Displaying posts categorized under

FOREIGN POLICY

A timely anniversary of American greatness By Lawrence Haas

http://thehill.com/opinion/international/393669-a-timely-anniversary-of-american-greatness
Seventy years ago this coming week, the Soviets blocked all access to West Berlin, prompting President Truman to launch an airlift of food and supplies that saved the city and convinced Josef Stalin to back down 11 months later.

The airlift came amid Truman’s broad-scale reinvention of U.S. foreign policy in which – through the Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan, NATO, and other initiatives – the United States shed its traditional isolationism and seized global leadership to defend freedom and democracy. In the ensuing decades, the United States fought the Cold War, built a network of alliances, and promoted free markets, all of which helped maintain peace and drive prosperity at home and abroad.

At a time when the United States is disparaging its allies, stroking its adversaries, threatening its alliances, and undermining its trade relationships, Berlin offers a timely reminder of what truly made America great.

After World War II, the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union controlled separate quadrants of Germany. They also controlled separate sections of Berlin, but the city was entirely situated within the Soviet quadrant. As tensions rose over the final status of Germany, so too did fears in Washington that Moscow would seize all of Berlin.

U.S.-Soviet tensions began to reach the boiling point in the spring of 1948. The United States and Britain, which by then had consolidated their zones into “Bizonia,” introduced a new deutschmark for Bizonia and West Berlin, with an eye toward creating a more permanent West Germany.

Why Democracies Should Support Tough U.S. Iran Policy by Jagdish N. Singh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12561/support-us-iran-policy

“On one level, Iran acts as a legitimate Westphalian state conducting traditional diplomacy… At the same time, it organizes and guides nonstate actors seeking regional hegemony based on jihadist principles: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria; Hamas in Gaza; the Houthis in Yemen.” — Henry Kissinger, 2015.
Last week came to light “… details about a second building at the Parchin site involved in high explosive work related to nuclear weapons in an explosive chamber. This building has not been visited by the IAEA… [There was also] direct evidence that the secret Fordow enrichment site was being built to make weapon-grade uranium.” — David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
It is time for everyone to join the U.S. and President Trump in their efforts to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from having the ways and means to becoming a full-fledged nuclear power.

President Donald Trump’s May 8 announcement that the United States was withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and considering fresh sanctions on Iran is a step in the right direction toward defending the country against Iran’s growing nuclear-weapons program and open aim to destroy both Israel and America.

In addition, last week came to light in testimony by the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, David Albright, that Iran had:

“… blueprints for the production of all the components of nuclear weapons, the location of planned nuclear weapons test sites, [and] details about a second building at the Parchin site involved in high explosive work related to nuclear weapons in an explosive chamber. This building has not been visited by the IAEA… [There was also] direct evidence that the secret Fordow enrichment site was being built to make weapon-grade uranium.”

Is Trump Pivoting East in Europe? By Alex Alexiev

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/is_trump_pivoting_east_in_europe.html

As Trump haters are having yet another field day on account of his ostensible faux pas at the G-7 meeting in Canada, and leftist pundits fall over each other screaming that Trump has no strategic vision, as others just as self-assuredly accuse him of planning to “break the West,” which, on the face of it, requires plenty of strategic vision. While this silliness continues to rapidly declining effect, there are now signs that the White House is putting together a robust strategy in Europe that was missing until now.

It comes in the shape of A. Wess Mitchell, who was just appointed the point man at the State Department for Europe and Eurasia. The significance of this appointment, which was missed in the cacophony of anti-Trump perorations, was much on display at the very first programmatic speech he gave last week at the Heritage Foundation. Before delving into the speech, a couple of words about his background, which is important part of his appointment. Mitchell is a bona fide expert on Eastern Europe with three books to his credit and, more importantly, the long-term leader of CEPA (Center for European Policy Analysis), the only Washington think tank dedicated to the study of Eastern Europe.

Mitchell started his speech with a ringing endorsement of the Western alliance and the civilization undergirding it, which guaranteed “democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” But he also noted that the West collectively is “under-prepared” for its defense. There are a number of reasons for that, including the dismal legacy the Trump administration inherited from President Obama with its failed reset of relations with Russia, conflict in Ukraine, policy failure in Syria, and the largest ever Muslim migration to Europe.

A Troops for Nukes Trade? U.S. forces in South Korea do far more than protect Seoul.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-troops-for-nukes-trade-1529264016

President Trump sowed confusion in Asia last week when he called U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises “very provocative.” He suspended them until further notice and mused that he’d eventually like to bring all U.S. troops in Korea home. North Korea, Russia and China were pleased—American allies not so much.

