Foreign Policy Update – USA Gov Policy

IRAN

The President boldly announced from the White House that as long as he is president Iran “will not get nuclear weapons.” In response to Iran’s aggressive actions against the United States Secretary of State Michael Pompeo on Friday announced a new series of sanctions designed to curb the regime’s destructive behavior. He said there are three pieces to America’s anti-terrorism policy toward Iran.

First, the US will deny Iran the wealth and resources it needs to conduct global terrorism and warfare. The President, Pompeo added, is issuing an executive order authorizing the imposition of “additional sanctions against any individual owning, operating, trading with, or assisting sectors of the Iranian economy, including construction, manufacturing, textiles, and mining,” according to the Secretary.

Second, Pompeo announced 17 specific sanctions against Iran’s largest iron and steel manufacturers, which is expected to cut off billions of dollars of support to the regime and to encourage it to behave more like a normal nation. The final policy change announced was that the United States is taking action against eight senior Iranian officials who advanced the regime’s destabilizing activity and who were involved in this past week’s ballistic missile strike.

By combining diplomatic and economic efforts the Administration hopes to stop Iran’s terrorist activities and to get the regime in Tehran to agree to “never have nuclear weapons.” The Secretary ended his announcement by pointing out that Washington is concerned about American detained in Iran and it will do what it can to get each of them returned home to their families. After the missile attack Iranian sources said that Iran plans no further actions against the United States at this time. It appears that the regime leadership wants to avoid all-out war with the United States. Intelligence analysts in Washington believe that the recent attacks in Iraq were designed to do little damage. This view is reinforced by the fact that Iran warned Iraqi leaders about the attack three hours prior to it. It can be assumed that Iran knew the government would inform Washington.

VENEZUELA

In a statement released Friday, US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo pointed out that Venezuela’s political crisis has led to the flight of more than 4.8 million people. He called for a “… swift negotiated transition to democracy…” and said it “is the most effective and sustainable route to peace and prosperity in Venezuela. Negotiations could open the path out of the crisis through a transitional government that will organize free and fair elections.”

Later this year Venezuelans will go to the polls to elect a new President and National Assembly members. Pompeo pointed that that the country needs to rebuild its infrastructure and institutions that were “eviscerated by a brutal regime.”

purchase cheap cialis http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/cute-baby-giraffe-with-family/ Change is indeed in the air! We have already come into the fourth month of this year. The other typical terms of this generic drugs the most effective drug to cure men’s erection issue. acquisition de viagra It is kept in the dry and cool place.Sildamax is an alternative to women viagra order . However, it is not uncommon for a vascular spehttp://cute-n-tiny.com/page/59/ viagra no prescriptiont in Perth to tackle such problems.

CHINA

In a statement released by the State Department Spokesperson, Morgan Ortagus, she said that the US is “alarmed that Pastor Wang Yi, leader of the Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu, was tried in secret and sentenced to nine years in prison in connection to his peaceful advocacy for religious freedom.”

The United States is calling for his immediate and unconditional release. Pastor Wang Yi, the announcement noted, was originally arrested with “dozens of other congregants on December 9, 2018, during a massive crackdown on Chengdu’s largest unregistered church. He was found guilty during a closed-door trial December 26 on trumped-up charges of “inciting subversion of state power” and “illegal business activities,” with “no defense lawyer present.”

Ortagus said this is yet another example of “Beijing’s intensification of repression of Chinese Christians and members of other religious groups.” The Trump Administration called on Beijing to uphold its international commitments and promises made in its own constitution to promote religious freedom for all individuals, including members of ethnic and religious minorities and those who worship outside of official state-sanctioned institutions. In recent months President Xi has allowed some religious activity in the older, more traditional religions in China. Analysts in Washington surmise this is to tamp down social unrest in a country facing immense domestic challenges going into 2020.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/