The Irrationality of the European Left

It’s epitomized by a carefully unsigned piece in Spiegel Online, coming only from “Der Spiegel Staff.”  After you’ve read it, you’ll see why the author(s) were too embarrassed to sign their names to it.

…Trump’s Tuesday announcement that the US was withdrawing from the nuclear agreement with Iran, one of the core pieces of international diplomacy in recent years….

Indeed it was.  And it was one of the core pieces of failure in international diplomacy.  Even the authors’ term “nuclear agreement” gives the game away.  All the JCPOA accomplished was the codifying of Iran’s right and ability to obtain nuclear weapons—the “agreement” expires, after all, in a few short years; even were Iran abiding by it, after that expiration, they would be free to develop nuclear weapons with no further hindering from the international community.  But we can’t even know Iran is abiding, since the “agreement” bars inspections, particularly of military bases, which is where weapons development occurs.  The only inspections the “agreement” allows is of sites for which Iran will give permission, and then only after the inspectors say “pretty please” some months in advance.

Oh, and we paid Iran the princely sum of $140 billion—in cash—for the privilege of being snookered by them.  American money, too, keep in mind.  France, Germany, and Great Britain paid not a cent or a pence into that fund.

The risk [from our withdrawal] is very real that the move will worsen tensions in an already unstable Middle East and lead to an American-led war against Iran.

The instability is Iran’s doing, and no one else’s.  See their recent unprovoked Quds Force attack on Israeli installations.  See their use of their militias inside Iraq to keep that nation unstable.  See their funneling of money and weapons to their client terrorist organization, Hezbollah.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was quick to threaten a return to industrial-scale uranium enrichment and few doubt that such an eventuality could lead to conflict.

We don’t know that Iran isn’t already enriching apace.  See “inspections” above.

An attack on the Iran deal is an attack on the pride of European foreign policy.

This is risible.  If Europe feels like its foreign policy is under attack, it’s only their hysteria getting in the way of their thinking.  They’re united in their insistence, in the present case, on staying in the Iran nuclear weapons deal—the anonymous authors of the piece at the link brag about that.

She [EU High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini] then appealed to Iran to continue to adhere to the deal. “Stay true to your commitments, as we will stay true to ours.”

This ignores a basic fact: Iran isn’t in the deal, and it has made no commitments regarding the deal.  Iran has not signed the JCPOA.

Trump has humiliated Europe to a greater degree than any US president before him. Macron fawned over him recently in the White House, Merkel swung by for a working lunch and British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson also made the trip across the Atlantic in an attempt to save the deal and somehow find some kind of a compromise.

Humiliated?  Because our government, after listening very carefully to these leaders, decided no to do what they instructed him to do or asked him to do?  This is precious snowflakery at its best.

In Aachen on Tuesday, Merkel essentially repeated the sentences she uttered last year during an appearance in Bavaria: “Europe can no longer rely on the US. It must take its fate into its own hands.”

Here is Merkel joining Mogherini in foolishness.  Europe has been freeloading off the US ever since its economic and political recovery from the ravages of Europe’s roll in the wars of the mid-20th century.  Ever since that time, Europe has been at least morally obligated to see to its own fate, and they’ve been shirking their duty.

The anonymous piece goes on in that vein, but you get the idea.

Europe must, indeed, see to its own future in accordance with its own imperatives.  We’re happy to help them, and we’re happy to contribute to the political, economic, and military defense of Europe.  But that’s not helped by, for instance, Germany’s toadying up to Putin in their snit over our withdrawal from a dangerously bad “deal.”

Dismantling?

Northern Korea has announced that it will dismantle “its nuclear test site” sometime between 23 and 25 May.  It’s one of several sites, though, not its only one.

Still, it’s a hopeful move, to be sure.

On the other hand, it also could be a disingenuous con job.  Northern Korea has lied before about dismantling its nuclear facilities; it also has dismantled and then rebuilt nuclear facilities.  In the present case, the facility Baby Kim is purporting to dismantle is the same site that People’s Republic of China researchers have indicated is already ruined by earthquakes and collapses from northern Korea’s latest nuclear bomb test.  That test generated an explosion far greater than the mountain under which the test occurred could handle.

We’ll see.

The JCPOA, Trump, Europe, and Progressive-Democrats

Most of you are aware that President Donald Trump has taken the steps required to withdraw from the Obama-Kerry-engineered arrangement whereby Iran would be delayed—maybe—from getting nuclear weapons instead of getting them sooner.  Among those steps are a 90-day window within which several existing business arrangements can be wound down before a set of sanctions gets reinstated and a 180-day window within which the rest of the business arrangements can be wound down before another, more stringent, set of sanctions gets reinstated, or added.

