Northern Africa: A Choice between Reform and Stability

In the wake of uprisings in North Africa, West may be forced to make a choice between much-needed reform or stable dictatorships. NATO will need to reconsider its newest partnerships, beyond the interest of its allies, and start guaranteeing actual security.

Doused in paint thinner, Mohamed Bouazizi set himself alight in Tunisia on Dec. 17, sparking a string of protests throughout northern Africa. The 20-year old college graduate, angry after the government confiscated his source of income- a fruit cart- and beat him, has been credited as the beginning of a series of uprisings in North Africa.

Protests have now spread to Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen, as well as Morocco and Algeria. Citizens have taken to the streets in protest of high food prices, and even higher unemployment rates, and general discontent with, in many cases, decades of inefficient dictatorial regimes.

With protests mounting from country to country, igniting passion for reform in nations’ citizens, the uprisings of North Africa may be the 21st century’s Berlin Wall. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recognizes the potential effect the uprisings could have on the world order, but says, “The outcome of this turmoil remains unclear.”

Resource-rich North Africa has become a strategic battlefield among the US, Europe, China and Russia. The US and Europe seemed to prevail under two NATO initiatives: the Mediterranean Dialogue and a military alliance with the 53 countries of the African Union (AU).

Member nations of the AU and the Mediterranean Dialogue are believed to benefit from the initiatives under the broad public goals of countering security threats against Africa and using NATO as a model for the African Standby Force. But NATO members will receive more concrete benefits, such as limiting Russian and Chinese expansion and blocking arms suppliers of non-NATO members.

The interests of NATO fake ahead, devoid of serious regard to its public objectives. Rasmussen has outlined his concerns with the uprisings in terms of its impact upon the Middle East peace process and a possible increase of illegal immigration to Europe, validating NATO-centric concerns to the world under a “we don’t interfere in domestic politics” stance. Forget about partnerships, dialogues, and goals.

This lack of response from NATO is only amplified by a muted response from the US, with Europe following suit. Though Obama exercised caution in denouncing violence against peaceful protesters in Libya out of fear that the Gadhafi regime would target American nationals in Libya, Washington was also slow to react to protests in Egypt earlier in February.

Only after receiving strong criticism in the media did Obama denounce Mubarak, a long-time ally to the US, calling for transition “now.” Washington has supported up dictatorial regimes, such as that of Mubarak, for decades, benefiting from such stable relationships with dictators. In Egypt, which has been known to hold and torture terrorist suspects for the US, there has been a “protect us in our war and we will forgive your human rights abuses” policy. It seems US policy is in support of stable dictators, rather than fledgling democracies. Why would the US and NATO, which so avidly promote democracy, not have supported it in North Africa?

“The US and allies pull out no stops to prevent democracy because of major energy resources,” says Noam Chomsky, a well-respected American intellectual. In fact, as the protests spread to Libya, the major concern in the US was rising gas prices, not Gadhafi dropping bombs on his own citizens and executing Libyan soldiers who refused to kill their compatriots. Oil prices, which could reach $220 per barrel if Libya and Algeria, both dealing with internal protests, were to cut off oil supplies, could slow down economic recovery.

Both NATO and the US have screened selfish intentions behind national sovereignty, but after decades of support for allied dictators and more recent initiatives for a firm grasp on African affairs, perhaps it is not an honest stance to take. And if the US and NATO do not take a stance, we should hope they set aside potential gains and focus on allowing the internal movements of Africa choose the next step.

Recently, NATO has urged all parties to stop violence and ensure peaceful transition to democracy. A little less recently, Mubarak urged protestors for ‘orderly transitions’ that only served to postpone change. While we can hope and urge for peaceful transitions, we must remember that NATO should not be just a collection of military power, but also a political entity with a widely stated goal to “promote democratic values to build trust and prevent conflict in the long-run. To prevent conflict in the long run, might it be in the best interests of North Africa to allow reform?

West cannot both call for stability and advocate reform. It will need to reconsider its newest partnerships, beyond the interest of its allies, and start guaranteeing actual security.

