Foreign Policy Update – USA Gov Policy

CHINA

State-sponsored repression against all religions continues to intensify in China. In the newly-released 2019 report on International Religious Freedom, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said the “Chinese Communist Party is now ordering religious organizations to obey CCP leadership and infuse communist dogma into their teachings and practice of their faith. The mass detentions of Uighurs in Xinjiang continues. So does the repression of Tibetans and Buddhists and Falun Gong and Christians.”

Pompeo released a statement earlier in the week calling China’s attempts to take advantage of the US domestic situation to press their political agenda “obscene.” He noted that there is no equivalence between the two forms of government. The United States uses rule of law; China does not. The US has free speech and embraces peaceful protest, he added, and China does not. “We defend religious freedom; as I just noted, China continues its decades-long war on faith,” according to Pompeo. Relations between the US and China have grown even more tense since the onset of the COVID-10 virus. It shows no signs of abating and there are indications it may escalate given China’s belligerent behavior.

HONG KONG

It appears likely the United States is going to impose a cost on the decisionmakers who denied this freedom to the people of Hong Kong, accord to Secretary Pompeo. He pointed out that Hong Kong is no longer a highly autonomous region. “That means that the behavior and the relationships that we have with Hong Kong will look more like the relationships we have with China,” he said. Previously, the preference set that was given to Hong Kong as a result of the Chinese commitment to freedom in Hong Kong and one country and two systems “will begin to look less and less like there are really two systems as a reflection of the fact that there aren’t,” Pompeo added.

In the coming weeks President Trump is expected to propose a range of responses that Washington will implement , so in cooperation with its international partners. The world, Pompeo said, has come to understand that a “commitment from the Chinese Communist Party is no longer something that they can rely upon, and that has real implications for how we ought to respond to what they’re doing in Hong Kong today.” The Secretary indicated that the Administration is very concerned that Hong Kong’s leadership will try to delay or cancel the upcoming September elections if the result appears uncertain or leaning againshe Secret Beijing. If the situation further deteriorates Pompeo said the US is looking at the possibility of welcoming the entrepreneurial people of Hong Kong into the United States.

The order generic cialis conclusion has been made with this statement that Kamagra works well by damaging the cancer cells. When cheapest cialis in australia taken correctly, these jellies work really well and let you heal erectile dysfunction in minutes. Erection enhancing meds like Kamagra, Levitr, cialis online pharmacy, Super P Force, Silagra are categorized simple and short way for recovery. So, lots of medicine producing companies can produce the medicine can produce it. generico levitra on line

IRAN

The continuing threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran remains, according to Pompeo, as it has continued to violate a number of its nuclear commitments that it signed up for under the JCPOA. The US campaign to hold Iran in check is ongoing and Washington is adding pressure on the regime.

The Secretary announced the end of the sanctions waiver covering all remaining JCPOA-originating nuclear projects in Iran – the Arak reactor conversion, the provision of enriched uranium for the Tehran Research Reactor, and the export of Iran’s spent and scrap research reactor fuel following a final, 60-day wind-down period allowing companies and entities involved in these activities to cease their operations. Pompeo said that the United States has “put resources in place to deter Iranian aggression on the ground.” He pointed to Washington’s diplomatic power in “uniting the world in a number of ways with respect to Iran’s terrorism.” Starting on October 18 the Russians will be able to sell equipment to Iran, and they appear to be preparing to do so. The Chinese also will be able to sell tanks to Iran. Pompeo added that Washington has “a plan that we believe will successfully prevent that from happening… It’s too dangerous to the world to allow Iran, after just what would be now five years of the agreement, to be able to again arm themselves, purchase high-end weapon systems from the Russians and the Iranians, making it even more difficult for us to stop them from building out their nuclear program.

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

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 […]