Displaying posts categorized under

FOREIGN POLICY

U.S. to Designate Iranian Guard Corps a Foreign Terror Group The designation, the first time any government entity will be branded as terrorist, will be accompanied by an alert to U.S. forces to warn of possible retaliation By Michael R. Gordon, Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-designate-iranian-guard-corps-a-foreign-terrorist-organization-11554499401

The Trump administration is preparing to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, U.S. officials said, a step that would vastly escalate the American pressure campaign against Tehran but which has divided U.S. officials.

The decision, which could be announced as early as Monday following months of deliberation, would mark the first time that an element of a foreign state has been officially designated a terrorist entity.

National security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been strong proponents of the move, which is intended to help the U.S. crack down on businesses in Europe and elsewhere controlled by the IRGC, the officials said.

But Pentagon officials, including Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have cautioned against the move, several U.S. officials said, fearing it could lead to a backlash against U.S. forces in the region without inflicting the intended damage to the Iranian economy.

Central Intelligence Agency officials have also had reservations about consequences of the decision, the officials said.

Why America Needs New Alliances The international order of the Cold War era no longer makes sense. But the world can’t do without U.S. leadership. Here’s a better approach. By Yoram Hazony and Ofir Haivry

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-america-needs-new-alliances-11554503421

President Trump is often accused of creating a needless rift with America’s European allies. The secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Jens Stoltenberg, expressed a different view Thursday when he told a joint session of Congress: “Allies must spend more on defense—this has been the clear message from President Trump, and this message is having a real impact.”

Mr. Stoltenberg’s remarks reflect a growing recognition that strategic and economic realities demand a drastic change in the way the U.S. conducts foreign policy. The unwanted cracks in the Atlantic alliance are primarily a consequence of European leaders, especially in Germany and France, wishing to continue living in a world that no longer exists. The U.S. cannot serve as the enforcer for the Europeans’ beloved “rules-based international order” any more. Even in the 1990s, it was doubtful the U.S. could indefinitely guarantee the security of all nations, paying for George H.W. Bush’s “new world order” principally with American soldiers’ lives and American taxpayers’ dollars.

Pompeo: Paris Climate Deal ‘Didn’t Change a Thing’ By Mairead McArdle

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/mike-pompeo-paris-climate-deal/

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Monday that the Paris Climate Agreement signed by the Obama administration “didn’t change a thing” regarding the carbon emissions of the more than 170 other countries that chose to sign it.

“Go look at the countries that are still in the Paris agreement and see what their CO2 emissions were. It’s one thing to sign a document; it’s another thing to actually change your behavior,” Pompeo said. “Go look at Chinese carbon emissions since they entered the Paris agreement. They may feel good about being in the deal. Their people may — you may feel good about their people being in the deal, but it didn’t produce. If you’re looking for a change, it didn’t change a thing.”

The 2015 Paris deal required China to reduce emissions 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. Beijing has struggled to stay on track to hit that target since signing the deal, despite President Xi Jinping’s claims that his country is leading the global push to combat climate change. Methane emissions from the country’s coal sector have risen at a steady rate despite government regulations designed to slow them.

Trump’s State Department Drops “Occupied Territory” Shoshana Bryen

https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2019/03/20/trumps-state-department-drops-occupied-territory/

There is a difference between an “honest broker” and a “neutral arbiter.” In advance of the rollout of its Middle East peace plan, the Trump administration has taken a series of steps to ensure its role as the honest broker. The U.S. is not “neutral” between our ally, Israel, and the Palestinians who seek to replace it. But it won’t be easy to change presumptions that are deeply embedded in the process.

The State Department’s annual survey of human rights released this month referred to the Golan Heights simply as “Israeli-controlled territory,” ending its tradition of referring to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as “occupied territory.”

To the community of Washington professionals wedded to the “peace process,” that was an outrage! “Poof,” said one prominent commentator. “With a word change, Israel no longer occupies territory, they now control it. The strategic objective of this administration is to change U.S. policy on refugees; Jerusalem; territory. And they’re doing it.”

But the State Department is correct. The West Bank and Gaza are the remains of the British Mandate — in legal limbo since the Jordanians occupied it in 1948. The Golan Heights were captured after a Syrian attack in 1967 and a second Syrian attack in 1973.

For more than 25 years, the on-again-off-again “peace process” between Israel and the Palestinians has been predicated on unlikely theories about “peace” and erroneous assumptions about both Palestinians, Israelis, and American foreign policy.

