The Global Treaty Organization

[jerusalemcar5]

Alright.  I just have one question for the creators.  With the exceptions of the clauses that make this a mutual protection pact how does this differ from the United Nations?

And the mutual protection pact clauses could be covered by an expansion and possible renanming of NATO to these new countries.  

Also, the slap in the face of France, a close ally, whose liberal democracy fits your perameters is unacceptable.

I expect to vote nay on this meaningless document the slaps allies, the UN, and NATO in the face.  

[jerusalemcar5]

Why do you hate freedom so much Jcar?

Excuse me?  This GTO is just a UN copy.  It has nothing to do with freedom.  I oppose it on the grounds that it is meaningless and now no one seems to be able to refute that it differs from the UN.

[jerusalemcar5]

I honestly do not want Atlasia to be this heavily influenced by other nations. Global peace is a great idea, but not at the expense of our own intrests as I feel this would be sacrificing.

I respect your opinion, but at the same time, I don't see how going to the defense of other democratic nations in need is going to sacrifice our interests.

Well that could lead to constant entanglements in areas all  over the world and scarificing our defense.  Just another reason to vote against this.  I strongly urge you to simply take these concerns to the United Nations.

And according to Article 6, you must help ANY sovereign nation that asks for help from a cicvil or international threat.  So under that rule if Iraq petititoned for help against the Shiites, you'd go help.

[jerusalemcar5]

Listen, can we move this bill up to the top of Senate business.  I think it is kinda important

I disagree; we have the UN, and this is just a UN-substitute.  I mean, I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to this (I'd rather hear more arguments than "WHY IS FRANCE NOT IN THIS I LOVE FRANCE " and "OMG I HATE FRANCE FRANCE SUCKS FRANCE SHOULD DIE"), but since we already have an international peacekeeping body I don't think this is particularly urgent.

For the third time... France is not included become the French have recused themselves from the security portion of NATO.  The fact that France will not even keep to a commitment which they made in defense of Europe leads me to believe that they would hardly be interested in joining a similar organization that handles world affairs.

This organization is for memebers who are seriously commited to the ideals of the organization and are, in fact, willing to work to defend them.

As for the United Nations.  The UN charter compels the members states to act, agressively and defensively, using preemptive strikes, if need be, in order to defend the rights of free nations.  When was the last time, since Korea that this has acctually happened?  The answer is never.  Not once.

In the UN, every country, no matter how immoral, illegitament (except, of course, Tiawan) agressive, idiotic, etc., etc. gets a seat at the table.  When the UN does act, at all, it is not in the spirit of the Article 51, but rather in a weak, unresolved, unresponsive way.

GTO troops will not be "peace-keepers".  They will have the ability to act, rather than just stand by and watch innocent people get slaughtered.  There will be no "don't fire unless fired upon" doctrine.  GTO troops will have a mission, and that mission will allow them to do what is right, not only in the face of God, but also in the face of basic human rights and natural law.

We need the UN and a forum between nations.  Not a let's kill all the dcitatrs argh! war mongering organization, which apparently the GTO is.  It would involve us in too many wars and this could cause World War III because of the wars it could lead to.

And NATO was founded to protect against the USSR, it is no longer necessary since the USSR disbanded.  No country has a reason to sacrifice forces for it anymore.  France can send troops when necessary.



Also, I now see Preston and Jake's comments.  At least I say something with substance and something that can be debated.  Not something I can EVER say for you too.

[jerusalemcar5]

We need the UN and a forum between nations.  Not a let's kill all the dcitatrs argh! war mongering organization, which apparently the GTO is.  It would involve us in too many wars and this could cause World War III because of the wars it could lead to.

Thanks, but the pact is largely defensive and we would only act when called upon, as is clearly stated and could be easily understood by any high schooler who read the treay.  Looks like we missed you by two years, short-stuff.

