Archive by Author

America and the Saudis: What Biden might learn from FDR

On a trip that might herald a reluctant shift in his administration’s Mideast policy, President Biden will arrive in Saudi Arabia next week.

The White House is portraying the visit as a response to “the invitation of King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,” the kingdom’s 86-year-old nominal ruler. But all eyes will be on Biden’s meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, aka “MBS,” whose de facto leadership led presidential candidate Biden to describe his soon to be hosts as a “pariah” nation. 

The agenda will include energy, regional security and relations with Israel. The elephant in the room will be the alleged complicity of MBS in the 2018 Istanbul murder of Saudi-American dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi. 

America’s foreign policy toward the Saudis has long been a case study in pragmatism. Washington has guaranteed the kingdom’s security in return for Riyadh assuring the industrialized world a reasonably consistent flow of petroleum. Over the years tensions have flared over Israel and the Palestinians, and lately Iran and the Saudi human rights record.

It’s worth recalling that this often-fraught relationship began with the first meeting of a U.S. president and a Saudi leader nearly eight decades ago. 

On Valentine’s Day 1945, three days after the conclusion of the Yalta Conference and with only two months to live, President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) delayed his return to Washington for a stop at the Great Bitter Lake in Egypt’s Suez Canal. It was an opportunity to meet with the first king of Saudi Arabia, Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud, also known as Ibn Saud.

The monarch had consolidated his kingdom in 1927 by wresting the western province of Hejaz, bordering the Red Sea, from the rival Hashemite dynasty. Ibn Saud feared a resurgent threat from Hashemite monarchies in Jordan and Iraq, sponsored by Britain after World War I. The king was looking for a new patron to offer security guarantees and financial aid.

The U.S. recognized the kingdom in 1931 but had paid it scant attention. In 1938 American geologists, the forerunners of ARAMCO, had made substantial oil discoveries, but it took the onset of war for their strategic significance to make an impact in Washington.

Events took a turn in 1943. In February, Roosevelt issued an executive order declaring “the defense of Saudi Arabia vital to the defense of the United States” making the country eligible for aid under the Lend-Lease program. But the simmering conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine had already cast a cloud over a budding relationship.

Ibn Saud had not publicly pressed the U.S. on the postwar status of the British Mandate. But he was fearful his continued silence might impact his image in the Arab world. In April he wrote to FDR, imploring that he “help to stop the flow of migration by finding a place for the Jews to live in other than Palestine.” 

Thanking him for his discretion, FDR assured the king “it is the view of the Government of the United States that no decision altering the basic situation of Palestine should be reached without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews.” It was a message typical of Roosevelt, both flattering and noncommittal.

The president reprised that theme at the February 1945 summit, adding that “resolutions in Congress” notwithstanding, “he would do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs and would make no hostile move to the Arab people.” It’s not clear if he believed he could make good on that pledge, and probably would have punted the question to the fledgling United Nations. 

But Roosevelt sealed the meeting with a promise that, should Iraq or Jordan threaten Saudi territory,  the United States would provide “all possible support short of the use of force.” He suggested U.S. preference for a Syria and Lebanon independent of the Hashemites. In August an agreement was signed to build a U.S. airbase at Dhahran, and the Saudis became the first recipients of a postwar U.S. foreign aid program.

President Truman’s 1948 recognition of Israel provoked the first crisis in relations with the kingdom. But Ibn Saud’s concern with regional security kept relations, including ARAMCO oilfield concessions, from reaching the breaking point.

The king’s passion for the Palestinian cause was lukewarm; he sent a minimal force to join the Arab League in its 1948 action against Israel. But when the eventual partition of Palestine permitted Jordan to annex Arab portions of the former mandate, Ibn Saud’s fears of Hashemite expansion were revived. He again appealed to Washington for support, and Truman acted. 

