Tag: foreign policy

Shifting Allegiances: The Role of Palestine in US Domestic and Foreign Policy

It is crucial for any American administration to recognize that, regardless of political agendas, the views of the American public regarding the situation in Palestine and Israel are undergoing a significant shift. A critical mass of opinion is rapidly forming, and this change is becoming undeniable.

Paradoxically, while Islamophobia continues to rise across the US, sentiments supporting Palestinians and opposing Israeli occupation are steadily increasing.

In theory, this means that the pro-Israeli media’s success in linking Israel’s actions against the Palestinian people to the so-called “war on terror” – a narrative that has demonized Islam and Muslims for many years – is faltering.

Americans are increasingly viewing the situation in Palestine as a human rights issue, and one that is deeply relevant to domestic politics. A recent Gallup poll underscores this shift.

The poll, released on March 6, was conducted between February 3 and 16. It found that American support for Israel is at its lowest point in 25 years, while sympathy for Palestinians has reached its highest level. Having 46 percent of Americans supporting Israel and 33 percent supporting Palestinians would have seemed inconceivable in the past, when the plight of Palestine and its people was largely overlooked by the general public.

Even more remarkable is that this shift continues to gain momentum, despite the fact that mainstream media and American politicians have been more biased than ever, promoting a dehumanizing discourse of Palestinians and unprecedented, uncritical support for Israel.

While the growing shift in favor of Palestine – particularly the genocide in Gaza, which played a role in influencing political outcomes in several states during the last presidential election – has gone largely unnoticed by the Biden administration, it’s clear that the dissatisfaction with the government’s position remains unchanged.

The previous administration approved significant military aid to Israel, topping $17.9 billion in the first year alone, enabling its genocidal war in Gaza, resulting in over 160,000 casualties over a span of 15 months.

Keep reading

What Are The Left’s Solutions For The Problems They Created?

The Wall Street Journal has consistently criticized Trump’s economic policies, particularly his ongoing “trade war” with Canada, over the past several weeks. And certainly, the tensions are regrettable. Trump’s trolling of the insufferable Justin Trudeau, with talk of Canada becoming the “51st state,” perhaps only galvanized the Canadian left. It unfortunately may ensure that the only real hope for a Canadian return to normality, the election of Pierre Poilievre, may be lost.

That said, does the WSJ truly believe that the current $1.7 trillion budget deficit stacked on top of $36 trillion in national debt and an annual $1 trillion trade deficit are sustainable in any fashion? Do they believe any Republican president would have survived the midterms if he cut or “reformed” Social Security? If so, consult the fate of the recommendations of left-wing Barack Obama’s 2010 Simpson-Bowles commission (“The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform”).

DOGE, the effort to demand either symmetrical or no tariffs, closing the border, the rare minerals agreement, etc., are all controversial, even desperate efforts to stave off insolvency.

NAFTA was sold on the promise of trade equilibriums, eventually leading to no tariffs and rough parity. Yet Canada currently runs a $60 billion surplus largely because of its energy sales and selective tariffs on U.S. agriculture and some manufactured goods. That sum might be tolerable from a friend and not worth the acrimony, even with the present massive trade and budget deficits—if it had occurred in isolation.

But it did not.

The Canadian surplus is force multiplied by its chronic refusal to spend a measly 2 percent of its GDP on defense. Canada could have easily offered a partnership with the U.S. to explore joint missile defense or shared Arctic Ocean naval patrols with a new fleet of Canadian and American icebreakers.

But it did nothing of the sort.

Worse still, no Canadian leader can offer any defense of their policies, such as: 

“We believe a $60 billion surplus with our free-trade American partner is justified, and we also believe we are further correct in not spending our promised 2 percent of GDP on defense.” 

Their veritable retort of “Trump is a monster” is no defense at all.

Keep reading

This Is the Strongest Case for Trump’s Tariffs I’ve Heard Yet

Donald Trump’s tariff policies remain a lightning rod for debate. Democrats are sounding the alarm, warning of dire economic fallout and painting a picture of looming catastrophe.

