The Global Treaty Organization

[Ebowed]

The following treaty, pioneered and written by Fmr. Vice President Supersoulty on behalf of the Ebowed/Q administration, in consultation with Prime Minster Tony Blair (UK), Chancellor Angela Merkel (Germany), Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (Japan), Prime Minister John Howard (Australia), President Álvaro Uribe Vélez (Colombia), President Thabo Mbeki (South Africa), President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Brazil), and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (India), will be the beginning of a new international force dedicated to human rights and fighting terrorism.  This will not be an abolition of the United Nations or a moving away from it of any sort on behalf of Atlasia, but rather the formation of a tighter-knit organization that will have this treaty as its guideline.

Preamble
* The Parties to this Treaty recognize that, though it takes many forms, democratic government, ideals, systems and traditions are essential to the future progress, security and prosperity of humankind.
* They recognize that, while all nations wish to maintain their sovereignty, this age is a global age and a global effort must be undertaken to secure the rights of humanity against new, global threats.
* They affirm that an affront against liberty in any part of the world is an affront to liberty everywhere. ?* They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilizations of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being across the globe.?* They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this Global Treaty:

Article 1
As free and democratic nations, we understand, through our traditions, that peaceful settlements and resolutions to conflicts are always preferable.  The Parties undertake to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with these purposes.

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.  This will include join cooperation in the advancement of anti-ballistic missile technology.

Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the Globe.

Article 6
* The Parties agree that, if need be, aggressive action, taken in the defense of democratic governments, or the defense of individual nations, might be necessary to secure liberty around the globe.
* The Parties of this treaty reserve the right to act in ways that might be deemed aggressive.  That such action will only be taken when a clear threat to any member, or any democratic government or institution is established.
* The Parties will assist any sovereign nation which petitions for assistance, either military, or otherwise, from threats either civil or international.
* That such assistance will be rendered immediately upon the approval of such petition by 7/10 of the voting Parties of this treaty.
* That Parties choosing not to render military assistance need not do so, however, monetary assistance maybe required.
* That any nation might choose to act, without expressed consent of the organization, so long as those actions are in accordance with the spirit of the charter.
* That any nation constitutionally bound to not take part in aggressive military action is not required to do so.  Forces may, however, be requested to act in supporting roles.
* That coalition military forces will not leave any war zone until their assistance is no longer requested, or the mission is deemed to be completed in the terms and spirit of the charter.
* That, for practical causes, some nations might be asked to deploy forces, in uneven ratios to certain problem areas, due to geographic proximity, or ease of transport.  Different Parties might also be selected, by agreement, to maintain sole or exclusive jurisdiction over problem areas of the globe, while forces of other nations are assigned elsewhere.
* This is provided that the forces of those Parties are commensurate to completing, effectively, the task at hand.

Article 7
* The Parties recognize that terrorism, across the globe, has become a real, daily threat to the life and liberty of the citizens of free nations.  In this new age of globalism, the menace provided by terrorists has been elevated to new and frightening levels.
* The Parties hold it as necessary to the very core of this organization to combat threats of terrorism, both globally and locally.
* The Parties reserve the right to respond, through force, if necessary, to any terrorist action on their soil.
* Any terrorist action taken against one Party will be seen as a strike against all and all Parties signing this treaty will be compelled to act within their limits.
* The Parties will not condone, assist or sponsor any state or organization which sponsors wanton acts of terrorism.
* The Parties reserve the right, both as an organization and as individuals, to take military action within or against any state seen to be sponsoring terrorist acts against one of its members.
* The Parties are permitted to act, both individually and as an organization, to deploy forces in any state or states requesting assistance against terrorist activities.
* Such a request will be handled in the same way as afore mentioned requests addressed in Article 6.

[Ebowed]

Article 8
* The Parties recognize that the current struggle against international drug trafficking runs hand-in-hand with the struggle to expand freedom, democratic government and human rights.
* That the actions of drug cartels often result in a direct assault against democratic institutions and duly appointed judicial systems.
* That these activities and the profits created, often either stem from, or directly result in the affliction of terrorism around the globe.
* That the human trafficking that often works in conjunction with stated activities is a direct assault upon the most basic of human rights.
* That, as such, the containment and destruction of such trafficking is paramount to the mission of this organization and steps will be taken by the Parties to cooperate in law enforcement actions aimed at the elimination of hard drugs from global markets.
^Note: Cannabis is not to be included in the list of drugs that will be under containment by this Organization, though acts against it are not prohibited upon the individual Parties.

