The Ralph Bunche Memorial Building of the Department of External Affairs

[Donerail]

Welcome to the Department of External Affairs

Bienvenue sur le ministère des Affaires extérieures
Bienvenido al Departamento de Relaciones Exteriores
欢迎到对外事务部/歡迎到對外事務部
विदेश विभाग में आपका स्वागत है/وزارت خارجہ کے سیکشن میں آپ کا استقبال ہے
مرحبا بكم في وزارة الشؤون الخارجية
Bem-vindo ao Departamento de Assuntos Externos
Добро пожаловать в министерство иностранных дел
Willkommen bei der Abteilung für Auswärtige Angelegenheiten
Selamat datang kepada Jabatan Hal Ehwal Luar/Selamat datang di Departemen Luar Negeri
خوش آمدید به وزارت امور خارجی
Karibu katika Idara ya Mambo ya Nje
வெளியுறவு துறை வரவேற்கிறது
Benvenuti al Dipartimento degli affari esteri
Welkom bij het ​​Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken/Welkom by die Departement van Buitelandse Sake
Vestibulum Donec forinsecus
Καλώς ήρθατε στο Υπουργείο Εξωτερικών
Dış İşleri Bakanlığı hoşgeldiniz
Üdvözöljük a Department of Külügyek
Bonvenon al la Fako de Eksteraj Aferoj
外部本文学科へようこそ

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

SoEA Travel Plans


-Meeting in Mali with Captain Sanogo
-Talks with MNLA President Mahmoud Ag Aghaly (location undisclosed)
-Talks in a hospital in Burkina Faso with MNLA Secretary-General Bilal Ag Acherif
The objectives of all of these talks is Atlasian opposition to Ansar Dine and MOJWA and possible mutual efforts to combat them by whoever can do so.



-Discussions with President Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia regarding the "insulting the sacred" conviction, and congratulating him on his opposition to a blasphemy conviction, and more generally the future of civil liberties in Tunisia.
-Meeting with Presidential contenders Ahmed Najib Chebbi, Hamadi Jebali, Hamma Hammami, and Beji Caid el Sebsi to discuss corruption-fighting measures and freedom of speech in Tunisia.
-Speech to the National Constituent Assembly of Tunisia on the Atlasian Constitution and Constitutional protections for human rights.



-Talks with President Mohammed Magariaf on transparency measures and steps towards federalism (for the east and the south, for the Tuaregs and Berbers for some).



-Discussions with President Abd Rabbuh Mansur al-Hadi on fighting al-Qaeda in Yemen and future elections.



-Meeting with President Mohammed Morsi, as well as Justice Minister Mohamed al-Guindi, Prime Minister Hesham Qandil, and political party leader Mohammed Badie, in regards to the rule of law and the drafting of a fair constitution.
-Talks with opposition leaders Mohamed ElBaradei, Hamdeen Sabahi, and Amr Moussa on future efforts at democratization.



-Talks with the al Khalifa family attempting to secure the release of political prisoners and possibly creating a new constitution to ensure that the 2014 Chamber of Deputies elections are conducted in a fair manner.



-Discussions in Qatar with members of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces.
-Talks in Erbil with leaders of the Democratic Union Party.
-Meeting with higher-ups of the Syrian National Council in Turkey.

[Donerail]

Save Money. Live Better.
Pairing Responsible Defense With Responsible Spending
Or, The Libertarians Have Infested The Department

It has come to my attention that a Presidential candidate, a Senator Marokai Blue, has proposed cutting foreign deployments in Germany and Japan. In the spirit of his proposal, I have decided to reflect upon the military budget and offer cost-saving measures that we could potentially take. This report will include four levels, 1, 2, 3, and 4: level 1 cuts incur modest and acceptable risks, level 2 cuts incur significant but acceptable risks, level 3 cuts incur high risks, and level 4 cuts incur very high risks. Level 1 targets $350-400 billion in savings, Level 2 targets $500-550 billion in savings, Level 3 targets $650-700 billion in savings, and Level 4 targets $800-850 billion in savings.

This report does not include funding for overseas contingency operations. Please keep in mind that this report is purely advisory and does not reflect any hard policy that is presently being implemented.

Our Navy

• Aircraft Carrier/CVN.

Atlasia presently maintains a fleet of 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carries and 10 active-duty air wings. Permanently reducing that fleet to 10 carriers and 9 active-duty air wings (while also reducing it by 5,600 sailors) could be accomplished by retiring the USS George Washington in the year 2016, saving $7 billion. The USS George Washington is selected for this process because in 2016 it is scheduled to begin refueling and complex overhaul (which is costly and time-consuming); this policy change would save overhaul costs, as well as operating/support costs from 2017-2021. This is a Level 2 and above cut.

