Ending of Aided Rebellion Bill

[Emsworth]

Ending of Aided Rebellion Bill

1. The purpose of this bill is to end the possibility of funding and/or aiding of Pro-Democratic and Free China operatives in Mainland China and Taiwan.

2. Clause 2 of the Pacific Defense and Taiwanese Protection Act is hereby repealed.

Sponsor: Sen. Ebowed

[Ebowed]

If any nation were funding or aiding rebellion operatives in Atlasia, that would be a cause for war undoubtedly.  Therefore, I don't think we should be aiding any rebellion operatives in China at this time when there is no reason for conflict, or allow that possibility in our legislation.  All this will do is simply repeal the relevant Clause 2:

"The Atlasian Senate will be allowed to aid Pro-Democratic and Free China Operatives in Mainland China and Taiwan."

[Colin]

I was one of the people who stood by President PBrunsel when he decided to give aid to anti-communist forces in China and I will continue to stand by that plan. Giving them aid will make it much more likely that they will be able to get their opinion heard in China and to put pressure upon the government to brign about a more representative and democratic government. We have seen how the popular will and the actions of the people of a country can overthrow a vile despotic regime. We can only hope that such events will happen in China and that Atlasian can try and help make those events occur.

Also I would like to motion that the hearings on this bill be made secret for GM reasons. In real life I doubt that this would be debated in an open session of the Senate and thus we should run this debate as if it was a secret session so that the GM will make a note to not comment about any Chinese response.

[Ebowed]

I was one of the people who stood by President PBrunsel when he decided to give aid to anti-communist forces in China and I will continue to stand by that plan. Giving them aid will make it much more likely that they will be able to get their opinion heard in China and to put pressure upon the government to brign about a more representative and democratic government.

Think of it this way:  is China going to listen to a bunch of rebellions funded by another country and not notice the country that is helping the rebellious people out?  If China were funding pro-Communist operatives in Atlasia, would that not be a problem?  We can't just go aid rebellions wherever we want when there's no need for conflict and expect countries we're not friendly with to leave us alone.

[Emsworth]

It should not be the policy of the Atlasian government to actively attempt to topple the government of a foreign country. We are effectively aiding armed revolution in an independent and sovereign country. Normally, this would be considered cause for war.

The situation is especially complicated by the fact that China is a world power, a nuclear power. Foreign policy should be dictated by realism, not idealism, and realistically, aiding rebellion in China is not in our national interests.

[Q]

This is interesting.  I was just about to propose new legislation to eliminate the Church Amendment.

[DanielX]

I oppose this bill. True, I don't like a lot of foreign aid to begin with, but democratization is a cause I support and frankly, I don't like commies much .

Seriously, I agree with Senator Wixted on this.

[Ebowed]

I oppose this bill. True, I don't like a lot of foreign aid to begin with, but democratization is a cause I support and frankly, I don't like commies much .

Could you please give us a list of which countries we should try to "democratize" by giving taxpayer funding to rebellion operatives?

[DanielX]

I oppose this bill. True, I don't like a lot of foreign aid to begin with, but democratization is a cause I support and frankly, I don't like commies much .

In which case, you are intellectually inconsistent.  You support CAFTA and say that it's no problem for us to work with countries that don't have decent worker's rights laws, but when it comes to China, you support overthrowing the government?  Could you please give us a list of which countries we should have free trade agreements with, and which countries we should try to "democratize" by giving taxpayer funding to rebellion operatives?

Hmm.... okay [this is top secret eat-before-revealing]


I'd support rebellions in non-democratic countries (I will be loose in this definition and say that all Latin American countries except Cuba, and possibly Haiti and Venezuela are democratic, as is Turkey, but for instance China, Iran, and Libya are not) except in certain cases where the rebels are almost certain to be worse or contrary to US intrests (ie Saudi Arabia, where the main anti-monarchial movements are rooted in al-Qaeda). Of course, the US should pick-and-choose, we can't fund every rebel group.

Also, I don't think the US is funding armed rebellion in China per se, but student movements and groups that are actively oppressed by the Chinese. Those movements are more akin to Tianamien Square or the Rose/Orange/Cedar revolutions then militant groups.

BTW, I also support active funding of groups to overthrow the governments of Iran and North Korea moreso then any others, as they are both odious and national security threats.

[Emsworth]

Senator DanielX, with the greatest possible respect, why should the Atlasian taxpayers fund the overthrow of a foreign government, when the overthrow has not been proven to be in this country's best national interests?

[Jake]

I oppose this bill. True, I don't like a lot of foreign aid to begin with, but democratization is a cause I support and frankly, I don't like commies much .

Could you please give us a list of which countries we should try to "democratize" by giving taxpayer funding to rebellion operatives?

Cuba, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan arguably, Syria, and Venezuela. In most, the democratization process would be as easy as a JDAM in the right place.

[Colin]

I oppose this bill. True, I don't like a lot of foreign aid to begin with, but democratization is a cause I support and frankly, I don't like commies much .

Could you please give us a list of which countries we should try to "democratize" by giving taxpayer funding to rebellion operatives?

Cuba, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan arguably, Syria, and Venezuela. In most, the democratization process would be as easy as a JDAM in the right place.

