FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Apr 15

U.S. Should Take Lead In Global COVID Vaccination For Vulnerable Countries

by bcurry

Having just read a recent report by the American Centre for Strategic and International Affairs, it became clearly evident that the U.S. helping to secure the future of lower- and middle-income countries is simply the right thing to do, on humanitarian, economic, and security grounds.  This means taking a clear lead on helping to provide supplies of COVID vaccines to vulnerable poorer countries in Africa and the Americas.  The facts are that the U.S. has already purchased 1.3 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines from six companies, enough to vaccinate 650 million people — nearly twice the U.S. population.  Meanwhile, recent reports say 300 million vaccine doses could be in the U.S. by July of this year, sparking hoarding worries.

The Biden administration is apparently leaning toward keeping the doses it has ordered, and then at some point directing the excess to other nations in either bilateral deals or giving it to Covax.  Covax is an international nonprofit organization backed by the World Health Organization (WHO) that is trying to coordinate equitable distribution of vaccine among vulnerable countries.  The Biden administration has already donated $3.5 billion for the Global Fund in support of the international effort.  The recent passed American Rescue Plan also included a further $11 billion to support the global Covid-19 response, $3 billion for U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), $650 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) global Covid-19 response, and $300 million for the Center for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation (CEPI).  An excellent start to help combat the global pandemic.

However, the Centre for Strategic and International Affairs strongly suggests that the U.S. bring considerable leverage to any global strategy on vaccines.  It is after all the biggest vaccine market and the largest investor in vaccines, with the deepest impact on research and development of new products.  In addition, the Centre’s report suggests that the U.S. should work with multilateral efforts to create fiscal space in lower- and middle-income countries to invest in their health infrastructure, which will be essential for responding to the current crisis as well as making investments in future pandemic preparedness.  It’s one thing to supply vaccines, it’s another to actually deliver and immunize a population affected by difficult regional transportation and few local health care capacities.  These multilateral investments must continue into the future if vulnerable countries are to control future outbreaks and protect the health of their citizens.

We have already seen the foreign policy moves by China and Russia to supply vaccines strategically to vulnerable countries as an additional means of exerting their political and economic influence in the Americas, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa.  Western countries, led by the U.S., cannot afford to ignore such vaccine supply initiatives underway in these strategic regions.  Furthermore, millions of lives are at stake given the current increasing spread of COVID variants in these regions.  The global response to this pandemic must be met through an international approach to be successful.  Who else is in a better position to lead this response than the United States?

Coronavirus Foreign Policy Joe Biden US

Leave a comment »
Feb 28

Once Again, We Have Forgotten About Afghanistan

by bcurry

Yes, the primary news today and during the past year in North America is all about the pandemic and how governments are attempting to cope.  However, loss in all of this is the deteriorating state within Afghanistan.  I have previously blogged on issues surrounding the survival of the current American-backed government in Kabul and the past tremendous investments that Western countries, most notably the U.S., made in that country as noted in: Afghanistan-good-investment-or-sink-hole-and-lost-cause/.  In the meantime, the Taliban have been encroaching on key cities around Afghanistan for months, threatening to drive the country to its breaking point and push the Biden administration into a no-win situation just as the United States’ longest war is supposed to be coming to an end.

Under the deal struck by President Trump with the Taliban last year, all foreign troops — including the remaining 2,500 U.S. service members who support Afghanistan’s army and security forces — were scheduled to have withdrawn by May 1, 2021, leaving the country in an especially precarious state.  As talks between the Afghan government and Taliban continue, the reality is that insurgents already hold much of the country.  The Taliban is back to using terror and fear tactics to control the population in those parts of the country occupied by its forces.  They have a loose network of prisons wherein many people are being tortured.  They also operate a parallel network of civilian courts in which religious scholars adjudicate land disputes and family disputes, much like they did when they ran Afghanistan’s government two decades ago.  Supported by the local tribal officials, Taliban courts also try murders and suspected moral and religious offences. 

