Tuesday, November 24, 2020

James Patterson Reviews Letter on Ukraine from President Barack Obama

 September 15, 2014

The White House, Washington

Dear James:

Thank you for writing. My Administration continues to be deeply concerned by ongoing events in Ukraine, and I appreciate hearing from you.

Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, its attempted annexation of Crimea, and its support for violent separatists constitute a threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. These actions violate international law, including Russia’s obligations under the United Nations Charter. Russia’s intervention is also inconsistent with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which the United States, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom committed to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders. The United States reaffirms this commitment to the Ukrainian government and the people of Ukraine, and we condemn Russia’s failure to abide by its commitments as demonstrated by its unilateral military actions and its continuing efforts to destabilize Ukraine.

Russia’s actions undermine the foundation of the global security architecture and endanger European peace and security. Its support, encouragement, training, and arming of separatists in eastern Ukraine led to the senseless shootdown of Malaysia Airlines flight 17 and the sudden and tragic loss of nearly 300 innocent lives. As I have said from the very beginning of this crisis, we want to see a negotiated solution, and I have urged President Putin to work constructively with President Poroshenko and the international community to reach a lasting settlement to the conflict. However, as long as Russia continues to take steps to destabilize its neighbor, we will continue to take the necessary steps to respond to its ongoing provocations.

Through sanctions, we have imposed significant costs on Russia. And we have told Russia in no uncertain terms that any crossing of the Ukrainian border, without the formal, express consent of the Ukrainian government would violate international law and lead to Russia’s further isolation from the international community.

America will continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to affirm its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we will provide assistance and the best expertise available to help Ukraine repair its economy and address humanitarian needs. It is up to the Ukrainian people to determine their own destiny. As they work to restore unity, peace, and security to their country and build a more democratic, prosperous, and just state, we will stand by their side.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
Visit WhiteHouse.gov

James Patterson note: I've celebrated Ukraine Independence Day, August 24, with Ukrainians in California and Washington, DC! These were always solemn and inspiring for me. Obama/Biden failed Ukraine. 

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

James Patterson and Breaking Point The War for Democracy in Ukraine


July 15, 2016 


 Dear Jim,


Thank you so much!  This is wonderful.  I have edited slightly for length: 


111 years after the sailor’s mutiny aboard the Russian battleship Potemkin and 90 years after Soviet film director’s Sergei Eisenstein’s monumental film comes the epic documentary BREAKING POINT: The War for Democracy in Ukraine.  The decision by Ukrainians to pursue prosperity with Europe brought on Russian aggression and illegal annexation of Crimea.  In both films men and women seeking peace and freedom confront brutality and death.


Battleship Potemkin is famous for its depiction of Russian troops gunning down ordinary citizens on the Odessa Steps.  The filmmakers of BREAKING POINT similarly bring the audience unflinchingly close to images of the war unleashed by Russia, using startling documentary footage and emotional interviews with participants to make us feel that “We Are There”.


Free societies value a people’s right to peaceful protest and self-determination.  It is a rare film that can demonstrate these democratic values and can inspire people suffering from oppression.  BREAKING POINT shows courageous Ukrainians striving to live as a free people in peace and prosperity, in a world ruled by laws, not by gun, tank or bomb.


James Patterson is a Life Member of the American Foreign Service Association.  He has received many assignments in Europe and Asia.  His writing has been published in the Foreign Service Journal, Epoch Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Examiner, In These Times, The Hill, Berkeley Daily Planet and San Jose Mercury News.


Let me know if it's all right to identify you on the website this way.  



Thanks again for writing this up so quickly!


Paul Wolansky, Co-Writer, Co-Producer

BREAKING POINT: The War for Democracy in Ukraine

See 
http://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/breaking-point-the-war-for-democracy-in-ukraine/


Monday, August 17, 2020

James (Jim) Patterson Redirects Readers.

 This site is no longer maintained by Mr. Patterson. He posts his work on his LinkedIn page. See

https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-patterson-474002a8/ He has a Facebook Page at Foriegn Service Career Coach. 


James Patterson Group

Washington, D.C. 

August 2020


 

Friday, February 21, 2020

Jim Patterson on U.S. Sanctions on Members of Iran's Guardian Council










U.S. sanctions clerics in Iran over election
Matthew Lee,  ASSOCIATED PRESS February 21, 2020

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration on Thursday ratcheted up pressure on Iran by slapping sanctions on top members of a powerful clerical body that disqualified thousands of candidates from running in that country’s parliamentary elections.

A day before Iranians go to the polls, the administration imposed sanctions on two senior officials of the Guardian Council, including its chief and three members of its elections supervisory committee. Officials said those targeted were responsible for silencing the voice of the Iranian people by rejecting more than 7,000 candidates. See endnote 1.

