Tag Archives: foreign policy

Security Guarantees

Posted on by
Reply

Several Arab states, members of the Gulf Security Council, are looking for

major new weapons systems and security guarantees from the White House in exchange for backing a nuclear agreement with Iran, according to US and Arab officials.

There are a lot of valid arguments on both sides of that question in The Wall Street Journal article at the link (RTWT), but one thing jumps out at me, and it wasn’t addressed in the article.

Suppose the GSC nations get those security guarantees and promises of delivery of those weapons systems. On what basis do they think this administration would deliver on those commitments?

This administration pulled the rug out from under Poland and Czech Republic on missile defense systems. This administration pulled the rug out from under Ukraine, refusing to send them the equipment they need to defend themselves. This administration refused to take meaningful action against the Assad régime in Syria after painting a bright red line around the use of chemical weapons. This administration pulled the rug out from under Israel in the PA’s terror war against Israel just last summer. This administration currently is pulling the rug out from under Israel in agreeing to a framework that lets Iran obtain nuclear weapons.

A commitment to those Arab nations regarding security and weapons would be just another line this administration would shy away from in the moment of truth.

Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

Or something. President Barack Obama, through his Press Secretary Josh Earnest, says that helping with a ransom payment isn’t paying ransom.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the FBI helped the family of Warren Weinstein make a ransom payment to his al-Qaeda captors by vetting a Pakistani middleman who helped deliver the money.

Here’s Obama, through Earnest:

Speaking generally, helping with a ransom payment…is not tantamount to paying a ransom….

Yeah. And my grandson isn’t pulling the cat’s tail; he’s just holding on. The cat is doing the pulling.

Another Necessary “Letter”

Posted on by
Reply

There is a bill beginning its long journey through the House that instructs DoD to deploy within two years (which is “promptly” as such things— both legislative and arms—go) systems capable of handling Russian cruise missiles and other weapons systems that Russia has been developing in direct violation of the decades old Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

The House Armed Services Committee attached this to the 2016 defense authorization bill. This legislation is significant enough in its own right, but the motivation behind it is interesting for another reason, too.

Here’s Congressman Mike Rogers (R, AL), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee:

For years, we’ve been urging the Obama administration to get serious about Russia’s violation of the INF treaty.

Its response: we’re talking to Russia. While Obama talks, Putin cheats on treaties and invades his neighbors. We must take Russia’s actions seriously, and this authorization of DOD funding does just that. The United States will not be unilaterally bound by any treaty.

Another group of Congressmen have recognized the need to talk directly to foreign governments, since this administration seems incapable of doing so in any serious manner.

Right

Posted on by
1

Sydney Seiler, Deputy DNI Mission Manager for North Korea and the US envoy to the six-nation talks on northern Korea’s nuclear weapons program, had some…advice…for that nation.

[He] said Tuesday that North Korea should learn from the emerging nuclear deal with Iran that Washington is willing to engage its adversaries if it has a “credible” partner to negotiate with.

It’s certainly true that northern Korea can be expected to learn from the emerging nuclear deal with Iran. They can see what can be had through negotiating with credulous partners.

Another parallel that northern Korea can surely recognize, according to Seiler; although not in the way he meant:

Seiler said there has been no sign in the last two years that Pyongyang is willing to de-nuclearize….

Indeed. Just as there’s been no sign in the last several years that Iran is willing to stop its nuclear weapons program before getting the bomb, also “despite sanctions and diplomatic isolation.”

Then Seiler, as is typical of this administration, exposed himself. Badly.

North Korea “may not have learned any lesson” from the Iran talks, and if it had, “we would perhaps [have] seen it earlier.”

No, northern Korea has learned one very valuable lesson from the Iran talks: stonewalling works. We’ll see in short order whether northern Korea learns the follow-on lesson: using Iran’s technique for handling credulity pays dividends.

It just doesn’t get any more feckless than this.

Protect People, Not Borders?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Maximilian Popp, over at Spiegel Online International, thinks. The caption of the lead image is this:

The mass deaths of refugees like those seen this weekend on the European Union’s external borders is not a consequence of politicians looking away. We are in fact causing the problem with our Fortress Europe policies.

The capsizing of a refugee boat with the loss of the lives of hundreds was not caused by European policies, whether national or European. Neither was the murder of seven Christians on another refugee boat by their Muslim fellow refugees. Those were caused by a boat captain’s error and by Muslim murderers.

Sure, to some extent, incidents like those beg the question. But Popp is presupposing the wrong problem.

The mass deaths of refugees at Europe’s external borders are no accidents—they are the direct result of European Union policies.

Why are these refugees flooding the Mediterranean, the land bridges into Europe, or flooding the US’ southern border? They think there’s a much better life to be had in Europe and in the US. It’s as simple as that. EU policies have nothing to do with that, except to the extent that EU policies create an economic, political, and social environment that makes it possible for a man to realize his and his family’s full potential, instead of being held back by the barbarism of the environments these folks are fleeing.

 

A nation must first exist, and then it must first protect its own people, must first secure its own people’s prosperity. It must protect its own borders. Only when a nation has secured itself can it have any means of helping refugees. If borders aren’t protected, and protected first, nations won’t exist, and so there will be no entity extant with the capacity to help refugees. Indeed, rather tautologically, there will be no refugees, only people roaming and searching. And no place for anyone to search for other than “not here.”

No nation has an obligation to let anyone in who demands it, or even who simply comes across its border, no more than does a homeowner have an obligation to allow anyone in through the door, or window, who wants it or succeeds in the penetration. Allowing such a thing would directly destroy the house, and the nation.

A nation, and the men who are that nation, have a Judeo-Christian obligation to help those less fortunate—refugees here—certainly. But that help is best done, not by encouraging the flood of refugees, but by helping them at their source: correcting the barbarism in their originating environment, helping the people of those nations develop—and implement—the policies that will foster an economic, political, and social environment that will allow them to prosper where they are.

Until that’s done, the flood of refugees will only continue, the prosperity of their target nations will be drained away, and there will be no means of helping them anywhere. After that’s done, even after a good start has been made, there still will be a flow of refugees, but it will a trickle easily managed by the receiving nations. And that trickle will have far fewer incidents of boat captain error or of refugee on refugee murder.