International events

The Awful Libya Mess, Recent Events – Part 3

by Dave

Control of Libya requires securing its export ports, as shown below:

 

Production prior to 2011 was 1,650,000  barrels of oil per day.   In 2016, it was 500,000 barrels per day. There is an enormous wealth created by the export of oil.     With 46 billion barrels of oil, these assets will create income for decades to come.

In late 2016, it looked like the beginnings of a re-unified Libya could become a reality, under the UN Peace Accords.  In concept the accords were to create a new government, the GNA government, based on the Tobruk and Tripoli based governments.    However, this could only become a reality if the Tobruk government,  principally Khalfa Haftar, believed he could not conquer the rest of Libya, and was content with sharing power with the GNA  government in Tripoli.   So, peace depends on Haftar diminished capacity to extend his reach to the west, making peace the best option.

Saudi Arabia swung open its doors to Donald Trump knowing exactly what would appeal to him- deals for more goods and services.  His ego and naivete were on full display, as he took credit for the blockade of Qatar as an extension of this anti-terrorist policies  in his tweets.  It is now spilling over to the Libyan conflict.  The Chairman of the Libyan National Oil Company, in an OpEd article in the New York Times, wrote:

The latest incident was triggered by the recent, sudden souring of relations between Qatar on the one hand and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain on the other. One of the several groups that purport to be Libya’s rightful government is using that dispute as a pretext to seize control of the country’s oil and gas exports: It has accused the National Oil Corporation, the internationally recognized body responsible for managing these resources, of working in the service of Qatar by diverting oil revenues to it via an N.O.C. customer.  I am the N.O.C.’s chairman, and these allegations are false. But they shine a bright light on Libya’s current tragedy. Since the revolution of 2011, the country’s oil and gas resources have been held hostage to both its fractious politics and power struggles in the Middle East.

It is not explicitly stated, but this is a reference to the Tobruk based government.     The Chairman goes on to suggest Libya’s National Oil Company be given more authority to protect it from being involved in the political infighting.

The Tobruk government did not have complete control of Benghazi.  The UAE, in violation of the UN Peace Accords, has supplied Haftar with military equipment to defeat Benghazi Defense Brigades (BDB).   One can see why the UAE would want to shut down Al Jazeera, as they seem to be the only ones with correspondents on the ground to observe the fighting in Benghazi.  According to the article (see links below):

The UN’s Libya Sanctions Committee report, released on Friday [23-Jun-17} , reveals the UAE has supplied attack helicopters and other military aircraft to Haftar’s forces. “The United Arab Emirates have been providing both material support and direct support to LNA, which have significantly increased the air support available to LNA,” said the report by a UN panel of experts.  The report provides rare insight into foreign funding of armed groups in Libya, which many say has exacerbated the conflict.

The US and the EU countries have pledged support to eventual re-unification through the UN efforts.  The selection of an impartial and highly experienced UN Special Envoy to Libya, is typically done through discussions among representatives of the Security Council, and then announced by the Secretary General, after everyone is in agreement.   Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN, rejected the selection of special envoy based on nationality, as she stated on February 11, 2017:

“For too long the U.N. has been unfairly biased in favor of the Palestinian Authority to the detriment of our allies in Israel,” Haley said.

It was a very strange and antagonistic statement.   But, Trump was scheduled to meet with Israel PM Netanyahu at the White House on the following day.    The Secretary-General quickly responded, stating they were interested in the best negotiator for the conflict, irrespective of their country, and neither the Israels nor the Palestinians had any participation in the talks.  Fortunately, another very qualified  special envoy has been selected.   It seemed like Washington politics had meddled in what should have been a routine appointment.  That’s just my opinion.

If the conflict in Libya is seen, not just as the Tobruk-based east government, verses GNA/GNC west side government, but as a larger conflict of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and others verses Qatar, Iran, Turkey and Russia,  where does this leave the US and our allies?

— Human Suffering

The administrative breakdown in Libya has created enormous human suffering.    During Gaddafi’s era,   immigrants received work visas as applied by their sponsors, with set wages  and approved by the government.  This system has broken down, and employers are now taking advantage of workers, charging them for expenses, equal to their wages.

Also, migrants are being lured across the Libyan sounthern boundary  with the false promise of being able to migrate to Europe, only to be sold as slaves or ransomed.   See  BBC link.

