China Retaliates against the United States with Tariffs; Russian Diplomatic Expulsions

Communist China retaliated earlier this week against the United States for the Trump Administration’s imposition of tariffs on certain Chinese imports by raising their own tariffs on American goods.  Tariffs, a tax on imports, increase the cost of the consumption of goods, thereby discouraging their consumption and thus limiting economic freedom.  There is growing concern about a trade war between the U.S. and other trading partners.

There was a coordinated expulsion of Russian diplomats from the U.S., Canada and many European states in solidarity with the United Kingdom for the Russian Federation’s chemical attack on an ex-Russian spy for the British earlier this month that I had posted about.  The Russian diplomats were declared persona non grata for activities inconsistent with their diplomatic mission.  The U.S. expelled Russians from both their U.S. and United Nations missions.  The Russian Consulate in Seattle, Washington was closed.  However, there will be no reduction in the total number of Russian diplomats, as the Russians have reportedly been advised by the Trump Administration that the Russians will be permitted to replace the expelled diplomats. 

            A portion of most states’ diplomats are intelligence agents, but Russian delegations are disproportionately devoted to espionage.  It is one thing for diplomats to learn about conditions in the host country in order to inform their governments in policy-making decisions and another to engage in recruitment of spies and for diplomats to travel beyond their permitted ranges, as was the practice of the Russians.  Russian diplomats apparently had been mapping the American fiber optic cable network, for example.  

           The Russians have retaliated by expelling American diplomats, in the usual diplomatic tit-for-tat practice, and closing the U.S. Consulate in St. Petersburg.  They have also expelled European and Canadian diplomats.  Ambassadors between Russia and the other states have been summoned or recalled.

Recent Attacks Were Not Terrorist Attacks

           There have been more attacks that have been incorrectly labeled “terrorist” attacks by many.  These are the latest examples of what I have made a regular subject to try to prevent the word terrorism from being diluted or misused.

            As I note regularly, terrorism is the strategy of violent attacks on innocent civilians that are intended to intimidate the populace to urge a government acquiesce to the demands of the terrorists.  Thus, terrorism is defined by its target and its strategy, not by who its perpetrators are or their religious or political motivation or their affiliations and not by its tactics.  Terrorism is a great evil and a war crime. 

There are often other evil acts committed, which may be terrifying to the populace, that are not necessarily terrorism.  There were three recent examples.

            The chemical weapons of mass destruction attack in the United Kingdom by the Russian Federation on a former Russian spy for the British several weeks ago was not an act of terrorism because it was targeted at an individual for retaliation, though indiscriminate in its tactical application.  It was not intended primarily to intimidate the populace.  The attack was nonetheless an act of war.

            The bombings earlier this month in Austin, Texas were not terrorism for a number of reasons.  They appear to have targeted blacks particularly, not the whole populace, which suggests bigotry or possibly even genocide was the motivation, not political intimidation.  The lack of a known demand made by the perpetrator means that the acts lack a central element of terrorism, as there can be no intimidation of a populace to urge a government to acquiesce to the terrorist’s demands if there are no demands made.

            The suicide bombing at a military base in California last week was an act of violent jihad by a militant Islamist associated with the Islamic State.  As the attack targeted the military, not innocent civilians, it was not an act of terrorism.  

           All of these attacks were evil, but of a different kind from terrorism.  

The Fifteenth Anniversary of the Beginning of the Liberation of Iraq

           Last week was the fifteenth anniversary of the commencement of the Liberation of Iraq on March 19, 2003 that removed the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein from power.  The coalition was led by the United States under President George W. Bush and included dozens of Western and Muslim states.

Hussein’s Iraqi brutal regime had committed serial aggression, culminating in its invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and violated the 1991 ceasefire it had signed after the Liberation of Kuwait by failing to make reparations to Kuwait and by firing at Coalition aircraft patrolling no-fly zones over Kurdish and Shi’ite areas of Iraq, as well as violated United Nations Resolutions that required it to prove it had destroyed its known weapons of mass destruction and materiel and ceased its programs and not to have missiles over a certain length of range and sponsored terrorism by openly harboring and financing terrorists, including those who targeted and killed Americans.  

Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, had declared the overthrow of Hussein’s regime to be U.S. policy, but after the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, the U.S. was even less willing than before to tolerate terrorism, especially potential large-scale threats from state-sponsors of terrorism, particularly those with weapons of mass destruction programs.  Iraq, a former Soviet client state, had repeatedly used chemical weapons against Iranians and Iraqi Kurds.  The U.N. Security Council had unanimously declared Iraq in “material breach” of its resolutions in regard to weapons of mass destruction, which expressly meant it would face “serious consequences,” which was diplomatic language for the use of force.  Therefore, although there was some reasonable debate about the prudence of the war, there were abundant justifications.

Hussein’s regime was toppled within weeks with relatively low casualties for the American-led “Coalition of the Willing,” but the Baathists had fostered Islamists to conduct a post-regime guerilla and terrorist campaign, in alliance with al-Qaeda in Iraq, which had been present before the beginning of the war.  Al-Qaeda encouraged violent jihadists to come to Iraq, where they were easier to kill or capture than in Afghanistan.  Unable to win militarily, the militant Islamists engaged in a campaign to kill enough American and allied servicemen to turn public opinion against the war.  Before the war, public opinion surveys suggested the American people would tolerate up to the same number of fatalities as lost on September 11, nearly 3,000, but the Islamists were successful in turning public opinion much sooner, as the Coalition had been victimized by its own early success in removing the Baathists from power with less than expected losses. 

There has also been criticism about the post-war management by the Bush Administration, but although Iraq was far from perfect, after some Coalition changes in strategy, it was relatively peaceful and stable enough for President Barack Obama to justify ending the war and withdrawing in 2013.  However, as predicted by Bush, without a status of forces agreement to allow American troops to remain, the premature withdrawal allowed al-Qaeda in Iraq, which broke away from al-Qaeda and renamed itself the “Islamic State,” to seize large swaths of northern and western Iraq, with the continued help of Baathist remnants, and to engage in a terrorism campaign, as well as for Iran and Syria to extend their malign influence over Iraq.  The Islamists declared a Muslim Caliphate, but have recently been all but defeated in Iraq and Syria.    

When calculating the cost of the Liberation of Iraq in blood and treasure, it is necessary to consider the costs of the continuation of the status quo ante, such as the keeping of troops to defend Iraq’s neighbors and to continue the no-fly zones.  Those who claim Iraq and the region were destabilized by its Liberation forget that Iraq was not stable or peaceful and neither Iraq nor the region was stable and to the extent that Iraq was stable it was only because of the degree of totalitarianism imposed in the “Republic of Fear.”  Iraq had not been internally peaceful and was at war with the Coalition since before Bush took office, such as attacking Coalition aircraft nearly on a daily basis, as Hussein, who regarded himself as another Saladin (the Muslim commander who fought the Christian Crusaders), had considered the “Mother of All Battles,” his name for the Liberation of Kuwait, never to have ended.  Thus, Iraq had been attacking Americans both military and through terrorism. 

Instead of labeling the Liberation of Iraq as some kind of a blunder or useless waste, it is appropriate to consider and appreciate the accomplishments of the Coalition troops.  The American and allied troops liberated Iraq from a tyrant and gave the Iraqi people the ability to exercise self-determination, brought him and his henchmen to justice for crimes against humanity, protected Iraq’s neighbors from intimidation, enforced U.N. resolutions, captured and killed thousands of Islamist jihadists and captured and destroyed thousands of chemical weapons of mass destruction, including hundreds that had not been known to U.N. inspectors, and the banned chemicals used to make them.  As additional benefits of the Liberation of Iraq, the oil embargo was lifted and the large number of American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, where they had been under attack and their presence had provided al-Qaeda with an excuse to attack Americans, were withdrawn on U.S. terms, instead of through the demands of Islamist terrorists.  

Now that Iraq, now an ally in the War on Terrorism instead of a sponsor of it, is returning to peace, it is hoped that its internal divisions can be healed and it will be able to defend itself on its own against Islamists, without reliance on Iran or Syria, and that the constitutional parliamentary republic can more fully enjoy self-determination and increased prosperity.

United States 2018 Spending Bill Is Signed into Law

           The President of the United States signed into law the omnibus spending bill passed by the majority Republican Congress for fiscal year 2018 to fund federal agencies avoid another government shutdown.  The law is of mixed benefit and harm.

            The law appropriates $1.3 trillion more than expected revenue, a record large budget deficit.  It continues to fund federalized health insurance (Obamacare) and Planned Parenthood. 

