How Trump Sees the World     

“It’s clear that the concept of a ‘rules-based international order’ is anathema to Mr. Trump. After all, following rules may force you to do something you don’t want to and may impose short-term costs on your country. Mr. Trump seems to think the current rules don’t promote America’s long-term interests.”

“His aim, it seems, is to maximize his freedom of action at all times. This explains why he is inclined to see alliances as burdens. Bringing your allies along with you takes time, patience and compromise. It constrains your will. Why bother? Better to deal one-on-one with friend and foe alike.”

“Binding commitments also constrain the will. Mr. Trump apparently believes deals should be revisable when they become inconvenient. You can negotiate the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement with your southern and northern neighbors and then slap huge tariffs on them. That was then, this is now.”

“Mr. Trump’s approach to foreign policy is amoral—a relentless pursuit of self-interest. Appeals to principles leave him cold, as do international relationships based on ‘shared values.’ His instincts leave him unable to understand why so many people on both sides of the Atlantic are committed to an alliance of Western democracies against the rising tide of antidemocratic forces.”

“Indeed, it’s not clear that Mr. Trump prefers democracy to autocracy. He has praised autocratic leaders—Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, even Kim Jong Un. He admires their strength and envies their ability to act without pesky legislators and critical reporters.”

“Strength and weakness replace right and wrong in Mr. Trump’s lexicon. What matters most is leverage. If you have it, use it to the hilt. If you don’t, you must settle for what you can get. The merits of your position don’t matter.”

“Speaking of strength: Mr. Trump evidently believes that there are three great powers—China, Russia and the U.S.—and that establishing satisfactory relations among them takes priority over collateral damage to smaller countries. The idea is to return to ‘spheres of influence’: Ukraine and the ‘near abroad’ for Russia, and Panama, Canada and Greenland for the U.S.”

“And what for China? In the ‘great powers’ context, it’s not surprising that Elbridge Colby, Mr. Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy, told the Journal that although the U.S. should be prepared to defend Taiwan, the island ‘isn’t itself of existential importance to America.’ And as Chinese pressure on the Philippines intensifies, I wonder whether Mr. Trump will honor America’s longstanding mutual-defense treaty with Manila.”

“What is of existential importance, it seems, is economics. Mr. Trump’s view is that just about every country is ‘ripping us off’ in trade. The size of the trade deficit is proof; never mind what economists say causes it. Our allies are ripping us off in defense as well. Helping them defend themselves, he thinks, costs the U.S. without attendant benefits. Mr. Trump knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.”

========================

Galston, The Zelensky Spat Shows Us How Trump Sees the World, W.S.J. (Mar. 4, 2025).

 

 

 

 

Columnist Says U.S. Economic Problems May Be Reason for Trump’s Downfall   

Nicholas Kristof, a New York Times columnist, says that “what may impede Trump and preserve American democracy is not popular revulsion at the historic damage that he is doing to America but rather alarm at the myriad banal impacts on our daily lives because of Trumpian mismanagement.”

“Trump’s tariffs, even if partly delayed, presumably will raise consumer prices and hurt the financial markets and thus our retirement savings; they will create a mess of supply chains for manufacturing goods. One gauge of what to expect: The latest estimate from the Atlanta Federal Reserve is an astonishing 2.4 percent decline in American G.D.P. in the first quarter of 2025.”

“What’s more, Republicans are now apparently preparing to slash Medicaid to pay for continued tax cuts for the rich. . . [The] federal government would be providing less money to pay for health care for the roughly 72 million Americans on Medicaid. The essential reality is that the plan appears to cut health care for the poorest Americans so that the richest Americans can get a big tax cut — and this is not just morally outrageous but also politically fraught.”

When federal employees who are discharged “are health workers at a V.A. hospital, patients will notice. When they manage agriculture programs, farmers will notice.”

“In Western states, we’re already fearful of the ways the Trump cuts will hamstring firefighting during the next fire season.”

