have the best interests of all peoples at heart. Setting up these military sectors as separate states would be a bit illogical, but I agree that we could push for a decentralised system. Perhaps in the form of a federal republic. However strict and enforced military limitations would in our opinion be a better guarantee for Edolian security then illogically breaking up a country.

Finally, I’d like to see a constructive vision of Allanea in a few decades. Like post-war Germany I feel we should integrate it into a friendly continental structure: trade links, reconciliation with the Edolians, cultural exchanges, and perhaps even UnAPS membership in the long term. Why have enemies when you can have friends? After all, the costly prospect of keeping the Allanean people down forever though sheer military commitments isn’t something anyone is looking forward to."