Turkey Gives NATO The Middle Finger, Threatens To Shutter Critical Military Bases Over Sanction Threats

Turkey Gives NATO The Middle Finger, Threatens To Shutter Critical Military Bases Over Sanction Threats

French President Emmanuel Macron complained during the NATO summit in London earlier this month about Turkey’s decision to buy a Russian missile-defense system and its invasion of Syria, musing about how Turkey could justify its continued membership in the alliance if it counties to flout its interests at every turn.

These comments, only the latest round of complaints about Turkey’s behavior toward its Western NATO allies, inspired speculation about whether NATO could formally expel Turkey. But aside from whatever legal complications might lie in wait, we posit that there’s another more fundamental reason why NATO likely won’t be able to expel Turkey. Because Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would likely quit first.

 

That’s right: Although Trump and Erdogan have tried to maintain at least the veneer of a personally amicable relationship, and though Trump has at times defied his own senior NatSec officials to offer a major sop to Erdogan (like when Trump pulled US troops out and stepped aside to allow the Turkish invasion, the the horror of Europe), Erdogan’s increasingly tight relationship with Russia – a relationship built on defense and energy ties – is becoming impossible for many western leaders to countenance.

Congressional hawks like Lindsey Graham (for the Republicans) and Chris Van Hollen (on the Democratic side) have already successfully pushed Trump to “announce” more sanctions against Turkey via Twitter. And they might be able to finally push him to follow through, too.

In response to this and myriad other slights both perceived and real, Erdogan made it clear on Monday that he’s had about enough of this harassment from his supposed “allies” in the West. Because when it comes to Trump cards, Erdogan still has one to play.

According to Bloomberg, Erdogan warned that he could shutter two of the most important NATO bases in the world if more sanctions are imposed.

In the minds of US NatSec officials, Erdogan’s threat is an extremely low blow. An early-warning radar at Turkey’s Kurecik air base is a critical component of NATO’s early-warning defense system against ballistic missile attacks. And the Incirlik air base in southern Turkey is critical to tactical air strikes and drone attacks throughout the region.

“If it is necessary to shut it down, we would shut down Incirlik,” Erdogan told AHaber television on Sunday. “If it is necessary to shut it down, we would shut down Kurecik, too.”

[…]

“If they put measures such as sanctions in force, then we would respond based on reciprocity,” Erdogan said. “It is very important for both sides that the U.S. should not take irreparable steps in our relations.”

Additionally, Erdogan warned the US not to recognize the Turkish genocide of Armenians in the early part of the 20th century, an issue that has long been important for Erdogan.

Until now, the US and NATO military presence in Turkey has been held sacred, even as the relationship between the two countries became increasingly bitter over the past two years. Those aren’t the only two bases in Turkey: the US has for decades heavily leaned on Turkey as critical to its policing of the Middle East.

Bottom line: It’s Turkey’s party, and it can buy missiles from Russia if it wants to. After all, placating Russia is important for an energy importer like Turkey. Russian energy subsidies can be a huge economic boon for an economy – just look at Belarus.

Plus, now that Erdogan has cemented his control over the levers of power in Turkey, even if his decision to re-run the mayoral elections in Istanbul didn’t turn out quite as well as he had probably hoped.  He’s eager to establish Turkey as a regional power, and bending to the US on this would make him look week.

Of course, for the US, Erdogan’s demands present a difficult dilemma: The US and NATO need Turkey to host its bases, but they’re worried that, if the S-400 system becomes fully operational (expected in April), many worry the Russian system could be used to collect intelligence on the stealth capabilities of the F-5 fighter jet.

Now, will President Trump risk calling Erdogan’s bluff? That remains to be seen.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/16/2019 – 07:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2M0M0Vv Tyler Durden

Boeing Considers Suspending 737 MAX Production

Boeing Considers Suspending 737 MAX Production

Sources have told The Wall Street Journal that Boeing could temporarily halt production of the 737 Max amid concerns the timeline of ungrounding the aircraft could be pushed further out. The decision to disclose the fate of the 737 Max production could arrive as early as Monday.

Boeing hosted a regular board meeting on Sunday in Chicago. Sources said the fate of the 737 Max production comes days after US regulators criticized Boeing for providing unrealistic timelines for when the plane will return to the skies. 

In April, Boeing slashed production by 20% from 52 to 42 planes per month. A more extended cut or even production halt could be absolutely damaging to the global aerospace industry, as any reduction in planes could ripple down the supply chain and cause financial hardships for suppliers. 

Boeing’s board meeting is expected to conclude on Monday. Sources weren’t exactly sure when the production-related announcement will be released. 

“We continue to work closely with the FAA and global regulators towards certification and the safe return to service of the Max,” Boeing stated. “We will continue to assess production decisions based on the timing and conditions of return to service, which will be based on regulatory approvals and may vary by jurisdiction.”

We’ve noted in the past that production cuts could have severe consequences for the US economy. Over 600 suppliers provide 600,000 parts needed for each plane; the brunt of the shock would be seen down the chain at smaller firms. 

Some Max suppliers have already cut production rates after Boeing reduced plane output by 20% in April. There are other reports that some suppliers have already furloughed employees and shut down equipment as the groundings enter the ninth month.

“It’s easier to ramp down gradually and then ramp back up,” said John Scannell, chief executive of Moog Inc., which makes control motors for the MAX.

The upcoming production decision isn’t easy for Boeing since two of its Max planes experienced flight control system malfunctions and crashed in the past year or so, killing 346 people. 

With no clear timeline on when the planes can return to the skies, and production likely slashed in 2020 – this could further weigh on Boeing shares: 


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/16/2019 – 06:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36DGoZ7 Tyler Durden

Tulsi Gabbard: The Anti-War Candidate

Since her entry into the Democratic presidential primary race, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has been running against war. Gabbard, a National Guard major who served twice in the Middle East, launched her campaign by telling CNN, “There is one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of war and peace.”

In June, she used a primary debate to blast President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of America’s nuclear arms agreement with Iran, warning that “Donald Trump and his chickenhawk cabinet—Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and others—are creating a situation where a spark would light a war with Iran.” But she also went after her own party’s acquiescence to permanent war, asking Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan (who has since exited the race), “Will you tell the parents of those two soldiers that were killed [recently] in Afghanistan that we have to be engaged? That is unacceptable. We have lost so many lives. We have spent so much money.”

