Chapter Three: Buckets of Warm Piss

[Donerail]

This newspaper is open to becoming the official newspaper of Atlasia if the President so chooses to embrace The People give us that titleand force all our competitors to close their doors.

I'd support it if you changed the name to the People's Daily. Or Pravda.

[Donerail]

This newspaper is open to becoming the official newspaper of Atlasia if the President so chooses to embrace The People give us that titleand force all our competitors to close their doors.

I'd support it if you changed the name to the People's Daily. Or Pravda.

There is already a Pravda.

There is also already a People's Daily. That's kind of the point (them already existing isn't, but them being what they are is).

[Donerail]

I haven't seen a People's Daily around here. Who is the editor?

中国共产党中央委员会 does.

[Donerail]

I haven't seen a People's Daily around here. Who is the editor?

中国共产党中央委员会 does.

That isn't Atlasia!

No, but it's an official newspaper (Pravda was too, till Yeltsin did away with it).

[Donerail]

Huzzah!

The People will not tolerate post-padding sir.  Kindly exit this establishment before we are forced to take decisive action.

In other news, The People are currently considering new applications for those they deem worthy.  Be aware, your sole mission as a part of this staff will be to crush this.. "competition" called The Porcupine, until such a time that the Editor agrees to submit a merger.

Ya mad?

I think we have made it clear our end goal is to force The Porcupine out of businessprovide the best news service around, focusing on the quality, not the quantity of news stories. Posts like yours only serve to anger The People while they wade through our award winning articles.

While We have not made our decision on your campaign, it would be wise for you to shape up, offer something of substance and pray by donating at least $100,000 to our cause that you secure Our endorsement before the polls open.

I think you guys are a great paper, but we can't just have one, even if it is awesome. That's called a monopoly, and it's probably illegal.

Nonsense, Alfred! Monopolies are entirely legal and have entirely positive effects, like bragging to your friends and family and getting hotels on Boardwalk.

[Donerail]

Just don't ever expect anything from the Imperial Bloc leaders.  They are a bunch of trial lawyering, no good, snot nosed, toilet bobbers who play baseball like girls!

[Donerail]

A Look Ahead: Foreign Policy in the Upcoming Senate Session
54th Senate, Marokai Administration

This feature is designed to serve as a handy guide to bills affecting foreign policy, our military, the DoEA itself, etc, etc, etc, in the upcoming Senate session. It's largely factual.

The TRICARE Reform Act of 2013: SoIA Snowguy summed this legislation up quite well. Nobody thought much about military healthcare when our previous national healthcare system was implemented, and everyone just assumed that it was just lumped in with Medicare and Medicaid, so we're just going to pass an amendment and pretend like it's been there all along, which for most purposes it has.

Department Renaming Act: Senator Oakvale's legislation to rename the DoEA/SoEA (as well as the DoIA/SoIA) to Secretary of State, with other names (I prefer Secretary of Foreign Affairs, which Talleyrand brought up) being considered. Presently, debate focuses on the name for the DoIA. The idea behind this legislation is to make the names more interesting to possibly draw more applicants for the posts.

Presidential Succession Amendment: This would place the SoEA higher up in line for the Presidency, right behind the President where the PPT now sits. This is fundamentally good legislation - the PPT is essential to the workings of the Senate, and were they to leave the Senate to be acting President while there's a perfectly good SoEA who could do it, the odds of things getting done would drastically decrease. This would let the SoEA take over instead, which just makes much more sense.

Virgin Act: This act by Sen. X would incorporate the Virgin Islands as a state, making them Atlasia's 53rd. The rationale behind this legislation is questionable at best: the Virgin Islands are extremely small relative to all other Atlasian states, and it is not necessary to add them as another state to incorporate them. The Virgin Islands could be added as part of Puerto Rico to incorporate them without needing to create another state, spreading thinner our population and making the odds that Mr. Griffin will ever succeed in his Save Our States movement even slimmer. There is a clear solution to this problem, and it doesn't require going as far as Sen. X's bill.

