Category Archives: foreign policy

Another…Ally

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote earlier about the behavior of one of our purported Middle East allies. This is another example of that one’s un-ally-like behavior.

Kurdish protesters in Turkey demanding a show of force against Islamic State instead felt their government’s heavy boot Tuesday, as rubber bullets and tear gas rained down and heavy trucks rolled in to major cities where people took to the streets to decry the fall of the Syrian border city of Kobani.

As many as 19 people were killed around the nation in clashes with police over the government’s unwillingness to aid Kurds trapped in Kobani, a Syrian city a stone’s throw from the border and under siege by Islamic State.

And

[W]hile US-led fighter planes have led a Western coalition in bombing runs in an effort to halt Islamic State’s advance, Turkish troops have remained massed on the border.

Turkey seems perfectly happy to let ISIS do its thing if it means the Turks get to burn, or see burned, the Kurds.

Born in Jerusalem Means Born in Israel?

Posted on by
Reply

There is a case on the Supreme Court’s docket this session (which began Monday) that can be summarized thusly:

Born in Jerusalem: The case of an American born in Jerusalem who wants his passport to list his birthplace as Israel underlies a major dispute between Congress and the president, with Middle Eastern politics as the backdrop. The United States has never recognized any nation’s sovereignty over Jerusalem, believing the city’s status should be resolved in peace negotiations. The administration says a 2002 law passed by Congress allowing Israel to be listed as the birthplace of Jerusalem-born Americans would in essence be seen as a US endorsement of Israeli control of the city.

This should be a no-brainer, and it never should have reached this point.

“The Administration” signed the bill into law; it wasn’t merely “passed by Congress.” If the President didn’t like the way it would be perceived by foreign nations, he should have vetoed it, instead.

The courts cannot rule on American domestic law on the basis of how foreign nations might perceive the thing. The courts can only rule on what the law says, in its context—which is domestic. Even at that, what the law says must be primary.

Perceptions of the law by foreign nations are matters of politics not of law, as the separate existences of Articles I and III in our Constitution make clear. The courts have nothing to say on matters of politics.

Finally, if the present administration—or the present Congress, come to that—no longer believe this law to be appropriate in any way, including because of foreign nations’ perceptions, those two should work together on this purely political matter to alter or rescind it. Resorting to the courts is inappropriate and a waste of judicial (and Congressional and administration) resources.

(Aside: that neither Congress nor the President should worry overmuch about foreign opinion when considering American laws is a separate matter.)

Another summary of the case, which gives an outline of its legal history, is here. In my view, the district court, as summarized by this link, erred in both of its rulings. Having held originally, the matter was a non-justiciable political question, the judge should have required State to follow the law. The court was not equipped to rule otherwise, since it had not found the law “illegitimate,” which is to say unconstitutional.

The judge’s second error, when told (correctly) by the Supremes to quit waffling and make a decision, was to rule the relevant section of the law to be an unconstitutional interference with the President’s sole authority to recognize foreign states. Of course, the section does no such thing; it merely accepts that Jerusalem is a part of Israel. The President’s recognition power is unaffected.

Our Navy’s—and our Country’s—Future

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Helprin had some thoughts a couple years ago about this administration’s Naval policy; they’re worth revisiting these days in light of the People’s Republic of China’s ongoing grab for and occupation of the South and East China Seas, and especially against the backdrop of the PRC’s decision to deny the people of Hong Kong their right to choose their own government members, in particular their Chief Executive, in violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. In the latter’s case, the PRC will tell the Hong Kong citizens who will be on the ballot and so for whom they’ll be permitted to “vote.”

Helprin quoted President Barack Obama in a 2012 campaign debate with Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney:

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

Helprin responded

To which one could say, like Neil Kinnock, “I know that, Prime Minister,” and go on to add that we must configure the Navy to face not the dreadnoughts of 1916 but “things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them,” and “ships that go underwater,” and also ballistic missiles, land-based aviation, and electronic warfare.

Then Helprin added a few kickers.

[I]n fact, except for advances in situational awareness, missile defense, and the effect of precision-guided munitions in greatly multiplying the target coverage of carrier-launched aircraft, the Navy is significantly less capable than it was a relatively short time ago in antisubmarine warfare, mine warfare, the ability to return ships to battle, and the numbers required to accomplish the tasks of deterrence or war.

And

China’s claims [to the South and East China Seas], equivalent to American expropriation of Caribbean waters all the way to the coast of Venezuela, are much like Hitler’s annexations. But we no longer have bases in the area, our supply lines are attenuated across the vastness of the Pacific, we have much more than decimated our long-range aircraft, and even with a maximum carrier surge we would have to battle at least twice as many Chinese fighters.

