SENATE BILL: South American/Asian Trade Reform Act (Law'd)

[Lumine]

Well, it's a rather simple bill (and a good way to start my foreign policy efforts). I am a strong supporter of increased trade, and I have been advocating increased attention to Latin America and Southeast Asia for a very long time. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen our ties with some of the key organizations in those continents:

OAS: As a Chilean (and having a poor opinion of the current General Secretary), I feel that OAS has failed to achieve it's potential thanks to our neglect of the organization or out abuse of it during the Cold War. OAS is severely underfunded, so I believe we should discuss a funding increase for it so we can avoid the problem that particular donors represent here. I am also concerned over the number of Latin American heads of state seeking to end Presidential term limits so they can go to reelection over and over again (the late Chavez, Morales, Correa, Fernandez, and so forth), so I wanted to manifest our disapproval on paper.

APEC: In my opinion, this is a very successful organization, and it has a pretty important role in trade affairs. However, it doesn't have as nearly as enough members as it should have, which is why I want to advocate for the entrance of the states mentioned before. All of those states have requested membership, but I did leave some of the countries out, like Pakistan (instability), Mongolia (obviously) and Sri Lanka. Guam has also tried to be a separate member (like Hong Kong-China), and I feel they deserve to have that right.

Pacific Alliance: One of the decisions of Sebastian Piñera that I really support, the Pacific Alliance has not only proved that it has capability and potential, it is comprised of countries actually interested in having a closer relationship with us, unlike some of the Mercosur members (which have obviously attacked this trade Alliance). I feel we should join it, but since we still have to deal with immigration issues and since I don't feel it's a good idea to allow free and open immigration from Mexico yet, I choose to reflect that on paper as well.

ASEAN: The most simple of all, having an observer status allows for greater cooperation, and it does serve to make a point to China.

There are quite a good number of points worthy of discussion (like the OAS funding), so I'm really interested in feedback here.

[Lumine]

This smacks of imperialism.

Senator, as a man from Latin America I know very well the historical consequences of imperialism (in my very own country, for example),  and I believe I can recognize actual imperialism. Since when joining organizations to coordinate and trade with other countries is imperialism?

[Lumine]

If I may ask, why should we give up Guam?
And why the hate for limits on the terms
Of leaders duly chosen by their people
(Though I admit that Chavez wasn't that good
At being democratic in his state)?
Thirdly, I'd like to say it's "its", not "it's".

I feel we should give Guam an opportunity to gain a small degree of independence, even if it is trade organization. While I don't question that in several cases the leaders that strike down term limits end up winning the elections in a relatively fair way, Latin America has a history of leaders who took advantage of this to build authoritarian regimes or rig the elections. I felt it provides a compelling use of OAS to prove it can get things done. My apologies for the typos, I always make that mistake...

We can disapprove of an end to presidential term limits, but what is the role of OAS in this?  Can Atlasia really do anything about it through this organization?

Lumine, who are these donors you are concerned about and what threat do they pose?

As I said to Alfred, I feel that trying to end this practice by coordinating with the governments of the regions via OAS is a good way of proving that the organization works. Otherwise we might get the open road of talking with every single government by separate, and that's not going to happen in Atlasia. It also provides the SoEA with an interesting storyline to follow (or at least that's my opinion).

I do have to apologize for my earlier remark on the donors. In my original remark I meant that since we are not funding OAS in the same way we are funding it in OTL, it must be facing even worse problems. I read in my reseach that some of the proposed solutions was to accept private donations (I lost that source and I confused my argument about it), which in my opinion would lead to negative results.

Now, the OTL United States provides about 60% of the funding to OAS, and even with that the organization has had the same budget for about 20 years. In the past years they had to cut funding for their human rights efforts, and they had to fire a third of the staff, which meant that they couldn't act as observers to some elections. I feel OAS can actually get things done, but it needs proper funding and it needs greater involvement from us in order to succeed.

I wished to discuss this point because there are many solutions, and I am not necessarily asking for a blank check as well. We could always go with a provision in which we ask OAS to change its economic fees to the rest of the members pay more.

[Lumine]

If I may ask, why should we give up Guam?
And why the hate for limits on the terms
Of leaders duly chosen by their people
(Though I admit that Chavez wasn't that good
At being democratic in his state)?
Thirdly, I'd like to say it's "its", not "it's".

I feel we should give Guam an opportunity to gain a small degree of independence, even if it is trade organization. While I don't question that in several cases the leaders that strike down term limits end up winning the elections in a relatively fair way, Latin America has a history of leaders who took advantage of this to build authoritarian regimes or rig the elections. I felt it provides a compelling use of OAS to prove it can get things done. My apologies for the typos, I always make that mistake...

What do Guamanians think? And can you say
Why limits on a presidential term
Are bad per se (the Latin means I'm cool)?
The OAS should not be doing things
For their own sake, but only if they're right.
And "it's" and "its" are easily confused
(You stated you're Chilean, so that might
Screw things a bit up, English-language-wise).

Guam has applied for membership since at least 2000 (year in which we faced a small incident in which some of diplomats laughed at them beacuse of their request), and more than once we have seen manifestants from there in APEC meetings. I feel it would be fair to allow them a seat in APEC. While I would normally agree with the idea that OAS should only intervene in particular cases, is precisely that attitude that is undermining the organization. Since Insulza took over as General Secretary and a non-intervention focus was considered, OAS has failed to be effective in the Honduras crisis, in the impeachment of President Lugo in Paraguay, in the failed coup in Ecuador and specially in Venezuela, where they have refused to even consider some of the arguments of the opposition.