Gabbard’s staunch anti-war stance has led to accusations of disloyalty and even possible foreign allegiances, with 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton musing in October that a Democratic candidate was likely being “groomed” to play spoiler in the 2020 race. That candidate, Clinton warned without explicitly naming Gabbard, “is the favorite of the Russians.” Gabbard shot back that she was running for president to “undo Mrs. Clinton’s failed legacy.” The fight seemed to work to Gabbard’s benefit: After polling near the bottom of the field for much of the summer, the Hawaiian’s numbers have shot up in the important early primary state of New Hampshire.

In October, Gabbard sat down with Reason‘s John Stossel to talk about the pitfalls of endless war, the pros and cons of expanding Medicare and government-funded college, and why military spending is every bit as important as health care.

Reason: You often say you know the costs of war. What do you mean?

Tulsi Gabbard: I am a soldier. I have been serving in the Army National Guard now for over 16 years, and I deployed twice to the Middle East. I’ve served in Congress now for nearly seven years on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Homeland Security Committee. And so from both perspectives, I understand the importance of our national security.

As a soldier, I served in a field medical unit in Iraq in 2005, during the height of the war. Our camp was about 40 miles north of Baghdad, and it was something every day that we all experienced firsthand: the terribly high human cost of war—of our fellow soldiers, friends of ours, who were killed in combat. And the toll that continues now with veterans coming home with visible and invisible wounds, dealing with post-traumatic stress.

You’ve said the best way to honor our troops is to make combat the last option. We don’t do that?

We have to honor our servicemen and women by only sending them on missions that are worthy of their sacrifice. Now, like so many Americans after Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, I made the decision to join our military. To enlist, to be able to go after and defeat those who attacked us on that day, to defeat that great evil that visited us.

Unfortunately, since that time, our leaders failed us. Instead of focusing on defeating Al Qaeda, they’ve instead used that attack on 9/11 to begin to wage a whole series of counterproductive regime-change wars, overthrowing authoritarian dictators in other countries. Wars that’ve proven to be very costly to our service members, to the American people—

Plus to Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi.

Hussein, Gadhafi, and the ongoing regime change that’s still happening in Syria today.

So in Afghanistan, you would’ve gotten out when?

Go in, defeat Al Qaeda, get out. That’s what should’ve happened. Instead, what we’re seeing now is a very long, protracted, ambiguous mission where no one really knows what “winning” looks like. And the ensuing nation building that’s followed in these different wars, that’s taken so much of our resources, our taxpayer dollars, out of where they should have been dedicated—in nation building and serving the needs of our people right here at home.

If we just pulled out, wouldn’t there be more slaughter?

If we stay focused on what our mission and objectives should be, which is the safety and security of the American people, then we end up saving a whole lot of lives [and] we end up saving a whole lot of taxpayer dollars. The conflict and the complexities and the challenges, for example in Afghanistan, that we’re seeing continuing over the years and through today are things that only the Afghan people can resolve. What we’ve got to stay focused on is how we ensure the safety and security of the American people.

There seldom is a discussion that I’ve heard asking, “What is our mission?”

That’s exactly the problem. Before sending our men and women into harm’s way, we’re not hearing, “What is the problem that we’re trying to solve, and what is the clear, achievable goal that we’re sending them to do?” Without that, we end up with the result that we have, where we have troops who are deployed in these countries without a real understanding of what they’re there to accomplish, and at what point they’ve accomplished that and then can come home.

Let me get your response to this op-ed in The New York Times from some years back about Syria: “Five reasons to intervene in Syria now: It would diminish Iran’s influence in the Arab world.”

Let’s look at what’s happened in Syria. Because of the regime-change war that we’ve waged there, because of the regime-change war that we waged in Iraq, Iran has far more influence in both of those countries than they did prior to our going in. This is exactly one of the [times] where we see how our intervention has been counterproductive to our own interests.

The argument was that this could keep the conflict from spreading to Lebanon and Iraq.

Once again, look at the costs that the Syrian people have paid as a price and the impact that it’s had on the region as a whole.

Something that these articles often fail to recognize is that terrorism groups like Al Qaeda and offshoots like ISIS have been strengthened, to the point where now we just observed the 18th anniversary of the attack on 9/11, and Al Qaeda is stronger today than they were in 2001 when they launched that attack.

But there is a human rights crisis in Syria, and our hearts go out to them. We want to help.

Absolutely. We want to help. What we have been doing has been making the problem worse. This is what is so often the case when these regime-change wars are waged in the guise of humanitarianism, saying, “There are people suffering under an authoritarian regime. We have to go in and help them.”

But if you look at these examples throughout our country’s history, our going in and toppling that brutal dictator has not made their lives any better. [It has] resulted in more death, more destruction, more pain and suffering, more refugees. This is why we’ve got to stop being the world’s police. If we want to be a force for good in the world, let’s actually make sure that what we are doing effects a good outcome.

So what’s going on with your party? Democrats used to be the anti-war party.

Unfortunately, this is something that crosses both parties. I call out leaders in my own party and leaders in the Republican Party as well, who are heavily influenced by the military-industrial complex that profits heavily off of us continuing to wage these counterproductive wars.

They’re heavily influenced by the foreign-policy establishment in Washington, whose whole power base is built around continuing this status quo. So much so to the point where, when I’m calling for an end to these wasteful wars, they’re saying, “Well, gosh, Tulsi. Why are you such an isolationist?” As though the only way that we can relate with other countries in the world is by bombing them or putting crippling economic sanctions in place. Rather than seeing, “Hey, we’re the United States of America. We have the opportunity to be a force for good. To reach out to other countries. To show respect. To find those areas of common interest where we can work together for the well-being of our people and the planet. To be able to work out those differences that we have rather than resorting to war.”

If you were president a few years back, what would the alternative have been with Syria? How would we have worked with them?

Well, first of all, making sure that we don’t launch a regime-change war. That war began, a lot of people don’t realize, all the way back in 2011. And it began with a covert mission working through the CIA to arm and equip and provide support to terrorist groups in that country, like Al Qaeda, to overthrow the Syrian government.

This is something that has now been published out in the open. And it continued to further escalate, both through covert and overt means, using the Department of Defense.

Now we have the conflict with Iran.

Yes.

They apparently were responsible for the recent attacks on Saudi Arabia. What would you do?

If I were president today, I would end this cycle of retaliation, this tit for tat that we’re seeing. What happened in Saudi Arabia was an act of retaliation to the sanctions and the blockade against Iran, basically stopping them from being able to sell any of their oil on the market.

