Daily Archives: March 9, 2017

Free speech? Hate speech? Or both? | Berkeley News

Posted: March 9, 2017 at 3:05 am

Alarmed by the announcement of a scheduled campus appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos, the right-wing provocateur who has built a lucrative brand on inflammatory speech, a group of UC Berkeley faculty wroteChancellor Nicholas Dirks in early January to urge him to call it off.

A demonstrator in the crowd at UC Davis, where Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak in mid-January

Although we object strenuously to Yiannopouloss views he advocates white supremacy, transphobia and misogyny it is rather his harmful conduct to which we call attention in asking for the cancellation of this event, read the first of two letters from faculty members. The letters were eventually signed by more than 100 Berkeley faculty.

As one example of what they termed incitement, harassment and defamation, the signers cited a December event at the University of Milwaukee where Yiannopoulos spoke in his public lecture about a transgender student at the university in derogatory ways, going so far as to project a picture of this student during his lecture, one that was simultaneously broadcast on the Breitbart website.

Such actions, they concluded, are protected neither by free speech nor by academic freedom. For this reason, the university should not provide a platform for such harassment.

Nils Gilman, associate chancellor and Dirks chief of staff, replied with the administrations position.

While we realize (and regret) that the presence of certain speakers is very likely to upset some members of our campus community, Gilman wrote, the U.S. Constitution, and thus university policy, prevent campus administration from barring invited speakers from campus based on the viewpoints those speakers may express Our Constitution does not permit the university to engage in prior restraint of a speaker out of fear that he might engage in even hateful verbal attacks.

Whether you lean pro, con or somewhere in-between, such questions have special resonance at UC Berkeley, where the Free Speech Movement was born in 1964. A group of FSM veterans has come out in favor of Yiannopouloss right to speak, and the Facebook page of the Berkeley College Republicans the campus group sponsoring his appearance touts what it calls the new free speech movement.

Yiannopolous, a British, avowedly gay crusader against political correctness, regularly targets Muslims, immigrants, women, liberals and others perceived to be enemies of the alt-right a formerly fringe movement associated with white supremacy and Stephen Bannon, a key strategist for Donald Trump with troll-like rhetoric tailored to outrage, antagonize and offend.

He was permanently banned from Twitter for his part in a racist campaign of abuse toward actress Leslie Jones.

Some of his campus events have been canceled college Republicans at UC Davis recently scrubbed his talk in the face of protests and security concerns and one protester was shot by a supporter when Yiannopoulos spoke at the University of Washington.

His sold-out event at UC Berkeley is set for Wednesday, Feb. 1, at 8 p.m. in the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Unions Pauley Ballroom.

In an op-ed in the Daily Cal, a dozen Free Speech Movement veterans including Lynne Hollander Savio, Marios widow labeled Yiannopoulos a bigot, but urged students opposed to his views to express their opposition nonviolently,in ways that do not prevent such speakers from making or completing their remarks.

His modus operandi, they wrote, is to bait students of color, transgender students and anyone to the left of Donald Trump in the hopes of sparking a speaking ban or physical altercation so he can pose as a free speech martyr. His campus events are one long publicity stunt designed to present himself as a kind of hip, far right, youth folk hero sort of Hitler Youth with cool sunglasses.

With that in mind, they argued, Banning him just plays into his hands politically, which is one reason why we were glad to see the UC administration refuse to adopt such a ban.

Pieter Sittler, an officer with Berkeley College Republicans, explained via email that the group invited Yiannopoulos because we believe there exists a dearth of intellectual diversity on this campus, adding that conservative thought is actively repressed.

By inviting Yiannopoulos, Sittler said, BCR is simply holding true to Berkeleys motto, Fiat Lux, thus enlightening our peers to thought that deviates from the liberal status quo. We acknowledge that Milo is controversial, but he voraciously defends speech on campus and is an important voice to include in the broader political dialogue.

And Dirks, in a message to the campus community last week, said the administration had clearly communicated to the BCR that we regard Yiannopouloss act as at odds with the values of this campus, and had emphasized to them that with their autonomy and independence comes a moral responsibility for the consequences of their words, actions, events and invitations and those of their guest.

Nonetheless, he reiterated the legal basis for the decision to let the event proceed, and quoted UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman, who wrote that universities support free speech and condemn censorship for two reasons to ensure that positive, helpful, illuminating messages can circulate widely, and to expose hateful or dangerous ideas that, if never engaged or rebutted, would gain traction in the darker corners of our society. Hate speech is like mold: Its enemies are bright light and fresh air.