Protocols I & II of the Geneva Conventions: These are common-sense housekeeping bills in the mold of the previous UNCLOS ratification. It's ratifying treaties that are already customary international law that we haven't ratified yet, but we really should ratify because come on y'all it's the Geneva Conventions.

Separation of Powers Amendment: Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. This would remove Senate oversight over all nominees, so if the Senate has severe and legitimate concerns about a nominee's ability to serve as the Senate had during the Griffin hearings, they would no longer be able to approve or reject the nominee. If a bad nominee is nominated who doesn't even show up, like Mr. King's hearings, that nominee would still be confirmed. The Senate needs to send these nominees through confirmation hearings in order to make sure they're actual quality nominees, simple as that.

SJoyce is The People's Senior Foreign Policy Analyst and a leading voice on foreign and Imperial politics. He served as Secretary of External Affairs in the Polnut and Napoleon administrations.

[Donerail]

To be honest, I forget my rationale for that bill and just withdrew it

Well that's disappointing. The legitimate rationale was to give these people statehood and representation, through adding them to P.R. or making them a state.

[Donerail]

Foreign Policy Profiles: Part I of X
Senator Benconstine (TPP-VA)

Recently I had the opportunity to speak with Sen. Benconstine in regards to his foreign policy principles. Ben is one of the Senate's leaders in foreign policy, and served as Secretary of External Affairs until he was elected as the Mideast's regional senator (he was replaced as SoEA by some random guy, SJoyce or something). Anyways, Ben is one of the few people in the Senate who care about foreign policy enough to introduce bills for me and such, and serves as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on National Security, so clearly what he thinks on foreign policy is very important. What he thinks on foreign policy is also very interesting: though generally considered a liberal, Ben has been almost a neoconservative in this area, and his rationale is always fun to read.

This will be the first of hopefully ten profiles of our ten Senators and their views on Atlasian foreign policy.



War

What is foreign policy without war? Sen. Ben believes that violence can be morally right, and that war for humanitarian or moral reasons, when Atlasian national security is not threatened, can be justified. "That doesn't mean we should go to war every time, as obviously there can be better solutions, but it is justified." We are "absolutely" justified in launching pre-emptive attacks on other nations, "if we think we're threatened". However, when asked whether we should ever expend lives to control material resources (such as oil), Sen. Ben is "inclined to say never." We should continue to have the most powerful military in the world, because "a powerful military is key to our security, and to helping our allies as well."

Trade

Sen. Ben takes a moderate stance on trade. He believes in increased trade liberalization "only to the degree that it doesn't harm Atlasian workers." Increased commerce can increase peace, but "it depends on the regime that we're dealing with." Although Atlasia is not influencing unfair influence in the developing world in Sen. Ben's view, he does believe that commercial interests have too much of a say in determining Atlasian foreign policy.

International Cooperation

Sen. Ben holds some faith in international organizations, believing that "we can absolutely alter the behaviors of other nations, although not necessarily through treaties with that country in particular. Organizations likewise can have a powerful effect, if we're working with countries relevant to the one who's behavior we desire to change, such as neighbors or trade partners." He doesn't, however, believe that more arms control agreements would be "terribly effective", and that we should instead "stick by what we have now." He also believes that foreign aid can be an effective foreign policy tool, with Atlasia providing more aid in exchange for reforms. "Withholding aid is another tool that can be used." Overall, he believes that multilateral efforts can be "effective", but he is "not someone who believes that multilateralism is necessarily better on principle." On negotiation secrecy in foreign policy, he wants to take it on a case by case basis. Wikileaks, for instance, was "an abomination and treason of the highest order. "Negotiations should be secret or public depending on what the parties involved want. Don't break secrecy if one side wants things kept secret."

