US State Department: No Current Plans to Remove Cuba From Terrorism List‏

www.itsmachas.com

again for now. in politics it is not what you see.

------------------------------

capitolhillcubans

From today's State Department Daily Press Briefing with Spokesperson Victoria Nuland:

QUESTION: There are reports today that Secretary Kerry is in discussions on possibly removing Cuba from the state sponsor terror list. Can you comment on that?

MS. NULAND: I saw that report. Let me say firmly here it is incorrect. This Department has no current plans to remove Cuba from the state sponsor of terrorism list.

QUESTION: And why not?

MS. NULAND: We review this every year, and at the current moment we – when the last review was done in 2012, we didn’t see cause to remove them. We’ll obviously look at it again this year, but as I said, we don’t have any plans at the moment.

QUESTION: Sorry, really quick, can you just give a little bit more of an explanation of what exactly are the – what makes a country – I mean, what are the specifications for a country being on the state sponsor of terror?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve talked about this before here. There’s a limit to what I can get into because it takes me into intelligence. But we do – we are required to look at these lists every year and to judge countries individually against the standards in the legislation. And we did that in 2012. We’ll obviously have to do it again in 2013.

Obama Urged to Take Lead on Easing Cuba Policy

cubaconfidential

By Guy Taylor, The Washington Times

The Obama administration should — and has the legal authority to — use its executive power to begin lifting the decades-old embargo on trade with Cuba, according to two papers this week issued by an influential Latin America think tank and a leading Cuban exile group. The New York-based Council on the Americas and the Washington-based Cuba Study Group both call on the White House to ease the 60-year-old embargo in order to promote free market activity on the communist island. The State Department so far has declined to comment on the documents, but one official described the Council on the Americas as “influential” and told The Washington Times that the State Department does “appreciate their views.”

Circulation of the white papers came the same week that a delegation of U.S. lawmakers, headed by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, met with Cuban President Raul Castro in an unsuccessful attempt to secure the release of Maryland contractor Alan Gross, who has been imprisoned in Cuba since 2009. Mr. Gross is accused of illegally bringing communications equipment to Cuba as part of a democracy-building program supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development. His detention remains a source of friction between Washington and Havana.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland categorically denied a Boston Globe report Thursday which suggested that newly confirmed Secretary of State John F. Kerry may be seriously considering removing Havana from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism as a first step to improved relations. Citing interviews with “a series of top administration officials and members of Congress,” the newspaper reported that “there is a growing consensus in policy and intelligence circles that Cuba’s support for terrorist groups has been terminated and the country should be removed from the list — much like the George W. Bush administration did with North Korea in 2008.” Ms. Nuland said The Globe piece was “incorrect,” telling reporters at Thursday’s briefing that “this department has no current plans to remove Cuba from the state sponsor of terrorism list.” She added, however, that officials review the list annually and will do so during 2013.

Questions about Cuba’s status coincide with growing speculation in Washington that Mr. Kerry — a former Democratic senator from Massachusetts — may be eager to push the White House toward an easing of relations with the communist island. Mr. Kerry did not single out Cuba during his wide-ranging foreign policy address Wednesday at the University of Virginia, but he did publish an article in 2009 in The St. Petersburg Times calling for a lifting of all restrictions to travel to the island.

The white papers circulated this week argue that Mr. Obama should do just that despite a law preventing the restoration of U.S.-Cuba diplomatic relations without congressional approval.
The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also blocks the lifting of the embargo on trade unless significant democratic reforms are implemented and a functional democratic government is established on the island. The Cuba Study Group called on Congress to repeal the 1996 law, saying it would allow the White House to “adopt more efficient, targeted policies necessary for pressuring the Cuban leadership to respect human rights and implement political reforms, while simultaneously empowering all other sectors of society to purse their economic well-being and become the authors of their own futures.”

The Council on the Americas paper argues that Mr. Obama could work around restrictions associated with Cuba’s current status as a state sponsor of terrorism. The White House, according to the paper, should “grant exceptions” for “sales and imports” of goods for businesses in Cuba that can prove they are not working for the Castro regime, as well as allowing for the “sale of telecommunications hardware” such as cellphone towers and satellite dishes in Cuba.

John Kerry’s First Trip Includes 9 European and Middle Eastern Countries — Guess Which One He’s Skipping

theblaze

By Erica Ritz

Secretary of State John Kerry will make his first official trip overseas next week, with a jam-packed travel agenda that includes meetings in nine nations across Europe and the Middle East.

Despite expectations that he would visit Israel to push for more peace talks with the Palestinians ahead of President Obama’s first presidential trip next month, the State Department announced Tuesday that there will be no stops in Israel for John Kerry this trip.

