#Foreignpolicy

[llewelynpritch]

Twitter thread Remember this? Whenever Johnson has a problem, he calls Zelenskiy – and the bill is rapidly mounting. Each domestic disaster is followed by a call pledging more aid to Kyiv – it’s the most expensive therapy session in history. Simon Jenkins 20 June 2022

[rhk111sblog]

The Prime Minister of Vietnam, Pham Minh Chinh recently went to the City of Kunming in the Province of Yunnan in China to attend the 8th Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Summit, and while there he said that, Developing Relations with China is a Consistent Policy, an Objective Requirement, a Strategic Choice and a Top Priority of his Country's Foreign Policy.

The Premier of China, Li Qiang, in response said that his Country will further open its Market to High-Quality Goods like Agricultural Products from Vietnam, and strengthen Transport Infrastructure Connectivity with Vietnam.

Note that Vietnam also has Territorial Disputes with China in the South China Sea (SCS), but this has not kept them from maintaining very close ties with China.

Here is the Link to the Article at the “The Voice of Vietnam (VOV)” Website: https://vovworld.vn/en-US/news/vietnam-gives-top-priority-to-relations-with-china-pm-1341876.vov

SOURCE: Vietnam gives Top Priority to Relations with China: PM {Archived Link}

[discoverandrise]

Trump Wins 2024 What Does It Mean for India?🗳️🤝🌟 This video explore the potential impacts of Donald Trump's 2024 election win on India.🇮🇳 🇺🇸

[tmarshconnors]

At the time, many people laughed at me. 

Back in 2016, I made a bold statement: if Donald Trump didn’t win the election, I would be willing to support Tulsi Gabbard. At the time, many people laughed at me. 

After all, Tulsi Gabbard was a Democrat, and her positions were often seen as quite different from Trump’s. But I saw something in her a strength of character, a willingness to challenge the status quo, and an ability to think independently. 

Unlike most of the warped brainwashed left. I knew that my faith in her would eventually prove to be well placed.

Fast forward to today, and Tulsi Gabbard has come out in support of Donald Trump. It’s an unexpected twist for many, but for me, it’s a confirmation of what I believed all along. Tulsi Gabbard is someone who isn’t afraid to stand up for what she believes in, even if it means crossing traditional party lines. That’s something I’ve always admired about her.

When I first made that statement, I knew it would raise eyebrows. Tulsi Gabbard was, at that time, a rising star in the Democratic Party. She had served as a member of the House of Representatives from Hawaii and had made a name for herself by speaking out against the establishment. Her military service and foreign policy views, particularly her opposition to endless wars, set her apart from many of her Democratic colleagues.

Despite being on opposite sides of the political spectrum, I saw in Tulsi a kindred spirit. She wasn’t afraid to speak out against her own party when she believed it was wrong. She stood for what she believed in, even when it wasn’t popular. And, like Trump, she wasn’t afraid to challenge the mainstream media or the entrenched political elites.

I recognised that while we might not agree on every issue, we shared some core principles principles that were more important to me than party loyalty. Tulsi’s independent thinking, her willingness to question authority, and her commitment to serving the American people were qualities that resonated with me. 

Just a little side note even though I am a British patriot to my core. I closely watch international politics. It would be foolish (putting it nicely) to assume that America doesn’t play a big part in the way we do things here in the United Kingdom and at the world at large.

Alright back to the blog. Tulsi’s journey from being a Democratic congresswoman to supporting Donald Trump is a fascinating one. Over the years, she became increasingly disillusioned with the Democratic Party, particularly with its focus on identity politics and its unwillingness to challenge the military-industrial complex. Her outspoken criticism of both the party establishment and its leaders eventually led her to leave the Democratic Party altogether.

Tulsi has always been someone who prioritises principles over politics. Whether it’s her stance on foreign policy, her commitment to free speech, or her willingness to reach across the aisle, Tulsi has consistently shown that she’s more interested in doing what’s right for the country than in towing the party line.

We need more people that prioritises principles over politics.  I may be a staunch conservative but we must stand together against this onslaught of mass brainwashing and fight back as one. 

