Category Archives: foreign policy

One More Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to be clear and overt in our support for the Republic of China.

We sailed a guided missile cruiser through the international waters of the Taiwan Strait last Wednesday, and the People’s Republic of China objected.  Then it threatened.

China said it would take all necessary military measures to defeat “separatists” in Taiwan.

This comes, also, after the PRC threatened military action against the people of Hong Kong because they’ve been uppity enough to insist that the PRC honor its commitment to Hong Kong’s (semi-)autonomy IAW its handover agreement with Great Britain.

All this adds to the necessity of selling the RoC anti-missile and anti-aircraft systems, modern combat aircraft and ground combat equipment, and brokering deals between the RoC and Israel for the latter’s Iron Dome and Arrow systems.  And systems designed specifically to defeat amphibious and airborne invasion attempts.

We’re already in the processing of selling them $2.2 billion worth of arms, but that should be only a start.

Asylum Seekers

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has moved to make it harder for folks arriving on our border to claim to be seeking asylum, and the American Civil Liberties Union and American Immigration Council don’t like it.  Here’s AIC’s Managing Director Royce Murray:

…the Trump administration is “throwing everything they have at asylum seekers in an effort to turn everyone humanly possible away….”

Which, of course, misrepresents the facts.  The vast majority of folks arriving at our border claiming to be asylum seekers are nothing of the sort. Their presence on our border or illegally crossing it demonstrates that they’ve already rejected asylum offers, even job possibilities—offers and possibilities Mexico has offered them.

The folks running the ACLU and the AIC know this full well.

Clearing the Decks

Posted on by
Reply

Boris Johnson has been elected—by a 2:1 margin—the new Conservative leader, and after a ritual with the Queen Wednesday, will become (I’m writing Tuesday) the new British Prime Minister.  He’s already losing a number of cabinet ministers, and some are painting that as a negative beginning.

Several ministers—including Justice Secretary David Gauke—resigned, indicating they would oppose any effort by Mr. Johnson to leave the EU without a deal to soften the predicted economic shock.

I disagree that this is a negative.  On the contrary, their departure is no great loss beyond the cumbersomeness of replacing them. This just clears out some of the obstructionists and makes it easier for Johnson to put in place his own Brexit team.

The tougher nut will be getting past May’s and Parliament’s timidity in dealing with Iran and Iran’s piracy against British shipping.

PRC, “Armored Weapons,” and Hong Kong

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the People’s Republic of China’s use of tanks to suppress the Tiananmen Square protests that resulted in some 2,000 civilian deaths.

Here’s the PRC’s new anti-protest armor: truncheons.  With the official police standing around, watching:

Media in Hong Kong have released footage of masked men in white shirts beating black-clad protesters with steel pipes and wooden poles in a subway station and on public transit. The protesters attempted to defend themselves with umbrellas.
Passengers said police did not intervene in Sunday’s attacks by the men, which left 45 people injured.

Forty-five injured by those truncheon-wielders.  Notice, too, that the thugs were masked, but the protestors were not afraid to show their faces.

Were the masks to conceal their Beijing origin?  The opposition party in Hong Kong, the Democratic Party, is taking (publicly, at least) a more generous position.  It’s investigating

the attacks amid suspicion that they involved the triad, a Chinese organized crime group.

I’m not so sanguine; although I don’t discount the idea that, rather than being sent by PRC President Xi Jinping’s supporters from the mainland, Xi caused the triad to be hired for the strong-arming.

Sanctions on Turkey?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the question being asked regarding Turkey’s decision to buy—and subsequently to take delivery on—Russia’s AS-400 anti-aircraft missile system and the impact that has, or should have, on our alliance with Turkey.

The question, though, assumes we have an alliance. Formally, one exists, but it’s in name only outside of NATO (and with Turkey cozying up to Russia, that one is in flux, too); Turkey has chosen functionally to walk away from any bilateral arrangement.

I think, though, the decision to cancel Turkey’s F-35 buy is sufficient. We don’t need to apply sanctions; we don’t need to have much of anything to do with Turkey, good or bad, outside our NATO obligations.

Turkey just isn’t that important to us.  It’s a convenient path into the Middle East, but even that is questionable.  Turkey, after all, refused to let us operate from there during the second invasion of Iraq, in contrast with Saudi Arabia’s and Kuwait’s active support.  That refusal complicated military matters and led to a longer fight than necessary, with higher casualties all around.