SENATE BILL: Senate Resolution on the 2014 Crimean Crisis (Amendment Vote)

[Lumine]

First of all, I'd like to thank the (Former) President Pro Tempore and the Vice-President for pushing this resolution for immediate discussion.

Well, I guess I have a lot to say about this one. One of the things I noted while observing the Senate for the past months is that there is a tendency to neglect foreign affairs (with the exception of bills like the Anti Imperialism Act), which pretty much leaves our SoEA as the only officeholder concerned with those affairs. I believe the Senate has to take stands on what's going on in the rest of the world, even if said stands are symbolic.

The Ukrainian government is not perfect, granted, and there is a high number of nationalistic and far-right members that we should observe very carefully. But then again, Russia faces the same issues (often in more extreme ways, like the horrible anti-gay laws), and now it's acting as an outright aggressor in the international stage. Regardless of the government, we as a nation have a compromise with international law, and we signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances back in 1994, which means that we are obliged to protect the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. If we do nothing, and if we allow that treaty to be declared void, we will also face negative consequences in the area of disarmament (specially nuclear disarmament).

The purpose of this resolution is to show our compromise with Ukraine and their desire to avoid being a Russian puppet and state our condemnation of the Russian acts of aggression involving Crimea, while at the same time leaving enough options open for the SoEA and the Special Envoy. That is why I did not add specific restrictions on Russia (although I recommend heavy economic sanctions).

[Lumine]

"Full support" I think is a phrase I would rather not use, but I support the majority of the concrete proposals outlined, with respect to diplomatic relations and whatnot.

It seemed the best one to create the desired effect, but I can understand the misgivings on the current Ukranian government, so I wouldn't might a slight change. Perhaps "diplomatic support"? I could add a fourth section as well outlining the aid package and more concrete sanctions now that the Special Envoy and the SoEA have expressed support, but I would like to hear the opinions of the remaining Senators before writing it.

[Lumine]

Amendment hostile to me. Removing the "full support" line it's fine with me, but eliminating the first paragraph along with the possibility of trade sanctions destroys the purpose of the resolution. It would mean that we are "condemning Russia" while refusing to act on it beyond a few words.

[Lumine]

Trade sanctions will only further push Russia into a hostile position. I do not support increasing hostilities for the sake of saving a neo-Nazi led/supported Ukrainian government.

Yes, the Ukrainian government has many extremist elements, and I certainly understand the argument of giving them help in a conditional basis. However, are we supposed to just talk and let Russia (which is many ways worse, after all) get away with a blatant act of aggression just because we disagree with the political views of the Ukrainian government? I perceive this as standing up for Ukraine as a whole, not "saving" the current provisional government.

I know fictional scenarios won't help the debate but I am curious: If the current Ukrainian government was more moderate, would you still oppose those aspects of the resolution?

[Lumine]

Nay.

[Lumine]

What, exactly, does "full support" of Ukraine entail? I wouldn't necessarily object to retaining this language in the bill, but you should probably spell out more clearly what kind of limits there are to this level of support, if any. Making promises that we don't intend to keep would be a blow to Atlasia's international credibility.

The "full support" line was meant as a mostly symbolic statement (given that the resolution is designed to give the SoEA and the Special Envoy enough ground to maneuver) in that we stand with Ukraine, but I perfectly understand that it might prove too ambiguous in the current context. If the amendment passes or fails, I will introduce a new amendment stating the limits of our support to Ukraine. If the amendment passes and it strikes down the heavy trade sanctions, I will go with Special Envoy SJoyce's suggestions (on the first page), and I will probably talk about the possibility of war (which is doubtful, I know) as well.

[Lumine]

First they came for the Georgians, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not Georgian.

Then they came for Crimeans, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not Crimean.

Then they came for East Ukrainians, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not East Ukrainian.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

...
Please Senators, don't let the Russians, a folk of alcoholic homophobic, take Crimee. Just because the True Leftists here can't criticize Moscow because of its communist past. And the new governor in Ukraine isn't nazi, that's definitely a blatant lie.

Um... what?

Have you seen Snowstalkers's past comments?

Snowstalker is not representative of True Leftists on this site.

Maybe not, but he seems to use the same logic than TNF here; "AAAAAAARGH, the new ukrainian government is full of nazis".
And yes, I tend to believe that the far-left seem to face some difficulties to condemn openly Russia. See Mélenchon in France. Maybe TNF could explain why he's so opposed to defend a country who is being oppressed by a dictatorship?

The fact that my amendment doesn't cut out the condemnation of Russia speaks volumes as to my position here. I do strongly condemn Russia for it's violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. That being said, I do not think that it is the business of Atlasia to get involved here beyond condemnation. Our involvement will only heighten tensions with Russia and make things worse. Again, I'm not about to "give my full support" to a government led around by the nose by armed neo-Nazis, either.

What good does saying you "strongly condemn" something do if you aren't actually willing to get involved and do anything about it?

Because quite frankly we should not be involved nor should we "do anything about it" beyond condemn the action of Russia for what it is - a gross violation of international law. It would not be wise to risk armed confrontation with Russia for the sake of ensuring the survival of a fascist-aligned government in Ukraine.

We gave Ukraine our assurances back in 1994 with the Budapest Memorandum that we would actually do something about it in case something like this happens so their territorial integrity and dignity was not violated by Russia. I don't view our involvement just for the sake of the current government, I view it as standing up and keeping our promises while showing a compromise to the respect of international law. We condemn them, sure, but taking absolutely no action (not even the somewhat symbolic trade sanctions that wouldn't cause armed confrontation) is not something I would recommend as a sucessful foreign policy move.

