Tag Archives: foreign policy

Speedy Trial

Posted on by
Reply

As I write this on Tuesday, the question of bail for Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou remains unsettled.  The problem centers on a couple of things.  One is her husband’s offer to be responsible for Meng, guaranteeing her appearance at all court proceedings.  The presiding judge, Justice William Ehrcke, is having trouble believing that offer, even were it sincere.  Meng’s husband, Liu Xiaozong, is not a Canadian citizen, Meng’s lawyer had no information on any other immigration status for Liu, and Ehrcke expressed doubt over his ability to control Liu’s whereabouts—and so of Meng’s whereabouts.

Another concern is Meng’s health, of which she claims several problems and the impact being incarcerated in a jail cell would have on them.

A third is the People’s Republic of China’s naked threat of “severe consequences” for Canada if it doesn’t release Meng forthwith.

In reverse order: the People’s Republic of China’s threats a should make it impossible for Canada to do anything other than deny bail and promptly extradite Meng to the US.

While the extradition question is being decided, in satisfaction of Meng’s health concerns, hold her in a prison hospital where she can get the care and medications she says she needs rather than a cell.

Finally, speedily extradite Meng, and get her out of Canada’s hair and into US custody—it’s our laws she’s alleged to have violated.  Then let’s have a speedy trial and a prompt acquittal if her behavior turns out to have been legal, or a speedy conviction and sentence execution if not.

Unfortunately, Ehrcke has decided to grant bail to Meng.  It’ll be instructive to see how long Meng remains in Canada.

Brexit Botch

Posted on by
Reply

British Prime Minister Theresa May yesterday pulled today’s planned Parliament vote on her Brexit deal with Brussels when it became clear that not even her fellow Tories supported the deal in sufficient numbers to pass.  What’s more, she’s not suggested a new date for the vote, even though something is required to be presented to Parliament by 21 Jan 2019.

The deal as it stands is a terrible one, worse IMNSHO than a plain, unadorned breakout from the European Union.  It represented May’s meek submission to Brussels on nearly every one of their demands—including functional retention of EU immigration “rights” and EU court rulings within what used to be sovereign Great Britain for several years after the British nominal departure.

Nevertheless, May’s failure before Parliament represents further damage to Great Britain.

And this:

[May] will tour European capitals and then go back to Brussels to try to secure sweeteners that might buy off huge opposition to the package.
She insisted her blueprint was still the “best deal negotiable”, and said she still planned to put it to a vote once “reassurances” had been secured on the Irish border backstop.

Never mind that the Brussels “negotiators” have already said the present deal is a done deal and there will be no further negotiations on the matter.  There can be no sweeteners, as a result, nor can there be any reassurances: in particular, Brussels has already given all the assurances on the Irish border matter that they intend to putter around with.

Stand by for further May surrender to Brussels.

Bring It

Posted on by
Reply

With President Donald Trump’s formal notice to Russia that the US will pull out of the Treaty on Intermediate-range Nuclear Force, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened an arms race.

Our American partners apparently believe that the situation has changed to such an extent that the US should have such weapons.
What answer will they have from our side? It’s simple: we’ll do it too.

In addition to that,

The head of the Russian armed forces warned that if the deal collapses, the targets of subsequent military exchanges would be US missile sites hosted by allies within striking distance of Russia rather than American soil.

Well, of course they will.  That’s what they’ve been threatening for some time with their deployment of tactical nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad, their redeployment of their tactical nuclear forces toward their western border—and their development and testing of the treaty-prohibited IRBMs.

If Putin wants an arms race, let him bring it. The last one these guys had with us didn’t end well for them, and Russia’s economy is in worse shape than was the Soviet Union’s.

Brussels Interferes Again

Posted on by
Reply

Now the European Court of Justice has decided to weigh in on Brexit.

The European Court of Justice’s opinion, which requires confirmation in a final court ruling, says the U.K. can unilaterally stop the process of leaving the EU, something that Brussels and the U.K. government had sought to oppose. A final ruling is expected within the next few weeks.

This is yet another cynical effort by Brussels to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation, this time compounded by Brussels’ insistence on punishing the Brits for their impertinence.

Were this a serious, honest move, they would have issued this opinion two years ago, at the outset of the sham negotiations.

Macron and Nationalism

Posted on by
Reply

French President Emmanuel Macron decries nationalism when he’s taking his swipes at President Donald Trump.  But he’s only showing his nationalistic, cynical hypocrisy when he does that.

As The Wall Street Journal has noticed,

[T]he French are nationalist to the core. Ask the European parliamentarians and their staffers who must make the expensive, time-consuming, carbon-emitting trip from Brussels to Strasbourg once a month to maintain the absurd fiction that French Strasbourg is the home of the European Parliament. Ask any European negotiator who has tried to prune back the Common Agricultural Policy, a giant boondoggle under which France is the largest recipient of funds. Ask any Italian diplomat about French policies in Libya. Ask any American negotiator about France’s approach to trade.

And this from Germany’s Finance Minister and Vice-Chancellor, Olaf Scholz on 28 November.

Here is my proposal: In the medium term, France’s seat on the Security Council could be converted into a seat for the EU. In return, France would then have the right to appoint the EU ambassador to the United Nations in perpetuity.

It really doesn’t get much more anti-nationalist than that, right?  Give up the nationalist seat in favor of a continental seat?

Macron and his anti-nationalist government demurred, the very next day.

When defending our national positions, we take all European positions into consideration. We actively participate, together with Germany and all other member states, in the coordination of the EU’s position.

Of course, you do.  So long, as it suits our national positions.

No, insists anti-nationalist Macron.  We’ll keep our French seat, thank you.