I recently had the opportunity to participate in a seminar in South Korea for future leaders regarding the role and importance of soft power, and the influence that it provides a country globally. No longer are soldiers, tanks and guns needed to fight a war, but other forms of influence known as soft power can have a greater impact with less physical destruction.

<

>The recent – or more appropriately worded, current – U.S. elections have many scratching their heads. While here in the United States, you have Trump supporters wondering how brazen the left has become, across the globe there are many more that are watching in utter disbelief. The United States has been a country of tough rhetoric, but a beacon of honesty – until now. What we have seen in the months leading up to the November 3rd elections is the role of soft power in our own country and its use by enemies of the constitution from within. The loss [at present] that President Trump and more than half the country is experiencing is nothing short of a soft coup.<

> <

>This use of soft power by the rising American socialist left to influence or steal an election has many in Europe concerned. Senator Joe Biden announced his win when it was already November 7 in Europe and to these concerned leaders the coup they see here is reminiscent of the Russian Revolution and specifically the Bolshevik Coup which also took place on November 7 in 1917. Europe was not the same since that event and now they are concerned about United States. For our European friends 1917 was not that long ago, and to many more the impact of that event is not something that they may read in a history book.<

> <

>For years U.S. leaders have urged for democracy in countries that may not have wanted it, and for “free and fair” elections in countries where it may not be possible. In such cases the United States, along with others, have played the role of observer. The country that has been the visible leader in personal freedom and the rights of the individual has always been there to urge the same for all.<

> <

>President Barack Hussein Obama and Democrats in congress have called the removal of the Egypt’s terror supporting Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi from office by as many as 55 million Egyptian a coup, even though the subsequent election of President Sisi was done to the letter of the law. Now that Senator Joe Biden is claiming victory in what can be at best be considered a questionable election, and more appropriately a soft coup, how do we explain to countries like Egypt, that the United States is still the beacon of honesty and integrity? It is clearly time for Joe Biden to stop calling President Sisi “[President Donald] Trump’s favorite dictator.”<

> <

>President Reagan told the story of two people were talking about how lucky they are to live in the freest country in the world. A Cuban refugee said to them, “How lucky you are, at least I had someplace to escape to”. That story tells us everything we need to know today, with the rise of the Socialist left
in this country were to win, they hope everyone has their passports with which to “escape” to another country. What country we can escape as there is no other on God’s green earth that does not rely on a strong United States. Never has there been any other country in the history that has a greater global impact.<

> <

>We must understand that what makes this country great is not our cities or countryside, but who we are. In a message I received from an Pakistani immigrant to our shores, he said “All I will say is that people migrate to this great country, not for the political leaders, not for its lavish landscapes, not for its food, but for its CONSTITUTION. Which in its essence is a road map for the land of opportunities.”<

> <

>Whether you call it voter fraud, or irregularities, there is enough evidence for President Trump to take legal action and Joe Biden to explain. What is at stake here is not just the question of what car you drive, or which doctor you use, but rather the future of our constitution, our nation, our people.<

> <

>Eli M. Gold is the President of the Gold Institute for International Strategy. Prior to creating the Gold Institute Eli was the co-founder a leading foreign policy and national security think tank. Eli Gold has created go-to organization for U.S. policy makers, as well as foreign governments seeking guidance on the most complex foreign policy and defense issues.<

>

Defence Review

Changes in our strategic environment are taking place faster than anticipated and require urgent response and a shift in approach. As a consequence, defence strategy and spending is being reviewed across many of the democracies after years of complacency.

NATO has completed a ‘reflection process’ to consider the shape and role of the Alliance ten years hence. The US Congress ‘Future of Defense Task Force’ has called for a ‘major course correction’ in the US approach to national security. In February 2021, US President Biden referenced a new Department of Defense China task force to look at US strategy and operational concepts, technology, and force posture. In March 2021, the British government published its “Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy”, and announced a huge uptick in UK defence expenditure. An additional £16.5 billion that will include 13 new frigates, an AI Centre and a new RAF Space Command. There are calls in India for a fresh military posture based on a new Grand Strategy. Australia has recently published its Defence Strategic Update.

