Vance Institute for International Peace

[Donerail]

Institute headquarters, Nyman. Locations: Nyman · Ghent · Jerusalem · Moscow · Hong Kong · Karachi

Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein

We've already seen fairly unsuccessful think tanks spring up on both the left and the right. This Institute will be focused on studying Atlasia's international relations and promoting international peace.

There is great division in the Atlasian public sphere as to our foreign policy goals, and as a centrist nonpartisan think tank this Institute will accept and publish research (so long as it meets our quality guidelines) from all sides. That said, the goals of this institute will be the following:

To reevaluate our global military presence
To promote deeper international trade links
To increase Atlasian engagement with its neighbors
To advocate reforms that would liberalize Atlasian immigration policy
To analyze and update Atlasian treaty memberships
To further the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons
To reassess Atlasian foreign aid disbursements
To advocate for peaceful negotiations in conflicts around the world
To scrutinize the Foreign Policy Review
To develop peaceful relations through understanding with all other nations, including those currently opposed to certain Atlasian foreign policy objectives
To attempt to solve some of the world's intractable conflicts


This Institute is focused on providing high-quality, independent public policy research in the pursuit of innovative and practical solutions to the problems facing our nation. As Atlasia's premier foreign policy think tank, our goal is to strengthen and promote a prosperous and cooperative international system in our pursuit of global peace, and we are willing to engage and collaborate with policymakers from all parties. We will be publishing some of our first policy briefs shortly.

Research
Promoting Immigration
Actual End to Imperialism
Relations with Latin America

[windjammer]

Looooooool

[Donerail]

Policy Analysis No. 001

Immigration Reform Spurs Economic Growth, International Peace

Previous legislation in Atlasia has focused on immigration reform around the edges - a DREAM Act and legislation to provide additional visas to highly-skilled STEM immigrants, among others. True reform is necessary to accomplish real economic growth, a major priority given stagnant economic growth.

Recent research from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco revealed that immigrants serve to fill essential jobs that aren’t taken by other workers, with little impact on employment of Atlasian workers. Immigrants do, however, expand the productive capacity of the economy, boosting income per worker and causing gains in efficiency. Increasing Atlasian inflows of immigrants will produce major improvements in real income. Such a move would also increase housing demand and tax revenues.

To act to raise economic productivity and average incomes in the long-term, the Senate must undertake an effort to comprehensively liberalize Atlasian immigration restrictions. Perhaps more importantly, though, and in keeping with this think tank’s central objective, we must look at the global benefits of liberalized immigration. When immigrants travel to a new country, they don’t abandon their cultures - rather, they bring them with them. Immigration - like in some of the centers of Atlasian society and culture, New York and California - brings together diverse cultures into one place, creating a variety of culinary and entertainment options. This serves to bring together individuals from different countries, allowing for faster diffusion of ideas and opportunities between countries.

This reduces the chances of conflict and war - though there’s been little published on immigration specifically, much has been published on the idea of international trade and how it promotes peace. We can expect similar benefits from immigration. Countries that are open to trade are both unlikely to go to war with their trading partners and, to a lesser extent, to go to war at all. Countries that are strongly connected to each other, through things like migration, experience less conflict. Giving nations a stake in the prosperity of their neighbors and catalyzing friendships between individuals from different states leads to encouraging peace.

In light of these benefits to international peace, we must focus on welcoming would-be immigrants from many other countries with open arms to Atlasia. We urge the Senate to broadly rewrite immigration policies to focus on allowing those who don't pose a threat to security and who are capable of supporting themselves and their dependents free access to Atlasia. To this end, free and unlimited migration should be a policy objective in bilateral negotiations between Atlasia and other high-income countries.

[Donerail]

Looooooool

Thank you for your insightful commentary. I hope you appreciate the first policy analysis - it's on aliens, a topic I understand you care about deeply.

[windjammer]

Looooooool

Thank you for your insightful commentary. I hope you appreciate the first policy analysis - it's on aliens, a topic I understand you care about deeply.

Your analysis is extremely interesting and I share your views about this issue. But it's probably the only good thing of your think thank. (according to me).

[Talleyrand]

Looooooool

Thank you for your insightful commentary. I hope you appreciate the first policy analysis - it's on aliens, a topic I understand you care about deeply.

