Peace and Prosperity Act of 2014 (Voting on Amendment)

[Lumine]

I took the time to carefully meditate about this one when it was introduced to the queue, and needless to say I really oppose this bill. We need to reform the way our foreign policy works, true, but we must do so with realism and with true understanding of the way the world works. Idealism in foreign policy is not necessarily a bad thing, but allowing it to force radical shifts in our policies (like the an End to Imperialism act I sought to take down before the attempt was vetoed) is certainly not the way to go. Actually, this would have enormous amounts of negative consequences here and abroad, hence why I believe this shouldn't pass the Senate.

To elaborate further on my thoughts:

Our defense spending levels are already very low and have been systematically slashed by previous bills, so reducing it by 75 is quite ridiculous to me as it would cripple our armed forces beyond repair. We need to have a strong national defense, and weakening our forces won't endear us to the rest of the world, it will only make us weaker and destroy our capabilities to actually act when it's necessary to do so. If I'm not mistaken, Atlasia destroyed all chemical and biological weapons in 2009, and while nuclear weapons are a terrible weapon (that should never be used), destroying our arsenal is pretty much asking a rival nation to use theirs in the future knowing we won't be able to retaliate. If we wish to reduce the level of nuclear weapons we must do so by working with other nations and ensuring we are all reducing our levels, not simply getting rid of the weapons without regard for the enormous shift in the balance of power.

The part concerning the United Nations is not a bad one, that organization needs reform, although I would rather have a Security Council that includes the more powerful nations (Japan, Germany, India, Brazil and so forth) and eliminates the veto than an elected one (of course that's my personal take). Eliminating our military bases is another bad idea because we have already gutted them and to continue that line of thinking is to eliminate the mere possibility that we could even consider intervention elsewhere. And finally, in regards to the debt, I do recognize that there are some debts that could be forgiven to help a few nations in trouble, but to forgive all debts is something I can't see helping our economy and it will set a terrible precedent to other nations in the future not to pay their debts and go down the path of irresponsibility.

Regardless of whether one is more hawkish or dovish, more interventionist or isolationist, this is clearly the wrong way to go in foreign policy, and this bill would evidently weaken Atlasia and destroy our progress in the foreign stage instead of an idealistic cooperative world. I'm sure we would all want a truly peaceful world, but I deeply believe this is a dangerous, unpractical and far too rushed way of trying to reach that goal.

[Lumine]

I thank the SoEA for those detailed numbers and information, it will be incredibly helpful for this bill and other foreign policy proposals. Although it is a bit more moderate now, I must say that I still find it a very bad idea to eliminate all of our bases and consider the forgiveness of debt given the likely consequences. Furthermore, wouldn't Clause 3 be quite extreme in times of a crisis by hampering our ability to act when needed?

[Lumine]

I agree with Cassius and Simfan, I oppose getting rid of our bases in the allied countries we mentioned before. Beyond the defense purposes of them they also serve as a symbol of this country standing up for them, which is specially crucial when it comes to nations like South Korea and Japan, currently threatened by North Korea and specially by China. Having these bases and a good number of military assets deployed around several contries enables us to take quick action when we need to act in case of an emergency, so reducing our capabilities and our options is certainly not the road I think we should be taking. Furthermore, while the Defense sector does require some level of reform, Cassius is right in pointing our the risks of only relying on drone warfare (not to mention this would damage the Air Force in a big way), plus the issues brought by 5d.

[Lumine]

Senator, President Poroshenko was elected democratically and the far right elements are losing power in Kiev, is there any chance this defamatory attack on his government could cease?

And furthermore, I must say I oppose the current trend of ignoring our written treaties and agreements in favor of sudden changes that eliminate our involvement. Many ignored that we offered Ukraine our guarantee that we would help them in case of aggression, making it harder to support them against the so called "separatists". And this bill seems to ignore NATO and many of our security and military agreements over the pasts decades. Certainly breaking the previous arrangements is not the best way of increasing the trust Atlasia has in the world, and openly calling for revolts against austerity is out of place.

