Foreign Policy Review (Rejected)

[DemPGH]

The amendment is accepted, 6-4! Proceed to the next level.

[Talleyrand]

So I have a few problems with this FPR…

-More sanctions on Turkey? We might not be best buddies with the AKP, and they might not be doing everything we want… but they're still a democracy and still a key regional power. I'm doubtful that tougher sanctions are what we want here.

-What is the rationale for the restrictions on Morocco and Lebanon?

-Why are we ratcheting up sanctions on Kuwait (in particular), as well as Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE - and why are our sanctions on those 5 stricter than Bahrain? For instance, in Oman there were minor protests, the Sultan made concessions to the legislature and dismissed some people, and a few people died in the protests. In Bahrain Saudi Arabia basically invaded to put down a protest and upwards of 100 people died. I don't see the justification.

-Sort of wondering how the Armenians are getting off free; it's entirely possible that Sargsyan rigged their election.

-Both the Pakistanis and Israelis will be severely pissed.

-Yemen is missing, I hope the talks with Iran proceed, and the FSM, Palau, and Marshall Islands are part of Atlasia (State of Oceania).

-While the administration believes strongly that the AKP is heading in a direction which puts political freedoms and civil liberties in danger for its citizens and is likely contributing to potential regional instability, the administration and I believe that it is best for now to cancel the planned economic restrictions on Turkey (and military if the Senate sees fit), although we reiterate our concerns.

-No restrictions were put on Morocco. The restrictions on Lebanon were extant under SoEA Dr. Cynic as well and are not an addition made by this administration, although we have come to the conclusion that such restrictions are not necessary and urge the Senate to do away with them.

-The sanctions placed on Kuwait by this review should be removed and transferred to Bahrain instead. The administration is deeply concerned by events in the other 5 nations, and is not interested in playing to Islamist petrodictators in the Gulf, although we will be monitoring their actions closely.

-Sanctions, military in particular, in particular would probably a good idea in Armenia per your recommendation and upon some more research into the state of political freedoms in the country. This is a nation in which the AAID has conducted many programs and currently has a good relationship with Atlasia, despite some prior inappropriate military transfers to Iran (which have since been dealt with) so I'd rather these be on the lower scale.

-Both of these nations have done enough to warrant the sanctions placed against them.

-Thanks for the heads-up. The three oceanic countries should be removed and Yemen should be added with sanctions on par with those placed on Oman.

[Donerail]

-Both of these nations have done enough to warrant the sanctions placed against them.

Solid answers. This is the only one I have further questions on, focusing specifically on Israel.

How will this move affect Atlasian military deployments in the nation, specifically at Dimona and the Port of Haifa, assuming the Israelis refuse to allow a continued presence? How will it affect Israeli defense capabilities if they are not able to acquire anything from Atlasia (especially since they've announced plans to introduce the F-35 within two years from now)? And finally (and perhaps most importantly), how will isolating the Israelis impact our ability to pressure them - for a settlement freeze, end to the Gaza blockade, or any other foreign policy objectives?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If I may, I'd like to bring up some of the debate about the FPR two years ago that I was involved in as a Senator, as I think it brings up some relevant issues to consider.

Why full economic restrictions on the Congo DRC , but none at all on Rwanda and Burundi, which along with Uganda, support rebel armies in the Congo, and extract minerals from Congo in order to fund them?   Certainly Kinsasha is not blameless, but the last thing we want to do is put them at a disadvantage against the rebels.  Targeted restrictions would be better.

(I'd like to note I wrote an amendment to address this issue, which passed the Senate, but has not been retained in the current proposal.)

My general opinion is that we should not place full economic restrictions on any nation except in extraordinary circumstances.  We should be encouraging through trade those industries which promote the well being and sufficiency of people in other countries even when we do not approve of the government.

I have to agree with what my colleague is saying.  While full economic sanctions can be a tool in helping affect democratic change in some cases, such sanctions often come at a significant loss of human life among the people while the ruling class simply substitute traded goods for the best domestic goods they can get... further depriving the people.  Purposely depriving people of basic necessities in order to rile them up and affect change in their government is not much less cruel than the atrocities many of these despots are responsible for in the first place.

As Shua said, we should have targeted sanctions that hurt the government most while still allowing trade that is beneficial to the people (like food, building material, components for internet access, computers, etc.  Nothing brings democracy better than modern day instant, universal communication).

on Somalia:

Somali pirates bring economic goods and activity to the impoverished Somali people, and thus they gain their approval. More legitimate venues of economic activity there are what is needed, not less.

And what about terrorists?  Let's not pretend that Al-Shabaab isn't just dying to get a hold of money and goods sent to Somalia.  I really see this as a preventative measure.

We should support through trade the efforts of Puntland and the other regions outside Al-Shabaab control.  The more we cut them off, the less they will be able to withstand encroachments by the terrorist forces.

Now, in spite of our hostile policies toward the government and people of Somalia, they seem to be making some strides forward in defeating the terrorists and instituting a more democratic government.