That is exactly why it will lead to many wars, soulty.  The fact that it is when called upon could lead to Taiwan calling for all out war against China, India calling for all out war against Pakistan because one soldier killed ther soldier.  It is vague and asks too little.  Anyone could see that obvious issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Check a history book, please.  France left the NATO security force in the 60's.  And the role of NATO is NOT negated by the fall of the USSR, because "defense against the Soviet Union" is not stated anywhere in the treaty.[/quote]

I was interested by this and did a quick check.  France has been a member of the integrated command for 13 years since it rejoined in 1993 and was part of the NATO force in the Balkans. France did not leave due to their hatred for security, it was a legitimate political concern that the United States ignored.  Obviously that isn't in the treaty, but it was the obvious and well known intent.  It lost a lot of its original purpose when the Soviet Union fell.

[jerusalemcar5]

I'll accept that though the treaty calls for aggression, wars would not be the appropriate term.

Moreover, I see this all this fear mongering about non-European states as being strongly rooted in racist sentiment.  India is the largest democracy is the world, but it seems like, because they are "Brown People," the view is that they obviously cannot comport themselves in a dignified and measured manner.

India and Pakistan have already fought several wars, India refuses to sign the NPT while developing nuclear weaponry.  There is room for serious concern with India, regardless of it being a democracy.  And don't slander me by calling me a racist when you have no evidence of the fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That French foreign policy has never been played out.  France of course honors its alliances and has come a long way in human rights since the colonial era.  They have no supported forceful democratic expansion because war is almost never justified, but strongly supported peaceful expansion.

Also, France remained an active member of NATO that would have fought the USSR had war with NATO ever erupted.  The withdrawal from NATO security forces was a largely symbolic political statement. 

[jerusalemcar5]

I'm just a little dismayed by the absence of many First World nations as being proposed parties to the Treaty. Lets face it, it should be the First World "singing the tune" and t'others "dancing along to it"

The starting point of the Global Treaty should be at the top (for example, Atlasia, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan). As other nations advance, both economically and politically, then I'd be more than happy to consider them for membership

Still the Treaty in itself is very principled and it addresses the global challenges we face and while I have misgivings about the inclusion of the likes of Colombia and Brazil, I will be giving it my full support

'Hawk'

May I ask why you don't support this as a means of reform in the United Nations?  Why do we need yet another organization to deal with needs that should be addressed by the UN?  Also, it sounds like you support a NATO expansion, which I agree with and was apparently also supported by Supersoulty. 

[jerusalemcar5]

I'm just a little dismayed by the absence of many First World nations as being proposed parties to the Treaty. Lets face it, it should be the First World "singing the tune" and t'others "dancing along to it"

The starting point of the Global Treaty should be at the top (for example, Atlasia, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan). As other nations advance, both economically and politically, then I'd be more than happy to consider them for membership

Still the Treaty in itself is very principled and it addresses the global challenges we face and while I have misgivings about the inclusion of the likes of Colombia and Brazil, I will be giving it my full support

'Hawk'

May I ask why you don't support this as a means of reform in the United Nations?  Why do we need yet another organization to deal with needs that should be addressed by the UN?  Also, it sounds like you support a NATO expansion, which I agree with and was apparently also supported by Supersoulty. 

I lost confidence in the United Nations over Iraq. It has slowly become a tiger with no teeth as a consequence of them becoming rotten from within

Dave 'Hawk'

So you're saying it needs reform, which this treaty would do, I don't understand how that refutes my point.

Also, how is the United Nations weak for not attacking a cooperating nation that posed no threat to the outside world?  That wouldn't even meet GTO standards.