By the end of 1949, the Dharan base lease had been renewed, and plans were afoot to train and equip a Saudi defense force of over 40,000. As the global Soviet threat intensified, the Saudi relationship, with all its complications, would only grow in importance.

The Saudis have yet to sign the Abraham Accords, but  MBS now sees Israel as a strategic partner in the fight against Iranian influence in the region. It’s the U.S. that appears as the odd man out as the region re-aligns, with the Russians and Chinese both vying for influence.

When Ibn Saud met with Roosevelt, he saw the United Kingdom as a nation in decline with divided loyalties in the region. The Saudis today have a similar ambivalence regarding America’s commitment to their security; they see as threats the administration’s attempt to revive the Iran nuclear deal and its opposition to Saudi intervention against Tehran’s Houthi proxies in the Yemeni civil war.

The global energy crunch means the oil for security bargain is again in play. If President Biden again believes “the defense of Saudi Arabia vital to the defense of the United States”, it may take a performance worthy of FDR to convey that message to his hosts in Jeddah.

Paul C. Atkinson, a former executive at The Wall Street Journal, is a contributing editor of the New York Sun.

Source: TEST FEED1

Four Border Patrol agents to face discipline over horseback controversy

Four Border Patrol agents will face disciplinary action following an incident last year in Del Rio, Texas, in which agents on horseback corralled Haitian migrants seeking to cross into the U.S.

A 511-page report from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Office of Professional Responsibility found “failures at multiple levels of the agency, a lack of appropriate policies and training, and unprofessional and dangerous behavior by several individual agents,” according to a CBP statement.

Images of the September incident went viral, drawing attention to the plight of some 15,000 Haitian migrants who had camped under a bridge near the U.S.-Mexico border. The images showed officers chasing some migrants and raising questions about whether the agents whipped any migrants with the horses’ reins.

The report determined that agents did not strike “intentionally or otherwise, any migrant with their reins.”

But while the report dismissed those allegations, it detailed other disturbing behavior by agents on horseback, including grabbing one migrant by their shirt and spinning them around and in another case making disparaging remarks about Haiti.

“One BPA [Border Patrol agent] acted in an unprofessional manner by yelling comments related to a migrant’s national origin and sex, stating in part, ‘Hey! You use your women? This is why your country’s shit, you use your women for this,’” the report found. 

“The same BPA acted in an unsafe manner by pursuing the individual he had yelled at along the river’s edge forcing his horse to narrowly maneuver around a small child on a slanted concrete ramp.”

The report comes roughly nine months after Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas pledged the investigation would take “days, not weeks.”

In a press conference with reporters, CBP Commissioner Chris Magnus said the officers are still facing proposed disciplinary action and are afforded the chance to reply and said he would not be able to release the details until they are finalized. 

Developing.

Source: TEST FEED1

Johnson pulled radio ad after Highland Park shooting: report

Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-Wisc.) campaign pulled a radio ad that said “the latest mass murder in America didn’t involve guns” following the Fourth of July mass shooting in Highland Park, Ill., The Intercept reported on Thursday. 

The ad, which was set to be released on Wednesday, references the more than 50 migrants who were found dead in a tractor-trailer in San Antonio, Texas, last week after being smuggled into the country. 

“Fifty-three people, including five children, were murdered by human traffickers because Joe Biden’s open border policy is facilitating the multibillion-dollar business model of some of the most evil people on the planet,” the ad states, according to The Intercept. “Human, sex and drug trafficking are out of control because of Democrat governance.” 

But a top executive from Katz Radio Group, which was one of the companies contracted to produce the ad, sent an email the day after the Highland Park shooting telling colleagues to pull the ad. 

The email, obtained by The Intercept, states that the campaign ordered the ad pulled as soon as possible. 

“If you listened to the spot it talks about mass shootings which obviously is not good creative after this past weekend (especially in Chicago),” the email reads. 

A gunman opened fire at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, a Chicago suburb, on Monday, killing seven and injuring dozens more. 

