The U.S. As Muscle-Bound Giant

Why The U.S. Struggles to Come to Grips with the U.N.’s Gun Control Program, Forbes, July 12, 2018. "The most fundamental U.S. difficulty is that, in most U.N. venues, the U.S. is permanently on the defensive: the best we can do is to limit our losses. I would love to take the offensive, to come up with proposals that we can back and to force others to react to them, instead of us being forced to always react to the idiotic proposals of others."

Not Change, But Who's In Charge

Liberals Speak, A Conservative Responds, Newsday, July 11, 2014. "Just before the 4th of July, the Pew Research Center released a fascinating study of Americans' political beliefs, dividing them into seven categories from "steadfast conservatives" to "solid liberals." But what separates liberals and conservatives isn't always what they believe. It's why they believe."

Nice Work, If You Can Buy it

How To Become a U.S. Ambassador, Newsday, July 19, 2013. "Last week, President Barack Obama appointed a new ambassador to the Court of St. James's (most of us call it Britain). It's our most prestigious diplomatic post. It also had a "for rent" sign on it: the new ambassador, Matthew Barzun, was the chief fundraiser for Obama's re-election campaign."

A Fog of UN Code Words

On the Rhetoric of the United Nations and the United States, Contentions, March 20, 2013. "Sitting in the back of the room as the UN’s member states negotiate the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a disorientating experience. That’s partly because it’s not a negotiation as Americans understand the term: it’s a series of more or less unconnected national interventions on particular points of interest, while the actual drafting happens out of sight. It’s also because Iran and North Korea are treated with at least as much formal respect as the United States and South Korea."

Pre-Debate Post on US Role in the World

Debate Prep: The U.S. Role in the World, Heritage Foundation Foundry, October 22, 2012. "At the Heritage Foundation, we agree on the centrality of American leadership. But leadership is just a word: anyone can say that they believe in it. To be real and effective, leadership needs to be backed up by priorities, by policies, by budgets, and by the strength of the nation. And that is a good place to start."

How Must America Practice Diplomacy?

How Must America Practice Diplomacy?, Heritage Foundation, Understanding America Series, Essay Number Six, March 3, 2011. "The purpose of American diplomacy never changes: It is to secure the national interests of the United States. The fundamental American interest is to ensure that America remains independent and governed by the American people."

Fantasies and Realities in International Relations

Fear Rules In The Nations Where Politics Is A Blood Sport Played Out In Real Blood, Yorkshire Post, February 15, 2011. "Yet the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, should remind us of one simple truth. The leaders of these countries, like autocrats around the world, were afraid. The autocrats are not just afraid of Western military power, though that does scare them. Nor are they simply afraid of freedom, though they know that if it triumphs, they will have lost. Nor are they worried about losing elections, for the simple reason that they never hold an honest one. They are afraid of their own people."

Reforming the Treaty Process

If We Care About American Exceptionalism, It’s Time to Reform Our Treaty Processes, Conservative Home USA, January 19, 2010. "As an exceptional nation that values its sovereignty, the United States has much to gain from the practice of responsible diplomacy. After all, diplomacy was invented to allow sovereign states to interact and negotiate. Unfortunately, responsible diplomacy is at risk."

Defense Is Not Just About Defense Spending

The Defense Budget Is Not Just About Numbers, ConservativeHome, December 16, 2010. "There has been quite a bit of public debate about whether the defense budget should be cut along with the rest of the government as we get our deficit under control. This debate usually begins at the wrong end of the argument. The U.S. spends money on its armed forces in order to fulfill the Constitutionally-mandated requirement to provide for the common defense, and because, like all democracies, it has interests it seeks to advance. These interests are not simply material: because the U.S. was founded on the belief that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal, our interests are defined, in part, by our values. Before critics blindly take a hacksaw to the defense budget, they should explain exactly how they propose to defend America’s citizens, interests, and values by spending less, or spell out precisely which of those responsibilities they plan to abandon."

The Flawed Ottawa Convention

The Ottawa Mine Ban Convention: Unacceptable on Substance and Process, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2496, December 13, 2010. "By announcing a review of U.S. landmine policy, the Obama Administration has reopened the possibility that the U.S. could become a party to the fatally flawed Ottawa Convention, which bans the use of all anti-personnel landmines. Such a ban applied to the U.S. would seriously degrade the ability of the U.S. to defend itself and its allies, particularly in Korea. Furthermore, the very process by which the convention was created is objectionable because it undermines responsible diplomacy and the sovereignty of the United States and other nation-states. The U.S. should shun the Ottawa Convention and the associated process, and instead pursue reasonable arms control through serious diplomacy."

