SR 113-35: Condemning Ayacucho Massacre Resolution (Passed)

[LAKISYLVANIA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliaca_massacre

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-64232230

There has been a new massacre, and there are accusations of genocide to the regime, notably by BBC (there is a genocide inquiry going on). I don't know if the Bucha massacre happened in the game, but it is a similar order of severity as that one.

This is why I would propose suspending diplomatic relations with Peru and providing diplomatic support to Pedro Castillo on the condition of new early elections taking place and a referendum on the 1993 constitution which explains a lot of the issues in Peru right now.

Violence by the Peruvian military and government should be strongly condemned.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

A RESOLUTION
To condemn the violence in Peru

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled,

Section I. Title

1. This bill may be known as the Resolution to condemn the Ayacucho Massacre.

Section II. Content
1. The Senate of Atlasia condemns the use of violence in Peru and specifically condemns the AyacuchoMassacre that took place on December the fifteenth in Peru
2. The Senate of Atlasia expresses their condolescences with the victims of the Peruvian protests and the Ayacucho Massacre.
3. As a consequence The Senate of Atlasia will expel all Peruvian diplomats from the Republic of Atlasia and Peruvian-Atlasian diplomatic relations will be on hold until further notice.
4. The Senate of Atlasia continues to recognise Pedro Castillo as President of Peru and will provide diplomatic support to him.
5.4. The Senate of Atlasia encourages early elections to take place and the 1993 constitution to be repealed in order to stop the violence and create stability in Peru.

Amendment, I prefer to stay neutral here since coups are still bad so I don't think we should recognize Castillo.

Objection

I'm open to amendments and am open to different proposed amendments but this is not a good one.

You want to tackle "the problem" but you fail to recognise the roots of it (which is why the 1993 constitution reference specifically is added), and you fail to realize that just condemning the violence is not enough. If you want elections to take place, early elections, which i hint to, you need to create the democratic and peaceful environment in which those elections can take place. This is something Atlasia can mediate in.

I'm open to removing support to the former president if president Castillo fails to realize these promises, but under his tenure nobody got killed due to military & police violence or even genocidal acts of violence towards Peruvian indigenous people.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Nay

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Proposing amendment, to compromise. This would remove mentions to Pedro Castillo as was wished, and will at the end recognise no one as president of Peru until new elections take place, which we diplomatically advocate for.

It also adds the Juliaca Massacre into the act.

On top of that, it ensures that the man no longer is in jail and that he is left alone, even if we do not recognise him as the president, opening up a pathway for the former president to be extradited to Bolivia, Colombia or Mexico.

A RESOLUTION
To condemn the violence in Peru

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled,

Section I. Title

1. This bill may be known as the Resolution to condemn the Ayacucho Massacre.

Section II. Content
1. The Senate of Atlasia condemns the use of violence in Peru and specifically condemns the Ayacucho Massacre that took place on December the fifteenth in Peru. The Senate of Atlasia also condemns the Juliaca Massacre that took place on January the ninth in Peru.
2. The Senate of Atlasia expresses their condolescences with the victims of the Peruvian protests and both the Ayacucho and Juliaca Massacres.
3. As a consequence The Senate of Atlasia will expel all Peruvian diplomats from the Republic of Atlasia and Peruvian-Atlasian diplomatic relations will be on hold until further notice.
4. The Senate of Atlasia no longer recognises Dina Boluarte as the rightful President of Peru.
5. The Senate of Atlasia demands the immediate release of Pedro Castillo from jail, restoring his rights as a civilian.
6.4. The Senate of Atlasia encourages early elections to take place in order to stop the violence and create stability in Peru. These should be free and fair and according to international standards to ensure the integrity of the election.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I object to taking a stand on who the leader of Peru is.

You interpret it wrongly. The senate of Atlasia doesn't take a stand. If the amendment does pass, we do take a stand, given we de facto recognise Boluarte.

If you don't want to take a stand, don't recognise anyone.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

And whatsoever

inaction is action too.