Obama Drives a Valuable Shift in the US Defense Policy

No need to search for obscure reasons or ulterior motive when scrutinizing the change in direction introduced by President Obama in the US defense policy after President’s refusal to install the so-called missile shield. The expected partial deployment on European territory was one of the pillars of Bush’s failed strategy against international terrorism.

Obama’s resolution involved several decisions of domestic and foreign policy, all high draft. On the one hand, the strong US defense industry will not feel aggrieved, since this is not about trying to cut off a program that would produce significant benefits, but to transform the land-based missile defense system installed on other naval platforms. The technical explanations do little to the case except to deny the accusation that the US and its allies could be defenseless against a suspected terrorist attack with missiles.

The adopted solution presupposes a more thorough risk assessment, dismissing the idea that Iran is able to hold mid-term long-range missiles and reduce the anticipated missile threat from shorter range. The fact that the current US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who was also in charge during the Bush administration, supports and implement this change in strategy, is a smart move by Obama. The US President skillfully – and to the surprise of many who did not understand his decision– maintained R. Gates at the same position –the very same that had fully supported the failed military strategy of the former president.

Russia expressed rapidly and unambiguously its favorable opinion about this amendment and countries most directly concerned which are Poland and Czech Republic shall cover up that Europe defense is a common issue that affects all countries rather than a result of bilateral agreements of some of them with the American superpower – in order they appease their peculiar and atavistic fears towards Russia, however reasonable their historical reasons may seem.

Nor should it surprise that the new Secretary General of NATO – an alliance that since the Soviet Union collapsed is looking for a suitable place in the global system of supranational military organizations – is enthusiastically pointing to a new strategy that does not see an almost mandatory enemy in Russia but an appropriate and necessary ally, by which NATO can continue to keep alive, despite all previsions – a treaty that was precisely born to fight today’s new ally.

Subsequently, Mr. Rasmussen, in his first public comments of some significance since in August he took over from NATO, suggested combining missile defense systems of US, NATO and Russia into a single one. However, when asked about specifics of the plan he did not know how to respond and referred to further clarification of the military leaders –quite understandable since the NATO HQ itself was surprised by the swift and unexpected decision by the US president.

Obama, therefore, takes firmly the helm of US foreign policy. He will face a tough offensive from his political rivals. Senator McCain already warned the decision as a “serious error” that “potentially undermines US leadership as perceived in Eastern Europe”. The most obsessive US right wing – the very same which identifies traits of socialism and even communism in Obama’s plan to extend health coverage to every citizen – will go on with its campaign of denigration, with the helpful support from the most extreme republicans.

Obama definitely buries the former US policy, which divided Europe with the invasion of Iraq – one might remember the shameful pamphlet to support Bush policy, signed by many conservative European leaders, including Berlusconi, Aznar and Barroso, together with the joint efforts of three Eastern European countries, significantly Poland and the Czech Republic. The ensuing releasing in the Wall Street Journal allowed the most US reactionary forces to contempt the “old Europe” (led by France and Germany), who opposed the war, while praising the “new Europe” – the latter, whilst supporting Bush’s illegal adventure, showed a mixture of servility and excitement to establish a special relationship with the American superpower, that is trying to came closer to develop relationships with influential people (UK), in sum expecting benefits, as Jeb Bush, the dreadful brother of the former US president, who ruled his fiefdom in Florida, decreed when visiting Madrid: “This relationship between the United States and Spain will provide benefits that cannot be imagined today.”

The way Obama has to pass through is easier said than done and he will need all his personality resources to face opposition from the social sectors – within and outside the US –who worshiped Bush and still share his reactionary ideology and highlight his disastrous decisions.

The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ in the spotlight

During a session of the UN General Assembly, held last July, Noam Chomsky presented an interesting paper [1] (which inspired this post) that calls for consideration on humanitarian intervention, so called since the second half of 20th century and now considered under the general concept of “Responsibility to Protect“, which was the focus of that meeting.

This meeting was attended by nearly a hundred countries. Their armed force units have a presence in countries as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Chad and Lebanon and keep observers in UN missions. None of them deploy overseas for wartime missions but essentially to “protect” life and interests of other peoples.

For the eminent linguist, historical precedents for such missions generate a few distrust. He mentions some of the basic principles on international relations, assumed over the centuries, which could be summarized as follows:

  • The strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they deserve (principle already formulated by Thucydides).
  • Legislators pay more attention to the interests of the powerful than to the common people (suggested by Adam Smith).
  • Many military interventions have been made under the principle of protecting the people, but have been characterized by their cruelty. Chomsky brings up three examples: the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1936 and the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938. In all three cases, a bleeding rhetoric on the protection of the own people was invoked, that barely concealed the true motivation, that is a firm imperialist expansion.

Anyone acquainted with the history of colonization realizes that “evangelizing mission” of the Spanish conquerors in the American lands was intended to save the souls of the Indians although that involved the exploitation and exhaustion of people, the occupation of their homeland and embezzling their resources. Not worse than the French, British or Belgian “civilizing mission” with more often than not unmentionable objectives as well i.e. in Africa and India.

Another issue to bear in mind regarding the protection of peoples, is the reason that NATO wielded to fix on that Balkans should be protected, even bombing Serbia in 1999 with a total lack of consideration (remember, incidentally, that the bombing did not alleviate the plight of the Kosovar people but aggravated it) and, on the contrary, it was appropriate to ignore other people, Kurdish, that was suffering –within its own territory under the responsibility of NATO– a brutal persecution by Turkish forces, one of the main partners of the Alliance .

NATO “protective” interventions do not only care about the suffering peoples. Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General announced in 2007 that Allied troops should protect the pipelines transporting oil and gas to western countries and other infrastructure elements of the energy system. For Chomsky, this “opens the door to employ the right of protection as a tool of imperial intervention, as suitable.”

Neither the UN is safe from Chomsky’s criticism: “No one thinks today to protect the Gaza people, which are also a United Nations responsibility (according to the Geneva Conventions), together with other people who lack basic human rights. Nothing serious is considered about the worst catastrophe in Africa, if not the world: the eastern Congo, where several multinationals have been accused of violating UN resolutions on the illegal trafficking of valuable minerals, by which a criminal conflict is funded.

The responsibility to protect does not seem to reach hungry people. They now number about one billion human beings, while the World Food Fund announces a reduction in aid, because rich countries give priority to save their banking systems and there are no funds enough as a result of the crisis, just originated by those same banks. All this shows the validity of the principle formulated by Thucydides.

Let’s not get carried away by the lucid pessimism of the relentless American critic. Keep in mind that this issue has been addressed in an international forum, the UN General Assembly, whose echoes can be extended worldwide. Conversely, a century ago, the Algeciras conference was held to share out Morocco between France and Spain –with the approval of the great European powers. 20 years earlier, these powers gathered in Berlin to share other vast African territories. There was no intention to protect the affected people, though the Moroccan division was entitled as “protectorate”. So it seems we’re making some progress on this issue.

The Responsibility to Protect, Noam Chomsky and Friends part 1

The Responsibility to Protect, Noam Chomsky and Friends part 2

.

[1] ‘Responsibility to Protect‘, by Noam Chomsky (talk delivered at UN General Assembly), 23 Jul 2009

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>

Noam Chomsky on the Responsibility to Protect

At a session of UN General Assembly, held last July, Noam Chomsky presented an interesting paper that calls for consideration on humanitarian intervention, so called since the second half of 20th century and now considered under the general concept of “Responsibility to Protect”, which was the focus of that meeting.

This meeting was attended by nearly a hundred countries. Their armed forces units have a presence in countries as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Chad and Lebanon and maintain observers in UN missions. None of them deploy overseas for wartime missions but essentially to “protect” life and interests of other peoples.

For the eminent linguist, historical precedents for such missions generate a few distrust. He mentions some of the basic principles on international relations, assumed over the centuries, which could be summarized as follows:

  • The strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they deserve (principle already formulated by Thucydides).

  • Legislators pay more attention to the interests of the powerful than to the common people (suggested by Adam Smith).

  • Many military interventions have been made under the principle of protecting the people, but have been characterized by their cruelty. Chomsky brings up three examples: the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1936 and the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938. In all three cases, a bleeding rhetoric on the protection of the own people was invoked, that barely concealed the true motivation, that is a firm imperialist expansion.

