Displaying posts categorized under

FOREIGN POLICY

The President’s Dream of a Palestinian State By Herbert London President, London Center for Policy Research

For those who believe President Obama is a lame duck simply waiting for his departure from the White House and the commencement of wealth pursuits, there is a likely surprise coming. The president has signaled that he may seek a U.N. Security Council Resolution which embodies a Palestinian state with pre-1967 lines, notwithstanding a different stance by President Elect Donald Trump.

This remarkable act would unequivocally betray the U.S. policy of vetoing anti-Israel resolutions. It would also attempt to make “illegal” Israeli buildings in east Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, and set in place a stance that President Trump would be hard pressed to overturn. Recently President Obama, in language that can only be regarded as hostile, said that settlement construction, even if regarded as an organic expansion of overcrowded areas is unacceptable.

Despite the long-standing and “inmutable” ties between Israel and the United States, the Obama administration questioned whether Israel is a “friend”. Even a New York Times editorial called for the president to lead the Security Council in a resolution to support a two-state solution. When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu argued a Palestinian state would be one with “no Jews,” an extreme form of ethnic cleansing – which President Abbas of the Palestinian Territory actually said – the U.S. administration denied it.

Should such a Palestinian state be created, the consequences are likely to be extreme. First, direct negotiations between Israel and Palestinian authorities would be rendered irrelevant. Why negotiate when your goals can be achieved through third parties?

Second, despite assurances likely to be provided by President Obama, the influence of Hamas and Iran is almost inevitable. As a consequence, terror and violence will be the aftermath of the president’s initiative.

Trump and International Security by Richard Kemp

In fact, it is the EU, not Donald Trump that threatens to undermine NATO and the security of the West.

An EU defence union will also present a direct threat to NATO, competing for funds, building in duplication and confusion, and setting up rival military structures.

This is breath-taking hypocrisy from the defence minister of Germany, which spends less than 1.2% of GDP on defence against an agreed NATO minimum target of 2%, while freeloading off the America’s 73% contribution to NATO’s overall defence spending.

European leaders would do well to recognize that they need the US more than the US needs them, and that real, concrete, committed defence from the world’s greatest military power is more beneficial to them than a fantasy army that will have plenty of flags, headquarters and generals but no teeth.

Trump should also prioritize both practical and moral support to anti-Islamist regimes in the Middle East, such as Sisi’s Egypt.

Trump described Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran as ‘the worst deal ever negotiated’ and has vowed to counteract Iran’s violations, if necessary hitting them with tough new sanctions and perhaps tearing up the deal altogether.

Rather than spreading fear and false propaganda about Donald Trump, they should be praying that he will provide the strength that is so desperately needed today, and working out how best they can support rather than attack him.

Since Donald Trump’s election, media-fuelled panic has engulfed Europe, including over defence and security. We are told that World War III is imminent, that Trump will jump into bed with Putin and that he will pull the US out of NATO. Such fantasies are put about by media cheerleaders for European political elites, terrified that Trump’s election will inspire support for populist candidates in the forthcoming elections in Germany, the Netherlands and France.

In fact, it is the EU, not Donald Trump that threatens to undermine NATO and the security of the West. In recent days EU president Jean-Claude Juncker, his foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, and German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen have suggested that Trump’s election should give greater impetus to a European defence force.

Trump’s Difficult Ally in Ankara by Burak Bekdil

They will have to deal with a man who says he does not mind being called a dictator.

Most recently, the World Justice Project placed Turkey 99th out of 113 countries on its Rule of Law Index 2016, performing even worse than Myanmar and Iran.

Turkey is also now the world’s biggest jailer of journalists and academics. It also claims the title of the world’s biggest jailer of opposition politicians.

There is little Europe can do about the new dictatorship emerging at its doors. Germany is offering dissidents asylum. But asylum can only be an individual, tentative solution for a few Turks when at Erdogan’s target are millions.