The penalties announced by the State and Treasury departments include freezes on any assets the five may have in U.S. jurisdictions, or that they try to move through the U.S. banking system. Also, Americans are barred from doing business with them. It was not immediately clear if the sanctions would have any practical effect, but Brian Hooks, the U.S. special envoy for Iran, said it’s important to highlight the role of clerics who are not widely known outside Iran. Endnote 2. 

Thursday’s announcement was the latest move in the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure campaign” against Iran that began after the president withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 nuclear deal and began to re-impose sanctions that had been eased under that accord.

Barely a week goes by without new sanctions. U.S. officials have said the campaign will continue until Iran changes its behavior.

The five Iranians targeted Thursday “have denied the Iranian people free and fair parliamentary elections,” Hook told reporters. “Together these five officials oversee a process that silences the voice of the Iranian people, curtails their freedom and limits their political participation.”

Those targeted include the chief of the council, Ahmad Jannati, and senior member Mohammad Yazdi. Jannati, 92, is a hard-line cleric who once supported former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yazdi is another influential member of the council who served as the Iran’s judiciary chief in the 1990s. The sanctions also affect Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, the council’s spokesman.

Endnote 1. An estimated 12,000 candidates, nearly 60% were disqualified because, among other excuses, their faith was not consistent with the Supreme Leader. Average age in Iran is 32. I assume the 7,000 candidates rejected were young Iranians, many are pledging not to vote. 

Endnote 2. I agree it is important for Americans and the world to know the names of these human rights abusers. It's important also to know the ages of these guys. Yazdi is 88; I do not have an estimate on Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei.  


Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Jim Patterson and Vice President Mike Pence



Jim Patterson, left, with Vice President Mike Pence, Washington, D.C.


Ukraine, Iran and Trump
James Patterson 

At a recent Washington meeting, Vice President Mike Pence and I talked about several current issues, including the Trump administration’s economic sanctions against Iran, Democrat California Rep. Adam Schiff’s secret impeachment hearings, Ukraine, and the administration’s enforcement of laws against international financial crimes.

Iran recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Iranians blame the U.S. for supporting the Shah of Iran until he was overthrown by revolutionaries. The Shah died in exile in Egypt in 1980.

Former President Barack Obama endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran to control nuclear production. This “Iran deal” was never authorized by Congress and Iran was never in technical compliance with Obama’s deal. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said the JCPOA was a “disaster” and pledged to withdraw from it once he was elected. President Trump fulfilled his promise.

Since President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, Iran has advanced meddlesome military adventurism including seizing oil tankers in international waters, using drones to hit Saudi Arabian petroleum refineries, and actively destabilizing the government of Yemen. Iran’s extreme and hostile actions appear designed to draw the Trump administration into a conflict.

President Trump has successfully practiced steady diplomacy with increasingly hard economic sanctions aimed at discouraging Iran from military conflict. How long this can last is anyone’s guess. In recent days, Iran has expressed a desire to improve relations with Saudi Arabia. This represents progress. Whether this is real progress, is another matter.

Vice President Pence told me that he feels the sanctions are the right economic tools to use against Iran and he estimates their economy has shrunk by as much as 10 percent due to sanctions. Various news sources, including CNBC, agree the Iranian economy is suffering due to sanctions.

President Donald Trump is not worried he will be impeached, the Vice President said. Neither is the Republican controlled U.S. Senate or Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is trading at records highs.

Readers know I served at the Republican National Committee during the House impeachment of Bill Clinton. The House impeached Clinton for sodomizing Monica Lewinsky and lying about it under oath. Clinton was disbarred. The U.S. Senate, under Democratic control, acquitted Clinton with an important vote against impeachment by then-Senator Joe Biden.

Rumor is that President Trump may watch and tweet (Tweet Watch) the televised House Impeachment Hearings. Trump considers impeachment a joke and he is readying to get laughs at the expense of the comical Congressman Adam Schiff and, very likely, millions of votes. Schiff is no match for Donald Trump. I believe the identity of the government whistleblower should be disclosed to the public. President Trump and the American people need to see and hear the whistleblower.  

In 1991, Ukraine gained independence when the Soviet Union collapsed. It has struggled and openly sought political and economic alliances with Europe. This angered Russia’s Vladimir Putin and he invaded the Ukraine and annexed Crimea. See http://www.breakingpointfilm.com/ for information on Ukraine’s fight for democracy and statements former Ukrainian Ambassador Bill Miller and I made about the documentary.

Ukraine asked the Obama administration for military aid to fight the Russian invasion. Cowardly Obama and cowardly Secretary of State John Kerry shamefully turned their backs on Ukraine. President Trump provided the vital U.S. government assistance, including financial aid, that Ukraine needed.