He will, however, be stopping in: Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland explained that Kerry is bypassing Jerusalem and Ramallah while Israeli political parties continue to form a coalition government after recent elections.

“The secretary will be traveling there with the president when he visits later in the spring in lieu of making his own separate trip in February,” she explained.

Kerry departs for his trip on February 24, and will reportedly focus on the conflicts in Mali, Syria and Afghanistan.

“His visit to Berlin will also be an opportunity to reconnect with the city in which he lived as a child,” the State Department adds.

The 2004 presidential candidate, sworn in to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton earlier this month, is scheduled to return to Washington on March 6.

TheBlaze has reached out to Christians United for Israel and the Anti-Defamation League for comment.

Click here to read Kerry’s complete itinerary, courtesy of the State Department.

Russian Foreign Minister Won’t Return Kerry’s Phone Call

Read on freebeacon >>

North Korea gives John Kerry his first "3 AM" call

security

By Elise Labott, with reporting by Barbara Starr

North Korea's nuclear test set off a diplomatic scramble for America's new Secretary of State as the U.S. national security community began working with other countries to try and determine what North Korea truly achieved. The test was was not a total surprise, senior administration officials said. North Korea warned the United States and China on Monday that it would be undertaking a nuclear test, two senior administration officials tell CNN. The warning came in the form of a message through the “NY channel,” which is the U.S. mission to the United Nations. This is the typical way North Korea passes messages to the United States. The warning was not specific on timing, but the officials said the U.S. took it to mean the test could happen at any moment. After the test was detected late Monday night, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke with South Korea's foreign minister. He is also expected to talk with Chinese, Japanese, Russian ministers. The U.S. began coordinating its own response with inter-agency calls between Washington and Seoul, Tokyo, Moscow and Beijing. US Ambassador to South Korea Sung Kim and General James Thurman, Commander of the US-ROK Combined Forces Command, met with the South Korean defense minister. The U.S. intelligence community and military began the process of assessing the test and North Korea's claims and by morning concluded an underground nuclear test had probably been conducted. World reaction to the test "The explosion yield was approximately several kilotons. Analysis of the event continues." according to a statement released Tuesday by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Nuclear monitoring by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization will calculate what was released by the explosion. The U.S. will likely try to get additional readings from aircraft equipped with sensors and satellites and attempt to match with seismic data to calculate what the explosion was. Officials said it will be several days before the US has a handle on the actual size of the explosion, payload and the success, or lack thereof, of the test. Bottom line, successful or not, these tests do help North Korea learn and continue to perfect the technology. North Korea's rocket-fueled obsession Senior administration official says one of the the things the U.S. will be trying to determine, is whether the North Koreans tested a uranium weapon for the first time. The past two tests were plutonium. The U.S. and its allies will also be trying to figure out what type of technology and engineering was used to pull off the test and what, if any, help and materials North Korea may have received from other countries, like Iran. In addition to the analysis of data, the U.S. is currently analyzing North Korea's statement. At first glance, the part about using a “miniaturized” nuclear weapon is concerning, because that would mean the North Koreans may have mastered the technology to fit a nuclear weapon on a long range missile which could possibly reach the U.S.. North Korea successfully demonstrated it could launch a long range missile through its rocket launch last December, but questions remain about its ability to aim it towards a long range target or even repeat the launch success. United Nations Security Council members meet Tuesday morning and officials say the American playbook will be pretty familiar. The officials all said Washington will seek a “tough, swift reaction” from the UNSC. Obviously what comes out of the council will depend on what China and Russia will sign on to. But one official said “there is a pretty strong commitment to go with a seriousness of purpose” to the UN. How does the test work? Officials said administration is also looking at what other kinds of sanctions can be slapped on North Korea, probably the most sanctioned entity in the world. They are looking at the playbook for Iran sanctions – shipping, insurance, more sanctions against financial transactions, designations of individuals. “There is plenty to do,” another senior official said.

On the Record: Secretary Kerry on Cuba Policy-Sen. Rubio-Takes Gloves Off

capitolhillcubans

In the Congressional Record from then-U.S. Senator John Kerry's (D-Mass.) confirmation hearing for U.S. Secretary of State:

Question from U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.):

Since December 2009, the Cuban government has been holding an American development worker, Alan Gross, hostage for helping the Jewish community in Cuba get uncensored internet access.  The UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions has held Gross's imprisonment to be arbitrary.  The U.S. should pressure the Cuban government to release Alan Gross. However, the Cuban government should not be rewarded with any unilateral concessions for Gross's imprisonment - whether before or after Gross's release - for this will only endanger American lives in the future and encourage further hostage taking.  If confirmed, would you commit not to reward the Cuban government for the arbitrary imprisonment of Americans?