           On the positive side, it includes additional sanctions on the Russian Federation, and provides the following: funds to assist States in defending against foreign election interference, lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine, increased defense spending, increased security for diplomatic missions, and increased border security, without including any concrete wall on the Mexican border, such as Donald Trump had promised during his presidential campaign that Mexico would pay for.  

           Although an increase in defense spending was particularly necessary after several years of cuts, in addition to the other items, conservatives must return to fiscal restraint as soon as possible.

Foreign Digest: Italy, Russia and Iran

Italian election update           

            Through a deal between the right-wing bloc and the populists, a populist was elected President of the lower house of parliament, the Chamber of Deputies, as his party individually won the largest seats, and a center-right party member was elected President of the Senate late last week, as the right-wing bloc had won the most seats collectively.  The populists are now in parliamentary leadership for the first time.  The elections were the first step toward the formation of a new government.  

Russian targeting of hospitals: new American sanctions

            A United Nations study issued late last week concluded that the Russian Federation deliberately targeted hospitals in Syria for bombing in support of the Syrian Baathist regime of Bashar Assad in the country’s civil war.  Non-Islamist rebels, Kurds and Islamists are fighting the Assad regime in the multi-sided war.  The United States, which also backs some of the non-Islamists and Kurds, leads an international coalition of Western and Arab states against the Islamists.  Assad, Iran’s main ally, like Iran, which is also supporting Assad militarily, is a state sponsor of terrorism.  The Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite terrorist organization Hezbollah is another major Assad ally in the war.

            New economic sanctions against the Russian Federation were signed into law late last week by the President of the United States in the omnibus spending bill approved by the Republican-led Congress.

Iranian hacking 

           A United States federal grand jury indictments were unsealed yesterday of Iranians, working for an agency of the Islamic Republic of Iran, for hacking into scores of American universities, five federal government agencies, two States and several American private companies.  The Iranians also hacked into foreign universities.  Tyrannical theocratic Iran, which exports Islamist revolution, is the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism.

Updates on Russia: Rigged Elections, Putin Conference, Russian Attacks on Americans and Allies

           There have been numerous developments lately in regard to the Russian Federation, such as rigged presidential elections, an anti-Putin international conference and more announcements by the United States of Russian attacks on Americans.

            The Russian Federation conducted a presidential election yesterday that was not free and fair.  Freedom of expression is limited in Russia and opposition candidates, except for token ones or ones that make the regime candidates seem moderate are not permitted to stand for election.  The democratic opposition boycotted the rigged elections, through which Russia’s authoritarian leader, Vladimir Putin, arranged for himself another six-year term.  International election -monitoring organizations, like human rights organizations, observed the lack of free and fair elections.  The former Soviet intelligence officer has ruled Russia as president or prime minister since 2000.

            At last week’s Putin Conference in New York City, numerous Russian dissidents, human rights organization leaders, academic experts, investigators and journalists discussed the origin and nature of the Russian Federation’s authoritarian regime and oligarchy and its malign influence in the world, as well as methods of defending liberty around the world against Russia and to encourage freedom for the Russian people.  One relevant piece of advice as not to refer to Putin as “president,” something I have long been avoiding, or what took place yesterday as an “election.”  One of the participants in the conference, Russian dissident Garry Kasparov, the great chess Grand Master, penned a follow-up piece on this subject, for the Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-truth-about-putin/article/2011882. 

            Last week, the U.S. imposed economic sanctions on Russians for interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and for a cyberattack on American infrastructure.  The Republican-majority Congress had overwhelmingly approved sanctions on Russia last year for human rights violations.  Donald Trump, who was elected President with Russian assistance, had opposed the measure, which caused a delay in its passage, but signed it into law because of a veto-proof majority had voted in favor of it.  He then delayed implementing the sanctions until after the legal deadline and then only minimally, although the imposition of sanctions had symbolic significance.  The Russian entities and individuals sanctioned either were already on sanctions lists or have little, if any, assets in the U.S. to freeze.  However, the sanctions were an acknowledgement by the Trump Administration of Russian interference in the presidential election.  They also validate the investigation into Russian interference by Special Counsel Robert Mueller because the sanctions were imposed on the Russian entities and individuals whom Mueller’s grand jury had indicted for their propaganda and disinformation campaign.  There were also sanctions imposed on Russians for hacking into American energy, water and aviation control systems.  Such sophisticated attacks can only be carried out in an authoritarian state by the regime’s orders.