It has been argued that if the U.S. delays its withdrawal deadline, the Taliban would likely consider the 2020 deal with the U.S. void, likely leading to renewed attacks on American and NATO troops.  The result potentially could draw the U.S. deeper into the war to defend Afghanistan’s beleaguered army and security forces, whom the Taliban could still retaliate vigorously against.  Unfortunately, many Afghans see the current government as corrupt and its justice system as crooked. 

Then, there’s the ongoing cost of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.  According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the total military expenditure in Afghanistan from October 2001 until September 2019 was $778 billion.  In addition, the U.S. State Department – along with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and other government agencies – spent $44 billion on reconstruction projects.  Then there were the American lives lost.  As of July 2018, there were over 2,300 U.S. military and over 16,000 civilian deaths in the Afghan war.  In addition, over 20,000 American service members had been wounded in action up until then.  There were also over 1,700 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities.

All of this leads one to understand the American hesitancy to simply pack up and leave Afghanistan as it did during the Vietnam war.  Much has been sacrificed in a cause that was a no-win from the outset, demonstrating the dangers associated with trying to impose democratic ways in a poor country which has only known authoritarianism.  Unfortunately, without U.S. support, the current Afghan regime obviously cannot stand on its own.  It’s a difficult decision for President Biden to make, but it’s one that has to be made sooner than later given the daily costs, human and financial, associated with sustaining the current regime in Kabul.  Afghanistan is certain to be back in our headlines once again.

Afghanistan Foreign Policy US

Leave a comment »
Dec 26

Will Vulnerable Countries Have Adequate Access to COVID Vaccines?

by bcurry

Many are celebrating the fact that the end of 2020 has seen the arrival of COVID vaccines from pharmaceutical manufacturers, and rightly so.  Indeed, the U.S. has already secured claims on as many as 1.5 billion doses of approved and potential vaccines, while the European Union has locked up nearly two billion doses — enough to vaccinate all of their citizens and then some. Canada is in line to receive millions of vaccine doses early in the new year.  However, reports indicate that many poor countries could be left waiting until 2024 to fully vaccinate their populations, if they’re lucky.  In addition, access to vaccines is not based on need.  It’s based on the ability to pay and the need for pharmaceutical companies (primarily located in the advanced economies) to waive traditional protections on intellectual property, thereby allowing poor countries to make affordable versions of the vaccines.  Unfortunately, the work of the World Trade Organization (W.T.O.) and the International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.) to provide needed aid to poor countries has been blocked by the Trump administration.  On top of which, the Trump administration has also withdrawn financial and moral support for the vital work of the World Health Organization (W.H.O.).

This has left the masses of people in poor countries with no short-term access to vaccines, in economic chaos and with rising public debt.  This global pandemic will result in existing economic inequalities between the have and have-not countries becoming even greater.  Some will even argue that the ravages of the pandemic in poor countries, largely unchecked by vaccines, could limit economic fortunes globally.  Governments in the wealthy countries must at some point shore up the assistance necessary to support health care systems and vulnerable populations in poor countries.  The Canadian government recently announced that it is part of a global movement to ensure that available surplus COVID vaccines will be offered to vulnerable countries as soon as possible.  When and by how much are two questions that immediately come to mind!

One can only hope that the incoming Biden administration will quickly proceed to address this important issue and lend the full support of the American nation to such organizations as the W.T.O., I.M.F. and W.H.O. in combating this global pandemic.  Without the full American participation, the ability to ensure that sufficient COVID vaccines are available to vulnerable countries becomes a mute issue.  Just as the pandemic created a health crisis in wealthy countries, it has created an even bigger one in the poorer countries.  Unless the current situation changes, it is predicted that many poor countries will no doubt be left waiting until 2024 to fully vaccinate their populations.  If true, this could become the worst international tragedy of this century.

Canada Coronavirus COVID-19 Foreign Policy Joe Biden US

Leave a comment »
Jun 11

Trump’s Strange Saga of U.S. and Denmark Over the Purchase of Greenland

by bcurry

With everything going on in the world today, maybe one needs a minor distraction like the battle of Donald Trump over the purchase of Greenland by the U.S.  About a year ago, Trump approached the Danish P.M., Mette Frederiksen, with an offer to buy Greenland which is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark. Thinking it was some kind of April Fool’s Day joke, the Danes refused. Unfortunately, like so many times before Trump took the refusal to even consider the idea a sign of disrespect and immediately cancelled his planned September 2019 trip to Denmark — one which had been at the formal invitation of Queen Margrethe, Denmark’s head of state. Needless-to-say, this did not go over well with the Danes who after all are an important NATO ally.

Greenland is the world’s largest island and has a population of less than 60,000 inhabitants. Denmark contributes two thirds of Greenland’s budget revenue, the rest coming mainly from fishing. Greenland is noted for its vast tundra and immense glaciers. While the country has a vast array of minerals, including rare-earth elements used for electronic, military and new energy technologies like wind turbines, these are very difficult to mine in its harsh environment.

As a strategic location, Greenland was important to the U.S. during the Cold War as evidenced by American military presence at the Thule Air Base under a U.S.-Danish treaty dating to 1951. However, in this day and age of new military capabilities, including those in space, Greenland would not be considered anymore as a strategic importance. Then there’s those rare earths, most of which currently come from China. Experts believe that the environmental impact of mining for rare earths is profound and extremely costly.  Even if it was to happen, the process to get new mining operations off the ground takes decades.

However, despite the Danish rejection to what Trump referred to as one “big real-estate” deal,   the Trump administration has opened a consulate in Greenland for the first time in nearly 70 years. In a further extension of U.S. influence, Greenland announced at the end of April that it had accepted an offer of US$12.1 million for mining, tourism and education. There is little doubt that Trump is keen to expand the U.S. presence in the entire Arctic region amid fears of growing Russian and Chinese militarization. The U.S. recently announced its intention to create a new fleet of ice-breaking ships for use in the Arctic.

As for Canada, Canadian Forces Station (CFS) Alert located on Ellesmere Island is the northernmost settlement in the world. With the end of the Cold War and the advent of new technologies allowing for remote interpretation of data, the over-wintering population has been reduced to 62 civilians and military personnel as of 2016. I guess that the location for an American base on Ellesmere Island is not as popular as one in Greenland, although the two islands are geographically at an identical latitude. The new consulate in Greenland has once again made for strange bedfellows.

Canada, as a near-Artic country and member of The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in the defense of North America.  For this reason, Canada has been wary of Chinese and Russian threats to expand in the region, and like the U.S. is also building a new fleet of ice-breaking ships for use in the Arctic.  Rather than worry about relations with Greenland, maybe Trump should be working more closely with Canada to safeguard our Artic waters.

 

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy NATO US

Leave a comment »
Feb 8

Trump Administration’s “Industrial Militarism” Highlighted In Attack on China’s Huawei

by bcurry

Nowhere is it more clearly demonstrated that President Trump is using industrial clout to carry out “industrial militarism” than in his attack on Huawei to block the tech giant’s global 5G expansion. 5G stands for fifth-generation networks which are essentially a faster and more reliable version of wireless connectivity and mark a massive leap forward in such wireless technology.  Numerous industrialized countries are moving to build a 5G network, such as Canada whose 5G network could be in place around 2020. Huawei is the largest global company in 5G development and installation and is involved in 140-plus countries around the world. In Canada, companies such as Telus and BCE, or Bell Canada, are partnering to build 5G technology along with Huawei. Their Canadian rival, Rogers, is working alongside Swedish telecom Ericsson— a main Huawei rival. As a result, Ottawa has come under increasing pressure from the U.S. to block Huawei from developing its 5G technology in Canada, as critics warn it could present a national security risk.

Recently, U.S. Attorney General William Barr made the case for an all-out economic war on China’s Huawei in order to block the tech giant’s global 5G expansion. He even called on America’s “allies” to join what amounts not only an international strategic offensive against Huawei but also against China itself. He further suggested that the U.S. and its allies, including Canada and Britain, align their financial and technological forces to support European firms, Nokia and Ericsson, Huawei’s major 5G competitors. By getting governments to become involved in a business sector, such as the telecom sector, this position would contradict the traditional American principle of supporting free-market enterprise.  It would be blatantly perceived as causing a geo-strategic economic confrontation with China, similar to what occurred during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

So far, a number of countries, including Canada and Britain, have rejected the idea of participating in any U.S. takeover of Nokia and/or Ericsson. Interestingly, although use of Huawei equipment has been banned in the U.S. since 2012 over fears it’s a security risk, some two dozen U.S. telecom companies have used Huawei’s equipment to provide services in remote regions. In Canada, a number of communities in provinces such as British Columbia and Saskatchewan, are using Huawei equipment to service non-core 4G in rural regions in particular. So far, there is no evidence that China has used network equipment for cyber-espionage.

As critics of “industrial militarism” argue, is it really up to Americans to fight the People’s Republic of China and its authoritarian regime — with its state-run enterprises and dirigiste economic policies — by adopting some of the same statist interventions? As one expert rightly noted, an extended trade war between the U.S. and China and threats by Trump to ban certain Chinese tech firms from the American supply chain, could further divide the global tech scene. Left unchanged, that could result in a world where technological progress among countries is far less uniform, cost-effective and integrated.  In Canada, competition in the telecom sector is alive and well. Huawei, Swedish telecom Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung and others are all being allowed to compete freely in pursuit of the lucrative market.  This is expected to greatly improve telecom services to Canadian consumers, especially in rural and remote regions.

Canada China Foreign Policy Telecom Sector US

Leave a comment »
Dec 9

Accusing Canada of Not Living Up to Its NATO Commitments is Overkill

by bcurry

Canada has roughly the same population (approx. 36 million people) as the state of California. Despite this, Canada has a long and proud military history — having significantly contributed citizens and materials to two World Wars and more recently to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) involvement in Afghanistan and Latvia. With a relatively small number of regular military personnel who are well armed and trained, Canada has contributed to numerous peace time operations of both NATO and the United Nations.

At a NATO summit in Wales in 2014, NATO nations for some arbitrary reason agreed to the target measurement of 2 per cent of a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for its total defence spending. Canada currently spends about 1.31 per cent of GDP on defence. However, tabulate the defence dollars actually being spent on the military and Canada ranks an impressive sixth among the 29 NATO nations. A number of expert observers have agreed that NATO’s defence budget formula is very flawed, and allows small obscure countries like Bulgaria and Estonia to declare that they are more than meeting the 2 per cent target. In such cases, the purchase of a new ship or aircraft and one can easily surpass this GDP target. However, these and other similar countries contribute little in actual on-the-ground NATO support or suffer casualties as Canada did in Afghanistan.

So along comes Donald Trump who threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO if all its members didn’t meet the 2 per cent of GDP target. The U.S., as a so-called super power and having its own foreign policy objectives backed up by an immense military-industrial establishment, now spends 3.42 per cent of its GDP on defence. Little surprise there, especially given vast American operations in the Middle East, South-East Asian seas and Afghanistan. For Trump to say that NATO is “obsolete” and frequently compliment Russian President Vladimir Putin are both absurd and even dangerous. After Russia’s “illegal annexation” of Crimea, NATO spoke of its solidarity with the Ukraine. Someone has to stand up to Russian aggression — if not NATO then who?

As part of its commitment to national security and to NATO, Canada is due to embark on major expenditures on fighter jets and the navy. Whether or not Canada meets some arbitrary target in defence spending is not all that critical. What is, is the country’s need to maintain a professional, prepared and well trained military.  I fully believe that the brave and competent men and women of Canada’s armed forces will continue to uphold the country’s proud military heritage. Something that the likes of Donald Trump cannot and will not fully appreciate.

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Military Prowess NATO Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Dec 2

Canada and U.S. Need to Consult More on How to Manage Artic Waters

by bcurry

Increasingly, the Artic waterways are open for a longer period to limited shipping, including commercial vessels, due to the impact of climate change in warming the oceans’ waters. For years, the former Soviet Union and now Russia have been building a greater capacity to travel through the Northwest Passage, even when the ice is still fairly thick. North of Russia shipping from Europe to Asia now takes place on an intermittent basis. Russia is far ahead of both Canada and the U.S. in creating ice-breaking capacity and particularly in the building of large nuclear-powered icebreakers. Currently the U.S. has two heavy icebreakers that are in their last days of service, and no new replacements are under construction at this time. Under a previous Conservative government, Canada proposed building a heavy polar icebreaker, but almost no progress has been made toward its actual construction.

Besides the potential natural resources that the Artic has, the Artic waters are of an important strategic value, militarily and politically, to both Canada and the U.S.  This year Canada released a comprehensive Arctic policy framework that places the emphasis for future development on civilian development. However, Canadian policy does not address Arctic shipping concerns.  This certainly is not a way to reinforce Canadian sovereignty off our Arctic coast.  Alaska’s two senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, recently proposed the creation of an Arctic Shipping Federal Advisory Committee to centralize discussions about shipping in Alaskan waters.

I would go one step further and suggest that a joint North American body needs to be created, just as we have one for common defense concerns in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the International Joint Commission (IJC) to deal with mutual issues involving the Great Lakes waterways, commercial shipping and environmental concerns. Not only do we need to monitor Russian activities in Artic waters, but both countries can better coordinate investments in the creation of an ‘Artic seaway’ and the development of Artic ports.

At this time, neither Canada nor the United States has much to offer in the event of a maritime disaster in North American Arctic waters. Isn’t it about time that both countries get together to share resources and expertise to counter the growing Russian influence in Artic waters.  Instead of investing in military capabilities in outer space, it might be wiser to invest more resources right here on earth where more immediate and important needs must be addressed.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Military Prowess US

Leave a comment »
Oct 8

Trump’s Foreign Policy Is A Complete And Utter Flop

by bcurry

Just hours after President Trump declared that American troops were being withdrawn from the Syrian border, he warned Turkey that he would “totally destroy and obliterate” the economy of Turkey if he’s unhappy with how the country carries out its planned assault on Kurdish fighters. Indeed, what Trump has done is a betrayal and abandonment of the Kurds who, with U.S. backing, have been fearlessly fighting the Islamist radicals of ISIS in northern Syria. Both Democrats and Republicans have condemned the move as irresponsible and dangerous, leaving the Kurds to worry about a war with the more powerful Turkey and an inability to deal with the thousands of ISIS members interned in Syria. Some have even suggested that ISIS may re-emerge under the circumstances.

This is just another example of Trump’s lack of good judgement and his inability to appreciate the consequences of his foreign policies to date. Take North Korea for example, we now have a situation where nothing has happened since the talks between President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un broke down. Indeed, the meetings only helped to legitimatize Kim’s regime on the world stage, while allowing him to continue testing missiles capable of reaching most Asian countries.  There are also suspected hidden nuclear fuel production sites around the country.

With respect to the European Union (EU), Brexit and the Ukraine, Trump has interfered on a number of occasions, upsetting his NATO and European allies. He has instead aligned himself with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and dropped out of nuclear missile treaty with Russia, which is what Russia wanted all along. Trump is far too close to Putin, particularly in light of the Russian invasion of Crimea and confirmed Russian hacking in the 2016 election.

In terms of the current disastrous Brexit negotiations between Britain and the EU, Trump is much too close to Prime Minister Boris Johnson who in an undemocratic manner tried to circumvent the British Parliament to get his way. Then there are the recent revelations about Trump’s unprecedented dealings with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky which have led to the launch of an impeachment enquiry in the House of Representatives.  Here we have the President trying to persuade the Ukrainian President to get involved in a political-inspired investigation of an American presidential candidate.  Trump’s request has been tied to the withholding of military aid to Ukraine, something everyone agrees is not normal and most likely illegal. He has even suggested that China should undertake a similar investigation. Go figure!

On top of all this, one has the U.S. State Department in total turmoil. Its officials have little input into the Trump Administration’s foreign policy decisions and are daily loosing credibility abroad and in the U.S.  Once a highly respected and influential arm of government, one now has a Secretary of State who has become nothing more than a puppet for the President.  Mike Pompeo simply defends his boss’s mistakes, regardless of the international consequences.  One can only imagine what goes on in the National Security Council on a daily basis?

Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iraq and ISIS North Korea US

Leave a comment »
Feb 18

Crazy Remark by President Trump Gives Kim Jong Un the Proof He Needs

by bcurry

Here we go again, a recent off-the-cuff remark by President Trump that former President Barack Obama had stated in a meeting with then President-elect Trump that the U.S. had been on the verge of war with North Korea. Within hours of his remark, several former high ranking officials under President Obama indicated to multiple media sources that no such statement had been made during the exchange.  According to these knowledgeable persons, at no time had the U.S. been in a state of planning to carry out an assault on North Korea as claimed by President Trump.

What Donald Trump’s remark has done is confirm for Kim Jong Un that the threat to his regime of an attack by the U.S. had been imminent in the past. Kim can use this false revelation to defend the continuing build-up of his military capabilities, including his nuclear and missile capabilities.  Such statements by a sitting American president reinforce Kim’s past assertions to North Koreans that there was a real threat of American military action against their country.

Signing a peace treaty with North Korea will require addressing issues regarding the U.S. military’s presence in South Korea and its transfer of wartime operational control to South Korea and United Nations forces in South Korea. The removal of American forces, numbered in the tens of thousands, from South Korea is a precondition for any denuclearization by the North Korean regime. North Korea views the American forces as a real threat. Mass military drills and naval exercises by the U.S. and South Korea are also viewed by Kim’s regime as a rehearsal for war.

Next week, President Trump intends to meet once again with Kim Jong Un in Hanoi, Vietnam, as a follow-up to their previous meeting. Reports had suggested that pre-summit talks may include North Korea’s closure of its main nuclear scientific research centre in Yongbyon in exchange for some sanctions relief or a declaration to formally end the 1950-53 Korean War. Let’s hope that President Trump’s false assertion about previous U.S. foreign policy positions vis-à-vis a war with North Korea don’t negatively influence the outcome of the upcoming talks. Please, Mr. President, no more silly off-the-cuff remarks!  The seriousness of the issues at hand leave no room to play politics.

Donald Trump Foreign Policy North Korea US

Leave a comment »
Jan 27

There Was Another Infamous Wall Called The Berlin Wall

by bcurry

Due to President Trump’s current political stance regarding the border with Mexico, there is a lot of talk about expanding a barrier between the two countries. However, do such barriers or walls really work all that well?  In 1961, a wall was built by East German authorities between East Berlin and West Berlin.  The wall was to prevent East Germans from fleeing East Germany to enter West Germany via West Berlin. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the original wall, built of barbed wire and cinder blocks, was subsequently replaced by a series of concrete walls (up to 15 feet [5 metres] high) that were topped with barbed wire and guarded with watchtowers, gun emplacements, and mines. By the 1980s that system of walls, electrified fences, and fortifications extended 28 miles (45 km) through Berlin, dividing the two parts of the city, and extended a further 75 miles (120 km) around West Berlin, separating it from the rest of East Germany.

However, despite this massive fortification, over 5,000 East Germans managed to cross the Berlin Wall (by various means) and reach West Berlin safely. Finally, in 1989 the East German government opened the country’s borders with West Germany (including West Berlin). The openings were made in the Berlin Wall through which East Germans could travel freely to the West. During the Cold War, the wall had become a symbol of state oppression and an attempt to prevent thousands of desperate people from seeking freedom in the West, many at real risks to their lives and certain imprisonment in East Germany if captured.

Extending a wall between the U.S. and Mexico would also become a symbol of one country’s oppressive policies to deny refuge to desperate men, women and children fleeing for their lives. To arbitrarily deny all refugees the possibility of safe haven by erecting a wall is morally wrong in itself.  To think that a wall will stem the tide of those seeking a better life for themselves and their families is not a practical solution, as evidenced by the Berlin Wall.  Just as the Berlin Wall had ceased to function as a political barrier between East and West Germany, so would a physical border wall with Mexico never adequately and humanely deal with the current influx of refugees.

Surely, the U.S. administration can come up with more humane alternatives and viable policy options to help these people either in their countries or while in the process of desperate flight. Monies expended on the construction of a wall expansion could better be spent on improving the conditions faced by potential refugees in their countries of origin.

Donald Trump Foreign Policy Immigration US

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.