Not until recently would China have been so aggressive in the South China Sea, but it has a plan, which is to grow; we have a plan, which is to shrink; and you get what you pay for. To wit, China is purposefully, efficiently, and successfully modernizing its forces…. And yet, to touch upon just a few examples, whereas 20 years ago it possessed one ballistic-missile submarine and the US 34, now it has three (with two more coming) and the US 14. Over the same span, China has gone from 94 to 71 submarines in total, while the US has gone from 121 to 71. As our numbers decrease at a faster pace, China is also closing the gap in quality.

The effect in principal surface warships is yet more pronounced. While China has risen from 56 to 78, the US has descended from 207 to 114. In addition to parities, China is successfully focusing on exactly what it needs—terminal ballistic missile guidance, superfast torpedoes and wave-skimming missiles, swarms of oceangoing missile craft, battle-picture blinding—to address American vulnerabilities, while our counters are insufficient or nonexistent.

And what could become the coup de grâce if we let it continue:

The trend lines are obvious and alarming, but in addition we face a potentially explosive accelerant…. That is that whereas the American Shipbuilding Association (now dissolved) counted six major yards, China has more than 100. …it can surge production and leave us as far behind as once we left the Axis and Japan. Its navy will be able to dominate the oceans and cruise in strength off our coasts, reversing roles to its pleasure and our peril—unless we attend to the Navy, in quality, numbers, and without delay.

There’s one other requirement, more critical even than correcting the deficiencies Helprin identified: that’s the need for the will to use these—and that will must be evident, not merely claimed. Nor is it enough to say, “I don’t bluff.” It’s necessary to not bluff.

Security and Ebola

Posted on by
2

The head of the CDC said Saturday that imposing a travel ban between the US and West African countries dealing with the Ebola virus could worsen the outbreak that has killed over 3,000 people in five countries.

“Though we might wish we can seal ourselves off from the world, there are Americans who have the right of return and many other people that have the right to enter this country,” Dr Thomas Frieden told a press conference. “We’re not going to be able to get to zero risk no matter what we do unless we control the outbreak in West Africa.”

This is carefully, cynically mendacious. “Americans who have the right of return” from western Africa are few, and they’re easily controlled at the point of departure until they can be shown to be Ebola-free. Those infected can be brought back under suitable controls, as has already been demonstrated.

Moreover, there are not at all very “many other people that have the right to enter this country;” that’s the point of border control: no nation has an obligation to let any non-citizen enter, except as that nation sees fit.

Frieden compounded his…error…with this:

We really need to be clear that we don’t inadvertently increase the risk to people in this country by making it harder for us to respond to the needs in those countries by making it harder to get assistance in and therefore those outbreaks would become worse, go on longer, and paradoxically, something that we did to try and protect ourselves might actually increase our risk.

This is more nonsense. A travel ban would be on travel from western Africa, not to it. Even were such a ban to include to western Africa, exceptions for humanitarian purposes are easily defined.

We don’t get to zero risk by restricting travel from enemy nations during time of war, either, until we control and terminate on our terms the war at its source; however, we routinely and effectively reduce risk by such restrictions. So it is here. Ebola isn’t a shooting war, but it is a war against a virus that has devastating effect wherever it invades. Travel restrictions would significantly reduce risk.

Arms Control and the Terrorists

Posted on by
Reply

The Iranian government appears to be steadily leveraging the Islamic State crisis by dangling the possibility of cooperation against the terror group in exchange for a favorable deal on its nuclear program….

And

Iranian negotiators wanted to see more flexibility on the nuclear issue, in exchange for working with the US and its allies to tackle the Islamic State threat.

And

[Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani, in his U.N. address on Thursday, made clear Iran’s cooperation in addressing terror threats hinges on the outcome of ongoing nuclear talks – as he once again urged other nations to drop what he described as “excessive demands.”

Rouhani said a deal could mark the “beginning of multilateral cooperation” and allow for “greater focus on some very important regional issues such as combating violence and extremism.”

In a press conference on Friday, when asked about a possible trade-off, Rouhani said that a nuclear deal could lead to “trust-building” and “cooperation” between the U.S. and Iran.

Of course, it’s not true until it’s been officially denied. For instance, by President Barack Obama, through his Press Secretary Josh Earnest:

The United States will not be in a position of trading aspects of Iran’s nuclear program to secure commitments to take on ISIL.

Hmm….