These reviews share common threads:

– The certainties of the past, the model of successful Western free-market economies, the ambition for democracy, and commitments to the established rules-based, post-World War 2 system are under challenge. This has been driven primarily by the rise of China;

– The binary distinction between war and peace has been eroded by ‘grey zone’ conflict where subversion through social media, cyberattack, economic coercion, unattributable aggressive action and state-sponsored terrorism, undermine and distract our capabilities and the public confidence on which they are based;

– The realms of space and cyberspace have added new and awesome dimensions to the traditional domains of conflict;

– The threat of limited conventional warfare remains, as evidenced by Russian actions and threats against the Ukraine, and many more countries now have access to advanced weaponry, including sophisticated armed drones;

– Weapons of mass destruction, and of mass infection and disruption, in the hands of both rogue states and terrorist groups represent a potential threat to our homelands and people;

– The effects of climate change have major potential security implications;

The Locust Years

Without a strong economy, ambitious defence plans cannot be sustained. That is a truism. But neglect of defence spending is always a mistake. In periods of apparent peace and in difficult economic times, defence budgets are seen as a “regrettable necessity” if not a luxury spend absorbing precious resources and manpower.

For example, after the First World War, the massive British public spending cuts of 1922-23 (the so-called Geddes Axe) fell disproportionately on the armed forces. Defence spending restraint continued into the mid-1930s while the potential enemy was already spending three times as much. Britain was in a state of unpreparedness. The wakeup-call almost came too late.

After the massive and exhausting exertions of the Second World War leading to victory and peace, there were rapid cutbacks. A spike in defence expenditure during the Korean War was followed by massive defence cuts after the Suez crisis in 1956. Defence spending continued its spiral of decline with ‘salami cuts’ that reduced both military effectiveness and international capabilities at cost to Britain’s international standing and effectiveness. A dramatic fall in defence spending was justified following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the removal of the Warsaw Pact threat. But this proved to be far from the predicted ‘end of history’. New threats soon arose and Britain, like others, was slow to respond, hovering on the barely acceptable 2% of GDP on defence –a modest and reasonably achievable spending target for all NATO allies, which most fail to meet. Britain is the only European nation with growing full-spectrum military capabilities, global reach, continual operational experience, and robust political will, confirming its position as the most indispensable ally of the democracies after America

Defence Investment as a Multiplier of Advantages

The relationship between defence spending and economic well-being has been a subject of academic dispute for decades. Defence spending has often been a scapegoat for poor economic performance and ‘balance of payments’ difficulties while insufficient attention has been paid to the wider economic, political, technological and social benefits of defence spending, on top of the primary task of maintaining national security.

The commitment of NATO allies to the defence of the European democracies, the US defence guarantees to the Republic of Korea in 1953, to Taiwan in 1954, and to Japan in 1960, the UK protection of Kuwait from Iraq in 1964, the Commonwealth defence of the newly formed state of Malaysia in 1965, and the fearsome determination of Israel to defend its territory and its very existence, are all examples of credible deterrence, readiness and response.

The attempted communist takeover of the Korean peninsula in 1950, the Argentine invasion of the Falklands in 1982, and the seizure of Eastern Ukraine in 2014, would probably not have happened if the aggressor had thought these territories would be robustly defended.

What needs to be done

If we cherish continued freedom, security and prosperity, more needs to be spent on defence, sometimes differently than before. To strengthen the capabilities and resilience of our armed forces and intelligence services the lessons are clear:

– make a step-change in research, development and efficient procurement, protected from hostile espionage and acquisition, so that we become masters of the new domains of potential conflict;

– strengthen national resilience including critical infrastructure. The Covid-19 plague, for example, has exposed the weaknesses in even the most advanced societies to produce and distribute basic protective equipment, and maintain the confidence of the population;

– revitalise existing alliances, in particular NATO (where there is also a need to resist the divisive military ambitions of the EU, which includes 21 of the 30 NATO members) and generate new, flexible and willing coalitions.

and, most importantly, the much-neglected need to

– regenerate national solidarity and the understanding of our people, particularly the young, of the need for commitment to the defence of our freedom, prosperity and individual liberty.

We can rightly applaud the steps now being taken by the UAE and Israel to normalise their relations. Such initiatives can only be to the long-term advantage of the people of the Middle Eastern nations, helping to build trust, opening fresh possibilities for harnessing Israeli know-how and Arab resources, and finding pragmatic solutions to the most bitter and deep-rooted problems. Following moves by Egypt some four decades ago and then Jordan, to reset relations with Israel, there are now  many permutations in the relations between Israel and the 22 states of the Arab league with a majority open to low-level diplomatic relations and trade. This is in spite of the efforts to isolate Israel through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and its western apologists. Extremists will of course seek to exacerbate problems. They will try to intensify their efforts through the more radical mosques and madrassahs, through social media, and through acts of terrorism, to continue to cajole and mislead the most populous and deprived areas of the Arab street. All this is well understood.