You’d remove the sanctions.

I would get Iran and the United States to re-enter the Iran Nuclear Agreement, to make sure that Iran is not continuing to move forward in building a nuclear weapon. Get those inspectors back in there. And I would remove those crippling sanctions.

I’m going to quote Sen. Lindsey Graham: “A weak response invites more aggression.”

So if we do what Lindsey Graham says and we come in with a strong response, a retaliatory attack, how does then Iran respond? These are the questions that these policy makers and the media too often don’t ask….If we follow down the Lindsey Graham approach, what we end up with is an escalation of this tit for tat: retaliation, attack, counterattack, counterattack. And what it’ll result in is an all-out inferno, not only in Iran but across the entire region.

It’s unimaginable to think about how many servicemen and women would lose their lives in such a war. How many people in the region would be killed, refugees forced to flee. And how many more trillions of our taxpayer dollars would be taken out of our pockets, out of our communities, to go and pay for a war that is completely unnecessary and that actually undermines our national security.

Let’s move to a domestic area where you agree with libertarians. America locks up an unusual number of people: 2 million at the moment. More than Russia or China.

Our criminal justice system is so broken, and it’s perpetuating the problems that have caused this kind of mass incarceration that we’ve seen. I have the only bipartisan bill in Congress that would end the federal marijuana prohibition.

This is one easy first step that we can take to begin to end this failed war on drugs that has unnecessarily filled our prisons, and that has really been a drain on our resources, both from the law enforcement perspective as well as within our criminal justice system.

People say it’s a gateway drug and the country has to send the message to children that it’s not OK. You’re going to let it be legal everywhere?

We should. This is a free country. I’ve never smoked marijuana. I never will. I’ve never drank alcohol. I’ve chosen not to in my life. But this is about free choice, and if somebody wants to do that, our country should not be making a criminal out of them for doing so. I think this is the hypocrisy of the argument that we’ve heard since this war on drugs began, which is, “We really care about you. We really care about your kids. So if you are caught using this drug, we care so much about you that we’re going to arrest you, and we’re going to give you a criminal record, because we don’t want you to hurt yourself.”

So once we’re an adult, we own our own bodies and we ought to be able to poison them if we want?

Yes.

But you haven’t proposed legalizing heroin or cocaine or meth?

That’s the direction that we need to take: decriminalizing an individual’s choice to use whatever substances that are there, while still criminalizing those who are traffickers and dealers of these drugs.

But I’m confused by that. Because you say, and I agree, “It’s my body, let me do what I want.”

Yeah.

But you call the sellers “traffickers.” They’re only traffickers because it’s illegal. Isn’t that hypocritical? You can use it but nobody can sell it to you?

No, it’s not at all. I think there’s a difference here, where you have those who are profiting off of selling substances that are harmful to others, as opposed to those who are making those choices on their own to do what they wish with their bodies.

There are some models of this in other countries who’ve taken this approach. What we’ve seen in Portugal is how they are not treating drug use as a criminal action but instead as a health care one. For those who are dealing with substance abuse and addiction, rather than throwing them in prison and giving them a criminal record, we’re actually providing them with the treatment that will get them and their lives back on track.

That’s been good in Portugal. There are even fewer people using drugs now.

That’s exactly right.

The leader in the Democratic primary race is Elizabeth Warren. Are you happy with that? Obviously, you would rather it be you.

I’m focused on our campaign and how we can continue to connect with voters in early states and all across the country, and sharing with them the kind of leadership that I would bring.

Your campaign pitch has been: Instead of all this military spending, focus on rebuilding communities at home.

We are in a new Cold War. We have escalating tensions between the United States and nuclear-armed countries like Russia and China—a new arms race. Trump tore up that [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] treaty that [Ronald] Reagan and [Mikhail] Gorbachev negotiated, sparking off billions more dollars to build these missiles that were banned under that treaty.

All of this amounts to an incredible cost that, whether they realize it or not, every single one of us as taxpayers are paying. Those dollars should either be used to decrease the deficit that we have or to serve the needs of our people.

But you would still have a military, right? How much would it be cut? How much would be left?

I don’t think it’s an arbitrary number. I think, once again, focus on what is our objective. Our objective must be to have a strong and ready, capable military able to fulfill their mission of protecting and defending our country and the American people.

We’ve got troops who are deployed in so many countries around the world.

Something like 80 countries.

But the questions that aren’t really asked, even in the Armed Services Committee where I serve, are, “Well, how many of those countries actually require a prolonged U.S. presence to serve our interests?”

So what happens in the Committee?

Here’s the issue. There’s this fearful word called “BRAC”—Base Realignment and Closing—right? People actually vote against that commission from doing their job, which is to look at these bases around the world and here at home and say, “Hey, do we still need them? Are they still performing a necessary function for our national security? And if not, let’s repurpose them or shut them down.”

We should explain this for people who don’t know what BRAC is. It was created because the military wanted to close some bases. But the local congresspersons said, “Oh, not my base.”

That’s right.

So they then said, “We’ll create a committee so that you politicians won’t have to take the heat.”

Exactly. Create a commission who can be the neutral arbiters. The member of Congress [will be able to] say, “Well, hey, this commission is the one who decided this.” But still the member of Congress fights against what that commission has recommended, rather, once again, than looking at this from an objective perspective, of being responsible caretakers for the taxpayer dollar and looking at what is actually necessary for our military to be able to do the job of protecting and defending our country. So I think there’s a huge opportunity to reduce defense spending in that area.

You would reduce military spending and spend that money domestically. You want Medicare for All.

I want to see Medicare Choice. So right now, as people, we’re spending far more on health care than any other developed country in the world….I agree with the concept of Medicare for All, what I would call Medicare Choice, because it provides for that lower-cost quality health care for every American, regardless of how little you may have in your pocket. But also allowing for those who, if you want to keep your employer-sponsored health care plan, or if you’ve got a union that’s negotiated a great health care plan, or if you just as a private citizen would rather pay into a private complementary plan, you should have the freedom to do so.

And we can afford this? Bernie Sanders, who promotes it, admits it will cost $3 trillion [annually]. Cutting unnecessary military spending will be enough?

By bringing down our defense spending, by ending these wasteful wars, [by stopping] the new Cold War arms race, we’re bringing back a lot of resources that would otherwise continue to be spent there.