This admonition, added Dirks, may be more important in our current political moment than ever.

Continued here:
Free speech? Hate speech? Or both? | Berkeley News

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Free speech? Hate speech? Or both? | Berkeley News

UMaine System pushes ahead with free speech policy – Press Herald

Posted: at 3:05 am

As protests flare on campuses nationwide, the University of Maine System is moving forward with a new free speech policy that affirms constitutionally protected speech, calls for civility and gives the university room to prohibit speech if it crosses into harassment or threats.

The timing is critically important, system trustee chairman Sam Collins said Wednesday, referring to violent protests that broke out days ago at Middlebury College in Vermont, after students shouted down a controversial speaker. Last month, riots broke out at University of California Berkeley in connection with a speech by a provocateur and conservative activist.

Closer to home, the University of Southern Maine recently hosted a speaker on immigration that drew protesters, but remained civil.

Collins and other members of the UMS trustees executive committee met Wednesday to discuss the new policy, saying it would help the system navigate sensitive free speech issues, while making clear that students do not have the right to shout down a speaker.

(D)emands for civility and mutual respect will not be used to justify restricting the discussion or expression of ideas or speech that may be disagreeable or even offensive to some members of the University community, the policy reads in part. Free speech is not absolute, and one persons claim to exercise his or her right to free speech may not be used to deny another persons right to free speech.

The policy defends constitutionally protected speech, and reads: There shall be no restriction at any System institutions on these fundamental rights, although the University may prohibit speech that violates the law, defames specific individuals, genuinely threatens or harasses others, or violates privacy or confidentiality requirements or interests.

The policy is based in part on the findings of the University of Chicago Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, and the model language suggested by that committee.

This is a very positive thing, said Samantha Harris, a vice president at the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization that defends student and faculty rights on campus and urged campuses to adopt the Chicago language. Its heartening to see a public institution affirm their beliefs.

Seventeen colleges have adopted the Chicago language so far, Harris said.

The new policy will be voted on by the full board of trustees at its April meeting.

Noel K. Gallagher can be reached at 791-6387 or at:

[emailprotected]

Twitter: noelinmaine

View post:
UMaine System pushes ahead with free speech policy - Press Herald

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on UMaine System pushes ahead with free speech policy – Press Herald

Sorry, but hate speech doesn’t count as free speech – The Badger Herald

Posted: at 3:05 am

I recently read an articletitled Are There Limits to Online Free Speech? by Alice Marwick, assistant professor of communication and media studies at Fordham University. In the article, Marwick recognizes the increasing amount of discourse surrounding what constitutes free speech in a country that is more politically polarized than ever before. She discusses how this polarization has acted as a catalyst for heated debate across the U.S.

After reading her article, Ive started to notice an emerging division of opinions concerning freedom of expression in the U.S. What many Americans view as a constitutional right under the First Amendment, many others view as unacceptable hate speech.

To an extent, this divide makes sense, considering there are countless controversial issues circulating within our political discourse. Recently, though, free speech has been used as a defense for mistaken opinions, allowing for the normalization of hate driven prejudices.

Our choice is free speech or no speech at allFirst they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist. Then Read

On Feb. 1, a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, a former Breitbart editorand alt-right provocateur, was canceledat the University of California, Berkeley after violent protests broke out on the campus in response to Yiannopoulos intolerant platform.

The university has been under scrutiny from both Yiannopoulos andPresident Donald Trump. Trumptweeted If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS? Yiannopoulos also disapproved of the cancelation, suggesting the hard left has become so utterly antithetical to free speech in the last few years.

Similar reproaches were expressed here at the University of Wisconsin in response to a UW student who sought to establishan alt-right movement on campus. In a meeting with the Associated Students of Madison shared governance committee, UW Chancellor Rebecca Blank continued to stand with freedom of speech, saying that unless violence was mentioned, the student was allowed to speak freely.

In the past, free speech was a label for defense of political freedom of expression. That label was necessary and important.Americans pride themselves on being able to openly express opinions of opposition. But should Yiannopoulos dissent for minority groups and the white nationalist sentiments of the American Freedom Party really be considered political opinions? The answer is no.