Who We Work With

When choosing who Atlasian works with on the international stage, Senator Ben believes that we "need to be cognizant of how a country functions." He gave the example of having more certainty in and thus being more willing to cooperate economically with a more corruption-free country. Ultimately, "we also have to be attuned to political realities in our nations, and be willing to work with those realities." We should be concerned about the internal affairs of other nations, since those internal affairs will "inevitably affect us as well." However, we shouldn't be involved that much in influencing their internal affairs, particularly for our developed allies; we should be able to "play more of a role in developing nations." We should be willing to work with oppressive regimes: "sometimes we have to recognize that it's more important to achieve goals than to make pointed stands, and if a repressive regime is necessary to achieving goals, then we need to consider it."

Miscellaneous

When discussing the core of Atlasian foreign policy, Senator Ben believes that liberty, personal and economic, should be at the heart of it. "I believe it is in our national interest to ensure that people at home and abroad are as free as possible, so they go hand in hand." When asked whether he views other nations as more inherently good or more self-interested, he responded that "a combination, in that it depends on the country.  Most nations care about their own interests, but that doesn't mean they aren't good.  I wouldn't say anything positive about many of the oppressive and authoritarian regimes, but many democratic countries are self-interested, with positive results." He believes that, on the issue of self-determination, a persecuted minority group in a nation has more of a right to do so than a group that just happens to be a minority, but that he prefers to go on "a case by case basis." However, he made clear that terrorism is never justified by anyone. When asked his opinion of Woodrow Wilson (an excellent barometer for foreign policy), he stated that he believed Wilson was "too idealistic, but on the right track." Overall, "our national interest should come first" when it conflicts with our moral ideas, "unless it is so morally repugnant that we just can't stomach it."

SJoyce is The People's Senior Foreign Policy Analyst and a leading voice on foreign and Imperial politics. He served as Secretary of External Affairs in the Polnut and Napoleon administrations.

[Donerail]

Much thanks to Joyce for this profile; and, of course, for using a picture of Frank Church, as opposed to Lieberman, for once.

The picture of Church was just what was on the Wiki on your article; if you'd prefer I can always find a picture of Lieberman.



Announcement: Our next Senator profiled will be Sen. Nix

[Donerail]

Foreign Policy Profiles: Part II of X
Senator Averroës Nix (TPP-NH)

Recently I had the opportunity to speak with Sen. Averroës Nix in regards to his foreign policy principles. Nix is a noted voice in the Senate on many issues, and sponsored several bills for the Secretary of External Affairs last session. He also serves on the Trade Agreement Re-Evaluation Commission. I'm not quite sure how to describe his foreign policy, so judge for yourselves.

This is the second of ten profiles of our ten Senators and their views on Atlasian foreign policy.



War

Sen. Nix does believe that violence can be morally right, and that war can be justified when Atlasia is not threatened (for moral & humanitarian reasons), "but only as a part of a multilateral effort. Atlasia should always defer to international institutions on the subject of humanitarian interventions." He does believe that pre-emptive attacks can be justified, but only when"a high standard of evidence has been met and the consequences of failing to act immediately are unacceptable." We should never spend lives to control resources. "Our military should remain powerful enough to protect us from any plausible threat. To ensure that we can meet our obligations to the international community, its size ought to be commensurate to that of Atlasia's economy."; its size relative to other nations is irrelevant.

Trade

Sen. Nix favors trade liberalization and believes that "we can promote economic growth in Atlasia and our foreign partners through the implementation of new free trade agreements. However, in addition to basic human rights and political freedoms, we must keep workers and the environment in mind when we discuss these agreements. I do not favor extending trade agreements to countries that enjoy an unfair advantage on the international market because of their failur to match Atlasia's commitment to workers and the environment." Basically, Sen. Nix believes that trade means peace, and that "the exchange of goods, people, and information is essential in promoting interdependence and understanding among nations." Sen. Nix also believes that we are exerting unfair influences upon the developing world, "but this is unavoidable and increasingly the fault of private actors rather than government policy." He also thinks that "special interests in general have too large an influence over Atlasian policy."

