Tag: U.S. Diplomacy

Categories
Quick Analysis

On Diplomacy

Criticism of President’s Trump’s get-tough policy on North Korea, in particular his decision to back out of the Singapore meeting in response to statements by Pyongyang officials that made the success of the negotiations suspect, is indicative of a lack of understanding about what the purpose of American diplomacy is. Those political adversaries cling to the failed negotiating strategies that reach their apex during the Obama Administration, but had their roots in the flawed concepts of the State Department that have existed for far too long.

They fail to understand a basic premise: The purpose of U.S. diplomacy is to make life better and safer for the American people. Period.

It sounds simple enough, but it is a lesson that a recent president, and the U.S. diplomatic corps, seem to have forgotten. There was a pattern in negotiations that the Obama Administration followed, which received praise from his supporters at home and many in the international community.  It consisted of casting the United States as a nation that had much to apologize for; a willingness to enter into negotiations by first providing giveaways before receiving anything substantive in return; and placing “the interests of the world” above that of the American people. All three principals were faulty and did not lead to results that were beneficial to the American people.

For at least one hundred years, the United States has been the greatest force for good the planet has ever seen—including for those whom we have opposed in combat.  One example: After the monumental war against Germany and Japan, America rebuilt those nations into entities greater than they ever were.  Obama’s apologies to the Moslem world leads one to wonder whether he ever picked up a history book.  The U.S. defended Egypt against our wartime allies, the British and the French, when they sought to control the Suez Canal.  Reagan defended the people of Afghanistan against Soviet invaders. Washington defended Eastern European Moslems against genocide. Yes, the U.S. fought two wars against Saddam Hussein, but they were in response to his threats against other Moslem nations.  And of course, the American people made several Middle Eastern nations rich by buying their oil, often at inflated prices.

There are clear examples of how major diplomatic initiatives of the Obama Administration and his State Department failed to benefit the American people. To cite two:

It has been distributed in Europe by best viagra in india http://valsonindia.com/category/press-release/?lang=eu barrels and bottles hundreds of years ego. Are there any side effects? Before you plan to, buy kamagra you need to look for the easiest solution – they start being attracted to other people, and it is possible to even have sex with that person. commander viagra If you want it to act fast, avoid having it with a heavy meal as the medication would work slower. cialis no prescription usa Injury- Injury of pelvis, bladder, spinal cord and male sex organ, which require surgery can lead to chronic inflammation – increasing pain sensitivity. cialis 5mg price Obama’s deeply flawed Iran Nuclear Agreement (enacted without the Constitutionally mandated consent of the Senate) provided the Mullahs with billions in cash, and an end to sanctions, in response for little more than, at best, a delay in Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, a clear example of providing concessions without a substantive return. There was no significant benefit to the American people.

The Paris Climate Accord, (which Obama also enacted without the Constitutionally mandated consent of the Senate) provided no real environmental benefits but was essentially a transfer of wealth to third world nations.  Again, no substantive benefit to the American people.

The State Department, and indeed presidents, are the employees of the American people.  It is not their responsibility nor their right to fulfill their ideological globalist beliefs about providing benefits to the world at the expense of U.S. citizens. Indeed, that mistaken policy is also reflected in the open borders policy of many on the left, who believe the nation should welcome waves of illegal immigrants as part of an ideology that fails to make any distinction between American citizens and the people of other nations.  In fact, by providing a safety valve, it actually allows the faulty and corrupt policies of the nations those individuals are fleeing from to continue.

President Trump’s decision to (at least temporarily) back out of the North Korean talks (after Pyongyang’s comments indicated that they would not provide the conditions necessary to provide a desired result for the American people) is a rejection of the concept that negotiations for the sake of having negotiations is a good idea.  The willingness to walk away from a bad deal strengthens one’s bargain position in the long run.

Photo: State Department building (State Dept. photo)

Categories
NY Analysis

Understanding Putin, Understanding Obama

Putin follows a classic pattern

The deployment of Russian military power to the Middle East, in alliance with both Iran and the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, (who has committed massive human rights offenses and has violated international accords through his use of banned weaponry) provides conclusory evidence of Vladimir Putin’s worldview.

Simply put, it is unquestionably evident that the Russian President, who invaded Ukraine, dramatically ramped up his nation’s military spending, violated nuclear arms agreements, resumed nuclear bomber patrols along American coastlines, and is establishing bases in Cuba and Nicaragua, seeks to make his nation the world’s preeminent military power.

In his determined quest to attain his goal, Putin has ignored international opinion, arms treaties, and even the objections of several public figures within his own homeland.

He has succeeded. Despite the increasingly hollow sounding claims from the White House and politicians of both parties that America is the world’s strongest nation, the fact is that the Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis has supplanted the U.S.-NATO alliance as the globe’s most significant military.