Article 9
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

Article 10
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organized as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defense committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 through 9.

Article 11
Any nation that upholds the principles of this organization may, at any time, petition for admittance into the Global Treaty.
1. All petitions will first be reviewed by a committee which will consist of representatives of no fewer the 5 sitting members of the council.  If approved by simple majority, they will then be moved on for a vote by all member states.
2. The approval of 4/5 of members voting and present shall be required for any nation to be allowed admittance into the Global Treaty.
3. Upon admittance, all nations will be granted the full right, privileges and responsibilities of the Treaty.

Article 12
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the Republic of Atlasia, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Atlasia, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Germany, India, Japan, South Africa and the United Kingdom, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications.

Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Global Treaty Organization.

Article 14
This Treaty shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Republic of Atlasia. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.

Special thanks to htmldon for the logo

[True Democrat]

All nine of the foreign governments are currently debating this treaty as whether to ratify it.

[Јas]

Could I ask the Secretary of State, does he believe there is good reason to exclude many of our NATO allies from this group and whether or not many of them will feel snubbed by their exclusion?

[Hatman 🍁]

The list of countries seems to be random and arbritrary. It misses China, France, Canada and Italy for starters.

[WMS]

The list of countries seems to be random and arbritrary. It misses China, France, Canada and Italy for starters.

China shoudn't even be considered for this, and I have some serious doubts about France.

As for the others, this appears to be a selection based on both influence and geographic diversity, but I leave that for the treaty's sponsors to discuss.

[jokerman]

Well, I'm sure that other democracies will be admitted later after the initial ratification by the founding nations

This is overall an excellent plan.

[12th Doctor]

The list of countries seems to be random and arbritrary. It misses China, France, Canada and Italy for starters.

What perverted planet do you live on that you would think that China and France would even come close to living up to the ideals of this treaty?

They were excluded on purpose.

As for Canada and Italy... due to the current possitions of their governments, I have a hard time believing they woudl join.  Though, in the initial plan, Italy would have been a charter member.

Could I ask the Secretary of State, does he believe there is good reason to exclude many of our NATO allies from this group and whether or not many of them will feel snubbed by their exclusion?

All NATO allies, excluding the French (since they aren't even memebers of the NATO security force) are more than welcome to submit requests to join the organization.

Anyway, off the record, the reason these countries were choosen is because:

1) I wanted to have countries from each of the continents as founding members.

2) I wanted to pick only countries that I thought lived up to the ideals of the treaty.

3) I did not want to give off the initial appearance that this woudl be an Anglo-Amero-Euro dominated Organization.

4) I didn't have the time to negotiate the thing with 25 different countries and accomidate all their little demands, so I went to just these 8 countries first.

[Hatman 🍁]

Italy currently has a leftist government while Canada has a Conservative government. Im not sure how they can both oppose this government's objectives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I dont know about the others, but Atlasia's largest trading partner is Canada, and their second largest trading partner is Mexico. How's that for influence?

[jerusalemcar5]

Alright.  I just have one question for the creators.  With the exceptions of the clauses that make this a mutual protection pact how does this differ from the United Nations?

And the mutual protection pact clauses could be covered by an expansion and possible renanming of NATO to these new countries.  

Also, the slap in the face of France, a close ally, whose liberal democracy fits your perameters is unacceptable.

I expect to vote nay on this meaningless document the slaps allies, the UN, and NATO in the face.  

[Colin]

Why do you hate freedom so much Jcar?

[12th Doctor]

Italy currently has a leftist government while Canada has a Conservative government. Im not sure how they can both oppose this government's objectives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I dont know about the others, but Atlasia's largest trading partner is Canada, and their second largest trading partner is Mexico. How's that for influence?

This wasn't set up based on trading partners.  That is not what this organization is about at all.  If Canada wants to join, then let them submit a request, but I somehow had my doubts that they woudl want to join such a treaty, given its stipulations, and even if they did, I highly doubt the the awsome power of the Canadian military made it worth renegotiating the treaty or wrangling things around in order to include them as founders.

[jerusalemcar5]

Why do you hate freedom so much Jcar?

Excuse me?  This GTO is just a UN copy.  It has nothing to do with freedom.  I oppose it on the grounds that it is meaningless and now no one seems to be able to refute that it differs from the UN.

[12th Doctor]

Alright.  I just have one question for the creators.  With the exceptions of the clauses that make this a mutual protection pact how does this differ from the United Nations?

