Panama – dwkcommentaries

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]

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).

Issues Facing Marco Rubio on Trip to Latin America

On his trip to Latin America starting on February 1, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be facing at least the following issues.

Panama.

“The Panama Canal will be the most important issue.”

“Mr. Trump falsely accused Panama of allowing China to station troops on the canal and of treating U.S. ships and goods unfairly by charging exorbitant fees. The Panama Canal Authority, which operates the waterway independently of the government, has denied those claims.”

“While there are no Chinese troops to be seen on the waterway, a Hong Kong-based company called CK Hutchison Holdings has operated two seaports at each end of the Panama Canal for decades.”

“Mr. Trump may not be serious about using the U.S. military to retake the canal, analysts say, instead staking out an extreme negotiating position in order to clinch another deal. He may be eyeing lower fees for American goods traversing the canal or greater cooperation on migration.”

“The other major issue Mr. Rubio and Panamanian leaders are likely to discuss is immigration and the Darién Gap, the perilous jungle route between Panama and Colombia that hundreds of thousands of migrants have used in recent years to make their way to the United States.”

“Panama has struggled to slow the flood of migrants traversing the gap, with more than 520,000 people passing through in 2023. That number declined to 302,000 in 2024. Last summer, Mr. Mulino signed an agreement with the Biden administration that tightened security in the gap. Around the same time, President Biden also blocked the vast majority of asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border and allowed agents to turn people back quickly.”

“Panama will likely ask the United States to invest more in Panama if it seeks to curb Chinese influence in the region. Panamanian politicians and business leaders complain that when the country puts out tenders for big infrastructure projects, U.S. companies are often absent while Chinese are eager to bid.””

“In exchange, Mr. Rubio could ask Panama to sign a safe-third country agreement, which would see it absorb non-Panamanian migrants. Analysts say Mr. Rubio could use the threats to retake the canal to pressure Panama to accept those asylum seekers or get them to to kick out CK Hutchison Holdings from those ports.”

Guatemala

“Guatemala has emerged as a country eager to show it is open to cooperating with the Trump administration, particularly when it comes to migration. The Guatemalan government was the first country to receive U.S. military flights carrying deportees, which have served to support Mr. Trump’s claim that migrants are criminals best dealt with by force.”

“Rather than speak out about deportations, the government launched the “Return Home” plan to reintegrate Guatemalan deportees.”

“For us, the most important thing is to present ourselves to the U.S., to the new administration, as a reliable and strategic partner in the region,” Guatemala’s foreign minister, Carlos Ramiro Martínez, said in an interview this past week.”

“About 675,000 undocumented Guatemalans lived in the United States as of 2022, according to the Pew Research Center, making it one of the largest sources of illegal migrants after Mexico, India and El Salvador.”

“Guatemala also shares a border with Mexico, and migrants from around the world trek through it on their journeys north. Mr. Rubio could call on the nation to do more to prevent migrants from reaching Mexico, analysts say.”

“When asked if Guatemala would host asylum seekers deported from the United States as part of a “safe third country” agreement, Mr. Ramiro said nothing was off the table ahead of the visit. “I’m not ruling anything out because the negotiation is still ongoing,” he said at a news conference this past week.”

“Also on the table will be countering illicit drug trafficking and organized crime, Mr. Ramiro said.”

“Guatemala’s president, Bernardo Arévalo, faces intense internal opposition and will most likely try to find an ally in Mr. Rubio, both to shore up his position at home and to protect the economy. The United States is Guatemala’s primary trading partner, accounting for more than 30 percent of the country’s exports, including coffee and bananas.”

El Salvador

“Of all of the countries in the region that Mr. Rubio is planning to visit, El Salvador stands out for having already established a somewhat warm relationship with the Trump administration.”

“Within the inner circle of MAGA loyalists, Bukele has a lot of appeal,” Manuel Meléndez Sánchez, a Salvadoran political scientist at Harvard University, said of El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele.”

“The Salvadoran government’s recent crackdown on vicious gangs that terrorized the country has enthused traditional law-and-order Republicans. Mr. Bukele’s antiglobalist and what he calls “anti-woke” policies have captivated American conservatives. And his embrace of technology, including Bitcoin as an official currency, has won over tech billionaires, like Elon Musk.”

“In a phone call between the leaders last week, Mr. Trump praised Mr. Bukele’s leadership before discussing the two main issues Mr. Rubio is likely to resurface during his visit: illegal immigration and a crackdown on gangs.”

“A priority for the Trump administration is to get the country to take in non-Salvadoran deportees from the United States.”

“The country signed a similar deal in 2019 after Trump administration officials cut off some aid to El Salvador, accusing the country of not doing enough to curb illegal migration. But the agreement never took effect and was terminated by the Biden administration.”

“In a briefing call on Friday, Mauricio Claver-Carone, Mr. Trump’s special envoy for Latin America, told reporters that the United States was committed to efforts “to revive that agreement.”

“A spokeswoman for Mr. Bukele declined to comment.”

“During Mr. Rubio’s visit, Mr. Claver-Carone added, he will also try to persuade El Salvador to accept deported members of the notorious Tren de Aragua gang, a Venezuelan criminal group that has spread its reach into the United States.”

““If Caracas does not accept them, Bukele will receive them,” María Elvira Salazar, a Republican congresswoman, said this past week. “And Bukele’s prisons are very big.”

Costa Rica

“Mr. Rubio’s visit will most likely focus on American investment, migration policy and the continuing fight against international drug trafficking, according to Costa Rican authorities.”

“President Rodrigo Chaves anticipates a more transactional relationship with Mr. Trump.”

“It is going to be about international trade issues, capital flows, and investment,” he told reporters last week.”

“Mr. Trump’s criticisms of the Biden administration’s CHIPS and Science Act — and his overall stance against American companies investing overseas — have been received nervously in Costa Rica, a hub of semiconductor manufacturing. The Biden-era program was meant to reduce the United States’ reliance on China for microchip production by encouraging neighboring countries to enter the industry.”

