Proposition For Cross Asian Partnership (CAP)

Scroll to see replies

Yes, but it was just an idea in the pipeline and this is the more refined version to include an Eastern world bloc including both Asian and Australasian countries.

Could you include Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran into the CAP? I see you're very accomodating for other South Asian countries.

Reply 21

Kiss

Original post by spike_spiegel

Could you include Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran into the CAP? I see you're very accomodating for other South Asian countries.

I thought Afghanistan and Pakistan were already?

The reason I didn't include Iran is because I thought it was part of the Arab League and would have enough involvement in that. I could ammend things but Iran is more of an Arab/Middle East interest area than one of these countries in the COAP.

Reply 22

spike_spiegel

Iran does indeed have links to both the Arab world and Central Asia. Fair enough..

Members and Outside Parties

The following have immediate entitlement to membership:

*Indonesia
*Malaysia
*Singapore
*Thailand
*Australia
*Vietnam
*China
*Japan
*South Korea
*India
*Russia
*Kazakhstan
*Kyrgyzstan
*Tajikistan
*Uzbekistan
*Mongolia
*New Zealand
*Afghanistan
*Pakistan

The following have entitlement to membership of the CAP but must be voted in with a majority vote. It is up to you if you represent the following of these nations to make your application:

*Cambodia
*Nepal
*Phillipines
*Samoa
*Brunei
*Tonga
*Solomon Islands
*Palau
*Fiji
*Tuvalu
*Laos
*Marshal Islands
*Nauru
*Myanmar
*Kiribati
*Vanuatu
*Timor-Leste
*Papau New Guinea

^Don't see either there

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 23

Kiss

Original post by spike_spiegel

....

Reply 24

toronto353

OOC: With all these incorporations, do you not see how this is expanding effectively into another version of the MUN (an MUN within the MUN)?

Reply 25

thunder_chunky

Original post by toronto353

OOC: With all these incorporations, do you not see how this is expanding effectively into another version of the MUN (an MUN within the MUN)?

It isn't that bad yet however I am wary of creating too many of these organisations, I shall be keeping tabs on that aspect.

Reply 26

toronto353

Original post by thunder_chunky

It isn't that bad yet however I am wary of creating too many of these organisations, I shall be keeping tabs on that aspect.

OOC: No I mean every time OP says 'yes' to yet more countries, it expands the Bloc. We've now got talk of Iran which basically means the possibility of everything from the Middle East to the Pacific being in this bloc. At this rate, the bloc will just become a MUN within the MUN.

Reply 27

thunder_chunky

Original post by toronto353

I see your point, I was talking in the general sense.

Reply 28

Kiss

Original post by toronto353

OOC: With all these incorporations, do you not see how this is expanding effectively into another version of the MUN (an MUN within the MUN)?

OOC: Its better than having countless little blocs

Reply 29

toronto353

Original post by Kiss

OOC: Its better than having countless little blocs

OOC: But then if you have a club which everyone is in, then you might as well scrap the club and have just the one MUN. I think that you need to define very clearly what your bloc is and not keep adding people in.

Reply 30

Kiss

Original post by toronto353

OOC: Well it's not my bloc, or at least it wouldn't be if Stricof and Terza would take a more active role.

Reply 31

toronto353

Original post by Kiss

OOC: Well it's not my bloc, or at least it wouldn't be if Stricof and Terza would take a more active role.

OOC: That doesn't answer my criticism though.

Reply 32

Kiss

Original post by toronto353

OOC: That doesn't answer my criticism though.

OOC: Well obviously you have to make everyone feel involved. What would you prefer - loads of small blocs where you'd only get a limited activity or a coule of large blocs which encorporate most nations that help to stimulate activity and makes everyone feel involved? Plus it means that people who are thinking about representing countries which aren't occupied aren't going to be put off if they're involved in their own section.

I'd only want to see about 8 blocs at maximum. That's why I'm drawing the line at countries like Iran who can be more involved in the Arab League. An all Asian bloc was rejected (and its two main driving forces, China and Russia, have been inactive), and this was prefered over that. I understand your point but you have to compromise somewhere to gain more activity.

Reply 33

Moleman1996

Original post by toronto353

This.

Reply 34

Charlaux

Uzbekistan also supports this proposition.

Reply 35

Birchington

I urge other members to vote for this bloc to be created.

Reply 36

toronto353

I honestly think that it just leads to another bloc that may not be active - the creation process has proved this. You also don't have any way of running it at the moment and so it's going to be chaos once it's formed as you're trying to figure out how to organise everything. It also keeps getting bigger and bigger - it is becoming an MUN within an MUN. It's a no from me.

Reply 37

Birchington

As much as I would like to see this bloc created, I believe the idea is now redundant. The bloc would probably be too large and risk overstretch, and the MUN may also be undermined with a massive bloc requiring a great deal of attention to manage and maintain. Activity is also an issue - existing blocs are struggling and this lack of activity would also affect this proposal.

I look forward to working with the MUN to actively promote greater pan-Asian co-operation, but I am less convinced this bloc would be effective.