Not taking a stand is philosophically impossible, given inaction is action.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

It's not like Castillo isn't a criminal given that he attempted a self-coup. Regardless of left or right, it's inappropriate, undemocratic, and unconstitutional, and calling for his release is taking at least a mild stance in his favor, in addition to rebuking the constitutional, but also troubling, current regime in that country.

Also, if we took the same stance as this amendment proposes to favor a rightist regime it would accurately be termed Atlasian imperialism.

I strongly disagree.

I'm not going to start over the discussion how to interpret Castillo's actions, and neither do I approve them. Given what we know now, we know that the self coup was a desperate attempt to prevent what would follow, and that's what we all know and what would have happened regardless.

Calling for his release is important to maintain election integrity in particular if you call for free and fair elections, banning one of your opponents isn't a good start with that. It would also remove concerns of the former president being held hostage, intimidated, treated badly and remove opportunity for him to be extradited to a foreign country which is his right as a politician. It's essential in doing that.

You cannot be "taking no stance", continue to support a president whose actions are being condemned, in particular the military violence and the massacres that smell to genocidal practices, given they target indigenous Peruvian people. We would be the first to condemn them if Iran or Palestina did it, because at the end of the day we are biased people and we need to recognise that. Taking no stance is an utopia, it's like communism. It doesn't work. It does not exist. You can try to mend bridges and take mild stances, but inaction is an action too. What if you took no action to climate change, you will be criticized, even if you would defend yourself by seeking a balanced and moderate approach to the issue and problem. But this is turning out to be a philosophical debate.

What I wanted to say is that the act is as neutral as it can be, given the senate does not recognise Castillo as president either anymore, we just ask for his rights to be restored again, given you need to create conditions where fair & free elections can take place in and locking up political opponents is no good way in doing that.

Also, if we took the same stance as this amendment proposes to favor a rightist regime it would accurately be termed Atlasian imperialism.

I don't call it imperialism. It isn't even remotely. It's not like any of us are soon being in Peru fighting the regime or that we have any interest in Peru. It is far from imperialist, and we have to recognise Atlasia's role in international politics. Being anti-imperialist doesn't equal not engaging in diplomacy. I'm a member of Peace, let's be fair, we know that we stand for imperialism, but I also do stand for good, reasonable and peaceful diplomacy. Diplomacy is the way one can achieve things and is important in ensuring good economic times are ahead of us. Trade plays a vital role. We also care about the wellbeing of people, in all countries. It is our right to take a diplomatic stance.

In fact, i'm gonna turn the tables and accuse others of appeasement politics. And I see possible appeasement of others, where they don't deserve as threatening to the stability of Atlasia and to the world in general. It would also undermine our credibility in doing diplomacy with other nations, in particular if we are selective about appeasing and taking diplomatic actions.

I believe what I propose we do is the good way, not radical and i already compromised and changed the draft version of the act accordingly after one amendment passed.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Aye

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Proposing amendment, proposing a different solution to the Castillo question, in a way that he can no longer influence Peruvian politics in his home country.

A RESOLUTION
To condemn the violence in Peru

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled,

Section I. Title

1. This bill may be known as the Resolution to condemn the Ayacucho Massacre.

Section II. Content
1. The Senate of Atlasia condemns the use of violence in Peru and specifically condemns the Ayacucho Massacre that took place on December the fifteenth in Peru. The Senate of Atlasia also condemns the Juliaca Massacre that took place on January the ninth in Peru.
2. The Senate of Atlasia expresses their condolescences with the victims of the Peruvian protests and both the Ayacucho and Juliaca Massacres.
3. As a consequence The Senate of Atlasia will expel all Peruvian diplomats from the Republic of Atlasia and Peruvian-Atlasian diplomatic relations will be on hold until further notice.
4. The Senate of Atlasia demands the extradition of former president Pedro Castillo and his family to the Republic of Atlasia in order to protect their safety, but where at arrival they'll be given a travel ban to Peru.
5.4. The Senate of Atlasia encourages early elections to take place in order to stop the violence and create stability in Peru. These should be free and fair and according to international standards to ensure the integrity of the election.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Friendly and withdrawing my amendment in favor of UNL's.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Requesting amendment.