[Dereich]

Seeing as we're still a part of the WTO, most of these economic sanctions being discussed are pretty clearly illegal and threaten huge legal retaliatory sanctions from all corners of the globe. All member states are required to extend most favored nation status to all other members, with that if we extend privileges to one nation they must be extended to all. Conversely, we can only restrict trade to one member nation if we restrict trade to all member nations. There ARE some circumstances where we have the ability to impose sanctions and not face retaliation by all member states, the only ones which might apply are when sanctions are:

1. necessary to protect public morals;
2. necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health;
3. necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, including those relating to customs enforcement, the enforcement of monopolies operated under paragraph 4 of Article II and Article XVII, the protection of patents, trade marks and copyrights, and the prevention of deceptive practices;

But for many of the places that sanctions are being proposed using any of these as a justification would be shaky at best and would end in tons of WTO cases brought against us. Something should be done to either remove or change the nature of the sanctions or to leave the WTO.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm concerned about many of these determinations, not because I disagree with the reasoning, but I echo Speaker Dereich's position as to whether we are acting legally.

[Talleyrand]

Shua's suggestions with regard to Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, and Somalia are acceptable to the administration and we encourage their adaptation as a part of this review via amendment.

This view is shared my the SoEA. Could you link to your amendment from 2011, Shua? The lack of or existence of restrictions in these nations is a carry-over from the last review, as the preliminary review did not make many changes to foreign policy in Africa from October 2011 with the exception of nations like Egypt.

-Both of these nations have done enough to warrant the sanctions placed against them.

Solid answers. This is the only one I have further questions on, focusing specifically on Israel.

How will this move affect Atlasian military deployments in the nation, specifically at Dimona and the Port of Haifa, assuming the Israelis refuse to allow a continued presence? How will it affect Israeli defense capabilities if they are not able to acquire anything from Atlasia (especially since they've announced plans to introduce the F-35 within two years from now)? And finally (and perhaps most importantly), how will isolating the Israelis impact our ability to pressure them - for a settlement freeze, end to the Gaza blockade, or any other foreign policy objectives?

The Department of Defense plans to maintain current deployments at Dimona and the Port of Haifa for now. We do not believe the Israelis will take moves to expel Atlasian military presence from within their borders at a time when we are conducting peace negotiations with one of its biggest adversaries in the region (Iran), and thereby create ill will against a nation which has consistently been one of its key backers. We believe we will still be able to pressure Israel due to the fact that the Israeli government knows better than to further antagonize a key ally during these times, although it's 100% certain that these restrictions will create significant anger among elements of the Israeli government and public. Military equipment which has already been sold to the government from Atlasia will still be eligible for acquisition by Israel, and certain exceptions may be made for weapons in cases of emergency per executive order.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

it's possible that the situation has changed in such a way as to require modifying this, but here is the amendment:

I propose amending the following countries as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did not manage to put forward an amendment for Somalia, but my suggestion is no economic restrictions, and no military restrictions toward the Federal Government of Somalia and the government of Puntland.

Thank you for supporting my suggestions for a change on these. As I had mentioned, it would be good to also see other countries with full economic restrictions reconsidered.

[tpfkaw]

You want free elections in Rwanda?  Uh, the "murdering a million people" party would win power again in a landslide.

[Donerail]

The Department of Defense plans to maintain current deployments at Dimona and the Port of Haifa for now. We do not believe the Israelis will take moves to expel Atlasian military presence from within their borders at a time when we are conducting peace negotiations with one of its biggest adversaries in the region (Iran), and thereby create ill will against a nation which has consistently been one of its key backers. We believe we will still be able to pressure Israel due to the fact that the Israeli government knows better than to further antagonize a key ally during these times, although it's 100% certain that these restrictions will create significant anger among elements of the Israeli government and public. Military equipment which has already been sold to the government from Atlasia will still be eligible for acquisition by Israel, and certain exceptions may be made for weapons in cases of emergency per executive order.

Will they still consider us a key ally if we've enacted a total military embargo? Going from providing the vast majority of their air force and the most advanced of their naval fleet to nothing whatsoever seems to be a very drastic step. Really, what element of the Knesset won't be significantly angry (besides UAL-Hadash-Balad)?

[Talleyrand]

By all means it would be a drastic step, and one intended to provoke a response from within the echelons of the Israeli government and military to take action to alleviate some of the issues that the Atlasian government sees. Israel, while likely immensely angered, would have little choice to address these problems, as antagonizing would certainly not produce positive results.

However, due to political realities at home, the adminisration has decided that it will settle for partial restrictions, with warning of further restrictions if changes are made.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could a Senator sponsor this amendment, please?

[tmthforu94]

Mr. SoEA, have private efforts been made by this administration to pressure the Israeli government, or are these restrictions the first step the administration has taken in regards to Israel?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am going to offer this to get it considered, but I am by no means on board with the approach.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: None Given
Status: Pending Feedback

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'd recommend putting the amendment to a vote soon if feedback isn't given soon.

[DemPGH]

Okay, amendment 56:44 is up for vote, senators. Go.

[TNF]

Nay.

I am completely opposed to giving Israel any amount of military aid so long as it occupies and brutalizes the Palestinian people.

[Sbane]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye guess


I am still rather dubious about the approach being utilized here, in general. I think that it might make things more difficult in terms of the negotiations if any are or expected to occuring on the issue of middle east peace. No doubt Israel has to get serious in terms of the settlements in order for this to occur, but I worry that if we embolden the hard liners we might get the opposite as a result.

[Gass3268]

Nay

[bore]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[MaxQue]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2-5-0-3


TJ, Polnut, and Napoleon have yet to vote.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye