Foreign Policy Update – USA Gov Policy

Despite the extensive media coverage of Putin’s every statement, there are events occurring in the world outside of the potential conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Some of those are taking place in India where there are mounting questions over the Modi government’s suspected use of spyware on its own citizenry and Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan. In 2017 Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed off on the purchase of Pegasus spyware designed by the Israeli cyber-arms firm, NCO Group. Since that time there have been numerous allegations of the Indian government using the Pegasus spyware to read text messages, track calls, collect passwords, track locations, and listen in to conversations using the target’s own cell phone microphone and camera, as well as harvesting the information from downloaded apps.

This week there are reports according to Michael Kugelman, writing in Foreign Policy’s South Asia Brief, that Indian media have revealed that “two cybersecurity experts told the [Indian Supreme Court appointed] committee there are “strong indicators” that the allegations are true. Although denied by the government, both supporters and their opponents see this as hurting India. The former argue that the accusations mark the latest attempt to malign India. Opponents say it is an example of the government cracking down on civil liberties.

Elsewhere in India, the country remains embroiled in an ongoing border conflict in the Ladakh region of the Himalayan Mountains near China. On Wednesday of this week the two nuclear-armed countries held their 14^th round of discussions since June 2020. Although Indian officials characterized the talks as “constructive” there was no movement on either side. At immediate issue is the Hot Springs area where troops are dug in for the winter months. Overall, there are several thousand troops along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which extends for nearly 2,200 miles and is not demarcated. The 24-month long Ladakh geopolitical crisis reflects domestic concerns in both nation-states with neither government willing to accept a compromise solution. During this crisis reports came out accusing Chinese soldiers of beating their Indian counterparts with nail-studded rods and with some soldiers thrown to their death in freezing river water. Others Indian soldiers died from asphyxiation and hyperthermia. Despite the crisis last year bilateral trade with China topped $100 billion. But all is not well in the region.

Both countries have begun building permanent infrastructure along the Sino-Indian border indicating that this dispute is not the typical short border clash between the two but has the potential for a more serious conflict. The new garrison and airstrips suggest that the conflict may escalate into a more extensive kinetic warfare in the future. A recent South China Morning Post article pointed out that China recently deployed a long-range rocket launcher near the border. Kyle Gardner, an Sino-Indian border expert, warns that this latest development points to a “sustained, broader militarization of the LAC” and highlights the heightened risks of a small-scale conflict. At question is whether China and India’s long-standing agreement on the non-use of firearms may soon be discarded.

The medicine works the cheapest levitra best through improving sexual abilities by curing impotence and making it extremely easier for the aroused man to attain sexual pleasures. Rooting for organic look Besides purchase generic viagra the lawn, how the ms windows are situated, nearness to a recreation area or a main quad are among ways of obtaining outside. A user needs to chew the soft tablet for 5 viagra soft 50mg minutes and wait for about 20 minutes. If someone is reluctant to visit a doctor, then he can seek counselor’s prescription de viagra canada assistance.

India has been highly critical of China’s handling of the Covid pandemic while China views India’s security ties and involvement with the US in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue as threatening to the communist giant. On Friday President Biden announced its Indo-Pacific strategy will remain much the same as in previous administrations. Craig Singleton, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, points out that “The US will continue to muddle along in the region. This plan lacks specificity, lacks detail, and there are major gaps in terms of strengthening America’s geoeconomic position in Asia.” While the world watches and waits to see what aggressive moves Putin makes toward the Ukraine, other large and small states continue to face their own challenges. Jacqueline Feldscher, writing in Defense One, says that “In its first year, the Biden administration consistently talked about the importance of diplomacy and partnerships, and its Indo-Pacific strategy is no different. The strategy mentions the need to strengthen the Quad, as well as increase cooperation with Japan and South Korea, boost collaboration with India, and expand the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.” So far, the Biden Administration has not made much progress in this area, leaving India and other states in the region to question whether, like Ukraine, they can bet on counting on the United States in a crisis.

Daria Novak previously served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Democrats vs. Free Speech

There is a dangerous belief that all major politicians support freedom of speech. Increasingly, that illusion is being exposed. Many first became aware of the determination to stamp out opposition speech when the Biden Administration sought to establish a “Disinformation Governance Board.” Statements by major figures such as former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Climate envoy John Kerry, and New York Senator Charles Schumer have exposed the disdain many leftist Democrats have for the First Amendment. Hillary Clinton actually suggested that Americans should be “criminally charged” for expressing views she opposes. Kerry was quite blunt. He suggested that the “First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it [ideas which the left disagrees with] out of existence.” While Senator Schumer mentions the First Amendment by name, saying the “First Amendment is not absolute,” most progressive leaders use the phrase “disinformation.” They define disinformation, of course, as anything that disagrees with their point of view. A Gatestone review recently quoted vice presidential candidate Tim Walz’s statement that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” The study also noted that “In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration’s Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy demanded that social media stop certain people from publishing their expertise and views.” The New York Post (D-Mass.) calling for companies like Amazon to use “enlightened” algorithms to steer readers to “true” books on subjects like climate change to protect them from their own poor reading choices. The Future of Free Speech organization Warns that “The global landscape for freedom of expression has faced severe challenges … open democracies have implemented restrictive measures.” Reason, a bipartisan publication, found that Conservatives are attached to the principles of federalism and free speech online even when these principles make it harder to achieve their policy aims, suggest two recent studies. Meanwhile, liberals are more open to giving power to whichever arm of government—federal, state, or local—they think will best achieve their aims. And while they’re generally more open to the suppression of online speech that is inaccurate, they are more likely to shift positions based on whether this speech supports their side. While many Progressive media analysts side with pro-censorship politicians, some are raising alarms. Writing in the Santa Maria Times, Dustin Olson, managing partner of American Pulse Research & Polling and the founder of the political consulting firm Olson Strategies & Advertising, warns that “Once a solid pillar of American society, free speech seems to be cracking. It used to be an American principle that the everyday American citizen could agree on, a universal given. But recent surveys reveal that this fundamental value is increasingly up for debate, and the speed of this change is alarming. In a new RealClear Opinion Research poll, nearly half of Democrats are comfortable openly admitting to a stranger over the phone that they support limiting what people can say. A startling 47 percent said that speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 52 percent of Democrats approved of government censoring social media posts for “national security.” Even more shocking, a third of Democrats believe Americans have “too much freedom.” It is not difficult to understand why progressives, who currently control the Democrat Party, are so opposed to the First Amendment. Their policies, as a whole, have failed decisively. The economy. Particularly regarding inflation, has suffered significantly due to leftist ideas. Displays of weakness abroad have invited aggression. Millions of illegals have been allowed to enter the nation unchecked, bringing in increases in crime, vast deaths from Fentanyl, job losses for U.S. citizens, sex trafficking, and increased competition for affordable houses. Local governments are suffering severe strains in their budgets. And, of course, the national debt has soared. In a fair discussion or debate, these results would be devasting for the left. Recognizing this reality, progressives have resorted to censorship. Illustration: Pixabay