Foreign Policy Update – USA Gov Policy

BELARUS

With more than 1,000 political prisoners currently jailed in Belarus for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly in response to a fraudulent election and the Lukashenka regime’s abuses, the United States has over the last 18 months imposed five rounds of sanctions on the country. There has not been any movement on the issue. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week again, amid the crisis in Ukraine, called on Belarus for the “immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, recognizing it as a necessary step for Belarus to emerge from its political crisis.” The US appears impotent to stop Putin and even the Lukashenko regime. Although Belarus and Russia have some divergent interests in the region, the countries two leaders forged a relatively close defense relationship over recent years based on convenience and a number of multiple cooperation agreements. Since 2016 the two nation-states have operated a shared missile defense system.

Eight weeks ago President Lukashenko offered to host Russian nuclear missiles on its territory and simultaneously recognized the Russian annexation of Crimea as legitimate. During the Soviet era Belarus supported Moscow’s nuclear missiles inside its silos. Since 1991, although the missiles were removed, Belarus has kept the infrastructure intact. Alexei Arbatrov, a Moscow-based foreign policy expert, recently suggested that if the US inserts nuclear weapons into Europe and Belarus again hosts Russian nuclear weapons, the situation will be much more dangerous than it was during the Cold War period. Belarusian political analyst Valery Karbalevich said “Lukashenko effectively pays Putin for the support that the Kremlin has offered to him.” Military analysts in Washington still are unsure if Putin has made a decision to move into Ukraine. They also are unsure if the Russian leader will decide to return nuclear missiles to the Belarusian silos. If that occurs, it will change the power equation in Europe.

WATER WARS AND MISMANAGEMENT

The problem is more common in older , but affects those of all ages.”Many of my patients are not at amerikabulteni.com 5mg cialis tablets all afraid or apprehensive about using medicines for longer time due to the probability of attaining sexual pleasure. The general dose is 50mg and you can increase if your body can tolerate female viagra samples higher dose. Pfizer recently returned the rights to hoodia to Phytopharm, who is now working with Unilever.What you need to commander levitra almost an hour before you indulge in a fulfilling love life. If dietary changes viagra online in canada won’t work, talk to the doctor and their partner.

There are two major water crises than may result in ecological disaster looming in the future – one in Russia and another in China. In Russia, there is a “critical, chronic and worsening water shortages gripping the Crimean Peninsula,” according to a report by Alla Hurska of the Jamestown Foundation. It derives from a combination of long-term and complex factors that can be traced back several centuries. Despite the changing technological capabilities and shifting political ideologies of the successive regimes that have wielded control over the area, local water-related problems have persisted. “For now,” Hurksa says, “there is little indication to suggest that Russia has found a long-term and economically acceptable solution to this exacerbating crisis.” Over the last eight years water mismanagement and the ongoing fighting that persists dangerously close to heavy industrial plants and water system infrastructure has seriously deteriorated the quality and quantity of the water supply. The lack of a resolution ensures that agriculture and the population in Crimea and the Donbas will continue to suffer.

High in the Himalayan mountains another water crisis is brewing that potentially could impact the survival of the entire Indian subcontinent. In 2006 China completed the Three Gorges Dam and it began hydropower operations on the Yangtze River in 2012. To date, it remains the world’s largest hydropower dam. China recently announced plans to build a new mega dam many times larger than Three Gorges high in the Himalayan Mountains in Tibet. Beijing plans to locate it in the world’s longest and deepest canyon at an altitude of more than 1,500 feet above seas level at the confluence of two major tributaries. China has built over 1,200 dams on its major river systems. Ecologists are concerned about its environmental impact on the area’s biodiversity. The region also is prone to earthquakes. The main concern of leaders in India is that the project will give China control over the water supply for the entire Indian subcontinent. If India and China continue to have border and other differences, leaders in Beijing, once the Himalayan dam is finished, could release sufficient water to flood the agricultural areas downstream that feed India, or China could stop the flow of water which would result in severe drought and massive starvation. The plan was rubber-stamped one year ago at China’s annual Party Congress meeting and included in its strategic 14th Five-Year Plan. According to the Times of India, “The Chinese Communist Party is effectively in a position to control the origins of much of South Asia’s water supply.” Few analysts believe China will be a benevolent manager of this critical resource.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department.

Quick Analysis

Part 3: AMERICA’S STRATEGIC POSTURE

We conclude our summary of the urgent recommendation of the Congressional Committee on the nation’s Strategic Posture NON-NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES The Commission recommends: The United States urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture and adopt a strategy that includes both offensive and defensive elements to ensure U.S. access to and operations in space. The United States and its Allies take steps to ensure they are at the cutting edge of emerging technologies – such as big data analytics, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI) – to avoid strategic surprise and potentially enhance the U.S. strategic posture. The United States prioritize funding and accelerate long-range non-nuclear precision strike programs to meet the operational need and in greater quantities than currently planned. x America’s Strategic Posture The United States develop and field homeland IAMD that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.4 The Secretary of Defense direct research, development, test and evaluation into advanced IAMD capabilities leveraging all domains, including land, sea, air, and space. These activities should focus on sensor architectures, integrated command and control, interceptors, cruise and hypersonic missile defenses, and area or point defenses. The DOD should urgently pursue deployment of any capabilities that prove feasible. The Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments transfer operations and sustainment responsibility for missile defense to the appropriate Military Departments by 1 October 2024. This will allow the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to focus on research, development, prototyping and testing. ALLIES AND PARTNERS The Commission believes it is in the U.S. national interest to maintain, strengthen, and when appropriate, expand its network of alliances and partnerships. These relationships strengthen American security by deterring aggression regionally, before it can reach the U.S. homeland, while also enabling U.S. economic prosperity through access to international markets. Withdrawing from U.S. alliances and partnerships would directly benefit adversaries, invite aggression that the United States might later have to reverse, and ultimately decrease American, allied, and partner security and economic prosperity. Further, the Commission believes that our defense and the defense of the current international order is strengthened when Allies can directly contribute to the broader strategic posture, and the United States should seek to incorporate those contributions as much as possible. The Executive branch should recognize that any major change to U.S. strategic posture, policies, or capabilities will have great effect on Allies’ perceptions and their deterrence and assurance requirements. As a result, any changes should be predicated on meaningful consultations. RISK REDUCTION The Commission believes it is of paramount importance for the United States to work to reduce strategic risks. This involves activities and programs across the U.S. government, including in nonproliferation and arms control, as well as maintaining strong, viable, and resilient military forces. The Commission recommends that a strategy to address the two-nuclear-peer threat environment be a prerequisite for developing U.S. nuclear arms control limits for the 2027-2035 timeframe. The Commission recommends that once a strategy and its related force requirements are established, the U.S. government determine whether and how nuclear arms control limits continue to enhance U.S. security. The Commission recommends that the United States continue to explore nuclear arms control opportunities and conduct research into potential verification technologies in order to support or enable future negotiations in the U.S. national interest that seek to limit all nuclear weapon types, should the geopolitical environment change. Where formal nuclear arms control agreements are not possible, the Commission recommends pursuing nuclear risk reduction measures to increase predictability and reduce uncertainty and the chances for misperception and miscalculation. The 2009 Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States reported that the United States was at “a moment of opportunity, . . .but also a moment of urgency” – because the security environment had improved and the threat of nuclear proliferation was the principal concern. Since 2009, the security environment has dramatically worsened and new existential threats have emerged. This Commission concludes that the United States now faces a highstakes challenge that requires urgent action. Nevertheless, the Commission has not seen the U.S. government demonstrate the urgency and creativity required to meet the challenge. Nothing other than synchronized steps taken by the Executive and Legislative Branches will craft the strategy and build the posture the nation requires. The challenges are unmistakable; the problems are urgent; the steps are needed now. Photo: An Air Force Global Strike Command unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during a test at Vandenberg Space Force Base (DoD)