— The Path Forward

The only path forward is re-unification through UN Negotiations.   On the Tobruk side, Chief of the Army, Haftar must not be allowed to purchase arms and escalate the war.    The conflict in Libya will only become worse if the US turns a blind eye towards the arming of the Tobruk government by the Saudi supporters.  Washington and the EU need to work jointly on the  the massive refugee problem.

This is a rapidly developing story.   To follow it, it is best to do a Google search on the news.   The latest story to appear, is the release of Saif al-Islam Gadaffi and   some discussion that he could play a some leadership role.  I have very serious doubts.   The areas under control by the various rival groups seems to change regularly.  The New York Times, The Guardian and Al Jazeera seem to be the best sources of information.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

June 24, 2017: Haftar’s forces make gains in Libya’s Benghazi

New York Times: How to Save Libya From Itself? Protect Its Oil From Its Politics, Mustafa Sanalla, Chairman of the Libyan National Oil Company

BBC- I thought I was going to die

TheHill.com Nikki  Haley Rips UN for Picking a Palestinian as Envoy

 

The Paris Accords Exit

by Dave

The announcement will be made at 3:00 pm today (June 1, 2017).    It has been widely rumored that Trump will pull out of the Accords.  The Agreement was a very major step forward in acceptance of a global problem.

CNN outlined three options that Trump has: (1) The Normal Exit- by withdrawing from the Accords by 2020 (2) The Radical  Exit- by withdrawing from the UN organization (UNFCCC) under which the Accords were agreed upon and (3) The non-exit, which Trump simply ignores the provisions of the Accords.

The radical exit is the one supported by conservative groups,  such as the Heritage group.  The coal companies such as Peabody and Cloud Peak Coal, want Trump not to exit the Accords, as this puts the EU in a leadership role in setting targets.

Options

A final option (“death in the legislature” option)  is for Trump to  state the Accord is really a treaty, which must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate.  With the Republican controlled Senate, the treaty would be “dead on arrival.”   This would change the issue to one of Obama overstepping his authority, and Trump might just go for it.

The Paris Agreement is more of an “agreement in principal”  rather than a treaty, as it lacks any penalties for countries who do not reduce their carbon emissions. It is an important first step as it is an  agreement of mutual commitment  to a global problem.   As it is structured,  the US could stay in the Accords,  do nothing to reduce these emissions and not be sanctioned by the UN.

Obama signed the agreement as an Executive Order.  Trump can legally exit the agreement, but has to comply with the set schedule if he wants to do the normal exit.

I predict that many countries will be looking more at the “non-exit” or “non-compliance” option, which means climate change is something leaders of the countries are concerned about, but  nobody does much about it.

This will leave the US as the only one of 193 countries to exit the Accord.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Don’t you worry ’bout a thing

by Dave

Stevie Wonder,  released 1973.

I talked to someone about Trump, and he tells me we are in good hands.  He listens to Fox News and plays golf 3 times a week.   Not a bad life.

There are some real tough questioning coming up on Trump’s cabinet positions.   I guess the most troublesome is our future relations with China.  We can not have a trade war with China, and expect their help in stopping North Korea’s nuclear plans.

I would think there is nothing more urgent than a united front against North Korea.  Trump would be wise to remember that a majority of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, whose campaign slogan was “stronger together.”

There was a great discussion on Fareed Zakaria show (GPS)  with James Baker, saying that what previous republican presidents (Reagan & HW Bush) have favored was free trade agreements, and Trump’s new cabinet tends more towards protectionism.   Baker said Trump as candidate, or now president-elect is not the same as when he actually moves into the White House with the staff making recommendations.

Baker may be right.  He’s not yet our president.  However, the more Trump goes after Mexico stealing our jobs  and their citizens pouring over the border, the more I worry that it’s the same old Trump,  always playing politics with an incoherent foreign policy strategy.

 

Trump – a nightmare for foreign policy

by Dave

Republicans who served under George W. Bush recognized that the US had to play a leadership role in the world.  I like to say, “what goes around, comes around.”

Stronger together- really does work.  Make American Great through insults to our fiends (Mexico) doesn’t work.

Enough.  Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw.  As a Republican I hope to support someone who has the dignity and stature to run to the highest office in the greatest democracy on earth.

Condoleezza Rice,  Former Secretary of State under George W. Bush.

