Ending of Aided Rebellion Bill

[Emsworth]

Ending of Aided Rebellion Bill

1. The purpose of this bill is to end the possibility of funding and/or aiding of Pro-Democratic and Free China operatives in Mainland China and Taiwan.

2. Clause 2 of the Pacific Defense and Taiwanese Protection Act is hereby repealed.

Sponsor: Sen. Ebowed

[Emsworth]

It should not be the policy of the Atlasian government to actively attempt to topple the government of a foreign country. We are effectively aiding armed revolution in an independent and sovereign country. Normally, this would be considered cause for war.

The situation is especially complicated by the fact that China is a world power, a nuclear power. Foreign policy should be dictated by realism, not idealism, and realistically, aiding rebellion in China is not in our national interests.

[Emsworth]

Senator DanielX, with the greatest possible respect, why should the Atlasian taxpayers fund the overthrow of a foreign government, when the overthrow has not been proven to be in this country's best national interests?

[Emsworth]

Just so we're clear, this means that I'll likely oppose this bill as well.

Really? Might I ask why? The bill only cancels the overt appropriation of money to foreign rebels; I don't think that this would in any way affect covert operations by the CIA. In any event, I would imagine that whatever authority the CIA has, it does not possess it as a result of the Atlasian Pacific Defense and Taiwanese Protection Act; thus, repealing a part of that act should not have any effect on the CIA's abilities.

[Emsworth]

Quite frankly, Mr. Senator, how can it be not in our national interests to oppose the Chinese?

I take it you were addressing me? It would not be in our national interests to aid revolution in China because aiding revolution in a foreign country is normally interpreted as cause for war. If China had decided to overtly appropriate funds for the violent overthrow of the federal government, would you not consider it cause for war? If China had decided to fund the secession of a few states, would you not consider it cause for war?

And I hope it would be agreed that war with China is not in our national interests.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be a far more reasonable idea than funding armed revolution.

[Emsworth]

Alasia should be able to use any and all of its resources to protect itself and further its interests.  Whether or not it uses its power toward specific ends should be debated as such situations arise, not prohibited by legislation that will tie our hands and make impossible spontaneous decision-making tailored to specific situations as they arise.

I would completely agree. However, an overt declaration of hostile, pro-revolutionary policy is not something that would, I think, be realistically tolerated by China. I know that the People of Atlasia would not tolerate such behavior on the part of any foreign government, and would consider it cause for war. Such a high level of tensions with a nuclear power is best avoided.

In practice, certainly, the government should be allowed to aid a revolutionary group when necessary. But a positive declaration of policy as being hostile to the Chinese government is not likely to be well-received.

[Emsworth]

Given the total absence of Chinese response to the Taiwan Protection Act and the appropraited funds to pro-democracy groups

We are speaking realistically. Whether the GM saw fit to provide a Chinese response or not is a completely different matter.

What a horrendous bill! We should hold to our principles and support democracy against tyranny. I urge my Senators to vote nay on this bill.

Foreign policy should not be about idealistic principles. It should be about what is realistically in our national interests. I would call for a Realpolitik approach.

[Emsworth]

It makes me shiver to think that the Senate is going to give up on the fight for liberty and freedom in the World.

Has our love of liberty ran dry?

With the greatest possible respect, Senator, our love for liberty must be tempered by realism. Should we invade North Korea in order to democratize it? Should we take over the Middle East and depose the despots and the theocrats? Should we invade all of Africa to overthrow the numerous dictators? I would hope that you would disagree. These actions, while they would promote democracy, would not be in our national interests.

[Emsworth]

We passed that act way back durring my Presidency due to China's open aggression against Taiwan and how they were constantly bad mouthing Atlasia.

Again, with the greatest possible respect, wouldn't you consider instituting a violent revolution a little bit of an overreaction to "bad mouthing"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How are we surrendering our rights by repealing a clause under which the government officially aids violent rebellion in a sovereign country? Private citizens can still fund whatever they want to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, Taiwan may or may not be independent, depending on your perspective.

Secondly, insulting our nation is not cause for war. The French have, I am sure, insulted this country; shall we aid a rebellion against the French government as well? Or perhaps, any country whose government has openly opposed the Iraq war should be invaded, because it has insulted our nation as a whole?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would strongly prefer, Senator, if you would keep personal attacks out of this debate.

[Emsworth]

If Taiwan rejoined China, terrible things would happen on that island. In NO WAY should Taiwan rejoin China until it becomes democratic.

Not necessarily. Taiwan could become a Special Administrative Region like Hong Kong. I don't think that any one of us doubts that Hong Kong is much better off than the mainland.

Also, it has long been the policy of the government to recognize a One China Policy. This is even the official position of the real-life Bush Administration.

[Emsworth]

1. No not at all. They also have openly threatened to take Taiwan several times. THey also institued for about a month an embargo on all Atlaisan goods. I thankfully ended that with aide from Gustaf.

The Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances of Ronald Reagan are ample provision for that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you are going to stick to principle, should we invade North Korea, the Middle East, most of Africa, Cuba, much of South America, and Southeast Asia as well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even the Taiwan Relations Act does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If they have an embargo on our goods, then we should respond by imposing an embargo on theirs. I don't see why we should fund a violent revolution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What, Senator, is, according to you, the fundamental purpose of our foreign policy? I think that it is to promote the national interests of Atlasia. We are not here to go about changing regimes. We are here to do whatever is best for Atlasia. You can argue that a free China is best for Atlasia. I will not disagree with you there. However, approaching it by funding (at taxpayer expense, might I add) the overthrow of a sovereign government is not wise.

Foreign policy should be based on realistic decisions, not idealism. Extreme interventionism does not help the Atlasian national interests, but neither does isolationism. An interventionist might say, invade North Korea and restore democracy. But this would be an absurd idea, because hostility with a rogue state that possesses nuclear weapons is not best for our national interest. Neither would isolationism be a good idea, because then the republic appears weak and powerless. When interventionism is in the national interest, we should interve, and when isolation is in the national interest, we should not.

Let me ask you one further question: why don't we invade China and bring democracy by force?

[Emsworth]

Idealism is what has guided our foreign policy for years. Did constant "Let's Build More Nuculer Weapons" deals (like those under Nixon to Carter) end the Cold War and the USSR. No, it was Reagan's "Zero Option." That was idealism.

On the contrary. Reagan was being realistic in dealing with the Soviets. He did not idealistically suggest, Let's invade Russia and make it "safe for democracy." He did not directly encourage Soviet insurgencies, if I recall correctly. Rather, he used a much more realistic idea: supporting rebellion in the satellite states. That was much more successful.

Directly funding pro-democracy groups in China will not achieve much. More subtle diplomatic measures, as well as economic pressure (perhaps even an embargo) would achieve much more than funding "pro-democracy" groups.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was the quotation, not the policy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree. The Monroe Doctrine's effect has been overestimated. It did not succeed just because Monroe stated it; it succeeded because the British supported it, and the Royal Navy agreed to help enforce it. It was not until the 1840s that the Monroe Doctrine was actively enforced by the Americans themselves.

Let me give you an example of where realism succeeded in the nineteenth century. President James K. Polk, as you know, sought to acquire the Oregon Territory. The idealistic approach was "Fifty-Four Forty-Eight or Fight." The realistic approach was to compromise with Britain. Undoubtedly, the latter was preferable.

[Emsworth]

"Supporting rebellion in the satellite states," were pretty much doing that, but China has only one state it really is aiming for, Taiwan, and by repealing the Taiwanese Protection act we are not supporting what you JUST SAID was a good policy.

I have no problem whatsoever with aiding Taiwan. Aiding groups on mainland China is not a wise idea, however, for the reasons I have outlined.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Chinese were funding groups that wanted to overthrow our government, wouldn't you think that it is cause for war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly, the idea was idealistic. The implementation, however, was realistic. I hardly doubt that realistically, the U.S. would have actually waged war with, say, a large group of European nations trying to intervene in Latin America.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But an idealistic one.

[Emsworth]

Absolutely not.  The United States must reserve all available options when it comes to defeating the People's Republic of China.  While at the current time, I could see the wisdom in refraining from aiding resistance in the PRC, I see no reason to take away the option entirely.

I don't see how the repeal of this clause would take away any option. If the Republic of Atlasia wishes to employ any particular action, it is not prevented from doing so.

If the clause is interpreted as "the Atlasian Senate may pass a law aiding rebels," it is redundant, because there is nothing to suggest that the Senate could not do otherwise in the first place. If it is interpreted as, "the government may grant funds to pro-democracy groups," it is unconstitutional, because appropriations may only be made in consequence of specific grants by the Senate, not "blank checks." And finally, if it is interpreted as, "the government will grant funds to pro-democracy groups," then it is unwise, as I have pointed out.

To illustrate my position, I would like to quote from the original Senate debate:

I think that openly supporting people whose goal is, as far as I can tell, the overthrow of the current Chinese government, is not a good idea.

[It] sounds risky to me, it seems to be an open act of indirect aggression against China. If we are to fund these groups in China, I would far prefer it to be done a bit more discreetly than this.

... It carries an obvious diplomatic risk.

These are essentially the reasons for which I favor the current bill. It is not because I am opposed to the spread of freedom, as some may have suggested.

[Emsworth]

It is not for the government to determine what is realistic, it is for the GM to determine that.  The GM (four of them, actually) has made his decision.  Why are we responding to problems that have not arisen and show no evidence of arising?

Well, I hardly think that it is reasonable to expect the government to just hand over sovereignty to the GM. The government, and in fact any private citizen whatsoever, has the right to give an opinion that something would be likely.

[Emsworth]

The question is on final passage of this bill. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

[Emsworth]

The bill has enough votes to fail; Senators have 24 hours to vote or change their votes.

[Emsworth]

There have voted:
Aye: 1
No: 8

The bill is defeated.