Category Archives: foreign policy

Time to Respond…

Posted on by
Reply

…more forcefully and farther than what the People’s Republic of China has done.

China said it banned the export to Japan of goods with potential military uses, intensifying Beijing’s retaliation against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi over remarks she made about Taiwan.
The export ban takes effect immediately, China’s Ministry of Commerce said Tuesday.

It’s time for Japan, and the US in support of Japan, to answer the PRC’s escalation with a much sharper escalation of their, and our, own.

Japan—Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and the Diet—must state unequivocally that it will support the Republic of China in the event of a PRC invasion attempt. Japan also must make concrete moves toward developing its own nuclear weapons. The nation, given its geographic location, doesn’t need anything more esoteric than intermediate range missiles along with a small constellation of surveillance satellites. Japan also must begin taking overt defensive measures regarding its islands in the East China Sea.

Economically, Japan must begin serious and rapid disengagement of its business activities with and within the PRC.

The US must announce that we will support the RoC in the event of a PRC invasion attempt, and we must step up arms deliveries to both the RoC and to Japan. We need also to be much more forceful in defending the international waters and sea lanes of commerce in the South China Sea as well as moving to restrict the PLAN’s and PLAAF’s movements in that region.

The US must also get serious about severing our economic ties with the PRC.

There must be no petty tit-for-tat responses, and there must be no non-response. The question is whether Japan’s government men and women, and ours, have the stomach for facing down the men and women of the PRC government.

Cutting off doing business with and within the PRC will be expensive and disruptive, but it won’t be nearly as much so as acceding to PRC demands—which will only increase were Japan or us to back down repeatedly and further.

A Useful Test

Posted on by
Reply

In their Wall Street Journal Tuesday op-ed, Michael O’Hanlon and Marta Wosinska, Brookings Institution Senior Fellows, pointed out that shotgunning moves (vis., universal tariffs on everything a target nation or group of nations exports to us and broadly barring exports to those same targets) as a means of altering the several links to the supply chains our economy needs to make the goods we need along with altering those links our economy wants to make the things we want. They then offered a three part test to better target those supply chain links that are most important and most time critical to us and our security.

  • First, a supply chain warrants special focus when its disruption would quickly threaten lives, core defense missions, or essential economic functions.
  • Second, when substitutes or workarounds can’t be instituted in time to mitigate the disruption.
  • Third, when surge capacity can’t be built on a reasonable timeline.

This approach, as they emphasize, acknowledges that developing resilience is costly and helps ensure that scarce capital goes to the most vital choke points. In fine, it targets links for better allocation of our non-tree-sprouting spending money

This is a good test, and it’s applicable in another way than purely domestically. It needs to be applied in reverse, also. What are the analogous critical choke points in our enemies’ supply chains? Applying the test to those would let us better target our enemies’ ability to wage and sustain war against us, our friends, and our allies.

Not Enough

Posted on by
Reply

European managers say they’ve made a concerted effort to stop buying Russian oil when the barbarian invaded Ukraine. Then there’s Turkey.

Several times a month, tankers unload tens of thousands of barrels of oil products at a Turkish storage terminal in the port city of Mersin. The vast majority of the ships come directly from Russia.
And several times a month, tankers leave that facility carrying similar quantities bound for the European Union.

In that alleged effort, those managers neglected Turkey. Now they’re claiming to be increasing “scrutiny” of that Turkish port and others.

I claim those managers’ neglect was largely intentional. I claim they consciously chose to ignore Turkey’s long relationship with Russia. Turkish enterprises, and the Turkish government, have long been happy to broker Russian oil.

Even if the increased scrutiny leads to concrete action regarding Turkish ports and transshipments of Russian oil, it’s not enough.

European nations, in addition to actualizing their scrutiny, could stop buying Russian oil that passes through Turkey. It isn’t that hard to trace the provenance of most of that oil, and where the provenance can’t be determined, that should be sufficient reason to not buy that oil.

With Good Reason

Posted on by
Reply

The lede lays it out, if misleadingly so.