“Beyond trying to maintain U.S. investments, Costa Rica will portray itself as a crucial ally in the war against drugs during negotiations with Mr. Rubio. Costa Rica has become a major transshipment point for cocaine destined for the United States, contributing to the country’s record-high murder rate since 2022.”

“Arnoldo André, Costa Rica’s minister of foreign affairs, described the joint fight against organized crime and drug trafficking as “issues that we are sure we will be able to reconcile with the new U.S. authorities.”

“If Mr. Trump wants Costa Rica to continue to clamp down on drug trafficking, economic investments must be maintained, current and former government officials say. Or poverty may make the country ripe for the cartels that run amok in the region.”

Dominican Republic

“During his Senate confirmation hearings, Mr. Rubio mentioned the Dominican Republic as one of the countries in Latin America that was “doing it the right way.”

“By that, Mr. Rubio may mean the Trump way. The Caribbean country is building a wall along its border with Haiti, and the government has pledged to deport 10,000 Haitians a week — a move human rights groups have criticized as rife with abuses.”

“The Dominican Republic, a country of 11 million, shares an island with Haiti, a nation that has descended into chaos since the assassination in July 2021 of its last elected president, Jovenel Moïse. Gangs earning income from illegal checkpoints, extortion and kidnappings have used the political vacuum to expand their territory to control some 90 percent of the Haitian capital.”

“Some one million Haitians have fled their homes, according to the International Organization for Migration, many crossing the porous border into the Dominican Republic.”

“Riding a wave of nationalism, President Luis Abinader was re-elected last May in a landslide, bolstered by anti-Haitian sentiments that run rampant among the population, while pledging stricter immigration policies.”

“The Dominican Republic has also emerged as a key security partner for Washington, cracking down on drugs and gun smuggling routes that fuel violence across the region. The Trump administration wants more cooperation there.”

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

Abi-Habib, Correal, Mega, Wagner & Bolanos, Latin America Gets Into Deal-Making Mode for Rubio’s Visit, N.Y. Times (Feb. 1, 2025).

Marco Rubio Proposes America First Foreign Policy

In the Wall Street Journal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has proposed what he calls an “Americas First Foreign Policy.” [1]

“When Donald Trump won his sweeping victory in November, he received a mandate to put America first. In the realm of diplomacy, this means paying closer attention to our own neighborhood—the Western Hemisphere.”

“It’s no accident that my first trip abroad as secretary of state, to Central America on Friday, will keep me in the hemisphere. This is rare among secretaries of state over the past century. For many reasons, U.S. foreign policy has long focused on other regions while overlooking our own. As a result, we’ve let problems fester, missed opportunities and neglected partners. That ends now.”

“President Trump’s foreign-policy agenda begins close to home. Among his top priorities is securing our borders and reversing the disastrous invasion abetted by the last administration. Diplomacy’s role in this effort is central. We need to work with countries of origin to halt and deter further migrant flows, and to accept the return of their citizens present in the U.S. illegally.”

“Some countries are cooperating with us enthusiastically—others, less so. The former will be rewarded. As for the latter, Mr. Trump has already shown that he is more than willing to use America’s considerable leverage to protect our interests. Just ask Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro.”

“Yet even when circumstances demand toughness, the president’s vision for the hemisphere remains positive. We see a prosperous region rife with opportunities. We can strengthen trade ties, create partnerships to control migration, and enhance our hemisphere’s security.”

“El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama and the Dominican Republic—the countries I will visit on this trip—all stand to benefit tremendously from greater cooperation with the U.S. These nations were neglected by past administrations that prioritized the global over the local and pursued policies that accelerated China’s economic development, often at our neighbors’ expense.”

“We can reverse this. Covid exposed the fragility of America’s dependence on far-flung supply chains. Relocating our critical supply chains to the Western Hemisphere would clear a path for our neighbors’ economic growth and safeguard Americans’ own economic security.”

“Closer relationships with the U.S. lead to more jobs and higher growth in these countries. This reduces incentives for emigration from these countries while providing governments with revenue to fight crime and invest at home. As our regional partners build themselves up, they can more easily resist countries such as China that promise much but deliver little.”

“Mass migration has destabilized our entire region. Drug cartels—now correctly categorized, thanks to the president, as foreign terrorist organizations—are taking over our communities, sowing violence and poisoning our families with fentanyl. Illegitimate regimes in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are intentionally amplifying the chaos. All the while, the Chinese Communist Party uses diplomatic and economic leverage—such as at the Panama Canal—to oppose the U.S. and turn sovereign nations into vassal states.”

I am confident that the countries I will soon visit will be ready partners. Like President Trump, their leaders are pragmatists who put their citizens first. And because they are pragmatists, they also know that there is much more to be gained from working with the U.S. than not.

“This is an approach to foreign policy based on concrete shared interests, not vague platitudes or utopian ideologies. It is representative of the approach the State Department will be taking to all its international dealings. We will extend our hand to all nations of goodwill, in the confident expectation that they will recognize what we can do together.”

“Thankfully, the Western Hemisphere harbors more congruent interests than conflicting ones. Making America great again also means helping our neighbors achieve greatness. The threats Mr. Trump was elected to stop are threats to the nations of our hemisphere as well.”

“We share a common home. The safer, stronger and more prosperous that home becomes, the more all our nations stand to benefit. Together, there are few limits to what we can accomplish.”

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

[1] Rubio, An Americas First Foreign Policy, W.S.J. (Jan. 30, 2025)

Central American Countries’ Northward Busing of South American Immigrants

This October, the Costa Rican government declared a national emergency and formed a plan with Panama to shuttle migrants [on buses] from its southern border to its northern one. Costa Rican officials say the busing program has removed . . . [a migrant encampment], as well as alleviated the strain on border communities and provided people a safer alternative to paying human smugglers. A similar busing program has been adopted by Honduras.[1]

This Costa Rican program is in response to a “doubling the number of crossings from [200,000] last year and leading to a massive tent encampment along Costa Rica’s borders, complaints from business owners and a rise in abusive smuggling operations.”

