Connect with us

World

President Trump Says New National Security Strategy Will Defeat ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism and Ideology’

WASHINGTON, DC — From a podium in the Ronald Reagan Building, President Donald Trump announced the U..

WASHINGTON, DC — From a podium in the Ronald Reagan Building, President Donald Trump announced the United States’ new National Security Strategy on Monday, highlighting the past eleven months under the new administration and the importance of his four pillars for a strong national security strategy.

Vice President Mike Pence welcomed those gathered and proclaimed the accomplishments of the Trump Administration before introducing President Donald Trump.

Trump thanked Pence, members of the cabinet, members of the military, Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford and the rest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, civilians, law enforcement, and others gathered for the announcement.

America’s security, prosperity, and standing in the world are priorities of this strategy. Trump said he would cover where we have been, where we are now, and a strategy for where we are going in the years ahead.

President Trump referenced his trips abroad, from the Middle East to Warsaw, Poland, the General Assembly of the United Nations, and “the seat of democracy on the Korean Peninsula.” He called it his “highest privilege and greatest honor to represent the American people” in these places.

Trump spoke of leaders before himself who have engaged in nation building abroad while undercutting men and women serving America abroad with insufficient funding. He said those leaders have ignored the menacing dictator in North Korea.

He spoke of past punishing regulations, crippling taxes, issues surrendered to bureaucrats, and border security neglected. Trump blamed leaders in Washington for having imposed on the country a border and immigration policy “where the wrong people are allowed into our country and the right people are rejected.” He added that “American citizens, as usual, have been left to bear the cost and to pick up the tab.”

Trump said that leaders have “drifted from American principles. They lost sight of America’s destiny. And they lost their belief in American greatness. As a result, our citizens lost something as well. The people lost confidence in their government and, eventually, even lost confidence in their future.”

“On January 20, 2017, I stood on the steps of the capitol to herald the day the people became the rulers of their nation again,” said Trump, to applause from the crowd. Less than a year later, he noted, “America is coming back and it’s coming back strong.”

“We are now putting America first,” said the President, who assured that his officials are working swiftly to deal with the challenges the nation faces.

Trump praised decisions to withdraw the United States from “job-killing deals” such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Paris Climate Accord. The U.S. will no longer tolerate trading abuse and, in October, Trump refused to re-certify the Iran nuclear deal. He spoke of taking land away from the Islamic State, a comment met with applause. He spoke of the cost of defending other nations.

“Our campaign of maximum pressure on the North Korean regime has resulted in the toughest sanctions,” said Trump, who admitted that there is “much more work to do” to make sure that the Korean Peninsula is denuclearized. The crowd responded with applause.

Trump highlighted the two million jobs created since his election and the 85 stock market all-time highs during that same time. He spoke of cutting regulations and predicted passage of the tax cut plan in Congress.

“Optimism has surged, confidence has returned,” said Trump. He said clear thinking has come as a result, and the administration is “reasserting these fundamental truths:”

A nation without borders is not a nation. [Applause]; A nation that does not protect prosperity at home cannot protect its interests abroad. A nation that is not prepared to win a war is a nation not capable of preventing a war; A nation that is not proud of its history cannot be confident in its future; And a nation that is not certain of its values cannot summon the will to defend them.

Trump said that this new National Security Policy has been in development for over a year and has the endorsement of his entire cabinet.

He discussed facing the threat of rogue regimes, terrorist organizations, transnational criminal organizations, and rival powers Russia and China. He said the Administration will “attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries, but in a manner that always protects our national interest.”

Trump revealed that, in a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin the day prior, Putin thanked President Trump for U.S. CIA intelligence that aided in thwarting “a major terrorist attack planned in St. Petersburg, where many people, perhaps in the thousands, could have been killed. They were able to apprehend these terrorists before the event, with no loss of life.”

“We know that American success is not a foregone conclusion. It must be earned and it must be won,” he noted, adding that success involves using all parts of national strength and power.

