It looks like Cuban may be pumping over half a million barrels a day in the next few years, and this may change minds about the embargo.
There are a number of reasons, the first being that US oil companies will want to be in the game, the second is that will mean that there will be oil rigs in spill distance of the Florida coast, and the tourist industry there may not be so sanguine about, for example, a Brazilian firm drilling.
There are lots of people out there who have significant concerns about the safety of US food.
Perhaps if the AG department wasn’t spending more time promoting big AG’s agenda than actually regulating food safety, as it has with it’s ban on testing for mad cow, its definition of “organic”, and its attempt to ban milk labeled “BGH free”, we would have less concern.
This proposal is actually good policy, as Russia continues to see, with no small justification, NATO as a military institution directed against it.
That being said, she doesn’t really mean it:
“Speaking as a mom and as a strategist and a lifetime student and friend of the Russian people, I would love to live in a world where Russia wanted to be a NATO member and Russia had met the very high standards that NATO sets for openness, democracy, reform, rule of law that new NATO members must meet,” Victoria Nuland said in an interview with RIA Novosti and the Argumenty i Fakty weekly.
What she’s saying is that she wants Russia to be more like western nations, and then she would consider it.
When one considers the fact that at least two NATO nations, Greece and Turkey, spent much of their time in the cold war under military rule from a Junta, I would think that Russia has already met that standard.
Seriously though, Russian membership in NATO would go a long way towards easing relations.
As I’ve said before, the eastern expansion of NATO following the collapse of the Berlin wall was a bad idea, and this is one of the few ways to undue the damage done.
As to why the original NATO members enthusiastically expanded eastward, I think that it was two things, uncritical euphoria at the fall of the Warsaw Pact, and the desire for arms sales in the newly liberated countries.
At least that’s what unnamed sources are saying. They are expecting a short term extension of the UN mandate.
Considering the fact that they are asking for immunity for mercenary thugs like Black Water, the right to engage in attacks without consulting the Iraqi government, near complete control of their airspace, and 58 bases in Iraq, it’s nor surprising that Maliki is not happy about this deal.
He says that it will be a breach of their friendship treaty.
As I’ve said before, the westward expansion of NATO, in violation of our promise to Gorbachev in the 1990s, is a big mistake, and a large reason for recent Russian paranoia and bellicosity.
It appears that the US is threatening the Iraqi government with the loss of $50 billion in reserves in US banks in order to make them sign Bush’s “Iraq Forever” deal:
The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.
US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.
Iraq’s foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq’s funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq’s independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new “strategic alliance” with the United States.
This is why the Iraqis are looking at petitioning the UN Security Council to extend the current mandate, which expires in December.
If they were to extend this by 6 months or a year, it would be to their advantage, and I can’t see the Bush administration vetoing this, it would put them and the US, in an absolutely untenable position diplomatically.
Then again, you can’t go broke overestimating the stupidity and venality of Bush and His Evil Minions.™
A majority of Iraq members of parliament have signed a letter to Congress rejecting Bush’s security agreement, which allows for 50 bases, control of Iraqi airspace, the right to arrest, immunity for US troops and contractors, and the ability to operate militarily without permission. (More details here)
Given how well US occupation has served the needs of the Iraqi people, this comes as no surprise, nor does Iranian rhetoric claiming that this deal is designed to enslave Iraqis.
Of particular interest is that Grand Ayatollah Sistani is not particularly supportive of the agreement, and appears to be demanding both parliamentary approval and a referendum, and there is no way that such a deal would pass on a referendum.
One shocker, to me at least, is that Ali Allawi, Ahmad Chalabi’s nephew, has written an article which appears to condemn the deal, making reference to the treaty with Britain in 1930.
One wonders if the Iraqis realize that Bush is a short-timer, and they are running out the clock in the hope of finding someone competent.
Condoleeza Rice calls dialogue with Iran pointless.
Worst
Secretary of State
Ever
Worst
National Security Advisor
Ever
This statement is not in any way surprising. The Russians, and the Soviet Union before them, have always seen NATO as a spear pointed at them.
That is why they demanded, and got, promises that following the reunification of Germany that there would be no eastward expansion of NATO.
Unfortunately, this promise was promptly ignored, and countries have been added to NATO with abandon, and the Russians see this as a ring of steel intended to threaten and pacify them.
There is nothing that has contributed to the bellicose nature of current Russian foreign policy as much. They are completely justified in seeing this as a threat and a provocation.
It turns out that almost every political party in Iraq hates it, including the largest party in parliament, the ISCI, the Iranian stooges party, oppose it too, “Officials from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, an important Maliki ally, said several parts of the proposal violated Iraq’s sovereignty.”
