Tag Archives: foreign policy

Who’s Insulting Whom?

Posted on by
Reply

As most of you are aware, the government men of Hong Kong, on instruction from their masters in the People’s Republic of China government, has imposed on the people of Hong Kong a law criminalizing “disrespect” for the PRC national anthem.

Holden Chow, Vice-Chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, a staunchly pro-PRC member of Hong Kong’s “legislature,” strongly supports this law.

This is simply about protecting the dignity of the national anthem and deterring people from insulting it[.]

Far from it. A national anthem symbolizes its nation. A government that is so terrified of dissent that it outlaws that dissent, that makes speaking against an anthem that symbolizes that fear a crime, isn’t the one being insulted, and such an anthem has no dignity.

Making such dissent criminal is the insult, and this government has gravely insulted both the good people of Hong Kong and the good people of the PRC.

Works for Me

Posted on by
Reply

The baby sister and de facto chief of staff to northern Korea’s MFWIC, Baby Kim, Kim Yo Jong doesn’t like that citizens of the Republic of Korea keep sending anti-northern Korea missives into the DMZ and on across into the gangland.

[Kim Yo Jong] warned that it would end a 2018 inter-Korean military agreement if the South fails to stop defectors and activists from sending anti-Pyongyang leaflets into the demilitarized zone (DMZ) separating the two countries.
…
Kim Yo Jong also said the North could permanently shut a liaison office with the South and an inter-Korean industrial park in the border town of Kaesong….

She also says that the agreement was hardly of any value.

She’s right on that last. It is a useless, virtue-signaling setup that the RoK, in retrospect mistakenly, agreed.

The dissolution of the agreement would create no loss at all for the people of the RoK; Baby Kim’s Baby Sister ought not let the door hit her in the fannie on the way out.

America’s Problem

Posted on by
Reply

…according to Walter Russell Mead, in his Monday Wall Street Journal op-ed. He suggested that the world will only wait out the Trump administration, and that the next administration, Trump’s or Biden’s, will face a world grown unresponsive to American leadership, not believing that American society is capable of the role any further.

He closed his piece with this:

Whatever happens in the election, the US administration next year will face a problem even more daunting than the intellectual challenge of crafting a national strategy for an increasingly dangerous time. It will have to convince the world that this time, America really means what its president says.

This overstates the case, and it perpetuates a myth that has suffused too many administrations for far too long.

We don’t have to convince the world of anything, nor should we be defining ourselves in terms of other nations’ approval/disapproval of us. We have only to do what’s best for the United States—which will include ad hoc purpose-designed coalitions, but very few hard treaties.

Putting our nation first—which is not putting our nation alone, as a mendacious press and today’s crop of Progressive-Democrats claim—simplifies Mr Mead’s problem.

Europe Objects

Posted on by
Reply

The US will allow to expire/revoke sanction waivers associated with the failed Iran nuclear weapons development Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action treaty. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, the nations whose businesses will be most affected, are unhappy. The projects in which these nations’ companies are engaged, they claim,

serve the nonproliferation interests of all and provide the international community with assurances of the exclusively peaceful and safe nature of Iranian nuclear activities[.]

What these nations must answer, though, which they’ve been at pains to not answer since the 2015 agreement’s inception, is the manner in which Iran’s nuclear “activities” are peaceful and safe when the Iranian government has said all along that Israel must be destroyed—and its nuclear weapons program would provide significant weaponry for that goal.

What these nations must answer, and which they’ve also been at pains to avoid, is how peaceful and safe Iran’s nuclear weapons program will be after the JCPOA expires in a few short years, and all fetters disappear.

Long Overdue

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China has been able to raise billions of dollars for its various business outlets by listing them on American stock exchanges—all while being exempt from the same public visibility and auditing requirements that other nations’ companies and our domestic ones must satisfy on our exchanges.

Maybe that’s changing.

Legislation passed by the Senate—and now introduced in the House—would kick Chinese companies off US stock exchanges unless their audits are inspected by US regulators.

And

The Senate legislation requires the Chinese companies with shares traded here to disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission whether they are owned or controlled by state authorities.

This, though, would mean that all of them would have to admit disclose that they are controlled by state authorities. A 2017 intelligence law enacted by the PRC government requires all PRC companies to “cooperate” with intelligence requests of agencies of that government.

Now we have:

China says sharing audit work papers would violate its sovereignty and risk leaking state secrets.

There’s an effect of that 2017 law.

Michaels and Otani, at the first link, think that

economic tension between the two global superpowers, amplified by political outrage in the US over China’s role in the spread of the new coronavirus

are pushing this new emphasis. Emphasis maybe, but neither the economic war (now relabeled Cold War by the PRC) that the PRC has been inflicting on us for years nor the current Wuhan Virus situation and the PRC’s perfidy in the virus’ spread have anything to do with the substance of this. The secretiveness of the PRC’s outlets listed on our exchanges has been extant since they first were listed, and that’s what needs correction.

It’s enough that we gave the PRC Most Favored Nation status (mistakenly, in 20-20 hindsight). There’s nothing that warrants PRC companies on our exchanges being treated any differently than any other company—domestic or foreign—on our exchanges.

PRC companies need, badly, to be audited, and tossed from our exchanges at the slightest hesitation to be audited and for the same violations, should they be audited and any violations found, as any other company whose violations warrant expulsion.

This is especially important given that the PRC isn’t just any foreign nation; it’s an enemy of the United States. American dollars shouldn’t be involved in funding PRC companies.