Answer from U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) : 

If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to protect the safety and security of American citizens around the globe, including in Cuba.  Alan Gross is a 63-year-old husband, father, and dedicated professional with a long history of providing assistance and support to under-served communities in over 50 countries.  His incarceration is unjust and his release is a humanitarian issue.  If confirmed, I will continue to use all appropriate diplomatic means to secure Mr. Gross’ release.

Question:

The Agency for International Development's democracy programs are pivotal to helping Cuba's civil society gain access to new technologies, basic support for the marginalized families of political prisoners, training for independent journalists, labor activists and other targeted groups.  We have read reports regarding of previous efforts to halt the democracy programs, which are authorized by law.  If confirmed, would you continue to support the Cuban democracy programs?

Answer:

If confirmed, I will continue U.S. policies that promote democracy, freedom of expression and assembly, and human rights in Cuba.  It is the Administration’s view that we should help those who work for positive change in Cuba, including human rights and pro-democracy activists, independent journalists, and broader civil society.  The Cuban democracy programs are one element of the strategy to support these objectives.  If confirmed, I will seek ways to increase the independence of the Cuban people so that they may freely determine their own future.

Question:

While State and Treasury have worked with me to streamline procedures to make sure people-to-people programs are truly benefiting the Cuban people, reports of trips being hosted by the government and meeting with the neighborhood watch committees (CDRs), continue to take place.  The President's policy states that these programs were designed to foment the Cuban people's "independence" from the regime; but in fact, the itineraries are controlled by the regime on the island.

Would you work to uphold the Administration's original intent of these trips and ensure they are not being used for tourism purposes, which is against US law, or for the benefit of the Cuban government?

Answer:

If confirmed, I will continue to support the Administration’s desire to increase purposeful travel; support private enterprise and civil society in Cuba; enhance free flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban people; and help promote their independence from the Cuban state.  In May 2012, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) amended the “Comprehensive Guidelines for License Applications to Engage in Travel-Related Transactions Involving Cuba” to require additional information from people-to-people license applicants, including information on how their proposed travel would enhance contact with the Cuban people and/or support civil society in Cuba and/or help promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities.  The Administration continues to assess implementing procedures to ensure that benefits to Cuban civil society of U.S. travel outweigh any potential benefits to the Cuban government.

If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of State continues to work closely with the OFAC and refer to OFAC any potential violations of which the State Department becomes aware.

Talking Points From Havana

capitolhillcubans

Last week, the Castro regime's leading columnist, Nicanor Leon Cotayo, wrote an official editorial in Cuban state media praising President Obama's nominees for Secretary of State, U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Secretary of Defense, former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.).

Leon Cotayo (channeling Castro) writes:

"Chuck Hagel has no problem with Cuba. To the contrary, he has demonstrated common sense to do away with one of the White House's most anachronistic foreign policies."

He then nudges the Obama Administration to ignore Congress and U.S. law, and exercise "real and legal options to maneuver and diminish tension in bilateral relations."

In other words, to keep providing them unilateral concessions (while they keep intensifying their repression of peaceful opponents).

Sure sounds like some of the "think-tank" policy papers floating around town, not to mention some of the recent analysis by Cuba "experts" in the U.S. media.

Now remember, according to these Cuba "experts", this is all a "Jedi mind trick" because despite all of the lobbying and the billions of dollars spent by Castro to have sanctions lifted, they really don't want them lifted -- for they need to have an excuse for their failures that Cubans don't believe.  Got it?

As for Castro's American hostage, Alan Gross, Leon Cotayo (channeling Castro) reiterated the regime's position that they will only discuss the issue pursuant to two conditions: "mutual respect and reciprocity."

In other words, blackmail and ransom. 

What Obama's nominees might mean for Latin America

Just the Facts

By Adam Isacson/

Once Congress gives the green light, the national security team for Barack Obama’s second term will have three new names at the top: John Kerry at State, Chuck Hagel at Defense, and John Brennan at CIA.

Kerry and Hagel are both Vietnam veterans turned Senators, both supportive of a strong, modern military but skeptical of large, open-ended military missions, sort of in the Colin Powell mode. Brennan is a career spy whose focus since the 1990s has been counterterrorism.

Only Kerry has much of a record on Latin America. In the 1980s, he was a leading opponent of the Reagan administration’s aid to abusive militaries, and to the Nicaraguan contra rebels, in Central America. He has also been a frequent critic of U.S. policy toward Cuba. In 2000, Senator Kerry shifted gears and supported a military aid package, President Clinton’s initial appropriation for Plan Colombia, though he later signed at least one letter criticizing Colombia’s human rights performance.