UW student halts plan to bring alt-right movement to campusAfter strong opposition from both the administration and student body, University of Wisconsin student Daniel Dropik will not be pursuing Read

In todays polarized political climate, free speech has been misused to justify positions that have long been considered unacceptable in American society.

As Marwick wrote, aggressive [online] speech positions sexism, racism and anti-semitism (and so forth) as issues of freedom of expression rather than structural oppression. There is plenty of room for debate within Americas political forum, but as we continue to progress as a country, its crucialwe stop using free speech as a tool for the perpetuation of oppression.

Gianina Dinon ([emailprotected]) is a sophomore whose major is currently undeclared.

More:
Sorry, but hate speech doesn't count as free speech - The Badger Herald

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Sorry, but hate speech doesn’t count as free speech – The Badger Herald

Free speech is not freedom from consequence – Bulletin

Posted: at 3:04 am

It was a formula Milo Yiannopoulos, former editor at Breitbart news and star of the white nationalist alt-right, had used many times. Say something incendiary and offensive in a public platform, provoke liberal outrage, argue this is another attack on free speech by the left who is obsessed with political correctness and reap the reward of the notoriety the episode generates. Except this time, another group inserted itself into this well-oiled formula. Yiannopoulos went too far, and angered the right as well as the left.

America is learning just how much conservatives will tolerate when faced with unsavory facts about a successful bedfellow. A candidates boast he can molest women with impunity? Not disqualifying. Yiannopoulos claim the tragic shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was an expression of mainstream Muslim values? Give him a book deal. But Yiannopoulos apparent defense of pedophilia and assertion that sex with a sexually mature 13-year-old boy is not abuse? Now we have crossed the elusive line in the sand. And mysteriously, the right has stopped insisting Yiannopoulos is entitled to say whatever he wants.

In a series of videos posted on Twitter by the conservative blog Reagan Battalion, Yiannopoulos appears to condone or even encourage relationships between older men and boys as young as 13.

I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships, very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys, Yiannopoulos argues, claiming this sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent fails to recognize the subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships.

When another man on the podcast points out this enriching relationship sounds like molestation by Catholic priests to him, Yiannopoulos is flippant.

And you know what, Im grateful for Father Michael. I wouldnt give nearly such good [oral sex] if it wasnt for him, he says.

Of course this is wrong. The idea sex between adults and young teens cannot only be consensual but actually a positive experience for the younger party is dangerous and damaging to victims of childhood abuse, particularly when the argument comes from a gay man who seems to be drawing on his own experiences. Such assertions are horrifying.

But the backlash these revelations incited, costing Yiannopoulos his book deal, keynote speech at the CPAC American Conservative Union conference and position at Breitbart news, reveals the hypocrisy of the free speech defense Yiannopoulos employed so regularly. Apparently, free speech is only unassailable when the right agrees with the content.

Yiannopoulos has been allowed to get away with appalling verbal attacks in the past. At a December 2016 speech at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Yiannopoulos projected a picture of Adelaide Kramer, a transgender woman and student in the audience, on the screen behind him, called her a tranny and accused her of forc[ing] his way into the womens locker rooms.

Kramer was, understandably, terrified and traumatized. In an email to UW-Milwaukees chancellor, obtained by the student publication Media Milwaukee, she asked, Do you know what its like to be in a room full of people who are laughing at you as if youre some sort of perverted freak? She has since left the school.

To be clear, Yiannopoulos was not simply airing a controversial opinion in this case; he intentionally targeted a student for public ridicule, causing that student to fear for her safety. Nevertheless, conservatives rushed to his defense in the name of free speech. CPAC invited him to speak three months later.

Here is the problem: When the left insists normal speech has become hate speech, they are considered triggered snowflakes. But when the right finds a transgression they will not tolerate, whether it is sympathy for abusive priests or gay people daring to patronize their businesses, they are the noble moral arbiters of society. Anger at Yiannopoulos now, while indisputably justified, tacitly condones every bigoted comment he made before this moment.

This backlash reveals what we knew all along about the free speech defense of Yiannopoulos. There is no debate between free speech crusaders and gleeful censors. The debate is about the platform speakers are entitled to.

The same people distancing themselves from Yiannopoulos now decried the violent protests at University of California, Berkeley, his impending visit incited just last month. Thats the pesky thing about free speech: Everyone is entitled to it, not just far-right provocateurs.