A RESOLUTION
To condemn the violence in Peru

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled,

Section I. Title

1. This bill may be known as the Resolution to condemn the Ayacucho Massacre.

Section II. Content
1. The Senate of Atlasia condemns the use of violence in Peru and specifically condemns the Ayacucho Massacre that took place on December the fifteenth in Peru. The Senate of Atlasia also condemns the Juliaca Massacre that took place on January the ninth in Peru.
2. The Senate of Atlasia expresses their condolescences with the victims of the Peruvian protests and both the Ayacucho and Juliaca Massacres
3. As a consequence The Senate of Atlasia will expel all Peruvian diplomats from the Republic of Atlasia and Peruvian-Atlasian diplomatic relations will be on hold until further notice.
4. The Senate of Atlasia requests the extradition of former president Pedro Castillo and his family to the Republic of Atlasia in order to protect their safety, but where at arrival they'll be given a travel ban to Peru.
5. The Senate of Atlasia encourages early elections to take place in order to stop the violence and create stability in Peru. These should be free and fair and according to international standards to ensure the integrity of the election.

This would not allow him & his family to play an active political role. What it would do though is ensure his life & health would be safe, because I entrust Atlasian authorities far more than Peruvian ones to ensure the safety of the former president.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'm more ok with this amendment. Only thing I'd maybe change is "demand" to "request" since it sounds a bit aggressive, but I'm fine either way.

Friendly to suggestion, edited it in.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I don't know if it's our place to shield a wannabe dictator.

I object since I think the full Senate should vote on this although I will likely vote present.

He's not a wannabe dictator. But i do not want to start this discussion. Even in the case he is a wannabe dictator, he and his family still deserve to be safe.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I want to remind people that as proposer of the bill, i already did my fair bit of compromising etc. I don't think what I ask is unreasonable. Frankly, the entire discussion is starting to become another whataboutism. We're not talking about the former president. He doesn't play a political role, all the amendment does is provide him safety.

Extraditing people is a very common practice elsewhere and can be important from a diplomatic point of view. Talking about the ethics of the former president, when we are literally discussing someone who has a genocidal inquiry facing her is not right. The man never resorted to violence.

Maybe to understand this act, it's important to understand the Peruvian political situation from an independent point of view, i'm not convinced many of us do.

In Chile in the 1970s we also have had Allende being couped by Pinochet, and being forced to kill himself. If all we can change in history was to ensure his safety (even by moving him out of Chile), i would've done it. In such a case, it's important to set your bias of that person aside because at the time he was also seen as a communist even if he was in a government with christian democrats, etc. at the time, that was traded in for a repressive dictatorship that the USA at the time supported.

All I ask, don't make the same error. A lot of what you read etc. is biased (or because a lot of news is underreported). The thing we are discussing here is barely reported in the media, a lot of you wouldn't have heard about it if i didn't propose it in the senate.

If you ideologically disagree with him, that's fair. If you disagree with what he did, that's fair. I'm okay with that, but there are still boundaries etc. of human decency that have to be respected.

It's not much what I ask.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Comparing Allende and Castillo is a stretch and is in fact whataboutism. I wonder if the GMs could say if any socialist countries are interested in taking Castillo if we don't end up taking him.

Yes but I fail to see why we would not take him. He is going to be politically irrelevant. I already compromised from "continue to recognise Castillo / diplomatically support him and demanding to release him from jail", while he's not responsible for those massacres. They didn't happen under his command. Boluarte is not behind bars IIRC for those crimes, neither are the other responsible people (high placed men in army etc. ).

In a country as unstable as Peru now, it's reasonable to ask for his safety and that is something the Republic of Atlasia can ask. He is going to be politically irrelevant.

I assume to answer your question that Mexico or Colombia might be interested to do that tho (they in fact did IRL - AMLO offered him asylum IRL), but it's nowhere near a given Peru would comply with that

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Aye