With health care, we’re reducing the costs. This is the key component: We’re already paying for this one way or the other. Right now I get a certain chunk of money taken out of my paycheck every month that goes to Blue Cross Blue Shield for the insurance for my family. Instead of that amount of money going to Blue Cross Blue Shield, then that amount of money would instead be going to a Medicare Choice plan, except it would be less.

Much as I would like to cut the military, I don’t see how you can get the money, because the military’s entire budget is $700 billion. That’s a long way from $3 trillion.

It’s actually more. It’s actually more. I mean, $700 billion is the direct amount every year that goes to the Department of Defense. But that does not include the hundreds of millions of dollars that go towards the slush fund—the Overseas Contingency Operations fund—which has no constraints on how the Department of Defense is spending those dollars. Those are not accounted for within that budget.

OK, add $100 billion or $200 billion. It still comes nowhere close to what you and your fellow Democrats want to spend. Free college, Medicare for All—we can’t afford this stuff. Don’t you think colleges already waste a lot of money?

They do. Absolutely. And that’s why I think those who are talking about free college—I think that we do need to make sure that our young people are getting opportunity, whether it’s for vocational training, apprenticeships, college, community college. There’s a lot of opportunities there for people to get the skills that they need. But in order to do this, we have to address the overarching issue, which is: Why is it costing more and more and more every single year?…This is the problem. Just throwing more money at it isn’t going to solve it. So we have to deal with the systemic problem here, the root cause of the problem.

I spoke with a college professor recently about this issue. He said, “You want to see why it’s costing more and more? Why don’t you look at how much administrators of a lot of these colleges are being paid, or overpaid?” Let’s actually see where these dollars are going. Let’s look at the fact that these universities, many of them, don’t have any kind of accountability or transparency [in terms of student outcomes].

I’m glad we can have a civil argument about some of these areas where we disagree. Few politicians want to do that anymore.

It’s unfortunate, isn’t it? This is a problem that we’re seeing in our political culture today….Our leaders are increasingly unwilling to sit down with those who may be “on the other team.” Even those who are asking to lead our country. I think this is how we move forward together.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. For a video version, visit reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38IMQ2S
via IFTTT

Tulsi Gabbard: The Anti-War Candidate

Since her entry into the Democratic presidential primary race, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has been running against war. Gabbard, a National Guard major who served twice in the Middle East, launched her campaign by telling CNN, “There is one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of war and peace.”

In June, she used a primary debate to blast President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of America’s nuclear arms agreement with Iran, warning that “Donald Trump and his chickenhawk cabinet—Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and others—are creating a situation where a spark would light a war with Iran.” But she also went after her own party’s acquiescence to permanent war, asking Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan (who has since exited the race), “Will you tell the parents of those two soldiers that were killed [recently] in Afghanistan that we have to be engaged? That is unacceptable. We have lost so many lives. We have spent so much money.”

Gabbard’s staunch anti-war stance has led to accusations of disloyalty and even possible foreign allegiances, with 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton musing in October that a Democratic candidate was likely being “groomed” to play spoiler in the 2020 race. That candidate, Clinton warned without explicitly naming Gabbard, “is the favorite of the Russians.” Gabbard shot back that she was running for president to “undo Mrs. Clinton’s failed legacy.” The fight seemed to work to Gabbard’s benefit: After polling near the bottom of the field for much of the summer, the Hawaiian’s numbers have shot up in the important early primary state of New Hampshire.

In October, Gabbard sat down with Reason‘s John Stossel to talk about the pitfalls of endless war, the pros and cons of expanding Medicare and government-funded college, and why military spending is every bit as important as health care.

Reason: You often say you know the costs of war. What do you mean?

Tulsi Gabbard: I am a soldier. I have been serving in the Army National Guard now for over 16 years, and I deployed twice to the Middle East. I’ve served in Congress now for nearly seven years on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Homeland Security Committee. And so from both perspectives, I understand the importance of our national security.

As a soldier, I served in a field medical unit in Iraq in 2005, during the height of the war. Our camp was about 40 miles north of Baghdad, and it was something every day that we all experienced firsthand: the terribly high human cost of war—of our fellow soldiers, friends of ours, who were killed in combat. And the toll that continues now with veterans coming home with visible and invisible wounds, dealing with post-traumatic stress.

You’ve said the best way to honor our troops is to make combat the last option. We don’t do that?

We have to honor our servicemen and women by only sending them on missions that are worthy of their sacrifice. Now, like so many Americans after Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, I made the decision to join our military. To enlist, to be able to go after and defeat those who attacked us on that day, to defeat that great evil that visited us.

Unfortunately, since that time, our leaders failed us. Instead of focusing on defeating Al Qaeda, they’ve instead used that attack on 9/11 to begin to wage a whole series of counterproductive regime-change wars, overthrowing authoritarian dictators in other countries. Wars that’ve proven to be very costly to our service members, to the American people—

Plus to Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi.

Hussein, Gadhafi, and the ongoing regime change that’s still happening in Syria today.

So in Afghanistan, you would’ve gotten out when?

Go in, defeat Al Qaeda, get out. That’s what should’ve happened. Instead, what we’re seeing now is a very long, protracted, ambiguous mission where no one really knows what “winning” looks like. And the ensuing nation building that’s followed in these different wars, that’s taken so much of our resources, our taxpayer dollars, out of where they should have been dedicated—in nation building and serving the needs of our people right here at home.

If we just pulled out, wouldn’t there be more slaughter?

If we stay focused on what our mission and objectives should be, which is the safety and security of the American people, then we end up saving a whole lot of lives [and] we end up saving a whole lot of taxpayer dollars. The conflict and the complexities and the challenges, for example in Afghanistan, that we’re seeing continuing over the years and through today are things that only the Afghan people can resolve. What we’ve got to stay focused on is how we ensure the safety and security of the American people.

There seldom is a discussion that I’ve heard asking, “What is our mission?”

That’s exactly the problem. Before sending our men and women into harm’s way, we’re not hearing, “What is the problem that we’re trying to solve, and what is the clear, achievable goal that we’re sending them to do?” Without that, we end up with the result that we have, where we have troops who are deployed in these countries without a real understanding of what they’re there to accomplish, and at what point they’ve accomplished that and then can come home.

Let me get your response to this op-ed in The New York Times from some years back about Syria: “Five reasons to intervene in Syria now: It would diminish Iran’s influence in the Arab world.”