If the Senate forgives my cynicism, world affairs don't work based on idealism. Most of us would like it to work like that, but it doesn't, and not even radical legislation like this would change it. What we need is measured reform and a willingness to act when necessary in order to be a positive force in the world, but by drastically diminishing our involvement and reducing our military funding and capabilities over and over the only thing that we're doing is to ensure that others will step in to fill the gap, and they won't be just allies. Many will speak about defending peace and to fight for peace, but beyond the rhetoric I remain unconvinced that this road will actually secure peace beyond making it harder for Atlasia to do anything on the world stage as the world's remaining superpower (unless you consider China or Russia on a similar standing).

[Lumine]

I'll vote Aye in this amendment since I feel it's important to eliminate the clauses, but I should point out that I believe Clause   is the main point of opposition (at least to me). I believe there has been a tendence to weaken the military in previous bills, and while I understand the need for reform and reducing expenses that may be wasteful, I fail to see how this could actually improve the situation beyond forcing the armed forces to a sudden and slightly chaotic change.

"Imperial actions" is, I believe, one of those terms that are only used to oversimplify things, because I believe Atlasia has a role to play which is actually related to the spirit of Clause 3, to prevent genocide or attacks against determined groups and collaborating with the affected governments (like the Iraqi government to help the Kurds against ISIS, or the Ukrainian government to defend against Russian aggressions and also help the Tatars of Crimea), a role that cannot be played in a proper way if we weaken our military and reduce our bases across the world. As the SoEA and others have pointed out, that would be wrong road for us.

[Lumine]

I'm surprised that nobody has raised any qualms about Section 2 yet; attempting to 'democratise' the United Nations is a fools errand, and one that will do great damage to our ability to advance a strong foreign policy that is in Atlasia's interests.

On first thought I would be inclined to agree, Cassius, but the truth is that our veto power is not that useful when China and Russia use theirs, thus forcing an endless stalemate in the Security Council that actually harms the UN and our own interest. Attempting a reform of the UN has its risks, but given the composition of earlier Security Councils and the General Assembly itself I believe we could be able to mobilize a majority of nations in most cases (at least with more support than Russia), thus actually getting more things done. And since Palestine and Israel are as of now following the peace deal to a good extent, that is one less issue to worry about.

[Lumine]

Aye.

[Lumine]

Bump! (I believe the time has passed)

[Lumine]

Aye FTR.

[Lumine]

Indeed, the emphasis here is in promoting, not forcing democracy, so I don't personally think that could be a bad cause as long as we can be careful about it.

[Lumine]

A majority has been reached here, and Senator TNF's amendment has passed.

Aye (6) Senator TNF, Senator Polnut, Senator Cranberry, Senator Bore, Senator Cynic and President Pro Tempore Lumine.
Nay (3) Senator Deus, Senator Cassius and Senator JCL.
Abstained (1): Senator Yankee

Not Voting (0)

[Lumine]

I still have major concerns regarding the part related to the changes in the Armed Forces, but since the earlier amendment regarding that was defeated it would be kind of strange to propose the same thing again. Should we go to a final vote or are there any other amendments on this?

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators, a vote on the Peace and Prosperity Act of 2014 is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Lumine]

Nay.

[Lumine]

This is tied at the present, with one Senator missing (Senator Cynic).

[Lumine]

This has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Lumine]

The Peace and Prosperity Act has passed the Senate, and is now sent to the President for executive action.

Aye (5) Senator TNF, Senator Bore, Senator Deus, Senator Cranberry, Senator Cynic.
Nay (4) Senator Cassius, Senator JCL, PPT Lumine and Senator Yankee.
Abstained (1) Senator Polnut.

Not Voting (0)

Final Text: (for reference)

You must be logged in to read this quote.