“Collective Defense Guarantee”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the hype in a Fox News article centered on Russia’s flying armed drones through NATO member Lithuania’s airspace.

In recent days, drones launched from the Russian-aligned state of Belarus have pierced Lithuanian airspace, drawing alarms from the region’s political and military leaders. One drone traversed approximately 100 kilometers, loitered ominously over Vilnius carrying two kilograms of explosives and ultimately crashed inside a military training zone. Earlier in July, another drone forced the evacuation of high-level officials when it crashed near the Šumskas border crossing.

Lithuania’s Defense Minister, Dovilė Šakalienė, has responded [paraphrased by Fox News].

while stressing that there is no evidence suggesting the latest drone breached intentionally, said “this is an unprecedented and alarming incident,” especially given that the drone flew just one kilometer from the president’s residence.
Describing the behavior as “reckless drone incursions,” she warned they amount to “a direct test of NATO’s resolve.” In response, Lithuania has pledged to review its defensive protocols and urged NATO to bolster its air defenses as a clear message that the alliance stands ready to safeguard every inch of its territory.

And this, from an outside “expert:”

Andrew D’Anieri, associate director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, told Fox News Digital that while it isn’t crystal clear whether Putin is openly testing Article 5, his apparent lack of caution about these actions is telling.
“The kind of alarming thing is, we haven’t seen any real response from NATO to any of these,” D’Anieri said.

Here’s the text of Article 5 of the NATO treaty [emphasis added]:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Bruno Kahl, Germany’s chief spy…cautioned that Russia’s growing employment of hybrid tactics—ranging from sabotage and cyberattacks to disinformation—raises the likelihood that NATO may ultimately feel compelled to invoke Article 5.

For good or ill (I suggest for ill), Lithuania’s and other member nations’ responses meet the letter of that mutual defense requirement and that nothing, of necessity, would change were Article 5 formally invoked.

A mutual, collective defense arrangement is crucial for defending against invasions or other attacks, but such arrangements are practically executable only when what’s included in “collective self-defense” is understood rather than distorted. Beyond this simple thing, only when what’s included is clearly understood can necessary improvements—which Article 5 so desperately needs—be made.

In furtherance of that last, here is Article 3:

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

This Article is dishonored—other member nations betrayed—by nearly a third of the current member nations as those deplorables steadfastly refuse to fund their own defense establishments much less honor their commitments to fund NATO directly to a percentage of their GDPs.

Article 12 organically provides for review of the treaty’s functioning:

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

If such a review is not carried out in any serious manner (see the shortcomings above), then it’s time for serious nations to leave NATO (as Article 13 provides, or without it) and form a new, actually serious mutual defense arrangement.

An Additional Angle

Posted on by
Reply

There’s another approach to this problem that also would be highly useful, and in a much more general way. The problem is the apparent debanking of Conservative enterprises and others like Crypto by too many banks. President Donald Trump appears to be setting up an Executive Order that would direct[] bank regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions might have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws for political reasons.

I would approach this from another direction, a more generic one, in addition to this apparent EO. I would require, via EO (with legislation to adjust and then codify the EO after a year to see how well the EO works) to the relevant regulators, all financial institutions that close an existing account or that reject an application for one—not only debt accounts—to provide the account holder detailed, concrete, measurable reasons for closing the account, those reasons to accompany the closure, and to provide the account applicant with the same kind of detailed, concrete, measurable reasons for denying the application, with that response required to be provided within one calendar week of the application.

In addition to this, I would require the financial institution, since it has already developed its position and underlying…data…to answer all requests for clarity of any of the reasons within 24 hours of the request being transmitted if done electronically or within one calendar week if the request was transmitted in writing: USPS, UPS, Fedex, and the like. In this context, email and fax would count as electronic transmittal.

In Trump’s putative EO, [v]iolators could be subject to monetary penalties, consent decrees or other disciplinary measures. So it would be here, with these clarifications: monetary penalties would apply both to the financial institution and to the relevant managers in the C-Suite and the business’ Directors, since those persons are the ones animating the financial institution. Additionally, disciplinary measures would include termination for cause of those managers and Directors found culpable enough to be fined.

