Tag Archives: foreign policy

Threats

Posted on by
Reply

The German government now is stooping to naked threats in an effort to keep President Donald Trump from not renewing certification of Iran’s compliance with ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) Executive Agreement with Iran on the latter’s nuclear weapons program.

The threat begins with the distortion that decertification constitutes withdrawal from the EA—of course it does not, and the members of the German government know that full well.  The threat, though, is made naked by German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel:

It’s imperative that Europe sticks together on this issue.  We also have to tell the Americans that their behavior on the Iran issue will drive us Europeans into a common position with Russia and China against the USA.

If we don’t coddle an enemy, Germany will side with other enemies of ours.

Some friend.  In the event, the denial of certification went through, anyway.

And there is no withdrawal from the JCPOA; although Trump did remind folks that he had the authority to do so, and he warned that if Congress didn’t act, he would.

Doha and the Taliban

Posted on by
Reply

An internal “dissent channel cable” that objects to State Department consideration of closing the Doha, Qatar, office through which supposed negotiations with the Taliban have been conducted has been leaked to the NLMSM by “current and former US officials.”

According to the dissenters, it would be a mistake to close off this diplomatic channel, as it would signal our disdain for negotiation with the Taliban.  These worthies also express disdain for National Security Adviser LtGen HR McMaster’s support for a “fight, then talk” process aimed at producing incentives for the Taliban to negotiate seriously.

There are a couple points to be made about the cable and its dissenters that go directly to the credibility of the dissenters.

The leak of this internal document is an example of the dishonesty of the Obama holdovers and ex-holdovers who are the “current and former US officials” who leaked it.

The wish to keep open the Doha office, which has produced exactly zero results over the years, is an example of those persons’ incompetence.

There are lots of channels for diplomacy available; when the Taliban get serious about wanting peace and Afghan safety, they know how to contact us.  Ideally, battlefield results from fighting first and talking afterward will produce that seriousness.  That part remains to be seen, but it has nothing to do with the utility of maintaining a failed chat room.

The PRC and Northern Korea

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China says it has ordered businesses doing business with northern Korean entities or individuals must shut down within 120 days.

This would be cool, if it happens.  The PRC has said it would enforce other sanctions, also, and then only paid lip service to enforcement while engaging in business largely as usual with the north.

Believe it when you see it actually happen.  If it does happen, believe the durability of PRC enforcement when it actually lasts.

A Clear Statement of Intent

Posted on by
Reply

Ri Yong Ho, northern Korea’s Foreign Minister and spokesman for Baby Kim, appears to have let the cat out of the bag.  Responding to President Donald Trump’s series of remarks about northern Korea and Baby Kim during the week, Ri said

He [Trump] committed an irreversible mistake of making our rockets’ visit to the entire US mainland inevitable all the more[.]

Notice that.  Ri isn’t only responding to Trump’s current position.  All the more is the key phrase here.  Northern Korea’s intent all along, its motivation for developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems, has been to attack us; otherwise, there is nothing than which to be all the more.

Just like Iran vis-à-vis Israel.

Hacking

Posted on by
Reply

Germany has been struck by a wave of hackers from the People’s Republic of China as the PRC moves to steal from cutting-edge manufacturers.

The German government

is now moving to shield companies from state-backed hackers and criminal gangs, offering to pay to harden the defenses of Germany’s most vulnerable firms.

This is a start, but it’s insufficient.

Hacks like this, originating as they do from a fundamentally autocratic nation, can only be taken as state-sanctioned, if not outright -directed, as such they are overt acts of aggression, and so they require commensurately serious responses.

Germany—and the US where we’re hacked against—need to engage in sterner, more concrete responses to the PRC’s hacks.  Such responses should include sanctions against PRC companies in the same or similar industries as the hacked companies that range from punitive tariffs to barring those companies from doing business in Germany or the US to blocking their access to deutschmarks and dollars.  Further responses should include cyber attacks against PRC companies in the same or similar industries as the hacked companies with goals ranging from temporarily blocking their operations to permanently damaging them.