My immediate concern is elsewhere – the alienation of Turkey. We are used to Iran’s exploitation of Shia proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq in order to threaten Western interests and the security of Israel. But there is now a new and deepening schism in the region. This could open dangerous and fresh fault lines across the Sunni Arab world where temporal rivalry is being played out through various strands of political Islam, in particular the Moslem Brotherhood. Central to this concern is Turkey, a great country that for the past century has looked to Europe for its modernising inspiration, for nearly 70 years has been a key member of NATO but which has been taken for granted by the West and its interests neglected. Now Turkey, feeling rejected, has turned to the South,  seeking to rekindle its Ottoman heritage and to show affinity with radical,  pious or opportunist elements in Gaza and Libya and Qatar and take issue with rival traditional rulers in Saudi Arabia and UAE and the military secular regime in Egypt.  The pre-Erdogan alliance of convenience between Israel and Turkey has long collapsed. The west is in disarray. Not only has Russia now managed to reinsert itself into the Middle East but we also have France and the EU exacerbating the difficulties with Turkey by bone-headed support for Greek interests over the long-running Cyprus issue and now exploitation of natural gas resources in the eastern Mediterranean.

US policy in the region in recent years has lacked strategic consistency and is seen to be weak. The UK, once the most influential power in the region, has been barely visible, but could play a key role with the US in helping bring Turkey into the mainstream before schism becomes an irreparable chasm. The threat from the Iranian regime, from Russia and from international terrorism have not gone away. It is vitally important therefore to generate cohesion among our allies in the Middle East, to heal sensitivities and to repair damaged relations with restored regional alliances and economic opportunities. Turkey is central to this task.

The Israel-UAE agreement to normalise relations is a historical peace accord in the region. It is a bold and courageous move by both sides, which could lead to further Arab countries in the region to follow suit and recognise the state of Israel. Whilst a number of Arab and Islamic countries already have secret relationships with Israel, the current accord is only the third Israel-Arab peace treaty in the Middle East after Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). The international community has welcomed the move, except for Palestine, Iran and Turkey who have  lashed out against it; the fact that other Arab states, in particular Saudi Arabia, have not denounced the agreement is generally positive.
It is worth paying attention to the timing of the agreement. Arab countries have been hostile to the Jewish State since its establishment. For many years, the idea of recognising Israel was unthinkable; and most Arab states, including the UAE, have financially and militarily supported various Palestinian groups against Israel. Now the political landscape and geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East are changing. A united front to fight economic problems and military threats from Iran is needed. Whilst we do not know the exact details of the agreement just yet, here are 12 positive points that we think are important for the understanding of the impact of  this peace agreement and for the overview of its geopolitical, social and economic effects for the whole region:

1. Iran is growing militarily in the region. A united anti-Iranian front is essential to combat the Iranian danger; the  deal will signal the official formation of an anti-Iranian bloc. 
2. Israel is the region’s superior military force which the UAE and other Gulf states can rely on.
3. This move will encourage other Arab and Gulf states to engage with Israel. (It is understood that Sudan, Oman and Bahrain are interested in finding ways to normalize their relationships with Israel).
4. In the past, most people believed that the road to peace with the Arab world must go through Ramallah, but now the road to peace is going through Cairo, Amman and Abu Dhabi and might soon go through new locations in the Gulf and North Africa.
5. The deal firmly highlights American leadership in the region and demonstrates how the role of the US can be paramount in controlling current political troubles. 
6. The agreement is no longer about the ’land for peace’ mechanism but, as Netanyahu said, ’peace for peace’ formula. 
7. Whilst the deal has the potential to change Arab-Israeli relations and begin a new path for the future; it moves the Arab and Gulf states away from the Palestinian question. 
8. Israel makes peace with the Arabs without returning to the 1967 borders.
9. It appears that recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is not an issue for the UAE leadership.
10. Israel is now less secluded and isolated, not just in terms of political connections but also in the commercial, social and geostrategic importance with its neighbors. 
11. Apart from the geopolitical repercussions from the deal, which antagonizes Iran, it is a warning sign to Hezbollah, Syria’s Al Assad, Turkey’s Erdogan and some of the Iraqi Shia militias.
12. The deal has significance for those who fight terrorism in the region and is damaging for the Shia and Sunni terrorist groups, such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and the Houthis in Yemen.

