Tag Archives: foreign policy

Success or Failure?

Posted on by
Reply

In a Just the News piece concerning how the People’s Republic of China is stealing our (and Japan’s, Republic of Korea’s, and European Union’s) technology and using it to build a military establishment that can defeat us and from that compel us to do PRC bidding, FBI Director Christopher Wray was quoted as testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security September a year ago,

I think I publicly acknowledged that the FBI now has over 2,000 counter-intelligence investigations related to China, by far the biggest chunk of our counter-intelligence portfolio, and we are opening a new Chinese counterintelligence investigation about every 10 hours.

2,000 investigations, with a new one begun every 10 hours. Wray was touting that as the level of effort the FBI is putting into the matter.

What it really looks like is the extent of the PRC espionage effort, especially since those cases and case-openings only represent what the FBI has detected. Those data seem, more accurately, to indicate the degree of success the PRC is having at stealing our data, and the lack of success we’re having in defending ourselves.

That failure is not all on the Federal government, either, for all the centrality of their role in our nation’s security. It’s also, in very significant part, on the managers of our private enterprises and their lack of effort—empirically demonstrated by how often and how easily they’re entered (72 new FBI cases every month, not all of which concern government penetrations)—in protecting their own data.

Wray’s claim does not describe any form of success at all. He describes failure, perhaps even lack of seriousness regarding the matter.

An EU Attack on National Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

Poland’s Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, is objecting to the European Union’s claims to overriding authority over its independent constituent nations, Poland in particular. In an open letter to the EU’s parliament, then in debate during the next parliament session, he said

…EU mission creep…would lead to a “centrally managed organism, governed by institutions deprived of democratic control.”

And then,

EU competencies have clear boundaries, we must not remain silent when those boundaries are breached. So we are saying yes to European universalism, but we say no to European centralism.”

Which argument for the sovereignty of the Union’s constituent nations was answered dismissively by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen:

Your arguments are not getting better. You’re just escaping the debate[.]

She then laid out three options by which the EU would seek to compel Poland’s acceptance of EU suzerainty:

  • first: a so-called infringement, where the European Commission legally challenges the Polish court’s judgment, which could lead to fines
  • second: a conditionality mechanism and other financial tools whereby EU funds would be withheld from Poland
  • third: application of Article 7 of the EU’s treaties. Under this, rights of member states—including the right to vote on EU decisions—can be suspended because they have breached core values of the bloc

Despite this,

Poland’s ruling nationalist Law and Justice party says it has no plans for a “Polexit[.]”

Maybe the party and the citizens should begin thinking about it.

Wasting Money

Posted on by
Reply

Or continuing the failed, but durable, Progressive-Democrat policy of paying governments in Mexico and nations south to pretend to curb their citizens from heading north to enter our nation illegally. Which is a waste of our taxpayer money, also.

The Biden-Harris administration is shipping another $20 million to Mexico and Central America

in aid for the hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees in the region—including money for healthcare, shelter, and legal aid.

But to whom is all that money going, really? It isn’t Brandon. And it isn’t any of those migrants and refugees—who aren’t all migrants or refugees, anyway, those not having left their nations. (Only those in Mexico might—might—fit either of those categories. Two things about that, though. The Mexican government doesn’t have to let them into Mexico, and to the extent Mexico has not granted permission, they’re not migrants or refugees there, either. They’re illegal aliens in Mexico.)

No, the money is going to the crooked officials of those governments. It’s going to them because the money is paid, for the most part, to those governments rather than directly to actual aid groups or to the “migrants” or “refugees.” The men and women of those governments then siphon off most of the money, whether as the middle man’s cut or as outright graft. Even money going directly to those aid groups gets siphoned off by those government persons as the vig, in various forms, those groups must pay in order to be allowed to exist.

If our government is going to spend those millions, they should be committed in large part to resealing our southern border: finishing the wall, reinvigorating our ICE and CBP agencies and immigration judges, reinstating our Remain in Mexico and related policies (not just yapping about them), reaccelerating our illegal alien deportation policies and mechanisms.

The rest of those dollars should be spent on legal immigration procedures: making it easier to enter our nation legally, making the process of getting permission to enter (or being denied permission) much faster, improving our vetting processes so those other two can be achieved safely.

“Candid and Professional”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Antony Blinken’s State Department negotiators said about the Taliban representatives at Doha, as the Biden-Harris met with them to beg for negotiate the safe passage for US citizens, other foreign nationals, and our Afghan partners, along with human rights, including the meaningful participation of women and girls in all aspects of Afghan society.

The discussions were candid and professional with the US delegation reiterating that the Taliban will be judged on its actions, not only its words.

Along with the willful ignorance—it no longer can be written off to naivete—of State and of Biden-Harris that the Taliban terrorists care about how they’re judged.

The Taliban…negotiators…may have conducted themselves in a structurally professional manner, but leaving aside that deliberate ignorance, it’s not something our government should be publicly praising in our enemies.

That just shows how desperate the Biden-Harris administration is to curry their favor.

Naivete

Posted on by
Reply

JCS Chairman Mark Milley wants to deepen the level of military-military communications between the US and Russia.

Army General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US and Russian militaries need to expand and deepen their communication and stressed that dialogue between the two adversaries could help de-escalate a future crisis.

Milley went on, paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal:

[A]dding to existing communication channels already in effect would help each side understand the other’s plans and moves.

He wants the same with the People’s Republic of China, also.

The problem with this tension-defusion concept is that it depends on the participants, in particular our DoD’s Russian and PRC counterparts, being truthful with each other. Why, though, should we believe that a military buildup opposite the Balkans or the Republic of China, is just a training exercise, just because the relevant Russian or PRC generals say so? Or why should they believe that about us?

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer really only works if the enemies aren’t armed to the teeth.