Freedom of expression as it is constitutionally understood encompasses freedom of assembly, of the press, to petition the government and yes, of speech. In other words, protesting a free speech fundamentalist is exercising your right to freedom of speech.

Gonzaga professor of womens and gender studies Sara Diaz concurs: When students or faculty say they dont want a speaker on campus that is not a violation of freedom of speech, she clarifies. In fact, it is an exercise of free speech.

GU found itself in a similar situation to the one faced by Berkeley with Dinesh DSouzas invitation to speak on campus last year. In both cases, the universities were faced with the presence of controversial figures invited by their schools College Republicans club and had to balance their legal and philosophical impetus to ensure all views can be expressed on their campuses with a desire to ensure an inclusive academic environment free of bigotry. Both schools got it right by supporting their students invitations; as academic freedom is an essential right of universities with a clear legal trail all the way to the Supreme Court.

And the student bodies of both Berkeley and GU got it right by protesting in response.

As Diaz puts it, Freedom of speech does not protect us from the consequences of violating the norms of speech, such as rudeness, spreading misinformation [and] academic dishonesty.

Yiannopoulos is free to spew his hateful diatribe at whoever will listen. He is owed that right by the Constitution. But he is not owed a megaphone.

My recommendation for dealing with the Yiannopouloses of the world? If its free speech they want, its free speech theyll get. Robust debate and protest, not censorship, is the proper way to deal with bigots. And when they claim, as Yiannopoulos did, to be the victim of a cynical media witch hunt, can we please call them snowflakes?

Eleanor Lyon is a staff writer. Follow her on Twitter: @eleanorroselyon.

See the original post:
Free speech is not freedom from consequence - Bulletin

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Free speech is not freedom from consequence – Bulletin

Tennant: Freedom of speech crucial for health of nation – Reno Gazette Journal

Posted: at 3:04 am

Laura Tennant, news@masonvalleynews.com Published 10:32 a.m. PT March 8, 2017 | Updated 13 hours ago

Laura Tennant is a columnist for the Mason Valley News.(Photo: Provided to the Mason Valley News)

I was flabbergasted a few years ago to learn that administrators and students at some American colleges and universities were protesting free speech and the students were obtaining petition signatures to eliminate the First Amendment because a lecturer with different political views had been scheduled to speak at the school. I was more than flabbergasted when the president of the college upheld their views. I had thought the radical anti-free speech movement would fade away but it is now becoming violent with lawlessness occurring and no one suffering the consequences but innocent people.

America is a nation of laws and always has been for more than 200 years. I guess young people who have never had rules at home think they dont have to obey the laws of the land go try it in some other country.

The opponents of the First Amendment must believe, if the amendment were scratched from the U.S. Constitution, they would be the only ones who had the right to voice an opinion because, of course, their political views are superior to those of other citizens. Sounds scary that is what Adolph Hitlers brown shirts believed. If German citizens dared to express their opinion, they were immediately hauled off to a prison camp or murdered on the spot!

I cannot believe any American of any political party favors this type of a government.

The First Amendment is one of the most important freedoms we Americans have. I truly believe that everyone has a right to hold and express a political or other type of opinion in this society and to do it without fearing physical abuse from citizens who disagree.

In my younger years, I loved reading the classic authors of the 18th and 19th centuries, who often wrote about their gatherings where they socialized and respectfully discussed the worlds problems with their friends who were famous artists or statesmen.

Antagonists are our helpers

A quote by British statesman Edmund Burke reflects why I think that citizens open exchange of viewpoints on any subject is a positive force in America.

Burke said, He who struggles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper. I believe this, so with whom shall I discuss politics if everybody is forced to think alike? That form of government is called a dictatorship and citizens of those countries are so controlled there is no freedom of speech.

Burke was an 18th-century Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist and philosopher who eventually moved to London and served in the House of Commons with the Whig Party and many of his quotes have become famous.

By the time students get to college, I would think that they could stand to be civil to someone who does not share their opinions.

So far, President Donald Trump has not tried to stop the deadly antics of the opposing side, but he might have to step in if communities, colleges or universities cannot get the situation remedied before someone gets killed.

Snow globe world

I woke up last Sunday morning to see and hear a howling blizzard blustering through our yard. We have not seen one of these storms for years. I honestly enjoy wild weather if I am warm and toasty inside the house by the fire and I do not have to drive anywhere.