Sorry I digress. AGAIN!

Ok ok back on topic. When she came out in support of Trump, I wasn’t surprised. In many ways, it felt like a natural progression for someone who has always valued independent thought and the willingness to challenge the system. Tulsi’s support for Trump isn’t about party affiliation; it’s about shared values and a common vision for the future of America.

Looking back, I’m glad I stuck to my guns when it came to supporting Tulsi Gabbard. Despite the skepticism and the criticism, I believed that she was someone who would eventually prove herself, and she has. We may not agree on everything, but that’s okay. What matters to me is that she has the courage to stand up for what she believes in, even when it’s not popular or politically expedient.

In a political landscape where so many politicians are willing to compromise their values for the sake of party loyalty or personal gain, Tulsi’s integrity and independence are refreshing. She’s not afraid to challenge the status quo, and that’s something I deeply respect.

For those who laughed at me back in 2016, I can only say this: sometimes, it’s worth believing in someone, even when others don’t see it. Tulsi Gabbard has proven herself to be a true independent thinker, and I’m proud to have supported her from the beginning. Here’s to sticking to your principles and standing by those who have the courage to do the same.

[ukdailymail]

Middle East conflict explodes as Israel drops bombs inside Lebanon

[bloghrexach]

Four days into the most consequential week of Kamala Harris’ political life, she has to confront the most fraught foreign policy issue facing the country by looking directly into the eyes of an Israeli prime minister who decided not to even give her a passing name check in his address to Congress Wednesday afternoon.

[digitalninja-qa]

Kamala Harris's Decision on Netanyahu's Speech to Congress: Political and Diplomatic Implications

Introduction

Kamala Harris, the Vice President of the United States, recently faced a significant decision regarding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress. This decision has sparked considerable debate and scrutiny, both politically and diplomatically. In this article, we'll explore the various facets of this decision, from its historical context to its long-term implications.

Historical Context

Previous Instances of Foreign Leaders Addressing Congress

Foreign leaders addressing the U.S. Congress is not a new phenomenon. It is a tradition that dates back to the early 19th century. Notable addresses include Winston Churchill's speeches during World War II and more recently, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine addressing Congress amid the Russian invasion.

Netanyahu's Past Speeches to Congress

Netanyahu is no stranger to the U.S. Congress. He has addressed it multiple times, most notably in 2015, when he spoke against the Iran nuclear deal. His speeches have often been contentious, reflecting the deep political and ideological divides between the U.S. and Israeli leaderships at different times.

The Decision

Kamala Harris’s Role and Influence

As Vice President, Kamala Harris plays a crucial role in shaping U.S. foreign policy alongside President Joe Biden. Her decision regarding Netanyahu's speech is significant, reflecting the administration's stance on U.S.-Israel relations and the broader Middle Eastern policy.

Details of the Decision-Making Process

The decision was not made in isolation. It involved consultations with key advisors, foreign policy experts, and political strategists. Harris had to weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks, considering both domestic political implications and international diplomatic consequences.

Political Implications

Impact on U.S. Domestic Politics

Harris's decision has significant domestic political ramifications. It has elicited varied reactions from both major political parties. Democrats and Republicans alike have used this decision to reinforce their respective positions on U.S.-Israel relations, influencing voter perceptions and political narratives.

Reactions from Political Parties

The Democratic Party, generally supportive of Harris, showcased a mix of approval and caution, reflecting internal divisions on U.S.-Israel policy. On the other hand, the Republican Party largely criticized the decision, arguing that it undermines the long-standing alliance with Israel.

Diplomatic Implications

Effects on U.S.-Israel Relations

The decision undoubtedly affects U.S.-Israel relations. Netanyahu's administration may perceive this as a slight, potentially straining diplomatic ties. However, it also opens up opportunities for recalibrating the relationship, emphasizing mutual respect and dialogue.

International Community’s Perspective

Internationally, this decision is seen as a statement of the Biden administration's foreign policy priorities. Allies and adversaries alike are analyzing this move to gauge the U.S.'s future diplomatic strategies and its commitment to international alliances.

