Tag Archives: foreign policy

Partition

Posted on by
Reply

Has President Barack Obama acquiesced in the partition of Ukraine?

At the G-7 meeting last Sunday, Obama appears to have written off the concept of restoring occupied Crimea to Ukraine.

[Obama’s Press Secretary Josh] Earnest said whether to keep or impose additional economic sanctions against Russia will depend on whether the country decides to keep its end of the so-called Minsk agreement, updated after Moscow annexed Crimea last year, not whether it returns the peninsula.

With Earnest’s voice, Obama talked also about the need for the G-7 to

show unity in confronting Russia over actions in Ukraine.

Meaning Obama wants everyone to stand together and in unison shake their fingers very firmly at Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Will Obama acquiesce to the further partition of Ukraine and allow Russia to keep the eastern provinces currently occupied by Russian forces and paramilitary forces?

Great Britain and its EU Referendum

Posted on by
Reply

Chris Deerin, writing for CapX, has an article titled England will be torn apart by the EU referendum. The setup is this: Prime Minister David Cameron promised a few years ago that were he reelected Prime Minister (i.e., were his party reelected to sufficient strength that it could at least form a coalition government and he selected Prime Minister), he’d hold a Great Britain-wide referendum by the end of 2017 on whether Great Britain should leave the European Union. In the event, Cameron’s party was reelected to an outright majority, he was selected to be Prime Minister, and he’s moving to keep his promise: Great Britain will hold the promised referendum by the promised deadline.

Deerin is concerned, as you might discern from his article’s title. Actually holding the referendum, he fears, will mean the end of Great Britain regardless of the outcome.

Below is a letter I wrote to CapX demurring from Deerin’s position.

I don’t share your concern for a couple of reasons. In no particular order: what the pols in London think isn’t particularly relevant (Cameron has no plan, by the way? Not so much: he made a promise, and he intends to keep it; that his party has changed, or is changing, its collective mind isn’t important to honoring a commitment.) The question is for individual Brits: how do they see themselves? Your existential question, indeed: who are they?

Second, say the referendum does rend Great Britain. That works out to Scottish independence, no small matter to a significant per centage of Scots.

Third, consider the alternative: no referendum, and Great Britain stays in the EU. Our own John Jay expressed concern during the ratification debates that were our Constitution accepted as it was written, the States would bear the same relationship to the central government that counties have to a State: just political subdivisions that exist solely to ease the carrying out of the State’s decisions. That’ll be the fate of Great Britain if there’s no referendum or if the referendum supports staying in the EU.

Finally, dissolution: the recently completed referendum on Scottish departure from the Union was most enthusiastically argued. There is considerable angst among those whose position was voted down. They’re recovering, and the Union remains sound.

So it will be with Great Britain following the larger referendum, regardless of its outcome. Except that voting to leave will be a stout blow for British liberty.

Eric Hines

A New World “Order?”

Posted on by
Reply

This still is President Barack Obama’s problem, and it seems to be Hillary Clinton’s as well.

The causes of war as discerned ever since Thucydides’ time are three: wars of ideology, of fear, and of gain.
…
Thucydides traced the war that ruined ancient Greece to Sparta’s fear that Athens’ growing power was crossing the line where it would be impossible to contain. Israel faces that threat from Iran, as today’s international structures for the maintenance of international security have failed to halt Iran’s drive, propelled by religious ideology, to possess nuclear weapons. Israel, bereft of its traditional sense of American support, is making ready to act against Iran’s menace to its existence. President Obama’s priority must [be to] repair relations with Israel by…convincing its leaders that the US understands Israel’s uniquely dangerous position.

And there now grows a deepening appetite for gain. America, perceived as eager to shed the burdens of world order in order to be “fundamentally transformed” through European-style social commitments, talks of engagement even when Iran’s “diplomacy” is a form of protracted warfare.

Three years later, we’re nearly at that end, and still with no serious effort by Obama—or Clinton—to repair relations.

Containing Iran

Posted on by
Reply

This actually came up three years ago, in Jay Solomon’s piece in The Wall Street Journal, but dismayingly, it’s even more urgent now, not less so.

United Nations inspectors reported the discovery of traces of uranium enriched to higher purity levels than previously found at a fortified nuclear-fuel facility in Iran….

And

Nuclear experts say the enrichment process snowballs, meaning the most extensive technical work is required in the earlier stages—moving to 20% purity from 3.5% levels. Uranium enriched to 27% is considered highly enriched.

If President Barack Obama can’t contain a non-nuclear Iran, and prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, how does he expect to contain a nuclear Iran?

Oil and Pricing

Posted on by
Reply

From a recent Wall Street Journal article:

“If OPEC or Saudi Arabia or anyone else wants to call” the US to curtail production, “there is no one to call,” said Amos Hochstein, coordinator for international energy affairs at the US State Department, in May. “You will have to call 4,000 companies operating in the United States as producers. For the first time, there is an element of real free market.”

Indeed. It’s about time, too. Now all we have to do is get rid of the export limits.