A sales assistant at Cumulous Radio Station Group told colleagues in an email the next day that the ad should be pulled. 

Johnson’s campaign and Katz Radio Group did not immediately return requests for comment from The Hill. 

Hypothetical polling released last month showed Johnson set to be locked in a tight race with his top potential Democratic opponents — Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, Wisconsin state Treasurer Sarah Godlewski, Milwaukee Bucks executive Alex Lasry and Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson.

Source: TEST FEED1

Declaring independence from foreign drug supply chains

As the COVID-19 pandemic made painfully clear, America’s supply chain is far too dependent on other countries for many of our daily necessities.

Lifesaving prescription drugs are chief among them.

That’s why we believe it’s critical to find ways to boost pharmaceutical production here in the United States, so that we can declare independence from foreign drug supply chains.

There were shortages of 29 of the 40 critical drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients in the first year of the pandemic.The combination of factory shutdowns, shipping delays, and a dramatic increase in global demand for COVID-19 therapies quickly resulted in shortages of essential medicines.

Even now, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently reports shortages of nearly 120 drugs in the United States, which is about three times of what it was last summer. 

Our current system has long been a crisis in the making. 

The pandemic demonstrated why we cannot wait any longer to fix this problem. Even before COVID-19, there had been more than 250 drug shortages.

That’s why we recently introduced bipartisan legislation called The American Made Pharmaceuticals Act to create federal incentives for American-made essential drugs from generics to biosimilars. We believe that this legislation will help to increase onshoring manufacturing of essential drugs and take steps to boost the domestic supply chain.

The two of us, representing both parties of Congress, agree: it’s absolutely essential that America secures and strengthens its medical supply chain.

Our bill would establish a program at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to provide physician rewards or lower out-of-pocket costs for patients using American-made generics, biosimilars, and critical medicines. 

Pharmaceutical companies will be encouraged to provide transparency on manufacturing locations, maintain adequate inventory. And they will need to come up with preparations for future supply chain disruptions. 

These policy measures should reduce drug shortages, and we know that boosting domestic prescription drug production here at home will also create more opportunities for good-paying jobs all over the country.  

That’s why creating our own independent supply chain isn’t only a health and national security imperative. It’s also good for America’s bottom line.
Our dependence on foreign manufacturing goes well beyond drugs. 

China currently dominates the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients and medical equipment such as COVID-19 tests, masks, gloves, and pulse oximeters. China also produces many of the antibiotics and pain medicines used all over the world. 

We saw in 2020 how the Chinese government effectively nationalized production at factories run by American companies. That made it much harder for the U.S. government to secure personal protective equipment for Americans. 

We’re glad to see the Biden administration taking steps to improve the resiliency of the U.S. supply chain, such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposing increased payments for hospitals when they buy American-made N95 masks.

But more needs to be done.

The good news is that we already have a head start in creating our own independent supply chain. America is a global leader in drug innovation. The problem is that too much of our manufacturing remains overseas.

According to data from the FDA, 72 percent of manufacturing facilities producing active pharmaceutical ingredients supplying the domestic market were overseas. Just 28 percent are based here.

Our continued reliance on ex-U.S. manufacturing for medicines and medical supplies means we are one international conflict, one trade dispute, or one endemic away from a major drug shortage.

Medicine and medical supplies are essential national resources as much as food or weapons. Policymakers should treat them that way. We should pass this legislation to secure our national independence for medical production at home.

Markwayne Mullin represents Oklahoma’s 2nd District and Angie Craig represents Minnesota’s 2nd District. Both are members of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Source: TEST FEED1

Atlanta newspaper subpoenaed in probe of Trump's election meddling

An Atlanta newspaper has been issued a subpoena by the special grand jury investigating possible criminal activity of former President Trump and his allies following the 2020 election.

The Fulton County grand jury is looking to obtain the full audio recording of a leaked Jan. 11, 2021, conference call involving former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Bobby Christine, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. The AJC reported on the call in question at the time.

