Tag Archives: foreign policy

Bluster?

Posted on by
Reply

Or moral equivalence sewage? Of course, the two aren’t mutually exclusive….

…Secretary of State John Kerry called Thursday for all claimants to disputed territories in the South China to Sea immediately halt provocative activities that have ratcheted up tensions in some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. He also said the United States would not accept restrictions on navigation or overflights of the disputed territories

In remarks to East Asian officials in Malaysia, Kerry proposed a joint commitment from all involved….

Because the nations defending themselves and their territories from PRC aggression are being every bit as provocative as the PRC.

Too, what action does Kerry propose if the PRC doesn’t go along with this?

Anybody? Bueller?

Mindset Matters

Posted on by
Reply

David Brooks had an interesting piece in Friday’s New York Times concerning our defeat at the “negotiating” table with Iran regarding the latter’s nuclear weapons program. RTWT, but a couple of comments of his really jumped out at me as he explored how this administration’s failure came about.

The big question is, Why did we lose? Why did the combined powers of the Western world lose to a ragtag regime with a crippled economy and without much popular support?

The first big answer is that the Iranians just wanted victory more than we did. They were willing to withstand the kind of punishment we were prepared to mete out.

Further, the Iranians were confident in their power, while the Obama administration emphasized the limits of America’s ability to influence other nations.

As an aside, I say “this administration’s failure” when it was the “combined powers of the Western world” because we’re the big dog in that pack, or we used to be, and on top of that, French dissatisfaction with the way things were going was palpable. Had we actually been interested in a serious outcome, they could have brought the Germans along, and that would have left the Russians and Chinese having either to admit that they wanted a nuclear-armed Iran or to go along with us.

More important, though, is that mindset. President Barack Obama and his motorboat skipper SecState didn’t want to mete out sufficient pain to force Iran’s acquiescence to our nominal going-in position because those two gentlemen didn’t think that was an appropriate use of our ability to influence other nations. Even terrorist supporting rogue nations.

All He’s Got

Posted on by
Reply

…to defend his nuclear weapons deal is ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him. That’s President Barack Obama’s abject confession that he knows it’s a bad deal.

Republican opposition as “knee-jerk partisanship….”

And

It’s those hardliners chanting “death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus[.]

And

…critics of the deal, who he said were “selling a fantasy” to the American people.

Hmm….

An Acceptable Conclusion

Posted on by
2

Pavlo Klimkin, Ukrainian Foreign Minister acknowledged over the weekend that Russian forces are in control of his country’s oblasts, Donetsk and Luhansk.

He also said that it’s time for Russia begin

“real negotiations” about a cease-fire and stabilization in Ukraine’s war-torn east which will require fair elections that are intentionally monitored.

He’s right. But that would require Vladimir Putin first to stop lying about Russia’s behavior toward Ukraine. In the end, too, an acceptable conclusion to Russia’s invasion, IMNSHO, would be Russian withdrawal from eastern Ukraine and the end of their occupation of Crimea.

Equilibrium

Posted on by
Reply

Tony Badran has an interesting piece in Real Clear World that talks about President Barack Obama’s dream of a Middle East equilibrium:

Obama wants to integrate Iran into a regional concert system presumably based on “equilibrium.”

The first step of this involves Syria. As Obama said at his news conference announcing conclusion of his deal with Iran concerning the latter’s nuclear weapons program,

We’re not going to solve the problems of Syria unless there’s buy-in from the Russians, the Iranians, the Turks, our Gulf partners…. Iran is one of those players, and I think that it’s important for them to be part of that conversation.

Badran went on:

Obama’s core conceit is his roundtable approach to the region; a new regional equilibrium between the major players whose legitimate stakes should be preserved.

But there’s a larger concern here, that’s outside the scope of Badran’s piece. That concern is the breadth of the “region,” and who the players are in Obama’s ultimate region.

Consider, for instance, Obama’s emphasis on the UN’s interests above our nation’s interests.

He’s put Russian concerns regarding Ukraine, Iran, Syria, the Baltics, and so on ahead of our particular concerns and those of key allies like Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine, and Israel.

He’s put the People’s Republic of China’s interests concerning trade with the PRC and the East and South China Seas ahead of our particular concerns and those of key allies like Japan, Australia, the Philippines and potential allies like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Borneo.

I’ve singled out Obama’s emphasis on the UN in this on purpose. Russia and the PRC sit with us on the UN’s Security Council and each has veto power over initiatives we might bring to the Council in Obama’s comity of that roundtable.

Is the US at the center of Obama’s ultimate region within which “equilibrium” must be reached, rather than American national interests satisfied?