|
Title: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (law'd) Post by: bgwah on December 11, 2011, 05:22:38 PM Quote Department of External Affairs: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review Definitions of the DoEA's Foreign Policy Review Economic/Trade Restrictions: Normal/None: Atlasian government and corporations are free to due business unhindered by government enforced restrictions. Partial: Specific restrictions such as selective tariffs or partial embargoes are to be in place to attack the government and not the regime. Foreign aid can be granted if the regime shows signs of progress towards democracy. Full: Complete embargo and trade is forbidden with the nation in question. Corporations in violation may face fines decided by the Senate. Military Restrictions: Normal/None: Any military hardware produced by private firms, or by the government of Atlasia may be sold to the government in question. However, nuclear material, technology and nuclear weapons may not be sold unless the Senate agrees with the sale of atomic technology to the nation in question. Partial: Personnel weapons may be sold by private corporations or the state to the country in question. Personnel weapons are weapons, which are carried and operated by one man, i.e. assault rifles, mortars, RPGs, etc. No vehicles, armour, aircraft, or ships may be sold. Full: No military equipment of any nature may be sold privately or by Atlasia, i.e. no uniforms, guns, vehicles, nothing. DoEA Policy: Asia and Oceania Afghanistan: Normal, though we are concerned about corruption, drugs, woman's rights and other issues. Australia: Normal Bahrain: Partial military and no economic restrictions. The Atlasian Government strongly condemns the measures taken against protesters in Bahrain. Bangladesh: Normal Bhutan: Normal Brunei: Partial military and partial economic restrictions Burma (Myanmar): Full military and partial economic restrictions. We urge for a full transfer to democracy, and the respect for civil liberties and basic political freedoms. Cambodia: Normal, though we are concerned about corruption and civil liberties. China: Partial military restrictions and no economic restrictions, though we are very concerned over human rights, and political liberties. We realize that China is a major economic partner and full economic restrictions would be counter-productive to the Atlasian and global economy. East Timor: Normal Federated States of Micronesia: Normal Fiji: Full military and partial economic restrictions. India: Normal Indonesia: Normal Iran: Full military and economic restrictions will remain in place until the Iranian regime makes full, honest and lasting overtures to democracy, as well as fully renouncing any attempt at a nuclear program. Iraq: Normal, though we have major concerns about corruption and other issues. Israel: Normal; however, the DoEA urges Israel to end all settlements and work harder towards reaching a settlement to the Palestinian crisis. Japan: Normal Jordan: Normal, though we want a full transfer to democracy. Kazakhstan: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We want a full transfer to democracy. Kiribati: Normal Kuwait: Normal. Kyrgyzstan: Partial military and no economic restrictions Laos: Normal, though we have concerns about human rights and basic freedoms. Lebanon: Full military and no economic restrictions. Malaysia: Partial military and no economic restrictions. Maldives: Normal Marshall Islands: Normal Mongolia: Normal Nauru: Normal Nepal: Normal New Zealand: Normal North Korea: Full military and economic restrictions Oman: Partial military and no economic restrictions Pakistan: Normal, though we are extremely concerned about the apparent role of the ISI in harboring terrorists. Palau: Normal Palestine: Normal, though we are gravely concerned by the current political situation. Atlasia supports a two-state solution and would like a democratic and independent state of Palestine in the near future. Papua New Guinea: Normal Philippines: Normal Qatar: Normal, though we want a full transfer to democracy. Samoa: Normal Saudi Arabia: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We are concerned about the human rights situation and urge the government to make major democratic reforms. Singapore: Normal, though we would like a true democracy. Solomon Islands: Normal South Korea: Normal Sri Lanka: Normal, though we are concerned about a few issues. We urge the government to build a modern, peaceful, democratic and multi-ethnic state with peaceful ethnic relations in the wake of the end of the civil war. Syria: Full military and economic restrictions. The regime of Bashar al-Assad has committed significant human rights violations against its people, and it is time for Mr. Assad to accept the will of his people and resign his position and allow Syria to become a democratic state. Tajikistan: Full military and economic restrictions Thailand: Normal, though we are keeping a close eye on the political situation and we will re-evalute the Free Trade Act with Thailand if need be. Tonga: Normal Turkmenistan: Full military and economic restrictions Tuvalu: Normal United Arab Emirates: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We are concerned about workers rights and political freedoms. Uzbekistan: Full military and economic restrictions Vanuatu: Normal Vietnam: Normal Yemen: Normal I present the full FPR to the Senate and ask a Senator to assume sponsorship of this bill and urge the Senate to approve it, as per the terms of F.L. 32-18: Amendment to the SoEA Role Codification Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Amendment_to_the_SoEA_Role_Codification_Act). x Ben, Secretary of External Affairs Sponsor: Napoleon Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 11, 2011, 05:54:42 PM Please note that there are other parts, and the FPR should be considered as a whole.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Napoleon on December 12, 2011, 06:40:00 PM Do you mind detailing the reason for restrictions?