“In short, Trump-Musk incompetence and recklessness may — just may — discredit the vandals in Washington and rein them in.”

============================

Kristof, The Thing That  Could Be Trump’s Undoing, N.Y. Times (Mar. 8, 2024).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington Post’s Criticism of Trump’s Tariffs

A Washington Post editorial voices criticism of Trump’s policy and comments about tariffs.

“The market never lies. It is often mistaken, as it was during the post-election honeymoon, when investors seemed to assume Donald Trump didn’t really mean it about tariffs. But it always tells you exactly what it thinks.”

“Right now, it is thinking that the stiff tariffs Trump has imposed will cost American companies, and the economy, dearly. Markets have plummeted since Trump announced new levies on Canada, Mexico and China, erasing nearly all gains since his election. The president might think that “trade wars are good, and easy to win,” but investors disagree.”

“In this, they reflect not only the consensus among economists but also the realities facing American businesses and consumers.”

“’Customers are pausing on new orders as a result of uncertainty regarding tariffs,’ a transportation equipment company reported. ‘The incoming tariffs are causing our products to increase in price,’ a machinery manufacturer said. A maker of electrical equipment added, ‘The uncertainty about tariffs keeps us cautious on spending, despite the strong sales right now.’”

“’Regime uncertainty’ is the economic term for worries like these. Investments take time to pay off, and when government policy constantly shifts, companies have a hard time telling whether an investment will be worth it. Investors, too, get nervous about the rules governing businesses and those surrounding the taxation of their profits. By slowing investment and innovation, regime uncertainty stifles the economy and makes it harder to attract foreign investment.”

The ” president’s frequent shifts in policy stand to have a chilling effect. In the past month alone, tariffs have been imposed, delayed, reimposed, and now — at least for some categories of goods — delayed for another month. Adding to the unease are the administration’s attacks on the justice system, which foreign investors, especially, are bound to be watching. To repeat: There is a reason that so much foreign debt is structured to be governed by U.S. law. Signaling that America’s trade policies could change at any time, and that its justice system is vulnerable to political influence, risks the country’s position as a global destination for securities issuance and investment capital.”

“The haste with which this year’s tariffs have been imposed, and Trump’s dubious rationales for imposing them, justifiably make people worry that the current trade rules could be rewritten again and again.”

“And while companies could resolve this uncertainty once and for all by making, and sourcing, products in the United States, this is a costly proposition — too costly, in some cases, to be worthwhile. If domestically made products are more expensive than foreign ones, investments might not pencil out, and some exporters might find themselves priced out of global markets. This retrenchment will ripple through an economy that already looks fragile.”

“On the same day that the Trump administration announced the tariffs would go into effect, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta said it had revised its estimate of first quarter gross-domestic product downward, to -2.8 percent. Consumers say they are nervous about inflation, job prospects and, yes, tariffs.”

“[M]anufacturers think abrupt changes in trade policy are bad for business.”

=======================

Editorial,  The market’s grim view of tariff shenanigans, Wash. Post (Mar.7, 2025).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reactions to Trump’s Latest Changes on Tariffs on Canada and Mexico   

On March 6, U.S. President Trump postponed until April 2 the 25% tariffs on many imports from Mexico and some imports from Canada. Around midday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau a “numb skull” and warned that this would lead to higher U.S. tariffs while Trudeau said Canadian officials were talking with U.S. counterparts about easing the tariff on some sectors.

In response to these developments, the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite closed more than 10% off its closing high, while the Nasdaq slid 2.62% and the Dow Jones Industrials roughly 1% while the S&P 500 dropped 1.8%. And U.S. Treasury yields ticked higher for the third straight session.

Further developments undoubtedly will occur the rest of this week (and beyond?).

Conclusion. For this blogger (a U.S. citizen), these developments further raise the issue of the eptitude, knowledge and judgment of Mr. Trump.

