Tag Archives: foreign policy

Free Trade in North America

Posted on by
Reply

With a Mexico-US trade agreement in nominally in hand (our two nations’ legislatures have ratify it, and our own Progressive-Democrats in the Senate are already saying #NO, #RESIST, and too many Republicans are acquiescing, though), Mexico wants Canada to join the agreement.  Mexico’s President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador, after speaking with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

There is still time to achieve a trilateral agreement[.]

And

We hope they reach that understanding so that it will be a trilateral agreement.

Certainly, Canada’s joining an agreement would be good, but first the Canadians have to get serious in their negotiations.  President Donald Trump already has offered a tariff-free régime, and Canada won’t even discuss it.  Trudeau and his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Christia Freeland, steadfastly are demanding their protectionist tariffs—dairy, for instance—remain in place.

Update: They’re in. Now it’s necessary to convince Progressive-Democrat and self-serving Republicans in the Senate to ratify the deal.

It’s a Start

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has agreed to sell $330 million worth of spare parts to the Republic of China.  The spares will support the RoC’s F-16s, C-130s, and other of the island nation’s military aircraft.

It’s a start.  However, we need to do more.  We should be selling uprated F1-16s, F-15s, and A-10s to them.  We should be selling missile defense systems to them and brokering deals between the RoC and Israel for the latter’s Iron Dome and Arrow missile and rocket defense systems.  We should be selling the RoC anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons systems.  We should be selling them land-attack cruise missile systems.

We should be selling the RoC the training necessary to maintain and operate those systems.

We should be helping the RoC defend itself against an increasingly aggressive and acquisitive People’s Republic of China.

Talks and Conflicts

Posted on by
Reply

The Saturday Wall Street Journal had a piece that worried about President Donald Trump’s decision to add more tariffs to People’s Republic of China’s goods just prior to another round of trade talks with the PRC.

[T]he decision’s timing risks deepening the already bitter trade fight by starting another tit-for-tat round of tariffs.

And

The tariffs are bound to complicate—if not derail—talks with top Chinese officials, which are currently scheduled in Washington for Sept 27 and Sept 28, say people familiar with the plans.

Another interpretation, carefully ignored by the authors, is that in any conflict, it’s necessary to keep pressure on the opposing side while negotiations occur.  The battlefield shapes the talks, and the talks shape the battlefield–the battlefield encompasses both the talks and the conflict.

Mao and Xi

Posted on by
Reply

Deutsche Welle reported on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s visit last Friday with People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang in the PRC.  A couple of things jumped out at me that are separate from the emphasis the article put on the visit and the aid the PRC has promised Maduro.  Maduro tweeted

We began our state visit to the People’s Republic of China, paying tribute to its founder, the Great Helmsman, Mao Tse Tung.  His example and revolutionary struggle marked the twentieth century.

That was in connection with this:

At the start of his state visit, Maduro bowed three times to honor Chairman Mao in Tiananmen Square.

Xi happily went along with that.  He is, indeed, bringing back Mao’s policies and ruling techniques.

“Some Feel It’s About Time for a US Retreat”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the title of Friday’s Wall Street Journal Letters column.  One letter argues that point in particular.  The letter writer is mostly wrong, but his is right on one matter.

Who does he think will fill in behind us if we retreat?  It won’t be our friends; that should be clear.

On the other hand, he argued

The USSR no longer exists and China has emerged as our chief rival. The only thing that has remained constant is America’s footing the greater part of the bill for military defense, while nations we protect continue to grow rich at our expense.
The nations of the world that we are supposed to protect are going their own way, while we continue to spend and spend in the name of preserving an alliance that is no longer even necessary.

The USSR no longer exists, but Russia does, and it’s as much a threat to us and to those it’s in our national interest to support and protect as is the People’s Republic of China.  Many of the nations we are protecting are going their own way, it’s true enough: too many of the western European members of NATO don’t feel the need to contribute to NATO’s costs or equipment and manpower suites for their own mutual defense.  However, other members, and many eastern European nations who aren’t NATO members (but are ex-Soviet occupied nations), do feel the threat and are willing to contribute to their mutual defense.

The letter writer also is right on this: we should consider reducing our effort and spending regarding those western European nations that don’t care.

We then should redirect those resources to working with the other nations who do care.  If that takes a (major) revamp of NATO or a new mutual defense arrangement that’s centered on those other nations, then so be it.