Tag Archives: foreign policy

The Cost of Schengen

Posted on by
Reply

The Schengen Agreement is a 1985 European Economic Community treaty, carried over into the European Union as the Schengen Convention, which essentially did away with border controls along the borders between participating nations. Today, those nations are the EU member nations. Schengen had, and continues to have, considerable economic benefits beginning with smoother, delay-free travel across borders for people, goods, and services; citizens of one nation being able to work in another nation; reduced costs of border policing; and on and on.

Given the explosion in refugees, and others, from the Middle East, those “refugees'” misbehaviors and outright criminality (see the rapes in Germany and Sweden), and other “refugees'” outright terrorism (see Paris), there now is a move to drastically modify or eliminate Schengen and reinstitute national border controls. Of course the EU leadership is objecting, and part of its objection is a claimed cost.

The French government’s economic planning agency, France Stratégie, estimated in a report released this week that the reintroduction of permanent border controls within the EU would cost the bloc €110 billion, and make the EU economy 0.8% smaller within a decade.

The cost to the EU may prove to be what France Stratégie estimates it will be. However, that’s the wrong measure and the wrong responsible body. It’s the individual nations that are at risk: it wasn’t French women being raped in Germany or Sweden, it wasn’t Italian citizens butchered by terrorists in Paris.

Neither is the EU as a whole doing anything—and it doesn’t intend to do anything beyond hectoring Turkey and Greece about their southward-facing borders—to protect the citizens of the member nations from the depredations and butcheries of the terrorists and thugs mixed in with the flood of refugees. The EU isn’t even prepared to help its member nations deal with the floods that have already arrived in those members.

The decision by particular nations to suspend (or, in extremity, to withdraw from) Schengen must be respected as those nations move to better safeguard their people. Moreover, the costs of doing so plainly are national costs, not EU costs.

[T]he Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) estimated that border controls would cost Germany €10 billion a year.

Perhaps it would be that much. However, this cost must be weighed against the cost of the damage done via insecure borders.

In the end, too, the putative EU costs aren’t worth the worry. A 0.8% move in the EU’s €14.3 trillion GDP “within a decade” is economic measurement noise.

Respect for Borders

Posted on by
Reply

In addition to what it is showing with its sea grab, the PRC is demonstrating it has no respect for land borders, either. The PRC is actively sending its government forces—non-military, so far—into other nations to kidnap persons there that the PRC wants and bringing them back within the PRC’s borders.

Among those who have disappeared or been repatriated amid President Xi Jinping’s growing crackdown on dissent, rights groups say, are five Hong Kong publishers of Chinese political gossip, including one who was in the territory and one in Thailand at the time. Others in Thailand include a journalist seeking refuge, two activists who were recognized as refugees by the United Nations, and dozens of Turkic Uighur minority members. Two in the group are European citizens.

Ultimately, the victim nations are going to have to start defending themselves against what is little distinguishable from PRC invasions, capture the invading forces, and either jail them for espionage or imprison them as POWs in the quiet war the PRC is inflicting on them.

This is another response to the vacuum President Barack Obama’s (D) retreat from the world has created.

More, Please

Posted on by
Reply

A US Navy destroyer sailed within 12 nautical miles or within the territorial waters of an island [Triton Island, part of the Paracel Islands] claimed by China in the South China Sea, in a sign of increasing tension in the region days after Secretary of State John Kerry visited Beijing attempting to settle long standing territorial disputes. Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims to the island as well.

One small correction: the destroyer, the USS Curtis Wilbur, did not sail within the territorial waters of the PRC, even though it sailed within 12 nm of Triton in the western part of the South China Sea, roughly 250 miles east of Vietnam. The Paracels are not the territory of the PRC; its claim is just part of its overall grab for the entire Sea.

That’s part of the reason such sails-by are necessary: to emphasize the illegitimacy of the PRC’s claim and of its attempts to occupy the islands. We need more of these sailings, and we need frequent flyovers, too. These are things, though, that the Obama administration is too timid to do, or is unable to understand the necessity of the doing, or both.

Captain Jeff Davis, speaking for the Pentagon (and so for President Barack Obama (D)):

This operation was about challenging excessive maritime claims that restrict the rights and freedoms of the United States and others, not about territorial claims to land features[.]

And

[Last] week in Beijing, Secretary Kerry refused to criticize his host publicly or accuse the Chinese of wrong doing in the South China Sea over the build-up of artificial islands worrying its neighbors in the region. …the United States “does not take sides on the sovereignty questions underlying the territorial disputes.”

This is what’s wrong. We should be challenging the PRC over its expansionist occupation. If we truly do not “take sides on the sovereignty questions,” then we really do need to challenge, explicitly, the PRC’s seizures; that’s the bare minimum necessary to preserve the balance among the competing claims over those islands, and of the Spratlys, and of the South China Sea as a whole, which the PRC has occupied (and of the East China Sea, which the PRC also has moved to occupy).

The South China Sea and Chinas

Posted on by
Reply

Taiwan’s president, defying a rare criticism from key ally the United States, visited an island in the disputed South China Sea on Thursday to emphasize Taiwan’s sovereignty claims in the increasingly tense region.

A small correction: that’s the Republic of China, which sits on the island of Taiwan.

And good for President Ma Ying-jeou, who along with 30 staffers visited the island of Taiping in the Spratly Islands, a collection variously claimed by the RoC, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, and which lie within Brunei’s EEZ, but which has been seized and occupied by the People’s Republic of China.

Each of these nations and the United States should make more of this sort of visit, independently and together, to emphasize both their competing claims (which they’re willing and capable of settling among themselves, amicably) and the illegitimacy of the PRC occupation.

Lawlessness

Posted on by
Reply

The intelligence community has deemed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails “too damaging” to national security to release under any circumstances, according to a US government official close to the ongoing review. A second source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, backed up the finding.

But they weren’t too damaging for Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to bruit about via her unprotected email server: to pass along to staffers lacking the clearance to have access to this sort of information, to make available to the intelligence services of our enemies, or to make available to any hacker who might have taken a notion to go look at what Clinton had on her unsecured server.

Once again, whether the emails were marked classified is irrelevant. Classified data are classified by their existence and nature; markings do not classify anything, they only indicate data that are classified.

Once again, intent in the handling of classified data is irrelevant. Simply mishandling them is a felony.

Despite these plain facts, the Democratic Party continues to support Clinton for President, and it continues to deny the lawlessness of Clinton’s behavior and to minimize the damage to our country from her lawlessness.

This is the party that would rule us after the coming elections, if we’re not very careful.