Tag: foreign policy

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

Can Trump Fix Our Broken Foreign Policy?

By the time most of you read this column, we will have a new US President. Donald J. Trump will be inaugurated for his second term today at 11:30 AM, Eastern time, and many Americans are hopeful that the disastrous foreign policy of the past four years under Biden will be improved. There is good news and bad news.

First the good news. It is no surprise that Trump’s appointees to foreign policy and national security positions are to the person very hawkish on China. However Trump, as he often does, has defied conventional wisdom on what his China policy might be by not only inviting Chinese leader Xi Jinping to attend the inauguration, but actually picking up the telephone and having a conversation with his Chinese counterpart.

According to a read-out of the call, the two discussed “trade, fentanyl, TikTok, and other subjects” and agreed to remain in regular contact. Winston Churchill is often (inaccurately) credited with the phrase “jaw-jaw is better than war-war,” but nonetheless it is an accurate statement. It is much better to engage even with “adversaries” than to refuse contact and add more sanctions. Those who prefer sanctions over communications are the true isolationists.

On TikTok, the popular application has credited Trump with preventing the Congressional ban from taking effect. If true, it is another good Trump move in favor of our Constitutional free speech guarantees.

Keep reading

Exit stage left: Biden’s curious Cuba move

President Joe Biden’s January 14 removal of sanctions imposed on Cuba during the first Trump administration could have been a major step toward restarting Barack Obama’s policy of engagement if Biden had done it in his first week as president instead of his last.

But done at the last minute, they are unlikely to have much impact. Two of the three will not even take effect until after Trump’s inauguration.

Senior members of Trump’s incoming foreign policy team, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and Special Envoy for Latin America Maurico Claver-Carone, have criticized Biden’s actions, noting that they can be quickly and easily reversed by the incoming administration.

“No one should be under any illusion in terms of a change in Cuba policy,” Waltz said.

Nevertheless, within hours of the White House’s announcement, the Cuban government announced that, in response to appeals from the Vatican, it would gradually release 553 prisoners, many of whom were involved in the nationwide protests on July 11, 2021. The deal was the culmination of three years of Vatican shuttle diplomacy.

Biden’s package includes three measures: (1) It rescinded Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) 5, of June 16, 2017, the basic framework for Trump’s policy of regime change; (2) It suspends Title III of the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which gives U.S. citizens, including naturalized Cuban Americans, whose property was nationalized by Cuba’s revolutionary government the right to sue in U.S. Federal Court anyone making beneficial use of that property; and (3) It initiated removal of Cuba from the State Department’s list of State Sponsors of International Terrorism.

Keep reading

Joe Biden’s Bizarro World of Foreign Policy “Achievements”

Biden’s farewell boasts ring hollow as his foreign policy missteps—from emboldening Iran and Hamas to the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal—undermine his claims of global achievement.

 Departing President Joe Biden offered a farewell brag this week to his State Department about how his tenure had improved America’s stature abroad. In his now accustomed weird mix of whispering and fiery shouting, Biden apparently felt he had to lie or mislead about almost every one of his “achievements.”

Yet to the extent that anything improved abroad on his watch—the weakening of Iran or the near destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah—it was due despite, not because of, Biden.

Biden, bowing to election year political pressure, did all he could to restrain and block Israeli retaliations to the October 7 massacres. Only after he was repeatedly proven wrong does he now shamelessly take credit for what Israel ironically achieved by ignoring his own threats directed at Israel. Additionally, the Afghanistan withdrawal remains a significant marker of his presidency.

Biden is correct only that Iran is “weaker than it’s been in decades.” But Tehran was aided, not hurt, by Biden’s nonstop efforts to lift sanctions, to allow Iran to make billions in oil revenues, to pay the theocracy billions of dollars in hostage ransom, and to beg the mullahs to reenter the ill-starred Iran deal. Everything Biden did makes it much harder for Israel to survive.

Keep reading