Anyone acquainted with the history of colonization realizes that “evangelizing mission” of the Spanish conquerors in the American lands was intended to save the souls of the Indians although that involved the exploitation and exhaustion of people, the occupation of their homeland and embezzling their resources. Not worse than the French, British or Belgian “civilizing mission” with more often than not unmentionable objectives as well i.e. in Africa and India.

Another issue to bear in mind regarding the protection of peoples, is the reason that NATO wielded to fix on that Balkans should be protected, even bombing Serbia in 1999 with a total lack of consideration (remember, incidentally, that the bombing did not alleviate the plight of the Kosovar people but aggravated it) and, on the contrary, it was appropriate to ignore other people, Kurdish, that was suffering –within its own territory under the responsibility of NATO– a brutal persecution by Turkish forces, one of the main partners of the Alliance .

NATO “protective” interventions do not only care about the suffering peoples. Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General announced in 2007 that Allied troops should protect the pipelines transporting oil and gas to western countries and other infrastructure elements of the energy system. For Chomsky, this “opens the door to employ the right of protection as a tool of imperial intervention, as suitable.”

Neither the UN is safe from Chomsky’s criticism: “No one thinks today to protect the Gaza people, which are also a United Nations responsibility (according to the Geneva Conventions), together with other people who lack basic human rights. Nothing serious is considered about the worst catastrophe in Africa, if not the world: the eastern Congo, where several multinationals have been accused of violating UN resolutions on the illegal trafficking of valuable minerals, by which a criminal conflict is funded.

The responsibility to protect does not seem to reach hungry people. They now number about one billion human beings, while the World Food Fund announces a reduction in aid, because rich countries give priority to save their banking systems and there are no funds enough as a result of the crisis, just originated by those same banks. All this shows the validity of the principle formulated by Thucydides.

Let’s not get carried away by the lucid pessimism of the relentless American critic. Keep in mind that this issue has been addressed in an international forum, the UN General Assembly, whose echoes can be extended worldwide. Conversely, a century ago, the Algeciras conference was held to share out Morocco between France and Spain –with the approval of the great European powers. 20 years earlier, these powers gathered in Berlin to share other vast African territories. There was no intention to protect the affected people, though the Moroccan division was entitled as “protectorate”. So it seems we’re making some progress on this issue.

Obama’s Strategic Challenges Ahead

obama-administrationAfter the customary hundred days, President Obama would have signed 12 executive orders and 13 presidential decrees. He completed 13 official travel (including three abroad) and delivered ten messages to the nation, –three of them in prime time. That is, in a frenetic pace that would parallel the hyperactive Roosevelt. In addition, despite having lost almost 20 points in popularity since the investiture, he is yet one of the most popular presidents since the Kennedy era (62% approval roughly).

Foreign Policy

The first trial by fire with Russia will get on the START I Treaty renewal (Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction) which expires in December 2009. In spite of the promising preliminary contacts, the withdrawal of accreditation to two Russian diplomats to NATO accused of espionage (in a case linked to Hermann Simm, Estonian Alto officer sentenced to filter information from the Alliance for the Russian secret services), coupled with the planned NATO exercises in Georgia by May, (judged “provocative” by Mendeiev,) have strained Russian-American relations. With these preambles, it is foreseeable that the agreement truncates and the tension will increase with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield (NDM), regarded by Putin as a direct threat to Russia. NDM considers the installation of missile base interceptors in Poland, on the one hand; and one radar in the Czech Republic. It would come on stream in 2010. On the assumption that Obama will continue forward, Russia would presumably respond by the installation of Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad (Russian enclave situated between Poland and Lithuania) and the deployment of three regiments in Kozlesk.

Appeasement.