Batya Ungar-Sargon, deputy opinion editor of Newsweek, made one of the strongest, most effective cases yet for former President Donald Trump’s tariffs during the latest episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher.” She broke down exactly why these tariffs are necessary, and by the end, she left Bill Maher flustered.

Ungar-Sargon’s explanation couldn’t have been clearer: manufacturing jobs and economic nationalism are crucial for the American middle class.

When the conversation turned to the economy of the 1970s, Ungar-Sargon wasted no time explaining why so many Americans look back on that era with nostalgia. “In the ‘70s, the largest share of our GDP was in the middle class,” she said. “And that was not separate from the fact that 25% of our economy was in manufacturing.”

Maher sought clarification, asking if that meant “most of what was produced came from the middle, and now it comes from the rich.”

“Now, the top 20% controls over 50% of the GDP,” Ungar-Sargon confirmed, highlighting how economic power has been funneled away from the working class. “That manufacturing is still being done; it’s just being done in other countries.”

Maher interjected, noting that the jobs have moved overseas for “wages we will not work for.”

This, of course, is true, but it also proved Ungar-Sargon’s point.

“Yes, that’s exactly right. You’re right, Bill,” Ungar-Sargon responded. “That’s what the tariffs are for. They are to make American workers more competitive in the global market.” She then challenged the defeatist attitude that has allowed China to dominate industries once vital to the American workforce. “Why are we accepting that there should be a race to the bottom? You know, China, what is its competitive advantage over us? It’s that it pays slave wages. Why should we accept that?”

Keep reading

Canada Plans to Lift Some Sanctions on Syria Jihadis Following Massacres

The Canadian Foreign ministry said on Thursday that it plans to ease some financial sanctions on Syria and send a non-resident ambassador to Damascus, despite the horrific massacres of Alawites and Christians perpetrated by the new Syrian government and its allies last weekend.

“Canada can play a meaningful role in enabling Syrians to build an inclusive country that respects all of its citizens. We also can help prevent Syria from falling into chaos and instability,” said Canada’s special envoy for Syria, Omar Alghabra.

Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly said sanctions would be relaxed for six months to “support democratization, stabilization, and the delivery of aid” during a “period of transition” for Syria.

“These sanctions had been used as a tool against the Assad regime and easing them will help to enable the stable and sustainable delivery of aid, support local redevelopment efforts, and contribute to a swift recovery for Syria,” said a statement from Joly and Minister of International Development Ahmed Hussen.

The sanctions-easing plan involves issuing six-month permits for Canadians to conduct business transactions in Syria that were banned under sanctions, and transmit funds through the Syrian Central Bank and a few other financial institutions.

“This funding will support experienced humanitarian partners to deliver life-saving assistance, including food, protection services, water, sanitation and hygiene services, and health services. This brings Canada’s total humanitarian assistance to the Syria crisis this year to more than $100 million,” said Joly and Hussen.

Keep reading

What Trump can Learn from McKinley’s Tariffs

If Trump is to be successful as regards tariffs, he must look at President William McKinley’s successes and mistakes.

As a young, struggling congressman, William McKinley’s friend President Rutherford Hayes told him to specialize and develop expertise in tariff policy. McKinley’s first legislative effort as a congressman was to increase tariffs in 1877. McKinley rose quickly to chair of the Ways and Means Committee. McKinley was instrumental in forming a Tariff Commission and became a framer of the 1882 Tariff Bill.

His chairmanship led to the passage of the famous “McKinley” Tariff Act of 1890. The Tariff of 1890 went too far and lacked the appropriate guardrails to address inflation and potential trade wars. The 1890 Tariff roughly added a 50% tariff on all manufacturing imports. McKinley’s colleagues overruled him, following the model of tariffs as revenue producers versus McKinley’s model of protectionism for American industry. The short-term adverse effects and political impact cost McKinley and many other Republicans their seats two years later.