As David Sanger notes in today’s New York Times, all three nominees share a preference for a “light footprint” in the U.S. military’s activities abroad. Brennan, Sanger notes,

devised the “light footprint” strategy of limiting American interventions, whenever possible, to drones, cyberattacks and Special Operations forces. All are advocates of those low-cost, low-American-casualty tools, and all have sounded dismissive of attempts to send thousands of troops to rewire foreign nations as wasteful and ill-conceived.

With the notable exception of the 2009 Afghan “surge,” frequent but low-profile military and intelligence operations have been a hallmark of the Obama administration so far. With the ongoing drawdown from Afghanistan ahead of a planned 2014 pullout, the “light footprint” approach is going to accelerate.

How will this affect Latin America? Probably four ways, in declining order of importance:

• More Special Forces deployments to the region. President Obama and his new appointees share a fondness for Special Operations Forces: elite, highly trained, mobile military units used for non-traditional, often clandestine missions ranging from hostage rescues to hunting down wanted individuals to intelligence-gathering and “defense diplomacy.” Special Forces are likely to see their numbers increase despite upcoming defense budget cuts, and as the Afghanistan drawdown proceeds, there will be even more of them available to carry out missions in Latin America. Last year, the New York Times noted, Adm. William McRaven of the Special Operations Command was “pushing hard” to “expand their presence in regions where they have not operated in large numbers for the past decade, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America.”

This doesn’t necessarily mean that Delta Force, SEAL Team 6, and other JSOC units will be carrying out clandestine mayhem in places like Venezuela and Cuba. (And if it does, we’re unlikely to find out about it.) But a recent conversation with a Defense Department official confirms that, in the next few years, we are likely to witness an increase in Special Forces training missions in the region. More teams will be in countries throughout the Americas teaching courses as part of Mobile Training Teams (MTTs), and organizing exercises, some of them through the Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) program.

Such deployments fulfill more than just training missions, though. They allow Special Forces units to familiarize themselves with the terrain, culture, and key officers in countries where they might someday have to operate. And they allow U.S. personnel to gather intelligence on their host countries, whether through active snooping or passive observation.

• A greater intelligence community presence is another likely consequence of a “light footprint” in Latin America. We can only speculate, but it is reasonable to expect fewer CIA assets in Afghanistan to mean more personnel focused elsewhere, including Latin America. Even more significant may be an increase in the presence of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Defense Department’s spy agency. As the Washington Post reported in December, the DIA expects to roughly double the number of clandestine operatives it deploys worldwide over the next few years.
  
• Greater use of drones and robotics. The Obama administration has expanded the CIA and Defense Department use of armed unmanned aircraft to hunt down suspected terrorist targets. Brennan, the new CIA director, is known for being intimately involved this practice, which is extremely controversial because of reports that the drone program may have killed hundreds of innocent people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.
  

In Latin America, a few U.S. defense officials have confirmed to us recently, the U.S. military is not using weaponized drones, though it is employing some surveillance drones to detect suspect trafficking activity, particularly (but not only) above international waters. All officials have insisted that U.S. drones are not used extensively in the region, as they are costly to operate. However, as assets are drawn down from Afghanistan and as costs continue to drop rapidly, it is reasonable to expect the Obama administration to use them more frequently in the Americas.

The U.S. effort, however, may pale in comparison to Latin American countries’ own drone programs. Several countries — Colombia, Venezuela, and especially Brazil — are developing their own programs, and several more are buying drones, especially from Israel. While none of these drones are reportedly weaponized and there have been no reports of unauthorized cross-border drone flights, the increased affordability of drones, and the lack of norms governing their use, promises to pose a big challenge for Latin America within the next 5-10 years. (We will have a post on this topic shortly.)

• More emphasis on cyber-security. As today’s New York Times piece noted, cyber-warfare is an interest of all three of the Obama administration’s nominees. While it is unclear how this will play out in U.S. national security policy toward the Americas, it is reasonable to expect more resources devoted to cracking open, and even sabotaging, the computer networks of countries or organizations that the U.S. government views as a threat. (For more on cyber-security in the hemisphere, see the work of James Bosworth at Bloggings by Boz.)

Cuba, EE UU y las sanciones

Diario de Cuba

Mauricio Claver-Carone

El presidente de EE UU, Barack Obama, junto a John Kerry, durante la nominación de este último como nuevo secretario de Estado. (REUTERS, Washington)

Cuando el presidente Barack Obama entró a la Casa Blanca en enero de 2009, muchos especularon sobre posibles cambios en la política norteamericana hacia Cuba. Algunos hasta prematuramente vaticinaron el final de las sanciones.

Hace unos meses, al Obama ganar su reelección, la especulación ha sido menor. Y por buenas razones.