Let’s look at what’s happened in Syria. Because of the regime-change war that we’ve waged there, because of the regime-change war that we waged in Iraq, Iran has far more influence in both of those countries than they did prior to our going in. This is exactly one of the [times] where we see how our intervention has been counterproductive to our own interests.

The argument was that this could keep the conflict from spreading to Lebanon and Iraq.

Once again, look at the costs that the Syrian people have paid as a price and the impact that it’s had on the region as a whole.

Something that these articles often fail to recognize is that terrorism groups like Al Qaeda and offshoots like ISIS have been strengthened, to the point where now we just observed the 18th anniversary of the attack on 9/11, and Al Qaeda is stronger today than they were in 2001 when they launched that attack.

But there is a human rights crisis in Syria, and our hearts go out to them. We want to help.

Absolutely. We want to help. What we have been doing has been making the problem worse. This is what is so often the case when these regime-change wars are waged in the guise of humanitarianism, saying, “There are people suffering under an authoritarian regime. We have to go in and help them.”

But if you look at these examples throughout our country’s history, our going in and toppling that brutal dictator has not made their lives any better. [It has] resulted in more death, more destruction, more pain and suffering, more refugees. This is why we’ve got to stop being the world’s police. If we want to be a force for good in the world, let’s actually make sure that what we are doing effects a good outcome.

So what’s going on with your party? Democrats used to be the anti-war party.

Unfortunately, this is something that crosses both parties. I call out leaders in my own party and leaders in the Republican Party as well, who are heavily influenced by the military-industrial complex that profits heavily off of us continuing to wage these counterproductive wars.

They’re heavily influenced by the foreign-policy establishment in Washington, whose whole power base is built around continuing this status quo. So much so to the point where, when I’m calling for an end to these wasteful wars, they’re saying, “Well, gosh, Tulsi. Why are you such an isolationist?” As though the only way that we can relate with other countries in the world is by bombing them or putting crippling economic sanctions in place. Rather than seeing, “Hey, we’re the United States of America. We have the opportunity to be a force for good. To reach out to other countries. To show respect. To find those areas of common interest where we can work together for the well-being of our people and the planet. To be able to work out those differences that we have rather than resorting to war.”

If you were president a few years back, what would the alternative have been with Syria? How would we have worked with them?

Well, first of all, making sure that we don’t launch a regime-change war. That war began, a lot of people don’t realize, all the way back in 2011. And it began with a covert mission working through the CIA to arm and equip and provide support to terrorist groups in that country, like Al Qaeda, to overthrow the Syrian government.

This is something that has now been published out in the open. And it continued to further escalate, both through covert and overt means, using the Department of Defense.

Now we have the conflict with Iran.

Yes.

They apparently were responsible for the recent attacks on Saudi Arabia. What would you do?

If I were president today, I would end this cycle of retaliation, this tit for tat that we’re seeing. What happened in Saudi Arabia was an act of retaliation to the sanctions and the blockade against Iran, basically stopping them from being able to sell any of their oil on the market.

You’d remove the sanctions.

I would get Iran and the United States to re-enter the Iran Nuclear Agreement, to make sure that Iran is not continuing to move forward in building a nuclear weapon. Get those inspectors back in there. And I would remove those crippling sanctions.

I’m going to quote Sen. Lindsey Graham: “A weak response invites more aggression.”

So if we do what Lindsey Graham says and we come in with a strong response, a retaliatory attack, how does then Iran respond? These are the questions that these policy makers and the media too often don’t ask….If we follow down the Lindsey Graham approach, what we end up with is an escalation of this tit for tat: retaliation, attack, counterattack, counterattack. And what it’ll result in is an all-out inferno, not only in Iran but across the entire region.

It’s unimaginable to think about how many servicemen and women would lose their lives in such a war. How many people in the region would be killed, refugees forced to flee. And how many more trillions of our taxpayer dollars would be taken out of our pockets, out of our communities, to go and pay for a war that is completely unnecessary and that actually undermines our national security.

Let’s move to a domestic area where you agree with libertarians. America locks up an unusual number of people: 2 million at the moment. More than Russia or China.

Our criminal justice system is so broken, and it’s perpetuating the problems that have caused this kind of mass incarceration that we’ve seen. I have the only bipartisan bill in Congress that would end the federal marijuana prohibition.

This is one easy first step that we can take to begin to end this failed war on drugs that has unnecessarily filled our prisons, and that has really been a drain on our resources, both from the law enforcement perspective as well as within our criminal justice system.

People say it’s a gateway drug and the country has to send the message to children that it’s not OK. You’re going to let it be legal everywhere?

We should. This is a free country. I’ve never smoked marijuana. I never will. I’ve never drank alcohol. I’ve chosen not to in my life. But this is about free choice, and if somebody wants to do that, our country should not be making a criminal out of them for doing so. I think this is the hypocrisy of the argument that we’ve heard since this war on drugs began, which is, “We really care about you. We really care about your kids. So if you are caught using this drug, we care so much about you that we’re going to arrest you, and we’re going to give you a criminal record, because we don’t want you to hurt yourself.”

So once we’re an adult, we own our own bodies and we ought to be able to poison them if we want?

Yes.

But you haven’t proposed legalizing heroin or cocaine or meth?

That’s the direction that we need to take: decriminalizing an individual’s choice to use whatever substances that are there, while still criminalizing those who are traffickers and dealers of these drugs.

But I’m confused by that. Because you say, and I agree, “It’s my body, let me do what I want.”

Yeah.

But you call the sellers “traffickers.” They’re only traffickers because it’s illegal. Isn’t that hypocritical? You can use it but nobody can sell it to you?

No, it’s not at all. I think there’s a difference here, where you have those who are profiting off of selling substances that are harmful to others, as opposed to those who are making those choices on their own to do what they wish with their bodies.

There are some models of this in other countries who’ve taken this approach. What we’ve seen in Portugal is how they are not treating drug use as a criminal action but instead as a health care one. For those who are dealing with substance abuse and addiction, rather than throwing them in prison and giving them a criminal record, we’re actually providing them with the treatment that will get them and their lives back on track.

That’s been good in Portugal. There are even fewer people using drugs now.

That’s exactly right.

The leader in the Democratic primary race is Elizabeth Warren. Are you happy with that? Obviously, you would rather it be you.

I’m focused on our campaign and how we can continue to connect with voters in early states and all across the country, and sharing with them the kind of leadership that I would bring.

Your campaign pitch has been: Instead of all this military spending, focus on rebuilding communities at home.

