Tag Archives: foreign policy

A New US-RoK Alliance?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Michael O’Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution wants.  He thinks a continued, but greatly reduced alliance would be a useful tradeoff for northern Korea’s elimination of its nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons development program along with a reduction in its conventional military forces.  Aside from the utter naivete of the suggestion that northern Korea would reduce its conventional capability along with giving up its nuclear capability—or especially in light of that cessation—one comment at the end of his piece really illustrates the naivete of his idea.

The heavy Army brigade now in Korea might be transformed into a light brigade, better suited for peacekeeping missions.

Peacekeeping missions are wholly incapable of keeping the peace unless they’re fully capable of fighting.  Unfortunately, peacekeeping missions are incapable of fighting a serious enemy (and police forces are better suited for dealing with unserious enemies—criminals).  A light brigade on that peninsula would not be a peacekeeper, it would be a target.

Offensive, Is It?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that President Donald Trump has decided to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum on national security grounds, and that these tariffs impact Canadian (among other nations’) imports to the US.  Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finds it offensive that Trump considers Canada a security threat to the US.

Really, he said that.

No, what’s offensive is Trudeau’s cynical distortion of the purpose of those tariffs.  The national security threat for us is our inability to produce our own steel and aluminum, not the steel and aluminum we might import.  Whether tariffs are the best way to encourage recovery of that ability can be debated, but it’s clearly self-sufficiency that’s our concern, not imports per se.

Trudeau is young, and he has much to learn.  But he knows this much full well.

An Argument

Posted on by
Reply

…for leaving the European Union altogether.

By openly invoking the role of investors, financial markets and the defense of the eurozone in his speech on Sunday, the president [Italian President Sergio Mattarella] lends credence to the populist argument that Italy has become the battleground in a war between the international establishment and national democracies. Even if populists win the elections, their supporters believe, they will never be allowed to hold power for fear that they would oppose the dogma that dominates the eurozone.

That speech was his rationalization for his decision to block the coalition of the two parties who one the last national elections from forming a government.  With that speech, he demonstrated the fact of the Italian peoples’ belief.

And this from European Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources Günther Oettinger:

…markets will teach Italians how to vote….

And German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s

comparison between Italy and Greece is an unveiled threat: Italians had better toe the line, or they will not be spared what the Greeks have been going through.

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors have this one right.

[W]hat is happening in Rome is not only about the future of the euro. It has also to do with the state of democracy, in Italy and in Europe. Discussing and questioning the governance of the eurozone, as the Italian right-left populist coalition wished to do, should not be a taboo in mature democracies.

But national sovereignty be damned, and to hell with democracy and what petty voters want.  That’s the elitist EU attitude.  The worthies of EU governance Know Better.

This is what the Italian people need to think very seriously about in the coming national elections.

Australian Trade with the PRC

Posted on by
Reply

Australia is finding much of its exports to the People’s Republic of China piling up in PRC ports (Australian wine is the proximate subject of the WSJ piece at the link)—not because the customers no longer want them but because the PRC government objects to Australian policies designed to limit PRC meddling in Australian domestic affairs.

From that, there’s this remark by Rob Taylor, the piece’s author:

Australia faces an awkward diplomatic balancing act in trying to address concerns about political interference while relying heavily on China for its economic well-being.

Stop being dependent on the PRC for trade. It’s as dangerous to be dependent on a single trading partner as it is for a business, or a nation, to be dependent on a single product.

There are lots of other markets around the world—and throughout Asia—for Australian goods and services. It’ll be expensive for Australia to wean itself off the PRC, but the payoff will be well worth it.

Other nations doing business with the PRC should consider the same weaning. After all, what’s the value of a large potential customer base when its government uses that connection for an economic Anschluss?

The Libya Model and the NLMSM

Posted on by
Reply

Much has been made of National Security Advisor John Bolton’s remark that the “Libya Model” would make a good example for handling northern Korea’s nuclear weapons and its nuclear weapons development program.  That todo is centered on what the NLMSM is pleased to describe as the “Libya Model.”  Deutsche Welle‘s characterization is typical:

…North Korea could end up like Libya, which found itself in a civil war and its leader killed after giving up its nuclear weapons.

That’s not the Libya Model; it’s a deliberate conflation of two separate events.  The Libya Model is this.  Libya under Muammar Gaddafi had been subject to economic and political sanction as a result of its complicity in a number of terrorist acts for some years.  The US’ burning Saddam Hussein’s evil government in early 2003 was the final straw: in late 2003, Gaddafi agreed to give up his nuclear weapons program, and international facilities shortly after the agreement dismantled and removed all traces of it.  Libya lived peacefully with its neighbors in the ensuing years, and the incidence of its participation in terrorist activities fell off sharply, even if Gaddafi did continue to sorely abuse his own people.

Fully eight years later, an entirely separate event occurred.  As part of the Arab Spring of 2011, the Libyan people revolted against Gaddafi’s thuggish rule, and with the active support of European air power and American refueling aircraft and ordnance resupply (the European nations quickly ran out of bombs—literally—and had to be resupplied by us; those same nations also had no air refueling tankers of their own; two examples of a level of preparation that might sound familiar today), they succeeded in overthrowing the Gaddafi regime.

These cynical misrepresentations by the NLMSM do not help in dealing with rogue gangs like northern Korea’s rulers.