McKinley’s return to Congress in 1896 would be the forge for America’s first voting alliance of workingmen and manufacturing capitalists, which won him the White House twice.  

The era of McKinley tariff protection lasted from 1880 to 1920. In 1880, the American steel industry struggled to expand against British steel’s supremacy but flourished under the McKinley tariffs. Steel production went from 1.3 million tons in 1880 to 11.2 million tons in 1900 to 28.3 million tons in 1910. In 1898, the American steel industry surpassed Britain in pig iron production. The U.S. gross national product grew from an estimated $11 billion in 1880 to $18.7 billion in 1890 to $35.3 billion in 1910. The American glass industry was another struggling industry in 1880 due to imports. By 1910, the McKinley tariffs reversed the trend, and the glass industry had increased its output five to tenfold. During the peak tariff years of 1896 to 1901 under President McKinley, steel production increased 111%, electrical equipment production increased 271%, and farm equipment increased 149%. During the same period, wages increased by 10% and employment by 20%. Even more impressive to free traders, prices fell as productivity and innovation mushroomed. Macro and microeconomic data of the period continue to be debated, but McKinley won the working-class dinner table.

Keep reading

The Moralistic Risk for Trump’s Foreign Policy

As the new Trump Administration turns a critical eye to the priorities of government spending, one target of its investigations seems to be delivering an endless supply of questionable practices for scrutiny. USAID, long theorized to be part of a global soft regime change network by many opposed to the status quo of foreign policy, has been proven to be exactly that. This ranges from manufacturing opposition to the Cuban government, to using progressive identitarian groups to affect elections in Bangladesh, and even to create a feedback loop where American media cites supposedly independent activists abroad (who are funded by USAID)  in order to justify distorting the narrative at home.

None of this is particularly surprising to those of us who have been skeptical of the softer side of endless interventionism. Two and a half years ago I published Woke Imperium: The Coming Confluence of Social Justice and Neoconservatism, which made the case that the increasingly messianic nature of progressivism served the cause of moral justification for a foreign policy of endless interventionism abroad; it provides a built-in excuse to be involved in as many foreign countries as possible. Through everything from non-governmental organizations supporting ethnic minorities in geopolitical fault lines to the funding of media that pushes a North American–style cultural vanguardism onto very different societies, a changing domestic audience could be brought into the quest for global domination through a self-flattering moralism.

That process is hardly unique to the liberal faction of politics, however. The George W. Bush administration was obsessed with democracy promotion and nation-building as a part of its plan to combat terrorism. It also had a reputation for conflating its own conservative Christian fixation on culture war with foreign policy, such as when its plans to combat AIDS in Africa were tied to abstinence-only education and a ban on condoms, reflecting the administration’s domestic obsession with similar policies at home. It was under such conditions that foreign governments could reasonably claim that American missionaries were tied at the hip to intelligence operations.

The present Trump administration’s willingness to question old talking points about foreign policy being a moral project are laudable but inconsistent. In the transactional worldview that Trump emphasized on campaign, there can be little room for such sentiments, yet already there are signs that he is willing to lean into domestic culture war in order to justify unnecessary interventions abroad. Any plan to remake war-shattered Gaza by acquiring it in a real estate deal facilitated by the United States reflects a long line of interventionist thought about the United States playing some kind of providential role in transforming the Middle East. Indeed, USAID itself once cooked up a potential plan for the relocation of Palestinians into new settlements in Egypt.

Keep reading

Forget America, Foreign Leaders Want To Know Exactly How Far US Meddling Went In Their Own Backyards

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico wrote to U.S. President Donald Trump’s close advisor, Elon Musk, who tasked his DOGE with rooting out corruption and waste in the U.S. government. Fico has asked for clarity on exactly what funds the USAID sent to Slovakia, requesting a face-to-face with the X CEO as the past operation of USAID is “extremely serious for the internal affairs of the Slovak Republic.”