Well, Libya well never head our commision on human rights, let alone ever be a member of our organization.  The United Nations has turned against its initial purpose of being an agent of freedom and peace.  Now it is just a club that any dictator can get into and appoint his brother to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your new here, so I am gonna cut you a break.  I proposed that idea in my first Presidential campaign, which was the first presidential campaign, BTW.  After looking it over, I realized it was nto possible, because that woudl destroy the purpose of NATO.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When has France ever been a close ally of anyone but France?  That fact that France has pulled their military out of the collective security pool of NATO is reason enough to not include them.  If you need another one, though, how about the fact that, not to long ago, they conducted agressive military exercises with the Chinese, which are designed to intimidate Tiawan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way.  In fact, I'm sorry that anyone could feel that way.  Doesn't say much good about the state of the human condition.

[adam]

I honestly do not want Atlasia to be this heavily influenced by other nations. Global peace is a great idea, but not at the expense of our own intrests as I feel this would be sacrificing.

[12th Doctor]

I honestly do not want Atlasia to be this heavily influenced by other nations. Global peace is a great idea, but not at the expense of our own intrests as I feel this would be sacrificing.

I respect your opinion, but at the same time, I don't see how going to the defense of other democratic nations in need is going to sacrifice our interests.

[jerusalemcar5]

I honestly do not want Atlasia to be this heavily influenced by other nations. Global peace is a great idea, but not at the expense of our own intrests as I feel this would be sacrificing.

I respect your opinion, but at the same time, I don't see how going to the defense of other democratic nations in need is going to sacrifice our interests.

Well that could lead to constant entanglements in areas all  over the world and scarificing our defense.  Just another reason to vote against this.  I strongly urge you to simply take these concerns to the United Nations.

And according to Article 6, you must help ANY sovereign nation that asks for help from a cicvil or international threat.  So under that rule if Iraq petititoned for help against the Shiites, you'd go help.

[Hatman 🍁]

Well, I oppose this for the simple reason that the choice of countries seems completely rediculous and arbritrary.

[Sam Spade]

Not only do I not support a creation of a new "United Nations of the willing" or whatever crap this is, but as far as I'm concerned we should get out of the present "United Nations" also that is only concerned with enacting policies and resolutions against our interests.

[adam]

I honestly do not want Atlasia to be this heavily influenced by other nations. Global peace is a great idea, but not at the expense of our own intrests as I feel this would be sacrificing.

I respect your opinion, but at the same time, I don't see how going to the defense of other democratic nations in need is going to sacrifice our interests.

I simply think that, for a change, we should take care of our own business before dealing on a world scale.

[12th Doctor]

Well that could lead to constant entanglements in areas all  over the world and scarificing our defense.  Just another reason to vote against this.  I strongly urge you to simply take these concerns to the United Nations.

History had proven that the UN has not been receptive to reform.  And by joining a treaty where the nations involved are commited to helping eachother out, we strengthen our security.  If someone knows that attacking India means war with Great Britain and Atlasia, they will probably not do it.

It works the same way for Atlasia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true at all.  I believe you missed the part that stated that the petitions must be approved by a 7/10 margin.  The only time that the memebers are absolutley compeled to action is when one of the member states is attacked.

[12th Doctor]

I honestly do not want Atlasia to be this heavily influenced by other nations. Global peace is a great idea, but not at the expense of our own intrests as I feel this would be sacrificing.

I respect your opinion, but at the same time, I don't see how going to the defense of other democratic nations in need is going to sacrifice our interests.

I simply think that, for a change, we should take care of our own business before dealing on a world scale.

The fact is that globalization has brought the world closer together and we need to recongnize that there are threats that linger out there that are more easily dealt with through a united front.  Issolation simply is not realistic anymore.

If we cannot take care of threats that exist outside our field of view while managing our affairs at home, that does not say much fr the strength of democratic government and the free nations which practice it.

[12th Doctor]

Listen, can we move this bill up to the top of Senate business.  I think it is kinda important

[ilikeverin]

Listen, can we move this bill up to the top of Senate business.  I think it is kinda important

I disagree; we have the UN, and this is just a UN-substitute.  I mean, I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to this (I'd rather hear more arguments than "WHY IS FRANCE NOT IN THIS I LOVE FRANCE " and "OMG I HATE FRANCE FRANCE SUCKS FRANCE SHOULD DIE"), but since we already have an international peacekeeping body I don't think this is particularly urgent.

[MasterJedi]

Listen, can we move this bill up to the top of Senate business.  I think it is kinda important

It needs to be introduced by somebody first before it can be considered. I'm leaning Nay on this so it won't be me.