Now we have the European signatories, Great Britain, Germany, and France decrying the withdrawal and insisting that we should have stayed in the thing.  Never mind the evident weaknesses in the JCPOA (including in particular an inability to inspect thoroughly and on a no-notice basis, so we have no way of confirming that Iran is complying at all) and the additional factors of concern—that Iran is actively pursuing a missile delivery system for its nuclear weapons, actively funding its client terrorist entities around the Middle East, and directly fomenting unrest and open rebellion around the Middle East.

We should have been willing to renegotiate rather than withdraw.  This is disingenuous.  Great Britain, Germany, and France have had the 16 months since Trump’s inauguration to renegotiate; they’ve refuse to do so.  Even French President Emmanuel Macron, who claimed to be willing to renegotiate, turned out to be only talking; he made no concrete proposals.  Never mind that Iran has said it will not renegotiate.

Meanwhile, Great Britain, France, and Germany are conducting their separate negotiations with Iran.

Now we also have Progressive-Democrats decrying the withdrawal and insisting that the Trump administration should use those windows to conduct negotiations (with the Progressive-Democrats, too) with a view to improve the JCPOA and plug its weaknesses and address those additional factors of concern.  Never mind that Iran has said it will not renegotiate.

Never mind, either, that the Progressive-Democrats have already had those same 16 months in which to renegotiate, and they’ve refused to do so.  All these worthies have been willing to do is insist that the JCPOA be kept intact, until very lately—and even lately, on claiming that the thing’s weaknesses could be plugged, they’ve declined to offer any solutions, only to make demands to…talk.

Trump took a lot of heat for not acting immediately on his inauguration to keep his campaign promise to withdraw from the JCPOA.  Instead, he gave our European partners and our Progressive-Democrats those 16 months to negotiate and arrive at a better arrangement vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear weapons programs and its serial and concurrent misbehaviors.  They refused.

It’s no wonder that the United States had to act unilaterally, and that this administration has had to act in the face of active Progressive-Democrat obstruction.

National Sovereignty

The European Court of Justice has decided it is the arbiter of a nation’s borders and of entry permissions, and not the nation itself.

The court heard the cases of two men, one Afghan and one with Croatian and Bosnian citizenship, and ruled the severity of their crimes or alleged crimes and how long ago they took place need to be taken into consideration before an entry ban is permitted.

The ECJ ruled that, while an EU member can bar entry to such persons, it must satisfy the court that its rationale is good enough; it is no longer a matter of national sovereignty, and that member cannot simply say, “No entry.”  This is an assault on the sovereignty of nations; it takes away from the nation its right to determine for itself who will be allowed to enter.

It attacks the principle of sovereignty that no person has an inherent right to enter any nation other than his own without that nation’s prior permission, and it attacks the tightly associated principle of sovereignty that no nation has an inherent obligation to let any foreign person in.

The ECJ’s ruling attacks the principle of sovereignty that borders are the province of the sovereign nation and its sovereign neighbor and arrogates the meaning of borders to the court.

Aside from the sovereignty question, there’s also this.  It may be a good or a bad idea for a nation to bar entry to this or that individual or to bar this or that group of individuals.  It’s often a moral question, too.  But it’s not a question that’s within the purview of an international court.  Nor is the morality of the matter a question that’s within the purview of any court.  Acting on a moral question—the very definition of what is moral—is a political act and a political definition.  It cannot be a judicial one, it cannot be the decision of a few who are unaccountable to the nation’s people.  Not in any free society.

This last, especially, has implications for immigration cases currently before the Supreme Court or soon to be.  Will the Justices make the political determination of who is allowed into the United States—as far too many district and appellate judges have presumed to do—or will they leave the political decision properly in the hands of our nation’s political actors?

Selling Weapons to the Republic of China

Especially in the face of an aggressively acquisitive People’s Republic of China that’s busily trying to cow the Republic of China, The Wall Street Journal favors our selling the RoC updated F-16s.

Such a sale would be a good start, but it’s only that.

There’s no need to wait on international consensus regarding an F-35B sale to the Republic of China (a concern of the WSJ); we should consider moving unilaterally. Or selling an F-35C that isn’t part of any consortium. The People’s Republic of China already has the F-35 secrets, anyway, courtesy of the Obama administration’s decision to eschew IT security. ‘Course, I think the F-35 is a wasteful pig, and uprated F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s would be better buys.

Aside from that, though, we should be selling the RoC high and intermediate altitude missile defense systems and encouraging Israel to sell the RoC its Iron Dome and Arrow defense systems.

And we should resume active and frequent patrols of the Tawain Strait.

It’s time to stop treating the PRC with kid gloves.  It’s time, also, to stop ignoring the RoC’s needs as a sovereign nation.