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 12, 2011, 06:46:39 PM Forgive my ignorance for such a simple question, but what does "full military restrictions" entail?
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Napoleon on December 12, 2011, 06:49:54 PM Forgive my ignorance for such a simple question, but what does "full military restrictions" entail? It's described in the bill. ;) Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 12, 2011, 08:03:41 PM Forgive my ignorance for such a simple question, but what does "full military restrictions" entail? It's described in the bill. ;) Complete brain failure on this bill, there. Sorry. :P Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 12, 2011, 09:36:11 PM Do you mind detailing the reason for restrictions? Are there any you are particularly concerned about? I don't feel the need to justify Iran, or Fiji, or Burma, or Syria; I'd rather focus on the ones you feel should be justified. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Ban my account ffs! on December 12, 2011, 10:24:09 PM While not completely necessary, I'd like to eventually see an additional category added above "normal" in both for strong ally nations like Japan or Britain that allows a free exchange of information and unlimited free trade. They would also be top priority for economic or military aid if they require it.
The other categories would remain largely the same. I know it's not nice to pick favorites... but some nations that share our values have been friends and allies for long enough that we should make an effort to show our trust in them and make them know we value our close relationship. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 12, 2011, 10:29:45 PM I fully agree with the President. Any Senators have a suggestion on a term?
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 14, 2011, 03:20:33 AM Could we possibly get an eintire review, not just Asia piece?
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Hash on December 14, 2011, 09:41:10 AM Why is Yemen treated as 'normal'?
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 14, 2011, 09:53:44 AM I'd like to offer a following amendment:
Yemen: Full military restrictions. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 14, 2011, 10:09:11 AM I submitted a full FPR; Napoleon just submitted Asia.
And I fully support Kal's amendment. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Napoleon on December 14, 2011, 12:02:22 PM I will consider it friendly.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Napoleon on December 14, 2011, 12:04:29 PM I submitted a full FPR; Napoleon just submitted Asia. And I fully support Kal's amendment. I stopped hitting show post when I found the most recent post. Can you make them into one post? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 14, 2011, 01:40:09 PM I cannot. And way to subtly admit you have me on ignore.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 14, 2011, 04:11:10 PM I know ignore option can make one's life easier, if one really dislike certain poster and/or his posting, but I wish government officials could show little more responsibility and respect to the process by not ignoring each other, at least when it's coming to an official business.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 16, 2011, 05:18:03 PM So, can we get back to work on this? If a Senator can (for this FPR only) designate the following nations with the status of "Most Priority", defined as "free exchange of intelligence and trade, as well as top priorities for military and/or economic aid if needed":
Australia Israel Japan Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Mopsus on December 16, 2011, 08:08:25 PM So, can we get back to work on this? If a Senator can (for this FPR only) designate the following nations with the status of "Most Priority", defined as "free exchange of intelligence and trade, as well as top priorities for military and/or economic aid if needed": Australia Israel Japan Quote Department of External Affairs: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review Definitions of the DoEA's Foreign Policy Review Economic/Trade Restrictions: Most Priority: Free exchange of intelligence and trade, as well as top priorities for military and/or economic aid if needed Normal/None: Atlasian government and corporations are free to due business unhindered by government enforced restrictions. Partial: Specific restrictions such as selective tariffs or partial embargoes are to be in place to attack the government and not the regime. Foreign aid can be granted if the regime shows signs of progress towards democracy. Full: Complete embargo and trade is forbidden with the nation in question. Corporations in violation may face fines decided by the Senate. Military Restrictions: Normal/None: Any military hardware produced