=====================

Berwick & Lang,  U.S. Delays Tariffs on Some Mexican, Canadian Goods; Stocks Decline, W.S.J. (Mar. 6, 2025); Ip, Trump’s Golden Age Begins With a Brutal Trade War, W.S.J. (Mar. 6, 2025); Trump Administration Live Updates: In reversal, Most New Tariffs on Mexico and Canada are Suspended, N.Y. Times (Mar. 6, 2025); Rennison, Tariff uncertainty leads to another unsteady day for Wall Street, N.Y. Times (Mar. 6, 2025); Assoc. Press, Trump changes course and delays some tariffs on Mexico and Canada, StarTribune (Mar. 6, 2025).

 

 

How Americans Feel About Tariffs 

A review of 25 recent U.S. public opinion polls about tariffs reveals different results depending on how the questions are posed. The average favorable opinion is 41% while the highest is 56% and the lowest is 29%.

“When a survey question defines tariffs as taxes on imports, for example, fewer people say they support them.”

“When a survey question calls out specific countries, more [over 50%)] are in favor of tariffs on China than on other countries.” A similar positive opinion results when the question says tariffs are designed to bring back American jobs and ensure fair international trade.

On the other hand, when a survey question asserts tariffs could cause U.S. consumer prices to increase 50%, the favorable opinion on proposed U.S. tariffs drops to about 30%. A similar reduced favorable rating results when the tariff is described as a tax on imports.

“Public opinion may become clearer over time, as policy becomes more settled and people begin to see real-world impact.”

=========================

Zhang & Igelnik, How Americans Feel About Tariffs, N.Y. Times (Mar. 4, 2025).

 

Wall Street Journal’s Latest Words on Trump Tariffs 

On March 5, the Wall Street Journal published additional words regarding Trump and tariffs.

Its February 5th editorial said, “Welcome to the Trump tariff thrill ride,” after he had given a one-month tariff reprieve to auto makers. The Journal then discredited Trump’s assertion that the tariffs would allow ‘our auto industry to absolutely boom’ by noting that “Executive, investors and dealers beg to differ” with General Motors and Ford stock prices recently being lower and “the tariff barrage is causing economic uncertainty and slowing investment—a real thrill a minute.”[1]

And Karl Rove, a Republican political consultant, policy advisor and lobbyist,  in a Journal article had favorable comments about Trump’s speech to Congress, but said the following regarding his comments about tariffs: “’Mr. Trump admitted ‘there will be a little disturbance, but we are OK with that.’ Maybe not. If tariffs drive up prices, consumers will feel it as they shop just as they did when inflation destroyed Mr. Biden. They’ll also see how tariffs affect where they work as companies cut costs and raise prices.”[2]

Rove also noted Trump’s saying tariffs will ‘be great for the American farmer‘ because they’ll ‘new be selling into the home market.’ “But the domestic market isn’t enough. The Agriculture Department says U.S. producers rely ‘on export markets to sustain prices and revenues.’ Farm exports were $174 billion in 2023, or 20% of all agricultural products. If tariff wars cause trading partners to buy food elsewhere, American farmers won’t have their promised ‘field day.’”

————————————

[1] Editorial, The Trump Tariff Roller Coaster, W.S.J. (Mar. 5, 2025) See also Wall Street Journal’s Criticism of Trump’s Tariff Decisions and Analysis of His Values, dwkcommentaries.com (Mar. 5, 2025).

[2] Rove, Trump’s Speech Is a Deft Victory Dance, W.S.J. (Mar. 5, 2025). Rove also was an official in the George W. Bush Administration. (Karl Rove, Wikipedia.)

Wall Street Journal’s Criticism of Trump’s Tariff Decisions and Analysis of His Values 

Wall Street Journal’s two recent editorials have criticized President Trump’s tariff decisions and the Journal has offered commentary on Trump’s State of the Union address to the Congress and the opinion of a Journal columnist (William Galston) on how Trump sees the world.

Editorial: “Trump Takes the Dumbest Tariff Plunge[1]

 “President Trump likes to cite the stock market when it’s rising as a sign of his policy success, so what does he think about Monday’s plunge? The Dow Jones Industrial Average took a 650-point header after he announced that he’ll hit Mexico and Canada on Tuesday with 25% tariffs.”