• Amphibious Ships.

The Navy intends to replace most of its current amphibious ships over the next 30 years, including purchasing 12 new amphibious transport docks, 10 amphibious assault ships, and 12 dock-landing ships. In the interest of cost reductions, it would be possible to cancel two amphibious assault ships (LHA-6s) and three dock-landing ships (LSD(X)s) that are currently scheduled for procurement during Fiscal Year 16-21, saving $13 billion but placing the Navy below its inventory goal of 33 operating amphibious ships. Accordingly, This is a Level 3 and above cut.

• Attack Submarines.

The current class of Atlasian Navy attack submarines is the Virginia-class (SSN-774). To save money, it would be possible to hold procurement of new submarines to one per year, reducing our planned purchase from 19 to 10 ships during FY 12-21, saving $25 billion. This is a Level 3 and above cut.

• Cruisers.

Currently the Atlasian navy operates several Ticonderoga-class cruisers (CG-47), several of which date to the 1980s. Retiring six vessels would be a common-sense maneuver and would save $3.3 billion. This is a Level 1 and above cut, and presents little danger to our security due to the steps outlined in the next article.

• Destroyers.

The Atlasian navy is currently in the process of procuring several Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (DDG-51). Ideally, cuts in other areas of the Navy would be reinvested in this area to offset strategic losses there. In the best budget (Level 1), six additional Flight IIA ships would be procured beyond current plans, costing $10.2 billion. In Level 2, four additional Flight IIA ships would be procured beyond current plans with a cost of $6.8 billion. In Level 3, two additional destroyers would be procured (Flight IIA beyond current plans), for $3.4 billion. In Level 4, there would be no additional procurement.

• Littoral Combat Ships.

Currently the Atlasian Navy is procuring the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as part of its fleet. Ending this program in FY 17 after 27 total ships have been delivered would save $7 billion and would only be a Level 1-3 cut. A Level 4 cut would be to immediately cease procurement, with savings of $14.2 billion.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Very interesting work, SJoyce.

[Donerail]

Save Money. Live Better.

Our Air Force

• F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Atlasia is currently attempting to procure several variants of the F-35 to make up the backbone of its manned fighter wings. In accordance with such, a Level 1 cut to the JSF program would be to reduce total procurement of each F-35 variant by 25% and substitute F-16s and F/A-18s for the cancelled F-35s, saving $9.5 billion. A Level 2 way would be to reduce total procurement of each variant by 50% and substitute F-16s and F/A-18s, saving $19 billion. As part of Level 3, one could cut F-35A procurement from 1,763 to 850, F-35B procurement from 311 to 150, and F-35C procurement from 369 to 330, and do not purchase any substitutes, to save $25 billion. In Level 4, the F-35B would be cancelled, the F-35A would be cut to 850 from 1,763, the F-35C to 330 from 369, and replacements would not be purchased, to save $42.6 billion.

• MQ-4C BAMS UAS.

The MQ-4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System is a new kind of UAV designed to provide maritime intelligence. As a Level 2 cut the Navy buy could be slashed in half to procure 21 aircraft through FY21, saving $4 billion. As a Level 3-4 cut the program would be cancelled to save $10 billion. This would not affect other maritime intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance platforms such as the P-8A Poseidon and factors conversion of some RQ-4 Global Hawks to maritime specifications into the savings.

• Strategic Airlift.

The current requirement for the Air Force's strategic airlift capabilities is 316 aircraft. Reducing that requirement to 301 aircraft through the retirement of 15 C-5As would save $2.4 billion and is a Level 1 and above cut.

• V-22 Osprey.

The V-22 Osprey is currently being procured by the Air Force. Procurement could be cancelled in FY16 and stopped at 363 aircraft (314 MV-22s, 49 CV-22s), saving $7.9 billion as a Level 2 and above[/u] cut. This has already included procurement of additional CH-53Ks to offset the reduction in MV-22s (CH-53Ks have three times the payload).

[Donerail]

Save Money. Live Better.

Our Ground Forces

• Army and Marine Corps Total Strength.