by private firms, or by the government of Atlasia may be sold to the government in question. However, nuclear material, technology and nuclear weapons may not be sold unless the Senate agrees with the sale of atomic technology to the nation in question. Partial: Personnel weapons may be sold by private corporations or the state to the country in question. Personnel weapons are weapons, which are carried and operated by one man, i.e. assault rifles, mortars, RPGs, etc. No vehicles, armour, aircraft, or ships may be sold. Full: No military equipment of any nature may be sold privately or by Atlasia, i.e. no uniforms, guns, vehicles, nothing. DoEA Policy: Asia and Oceania Afghanistan: Normal, though we are concerned about corruption, drugs, woman's rights and other issues. Australia: Most Priority Bahrain: Partial military and no economic restrictions. The Atlasian Government strongly condemns the measures taken against protesters in Bahrain. Bangladesh: Normal Bhutan: Normal Brunei: Partial military and partial economic restrictions Burma (Myanmar): Full military and partial economic restrictions. We urge for a full transfer to democracy, and the respect for civil liberties and basic political freedoms. Cambodia: Normal, though we are concerned about corruption and civil liberties. China: Partial military restrictions and no economic restrictions, though we are very concerned over human rights, and political liberties. We realize that China is a major economic partner and full economic restrictions would be counter-productive to the Atlasian and global economy. East Timor: Normal Federated States of Micronesia: Normal Fiji: Full military and partial economic restrictions. India: Normal Indonesia: Normal Iran: Full military and economic restrictions will remain in place until the Iranian regime makes full, honest and lasting overtures to democracy, as well as fully renouncing any attempt at a nuclear program. Iraq: Normal, though we have major concerns about corruption and other issues. Israel: Most Priority; however, the DoEA urges Israel to end all settlements and work harder towards reaching a settlement to the Palestinian crisis. Japan: Most Priority Jordan: Normal, though we want a full transfer to democracy. Kazakhstan: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We want a full transfer to democracy. Kiribati: Normal Kuwait: Normal. Kyrgyzstan: Partial military and no economic restrictions Laos: Normal, though we have concerns about human rights and basic freedoms. Lebanon: Full military and no economic restrictions. Malaysia: Partial military and no economic restrictions. Maldives: Normal Marshall Islands: Normal Mongolia: Normal Nauru: Normal Nepal: Normal New Zealand: Normal North Korea: Full military and economic restrictions Oman: Partial military and no economic restrictions Pakistan: Normal, though we are extremely concerned about the apparent role of the ISI in harboring terrorists. Palau: Normal Palestine: Normal, though we are gravely concerned by the current political situation. Atlasia supports a two-state solution and would like a democratic and independent state of Palestine in the near future. Papua New Guinea: Normal Philippines: Normal Qatar: Normal, though we want a full transfer to democracy. Samoa: Normal Saudi Arabia: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We are concerned about the human rights situation and urge the government to make major democratic reforms. Singapore: Normal, though we would like a true democracy. Solomon Islands: Normal South Korea: Normal Sri Lanka: Normal, though we are concerned about a few issues. We urge the government to build a modern, peaceful, democratic and multi-ethnic state with peaceful ethnic relations in the wake of the end of the civil war. Syria: Full military and economic restrictions. The regime of Bashar al-Assad has committed significant human rights violations against its people, and it is time for Mr. Assad to accept the will of his people and resign his position and allow Syria to become a democratic state. Tajikistan: Full military and economic restrictions Thailand: Normal, though we are keeping a close eye on the political situation and we will re-evalute the Free Trade Act with Thailand if need be. Tonga: Normal Turkmenistan: Full military and economic restrictions Tuvalu: Normal United Arab Emirates: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We are concerned about workers rights and political freedoms. Uzbekistan: Full military and economic restrictions Vanuatu: Normal Vietnam: Normal Yemen: Normal I present the full FPR to the Senate and ask a Senator to assume sponsorship of this bill and urge the Senate to approve it, as per the terms of F.L. 32-18: Amendment to the SoEA Role Codification Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Amendment_to_the_SoEA_Role_Codification_Act). x Ben, Secretary of External Affairs Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 18, 2011, 12:16:56 PM Thank you Senator. And I'll also ask that someone introduce the other parts, with the following nations given Most Priority status:
