President Donald Trump – dwkcommentaries

President Trump Addresses the United Nations

On September 23, U.S. President Donald Trump addressed the U.N. General Assembly. Here is a report of what he said.[1]

“President Trump today urged world leaders gathered at the United Nations General Assembly to adhere to the U.N.’s original purpose — the resolution of international disputes by peaceful means.”

“Noting that he himself has ended seven conflicts in the first seven months of his administration, without hearing from the U.N., the president said the international body is not living up to its founding mandate to protect peace and security. ‘What is the purpose of the United Nations? the president asked . Acknowledging its ‘tremendous potential” to end wars or stop them from starting, he lamented that it is ‘not even coming close to living up to that potential.’”

“The president spoke of his desire for a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the war in Ukraine. To applause the president said, ‘Release the hostages now’ to Hamas, demanding that it release remaining hostages — not a few at a time, but all at once.”

“While expressing his commitment to an end to the war in Ukraine, President Trump chastised countries funding the conflict by purchasing Russian oil, naming China and India as ‘primary funders’ and criticizing European countries for acting against their own ideals through their purchases. ‘Cease all energy purchases from Russia,’ he said.”

“Trump appealed to leaders of sovereign nations to protect their country’s borders against illegal immigration. ‘Every sovereign nation must have the right to control their own borders,’ he said.”

“He cited his administration’s successful efforts to stop illegal border crossings and reduce the flow of illicit drugs into the United States. His administration designated drug cartels, as well as the international gangs MS-13 and Tren de Aragua, as foreign terrorist organizations.”

“In addressing economic security, the president criticized global climate pacts that harm economic development, noting that signatories are replacing traditional energy with renewables that are costly and ineffective. ‘The primary effect of these brutal green energy policies has not been to help the environment but to redistribute manufacturing and industrial activity from developed countries’ that follow the rules, the president said.”

The president heralded a chance for successful international cooperation in a potential verification system that will use artificial intelligence to enforce the biological weapons convention and stop risky research into bioweapons and man-made pathogens.

“’Hopefully the UN can play a constructive role,’ the president said.”

“Noting that the United States will celebrate its 250th anniversary next year, Trump urged other world leaders to similarly honor their nations’ founders and protect their own traditions.

‘Every leader in this beautiful hall today represents a rich culture, a noble history and a proud heritage that makes each nation majestic and unique, unlike anything else in human history or any other place on the face of the earth,’ the president said.”

“’So, together, let us uphold our sacred duty to our people and to our citizens. Let us protect their borders; ensure their safety; preserve their cultures, treasure, and traditions; and fight, fight, fight for their precious dreams and their cherished freedoms,’ the president said.”

Comments

Trump correctly started with stating the U.N.’s “original purpose — the resolution of international disputes by peaceful means.”

He then claimed without details that “he himself has ended seven conflicts.” And he claimed, ‘Every sovereign nation must have the right to control their own borders,’ without mentioning the international right to asylum as a limitation on every sovereign nation’s right to control their borders.

His criticism of countries that bought oil from Russia as contributing to the Russian attacks on Ukraine and advocating the cessation of such purchases seemed over-stated in light of Trump’s friendship with Putin and his conflicting statements about Russia and Ukraine.

His criticism of global climate pacts seems overstated.

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

[1] President Trump calls on the U.N. to reach its potential, shareamerica (9/23/25).

The Economist Magazine’s Critical Analysis of President Trump

The influential Economist magazine from London recently has published three critical articles about President Donald Trump: (1) “The would-be king;” (2) “Trump and the world: Europe’s Worst Nightmare;” and (3) “Trade: At the president’s pleasure.” [1]

Here are some highlights (lowlights?) of those articles.