Nicholas Burns was undersecretary of state for political affairs under Bush.  Here is what he said today on CNN:

I hope she’s  [Clinton] going to be the president.  If it’s Donald Trump, I think all bets are off given his unorthodox and I think, very weak and very dangerous views about Russia.  I think we can say with some certainty that Vladamir Putin and the Russian government would like Donald Trump to be elected president because Trump has been denegrating NATo; he’ll make NATPO weaker. He won’t be the strong American leader in Europe that Europeans are accustomed to.  It is clear by their actions and words that the Russians support a Donald Trump candidacy.  Every other European government, and I’ve talked to a lot of them, desperately want Hillary Clinton to be elected because they want stability and a traditional American leader and a leader who is sophisticated enough to know how the US can be effective in that region.

 I think for most Europeans and East Europeans,  Trump is a real danger to them.

Republicans working for President Bush have either remained quiet or turned their back on Trump.  Here’s a sampling:

“If Donald Trump wins, he will, by definition, have created a new template of success for Republicans,” said Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush’s first White House press secretary. “But if he loses, and particularly if he is crushed, it will reset the party back more in the direction of President Bush.”

Because Mr. Trump represents something far greater in the eyes of the Bush veterans than just an unfortunate party nominee, their determination to defeat him has become more intense.

The vast majority of the approximately three dozen veterans of Mr. Bush’s administration contacted for this article indicated that they would not cast a ballot for Mr. Trump.

“I can count on one hand the number of people I worked with who are supporting Trump,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former Bush State Department official who has been calling his onetime colleagues to solicit support for the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.

R. Nicholas Burns :

Nicholas Burns (born January 28, 1956) is a university professor, columnist, lecturer and former American diplomat. He is currently Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and a member of the Board of Directors of the school’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. At the Harvard Kennedy School, he is Director of The Future of Diplomacy Project and Faculty Chair for the programs on the Middle East and India and South Asia. He is Director of the Aspen Strategy Group, Senior Counselor at the Cohen Group and serves on the Board of Directors of Entegris, Inc. He writes a biweekly column on foreign affairs for the Boston Globe and is a senior foreign affairs columnist for GlobalPost.

This I promise you will be my very last post until after the election.   I also will post all comments on these issues.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Trump Lies on the Benghazi

by Dave

Republicans prepared a report  in June 2016 which none of the Democrats supported.  They issued their separate report.   But both Democratic and Republican reports and prior investigations state that the embassy in Benghazi was inadequately protected.  Hillary Clinton agrees with this assessment and as Secretary of State accepted all recommendations made at the time to improve security.  Of course, you are not going to hear this from Trump.

The big lie is that Secretary Clinton did nothing while 4 Americans were killed in Benghazi. Not even the Republican version of the Benghazi has any conclusion remotely similar to this.  The Republican report states it was impossible to save the two lives in the embassy.  The discussion is on the two lives while guarding the CIA annex.    This is all about an attack that lasted a total of 11 minutes.

Here’s the reporting from the New York Times, June 28, 2016:

“The Republican-led committee found no evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton, then the secretary of state.”

What the Republican version did, was to suggest, just possibly, more could have been done militarily to save the two lives and  suggest Leon Panetta and the Department of Defense.   acted too slow.  NYT reports:

 Senior Pentagon officials have consistently said that they were constrained by the “tyranny of time and distance” — that is, that the military could not have sent troops or planes in time to have made a difference.

NYT reports:

Even the report acknowledges the challenges facing the so-called FAST teams: These troops did not have their own planes, which meant delays waiting for flights; did not travel with their own vehicles (they would need to find some in Benghazi when they landed); and were designed to deploy before a crisis hit, not during hostilities.

Essentially, the hypothetical rescue mission would have been sent to save the lives of two servicemen guarding the CIA Annex.  More lives could have been lost in this mission.  And then the Pentagon, Obama, or even Secretary Clinton would have come under serious attack.

Full NYT article

The best summary I’ve seen on Benghazi is from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton- Best Choice for President

by Dave

As President, she will have a lot to deal with.  The most critical will be international policy, with the crises in Syria, being number 1.   Syria is a complex mess, and can only be put back together by cooperation from many countries, including Turkey, Iran and Russia.  Her slogan,  “Stronger Together”,  is the right path forward.

Obama and Bush have never found a way to persuade North Korea’s leader Kim Jung-un to halt his quest for nuclear weapons.   He is truly a scary leader.  Libya is battling ISIS, yet the country still in broken into various factions.

Donald Trump has demonstrated his ineptness with his insulting comments to Mexico.  It doesn’t take much to be friends with Mexico- but he blew it big time.  He seems to start little wars at the drop of a hat.  Even insulting Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz’s father  and many other Republicans.