This is not surprising:
The Americans want to continue to have “a free hand” to arrest Iraqis and carry out military operations, and they want authority for more than 50 long-term military bases, Mr. Adeeb said. He said that he doubted that a security pact along the lines sought by the Americans would pass in the Iraqi Parliament.
Mr. Abadi, another senior member of Dawa, said Americans were insisting on keeping control of Iraqi airspace and retaining legal immunity for American troops, contractors and private security guards.
The US is claiming that this is “Iranian disinformation”, and ambassador Crocker is saying that, “the agreement will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, and we anticipate that it will expressly forswear them”, but Bush already said that no agreement is permanent, in a thousand years of so something might change.
It’s also noted that Iraqi leaders are dubious about negotiating with a lame duck president, so come January 1, 2009, when the UN authorizations expire, both mercenaries contractors and US troops will be subject to Iraqi courts.
Sadr is no surprise, but the fact that Sistani is demanding the plebiscite to members of the Iraqi government, though he has not gone public, is a very big deal.
There are now reports that the Iraqi government wants to put off finalizing the deal until next year, which means next administration,
The fact that he opposes the agreementand calling for regular protests should come as no surprise. Sadr is the only real Iraqi nationalist amongst the Shia leaders, with Dawa and the ISCI being pretty much in the pocket of Iran.
It is also a position which is likely very popular in Iraq, as all independent assessments show that Iraqis as a whole want the US out, and this agreement is clearly a part of Bush’s “Iraq forever” policy, and would keep troops and bases in Iraq for decades.
Seriously, Francis Fukuyama’s endorsement of Barack Obama is something akin to the Union of Bullfighters endorsing the ASPCA.
Fukuyama was one of the signers of the infamous PNAC letter, which called for Clinton to invade Iraq and spread democracy through the middle east in 1998, so this is just whack.
While this is a refreshing change from the Bush administration’s policy of nukes forever, it’s also loaded with caveats and absent any real specifics, so it won’t go anywhere.
In which “Security Accord” means permanent bases:
Iraq’s most revered Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has strongly objected to a ‘security accord’ between the US and Iraq.
The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with “the US occupiers” as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said.
While this report is from a source that could best be described as partial, Iranian funded TV network, it jibes with reports that he has been quietly approving action against US and coalition forces.
As I’ve said before, I think that Sistani has been reticent, because he is concerned that occupying forces to do what the British did, put the Sunnis in charge, if the Shia are too strident, but that he believes that permanent bases cross a line.
According to this report, he said this to the Prime Minister in conversations, so if this leaked out, it came from Sistani’s camp, not Maliki.
His OP/ED in the Wall Street Journal, is in response to Lieberman’s OP/ED saying that Democrats hate America.
It’s very nicely done, and I think that it is an indicator that he is throwing his hat in the ring for VP.
The HASC has voted to cut $220 million from the Bush administration’s request for their European missile defense program, which would place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland, and the radar in the Czech Republic.
I think that this is less about the program in and of itself, and more about the diplomatic consequences of proceeding, particularly because it would allow a lame duck to tie his successor’s hands on this contentious issue:
Democrats argued that the European missile plan should not be rushed. House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, a Democrat from South Carolina, says the program would divert funds from other U.S. defense needs, and possibly tie the hands of a new president.
“What we need to strike here is a balance, enough of a commitment to the project to let the Poles and Czechs know that we are not backing down on them, that the thing is still there it is still viable, still in the works, yet not so much commitment at this point that the next president, whoever he or she may be, does not have the flexibility to review this commitment,” Spratt said.
This has always been a dubious plan, as it does not cover much of the southern tier of NATO, and I believe that is more driven towards making Russia paranoid and hostile toward the US, because the Republicans believe that a new Cold War benefits them electorally.
The Senate voted to fully fund the program, so it will have to be resolved in conference committee.
In Turkey, and at this point it appears that the representatives are not in the same room at the same time.
I’m don’t to believe that this will mean anything in the near term, but I’m a bear on Middle East peace, as well as economics.
Ever since the Elian Gonzalez debacle, which revealed the right wing of the Cuban to be something akin to terrorists, US sentiment has increasingly turned against our cuba policy.
John McCain just slammed Obama for “being soft on Cuba”.
The problem is that “being soft on Cuba” this is exactly what most Americans want, it’s what dissident Cubans actually living in Cuba want, and it’s the best policy for both countries.
Our mindless anti-Castro foreign policy has harmed the US, the people of Cuba, and butressed the Castros hold on power in Cuba.
Obama should confront McCain on this. It’s old thinking from an old man.
What’s more, the old anti-Castro whack jobs won’t vote for him anyway. They would never vote for a negro.