400 North Capitol Street N.W.,Suite 585,

The policy of Iran is bringing Sunni countries together with Israel. KSA has relations though not a diplomatic status, as far as I know. The developments with UAE, followed by Oman and Bahrein broaden the network. Qatar will be more reflectant, given its Shia majority, if I am right.

The policy of Iran is bringing Sunni countries together with Israel. KSA has relations though not a diplomatic status, as far as I know. The developments with UAE, followed by Oman and Bahrein broaden the network. Qatar will be more reflectant, given its Shia majority, if I am right.

European countries and the EU had to admit that the ‘normalization of relations’ between Israel and the UAE is a good step forward, which they probably had not expected to be achieved by the current US administration. The EU High Commissioner for Foreign Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles, ‘welcomed’ the move but added that plans to annex the West Bank should be completely abandoned immediately.

The EU is not in the driving seat as far as the Middle-East is concerned. It always regarded itself as the caretaker of the Iran nuclear deal, once the US government decided to leave it. During the Obama administration the EU had been given a disproportionate part of the praise allowing the US government to remain less visible for the political forces in US Congress, in particular the Senate. Obama had to maneuver carefully because there was no majority in the Senate for ratification in terms of a treaty. So, it became a ‘deal’.

The EU felt it owned the deal, hammered out by the US, and that it made the EU ‘relevant’ in world politics. The EU negotiating at the table made it a ‘reality’ on the ground. For the first time since the introduction of a Common Foreign and Security Policy ten years ago the EU could point at an achievement. For the EU the deal was all about the EU, not about the content of the deal.

After the US left the Iran deal, the EU was on its own. Strongest supporters of the deal were Germany and France. Most lukewarm were countries in Central and Eastern Europe like Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. They tended to support the US. In particular Germany pretends the Iran nuclear agreement is still in place and the German Greens, an upcoming force in German politics, are the strongest supporters of the ayatollah regime in Iran.

Simultaneously, the EU is a strong critic of Israeli policies in the Gaza and the West Bank. Again, there is a rift within the EU between East and West. Some East European countries supported the relocation of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. France and Germany predicted ‘violent demonstrations’, but little happened. Also, BDS is strongly rooted as a movement in several West- and North European countries, though not state policy. The EU tries to target products from the West Bank with customs formalities.

But generally, the EU is running after the facts and taken by surprise. Borrell speaks about ‘normalization’ between Israel and UAE, avoiding the term ‘full diplomatic relations’. Bahrain and Oman are likely to follow. Egypt and Jordan already have normal diplomatic relations with Israel for many years. Saudi-Arabia maintains relations with Israel through the backdoor. Arab countries come closer to Israel, while the EU shifts further away, with the wrong focus.

For the EU the Palestinian issue is the heart of the problem in the Middle-East. For Arab countries Iran is the problem. Iran is the troublemaker and Palestinians have a knack to end up at the wrong side of history. The US has understood that; the EU hasn’t. The US focuses on solving the Palestinian issue within common ground on policies towards Iran. The EU befriends Iran hoping it will help the Palestinians in some way. But it won’t. Therefore, EU policy is misguided; and the current US government has shown to understand the heart of the problem much better, using the right focus.

The Indians, fast emerging as a bulwark against Chinese aggression, offer enormous opportunities in a deeper partnership.

If China has been trying to push its advantage during the Covid-19 pandemic, maybe it should be more modest as it now faces a backlash from Western countries seeking to unravel Chinese involvement in their economies, infrastructure and communications. And more attention should be paid to India, a friendly democracy and leading Commonwealth nation whose population is at least as big as China’s and which is projected to become the world’s third largest economy by 2030. 

The calls for serious reappraisal of relations with China have been sparked by increased tensions over Taiwan, the imposition of new security laws on Hong Kong, more incidents in the South China Sea, and most recently, serious incursions in the contested Himalayan borderlands with India.

