SENATE RESOLUTION: Chinese Currency Manipulation Resolution (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE RESOLUTION

To condemn the People's Republic of China in its currency manipulation and subversive actions in the Asia Pacific region

Be it Resolved in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Section 1. Background

In flagrant violation of international law, the People's Republic of China has taken a series of actions that involve uses of force to instigate retaliation between its neighbors such as India. If no action is taken on the part of Atlasia, the two countries will be set on a path toward war. The purpose of this resolution is to condemn China's practices and tactics as it relates to their un-quenched desire for territorial expansion at the expense of the rest of the world.

As it relates to currency manipulation, China is able to set the value of its currency as it sees fit as it possesses a centrally-planned economy. This provides an unfair advantage to the People's Republic of China because the value of other nations' currency continues to fluctuate. By lowering the value of their currency, China gains an unfair advantage. While steps have been taken in recent years, the Republic of Atlasia shall monitor this activity closely to regain an international trade balance.

Section 2. Adoption
1. The passage of this resolution will create a watch-list and add China as a member country
2. Upon passage, The Republic of Atlasia will officially condemn China's "salami-slicing" practices in Asia.

Sponsor: Spark
Senate Designation: SB28:13

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

1. A weakened China on its own is not necessarily an assurance of non-engagement in such predatory practices. In fact you could argue they have more incentive to do so.

2. A resolution condemning human rights violations is not mutually exclusive to also going on the record in terms of trade practices.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I remember in real life former president Trump making this exact claim (and passing similar stuff). How true was Trump's claim irl and to what extent does it apply to Atlasia? (China is definitely weaker in Atlasia's unverse after all)

Romney also pressed the issue in 2012 and 2008.

I seem to recall in 2012, Harry Reid was supportive of taking action here as well while Dean Heller opposed doing so, it wasn't as clean a partisan issue back then.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Motion to Table:

Aye (2): Devout Centrist and Scott
Nay (2): NC Yankee and Spark
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0): Tack and Blair.

Two thirds having not voted in the affirmative, the Resolution is not tabled.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm generally quite open to oppose China's actions; whether it's aggressive expansion against the waters of its neighbours, its poor labor conditions or it's treatment of the uyghurs- but on the specific issue of currency manipulation the consensus seems well unclear about whether china is meeting all of the criteria for manipulation.

Could you detail some of the criteria that they do not meet?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Not a member anymore, but, once again, I authored (well, really borrowed) a resolution condemning China for its human rights violations. My resolution went a step further and also condemned the UN for appointing China to the HRC.

But I think with regard to currency manipulation, we need some clarification from the GM or Secretary of State as to whether that is happening. Based on talks with the Secretary of State, my understanding is that we are trying to use religious tolerance as a bargaining chip.

And now that I think of it, passing that resolution may very well have cost us that bargaining chip. But the UN deserves a fair share of the blame for appointing them in the first place and further compromising their own credibility.

You don't need to state the obvious Scott or ask permission. You are free to post in here anytime. I am not Polnut.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm generally quite open to oppose China's actions; whether it's aggressive expansion against the waters of its neighbours, its poor labor conditions or it's treatment of the uyghurs- but on the specific issue of currency manipulation the consensus seems well unclear about whether china is meeting all of the criteria for manipulation.

Could you detail some of the criteria that they do not meet?

I'm not sure if the ban on quoting articles still exists but it was laregly drawn from here.

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/china-manipulating-its-currency

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/09/imf-report-trump-currency-manipulation-1653096

I appreciate this is a different scenario though- I'd be happy with either going through the GM for more info, or passing something relating to the State Department to investigate this.

I am going to have to switch to the other computer to view these. Doubt XP will open them.

Also I thought it was just a limit on article length of quoting, when did a complete ban go into effect?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Forgot to check those, will seek to tonight.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Having read the articles it does make a compelling case against manipulation having occurred at least in recent times.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Reading those articles I get to the opposite conclusion to Yankee, which adding to the fact that China in Atlasia's timeline is a weaker candidate makes me lean against the bill, though I am still undecided.

Explain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Reading those articles I get to the opposite conclusion to Yankee, which adding to the fact that China in Atlasia's timeline is a weaker candidate makes me lean against the bill, though I am still undecided.

Explain.

The articles, in particular the 2nd one, seem fairly clear to me in saying China is not a manipulator?

But that is what I also said.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Reading those articles I get to the opposite conclusion to Yankee, which adding to the fact that China in Atlasia's timeline is a weaker candidate makes me lean against the bill, though I am still undecided.

Explain.

The articles, in particular the 2nd one, seem fairly clear to me in saying China is not a manipulator?

But that is what I also said.

Ok nvm I am stupid and read your post as meaning the exact opposite of what you said lol

I am going to miss you being in the Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How about shifting the purpose of this from currency manipulation to a more general statement about predatory trade practices by the Chinese?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2. Upon passage, The Republic of Atlasia will officially condemn China's "salami-slicing" practices in Asia.

Can someone explain to me how these practices work?

I think in light of the previous discussion, the second paragraphed on currency manipulation should be broaden to incorporate more general acts of trade practices.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2. Upon passage, The Republic of Atlasia will officially condemn China's "salami-slicing" practices in Asia.

Can someone explain to me how these practices work?

I think in light of the previous discussion, the second paragraphed on currency manipulation should be broaden to incorporate more general acts of trade practices.

Definitely would recommend amending the resolution to define this, because when I read "salami-slicing", I think of Peebs.

Well that wasn't the first thing in my mind but certainly, it needs to be defined. I am not familiar with the term myself even.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

China's salami slicing practices basically entail using subversive tactics to expand their territorial claims by being the aggressor and then claiming self-defense when another nation retaliates.

That needs to be defined in text.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That amendment is adopted.

We should rename this to reflect the more broad basis that we are heading for.

Something that references generalized trade practices as opposed to a specific one.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Any ideas for that broader name?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You guys are so boring at times.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Seeing no objections since the amendment was declared friendly, the amendment is adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 24 hours to object to a final vote motion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is going to be one of those votes isn't it?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 24 hours to change their votes. Thin but I think this can be done with 3 and an abstention.