“The world-be king”

“Mr. Trump’s every act demonstrates his belief that power is vested in him personally, and affirms he is bent on amassing more. Ignoring the legislature, he is governing by decree. . . Because some of . . .[his] orders are, on the face of it, brazenly unconstitutional, he also appears to be seeking a trial of strength with the judiciary. . . . Government departments are being thrown into confusion, partly to demonstrate Mr. Trump’s authority over them. . . . In foreign affairs too, Mr. Trump chafes to be rid of the obligations he inherited.. .. [Although] he has pledged to abide by legal rulings, [he] then quoted Napoleon, saying ‘He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”

“Trump and the world: Europe’s worst nightmare”

“The past week has been the bleakest in Europe since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Ukraine is being sold out, Russia is being rehabilitated and, under Donald Trump, America can no longer be counted on to come to Europe’s aid in wartime.. . . The old world needs a crash course on how to wield hard power in a lawless world or fall victim to the new world disorder. . . . Mr. Trump’s shakedown of Europe and pandering to Russia have cast doubt on America’s commitment to defend NATO. . . .The problem is that if Europe comes under Russian attack and seeks America’s help, Mr. Trump’s first and deepest instinct will be to ask what is in it for him.. . In the medium term a huge [European] defense mobilization [is necessary]. . . . Paying for this rearmament will take a fiscal revolution. . . . To raise [economic] growth, Europe must press ahead with obvious but endlessly delayed reforms.”

“Trade: At the president’s pleasure”

“What happens when you ditch the principles that underpinned global trade for three-quarters of a century. Donald Trump hopes to find out. . . . A stable multilateral trade system which has, for all its flaws, fostered miraculous rises in global prosperity gives way to arbitrary judgments made in the Oval Office.”

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

[1] The Economist (Feb. 22, 2025); “The would-be king” (p. 11), “Trump and the world: Europe’s worst nightmare” (p. 12) and “Trade: At the president’s pleasure” (p. 13).

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.”

“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).

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).

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 5^th 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]

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.

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.)

“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.)

“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).

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)

Washington Post Calls for Closing Guantanamo Bay Prison

In the following January 15 Editorial, the Washington Post called flor closing the U. S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.[1]

“President Joe Biden is set to leave office Monday as the third president to try — and fail — to close the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. This ugly symbol of one of the most regrettable policies in recent American history will persist into another administration, and very likely beyond.”

“President George W. Bush opened Guantánamo at the height of the “war on terror” and quickly filled it with 780 men. After belatedly realizing that its existence had become a terrorist recruiting tool and a blight on America’s global standing as a beacon of justice, Bush wanted to close it but settled for reducing the population to 242 inmates. Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to close the prison, but once elected he was stymied by Congress, managing only to reduce its population to 40. President Donald Trump, in his first term, pledged to keep the prison running and fill it with “some bad dudes,” but added no prisoners.”

“Biden deserves credit for bringing Guantánamo’s inmate population down to 15. This month, in the largest-ever transfer of detainees, 11 Yemeni men were sent to Oman. This followed the movement in December of two detainees to Malaysia and one to Kenya.”

“The remaining prisoners are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. There is also one Palestinian and one stateless Rohingya Muslim who was captured by Pakistani troops near the Afghanistan border in 2001.”

“The inmate population might have been reduced further in August, had Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin not stepped in at the last moment to nix a plea deal with three men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi had agreed to plead guilty before a military commission hearing their cases in exchange for the government taking the death penalty off the table. The men would have served life in prison instead. Austin’s decision to revoke the plea deal was inexplicable — he would have, or should have, known about it long before it became public — and can only be marked down to the political calendar; the presidential election was three months away, and the families of the 9/11 victims might have been outraged by a deal that spared the lives of some of the terror plot’s masterminds. Austin’s decision was overturned by a military judge, and the deal is now stalled.”

“Biden also could have moved more quickly early in his term if he had made emptying Guantánamo a higher priority — as might have been expected from a president who said “democracy promotion” was a core tenet of his foreign policy. Keeping inmates detained for decades in a parallel legal structure, without charges, after many were subjected to torture and denied basic due process (the presumption of innocence and speedy trials, for instance) contradicts core principles of American justice. For 23 years, Guantánamo’s dark stain has hampered America’s ability to honestly condemn other countries for using arbitrary detention and torture, and for denying basic human rights for the accused.”