First, the process assumed Israel’s security problems are related to the non-state status of Palestinians — hence the name “Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” And the proposed remedy was “the two-state solution,” an independent state for the Palestinians. More precisely, however, it is the “Arab-Israeli conflict” or the “Arab wars against Israel.” Arab states went to war in 1948 to erase Israel; they failed.

Pompeo Pounces on the International Criminal Court U.S. Sec of State confronts the globalist agenda. Joseph Klein

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273190/pompeo-pounces-international-criminal-court-joseph-klein

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Friday new U.S. visa restrictions on those individuals directly responsible for any International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation of U.S. personnel in connection with U.S. and allied military and intelligence activities in Afghanistan. The ICC prosecutor had previously requested approval from the ICC’s judges to launch a formal investigation into what the prosecutor called the “situation in Afghanistan.” That request is still pending.

Secretary Pompeo warned all those working for the ICC that “if you’re responsible for the proposed ICC investigation of U.S. personnel in connection with the situation in Afghanistan, you should not assume that you will still have or will get a visa, or that you will be permitted to enter the United States.”

Secretary Pompeo added that the “visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts. We are prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions if the ICC does not change its course.” Secretary Pompeo said that the Trump administration, which has already begun to implement the visa restrictions, would also use such visa restrictions “to deter ICC efforts to pursue allied personnel, including Israelis, without allies’ consent.”

The president of the Assembly of States Parties, the management oversight and legislative body of the ICC established by the Rome Statute treaty, responded that “the States Parties reconfirmed their unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution, and reiterated their commitment to uphold and defend the principles and values enshrined in the Rome Statute and to preserve its integrity undeterred by any threats against the Court, its officials and those cooperating with it. This unwavering support continues today.”

The 123 or so State Parties to the Rome Statute decided, as was their sovereign right, to delegate their own domestic authority to adjudicate specific criminal atrocities involving genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression to the ICC. If they want to indulge in the fiction that the ICC is an impartial and non-political judicial body, they have the right to wear blinders when it comes to ceding jurisdiction over their own citizens to the ICC. However, they do not have the legal or moral right to use the ICC they have embraced to assert jurisdiction over countries such as the United States and Israel, which exercised their sovereign right to decline joining the ICC Rome Statute treaty. The United States and Israel do not need any help from the ICC and have steadfastly refused to recognize its jurisdiction.

“Dangerous Nuclear Schemes” by Peter Huessy

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13909/dangerous-nuclear-schemes

The proposed policies, if adopted by the new leadership in the House, would certainly fracture whatever consensus exists today to modernize America’s strategic nuclear deterrent — and at a time when both Russia and China are charging ahead militarily, and Iran and North Korea are racing toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.

If the United States chooses to eliminate its land-based missiles, as arms control advocates have proposed, it would dramatically and dangerously simplify an adversary’s targeting calculus. The US would be reducing more than 500 distinct American-based nuclear-related targets — including 450 Minuteman silos and 48 launch control centers spread across five American states — down to only five continental US targets — three USAF bomber bases, and two submarines bases — and only roughly 10 targets if US submarines at sea were included.

China’s “declared” policy of no first use policy is, in fact, suspect, considering the country’s deployed weapons and nuclear threats to the US that involve America’s protection of Taiwan. China, needless to say, is being currently exposed for its massive track record of lying, cheating and stealing everything, from their military land-fill bases in the South China Sea to the virtual theft from the United States of China’s entire telecom industry.

There is no reason whatever to discontinue implementing the traditional three-part nuclear deterrent posture (land, sea and air) endorsed not only by the 2018 nuclear posture review (NPR) but also by the past three nuclear posture reviews (1994, 2001 and 2010). If the proposals above are adopted, two nuclear dangers in particular will be heightened. First, America’s allies, no longer credibly protected by the US nuclear umbrella, may seek to build their own nuclear weapons to compensate for the omission. Second, in a crisis, America’s adversaries might seek to disarm the US, or coerce it to stand down, especially as US nuclear forces would have been so diminished as to invite aggression, rather than deter it.

Answering Taiwan’s Defense Call Trump can improve deterrence with an F-16V fighter sale.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/answering-taiwans-defense-call-11552256483

After Chinese President Xi Jinping in January pledged “all necessary measures” to reunite Taiwan with the Chinese mainland, the island democracy is redoubling efforts to buy American fighter jets. Not since George H.W. Bush has a U.S. President approved such a sale, but President Trump can help a democratic ally defend itself by allowing it to proceed.