On the European stage, we could attend the end of the honeymoon period involving Obama and Sarkozy. Disagreement on matters as government making in Israel, shortly prone to the Palestinian argument that it would not be dischargeable in the medium term that the EU was forced to revise the preferential economic agreements with Israel. They could focus on the beginning of a new EU-US trade war, subsequent to imposition of protectionist measures in both countries. As for instance the import of agricultural products, (plague “miner tomato European” and “outbreak swine” in the USA). And finally, the Obama’s request for a substantial increase of allied troops in Afghanistan could lead to a postponed affirmation of French sovereignty that would result in the departure of French troops from Afghanistan (and in a parallel way of other European allies) before the French 2012 presidential vote. Obama will be forced to engage actively in an opening course of action for a new peace process in the Middle East.  After limited progress done by his special emissary (former senator Mitchell), the situation would have worsened consequently to Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet arrangements. An unlikely coalition government with the Palestinian, the ongoing the policy of expanding Jewish settlements and the completion of the West Bank Wall coupled with the failure of talks between Hamas and Abbas to form a Palestinian unity government: these are the controversial issues.  Obama would be therefore compelled to participate personally in the negotiation process. He is supposed to focus on the future Palestinian state set up.  At the end, the process would render the signing of a peace treaty between the new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the new President of the Palestinian Authority –which would be the representative of the new unity government that would emerge after the inevitable approach of Hamas and Fatah. That agreement would get the political blessing of Egypt, Russia, Syria and Iran. Saudi Arabia, USA, EU, Japan and United Arab Emirates would follow as necessary partners in the economic reconstruction of Gaza, with an estimated cost of $ 2,000 million. It should be comprehensive and binding for all Middle East countries and would seriously contribute to the establishment of a new “status quo” in the area –it goes without saying, once the nuclear dispute with Iran is resolved and the restoration of diplomatic relations between both countries is done.

Gradual withdrawal of troops from Iraq and transfer to Afghanistan.

Due to enlargement of the area of Taliban influence in Afghanistan, Pentagon considers transferring about 100,000 troops from Iraq by 2010 (where only about 50,000 remain until the final withdrawal in 2011). Taliban insurgents have gained a presence in 72% of the territory of Afghanistan, (increasing of 18% compared to November 2007) and are close to the capital Kabul. Taliban have established a kind of government de facto in some Afghan cities and towns. Regain of Russian military assistance (military advisers, logistics and information from spies, satellites) to the Taliban militia in their fight against the NATO forces deployed there, is a fact. In order to lengthen the conflict; along the deficient resolution of European allies to achieve gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan.  However, leaving U.S. alone could result in a dangerous Vietnamization of the conflict. Moreover, involving increasingly difficult to get approval on Budget from Congress, –embodied in the Obama’s petition for an additional $ 83,400 million to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 (estimated costs of both wars would be of $ 8,000 million per month roughly).

Lifting the trade embargo on Cuba

Obama would pay special attention to its traditionally considered backyard, trying to halt the Russian influence in Latin America after the agreement signature for Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and Cuba (drawing on the political myopia of an administration obsessed with Busch Axis of Evil). Thus, after recent goodwill measures towards Cuba along with the start of informal talks, the lifting of trade embargo is essential. Just to help achieve the necessary empathy for the start of official bilateral round negotiations between both governments. Nevertheless, if no closer agreement is accomplish on those issues, the signing of a treaty on military cooperation between Russia in Cuba is predictable –getting specific military bases on Cuban territory with Iskander missiles and strategic aircraft with nuclear weapons. In addition, US-Pan American Alliance outset (led by Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Argentina) could merge massive economic assistance and preferential agreements with countries open to trade boycott. Same governments are well disposed to isolate the progressive populist regimes of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia to achieve their destabilization.

