Ending Financial Havens for Islamic State (Debating)

[President Tyrion]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Polnut

Slot: Executive Agenda

Administered by: VP Tyrion

Senator Polnut, you have 24 hours to begin advocacy.

As an aside, I am treating this as an "Act" and not a "Resolution", because there is nothing in the title to dictate otherwise. Clause 3 might be construed as a Resolution, but the other two Clauses seem to indicate passage of the bill for Atlasia as a whole. Let me know if this was not the intention.

[DemPGH]

Tyrion and I had also discussed whether this would fit in foreign policy or not, and just decided to go exec on it (in terms of the slot).

Anyway, I liked this on the surface - we're always talking about missions and bombs and attacking, but there are items like this on the domestic front that we can do. Obviously, there's got to be proof before something like this is used, but it's a good idea.

[TNF]

I think this is a fine idea, and it has my complete support.

[Simfan34]

Can I ask how we can stop the flow of monies being raised in "allied" nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

And more broadly, the support given by those nations- by which I mean their governments- and also that of Turkey (which is not entirely established) to Islamist groups in the Middle East? What, if anything can be done about that?

I will say the largest driver of this "Islamist terror" we have seen in recently has been the flow of oil monies, ever since the 1970s, towards supporting the spread of radical Wahabi/Salafi Islam across the world. It is estimated that the Saudi Arabian government alone has spent $100 billion in spreading this intolerant ideology throughout the world. It is frightening how closely, and how often, one can trace this "Islamist terror" back to the support given to Salafi movements back to the Gulf and those two countries in particular.

If we want there to be peace and democracy in the Middle East , we will have to accept that many people sincerely desire some form of political Islam. But there is no inherent reason that must entail intolerance and radicalism rather than an Islamic Democracy, as we in the west have had our Christian Democracy.

We can stop the spread of this radicalism, because it is our "allies" in the Gulf who have been spreading it. And if we are to take more drastic action, we are becoming less and less dependent on Gulf oil by the day. And those nations- by which I mean Russia and China- who we typically find frustrating our efforts in the realm of foreign policy have experienced the effects of this Salafi radicalism first hand and would almost certainly support stopping it.

[Simfan34]

We looked in horror as ISIS smashed shrines and razed mosques and churches. As we did when Ansar Dine burnt ancient mosques and libraries in Timbuktu. And as we did when the Taliban dynamited the Bhuddas of Bamiyan.

Where do you think they got this from? Saudi Arabia has been destroying sacred Islamic sites since the 18th century. They razed the tomb of the mother and father of the Prophet Mohammed. The Grand Mufti of the country has even proposed destroying the tomb of the Prophet himself.

[TNF]

Perhaps we can move to sever ties with governments that actively fund terrorism? I mean that doesn't sound very controversial to me, but if we have definitive proof that Saudi Arabia is financing groups like this, we shouldn't be palling around with them, oil or no oil. We have already made great strides toward energy efficiency and renewable power production in Atlasia that have not been made IRL. With these in mind, I think that it would be much easier for us to divorce ourselves from the unholy alliance we currently have with the repressive monarchies of the Gulf.

I would personally like to see this as part of a broader retreat from the region, because let's face it, our presence there has done nothing but inflame this kind of sectarian conflict. From the decision to fund religious extremists against secular Arab nationalists during the Cold War to the decision to promote sectarianism in Iraq, we have done literally nothing to promote a peaceful or stable Middle East, instead backing the most brutal butchers in order to satisfy our domestic capitalists' need for dirty energy to grease the engine of their failed economic model.

The best way forward is to withdraw all Atlasian military forces from the region and cut off the means by which these radical Islamist groups are being funded from our own nation. That, and sever our relationship with the racist state of Israel, once and for all.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I believe section 3 is part and parcel of our view, so while it has the resolution language, it should be part of this Bill.

This Bill cannot stop the flow of money everywhere, hence why the Bill is calling for doing what we can inside Atlasia and urging people around the globe to do the same.

I understand Senator TNF's view on this, but I see this as a complimentary measure, not an alternative.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would agree with TNF's approach were it not for the fact that there will always be someone else to sell oil to and plenty of past grievances to attack us for with said monies. I do think we should disentangle ourselves as much as possible, but that would have to be a process and not an absolute taken regardless of the situation on the ground.

[Lumine]

I rather like this bill, and it has my support.

We certainly need to make a few changes in the Middle East and updating our policy towards Saudi Arabia should be something that we need to do, although I think that's something more suitable for the Presidency and a Secretary of External Affairs than the Senate itself.

[Dr. Cynic]

I'll support this bill. As Senator Lumine said, we have to re-examine our policies toward the Middle East, especially in light of this whole IS business.

[Cranberry]

I guess I am with Lumine on this. While I think this bill is very sensible, and I very much support this; I do think that discussing our ties and partnership with Saudi Arabia and similar nations in the Gulf/Middle East region is a better suit job for the SoEA and the President.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree but aren't there usually also actions the legislature has to take in this regard as well?

[Lumine]

I agree but aren't there usually also actions the legislature has to take in this regard as well?

I'm not sure if that applies on this case (assuming we're talking about Saudi Arabia), considering foreign aid and military have been gutted over the past months to the extend it's not a credible weapon. Severing diplomatic relationships arbitrarily is possible, but for obvious reasons a terrible idea. On the other hand, the President+SoEA can discuss affairs with the governments in the region and overall seem to have the powers to act in a far more effective way. We could pass something mostly symbolic (like my Ukraine resolution), but it doesn't amount to much without vigorous action from the Executive branch. Or at least that's my reading of the situation after the recent conflicts regarding what can (and what can't) be done in foreign policy.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I can support everything, except s 5.

[Lumine]

I agree with most of amendment and withdrawing the personnel in Saudi Arabia is something I support (given that it pretty much serves a negative symbol for many Muslims), but I don't think wihdrawing from Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates is a wise idea. Overall, this issue shouldn't be a justification to outright withdraw from most of the Middle East.

[President Tyrion]

I can support everything, except s 5.

Shall I split up the amendment, with Section 5 being hostile?

[Dr. Cynic]

I can support everything, except s 5.

Shall I split up the amendment, with Section 5 being hostile?

I think it should be because I feel exactly the same as Senator Polnut.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I can support everything, except s 5.

Shall I split up the amendment, with Section 5 being hostile?

I think it should be because I feel exactly the same as Senator Polnut.

Please do. I accept the amendments as friendly, except new s 5 which is hostile.

[Cranberry]

Sorry for nitpicking; but the in the first paragraph after the hyphen; there is "Altasia" and not "Atlasia" xD

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Everything but section 5 is fine. Section 5 is a terrible idea.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Remember to get TNF's approval before splitting his amendment in two, VP Tyrion. The date of his approval, becomes the date for the new amendment containing all the friendly parts, whilst the old one (thus to get around the minimum floor time since 24 hours is usually expired from the originally offering by this point) goes to a vote immediately or rather soon.

[Deus Naturae]

Everything but section 5 is fine. Section 5 is a terrible idea.

Wait, what? You support Atlasian troops occupying the Middle East? I thought you were a Ron Paul supporter?

[Deus Naturae]

I can support everything, except s 5.

Why do you oppose Section 5?

[President Tyrion]

Senator TNF, would you be willing to split up the amendment as implied (meaning, with 5 declared hostile with a vote beginning ASAP and the rest being declared friendly)?