That’s what The New York Times says the European Union is talking about.
…a European Union nuclear weapons program.
Under such a plan, France’s arsenal would be repurposed to protect the rest of Europe and would be put under a common European command, funding plan, defense doctrine, or some combination of the three. It would be enacted only if the Continent could no longer count on American protection.
The US, France, and Great Britain presented to the UN Security Council earlier in the week a resolution to apply economic sanctions against all of 11 Syrian military commanders and officials, as well as on 10 government and related entities” for their roles in the Bashar al-Assad government of Syria’s use of chemical weapons against Syrians. The sanctions also would have barred the sale or supply of helicopters to the regime.
Naturally, Russia and the People’s Republic of China vetoed the sanctions. Both did it to oppose the US. Russia did it for the additional reason that it would interfere with getting peace in Syria—by which Russian President Vladimir Putin meant, in issuing his instruction to Russia’s UN Ambassador, peace on Russian terms.
One answer is indicated by the Trump administration’s de-emphasis of the World Trade Organization as the primary arbiter of our international trade policy. A draft policy document, if the leak of it is a legitimate one, and if it’s being accurately described in the NLMSM might represent a promising start.
The Trump administration is developing a national trade policy that would seek to diminish the influence of the World Trade Organization in the US and champion American law as a way to take on trading partners it blames for unfair practices, according to a draft document reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
This is a preview of
Who Should Control American Foreign Policy?
. Read the full post (231 words, estimated 55 secs reading time)
Heaven forfend. Or at least that was Michael O’Hanlon’s (Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution) concern when he proposed An Alternative to NATO Expansion That Won’t Antagonize Russia. Never mind that what’s in American national interest is what matters, not that subset of it that won’t upset an enemy of ours.
[T]hese two countries [Ukraine and NATO], as well as other Eastern European neutral states, get no protection from NATO.
I’ll leave aside the value of NATO protection as that organization is currently constituted, funded, and armed; that’s a separate discussion. No, the nub of O’Hanlon’s misunderstanding is this:
…is the Left’s and Europe’s lack of understanding of the meaning and the import of obsolescence. This is illustrated by a piece in World Politics Review.
The failure to understand is illustrated with this claim:
[A]lthough Russia’s resurgence as a revanchist and norms-breaking power has conveniently thrust NATO back into the thick of European and American security concerns, Europe actually faces no threats for which the alliance is the most effective instrument. In fact, Europe faces no military territorial threats at all.
This is a preview of
Part of the Problem with Claims of NATO Obsolescence
. Read the full post (737 words, estimated 2:57 mins reading time)
That’s the sense of the European Union as it desperately seeks validation from the US for its existence—as if, as The Wall Street Journal put it, an American Administration is responsible for the EU’s fate. Here’s European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker:
I do think the United States needs a strong, united European Union on all possible issues.
We’d certainly benefit from a united front on the continent on matters relating, for instance, to Russia. But this doesn’t need an EU; it simply needs a common understanding by the continental nations of the threat posed by Russia.
Hundreds of people in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez gathered on the edge of the Rio Grande River on Friday to form a “human wall” to protest US President Donald Trump’s plans for a wall between the countries.
Thanks for the assist, Protestors. As we both know, the wall is necessary—metaphorically if not literally—in order to control our borders, regardless of who pays for it. Just be sure, guys, that you leave openings in it for easy, legal border crossing, just as we intend to do.
John Curtice, writing in The Guardian, in the land where John Locke was borne, seems confused on the question. His proximate piece is his missive on the nature of referenda in Great Britain. He began that piece with a false premise of very large proportion, and that—as false premises are wont to do—set the tone for the rest of his op-ed.
In the Commons debates on Brexit during the last fortnight, many MPs have found themselves voting for something they do not believe in. Instead of being their constituents’ “representative”, they now appear to be no more than the people’s “delegate”.
Leave aside Michael Taube’s knee-jerk anti-Trumpism and his obsession with cute snark-bites liberally (in two senses of that word) sprinkled through his missive in the National Review. He writes about an interesting thought that may or may not be circulating in the Trump White House—Sarah Palin as ambassador to Canada.
A long-standing rumor that Palin is being considered by President Donald Trump to be the next US ambassador to Canada has gained momentum in recent days.
Oh, yeah—it’s also necessary to leave aside the NLMSM’s penchant for rumor-mongering rather than original reporting.
Mexico is upset with President Donald Trump’s efforts to tighten border security and especially with his efforts to deal more thoroughly with illegal aliens present in the US, many of whom are Mexican. A coalition has formed—a group of Mexican officials, legislators, governors and public figures planning to meet [in the US] with migrant groups—to plot ways in which to interfere with our enforcement of our immigration laws.
One of those ways was described by Mexican ex-Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda:
The backlog in the immigration system is tremendous [the idea is to double or triple the backlog]….