After the customary hundred days, President Obama would have signed 12 executive orders and 13 presidential decrees. He completed 13 official travel (including three abroad) and delivered ten messages to the nation, –three of them in prime time. That is, in a frenetic pace that would parallel the hyperactive Roosevelt. In addition, despite having lost almost 20 points in popularity since the investiture, he is yet one of the most popular presidents since the Kennedy era (62% approval roughly).
Foreign Policy
The first trial by fire with Russia will get on the START I Treaty renewal (Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction) which expires in December 2009. In spite of the promising preliminary contacts, the withdrawal of accreditation to two Russian diplomats to NATO accused of espionage (in a case linked to Hermann Simm, Estonian Alto officer sentenced to filter information from the Alliance for the Russian secret services), coupled with the planned NATO exercises in Georgia by May, (judged “provocative” by Mendeiev,) have strained Russian-American relations.
With these preambles, it is foreseeable that the agreement truncates and the tension will increase with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield (NDM), regarded by Putin as a direct threat to Russia. NDM considers the installation of missile base interceptors in Poland, on the one hand; and one radar in the Czech Republic. It would come on stream in 201. On the assumption that Obama will continue forward, Russia would presumably respond by the installation of Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad (Russian enclave situated between Poland and Lithuania) and the deployment of three regiments in Kozlesk.
Dissension between Sarkozy and Obama.
On the European stage, we could attend the end of the honeymoon period involving Obama and Sarkozy. Disagreement on matters as government making in Israel, shortly prone to the Palestinian argument that it would not be dischargeable in the medium term that the EU was forced to revise the preferential economic agreements with Israel.
They could focus on the beginning of a new EU-US trade war, subsequent to imposition of protectionist measures in both countries. As for instance the import of agricultural products, (plague “miner tomato European” and “outbreak swine “in the USA). And finally, the Obama’s request for a substantial increase of allied troops in Afghanistan could lead to a postponed affirmation of French sovereignty that would result in the departure of French troops from Afghanistan (and in a parallel way of other European allies) before the French 2012 presidential vote.
Obama will be forced to engage actively in an opening course of action for a new peace process in the Middle East.  After limited progress done by his special emissary (former senator Mitchell), the situation would have worsened consequently to Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet arrangements. An unlikely coalition government with the Palestinian, the ongoing the policy of expanding Jewish settlements and the completion of the West Bank Wall coupled with the failure of talks between Hamas and Abbas to form a Palestinian unity government: these are the controversial issues.
Obama would be therefore compelled to participate personally in the negotiation process. He is supposed to focus on the future Palestinian state set up.  At the end, the process would render the signing of a peace treaty between the new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the new President of the Palestinian Authority –which would be the representative of the new unity government that would emerge after the inevitable approach of Hamas and Fatah.
That agreement would get the political blessing of Egypt, Russia, Syria and Iran. Saudi Arabia, USA, EU, Japan and United Arab Emirates would follow as necessary partners in the economic reconstruction of Gaza, with an estimated cost of $ 2,000 million. It should be comprehensive and binding for all Middle East countries and would seriously contribute to the establishment of a new “status quo” in the area –it goes without saying, once the nuclear dispute with Iran is resolved and the restoration of diplomatic relations between both countries is done.
Gradual withdrawal of troops from Iraq and transfer to Afghanistan.
Due to enlargement of the area of Taliban influence in Afghanistan, Pentagon considers transferring about 100,000 troops from Iraq by 2010 (where only about 50,000 remain until the final withdrawal in 2011). Taliban insurgents have gained a presence in 72% of the territory of Afghanistan, (increasing of 18% compared to November 2007) and are close to the capital Kabul. Taliban have established a kind of government de facto in some Afghan cities and towns.
Regain of Russian military assistance (military advisers, logistics and information from spies, satellites) to the Taliban militia in their fight against the NATO forces deployed there, is a fact. In order to lengthen the conflict; along the deficient resolution of European allies to achieve gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan.  However, leaving U.S. alone could result in a dangerous Vietnamization of the conflict. Moreover, involving increasingly difficult to get approval on Budget from Congress, –embodied in the Obama’s petition for an additional $ 83,400 million to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 (estimated costs of both wars would be of $ 8,000 million per month roughly).
Lifting the trade embargo on Cuba
Obama would pay special attention to its traditionally considered backyard, trying to halt the Russian influence in Latin America after the agreement signature for Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and Cuba (drawing on the political myopia of an administration obsessed with Busch Axis of Evil).
Thus, after recent goodwill measures towards Cuba along with the start of informal talks, the lifting of trade embargo is essential. Just to help achieve the necessary empathy for the start of official bilateral round negotiations between both governments.
Nevertheless, if no closer agreement is accomplish on those issues, the signing of a treaty on military cooperation between Russia in Cuba is predictable –getting specific military bases on Cuban territory with Iskander missiles and strategic aircraft with nuclear weapons. In addition, US-Pan American Alliance outset (led by Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Argentina) could merge massive economic assistance and preferential agreements with countries open to trade boycott. Same governments are well disposed to isolate the progressive populist regimes of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia to achieve their destabilization.