The Global Treaty Organization

[12th Doctor]

The treaty has now been ratified by five nations.  Thsi means that it is offically in effect.  This can work.  I strongly urge the Senate to pass this treaty so that this organization can thrive.

[Hatman 🍁]

The treaty has now been ratified by five nations.  Thsi means that it is offically in effect.  This can work.  I strongly urge the Senate to pass this treaty so that this organization can thrive.

How convenient.

[afleitch]

Apologies for my absense in recent days due to my holiday.

Firtst of all, looking closely at this proposal, I can see no flaws in its principle core values. Secondly, I concur with Supersoulty that defending like minded signatories to these core values does not threaten or undermime our national interests in anyway. But neither can it usurp our membership to the UN, which sadly, due to its global membership includes nations that have the greatest disregard for democracy and human rights, or NATO, which concerns itself with matters of a military rather than a direct humanitarian nature. Instead, the GTO should be a body that compliments these organisations.

I strongly urge the senate to vote in favour of membership but with caution. If you believe in anyway that one or more sections of the bill undermimes national security and the autonomy of one or more branches of the Atlasian state then think carefully before proceeding. I, for one, cannot see such problems.

Secondly concerns have been raised regarding the 'exclusivity' of the GTO as it does not contain many of our long standing allies and partners. This may blunt the legitimacy of any action that Atlasia takes on behalf of other GTO member nations, as opposed to NATO or UN nations. I believe that there is room for expansion, and that this should be generously encouraged.

[WMS]

Allow me to ellaborate a bit more on my earlier condemnation of France.

Let's go back to Vietnam, for starters.  In the early 50's, every NATO country, including the US, urged the French to give up on Indo-China, and just allow it independence.  The French, however, did not want to drop the issue, not because of any concern for the people of that area, or communism, but because the French didn't want to give up on their empire.  It was the only thing that made them a global power, even after the British had finally given up on their empire.  The French acctually created the communist problem in South East Asia, because their occupation was used as a tool by the communists to recruit members and rail against Western agression.

Anyway, the United States finally had to get involved to prevent the utter annialation of the French Army, and the French settled a peace treaty.  Well, the communists were in power, thanks to France, so the country had to be split between North and South to prevent the whole thing from falling under communism.  Then we had to send troops, not to secure an empire, like the French, but rather to keep the communists from taking over.

And who were the biggest non-communist critics of American involvement in Vietnam... why, the French of course.  They then turned aroudn and used it as a platform to rail against American power.

It appears that they were more angry at us for stepping in and urging an end to their (real) imperialism, than they were happy for the fact that we stopped their military from getting destroyed.

Anyway, France left the NATO security force, because they felt that the United States had too much power, and they hated the idea of reality.  They wanted to be powerful.  They were also upset because NATO was expanding influence into georaphic spheres (such as North Africa) that they considered to be French spheres of influence only.  And that was more imporant to them than a united front against the Warsaw Pact.

Anyway, it was around this time that they looked around and realized that they had no real power left on the world stage (except that one little vote on the UN Security Council, and have they milked that thing ever since) so that is when France's official foriegn policy became something known as the "Gaulist (or Gaulleist, after Charles DeGaulle) Dream.  Basically, the idea was that they were going to use their influence with other countries, particulalry in Europe, as a means of setting up a rival superpower to the US and USSR that would be controled, at least in part, by France.

French FP has been guided by this idea ever since, which is exactly why it has become so strictly realist.  The collapse of the USSR meant that they no longer had to be so hostile to NATO, cause it wasn't what it was, so they rejoined.  However, any idiot can see the infullence of French realism in the current realm of world affairs.  Just look at France's attempts to set up rivial coalitions to the US (France, Gemrnay, Russia - France, China).

So, if you want to long version of why France does not belong, there it is.  Any other questions?

*applauds*

And SoS Afleitch is correct.

[jerusalemcar5]

Apologies for my absense in recent days due to my holiday.

Firtst of all, looking closely at this proposal, I can see no flaws in its principle core values. Secondly, I concur with Supersoulty that defending like minded signatories to these core values does not threaten or undermime our national interests in anyway. But neither can it usurp our membership to the UN, which sadly, due to its global membership includes nations that have the greatest disregard for democracy and human rights, or NATO, which concerns itself with matters of a military rather than a direct humanitarian nature. Instead, the GTO should be a body that compliments these organisations.

I strongly urge the senate to vote in favour of membership but with caution. If you believe in anyway that one or more sections of the bill undermimes national security and the autonomy of one or more branches of the Atlasian state then think carefully before proceeding. I, for one, cannot see such problems.

Secondly concerns have been raised regarding the 'exclusivity' of the GTO as it does not contain many of our long standing allies and partners. This may blunt the legitimacy of any action that Atlasia takes on behalf of other GTO member nations, as opposed to NATO or UN nations. I believe that there is room for expansion, and that this should be generously encouraged.

It just adds to international bureaucracy while dragging us into a military alliance with nations that have military struggles, like Colombia.  I do believe this undermines our national security and sovereignity because we cannnot be sure of what the other nations will vote to drag us into.  I believe the humanitarian goals are still covered by the UN with organizations such as UNICEF, UNDP, and others.  Though I appreciate the spirit in which this was crafted, I do not believe it is plausible for Atlasia.

[12th Doctor]

It just adds to international bureaucracy while dragging us into a military alliance with nations that have military struggles, like Colombia.

