Confirmation Hearing: Mr. Reactionary for Secretary of State (Passed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     I hereby open the floor for debate. Senators are welcome to ask the nominee questions.

[Mr. Reactionary]

My primary areas of focus as of now will be:

Trade generally, with sub-saharan Africa receiving special attention.

The Korea situation.

Pushing for NATO membership for the Bahamas and Macedonia.

Working with Regional allies in the Indian Ocean to continue the decline in piracy.

Investing in infrastructure in Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands.

Continuing to pressure Mauritania into enforcing anti-slavery efforts.

Working with IGOs to reduce rape in New Guinea and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Increasing Embassy Security.

Negotiatating multilateral firearm reciprocity treaties for seagoing vessels to protect Maritime Security Forces.

Pushing for a free and open internet globally, as well as freedom of the seas.

And standing with our current allies.

I believe all are obtainable, and I am thrilled at the expansion of the GM staff to help with this.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Would the nominee care to outline specific policy objectives or changes with respect to the Korea situation?

[Anna Komnene]

Thanks for the outline of some of your policy goals.

Would you have specific priorities for how Atlasian foreign development assistance is allocated or conditions for how it's allocated?

What are your thoughts on the relationship with Iran since President dfwlibertylover visited Tehran in his presidency?

What's your position on possibly renegotiating the common market with Canada?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Would the nominee care to outline specific policy objectives or changes with respect to the Korea situation?

As much as I dislike the ChiComs, they are self-interested and sane. As someone who took part in the negotiations with China, I can say I wasn't thrilled with all parts of the deal (especially the free trade aspect). That being said, the deal was definitely preferable to war with China and a nuclear North Korea. I believe we should continue to work with China as they attempt to bring North Korea into the 20th century. That China was willing to provide the bulk of the soldiers was to our great advantage.

The recent assassination of the provisional leader of N Korea is disappointing and I hope to coordinate intelligence with S Korea and China in the future to hopefully prevent future such attacks. Keeping the juche kooks from power needs to be our number 1 priority. I believe in our continuing military presence in the South, while allowing China to take the lead in transitioning its neighbor towards stability. From a practical standpoint more direct Chinese control over North Korea is preferable to an unstable, independent,  nuclear North Korea. Even if they were to annex it, thats money and soldiers we don't have to chuck into the quagmire.

While the President is the commander in chief and will make military decisions, I can certainly say I have no issue with sharing THAAD with Japan and S Korea if the North us not disarmed of its rockets, and if China flips over that I at minimum support increasing our naval presence in the area for purely defensive anti-missile purposes.

I also think its important to continue helping the millions of starving impoverished civilians in the North who have lived their entire lives in Hell. They didn't choose that, and I will say I was very uncomfortable with South Korea targeting civilian drinking water facilities during the war.

Assuming China is able to transition N Korea into a stable, non-threatening power, I would be open to ratifying the Ottawa landmine treaty, however I believe it is still to early to make that call. Our goal is to protect our friends in the South. Deescalation and stability are the best means of obtaining that in my opinion.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Thanks for the outline of some of your policy goals.

Would you have specific priorities for how Atlasian foreign development assistance is allocated or conditions for how it's allocated?

What are your thoughts on the relationship with Iran since President dfwlibertylover visited Tehran in his presidency?

What's your position on possibly renegotiating the common market with Canada?

Thank you for your questions

1. While I do not think we should undermine our less than perfect allies by automatically reducing aide, I do wish to continue my predecessor Snowguy's viewpoint that need alone should not warrant aide if human rights are not adhered to. I was very happy during the foreign relations review process when my recommendations towards dialing back aide for the slavers in Mauritania was adopted. Human rights are a crucial component of peace and stability, and since the cold war ended when I was less than a year old, I do not think we should ignore the undemocratic abuses of many of our former proxies in the developing world.

