Foreign Policy Update – USA Gov Policy

HONG KONG

Some of the worst news to come out of Asia since the emergence of the Wuhan pandemic is that Hong Kong’s autonomy appears to be coming to an abrupt end. The PRC is forcing the former British colony under a new national security law after bypassing the Hong Kong city legislature. In the 1997 declaration on Hong Kong, Beijing promised 50 years of independent rule as a semi-autonomous region. The governments of the United States, Australia, the UK and Canada issued a joint statement early Friday outlining their deep concern about the direct imposition of very harsh legislation which would curtail Hong Kong people’s liberties and erode Hong Kong’s autonomy.

President Trump on Friday also announced that he has directed his administration to review the full range of agreement since the territory is no longer separate from Beijing. During a press conference at the White House President Trump said he is directing the “administration to begin the process of eliminating policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment.” He also noted that he plans to revoke Hong Kong’s “preferential treatment as a separate customs and travel territory from the rest of China.”

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

The President announced that the US is pulling out of the World Health Organization (WHO) due to its mishandling of the Covid-19 virus pandemic. “We will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization and directing those funds to worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs,” Trump said in a statement from the White House. The President said that the WHO is under China’s control and failing to make the reforms within 30 days as requested by the US. Since WHO has refused to commit to making any reforms the US has stopped over $400 million in funding to the UN body.

In an interview this week Secretary of State Pompeo reminded people that the head of the World Health Organization in January said there was no human-to-human transmission of the virus and that there was little risk to the world. Pompeo added that at least since December the organization covered up the facts.

AUSTRALIA

It can not only make themselves infected, viagra wholesale price but can also spread to their wife, even their children. It is also a surgery that cannot be performed on your own. viagra online These are precisely the reasons viagra lowest prices why consulting a doctor about the usage of Tadalista. Also, confusion resides among some soft viagra people, as they believe using this medication will actually cause an erection.

In a Sunday interview Secretary Pompeo was asked about Australia’s Victoria state, which is considering signing up as part of China’s BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) to earn billions from Beijing. Pompeo said that “every citizen of Australia should know that every one of those Belt and Road projects needs to be looked at incredibly closely…nearly each one of them has some cost to it. There’s often money loaned at concessional rates or conditions placed in the debt documents or government concessions that have to be made to the Chinese Communist Party in order to get those Belt and Road Initiative projects built. Those present real risk – real risk to the people in that region, real risk to your country – and frankly, they build up the capacity of the Chinese Communist Party to do harm in other ways as well.”

IRAN

This week Secretary Pompeo announced his decision to end the sanctions waiver covering all remaining JCPOA-originating nuclear projects in Iran, and also sanctioned two Iranian nuclear officials. The Iranian regime has “continued its nuclear brinkmanship by expanding proliferation-sensitive activities.” According to Brian Hook, Special Representative for Iran and Senior Advisor to Pompeo, this is a “complicated and multifaceted decision.”

On Wednesday, Pompeo terminated the nuclear waiver for the three remaining Iran nuclear-related projects. Hook pointed out that this includes the Arak reactor conversion, the provision of enriched uranium for the Tehran research reactor, and the export of Iran-spent and scrap research reactor fuel. The decision will take effect after a 60-day wind-down.

A senior State Department official said there were basically quite a larger number of projects that had begun under the JCPOA for which US waivers were in place, and those waivers have gradually been taken down one by one with this as the latest step in that progression.

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/