He said there is $6 trillion more in the stock market since the 2016 election. “With the strategy I am announcing today, we are declaring that America is in the game and America is going to win,” Trump said to applause.

Trump discussed the four pillars of his National Security Strategy: Protect the homeland, the American people, and the American way of life; Promote American prosperity; Preserve peace through strength; and Advance American influence.

He declared that, for the first time ever, American strategy will include “a serious plan to defend our homeland.” He clarified that this strategy calls for contraction of a wall, end of chain migration and visa lottery programs, closing loopholes that undermine immigration enforcement, and supporting Border Patrol Agents, ICE Officers and Homeland Security personnel.

“Our strategy calls for us to confront, discredit, and defeat radical Islamic terrorism and ideology and to prevent it from spreading into the United States,” he added, assuring that they will find new ways to counter those who threaten the American society.

“Economic security is national security,” the President concluded. He noted that this marked the first time this has been included. He spoke of protection on fronts of trade and against intellectual property theft, enhancing infrastructure and energy dominance.

He then moved to the third pillar of the plan, securing “peace through strength,” a statement met with applause.

The President spoke of eliminating the “damaging defense sequester … we’re going to get rid of that.” He spoke of plans to deal with modern threats including cyber and electromagnetic threats.

He emphasized the importance of not only military strength but also the economic strength included in the fourth pillar of the new strategy.

“America will lead again. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but we will champion the values without apology,” said Trump.

“We will make new partnerships with those who share our goals, and make common interests into a common cause,” said Trump. He spoke of a vision for strong independent nations who respect their neighbors.

He closed with a vision for the future of America and the world:

We will pursue the vision we have carried around the world over this past year – a vision of strong, sovereign, and independent nations that respect their citizens and respect their neighbors; nations that thrive in commerce and cooperation, rooted in their histories and branching out toward their destinies.

The President called for “a great reawakening of America, a resurgence of confidence, and a rebirth of patriotism, prosperity, and pride.”

“We are returning to the wisdom of our founders,” said Trump. “In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. What we have built here in America is precious and unique.”

He called for Americans to love and defend this nation “with vigilance and spirit, and, if necessary, like so many before us, with our very lives.”

Trump looked toward renewal of American will and future and restoration of dreams.

“Every American has a role to play in this grand national effort,” declared Trump, who invited “every citizen to take their part in our vital mission. Together, our task is to strengthen our families, to build up our communities, to serve our citizens, and to celebrate American greatness as a shining example to the world.”

He reaffirmed a need for being proud of “who we are, how we got here, and what we are fighting to preserve” to succeed.

Trump resolved:

If we do all of this, if we rediscover our resolve and commit ourselves to compete and win again, then together we will leave our children and our grandchildren a nation that is stronger, better, freer, prouder, and, yes, an America that is greater than ever before.

His final words were met with a standing ovation from the room.

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana

Original Article

The post President Trump Says New National Security Strategy Will Defeat ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism and Ideology’ appeared first on News Wire Now.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World

Nuclear annihilation just one miscalculation away, UN chief warns

The world is one misstep from devastating nuclear war and in peril not seen since the Cold War, the UN Secretary General has warned.

“We have been extraordinarily lucky so far,” Antonio Guterres said.

Amid rising global tensions, “humanity is just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation”, he added.

His remarks came at the opening of a conference for countries signed up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The 1968 deal was introduced after the Cuban missile crisis, an event often portrayed as the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. The treaty was designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to more countries, and to pursue the ultimate goal of complete nuclear disarmament.

Almost every nation on Earth is signed up to the NPT, including the five biggest nuclear powers. But among the handful of states never to sign are four known or suspected to have nuclear weapons: India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan.

Secretary General Guterres said the “luck” the world had enjoyed so far in avoiding a nuclear catastrophe may not last – and urged the world to renew a push towards eliminating all such weapons.