This morning, I was unable to resist so I grabbed my camera and went outside barefooted to capture the moment. When the wind hit me, it felt like the storm had blown in from the Artic Circle but it was blowing from the usual southeasterly direction. Getting a good picture of wind and snow flitting through our yard was difficult. But I did get a couple of video shots that tell the story. The snow quit for a while until this afternoon and now the snowflakes are slowly drifting down and it feels like we are in a musical snowglobe.

Laura Tennant is a Silver City native, Dayton historian and the Leader-Couriers former editor. Comments are welcomed. Call 775-246-03256, e-mail L10ant38@gmail.com or write P.O. Box 143, Dayton, NV 89403.

Read or Share this story: http://on.rgj.com/2m2Fu1K

Read the original:
Tennant: Freedom of speech crucial for health of nation - Reno Gazette Journal

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Tennant: Freedom of speech crucial for health of nation – Reno Gazette Journal

NATO marks International Women’s Day – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted: at 3:00 am

An organisation, society or country can only succeed if it uses the full potential of all of its members men and women, said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, marking the occasion of International Womens Day on Wednesday (8 March 2017). He stressed that equal participation of men and women is a core security requirement, essential to the resilience of societies, to the effectiveness of NATO forces and to achieving and preserving peace.

NATO strongly supports the global women, peace and security agenda. The Alliance has integrated gender perspectives in its three core tasks collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security. NATO works to promote womens rights in training and operations, and in our assistance for partners, such as Jordan, Georgia and Ukraine. The appointment of NATOs Special Representative on Women, Peace and Security Ambassador Marriet Schuurman demonstrates the importance of these issues.

Today, NATO has more women in leadership positions than ever before as ministers, senior officials and military commanders. A quarter of NATO Defence Ministers are women, six of 28 NATO Ambassadors are women, and last year, the Alliance welcomed its first female Deputy Secretary General, Rose Gottemoeller. NATOs Joint Force Command in Naples is also led by US Admiral Michelle Howard, a four-star officer, and US Army Brigadier General Giselle Wilz is the first woman to head NATO HQ Sarajevo. Canadas most senior female military officer, Lt.-Gen. Christine Whitecross, is currently commandant of the NATO Defense College in Rome.

The Secretary General has highlighted that making the best potential of both men and woman makes NATO stronger and better prepared to deal with current security challenges. I look forward to the day when not just a quarter but half of NATO ministers are women; I am sure that time will come, said the Secretary General.

See the original post here:
NATO marks International Women's Day - NATO HQ (press release)

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO marks International Women’s Day – NATO HQ (press release)

NATO Deputy Secretary General thanks Iceland for its contribution to European security – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted: at 3:00 am

NATO Deputy Secretary General, Rose Gottemoeller, ended a two day visit to Iceland on Wednesday (8 March 2017) by addressing students at the University of Iceland on how NATO is adapting to a new security environment. Ms Gottemoeller explained how NATO represents the gold standard in multilateral security cooperation and how it is strengthening its collective defence in Europe and doing more to fight terrorism.

Iceland, a founding member of NATO, is a highly valued Ally and although the country has no standing army, it has made important financial and civilian contributions to NATO missions in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

Ms Gottemoeller arrived in Iceland on Tuesday (7 March 2017) evening for talks with Icelands Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson. The two discussed the current security situation and Icelands contribution to NATO.

On Wednesday (8 March 2017), the Deputy Secretary General met with the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs. She also gave a speech at a NATO Resources Conference in Reykjavik, which has been discussing how the Alliance can best use its financial resources to adapt to the new security environment. Ms Gottemoeller stressed the importance of common funding, which enables Allies to join together to boost their defence capabilities, such as with NATOs fleet of AWACS surveillance aircraft.

Read the original here:
NATO Deputy Secretary General thanks Iceland for its contribution to European security - NATO HQ (press release)

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO Deputy Secretary General thanks Iceland for its contribution to European security – NATO HQ (press release)

Trump’s rumored pick for NATO ambassador doesn’t seem to agree with him about NATO – Vox

Posted: at 3:00 am

Richard Grenell, a well-known conservative communications professional, will reportedly soon be announced as the Trump administrations ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Its an important job given the alliances mission of standing up to Russia and a tough one given President Trumps harsh criticism of the organization.