This development “has raised alarms in the United States, which has called on its Latin American allies to deter people from making the treacherous journey north by encouraging them to apply for refugee status closer to their home countries.” U.S. officials have also argued that the busing routes only incentivize more migrants to flee their homes and make the dangerous journey to the U.S. border. Their Central American counterparts argue migrants are already set on traveling to the United States and the busing system is making the journey less dangerous.”

“The busing program is not free, and has added one more fee to the many that migrants are confronted with on their costly journey north. . . . In Panama, each person must pay $60 to be bused to Costa Rica’s main terminal. They then must pay another $30 to board a shuttle that will take them to the Nicaraguan border. The fees are collected by the bus companies, which are licensed by the governments.”

This busing “can also be dangerous. Earlier this year, at least 39 people were killed when a bus ferrying migrants through Panama fell from a cliff. Last month, 18 migrants died in a bus crash in Mexico and a crash in Honduras left four dead and a dozen injured.”

It should also be mentioned that Panama is in the midst of violent protests about a government contract that allows a Canadian company to expand its copper mining operations here and whether the country should preserve its natural resources or develop them.[2]

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

[1] Youngs & Bolanos, A New Answer for Migrants in Central America: Bus Them North, N.Y. Times (Nov, 8, 2023).

[2] Salcedo, Why ordinarily quiet Panama has erupted in deadly protests, Wash. Post (Nov. 8, 2023).

Pope Francis Approves Beatification of Padre Rutilio Grande

On February 21, Pope Francis approved the beatification of Padre Rutilio Grande, a Salvadoran Jesuit priest who was murdered on March 12, 1977, by a Salvadoran death squad for his advocacy for people who were persecuted by the country’s military and death squads.[1]

His ministry and slaying inspired then Archbishop Oscar Romero (now Saint Romero) to become an outspoken critic of the country’s military and advocate for El Salvador’s oppressed.[2]

Pope Francis has long expressed his intense admiration for both Grande and Romero. At the entrance to his room at the Vatican hotel where the Pope lives is a piece of cloth with Romero’s blood on it and notes from a catechism teaching Grande delivered. Last year during a visit to Panama, the Pope said,“I was a devotee of Rutilio even before coming to know Romero better. When I was [a priest] in Argentina, his life influenced me, his death touched me. He said what he had to say, but it was his testimony, his martyrdom, that eventually moved Romero. This was the grace.”

The official Vatican News stated the news of this beatification as follows:

“The Pope also recognized the martyrdom of the Servants of God Rutilio Grande García, a Jesuit priest, and his 2 lay companions, who were killed in hatred of the faith in El Salvador on March 12, 1977.”
“Murdered before the start of the Salvadoran civil war, Father Grande, who was a close friend of fellow Salvadoran and martyr, Saint Oscar Romero, became an icon for human rights in rural Latin America.”
“Known for his vigorous defence of poor, the Jesuit priest, an elderly man and a teenager were shot by a right-wing death squad as they were travelling in a car outside the village where he was born.”
“The horror that the assassination of Fr. Grande generated led Archbishop Oscar Romero of San Salvador to take up the Jesuit’s mantle as a defender of the poor. Three years later, Romero would succumb to the assassins’ bullets for his outspoken criticism of the military and work on behalf of El Salvador’s oppressed.”
“The decree on the martyrdom of Fr. Grande and his two companions does away with the need for a miracle through their intercession to qualify for beatification, the final step before sainthood, for which a miracle would be required. The beatification date will be declared at a later date.”

In March 2003, this blogger was in El Salvador and attended a memorial mass for Father Grande at the church in the village of El Paisnal, where he had served as the parish priest, and stopped to pay my respects at Grande’s memorial on the road to the village where he had been murdered.[3]

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

[1] Gomes, Indian martyr, Devasahayam, cleared for sainthood, Vatican News (Feb. 22, 2020); Reuters, Pope Moves Slain Salvadoran Priest, Icon for Poor, Closer to Sainthood, N.Y. Times (Feb. 22, 2020); Assoc. Press, Pope Oks Beatification for Rutilio Grande, Salvadoran Martyr, N.Y. Times (Feb. 22, 2020).

[2] See posts listed in the “ Oscar Romero” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: El Salvador.

[3] See Remembering Oscar Romero in Film, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 15, 2011) (includes photos of the sanctuary during the memorial mass and of the Grande memorial).

Cuba Reveals Purported U.S. TOP SECRET Document for Overthrow of Venezuela’s Government

On April 30, 2019, Granma, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba, published a summary with selected quotations of a purported TOP SECRET U.S. plan to overthrow the Venezuelan government issued by the U.S. Southern Command.[1] According to Granma, this plan outlines “[s]teps to speed up the definite overthrow of Chavismo and the expulsion of its representatives.” According to Granma, this “plan” has the following sections: Parts I, II and III and Media Plan, which are set forth below.

This “plan” may have been overtaken by this week’s apparent failure of the attempt by Venezuelan leader Juan Guaidó to oust Maduro from power, which will be discussed in a future post.

“Part I of the Plan”

Part I of this plan, according to Granma, was “implemented before the Venezuelan elections last year, but did not succeed in overthrowing Maduro. It contains the following:

– “Increase internal instability to a critical level, by ‘intensifying the undercapitalization of the country, the leaking out of foreign currency and the deterioration of its monetary base, bringing about the application of new inflationary measures.’”

– “The document suggests exacerbating divisions between members of the government, emphasizing the difference between the population’s living conditions and those of their leaders, and making sure that these are exaggerated.”

– “Fully obstruct imports, and at the same time discouraging potential foreign investors in order to make the situation more critical for the population.”

– “Appeal ‘to domestic allies as well as other people inserted from abroad in the national scenario in order to generate protests, riots and insecurity, plunders, thefts, assaults and highjacking of vessels as well as other means of transportation with the intention of deserting the country in crisis through all borderlands and other possible ways, jeopardizing in such a way the National Security of neighboring frontier nations.’”

– “The plan emphasizes the importance of ‘causing victims’ and ‘holding the Venezuelan government responsible.’”

– “Promote internationally the idea that the country is facing a humanitarian crisis.”

-“ Spread lies about extensive government corruption.”

– “Link the government to drug trafficking to discredit the Maduro administration before the world and among Venezuelan supporters.”