Current baselines for troop strength in FY15 are 547,000 active duty Army and 187,000 active duty Marines. In FY15, reduction of Army active duty troops to 482,000, Marine Corps active duty troops to 175,000, and reduction 6,200 reservists would save $41.4 billion and would be a Level 1-2 cut. Reduction of Army active duty troops to 460,000, Marine Corps active duty to 162,500, and reduction of 12,000 reservists in FY15 would save $63.8 billion and would be a Level 3 cut. Reduction of Army active duty to 430,000, Marine Corps active duty to 150,000, and reduction of 18,034 reservists in FY15 would save $105.1 billion and would be a Level 4 cut.

• GCV.

The Ground Combat Vehicle is a replacement program for armored fighting vehicles. Delaying its fielding until after FY21 and instead reinvesting some savings into upgrading Bradley Fighting Vehicles would save $7 billion and would be a Level 1 and above cut. $7 billion of the $14 billion in total saved from delaying the GCV would go towards developing and purchasing upgrades for Bradley Fighting Vehicles, which will remain a part of the Army's inventory through 2025.

• JLTV.

The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle is a program designed to replace the Humvee; it costs $800,000 per vehicle (including base vehicle costs, equipment, armor kits, and administrative costs), will involve the procurement of 32,600 vehicles (including 12,258 between FY16-FY21, at 1,086 a year from FY16 to FY18 and 3,000 a year from FY19 to FY21). Canceling the program would be a Level 1 and above cut and would save $10.9 billion.

• JTRS GMR.

The Joint Tactical Radio System Ground Mobile Radio is a planned new kind of voice and data radio program. Cutting the purchase of the system from 86,956 to 11,030 would save $15 billion and would be a Level 1 and above cut.

[Donerail]

Save Money. Live Better.

Department-Wide

• Base and Facilities Maintenance.

To save $19.5 billion in Level 1, spending on base support/facilities maintenance would be held 7.5% below FY13 level plus inflation. To save $26 billion in Level 2, spending on base support/facilities maintenance would be held 10% below FY13 level plus inflation. To save $32.5 billion in Level 3, spending on base support/facilities maintenance would be held 12.5% below FY13 level plus inflation. To save $39 billion in Level 4, spending on base support/facilities maintenance would be held 15% below FY13 level plus inflation. This change would reduce spending on base support and facilities maintenance to reflect cuts to combat end strength. Reductions for base support would be achieved by adopting best practices among the services, and reductions for facilities maintenance by trimming expenditures as planned base closures move forward. The Department can do much more to reform its business practices and reduce the inefficiencies that deplete its resources, and this is how.

• Depots.

By altering the pricing structure for repairs and easing restrictions on contracting for maintenance $6.4 billion could be saved as part of Level 1 and above

• Department Civilians.

Save $36.7 billion over 10 years as part of Level 1 through not replacing some retirees (reducing the workforce of 784,000 by 75,000). Save $48.9 billion over 10 years as part of Level 2 through not replacing some retirees (reducing the workforce of 784,000 by 100,000). Save $61.1 billion over 10 years as part of Level 3 through not replacing some retirees (reducing the workforce of 784,000 by 125,000). Save $73.3 billion over 10 years as part of Level 4 through not replacing some retirees (reducing the workforce of 784,000 by 150,000). Approximately 30% of the Department's civilian workforce is eligible to retire by March 31, 2015. This would spread the total reduction over 10 years and would rely on tools such as early retirement, voluntary separation incentives and retention bonuses to maintain the critical human capital capabilities the Department needs.

• Department Retail Activites.

Consolidation of the Department's commissary and exchange systems over five years would save $9.1 billion and are a Level 1 and above cut; the savings include a tax-free grocery allowance for active-duty service members to offset the higher prices that would result from this.

• Headquarters (Contractor).

40% reduction of spending on contractor augmentees for headquarters staff would save $10.2 billion and would be a Level 1 cut. 45% would yield $15.3 billion in savings and would be a Level 2 cut. 50% would yield $20.4 billion in savings and would be a Level 3 cut. 55% would yield $25.5 billion in savings and would be a Level 4 cut. This would reduce funding for contractor augmentees on headquarters staffs to reflect the cuts to the military's combat end strength.

• Intelligence.

Holding intelligence spending 7.5% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $53.1 billion and would be a Level 1 cut. Holding intelligence spending 10% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $70.8 billion and would be a Level 2 cut. Holding intelligence spending 12.5% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $88.5 billion and would be a Level 3 cut. Holding intelligence spending 15% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $106.2 billion and would be a Level 4 cut. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence would be given greater authority to eliminate unnecessary overlap and duplication and reform the business practices and reduce the inefficiencies that deplete the resources of the intelligence community.

• Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

Shutting down this organization in FY17 would save $1.2 billion and would be a Level 1 and above cut. That would give the organization five more years to aid operations in Afghanistan and to transition its most promising technologies to the military's permanent development activities.

• "Leap Ahead" Unmanned Systems.

$1.5 billion more per year in addition research and development funding is needed over the next 10 years. This is a crucial program and must be expanded in Level 1 and above. This would prioritize investment in breakthrough technologies for long-range stealthy sea- and ground-based combat UASs along with unmanned submersibles.

• Missile Defense.

Cancelling the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) and reducing spending on experimental national missile defense programs would save $37.5 billion[/b] and be a Level 1 and above cut. This factors in an acceleration of the Airbor Infrared (ABIR) system and data exploitation via overhead persistent infrared sensors (SBIRS).

• Commercial Activities Overhead/Other Procurement/Research and Development.

These are all combined because they are all percentage reductions; they can be uncoupled as desired.
Level 1: holding spending 7.5% below FY13 level plus inflation would save $40.5 billion on overhead, $23.6 billion on other procurement, and $56.2 billion on R&D.
Level 2: holding spending 10% below FY13 level plus inflation would save $53.9 billion on overhead, $31.5 billion on other procurement, and $75 billion on R&D.
Level 3: holding spending 12.5% below FY13 level plus inflation would save $67.4 billion on overhead, $39.4 billion on other procurement, and $93.7 billion on R&D.
Level 4: holding spending 15% below FY13 level plus inflation would save $80.9 billion on overhead, $47.2 billion on other procurement, and $112.5 billion on R&D.
This would reduce spending on commercial activities positions held by military personnel to reflect cuts to the military's combat end strength, including reform of business practices and reduction of inefficiencies. Other procurement includes funding for communications/electronic equipment, tactical vehicles, and other supports and spares, and is reduces due to the significant building of this type of equipment since FY2001; however, this could have a negative impact on the readiness of some units. Reductions to R&D would include prioritization of East Asia and the Middle East while including greater interdependence among the services and implementing a more restrictive planning and acquisition system. As R&D funding is the key enabler of breakthrough technology, this entails risk for the military.

[Donerail]

Save Money. Live Better.

Other Areas

• Atomic Energy Defense Activities.

Level 1: Holding spending 7.5% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $12.6 billion.
Level 2: Holding spending 10% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $16.8 billion.
Level 3: Holding spending 12.5% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $21 billion.
Level 4: Holding spending 15% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $25.2 billion.
This would involve stretching over a longer period of time the National Nuclear Security Administration's work on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement, Uranium Processing Facility, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility and Waste Solidification Building and other programs.

• Other Defense Activities.

Level 1: Holding spending 7.5% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $4.6 billion.
Level 2: Holding spending 10% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $6.2 billion.
Level 3: Holding spending 12.5% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $7.7 billion.
Level 4: Holding spending 15% below FY13 levels plus inflation would save $9.3 billion.

[Donerail]

A New National Strategy
Atlasian Defensive Strategy and Principles

Good evening. Atlasia has pursued a strategy over the past 68 years, a remarkably consistent one, despite the different approaches of different leaders to national security. This approach is one that incorporates security cooperation with our allies, maintenance of a military presence in key regions, selective engagement in armed conflicts, and pursuit of military and economic supremacy in order to protect Atlasian interests. This strategy has included the following objectives: guarding the homeland from territorial invasion or attack by another country; deterrence of potential adversaries from attacking Atlasia or her allies; protection of trades routes and access to energy supplies upon which we and our allies rely; securing areas of sea, air, space, and now the Internet upon which our economic systems rely; defense of Atlasia from threats such as nuclear proliferation and international terrorism; and support for international laws that help boost peace and security.

We continue to pursue those objectives today. But we do so in an environment that has changed radically in recent years. We are facing a future of fiscal uncertainty. Our national debt remains quite large. Our withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, the death of Osama bin Laden, the rise of China, and the Arab Spring all combine to create a new global environment very different from that of the past decades. Given the fiscal constraints of the modern era, I still believe we should continue to pursue the objectives I stated; however, we can do so through different means. There must be a new, affordable version of our military strategy. We can still pursue those objectives, just with different forces, different infrastructure, less bureaucracy, and fewer expenses.

