Your source for US foreign policy.
|
December 4, 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 1949 NATO Treaty never attempted to single out a specific enemy for the alliance to fight against, and while it was clear at the time the Soviet Union was the focus, the lack of specificity has meant numerous attempts in recent history to add enemies, or make up new things for the alliance to do.
During this week’s NATO meeting, they are going to officially add a new nation to the list of “challenges,” in the form of China, with NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg saying NATO has to “tackle the issue” of China’s growing capabilities.
— By Jason Ditz
|
|
It was, at heart, a nice gesture. Much of that was lost in all the (some of it fair) controversy about Trump’s surprise Thanksgiving visit with the troops in Afghanistan. Whether a war is right or wrong – and this one is emphatically the latter – it is the president’s job to both review and stiffen the morale of the nation’s deployed soldiers. Especially in year nineteen of a ludicrous, endless, war. Nevertheless, to use the parlance of our post-millennial times, you could say I was "triggered" by Trump’s Turkey Day Afghan visit.
— By Maj. Danny Sjursen, USA (ret.)
|
|
On November 27, US president Donald Trump signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
The bill, passed by veto-proof majorities in Congress amid large protests in the “special administrative region,” allows the president to impose sanctions on officials who violate human rights there, and requires various US government departments to annually review Hong Kong’s political status with a view toward changing trade relations if the US doesn’t like what it sees.
In response to the bill’s passage and Trump’s signature, the Chinese government in Beijing denounced US “meddling” in China’s “internal affairs” and threatened “countermeasures.”
— By Thomas Knapp
The ongoing impeachment inquiry of President Trump can certainly compete with Hollywood’s most successful drama or comedy shows. However, when we deal with national security issues one expects the actors, in this case members of Congress and witnesses, to tell the truth. In this case, some do, but some regrettably do not. The whole picture, said House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican, looks like a “Soviet-style” event.
— By Edward Lozansky
In comments on Monday, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper tried to clarify the US position on withdrawal of forces, as addressed by President Trump. He suggested the drawdown might or might not be related to any deal with the Taliban
— By Jason Ditz
Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador reacted negatively to President Trump’s recent comments, saying he is open to cooperation with the US on drug cartels, but is not open to the idea of US intervention.
Trump announced Tuesday that he intends to label the Mexican cartels as terrorists, and Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said they contacted the US “to understand the meaning and scope of the remarks.” They also requested an immediate meeting with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the matter and what it actually means.
— By Jason Ditz
|
|
NEWS FROM THE GALLERY
|
|
Do you want more news?
Keep your finger on the pulse of US foreign policy. Subscribe to our Daily Digest and each evening, the day's top news stories and editorials are delivered straight to your email. Please support our work by visiting Antiwar.com/donate.
Antiwar.com, 1017 El Camino Real #306, Redwood City, CA 94063 | 323 512 7095 | www.antiwar.com
|
|