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can understand the opposition to OAS, but why leave out the Pacific Alliance?

Amendment hostile, BTW.

[Lumine]

Nay.

[Lumine]

Nay

May I please ask why you voted this way?

It's a reasonable question, because I'm obviously not voting with the left here.

I do believe Presidential term limits are an important part of a democratic society; however, I do appreciate the argument that mandating term limits is entirely UN-democratic. It's a rock and a hard place, truly. I think the downside of mandating policy is outweighed by the upside of preventing totalitarian rule.

I think the Pacific Alliance is something I support. Visa-free travel between Latin American states is a positive. I think Lumine's original text handles the need for immigration reform with respect to joining the Pacific Alliance pretty well.

Common diplomatic representation in the Pacific Alliance is a bit iffy, and I think I'll insert something to the effect of having that removed.

I thank Senator Tyrion for keeping an open mind about this bill, and I share some of his concerns in regards to the Pacific Alliance as well, so an amendment that improves the language in regards of immigration and removes common representation is more than welcome.

Trying to keep the identity of a region in mind when dealing with said region always has the dilemma of falling into cliches, but I can assure you that, at least in this continent, we have some rather serious issues with term limits. I believe such a limit is for the best, and it is my goal to achieve this through a consensus sponsored by the organisms mentioned before, not by, as TNF says, by being imperalist and supposedly serving finance interests.

[Lumine]

What business does the Republic have in encouraging states in Latin America to not repeal term limits? Term limits are anti-democratic.

We certainly don't have an obligation, but again, I believe it's a cause worth pursuing. The argument of term limits as anti-democratic can be made in a very effective way for a strong democracy with branches of power than can actually check executive power, like in Atlasia. But as we have repeatedly seen in countries like Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Ecuador, term limits are a mere excuse for what the analysts call "new caudillos" to seize power and gradually undermine democracy. Tyrion is right, and term limits in this specific place in the world help to prevent authoritarianism.

I will get slightly off-topic here, but there's a point I wanted to address in regards to my foreign policy bills. During the month in which I have served as a Senator (and perhaps during my entire career in Atlasia) I've heard the argument of many world affairs being "none of our business". A couple of years ago I would have definitely agreed with such an argument, but the more I learn the more convinced I am that Atlasia can be a positive influence abroad, and even more, that it has to step in and be a positive influence, for we have the tools to do so (unlike powers like China and Russia, whose most recent interventions have led to what we see right now in Tibet and Ukraine). There are calls for Atlasia to only mind its domestic issues, but we don't live in a vacuum, and pretending to live in a vacuum will not solve anything. We can repair some of the damage we caused to Latin America in the past century, but we can't do it by being almost isolationist.

[Lumine]

The wording of this right now seems to be suggesting the Senate is going to have free movement of people from these countries as part of some immigration reform.  While I'm not necessarily opposed to that at some point, I'm not sure it's a realistic assumption.  What situation will we be in regarding the Pacific Alliance if that policy never comes together?

So far the immigration moves in the Pacific Alliance are focused on cooperation, but they no specific measures as of now regarding immigration. Indeed, free movement of people within these countries and our is not realistic as of now (could be in a few years), which is why I agree with the need for reworking Section 4.

So far the ideas seem to be to put restrictions on free immigration (but perhaps allowing visa-free travel) and dropping common diplomatic representation. Do you wish to offer an amendment for Section 4, Tyrion?

[Lumine]

Amendment friendly, it solves most if not all of my concerns (and I hope the rest of the Senate shares that view) on the Pacific Alliance issue.

[Lumine]

Honestly, our membership in the Pacific Alliance bloc might be rejected if we're steadfast on those points, but there's really no reason to waver in this specific case.

I'm ready for a final vote.

I believe there's one last issue I'd like to discuss with the Senate before a final vote, that being the specific funding we will provide to OAS. Current budget (2014) is 162.5 million dollars, which is not enough, and we are providing 65.7 million. Would the Senate agree to an increase of 30-40 million?

[Lumine]

Lumine are you down with the Final vote, or do you want to address another issue?

I'd like to address the issue of OAS funding before going to a final vote, I wanted to see if there's opposition or support to increase the funding as I proposed in my earlier post.

[Lumine]

What is the funding used for?

Mostly to the regular fund, which supports the efforts of the General Secretariat, including acting as an observer to elections, sponsoring human rights, supporting environmental friendly projects, and diplomatic efforts in case of coups or the ousting of democratic Presidents and governments (and we've had several of those in the past years, but nobody seems to tonice). The rest goes to specifc funds that sponsor development and social projects across the continent to raise standars of living and increase cooperation between governments.

Is it absolutely necessary that we increase funding?

I strongly believe so, Tyrion. Current funding for OAS is not enough, it hampers their ability to act in many levels, and it is one of the main causes of OAS not looking efficient enough.

[Lumine]

I'll offer the amendment myself:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

The amendmenr has been adopted.

What's next here or is that it?

I'm ready for a final vote, Yankee!

[Lumine]

Aye.