“Luck is not a strategy. Nor is it a shield from geopolitical tensions boiling over into nuclear conflict,” he said.

And he warned that those international tensions were “reaching new highs” – pointing specifically to the invasion of Ukraine, tensions on the Korean peninsula and in the Middle East as examples.

Russia was widely accused of escalating tensions when days after his invasion of Ukraine in February, President Vladimir Putin put Russia’s substantial nuclear forces on high alert.

He also threatened anyone standing in Russia’s way with consequences “you have never seen in your history”. Russia’s nuclear strategy includes the use of nuclear weapons if the state’s existence is under threat.

On Monday, Mr Putin wrote to the same non-proliferation conference Mr Guterres opened, declaring that “there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed”.

But Russia still found itself criticised at the NPT conference.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemned what he called Russia’s sabre-rattling – and pointed out that Ukraine had handed over its Soviet-era nuclear weapons in 1994, after receiving assurances of its future security from Russia and others.

“What message does this send to any country around the world that may think that it needs to have nuclear weapons – to protect, to defend, to deter aggression against its sovereignty and independence?” he asked. “The worst possible message”.

Today, some 13,000 nuclear weapons are thought to remain in service in the arsenals of the nine nuclear-armed states – far lower than the estimated 60,000 stockpiled during the peak of the mid-1980s.

 

Read from: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-62381425

Continue Reading

World

Australia election: Why is Australia’s parliament so white?

Australia is one of the most multicultural nations in the world, but it’s a different story in the country’s politics, where 96% of federal lawmakers are white.

With this year’s election, political parties did have a window to slightly improve this. But they chose not to in most cases, critics say.

Tu Le grew up the child of Vietnamese refugees in Fowler, a south-west Sydney electorate far from the city’s beaches, and one of the poorest urban areas in the country.

The 30-year-old works as a community lawyer for refugees and migrants newly arrived to the area.

Last year, she was pre-selected by the Labor Party to run in the nation’s most multicultural seat. But then party bosses side-lined her for a white woman.

It would take Kristina Kenneally four hours on public transport – ferry, train, bus, and another bus – to get to Fowler from her home in Sydney’s Northern Beaches, where she lived on an island.

Furious locals questioned what ties she had to the area, but as one of Labor’s most prominent politicians, she was granted the traditionally Labor-voting seat.

Ms Le only learned she’d been replaced on the night newspapers went to print with the story.

“I was conveniently left off the invitation to the party meeting the next day,” she told the BBC.

Despite backlash – including a Facebook group where locals campaigned to stop Ms Kenneally’s appointment – Labor pushed through the deal.

“If this scenario had played out in Britain or the United States, it would not be acceptable,” says Dr Tim Soutphomassane, director of the Sydney Policy Lab and Australia’s former Race Discrimination Commissioner.

“But in Australia, there is a sense that you can still maintain the status quo with very limited social and political consequences.”

An insiders’ game

At least one in five Australians have a non-European background and speak a language at home other than English, according to the last census in 2016.

Some 49% of the population was born or has a parent who was born overseas. In the past 20 years, migrants from Australia’s Asian neighbours have eclipsed those from the UK.

But the parliament looks almost as white as it did in the days of the “White Australia” policy – when from 1901 to the 1970s, the nation banned non-white immigrants.

“We simply do not see our multicultural character represented in anything remotely close to proportionate form in our political institutions,” says Dr Soutphomassane.

Compared to other Western multicultural democracies, Australia also lags far behind.

The numbers below include Indigenous Australians, who did not gain suffrage until the 1960s, and only saw their first lower house MP elected in 2010. Non-white candidates often acknowledge that any progress was first made by Aboriginal Australians.

Two decades ago, Australia and the UK had comparably low representation. But UK political parties – responding to campaigns from diverse members – pledged to act on the problem.

“The British Conservative Party is currently light years ahead of either of the major Australian political parties when it comes to race and representation,” says Dr Soutphomassane.