That being said, I am a foreign policy realist, and think strategic importance should at least be a factor in determining whether or not to scaleback aide. Im not at all a fan of the governments of Turkey or Djibouti but I think strategically they warrant more allowance than say Equitorial Guinea or Brunei.

2. I think many of  the twelver shiites in Iran are bonkers, but that does not necessarily mean we cannot work with them. Clearly keeping Iran nuclear free is important, but I do not think that precludes diplomacy. Our continuing hostility to Iran has pushed them (and their shiite allies) into the pocket of Russia, and I am not above negotiating with their government. While there are many human rights issues that need be addressed before we work too closely with them, I think its fair to say that they are better on some issues than the Saudis, who we are currently allied with. Attempting to foster some goodwill with Iran will be a goal of mine.

3. Because of our close relationship with Canada and the magnitude of our trade and our border, I doubt there is much that could be done about dialing back the common market wirh Canada. I am not a fan of Canadian lumber subsidies which undermine our own market. I would support dialing it back with our Mexican neighbors through renegotiations and generally I can say I support Eco-Tariffs (much like the old David Boren plan) with nations that have bad environmental laws, and I support a more forceful use of counter-vailing duties against unfair trade partners. One of the reasons I want better trade with Sub-Saharan Africa is to reduce our dependence on Chinese rare earth metals, the trade of which is still restricted despite our free trade agreement.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

What are your thoughts on the Catalan independence crisis?

[Mr. Reactionary]

What are your thoughts on the Catalan independence crisis?

On a general philosophical level, I am a strong supporter of self-determination, including unilateral secession when called for. That being said, within the context of what's best for Atlasia, I do not support us recognizing Catalonia, as that would undermine our relationship with our NATO ally in Spain and possibly set off a chain reaction of other secession movements in other allied countries. I do support us taking a stern approach with Spain's disproportionate use of force, and would not support military aide to put down the secession movement. But I think access to Rota Air Base, Gibraltar, and the Canary Islands are all strategically important, and we should not endanger that unless Spain significantly overreacts to the Catalan secession. I can think of close to 50 other regions that could secede if we recognized Catalonia, which again I support personally, but not strategically. As Secretary of State, I would always prioritize Atlasia's interest over my own. And in this context, I believe it is in Atlasia's interest to maintain a positive relationship with Spain.

[Blair]

In return for the high quality questions the nominee gave me for my court confirmation, as a former member of Senate I thought I would chime in with some questions.

1.) What's your opinion on NATO, specifically efforts to increase security for Eastern Europe countries such as Estonia, who are under risk from various hostile actions from Russia?

2.) What's your view on the unilateral attack order by former President Goldwater? Would you see yourself taking actions to prevent a similar event occurring?

3.) What importance/value should be attached to Gender rights, and LGBT+ rights in regards to global diplomacy?

[ZuWo]

Having witnessed the nominee's in-depth knowledge on various issues as well as his excellent debating skills I have no doubts about his qualifications for this office. I will gladly support him.

[Mr. Reactionary]

In return for the high quality questions the nominee gave me for my court confirmation, as a former member of Senate I thought I would chime in with some questions.

1.) What's your opinion on NATO, specifically efforts to increase security for Eastern Europe countries such as Estonia, who are under risk from various hostile actions from Russia?

2.) What's your view on the unilateral attack order by former President Goldwater? Would you see yourself taking actions to prevent a similar event occurring?

3.) What importance/value should be attached to Gender rights, and LGBT+ rights in regards to global diplomacy?

Thank you for these questions friend.

1. NATO is tricky for me. I definitely believe its existence was important during the Cold War. Currently, I believe NATO needs a better defined purpose. That does not mean I wish to end our participation in NATO, as I view it as a stabilizing force in an otherwise chaotic and anarchic world system. If NATO is to continue, we cannot abandon our smaller allies in the Baltic. Increasing Russian aggression in Eastern Europe is certainly troubling, and I do not think we should take such a heavy-handed approach to regional defense that we provoke Russia into doing more than just airspace violations and nearby naval war games (after all we do the same). At the same time, I would support increased air patrols in the Baltic, as well as helping to construct better radar and early detection systems. I would support a bit more of a naval presence in Northern Poland so that we could respond to an invasion, however I lean against establishing anti-missile technology in the Baltic nations, as it would be clear that it is targeted at Russian capabilities and would provide little benefit to our allies there. In the event that Russia did invade a NATO ally in the region, I would counsel the President to militarily defend our ally and repel the invasion, although not with nuclear weapons.