-“ Promote ‘fatigue inside the members of the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela), inciting annoyance and . . . [disunity?]among themselves, for them to break noisily from the government.’”

-:Design a plan to incite ‘the profuse desertion of the most qualified professionals from the country, to leave it with no professionals at all, which will aggravate even more the internal situation, and along these lines, putting the blame on the government.’”

“Part II of the Plan”

-“’Encourage dissatisfaction with the Maduro regime.’”

– “Highlight ‘the incompetence of mechanisms of integration created by the regimes of Cuba and Venezuela, especially the ALBA and PETROCARIBE, in order to tackle the situation of the country and its inability to find solutions to the problems that citizens are facing.’”

– “One section of the document is entitled: ‘Using the army officers as an alternative of definite solution.’”

– Continue preparing “conditions inside the Armed Forces to carry out a coup d’état before the end of 2018, if the crisis does not make the dictatorship collapse, or the dictator does not decide to move aside.’”

– “Continue ‘setting fire to the common frontier with Colombia, multiplying the traffic of fuel and other goods. The movement of paramilitaries, armed raids, and drug trafficking. Provoking armed incidents with the Venezuelan frontier security forces.’”

– “Recruit ‘paramilitaries, mainly in the campsites of refugees in . . . [three areas of Colombia], areas largely populated by Colombian citizens who emigrated to Venezuela and have returned.’”

“Part III of the Plan”

– “Prepare ‘involvement of allied forces in support of Venezuelan Army officers, or to control the internal crisis.’”

– “Establish ‘a speedy timeline that prevents the Dictator [Maduro] … winning control of the internal scenario.’”

– “Obtain support and cooperation from ‘friendly countries (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Panama, Guyana).’”

– “Organize ‘provisioning, relief of troops, medical and logistical support from Panama.’”

– “Make ‘good use’ of electronic surveillance and intelligence signals; of hospitals and equipment deployed in Darién (Panamanian jungle), Plan Colombia’s drone equipment, as well as the ‘landing fields’ at the former Howard and Albroock military bases in Panama; as well as those of Río Hato; and the United Nations Humanitarian Regional Center, designed for catastrophe situations and humanitarian emergencies, which has ‘an aerial landing field and its own warehouses.’”

– “Propose ‘moving on the basification of combat airplanes and choppers, armored conveyances, intelligence positions, and special military and logistics units, police, military district attorneys, and prisons.’”

– “Develop ‘the military operation under international flag, patronized by the Conference of American Armies, under the protection of the OAS, and the supervision, in the legal and media context of [OAS] General Secretary Luis Almagro.’”

– “Declare the ‘necessity of the continental command be strengthened to act, using the instrument of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, in order to avoid the democratic rupture.’”

– “’Binding Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Panama to contribute greater numbers of troops, to make use of their geographic proximity and experience in forest regions.’”

– “Strengthen the ‘international’ nature of the operation ‘with presence of combat units from the United States and the other named countries, under the command of a Joint General Staff led by the USA.’”

– “Promote ‘international participation in this effort, as part of a multilateral operation with contributions from States, Non-profit Organizations, and international bodies. Supplying the adequate logistic, intelligence, surveillance, and control support,’ anticipating as key geographical points . . .[six towns] in Colombia, and . . . [three] in Brazil.”

“Media Plan”

“’Create within the country, via local and international media, the dissemination of messages designed and based on testimony and publications originating in the country, making use of all possible capacity, including social media.’”

– “’Justifying and assuring through violent means the international backup to the deposing of the dictatorship, displaying an extensive dissemination, inside the country and to the entire world, through all open means and the capacities of the psychological war of the U.S. Army.’”

– “Back up and ‘strengthen’ the image of the OAS, as a multilateral institution to resolve regional problems.”

– “Promote ’the request of a dispatch of a UNO military force for the imposition of peace, once Nicolas Maduro’s corrupt dictatorship is defeated.’”

Conclusion

The Granma article says this purported plan was revealed [discovered? pilfered?] by Argentine intellectual Stella Calloni. A simple Google search of her name revealed that she is an 84-year-old Argentine journalist who specializes in Latin American international politics.[2]

That same Google search discovered that on May 17, 2018, Calloni did publish an article about this purported TOP SECRET U.S. document on Voltaire.net.org.[3]

That article by Calloni in turn cited to a publication on that same website of what appears to be an actual copy of a TOP SECRET U.S. document of that title and that date and authored by Admiral Kurt W. Tidd, Commander, U.S. Southern Command.[4]

The U.S. Southern Command, which is located in Doral, Florida,, is one of ten Unified Combatant Commands (CCMDs) in the United States Department of Defense. It is responsible for providing contingency planning, operations, and security cooperation for Central and South America, the Caribbean (except U.S. commonwealths, territories, and possessions), their territorial waters, and for the force protection of U.S. military resources at these locations. USSOUTHCOM is also responsible for ensuring the defense of the Panama Canal and the canal area. According to Its stated mission, it “deters aggression, defeats threats, rapidly responds to crises, and builds regional capacity, working with our allies, partner nations, and U.S. government (USG) team members to enhance security and defend the U.S. homeland and our national interests.”[5]

Admiral Kurt W. Tidd was the Commander of the Southern Command in May 2018 until he retired on November 26, 2018; the current Commander is Admiral Craig L. Faller. [6]

Although the Granma article purports to summarize an actual “TOP SECRET” document, there is no indication in this article or those by Calloni that this “plan” was actually adopted or approved by higher U.S. officials. And, as noted at the start of this post, this apparent “plan” may have been superseded by this week’s apparent failure of an attempt by Venezuelan leader Juan Guaidó to oust Maduro from power, which will be discussed in a future post.

This blog has not compared, line-by-line, Granma’s English translation of the Plan with the apparent English-language original, but Granma’s version does track the apparent original. Nor has this blog attempted to determine whether there was any action on this apparent plan by higher officials in the Department of Defense or other agencies of the U.S. government.

Thus, this purported or apparent U.S. document raises, but does not resolve, disturbing issues.

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

[1] U.S. master plan to destroy Bolivarian Venezuela, Granma (April 30, 2019).