That Journal report outlined how Christine had told others in his office on the call that he had dismissed two cases of alleged voter fraud in the state based on a lack of evidence.

“In my opinion, there is no there, there,” Christine said on the call, the newspaper reported.

On Tuesday, the same grand jury issued subpoenas to several members of Trump’s inner circle around the time of the election, including Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and conservative lawyer John Eastman.

The subpoenas stem from an ongoing investigation from current Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is looking to ascertain whether Trump and his allies tired to to unlawfully influence the 2020 election.

Trump and his allies have long baselessly suggested widespread voter fraud, including in Fulton County, Georgia, led to a “rigged” presidential election against him.

Source: TEST FEED1

Mexico's president says don't vote for Abbott over 'immoral' immigration policy

Mexico’s president is urging Mexicans in the United States not to vote for “anti-immigrant” candidates, after slamming Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) for issuing an order this week allowing state troopers and National Guard members to arrest and return migrants attempting to cross the border.

“If there’s a candidate from a party that mistreats immigrants and Mexicans, we’re going to ask our countrymen there that they don’t vote for that candidate or party,” Andrés Manuel López Obrador told reporters Friday.

“Even though we are respectful of the sovereignty of other countries, we see that there are anti-immigrant campaigns for electoral purposes. I consider it immoral.”

The remarks came just a day after Abbott issued an executive order that directs the Texas National Guard and state police to “apprehend” migrants who illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border and return them to Mexico. Migrant advocates say the order violates Supreme Court rulings holding that only the federal government may carry out immigration enforcement.

“While President Biden refuses to do his job and enforce the immigration laws enacted by Congress, the State of Texas is once again stepping up and taking unprecedented action to protect Americans and secure our southern border,” Abbott said in a statement announcing the order.

Abbott is running for reelection against Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke, a former House member who has also made unsuccessful runs for Senate and the White House. Recent polls have shown Abbott in the lead months ahead of the November election.

Abbott’s campaign didn’t respond to The Hill’s request for comment on López Obrador’s comments.

The White House also has condemned Abbott’s immigration order.

“Immigration enforcement is a federal authority and states should not be meddling in it,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Friday. “That is especially for Texas Gov. Abbott, who has a track record of causing chaos and confusion at the border.”

Source: TEST FEED1

National Park Service awards HBCU's $9.7 million to preserve historic sites

The National Park Service (NPS) is awarding Historically Black Colleges and Universities in nine states a total of $9.7 million to preserve campus historic sites.  

NPS said in a statement on Friday that the grants will go toward 21 physical perseveration projects at 19 of the 85 HBCU’s remaining.  
  
“For more than 180 years, Historically Black Colleges and Universities have provided high-level academics, opportunities, and community for generations of students,” NPS Director Chuck Sams said in a statement. 

“These grants enable HBCUs to preserve the noteworthy structures that honor the past and tell the ongoing story of these historic institutions,” Sams continued. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

The park service said it has awarded more than $87 million in grants to the remaining HBCU’s since the 1990s. Eligible HBCU’s can apply for the grants, which may then be used to support a variety of preservation projects that follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.     

North Carolina A&T State University, one of this year’s recipients, will use its grant to maintain the university’s World War Memorial Stadium, the oldest minor-league ballpark in North Carolina. The stadium, built in 1926, has a seating capacity of around 7,500.  

The Greensboro, North Carolina university will repair the stadium’s concrete seating, install new seating, while addressing other accessibility measures.  

Applications for Fiscal Year 2022 funding will be available this fall.  

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA 

GARDENING CAN IMPROVE MENTAL HEALTH, EVEN FOR NOVICES 

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS LINKED TO SENSE OF PURPOSE, STUDY FINDS 

BECOMING ‘HANGRY’ IS A REAL THING, NEW STUDY SUGGESTS 

MOST AMERICANS HAVE POOR CARDIOMETABOLIC HEALTH 

OVERDOSING ON VITAMIN D SUPPLEMENTS IS POSSIBLE AND HARMFUL, DOCTORS SAY 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden orders White House flags to half-staff to honor Abe

President Biden ordered flags at the White House and other federal buildings and military installations to be flown at half-staff through Sunday as a mark of respect for former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe after he was assassinated at a campaign event.  