Your analysis is extremely interesting and I share your views about this issue. But it's probably the only good thing of your think thank. (according to me).

What are the bad things about it?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I support this

[windjammer]

Looooooool

Thank you for your insightful commentary. I hope you appreciate the first policy analysis - it's on aliens, a topic I understand you care about deeply.

Your analysis is extremely interesting and I share your views about this issue. But it's probably the only good thing of your think thank. (according to me).

What are the bad things about it?

You don't seem to know Sjoyce's views on foreign issues and his support of far-right extremists because of that: Rand Paul, Ron Paul...

[Lumine]

I definitely support this, the country as a whole should give more focus on international policy, specially in today's world. Perhaps the Vance Institute may not accept requests, but I have grown particularly interested in the US-Latin America relationship (in all levels, not just trade). Is there any chance we could get an analysis on said subject at some point, SJoyce?

[Donerail]

Vance Institute Recommends: Lumine for At-Large Senate, Griffin for 2nd Preference

The race to succeed former at-large Senator Tmthforu is already one of the more chaotic in recent memory. Already, a Federalist and an independent have withdrawn from the race. Of the remaining candidates, former Labor Vice President Adam Griffin has focused his campaign on major issues like nationalizing electricity, a longtime platform of his, and pursuing regional reform. Progressive Unionist Lumine von Reuental, until recently Governor of the Midwest, is running on a comprehensive reformist platform from his old Senate campaign. Independent candidate Poirot also launched a campaign, discussing pies. The two major candidates agree on some issues, like furthering Atlasian trade relations with our Latin American neighbors. However, for the comprehensiveness of his platform on foreign policy, Mr. Lumine is the best candidate for furthering the cause of peace.

These are not the candidates who were expected to seek to succeed Mr. Tmth, who resigned on February 19th. The very next day, former Northeast Speaker Cincinnatus declared his candidacy, as did far-right Federalist JCL. Neither will appear on today’s ballot, with Mr. Cincinnatus having been nominated to serve as Secretary of Internal Affairs, and JCL withdrawing. Instead, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Lumine, and Mr. Poirot will all feature on the ballot.

Lumine, a Progressive, brings to the table a comprehensive platform from his razor-thin loss to regional Senator TNF. In particular, he brings a focus on making peace with Israel. He acknowledges Israeli apartheid and demands an end to settlements. However, unlike certain hardliners he adopts a solution more conductive to diplomatic negotiations. Namely, he wants to link progress in negotiations to trade sanctions, and is only willing to cut off aid or implement sanctions in the event that Israel isn’t willing to negotiate. This solution is more conductive to international diplomacy and is an ideal policy for a Senate candidate to adopt.

Mr. Lumine also focuses on the major issue of trade, recognizing the importance of trade relations to diplomacy and enhancing international goodwill towards Atlasia. Specifically, he supports the creation of more trade treaties and increased membership in organizations like APEC or the OAS, with a specific focus on enhancing Atlasian trade with Latin America, a region we must focus on for future success. In a similar vein, Mr. Lumine also acknowledges the positive impact of increasing legal immigration, and seeks to enhance Atlasia’s own position in the global marketplace through investing in clean energy.

Mr. Lumine also takes a beneficial stance on reforming our international institutions. He seeks increasing cooperation with the United Nations, and the reform of NATO to include new members, provide assistance to allied governments, and enhance cooperation in world trouble spots - both solutions that would enhance our relations with foreign regimes. He also seeks international arms control agreements, and is willing to destroy our arsenal of biological and chemical weapons and to reduce our nuclear stockpile when accompanied by reductions of those of other countries.

Mr. Lumine is not a perfect candidate. In particular, though he noted that he has ideas on foreign policy, he called the environment his main focus. In a major blemish, he supports the drug policies pioneered by Senator X, which would further criminalize certain drugs in Atlasia - increasing their market price and weeding out less efficient drug dealers, strengthening international cartels that threaten global stability. On balance, however, the detail and comprehensiveness of his platform ensures that he will serve nobly in the Senate.

