Virtual Congress Vote. This bill is brought to the floor by Congressman Mattwall1 (D) of California. The bill is available to be read in the comments section of this poll.
THE BILL IS PASSED.
Holy crap this is a lot of comments already...and this seems rather aggressive. Not that it is necessarily a bad idea, but is it really warranted at this time?
Never a better time than the present
Why? The China is, historically speaking, not a warring country.
Actually...... Historically chinas three step plan to defeating nations 1: effectively become their sole source of economic trade. 2: either directly or indirectly take over or otherwise effect their military. 3: make them tribute states.
Against enemies that present a threat to them. We should ACTIVELY put ourselves in a Cold War state with them... They are not known to start things. That would be us, and this is just an extension of that.
We should NOT actively put..*
This could be a turning point in economic history, either we show China we arent going to roll over and let them dominate us or we let them pave the way for a future with China as the world's superpower
Exactly Mr President. Si vis pacem, foedera aedificare.
Me president did you get my bill proposal through Skype?
yes I messaged you back
I didn't get it could you resend it?
1) Escalating into a Cold War is not a good idea.
2) China is the last nation on Earth the states need to agitate.
3) China does not need armed conflict to destroy the states.
1) We have already agreed to protect several of China's enemies, and the US doesn't have to be that involved.
2) China is economically dependent on the US they don't want to piss us off either.
3)Yes, it does. Any attempted economic attack would...
hurt them more than it would hurt us.
1) Making an official organization similar to NATO during the Cold War gives the appearance of aggression.
2 & 3) That hasn't been true for several years now. The U.S. economy is far more dependent on the Chinese economy than the reverse.
This is especially true when talking about the two governments specifically (Chinese and federal).
We already protect most of these countries, by entering into a trade organization with them we will be lessening the burden on our own military while holding back amd economic rival and a currency manipulator
Trepid, tell China you want to hold them back economically and act to do so and the hammer will drop. Also, the federal government/Federal Reserve is a currency manipulator anyway, so they have no high ground in that argument.
China is dependent on American consumers they would drop the hammer on their own foot
I take it you would rather us suck up to china and become their whipping boy is that it?
That's simply not true. The US is not economically dependent on China.
I would prefer to stabilize the dollar and reduce trade deficits while encouraging economic activity within the states, along with reducing federal debt.
Again, that's not true anymore. American industry is very dependent on Chinese trade.
I could support a watered down version of this bill. Some of the nations listed are not democracies and are not worth defending.
The objective of the bill is to reduce China as a threat. International politics is all about threat management.
I understand the objective, but I am morally opposed.
I feel like people see Mattwalls name and immediately dismiss this bill this shouldn't be a partisan issue
if a republican proposed this bill I think the results would be switched and that is sad
That is why you should support my new rule Mr President.
I like the idea behind this bill, but I think it defends some undesirable nations.
I support i t of its likited to it not being mentioned on bills and amendments
So not for elections or confirmations? I might be able to give up not mentioning them in elections, but I think it's even more necessary for confirmations than legislation.
I forgot all about confirmations haha
how about we exclude elections, the history page, and comment sections
I thought I was the only one that thought that trepid.
Skinner: sometimes you have to play realpolitik and not mr democracy to defend our interests. This is one do those times
In my studies of history I have found it despicable that the US would support dictators in the name of national security. I am adamantly against anything that would continue such practices.
Would you rather hurt our security? Because that's all that will harken by not including them
That would be acceptable. Would you like to co sponsor new rule?
Absolutely and I find the fact anyone votes so,etching down due to the congressman and not the idea is wrong
It's not going to be that bad if a country like Malaysia falls to China. There is no domino effect here stop thinking as if it's the 20th century.
I'm not thinking domino effect. I'm thinking geopolitics. Look where Malaysia is on a map. Look at the strategic value of these nations.
I am and I think it would be very spontaneous and difficult for China to invade that nation. They would have to cross the borders of at least one nation to get there.