After European intervention, Ukraine began to stabilize. Then came former Vice President Joe Biden who allegedly intervened to aid a corporation on which his son Hunter was a board member. In the final years of the Obama administration, Washington had no greater influence peddler than Joe Biden. From the looks of things, Biden was also engaged in international influence peddling in China, and Romania, as well as Ukraine.  

Joe Biden is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Due to his age, questions about his mental status, and a strong field of younger and brighter candidates, I do not believe Biden will be on the November 2020 ballot.

Financial crimes are among the largest growing criminal activity and U.S. citizens are targeted by international criminals. Insist that Washington take more steps to combat financial crimes like money laundering, and tax evasion.

Vice President Pence was the campaign trail for Republicans prior to the Nov. 5 elections in Mississippi, Kentucky, Virginia and elsewhere. He is ready for the Main Event: Trump/Pence 2020! If you support President Trump, write your friends in other states and tell them of your support and ask them to vote Trump/Pence 2020!

-30-
Writer/Speaker Jim Patterson is a member of Alabama’s State Society in Washington, D,C.  JEPDiplomat@gmail.com

Jim Patterson is a member of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations and Friend of the Israeli Defense Forces.


I mailed President Trump a copy of my recent New York Post, Letter to the Editor.


Saturday, November 2, 2019

Jim Patterson Commentary on Global Political Advertising By Social Media Re: San Francisco Chronicle Editorial

San Francisco Chronicle Nov. 2, 2019
EDITORIAL On Political Advertising

A social network disconnect


This fall, Facebook announced that the company wouldn’t fact-check advertisements from politicians, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has faced a tsunami of political and media criticism ever since.

On Wednesday, he faced the most interesting rebuke so far — from one of his peers.

“We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally,” tweeted Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey. “We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.”

Dorsey went on to explain what he believed to be the difference between free expression and political advertising: “Paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle,” he wrote.

He added that it was “not credible” for Twitter to say that it was working hard to stop people from “gaming our systems,” but that they “can say whatever they want” should they pay Twitter for a targeted ad.

Both statements were a clear swipe at Zuckerberg, who has insisted that Facebook’s policy is about democratic free speech, and that the company’s investments in election security are working to prevent bad actors from spreading misinformation on the platform. (Dorsey certainly drove the point home by making his announcement just a few minutes ahead of Facebook’s quarterly earnings call.)

It’s certainly entertaining to watch two tech titans duke it out in the court of public opinion, but this battle is bigger than both of them.

Political misinformation on social media platforms warped the 2016 presidential election. In the years since then, technological improvements in artificial intelligence and “deep fake” video have increased the sophistication of misinformation campaigns, while inaction on Capitol Hill and loopholes in platform policy have ensured that bad actors will continue finding ways to deceive voters.

The landscape is complicated, and there are no easy answers.

Zuckerberg’s refusal to engage with the realities of political propaganda and platform responsibility is sophomoric and dangerous. Free speech is not the same thing as paid speech. Neither is the same as misinformation. It’s galling enough that Facebook has chosen to profit from the latter; pretending that it’s doing so for the good of the republic is simply outrageous.

Hundreds of Facebook’s own employees agree — in a letter they recently sent to Zuckerberg, they wrote “this policy has the potential to continue to cause harm in coming elections around the world,” and urged him to hold political ads to the same standards as other ads. Vocal internal dissent is relatively rare at Facebook. The public opposition of both employees and competitors should encourage Zuckerberg to reconsider this decision — ideally as soon as possible.

But Dorsey’s approach carries risks of its own. How will Twitter judge what kind of advertising should be labeled political? Could the policy have a disproportionate impact on advocates for social causes, or new candidates seeking to challenge incumbents?

When an increasing number of issues carry political overtones, simply banning political advertising is a more complex task than it may first appear.

-30-

Jim Patterson comment: I agree with Jack Dorsey that “Paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle.” I'd substitute "global political infrastructure" for "democratic infrastructure." If an entity, such as a Communist government, can control elections around the world, and I believe they continue to do so, then Social Media could lead to increased Communist influence and, possibly, domination. This should alarm everyone. Those seeking to use social media platforms, like Twitter, for political misinformation campaigns will work to find ever more subtle ways to influence political systems and gain broader control. 

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Jim Patterson Reports on the 40th Anniversary of the Iran Hostage Crisis


Diplomat James (Jim) Patterson at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Washington DC. 


Lecture: Iran Hostage Crisis 40th Anniversary Panel Discussion
Woodrow Wilson Center, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Washington DC Oct. 31, 2019

Panelists:

Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow and Director of the Brookings Intelligence Project and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy.