It is not the time to elect a president who has zero knowledge of diplomacy.  This is not the job who calls our elections rigged when he’s behind in the polls. There is no on-the-job training program.

Vote for Hillary to keep our nation great by working with others to find solutions.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

This election is a total fraud!

by Dave

Ok- did I get your attention?

I’m not talking about the 2016 election here in the US.   I’m going all the way back to 1992, in a very different part of the world,  in the country of Angola in their very first open election since independence from Portugal.

These six words were uttered by  a representative for Jonas Savimbi,  the losing candidate in the Angolan  election in 1992.   I was in Angola, and I understand Portuguese, so as I heard this on national television,  it frighten me.  I knew it was untrue.  The UN had monitored the election, and while there were irregularities, it was, on balance, a fair election.

What came through on that day in 1992, was the intense  anger in place of a concession speech.    Savimbi’s representative blasted away at the government,. declaring the entire election system was rigged.   All election results were false.  To Savimbi’s supporters,  the government had stolen the election.  If someone steals something, the natural reaction is revenge.

Savimbi did not blast away at the election results. He let others do the dirty work  for him.

Lost in all of this was the respect for  the people who worked to make sure fair elections were held in Angola.   The Carter organization had helped to monitor the elections, along with UN monitors.  My friend was one of the election monitors.  It was a dangerous voluntary work.

The trust we have in our election system,  can also be undermined by politics.   Hateful and dishonest rhetoric is dangerous.  Volunteers from the Women League of Voters, help keep our elections fair and honest.

What followed in Angola, was a resumption of a civil war, which lasted until year 2002.   So people died believing in hateful lies.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

 

Greatness and Goodness from the Donald

by Dave

“Most Americans are close to total ignorance about the world. They are ignorant. That is an unhealthy condition in a country in which foreign policy has to be endorsed by the people if it is to be pursued. And it makes it much more difficult for any president to pursue an intelligent policy that does justice to the complexity of the world.”

― Zbigniew Brzeziński

It also means that presidential candidates can run on slogans rather than substance:

Trump’s head-spinning and secret plans for foreign policy

To be honest, I did not listen to Trump’s speech.  I have pointed out in the past, how crazy it would be to punish China for currency manipulations, then to solicit their help in pressuring North Korea to give up their planned nuclear weapons program.

Stay tuned,

 

 

Just another Dilma post!

by Dave

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff is in trouble.   Is she being treated  fairly?  It seems more in line with “kick me when I’m down”  than cleaning up government.  In fact, post Dilma, the government or at least the democratic process might be worse off.

I don’t know any better source than the New York Times, which now provides for free, an online collection of their articles,  bringing together insightful analysis:

New York Times Articles

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

And after Dilma goes?

by Dave

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff isn’t accused of participating in the Lava Jato scandal.   There is zero evidence linking her to this.  Instead, she is accused of allowing  a  misleading presentation of the budget deficit by including funds from state-owned banks. Whether this was illegal will be hotly contested during the impeachment proceedings.  She claims other presidents have presented the budget in this manner. Opponents  claim this helped her win the election.

Brazilian Vice President Michel Temer and  Leader of the Lower House Eduardo Cunha might have something in common-  a desire to  quickly  end  the Lava Jato scandal to save themselves and/or their friends:

Dilma Rousseff’s Impeachment isn’t a coup, it is a cover-up

The conclusion of Brazilian journalist, Celso Rocha de Barros, is that after Dilma, there are a variety of tactics to “declaw”  the investigation.

So, Dilma becomes a scapegoat for all that’s wrong in Brazil, and the music plays on.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Winning

by Dave

Trump hit upon a very simple analogy to politics- sports.  You support your local team.  You don’t say anything good about the New York Yankees if you support the Chicago Cubs.

But Trump’s analogy just doesn’t work in politics.   What gets big results is diplomacy and consistency.  – and that  takes a lot of time and international cooperation.  You can’t slam China one day for currency exchange manipulation  with hostile trade  policies aimed at coercing them into changing, and then the next minute, expect their assistance in an embargo of goods to North Korea.  That’s Trump’s plan apparently.  It really makes no sense.

This “punch them in the mouth and then hug and praise them next , and ask them for a favor”  destroys trust and cooperation.

“To jaw-jaw is always better than war-war” is a famous quote from Winston Churchill.   International cooperation is a buzz word to many, but it is exactly what happens everyday in government.  A lot has happened in the last month that makes me optimistic.