Canada France Germany United Kingdom Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 18, 2011, 01:00:03 PM There are several posts that create the FPR, Senator. If you could just introduce each one, keeping the countries in their traditional FPRs, I'd appreciate it :)
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 18, 2011, 01:13:51 PM Where do I find the other FPRs? If you go to my office thread, the first couple of posts on the last page include the complete FPR. It will take you one post per Region. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Mopsus on December 18, 2011, 01:23:50 PM Quote Department of External Affairs: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review Definitions of the DoEA's Foreign Policy Review Economic/Trade Restrictions: Most Priority: Free exchange of intelligence and trade, as well as top priorities for military and/or economic aid if needed Normal/None: Atlasian government and corporations are free to due business unhindered by government enforced restrictions. Partial: Specific restrictions such as selective tariffs or partial embargoes are to be in place to attack the government and not the regime. Foreign aid can be granted if the regime shows signs of progress towards democracy. Full: Complete embargo and trade is forbidden with the nation in question. Corporations in violation may face fines decided by the Senate. Military Restrictions: Normal/None: Any military hardware produced by private firms, or by the government of Atlasia may be sold to the government in question. However, nuclear material, technology and nuclear weapons may not be sold unless the Senate agrees with the sale of atomic technology to the nation in question. Partial: Personnel weapons may be sold by private corporations or the state to the country in question. Personnel weapons are weapons, which are carried and operated by one man, i.e. assault rifles, mortars, RPGs, etc. No vehicles, armour, aircraft, or ships may be sold. Full: No military equipment of any nature may be sold privately or by Atlasia, i.e. no uniforms, guns, vehicles, nothing. DoEA Policy: Africa Algeria: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We have serious concerns about political freedoms, basic rights, and corruption. Angola: Normal Benin: Normal Botswana: Normal Burkina Faso: Normal, though we are concerned about corruption and certain political freedoms. Burundi: Full military and partial economic restrictions. We are still concerned about ethnic violence, corruption, certain political freedoms, and the trade of minerals fueling violence in the Congo Cameroon: Normal, though we are concerned by the political situation and corruption. Cape Verde: Normal Central African Republic: Partial military and partial economic restrictions. We are concerned by the lack of political freedoms and certain civil liberties. Chad: Full military and partial economic restrictions. We are concerned by the lack of political freedoms, certain civil liberties and the political situation. Comoros: Normal, though we are concerned by the current political situation Congo: Full military and partial economic restrictions. We are concerned by the massive corruption and lack of political freedoms. Cote d’Ivoire: Normal Democratic Republic of the Congo: Full military and economic restrictions because of serious concerns about the political situation, continued violence, basic rights, corruption and treatment of women. Djibouti: Full military and partial economic restrictions Egypt: Partial military and no economic restrictions. It is the hope of the DoEA that the spirit that overthrew Hosni Mubarak will continue, and that Egypt can transition to a democratic government. Equatorial Guinea: Full military and partial economic restrictions Eritrea: Full military and partial economic restrictions. We have strong concerns about the current situation, civil liberties and illegal weapons trading with Somalia. Ethiopia: Normal. We have concerns about political freedoms, internal violence and relations with Somalia (Partial military and no economic restrictions). Gabon: Partial military and partial economic restrictions until democratic institutions are respected and civil liberties recognized. Gambia: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We have serious concerns about political freedoms, basic rights, and corruption. Ghana: Normal Guinea: Partial military and no economic restrictions. We have serious concerns about political freedoms, basic rights, and corruptions. We support a return to civilian government. Guinea-Bissau: Normal, though we have serious concerns about