Foreign Policy Update – USA Gov Policy

AFGHANISTAN

What is the State Department thinking?

There is no other way to begin this summary. When asked by a reporter what happens to Afghans who worked for America before the evacuation, but were unable to produce the documentation required to get into the US, the State Department spokesperson New Price, said “…we are confident that we have solutions….” When asked why Turkey is now the only place in the world, apparently, where an Afghan evacuee has been able to submit a P-2 application now that the Afghanistan embassy is closed, Price responded: “Now we are in a different position… When it comes to the capabilities, when it comes to the role of any particular country, we would need to refer you to that country.” When he was asked to name one country today that could process the visas the State Department Spokesperson could not name a single country in the entire world, even when specifically asked if Turkey still could process the visas.

Incredibly, when asked if after the Taliban takeover US foreign aid will continue to Afghanistan, Price said: “What we will be looking to when it comes to the issues that you’ve raised, including the potential for any forms of assistance, will be the actions, the actions of any new Afghan government.” He did not address the fact that there already are reports of Taliban killings, beatings, intimidation, women forced back into their homes, etc.

When a reporter mentioned that most of the foreign aid workers have left Afghanistan, Price said “We’re not going to speak to them, of course, for security reasons, but we are confident that there remain partners on the ground who are in a position to make good use of such aid for the benefit of the Afghan people.”

TURKEY-AFGHANISTAN

The Turkish government suggested to the US that private companies take care of security for the Karzai Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to one reporter. Price responded that the US and “It seems to be the case that the Taliban also want to see a functioning commercial airport in Kabul” so the US can begin sending humanitarian aid again and allow others to leave the country.

Overall, ED affects between 10 and 52 percent of learningworksca.org wholesale viagra cheap men. This therapy will repair buy cialis levitra the nerves and tissues due to excessive hand practice and ensures enhanced blood flow to the reproductive organs. But if you search everywhere for sexual benefits as firmer installations, higher libido, more sperm manufacture and etc., then the Volume Pill is a clear choice for you. view over here cialis 5 mg The ancient home ayurvedic remedies stated in the age old Rig Veda bring to light the exercise of natural cures from healing herbs buy viagra for women learningworksca.org since thousands of years.

The operational environment changed markedly at the end of August, according to Price. “It stood in the way of our ability to bring these individuals to safety before August 31^st. But I am telling you, we have told them that we have a commitment to these individuals. They have served the American people with their journalism, with their work. We absolutely do have a commitment to them. That is a broad statement of fact,” he stated. Price still was unable to explain how the US would rescue them.

CHINA

China has been operating in Afghanistan seeking its natural resources for over 10 years in an attempt to deny the US and other countries the rare earth elements (REE’s) needed in a modern economy. China, which controls over 95% of the world’s supply of processed REE’s, has its own global agenda in Afghanistan. When the State Department was asked about China’s role there, Price said: “So the PRC is an important regional stakeholder. There are certainly areas where our interests are aligned with the PRC when it comes to Afghanistan.” The main reason China seeks stability in the country is to avoid drug trafficker across the border into China. Price did not explain to reporters how our interests are aligned.

When asked about former Secretary of State John Kerry’s travel for meetings in China, Price said that “We are committed to working with the international community and with the PRC on climate as an urgent issue, and we certainly hope that Beijing will engage with us on the same basis on this issue… We have said that we will engage the PRC when it is in our interest to do so. Climate is manifestly one of those areas where it is in our interest to do so.”

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

AMERICA’S STRATEGIC POSTURE

The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States As 2023 drew to a close, the dramatically deteriorating national security picture for the United States and its allies prompted a review of “America’s Strategic Posture.” A committee chaired by Madelyn Creedon and Jon Kyl issued a sobering analysis. We present a summary of this vital analysis. The militarily troubling and increasingly aggressive behaviors of Russia and China over the past decade led Congress to direct a review of the strategic posture of the United States, including nuclear weapons policy, strategy, and force structure. China’s rapid military build-up, including the unprecedented growth of its nuclear forces, Russia’s diversification and expansion of its theater-based nuclear systems, the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent full-scale invasion in February 2022, have all fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape. As a result of China’s and Russia’s growing competition with the United States and its Allies and partners, and the increasing risk of military conflict with one or both, as well as concerns about whether the United States would be prepared to deter two nuclear peers, Congress determined it was time for a new look at U.S. strategic policy, strategy, and force structure. The new global environment is fundamentally different than anything experienced in the past, even in the darkest days of the Cold War. Today the United States is on the cusp of having not one, but two nuclear peer adversaries, each with ambitions to change the international status quo, by force, if necessary: a situation which the United States did not anticipate and for which it is not prepared. While the risk of a major nuclear conflict remains low, the risk of military conflict with either or both Russia and China, while not inevitable, has grown, and with it the risk of nuclear use, possibly against the U.S. homeland. The United States faces a strategic challenge requiring urgent action. Given current threat trajectories, our nation will soon encounter a fundamentally different global setting than it has ever experienced: we will face a world where two nations possess nuclear arsenals on par with our own. In addition, the risk of conflict with these two nuclear peers is increasing. It is an existential challenge for which the United States is ill-prepared, unless its leaders make decisions now to adjust the U.S. strategic posture. America’s defense strategy and strategic posture must change in order to properly defend its vital interests and improve strategic stability with China and Russia. Decisions need to be made now in order for the nation to be prepared to address the threats from these two nucleararmed adversaries arising during the 2027-2035 timeframe. Moreover, these threats are such that the United States and its Allies and partners must be ready to deter and defeat both adversaries simultaneously. The evidence demonstrates that the U.S.-led international order and the values it upholds are at risk from the Chinese and Russian authoritarian regimes. The risk of military conflict with those major powers has grown and carries the potential for nuclear war. Therefore, the Commission reached the unanimous, non-partisan conclusion that today’s strategic outlook requires an urgent national focus and a series of concerted actions not currently planned. In sum, we find that the United States lacks a comprehensive strategy to address the looming twonuclear-peer threat environment and lacks the force structure such a strategy will require. In reaching that overall conclusion, we make clear that the fundamentals of America’s deterrence strategy remain sound, but the application of that strategy must change to address the 2027-2035 threat environment. Those changes drive necessary adjustments to the posture of U.S. nuclear capabilities – in size and/or composition. A full spectrum of non-nuclear capabilities is also essential to the nation’s strategic posture. Such adjustments, in turn, drive the need to strengthen and expand the capacity of the infrastructure required to sustain and enhance U.S. strategic capabilities. In addition, Allies and partners are central to our findings regarding strategy and posture. We also emphasize the need for robust risk reduction efforts as fundamental to the U.S. approach in the new threat environment. The Report continues tomorrow Photo: The lead ground-based Interceptor is launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., March 25, 2019, in the first salvo engagement test of a threat-representative intercontinental ballistic missile target. The test’s two interceptors successfully intercepted a target launched from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. (DoD)