“Opening Guantánamo was a mistake from the start, and presidents since Bush can be blamed for not correcting it. But Congress has thrown up obstacles. Biden and Obama were both hamstrung by foolish legislation that tightly restricted detainee transfers to other countries and altogether prohibited sending them to prisons on U.S. soil because of specious concerns about security. Federal prisons already hold convicted terrorists, including shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, sometimes called the 20th hijacker.”

“Leaving only 15 detainees in Guantánamo Bay at an estimated cost of about $500 million a year — $33 million per prisoner — exposes the absurdity of keeping the prison open at all.”

“Abuse of detainees during wars or periods of mass trauma is tragically common. Think of the forced relocation and imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry during World War II. But it is left to future leaders to acknowledge and correct such wrongs. President-elect Trump, who signed an executive order in 2018 to keep Guantánamo open, has expressed no interest in closing it. But in 2019 he did acknowledge that the cost of maintaining the prison was “crazy.” If he is now serious about wanting to improve government efficiency, he should work toward transferring the remaining inmates to secure federal prisons.”

Conclusion. Give thanks to the Washington Post for this Editorial.

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

[1] Editorial, After 23 shameful years, close Guantanamo, Wash. Post (Jan. 15, 2025).

Former U.S. Officials Plead for Biden Administration To Relax Cuba Restrictions

A group of former officials in the Bush and Obama administrations have sent a letter to President Biden and Vice President Harris. This group inclues former Havana Chief of Mission Vicki Huddleston, former deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes and Jeffrey DeLaurentis, former acting ambassador to Cuba.[1]

Their letter urged the removal of Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, an increase of humanitarian aid to the country and streamlining rules for Cuban nationals to access the U.S. financial system. The letter said the following:

“As you are aware, the country’s energy grid is failing, child malnutrition is on the rise, basic services are deteriorating and most Cubans have lost hope, precipitating the largest exodus of migrants from Cuba in its history,”
“In no uncertain terms do we exonerate the Cuban government for its insufficient and incoherent policy reforms that have in large part caused this crisis. Yet we also believe that current U.S. policy has exacerbated Cubans’ hardship, and thus we respectfully request that you take a series of actions in the remaining weeks of your administration to help alleviate these challenges — in the U.S. national interest and in support of the Cuban people.”
“As many of us have said publicly, there is no credible evidence that Cuba sponsors international terrorism. The designation has hindered Cuba’s access to international finance, reduced tourism revenues to pay for imports of food, fuel and medicine and obstructed the arrival of humanitarian relief,” wrote the officials.”
“Our closest allies in the region have repeatedly requested we remove this designation to ameliorate the regional impacts of surging Cuban migration, and we are confident the United States will be applauded worldwide for making this fact-based determination.”
Jeffrey DeLaurentis added, “In my view the only reason the Trump Administration put Cuba back on the SSOT in its waning days in January 2021 was to make it more difficult for the incoming Biden Administration to reverse Trump Administration reversals of President Obama’s wise and forward-leaning policy.”
“Instruct the Office of Foreign Assets Control to guide financial institutions on how to serve qualified Cuban nationals without stepping astride of U.S. sanctions. They also called for a general license to allow U.S. citizens to invest in Cuban enterprises not linked to the country’s government.”
“As you said in 2020, Vice President Harris, the U.S. embargo is a failed policy that only emboldens hardliners in both Miami and Havana who do not represent the Cuban people’s aspirations for a brighter and more prosperous future. We commend the steps that you have taken while in office, President Biden, to restore remittances, resume visa processing, support independent Cuban entrepreneurs and expand travel for Cuban Americans.”
“However, to address the scope of the current crisis in Cuba, we believe that your administration must pay close attention and act decisively to mitigate the potentially dire implications of having a failed state just 90 miles off our shores.”