It was your idea MisterE if you want me named as a co sponsor go ahead
And that's just Malaysia. Si vis pacem, foedera aedificare.
It's time to make it official! I officially support this bill in hope that the international community will pressure China into practicing fair business practices. Jake and I both asked the motive of this bill. After some quick research, I quickly...
...realized how the US does have an interest in pressuring China to engage in fair business practices. While this bill seems to address the military aspect, I think the treaty will help pressure China's business policies as well.
This bill supports Republican's principles. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
It would have an effect in economics even though this is more military based. Thanks for the support political!
Libertarians: Passing this legislation would DECREASE US involvement in Asia. There is no reason to be against it.
Ot would decrease military operations in asia I thought Libertarians wanted decreased foreign presence?
MisterE. It's opposite, passing this would be more involvement. I voted no because we should not increase our military, we should decrease it.
The SEATO would be a major step forward in progressing our interests in Southeast Asia and will remove the burden on our military
our former SoS and current VP Nathane agrees this bill should pass
I urge the president to create SEATO ASAP
Have you nominated a new Secretary of State yet? If not, I would like to be considered for the position.
Mr president I want to thank you for your support of the bill and for allowing me to be an advisor on foreign affairs
hopefully afly will make a nomination poll todsy
and no problem matt
might I suggest that we change the name?
To what?ay I suggest my original name: SEATO
What would you want it changed to, and why?
anti-china is an extremely negative name
My name de it was actually the SouthEast Asian Treaty Organization
I move that anti China should be removed from all VC records.
Agreed I was only giving a basic description not the name.
If I knew more about China's global economy, I would want to add more countries to the bill to encourage China to practice in fair business practices.
We can add new countries later
Yeah! I support the bill as you can see above.
I would like to investigate what China's intentions would be to guard against such an alliance. have we discussed any of this with African, middle east, central asia and southeast asia that might have issues with the pact.
I've read all the comments and I apologize but I am still a little unclear exactly what this bill proposes. I assume these countries are already on board with some kind of treaty? What exactly does the treaty involve us doing specifically? Is this
like an OAS-type organization in Asia? Might this not be viewed by Western Europe as a power grab by the US in that case? Have we spoken with the UN Security Council about this?
I am also concerned about this being explicitly termed "anti-China." We are at peace with China even if it is a sometimes uneasy peace. Couldn't we at least, I don't know, term it more gently?
For the purposes of the Vc yes. More of a NATO (forgive for calling it SEATO) but with some OAS like elements
Screw the UN! If they freak out it will not upset my breakfast at all.
I do not feel our allies in Europe would be against this. Feel free to use another term than anti china but in the end that's the common threat
I agree with Bethany that it comes across anti-china.
C'mon zman. The UN is far from perfect but let's not pretend it is irrelevant.
Thx for clarification Matt. So it has a fairly military-heavy focus then? How do we keep this from being viewed as tantamount to a declaration of war on China?
Lol Bethany it was a joke. I paraphrased Reagan's response when he invaded Grenada.
Bethany: the only things that have ever stopped china are plague, many adversaries, and china becoming isolationist. China isn't stupid. They know with that many countries allied against they wouldn't win. No one is saying invade immediately
Or even at all. But even the presence of such an organization might convince china to be cautious. It's bad enough they're doing steps one and two. We CANNOT afford to get near step three
China is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council. They would likely veto the measure. This measure should appear to be orchestrated by the SEATO Nations as much as possible.
Hahaha zman apparently I need to brush up on my Reagan quotes ;)
Matt, maybe I missed this but what are steps 1, 2, and 3?
MisterE, what measure? I thought the bill on the floor was to create SEATO in the first place?
Shhh. Don't talk about Reagan right now. We need the Republicans support. China would be against allowing these nations to form a mutual defense pact.