We are in a new Cold War. We have escalating tensions between the United States and nuclear-armed countries like Russia and China—a new arms race. Trump tore up that [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] treaty that [Ronald] Reagan and [Mikhail] Gorbachev negotiated, sparking off billions more dollars to build these missiles that were banned under that treaty.

All of this amounts to an incredible cost that, whether they realize it or not, every single one of us as taxpayers are paying. Those dollars should either be used to decrease the deficit that we have or to serve the needs of our people.

But you would still have a military, right? How much would it be cut? How much would be left?

I don’t think it’s an arbitrary number. I think, once again, focus on what is our objective. Our objective must be to have a strong and ready, capable military able to fulfill their mission of protecting and defending our country and the American people.

We’ve got troops who are deployed in so many countries around the world.

Something like 80 countries.

But the questions that aren’t really asked, even in the Armed Services Committee where I serve, are, “Well, how many of those countries actually require a prolonged U.S. presence to serve our interests?”

So what happens in the Committee?

Here’s the issue. There’s this fearful word called “BRAC”—Base Realignment and Closing—right? People actually vote against that commission from doing their job, which is to look at these bases around the world and here at home and say, “Hey, do we still need them? Are they still performing a necessary function for our national security? And if not, let’s repurpose them or shut them down.”

We should explain this for people who don’t know what BRAC is. It was created because the military wanted to close some bases. But the local congresspersons said, “Oh, not my base.”

That’s right.

So they then said, “We’ll create a committee so that you politicians won’t have to take the heat.”

Exactly. Create a commission who can be the neutral arbiters. The member of Congress [will be able to] say, “Well, hey, this commission is the one who decided this.” But still the member of Congress fights against what that commission has recommended, rather, once again, than looking at this from an objective perspective, of being responsible caretakers for the taxpayer dollar and looking at what is actually necessary for our military to be able to do the job of protecting and defending our country. So I think there’s a huge opportunity to reduce defense spending in that area.

You would reduce military spending and spend that money domestically. You want Medicare for All.

I want to see Medicare Choice. So right now, as people, we’re spending far more on health care than any other developed country in the world….I agree with the concept of Medicare for All, what I would call Medicare Choice, because it provides for that lower-cost quality health care for every American, regardless of how little you may have in your pocket. But also allowing for those who, if you want to keep your employer-sponsored health care plan, or if you’ve got a union that’s negotiated a great health care plan, or if you just as a private citizen would rather pay into a private complementary plan, you should have the freedom to do so.

And we can afford this? Bernie Sanders, who promotes it, admits it will cost $3 trillion [annually]. Cutting unnecessary military spending will be enough?

By bringing down our defense spending, by ending these wasteful wars, [by stopping] the new Cold War arms race, we’re bringing back a lot of resources that would otherwise continue to be spent there.

With health care, we’re reducing the costs. This is the key component: We’re already paying for this one way or the other. Right now I get a certain chunk of money taken out of my paycheck every month that goes to Blue Cross Blue Shield for the insurance for my family. Instead of that amount of money going to Blue Cross Blue Shield, then that amount of money would instead be going to a Medicare Choice plan, except it would be less.

Much as I would like to cut the military, I don’t see how you can get the money, because the military’s entire budget is $700 billion. That’s a long way from $3 trillion.

It’s actually more. It’s actually more. I mean, $700 billion is the direct amount every year that goes to the Department of Defense. But that does not include the hundreds of millions of dollars that go towards the slush fund—the Overseas Contingency Operations fund—which has no constraints on how the Department of Defense is spending those dollars. Those are not accounted for within that budget.

OK, add $100 billion or $200 billion. It still comes nowhere close to what you and your fellow Democrats want to spend. Free college, Medicare for All—we can’t afford this stuff. Don’t you think colleges already waste a lot of money?

They do. Absolutely. And that’s why I think those who are talking about free college—I think that we do need to make sure that our young people are getting opportunity, whether it’s for vocational training, apprenticeships, college, community college. There’s a lot of opportunities there for people to get the skills that they need. But in order to do this, we have to address the overarching issue, which is: Why is it costing more and more and more every single year?…This is the problem. Just throwing more money at it isn’t going to solve it. So we have to deal with the systemic problem here, the root cause of the problem.

I spoke with a college professor recently about this issue. He said, “You want to see why it’s costing more and more? Why don’t you look at how much administrators of a lot of these colleges are being paid, or overpaid?” Let’s actually see where these dollars are going. Let’s look at the fact that these universities, many of them, don’t have any kind of accountability or transparency [in terms of student outcomes].

I’m glad we can have a civil argument about some of these areas where we disagree. Few politicians want to do that anymore.

It’s unfortunate, isn’t it? This is a problem that we’re seeing in our political culture today….Our leaders are increasingly unwilling to sit down with those who may be “on the other team.” Even those who are asking to lead our country. I think this is how we move forward together.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. For a video version, visit reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38IMQ2S
via IFTTT

Three Lessons From The UK Elections

Three Lessons From The UK Elections

Authored by Daniel Lacalle via DLacalle.,com,

The results of the UK elections have shown something that I have commented on several occasions: The widely spread narrative that British citizens had regretted having voted for Brexit was simply incorrect.

We already had the evidence in the European elections, where the Brexit Party won with 31.6% of the votes, but the general elections have been even clearer. The Conservative Party won by an absolute majority (more than 360 seats and 43.6% of the votes).

The failure of Labour’s radicalism led by Jeremy Corbyn has been spectacular, and his interventionist messages, reminiscent of the terrible Harold Wilson period, added to his vague stance on Brexit and how to finance his promises of “everything free at any cost” have led the party to its worst results since 1935 and losing key seats in constituencies that always voted Labour since 1945.

Up to 18 Labour historical footholds passed to a conservative majority including Blyth, Darlington, Workington, Great Grimsby or Bassetlaw. In Wales, the Conservative party snatched six seats from the socialists. The transfer of Labour votes to conservatives exceeded 4.7%, according to the Press Association. The interventionist and extremist proposals of Jeremy Corbyn have caused them to lose votes even in pro-Remain districts (-6.4% according to the BBC).

Months of attempts to whitewash the image of Jeremy Corbyn by parts of the media have not been able to eliminate his history of extremism and interventionism, his refusal to apologize for cases of anti-Semitism and his incompetence in explaining the economic program. Corbyn led a traditionally moderate and social-democratic formation to the most retrograde and interventionist proposals of its recent history.