Bilateral relations with NATO ally Turkey are probably not on president-elect Donald Trump’s top-50 priority list. All the same, when Trump’s diplomats will have to work with Turkey on issues that may soon gain prominence — such as Syria — they will have to deal with a man who says he does not mind being called a dictator.

Instead of resembling a Western democracy in the European Union — to which Turkey has long been struggling to join as a full member — Turkey increasingly looks like Kim Jong-Un’s North Korea. Most recently, the World Justice Project placed Turkey 99th out of 113 countries on its Rule of Law Index 2016, performing even worse than Myanmar and Iran. The index measures nations for constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement and civil and criminal justice.

Turkey is also now the world’s biggest jailer of journalists and academics.

It also claims the title of the world’s biggest jailer of opposition politicians. A dozen lawmakers from the pro-Kurdish, opposition Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) were detained on November 4 because they refused to give testimony in criminal proceedings. Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said that democratically elected officials normally can only be forced from office in an election, but those officials who mix with and encourage “terrorism” must face legal proceedings. Turkish prosecutors began probing more than 50 HDP members of parliament after the legislature voted to scrap immunity in certain cases. Turkish officials say HDP lawmakers were detained because they refuse to testify in their cases.

Ending Aid to Terrorists Palestinian law rewards those who kill Jews, including Americans.

In his eulogy recently for Israeli statesman Shimon Peres, President Obama spoke of the “unfinished business” of Israeli-Palestinian peace. Now he or Donald Trump have an opportunity to advance the cause—by backing legislation to stop the flow of U.S. tax dollars to Palestinian terrorists.

Since the 1990s, as the U.S. and other countries have sent billions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians, Palestinian leaders have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in rewards to those who carry out bombings, stabbings and other attacks in Israel. These payments, codified in Palestinian law, are an official incentive program for murder that in any other context would be recognized as state sponsorship of terror. But the U.S. and other Western states have looked the other way while continuing to send aid, giving Palestinian leaders no incentive to stop.

Senators Lindsey Graham,Dan Coats and Roy Blunt have introduced a bill to end U.S. economic aid unless Palestinian leaders stop rewarding terrorists. It’s called the Taylor Force Act, after the 28-year-old U.S. Army veteran stabbed to death in March by a Palestinian in the Israeli city of Jaffa. Other American victims of recent Palestinian terrorism include 13-year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel and 18-year-old Ezra Schwartz.

“They will never achieve peace when you pay one of your young men to kill someone like Taylor Force. That’s inconsistent and it needs to stop,” Mr. Graham (R., S.C.) says. “We’re not going to invest in a group of people that have laws like this. It’s just not a good investment.” The same Palestinian laws guarantee civil-service employment to terrorists upon their release from prison—the bloodier their crime, the cushier their post.“If you’re in jail for five to six years, you come out with the civilian rank of department head or lieutenant in their security forces, you get to choose. If you’re in jail 25 to 30 years, you become a deputy minister or a major general,” Mr. Graham adds.

Trump Must Change US Defense Policy for Taiwan By Stephen Bryen

United States defense policy toward Taiwan must change. Now there is a rare opportunity to make that happen with the election of Donald Trump. But everyone knows he lacks experience in foreign affairs, although he is a man with great instincts. If he can prevail over the established litany, there is a chance that Taiwan can stay independent. But if he follows the “party line” from the State Department and their supporting chorus in parts of the Pentagon, Taiwan is a goner. It is only a question of time.

Taiwan is an island that lives next to a behemoth in the form of China. It is a democracy and, with its new government with a very strong domestic mandate, intent on maintaining its independence and democratic system. For China, democracy is the enemy as they have just demonstrated again in Hong Kong where they blocked two elected officials from taking office. Democracy threatens the Communist party dictatorship, and China is yearning for it. That is what happened before at Tiananmen, where democratic dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. And across China that is happening every day, and China’s government knows it. For them, the big thumb in their eye is Taiwan. They would take any opportunity to knock it off, and China has been building up forces to make it hard for the United States to come to Taiwan’s defense. When China’s forces reach a tipping point, and when they think America might back off, they will strike.

