[CHAMBER] Bill to Ratify the Kellogg-Briand Pact

[Smyg]

Colleagues, citizens, comrades! Lend me your ear, or some such.

A decade ago, the Great War ended, an unnecessary, vile conflict which robbed the peoples of the world of tens of millions of our fellow brothers and sisters. Brazil suffered far less than many others, but we had casualties still, and our economy went down the drain.

Let us join virtually all civilised nations of the world in signing the Kellogg-Briand Pact, currently being enacted, to prevent another war such as the last one.

Bill to Ratify the Kellogg-Briand Pact

Whereas Brazil, as a participant of the Great War and an observer of the catastrophies that afflicted Europe and the other continents of the world, wishes to help enact a world-wide peace among peoples, unhindered by militarism and aggression,

Whereas the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, commonly known as the "Kellogg-Briand Pact", signed on 27 August 1928, is currently being enacted to ensure peaceful conflict resolution between foreign states,

Whereas the following Governments were the original signatories and ratifiers of the Treaty: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, British India, the Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United State,

Whereas the following Governments have acceded to the Treaty since its signing: Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Romania, the Soviet Union, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Siam, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey,

Whereas the Treaty is due to enter into effect on 24 July 1929 (Q3),

• Section 1. The Republic of the United States of Brazil shall accede to the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy of 1928, as defined by the High Contracting Parties here.

• Section 2. This assembly calls upon the Most Excellent Mr. President of the Republic and the Honourable Government of the Republic of the United States of Brazil to speedily take measures to ensure that the Republic deposits its instrument of ratification of the aforementioned Treaty, and to maintain its Articles as national policy.

• Section 3. This bill shall go into effect thirty-one (31) days after passage.

[Flaming Bolshevik]

You cannot outlaw simple and basic human urges of violence.

[acecipher]

We disagree with our Integralist colleagues. They make a common error: while we cannot outlaw urges, we can outlaw action. Murder is illegal, and this is the manifestation of an individual urge to kill. Surely, if their opinion is that this somehow makes men's urges become a crime, then they would be for repealing our laws on murder?

Hyperbole aside, we do find the cause of peace to be a worthy one and so do support the ratification of this treaty.

[Red John]

We would note that certain parties still yet hold armed wings within Brazil. While this bill is more focused on the foreign side of things, any party who supports this bill whilst also maintaining their respective groups can only be deemed hypocritical.

I am fully against war in its entirety, but I will not entertain this bill owing to who it is proposed by.

[Smyg]

There is a significant difference between civil conflict and war abroad, and to see our Liberal colleagues intermingle the domestic and the foreign is disconcerning.

Why must you turn this into a fight of slaps and slander, instead of doing what is best for Brazil and the world?

[Flamelord]

While we appreciated the shown desire to maintain peace through the passage of this Pact, we would note that it is our belief this Treaty infringed upon our right for self defense, especially as there are certain neighbors we have who have yet to sign the treaty as well. Beyond that we can only wonder how effective it will be, as there does not appear to be an enforcement mechanism within the treaty to prevent war besides the goodwill of the involved nations.

As such at this present time we do not believe that it would be wise to sign this treaty.

[LordMoose]

as stated above we would feel that this would suppress our ability to defend our selves due to several nations around our great nation not also agreeing to this, so for now we will NOT support this bill

[Smyg]

We will outright ignore the lack of clear reasoning exemplified by the Liberators, and instead commend the party of His Excellency the President for his far more coherent viewpoints.

The Communist Party, while accepting that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs can hardly reveal state secrets in such a public place, would however very much like to know what His Excellency is going to do diplomatically to decrease tensions with these "certain neighbours". Personally, I believe Brazil should attempt to set an example to our neighbours, to show them that aggressive war --- which is the thing this treaty prohibits --- is bad for all peoples.

[Smyg]

We ask that this be moved to voting, despite the low amount of support, so that it can be made clear who in Brazil favours peace between peoples, and who is a militarist.

[Red John]

We ask that this be moved to voting, despite the low amount of support, so that it can be made clear who in Brazil favours peace between peoples, and who is a militarist.

The Liberal Democratic Party (91) will vote no.

[Luc]

Sebastião do Rego Barros, President of the Chamber of Deputies

This house will accept the motion introduced by the Communist Party to begin voting on the bill. While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I would like to request that the members of the PLD wait until a formal voting procedure has begun before beginning to vote.

[Smyg]

The Communist Party of Brazil (4) naturally votes IN FAVOUR of this bill.

Again, it is largely a symbolic vote at this point, but an important symbolic vote. Stand with peace or war, gentlemen, and remember that war never changes.

[acecipher]

The Social Democratic Party (27) will vote Yes, as we were not deaf to the terrible consequences of the Great War in Europe.

[Flamelord]

As we have stated before, we have every interest in maintaining pace. But while we can support the ideals behind the Pact, we cannot support the Pact itself as w do not believe that it will be effective in what it is trying to accomplish and will infringe upon our ability to protect our own interests should a crisis arise. As such, the Federal Union Party (93) votes No on this bill.

[Snacks]

The Workers and Peasant's Block (2) stands with our comrades in the PCB and the Social Democrats and votes yes. While we must regrettably concur with the Communist opinion that this vote has largely become symbolic, we will never consent to subjecting the common laborer to the senseless slaughter of imperialist wars- a shameful legacy that it would seem the liberal administration is all too content to leave looming over us, its shadow darkening our future.