political freedoms, basic rights, and corruption. Kenya: Normal Lesotho: Normal Liberia: Normal Libya: Normal. This applies only to the NTC led government of Libya. Madagascar: Normal, though we are concerned by corruption and political instability. Malawi: Normal Mali: Normal Mauritania: Partial military and no economic restrictions. Mauritius: Normal Morocco: Normal, though we are concerned about certain political freedoms. On the matter of Western Sahara, we demand immediate negotiations concerning the status of Western Sahara, and the failure of Morocco to engage into talks will results in recognition of Sahrawi independence. Mozambique: Normal Namibia: Normal Niger: Normal, though we have serious concerns about political freedoms and basic rights. Nigeria: Normal. There needs to be serious political reform and we are also worried about violence in the Niger Delta and the situation in the north. Rwanda: Full military and partial economic restrictions; we have concerns pertaining to freedom of the press and politics. Sao Tome and Principe: Normal Senegal: Normal Seychelles: Normal Sierra Leone: Normal Somalia: Full military and partial economic restrictions. We have strong concerns regarding piracy and continued violence. Somaliland: Normal. South Africa: Normal, though we have concerns over corruption and their response to the HIV/AIDs epidemic. North Sudan: Full military and economic restrictions. We strongly condemn the situation in Darfur, and would like to see an end to conflict with South Sudan. South Sudan: Normal Swaziland: Full military and economic restrictions Tanzania: Normal Togo: Partial military and no economic restrictions. Tunisia: Partial military and no economic restrictions. Uganda: Full military and partial economic restrictions. We are concerned by the political situation, human rights and corruption. Zambia: Normal, though we are concerned by the political situation and corruption. Zimbabwe: Full military and economic restrictions Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Mopsus on December 18, 2011, 01:32:25 PM Quote Department of External Affairs: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review Definitions of the DoEA's Foreign Policy Review Economic/Trade Restrictions: Most Priority: Free exchange of intelligence and trade, as well as top priorities for military and/or economic aid if needed. Normal/None: Atlasian government and corporations are free to due business unhindered by government enforced restrictions. Partial: Specific restrictions such as selective tariffs or partial embargoes are to be in place to attack the government and not the regime. Foreign aid can be granted if the regime shows signs of progress towards democracy. Full: Complete embargo and trade is forbidden with the nation in question. Corporations in violation may face fines decided by the Senate. Military Restrictions: Normal/None: Any military hardware produced by private firms, or by the government of Atlasia may be sold to the government in question. However, nuclear material, technology and nuclear weapons may not be sold unless the Senate agrees with the sale of atomic technology to the nation in question. Partial: Personnel weapons may be sold by private corporations or the state to the country in question. Personnel weapons are weapons, which are carried and operated by one man, i.e. assault rifles, mortars, RPGs, etc. No vehicles, armour, aircraft, or ships may be sold. Full: No military equipment of any nature may be sold privately or by Atlasia, i.e. no uniforms, guns, vehicles, nothing. DoEA Policy: The Americas Antigua and Barbuda: Normal Argentina: Normal Bahamas: Normal Barbados: Normal Belize: Normal Bolivia: Normal, though we oppose any secessionist movements in Santa Cruz province and other eastern areas of the country. Brazil: Normal Canada: Most Priority Chile: Normal Colombia: Normal Costa Rica: Normal Cuba: Normal. Atlasian policy regarding Cuba is currently F.L. 18-6, Cuban Relations Act. Dominica: Normal Dominican Republic: Normal Ecuador: Normal El Salvador: Normal Grenada: Normal Guatemala: Normal Guyana: Normal Haiti: Normal, though we have concerns regarding corruption and political instability. Honduras: Normal Jamaica: Normal Mexico: Normal, though we have serious concerns about the drug warlords conflict. Nicaragua: Normal Panama: Normal Paraguay: Normal Peru: Normal Saint Kitts and Nevis: Normal Saint Lucia: Normal Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Normal Suriname: Normal Trinidad and Tobago: Normal Uruguay: Normal Venezuela: Normal Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Mopsus on December 18, 2011, 01:46:16 PM Quote Department of External Affairs: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review Definitions of the DoEA's Foreign Policy Review Economic/Trade Restrictions: Most Priority: Free exchange of