            The Russian cyberattack on American infrastructure, like the Russian interference in the election, was the latest of several attacks by the Russian Federation on Americans announced in recent weeks by the U.S. government, as I have been posting.  The others were the economically-damaging Russian cyberattack on Ukraine last year that hit 70 countries, including American companies, and the attack by Russian mercenaries on U.S. forces in Syria on behalf of the Iranian-backed terrorist-sponsoring tyrant Bashar Assad.  In addition, as I noted in my last post, Russia attacked the United Kingdom, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization member and the closest ally of the U.S., with a chemical weapons attack.  

Among other machinations, the Russian Federation, which had invaded Georgia in 2008, where it established puppet-states in breakaway provinces there, invaded Ukraine in 2014 and continues to back a rebellion by ethnic Russian separatists.  It also provides fuel for Communist North Korea, the repressive regime developing a nuclear weapons and missile program that proliferates such weapons to other rogue regimes, like Iran and Syria.    

Over the years, I have been warning on this blog about the threat posed by the Russian authoritarian regime.  The degree of the threat is becoming increasingly clear to more and more Americans and others, although many, even in the West, continue to be unsure, indifferent or even openly supportive of Putin because they are influenced by Russian propaganda, disinformation and conspiracy theories that deny or excuse Russian misbehavior or because they place economic concerns above security or have personal financial motivations.  Americans and other freedom-lovers around the world must continue to learn about Russian motivations, goals and methods and be more wary, principled and courageous.  They must support measures, such as those discussed at the Putin Conference, that defend liberty around the world and encourage freedom in Russia.  A free Russia would be the greatest benefit to liberty everywhere.  

Foreign Digest: Syrian Civil War Anniversary, New German Government, the United Kingdom Response to Russia’s Attack

Syrian Civil War Seventh Anniversary

            The seventh anniversary of the Syrian Civil War was marked last week.  The rebellion against the tyrannical Baathist regime of Bashar Assad and his brutal suppression of it has claimed several hundred thousand lives and displaced ten million people, causing the largest refugee crisis for Europe since the Second World War.  Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, is backed by Iran and their ally, the Lebanese Shi’ite terrorist organization Hezbollah, and the Russian Federation.  Moderate Muslims, Kurds and Islamists terrorists, such as al-Qaeda and the “Islamic State” are the rebels in the multi-sided war.  Turkey is fighting Kurdish guerillas, some of whom are associated with Marxist terrorists, while an American-led coalition of Western and Arab states has been targeting the Islamists.  The Syrian regime and its allies targets civilian areas for bombing, including with chemical weapons.

Germany’s New Grand Coalition Government Takes Office

            Germany’s conservative-liberal grand coalition government was sworn into office last week, six months after parliamentary elections in September of last year failed to give a majority to any party.  The ruling center-right party of Chancellor Angela Merkel and its conservative Bavarian allies won the most votes and seats.  They are now joined in government by the main center-left party, with Merkel in her fourth term as Chancellor.  The new government excludes the far-left and the pro-Russian, anti-European far-right.

The United Kingdom Responds to a Russian Chemical Weapons Attack on British Soil

            After a chemical weapon attack committed earlier this month by the Russian Federation against an ex-Russian spy for the United Kingdom, the British Government responded last week.  The U.K. response included the expulsion of Russian spies posing as diplomats, a suspension of high-level contacts between the two governments, a freeze on Russian state assets, and checks on customs, private flights and freight.  Also, no British officials will attend the World Cup in Russia.  The British are considering stronger measures, such as freezing of assets of the many Russian oligarchs in London.  The attack with a nerve agent that had been manufactured in the Soviet Union seriously sickened the spy, his daughter and a police officer.  More than a score were treated and hundreds had to decontaminate themselves and their homes.  All 29 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, including the United States, expressed solidarity with the United Kingdom and blamed Russia for the attack.  Member states are considering a coordinated response to the Russian attack. 

           A police inquiry was opened last week into the deaths of 14 Russians on British soil over the last several years.  Since then, another Russian exile who was an associate of a critic of Vladimir Putin, the authoritarian leader of the Russian Federation, was apparently murdered.  A previous U.K. investigation had determined that the Russian government had murdered in London an ex-Russian spy who had become a Putin critic with highly-radioactive polonium.  

The Right Wing Bloc Won the Most Seats in the Italian Parliamentary Elections, but Not a Majority

The right-wing bloc of parties won the most votes and seats in the Italian parliamentary elections in both chambers, but fell short of a majority necessary to form a government.  The anti-establishment populist party won the most votes and seats of any individual party, while the center-left bloc came in third.