Public Reaction

American Public Opinion

The American public's reaction is divided. Some view Harris's decision as a necessary stance on foreign influence in U.S. politics, while others see it as a diplomatic misstep. Polls indicate a polarized response, reflecting broader political divisions in the country.

Israeli Public Opinion

In Israel, the decision has sparked a similar divide. Supporters of Netanyahu view it as an affront to their leader, while others see it as an opportunity for Israel to reassess its approach to international relations and U.S. politics.

Media Coverage

Analysis of Media Portrayal

Media outlets have covered the decision extensively, each with its own spin. Conservative media tend to criticize Harris, framing the decision as a failure in leadership. Liberal media, however, often present it as a bold and necessary move for U.S. sovereignty and integrity.

Major News Outlets’ Takes

Outlets like CNN, Fox News, and The New York Times have all provided in-depth analyses, highlighting the multifaceted nature of the decision and its broader implications.

Strategic Considerations

Security Concerns

Security considerations played a significant role in Harris's decision. The potential for escalating tensions in the Middle East and the impact on U.S. national security were critical factors in the decision-making process.

Political Strategy Behind the Decision

The decision also reflects a strategic move to balance domestic political interests with international diplomacy. By addressing such a contentious issue head-on, Harris demonstrates a commitment to principled leadership and long-term strategic thinking.

Comparative Analysis

Comparing with Similar Past Events

Comparing this decision with similar past events, such as the handling of Netanyahu's 2015 speech, provides valuable insights. Each instance underscores the complexities and high stakes involved in U.S.-Israel relations.

Lessons Learned

Lessons from past experiences highlight the importance of clear communication, strategic foresight, and the need for balanced, well-informed decisions in foreign policy.

Expert Opinions

Political Analysts’ Perspectives

Political analysts have offered diverse opinions on Harris's decision. Some praise her for taking a firm stand, while others caution about the potential diplomatic fallout.

Diplomatic Experts’ Views

Diplomatic experts emphasize the delicate balance required in such decisions. They highlight the potential for both positive and negative outcomes, depending on how the situation is managed moving forward.

Long-Term Impact

Potential Long-Term Effects on U.S. Foreign Policy

The long-term impact on U.S. foreign policy could be significant. This decision might set a precedent for future interactions with foreign leaders and influence U.S. diplomatic strategies for years to come.

Predictions for Future U.S.-Israel Interactions

Future interactions between the U.S. and Israel will likely be shaped by this decision. It could lead to more cautious and calculated diplomatic engagements, emphasizing mutual respect and strategic collaboration.

Harris's Political Future

How the Decision Affects Harris’s Career

Kamala Harris's political future is intricately linked to such high-stakes decisions. This particular choice will be a key aspect of her political narrative, influencing her reputation and prospects in future elections.

Public and Political Reactions to Her Decision

Public and political reactions will continue to evolve, reflecting broader trends in U.S. politics and international relations. Harris's ability to navigate these reactions will be crucial for her political trajectory.

International Reactions

Reactions from Key Global Players

Key global players, including the European Union, China, and Russia, have responded to the decision with keen interest. Their reactions reflect broader geopolitical dynamics and the intricate web of international alliances.

Impact on International Alliances

The decision's impact on international alliances is multifaceted. It could either strengthen or strain existing alliances, depending on how the situation is managed and communicated to global partners.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical Debates Surrounding the Decision

Ethical considerations play a significant role in political decisions. Debates around this decision focus on issues of sovereignty, foreign influence, and the ethical responsibilities of political leaders.

The Role of Ethics in Political Decisions

Ethics in political decisions are paramount. Leaders must balance pragmatic concerns with ethical imperatives, ensuring that their choices align with both national interests and moral principles.

Conclusion

Kamala Harris's decision regarding Netanyahu's speech to Congress is a complex and multifaceted issue with significant political and diplomatic implications.

