|
| Venezuelan-Guyanese Disputes | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 20 2015, 09:47 AM (123 Views) | |
| KnightConcorde | Jul 20 2015, 09:47 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Canada
|
Permanent Representative for Canada to the United Nations | Représentant permanent du Canada auprès des Nations Unies Fellow Representatives, The Government of Canada would like to bring the topic of the Venezuelan-Guyanese disputes to the Security Councils attention. As can be seen in the Veneuzeluan Government's claim in the International Court of Justice, the dispute is reportedly about a once-thought-resolved dispute over the territory of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana west of the Essequibo River. While Canada would like to call upon our fellow member nations not to involve themselves in the proceedings of the International Court of Justice in relation to this dispute, we would like to call upon the Security Council to beginning discussing the dispute and possible ways to resolve it. We yield the floor. |
![]() |
|
| Rezim | Jul 20 2015, 01:09 PM Post #2 |
|
His Majesty King Carol I
|
![]() Rosemary A. DiCarlo Permanent Representative to the United Nations United States of America General Secretary, delegates, The United States has stated several times our intention of support for a solution through arbitration with regards to the dispute between the Venezuelan and Guyanese governments. Unfortunately, Venezuela's government has made some - frankly - preposterous claims to the International Court of Justice, including demands of everything West of the Essequibo River (two-thirds of Guyanese territory) be ceded to Venezuela and a sum of reparations that amount to $1.6 trillion US dollars. In addition to this is the aggressive rhetoric and posturing of the Venezuelan government, which has caused concern for the United States and several other nations both in the region and abroad. We have agreed in principle to cooperate with the Russian Federation to commit to a resolution in the General Assembly on the issues facing Latin America, and have stated we have no intention of taking any sort of action in Latin America. This is not the Reagan administration, nor is this the first Bush administration - the United States has no desire for conflict, especially not in Latin America. That said however, this council would be wise to maintain attention on the matter at hand, as Venezuela's language and behavior has been less than acceptable in the eyes of the international community. |
![]() |
|
| Redbirdfan | Jul 25 2015, 12:58 PM Post #3 |
|
Bundesrepublik Deutschland
|
The Republic of Korea is growing increasingly concerned with the instability coming from South America and the numerous destabilizing factors that have been harboring there for years. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Jul 25 2015, 01:09 PM Post #4 |
![]()
|
Liu Jieyi | 刘结 Permanent Representative to the United Nations | 常驻联合国 I find myself in agreement with the South Korean representative. I must ask Representative Di Carlo whether the reports that your government is planning to provide billions of dollars worth of military equipment to Brazil is a prudent step given the implications that such a step might have for the region. With so much instability and high tensions, is fuelling the fire with additional hardware the best course of action? |
![]() |
|
| Rezim | Jul 26 2015, 08:10 AM Post #5 |
|
His Majesty King Carol I
|
![]() Rosemary A. DiCarlo Permanent Representative to the United Nations United States of America Ambassador Liu, The United States has seen great progress in the region following the peace agreement between Brazil and Venezuela, which has resulted in the United States State Department feeling it appropriate to end the arms embargo against Brazil, as other nations have done so. Any sale of military equipment to Brazil at this time is equipment that was previously agreed upon to be sold to Brazil prior to the arms embargo, and with the arms embargo coming to an end, the United States is fulfilling the contract previously agreed upon with the government of Brazil. May I remind this council that when the United States seconded and supported a Dutch UNSC Resolution that would had placed a United Nations arms embargo against Brazil, it was the Chinese delegation that vetoed the resolution in these chambers at the highest point of tensions in Latin America. |
![]() |
|
| C.E | Jul 26 2015, 02:43 PM Post #6 |
![]()
|
![]() Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Mr. Secretary General, It is the position of Israel that the primary source of instability is Venezuela. While we must never forget the ill-conceived actions undertaken by the, now-former, Government of Brazil, we must commend on the actions that Brazil took to counter their own actions. We do not believe the regime in Caracas has the same ability. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Jul 27 2015, 04:08 AM Post #7 |
![]()
|
Liu Jieyi | 刘结 Permanent Representative to the United Nations | 常驻联合国 Following the announcement that Brazil had withdrawn from the disputed territories and after assurances from the German government that the Brazilian government had repented for its actions, my government did not feel that it was in the interests of the international community to slap an arms embargo on a country after the horse had bolted. It was already too late for the arms embargo to have any effect. There is a fine line between arms exports being allowed, and signing contracts to export offensive weapons systems to a country with a history of aggression against its neighbours. I ask again, with so much instability and such high tensions in South America, is fuelling the fire with additional hardware the best course of action? What defensive purpose do amphibious assault ships and stealth fighter-bombers serve? Take into account the region we are talking about; Venezuela aside, how many nations in Brazil's neighbourhood need to be deterred by dozens of stealth aircraft? Bolivia Paraguay and Uruguay have no offensive aircraft, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Peru have a handful of ageing aircraft but have not shown themselves to be likely to launch offensive operations against Brazil, while Venezuela has just been resoundingly defeated by the existing Brazilian military. Ms Di Carlo, who stands to benefit from the planned exports? The Brazilian people who will go without healthcare and education to pay for this rearmament? No, I think the true beneficiary is the American industrialists who stand to make billions of dollars from the export of expensive aircraft. Is this a price worth paying for the impending arms race, and the greater risk of instability that these exports will cause? Only you can answer that, but I look forward to hearing how you think it is. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Round 5 · Next Topic » |












12:35 AM Jul 11