“Mr. Trump wants tariffs for their own sake, which he says will usher in a new golden age.”

“We’ve courted Mr. Trump’s ire by calling the Mexico and Canada levies the ‘dumbest’ in history, and we may have understated the point. Mr. Trump is whacking friends, not adversaries. His taxes will hit every cross-border transaction, and the North American vehicle market is so interconnected that some cars cross a border as many as eight times as they’re assembled.”

“Mr. Trump is volatile, and who knows how long he’ll keep the tariffs in place. Retaliation that hits certain states and businesses may also cause him to reconsider sooner than he imagines. Investors are trying to read this uncertainty as they also watch growing evidence of a slowing U.S. economy. Unbridled Tariff Man was always going to be a big economic risk in a second term, and here we are.” (Emphasis added.)

Editorial: “Trump’s Tariffs Whack Trump Voters[2]

“President Trump won the Presidency a second time by promising working-class voters he’d lift their real incomes. Which makes it all the more puzzling that he’s so intent on imposing tariffs that will punish those same Americans.”

“Tariffs are taxes, and Mr. Trump’s latest tariffs are estimated to be about an annual $150 billion tax increase. Taxes are antigrowth. That’s the message investors are sending this week since Mr. Trump let his 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico take effect. The President also raised his 10% tariff on China by another 10%. Canada and China retaliated, while Mexico is holding off until Sunday.”

“The border taxes, and the uncertainty they bring, are weighing on growth and consumer confidence. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 3.4% since Mr. Trump took office, erasing the ebullient gains that followed his November election.”

“Energy prices will rise too. Mr. Trump implicitly conceded this by reducing his tariffs to 10% on Canadian energy imports. Despite the U.S. shale fracking boom, constraints on pipeline capacity mean the Midwest and Northeast depend heavily on Canada for natural gas. That means heating bills will rise in Trump country. So will electricity prices.”

“The U.S. imports about 3,315 gigawatt hours of electricity on average from Canada each month—enough to power about 3.7 million homes. These flows help stabilize the grid and lower prices in the Northeast and Midwest. New England’s grid operator estimates the tariffs could cost the region between $66 million and $165 million a year. Energy makes up 40% of primary aluminum producers’ costs. Several Midwest foundries have closed in recent years amid rising energy prices. The Trump tariffs will harm the very workers he claims to be trying to help.”

“They will also cause pain at the pump. The U.S. is a net oil exporter, but it still imports about 6.5 million barrels a day of crude, mostly from Canada and Mexico. That’s because refineries in the Gulf Coast and Midwest process heavy grades. It would cost billions of dollars to retrofit them to process light blends from U.S. shale. Drivers of pickup trucks in the Midwest (where refineries depend on Canadian crude) are likely to suffer the most pain.”

“Speaking of which, we recently told you about an Anderson Economic Group analysis that estimated the 25% tariffs would raise the cost of a pickup assembled in North America by $8,000. Heavy-duty truck prices may also surge as they rely on parts from Canada and Mexico.”

“The President also professes to love American farmers, but he apparently loves tariffs more. U.S. farmers are already being squeezed by low crop prices and inflation. The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) says farmers are losing money on almost every major crop planted for the third straight year.”

“Tariffs will increase their pain. About 85% of the U.S. potash supply for fertilizer is imported from Canada. China is hitting U.S. farm exports with a 15% tariff, which will let farmers in Brazil and Australia grab market share. “Even more costs and reducing markets for American agricultural goods could create an economic burden some farmers may not be able to bear,” AFBF President Zippy Duvall said Tuesday.”

Mr. Trump’s tariff spree is the triumph of ideology over, well, common sense. Let’s hope the President soon comes to his senses.” (Emphasis added.)