The question is not whether but when. America should be following a defense policy that pushes the “when” back to “whether” and puts a price on the “whether” decision that would make it hard for China’s leaders to act, if they were unsure of the outcome.

Unfortunately, America’s support of Taiwan has played directly into China’s hands and put Taiwan at considerable risk.

Consider for example that Taiwan has been allowed to have only half an air force and half a navy.

What is meant by “half”?

Trump Faces Battle to Undo Iran Nuclear Deal Leaders in Europe and Russia committed to agreement with Tehran could dilute president-elect’s vow to dismantle it By Jay Solomon

WASHINGTON—Donald Trump as president will be positioned to swiftly pull the U.S. out of the Obama administration’s landmark nuclear agreement with Iran, as he suggested during his campaign.

A much harder task for Mr. Trump, however, is to convince other global powers to join him and dismantle a deal that President Barack Obama says has diminished the threat of another war in the Mideast and opened a path for reduced tensions in the region.

During his campaign, Mr. Trump said the Obama administration negotiated badly. He alternately said he would scrap the deal and that he would renegotiate its terms. “My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran,” he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in March.

Tehran has been found to have briefly violated its pledges twice since the deal was reached in mid-2015, according to U.S. and European officials. Yet international commitment to the agreement remains strong, and the parties who negotiated it—China, Russia, France, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S.—have pledged to promote it.

European Union foreign ministers are set to reiterate on Monday their strong support for the full implementation of the accord.

The Iran deal isn’t a treaty, wasn’t formally signed, and wasn’t ratified by the U.S. Congress. It was approved by the United Nations Security Council, but not under procedures that obligate member states to observe its terms under threat of penalty.

Any partner—including Iran—could summarily cease to stick to the agreement, which resulted in Tehran scaling back its nuclear capabilities in return for the lifting of most international sanctions.

“The agreement is valid only as long as all parties uphold it,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Wednesday.

Many of the deal’s terms already have gone into effect. As part of the agreement, Iran has reaped billions of dollars in repayments of money held up by the West during years of sanctions, and has resumed trade with other countries in transportation, aviation and energy. The benefits it already has garnered couldn’t be pulled back, diplomats and experts have said.

Tehran, in return, already has shipped out most of its stockpile of enriched uranium and mothballed thousands of centrifuge machines. CONTINUE AT SITE

Iran Breaks Nuclear Deal, But the Obama Administration Won’t Say It’s a ‘Formal Violation” by Jenna Lifhits

A new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed that Iran is in violation of last summer’s nuclear deal. According to the report, the regime in Tehran has again exceeded the deal’s threshold for heavy water, marking the second such violation since the implementation of the agreement in January. The Obama administration, however, has not called Iran’s possession of excess nuclear-related material a “formal violation” of the deal, and has praised Iran for “acknowledging” it exceeded that threshold.

A State Department spokesman twice praised the Iranians on Wednesday for making “no attempt to hide” their excess heavy water, a material used in the production of weapons-grade plutonium. “Iran made no attempt to hide it, and they’re taking immediate steps to address it,” spokesman Mark Toner told reporters.

When asked, Toner would not call the incident a “formal violation” of the nuclear deal.

“They certainly exceeded, again, their allowable amount of heavy water,” Toner said. “Whether that constitutes, again, a formal violation of [the nuclear deal] writ large, I’m not certain about that.”

Iran is expected to export five metric tons of heavy water in coming days, though it is unknown to whom. In this case, the country was roughly one-tenth of a metric ton over the 130 metric ton limit.

An Energy Department official told THE WEEKLY STANDARD they did not “expect the U.S. government to directly purchase any Iranian heavy water in the near future,” but would not rule out future purchases.

Thomas Pickering’s Shameful Record How a prominent former U.S. diplomat worked against the Israeli government and helped Iran. November 7, 2016 Joseph Klein

Thomas Pickering, a prominent retired U.S. diplomat and former ambassador to Israel and the United Nations, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Pickering had co-chaired the Benghazi Accountability Review Board, the State-Department-sponsored panel established by then Secretary of State Clinton to investigate the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. Pickering’s board failed to even interview Clinton, while protecting her and other senior State Department officials, such as Under Secretary of State Patrick F. Kennedy, from any personal accountability for the tragic deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans.