[2] Sierra, Calloni, chronicler of our time, Granma; Stella Calloni, Wikipedia; Stella Calloni, EcuRed: Cuban Encyclopedia.

[3] Calloni, The United States “Master Stroke” against Venezuela, Voltaire.net.org (May 17, 2018). The Hong Kong-based Voltaire website says it was founded by French intellectual Thierry Meyssan as a “web of non-aligned press groups dedicated to the analysis of international relations . . . from diversified political, social and cultural backgrounds . . . and does not aim to promote a particular ideology or a world vision, but to hone the critical thinking of its readers . . . [and place] reflection before belief and arguments before convictions.”

[4] Tidd, TOP SECRET: Plan to overthrow the Venezuelan Dictatorship—“Masterstroke,” Voltaire.net.org (Feb, 23, 2018).

[5] U.S. Defense Dep’t, U.S. Southern Command; United States Southern Command, Wikipedia.

[6] U.S. Defense Dep’t, Admiral Kurt W. Tidd; Kurt W. Tidd, Wikipedia; Inter-American Defense Board, Retirement Ceremony for Admiral Kurt W.Tidd and USSOUTHCOM Change of Command Ceremony (Nov. 29, 2018).

Signs of Possible Increased U.S. Hostility Towards Cuba

A recent post discussed challenges about Cuba facing the Trump Administration this April: President Trump’s attendance at the Summit of the Americas in Peru and the U.S. reaction to Cuba’s election of the new President of the Council of State.

Recent developments have added to the apprehension that these and other events may be occasions for more U.S. hostility towards Cuba.

Future U.S. Actions Regarding the Summit of the Americas[1]

In a letter last week to the Secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS), Rick Scott, Florida Governor and rumored U.S. Senate candidate this year, called for the exclusion of Cuba at the upcoming Summit. This request was due to the “oppression and misery” that the Cuban people have suffered for more than 60 years. “For six decades, the sovereignty of the Cuban people has been taken hostage by a brutal dictatorship that has imprisoned, tortured and murdered innocent people to preserve their regime.”

Another reason for such exclusion, according to Scott, was the recent electoral process on the island as a “fraudulent effort to carry out the so-called elections as the dictatorship moves towards a dynastic succession.” In short, “Obama’s policy is a tragedy for the Cuban people, and a top priority for America’s next President to reverse.”

The Governor’s request was reiterated by the Cuban Resistance Assembly and anticipated this last February by Freedom House’s Director Carlos Ponce when he said that Castro’s attendance at the 2015 Summit in Panama was “a great spectacle that did not represent an advance in democracy and human rights on the island.” In fact, it included the regime sending “violent groups to threaten and persecute the Cuban leaders of civil society who participated.”

Future U.S. Reaction to Election of New President of Cuba

In addition to Governor Scott’s criticism of this year’s Cuban electoral process, the previous post about challenges to the Trump Administration mentioned that on March 9 Senator Marco Rubio (Rep., FL) and five Florida Republican U.S. Representatives sent a letter to President Trump urging him to “denounce Castro’s successor as illegitimate in the absence of free, fair, and multiparty elections, and call upon the international community to support the right of the Cuban people to decide their future.”

On March 14, Congressman Curbelo added this statement for his reasons for such criticism: “It’s clear the Cuban people are ready for a new beginning. Now more than ever they need the support and solidarity of the American people, the American government and its diplomats, and all freedom loving people throughout the world. Given the absence of free, fair, multiparty elections this past weekend, I continue to urge President Trump to declare Raul Castro’s successor as illegitimate.”[2]

New Officials in Trump Administration

President Trump has nominated or appointed two officials who have a history of hostility towards Cuba–Mike Pompeo and John Bolton– while another appointee, Carlos Trujillo, may hold such views.

Secretary of State Nominee Mike Pompeo[3]

President Trump has nominated Mike Pompeo, the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as the next Secretary of State, a position that requires confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

In 2015, when Pompeo was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he co-sponsored a bill, the Cuban Military Transparency Act, to prevent any U.S. financial transaction with companies managed by the Cuban military that did not become law, but was implemented last year by a President Trump executive order.

In June 2017 Pompeo and Senator Marco Rubio (Rep., FL) met at CIA headquarters with several members of the Brigade 2506, which is a CIA-sponsored group of Cuban exiles formed in 1960 to attempt the military overthrow of the Cuban government headed by Fidel Castro and which in 1961 carried out the abortive Bay of Pigs Invasion landings.

John Bolton, National Security ‘Advisor[4]

On March 23 President Trump appointed as his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who over many years consistently has been hostile to U.S.-Cuba normalization. Here are examples of his views on this subject:

As Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, Bolton in 2002 accused Cuba of developing biological weapons in collaboration with U.S. adversaries and said Cuba remained a “terrorist” threat to the U.S. Bolton’s disputed claims were shown to be baseless in the 2004 National Intelligence Estimate, which found that while Cuba had the technical capability to produce biological agents, there was no evidence of any biological weapons development.
Bolton criticized the rapprochement between Cuba and the U.S. in December 2014, calling the decision to pursue normalized relations “an unmitigated defeat for the United States.”
In July 2015, just after the U.S. decided to resume full diplomatic relations with Cuba, he published an article saying that this decision “untethered our foreign policy from any discernible American interests.” In short, Bolton said, “Obama’s policy is a tragedy for the Cuban people, and a top priority for America’s next President to reverse.”

Unsurprisingly Senator Marco Rubio applauded the appointment of Bolton as “an excellent choice.”

Cuba immediately responded in Granma, saying Bolton had “a very dark past in relation to Cuba” with strong ties to “the ultra-right of Cuban origin in Florida.” This appointment “comes in the midst of a new campaign against Cuba in which pretexts and evidence have been used without scientific evidence to justify unilateral measures that affect hundreds of thousands of people on both sides of the [Caribbean] and hinder the exchange on issues of mutual interest.”

New U.S. Ambassador to OAS[5]

Last week the U.S. Senate confirmed the nomination of Carlos Trujillo as the new U.S. Ambassador to OAS. I have not discovered Trujillo’s views about U.S. policy towards Cuba and the OAS relationship with the island, but given his background and support by Senator Rubio, I suspect that he too is hostile towards the Cuban government.