[jerusalemcar5]

I'm just a little dismayed by the absence of many First World nations as being proposed parties to the Treaty. Lets face it, it should be the First World "singing the tune" and t'others "dancing along to it"

The starting point of the Global Treaty should be at the top (for example, Atlasia, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan). As other nations advance, both economically and politically, then I'd be more than happy to consider them for membership

Still the Treaty in itself is very principled and it addresses the global challenges we face and while I have misgivings about the inclusion of the likes of Colombia and Brazil, I will be giving it my full support

'Hawk'

May I ask why you don't support this as a means of reform in the United Nations?  Why do we need yet another organization to deal with needs that should be addressed by the UN?  Also, it sounds like you support a NATO expansion, which I agree with and was apparently also supported by Supersoulty. 

I invite you to carry a series of reform proposals to the United Nations... acctually, they don't even have to be reform proposals, if the UN followed its own charter, then there would be no problem.  Anyway, I invite you to do, and see what kinda reception you get from Kim Jung Il, Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, Gaddafi and the Chinese Leadership.  I think they like the UN just fine the way it is now, and they have about 50 other dictators, and 50 more countries who just don't have any interest in it, who would all agree with them.

Secondly, had you been paying attention to my point, as I said, I initially supported expanding NATO into a global role, but I realized that the idea was oppsed to the spirit and language of the NATO charter, so I dropped the idea and opted for this instead.

Except of the 191 (did Monetenegro actually get accepted by the GA, if so 192) member states are mostly democracies that suppport reform, especially of the Security Council so it could be more active.  The main issue I have with the GTO is it allows troops to be deployed to regions too quickly, I believe, yes not war, but you deem it yourself to be "considered aggressive by many".  I believe if aggression is truly warranted, the UN can handle it.  Or the Atlasia can form a coalition of the willing like they did ore-Atlasia in 2003.  

[jerusalemcar5]

I'm just a little dismayed by the absence of many First World nations as being proposed parties to the Treaty. Lets face it, it should be the First World "singing the tune" and t'others "dancing along to it"

The starting point of the Global Treaty should be at the top (for example, Atlasia, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan). As other nations advance, both economically and politically, then I'd be more than happy to consider them for membership

Still the Treaty in itself is very principled and it addresses the global challenges we face and while I have misgivings about the inclusion of the likes of Colombia and Brazil, I will be giving it my full support

'Hawk'

May I ask why you don't support this as a means of reform in the United Nations?  Why do we need yet another organization to deal with needs that should be addressed by the UN?  Also, it sounds like you support a NATO expansion, which I agree with and was apparently also supported by Supersoulty. 

I invite you to carry a series of reform proposals to the United Nations... acctually, they don't even have to be reform proposals, if the UN followed its own charter, then there would be no problem.  Anyway, I invite you to do, and see what kinda reception you get from Kim Jung Il, Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, Gaddafi and the Chinese Leadership.  I think they like the UN just fine the way it is now, and they have about 50 other dictators, and 50 more countries who just don't have any interest in it, who would all agree with them.

Secondly, had you been paying attention to my point, as I said, I initially supported expanding NATO into a global role, but I realized that the idea was oppsed to the spirit and language of the NATO charter, so I dropped the idea and opted for this instead.

Except of the 191 (did Monetenegro actually get accepted by the GA, if so 192) member states are mostly democracies that suppport reform, especially of the Security Council so it could be more active.  The main issue I have with the GTO is it allows troops to be deployed to regions too quickly, I believe, yes not war, but you deem it yourself to be "considered aggressive by many".  I believe if aggression is truly warranted, the UN can handle it.  Or the Atlasia can form a coalition of the willing like they did ore-Atlasia in 2003.  

Okay... lets step outta Atlas fantasy land here for a second...

How is the great reform movement going so far?  How far has John Bolton gotten?  How many wonderful reforms have been made?  How is Kofi helping the process along?

The answers are: Not well.  No where.  None.  Not at all.

Why do I care what John Bolton has or hasn't done?  I am not John Bolton. Of course, I believe the United Nations is fine as it is, with the exception of a needed expansion on the Security Council, so I don't want reform.

[jerusalemcar5]

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

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

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

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

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

[jerusalemcar5]

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One word: Rwanda

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

[jerusalemcar5]

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