Hehe, well, if you are concerned about Republicans not wanting it, the Reagan reference was due to my concern that the UN might not like SEATO, and zman teasingly invoked Reagan's dismissal of the UN. So if anything that's a reason to be pro ;-)
Anyway I'm still trying to get a handle on the terms of the pact. What obligations does each member country have? & could someone pt me in a good direction for info abt what we think China's doing? I try to keep abreast but there's so much rhetoric.
China is a growing economic threat. It's building up it's military forces. Historically it would first trade with nations to get influence then use military forces to directly or indirectly hurt enemy nations. Finally they created a ring of tribute states
Agree, but china is an economic threat largely because of our debt and subsequent dollar devaluation.
I support this bill
we already have protective alliances with these countries, this lessens the burden on our military saving us money, and it limits China who is an economic rival
Thank you mr president
Anybody that says this puts further pressure on us is not looking at it right.
Exactly India had the largest volunteer military all those countries have militaries. This increases our strength even with less of our own troops?
Lol no question mark. It without a doubt does. Common sense says that
This is one of the strongest Yea's I have ever voted for. One problem though, are you positive bills like this won't cause a 2nd cold war??
Yes. Unlike the soviets the Chinese will not cause a Cold War. Whatever happens if they threaten something, ever, you better believe they'll act on it.
Ok. I can support this no doubt. I hope it passes Matt
Same. If not, we're in for trouble eventually
It seems I little... Unneeded. What has been done to warrant this?
China's military build up and manipulation of currency. Even if you overlook those, this alliance would lessen US military obligations in the area.
Historically china took over/influenced countries by first effectively reading with them to the point where almost everything was made in china. The. they directly or indirectly attempted to steal secretary's and influence their militaries.
Anybody that has ever seen me before should know that I am pretty much anti war. But as he just pointed out, getting others on our side is a win win.
Then they effectively made these states into tribute states. And their already an economic threat and they are building hard militarily. If anything this would make them wary not jingoistic
I just don't see how forming an alliance against China will help anyone. To what extent exactly would this alliance be exercised?
Sunshine is back!
The nations that have navies would work together in international waters. They would also aid each other in the case of agression.
I don't like it. I see it as unnecessary given the current state of things, and we'd do much better allying with China than against it.
Given the history of china that would be much much worse.
I would argue we're at a different point in global affairs, and that we could definitely benefit from it.
Trust me. China is still china even if it's officially communist and not imperial.
But look at this economically. Two of the biggest economies in the world allying together?
Look how china historically inflicted nations and basically dominated them. Step one was economics. They already hurt our economy why help them out more?
I figured it would be mutually beneficial. Ideally, I'd rather have a neutral relationship with them. But if we ally, why would they screw us over economically?
That's what they've always done.
No. What if China has an issue with any of those countries. Suddenly we may see a war with China. Let's stay away from any more wars.
We already have that problem with our allies in the pacific. So if we are already invested there than I would say this is a good thing to lessen the chances of China being aggressive.
This will help keep China in check because if they have an issue with one of these members, then they will be in war with us.
I just think this gets us more involved in something I don't want to be involved in. I thought you promoted less military. Cutting our presence overseas could be a good place to start.
I don't believe that showing an aggressive attitude will keep them back. See how our work with South Korea has only made North Korea even more crazy.
I without a doubt am.
However, it is essential to have good ties with as many nations as possible. We are already invested in that area. Whether that is a good thing or not is another topic.
So far, North Korea has just made empty threats. They haven't attacked South Korea recently.
Good ties are important, but I don't think this is the solution.
Zdl, what they have done is more than enough for me.
So while we are there it is essential to have as many people on our side as possible.
TomM I would say we have kept North Korea in check though, for the most part.
True, North Korea is building up its military and developing nuclear weapons, but we have done both those things too.
Why is this a partisan issue?
During the 2012 elections republicans were the ones who wanted to "crack down on China".
This is a good way of doing that
Zmann, I see that you wish to take a hard stance against China. I wonder would you support my piece of legislation at the very bottom?
I would have to know more about it
It says (D) next to Matt's name.