The Western alliance between the US and its European partners has been a pillar of the global order since the end of World War II. Bonded by a common belief in freedom and democracy, it prevented major global conflict, defeated Communism, and presided over a surge in global prosperity.

More like sharing common rhetoric, not common belief, regarding freedom and democracy. Europe’s NATO members have, since shortly after the alliance’s formation, free-loaded off American treasure and promise of blood while themselves living phat and short-changing their own obligations to the alliance. Decades of “pretty please” had no effect on that. It’s only been since Trump I’s threats to leave the alliance if those members didn’t step up to their own responsibilities that those nations started to improve, or at least give less short-shift to the alliance.

The subheadline continues the misleading aspect.

As relations between Europe and the US become increasingly strained, once unshakeable allies abroad are wondering whether the rift can be repaired.

Once unshakeable? As recently as the end of the 19th century, the US and UK were at loggerheads over a number of national-level problems. In the late 20th century, key NATO member France kicked our military forces out as that nation withdrew itself from the military aspect of the alliance, only recently rejoining.

Today, the European Union is busily attacking American multinational enterprises over the EU’s effort at censorship, its inability to compete with American goods and services sold through those enterprises, its demand for ever higher taxes in the face of lower taxes in the US. In that latter regard, the EU also is busy with its determined fratricide as it attacks Ireland over its even lower tax regime.

There’s never been anything unshakeable in our relationship with Europe, nor is there any reason to take the continent seriously, whether economically, militarily, or politically.

Even now, with European NATO members beginning to recognize that they need to act in measurable, concrete support for Ukraine in its existential struggle against the barbarian from the east, they’re still looking to us for the first move on weapons and other support, to us on “peace” initiatives vis-à-vis this war. They’re still too timid to act entirely on their own, with only a few exceptions in the form of the nations bordering Russia. Brussels is even too timorous to allow the Russian funds frozen by the EU at the start of sanctioning Russia shortly after it invaded Ukraine to be used as collateral for loans to Ukraine. Belgium is more interested in whether its funds in Russia might be seized by Putin than it is in supporting Ukraine.

Even now, fully a third of NATO’s member nations continue to welch on their own financial and equipage commitments to NATO as an alliance. With that welching, they betray their own fellow alliance members by keeping themselves wholly unable to come to the aid of their fellows should any of them be attacked.

NATO, which embodies most of Europe and so stands for Europe in so many critical ways, is steadfastly rendering itself useless and by extension is rendering Europe to irrelevance.

Why, indeed, should we take Europe seriously for anything other than their weakness being a threat to our own security given the bloodily acquisitive nature of the eastern barbarian?

A Step in the Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

Against the backdrop of the multi-billion dollar Medicaid fraud being pulled off in Minnesota and so far only partially uncovered (for all the dozens of indictments and convictions), a fraud that centers on sending those billions of dollars overseas, comes this move by Missouri’s State Treasurer Vivek Malek:

Missouri State Treasurer Vivek Malek told Just the News he is teaming up with the state legislature to impose new requirements that remittance payment businesses ensure that customers are lawfully in the United States before they can send money to foreign countries….

It’s not just Somali immigrants and illegal aliens resident in Minnesota, either.

“It has been found that at least $4.4 billion in remittances sent to Mexico have been tied to cartel money laundering through small wire transfers,” [Malek] said. “Cartels don’t sneak money across the border or throw the bag across the border. They wire it. And if we are serious about crushing cartels, we have to shut down their financial arteries.”

This is a strong move, and it’ll be instructive to see which States—Progressive-Democrat-run vs Republican-run—start taking similar steps. State by State legislation, though, is patchy, incomplete, and slow. What’s needed is the same move done at the Federal level. Treasury should monitor such transmissions, blocking those sent by inappropriate senders—illegal aliens, for instance. Treasury has ample authority under our Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations….

Remissions of US money to foreign relatives of those present in the US, whether legally so or illegal alien, is pretty clearly Commerce with foreign Nations.