Or an assassin with good aim.

[Q]

This is interesting.  I was just about to propose new legislation to eliminate the Church Amendment.

Just so we're clear, this means that I'll likely oppose this bill as well.

Description of the Cooper-Church Amendment, which has seriously inhibited the abilities of the CIA to carry out its duties.

[Emsworth]

Just so we're clear, this means that I'll likely oppose this bill as well.

Really? Might I ask why? The bill only cancels the overt appropriation of money to foreign rebels; I don't think that this would in any way affect covert operations by the CIA. In any event, I would imagine that whatever authority the CIA has, it does not possess it as a result of the Atlasian Pacific Defense and Taiwanese Protection Act; thus, repealing a part of that act should not have any effect on the CIA's abilities.

[DanielX]

Senator DanielX, with the greatest possible respect, why should the Atlasian taxpayers fund the overthrow of a foreign government, when the overthrow has not been proven to be in this country's best national interests?

Quite frankly, Mr. Senator, how can it be not in our national interests to oppose the Chinese? If for no other reason then the fact that they're the primary benefactors of North Korea. Plus, they're quite frankly using our money to screw us over, by building their military. And I'm suspicious of economies where any capitalism exists by government suffrance only. Maybe this rebellion idea isn't so great, but at least we should be supporting our allies in the region with free trade and place a high punitive tariff on the Chinese, if nothing else.  

[Emsworth]

Quite frankly, Mr. Senator, how can it be not in our national interests to oppose the Chinese?

I take it you were addressing me? It would not be in our national interests to aid revolution in China because aiding revolution in a foreign country is normally interpreted as cause for war. If China had decided to overtly appropriate funds for the violent overthrow of the federal government, would you not consider it cause for war? If China had decided to fund the secession of a few states, would you not consider it cause for war?

And I hope it would be agreed that war with China is not in our national interests.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be a far more reasonable idea than funding armed revolution.

[Q]

Just so we're clear, this means that I'll likely oppose this bill as well.

Really? Might I ask why? The bill only cancels the overt appropriation of money to foreign rebels; I don't think that this would in any way affect covert operations by the CIA. In any event, I would imagine that whatever authority the CIA has, it does not possess it as a result of the Atlasian Pacific Defense and Taiwanese Protection Act; thus, repealing a part of that act should not have any effect on the CIA's abilities.

While the Senator from the Southeast will agree with each statement the Vice President has just made, he cannot support any blanket elimination of a current power of the Atlasian government as it interacts with other nations on the international stage.

Alasia should be able to use any and all of its resources to protect itself and further its interests.  Whether or not it uses its power toward specific ends should be debated as such situations arise, not prohibited by legislation that will tie our hands and make impossible spontaneous decision-making tailored to specific situations as they arise.

[Emsworth]

Alasia should be able to use any and all of its resources to protect itself and further its interests.  Whether or not it uses its power toward specific ends should be debated as such situations arise, not prohibited by legislation that will tie our hands and make impossible spontaneous decision-making tailored to specific situations as they arise.

I would completely agree. However, an overt declaration of hostile, pro-revolutionary policy is not something that would, I think, be realistically tolerated by China. I know that the People of Atlasia would not tolerate such behavior on the part of any foreign government, and would consider it cause for war. Such a high level of tensions with a nuclear power is best avoided.

In practice, certainly, the government should be allowed to aid a revolutionary group when necessary. But a positive declaration of policy as being hostile to the Chinese government is not likely to be well-received.

[Sam Spade]

Just for those of yall that have already asked, I am staying totally out of any Senate debates/Regional debates period.  Yall can discuss as much as you want to freely.

[jokerman]

What a horrendous bill!  We should hold to our principles and support democracy against tyranny.  I urge my Senators to vote nay on this bill.

[Ebowed]

We should hold to our principles and not needlessly provoke countries by aiding rebellion against their governments.

[The Duke]

Given the total absence of Chinese response to the Taiwan Protection Act and the appropraited funds to pro-democracy groups, I think the objections of Senator Ebowed and the Vice President to this bill are not to be taken seriously.  If this bill was a cause for war, then war would have come.  War has not come, and therefore your objections are not valid.

[Platypus]

I wouldn't expect the Chinese to jeopardise Atlasian investment in their country by going to war unless they feel they have a good shot at winning.

Let's suggest for a moment that Atlasia is less powerful then China and they fund significant pro-communist militias inside our nation. Do we go to war straight away? Of course not. We wait until we can do something about it that'll be effective. The 'pro-democracy' forces in China won't be able to do anything significant for years, so they're going toy wait until they are a problem, whilst continuing Atlasian investment. They know it's happening, I doubt they approve, but it's silly for them to go to war-yet.

[Emsworth]

Given the total absence of Chinese response to the Taiwan Protection Act and the appropraited funds to pro-democracy groups

We are speaking realistically. Whether the GM saw fit to provide a Chinese response or not is a completely different matter.

What a horrendous bill! We should hold to our principles and support democracy against tyranny. I urge my Senators to vote nay on this bill.

Foreign policy should not be about idealistic principles. It should be about what is realistically in our national interests. I would call for a Realpolitik approach.

[MasterJedi]

I'll also be opposing this bill for the reasons that everyone has given already.