Mr. Griffin, a Laborite, brings a distinguished record of service to the table. In particular, he served as Game Moderator and was one of the main facilitators of the Atlasia-Canada Common Market Agreement, and in the Senate will serve to increase the connectivity between our countries and ensure the future progress of our agreement. Much like Mr. Lumine, he also seeks improved relations with Latin America, and holds a true dedication to furthering Atlasian trade and relations with our neighbors. However, he lacks the hands-on relations with the region that Mr. Lumine has, and also lacks a platform anywhere near the detail of Mr. Lumine’s. That aside, Mr. Griffin is still a qualified candidate, and deserves a second preference at the minimum.

International affairs have largely been absent from the platform of Mr. Poirot, an independent. His only platform plank dealing directly with foreign affairs has been strengthening our drug laws, which will have negative impacts on security (as explained above). Though he has some interesting ideas about exchange students, Mr. Lumine’s immigration platform would have the same impact but on a much larger scale. Asides from those planks, Mr. Poirot has been largely silent on these issues.

Both Mr. Lumine and Mr. Griffin would serve well in the Senate. However, Mr. Lumine’s platform and stances are far more detailed and show a real interest in the promotion of the cause of international peace. In the February 2014 special election for at-large Senate, the Vance Institute recommends Lumine von Reuental.

[Donerail]

You don't seem to know Sjoyce's views on foreign issues and his support of far-right extremists because of that: Rand Paul, Ron Paul...

The views of this institute are spelled out quite clearly in the original post. The Institute supports deeper trade and migration links with our neighbors and the global community, reductions in our global military presence, international arms control, comprehensive analysis of Atlasian treaty memberships and foreign aid payouts, and peaceful negotiations and relations to resolve conflicts with nations around the world.

I definitely support this, the country as a whole should give more focus on international policy, specially in today's world. Perhaps the Vance Institute may not accept requests, but I have grown particularly interested in the US-Latin America relationship (in all levels, not just trade). Is there any chance we could get an analysis on said subject at some point, SJoyce?

That's certainly something we'll be taking a look at in the coming days - we'll be getting information on Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, the Netherlands, and the OAS up soon.

[TNF]

Is the Institute going to address the Actual End to Imperialism Act, which is now on the Senate floor?

[Donerail]