It is not a case of wanting to win,  but how to do it.  The choice is “winning alone” or “winning together.”  The arrests of ISIL terrorists in Belgium made headline news.  But, the capture Khalid Al-Barnawi with Ansaru, a radical terrorist group associated with Boko Haram  in Nigeria and neighboring countries called for celebrations in the street.

“Put your money where your mouth is”, is a great saying.  The US  put a 5 million dollar bounty on Al-Barnawi’s capture.  It is obvious  terrorism doesn’t respect the boundaries of any country.    Boko Haram has caused the death of 17,000 people and caused millions to flee their homes.   Al-Barnawi- may you rest in peace along with your insane and barbarous gang of thugs.

The announcement that China was not going to import coal from North Korea, appears to be another big win for nuclear non-proliferation.  It is part of the UN sanctions against North Korea for their nuclear program.   I suspect a lot of credit goes to John Kerry and Sandra Powers (US Ambassador to the UN) for this  “win” – but it will be a long and frustrating road ahead.  A carrot and stick approach  must be applied and this requires cooperation of the major world powers working within the framework of the UN.  This is why the UN was created,  to resolve disputes without war.  You may get talks going through “stick” policy, but if the carrot isn’t there, nothing will change.    The carrot is a lifting of the sanctions, once North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons program and agrees to highly intrusive inspections.

The US international policy has been to villainize a country to a point, where there is no incentive to change.  The “jaws-jaws” approach has resulted in a better relationship with Cuba- and it was badly overdue. It will take time for many in the US to adjust to the new policy.    Efforts in international cooperation are really bearing fruits, with advances in world health and control of epidemics,  the space exploration and the international  agreements on  climate change.

Mr. Trump should know, the “jaw-jaw”  approach is working.  But, there are no quick wins, or home runs in diplomacy.  Translating talk into action takes time to achieve the necessary unity  and a lot of perseverance.

It is “together wins” not the US wins which will determine the future.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Cuba

by Dave

Many Cuban-Americans feel betrayed.    They wanted the  lifting of sanctions tied to some grand change from the Cuban government.   It didn’t happen.  But nothing the Cuban government could have done would have satisfied many ardent anti-Castro, anti-communism  supporters.

Cubans in Miami will tell you how Fidel destroyed their country and imprisoned their   people trying to reform the government.  Good, hardworking  and honest people went to jail or escaped Cuba.  Those that left Cuba had to  leave all their possessions behind.

According to Wikipedia:

The Republic of Cuba is one of the world’s last remaining socialist countries following the Marxist-Leninist ideology. The Constitution of 1976, which defined Cuba as a socialist republic, was replaced by the Constitution of 1992, which is “guided by the ideas of José Martí and the political and social ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin.”[4] The constitution describes the Communist Party of Cuba as the “leading force of society and of the state”.[4]

It might be in the Constitution, but by all reports, capitalism is far from dead in Cuba.  Increased tourism is creating a new economy.

Those supporters of  sanctions have a point- you can not have democratic reform with a one party system.   The economy was destroyed through government ownership of everything.  Those opposed to the embargo also have a point- this is a 50 year attempt to change Cuba and it  failed.  The other countries in South America and the EU do not support the sanctions.

There is no one more adamant on maintaining sanctions than Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,  representing Miami and Coral Gables, FL.   I have include a link to her speech to Congress below:

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Speech to Congress, March 21, 2016

Actually, this is fairly tame attack on President Obama and his efforts to restore relationships with the Cuban regime.  Some 13 years ago, Cuba included as one  of a handful of countries in the infamous “axis of evil”  which included Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Iran,  North Korea and Libya.  This inclusion was done on in May 2002, by the Undersecretary of State John Bolton, in the Bush Administration warning these rouge states including Cuba,    “state sponsors of terrorism that are pursuing or who have the potential to pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or have the capability to do so in violation of their treaty obligations.”[5]

I think Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen statement  that ‘The image of President Obama in Cuba says ‘no human rights are being violated.’”  is not valid.  Didn’t the Congresswoman see the image of Pope Francis in Cuba in September 2015?  Did that also mean “no human rights are being violated.”  This bit of fiction came  from the mouth of Raul Castro- and not President Obama or Pope Francis.   Was Congresswoman upset when Nixon visited Chairman Mao  in China in 1972, or Gerald Ford in 1975?

I like the Ladies in White (Damas de Blanco) – they are very courageous women.   I want them to succeed. (see description below)  Raul Castro still has many political prisoners.   I don’t think Obama trip hurt their cause and likely helped them. The Castro government was harassing members of this group.  The police were seen tearing down their banner as Obama came to Havana.  They didn’t want the media to film what was on the banner, “Cuba’s dream is Cuba without the two Castros.”  It got reported anyway- and so did Cuba’s harassment of the Ladies in White.