This move is not tailored to political closures or rejections, but would apply to all such, and it would apply to individuals as well as to businesses with accounts or applications for accounts.

One more thing: my move would not require financial institutions to suggest avenues for correcting the reasons for closure or rejection. A properly detailed notice will provide the account holder/applicant with plenty of ways to correct via the explicit reasons contained in the notice.

There’s also this from the banks’ side:

A Bank of America spokesman said the bank welcomed the administration’s efforts to provide regulatory clarity. “We’ve provided detailed proposals and will continue to work with the administration and Congress to improve the regulatory framework,” he said.

If the bank has these detailed proposals already developed, there is no reason why it cannot implement one of them without waiting on Government to tell it what to do. That would be what used to be good old American initiative.

Should be a No-Brainer

Posted on by
1

As The Wall Street Journal‘s editors put it,

Get ready for what could be another landmark Supreme Court case. On Friday the Justices agreed to consider whether majority-minority Congressional districts drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act are compatible with the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

The Court has asked the litigants in Louisiana v Callais to assess whether creation of a second majority-minority Congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.

This is long overdue, as states are now caught in a vice. If they weigh race too heavily, they can run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause. But if they ignore race, they can be sued for violating Section 2. Louisiana’s House map is a prime example.

It is long overdue, from as far back as 1965 when the Civil Rights Act was first enacted. The relevant clause of the 14th Amendment is in its first Article:

No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 15th Amendment is even more explicit:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Favoring one group of Americans over another—which especially in the zero sum game of voting favors one group at the direct expense of another—denies both groups equal protection of the laws by that favoring. Tailored to the right to vote, creating a voting district to favor one group on the basis of race or color explicitly abridges the voting rights of those citizens in that district who are not members of the favored race or color while simultaneously exaggerating the voting rights of those who are members.

This should be a no-brainer: Louisiana’s voting districts, drawn as they are on the basis of race, are unconstitutional, and the Voting Rights Act, which mandates such favoritism is itself unconstitutional. Any use of race, however seemingly slight, to create a district or any policy that considers race is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court should listen to and heed its recently prior ruling that any consideration of race in college/university admissions is unconstitutional.

Bureaucratic Interference

Posted on by
Reply

The lede laid out the problem, but the news writer missed it.

The agencies under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy are getting squeezed between old-guard staff who object to Trump administration priorities on one side, and prominent conservatives and business interests on the other.

Old-guard staff are well worth listening to and taking their input, especially their objections, seriously. But, this:

The dynamic is creating a minefield between Make America Healthy Again and deregulation for current leaders and new appointees.

No, it does not create any sort of minefield. The situation really is quite straightforward and simple, requiring only some managerial will.

Staff inputs, especially those objections, legitimately, apply only during the investigation, ideation, and discussion/debate phases. Once the decision has been made, though, here by Kennedy or his designated subordinate—CDC Director or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director, for instance—it then becomes the duty of old-guard staff, every single one of them, to carry out that decision with zeal and enthusiasm. Their objections or disagreements no longer matter and should no longer exist.

If an old-guard staffer does not believe s/he can carry out that decision in good conscience, then his duty is to resign, not to refuse to execute or to passively resist.

If an old-guard staffer—or a newer hire—does resist the decision or obstruct it passively, then the relevant manager must fire the staffer. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has an opportunity here. In a kerfuffle over whether NIH would create a list of DEI-related words to be banned from grant recommendations, he issued a directive barring any such lists.

[B]ut some program officers “took it upon themselves” to create ad hoc, unofficial lists.

Those program officers should be identified and fired for cause.

I Have another Question

Posted on by
2

FBI Director Kash Patel has uncovered burn bags/room filled with hidden Russia Gate files, including the Durham annex.

Regardless of the current disposition of those bags’ contents (Patel is declassifying them and intends to release them), my question is this: what level of negligence has it been that those burn bags have not been burned and still exist after all these years?

While it’s presently convenient that those burn bags remain unburned so their contents can be released after suitable (limited) redacting, the negligence is a threat to our nation’s security. The individuals responsible for that security negligence need to be identified and fired for cause.