En 2009, Obama acudió a la presidencia con una Cámara de Representantes y un Senado bajo el control de su Partido Demócrata. Esa fue la mejor oportunidad que han tenido quienes abogan por normalizar las relaciones con el régimen castrista, quienes intentan conseguir el levantamiento de las sanciones de EE UU a Cuba de manera unilateral.

Y lo intentaron de forma agresiva. Durante los años 2009 y 2010 —utilizando maniobras legislativas— miembros de la Cámara de Representantes, conjuntamente con su líder Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.), propusieron un proyecto de ley que buscaba autorizar el turismo norteamericano, así como las relaciones bancarias con Cuba. Lo "disfrazaron" bajo una iniciativa para expandir las ventas agrícolas, y de esta forma poder presentarlo al Comité de Agricultura, evadiendo al Comité de Relaciones Exteriores, en donde la congresista Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) era la líder de la minoría republicana.

Ese plan, elaborado por el presidente del Comité de Agricultura, Colin Peterson (D-Minn.), y el entonces presidente del Comité de Relaciones Exteriores, Howard Berman (D-Cal.), eventualmente fracasó debido a la fuerte oposición de más de 80 congresistas demócratas en la Cámara de Representantes. Durante el pasado noviembre, Berman, un histórico y poderoso oponente de las sanciones, perdió su intento de reelección.

Desde entonces, la atención se ha centrado en posibles y limitadas concesiones ejecutivas por parte del presidente Obama, ya que en el Congreso de EE UU existe una decisiva mayoría bipartidista que apoya el mantenimiento de las sanciones hacia el régimen de los Castro mientras estos no tomen pasos concretos e irreversibles hacia una democratización y hacia el respeto a los derechos humanos.

Esta política, que busca cambios reales y contundentes en el comportamiento del régimen hacia su pueblo, fue codificada en ley en 1996. Ese año, la Ley de Libertad y Solidaridad Democrática con Cuba (conocida como la Ley Helms-Burton) incluía una provisión que codificó todas las diferentes regulaciones y normas que conjuntamente componían las sanciones de EE UU hacia Cuba, constituyendo una ley que solamente podría ser cambiada o, derogada, por el Congreso norteamericano.

Esto ha dejado al presidente Obama, al igual que a su antecesores, con la facultad de solo poder hacerle ajustes limitados a las sanciones, específicamente en lo que se refiere a los viajes a la Isla "con un propósito", realizados por familiares, académicos y religiosos, ya que estos fueron anteriormente reconocidos bajo la Ley de Democracia Cubana de 1992 (más conocida como la Ley Torricelli). Mientras, los cambios substanciales a las sanciones —al turismo, a las inversiones directas, a los créditos bancarios y a las importaciones, que serían equivalentes a decenas de billones de dólares— requieren aprobación del Congreso.

Pocas herramientas ejecutivas

Con la inminente muerte de Hugo Chávez y sus subsidios, estos billones de dólares norteamericanos son cada día más necesarios para los Castro.

¿Qué podemos esperar en los próximos cuatro años?

El presidente Obama ya ha autorizado unilateralmente casi todos los posibles viajes "con un propósito", por lo cual le quedan pocas herramientas en su arsenal ejecutivo, como por ejemplo, un acercamiento diplomático o el fin de la designación de Cuba como un Estado patrocinador del terrorismo, aunque este último punto también contiene algunos previos requisitos legislativos.

Con opciones limitadas para el presidente y un Congreso comprometido con las condiciones pro democráticas establecidas bajo el marco de la ley de 1996, el futuro depende del propio régimen de La Habana.

¿Le permitirá a los cubanos disfrutar de los derechos civiles, económicos, humanos y políticos enmarcados por la ley internacional, o seguirá con su afán represivo, absolutista y con el incumplimiento de las normas internacionales, tomando inclusive rehenes norteamericanos, como el contratista Alan P. Gross?

Hoy existe incluso un modelo que el castrismo podría seguir como ejemplo. El de Birmania, cuyo régimen ha visto un merecido alivio en las sanciones de EE UU (modeladas en su momento según las sanciones hacia Cuba y codificadas en ley por el Congreso) tras las aperturas democráticas concretas que han llevado a la líder de la oposición, Aung San Suu Kyi, al parlamento de esa nación.

Indudablemente, el reconocimiento legal de la oposición democrática cubana y la libre aspiración y elección a puestos políticos de líderes de la sociedad civil sería una buena pauta a seguir por el régimen. Y entonces, por ley, el gobierno de EE UU respondería.

'Foreign Affairs': John Kerry se reunió con Bruno Rodríguez para negociar la liberación de Gross

diariodecuba

El senador demócrata John Kerry, quien podría ser el próximo secretario de Estado norteamericano, sostuvo en 2010 una reunión secreta con el ministro cubano de Relaciones Exteriores, Bruno Rodríguez, en un fallido intento de obtener la liberación del estadounidense Alan Gross, condenado en Cuba a 15 años de cárcel, informó la revista Foreign Affairs.