What this Department needs to do is prioritize key geographic regions more effectively. One of those regions is the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Our military needs to focus on that region and broaden our engagement along the Pacific Rim through stronger maritime and air presences, as well as through judicious use of ground forces to support key allies. Another area of vital interest is the Middle East and Mediterranean Basin, where we should pursue a defensive strategy, designed to contain hostile regimes and dismantle terrorist networks while ensuring an uninterrupted flow of energy supplies. As for South and Central Asia, while we should remain engaged, we should pursue a limited defensive military posture, with a focus on limiting nuclear proliferation, preventing a major conflict between India and Pakistan, and disrupting terrorists capable of striking Atlasia herself. Europe in this scenario would be relegated to a tertiary priority, with the declining military capabilities of NATO and its members. Other areas of the world, such as Africa and Latin America, should be a lower priority, where we focus on only deterring and addressing specific threats to vital Atlasian interests.

As such, I would like to lay out four principles that will guide the future of our armed forces. The first is the increasing importance of naval and air forces. As a result, we should prioritize those forces instead of distributing any cuts evenly across the services. We need to bolster our influence in the Asia-Pacific region, and can do so by engaging more with key allies and developing long-range and precision weapons, in order to be able to counter anything potential adversaries such as China can create. Large, active-duty ground forces will be needed less in the future, though we shall still need them to deter aggression by hostile nations and to advise and assist US allies facing regional instability. Additionally, cutting the numbers of ground forces will be far less risky than cutting naval or air programs, as we can quickly build up more ground forces, a capacity we do not have with shipbuilding or air production.

Secondly, we should attempt to build an interdependent military, both across the four services and between the active and reserve components. For instance, all four services operate their own air forces, with limited sharing between them. Some have grown larger than their intended mission: the Marine Corps has more tanks, artillery, aircraft, and personnel than the military of the United Kingdom. Overlap can be reduced: it's not necessary and it's not affordable. Today's force has too many heavy armored troops, short-range strike fighters, amphibious capabilities, and manned aircraft: we're not going to be battling Soviet tanks on the plains of Poland, or mounting amphibious landings in Korea, or getting in dogfights over Vietnam; those units can be transferred to the reserve, to save money while still maintaining that capability in the unlikely event of a major ground war. We need to make our military more modern and more efficient in order to compete in a modern  age.

Third, we need to mold our new weapons systems around realistic, likely threats, not every single threat that could present itself. We've been trying to prepare for every potential threat that could rear its head, to combat an advanced but as of now unknown new Soviet Union. This has led our weapons system procurements to become almost absurd, demanding the best of the best of the best with no thought for what enemy capabilities are. We need to return to a restrictive process of planning that puts our resources towards the most serious threats to our national interests.

Finally, due to the lack of major threats in the near-term, we should pursue further research and development, particularly in the field of unmanned vehicles. Developing new, stealthy, long-range, combat-capable unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as unmanned submarines, will allow us to develop today what was unimaginable twenty years ago. It'll mean new funds for more research and development, but that can be generated by limiting expensive or highly specialized weapons programs. We should be willing to accept some higher risk now, when we are absent an urgent short-term threat, to invest in more research and development programs to provide a long-term solution to our threats.

In summary, in order to combat potentially aggressive regimes and transnational terrorist groups that present a clear threat to the United States and its allies, while modernizing our military forces, keeping afloat in a volatile global economy, and combating our ballooning national debt, we must recalibrate our national strategy and generate savings. We must make smart cuts today, in order to protect our vital interests, engage key allies, and modernize tomorrow.

In order to do so, I have conducted an examination of our defense strategy and budget, in order to analyze the risk of cuts and the opportunities we have to make our defensive budget more fiscally disciplined while still fully protecting this nation. I have compiled a report, the "Save Money. Live Better." report, that outlines ways the U.S. defensive strategy can coexist with a shrinking budget. This report includes four levels, each for a different level of spending reductions. For each, I have identified the optimal approach given the budget constraints and identified the best ways to cut forces and procurement, while taking account of the new roles and missions we might take on, the strategic risks we could incur, and the trade-offs we may have to make. This report is the way to fix the military budget, and the objectives I outlined earlier are the strategy we must implement, a new national strategy for our nation's defense.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This would give BRAC capabilities to this Commission (without the need to create a new commission specifically for BRAC). I would request that one of you kind Senators introduce this for me.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

Many thanks to Senator Nix for introducing this legislation

[Donerail]

Brief Thoughts on National Defense

Some assorted thoughts on national defense I've been having, but don't want to make a full speech out of.