The Slovak prime minister also wants to discuss ways in which the two countries, Slovakia and the United States, can cooperate. As of now, Musk has given no public reply. 

Keep reading

PANIC IN BRUSSELS: Trump and Secretary Rubio Reportedly Ignoring the European Union, Focusing on Bilateral Relations with the Countries

US President Donald J. Trump and his Secretary of State Marco Rubio are reportedly focusing on bilateral relations with some European countries, and totally ignoring the European Union in their early diplomatic moves.

But, come to think of it – why wouldn’t they?

The EU is pushing every losing, crippling Globalist agenda under the sun – from unchecked mass migration to the Net-zero obsession of the ‘Church of Global Warming’; from DEI nonsense to Transgenderism for children, to advancing a ‘forever war’ in Ukraine… Brussels is destroying their nations to obey the orders of the Globalist overlords.

In the words of old-time Trump ally, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: ‘The EU is a contemporary parody of the Soviet Union’.

The most prominent point of tension – but far from the only one – is the unfairness of the trade imbalance.

From Trump’s speech at the Davos WEF conference:

“From the standpoint of America, the EU treats us very, very unfairly, very badly.

They make it very difficult to bring products into Europe, and yet they expect to be selling and they do sell their products in the United States. So, we have, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits with the EU, and nobody’s happy with it. And we’re going to do something about it.

They essentially don’t take our farm products and they don’t take our cars, yet they send cars to us by the millions. They put tariffs on things that we want to do … We have some very big complaints with the EU.”

Keep reading

Will There Be a Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine?

One of the earliest points to become apparent about Donald Trump’s second term as president is that there is a significant difference in foreign policy priorities and a vast change in style from his predecessors over the past 8 or 9 decades.  Blather about the United States promoting or defending democracy around the world has already faded with the onset of the new administration.  That change is just as well, since more often than not, such rhetoric merely served as a cover for U.S. power politics and an attempt to prolong Washington’s fading global hegemony.

If one truly wants to understand Trump’s likely approach to both continental and world affairs, though, it would be more instructive to study the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, James K. Polk, and Andrew Jackson than to focus on the post-Pearl Harbor, globalist presidents.  That is especially true with respect to Trump’s attitudes and policy preferences regarding the Western Hemisphere.  Indeed, his focus on that arena is so intense and stridently nationalist that it is not too early to wonder if there will be a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.

The original Monroe Doctrine became official U.S. policy in 1823.  The actual architect was Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, and it was a bold declaration of rising U.S. power as well as the explicit assertion of a sphere of influence for the upstart republic.  Indeed, the scope of the declaration greatly exceeded Washington’s military and economic capabilities at the time to enforce it unaided.  However, Great Britain’s objectives and interests in keeping other major powers out of the Western Hemisphere coincided with those of the United States.  London became a de facto U.S. ally for that limited, but important, goal.  During the post-Civil War period, U.S. economic and military power gradually grew to the point that Washington’s assertion of preeminence in the hemisphere became increasingly credible. Indeed, U.S. leaders even made it clear to their British counterparts in the 1890s that new or expanded enclaves by their country would be as unwelcome as such entities controlled by other outside powers.

Keep reading

How Washington Helps: Bloody Lessons From Ukraine to Bosnia

Nearly three years after Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, Kiev’s outlook appears worse than ever. Ukrainian forces, facing manpower shortages, are losing territory at a faster pace than in the first 30 months of the conflict.

Now, Kiev looks at an evolving political situation where future support is less certain. President Donald Trump has promised to end the war in Ukraine, and several prominent figures in the MAGA movement are calling for an end to shipping billions of dollars to Kiev as Americans struggle.

If Kiev is going to make a deal to end the war, it will be decidedly worse than the one that was on the table in 2022. In April, just two months after the invasion, an agreement between Moscow and Kiev was nearly completed that would have seen Ukraine retain all its territory except for the Crimean Peninsula, which was annexed in 2014.

Keep reading