Según Foreign Affairs, ese mismo año el entonces subsecretario de Estado Arturo Valenzuela también se reunió con Rodríguez y recibió un sermón del ministro.

Gross fue arrestado en La Habana en diciembre de 2009. Las autoridades cubanas lo acusaron de distribuir equipos prohibidos de comunicación en la Isla, como parte de los "programas pro democracia" de la Agencia de Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional (USAID), a la que el Gobierno cubano acusa de intentar provocar un "cambio de régimen".

El artículo en Foreign Affairs está firmado por R.M. Schneiderman, un editor de Newsweek, quien afirma que en septiembre del 2010, funcionarios españoles ayudaron a concertar el encuentro secreto entre el Valenzuela y Rodríguez para discutir una posible liberación de Gross, informa el diario miamense El Nuevo Herald.

"Los cubanos fueron mucho menos flexibles de lo que esperaban los estadounidenses. Estados Unidos (…) quería que Cuba liberara a Gross, y solo entonces trataría otros cambios de política", escribió Schneiderman. "Supuestamente Rodríguez sermoneó a Valenzuela por casi una hora sobre la historia de reclamaciones de Cuba".

Un mes después, a solicitud de diplomáticos cubanos en Washington y con la aprobación del Departamento de Estado, Kerry se reunió con Rodríguez en la casa en Nueva York del embajador cubano en las Naciones Unidas, agregó el periodista.

Según Schneiderman, "no hubo un intercambio de posiciones, pero la reunión pareció confirmar a los cubanos que los programas pro democracia cambiarían, y los cubanos expresaron confianza" en que Gross sería liberado después de su juicio, que se celebró en marzo de 2011.

El presidente Barack Obama ha nominado a Kerry, un demócrata por Massachusetts, para sustituir a Hillary Clinton al frente del Departamento de Estado. Se espera que la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado, que preside Kerry, apruebe fácilmente su nominación.

El senador ha sido un duro crítico de los programas de ayuda a la democracia en Cuba y de Radio y TV Martí.

Schneiderman dijo además en su artículo que, a comienzos del 2010, el Departamento de Estado y la USAID recurrieron a Fulton Armstrong, un alto empleado de la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado, ex analista de la CIA y también crítico de los proyectos de la agencia estadounidense.

A Armstrong se le habría pedido que ayudara a hacer menos provocadores los programas dirigidos a Cuba, con la esperanza de que La Habana accediera a liberar a Gross.

El funcionario habría persuadido al Departamento de Estado y la USAID para recortar de inmediato 5 millones de dólares de los 20 millones aprobados para los programas hacia Cuba, y para continuar reduciéndolos en el futuro, indicó Schneiderman.

En el verano de 2010 y "a petición del Departamento de Estado", Armstrong comenzó a reunirse con funcionarios de la misión diplomática cubana en Washington para hablarles sobre los cambios en los programas, añadió.

Los cubanos parecieron agradecidos. "Les preguntamos: '¿Esto los ayudará a liberar a Alan Gross?'. Y la respuesta fue: 'sí'", dijo Armstrong, según citó Schneiderman.

El periodista dijo que el senador cubanoamericano Bob Menéndez, demócrata por Nueva Jersey, salió en defensa de los programas hacia Cuba en la primavera de 2011 y persuadió a la Casa Blanca de dar marcha atrás a la mayoría de los cambios.

A esto se unieron presiones domésticas dentro de la Isla por las reformas económicas del régimen y la decisión de un jurado estadounidense de declarar no culpable a Luis Posada Carriles, tras un juicio en el que fue acusado de mentir a funcionarios de inmigración de Estados Unidos.

"Esperemos que este fiasco encabezado por Fulton Armstrong ponga fin a más intentos de apaciguamiento", dijo sobre el artículo de Schneiderman el ex alto funcionario de la USAID José Cárdenas, citado por El Nuevo Herald.

Sin embargo, un alto ayudante de los republicanos en el Senado contradijo el reporte de Schneiderman sobre el papel desempeñado por Armstrong.

"Mis conversaciones con el Departamento de Estado revelaron lo contrario, que el Departamento de Estado estaba molesto con Fulton, que quería que no se metiera en el asunto", dijo el asistente, quien pidió mantenerse el anonimato porque no estaba autorizado a dar declaraciones sobre el tema, según el diario miamense.

"Sus esfuerzos en realidad hicieron (…) más difícil para el Departamento de Estado lograr la liberación de Gross, porque Fulton estableció expectativas (...) que los cubanos se creyeron y que eran políticamente imposibles en Estados Unidos", agregó.

