[Peace-discuss] Obama admin. motive in opening to Cuba

Fri Dec 19 11:50:49 EST 2014

One step forward, one step back in US-Latin America policy
By Alexander Main, contributor

"...Obama has supported a significant hardening of policy toward one of Cuba's closest allies in the region..."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/227648-one-step-forward-one-step-back-in-us-latin-america-policy

On Dec 19, 2014, at 9:50 AM, 'C. G. Estabrook' carl at newsfromneptune.com [sf-core] <sf-core-noreply at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> [From today's NYT]
> 
> ...After years of watching his influence in Latin America slip away, Mr. Obama suddenly turned the tables this week by declaring a sweeping détente with Cuba, opening the way for a major repositioning of the United States in the region.
> 
> Washington’s isolation of Cuba has long been a defining fixture of Latin American politics, something that has united governments across the region, regardless of their ideologies. Even some of Washington’s close allies in the Americas have rallied to Cuba’s side.
> 
> Now, Mr. Obama’s restoration of diplomatic ties with Cuba is snatching a major cudgel from his critics and potentially restoring some of Washington’s influence in a region where rivals like China have long chipped away at America’s primacy.
> 
> “We never thought we would see this moment,” said Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, a former Marxist guerrilla who chided the Obama administration last year over the National Security Agency’s surveillance of her and her top aides. She called the deal with Cuba “a moment which marks a change in civilization.”
> 
> The change in tone was perhaps starkest from President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, Cuba’s main financial patron. He has called Mr. Obama the “big boss of the devils,” a puppet and a sad “hostage” of American imperialism. More recently, he lashed out at Mr. Obama over a bill calling for sanctionsagainst Venezuelan officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses.
> 
> But on Wednesday, when Mr. Obama announced the Cuba deal, Mr. Maduro was almost effusive.
> 
> “We have to recognize the gesture of President Barack Obama, a brave gesture and historically necessary, perhaps the most important step of his presidency,” Mr. Maduro said.
> 
> Daniel Ortega, the Nicaraguan president and former Sandinista rebel, was chastising Mr. Obama just days ago, saying the United States deserved the top spot in a new list of state sponsors of terrorism. Then, on Wednesday, he saluted the “brave decisions” of the American president.
> 
> “Our previous Cuba policy was clearly an irritant and a drag on our policy in the region,” said Roberta S. Jacobson, the American assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, adding that it had caused friction even with countries friendly to Washington. She said that countries “with whom we have significant differences are going to be, let’s say, thrown off their stride by a move like this.”
> 
> “It removes an excuse for blaming the United States for things,” she added.
> 
> The thaw comes just a few months before the Summit of the Americas, a gathering of hemispheric leaders in Panama under the Organization of American States, the Washington-based group from which Cuba was suspended in 1962.
> 
> The Panamanian hosts confirmed earlier this month that Cuba would attend the summit for the first time, making for a potentially awkward meeting for American officials.
> 
> “They asked themselves, do you really want to show up and have every reasonable president of the region say, ‘Is this how you really want to engage with Latin America?' ” said Eric Hershberg, the director of the American University Center for Latin American and Latino Studies.
> 
> One senior Obama administration official said that pressure from the region on Washington’s Cuba policy had crept into and impeded other discussions.
> 
> “In the last Summit of the Americas, instead of talking about things we wanted to focus on — exports, counternarcotics — we spent a lot of time talking about U.S.-Cuba policy,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. “A key factor with any bilateral meeting is, ‘When are you going to change your Cuba policy?' ”
> 
> [...]
> 
> On Dec 18, 2014, at 8:10 PM, 'C. G. Estabrook' carl at newsfromneptune.com [sf-core] <sf-core-noreply at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
>> After two generations of US terrorism against Cuba (mostly under Democratic presidents), Obama's sudden opening and prisoner swap require explanation.  
>> 
>> Given his vicious campaign against Russia (and "pivot to Asia," directed against China), we might say that his primary concern is what's described by one of his intellectual bodyguards, Zbigniew Brzezinski. See his "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" (1997):
>> 
>> "Regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States. In particular, he writes, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger should emerge capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America's global pre-eminence."  
>> 
>> That "global pre-eminence" and "Eurasian geostrategy" are necessary of course for the profits of the 1%, not for the well-being of most people, in the US and abroad.  They of course suffer so that the profits of the few may increase. And Obama works for the latter. 
>> 
>> To (re-)establish economic control over Eurasia requires preventing the BRICs from uniting against the US. (BRICS is the acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.) Brazil stands for a united Latin America, a real political and economic threat to the US. Will rapprochement with Cuba herald greater influence with LA? They may be thinking that way in Foggy Bottom.  
>> 
>> These days, the homey folks at the State Department and Congress may be recalling the proverb, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." They've killed a lot of people with vinegar, but diminishing returns may mean it's time for another ointment.
>> 
>> --CGE
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> This attempt to explain it in terms of US imperial policy seems a bit thin (e.g., couldn't a ship in the Caribbean be as good a listening post as the installation at Lourdes?):
>>> 
>>> <http://joshuatartakovsky.com/whats-next-for-cuba-following-the-warm-up-with-the-us/>.
>>> 
>>> Cuba can't be a military threat to the US, but it has been an ideological threat for two generations. 
>>> 
>>> This may be a more important motive, given the US insistence on the control of (not just access to) world oil flows:
>>> 
>>> <http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2014/12/cubas-oil-potential-is-it-motivating.html>.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps the best explanation is the rise in world influence of an increasingly united Latin America (including Venezuela and Cuba). US attempts to re-assert control (including manipulation of oil prices) don't seem to be working. Washington may think that a new sort of engagement - not just military oppression - will be necessary to  re-take control of "our little region over here that has never bothered anybody," as Secretary of War Henry Stimson described the hemisphere in May 1945.  (He was at that time explaining to the world what the post-war global system would be, and one of its conditions would be that all regional organizations must be disbanded, with the exception of our own, which are to be expanded.)
>>> 
>>> A conqueror's version of, 'If you can't beat them, join them.'  --CGE
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 18, 2014, at 4:55 PM, David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Cuba is not currently a threat but it could be ( think Cuban missile crisis ).
>>>> It DEFINITELY IS NOT Obama’s conscience !
>>>> 
>>>> David J.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] 
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:46 PM
>>>> To: David Johnson
>>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; occupycu-request at lists.chambana.net; sf-core
>>>> Subject: Re: [sf-core] US Risks Economic Crash In Oil War With Russia
>>>> 
>>>> I don't see this as a motive in Obama's move towards regularizing relations with Cuba. 
>>>> 
>>>> It's true that the US is attempting to gain/retain economic control over Eurasia by provoking Russia - even to the point of war in Europe. 
>>>> 
>>>> But Cuba is not a military threat to the US - it's much more an ideological threat, the "threat of a good example.'
>>>> 
>>>> But I admit it's difficult to explain Obama's actions. Perhaps a bad conscience form the kids he's killed... 
>>>> 
>>>> --CGE
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 18, 2014, at 7:08 AM, 'David Johnson' davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net [sf-core] <sf-core-noreply at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In conjunction with this development is the sudden announced ending of the embargo against Cuba.
>>>> 
>>>> It makes sense if you look at what it appears their new priorities are in regards to encircling Russia and destabilizing Putin. The U.S. elites don’t want a Russian ally so close to the U.S.
>>>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20141219/81d43bb7/attachment-0001.html>