Colombia's military struggle is part of an effort to stop international drug cartels which use their power to kill innocent people and murder judges.  These guys have submarines, for God's sake, and our efforts to stop them, at this point, have been pethetic at best, due to lack of scope and coperation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which makes it a good thing that the treaty has stipulations in it with would allow us to not directly support any military action that we vote against, while, at the same time, not binding us from military action if we see it fit, so long as that action is not against the spirit of the treaty.

I was going to include an explusion clause, but I figured that the organization should decide how to handle each case seperatly.  I created this treaty to have a clear purpose, but to be flexible at the same time.

Anyway, the treaty specifically allows countries to deploy a force level that they see fit for the situation, so you nightmare senario of a Pakistani killing an Indian and then global war resulting is totally bogus.  It there did arise a situation where we had to deploy a sizable chuck of our military power, then it woudl be something that we not only should be involved in, but most likely would be involved in anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One word: Rwanda

[jerusalemcar5]

It just adds to international bureaucracy while dragging us into a military alliance with nations that have military struggles, like Colombia.

Colombia's military struggle is part of an effort to stop international drug cartels which use their power to kill innocent people and murder judges.  These guys have submarines, for God's sake, and our efforts to stop them, at this point, have been pethetic at best, due to lack of scope and coperation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which makes it a good thing that the treaty has stipulations in it with would allow us to not directly support any military action that we vote against, while, at the same time, not binding us from military action if we see it fit, so long as that action is not against the spirit of the treaty.

I was going to include an explusion clause, but I figured that the organization should decide how to handle each case seperatly.  I created this treaty to have a clear purpose, but to be flexible at the same time.

Anyway, the treaty specifically allows countries to deploy a force level that they see fit for the situation, so you nightmare senario of a Pakistani killing an Indian and then global war resulting is totally bogus.  It there did arise a situation where we had to deploy a sizable chuck of our military power, then it woudl be something that we not only should be involved in, but most likely would be involved in anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One word: Rwanda

I won't get into another argument over the scope of this organization, but I will respond to that Rwanda comment.  How many of these GTO countries stepped up to the plate and sent a military force to Rwanda?  Oh that's right, none.  So explain how that was different from UN actions please.

[12th Doctor]

It just adds to international bureaucracy while dragging us into a military alliance with nations that have military struggles, like Colombia.

Colombia's military struggle is part of an effort to stop international drug cartels which use their power to kill innocent people and murder judges.  These guys have submarines, for God's sake, and our efforts to stop them, at this point, have been pethetic at best, due to lack of scope and coperation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which makes it a good thing that the treaty has stipulations in it with would allow us to not directly support any military action that we vote against, while, at the same time, not binding us from military action if we see it fit, so long as that action is not against the spirit of the treaty.

I was going to include an explusion clause, but I figured that the organization should decide how to handle each case seperatly.  I created this treaty to have a clear purpose, but to be flexible at the same time.

Anyway, the treaty specifically allows countries to deploy a force level that they see fit for the situation, so you nightmare senario of a Pakistani killing an Indian and then global war resulting is totally bogus.  It there did arise a situation where we had to deploy a sizable chuck of our military power, then it woudl be something that we not only should be involved in, but most likely would be involved in anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One word: Rwanda

I won't get into another argument over the scope of this organization, but I will respond to that Rwanda comment.  How many of these GTO countries stepped up to the plate and sent a military force to Rwanda?  Oh that's right, none.  So explain how that was different from UN actions please.

Almost all the countries on this list are under different leadership now.  And what you are saying is besides the point.  The point is, no on ein the UN upper level felt compelled to do anything about it, so how is the UN meeting its humanitarian goals?  I can give you plenty of other examples, it you like.

[jerusalemcar5]

The UN, like GTO, can only act if its members act.  If the UN fails, the blame fall on the membership that failed to act, not the organization.

[12th Doctor]

The UN, like GTO, can only act if its members act.  If the UN fails, the blame fall on the membership that failed to act, not the organization.

No offense, but you are really starting to seem as though you are just grasping at every little string that you can to find any reason to oppose this.

[Ebowed]

Since this is a treaty, and given the fact that several countries are waiting to see what we will do with it before taking action, I believe it qualifies as emergency legislation and the relevant bill should be put in the fifth slot once Hawk's electoral reform bill is off the floor.

[ilikeverin]

It just adds to international bureaucracy while dragging us into a military alliance with nations that have military struggles, like Colombia.

Colombia's military struggle is part of an effort to stop international drug cartels which use their power to kill innocent people and murder judges.  These guys have submarines, for God's sake, and our efforts to stop them, at this point, have been pethetic at best, due to lack of scope and coperation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which makes it a good thing that the treaty has stipulations in it with would allow us to not directly support any military action that we vote against, while, at the same time, not binding us from military action if we see it fit, so long as that action is not against the spirit of the treaty.

I was going to include an explusion clause, but I figured that the organization should decide how to handle each case seperatly.  I created this treaty to have a clear purpose, but to be flexible at the same time.

Anyway, the treaty specifically allows countries to deploy a force level that they see fit for the situation, so you nightmare senario of a Pakistani killing an Indian and then global war resulting is totally bogus.  It there did arise a situation where we had to deploy a sizable chuck of our military power, then it woudl be something that we not only should be involved in, but most likely would be involved in anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One word: Rwanda

I won't get into another argument over the scope of this organization, but I will respond to that Rwanda comment.  How many of these GTO countries stepped up to the plate and sent a military force to Rwanda?  Oh that's right, none.  So explain how that was different from UN actions please.

Almost all the countries on this list are under different leadership now.

Yes, and the UN is under different leadership now.  What's your point?