Indo-Pacific Challenge, Part 5

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its presentation of the U.S. Department of Defenses’ report on threats in the Indo-Pacific region.

BURDEN SHARING

America’s National Security Strategy calls on the United States to pursue cooperation and reciprocity together with our allies, partners, and aspiring partners. Cooperation means sharing responsibilities and burdens. The United States expects our allies and partners to shoulder a fair share of the burden of responsibility to protect against common threats. When we pool resources and share responsibility for our common defense, our security burden becomes lighter and more cost-effective.

THE STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM IN THE INDO-PACIFIC

The State Partnership Program began in 1993 with partnerships between the National Guard of designated U.S. States and newly independent Eastern European countries.

The State Partnership Program has since expanded to other regions, including the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Western Europe, and the Indo-Pacific. By the end of FY 2019, the United States will have 79 partnerships with 86 nations, 12 of which are in the Indo-Pacific:

Bangladesh / Oregon (2008)
Cambodia / Idaho (2009)
Indonesia / Hawaii (2006)
Malaysia / Washington (2017)
Mongolia / Alaska (2003)
Philippines / Hawaii, Guam (2000)
Thailand / Washington (2002)
Tonga and Fiji / Nevada (2014 & 2018)
Vietnam / Oregon (2012)
Recently Added: Nepal (2019) 4Sri Lanka

The tiny erectile arteries of penile organ fail to receive view for more info online cialis canada sufficient proportion of blood to function in the paramount means. The Malaysian government has spent super active cialis millions of dollars on new equipment and improvements to the manufacturing process. We also cleanse/detoxify to rest or viagra 100mg for sale heal our overloaded digestive organs and allow them to catch up on past work. So, if you levitra 20 mg continue reading here have this concern, then consult the expert. 2.

UPHOLDING FREEDOM AND ACCESS TO GLOBAL COMMONS

Throughout our history, the United States has asserted a key national interest in preserving the freedom of the seas, and has often relied on the U.S. military forces to protect that interest. As President Ronald Reagan said in releasing the U.S. Oceans Policy in 1983, “we will not acquiesce in unilateral actions of other states designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the international community in navigation and overflight.”

Today, in places like the South China Sea, excessive maritime claims are attempts by coastal States to unlawfully restrict the exercise of freedoms afforded to all seafaring nations to operate in waters beyond territorial limits. The United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, and encourage our allies and partners to do the same.

Excessive maritime claims inconsistent with international law, if left unchallenged, threaten the international rulesbased order and U.S. interests and those of our regional allies and partners. Freedom of the seas is essential to ensuring the global mobility of U.S. forces in the event of a crisis and the worldwide security of civilian shipping on a daily basis.

DoD, therefore, is committed to ensuring free and open maritime access, including through freedom of navigation (FON) assertions (commonly called Freedom of Navigation Operations, or FONOPs), to protect the stable economic order and to maintain the ability of U.S. forces to respond, as needed. U.S. forces routinely challenge excessive maritime claims asserted by allies and partners, as well as those made by potential adversaries and competitors.

Conclusion

For more than 70 years the United States, along with our like-minded allies and partners, has helped underwrite a stable security environment that allowed the people, economies, and nations in the Indo-Pacific to rise and prosper. Our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific encompasses values shared by our allies and partners in the region – one that emphasizes upholding a foundation of mutual respect, responsibility, transparency, and accountability.

As great power competition returns, we will continue to invest, act, and orient ourselves to ensure that the principled international order from which all countries in the region benefit endures.

The United States will uphold our commitments and will act to defend our interests and those of our allies and partners.

The United States, along with our like-minded allies and partners, will continue to be engaged in this dynamic and rapidly growing region. The Department of Defense, in conjunction with other U.S. Government Departments and Agencies, regional institutions, and regional allies and partners, will continue to ensure that the rule of law – not coercion and force – dictates the future of the IndoPacific.

Photo taken on May 4, 2019 shows Chinese naval forces participating the “Joint Sea-2019” exercise. A six-day joint naval exercise held by Chinese and Russian navies .in Qingdao, east China’s Shandong Province. Two submarines, 13 surface ships, as well as fixed-wing airplanes, helicopters and marines participated in the exercise. (Xinhua/Li Ziheng)

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/