| | | | There Was a Big Question Looming Over Pompeo Yesterday | | The senators who grilled Mike Pompeo during yesterday's hearing likely agreed with much of what the Secretary of State had to say, especially on Russia. The problem is, it's not clear who Pompeo was really speaking for, argues Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post.
"If you listened carefully you could tell Pompeo still did not know exactly what transpired between Putin and Trump in Helsinki. He insisted that Trump understands the Russian threat and that our policy on Crimea and other matters had not changed. However, he wouldn't rule out the possibility that Trump discussed lifting sanctions. He wouldn't say what if any specific deals were reached. He refused to say if the two leaders discussed downsizing the US presence in Syria," Rubin writes.
"In short, many senators would agree with Pompeo's positions on Russia, North Korea, etc. There is no doubt Pompeo sees through Putin and understands the risk to the West. However, Pompeo did nothing to reassure skeptics that he and the president are on the same page. Even worse, Pompeo failed to provide satisfactory evidence (even a quote!) that Trump understands the flattery game that wily dictators play."
| | The Real Loser From the Trump-Juncker Meeting | | | With his meeting with President Trump, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has averted – for now, at least – a damaging trade war. But there was one big loser from the talks, writes Mary Dejevksy for The Independent: Britain.
"For the time being…the EU is proving more cohesive than its one departing member, and it has started the process – as yet only started – of dealing on equal terms with Donald Trump's America First USA," she writes.
But in "a world where powerful trade blocs can fend off trouble by doing deals that are mutually advantageous, where does this leave a medium-sized industrialized country with a medium-sized economy that wants to take back control?" | | Iran Still Has Friends In High Places | | | The Trump administration is trying to tighten the economic screws on Iran. It won't work, write Dina Esfandiary and Ariane Tabatabai for Foreign Policy. China and Russia are already stepping up to help Tehran.
"Russia and China effectively shelter Iran from complete isolation and provide it with political support, defense assistance, and economic relief, undermining Western efforts to pressure Tehran. That means Trump's stated goal of isolating Iran to pressure its regime to return to the negotiating table and craft a more favorable deal to the United States isn't a viable policy," they write.
"Isolation only works when it is reinforced by key players within the international community. Today, Iran has other partners it can turn to that will mitigate the fallout from the collapse of the nuclear deal. And given their own strategic interests in Iran, neither Russia nor China will buy into a US-led policy of endless pressure." | | What Team Trump Gets Right About Afghanistan | | The Trump administration deserves credit for seeming to recognize a simple truth about the conflict in Afghanistan, suggests Bonnie Kristian for Reason magazine. The United States can't resolve the problem militarily – it's time to talk with the Taliban.
"The objection to negotiating with the Taliban is predictable: This is a terrorist organization," Kristian writes.
"Still, though the United States likes to claim a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, the reality is we do. And the reason is simple: Sometimes negotiating with terrible people is the least bad option. It's not ideal. It's not easy or ethically uncomplicated. It won't solve all of Afghanistan's many systemic problems. But it is the United States' best shot at extrication from a nothing-left-to-win war turned nation building debacle. It is also Afghanistan's best shot at ending the ongoing violence that has plagued this country for decades."
| | Why US-Mexico Ties Are Headed for Trouble | | Don't be fooled by the diplomatic niceties between President Trump and his recently elected Mexican counterpart, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, writes Shannon O'Neil for Bloomberg. From NAFTA to migration to security, the two leaders simply aren't on the same page.
"Despite Trump's demand and veiled threats to quickly reach an agreement, Lopez Obrador and his team aren't deviating from Mexico's current red lines – including the sunset clause, dispute settlement mechanisms and auto content rules – or showing any interest in bilateral talks," O'Neil writes.
Meanwhile, "Lopez Obrador calls for a comprehensive regional economic development plan to attack the root causes of migration. Trump has proposed cutting such aid to Central America by nearly $200 million…"
"Of course, few traditional allies have remained in the US president's good graces…As the 2020 elections approach, Trump will be tempted once again to demonize Mexico. With his own base to feed, Lopez Obrador will be hard pressed not to respond in kind."
| | America Is Strangely Biased Against Babies | | News that the US last year saw its lowest number of births since 1987 is a worrying sign for the country's future, write Leonard Lopoo and Kerri Raissian in The Wall Street Journal. While other countries are actively looking to boost fertility rates, Washington appears strangely anti-fertility.
"Singapore has the lowest total fertility rate in the world, with the average woman bearing 0.83 child in her lifetime. In hope of increasing fertility, Singapore literally pays for children: S$6,000 (about US$4,400) each for the first two, S$8,000 for the third and fourth and S$10,000 for five and more. Australia, Canada, France, Japan and Russia all have offered 'baby bonuses' or similar monetary payments," they write.
"Unlike many other developed nations that seek to stimulate births, the US – whose [total fertility rate] is 1.87, below the 2.1 'replacement rate' – does not have an explicit population policy." | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment