SENATE BILL: Dept. of Ext. Aff.: September 2011 Foreign Policy Review (law'd)

[Mopsus]

I hope I didn't mess anything up .

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I hope I didn't mess anything up .

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.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Scrap Israel, then.  I'm not interested in having a big fight over Israel's status.

[bgwah]

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.

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Napoleon]

Ill accept the two and request others' opinions regarding China.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd like to see full economic restrictions on Belarus

Never work with Belarus. Trust me, I know that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Napoleon]

I will accept the China amendment as friendly, after further thought.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I urge a Senator to object to the amendment on China.

[Mopsus]

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.

[bgwah]

Belarus: Friendly, 24 hour objection period
Nigeria: Friendly, 24 hour objection period
China: Friendly, already objected, will vote on soonish

[Mopsus]

I'd like to know why, specifically, the Senator has singled out Belarus for military and Nigeria for economic restrictions.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Mopsus]

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).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.