“We will be stopping the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money,” Mr. Trump said in Singapore, but which exercises does he mean? Vice President Mike Pence met with GOP Senators last week and suggested that Mr. Trump meant two annual combined exercises, the Ulchi Freedom Guardian in August and the Foal Eagle in late winter or early spring. But the Pentagon hasn’t confirmed that, and U.S. allies were caught off guard.

Mr. Pence’s spokeswoman later said regular training exercises and exchanges would continue, which is essential. The U.S. and South Koreans are constantly working to sharpen their skills in using weapons and responding to enemy tactics. This includes amphibious landings, parachute drops and responding to North Korean artillery. Stopping those drills would be military malpractice.

Canceling the two giant exercises will also reduce readiness, since they are timed to coincide with North Korea’s exercises and involve allied troops and U.S. forces from other theaters. Mr. Trump made the offer as a unilateral concession, but it’s notable that Kim Jong Un has offered no comparable military gesture. Returning three Americans his government took as hostages and promising to return veterans’ remains aren’t threat-reducing.

If Mr. Trump wants to remove provocations from the peninsula, how about asking Kim to pull North Korean forces back from the Demilitarized Zone and take Seoul out of artillery range? That would justify the exercise cancellation as a goodwill offer.

Beyond the exercises is Mr. Trump’s interest in using U.S. troops in South Korea as a negotiating tool in nuclear talks. U.S. forces working alongside a democratic ally aren’t the same as the illegal development of nuclear weapons by a state sponsor of terrorism.

What’s Really Happening With North Korea? By Angelo Codevilla

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/16/whats-really-happening-with

Most commentary on the Trump/Kim summit is evidence of partisan stampede thinking. Herewith are the insights of an old professor of international affairs, who does not know what is on Trump’s or Kim’s mind any more than anyone else, but who strives to be dispassionate.

The 33-year history of negotiations about “denuclearizing” the Korean peninsula is too well known to recount here. Suffice to say that, for Americans, it has been a triumph of hope over experience, for the North Koreans an unfailing fount of assistance in the building of a redoubtable force of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles capable of reaching and commanding respect from America. For China, it has been an incomparable tool for showing other Asians that America cannot protect itself, much less them. The salient question is how this round might possibly be different.

The standard conservative answer, that Trump faced Kim with the choice between denuclearizing or being crushed, is just nuts.

Crushed how? Certainly not militarily. The United States has no way of destroying North Korea’s missiles. We have no way of knowing where they are. Nor do we know where most of its nuclear programs are located. And if we did, no one advocates starting a nuclear war to do it—especially since China has made clear that it is on North Korea’s side.

The “Trump Doctrine” for the Middle East by Guy Millière

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12506/trump-doctrine-middle-east

Trump has shown the strength of the United States and restored its credibility in a region where strength and force determine credibility.

Trump more broadly laid the foundation for a new alliance of the United States with the Sunni Arab world, but he put two conditions on it: a cessation of all Sunni Arab support for Islamic terrorism and an openness to the prospect of a regional peace that included Israel.

Secretary of State Pompeo spoke of the “Palestinians”, not of the Palestinian Authority, as in Iran, possibly to emphasize the distinction between the people and their leadership, and that the leadership in both situations, may no longer be part of the solution. Hamas, for the US, is clearly not part of any solution.

Netanyahu rightly said that Palestinian leaders, whoever they may be, do not want peace with Israel, but “peace without Israel”. What instead could take place would be peace without the Palestinian leaders. What could also take place would be peace without the Iranian mullahs.

After three successive American Presidents had used a six-month waiver to defer moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem for more than two decades, President Donald J. Trump decided not to wait any longer. On December 7, 2017, he declared that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; the official embassy transfer took place on May 14th, the day of Israel’s 70th anniversary.

From the moment of Trump’s declaration, leaders of the Muslim world expressed anger and announced major trouble. An Islamic summit conference was convened in Istanbul a week later, and ended with statements about a “crime against Palestine”. Western European leaders followed suit. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel said that President Trump’s decision was a “serious mistake” and could have huge “consequences”. French President Emmanuel Macron, going further, declared that the decision could provoke a “war”.

The Trump-Kim Summit: What Lies Ahead Why President Trump has plenty of reason for optimism. Joseph Klein

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270441/trump-kim-summit-what-lies-ahead-joseph-klein

North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and President Trump shook hands for the cameras in front of a row of alternating U.S. and North Korean flags, as they began their historic summit meeting in Singapore shortly after 9 am local time on June 12, 2018. President Trump told reporters in brief remarks before the start of an approximately 40-minute one-on-one meeting, with just translators present, that he “felt really great” and that it was “an honor” to meet Kim Jong-un. “We’re going to have a great discussion,” Trump said. “We will have a great relationship.” Kim Jong-un declared, “Well, it was not easy to get here. The past worked as fetters on our limbs, and the old prejudices and practices worked as obstacles on our way forward. But we overcame all of them, and we are here today.”