“The longest serving Prime Minister in Japan’s history, Abe Shinzo was a proud servant of the Japanese people and a faithful friend to the United States,” read a proclamation signed by Biden on Friday. “He worked with American Presidents of both parties to deepen the Alliance between our nations and advance a common vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific.” 

Biden ordered American flags to be flown at half-staff at all public buildings, public grounds and military and naval stations and at half-mast on naval vessels through sunset on Sunday.

Abe was shot and killed while speaking at a campaign event in Japan, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Japanese law enforcement arrested a suspect at the scene and said the gun the suspect allegedly used was homemade.

News of his assassination shocked the globe.

Biden earlier in a statement said he was “stunned” and “outraged” by Abe’s assassination.  

“While there are many details that we do not yet know, we know that violent attacks are never acceptable and that gun violence always leaves a deep scar on the communities that are affected by it,” Biden said in the statement. 

Abe was Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, having left office in 2020 after eight years of service. Biden noted in his statement that he spent time working with Abe when he served as vice president in the Obama administration. 

Source: TEST FEED1

The wrong NATO signals to Russia could mean more war for Europe

Since the USSR’s collapse, the Russian Federation’s strategic goal has been to maintain a buffer zone over its western neighborhood that includes NATO territory. A weakened Russia was unable to stop the sovereign aspirations of former Soviet republics in the Baltics, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. But it demanded that the free world recognize their independence merely as a tentative fact.

Newly revealed German archival documents reportedly show that then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl exploited Russia’s weakness to unite Germany and opposed recognizing Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian independence, while vetoing their membership in NATO and the European Union. His successor, Gerhard Schröder, pushed for energy cooperation with Russia and, after suffering electoral defeat, became a lobbyist for the Russian gas giant Gazprom. Then, former Chancellor Angela Merkel blocked Ukrainian and Georgian accession to NATO in 2008. Former French President Francois Mitterand and his successors also fell prey to Russian arguments against their membership. So, Moscow got the memo that Europe’s whole, free and at peace moment is temporary and up for revision.  

The Obama administration’s unconvincing response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 only emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin in his belief that the free world will comply with his subjecting former Soviet republics. Russia also saw President Biden’s policy of halting two decades of continuous wars fought by the United States, beginning with the immediate evacuation of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, as a window of opportunity to change the rules of the game — a “green light” to relaunch a war of aggression against Ukraine with a goal of exterminating it as a nation.

Russia was unable to stand in the way of former Central European satellites joining NATO, but demanded that their membership status have a feeble character. Unfortunately, NATO agreed to this in 1997. Assuming Russia’s good will, the alliance created a political declaration — the NATO-Russia Founding Act. In essence, Russia received a political commitment from the alliance that it would not deploy substantial combat forces to new member states. Moscow perceived this as a victory, believing that provisional membership status for NATO’s newest members could be reversed one day, either diplomatically or by force.

As long as Russia pursued peaceful politics, the Founding Act didn’t seem to be a big concession. But Russia has shielded its weakness by creating holes and hidden “gray zones” in Europe’s security system to exploit and undermine it whenever geopolitically possible. 

Russia’s 2014 attack on Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea violated all provisions of international law; war again became a political tool in Europe. That was when the Founding Act should have been thrown into the dustbin of history, since it was unceremoniously broken by Russia.

Instead, some NATO members — led by Germany and France — did everything possible to prevent the act from landing in the rubbish heap. During the 2016 NATO summit in Warsaw, buttressing the Eastern Flank was calibrated so as not to undermine the Founding Act by opposing the stationing of substantial combat forces in new member states threatened by Russian aggression. Russia received another signal that some NATO members evidently recognize its claims to a sphere of influence, provoking it to act aggressively.    