Commentary on Trump’s State of Union Speech[3]

“Mr. Trump is volatile, and who knows how long he’ll keep the tariffs in place. Retaliation that hits certain states and businesses may also cause him to reconsider sooner than he imagines. Investors are trying to read this uncertainty as they also watch growing evidence of a slowing U.S. economy. Unbridled Tariff Man was always going to be a big economic risk in a second term, and here we are.”  (Emphasis added.)

Comments on Trump-Zalensky Meeting[4]

William Galston, a W.S.J. opinion columnist (politics and ideas), has offered his thoughts on what we have learned about Trump’s approach to foreign policy from his recent meeting with Volodmyr Zalensky and other episodes.

It’s clear that the concept of a ‘rules-based international order’ is anathema to Mr. Trump. After all, following rules may force you to do something you don’t want to and may impose short-term costs on your country. Mr. Trump seems to think the current rules don’t promote America’s long-term interests.” (Emphasis added.)

Trump’s “aim, it seems, is to maximize his freedom of action at all times. This explains why he is inclined to see alliances as burdens. Bringing your allies along with you takes time, patience and compromise. It constrains your will. Why bother? Better to deal one-on-one with friend and foe alike.” (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Trump’s approach to foreign policy is amoral—a relentless pursuit of self-interest. Appeals to principles leave him cold, as do international relationships based on ‘shared values.’ His instincts leave him unable to understand why so many people on both sides of the Atlantic are committed to an alliance of Western democracies against the rising tide of antidemocratic forces.” (Emphasis added.)

“Indeed, it’s not clear that Mr. Trump prefers democracy to autocracy. He has praised autocratic leaders—Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, even Kim Jong Un. He admires their strength and envies their ability to act without pesky legislators and critical reporters.” (Emphasis added.)

Strength and weakness replace right and wrong in Mr. Trump’s lexicon. What matters most is leverage. If you have it, use it to the hilt. If you don’t, you must settle for what you can get. The merits of your position don’t matter. Underscoring this point, Mr. Trump has ‘paused’ aid to Ukraine in a move to weaken its hand and force Mr. Zelensky into peace talks with Russia.” (Emphasis added.)

Speaking of strength: Mr. Trump evidently believes that there are three great powers—China, Russia and the U.S.—and that establishing satisfactory relations among them takes priority over collateral damage to smaller countries. The idea is to return to ‘spheres of influence’: Ukraine and the ‘near abroad’ for Russia, and Panama, Canada and Greenland for the U.S.” (Emphasis added.)

“And what for China? In the ‘great powers’ context, it’s not surprising that Elbridge Colby, Mr. Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy, told the Journal that although the U.S. should be prepared to defend Taiwan, the island ‘isn’t itself of existential importance to America.’ And as Chinese pressure on the Philippines intensifies, I wonder whether Mr. Trump will honor America’s longstanding mutual-defense treaty with Manila.” (Emphasis added.)

What is of existential importance, it seems, is economics. Mr. Trump’s view is that just about every country is ‘ripping us off’ in trade. The size of the trade deficit is proof; never mind what economists say causes it. Our allies are ripping us off in defense as well. Helping them defend themselves, he thinks, costs the U.S. without attendant benefits. Mr. Trump knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.” (Emphasis added.)

“Nonsense, his supporters reply. Mr. Trump is pursuing peace. What could be a higher value than this? But there are different kinds of peace. Lincoln spoke of a ‘just and lasting peace.’ Richard Nixon pursued ‘peace with honor.’ By contrast, Neville Chamberlain, after negotiating with Hitler in Munich in 1938, claimed he had secured ‘peace for our time.’ In reply, Winston Churchill told Chamberlain, ‘You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.’”

“On Monday Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivered a stirring speech in the British House of Commons, pledging large increases in the U.K. defense budget and detailing his efforts to forge a coalition of the willing in defense of Ukraine. His remarks garnered widespread praise, including from opposition party leaders and citizens across the U.K. Mr. Starmer’s practicality and moral clarity had made them proud to be British.”