Reactions

This blogger agrees with this letter’s requests to the Biden Administration.

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

[1] Bernal, Bush, Obama alumni ask Biden administration to ease up on Cuba before Trump takes office. The Hill (Dec. 17, 2024);Former US officials call on Biden to ease restrictions on the regime before the end of his term, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 19, 2024)

Why Are Cuba and the U.S. Still Mired in the Cold War?

This is the title of a lengthy article in Foreign Policy by William H. LeoGrande, professor of government at American University in Washington, D.C. and a respected commentator on the important topic of this bilateral relation.[1]

Obama’s Normalization Effort

The starting point for his analysis is a review of the 10^th anniversary of President Obama’s public announcement of his Administration’s start of normalization of relations with Cuba. Highlights of that effort were “ending the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, reopening of both countries embassies, President Obama’s visit to Cuba, loosening of restrictions on U.S. citizens travel to the island and resumption of U.S. airlines travel to Cuba, resulting increases in U.S. travel to the island, establishing a bilateral commission to oversee the work of 18 diplomatic working groups; and Obama’s prediction of an end to the U.S. embargo” (that did not happen). Nevertheless, this effort at normalization “was immensely popular both at home and abroad. Pope Francis blessed it, the Cuban people loved it, and the general U.S. public supported it, including more than half of Cuban Americans.”[2]

Trump’s First Term’s Return to Hostile Relations

LeoGrande then notes that in his first term, Trump adopted new regulations to restrict U.S. travel to the island, impose limits on remittances, block business with Cuban companies managed by its military, disband bilateral working groups on various issues plus returned to Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism.[3]

Biden’s Failure To Return to Obama’s Normalization

Leo Grande then had these brief remarks about President Biden. “During [Biden’s] campaign, he criticized the impact of Trump’s policies on Cuban families and promised to restore Obama’s policy of normalization ‘in large part.’ But he never did. Biden did adopt some ‘half-measures.’ Most importantly, he left Cuba on the lise of state sponsors of terrorism. The result has been an incoherent hybrid policy . . .and there is little indication that he will use his lame-duck period to finally keep the Cuba-policy promises he made in 2020.” [4]

Trump Redux

Leo Grande says, “Trump’s return to the White House could presage a return to maximum pressure, especially with Rubio as secretary of states and Rep. Mike Waltz as national security advisor. Rubio and Republican Cuban Americans on the Hill will surely push for it, just as they did in Trump’s first term. They will point out that 70 percent of Cuban Americans in Florida voted for him and that a recent Florida International University (FIU) poll found 72 percent of Cuban American respondents support maximum pressure to promote regime change.” [5]

“But resuming maximum pressure would stir a political hornet’s nest. After eight years of intense sanctions exacerbated by the Cuban government’s policy mistakes, the island is suffering an unprecedented economic and social crisis. Life is so hard and prospects for the future are so grim that more than a million Cubans—9 percent of the population—emigrated in the past three years. Three-quarters of them have come to the United States, 690,000 arrived undocumented at the southern border, another 100,000 admitted under Biden’s humanitarian parole program. If Trump adopts policies that deepen Cuba’s crisis, the new surge of migrants could dwarf these numbers, which would seriously complicate his plans to end irregular immigration.”

Conclusion

LeoGrande concludes his article with the following words:

“[T]he key lesson from the fleeting rapprochement that began 10 years ago on Dec. 17, 2014, is that engagement benefits both countries and that bold and determined leaders can make it happen. The enthusiasm with which Cubans, Americans, and people around the world embraced the prospect of peace between the United States and Cuba underscored just how long overdue reconciliation was. Both Obama and Raúl Castro spoke of rebuilding bridges between their countries, and both acknowledged it would be hard to put decades of animosity to rest. It has proven harder than anyone expected in the halcyon days following Dec. 17, but the ties that bind Cuba and the United States—ties of family, commerce, culture, and the shared interests that come from living next door to one another—will eventually overcome the resistance of even the most recalcitrant politicians. As Henry Kissinger recognized half a century ago, ‘perpetual antagonism’ between the United States and Cuba need not be normal.’”