I am starting to realize you are right MisterE
They also know Matt though and always vote against his bills no matter what.
I think it will help at least a little.
What are the terms for the mutual defense treaty?
Matwall, how are do you propose the state department gets these nations to cooperate? I have some ideas.
What are yours?
Possibly monetary aid, because it will save us money in the long run.
So five them monetary aid as an incentive to joining? That would work. I can see Cambodia and Vietnam jumping at the chance to hurt stave off their millennia old foe. And sino-Indian relations have cooked recently giving us a window
The problem is that some of the countries in the pact don't like each other. For example, India wishes it still had control over bengladesh.
That's more so Pakistan than India although I can see what you're saying. Whatever happens we need India Malaysia and Indonesia for sure
Also we could suggest the removal of some trade barriers.
Matt why do we have any interest in this, and why is this our buisness.
That was my question below Jake.
Sorry bout that political I should've checked below but Matt please answer why this pertains to us at all?
I was basically making the point that great minds think alike!
I just voted to see the bill, but I need a better understanding of the reasoning.
Yeah political exactly and you and I do think very much alike and have pretty good ideas.
Look below for my explanation jake. We can't just be isolationists as pretend the world doesn't involve us.
I'm not asking to be isolationists Matt but this has absolutely nothing to do with the American interest.
Actually it does especially in the long run. Look below for what china historically does. Tell me this isn't effectively the same thing.
It has a huge role in global affairs, which certainly includes us.
Matt, can you explain this bill? I think I agree with it, but I just want to make sure.
Do you have any specific questions you want me to answer?
Basically, the bill is to set up an allies against the Chinese in case of a war or to damage the Chinese economically, correct. I guess I wonder what your motive is, and what the US's role is.
China is a growing economic threat. It's building up it's military forces. Historically it would first trade with nations to get influence then use military forces to directly or indirectly hurt enemy nations. Finally they created a ring of tribute
States. This does sound familiar right?
The US is currently involved in providing for the defense of these nations with its strong military presence in Asia. The Pentagon has transferred many units to the pacific in recent years to keep the Chinese on their toes. This alliance would...
decrease the burden on the US military and would allow it to scale down its military presence in Asia.
Matt, I agree that China is a problem, but are we preparing for a military war? Or are we preparing for an economic war? Why are we creating a treaty that does not add the US?
So the US will be able to disengage itself from the area without creating a power vacuum. I think it's a great idea.
Inte long run it actually will help us. Of china just sees us they will eventually try something maybe not today or tomorrow but some point down the road. Of we have multiple allies especially Isis with it's resources and population you've checked
A large threat. They might not e willing to be so bravado knowing INDIA is willing to support us and we are willing to support them. This is foreign affairs 101
I am concerned with China manipulating their currency. That is why I am opened to the treaty for economic reasons. I also encourage everyone to think about my piece of legislation at the bottom.
Matt, your bill doesn't mention the US. If we're not a member, we have no standing to create the organization. Please consider amending your bill - if you like, I'll offer the amendment.
Tlaney it was supposed to put the us as a member
Better check out the Speaker's summary at the bottom, then. That should be made clear. :-)
A bill for the creation of an anti chinese mutual defense pact with the following nations to create the SouthEast Asian Treaty Organization: India, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Bangladesh, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, the Philippines,
I know you are busy, but I just wanted to make sure you saw my corporate tax bill.
Oh yes, I saw your bill. I'll tell the people in the budget meeting about it later today.
You got it!
Legislation: China is hereby labeled a currency manipulator.
It's pacts like these that caused WWl. At the time before WWl these pacts had lots of support.
Before WWI, the nations consisted of several small military powers. In this case, we have a military superpower and several smaller nations. These nations would be defenseless against China on their own.
Sounds pretty hawkish...
mr speaker, two items. First this alliance shall be named the SouthEast Asian Treaty Organization, or SEATO. Second, I would like it to be made clear the Us shall be a part of this alliance