La Habana ha sugerido en varias ocasiones un canje de Gross por los cinco agentes cubanos que cumplen condena en Estados Unidos por espionaje. Hasta ahora, Washington ha dicho que ese intercambio no ocurrirá.

No obstante, Schneiderman escribió en su artículo que muchos consideran "negociable" la oferta cubana.

John Kerry’s Nomination as Secretary of State Raises Hopes, Fears

Chris Simmons

John Kerry’s nomination as secretary of state raises hopes, fears over Cuba policy

Sen. John Kerry has questioned U.S. pro-democracy spending in Cuba, and endorsed the embargo but favors liberal travel to the island.

By Juan O. Tamayo, JTamayo@elNuevoHerald,com

Both hopes for and fears of significant changes in Cuba policies during President Barack Obama’s second term heightened Friday with the nomination of Sen. John Kerry as the next U.S. Secretary of State. The Massachusetts Democrat in the past has endorsed the embargo but proposed allowing all travel to the island, including tourist trips, and criticized both Radio/TV Marti and the U.S. government’s pro-democracy programs in Cuba. His nomination to succeed Hillary Clinton is expected to sail through Senate confirmation because Kerry has served in the Senate since 1984 and chairs the powerful Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Kerry’s long-telegraphed move to the State Department won applause from backers of the Obama administration’s policy of expanding ties and assistance to the Cuban people while waiting for the government to move toward democracy and human rights. “The president’s positions on Cuba are clear, and he (Kerry) is a good pick to implement them,” said Joe Garcia, a Miami Democrat elected to Congress last month. “He’s a thoughtful, experienced foreign policy expert.” New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, a Cuban-American Democrat who is likely to succeed Kerry as chairman of the foreign relations committee, favors strong sanctions on Cuba. He praised Kerry for his knowledge of foreign policy but did not mention his stands on Cuba. “The high-level relationships that he has built with world leaders will allow him to step seamlessly into the position and to ensure that there is no decline in U.S. leadership on important global issues during a transition,” Menendez said. Even Mauricio Claver-Carone, executive director of the pro-sanctions U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, described Kerry as “reasonable and willing to listen to all sides.”

During his first term Obama lifted almost all limits on Cuban-American travel and remittances to the island and reopened educational “people-to-people” visits by all U.S. residents, although tourism remains banned. Further openings were stalled by Cuba’s detention of Alan Gross, a Maryland man serving a15-year sentence in Havana on charges Washington views as spurious. But Kerry’s impending move to the State Department also sparked fears among some Cuban-Americans that he will be too willing to seek accommodations with Havana and other repressive governments around the world. “He comes from a mentality that can tolerate a dictatorship like Cuba’s but cannot tolerate that a (U.S.) person can’t travel to Cuba” because the U.S. government wants to deny tourist dollars to Havana, said Miami radio commentator Ninoska Perez Castellón.

Kerry backed the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act, a 2009 bill that would have allowed unrestricted travel to Cuba, arguing that U.S. authorities should not limit the right of private citizens to travel anywhere. The bill was never voted on. The senator also has been critical of the millions of dollars spent on the U.S. government’s Radio/TV Martí, complaining that the stations are badly run and that their biased programming has little or no impact on the island. “After 18 years TV Martí still has no significant audience in Cuba. U.S. civil society programs may have noble objectives, but we need to examine whether we’re achieving them,” he wrote in a 2009 column on Cuba printed in the Tampa Bay Times. Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/21/3152903/john-kerrys-nomination-as-secretary.html#emlnl=The_Americas#storylink=cpy

John Kerry: Still Wrong After All These Years

frontpagemag

sodahead.com

Daniel Greenfield

A year and a half before Osama bin Laden was found living in a compound at the heart of Pakistan’s military establishment, Senator John Kerry was celebrating the passage of the “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act,” also known as the Kerry-Lugar Pakistan Bill. Under either name, Kerry was offering a rather sizable giveaway to a government that had a long history of ties to the Islamic terrorists that the United States was fighting.

Kerry, along with the bill’s co-sponsors, issued an explanatory statement to clarify why they would be directing 1.5 billion dollars a year over five years to a state sponsor of terrorism.

“The core intent of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act is to demonstrate the American people’s long-term commitment to the people of Pakistan. The United States values its friendship with the Pakistani people and honors the great sacrifices made by Pakistani security forces in the fight against extremism…  There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to the authorization of $7.5 billion in non-military aid.”

A year and a half later, after the Bin Laden raid, the man whom Pakistan’s top diplomat in D.C. described as a “steadfast friend of Pakistan” was sent once again as an envoy to the terrorist state. It was not the first time in his long career that Kerry had been dispatched to make nice with an enemy of the United States.