“Cuban Americans are not likely to support closing the southern border to Cuban migrants, and immigration law prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality. If the administration tries to make an exception for Cubans, the policy will certainly be challenged in court. Trump’s plans to deport undocumented immigrants could face even bigger problems. Tearing recent Cuban migrants from their families, many of whom paid traffickers thousands of dollars to bring their relatives here, would cause a political firestorm in south Florida. The FIU poll found that 72 percent of respondents support humanitarian parole for Cuban migrants and that half are planning to bring relatives still in Cuba to the United States in the future.”

“In foreign policy, tougher Cuba sanctions would complicate relations with Mexico. President Claudia Sheinbaum is supporting Cuba by sending it cheap oil. In 2023, her predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, warned the Biden administration that Cuban migration spurred by U.S. sanctions was causing problems for Mexico and complicating cooperation with Washington on migration issues. Cooperation with Mexico, as Trump learned in his first term, is indispensable for limiting undocumented migration and narcotics trafficking across the southern border, which are all top priorities for him.”

“Escalating sanctions on Cuba could also complicate Trump’s desire to improve relations with Russia. Moscow has grown closer with Havana in recent years, expanding relations beyond economic cooperation into a ‘strategic partnership,’ as the two countries describe it. Cuba has defended Russia’s rationale for its invasion of Ukraine, making Havana a valuable ally in the Global South. And Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly values having an outpost in the United States “near abroad,” if only as a geopolitical thorn in Washington’s side. In short, Russia has a clear interest in the survival of the Cuban regime.”

“I f sanctions succeed in destabilizing Cuba to the point that the state fails and social violence erupts, the pressure from Cuban Americans for U.S. military intervention will be immense. Cuban American elected officials demanded intervention in July 2021, in response to the Cuban government’s suppression of nationwide demonstrations, even though the largely peaceful protests only lasted a few days. U.S. intervention would poison relations with Latin America for a generation.”

“But the key lesson from the fleeting rapprochement that began 10 years ago on Dec. 17, 2014, is that engagement benefits both countries and that bold and determined leaders can make it happen. The enthusiasm with which Cubans, Americans, and people around the world embraced the prospect of peace between the United States and Cuba underscored just how long overdue reconciliation was. Both Obama and Raúl Castro spoke of rebuilding bridges between their countries, and both acknowledged it would be hard to put decades of animosity to rest. It has proven harder than anyone expected in the halcyon days following Dec. 17, but the ties that bind Cuba and the United States—ties of family, commerce, culture, and the shared interests that come from living next door to one another—will eventually overcome the resistance of even the most recalcitrant politicians. As Henry Kissinger recognized half a century ago, “perpetual antagonism” between the United States and Cuba need not be normal.”

Reactions

This blog recently has been publishing posts about the horrible times currently being suffered in Cuba and hence the need for the U.S. to return to the normalization efforts of President Obama/ [6]

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

[1] Leo Grande, Why Are Cuba and the U.S. Still Mired in the Cold War?, Foreign Policy (Dec. 12, 2024).

[2] See the posts listed in the following sections of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20]: U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2014; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2015; U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2016; and U.S. (Obama) & Cuba Relations (Normalization), 2017.

[3] See the posts listed in the following sections of that List of Posts: U.S. (Trump) & Cuba Relations, 2016-17; and U.S. (Trump) and Cuba, 2018.

[4] I concur in LeoGrande’s analysis and conclusion.

[5] Another concurrence.

[6] E.g., U.S. Congressmen Ask President Biden To Provide Sanctions Relief and Other Aid to Cuba (Nov. 20, 2024); Cuba’s Unstoppable Spiral of Misery, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 4, 2024);Diario de Cuba’s Editorial on Its 15^th Anniversary, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 5, 2024); Will Cuba Lose Almost Half of Its Population by 2100?, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec.14, 2024).