“But Mr. Starmer was forthright: Even with maximum effort from Europe, his plan to secure Ukraine against future Russian aggression couldn’t succeed without an American ‘backstop.’ When the prime minister asks for one, how will Mr. Trump reply?”

Conclusion

This blogger was pleasantly surprised by these cogent remarks from the Wall Street Journal, which has the reputation of being a newspaper allied with the Republican Party.

===========================

[1] Editorial, Trump Takes the Dumbest Tariff Plunge, W.S.J. (Mar. 3, 2025).

[2] Editorial, Trump’s Tariffs Whack Trump Voters, W.S.J. (Mar. 4, 2025).

[3] Andrews, Gomez, & Dapena, An Annotated Fact-Check and Analysis of Trump’s Speech to Congress, W.S.J. (Mar. 5, 2025).

[4] Galston, The Zalensky Spat Shows Us How Trump Sees the World, W.S.J. (Mar. 4, 2025).

 

Reason for Diario de Cuba’s Plea for Reader Financial Contributions 

President Trump recently ordered the pausing of foreign aid and the cancelation of the U.S.Agency for International Development.

That is the reason why two independent sources of Cuban news– Cubanet based in Miami and Diario de Cuba based in Madrid, Spain–recently have launched campaigns soliciting financial contributions from their readers.

===================

Torres, How U.S. freeze on international aid threatens survival of Cuba’s independent journalists, Miami Herald (Feb. 28, 2025).

 

Cuban Christians Face Persecution

The World Watch List compiled by the NGO Open Doors has concluded that Cuba is the most dangerous country in the Western Hemisphere to profess the Christian faith. Cuba was ranked 26th [with a score of 73] among the 50 countries of the world where Christians faced the most harassment. Only countries in Asia and Africa had worse rankings.[1]

This List was based on extensive surveys of Christian leaders and experts in more than 100 countries to assess “the level of oppression experienced by believers in the private, family, social (community), national and ecclesial spheres.”

The Open Doors Report on Cuba[2]

“Since 1959, Cuba has been ruled by the Communist Party, which attempts to control the church. The government reacts harshly to anyone who opposes it. Church leaders and Christian activists who criticize the regime can be questioned, arrested and imprisoned. They also suffer smear campaigns, travel restrictions and harassment, which can include physical violence and damage to church buildings.”

“Relatives of these leaders also face threats, including losing custody of their children. The government often refuses to register new churches, forcing many to operate illegally. These churches are vulnerable to fines, property confiscation, and even demolition.”

“In Cuba, Christian women and girls face pressure, in part due to loopholes in domestic violence laws. Domestic violence worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although a new family code offers more protection, the rising rate of femicides (murders of women) remains a serious threat to Christian women and girls.”

“Christian men in Cuba often face arrest and harassment because they are more likely to be leaders who criticize the government. They can be fined, have their Christian books taken away, and even receive death threats. House church leaders (often men) report frequent visits from state security agents who threaten their jobs and their children’s education.”

 “Men are required to serve in the military, and Christian recruits often face discrimination. Some are forced to take part in military operations that go against their beliefs.”

“The term “type of persecution” is used to describe different situations that provoke hostility towards Christians. The types of persecution of Christians in Cuba are: dictatorial paranoia, communist and post-communist oppression, and secular intolerance.

” Sources of persecution” are the drivers/executors of hostilities, violent or non-violent, against Christians. They tend to be smaller (radical) groups within the larger group of followers of a particular worldview. Sources of persecution of Christians in Cuba include: government officials, political parties, ideological pressure groups, non-Christian religious leaders, citizens, and gangs.”

Other Comments on Cuban Religious Persecution[3]

“In mid-February, Father Castor José Álvarez Devesa, one of the Catholic priests who suffer repression in Cuba for his open opposition to the regime, said that the authorities have long tried to turn the people against the bishops of the island. We have Fidel (Castro), who wanted to ignore the bishops of Cuba. Totalitarian rulers try to dominate the heads in order to dominate the body. It is convenient for them to have all the heads within their territory dominated, and when there is an external dependency that is a problem, then they try to directly influence the Vatican,” said the parish priest, who was one of the religious leaders who joined the people during the anti-government protests on July 11 and 12, 2021, for which he was beaten with a bat.” In addition, “Several Cuban religious leaders were tried and sentenced to prison terms following the protests.”

