Category Archives: foreign policy

Tacit Hamas Apologia

Posted on by
Reply

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said his nation would join France in recognizing a Palestinian state by the end of summer. Never mind that there is no state to recognize; the far larger problem and UK failure is this:

So today [Starmer said], as part of this process towards peace, I can confirm the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations general assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.
This includes allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank. Meanwhile, our message to the terrorists of Hamas is unchanged and unequivocal.
The Palestinian people have endured terrible suffering. Now, in Gaza, because of a catastrophic failure of aid we see starving babies, children too weak to stand—images that will stay with us for a lifetime.
The suffering must end. Yesterday I discussed this with President Trump and we are mounting a major effort to get humanitarian supplies back in, by air—and UK aid has been air-dropped into Gaza today—and, crucially, by land. We need to see at least 500 trucks entering Gaza every day.

The trouble with Starmer’s position is that it entirely mischaracterizes the source of the problem. It is Hamas that opposes peace and refuses any sort of ceasefire short of Israel’s abject surrender; it is Hamas that is actively interfering with delivery of humanitarian aid, actively interfering as it does with Gazans’ efforts to get to aid deliveries unless they come through Hamas, diverting UN-sourced aid from deliveries to Gazans toward itself, stealing delivered aid from Gazans; it is Hamas causing the Gazans’ suffering, especially that of children for the sake of the optics—which is rewarded by their effects on the naïve and those like Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, who should know better.

This is Starmer sub rosa (not sotto voce because he really does know better) supporting the terrorists. That’s the unequivocal message he has for Hamas. How far the UK has fallen.

There’s a Fix for This

Posted on by
Reply

It’s a straightforward fix, too, even if perhaps politically difficult. “This” is the retention of security clearances by those who leave Federal employ, and the problem that would be fixed by this “this” is this:

The chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board says he believes crimes were committed by intelligence and law enforcement officials who relentlessly pursued President Donald Trump over the last decade, and he also wants to make sure that spies who abused their powers are stripped of their security clearances and their jobs.

Devin Nunes, the PIAB chairman in question, added this:

I just continue to be fascinated by the people who are still carrying a security clearance. It’s amazing who are still in these agencies. And I’m just shaking my head like every time I turn around, like, wait, wait, wait, wasn’t that person in that position a Russia hoax person.

The fix is this: everyone leaving Federal employ should have his security clearance revoked automatically. Having left the government, that person no longer needs a security clearance; he no longer has any need to know, which is a Critical Item for having a clearance. Persons getting (not just seeking) civilian employment that requires a security clearance should be required to go through an entirely new and current—de novo—security background check. Persons changing jobs within the Federal government should have their clearances suspended pending successful completion of an entirely new and current—also de novo—background check, and any renewed clearance adjusted down (or up) commensurate with the new job.

None of this would prevent those who committed crimes from being prosecuted and, if convicted, jailed. They should be. Nor would any of this prevent the President from firing those who’ve failed to carry out their duty fully and enthusiastically, whether or not they’ve done anything illegal. He should fire them.

Their Plan, Our Necessary Response

Posted on by
Reply

The headline and subheadline of the editorial lay it out succinctly:

China’s No-Exit Plan for Foreigners
Beijing is blocking two more Americans from leaving the country which is part of a pattern.

Then the lede:

Chinese President Xi Jinping has been eager to lure American companies to invest in China, but you wouldn’t know it from Beijing’s latest actions. China is preventing American citizens, including a Commerce Department employee and a Wells Fargo banker, from leaving the country.

This is naked hostage-taking, and the only way to stop it is to counter it decisively, deeply, and broadly. That doesn’t mean if the PRC takes an American hostage, we take 10, nor does it mean if the PRC brings a knife to the matter, we bring a gun and all our friends with guns. It may come to that—tit-for-tat is far worse and more expensive than drastic and rapid escalation—but it’s not useful in the present context.

What is necessary is for Americans to stop traveling to the PRC under any circumstance—not to visit, not for tourism, not on business. This would be made more effective, and safer for business employees, if American businesses stopped doing business inside the PRC completely. Along those lines, our State Department should issue a Level 4 Travel Advisory—Do Not Travel—on travel to the PRC. The specific risks to travel are included with this level of advisory, and SecState should be explicit: there is an unacceptable risk of the American traveler being kidnapped by the PRC government and barred from leaving. It may be true, and it seems to be so for the two kidnap victims above, that the victims are free to roam about the PRC, but that just means they’re in a shabbily gilded cage.