Conference at Florida International University[6]

Recently Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., participated in a conference at the Florida International University in Miami that was organized by Senator Rubio and some of his Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives.One of the topics of the meeting was how to improve democracy in Cuba and Venezuela. Before the meeting, Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said, “The Castro regime continues its decades-long oppression of the Cuban people, while providing illicit support to other sham regimes in the region, including those in Venezuela and Nicaragua. By promoting democracy, civil society and human rights in our hemisphere, we promote stability and prosperity among our neighbors, and strengthen friendships with allies.”

New U.S. Federal Government Budget[7]

The budget approved by the United States Congress last week, which will allow government financing until mid-2018, includes $ 20 million for promotion of democracy in Cuba, scholarships to promote leadership among young Cubans and improving Cuba’s access to the internet. Granma, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba, says these are funds to “promote a supposed regime change in Cuba.”

On the other hand, Congress did not adopt a proposed amendment to the budget that would have restricted funding for the U.S. Embassy in Havana to pre-Obama Administration levels. This congressional rejection was applauded by Engage Cuba, a U.S. coalition of private companies and organizations working to end the travel and trade embargo on Cuba. It said, “By eliminating this senseless budget provision, Congress has averted a foreign relations debacle that would have upended progress on law enforcement cooperation, migration, and commercial ties. We commend the bipartisan majority of lawmakers that fought to preserve our diplomatic engagement with Cuba. Slashing embassy funding would hurt Cuban Americans and the Cuban people, and turn back the clock to a discredited counter-productive Cold War policy that failed for over 55 years.”

Conclusion

Although not surprising, these developments are unfortunate for those of us who advocate for increased normalization between the two countries. We must continue to be vigilant in resisting any and all Trump Administration hostility towards Cuba.

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

[1] Rick Scott asks the OAS to exclude Raúl Castro from the Summit of the Americas, Diario de Cuba (Mar. 24, 2018).

[2] Press Release, Curbelo: Following Another Empty Voting Exercise on the Island, the Cuban People Need Support and Solidarity (Mar. 14, 2018).

[3] Falćon, Foreign Policy of the United States: the extremists circle closes, CubaDebate (Mar. 26, 2018); CIA, The Bay of Pigs Invasion; Brigade 2506, Wikipedia.

[4] Bolton, Obama’s outrageous Cuba capitulations, N.Y. Daily News (July 13, 2015); Center for Democracy in Americas, Cuba Central News Brief: 3/23/18; The regime complains of a possible worsening of relations with Washington after the appointment of Bolton, Diario de Cuba (Mar. 24, 2018).

[5] The Senate confirms Carlos Trujillo as US ambassador to the OAS, Diario de Cuba (Mar. 23, 2018); Press Release, Rubio Welcomes Confirmation of Carlos Trujillo to Serve as U.S. Ambassador to OAS (Mar. 23, 2018).

[6] Press Release, Diaz-Balart, South Florida Members of Congress Host Ambassador Haley for Latin American State of Affairs Discussion (Mar. 2, 2018).

[7] Washington releases funds for subversion in Cuba and border wall in Mexico, Granma (Mar. 25, 2018); Press Release, Engage Cuba Applauds Defeat of Budget Provision to Slash Funding for U.S. Embassy in Havana (Mar. 23, 2018).

Upcoming Cuba Issues for Trump Administration

On April 13-14, President Donald Trump will attend the Summit of the Americas in Lima, Peru, and on April 19 Cuba’s national legislature will elect a new President of the Council of State to succeed Raúl Castro. Both of these events will require Trump to comment on U.S. policies regarding Cuba, and already U.S. forces are proposing responses.

Summit of the Americas

Because of U.S. opposition, Cuba was not included in the first six such summits, 1994-2012, but in October 2014, the major countries of Latin America let it be known that Cuba no longer could be excluded from the next summit in April 2015. Therefore, when President Obama on December 17, 2014, announced that the U.S. and Cuba had agreed to commence a process of normalization, the U.S. abandoned its opposition to the inclusion of Cuba in such Summits. As a result, in April 2015 Cuba was included in the seventh such summit in Panama and Presidents Obama and Raúl Castro held a cordial meeting on that occasion.[1]

This year will be the eighth such summit, which are institutionalized gatherings of the heads of state and government of the Western Hemisphere where leaders discuss common policy issues, affirm shared values and commit to concerted actions at the national and regional level to address continuing and new challenges faced in the Americas. This year’s theme is Democratic Governance Against Corruption.[2]

On March 9, the White House announced that President Trump will attend the eighth Summit, where he likely will be met by hostile reactions to his Cuba policies as well as his anti-immigrant statements, proposal to build a wall on the Mexican border and tariff and other anti-free trade proposals and rhetoric.[3]

According to Ben Raderstorf, a program associate in the Inter-American Dialogue’s Peter D. Bell Rule of Law program, President Trump “comes to the summit meeting with considerable baggage, making the risks far greater. His participation may even end up being counterproductive to the meeting’s primary aims of furthering human rights, democracy and inter-American diplomacy.” Therefore, he and his administration need “to understand that America’s credibility in Latin America is extraordinarily low. [Mr. Trump’s] rhetoric about ‘drugs,’ ‘rapists’ and ‘the wall” ‘has clearly resonated south of the border.” As a result, only “16 percent of Latin Americans approve of Mr. Trump’s job performance — a rate even lower than his approval rating among Latinos in the United States.”[4]

Mr. Raderstorf concludes by recommending that Trump “follow three simple guidelines: Listen first. Talk softly. And do your homework.” Will Trump be able to do that? We may be doubtful, but let us wait and find out.

