May 2011 Foreign Policy Review Senate Debate and Approval (Passed)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

is Ethiopia the only change?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I didn't mark changes this time; Ethiopia is left over from the FPR I did as SoEA back in July.  Hashemite never completed the December review, so I didn't denote any changes.

then why is it red?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why full economic restrictions on the Congo DRC , but none at all on Rwanda and Burundi, which along with Uganda, support rebel armies in the Congo, and extract minerals from Congo in order to fund them?   Certainly Kinsasha is not blameless, but the last thing we want to do is put them at a disadvantage against the rebels.  Targeted restrictions would be better.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I would like to see an answer on this, Ben.

Sorry; I thought I'd already done so.  My bad
In that region, it is difficult to truly assess where blame lies.  Rwanda has full sanctions placed on it, as does Uganda.  The literature I have read (and I admit it is not extensive) does not place as much culpability on Burundi as one the others, and so I have not placed restrictions on Burundi.

Actually, it says this:

Department of External Affairs: May 2011 Foreign Policy Review

Definitions of the DoEA's Foreign Policy Review


Burundi: Normal, though we are still concerned about ethnic violence, corruption and certain political freedoms.

Democratic Republic of the Congo: Full military and economic restrictions because of serious concerns about the political situation, continued violence, basic rights, corruption and treatment of women.

Rwanda: Partial military and no economic restrictions, though we have concerns pertaining to freedom of the press and politics.

Uganda: Full military and partial economic restrictions. We are concerned by the political situation, human rights and corruption.

My reading of the situation is this - there ought to be the same partial economic restrictions on all these countries, related to the trade of conflict minerals, and targeted sanctions on corrupt individuals and organizations.

My general opinion is that we should not place full economic restrictions on any nation except in extraordinary circumstances.  We should be encouraging through trade those industries which promote the well being and sufficiency of people in other countries even when we do not approve of the government.

a couple procedural questions: Is the Senate able to amend this directly? And if this were to fail is the previous policy review retained?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm working on at least one amendment.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I propose amending the following countries as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I have no problem with Senator Shua's amendments, and would like to see them implemented.

thank you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

how so?

also, I think it's great that we recognize Somaliland, but what we hope to accomplish with sanctions against the struggling government of Somalia?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

When it comes to Swaziland, most of the money there flows through the King and his friends.  Sanctions would thus ultimately have the result of depriving the King of more money.  Regarding Somalia, it is basically to prevent the Government from having weapons and/or money that could fall into the hands of pirates, terrorists, etc.

Somali pirates bring economic goods and activity to the impoverished Somali people, and thus they gain their approval. More legitimate venues of economic activity there are what is needed, not less.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

And what about terrorists?  Let's not pretend that Al-Shabaab isn't just dying to get a hold of money and goods sent to Somalia.  I really see this as a preventative measure.

We should support through trade the efforts of Puntland and the other regions outside Al-Shabaab control.  The more we cut them off, the less they will be able to withstand encroachments by the terrorist forces.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

How about those former soviet republics with full economic sanctions - is there a way to make those more targeted?   Let's not give away all our leverage short of war.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

How about those former soviet republics with full economic sanctions - is there a way to make those more targeted?   Let's not give away all our leverage short of war.

The only way I can think of is through specific, country by country legislation.

If we can make the economic restrictions more limited and specific, I don't see why we couldn't just change that under each country in this policy review.  Why is it that full restrictions are considered necessary - what is our objective?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

While I appreciate the Secretary's work on this review, we have too many countries here with full economic restrictions, and unless they are narrowed in scope, I cannot vote in favor of this.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm considering if it makes sense to amend any countries to partial rather than full restrictions, but not sure what the extent of them would be in practice if not specified.
I'm not clear on what this is referring to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Somehow I thought the Secretary was working on an answer to the question about the government v regime language, as my introducing an amendment would depend on the meaning of "partial restrictions".  However, if not I will not object to proceeding to a vote, though I will vote nay.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Senator, my answer is about three posts above you.

I saw that. You said you're not sure.  And until we actually have separate legislation, we can't reference it in the FPR so I don't see how that is a solution.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I saw that. You said you're not sure.  And until we actually have separate legislation, we can't reference it in the FPR so I don't see how that is a solution.

Then why don't you introduce legislation commenting on the countries you wish to single out?

In that case what is even the point of the FPR?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I saw that. You said you're not sure.  And until we actually have separate legislation, we can't reference it in the FPR so I don't see how that is a solution.

Then why don't you introduce legislation commenting on the countries you wish to single out?

In that case what is even the point of the FPR?

Because for most countries such specificity isn't needed/desired.

Tell me this at least: if you're not sure what it means, how do you expect us to vote on it?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nay

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't agree with his foreign policy, but Ben is active and I doubt there are very many other people interested in putting any effort into this position...

So what the heck, I vote aye.

You make it sound like this is a confirmation vote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

are we still waiting on some more votes for this or did it die all by itself?