Category Archives: foreign policy

Japan is Learning the Reasons

Posted on by
Reply

Reasons for ceasing doing business with and within the People’s Republic of China, that is. In response to Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks that a PRC attack on the Republic of China (Takaichi referred to “Taiwan”) would trigger a Japanese defensive response,

China has unearthed its old playbook of informal coercive moves. Unlike clear-cut export controls, these disguised measures are harder to manage and pose escalatory risks. Governments and companies must grapple with how to respond.
Since Nov. 14, China has issued a series of escalating restrictions: cautioning tourists and students against travel to Japan; postponing the release of at least two Japanese films; and reinstating a blanket ban on Japanese seafood imports.

The WSJ‘s op-ed authors, Victor Ferguson and Audrye Wong, Hitotsubashi University Assistant Professor of International Relations and USC Assistant Professor of Political Science, respectively, claimed

It is hard for governments and companies to respond to such disguised measures effectively and cohesively.

It’s only hard politically. It’s completely straightforward as a practical and economic matter. It’s time for the Japanese to suck up and grunt through the unavoidably disruptive period of disruption and discontinue doing business with PRC-domiciled companies, with the PRC government, and business of any sort inside the PRC.

Cards on the Table?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the breakthrough being touted by Just the News regarding “peace” talks between Ukraine and Russia.

This week for the first time, Kiev and Moscow articulated specific visions for a peace deal. And while they remain apart on big issues like land borders and NATO membership, the two sides have a meaningful framework that eluded past negotiations and presidents.

This is inaccurate. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been clear on Ukraine’s vision for peace, and equally specific the requirements for achieving one from the outset following the barbarian’s renewed invasion of his nation four years ago. He has demanded Russia’s departure from Ukraine and specific, material mechanisms for guaranteeing his nation’s sovereignty against renewed barbarian invasion.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has been equally clear on his requirements for peace. He has demanded recognition of his occupation of Crimea as a Russian oblast, the ceding of all of the Donbas to Russia as additional Russian oblasts, disarmament of Ukraine, and guarantees that NATO will never accept Ukraine.

It’s hard to get any more specific than these; the two sides’ cards have been on the table all along.

There’s this bit of foolishness, also, from Congressman Andy Biggs (R, AZ):

If you’ve ever negotiated anything, and virtually everybody has, if you don’t understand what you want and what the other side wants, you can never get to yes.

This operates from the false premise that “yes” by Ukraine is in any way useful or would be at all reliable given to whom and to what Ukraine would be saying “yes.” It’s not possible to say “yes” to a barbarian that routinely welches on each of its commitments, including, during its present invasion, its universal violation of every cease fire to which it has pretended to agree. That’s local. More universal is the barbarian’s routine violation of international law, particularly including the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of civilians in occupied territories and the targeting of civilians in the course of a campaign. Russia’s atrocities—rape and butchery of women and children in occupied Ukrainian cities and its targeting hospitals, churches, residential neighborhoods, and children’s schools during repeated attacks are well documented.

The real breakthrough, the only breakthrough with any security or moral validity, is to transfer to Ukraine the weapons, ammunition, and logistics it says it needs; in the numbers it says it needs them; and on the schedule it says it needs them. The UA has shown its superiority these last four years over the barbarian hordes, despite the barbarian’s superiority in numbers. The only advantage the barbarian has is that it’s far better supported by its allies, Iran and the People’s Republic of China. Ukraine could win the barbarian’s war decisively were the West, led badly by the US, to find some spine and set about supplying Ukraine at least as effectively as are the barbarians’ benefactors supplying the barbarian.

It’s No Choice

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has put on the table a piece agreement between Ukraine and Russia that, if it’s being accurately described, amounts to abject surrender by Ukraine to the barbarian. The arrangement calls for Ukraine to cede to the barbarian occupied Crimea and all of the Donbas, including both the currently occupied and the unconquered parts. Ukraine also would be forced to at least partially disarm and cap its standing army at two-thirds of its current complement, and Ukraine would be forever barred from entering into any sort of defensive alliance.

Even the US would lose in this. Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had agreed a deal wherein the US would develop Ukraine’s mineral deposits, including significant rare earths, in return for which the US would get a significant fraction of the outputs. Under the arrangement on offer now, we would lose access to those minerals and rare earths since the vast bulk of them are in the Donbas.

Zelenskyy addressed his people when presented with the peace “deal,” whatever it is in fact, and said that his nation, his people must choose between “dignity, or the risk of losing a key partner.”

If this “peace” thing is being described accurately in the press, Ukraine already has lost a key partner.

Death for Seditionists?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the six Progressive-Democratic Party politicians who called on senior military and intelligence officials to disobey “illegal” orders, all the while refusing to identify either the illegal order(s) in question or the statute(s) or constitutional clause(s) they allegedly violated.

President Donald Trump (R) has responded in his inimitable fashion:

“Their words cannot be allowed to stand,” Trump said. “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT.”

And later,

SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!

Now we have two more Progressive-Democratic Party politicians spouting yet more Leftist conspiracy theory foolishness.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY):

When Donald Trump uses the language of execution and treason, some of his supporters may very well listen[.]

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D, NY):

…disgusting and dangerous death threats against Members of Congress….

Hmm….

Trump has, indeed, suggested, in 2016 campaign “lock her up” rhetoric style that the Six should be locked up for their seditious behavior. But death threats? No. He’s only saying sedition warrants execution, not anyone in particular. Not even in context.

Thus: the only way he could be calling for the execution of the six is if they actually are convicted of seditious behavior. From that, the only logical conclusion of Schumer’s and Jeffries’ claims is that they’re confessing the Six’ guilt of sedition.

Regarding Illegal Aliens Applying for Asylum

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving the Trump administration’s limitation on illegal aliens’ ability to apply for asylum. The case, Noem v Al Otro Lado, centers on the meaning of “arrival in the United States” within the meaning of federal immigration law: does an alien “arrive” on meeting with immigration officers when the meeting occurs on the Mexican side with no actual entry into the US.

This should be an open-and-shut case. Here’s what 8 US Code § 1158 – Asylum, paragraph (a)(1) says on the matter:

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

That’s clear. Present in the United States and brought to the United States means inside—being within the borders of—the United States. Nothing more, nothing less. In particular, this statute makes clear that “on the Mexican side” plainly is not inside the United States (to say nothing of the affront to Mexican sovereignty if “on the Mexican side” were taken to mean inside the US.

Section 1225(b) only specifies the process for granting or denying asylum, but this is what its paragraph (a)(1) says that’s relevant to Otro Lado:

An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.

This is, in its essence, a repeat of the Asylum paragraph above. In the United States explicitly excludes being still on the Mexican side of the border. An alien, illegal or otherwise, must be on the US side of the border—within the US—before he can apply for asylum

Full stop.

The obvious alternative, though, should the Court rule wrongly on this, is to withdraw all US immigration officers from the Mexican side of the border.