This analysis is confirmed by other countries in the Western Hemisphere having begun “forging closer commercial ties with one another and paring back some of their own protectionist policies” and creating “a free trade area reaching from Canada to Chile.” At the same time these governments “are increasingly looking to Asia, and China in particular, to expand trade, obtain loans and finance infrastructure projects” while “Mercosur — the trade bloc that includes Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay — have jump-started trade negotiations with the European Union.”[5]

Election of New President of Cuba

On March 11, over 8 million Cubans voted to elect 605 deputies for their national legislature (National Assembly of Peoples Power), and on April 19 those deputies will elected the country’s next President of the Council of State to succeed Raúl Castro. The widely assumed choice for this office is Miguel Diaz-Canel, who is now the First Vice President of Cuba.[6]

On March 9, Senator Marco Rubio (Rep., FL) and five Florida Republican U.S. Representatives (Ron DeSantis, Carlos Curbelo, Mario Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Ted Yoho) sent a letter to President Trump urging him to “denounce Castro’s successor as illegitimate in the absence of free, fair, and multiparty elections, and call upon the international community to support the right of the Cuban people to decide their future.”[7]

The letter added, this upcoming election is “a predetermined, charade election orchestrated by regime officials will continue the dictatorship” and “yet another example of the regime’s dictatorial repression of fundamental freedoms which must not be recognized by those who value freedom and democracy.”

The U.S. response to this request by Senator Rubio and others may have been signaled by the comments of the U.S. representative last week at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva Switzerland that were quoted in a prior post: “We condemn the undemocratic electoral process in which the Cuban people cannot freely choose their future leaders.”

Conclusion

Any U.S. criticism of the Cuban process for electing its president of the Council of State seems particularly inappropriate. As we well know from the 2016 U.S. presidential election, U.S. citizens do not directly elect the U.S. president; instead they elect individuals to be members of the Electoral College who then elect the president. The 2016 election also is now under investigation for illegal interference by Russia, and the U.S. system is under constant legal challenge for the gerrymandering of congressional districts and for state laws that are designed to suppress voting instead of their purported purpose of preventing fraudulent voting.

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

[1] See the following posts to dwkcommentaries.com: Continued Bad News About U.S. Policies Regarding Cuba (Oct. 9, 2014); Comment: U.S. Now Willing To Accept Cuba at Summit of the Americas? (Oct. 9, 2014); U.S. Clarifies Positions on Cuba and Venezuela in Preparation for Summit of the Americas (April 8, 2015); Seventh Summit of the Americas Is Underway in Panama (April 9, 2015); President Obama’s Major Speech at the Summit of the Americas (April 16, 2015); Cuban President Raúl Castro’s Major Speech at the Summit of the Americas (April 17, 2015); Presidents Obama and Castro’s Meeting at the Summit of the Americas (April 18, 2015); Other Remarks by President Obama at the Seventh Summit of the Americas (April 19, 2015).

[2] OAS, Summits of the Americas.

[3] Assoc. Press, Trump to Attend Summit of the Americas Meeting in Peru, N.Y. Times (Mar. 9, 2018).

[4] Raderstorf, Can Trump Succeed at the Summit of the Americas?, N.Y. Times (Mar. 16, 2018).

[5] Londoño, Darlington & Politi, ‘World Upside Down’: As Trump Pushes Tariffs, Latin America Links Up, N.Y. Times (Mar. 18, 2018).

[6] Reinaldo, Rubio & Perez, Elections in Cuba: Elected 605 deputies to the National Assembly (+Infographics and Video), CubaDebate (Mar. 12, 2018); Cuba’s Elections, 2017-2018, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 29, 2017); Another Perspective on Cuba’s Current Elections, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 5, 2017).

[7] Press Release, Rubio, DeSantis Urge President Trump to Denounce Castro Successor (Mar. 9, 2018).

Emerging Development of Cuba’s Mariel Port

Only 28 miles west of Havana, Cuba has been developing the Mariel Special Economic Development Zone around a deep-water port. Now this project is reaching fruition.[1]

With a goal of becoming a bustling commercial city built on high-tech, advanced manufacturing and sustainable development, the Zone of 115,000 acres now has large tracts of land leveled and ready for construction of the following two major manufacturing operations:

The BrasCuba factory — a joint venturebetween Brazil’s Souza Cruz and Cuba’s Tabacuba–will turn out Popular, Cohiba and H. Upmann cigarettes for export and the domestic market.
Womy Equipment Rental, a Dutch company that rents cranes and other heavy equipment, has just finished its building as shown in this photograph.

In addition, a site has been prepared for a Cuban biotech factory, and two foreign companies–BDC-Log and BDC-Tec– have begun operating in the zone’s logistics sector.

Although only nine companies are currently operating there, another 18, including firms from Spain, the Netherlands, Panama, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Vietnam, France, Belgium, and Cuba itself have been approved and are getting ready to start.

The port has more than 2,300 feet of wharf space, four super Post-Panamax cranes and the capacity to handle 820,000 cargo containers annually.

In light of President Trump’s June 2017 announcement of still forthcoming regulatory restrictions on U.S. business’ doing business in Cuba, U.S. firms have been reluctant to make commitments for Mariel projects.

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

[1] Whitefield, Mariel is Cuba’s big industrial gamble. Could U.S. companies be among investors?, Miami Herald (Oct. 23, 2017). An earlier blog post discussed potential U.S. interest in Mariel.

President Raúl Castro Discusses Cuba-U.S. Relations

On July 14, Raúl Castro Ruz, Army General, First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba Central Committee and President of the Councils of State and Ministers, addressed a session of Cuba’s legislature (the National Assembly of People’s Power).[1]

A previous post discussed his remarks about Cuba’s private sector. He also made the following comments about the history of Cuba-U.S. relations.[2]

Present Castro’s Comments

President Trump’s Policies Regarding Cuba

“This past June 16, the President of the [U.S.], Donald Trump, announced his administration’s policy toward Cuba, nothing novel for sure, since he retook a discourse and elements from the confrontational past, which showed their absolute failure for over 55 years.”

“It is evident that the U.S. President has not been well informed on the history of Cuba and its relations with the [U.S.], or on the patriotism and dignity of the Cuban people.”

Cuba-U.S. Relations, 1789-2014

“History cannot be forgotten, as they have at times suggested we do. For more than 200 years, the ties between Cuba and the [U.S.] have been marked, on the one hand, by the pretensions of the northern neighbor to dominate our country, and on the other, by the determination of Cubans to be free, independent, and sovereign.”