International Cooperation

Sen. Nix supports a strong international community, and thinks that "we have no choice other than to rely on international institutions and multilateral efforts to accomplish our foreign policy goals. As the world progresses toward multipolarity, stable and productive relations among nations will increasingly depend on the strength of these institutions." He believes arms control agreements works, and that our main goal should be "reducing the number of atomic weapons on this planet and securing whatever weapons remain." He also is interested in pursuing a treaty to reduce the use of cyberwarfare. In our negotiations, "secrecy may be necessary. Once we have reached an acceptable agreement, transparency should be maintained." On foreign aid: "We should use foreign aid to promote economic development and stable institutions in the poorest countries. We must also consider where our foreign investments are most likely to make a difference. I would prefer to focus on flawed but promising countries - such as Ghana or Ethiopia - that are capable of managing aid better rather than basket cases such as Eritrea or Haiti. Overall, I would prefer a slightly higher foreign aid budget, increased by between 50 percent to 100 percent depending on the opportunities for promoting human well-being that our available to us. Finally, foreign aid should consist of cash transfers with no strings attached, whenever possible."

Who We Work With

Sen. Nix believes that "we should exercise caution when we deal with countries with unstable or untested institutions", and that, while in a different world it might be necessary, in our world today we've progressed to a point where it is no longer necessary (and thus unjustified) to ally ourselves with a repressive regime. He believes that we should not be concerned with other nations' internal affairs to the extent that we can help it, and that we should influence their internal affairs "as little as we can".

Miscellaneous

As a matter of general foreign policy, Nix believes other nations are fundamentally self-interested. He appreciates Wilson's internationalism and thinks that "he had the right instincts when it came to building and strengthening international institutions." Nix self-describes as a non-interventionist and a foreign policy realist, however, unlike Wilson. He believes we should seek to prioritize our national interest and that "Atlasia should always be our highest priority", "as long as we respect certain moral boundaries."

On the right to self-determination: "When a minority group is numerous enough in its membership, dominant in a compact geographic area, and capable of governing itself in way that involves respect for human rights and economic self-sufficiency, it has a right to self-governance. However, what is most important is that the members of every minority group be treated equally and fairly by the government of whatever nation that they inhabit and that they be given some kind of representation in its government. The apartheid state of Israel is one country that does not meet this standard, and the international community should hold its leaders accountable for this failure. While I do not condemn violent resistance to this kind of repression, terrorist attacks on civilian targets are unacceptable in this context."

And finally, on the guiding principles of our foreign policy: "Maintaining a foreign policy that promotes human rights should always be our first priority. No country that fails to respect human life should have a place in the community of nations. We should forge our strongest relationships with countries that go even further, promoting and respecting freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of privacy, and the right to a fair trial for all of their citizens.

Every people has the right to collectively choose whatever economic system they prefer without interference from Atlasia, foreign investors, or international organizations. Talk of promoting "economic liberty" (i.e. free market evangelism) across the world typically is typically nothing but a cover for multinational business interests that seek to exploit. Forcing another country to mimic Atlasian economic policy strikes me as no less noxious than forcing them to mimic our religion."

SJoyce is The People's Senior Foreign Policy Analyst and a leading voice on foreign and Imperial politics. He served as Secretary of External Affairs in the Polnut and Napoleon administrations.

[Donerail]

Ready for the next update, Mr. Joyce?

Tomorrow, I promise. I've been focusing on our trade policy recently.

[Donerail]

Thats a late tomorrow. If you still want them, I can send you my answers to the questionaire thing.

Yeah, sorry about that. Tale of Two Cities... but I'm on spring break next week, so it'll certainly be done by then.

[Donerail]

Not Our War
No Atlasian Intervention in Syria

It is understandable that some in Atlasian politics are beginning to float the idea of intervention in Syria; it is certainly a logical impulse to try to end the oppression through military means, and certainly a noble sense about intervening for humanitarian reasons, to help the people, or to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction (interesting timing on that one). The regime is certainly engaged in war crimes and the slaughter of civilians as part of their full-scale civil war. However, such an impulse will, in the end, have a negative result for both Atlasia and Syria.