intelligence and trade, as well as top priorities for military and/or economic aid if needed Normal/None: Atlasian government and corporations are free to due business unhindered by government enforced restrictions. Partial: Specific restrictions such as selective tariffs or partial embargoes are to be in place to attack the government and not the regime. Foreign aid can be granted if the regime shows signs of progress towards democracy. Full: Complete embargo and trade is forbidden with the nation in question. Corporations in violation may face fines decided by the Senate. Military Restrictions: Normal/None: Any military hardware produced by private firms, or by the government of Atlasia may be sold to the government in question. However, nuclear material, technology and nuclear weapons may not be sold unless the Senate agrees with the sale of atomic technology to the nation in question. Partial: Personnel weapons may be sold by private corporations or the state to the country in question. Personnel weapons are weapons, which are carried and operated by one man, i.e. assault rifles, mortars, RPGs, etc. No vehicles, armour, aircraft, or ships may be sold. Full: No military equipment of any nature may be sold privately or by Atlasia, i.e. no uniforms, guns, vehicles, nothing. DoEA Policy: Europe Albania: Normal Andorra: Normal Armenia: Normal Austria: Normal Azerbaijan: Full military and partial economic restrictions until free elections are held, civil liberties respected and transparency is restored. Belarus: Full military and partial economic restrictions until free elections are held and civil liberties respected. Belgium: Normal Bosnia & Herzegovina: Normal. Atlasia welcomes the apparent political stability and peaceful ethnic relations. Bulgaria: Normal Croatia: Normal Czech Republic: Normal Denmark: Normal Estonia: Normal Finland: Normal France: Most Priority Georgia: Normal, though we have concerns over civil liberties and notably about the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The DoEA reserves the right to military restrictions if we feel that it is needed in view of current events in the country or the Caucasus. Germany: Most Priority Greece: Normal, although we have concerns about continued economic instability Hungary: Normal Iceland: Normal Ireland: Normal, though we have concerns about continued economic instability Italy: Normal, though we have concerns about corruption and continued economic instability. Kosovo: Normal Latvia: Normal Liechtenstein: Normal although we call for a complete transition to democracy and full transparency in banking. Lithuania: Normal Luxembourg: Normal Macedonia: Normal, although we have concerns about corruption, ethnic minorities and relations with Greece. Moldova: Normal. Atlasia is pleased overall with democratic evolution in Moldova, though we have serious concerns about corruption, political instability, drug trafficking and the Transnistria issue. Monaco: Normal Montenegro: Normal Netherlands: Normal Norway: Normal Poland: Normal Portugal: Normal, though we have concerns about continued economic instability. Romania: Normal Russia: Partial military and economic restrictions. We have serious concerns about democracy, civil liberties, press freedom and the situation in Chechnya and the Russian Caucasus. San Marino: Normal Serbia: Normal, though we should warn Serbia against any attempt to go against the recent UN ruling on Kosovo. Slovakia: Normal, though we have some concerns about worrying nationalist trends in the country and their negative effect on internal and external ethnic relations. Slovenia: Normal Spain: Normal, though we have concerns about continued economic instability Sweden: Normal Switzerland: Normal Turkey: Normal, although concerns remain about treatment of Kurds, and increasing trend away from secularism. Ukraine: Normal, but we have concerns regarding current political stability, corruption, and various other problems United Kingdom: Most Priority Vatican City: Normal Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Mopsus on December 18, 2011, 01:47:33 PM I hope I didn't mess anything up :P.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 18, 2011, 01:51:08 PM I hope I didn't mess anything up :P. A quick glance makes it seem okay. Thanks :) With the full FPR now available, can we please begin a full debate? Senator Napoleon, you blame me for lack of activity on foreign policy. So to change that, wouldn't it be great to actively work on this legislation? You had previously expressed concern regarding restrictions on unnamed nations. What restrictions should I justify? I'm here, and await your response. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Napoleon on December 18, 2011, 06:03:28 PM I've been celebrating an anniversary with my girlfriend. Please forgive me for my lack of punctuality this weekend.