“Throughout the entire 19th century, invoking the doctrines and policies of Manifest Destiny, of Monroe, and the ‘ripe fruit,’ different U.S. administrations tried to take possession of Cuba, and despite the heroic struggle of the mambises,[3] they did so in 1898, with a deceitful intervention at the end of the war which for 30 years Cubans had waged for their independence, and which the U.S. troops entered as allies and then became occupiers. Negotiating with Spain behind Cuba’s back, they militarily occupied the country for four years, demobilizing the Liberation Army, dissolving the Revolutionary Cuban Party – organized, founded, and led by Martí – and imposed an appendix to the Constitution of the nascent republic, the Platt Amendment, which gave them the right to intervene in our internal affairs and establish, among others, the naval base in Guantánamo, which still today usurps part of the national territory, the return of which we will continue to demand.”

“Cuba’s neocolonial condition, which allowed the [U.S.] to exercise total control over the economic and political life of the island, frustrated, but did not annihilate, the Cuban people’s longing for freedom and independence. Exactly 60 years later, January 1, 1959, with the triumph of the Revolution led by Comandante en Jefe Fidel Castro, we became definitively free and independent.”

“From that moment on, the strategic goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba has been to overthrow the Revolution. To do so, over more than five decades, they resorted to dissimilar methods: economic war, breaking diplomatic relations, armed invasion, attempts to assassinate our principal leaders, sabotage, a naval blockade, the creation and support of armed bands, state terrorism, internal subversion, the economic, commercial, financial blockade, and international isolation.”

Cuba-U.S. Relations, 2014-2017

“Ten administrations held office until President Barack Obama, in his statement of December 17, 2014, without renouncing the strategic goal, had the good sense to recognize that isolation had not worked, and that it was time for a new focus toward Cuba.”

“No one could deny that the [U.S.], in its attempts to isolate Cuba, in the end found itself profoundly isolated. The policy of hostility and blockade toward our country had become a serious obstacle to relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, and was rejected almost unanimously by the international community. Within U.S. society, growing majority opposition to this policy had developed, including among a good portion of the Cuban émigré community.”

“In the Sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, in 2012, Ecuador refused to participate if Cuba was not permitted to attend, and all Latin American and Caribbean countries expressed their rejection of the blockade and Cuba’s exclusion from these events. Many countries warned that another meeting would not take place without Cuba. As such, we arrived in April 2015 – three years later – to the Seventh Summit in Panama, invited for the very first time.”

“Over the last two years, and working on the basis of respect and equality, diplomatic relations have been reestablished and progress made toward resolving pending bilateral matters, as well as cooperation on issues of mutual interest and benefit; limited modifications were made to the implementation of some aspects of the blockade. The two countries established the bases from which to work toward building a new type of relationship, demonstrating that civil coexistence is possible despite profound differences.”

“At the end of President Obama’s term in office, the blockade, the Naval Base in Guantánamo, and the regime change policy, remained in place.”

Cuba-U.S. Relations, 2017–

“The announcements made by the current U.S. President, last June 16, represent a step back in bilateral relations. This is the opinion of many people and organizations in the [U.S.] and around the world, who have overwhelmingly expressed their outright rejection of the announced changes. This sentiment was also expressed by our youth and student organizations, Cuban women, workers, campesinos, Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, intellectuals, and religious groups, on behalf of the vast majority of the nation’s citizens.”

“The U.S. government has decided to tighten the blockade by imposing new obstacles on its businesspeople to trade and invest in Cuba, and additional restrictions on its citizens to travel to the country – justifying these measures with out-dated rhetoric regarding the Cuban people’s exercise and enjoyment of human rights and democracy.”

“President Trump’s decision disregards the support of broad sectors of U.S. society, including the majority of Cuban émigrés, for lifting of the blockade and normalization of relations, and only satisfies the interests of an increasingly isolated, minority group of Cuban origin in South Florida, who insist on harming Cuba and its people for having chosen to defend, at any cost, their right to be free, independent, and sovereign.”

“Today, we reiterate the Revolutionary Government’s condemnation of measures to tighten the blockade, and reaffirm that any attempt to destroy the Revolution, whether through coercion and pressure, or the use of subtle methods, will fail.”

“We likewise reject manipulation of the issue of human rights against Cuba, which has many reasons to be proud of its achievements, and does not need to receive lessons from the [U.S.] or anyone else.”

“I wish to repeat, as I did so in the CELAC Summit held in the Dominican Republic in January of this year, that Cuba is willing to continue discussing pending bilateral issues with the [U.S.], on the basis of equality and respect for the sovereignty and independence of our country, and to continue respectful dialogue and cooperation in issues of common interest with the U.S. government.”

“Cuba and the [U.S.] can cooperate and coexist, respecting our differences and promoting everything that benefits both countries and peoples, but it should not be expected that, in order to do so, Cuba will make concessions essential to its sovereignty and independence. [N]or will it negotiate its principles or accept conditions of any kind, just as we have never done throughout the history of the Revolution.”

“Despite what the government of the [U.S.] does, or does not decide to do, we will continue advancing along the path sovereignly chosen by our people.”

Conclusion

Castro’s review of the history of these relations was succinct, fact-based, fair and necessary for the two countries’ moving forward in a positive direction.

Moreover, the two countries, as Castro said, should be “willing to continue discussing pending bilateral issues . . . on the basis of equality and respect for the sovereignty and independence of [each] country, and to continue respectful dialogue and cooperation in issues of common interest.” The two countries should be able to “cooperate and coexist, respecting our differences and promoting everything that benefits both countries and peoples.”

These principles should govern U.S. relations with Cuba and every other country in the world.

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

[1] Castro Ruz, We will continue to advance along the path freely chosen by our people, Granma (July 17, 2017).

[2] Various aspects of this history have been discussed in the posts identified in List of Posts to dwkcommentaries–Topical: CUBA.

[3] “Mambises” refers to the guerrilla Cuban independence soldiers who fought against Spain in the Ten Years’ War (1868–78) and Cuban War of Independence (1895–98).