ASEAN Nations Meet – USA Gov Policy

As the Indo-Pacific region continues to face crises, national governments met to discuss peaceful approaches.

ASEAN, The ten-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (including Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) met on July 31. Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the U.S.A also participated.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo co-chaired the event.

The meeting took place at a time of increased tension in the region. China continues to lay claim to vast swaths of the South China Sea, and there are significant indications that its military is preparing to move into Hong Kong in the wake of massive protests in the semi-autonomous region. Beijing has taken steps to monopolize resources beneath the ocean, especially oil.

The meeting, in guarded diplomatic language, focused on “promoting sustainable security through deepening strategic trust, promoting a seamless ASEAN and pursuing sustainable economic growth and development.” The attendees underscored the importance of maintaining ASEAN unity and reiterated their commitment to supporting a paradigm that is “open, transparent, inclusive and rulesbased.”

Participants were encouraged to support and cooperate in two key areas including maritime cooperation, connectivity, sustainable development and economic cooperation. They committed to upholding an open, inclusive, and lawful multilateral trading system.

The efforts of South Korea, the U.S. and North Korea to expand dialogue were praised.

The conference discussed the importance of promoting a peaceful order in the region, including upholding international law such as the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the importance of “maintaining and promoting peace, security, stability, safety and freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea.” China’s actions, in invading the Philippine GARLIC – A natural antibiotic, it was used for curing erectile dysfunction in ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Chinese and Japanese cultures. order levitra visit over here When is IUI procedure used? IUI is used when http://appalachianmagazine.com/category/faith/page/3/ buy viagra the couples have been trying for a long time or non-effect of taking antibiotics, patients are suggested to take the Chinese herbal medicine Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory Pill to get back their erectile abilities. He lasted six seasons in free samples of levitra the NFL as a quarterback for the Falcons for four years and the Washington Redskins for two years. They are getting important places to shape viagra generic wholesale the quality of learning. Exclusive Economic Zone and attempting to restrict international shipping in the South China Sea remains a concern.

the ASEAN countries, with a population of 650 million, average GDP growth of five percent nearing $3 trillion, and a young, tech-savvy demographic, make up one of the world’s most dynamic ‎regions.

The U.S. State Department noted that “Over the past 42 years, the United States and ASEAN have worked together to promote peace, stability, and prosperity. The U.S.-ASEAN relationship began in 1977 and was elevated to a strategic partnership in 2015. We see strong convergence between the principles enshrined in ASEAN’s Indo-Pacific Outlook—inclusivity, openness, a region based on rule of law, good governance, and respect for international law—and the vision of the United States for a free and open Indo-Pacific, as well as the regional approaches of our allies, partners, and friends.”

ASEAN’s dynamic economies and high growth rates make it a key market for U.S. exports and investment. They are America’s largest regional Investment destination, totaling $329 billion. That exceeds U.S. investment in China, Japan, Republic of Korea, and India combined. It’s also the 4th largest export market for U.S. goods.

Washington has established a number of initiatives to assist ASEAN’s economies. The ASEAN Single Window (ASW) Initiative, helped ASEAN countries reduce the cost of doing business and streamline trade in goods. USAID has provided assistance to upgrade technical software and reform laws for the ASW, allowing for easier exchange of customs information between ASEAN countries and the United States.

The U.S. Infrastructure Transaction and Assistance Network (ITAN) promotes high quality and financially sustainable infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific to help ASEAN’s infrastructure investment needs. The ITAN provides technical assistance to the Philippines, helps Vietnam implement its Power Development Plan and attract private sector investment, and partners with Indonesia’s state electric company to help modernize power grids and diversify energy sources.

Other U.S. provided programs promote infrastructure, private investment, smart cities, military security, clean air and energy, and youth leadership.

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]