Particracy Forum

Romulus wrote:

The SCL comments should be disregarded as they were not present during the making of the military proposal.

-Friedhelm Royaliwith
Chairman of the Imperial National Party

Ah, so the only opinions on the military bill that should matter are those that come from the former ExecCouncil members?

On the issue of the compromise....
Yes, I acknowledge that the quorum rule is action-prohibitive and would cause stagnation in the organization. However, given the timing of the amendment and the nature of the bill that failed due to the quorum rule, we had to oppose the amendment out of principle.

We would, however, support the entire amendment if we added a clause requiring a military bill to be held to the old standards, as suggested by the NDP of Zardugal.

That being said, we would also support the idea of the peacekeeper force with strict limitations on their deployment (things like genocide, atrocities, etc.), so we would not consider that a "military" bill for purposes of the additional "military bill quorum" clause.

Yes, we agree that peacekeepers are not part of a military in the traditional sense. But what constitutues peacekeepers is in question (in this sort of thing, definitions matter). For example
- Can the peacekeepers be under the direct command of the CfL?
- Are military forces volunteered by other countries used of peacekeeping purposes peacekeepers or soldiers?
- What operations are considered peacekeeping operations?
- Are peacekeeping forces allowed to engage troops if the troops attempt to carry out massacres/atrocities etc.?
- Are peacekeeping forces allowed to fight back if not directly under attack?

In the opinion of the LVP, we would propose the following criteria for the term "peacekeeping":

-- Peacekeepers would be under command of the Cfl, but it would be a member of the Cfl who volunteers to run the peacekeeping mission
-- Military forces volunteered to the peacekeeping effort would be considered peacekeepers
-- Peacekeeping operations are operations when they have been invited in by a local official
-- The Peacekeeping mission would be outlined at the beginning, with input from the local official (relating to the last two questions)

However, that is simply our own opinion. We're greatly interested in hearing fellow Cfl members' thoughts on this issue.

EEL123 wrote:Yes, we agree that peacekeepers are not part of a military in the traditional sense. But what constitutues peacekeepers is in question (in this sort of thing, definitions matter). For example
- Can the peacekeepers be under the direct command of the CfL?
- Are military forces volunteered by other countries used of peacekeeping purposes peacekeepers or soldiers?
- What operations are considered peacekeeping operations?
- Are peacekeeping forces allowed to engage troops if the troops attempt to carry out massacres/atrocities etc.?
- Are peacekeeping forces allowed to fight back if not directly under attack?

All great questions to be decided when a peacekeeper bill rolls around.

My responses would be:
The Peacekeepers should only be under the direct command of the CfL, not any other entity.

Military forces offered by other countries would be allowed if, and only if, those soldiers swear to uphold the restrictions placed upon them by the CfL peacekeeper rules.

The extent of the operations should be determined during the debate on the bill, but I would support intervention for grave atrocities and genocides, but not minor rights violations (like censorship, or suppressing a protest) or in an attempt to support a civil rebellion (unless the government commits a grave atrocity in attempting to break the rebellion, etc....)

Yes, I would say that peacekeeping forces should attempt to subdue armed forces that are currently committing an atrocity, but should act with restraint and mercy if that force attempts to surrender or defect, etc.

Yes, see above. The peacekeeping force, having entered the region only under the knowledge of genocide or a grave atrocity, should be allowed to protect those victims with means at their disposal, but should act as a passive defense force, not one to search out the aggressor.

Councillor Richard Hyland supports the amendments to the constitution.

In order to move this forwards the Liberal Party now proposes a vote on the Constitution Proposal - we have amended it so that any reintroduction of a military proposal would require 40% of members to vote. The Proposal is found here:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4677&p=42005#p42005

Please cast votes here on the forum, if you are not registered cast your vote on the org home page ( http://classic.particracy.net/vieworgan ... ionid=2773 ). Please cast the vote as in the example below

XXX Party, of
XXX Nation

For / Against the Constitution Proposal (delete as required)

Imperial National Party of the Supreme Imperial Republic of Keymon

shall vote in FOR the Constitution Proposal


Signed,

Friedhelm Royaliwith
Chairman of the Imperial National Party

Kizenia Revolutionary Army of the Republic of Kizenia

Vote FOR the proposed changes

Signed,
Supreme Commander General KRA
Pieter Van Heutz

The PD-L( Liberal Democratic Party )of the Republic of Vorona


Vote FOR the changes proposed .


Signed,
President of Vorona
Marck F. Holland

The NDP of Zardugal votes FOR the proposal.