Which makes it interesting that Grenell, unlike his potential boss, is a strong supporter of maintaining the NATO alliance and using it as a counterweight to Russias efforts to expand its influence in Eastern Europe. Grenell, who served as a foreign policy spokesperson in the George W. Bush administration, seems more aligned with the moderate wing of the administration (represented by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis) than the radical revisionist one (represented by senior strategist Steve Bannon).

[Its] confusing, Steve Saideman, a professor at Carleton University who studies NATO, tells me. As far as I know, Grenell does not hate NATO or want to burn it down.

Grenell is also somewhat controversial in conservative circles, owing to the fact that hes openly gay and a supporter of same-sex marriage. The Romney campaign picked him to be its foreign policy spokesperson in 2012, but a social conservative backlash ended his tenure very quickly. This time around, Grenell is less likely to get into trouble for who he is than what hes tweeted: The tone of his comments about Trump during the primary, especially on Twitter, was highly critical.

If you think Trump knows foreign policy issues then absolutely yes, you are stupid, Grenell tweeted in March 2016.

He changed his tune during the general election, once referring to a Trump statement on NATO, where he said he refocused the alliance on terrorism, as fantastic. But past criticism of Trump has gotten potential administration nominees into trouble before. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly wanted former Bush administration official Elliott Abrams for his top deputy but Trump nixed the pick, reportedly because Abrams had written harshly about Trump in the past.

The Grenell pick is thus an interesting test for the Trump administration: How much internal dissent can it tolerate, and what kind of dissent is acceptable? Washingtons closest allies, and Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, will be waiting anxiously for the answers.

The US ambassador to NATO, also called the permanent representative, sits on the North Atlantic Council, the alliances decision-making body. The council is where NATO countries vote on key issues like whether to undertake collective military missions such as NATOs involvement in the Afghanistan war. The ambassador votes on behalf of the US, and also plays a role in negotiating the text of any NATO-wide agreement.

These are important tasks, but typically the person doing them doesnt have a lot of freedom. Historically, the ambassadors job is more to do what his bosses tell him than make independent decisions. The [ambassador] is both a very important position as the US representative in the room when big decisions are being made and also not so important since they are very closely guided/managed by DC, Saideman explains.

That may be less true in the Trump administration, given its deep internal divisions over foreign policy and well-earned reputation for disorganization. In this environment, clear guidance could be lacking, leaving the ambassador with a lot more discretion. That would make Grenells personal background and views, if hes confirmed by the Senate, a whole lot more important than those of previous NATO ambassadors.

Grenell does have a lot of experience in conservative foreign policy land. Prior to his job with Romney, he served as the spokesperson for the US mission to the United Nations under George W. Bush, holding that job longer than any other individual.

As you might expect from someone with this background, he holds fairly conventional conservative views on foreign policy including on issues relating to NATO, which he has called the worlds greatest alliance. When Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in July 2014, he called for an immediate and forceful response.

The US leads NATO ... they should have been on the ground in Ukraine immediately, he tweeted. We should sell Ukraine arms immediately.

In a March 2016 appearance on the Fox Business Channel, Grenell defended the alliance against the fact that its not spending enough on its own defense a charge that President Trump has made repeatedly. NATO countries are supposed to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense, but only five countries hit that target in 2016.

In Grenells view, the issue is that the Obama administration has been too disengaged from the alliance, weakening it as an institution.

You cant blame NATO, Grenell told host Charles Payne. I would say the reason why were having this debate about NATO right now ... is because you dont have US leadership.

Grenell had also been a tough critic of Putin, attacking his intervention in Ukraine and meddling with foreign elections in a number of op-eds and numerous tweets published in the past several years. Once again, Grenell saw this as a product of Obamas weakness.

If Grenell gets the NATO job, half the reporters in DC (including me) will have to unblock him

The Russian president has successfully used propaganda, natural gas, intimidation, money laundering, military hardware, corruption, and his opponents weaknesses to chip away at the Wests influence throughout Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, he wrote in the conservative tabloid Newsmax last year. Russia is calculating how best to continue its offense undeterred by the West and President Obama.

The point, then, is that Grenell seems to have broadly conventional foreign policy views: He sees NATO as a vital alliance and bulwark against an expansionist Russia. His critique of the Obama administration was that it was too withdrawn, too disengaged from allies and unwilling to come to their aid when theyre threatened.