2. I have been very critical publicly and privately of former President Goldwater's actions in Korea. Because I was not in room when he made the decision, I cannot say with absolute certainty that I would not have done the same. But I am maybe 95% sure I would not have. I do believe it is important for the Commander in Chief to retain unilateral first strike powers. Offensive capabilities and the will to use them are one of the best defenses in our chaotic world. But we have to be smart about using our military, or we end up sending some of our bravest and brightest into a meat grinder for an indeterminate outcome that leaves us no safer in the long-run. Not all foreign provocation warrants us raining down hellfire like a jackass, and often retrenchment serves as better means of protecting our citizens, borders, and wealth. I will say that hostile foreign powers with nuclear capabilities are troubling, but I do not think North Korea would have imminently attacked us if Goldwater had not began bombing. All that did was frighten China and Russia into siding with an unstable nut, and provoked North Korea into murdering our citizens in Guam and South Korea. Unilateral attack power is important, but should be reserved to the most serious of situations. And we should always weigh scale and objectives before committing to future military engagements.

3. Wide-scale discrimination on the basis of harmless, immutable characteristics is undoubtedly a human rights violation. Unfortunately in our world we have a lot of primitive, backwards countries. I do not think it is appropriate to abandon our morals, including our commitment to LGBT freedom, just because a culture is different than us. Sex/LGBT issues should definitely be considered when disbursing aide. As I said in a previous question, strategically we may sometimes have to make allowances, but I will say sacrificing our principles too much will undermine our soft power and leave us less safe.

To give an example, I heavily followed the 2013 Kenyan elections. Kenya is an important regional ally against Somali piracy, the Sudanese, Komy, and the never-ending squabbles in the African great lakes region. In 2013, we had noted war-criminal and ethnic cleanser Uruhu Kenyatta running against Raila Odinga. I supported Odinga (who unfortunately lost). During the campaign Odinga made an awful, terrible comment about locking gays in jail and after international pressure he revised his views to only being opposed to gay marriage. While I will definitely criticize Odinga's comments and would have supported leveraging our influence towards making him change his policies had he been elected, I still think ethically and strategically, he would have been preferable to Uruhu who bulk ordered machetes ahead of the 2007 elections and took part in some of the worse excesses during their ethnic election riots.

I also believe its important to commend specific human rights protections when they crop up in unexpected places. One of the things I find most disarming about Iran, is that it is actually easier for their transgender population to get confirmation surgery than almost anywhere else. Bright spots should be praised, even while we condemn abuses in the same country, such as their poor treatment of gays.

In terms of disbursing law enforcement and military aide, I definitely believe we should at least monitor its use by even our most strategic allies. I support a zero-tolerance policy towards countries to whom we give military aide using those weapons on innocent citizens (especially LGBT citizens). I would support immediately cutting off military sales to any ally who uses our weapons to target people for the crime of being different. That goes for Israel, or for the UK, or for Singapore, Djibouti, Japan, Australia, or any other strategically valuable country. Being too friendly with monsters only reinforces the evils of humanity. Genocide is never justifiable, and once we attempt to justify it, the world will take notice and act accordingly.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If there are no more questions for the nominee, I can open a final vote in 24 hours.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A final vote is now open on the nominee. Senators have 72 hours to vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[ZuWo]

Aye

[PPT Spiral]

Aye

[Anna Komnene]

Aye

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Aye

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With 6 votes in favor, Mr. Reactionary is confirmed for Secretary of State.

Be it resolved, X Vice President PiT