With the pivot to Asia (which means a need for aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, attack submarines, long-range strike bombers, destroyers, surveillance drones, and JSFs), naval and air forces will increase in importance, while large, active-duty ground forces, which are expensive to maintain at high readiness levels, will become increasingly less necessary. Ground forces are difficult to move quickly in large numbers and thus are less important in the vast Asian theater. Additionally, it's far easier to reverse cuts to ground forces than canceling naval/air modernization programs. We're spending billions on weapons that don't make our nation safer. The Army wants to replace the $3 million Bradley Fighting Vehicle (six deployable soldiers) with a $10 million Ground Combat Vehicle that carries nine and offers better protection from roadside bombs, when it's far more cost-effective to upgrade existing Bradleys and use the thousands of mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles we purchased for our adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other programs, such as the JTRS and LCS, are overpriced relative to our need for what they offer; we need to counter specific threats to Atlasia. It's more efficient to purchase improved copies of existing weapons systems and obtaining access to new bases overseas to reduce sailing time.

I'm not willing to touch military compensation to generate cost savings; they earn every penny. However, TRICARE and retirement reform, as well as another round of BRAC, can generate savings without devastating the morale of the armed forces.

[Donerail]

Department of External Affairs Official Statement
Department Pay Raises

Yearly pay raises for Department employees, including military, shall equal the Employment Cost Index released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics unless modified by an act of the Senate.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

Container Security Initiative Expansion

The Secretary of External Affairs in cooperation with the foreign ministers of several nations has announced a plan to expand the Container Security Initiative to cover the following ports:

-Jawaharlal Nehru (Mumbai), India
-Nagoya and Chiba, Japan
-Port Hedland and Dampier, Australia
-Manila, Philippines
-Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
-Jakarta and Surabaya, Indonesia
-Ningbo-Zhoushan, Guangzho, Qingdao, Tianjin, Xiamen, Dalian, Lianyungang, Yingkou, and Qinghuangdao, People's Republic of China


The Container Security Initiative is a program to increase security for container cargo shipped to Atlasia and is a way to mutually enhance shipment security through pre-screening cargo.

[Donerail]

Weekend Asia PSI Trip

A short jaunt in order to attempt to secure more memberships in the Proliferation Security Initiative. Following Thailand's ascension to the Initiative recently, there are several East Asian entities that could potentially join the initiative, most particularly the Republic of China and Vietnam, as well as Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and the People's Republic of China. The SoEA will be traveling to meet with key leaders in those nations in order to attempt to persuade them to join.

Following that, the Secretary shall fly to Wellington, New Zealand, to consult with foreign ministers from several nations about possible trade partnerships.

In the coming days, a summit shall be held in Jakarta involving major figures from Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Republic of China to discuss multilateral fishing regulation, mutual civil maritime law enforcement, development of petroleum resource,s and joint naval patrols.

[Donerail]

Invitations & Confirmations
Increasing International Cooperation

The DoEA would like to formally extend an invitation to Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, India, and the People's Republic of China to the 16th Annual Chiefs of Defense Conference, which will bring together senior military leaders from nations in the Asia-Pacific region to discuss mutual security challenges, improve relationships, and foster security cooperation, including cooperation in areas such as humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, military-to-military training, and countering transnational threats in which Atlasia and other nations can work towards their mutual interests.


Confirmed: representatives from Atlasia will be attending the next ADMM-Plus meeting of ASEAN defense ministers in Brunei in 2013, will be attending the next meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum, both in their capacity as an official dialogue partner, representing Atlasia, and as an observer member representing the Atlasian state of Oceania (in the Pacific region), will be attending the next Shangri-La Dialogue, and will be attending the next East Asia Summit. Atlasia would also be interested in participating as an observer at the next Indian Ocean Naval Symposium.


Representatives from 'Chinese Taipei' are welcome to attend.

[Donerail]

Pacific Tour

The SoEA will be visiting Samoa, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Micronesia, and Nauru.

[Donerail]

TPP

The SoEA will fly to Singapore to attempt to finalize negotiations over Atlasia becoming a member of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Sticking points include intellectual property provisions and provisions relating to investor-state arbitration, which the DoEA will attempt to remove.

[Donerail]

Basing Modifications

The DoEA is currently investigating a variety of ways to redistribute forces in the Pacific, specifically the construction of new bases at locations such as Riau, the northern Solomon Islands, the Admiralty Islands, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Australia's Northern Territory, while reducing deployments in locations such as Japan.

[Donerail]

The DoEA will soon propose a plan that will solve a major issue. Also, the SoEA will be unavailable from the 15th to the 19th of February.