SENATE BILL: Sanity in Foreign Policy Amendment (Veto Override Failed)

[DemPGH]

There are circumstances under which I would support a modification of clause 2 to define weapons of war and foreign nations - because there is legit business that goes on (and it probably should be amended, but I don't want a war hawk to do it), but the rest of it seeks to essentially ban both gun running and state building, and no one in Atlasia should be associated with gun running. It's bound to create more problems than it ever could solutions, and these kinds of things only create more enemies. At the end of the day, we have more enemies than we had perviously. I would also question where or not it is our responsibility to train fighting forces around the world. So, I do not support repealing the Actual End to Imperialism Act. I would support a rational, conscientious amendment to clause 2, however.

[DemPGH]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the Actual End to Imperialism Act passed 9-0 with Fed support and with one Senator (Xahar) not voting. There are parts of it that are necessary and very sensible, and again I'd like to say that my strong preference is for a rewrite or an amended version of that bill that keeps the sensible precautions we need. Not a blanket repeal.

[DemPGH]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the Actual End to Imperialism Act passed 9-0 with Fed support and with one Senator (Xahar) not voting. There are parts of it that are necessary and very sensible, and again I'd like to say that my strong preference is for a rewrite or an amended version of that bill that keeps the sensible precautions we need. Not a blanket repeal.

Why I have a feeling you might redraft that if this passes?

Probably a best case scenario at this point, but we'll see!

There are some ways to redraft it that would make it work and should appease the majority on both sides.

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

VETO

I would like to be clear at the outset that my veto of this particular statute neither informs nor impacts future decisions with regard to the issue of foreign policy.

After speaking with no fewer than five senators, to whom I have expressed my concerns, I have opted for a veto for four reasons:

1. I do not believe that I would be able to alter in any significant way, or in any way that would appease pro conflict elements in the Senate, the Actual End to Imperialism Act.

2. The Actual End to Imperialism Act passed 9-0 with strong bipartisan support. Certainly minds can change, but I do not see evidence that this is the case; in other words, I fail to see a reason for a change in this policy. Rather, I see chiefly one senator pushing pro war solutions, often simultaneously, as a way to confront nearly every international issue.

3. I feel strongly that I do not see how allowing the private funding of wars, or permitting the private intervention in the internal conflicts of foreign countries, would do anything other than increase sectarian and internecine violence. Our goal should be the opposite.

4. Finally, training paramilitary forces around the world is not what I consider to be a democratic objective; logically, neither would it decrease tribal and internal conflicts in which we have no stake. Again, our goal should be the opposite. The Actual end to Imperialism Act closes only bases whose “sole mission is training foreign military and paramilitary personnel.”

We have in place a wise policy, and to lift it would be overly reckless.

Yours,
DemPGH, President

[DemPGH]

Wouldn't it have been prudent if at least some aspect of the discussion over whether or not to redraft had occured in public?

Granted I know not which five it was but certainly if it was the stark pro/anti members on either side, then of course it would be rather difficult to find consensus in a redraft. Surely the presence of six ayes, including a member of the Labor party as well as shua, who is hardly a pro-war inteventionist by any means, would indicate that desire for changes extends far beyond just one Senator, no?

Ironically I agree with three, but as for point four, isn't training "foreign military" in the absence of the private side, potentially in our interest? What about joint exercises with Britain, are they banned by this for instance? Or Canada even who would have an interest in defending common borders and body's of water from any number of threats? If it is efficent and cheaper to have a base solely devoted for such purposes, why should it be banned?

Actually, I found myself looking at An Actual End to Imperialism Act several times, and I really couldn't offer a rewrite that substantially changed it. That's what I mean.

Joint exercises with Great Britain would not be banned, and neither are coalitions. What's banned is to set up a base in a foreign country whose purpose is to train paramilitary forces (i.e., to overthrow strongmen, etc.).