Trump, by contrast, has cast doubt on Americas commitment to NATO and described Russia as a potential partner. His critique of the Obama administration was that it was too beholden to outdated international institutions like NATO and too willing to use force when Americas direct national security interests were not at stake.

This kind of tension is becoming fairly normal in the administration. Secretary Mattis, for example, more or less disavowed past Trump statements on NATO and Russia in his confirmation hearing. During a trip to Brussels for a NATO summit, Mattis openly ruled out Trumps proposal to cooperate with Russia on military matters. Vice President Mike Pence, during a speech in Germany, said that America strongly supports NATO and is unwavering in our commitment to our transatlantic alliance.

This kind of sub-presidential diplomacy can make it difficult to figure out what the administrations actual position is or would be in a crisis. Do Mattis and Pence speak for Trump, or will the president overrule them when their views come into direct conflict, especially over Russia?

Right now, its too soon to tell. But Grenell, if confirmed, will be thrown into the middle of this conflict on one of the most important points of internal tension, the NATO alliance, inside the administration.

Grenell is not shy about expressing his opinions. He appears on Fox News regularly, and has attacked a fairly large percentage of the Washington press corps on Twitter.

If Grenell gets the NATO job, half the reporters in DC (including me) will have to unblock him, New York Times political reporter Glenn Thrush tweeted when the news of Grenells nomination first broke.

So its no surprise that Grenell has had a lot of things to say about Donald Trump. Since roughly last summer, most of those things have been positive Grenell has vigorously defended Trumps record both on foreign policy and LGBTQ rights.

But prior to Trumps victory in the primary, Grenells Twitter tone was about as hostile to Trump as it was to reporters. He described candidate Trump as dangerously ignorant, and seemingly called on the Republican Party to block him from taking the nomination:

All of this raises the question of whether Grenell will go the way of Abrams, the Tillerson deputy who never was.

There is a key difference between Grenell and Abrams. Abrams was #NeverTrump, and never apologized or withdrew his attacks. Grenell, by contrast, appears to have recanted his anti-Trump faith after the primary, spending the past several months vocally defending the candidate and the new administration on Twitter and TV.

So what were about to see assuming the reports of Grenells nomination are true is a test of the loyalty component of a Trump nominee. How much criticism of the president and his policies is acceptable in a high-profile nominee? And is withdrawing the attacks enough to make things better?

If Grenell gets past the trial balloon stage, and is formally announced as the administrations NATO ambassador pick, then well have our answer. If he doesnt get picked well, then well have learned something too.

Continue reading here:
Trump's rumored pick for NATO ambassador doesn't seem to agree with him about NATO - Vox

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Trump’s rumored pick for NATO ambassador doesn’t seem to agree with him about NATO – Vox

US general says Russia deploys cruise missile, threatens NATO – Reuters

Posted: at 3:00 am

By Idrees Ali | WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON Russia has deployed a land-based cruise missile that violates the "spirit and intent" of an arms control treaty and poses a threat to NATO, Vice Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva said on Wednesday.

It was the first public accusation by the U.S. military of the deployment after reports said last month that Russia had secretly deployed the ground-launched SSC-8 cruise missile that Moscow has been developing and testing for several years, despite U.S. complaints that it violated sections of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

"The system itself presents a risk to most of our facilities in Europe and we believe that the Russians have deliberately deployed it in order to pose a threat to NATO and to facilities within the NATO area of responsibility," Selva said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. The Air Force general did not say whether the missile was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.

Selva said the United States had brought up the issue with Russia. He did not say what options were being considered if the discussions did not lead to results, but added that "we have been asked to incorporate a set of options into the nuclear posture review."

"I don't have enough information on their intent to conclude other than they do not intend to return to compliance," he added.

In an interview with Reuters last month, President Donald Trump said he would raise the issue of the deployment with Russian President Vladimir Putin "if and when we meet."

In 2014, the United States made a similar accusation. The State Department concluded in a report that Russia was in violation of its obligations under the INF treaty.

Russia accused Washington of conducting "megaphone diplomacy" after the accusation was repeated by the State Department in 2015. Moscow also denied it had violated the treaty, which helped end the Cold War.

Questions have been raised about U.S. commitment to another nuclear weapons deal, the New START agreement, which caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads after Reuters reported that Trump told Putin it was a bad deal for the United States.

During the Wednesday hearing, senior military officials strongly backed the treaty.