So why hasn’t Australia changed?

Observers say Australia’s political system is more closed-door than other democracies. Nearly all candidates chosen by the major parties tend to be members who’ve risen through the ranks. Often they’ve worked as staffers to existing MPs.

Ms Le said she’d have no way into the political class if she hadn’t been sponsored by Fowler’s retiring MP – a white, older male.

Labor has taken small structural steps recently – passing commitments in a state caucus last year, and selecting two Chinese-Australian candidates for winnable seats in Sydney.

But it was “one step forward and two steps back”, says party member and activist Osmond Chiu, when just weeks after the backlash to Ms Le’s case, Labor “parachuted in” another white candidate to a multicultural heartland.

Andrew Charlton, a former adviser to ex-PM Kevin Rudd, lived in a harbour mansion in Sydney’s east where he ran a consultancy.

His selection scuppered the anticipated races of at least three diverse candidates from the area which has large Indian and Chinese diasporas.

Party seniors argued that Ms Kenneally and Mr Charlton – as popular and respected party figures – would be able to promote their electorates’ concerns better than newcomers.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese also hailed Ms Kenneally as a “great Australian success story” as a migrant from the US herself.

But Mr Chiu says: “A lot of the frustration that people expressed wasn’t about these specific individuals.

“It was about the fact that these were two of the most multicultural seats in Australia and these opportunities – which come by so rarely – to select culturally diverse candidates were squandered.”

He adds this has long-term effects because the average MP stays in office for about 10 years.

The frustration on this issue has centred on Labor – because the centre-left party calls itself the “party of multiculturalism”.

But the Liberal-National government doesn’t even have diversity as a platform issue.

One of its MPs up for re-election recently appeared to confuse her Labor rival for Tu Le, sparking accusations that she’d mixed up the two Asian-Australian women – something she later denied. But as one opponent said: “How is this still happening in 2022?”

Some experts like Dr Soutphommasane have concluded that Australia’s complacency on areas like representation stems from how the nation embraced multiculturalism as official policy after its White Australia days.

The government of the 1970s, somewhat embarrassed by the past policy, passed racial discrimination laws and “a seat at the table” was granted to migrants and Indigenous Australians.

But critics say this has led to an Australia where multiculturalism is celebrated but racial inequality is not interrogated.

“Multiculturalism is almost apolitical in how it’s viewed in Australia,” Dr Soutphommasane says, in contrast to the “fight” for rights that other Western countries have seen from minority groups.

What is the impact?

A lack of representation in parliament can also lead to failures in policy.

During Sydney’s Covid outbreak in August 2021, Fowler and Parramatta electorates – where most of the city’s multicultural communities reside – were subject to harsher lockdowns as a result of a higher number of cases.

How will things change?

Liberal MP Dave Sharma, the only lawmaker of Indian heritage, has said all parties – including his own – should better recruit people with different backgrounds. He called it a “pretty laissez-faire attitude” currently.

Mr Albanese has urged Ms Le to “hang in there”, insisting she has a future.

But more people like Ms Le are choosing to speak out.

“I think I surprised a lot of people by not staying quiet,” she told the BBC.

“People acted like it was the end of my political career that I didn’t toe the party line. But… none of that means anything to me if it means I’m sacrificing my own values.”

She and other second-generation Australians – raised in a country which prides itself on “a fair go” – are agitating for the rights and access their migrant parents may not have felt entitled to.

“Many of those from diverse backgrounds were saying they felt like they didn’t have a voice – and that my case was a clear demonstration of their suppression, and their wider participation in our political system.”

She and others have noted the “growing distrust” in the major parties. Polls are predicting record voter support for independent candidates.

“This issue…. matters for everyone in Australian society that cares about democracy,” says Mr Soutphommasane.

“If democratic institutions are not representative, their legitimacy will suffer.