===========================

[1] Open Doors, World Watch List 2025.

[2] Open Doors, Cuba Report 2025.

[3] Cuba is the most dangerous country for Christians in America a report reveals, Diario de Cuba (Feb. 25, 2025).

 

Cuban Speech to Friends of U.N. Charter 

On February 25, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Parrilla gave the following speech at a meeting in New York City of the Group of Friends of the U.N. Charter.[1]

“In the current international juncture, it is necessary to reflect on the United Nations Organization that we have built and which celebrates this year its eightieth anniversary.

The aspiration to maintain peace, the purpose that guided the creation of the organization, remains a challenge. Tensions are rising, threats to international security are increasing and there are attempts to impose new forms of domination.”

“While trillions of dollars continue to be squandered in the arms race, fewer and fewer resources are allocated to the hundreds of millions of people who are victims of hunger and poverty, making it increasingly difficult to close the growing gap in wealth distribution.”

“Multilateralism is progressively weakening and the role of international organizations is being ignored. They are being threatened with conditioning and funding cuts.

“The current US administration has shown its contempt for the multilateral system and its institutions.  Its shameful withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the World Health Organization, the Human Rights Council and the suspension of funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are recent examples of this behavior.”

“By supporting the Palestinian genocide against the Palestinian people, the US government confirms its support to the philosophy of war and the doctrine of dispossession. Its plans to occupy Gaza and displace its population represent an escalation of ethnic cleansing, in flagrant violation of International Law.”

“The inaction of the Security Council in the face of these events damages the credibility of the UN.”

“I would like to propose that the Group of Friends of the Charter intervene at the upcoming Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to denounce the flagrant violations of International Humanitarian Law committed by the Occupying Power in the occupied Palestinian territories.”

“With the plans of domination announced by the new administration towards our region, the United States intends to launch a new imperialist offensive against the peoples of Our America, anchored in the archaic and interventionist Monroe Doctrine.”

“As part of this policy, we reject the decision, announced on January 20, to include Cuba again in the arbitrary and unilateral List of State Sponsor of Terrorism, a few days after the previous administration decided otherwise. Such a measure confirms the discredit of the aforementioned list; ignores the consistent demand of international voices, including this Group of Friends, and seeks to further tighten the impacts of the blockade against Cuba.”

“We invite the members of the Group of Friends to continue denouncing the new and dangerous imperialist attack against our region.”

“I would like to conclude by acknowledging Venezuela whose effective coordination has guided our works since its foundation. We also welcome the possibility of incorporating new members to the Group.”

“We support the work plan outlined for this year.”

“Cuba will continue to defend, firmly and consistently, the Charter of the United Nations and International Law, and will remain committed to the principles of the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace.”

The Group of Friends[2]

The Group “was launched on 06 July 2021, in New York [City], and, to date, it is composed of 18 Member States: Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mali, Nicaragua, the State of Palestine, the Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Angola and Cambodia were founding members of the Group of Friends.”

The Group members “agree that the Charter of the United Nations is both a milestone and a true act of faith that for the past 78 years has filled the entire international community with hope on the best of humanity and brings it together to ensure the common well-being of present and future generations. They consider that the purposes and principles enshrined therein are indispensable for preserving and promoting, among others, international peace and security, the rule of law, economic development and social progress, and all human rights for all, in an ever increasingly connected world.”

The members also ‘consider that multilateralism, which is at the core of the Charter, is currently under an unprecedented attack, which, in turn, threatens global peace and security. Nowadays, the world is seeing a growing resort to unilateralism, marked by isolationist and arbitrary actions, including the imposition of unilateral coercive measures or the withdrawal from landmark agreements and multilateral institutions, as well as by attempts to undermine critical efforts to tackle common and global challenges.”