All amendments are accepted as friendly except giving Israel a new status. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 18, 2011, 09:01:13 PM Scrap Israel, then. I'm not interested in having a big fight over Israel's status.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: bgwah on December 18, 2011, 09:19:47 PM I've been celebrating an anniversary with my girlfriend. Please forgive me for my lack of punctuality this weekend. All amendments are accepted as friendly except giving Israel a new status. Senators have 24 hours to object. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: bgwah on December 19, 2011, 11:09:01 PM The amendment has passed.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on December 20, 2011, 11:03:26 PM I'd like to see full economic restrictions on Belarus, possibly partial economic restrictions on PR China, and partial military restrictions on Nigeria.
I'd like to offer these as three separate amendments. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Napoleon on December 20, 2011, 11:42:29 PM Ill accept the two and request others' opinions regarding China.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 21, 2011, 09:28:09 AM I'm dead against economic restrictions on China. It would be unwise to do so at this time, given how important continued economic cooperation with them is.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 21, 2011, 10:06:47 AM I'd like to see full economic restrictions on Belarus Never work with Belarus. Trust me, I know that. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on December 21, 2011, 08:42:31 PM I'm dead against economic restrictions on China. It would be unwise to do so at this time, given how important continued economic cooperation with them is. In that case, how do we feel about more extensive military restrictions? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 22, 2011, 10:25:48 AM We don't need economic restriction on China, we do need some kind of a strategy however to achieve an agreement on protecting intellectual property.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Napoleon on December 22, 2011, 10:27:18 AM I will accept the China amendment as friendly, after further thought.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on December 22, 2011, 01:08:48 PM We don't need economic restriction on China, we do need some kind of a strategy however to achieve an agreement on protecting intellectual property. While certainly worth talking about, that's not my main problem with China. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 22, 2011, 02:56:41 PM I urge a Senator to object to the amendment on China.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Mopsus on December 22, 2011, 10:29:31 PM I object to economic restrictions against China. At a time when the size of the Chinese middle class is projected to become larger than the Atlasian and European middle classes combined by a margin of over 2:1 by 2030, and Chinese demand for Western goods is higher than ever, it would be foolish to enact any measures which could hinder our trade with China.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: bgwah on December 23, 2011, 03:15:23 AM Belarus: Friendly, 24 hour objection period
Nigeria: Friendly, 24 hour objection period China: Friendly, already objected, will vote on soonish Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Mopsus on December 23, 2011, 11:55:04 AM I'd like to know why, specifically, the Senator has singled out Belarus for military and Nigeria for economic restrictions.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on December 23, 2011, 12:10:41 PM I singled out Belarus for economic restrictions because it's a hardline dictatorship that its neighbors tend to find next to impossible to do business with and Nigeria for partial military restrictions because of internecine instability there. I was reasonably content with current policy towards most other countries.
In the case of China, I don't feel that it's necessarily wise to deal with them to quite the extent that we do if they are going to pursue predatory mercantilism as a matter of course. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Mopsus on December 23, 2011, 12:23:25 PM Right, sorry about getting the two mixed up. With regards to China, mercantilism isn't in anybody's best interest, but I think that a superior course of action would be negotiation with the Chinese government, to convince them of this fact (although, if you're referring to the government's deliberate devaluation of the yuan, the government has stated that it intends to take measures to increase the currency's value, with the goal of doubling it within the next ten years).
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 23, 2011, 08:46:35 PM We don't need economic restriction on China, we do need some kind of a strategy however to achieve an agreement on protecting intellectual property. While certainly worth talking about, that's not my main problem with China. It isn't mine either really. It's part of a larger range of issues that need addressing. The only way to approach this would be to provide the administration with a range of tools and then have the administration use them as a means to get China to the bargaining table without setting of a trade war. Any protectionism should be a means to an end, rather than the end itself. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on December 25, 2011, 09:37:07 PM I agree but I would like to keep it within the range of our options. I'm reconsidering anything that would imply mandating it in the Foreign Policy Review, though, so I'd like to withdraw my current amendment in favor of one saying 'Atlasia reserves the right for the Administration to act immediately in response to any violation of international or human rights norms by the government of China within the confines of international law' or something along those lines. If anybody can offer a more tightly worded version of such an amendment I would appreciate it.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Napoleon on December 25, 2011, 10:30:30 PM If the administration has plans to act, they can ask the Senate to authorize then. I'm not in favor of giving the executive branch authority to act without first having the Senate give input.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 25, 2011, 11:06:18 PM Traditionally, the FPR language will say something about concerns, and that the DoEA reserves the right to act. We'd still need Senate approval for any action.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on December 26, 2011, 07:32:39 AM All right. In that case I like the wording of the first sentence regarding China in the current FPR (I understand Napoleon's concerns). My worry is that the second sentence might be prejudicial to our ability to change policy in the future, though if somebody with more foreign policy experience than I have tells me otherwise I'll drop my concerns about this entirely and we change the policies towards Belarus and Nigeria and move on.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: bgwah on December 27, 2011, 05:01:15 PM Now voting on the China amendment: Quote Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (am. vote) Post by: Napoleon on December 27, 2011, 05:30:34 PM Thus amendment was withdrawn.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (am. vote) Post by: bgwah on December 27, 2011, 05:43:53 PM Oh, I see. never mind. Has the other amendment been formally proposed yet?