Ladies in White (Spanish: Damas de Blanco) is an opposition movement in Cuba founded in 2003 by wives and other female relatives of jailed dissidents. The women protest the imprisonments by attending Mass each Sunday wearing white dresses and then silently walking through the streets dressed in white clothing.

In the future, it will hurt Raul Castro if he attempts to blame the failure of his government on the embargo and the supposed threat from  the US.  President Obama said in Cuba at the joint press conference with Raul Castro:

I’ve made it clear that the United States has neither the capacity nor the intention to impose change on Cuba. What changes come will depend upon the Cuban people.

We will not impose our political or economic system on you. We recognize that every country, every people must chart its own course and shape its own model. But having removed the shadow of history from our relationship, I must speak honestly about the things that I believe, the things that we as Americans believe.

What has been surprising is how muted the response has been from Republicans.   One would expect former Ambassador John Bolton to be all over Fox News.    Of course,  all Republicans are right now focused on the election, and candidate Trump is not out there blasting Obama for embracing communist Cuba, but just saying he could have cut an even better deal.   About pare for the Donald.  Rubio and Cruz announced they would reverse course.

Rubio and Cruz Skeptical on U.S.-Cuba Relations, Trump Wants to Improve Them

MIAMI – The Republican candidates for the White House, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, both of Cuban origin, would reverse the US openness towards Cuba, undertaken by President Barack Obama, while Donald Trump said that he “would improve it.”

During the twelfth Republican debate in the primaries, held in Miami on Thursday, Rubio, a Florida senator, who needs to win in his state in order to stay alive in the race, claimed that the new US policy toward Cuba is “an unrewarded exchange,” adding that Cuba “has not taken a single change in human rights.”

“I would love the relationship between Cuba and the United States to change. But today, Cuba has not changed,” Rubio said.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz said he would reverse the diplomatic relationship steps taken by Obama with Havana, just as he would reverse other steps taken by Obama’s government, like the Iran nuclear deal.

Trump when asked the same question said he believes that “50 years is enough” referring to the embargo imposed on the island, but noted that he would like to “improve the agreement”, however without delving into details.

Latin American Herald Tribune detailing comments made during the last debate.

Rand Paul with his Libertarian leanings thought the lifting of the embargo might be a good for Cuba.   Libertarians believe in less federal government interference abroad.

So,  Trump is being really clever. It is his answer to almost anything. Elect me, and I’ll have this wonderful deal I’ve negotiated with the Cuban government.   American will be great again.  (Applause sign).   Note that international support for the embargo has pretty much gone.

So  the real problem with what Representative Ros-Lehtinen is saying, is not her characterization of Cuba today, but whether to use the whip or carrot to move the cart forward.  After 50 years,  the carrot seems far more productive

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Attack on ISIL in Libya

by Dave

The town of Sabratha, just outside of Tripoli to the west,  would easily rank as one of the top 10 places I would want to visit in by lifetime.  It isn’t on many people’s list, and certainly not today, after the occupation of the town by ISIL.

Sabratha

It has beautiful beaches and well preserved Roman theatre.   But as reported on Feb 19, 2016, US warplanes have put a serious dent in ISIL’s plans by hitting a training camp.

US Daily News

Good.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Intervention in Libya

by Dave

The latest news is that the British will send 1,000 troops to defend Benghazi in Libya against ISIL  This is excellent news.  I predict the Libyans will defeat the eastward advance of ISIL.

According to the “The Times” (a UK newspaper):

“Downing Street and the Pentagon are in talks to persuade Libya to take at least 1,000 British troops to bolster its forces in the battle with Isis, whose coastal stronghold is just 200 miles from Europe.”

So, the rationale for deployment is not to save Libya, but to keep ISIL terrorists from coming to Europe as refuges, to create more chaos in European cities.  I would rather intervention  be based on humanitarian reasons, but c’est la vie.

The role of these troops is to support the Libyan army, as advisers or trainers.  It is an attempt to put boots on the ground, but keep them away  from the front lines.   It may appear  the Europeans and the US are helping to support the Tobruk government over the Tripoli government- a very tricky situation.  I am certain that as Britain and others ally with the Libyans against jihadists, they don’t want to become enmeshed into the civil conflict.

Stay tuned,

Dave