“In addition, they believe that the international community is currently struggling with both the continued attempts to disown the diversity of our world and the very basic principles of international relations, and with the systematic violations to the norms of international law and the tenets of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular to the detriment of developing countries, by certain powers that seem to claim a non-existent “exceptionalism” that disregards, for instance, the principle of sovereign equality of States, in an attempt to establish a so-called “rules-based order” with norms that remain unknown and have not been necessarily agreed upon by States, as is the case with the set of norms and principles contained in the UN Charter, and which are the basis for modern-day international law.”

The Group has adopted the following set of its objectives:

“1. The Group of Friends, as part of the common quest of its Member States for making further progress towards achieving full respect for international law, shall strive to preserve, promote and defend the prevalence and validity of the UN Charter, which, in the current international juncture, has a renewed and even more important value and relevance.”

“2. The Group of Friends shall strive to ensure full, permanent and effective – and not selectively or conveniently – fulfillment of obligations under the UN Charter and compliance with its letter and spirit, conscious of the fact that this is the legal instrument with the greatest scope and legitimacy in the world, which has prevented and shall continue to prevent humankind from suffering once again the horrors and untold sorrow of the scourge of war.”

“3. The Group of Friends shall serve as a platform for, among others, promoting the prevalence of legality over force and for discussing, articulating possible means and coordinating joint initiatives for fostering respect for the principles of sovereignty, equality of States, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, peaceful settlement of disputes, and refraining from the use or threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, as enshrined in the UN Charter, as well as for the values of dialogue, tolerance and solidarity, mindful of the fact that these are all at the core of international relations and necessary for peaceful coexistence among nations.”

Cuban Reactions to the Cuban Foreign Minister’s Speech [3]

Diario de Cuba reported the following negative comments about the above speech from other Cubans:

  • Maritza Camero: “Creativity is non-existent and it is not worthy that resistance should be only from the people. Leaders should be the first examples of resistanceand if they look closely they will realize that they are not.”
  • Mara Piedras Velarde: ” It is easy to ask for resistance when you live with all the comforts” and Jorge Vega Ramos added: “What nerve! While they kill the majority of the people in life, they talk about resistance , and they live better than the millionaires.”
  • Luis Hernández Batista: ” Hypocrites are what they are. With their bellies full, they ask for resistance from a people in total miserydue to their ineptitude.”
  • Elizabeth Godínez: “From his comfort zone, not knowing what 23-hour blackouts are like and having all his needs covered, anyone can speak up and stand firm. In this country, people don’t lead by example, that’s why we are where we are. Oh, and when it’s his week in a hotel in Varadero, he (Bruno) will go there like Juan who kills himself, maintaining his selfless firmness.”
  • Fara Martha González Fernández: “What an absurd phrase, creative resistance! What would be the creative part? Seeing how we fade away in a more beautiful way?Or how do we make art with the hunger and misery we are experiencing? They are specialists in creating absurd concepts and empty discourses.”
  • Gonzalez Monyk: “I agree with being sovereign, but we have not had social justice for a long time, and resisting is becoming more difficult because many families do not have even the most basic things. Instead of talking about resistance, they should talk about changes, listening to the youngest, accepting ideas, changes to really get out of this dark and gloomy hole where we are, and do not talk to me about a blockade that has always been there and we have never been as bad as we are now.”
  • Jose Martinez: “What right is he talking about and what social justice, if they have just opened dollar stores that the people neither have nor are they paid for. The people resist because they have no right to protest against the blackouts of more than 20 hours and the misery and hunger in Cuba.

=============================

[1] Statement by Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, Minister of Foreign Affairs at Group of Friends of the Charter of the United Nations, Feb. 25, 2025.

[2] About the Group of Friends of the Charter of the United Nations.

[3]The regime hammers at the UN with ‘creative reistance’ and Cubans are outraged: ‘they should talk about changes,’ Diario de Cuba (Feb. 26, 2025).