READ ALSO:https://digitalninjaqa.blogspot.com/2024/07/kamala-harriss-decision-on-netanyahus.html

[thedhananjayaparkhe]

Interesting collection of newslinks

Courtesy: a friend on Whatsapp https://www.csis.org/analysis/africa-needs-more-american-involvement-not-less Africa Needs More American Involvement—Not LessGlobal disorder is tipping parts of sub-Saharan Africa into crisis and conflict. Judd Devermont explains how Washington has helped in past periods of turmoil—and what it can do now.Commentary by Judd Devermont — July 3, 2024Sub-Saharan Africa…

[lordzannis]

To the green members on the scale of 0 to 5 grade on details of how good is President Obama when he was elected ?plus overall scores

Evaluating President Barack Obama's performance from the perspective of Green Party members involves considering his administration's alignment with the Green Party's Ten Key Values and progressive causes. Here is a detailed assessment on a scale of 0 to 5:

Environmental Policies: 3/5

Obama made significant strides in addressing climate change, including the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement. His administration reduced carbon emissions and promoted renewable energy. However, some progressives felt these measures were not aggressive enough to combat climate change fully.

Social Justice and Equity: 4/5

Obama's administration made considerable progress in advancing social justice, including the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," support for marriage equality, and efforts to tackle poverty and invest in communities. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded healthcare access, though it fell short of the universal healthcare model favored by the Green Party.

Economic Policies: 3/5

Obama inherited a severe economic recession and implemented measures like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the Dodd-Frank Act to stabilize and reform the economy. While these actions averted a deeper crisis and created jobs, income inequality persisted, and some felt the recovery did not benefit all Americans equally.

Foreign Policy: 3/5

Obama's foreign policy included significant diplomatic achievements like the Iran Nuclear Deal and the normalization of relations with Cuba. However, his administration also faced criticism for military interventions in Libya and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, which conflicted with the Green Party's non-violence and anti-war principles.

Healthcare: 3/5

The ACA was a landmark achievement in expanding healthcare coverage and regulating insurance practices. However, it did not achieve the universal healthcare system that the Green Party advocates for, leaving some progressives dissatisfied.

Education: 3/5

Obama's administration invested in education through initiatives like Race to the Top and efforts to expand broadband access in rural schools. These measures aimed to improve educational outcomes but also faced criticism for promoting charter schools and standardized testing.

Overall Leadership and Public Perception: 4/5

Obama's leadership was marked by a commitment to inclusivity and progressive values. His presidency inspired many, particularly as the first African American president, and he maintained relatively high approval ratings throughout his tenure. However, some progressives felt his administration did not go far enough in challenging systemic issues and promoting radical change.

Overall Score: 3.29/5

From a Green Party perspective, Obama's presidency is viewed positively in many areas, particularly in social justice and environmental policies. However, there are criticisms regarding the extent of his economic reforms, healthcare policies, and foreign interventions. His administration made significant progress but did not fully align with the more radical and comprehensive changes advocated by the Green Party.

[rhk111sblog]

Contrary to the Promises of the United States (US) and their loyal and obedient Filipino Fans, the presence of more Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) Bases in the Philippines has not “deterred China” and nor has it allowed the Philippines to “Negotiate from a Position of Strength”, the exact opposite is happening with China now conducting Naval Drills in the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), boarding Philippine Vessels and injuring Filipino Soldiers

This was initially released as an Article last June 22, 2024 at https://therhk111militaryandarmspage.blogspot.com/2024/06/china-not-afraid-us-philippine-alliance-holds-navy-drills-eez-harms-filipino-soldiers.html

[etccsy]

Gulf Cooperation Council & Syrian regime

In an interview on Today's Channel, researcher and journalist Issam Khoury discussed the Gulf Cooperation Council's recommendations for the Syrian regime to follow Arab guidelines,

Jun 10, 2024 The interview with the researcher and journalist Issam Khoury on Today’s Channel highlighted the recommendations of the Gulf Cooperation Council regarding the Syrian regime’s need to adhere to Arab recommendations, particularly concerning the refugee and kidnapping files. Khoury explained that these recommendations were in response to a tweet by the Iranian Revolution’s guide, which…

[aslamat]

Biden and Trump Set to Face Off: Presidential Debates Announced for June and September

In a highly anticipated move, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have agreed to participate in presidential debates, setting the stage for a thrilling showdown in June and September. This historic event will mark a pivotal moment in the 2024 presidential election, offering voters a unique opportunity to witness the two candidates engage in a battle of wits, policy, and leadership. In this blog post, we'll delve into the details of the debates, exploring what to expect, the significance of this event, and the potential implications for the election.