The fight that took place last month between Chinese and Indian troops in the Galwan River area of Ladakh cost 20 Indian lives and an unknown number of Chinese. In spite of periodic incidents over the years, it was the first fatal clash between China and India since 1975.

Three weeks later, on 5 July, after a “frank” exchange,  Indian national security advisor Ajit Doval and his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi,  agreed to calm the situation, not to “turn disagreement into dispute”, to ensure respect for the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the de facto border, and for disengagement of troops.

India is highly sensitive to encirclement. On assuming power in 2014, Prime Minister Modi made a point of prioritising strong relations with neighbouring South Asian states such as Bhutan, Nepal, Bangla Desh, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar to try and head off growing Chinese influence.

China’s seizure of Tibet in 1950, previously an exclusive sphere of influence of the British Raj,  expanded enormously the frontier between India and China opposite Ladakh in the Northwest, Himachal Pradesh in the central sector, and Arunachal Pradesh in the Northeast. It changed the strategic calculus. India long regarded Tibet as its northern rampart while Beijing saw it as its backdoor. Now it is its forward base. 

The Xinjiang –Tibet highway and its offshoots, cutting through the disputed Himalayan Aksai Chin region, was begun in 1951. This was followed by major development of military road systems on the Chinese side along the Himalayan rim, accelerating in recent years. The 1962 conflict, that ended with over 700 Chinese and 1,300 Indian dead, on terrain that included this same Galwan area, was a strategic shock to India that forced major improvements to her military capabilities and drew attention to the poor road links on the Indian side.

The Nehru-era fear that road improvements would merely assist an invader has been set aside and some dozens of upgraded road links have been created now that the response capabilities of the Indian Defence Forces have been massively enhanced. Perhaps the most sensitive of these has been the 140 mile, all-weather road connecting Leh, the Ladakh capital and greatly expanded military base, via Darbuk, with Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO), a key forward  military post and airstrip near the China border. It runs just four miles from the scene of the latest incident.

On 3 July, Prime Minister Modi travelled to the Ladakh border region, to Nimo 22 miles from Leh, to show solidarity with the forward troops, reiterate his commitment to the territorial integrity of India and warn of the serious consequences of Chinese aggression which will require a diplomatic and military response.

The negotiations to bring about de-escalation seem to have ended up with a ‘buffer zone’ in territory previously regarded as Indian. This action has disturbed the status quo and given India cause for concern just when she has been seriously struck by Covid-19. While Modi has put a bold face on his relations with Xi Jinping, it’s certainly not the “Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai” (Indians and Chinese are brothers) of a previous era. 

As we have seen in the South China Sea and now in the Himalayas, China still takes note of the teachings of its 4th century BC military strategist, Sun Tzu, who advocated using “small steps forward” that are certain to improve your position while not overly alarming the enemy. 

India must itself judge the significance of China’s latest small step in the Himalayas, given all the complexities of its international relationships. Some take the view that India has no real strategic interest in the area under dispute and risks being drawn into conflict for no good reason beyond saving face. Others see this as a short-sighted analysis.

In the immediate area, there is the need to maintain tactical advantage, occupying dominant high ground and controlling key passes otherwise more territory will gradually be lost.  Strategically, the disputed interface between India and China extends some 2,500 miles across the Himalayan rim, almost from Afghanistan in the west to Myanmar in the east. There are many potential access points and Chinese violations of the LAC have become more frequent, more violent and more coordinated.

Any concession of territory potentially begets another, rendering India more vulnerable.  And the appearance of weakness on India’s part will influence the friendly alignment of vulnerable countries such as Bhutan and Nepal, undoing years of diplomatic investment and seriously undermining India’s regional security. 

India today is not the India of 1962, when she was politically naïve and militarily helpless. There are now some 200,000 acclimatised and well-equipped troops in the forward areas opposite China with artillery and armour support and backed by the very capable Indian Air Force. Narendra Modi is a strong Prime Minister, intensely protective of Indian sovereignty and deeply conscious of India’s place in the world. It makes no sense for China to try and push India too hard or to imagine that it has a free hand to do what it wants in the Himalayas.

At a time when the West is questioning its reliance on the economic relationship with China and when there is so much evidence of Chinese malpractice – industrial espionage, human rights abuse, cyber attack – far more attention now needs to be given to strengthening the relationship with India. The opportunities are enormous. The French have certainly seen this.