"I have stated for the record in the past, now I'll state again that I am a big supporter of the New START agreement," said Air Force General John Hyten, the head of U.S. Strategic Command.

"The risk would be an arms race, we are not in an arms race now," Hyten said.

(Reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by Alistair Bell and Jonathan Oatis)

KUALA LUMPUR Two U.N. employees who were among 11 Malaysian nationals stranded in North Korea following a travel ban have left the country, a Malaysian government source said on Thursday.

UNITED NATIONS Malaysia has warned that an investigation into the murder of the North Korean leader's half brother "may take longer than what we hope," as Pyongyang ally China said on Wednesday that no international action should be considered until it is finished.

PARIS Centrist Emmanuel Macron would come out ahead of far right leader Marine Le Pen in the first round of France's presidential election before going on to win a runoff vote against her, a Harris Interactive poll showed on Thursday.

See the original post:
US general says Russia deploys cruise missile, threatens NATO - Reuters

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on US general says Russia deploys cruise missile, threatens NATO – Reuters

Trump Picks Hawkish Critic of Russia as NATO Ambassador, Veering From One Extreme to the Other – The Intercept

Posted: at 3:00 am

President Trump has reportedly tappedas his ambassador tothe North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) a hawkish critic of Russia who wants the U.S. to arm Ukraine. Its the latest sign that the administration isreacting to criticism that it is too soft on Russiabypivoting to the other extreme.

Richard Grennell is a former Bush-era U.S. spokesperson at the United Nations who also served as a foreign policy spokesperson forMitt Romneys presidential campaign. He frequently appears on Fox News and other conservative outlets saying President Obama appeased Russia.

Following Russias annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Obama resistedpolitical pressure from hawks in Congress to provide lethal arms to the Ukranian government, fearing that doing so would only cause Russia to escalate its own military involvement.

Writing in The New York Timess Room for Debate section in 2014, Grenell said that Obamas belief that the U.S. could support Ukraine but not antagonize Russia represented a nave and dangerous world view.In aFox News op-ed, he proposed military escalation: Offer advice and training to Ukraine, and sell it the lethal weapons required to contend with Russian armored personnel carriers, tanks and missiles, he wrote,adding that the U.S. should also restart missile defense shield programs in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Grennellalso counseled Obama to leave directly military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine on the table.

The Obama doctrine only persuades Putin that he need never fear the U.S. military the worlds most powerful deterrent, he wrote. Even if Obama would never start a war with Russia, he should stop swearing off military action in public. Instead, President Obama, through his inexhaustible number of speeches and statements, should rhetorically leave military action on the table.

Although his support for arming Ukraine stretches back years, Grenell was continuing to advocate for lethal aid for Ukraine as recently as Tuesday via his Twitter account, which he frequently uses to opine on world affairs:

Grenell is not the only Russia hawk to step into Trumps orbit recently.

His new national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, holds more moderate views on Islam than his bigoted predecessor Michael Flynn but also has a more adversarial view of Russia. In May, he described the Russian annexation of Crimea as an attempt to collapse the post-World War Two, certainly the post-Cold War, security, economic, and political order in Europe and replace that order with something that is more sympathetic to Russian interests. While Trump has been critical of NATO at one point in early January calling it obsolete McMaster is a strong supporter of the alliance.

Trumps UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has also taken a tough line with Russia during her first month on the job. The dire situation in eastern Ukraine is one that demands clear and strong condemnation of Russian actions, she said of Russian-allied forces there. She also affirmed continued support for U.S. sanctions on Russia that were enacted in response to the annexation of Crimea, saying: The United States continues to condemn and calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine.

Some Russian government officials, including those who were initially openly supportive of Trump, are starting to grow uneasy with the presidents approach, reportedMoscow-based journalist Amie-Ferris Rotman for Foreign Policy.We were too early in our decision, made with absolute sympathy towards President Trumps constructive rhetoric, that he would somehow be pro-Russian,Leonid Slutsky, who is head of the Russian parliaments foreign affairs committee, said in February. But he turned out to be pro-American.

Top photo: A Ukrainian soldier stands at the front line of the ATO operation in Artemovsk, Ukraine, in 2015.

Excerpt from:
Trump Picks Hawkish Critic of Russia as NATO Ambassador, Veering From One Extreme to the Other - The Intercept

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Trump Picks Hawkish Critic of Russia as NATO Ambassador, Veering From One Extreme to the Other – The Intercept