Displaying posts categorized under

FOREIGN POLICY

America Needs New Export ControlsBy Stephen Bryen & Shoshana Bryen

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/america_needs_new_export_controls.html

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union seriously outspent the United States on military equipment. The U.S. and its NATO allies worried that the Russians would have such overwhelming military power that, at any moment, Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces could flood Western Europe, starting with the Fulda Gap, where NATO would be pushed back and defeated.

The problem today is less Russia — with decent technology but not enough funds to produce great numbers — than China — with money to produce, but not yet a great technological base. So China uses ours.

American companies face no meaningful export restrictions and they are eager to take advantage of low-cost manufacturing in China and potential access to China’s huge domestic market. This has had an impact on Chinese electronics as well as aircraft manufacturing, submarine capabilities, and more. What China has not been able to get from legal American imports, it has worked to acquire by electronic and human spying.

Trump Designates the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Org Why our president did it – and why he is right. Joseph Klein

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273421/trump-designates-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-joseph-klein

President Trump has decided to designate the Iranian regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) to counter Iran’s global campaign of terrorism. “This unprecedented step, led by the Department of State, recognizes the reality that Iran is not only a State Sponsor of Terrorism, but that the IRGC actively participates in, finances, and promotes terrorism as a tool of statecraft,” President Donald Trump said in a statement Monday morning. “This designation will be the first time that the United States has ever named a part of another government as a FTO.” The designation takes effect on April 15th.

The Iranian regime lives and breathes Islamic extremism, which it seeks to export through its global jihad terrorist network. The IRGC sits at the center of that terrorist network. It provides funding, equipment, training, and logistical support to terrorist proxy groups, including most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. The IRGC has American blood on its hands, going as far back as bombings in Beirut at the Marine barracks in 1983 and at the U.S. Embassy annex in 1984. The IRGC also caused casualties to U.S soldiers in Iraq by providing roadside bombs to its proxies. As Special Representative for Iran and Senior Adviser to the Secretary of State Brian Hook explained on Monday, “The IRGC has been threatening American troops almost since its inception. And whenever we impose sanctions on Iran, it’s usually followed by a range of threats. What endangers American troops in the Middle East is an IRGC that operates with impunity and never has its ambitions checked in the Middle East. We’re taking an entirely new approach to this of significant sort of sustained maximum economic pressure to deny the IRGC and the Iranian regime of the revenue that it needs to conduct its 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.