In addition to those steps, our government needs to make those hostages our hostages against PRC good behavior: do nothing diplomatically or economically with the PRC until all of our citizens are back on US soil, safe and healthy. Rescind the PRC’s Most Favored Nation status and impose tariffs of at least 500% on all goods and services originating from the PRC, regardless of the path those things take in getting to the US, again until all of our citizens are back on US soil, safe and healthy.

Accelerate arming the Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Japan. Actively and overtly—with the presence of US Navy and Air Force assets—assist the Philippines in its defense of its island possessions in the South China Sea, including physically blocking PLAN ships from impeding Philippine shipping. Deem PLAN ship refusal to give way, maintaining a collision course as an attack on our ship or the Philippine ship, and fire on and sink the PLAN attacker. Work defense arrangements with Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia.

The more Xi and his minions object, the more rapidly we should push these moves.

Hostage takers deserve no profit; they do deserve to lose drastically.

A Brief Thought on Trade Negotiations

Posted on by
Reply

There’s this from a Wall Street Journal article centered on European Union and People’s Republic of China trade relations:

Chinese and European leaders must “make the right strategic choices” amid a fast-changing and tumultuous global environment, Chinese leader Xi Jinping told visiting EU leaders in Beijing on Thursday, according to Chinese state media.

The right strategic choices. This kind of rhetoric is all too typical of Xi’s and his minions’ demands on any subject, whether on trade or other nations’ decisions regarding their own national security. In the end, it’s Xi’s demand that other nations, here European, must make those choices comport with Xi’s positions.

Neither Xi nor his ministers are negotiating seriously or in good faith when they make such demands; this is emphasized by the PRC’s “rationing” of critical raw materials. It’s time the rest of us pushed back—hard. We need to respond by saying that as long as that’s the PRC position, there can be no negotiation, no discussion, since the PRC is not operating in good faith.

And then act on those words and walk away. Continue by moving on and elsewhere without the PRC, saying publicly that Xi knows how to contact them when he’s ready to be serious.

Shocked

Posted on by
Reply

I’m shocked, shocked, to find that diplomacy is going on in here. The lede and a subsequent paragraph expose the matter.

President Trump’s threat for a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports expanded his use of punitive duties over matters that have nothing to do with trade, breaking with more than a half-century of global economic precedent.
…
It is one of the latest…example of Trump using tariffs as a cudgel for political priorities outside of trade.

And

The president is betting the threat of reducing access to the American consumer will force nations to capitulate on his political priorities.

Other examples:

  • tariffs on Colombia over repatriation flights for migrants back to that country
  • steep duties on Canada, Mexico, and China over their role in the fentanyl trade
  • tariffs on countries that buy oil from Venezuela
  • threat of tariffs to attempt to secure more military spending from Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea.

The news writers at the link noted this bit of history:

Although often controversial and sometimes volatile, such as when the Smoot-Hawley Act hiked U.S. tariffs in 1930, tariffs have generally been motivated by economic or domestic political goals.

There is no more important domestic goal than national security, which necessarily is centered on the global stage.

Ricardo was right as far as he went, in that nations should specialize in those goods and services they do best and import other goods and services from other nations that the importer does poorly. But that’s pure economics. It ignores the diplomacy aspects of international trade—using exports of those specialized goods and services and imports of other goods and services as tools with which to influence other nations’ behavior across a range of milieus.

That foreign policy influence centers on matters of national security, of which domestic economics is a critical, but not sole factor. Other, equally critical, factors include providing opportunities for domestic producers to do better in those weak areas. Specialization, after all, is not the same as producing only those items with no thought to expanding into other areas for specialization.

International trade as diplomacy also includes limiting enemy nations’ access to those goods and services that a nation Ricardo-specializes in that are important to enemy nations’ own foreign adventurism, as well as limiting domestic market access by enemy nations as a means of weakening their economies and so their ability to mount those foreign adventures.

The WSJ‘s editors tacitly understand this, though they don’t seem to have made their understanding overt, even to themselves.

The US will need to mount a united front with allies to confront Beijing’s predatory practices and ensure the world isn’t dependent on China. One idea is a critical minerals alliance.

This is explicitly the use of international trade in its foreign policy/national security role and as a way to counter the People’s Republic of China’s own use of international trade to further its own foreign policy aspirations.

The news writers appear surprised find that an American President understands that international trade, and all of its tools, have very little to do with economics and very much to do with foreign policy. Sadly, they’re not alone. It would behoove all guild members to review their high school economics class notes.