My Take on Wikileaks

Forget About Leaks, The Real Problem is Slipshod Diplomacy, Yorkshire Post, December 8, 2010. "If you work in the government, and you disagree with a policy, you have only two honorable choices: follow the policy and keep your mouth shut, or resign and speak out. Over the past decade, U.S. officials – and in particular the State Department and the intelligence services – have cultivated a third way, an ethic of irresponsible leaking."

CIFTA, Again

CIFTA: More Than A Bad Treaty, National Security Policy Proceedings, vol. 3, Fall 2010. "My subject today is the CIFTA Convention, which has been negotiated under the auspices of the Organization of American States (OAS). CIFTA, in turn, is a Spanish abbreviation for the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.” CIFTA is a bad treaty, but it is not simply a bad treaty. It raises three broader issues about the process and purpose of U.S. diplomacy that we should all be concerned about."

George Washington, First Principles, and Foreign Policy

Yes, the Founding Fathers Have Foreign Policy First Principles, Heritage Foundation Foundry, August 26, 2010. "James Downie, standing in for Jonathan Chait at The New Republic, believes that The Heritage Foundation’s view of the relationship between first principles and foreign policy is wrong, and contrary to George Washington’s vision. Inevitably, he seeks to prove his point by quoting Washington’s Farewell Address. His case would be even less persuasive if he’d read a little more, or a little more thoroughly."

The Rule of the People and Foreign Policy

First Princples and Foreign Policy, Heritage Foundation Foundry, Augsut 24, 2010. "One common way of thinking about foreign policy is that it exists in its own world, separate from domestic policy or the first principles on which a nation is founded. According to this view , the job of the foreign policy expert is to deal dispassionately with the world as it is, making no distinction between democracies and dictatorships, and shaping policy solely by cold-hearted consideration of the national interest. The Heritage Foundation has never accepted this way of thinking."

Adminstration Still Backs CIFTA and ATT

Confused Administration Keeps Pushing Conventional Arms Treaties, Heritage Foundation Foundry, August 23, 2010. "The State Department has posted a speech by Ann K. Ganzer, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Threat Reduction, Export Controls, and Negotiations. Delivered on August 4 at the South American Conference on Interdiction and Regional Security of Small Arms & Light Weapons, Ganzer’s speech sheds valuable light on the Administration’s intentions on several treaties, including the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty, and reveals serious contradictions and flaws in the Administration’s position."

The Arms Trade Treaty PrepCom Concludes

As Arms Trade Treaty Meeting Concludes, U.S. Frustrations Grow, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 23, 2010. "The Preparatory Committee for the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty is nearing the end of its second and final week of meetings. The Preparatory Committee is not engaged in negotiating a treaty, but in defining what should be included in the treaty when it is negotiated. As a result, many of the statements by the participating states are very general. But enough has been said to show that the Obama Administration’s decision to participate only on the basis of “consensus”—which it justified as a way to ensure that the final treaty is satisfactory—was ill-advised."

UN's 'Programme of Action' on Small Arms

As the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty Process Begins, U.N.’s “Programme of Action” on Small Arms Shows Its Dangers, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2969, July 20, 2010. "In 2001, the United Nations created the “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” (PoA). The PoA is not a treaty. Rather, it is a mechanism for encouraging voluntary cooperation. The fourth biennial meeting on the PoA took place June 14–18, 2010. In 2008, the U.N. Secretary-General stated that the PoA’s results as of that date were not “substantive.” As a voluntary mechanism, the PoA posed few dangers and offered the hope of modest gains in cooperation to address illicit arms trafficking. The 2010 biennial meeting demonstrated that these hopes are unlikely to be fulfilled. The better facets of the PoA are being weakened, while its worst aspects are receiving additional emphasis. The United States should not yet withdraw from the PoA, but it should watch the PoA with care and be ready to withdraw if its unacceptable drift continues. This drift should be a warning to the U.S. as it embarks on the treaty process for the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty."

U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Preparatory Committee Convenes

Danger Ahead: The U.N. Begins Work on the Arms Trade Treaty, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 13, 2010. "Beginning this week, and running through July 23, the United Nations will hold back-to-back meetings of the Preparatory Committee for the Arms Trade Treaty. The Preparatory Committee will discuss the content of the treaty, in advance of a meeting of the Conference in 2012 to finalize the treaty and open it for ratification."

The 2010 Preparatory Committee for the Arms Trade Treaty

The 2010 Preparatory Committee for the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Five Dangers the U.S. Must Avoid, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2953, July 8, 2010. "On July 12–23, the United Nations will hold back-to-back meetings of the Preparatory Committee for the Arms Trade Treaty. This process poses five serious dangers that the U.S. should avoid. If the U.S. does not do so, any arms trade treaty that comes into existence will pose a threat to U.S. liberties, to American interests, and to effective and serious diplomacy."

Harold Koh and the Enforcement of Human Rights Treaties, Part 2

Harold Koh and the End of Human Rights, Redux, New Ledger, April 26, 2009.