Johnson won by absolute majority with a much more moderate, positive and pro-growth message, but, above all, unquestionable in terms of delivering Brexit.

Johnson has not only reached a much wider spectrum of voters but Corbyn has annihilated his options with Labour’s own more moderate voters by radicalizing his message in a country where any citizen over 45 remembers the economic disasters of socialism.

The UK elections should be an opportunity for everyone to learn several lessons.

The first lesson is that the silent majority is the target in an election, not the loud minority. As in the United States and European Parliament elections, the consensus narrative about what was happening was clearly influenced by a terrible confirmation bias among most mainstream commentators. Some media in the UK have reported more about what they wanted to happen more than what really happened.

The second lesson is that extremist socialism is not an alternative. While Johnson focused his campaign on adding supporters, Corbyn set out to return to the past and try to revive the policies that led to poverty, constant devaluations, supply cuts, and misery.

The third was falling into the error of believing that sound economic policies do not matter. That the “majority” opinion is what some media or some commentators say. Even worse, to believe that the will of the people is represented bt a few anonymous accounts on social networks. Bots are not votes.

The opportunity of these elections is enormous. The European Union can strengthen its project and implement the agreement signed with the Johnson government in a beneficial way for all member states. It is a pity that the United Kingdom does not want to continue in the European Union, but we have to look to the future. For the UK, it is clearly an opportunity to strengthen the economy focusing on job creation and attraction of capital.

The United Kingdom will implement growth policies and competitive taxation. This is not just good for UK citizens. It is a much-needed reminder for the European Union to abandon its most interventionist temptations and focus on being competitive, attractive and productive.

The European Union faces significant economic, demographic and technological challenges. The UK can develop its competitiveness and investment appeal and, by doing so, the European Union can benefit. The United Kingdom is not a threat. It’s an example. A partner for all member states and a reminder of which policies work and how socialism and interventionism are never the answer.

Johnson is not a danger. He is the prime minister of an allied country and partner that will continue to be so. The danger to the European Union is not Johnson, it is interventionist temptation. Let’s fight it.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/16/2019 – 05:00

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2PowpBm Tyler Durden

By 2100, Five Of The Ten Biggest Countries In The World Will Be In Africa

By 2100, Five Of The Ten Biggest Countries In The World Will Be In Africa

In the 21st century so far, populous countries and strong population growth were most often associated with Asia – but, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, this view of the world will have to change in the future, data by the United Nations and Pew Research Center shows.

While in 2020, five out of the ten most populous countries in the world were located in Asia, the picture will look different in 2100, when five African countries – Nigeria, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Egypt and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – will be among the world’s ten largest.

Infographic: In 2100, Five of the Ten Biggest Countries in the World Will Be in Africa | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

While some Asian countries will continue to grow, they will do so at a lower rate and will be surpassed in population by African countries exhibiting faster growth. Others, like China and Bangladesh are actually expected to shrink until 2100, mainly a result of higher standard of living and education that has already begun to lower birth rates.

In 1950, four European countries were still among the world’s largest. That number will have decreased to one in 2020 and none in 2100.

The number of children born worldwide is already decreasing, but at currently 2.5 children born per woman, world population is still growing. UN population researchers found that if the global fertility rate kept dropping at the rate it currently is, it would reach 1.9 children per woman in 2100, at which point the world population would actually be decreasing.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/16/2019 – 04:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38KDcN8 Tyler Durden

Brickbat: Just Be Yourself

Monroe County, Florida, Sheriff Rick Ramsay has relieved Capt. Penny Phelps as head of the department’s major crimes and narcotics unit after she was recorded telling a deputy to pull over a black murder suspect and act like a “white supremacist cop.” Phelps told the deputy she did not want the suspect to know that law enforcement knew who he was. “We want it to look like you’re the grumpy old man. You have nothing better to do than, you’re the white supremacist, you’re messing with the black guy who’s riding his bike,” she said.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2LWVzok
via IFTTT

The Great ‘Replacement’ In Belgium

The Great ‘Replacement’ In Belgium

Authored by Guillaume Durocher via The Unz Review,

The following is a translation of an article by the lawyer Paul Tormenen for the identitarian think-tank Polémia. The numerous sources cited are detailed in the original article. This piece provides a solid overview of the tremendous demographic transformation which Belgium is undergoing and of the striking differences between European and Islamic migrants, the latter being markedly socially conservative and prone to unemployment. Entire neighborhoods such as Molenbeek have become unrecognizable and begging Gypsies have become a familiar sight on street corners.

At the same time, the numbers show that, as of today, a majority of immigrants to Belgium are of European origin and can be expected to integrate smoothly. Even if we concede that the Europeans are likely less fertile than the Muslims and Africans, this is one reason why I do not believe “race war” is likely to happen any time soon, notwithstanding the reality of Afro-Islamic criminality and periodic murderous Islamist terrorist attacks.

If Belgium experienced waves of immigration in the 20th Century, the current wave is unique in its magnitude and the fact that it is “endured” by a part of the population. The ethnocentric demands and the radicalization of a fraction of the immigrant population has provoked differing reactions among the [French-speaking] Walloons and the [Dutch-speaking] Flemish. In Belgium, as in other European countries, the migratory and identitarian questions have become central to the country’s political life.

From the 20th Century to Today

A first wave of immigration was organized during the interwar years, due to the pressure of the Belgian leaders of heavy industry. Labor migration was started up again in the 1960s. These immigrants were notably called upon to work in the mines and were essentially of European origin (Italy, Spain, Greece). After 1964, bilateral agreements were concluded with Muslim countries (Morocco, Turkey, Algeria) in order to facilitate the hosting of foreign workers. Without regard for any cultural factors, familial immigration was also promoted in order, according to Belgium’s leaders, to tackle the country’s aging population.

Since the end of the 1980s, Belgium has been experiencing a new migratory wave. Whereas the annual flow had been relatively stable between the 1950s and 1980s, with yearly arrivals of between 40,000 and 60,000, family reunification and asylum requests significantly increased the arrivals of foreigners. Over a million of them thus entered Belgium legally between 2000 and 2010.

Belgian migratory trends. Dotted line: immigration. Thin line: emigration. Solid light blue line: net migration.

Between 2009 and 2011 alone, family reunification, which accounts for about half of residence permits, enabled 121,000 foreigners to legally settle in Belgium. A Belgian senator, Alain Destexhe, speaks of family reunification’s “domino effect,” because of the different ways it gives for family members to come from abroad.