Policy Analysis No. 002

Actual End to Imperialism: Good Intentions

Recently, Sen. TNF, Midwestern regional Senator and one of the most prolific authors of legislation in our Senate (and accordingly, one of the main drivers of Atlasian foreign policy discussion, a rule for which this institute commends him), introduced the Actual End to Imperialism Act. This complex piece of legislation covers several different policies, which we'll cover in turn.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a fundamentally sound policy. Many developing countries divert large portions of their budgets to servicing debts from the previous regimes rather than providing education or healthcare services. Sub-Sarahan Africa spends tens of millions every day on debt servicing - this would provide additional space in their budgets without some of the requirements the IMF and World Bank place on countries in order to get debt relief (Zambia, for instance, was forced to privatize their national bank). This would also liberate the individuals of those countries from debt burden they didn't benefit from. Much of the debt of developing countries comes from previous regimes - we loaned a lot of money to Mobutu, but he spent it on estates and shopping rather than benefiting the people. Having these nations provide essential services also strengthens the state at the expense of potentially dangerous groups that could come in and provide those services instead, like in Somalia and Pakistan. These developing countries spending more on services like health, with such an interconnected world as we have, will directly benefit Atlasian health as well. It may be necessary to add further conditions to this clause, to prevent that additional budget room from benefiting authoritarian regimes, but it's a fundamentally sound policy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This feels like it may be a theme in this bill - good ideas, but just a bit too far. The prohibition on CIA assassinations and training of paramilitary groups is fundamentally good - it'll prohibit CIA operations that have had generally negative effects on Atlasian capabilities - from Iran, to Cuba, to Nicaragua to many other instances, these attempts to disrupt foreign governments have generally been negative. However, this legislation would prohibit surveillance of foreign leaders, which only serves to gather intelligence - ideally, this should not directly disrupt the government (the less disruptive, the more likely the agent is to remain in place). However, what has proven negative to international relations is surveillance of high-ranking allied leaders. The bill needs to be tailored a bit more specifically to ensure it only applies to those leaders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Specifics, specifics. There is nothing inherently bad about the international arms trade (guns don't kill people), it's what those weapons are used for (people kill people). The legislation needs to be tailored to fit the circumstances - a ban on transfer of arms when it could be used in violations of human rights, humanitarian law, when it could facilitate violent crime or terrorist attacks, be diverted from its recipient, adversely impact regional security, impair development programs, or violate UN charter obligations. However, the legislation also needs to be expanded here - it currently only applies to private sales of arms. It doesn't apply to all transfers, including loans, gifts, transshipment, and other methods of transfer. Atlasia must target its efforts rather than just attempting to stop everything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also needs targeting - Atlasia has far too many troops deployed in places like Germany and Japan, true. But this would just wipe out all Atlasian foreign deployments (including, say, our Space Command in Greenland). A comprehensive analysis of foreign deployments is needed to determine which ones are essential - the Institute would urge the establishment of a Base Realignment and Closure Commission specifically dedicated to foreign bases.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NATO has its problems and does need to be refocused - but that doesn’t mean we should leave. NATO is a major international organization that composes the largest network of armed forces ever assembled and is a major conduit of international aid and diplomacy. We shouldn’t abandon those communication structures at all. However, the NATO Charter is probably due for a renegotiation, and NATO should turn its attention to issues like energy security and cyberwarfare while defending Europe and democracy rather than continuing to be stuck in its Cold War mentality, but we shouldn’t abandon it when we can fix it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just a bit too far - we should remove our biological and chemical weaponry in compliance with international treaties, yes, and we should reduce our nuclear stockpile, but this goes just a bit too far. Our current massive arsenal is poorly suited to our current challenges, especially with our powerful conventional deterrent. 600 is around where we could cut to safely without jeopardizing national security - what would be ideal is to combine this legislation with a rise in military spending, to be offset by the cuts in nuclear maintenance, to allow for the development of replacements to the Ohio-class submarine and B-2 bomber programs - creating a smaller, but more reliable deterrent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part of the legislation would halve military spending. The problem is that we just went through a round of budget-cutting in the DoEA - the South Beach Act of 2013 reduced spending on several key programs, and cut spending by over $500 billion over the next decade. There are certainly more spending cuts we could make, that could squeeze another $350 billion out, but just slashing spending is irresponsible - we need to look at which specific programs we want to be cutting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More that needs to be narrowed - if you need to boycott Israel, then ban involvement with Israeli products and corporations that profit from denying Palestinian rights. A full boycott doesn’t serve the cause of peace and diplomacy, especially coming at such a vulnerable time in negotiations. However, a more targeted boycott, aimed at those corporations and institutions that are directly supporting the apartheid, could be a legitimate step to take. The last thing that we want is to ban corporations that are helping Palestinians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn’t seem to have negatively impacted the Dutch, Swedes, Germans, Norwegians or Austrians - we don’t see this being a threat to our security.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This replicates a policy already in place in the IDS, which hasn’t seemed to have a negative impact on their security.

[Sec. of State Superique]

I hope I can contribute to this Institution.

[Lumine]

I thank the Vance Institute for it's recommendation in regards to the election, and I look forward to collaborating and discussing issues with the Institute if elected to the Senate.

[Donerail]

Policy Analysis No. 003

Atlasian-Latin American Relationships: Our Next Priority

During my tenure as Secretary of External Affairs, we focused on what we called a 'Pivot to Asia' - deepening Atlasian ties with nations like Japan and the Philippines as part of a renewed focus on security concerns in the region. China has recently responded to our pivot with one of their own, visiting Costa Rica, Mexico, and Trinidad and Tobago, and promising billions in loans to nations in our own backyard while increasing imports from Mexico. They are also close allies with nations like Cuba and Venezuela, and major trading partners with Brazil.

Not all news in the region is bleak. The Pacific Alliance, established in 2012 between Mexico, Chile, Peru and Colombia, shows promise in advancing regional integration, as does Latin American participation in the Atlasian-led Trans-Pacific Partnership. Though migration (covered in an earlier analysis), drugs (though our criticism of Sen. X’s proposed reforms must wait for another day), and Cuba all pose issues for Atlasia, the most significant impact that Atlasia can have on Latin America is through promotion of regional integration. 'Factory Asia' has been a success through regional integration - Latin America can follow that path, but only if nations like Brazil and Argentina commit to integration rather than protection. Certainly they are correct to worry about strong industry, but the ones who lose from barriers are the consumers who have to pay higher prices. The problem in Latin America is deficient infrastructure that make doing business expensive, aggravated by high interest rates. President Rousseff is attempting to solve these problems, but to truly do so she must tear down barriers in the region as a whole, which currently lags behind other regions in percentage of intraregional trade.