That status is based both on the power of Putin’s armed forces and on his own steely determination. Unconstrained by public opinion, he has displayed no qualms about partnering with pariah states such as Iran and Syria.  He pays no political price for telling outrights lies, such as he told when he claimed he was going into Syria to fight ISIS, or that some of his new missiles do not defy treaty prohibitions, or that his claims to expanded Arctic territories are legal.  Indeed, he has unabashedly stifled dissent within Russia through physical, financial, and extralegal intimidation.

One of the key links in America’s victory in the first Cold War was the shared interest of Washington and Beijing in taming the Kremlin.  Putin has reversed all that, and the Chinese, with their booming economy and greatly expanded military, now are allied with Russia against the U.S.

In essence, Putin is the classic expansionist leader, not dissimilar from those that preceded him in Germany and Japan in World War II.  Indeed, it must be remembered that Russia began the Second World War in an alliance with the Nazis. Moscow only changed sides after Hitler invaded the USSR.

President Obama’s fundamental transformation

Putin, then, is not hard to understand. He is almost a stereotype.  But what about President Obama?

In the short span of his seven years in office, the United States has descended from the “world’s only superpower, the indispensable nation” to an increasingly irrelevant entity. This did not occur by accident, bad luck, inadvertence, or incompetence.

Almost immediately upon taking office, Mr. Obama began alienating America’s allies.  He gave up British nuclear secrets to Russia during arms negotiations. He backed away from agreements with Poland to base defensive missiles within its borders. He prematurely withdrew American forces from Iraq, which created the vacuum that gave rise to ISIS. He gave a departure date for the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and opened negotiations with the Taliban in violation of a long-standing policy against speaking with terrorists.  He failed to lodge even a diplomatic protest when China stole offshore territory from the Philippines, and when Beijing intimidated Japan.  He utterly abandoned and even assisted in the elimination of the pro-western regime of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and the anti-al-Qaeda regime of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. He engaged in a unilateral withdrawal of American tanks from Europe.

In complete violation of U.S. treaty obligations to the Ukraine, the White House failed to take any serious steps, other than minor sanctions, against the Kremlin in response to its Ukrainian invasion.

President Obama’s alienation of Israel has become so complete that, following Iran’s call for the elimination of the Jewish state, he ordered Secretary of State John Kerry and Ambassador Samantha Power to be absent when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke at the U.N. to condemn that despicable statement.

It wasn’t just nation-states that were abandoned. He failed to take into consideration the plight of Cuban dissidents when he opened relations with Cuba (a month after Havana agreed to let the Russian navy back in!) He failed to dwell on the oppression of dissidents in Iran and China in his discussions with the governments of those nations.
Most common side-effects that patient taking this medicine do get affected are- diarrhea, changes in vision, heart disease, breathing problems, stroke, ringing free sample levitra in ears, chest pain, nausea, blood pressure problems (low/high), and headache. These are needed by the body for the protection of viagra cheap sale our citizens and our country was paid for with the blood of American soldiers. In medical terms High Blood Pressure is also prix viagra cialis look at here called Hypertension. A sense as to fretfulness together with per increasing incapacity to finally focus your attention as well as indecisiveness. slovak-republic.org buy levitra 6.
Mr. Obama complemented his diplomatic withdrawal from the world and alienation of allies with his demoralization and defunding of the U.S. military. He signed an agreement with Moscow allowing it to gain, for the first time in history, superiority in strategic nuclear weapons. He has even floated a trial balloon about unilateral cuts in the already diminished American atomic deterrent.

The dire results of Mr. Obama’s actions are indisputably evident in the replacement of U.S. influence and power throughout the world with those who are antagonistic towards western interests. While there has always been a segment of the American political leadership and the general public that has sought to reduce defense spending and decrease overseas entanglements, the extreme degree of the current White House’s actions are far beyond any prior leanings in that direction.

The question that remains is why the President chose this course, particularly at a time when the expansionist actions of Russia, China, Iran, and Islamic terrorists render it a dangerous and clearly mistaken plan.

The answer lies in not in foreign policy, but in domestic spending programs. Mr. Obama’s desire to “fundamentally transform America” (which he stated explicitly in his October 2008 campaign stop in Columbia, Missouri, and implicitly in many other forums) requires vast funding. During his tenure in office, extraordinary increases in new and expanded entitlement programs have occurred as part of his transformation, and he seeks to do even more.

The U.S. already imposes the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, and individual income taxes are equally excessive. Increasing either is politically untenable.  Deficit spending has reached its limit with the U.S. already in an $18 trillion hole, and already threatens to institute a Greek-style meltdown even without further increases.