Since 2007, the annual number of foreigners arriving in Belgium has always been over 100,000. In 25 years, the immigrant population (of foreign or Belgian nationality) has doubled. Annual growth of the foreign-origin population is estimated at between 1% and 5%. As of 1 January 2018, of Belgium’s 11.3 million inhabitants, 16.7% were born abroad (1.9 million people). These figures do not take into account unidentified illegals, nor the asylum-seekers who are registered on the waiting lists.

The concentration of foreigners is especially visible in the big cities. For example, in Brussels, foreigners are almost as numerous as Belgian citizens. The city of Antwerp now has more immigrants than natives.

Origin of the foreign-born population in Belgium. Light blue: EU-15. Mid-blue: 13 new EU states (Eastern Europe). Dark blue: non-EU Europe (including Turkey). Red: North Africa. Orange: Sub-Saharan Africa. Light Green: West Asia. Dark Green: East Asia. Purple: Latin America. Pink: North America. Grey: Other.

Asylum-seekers: a secondary flow

In addition to illegal immigration, Belgium is, like France, experiencing the “secondary flows” of asylum-seekers. More and more asylum-seekers in Belgium are not fresh arrivals on the European continent. Their request for asylum was rejected in another country and they try their luck in Belgium. This phenomenon, which shows the bankruptcy of the European asylum “system,” is due to tougher migratory policies in the Scandinavian countries and Germany. It is estimated that one third of asylum-seekers practice this kind of “desk-hopping.” More broadly, between 1991 and 2015, some 517,000 asylum requests have been made in the country.

The origin of the immigrants has changed

If Europeans still make up the majority of the foreign population, Turks (155,701 people as of 1 January 2016) and Moroccans (309,166) represent significant contingents. Among the foreigners who have recently acquired Belgian citizenship, these two nationalities are in the lead.

According to the Pew Research Center, the Muslim population represents 7.6% of the Belgian population, almost 796,000 inhabitants. Depending on the migratory policies that are chosen in the next years (whether zero migration or a controlled opening of borders), the American think-tank estimates that the Muslim population could make up between 11% and 18% of the population by 2050.

The cost of immigration

In 2018 alone, 23,400 people in Belgium asked for international protection [under asylum]. The annual cost of asylum-seekers into terms of basic welfare has risen from 120 million euros in 2014 to 200 million euros in 2018. One must add to these figures the cost of welcoming asylum-seekers, which more than doubled between 2014 and 2016, rising to 524 million euros.

Employment rate of Belgian natives, EU migrants, and non-EU migrants (the latter overwhelmingly come from the Middle East and Africa).

More generally, the employment rate of immigrants from outside the European Union is 20 points lower than that of natives. Whether as a cause or consequence of this, 80% of those receiving social assistance are of non-Belgian origin, according to a Belgian academic, Bea Cantillon.

Employment patterns of representative samples of Belgian natives and non-EU migrants between 30 and 64 years of age between 2008 and 2014. Each line represents one individual. Green: working. In Orange: unemployed. Red: inactive (not seeking work). Source: Eurostat.

Belgium will become Arab”

This prediction did not come from a dangerous conspiracy-theorist. It was expressed by a journalist, Fawzia Zouari, in the pages of the magazine Jeune Afrique [“Young Africa”] to sum up “the Islamization of minds,” in particular among of the young generation of Muslims. Though the Muslim population remains a minority, its importance is indeed growing and especially is becoming visible. Islamization is visible in several ways: in beliefs, behaviors, religious practice, and political life.

A Shiite political party named “ISLAM” was formed in 2012. It calls for the imposition of Islam’s strictest teachings: no shaking of hands between men and women, banning of mixed-sex schools and public transport, the wearing of the headscarf from the age of 12, etc, as well as the imposition of Sharia law. This political party’s [initial] electoral results are for now “anything but ridiculous,” as noted by a journalist in the magazine Le Vif [breaking the 4% threshold in the notorious Brussels neighborhood of Molenbeek, for instance] and the strict conception of Islam is progressing in Belgium.

According to a 2017 study by a Belgian foundation, 33% of Belgian Muslims do not like “the West’s culture, customs, and way of life” (women’s autonomy, alcohol, eroticism, etc), whereas 29% consider that “the laws of Islam are superior to Belgian laws.” A 2011 study highlighted the anti-Semitism of about half of the Muslim high-school students in Brussels who were polled.

The State Security Service (the Belgian international intelligence agency) observed recently an increase in groups and activities linked to Salafism, Islam’s most radical branch. One hundred Salafist organizations have been counted on Belgian soil. The mayor of Brussels for his part asserted in 2017 that “all of the mosques [in Brussels] are in the hands of Salafists.”

A shift in migration policy

Unlike France, which recently extended the right to asylum and to family reunification, Belgium has restricted these options since 2011. The Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration between 2014 and 2018, Theo Francken of the New Flemish Alliance [N-VA, a pseudo-nationalist conservative party], took a series of measures to reduce migratory flows: a strengthening of border checks and the expelling of illegal immigrants, a media campaign discouraging potential migrants from emigrating, measures to prevent asylum requests from being used to illegally settle in the country, etc.

The coalition government in power did not survive the signing by the Belgian authorities of the Marrakesh Pact on migration: at the end of 2018, the N-VA announced it was leaving the government and the country entered a new period of [political] instability. In contrast with the often politically-correct media, many voters took the opportunity of the recent European elections to vote for firmly anti-immigration party lists: the Flemish Movement [VB, a nationalist party] received 18.5% of the vote and the N-VA 27.2% [within Flanders].

Prospects

Whereas the Kingdom of Belgium has been rocked by secessionist tendencies over the past decades, dividing Flemings and Walloons, the country is now confronted with new challenges: mass immigration and the rise of political-religious demands from a part of the Muslim community. The country’s cohesion is more than ever being put to the test.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/16/2019 – 03:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/35qGpzt Tyler Durden

Brickbat: Just Be Yourself

Monroe County, Florida, Sheriff Rick Ramsay has relieved Capt. Penny Phelps as head of the department’s major crimes and narcotics unit after she was recorded telling a deputy to pull over a black murder suspect and act like a “white supremacist cop.” Phelps told the deputy she did not want the suspect to know that law enforcement knew who he was. “We want it to look like you’re the grumpy old man. You have nothing better to do than, you’re the white supremacist, you’re messing with the black guy who’s riding his bike,” she said.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2LWVzok
via IFTTT