The G-7 showed real courage in agreeing to maintain existing sanctions against Russia over its invasion and occupation of Ukraine.
Sure.
The nations agreed at a summit Saturday to maintain sanctions on Russia for its interference in Ukraine until the conditions of a peace process negotiated in Minsk, Belarus are fulfilled.
It’s too bad they didn’t strengthen the sanctions and set them to be predicated on fulfilling the conditions of the Budapest Memorandum.
I first posted this in 2012. It bears repeating.
Enjoy this holiday. Take the time to kick back, relax from the hard work you’ve been doing, and just goof off for a bit.
While you’re doing that, though, do something else, also. Invite that veteran in your neighborhood, who came back from his service wounded or maimed, and his or her family, to your celebration. Invite the family in your neighborhood whose veteran was killed in his or her service to your celebration. They need the break and the relaxation and the support, also. And they’ve earned your respect and remembrance.
To which I add this, excerpted from Alex Horton’s remarks on the significance of the day to him and his:
I hope civilians find more solace in Memorial Day than I do. Many seem to forget why it exists in the first place, and spend the time looking for good sales or drinking beers on the back porch. It’s a long weekend, not a period of personal reflection. At the same time, many incorrectly thank Vets or active duty folks for their service. While appreciated, it’s misdirected. That’s what Veterans Day is for. Instead, they should take some time and remember the spirit of the country and the dedication of those men and women who chose to pick up arms. They never came home to be thanked, and only their memory remains.
Jay Solomon, commenting in The Wall Street Journal on the recently concluded re-election of Hassan Rouhani as Iran’s president, has missed the mark.
The landslide re-election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani threatens to put the Trump administration on a collision course with Europe over future policy toward Tehran.
No, what it does do is “threaten” to put Europe on a collision course with the Trump administration over future policy regarding Iran. This is because Europe, more importantly, has missed the mark:
European officials hailed the news of Mr Rouhani’s win as heralding a more moderate path for Iran over the next four years.
And
Many European governments hope he will use his next four years to moderate Tehran’s overseas policies….
Aside from the simple fact that hope is not a policy, not a strategy, nor even a useful tactic, there has been nothing moderate about the Rouhani administration’s push for a nuclear weapons deal that codified Iran’s “right” to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, nor has there been any semblance of moderacy in the Rouhani administration’s open support for butchery in Syria or for terrorism against Israel or for arming and controlling Shiite “militias” in Iraq, whose purpose is to serve as tools for manipulating the Iraqi government.
Hailing Hoping for a change from that to a more moderate path in this administration’s second term is…foolish.
…as timidity does. The Japan Times has it, too, as demonstrated in its editorial last Wednesday. The editorial board is worried about Japan actually achieving an ability to defend proactively itself. The board’s concern was triggered [sic] by a Liberal Democratic Party proposal that
Japan consider developing the ability to strike enemy missile bases. …a response to North Korea’s repeated ballistic missile launches….
The board fretted that
an attempt by Japan to build up the capability to attack enemy bases could result in destabilizing the region’s security environment by giving an imagined enemy an excuse to carry out pre-emptive strikes on our country.
Never mind that the region’s security environment already is at risk from Japan’s current inability strike (back) at an “imagined” enemy who attacks (including a Japanese ally? That’s the implication of the Times board’s term); Japan can only to receive such a strike, potentially without post hoc answer.
The editorialists did raise a legitimate Constitutional question on the matter:
In 1959, defense chief Shigejiro Ito stated that possessing offensive weapons on the grounds of potential danger of enemy attack as mentioned by Hatoyama runs counter to the Constitution.
However, Ito misunderstood the Japanese Constitution and the duty of any nation’s government. No government may, legitimately, surrender its people, the government’s master, into slavery or destruction; government must mount the means to defend itself. With today’s technologies, that of necessity includes the obligation (not merely the right) to act preemptively if the situation demands it.
Preemptive defensive actions thus still defensive actions, and so they are well within the bounds of Japan’s Constitutional limits on military activity.
The Times‘ board went on:
To equip the Self-Defense Forces with the ability to pound enemy bases would require advanced technologies and equipment…. Possessing these kinds of technologies and equipment could go beyond the principle of defense-only security that the nation has adopted under the postwar Constitution.
Aside from the board’s lack of understanding of the nature of self-defense and the government’s obligation to be able to act preemptively, there’s the question of the board’s limiting principle here. Would, for instance, concluding a treaty with another nation that obligates that nation to defend (and so to conduct preemptive actions for the sake of) Japan be a close enough possession of such technologies to violate the Japanese Constitution? Would concluding a treaty with another nation for that nation to use its technologies to advise Japan and guide Japanese systems to the enemy bases be a close enough possession of such technologies to violate the Constitution? In both cases, after all, Japan would deliberately be making use of these apparently proscribed technologies, if only indirectly.
And:
Japan’s attempt to obtain capabilities to strike enemy bases could be reciprocated by potential enemies, including North Korea, potentially leading to an arms race between the two countries.
Stipulated. Is that better or worse, though, than Japan leaving itself exposed to the enemy’s initiative and the enemy’s possibly nuclear initial attack? Does the board think Japan could survive a nuclear attack, much less answer it successfully?
Does the board think northern Korea (for instance) can maintain such an arms race for a longer time than Japan before it must leave off?
The Times‘ position is just the potential hostage preemptively surrendering itself into hostage status.
And it’s shameful.
…is back and in full force in Russian-occupied Crimea. Russian dissidents—Tatars, this time—are being “diagnosed” as insane and locked away in “psychiatric” hospitals.
Since the annexation of the region three years ago many ethnic Tatar activists who oppose the occupation have been arrested and subjected to abuse and imprisonment in outdated mental institutions, said Robert van Voren, a Dutch human rights activist and political scientist.
“The number of cases has increased considerably over the past few years, in particular against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainian activists who oppose Russia’s annexation,” he added.
Just as in the Soviet Russian gulag, conditions are appalling and along with Russian treatment of the “inmates” are intended to retrain them to ways of which Russia approves. Emil Kurbedinov, a Crimean civil rights lawyer focusing on Tatar civil rights and himself locked up for 10 days, had this:
Some are placed in isolation and are denied their basic needs, such as access to a toilet. Others are housed with multiple people suffering from severe mental health conditions.
The activists are interrogated about their alleged involvement in “extremism” and their views of the government. They are also deprived of the right to speak with their family, or meet their lawyer on a one-to-one basis without a guard being present.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.