Britain, with all its ties of history, of people, and shared experience, should be even further in the forefront of substantive strategic partners – investing, cooperating ambitiously in research and manufacturing, helping to build effective alliances, developing Commonwealth capabilities, militarily present in the Indian Ocean, and working closely together in international forums such as the UN, where India will shortly take its seat as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. There are undoubted complications, but these can be worked through. 

As the West tries to rebalance its relationship with China, India should step forward. In this case she needs to make a step change in her economic development – in 1990, the GDPs of India and China were about the same. Now China’s economy is five times that of India, attributable in large part to the economic inputs that China got from the US, Europe and Japan. Some Western companies will re-shore their businesses but others, following the example of firms such as JCB, should perhaps turn to India. The vicious spat on the Galwan River should be noticed and could be the incentive to a deeper relationship.

This article was published in The Telegraph

By: Shana Forta, VP of Operations

Diamonds, castles, fancy titles, prestige and honor.

He had it all.

Statues, culture, diversity, heritage and pride.

We have it all.

What is intrinsically wrong with some people that want to throw away their heritage, history, the good and the bad, their rights and their privileges? What is it about their dignity, their moral servitude, and the courage to stand up for their convictions, that causes a person to try and fade into obscurity, a population to fade away from the spotlight and countries to downplay their greatness?

Prince Harry is all that is wrong with the Change movement. He wants to blaze his own path, throw off the yoke of Royal responsibilities bestowed to him at birth, throw away his title and replace it for something better, shinier and more modern. Hence, he leaves the U.K., burdens all his responsibilities onto his older brother, and starts a new quest. To bring about change.

On a recent video call with the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust (QCT), Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, spoke about Black Lives Matter and the changes needed within ourselves to bring about a renewed sense of identity. The irony of the call speaks volumes. Prince Harry, having served his country with dignity and sacrifice, surely understands more than most, how to sacrifice his own needs, and working for the good of the people. There is nothing more impressive then someone who serves his country, putting their life in danger, and risking all for others, for the greater good and safety of others.

The allure of building a better world appeals to him as he perceives the old one to be somewhat faulty or wrong. All around the world, the white person is conceived as the disease that needs to be cleansed and changed, so that a new and improved white person can be born. Attacking the Commonwealth and indeed all the work that his Paternal Grandmother, the Queen of England has put her heart and soul into for the last six decades or so, will surely ensure that his return to England will be unwelcome, should he ever wish to return.

The fickleness and enamor of change, glamor and glitz are momentary, gone in a puff of smoke. Transformation, protest and the promise of a better and changed world are all momentary, here today, gone tomorrow. What is left after the dust settles? Unhappiness, broken dreams and shattered communities.

Let’s not throw our away our rights, our dignity, and our power for a group of people that have little or no respect for our country, our history or our sacrifice. Once our history is changed, our statues toppled and our dignity eroded, it will be difficult to reclaim.

Statues, culture, diversity, heritage and pride.

We have it all.

Statement from the Gold Institute on the DC Appellate Court’s granting of the Writ of Mandamus in Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn’s case today:

Today, after more than three years of a baseless prosecution fueled by partisan animus, the DC Appellate Court ordered Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to comply with the unopposed Motion to Dismiss, with prejudice, the charges against General Michael T. Flynn.

Despite the lower court’s efforts to continue trying a case where no controversy or dispute exist any longer, with the sole purpose of creating a political controversy for the Trump administration, reason prevailed.

One could argue that the entire case, predicated on falsehoods and promoted by spite should have never started, and should have been rejected by the District Court on the strength of lack of merit alone.

We rejoice in the full exoneration of a man we have always known to be innocent of the charges against him, and wish him a speedy return to the service of a Nation he has dedicated his life to protect.

Back in the late 1940s and early 1950s, before the European Union was invented, the United States was keen on European integration to hasten economic recovery, provide a market for its goods and better defend against the growing Soviet threat.

Since then it has never really understood the dynamics of the European Union, mistakenly thinking that it represented the views of citizens across all the European nations and imagining that it would grow to become a prosperous partner for United States endeavors.

The reality is different. The EU is an elite-driven, man-made institution with its own agenda.

It has shown itself to be increasingly out of touch with citizens across Europe and often in competition with or opposition to the United States. Its defense policy is essentially an exercise in political integration and divisive in terms of transatlantic solidarity. It is not designed to strengthen NATO but to create something separate from it.

