SENATE BILL: GTO Expansion Act of 2011 (On the President's desk)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This is a relatively clear cut bill, Senators.  Expanding to include South Sudan and Somaliland not only enhances the stature of those deserving nations, but it allows the GTO and, by extension, Atlasia to remain relevant on the continent of Africa.  I urge quick passage of the bill, and a quick transition to the Libya aid bill.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I oppose this.

Reasoning?  Or are your opponents the only people required to give an explanation?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The way this is written it sounds, at least to me, like the Government is given the authority to do whatever it wants to do as long as it is passed off as "necessary to implement the provisions of the treaty" in the other member countries.

I could be wrong in how I am reading this, but this sounds awfully close to just giving us the authority to do whatever we want in other member nations so I oppose this bill.

It has not traditionally been interpreted that way by past DoEAs.  Certainly, no DoEA has ever acted on the ability, if it exists.  Additionally, it would be impossible for Atlasia to do anything if the other member nations do not overwhelmingly consent.  Section 3 also makes clear that the Treaty only applies to nations that continue to follow the Treaty's provisions.  If they stop doing so, they are essentially forfeiting membership in the GTO, and Atlasia can no longer involve itself in those places to enforce the regulations.

On a side note, as long as we are talking about the GTO, why not make the office of GTO Ambassador non-playable?

We went through this with Napoleon's bill a while ago.  The GTO Ambassador has been extremely helpful in crafting foreign policy.  I remain firmly opposed to eliminating the GTO Ambassadorship as a playable position, at least for the conceivable future.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't feel compelled to explain my reasoning to a close-minded DoEA. If my constituents have concerns, or other Senators, I will be glad to explain.

That's absolutely hilarious, Senator.  I don't know where this idea of my being "close minded" came about, but it's false and it hurts the process.  The fact that you won't explain your objections just because I'm the one who asked is deeply disappointing.  No other Senator has the same problem conversing with me that you do, so you should reexamine your position.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Does the SoEA have a response to Hashemite's post?

Yes, of course.
South Sudan is not perfect; I'll be the first to admit this.  However, it is important to remember this is a new nation; they're still working.  Including them now will increase pressure on the SPLM to liberalize, and will lead to just that outcome.  South Sudan has already begun to liberalize in the last few months, a process which will continue.  I don't see any reason to delay their admittance, when they have already begun the process towards full liberalization.

I also take offense at Hashemite's disgusting description of our motivation.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Not only is the language of this bill fatally flawed, the timing is rather inappropriate. You and Hashemite understand why.

Oh really, Napoleon?  And why is the timing inappropriate?  I find a veto inappropriate, considering Polnut returns in two days.

Now, on to the actual legislation.  Somaliland should be admitted into the GTO because that is the only way to give it international stature.  Leaving it out of the GTO hurts Somaliland and it hurts us, because we are seen as being uncaring towards a young nation.  Likewise with South Sudan, which is a nation brand new and in need of help.  Keeping GTO pressure will make S. Sudan liberalize; burning it like this will not.