Kim Strassel, Jillian Melchior, Bill McGurn and Dan Henninger discuss their hits and misses of the week which include Melania Trump’s “Be Best” initiative, Colorado’s dropped cake baker lawsuit and New Jersey governor Phil Murphy’s proposed budget. Image: GettyTaiwan’s defense ministry last week requested war planes to “demonstrate our determination and ability to defend ourselves,” according to Deputy Defense Minister Shen Yi-ming. Taiwanese media report up to 66 F-16Vs could be included in the request, though the ministry said it didn’t specify a number or model and would defer to a U.S. offer.

Switzerland’s Foreign Policy Should Be a Model for America By Brandon J. Weichert

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/07/

As I have written previously, many elites think of the United States as being in a position similar to that of the vulnerable Hapsburg Empire: a large empire possessing indefensible frontiers. But, this comparison flawed. In fact, a more precise analogue to the United States is Switzerland.

A federal republic like the United States, Switzerland enjoys a natural barrier separating it from the rest of its neighbors in Europe. The United States has two massive oceans, whereas Switzerland has the beautiful Swiss Alps. From behind these natural barriers, the liberty-loving Swiss republic formed, and by European standards, so did a potent market economy. Switzerland hasn’t always been a peaceful state, but it has been able to maintain peaceful relations with all of its neighbors better than most other states. Its beneficial geography has afforded Swiss leaders the time to develop reasonable, low-cost methods for maintaining their country’s sovereignty without becoming too enmeshed in the chaotic world beyond its protective peaks.

Switzerland is not an isolationist country, however. Like the United States throughout most of its history, the Swiss simply prefer to rely on diplomacy and trade to handle the bulk of their interactions with most of the world. Switzerland has a robust international trading profile and is even an observing member in the flagging European Union. That said, it is not a full member of the EU. Such a membership would have threatened the Swiss freedom of action and they wisely avoided such a step. The Swiss interact with the surrounding world only when and how it benefits them.

Switzerland is also internationally respected. Today, America’s acceptance of an ever-increasing array of never-ending foreign entanglements has drained it of vital resources (and people) that could be put to better use making our Union more perfect.

Ten Years Into Obama’s Russia ‘Reset’ By Claudia Rosett

https://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/and-so-we-arrive-at-the-tenth-anniversary-of-obamas-russian-reset/

What became of that big mislabeled button?

Today brings the tenth anniversary of that famously mortifying scene in which President Obama’s first secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, presented Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, with a big red plastic button meant to symbolize a “reset” in U.S.- Russia relations. As Lavrov pointed out at the time, the gift was mislabeled, adorned not with the Russian word for “reset” (perezagruzka), but the Russian word for “overcharge” (peregruzka).

These days, the Russian Foreign Ministry keeps the button on display (still mislabeled) in a diplomatic museum on the ministry’s premises — less a souvenir of U.S.-Russian camaraderie than a symbol of American folly.

Obama’s plan was to reverse the cooling of U.S.-Russian relations that had set in under his predecessor, President George W. Bush. The problem, however, lay not with the U.S., but with a resurgently aggressive Russia under the reign of Vladimir Putin, to whom an aging Boris Yeltsin had turned over the powers of the Russian presidency on New Year’s Eve, 1999. By the time Obama took office, in 2009, Russia’s rising threat was already spelled out in such horrors as the 2006 murder in London of a former Russian agent, Alexander Litvinenko, his tea spiked with radioactive polonium-210. During Bush’s final year in office, in 2008, Russia had launched a war with the neighboring country of Georgia. The time had come for the U.S. superpower, leader of the Free World, to draw a line.

Trump is upsetting DC’s negotiating model – and that’s a good thing By James Durso,

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/432654-trump-is-upsetting-dcs-negotiating-model

President Donald Trump’s negotiation with North Korea hasn’t yielded verified denuclearization by Pyongyang, but it has changed the way future presidents may deal with “difficult” countries.

Trump scandalized the national security establishment, first by trading insults with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, then personally taking charge of negotiating denuclearization with the ‘Hermit Kingdom’ instead of waiting until American and North Korean staff officers had negotiated the technical details, a process that could take several years.

Trump, as an elected official and an impatient man, is mindful of the political calendar and is shaping aspects of his foreign policy to advance the 2020 campaign: The troop withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan are proof he is ending the “forever wars” and not embarking on new, costly foreign adventures.

Likewise, Trump wants to show the voters that, after 65 years of muddle on the Korean peninsula, he is taking charge. High risk? Sure, but if it doesn’t work, Trump can tweet “We did all we could!” and likely not suffer at the polls.