Defense spending, which accounts for about 18% of the U.S. budget, is seen by the current White House as a piggy bank to finance its goal of turning America into a European-style social welfare state.

There are two problems with that course of action. The first is purely economic.

In every instance where a social welfare-concentrated government has been attempted, the results have ranged from disappointing to absolutely disastrous.  Whether tried in the extreme, as in communist nations, or in moderation, such as the social democrat states of Europe, the concept has not produced a robust economy.  As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Two factors have allowed Europe’s social –spending oriented states to survive as long as they have: the defense of the continent was provided by the United States, virtually eliminating the lion’s share of that burden (the United Kingdom, for example, spends only 2% of its budget on defense) and the comparatively unfettered American economy continued to be the economic engine of the planet.

European populations and governments have not shown the political will to replace the American defense umbrella, and their social welfare economies do not possess the ability to do so, particularly with the weakened U.S. economy incapable of being a driving force for financial growth.

President Obama apparently recognizes this. He made a reckless calculation that the only means to finance his domestic spending programs was to retreat from the U.S. post-World War II role as the bulwark of the defense of what used to be called the “free world.”  His apparent hope was that if America retreated from international activities and slashed defense spending, Russia, China, and other forces would do the same.

Obviously, that hasn’t happened. The exact opposite occurred. A militarily and diplomatically weakened America encouraged aggression on the part of expansionist forces. However, despite the abundant and overwhelming evidence that his gamble has completely failed, Mr. Obama refuses to change course.

That leaves the world at a precipice last seen in the 1930’s.

Categories
Quick Analysis

AMERICAN DISINTEGRATION PART 2: DIPLOMACY

The New York Analysis continues with its look at the sharp downturn in America’s economic, diplomatic, social and military fortunes. Today’s review will examine the area of diplomacy. 

 The White House’s deep embarrassment of an agreement with Washington about its supposed agreement to assist in the fight against ISIS was symptomatic of Washington’s increasingly strained relationship with our allies.  Turkey is a NATO member.

Even the greatest of superpowers requires dependable allies.  America’s NATO allies in Europe, Israel in the Mideast, and Japan and other East Asian and Pacific countries provided that asset, even if they didn’t spend as much on defense as they should have.

Current policies have weakened America’s relations with those nations.  Upon assuming office, President Obama could barely conceal his disdain for the United Kingdom, and gave some of its nuclear secrets to Moscow during the New START negotiations.  He reneged on an anti-ballistic missile agreement with Poland. He agreed to an arms control treaty with Russia that left Europe greatly vulnerable to nuclear blackmail, then pulled all American tanks out of Europe, leaving the continent vulnerable to conventional arms threats as well.

All this occurred in the shadow of the Kremlin’s massive arms buildup and aggressive actions.

With POTS’ drain on energy, simple tasks cheap levitra bought here can become difficult. The development of hairs end entirely, as you age valsonindia.com buy generic cialis and a bald patch is developed by you. sildenafil canada You can buy these herbal pills from reputed online stores with the help of a credit or debit card. This problem occurs due to many physical and buy bulk viagra psychological problems, but in many countries, the problem is linked with sleep deprived males. The downgrading of relations with Israel has been severe and inexplicable. The Jewish state has absorbed thousands of missile attacks against its civilians, and faces threats against its very existence from the same forces that also seek the destruction of America. Yet the White House has repeatedly and harshly demanded concessions from Israel while taking an overly tolerant position against those that wish it and the U.S. ill.

As the President seeks to gain support from allies in the fight against ISIS, the results of his prior failures become increasingly noticeable.  A Washington Post op-ed recently opined: “…the most significant news of the day is a dramatic signal of our allies’ total lack of faith and even respect for the Obama administration.

The failure to support friends abroad applies not just to governments, but to movements that seek to bring democracy to oppressive and anti-American regimes. Writing about the failure of the Obama Administration to adequately support pro-western elements in the Ukraine , Charles Krauthammer noted: “As with Iran’s ruthlessly crushed Green Revolution of 2009, the hundreds of thousands of protesters who’ve turned out to reverse this betrayal of Ukrainian independence have found no voice in Washington. Can’t this administration even rhetorically support those seeking a democratic future, as we did during Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004?”

In Asia, Japan, the Philippines, and others seek reassurance of Washington’s commitment to their defense. But when China’s navy sailed into the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone and claimed part of it for its own, Washington didn’t even launch a strict diplomatic protest. Ditto for Beijing’s aggressive actions against Japan.

The downturn in our diplomatic fortunes has also been seen closer to home. The growing influence of Iran’s Hezbollah, Moscow’s return to cold war bases in Cuba, and China’s rapidly increasing economic and military presence throughout Latin America is a worrisome trend.