|
|
Will Hurd on Foreign Policy |
Congressional Summary: HR 3326: World Bank Accountability Act: Requires withholding 15% of appropriation if countries borrowing from the World Bank`s International Development Association are not implementing the UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on North Korea. Withholds an additional 15% if the World Bank approved a loan to a country designated by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Statement in support by Rep. French Hill (R-AR-2): The World Bank`s extravagant and unaccountable spending practices have been in conflict with the values of Americans for far too long. This bill helps put an end to sending hard-earned American dollars to despots and corrupt regimes. [We should instead] see these funds used how they were truly intended, which is to help lift individuals out of poverty and put them on the pathway to success.
Statement in opposition by IssueVoter.org: Opponents say that withholding funds may undercut the credibility and leverage the World Bank has to get reforms enacted and implemented. `America`s leadership at the World Bank is `one of the major tools in our soft power arsenal``. If the U.S. cuts obligations too much, it will cede that power.
Statement in opposition by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA-6) on Medium.comJan 22, 2018: H.R. 3326 is taking a hammer approach to a multilateral organization that provides support for millions of people in the world`s most impoverished countries. It is also concerning that this legislation is being considered at a time when the Trump Administration is actively seeking to back away from any and all international organizations. Additionally, the World Bank is already implementing a series of reforms.
Legislative outcome: Jan. 17, 2018 House Bill Passed 237-184 (Roll no. 24); bill died in Senate committee.
Legislative summary: The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act:
Statement in support by Sen. Cruz: Sen. Ted Cruz joined Sen. Marco Rubio in introducing H.R.6210 to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for the use of force labor. `The Chinese Communist Party has transformed Xinjiang into a technological dystopia and a human rights horror,` Sen. Cruz said. `Time and time again from the CCP we see the complete and total disregard for human life and values..`
Statement in opposition in Washington Post: Researchers estimate the Chinese government has placed more than 1 million people into internment camps in Xinjiang. While US law already prevents companies from importing goods that were made using forced labor, the law is seldom enforced. Apple is heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing; alleged forced Uighur labor has been used in Apple`s supply chain. A report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute alleged four instances in which labor from the Xinjiang region has been connected to Apple`s supply chain: In 2017, the Chinese government transferred between 1,000 and 2,000 Uighurs to work at a factory owned by O-Film, which helps make selfie cameras for Apple`s iPhone.
Legislative outcome: Passed House 406 3-22,(2/3 required) Roll no. 196 on 09/22/2020.
The sum and substance of the Democrats` case for impeachment is that President Trump abused his authority to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, President Trump`s potential political rival, for President Trump`s benefit in the 2020 election. Democrats say this pressure campaign encompassed leveraging a White House meeting and the release of U.S. security assistance to force the Ukrainian President to succumb to President Trump`s political wishes.
Even examining evidence beyond the July 25, 2019 presidential phone call shows no quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, or abuse of power. The evidence shows that President Trump holds a deepseated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption. The President has also been vocal about his skepticism of U.S. foreign aid and the need for European allies to shoulder more of the financial burden for regional defense. Understood in this proper context, the President`s initial hesitation to meet with President Zelensky or to provide U.S. taxpayer-funded security assistance to Ukraine without thoughtful review is entirely prudent.
The Democrats` impeachment narrative also ignores President Trump`s steadfast support for Ukraine in its war against Russian occupation. Several of the Democrats` witnesses described how President Trump`s policies toward Ukraine to combat Russian aggression have been substantially stronger than those of President Obama--then under the stewardship of Vice President Biden. Where President Obama and Vice President Biden gave the Ukrainians nightvision goggles and blankets, the Trump Administration provided the Ukrainians with lethal defensive assistance, including Javelin anti-tank missiles.
Democrats say that Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the President`s personal attorney, and a `shadow` group of U.S. officials conspired to benefit the President politically. The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats` witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.
The Democrats nonetheless tell a story of an illicit pressure campaign run by President Trump through Mayor Giuliani, to coerce Ukraine to investigate the President`s political rival by withholding a meeting and security assistance. There is, however, no direct, firsthand evidence of any such scheme. The Democrats are alleging guilt on the basis of hearsay, presumptions, and speculation--all of which are reflected in the anonymous whistleblower complaint that sparked this inquiry. Where there are ambiguous facts, the Democrats interpret them in a light most unfavorable to the President. In the absence of real evidence, the Democrats appeal to emotion--evaluating how unelected bureaucrats felt about the events in question.
The fundamental disagreement apparent in the Democrats` impeachment inquiry is a difference of world views and a discomfort with President Trump`s policy decisions. To the extent that some unelected bureaucrats believed President Trump had established an `irregular` foreign policy apparatus, it was because they were not a part of that apparatus. There is nothing illicit about three senior U.S. officials--each with official interests relating to Ukraine-- shepherding the U.S.-Ukraine relationship and reporting their actions to State Department and NSC leadership. There is nothing inherently improper with Mayor Giuliani`s involvement as well because the Ukrainians knew that he was a conduit to convince President Trump that President Zelensky was serious about reform.