The Debates: A Primer The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a non-profit organization, has announced two debates: one on June 14th and another on September 15th. The first debate will focus on domestic policy, while the second will cover foreign policy and national security. Both events will be moderated by experienced journalists, ensuring a fair and informative exchange.

What to Expect: Policy Showdown The debates promise to be intense, with both candidates expected to passionately articulate their visions for America's future. Biden will likely emphasize his administration's accomplishments, such as the COVID-19 response and infrastructure investments, while Trump will probably focus on his signature issues, like immigration and economic growth. Be prepared for a lively discussion on pressing topics like healthcare, education, and climate change.

Significance and Implications These debates hold immense significance, as they offer voters a chance to assess the candidates' leadership styles, policy knowledge, and communication skills. The performances will be scrutinized by the media, fact-checkers, and the public, potentially influencing voter decisions and shaping the election narrative. A strong debate showing can boost a candidate's momentum, while a poor performance can raise doubts and erode support.

Conclusion: The Biden-Trump presidential debates will be a defining moment in the 2024 election, providing a unique opportunity for voters to engage with the candidates and their policies. As the nation tunes in, we'll witness a clash of ideas, leadership styles, and visions for America's future. Don't miss this historic event, and stay informed about the issues that matter most.

Optimized keywords: Biden, Trump, presidential debates, 2024 election, domestic policy, foreign policy, national security, Commission on Presidential Debates, leadership, policy, voters.

[tmarshconnors]

"Iran, you need to think twice before starting a fight with Israel. However, picking a fight with the United States is a whole new level of foolishness. Operation Praying Mantis wiped out your entire navy in less than eight hours. Your idea is genuinely pathetic! Mr. President, it's about time you showed some real diplomacy instead of simply saying "Don't." Your advisers need to start thinking about the consequences of their actions. Honestly, the sooner you're out of office, the better it will be for everyone."

TMarsh-Connors host of Angry British Conservative podcast.

Passionate Blogger and Vlogger: TMarsh-Connors is a passionate individual who dedicates their free time to blogging on platforms like Tumblr and DeviantART. Their commitment to both the written word and visual content showcases a multifaceted approach to sharing thoughts and experiences.

Weekly Podcast Host: In addition to blogging, TMarsh-Connors hosts a weekly podcast titled "Angry British Conservative," demonstrating a strong voice in discussing political and social topics. The podcast is available on various platforms such as YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and more, reaching a diverse audience.

Utilizes Written Word and Video: TMarsh-Connors skillfully employs both the power of the written word and video content to convey thoughts, experiences, and insights. This multimedia approach allows for a dynamic and engaging communication style, catering to different audience preferences.

Active Presence on Multiple Platforms: TMarsh-Connors has extended their reach by being present on various platforms, including YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and likely others. This strategic decision enhances the accessibility of their content, making it available to a broader audience across different online spaces.

Shares Personal Perspective as an "Angry British Conservative": The choice of the podcast title, "Angry British Conservative," suggests that TMarsh-Connors takes a bold and unapologetic stance on political matters. This indicates a willingness to share personal perspectives and opinions, contributing to a dialogue on political and social issues.

[usnewsper-politics]

Senator Hawley Criticizes Leftward Shift in Democratic Party and Congress' Foreign Policy #Americanpolitics #centristapproach #congress #conservatives #democraticparty #foreignpolicy #freshmansenator #globalissues #healthcare #immigration #Iran #israel #leftwardshift #militaryassistance #moderatevoices #nationalsecurity #partisandivisions #politicaltool #progressiveagenda #pushback #Russia #SenatorJoshHawley #tensions #Ukraine #US