In December 2021, Putin issued an ultimatum to NATO and the U.S., demanding they give up their “open door” policy, withdraw forces from the Eastern Flank, and agree to legally binding limitations on military activity in the region. When the demands weren’t met, Russia attacked Ukraine. It should be clear that Russia exploits indecisiveness and wrong messaging, driven by political wishful thinking, for its aggressive, imperialist purposes.     

At its recent summit in Madrid, NATO formally invited Sweden and Finland to join the alliance. Members adopted a new strategic concept, labeling Russia a “clear and present danger.” They agreed to station more NATO and U.S. troops on the Eastern Flank, and will have larger reinforcements than before. From the military point of view, such decisions should strengthen defense and deterrence.

But even now — after Russia’ss bombing of Kyiv and Kharkiv, and in light of atrocities committed by Russian troops in Bucha, Irpin and Mariupol — the Founding Act, which Russia has violated since February 2014, wasn’t denounced. Did some European allies object?  

Instead, a compromise formula was adopted — “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” But that’s not enough, as long as there is room for Russia to interpret that respecting the Founding Act means allowing second-class status for NATO’s Eastern Flank allies. Remember, Russia understands indecisiveness and a lack of will to act as weakness and an invitation for aggression.   

Decisions made at the NATO Madrid summit didn’t include a permanent U.S. combat force presence on the Eastern Flank, except for about 200 V Corps Headquarters staff who will be stationed in Poland on a “permanent” basis. That’s another wrong signal sent to Russia. 

A June 29 White House statement claimed all NATO decisions made at the summit fell in line with the Founding Act. Until President Biden publicly acknowledges that the Founding Act no longer applies to the U.S., officials will continue to think that it does, setting the stage for political catastrophe sooner or later.  

One gets the impression that the Biden administration still sees “permanent” deployment of substantial combat forces on the Eastern Flank as provoking Russia, or even escalatory, with regard to its war in Ukraine. That is a dangerous assumption. This attitude invited Russian aggression against Ukraine and could bring war deeper into Europe. For Russia, it signals that the region’s status is indefinite and it offers an incentive to continue aggression against Ukraine and brinkmanship toward NATO. This conviction was strengthened by NATO’s determination to uphold political commitments from the Founding Act.

What needs to be done to correct the mistakes? President Biden should clearly state that the NATO-Russia Founding Act is dead, because of Russia’s decisions and actions. As long as there is no clear statement on the matter, his administration will act as if it’s still binding for the U.S.

But words are not enough; deeds stop Russia. Biden must send a clear message to the Kremlin that U.S. policies will not respect the Founding Act even as a point of reference. Acting accordingly should mean changing the status of rotational brigades in Poland and Romania to “permanent.”

The decision to permanently place a heavy U.S. brigade in Poland would be the logical consequence of NATO’s interrelated decisions to support Ukraine, impose costs on Russia, and strengthen the credibility of defense and deterrence.

The permanent presence of a U.S. brigade also would send an unequivocal signal that the status of the Eastern Flank is not up for sale. Strategic messaging must be supported by a compatible military dimension that leaves no room for questioning the credibility of deterrence. It would strengthen NATO cohesion by limiting the risk that, under pressure from Russia, individual allies won’t implement decisions regarding defense and deterrence.

Last, but not least, it would boost Ukrainian morale by convincing Ukraine’s leadership and population that they can count on long term, unwavering support from the West. Such a decision would deprive Russia of the incentive to prolong the war with the expectation that Ukraine and the West will lose the determination to fight.

It’s high time to put NATO’s lame-duck policy of the Founding Act to rest.

Sławomir Dębski, Ph.D., is a historian and director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs. He was sanctioned by Russia in 2018. Follow him on Twitter @slanewomirDebski.

Source: TEST FEED1