Following their private meeting, the two leaders walked to a larger room to be joined by their respective advisers, and then attended a working lunch. The historic summit concluded after about five hours with a joint statement in which President Trump “committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK [the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

The joint statement described the summit as “an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future.” The two leaders agreed to “follow-on negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.–DPRK summit.” More summit meetings may be in the offing.

The Key to Trump’s Success in North Korea By Karin McQuillan

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/the_key_to_trumps_success_in_north_korea.html

Who would have thought a real estate developer from New York City, famous for plastering his name in big letters on his buildings, would be a champion in foreign policy? Big surprise: It turns out that being confident, tough, and aggressive works well for a president dealing with dangerous pipsqueaks like ISIS and North Korea.

Trump isn’t intimidated by anybody. Not by business rivals, not by critics, not by rogue FBI agents, not by foreign leaders. Certainly not by failed experts who urge meekness, caution, and limited goals.

Our president is devoted to one thing: winning for America. He does listen to our military and work with its members to achieve the possible. He does understand how power works. Korea could thumb its nose at us because it was protected by China. So, first, Trump removed that protection by going after China. The astute Sundance at Conservative Treehouse has been pointing out for months that the trade pressure on China was the prerequisite to movement on Korea. Our expert diplomats and analysts still don’t talk about this big picture. Trump is obviously a strategic thinker, as you have to be in the business world, as in the military.

It’s not all that complicated. Kim came to the table because Trump forced him to. North Korea was made to understand quite thoroughly and clearly that its grandstanding with nukes was over. Being clear was the first step to success. Trump has no toleration for a nuclear Korea, period. When communicated forcefully, through actions, not words, that was the game-changer.

Trump reversed Kim’s motivation 100%. Kim thought the nukes were his one ticket to security. Trump showed him that the nukes are his ticket to oblivion. That is why there is reason for optimism that this is not going to be the useless nuclear diplomacy we have had since Clinton.

Promises, Nuclear Promises Trump says he can tell Kim has changed, but the evidence is scant.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/promises-nuclear-promises-1528836251

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un both received what they most wanted from their one-day summit in Singapore on Tuesday: Images of the two men shaking hands, talking across the table and getting along famously. Whether this photo-op summitry achieved anything beyond the bonhomie is a lot less clear.

In Mr. Trump’s telling, his willingness to engage in personal diplomacy has persuaded the young Kim to abandon the nuclear-weapons program that he and his forbears have spent decades building. Mr. Trump gave Kim the legitimacy of equal billing on the world stage, but the risk was worth the gamble and has paid off in an historic change of heart.

“Chairman Kim and I just signed a joint statement in which he reaffirmed his ‘unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,’” Mr. Trump told the press after the summit. “We also agreed to vigorous negotiations to implement the agreement as soon as possible. And he [Kim] wants to do that. This isn’t the past. This isn’t another administration that never got it started and therefore never got it done.”

In this telling, the two leaders have mapped out a non-nuclear future, Mr. Kim has agreed to a radical change in policy, and all that’s left is for the two sides to work out the details. Peace is at hand.

When Reagan Went to the Wall: A Berlin-Singapore Nexus? By Carl M. Cannon

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/12/when_reagan_went_to_the_wall_a_berlin-singapore_nexus_137259.html

The unlikely meeting between President Donald J. Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has ended amid handshakes, expressions of goodwill, and hopes — but no proof — that something good has begun.

Thirty-one years ago today, a momentous speech in another part of the world lit another flame of possibility. The setting was Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, the very symbol of Europe’s Cold War division between the West and the Soviet-controlled “satellite” states.

As is true regarding Trump’s Korean gambit, those in the U.S. foreign policy establishment were skeptical of President Reagan’s intentions on his 1987 trip to Germany. At a delicate point in the long dance between the two superpowers, they didn’t want Reagan antagonizing Soviet leaders with bellicose language. Infighting broke out among White House aides. But the boss wasn’t dissuaded by the experts. “The boys at State are going to kill me for this,” Reagan told deputy White House chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein, “but it’s the right thing to do.”

* * *

When Ronald Reagan arrived in Berlin on June 12, 1987, relations between Washington and Moscow had progressed far past the “evil empire” rhetoric of Reagan’s first term. Although he received little credit for it either in the U.S. or abroad, Reagan had long been fixated on reducing the world’s nuclear arsenals. Kremlin leaders were receptive to this idea, but the sticking point had always been their aversion to allowing inspectors inside the Soviet Union to verify implementation of arms reduction agreements.