The History

To begin, we must examine historical attempts at foreign intervention, and what we find does not bode well for any operation in Syria. Patrick M. Regan and Aysegul Aydin, of the Department of Political Science at Binghamton University, suggest that "much of the empirical literature suggests that outside interventions tend to lengthen the expected duration of civil wars", making the wars longer, bloodier, and far more destabilizing to the region. The Journal of Conflict Resolution in October 2011 states that military intervention increases the violence in the short-term (due to the 'gloves off' sense it promotes), and can only decrease it in the long-term if the intervention is impartial and neutral.

Libya

Some may point to the success of the (disputably necessary) intervention in Libya in toppling a foreign tyrant. However, we must look closer at the current situation in Libya. Unlike its relatively stable neighbor Tunisia, which overthrew its dictator through a relatively orderly process in which the West was little-involved, Libya is now struggling with various militias (produced and armed through their civil war) battling each other in the streets of Tripoli. There are also important differences between Libya and Syria: namely, Assad still has a strong base (various minority communities, particularly the Alawites, as well as regime and party loyalists) compared to Qaddafi, which would only solidify in the face of intervention. Syria is also far more of a sectarian conflict - Sunnis vs. Alawites and Christians (with Kurds and Druze for extra flavor), unlike almost homogeneously Sunni Libya. Syria's military remains one of the strongest in the region, reportedly operating 19 MiG-29 fighters. Assad could even gain supporters - he is no longer the tyrant who has lost popular support, he is the leader of the Syrian people doing battle to preserve Syria's existence against the Western Zionist imperialist invaders or some such thing. Assad can now manipulate Syrian nationalism, as he has done for years, to attempt to portray any Atlasian intervention as an attempt to overthrow the Syrian government in order to allow Atlasia and Israel to seize greater power in the region.

Who We'd Be Helping
These are quite simply individuals of questionable moral character. The wars has claimed thousands of lives, but just who these casualties are: soldiers, civilians, rebels, it is not clear. What is clear is that both sides are violating international law, and both sides are extremely hostile to Atlasian interests. A large number of them are hard-line Islamists, who are exactly the kind of people Atlasia, in the age of al-Qaeda, does not need in power in such a volatile region. It's blatantly obvious that Atlasia should not be assisting, in any way, attempts by al-Qaeda to gain power, but intervention in Syria would do (indirectly) exactly that. These are not people we can undercut, and these are not people who are willing to oppose al-Qaeda. There are simply too many concerns for us to attempt to aid Syrian opposition forces, and we certainly don't want the next Osama bin Laden.

Impacts of Intervention
Some of the other impacts of intervention haven't been touched upon. Almost 250,000 people have been forced to flee their homes to neighboring countries; while far short of the 4 million caused by our invasion of Iraq, it's still an issue, one that could be exacerbated in the increased violence of an intervention.

How This Gets Fixed
Ideally, this will not be another Iraq. To ensure such, however, we need to focus on diplomacy. The regime must be held accountable for their war crimes, but the civil war must end first. The U.N. observer mission is the ideal solution - its mission must be expanded to include negotiations. The head of the mission described how he had been able to facilitate dialogues, and that that dialogue was how violence could cease. Such a bottom-up approach, working with some friendly rebel groups, some regime elements, and the Syrian people themselves, is our best chance for an actual ceasefire. Damascus needs to recognize that there are real grievances held by the opposition that must be addressed, and all nations affected by the civil war must be a part of dialogue. Arms must be put up, on both sides, and they must come to the table.


SJoyce is The People's Senior Foreign Policy Analyst and a leading voice on foreign and Imperial politics. He served as Secretary of External Affairs in the Polnut and Napoleon administrations and is currently a candidate for Emperor of the IDS.

[Donerail]

I'm just going to say this hasn't died with TPP.

Foreign Policy Editorial Cartoon Double Feature

In a nod to the Mustafinist cultural tradition, today's political cartoon is a .gif



North Korea is the white guy, the basket is whatever you want it to be (South Korea, Atlasia, international respect, whatever), and Atlasia is represented by Shaq.



This is exactly what it appears to be.