Pickering signed a letter, along with other diplomats, endorsing Hillary for president. The letter sharply criticized her opponent Donald Trump in strident terms: “In his frequent statements about foreign countries and their citizens, from our closest friends to our most problematic competitors, Mr. Trump has expressed the most ignorant stereotypes of those countries; has inflamed their people; and has insulted our allies and comforted our enemies.”

Pickering needs to take a good look at the mirror when it comes to insulting our allies and comforting our enemies. As reported by the Daily Wire, for example, Pickering “advised then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in late 2011 to promote anti-Zionist agitation with Arab females in and around Israel in order to politically pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into further compliance with the State Department’s vision of statehood for the ‘Palestinians’”

The State Department’s vision of statehood for the Palestinians would require Israel to virtually withdraw to the pre-June 1967 lines while not requiring the Palestinians to forsake their demand for the so-called “right of return” of millions of Palestinian refugees to overrun pre-1967 Israel.

The Consequences of Inaction by Barry Shaw

The reality is that the actors who are replacing a once powerful and influential America are malevolently reshaping both the Middle East and Asia in their own image.

“I announce my separation from the United States… I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow, and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world — China, Philippines and Russia.” — Philippines President Rodrigo Dutere, in a speech to China’s leaders in Beijing, Oct. 20, 2016.

Statements that relations were “steady and trusted” by US Assistant Secretary of State, David Russel did nothing to hide the fact that America’s self-imposed impotence is being felt in Asia.

Action, including inaction, has consequences. We have seen this in the failure of the US to respond to:

Syria’s effective genocide of its own people;
Russia’s unhindered aggression in the Ukraine, Crimea, Syria and in the oil-rich Arctic circle;
China building military islands in the South China Sea in an apparent attempt to control international maritime routes
ISIS’s metastization into 18 countries in three years;
Iran, now billions of dollars richer, stepping up its aggression into Yemen, continuing work on its offensive military program, and holding new Americans hostage for ransom;
North Korea continuing to develop its nuclear weapons for both itself and Iran;
Turkey now threatening adventures in both and Syria and Iraq, where it will probably be thwarted respectively by Russia and Iran.

TRUMP’S TRUE OPPONENT : CAROLINE GLICK

As these lines are being written it is Thursday morning in the US. Wikileaks announced hours ago that it is about to drop the mother lode of material it has gathered on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Previous Wikileaks document drops set the stage for FBI director James Comey’s letter to Congress last Friday, when he informed lawmakers that he has ordered his agents to reopen their probe of Clinton’s private email server, which he closed last July.

One week on, the FBI probe still dominates election coverage. If Wikileaks is true to its word, and even if it isn’t, Clinton and her campaign team will be unable to shift public attention away from the ballooning allegations of criminal corruption. This will remain the story of the election when polls open Tuesday morning.

The focus on Clinton’s alleged criminality in the final weeks of the election brings the 2016 presidential race full circle. Since the contest began in the summer of 2015, it was clear that this would be an election like no other.

After eight years of Barack Obama’s White House, America is a different place than it was in 2008, when Obama ran on a platform of hope and change.

Americans today are angry, scared, divided and cynical.
The outcome of this presidential election will determine whether Obama’s fundamental transformation of America will become a done deal. If Clinton prevails, the Obama revolution will be irreversible.

If Republican nominee Donald Trump emerges the winner, America will embark on a different course.

But even support or opposition to Obama’s revolution is not what this election is about. The anger that Americans’ feel is more powerful than mere policy differences – no matter how strongly felt.
More than a referendum on Obama, Tuesday vote will be a vote about Republican nominee Donald Trump and what he has come to represent. Voters on Tuesday will have to decide what they oppose more: Trump or what he stands for.
Trump is without a doubt a morally dubious candidate.