Dr. Suzanne Maloney, Deputy Director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution and a Senior Fellow in the Brookings Center for Middle East Policy.

Malcolm Byrne, Deputy Director and Research Director at the National Security Archive.

Moderator: Haleh Esfandiari, Wilson Center.

Reporter: James Patterson, former U.S. diplomat, life member American Foreign Service Association and member Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations.

Background: On November 4, 1979, Iranian students charged the U.S. Embassy Tehran and took hostage 52 American diplomats and citizens. For Iranian, the crisis was hailed as an act to stem U.S. subversion of the Iranian Revolution. U.S. President Jimmy Carter called it a terrorist act. The resulting diplomatic standoff lasted 444 days and damaged the institution of the U.S. presidency and the U.S. global reputation.

The rift in U.S.-Iranian relations deepened after multiple negotiations failed to win freedom for he Americans. On January 19, 1981, the U.S. and Iranian governments signed the Algiers Accords, which resolved the crisis. All Americans were released on Jan. 20, 1981 after the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on possibly using the U.S. military to free the hostages. 

Now, 40 years later, the Iran Hostage Crisis is a defining moment in U.S.-Iranian relations. To mark the anniversary of this important chapter in American Foreign Relations history, a panel discussed how the Crisis is viewed today and how it continues to play a role in U.S. foreign policy.

Summary: Byrne cited three reasons for the Iranian hostage crisis: (1) S.Res.164 — 96th Congress (1979-1980) detailing Iran's human rights abuses. Iran singled out Jewish New York Senator Jacob Javits and claimed the U.S. and Israel were lying and interfering in their internal affairs. (2) The deposed Shah of Iran entered the U.S. for cancer treatment in October 1979. Ambassador Bruce Laingen wrote if the Shah was allowed entry to the U.S. it would have serious consequences to U.S.-Iran relations. On October 20, 1979, President Carter allowed the Shah entry urged, Byrne said, by "[former Secretary of State Dr.] Henry Kissinger and the Rockefellers." (Editor note: Interestingly, Byrne cited only Republicans as favoring the Shah entering the U.S. Later, Byrne said they did Carter and the Nation a great disservice for pleading on behalf of the Shah.) Finally, an “infamous” meeting between President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (1977-1981) and Iran’s revolutionary counterpart which elevated the international importance of the Revolutionaries as official leaders of Iran. Many foreign policy historians consider this a huge diplomatic mistake.  

Byrne mentioned the 2012 US film “Argo,” set in Tehran during the hostage crisis when several Americans, who were not in the U.S. embassy when it was stormed, escaped with help of Canadian diplomats and film crew. I asked him if he considered the film’s message to be accurate. He implied it played with the facts and Riedel agreed. Film also falsely dramatized CIA involvement in Iran. Riedel said the film's final chase scene never happened and the 'film crew" sailed through the airport to safety. 

Maloney gave historical perspective on Iran’s internal politics and the Iranian impressions of the U.S. and its relations with the Shah without regard to the Iranian people. (Editor note: This view despite the aforementioned S. Res. on human rights abuses in Iran.)

Riedel acknowledged that Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States due to the Iran hostage crisis and the national image that the U.S. was helplessly adrift. (Ed note; Carter had a great Secretary of State Cy Vance, but Brzezinski had greater control of Carter. The Vance- Brzezinski debate conflicted Carter for months and caused U.S. inaction and projected an image of U.S. as powerless in the world.)

Riedel said Reagan used psychology to influence Iran to release the hostages. Iranians called Reagan a “fascist cowboy.” It appeared to Iran that Reagan, unlike Carter, would eagerly take military action to release the hostages.  Further, Iran had gotten “everything it wanted diplomatically” from the U.S. in the Algiers Accords which ended economic sanctions and resumed trade. Thus, Iran no longer had an incentive to hold the Americans hostage and released them in Jan. 1979. President Reagan dispatched former President Carter to greet the Americans in Germany.

In conclusion:  This was an excellent panel discussion on an important and policy making historical chapter in American Foreign Relations History. The Iran Hostage Crisis led President Carter to make The Carter Doctrine, a policy he proclaimed in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force, if necessary, to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf. Since then the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf has dramatically increased.

Special Note: Ambassador Bruce Laingen, aged 96, died July 15, 2019. He was held hostage 444 days. I recommend his book, "Yellow Ribbon." RIP 


-30-

Writer and speaker James Patterson is a contributor to Foreign Service Journal, The Hill and TheHill.com, Agricultural Historical Society, and a commentator on Al Jazeera US, CNBC.COM and others. JEPDiplomat@gmail.com