Tag Archives: foreign policy

Welcome to the Bigs

Posted on by
Reply

…and to the way the People’s Republic of China treats its foes, Mr President,

Recall that the PRC was resoundingly crushed in a case brought by the Philippines concerning the PRC’s violations of Philippine waters in the South China Sea, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague having ruled, sharply, in favor of the Philippines on all but the most trivial of the charges.

Recall, also, that newly elected Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte had said—repeatedly—that he wanted bilateral talks with the PRC regarding the South China Sea and the items in dispute.

At a cabinet meeting in progress when word of the ruling arrived, one of Duterte’s Ministers said he’d had dinner the night before with the PRC’s ambassador, and that ambassador—before the ruling had been announced—had provided a list of things the PRC required Duterte to say and not say in any press release he might release about the then-forthcoming ruling.  Earlier that same day of the dinner, too, Duterte had met with that same ambassador to assure him that no embarrassing remarks would be forthcoming.  Duterte’s response to that list?

 Didn’t he trust what I told him?

Welcome, indeed, to the contempt with which the Center of Heaven views its foes.

Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal

Posted on by
Reply

In a document Iran submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran noted its ability to expand its nuclear enrichment program in just ten years—now nine, since the weapons deal is a year old—and get its nuclear weapons program back on schedule.

What’s interesting here is not the existence of that capability, everyone but President Barack Obama (D) and his Secretary of State John Kerry knew the agreement allowed it.  What’s interesting is that Iran is so open about their intent to do exactly that, and that Iran is so open with their contempt for the Obama administration.

The Iran Nuclear Weapons Agreement

Posted on by
Reply

…after a year.

Two days before the anniversary of the nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers, the Islamic Republic attempted to launch a new type of ballistic missile using North Korean technology, multiple intelligence officials tell Fox News.

That the launch failed is neither here nor there.  There are two far more important factors in play here, beyond the mish-mash of items in the Fox News piece.  One is the Iranian contempt for the agreement; for the Obama administration; and for Secretary of State John Kerry, who “negotiated” this agreement to allow Iran delayed access to nuclear weapons—a delay that Iran is studiously ignoring.

The other factor is that northern Korean technology that Iran is using in its new type of missile.  So much for the Obama administration’s lip service to stopping the northern Koreans from spreading nuclear weapons technology (although, in truth, this is a long-standing lip service failure; Obama is only the latest of the serial lip servers).

Leave it to Obama

Posted on by
Reply

…and his fellow Progressives, including his proud acolyte, Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The Obama administration is working on a series of agreements with foreign governments that would allow them for the first time to serve US technology companies with warrants for email searches and wiretaps—a move that is already stirring debates over privacy, security, crime and terrorism.

And

Under the proposed agreements described by Mr [Brad, Deputy Assistant Attorney General] Wiegmann, foreign investigators would be able to serve a warrant directly on a U.S. firm to see a suspect’s stored emails or intercept their messages in real time….

Because American sovereignty inside our own nation just doesn’t matter.

Elections have consequences.

Why is this even a Question?

Posted on by
Reply

Republicans officially petitioned the administration Thursday to deny Hillary Clinton access to secret information as Democrats’ presidential nominee, and some GOP lawmakers said if the intelligence community won’t do it, they’ll pass a bill to do it themselves.

Oh, wait—it’s a question because

The White House has said it won’t deny Mrs Clinton access….

On the excuse of tradition, don’t you know.

Never mind the tradition, and the requirement in most serious security régimes—like in a government—of revoking existing security clearances and denying further access to those who’ve committed security violations as egregious as even FBI Director James Comey has documented Clinton having done.

Some rules, some traditions, just don’t apply.  Not when they’re inconvenient.