In Miami, in 2003, Brazil walked out of talks to create a 34-country Free Trade Area of the Americas. It's possible they now regret that decision. The chief market of nations like Brazil is in the Americas - it could, should, get bigger. But that won't happen if trade barriers continue to stand. More investment means less poverty (particularly under F.L. 58-1), more growth, and greater security, so long as we avoid the troubling intellectual property provisions that have hampered other agreements. Trade is our engine of growth - we must embrace and pursue it. Atlasia must facilitate these negotiations and assist as much as we can in developing the physical hardware of integration.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Policy Analysis No. 003

Atlasian-Latin American Relationships: Our Next Priority

During my tenure as Secretary of External Affairs, we focused on what we called a 'Pivot to Asia' - deepening Atlasian ties with nations like Japan and the Philippines as part of a renewed focus on security concerns in the region. China has recently responded to our pivot with one of their own, visiting Costa Rica, Mexico, and Trinidad and Tobago, and promising billions in loans to nations in our own backyard while increasing imports from Mexico. They are also close allies with nations like Cuba and Venezuela, and major trading partners with Brazil.

Not all news in the region is bleak. The Pacific Alliance, established in 2012 between Mexico, Chile, Peru and Colombia, shows promise in advancing regional integration, as does Latin American participation in the Atlasian-led Trans-Pacific Partnership. Though migration (covered in an earlier analysis), drugs (though our criticism of Sen. X’s proposed reforms must wait for another day), and Cuba all pose issues for Atlasia, the most significant impact that Atlasia can have on Latin America is through promotion of regional integration. 'Factory Asia' has been a success through regional integration - Latin America can follow that path, but only if nations like Brazil and Argentina commit to integration rather than protection. Certainly they are correct to worry about strong industry, but the ones who lose from barriers are the consumers who have to pay higher prices. The problem in Latin America is deficient infrastructure that make doing business expensive, aggravated by high interest rates. President Rousseff is attempting to solve these problems, but to truly do so she must tear down barriers in the region as a whole, which currently lags behind other regions in percentage of intraregional trade.

In Miami, in 2003, Brazil walked out of talks to create a 34-country Free Trade Area of the Americas. It's possible they now regret that decision. The chief market of nations like Brazil is in the Americas - it could, should, get bigger. But that won't happen if trade barriers continue to stand. More investment means less poverty (particularly under F.L. 58-1), more growth, and greater security, so long as we avoid the troubling intellectual property provisions that have hampered other agreements. Trade is our engine of growth - we must embrace and pursue it. Atlasia must facilitate these negotiations and assist as much as we can in developing the physical hardware of integration.

So is the institute planning on forming a new free trade alliance that equally respects the national sovereignty of each of the states unlike the NAFTA agreement of the1990's? Would part of the agenda include a process of eliminating our need for Middle Eastern oil?

[Cranberry]

I support your views on relationships with Latin America.
I have but a question, regarding the relations to Europe: What are your views on these, I hope so, still important relations?

[Donerail]

So is the institute planning on forming a new free trade alliance that equally respects the national sovereignty of each of the states unlike the NAFTA agreement of the1990's?

We don't have the power to form a new free trade alliance - we will, however, be advocating the advancement of regional trade integration. We do have concerns about certain sections of NAFTA, specifically how agricultural subsidies impact crop prices, but given the recent elimination of Atlasian crop subsidies we do not see that as a future issue. The elimination of Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution was also problematic, and its investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in Chapter 11 was flawed. We would hope that any new agreement would not include such provisions.

Would part of the agenda include a process of eliminating our need for Middle Eastern oil?

That is not possible under current conditions. It may be theoretically possible but given our environmental protections and current political climate (including a ban on fracking) we will not be able to increase production enough to remove a dependency on global oil markets.

I have but a question, regarding the relations to Europe: What are your views on these, I hope so, still important relations?

We find Atlasian relations with Europe to be extremely important. A transatlantic free trade agreement would be economically beneficial for both sides, as would work on reducing non-tariff barriers. We also view Europe as a necessary security partner and support increased defense cooperation.