In 1971, 40 years before he flew off to Pakistan, Kerry had headed the Vietnam Veterans Against the War delegation that met with the Viet Cong in Paris. It was the first time that the future senator, presidential candidate and Secretary of State would meet with enemy leaders. It would not be the last.

Over the next forty years Kerry would reinvent himself numerous times, transforming from an anti-war activist disgusted by the uniform to a war hero reporting for duty as he sought to corner both sides of the market, but his flirtation with tyrants and tyrannies, particularly those hostile to the United States, never changed.

The murderous Viet Cong gave way to the Sandinistas of Nicaragua. Ho Chi Minh gave way to Assad. Vietnam gave way to Pakistan. But at no point during those long 40 years, a biblical number often linked to transformation and change, did John Forbes Kerry learn anything at all from his countless mistakes.

directorblue.blogspot.com

Kerry had hardly managed to win his first term in the Senate when he was back on a plane, this time to Nicaragua for a meeting with another Communist terrorist group. The Sandinista anthem called the “Yankee” the enemy of mankind and a year before Kerry’s visit, Daniel Ortega had threatened the United States with war while crowds of his supporters had chanted, “Here or There, Yankees Will Die Everywhere.”

The Sandinistas had ethnically cleansed the Miskito Afro-Indians and destroyed Nicaragua’s Jewish community. But none of that deterred Kerry from shaking hands with Ortega and urging Reagan to make a deal with him.

“We negotiated with North Vietnam… they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them,” Kerry whined. And Kerry did want to talk them. To the Viet Cong, to the Sandinistas and to anyone else who hated the United States and wished us harm.

Of FARC, the Colombian Marxist Narcoterrorist group, Kerry said that they had “legitimate complaints.” When it came to Cuba, Kerry killed democracy funding for the island just last year and complained that the United States clings to a Cuba “policy that has manifestly failed for nearly 50 years.” By that Kerry meant the Castro embargo, which he had steadily opposed for as long as he had been in the Senate.

But Kerry wasn’t just wrong when it came to Latin American Marxists; he was equally wrong in the Middle East.

In 2009, Kerry visited Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and described Syria as “an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.” Kerry’s visits to Syria and gushing about Assad grew so torrid that even the Washington Post described him as a “prominent admirer” of Assad.

boston.com

Last year at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Kerry bragged about his close relationship with Assad and gushed, “Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and the economic opportunity that comes with it and the participation that comes with it.”

But then Kerry had a long history of getting the Middle East wrong, of supporting tyrants and terrorists.

Two years ago, Kerry wrote a letter of support for Code Pink activists bound on a mission of support for Hamas. “My staff has met with members of the group and is impressed with their ability, dedication and commitment to the peace process.“  The letter was used to allow a political march from Egypt into Gaza and a meeting with Hamas leaders.

And there’s Iraq, an enduring part of the Kerry legend, because in few places did Senator Kerry get it as wrong, as often, as he did in Iraq. While it’s famously believed that Kerry flip-flopped once on Iraq, going from pro-war to anti-war, he actually shifted gears and directions a dizzying number of times.

Before the original Gulf War, Kerry urged Bush I to give Saddam Hussein room to back off, negotiating an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait in exchange for allowing Iraq to make a claim on some Kuwaiti territory and proposing some Israeli concessions as well. He claimed that threatening Saddam “stiffened Iraq’s resolve and weakened America’s.”

After the war, Kerry turned into a hawk, saying of Bush that, “The administration has basically sided with Saddam Hussein” and demanded that Saddam be tried for environmental terrorism. During the Clinton Administration, Kerry called for using ground troops to force Saddam out of power. It was no surprise at all when during the Bush Administration, Kerry flipped in reverse, going from a strong supporter of the war to a strong opponent of it.

In the spring of last year, Senator Kerry met with Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s new tyrant in Egypt, and said that, “in our discussions, Mr. Morsi committed to protecting fundamental freedoms, including women’s rights, minority rights, the right to free expression and assembly.”

Six months later, Morsi’s thugs were beating political opponents in the street and ‘Always Wrong’ Kerry had another notch in his belt.

“How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Kerry had asked during his Senate testimony, and throughout his decades in the Senate, with the power of the same committee that he had once testified before behind him, he had done his best to see to it that Americans and people from all nations would die for his mistakes.

Obama to nominate Sen. John Kerry as secretary of state this afternoon

President Obama will nominate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) as secretary of
state this afternoon, according to a White House official.
Kerry will succeed Hillary Clinton, who has long planned to step down
shortly after Obama’s inauguration. He was widely considered to be Obama’s
top choice after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice removed herself from
consideration last week. 

Keep reading on Washington Post >>