Read from: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61432762

Continue Reading

World

US military leader warns Chinese security deal with Solomon Islands sounds ‘too good to be true’

A senior US military general has warned during a visit to Australia that China’s offer to deepen security ties with Solomon Islands will come with strings attached, suggesting the Pacific island country may come to regret the planned deal.

“My parents told me if a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is,” the commandant of the United States Marine Corps, general David Berger, said on Wednesday.

Berger was cautious when asked about longstanding US concerns relating to a Chinese company’s lease over the port of Darwin, stressing it was a sovereign decision for Australia as part of its yet-to-be-completed national security review.

Ahead of a trip to Darwin, the site of increasing rotations of US Marines, Berger said: “If it’s not of concern to Australia, then it’s not of concern to me.”

Berger’s visit comes amid a flurry of diplomatic activity by the US and Australia attempting to head off a proposed security agreement between China and Solomon Islands, which could allow regular visits by the People’s Liberation Army Navy.

A leaked draft from last month raised the possibility China could “make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishment in, and have stopover and transition in Solomon Islands”, while Chinese forces could also be used “to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands”.

The prime minister of Solomon Islands, Manasseh Sogavare, has sought to allay concerns, saying his country has no intention of allowing a Chinese naval base. But Sogavare has also said it is “very insulting to be branded as unfit to manage our sovereign affairs”.

Speaking in Canberra on Wednesday, Berger said the US needed to show humility in its outreach to Pacific nations, but also needed to be open about the potential long-term consequences.

Berger reflected on the fight for control of Guadalcanal in Solomon Islands during the second world war, when the US and allies sought to prevent Japanese forces from gaining a foothold in the strategically important location.

“A lot of things change in warfare. Not geography. Where … Solomon Islands are matters. It did then and it does now,” Berger said at the Australian Strategic Policy

Institute.

He said the proposed agreement was “just another example” of China seeking to broaden and expand its influence. He raised concerns about “the way that [it] happens and the consequences for the nations” involved.

Sogavare has argued Solomon Islands pursues a “friends to all and enemies to none” foreign policy, but Berger implied countries making agreements with Beijing might regret it down the track.

“We should illuminate, we should draw out into the open what this means long term,” Berger said.

“This is, in other words, an extension of ‘hey we’re here with a cheque, we’re here with money, we’d like to improve your port or your airfield or your bus station’. And that just sounds so great, until a year later or six months later.”

The US plans to reopen its embassy in Solomon Islands, a move the nominee for US ambassador to Australia, Caroline Kennedy, has said “can’t come soon enough”.

Berger acknowledged there were limits to US insights in Pacific island countries, so the US needed to rely on allies such as Australia.

“We’re not going to have always the best view, the clearest picture,” he said.

“We have to understand the neighbourhood and we’re never going to understand it as well as Australia.”

Earlier, the Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, denied that the US had conveyed any concerns that Australia had dropped the ball in the region.

Morrison said the Australian government was continuing to raise concerns with Solomon Islands without acting in a “heavy-handed” way.

Australia’s minister for the Pacific, Zed Seselja, met with Sogavare in Honiara on Wednesday and “asked Solomon Islands respectfully to consider not signing the agreement” with China.

Seselja suggested Solomon Islands “consult the Pacific family in the spirit of regional openness and transparency”. Australia would work with Solomon Islands “swiftly, transparently and with full respect for its sovereignty”.

“We welcome recent statements from prime minister Sogavare that Australia remains Solomon Islands’ security partner of choice, and his commitment that Solomon Islands will never be used for military bases or other military institutions of foreign powers,” Seselja said.

Sogavare has previously said Solomon Islands welcomed “any country that is willing to support us in our security space”.

But Matthew Wale, the leader of the opposition, has argued the deal “would make the Solomons a geopolitical playing field” and “further threaten the nation’s fragile unity”.

 

Read from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/13/us-military-leader-warns-chinese-security-deal-with-solomon-islands-sounds-too-good-to-be-true

Continue Reading

Trending