It’s not surprising the British decided to leave.

In this context, we can see at least one beneficial side effect of COVID-19: The European Union has had to scale back its ambitions for an “autonomous” defense strategy.

In May, we heard the president of the European Commission repeat the familiar refrain “this is Europe’s moment” as she presented a controversial $825 billion EU post-COVID recovery package.

The regular budget for the next seven years, the so-called Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, remains unsettled. What is clear is that a relatively minor but significant change will be the near halving of the proposed expenditure of some $14.3 billion on a European Defense Fund.

There should be no misunderstanding about this. It is not a setback for Western defense. The EU is not Europe and EU Defense is a purely political project. It makes no useful military contribution.

It is, of course, essential that the U.K. and major continental European nations do not reduce their national defense expenditure and not least, therefore, their ability to fulfill their NATO obligations under the massive economic pressures now on us all.

But this is quite separate from EU meddling in this area.

Just when we should be revitalizing the NATO alliance, given all the threats and challenges to our security, we see that the EU-induced ambivalence at its heart has not disappeared. Twenty-one of its 30 member states are also EU members.

In spite of lip service to NATO, the EU will continue its efforts, albeit now delayed, to create its own separate military structures. This is sold to the Americans as an effort by the Europeans to get their act together and share more of the defense burden.

Actually, it is about EU political integration and the EU desire to be a separate actor on the world stage with its own military and diplomatic capabilities, not necessarily as a helpful partner of the United States, and with a defense industrial capability designed to exclude the Americans and make British participation difficult.

As Robert Kagan foresaw in his 2008 “The Return of History and the End of Dreams,” the world of the future is likely to be defined by competition between the democracies and the autocracies.

The threat to our democracies did not disappear with the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, but our cohesion, preparedness and resilience have now weakened. The alliance that has served us so well is again under threat from both within and without.

A regrettable “isolationist” tendency still exists within the United States, despite the lessons of history. But many of the European allies within NATO failed to reach the target of spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. Now, the impact of COVID-19 on all our economies means that this will be 2 percent of much less as GDP falls.

Russia, with a smaller GDP than Britain, has massively increased its military expenditure, retooled its armed forces and expanded its presence in the North Atlantic, the Arctic and the Mediterranean. Its seizure of Crimea and eastern Ukraine showed its readiness to use military force in Europe to achieve its objectives.

China is rapidly approaching the economic power of the U.S.A. Its military capabilities have also expanded massively to challenge the U.S. presence in its region and develop a strategic presence beyond, with significant naval facilities being developed in the Indian Ocean and the Horn of Africa.

Rogue states such as Iran and Nort Korea also have the potential to launch mass destruction in various forms, an ambition shared by fanatical, apocalyptic Islamist terror groups. The threats to our democracies are therefore very real. COVID-19 and daily cyberassault have exposed the vulnerabilities of our societies, even in time of peace.

The danger has been that EU “strategic autonomy” – the newly fashionable buzzphrase promoted by President Macron of France, was becoming accepted through familiarity.

It would create precisely that transatlantic divide that NATO was designed to overcome. In whatever way it is dressed up, the EU ambition for an autonomous European Defense Union can only serve to create divisions within NATO, widening transatlantic differences, distracting from the real priorities and further differentiating those European NATO members that are not in the EU (the U.K., Turkey, Norway, Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania) from the 21 countries that are.

Moscow and Teheran can only be delighted.

So perversely, it may be COVID-19 that puts the brakes on one misplaced EU ambition. Already many of the EU countries that pay the bills (just nine out of 27) were protesting about European Commission proposals for an increased budget contribution to cover the loss of the U.K.’s payments (second largest in the EU) and for its grand ideas.

Now the economic impact of COVID-19 is making further massive demands and a shift in priorities for the EU budget.

The EU’s politically motivated defense ambitions will have to be shelved, at least in the medium term. Instead, we should all invest in transatlantic solidarity with a fresh focus on the NATO alliance, ensuring that the democracies are well prepared and resilient enough to deal with the many threats and challenges that face us.

This article was also published as an OPED in The Western Journal

By: Susan Yoshihara, Senior Fellow

The purpose of appointing inspectors general is to ensure no one is above the law. Instead of guarding this public trust, State Department IG Steve Linick weaponized it.

How A State Department IG Used His Job To Take Down A Heroic Diplomat

source: The Federalist