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (am. vote) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 29, 2011, 11:38:08 AM Napoleon, are you ever going to ask for clarification? If not, we should move ahead to a final vote, I think.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (am. vote) Post by: Napoleon on December 29, 2011, 12:11:04 PM Napoleon, are you ever going to ask for clarification? If not, we should move ahead to a final vote, I think. Clarification of what? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 29, 2011, 01:18:23 PM Clarification of what? Do you mind detailing the reason for restrictions? Are there particularly countries you want me to detail? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (am. vote) Post by: Napoleon on December 29, 2011, 08:04:33 PM Restrictions on UAE but not Pakistan?
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (am. vote) Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 29, 2011, 08:44:50 PM Restrictions on UAE but not Pakistan? Criteria seems to be very random here. I'd like SoFE to tell us more about his criteria. For example, Pakistan as an "important ally" is grossly overrated and it's human rights record is far worse than UAE, which is one of the best Arab countries to live in. Pakistan doesn't do their job as "ally in war on terror". A freaking Bin Laden was hiding there for years and I won't believe that at least some elements within Pakistani army/intelligence and, yes, government, didn't know. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (am. vote) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 30, 2011, 12:21:15 AM I frankly wavered on Pakistan. My optimism overrode me in the end. If a Senator would be willing to add partial military restrictions, I'd be all for it.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (am. vote) Post by: Napoleon on December 30, 2011, 12:38:16 AM Amendment:
Partial military restrictions for Pakistan Can we consider normalizing relations with UAE? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (am. vote) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 30, 2011, 11:43:55 AM Can we consider normalizing relations with UAE? I would rather we not, as their record on human rights is still quite poor. I am not passionate about it, however, and would not object should such an Amendment pass. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (am. vote) Post by: bgwah on December 30, 2011, 03:48:03 PM Amendment: Partial military restrictions for Pakistan Friendly amendment, 24 hours to object. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: bgwah on January 02, 2012, 12:24:49 AM The friendly amendment passed, BTW.
Are we ready for a final vote now? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Napoleon on January 02, 2012, 01:28:30 AM Amendment: change relations with UAE to Normal.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: bgwah on January 02, 2012, 01:32:01 AM Amendment: change relations with UAE to Normal. 24 hours to object Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: Napoleon on January 02, 2012, 01:36:25 AM Last amendment, I promise! ;D
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (debating) Post by: bgwah on January 03, 2012, 04:25:24 AM The amendment has passed.
Senators, we are now at a final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain. aye Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (fin vote) Post by: Napoleon on January 03, 2012, 04:26:39 AM Aye
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (fin vote) Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on January 03, 2012, 04:31:49 AM Aye.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (fin vote) Post by: Mopsus on January 03, 2012, 12:21:56 PM Aye
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (fin vote) Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on January 04, 2012, 04:48:39 AM Aye
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (fin vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 04, 2012, 10:17:44 PM Aye
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (fin vote) Post by: bgwah on January 06, 2012, 03:35:06 AM This has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (fin vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 07, 2012, 07:10:07 AM Aye ftr.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (fin vote) Post by: Bacon King on January 12, 2012, 05:28:12 PM This bill has hereby passed the Senate, and is presented to the President.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (fin vote) Post by: Ban my account ffs! on January 14, 2012, 04:43:08 PM X Snowguy716
|