I understand the concerns, and the belief that Atlasia should not get involved, but by not doing anything we allow an autoritharian strongman to do what he wants with a sovereign nation, we lose a valuable ally, we prove to the world that our foreign policy is as opportunistic as some believe it is and we break a signed agreement, which could lead to severe consequences in future Non-Proliferation agreements as well.

(Also, since the amendment has passed, I will offer a new amendment once the vote is closed)

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright, here we go again.

In light of recent events, I decided to make it explicit that we maintain the validity of the Budapest memorandum to show our commitment to the treaties and documents we have signed, and to provide further legal basis for this. I have also included a statement in which we do not recognize the "referendum" (regardless of whether it would have passed or not if the election was fair and free, this referendum was illegal), and we won't recognize Crimea as a part of the Russian Federation if Russia accepts their "proposal". On the other side, there no mention of "full support" of the Ukrainian government, but at least we make it clear that Russia is the aggressor.

Despite the fact that I strongly believe in the need for trade sanctions, the Senate is against that part, and since I don't believe anybody here is willing to go to war for Crimea I decided to state that an intervention is not intended. If there's a war between Ukraine and Russia, we have that memorandum, and the President will be free to choose the road. I plan to draft an aid package to Ukraine today or tomorrow separate to this resolution, but I chose to include the immigration idea of Special Envoy SJoyce so we can help minorities like the Tatars from prosecution or discrimination. I wasn't sure if that simple statement will be enough, but I decided to write it anyway.

This will probably require a few changes, but at least it should be able to have more support from the Senate.

Thoughts?

[Lumine]

I object.

"Heavy sanctions" does not forego sanctions altogether, and it really should. Sanctions won't hurt Putin, they'll hurt the average Russian man and woman.

I guess we could always look back to Abyssinia (actual trade sanctions in oil would have crippled Italy back in 1935), but I guess that example requires actual warfare, which so far has not happened. Given that the trade sanctions are still the most polemic part (and since I dropped the "full support") is "trade sanctions" better?

I think it would be best to just say we do not "recognize the annexation of Crimea by Russia," which is what this is, and our position on this would be true even if there were no Budapest Memorandum, given the circumstances.  What we can say about the Budapest Memorandum is urge the Putin regime to abide by it - apart from that I'm not sure what practicality it has.

I'm not sure what is signified by urging the President to use all options available. It sounds like a grant of authority from the Senate, but it's not clearly so.  In any case we should be more specific, and we need to update the goal of such action to the current conditions.

The Budapest memorandum gives the justification to intervene to defend the integrity of Ukraine, but beyond our formal word to Ukraine it does not force us into an specific course of action. Putin has all but destroyed said agreement, which is why I wanted to state that we still consider it valid. Now, urging the President is another of the symbolic gestures I had in mind, but an actual grant of authority might not be a bad thing here. Do you have any ideas on the  language we could use for it?

[Lumine]

Lumine, are you going to offer that text as an amendment?

Hmmmmm... I'll make a small modification in light of the comments:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

Might we also allow for the free immigration of those in Ukraine who feel threatened by the new government there?

I would be more than willing to discuss it as a different piece of legislation, but I'm not sure it really belongs here, unless we allow free immigration to every person who may feel threatened by the whole conflict. Granted, I'm biased towards Ukraine (and thus towards their government, regardless of the far right elements), but I believe the numbers show that most Russians living there have not been discriminated in the past few years, and I'm not convinced that their situation is changing dramatically with the current government beyond the use of rethoric by some elements.

[Lumine]

Might we also allow for the free immigration of those in Ukraine who feel threatened by the new government there?

Loooooooool. Are you serious?

Yes, I for one would not want to be a Jew in Ukraine, where the incumbent government is on friendly terms with the neo-nazi Svoboda party.

Svoboda has many dangerous radical elements, but the party leadership has done a great deal of effort to modertate the party and expulse neo-fascistic and neo-nazi elements. Even the recent polemic actions by members of Svoboda are quickly condemned by the current government and party leaders, and while their use of rethoric can become offensive at times, I refuse to believe it's worse than the planned expulsion of tatars and other minorities in the Crimea.

After this resolution passes (or not), I also plan to propose an aid plan for Ukraine following the suggestion of Special Envoy SJoyce which will try to put further conditions to keep Svoboda at bay and help individuals within Ukraine, but the fundamental purpose of this resolution is to condemn Russia.

[Lumine]

Lumine, are you going to offer that text as an amendment?

Hmmmmm... I'll make a small modification in light of the comments:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you thus offerring it at this point then? Unless you specifically state so, I won't treat it as such. The reason is just for thep urpose you just illustrated, the ability to alter the text before getting locked into a process for three to five days.

Indeed, I formally offer that text as an amendment,

[Lumine]

I am unsure about how to proceed with two amendments at the same time, but I might as well point out that I'll take TNF's amendment as friendly since the language seems neutral enough for me.

[Lumine]

Mr. Vice-President...?

[Lumine]

Aye.

[Lumine]

Bump! I think we have reached a point in which a final vote should be almost ready.

[Lumine]

Are we by chance getting to the end of this?

I'm ready for a final vote!

[Lumine]

Lumine, is the amendment friendly or hostile?

I have my private doubts, but I can understand the motives behind the amendment, so I'll take it as friendly.

[Lumine]

Aye.

[Lumine]

Amendment friendly.

[Lumine]

Once TNF's amendment is ready, I will be more than ready for a final vote.

[Lumine]

Once TNF's amendment is ready, I will be more than ready for a final vote.

Is my amendment friendly?

Sorry, Shua! I confused the amendments for a moment, and yes, it is friendly as well.

[Lumine]

I'm ready for a final vote!

[Lumine]

Aye.