The right-wing bloc is made up of three parties that won seats.  The far-right anti-immigrant Northern League, which won the third most votes and seats of any individual party, edged the center-right party of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, which came in fourth.  A smaller more conservative party also reached the 3% threshold to win seats, while a bloc of centrists and center-right parties within the right-wing bloc failed to qualify.  By agreement among the parties, the League leader would be the bloc’s choice for premier, as the leader of the party that won the most votes within the bloc.

The populists, who argue that they deserve a mandate to try to form a government, refuse to govern with any other party and would only accept into any coalition government they might lead those who accept their platform.  The ruling center-left party, which was the only party within its bloc to win seats, prefers to remain in the opposition, instead of governing with radicals like the populists and the Northern League.  The League leader prefers to govern only with his bloc, not either of the other two parties.  He also opposes any limited-time or purpose governments, such as a grand coalition to amend the election law to give a bonus number of seats to the party winning the most votes in order to obtain a majority.  Therefore, it will be difficult for a government to be formed under these circumstances because no one can obtain a vote of confidence, which requires a majority.  The Italian President likely would give the League and then the populists a mandate to explore the formation of a government, but they would each likely fail, which would necessitate other options.

A combination of the Berlusconi’s conservatives and the center-left would not have enough votes, but the League and the populists, who share much of a radical platform of being anti-European, anti-immigrant, pro-Russian, protectionist and anti-vaccination, would have a bare majority.  However, it might be difficult for the League leader to accept being in government as a junior partner, instead of as prime minister.  Even this arrangement would likely not be stable, as the parties disagree on other matters, although it might be the least unstable option of all.  The President also has other options, such as installing a limited-time or purpose government, for example, to amend the election law, or to install a technical government.  The other option is for the Italians to hold another parliamentary election in two months.  Those voters who voted for the small parties that did not win seats would likely vote for one of the larger parties that did.  It is possible that some centrists from either bloc could vote for Berlusconi’s center-right party to make it the largest party within the winning right-wing bloc to prevent the League leader at least from being premier, if not out of government. 

In the meantime, the outgoing center-left-center-right coalition remains in power as a caretaker.

Foreign Digest Updates: Turkey, Ukraine, Syria and Germany

Turkey

            The authoritarian Islamist Turkish Government has continued its crackdown since the attempted military coup in July of 2016.  There were another thousand arrests a week ago and more than a hundred more late last week. Tens of thousands have been sacked or arrested across a wide swath of Turkish society, from the military, the police, civil officers and judges to academics, all accused of ties to the Turkish cleric in exile in Pennsylvania whom the Government blames for the coup, as an excuse to purge all critics of the regime.  Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and is fighting Kurdish rebels in eastern Turkey and Syria.

Ukraine

            Last week was the fourth anniversary of the civil war in Ukraine caused by the 2014 Russian invasion and a rebellion by ethnic Russian separatists who are backed by the Russian Federation.  The war has left 10,000 dead, including 3,000 civilians, while 1.7 million people have been displaced.  Russia had agreed to recognize Ukrainian sovereignty and independence and respect its borders, in exchange for the removal of Soviet nuclear missiles from Ukraine and the continued presence of a Russian naval base on the Crimean Peninsula, but when Ukrainians wanted to turn towards Europe to improve trade relations, the increasingly authoritarian, corrupt pro-Russian Ukrainian declined, which led to a popular rebellion and the overthrow of the Russian puppet government.  Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, annexing the former.  The United States and the European Union have imposed economic sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.

Syria

            Syria’s chemical weapon program has been assisted by North Korea, according to a United Nations report issued last week.  The Communist North Korean support of Syria, which is also backed by Islamist Iran and the Russian Federation, is an example of cooperation among the Axis of Rogues, despite their ideological and religious diversity.  Syria has been using chemical weapons against civilian targets in its civil war.

Germany

           The center-left party members today approved the grand coalition with the conservative bloc of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats and the Bavarian conservatives.  The conservative parties, who are currently ruling in a coalition together and whose memberships had already approved the agreement, had won the most seats in the parliamentary elections in September, but fell short of a majority, necessitating a grand center-left/center-right coalition to keep the far left and far right from power.  Germany is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and is the wealthiest member of the European Union.  It is an ally of the United States against terrorism.  The far-left and far-right parties would disrupt these alliances and relationships.