VIDEO: Obama Fiscal Crisis Statement

Senate to Try One Last Time for Fiscal Crisis Solution

Senate leaders from both sides of the aisle vowed late Friday to scramble over the weekend to produce a new bill aimed at averting the fiscal crisis, on the heels of a high-stakes White House meeting -- seen as the last chance to come together before the tax-hike deadline next week. 

Though the meeting did not yield a breakthrough or any "concrete" proposals, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell [photo] gave taxpayers a glimmer of hope by announcing on the floor that the Senate would adjourn Saturday to allow staff to work on a bill. McConnell said he hopes they can come forward with a recommendation as early as Sunday. 

"We need to have everybody step back a bit," said Reid, who called the meeting "very constructive." 

The pledge to work on a new bill is by no means a solution to the sweeping set of tax hikes set to hit Jan. 1, followed by steep spending cuts. Lawmakers still have to write the bill, and produce something that can pass both chambers. 

President Obama, speaking from the White House briefing room late Friday, voiced a dose of doubt about the Senate leaders' final push for a deal. 

He said he's "modestly optimistic" but that if Reid and McConnell fail, the Senate should allow an up-or-down vote on a scaled-back proposal the president is pushing. 

"The hour for immediate action is here, it is now," Obama said. "We're now at the last minute, and the American people are not going to have any patience for a politically self-inflicted wound to our economy. ... We've got to get this done." 

Considering how late this effort is getting underway, lawmakers easily run the risk of missing the deadline and causing at least some uncertainty with Americans' tax bills starting next week. 

The developments late Friday, though, at least showed Reid and McConnell were beginning to work together. And it marked a decision by lawmakers that the Senate should make the first move -- for days, House Speaker John Boehner has insisted that the Senate act, but Reid has resisted and put the onus on the House. 

It's unclear what the new bill would entail. It appears the Senate wants to tweak the Obama plan, which would include an extension of current tax rates for most Americans -- but potentially adjust it so fewer earners see a tax hike, and add a provision dealing with a looming expansion of the estate tax. 

The debt ceiling, which Obama wants increased, would not be part of this bill. And a senior White House official admitted it is unclear how a looming set of spending cuts would be addressed. 

The White House official said that during the meeting, Reid and McConnell jumped in and offered to draft a new plan after Obama told them he thought his scaled-back proposal could pass both chambers. 

The president's plan is a far cry from the kind of "grand bargain" lawmakers were shooting for just a few weeks ago -- something that would narrow the deficit, overhaul the tax code and set the country on a course to curb its entitlement spending, all while averting massive tax hikes and spending cuts. 

Instead, Obama wants a bill that primarily nixes the tax hikes for families making under $250,000. He has pushed that particular provision for months, though Republicans have adamantly opposed raising taxes on those making above $250,000. 

Obama's proposal would also extend unemployment benefits for roughly 2 million people expected to lose them next year, and deal with "other outstanding issues." 

Obama referred to those other issues last week when he called for laying "the groundwork for future growth and deficit reduction," which presumably would be a commitment to return next year and draft broader tax and entitlement reform. 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/28/obama-congressional-leaders-give-talks-to-avert-fiscal-crisis-one-last-try/#ixzz2GP9Z4LtK

What leaders said after financial cliff meeting

politicalticker

Washington (CNN) - Congressional leaders spoke Friday after meeting about the fiscal cliff with President Barack Obama at the White House.

Congressional leaders attending the meeting was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Vice President Joe Biden was to be in attendance, the White House said, and an administration official said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would attend as well.

Obama was set to make a statement at 5:45 p.m. ET.
McConnell and Reid spoke on the Senate floor.
Reid said, “we had a constructive meeting. We certainly hope that something positive will come from that. The republican leader and I and our staffs are working and we’ll see what we can come up with. We shouldn’t take a long time to do that. …
“If we come up with something, it’s not that easy. We’re dealing with big numbers and some of the stuff that we do is somewhat complicated. But I think it was a very positive meeting,” he said. “There was not a lot of hilarity in the meeting, everyone knows how important it is. It was a very serious meeting and it took an extended period of time as you all know waiting for us.”
McConnell spoke immediately after Reid, saying, “I share the view of the majority leader. We had a good meeting down at the White House.
“We are engaged in discussions, the majority leader and myself and the White House, in the hopes that we can come forward as early as Sunday and have a recommendation that I can make to my conference and the majority leader [Reid] can make to his conference and so we’ll be working hard to try and see if we can get there in the next 24 hours,” he said. “And so I’m hopeful and optimistic.”
Boehner’s office issued a statement which said he “reminded the group that the House has already acted to avert the entire fiscal cliff and is awaiting Senate action.”
“The leaders spent the majority of the meeting discussing potential options and components for a plan that could pass both chambers of Congress,” the statement read. “The Speaker told the President that if the Senate amends the House-passed legislation and sends back a plan, the House will consider it – either by accepting or amending. The group agreed that the next step should be the Senate taking bipartisan action.”
In a paper statement, McConnell’s office also pointed to legislation which had passed the House.
“While the House already passed legislation in August to prevent tax hikes (a proposal Sen. McConnell supports), the President and Congressional leaders today agreed that the Senate must now act,” the statement read. “This will require a bipartisan approach. Members of the Senate will continue to work toward producing a bipartisan package in a timely manner to protect American taxpayers and jobs from a massive tax hike in January.”
Pelosi said the meeting was "constructive" and "candid."

Fiscal cliff talks reach make-or-break point

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower

*** What is Boehner doing? That’s our question after House Speaker John Boehner yesterday unveiled “Plan B” -- legislation that would raise tax rates on household income above $1 million but keep them status quo for everyone else -- which the House is scheduled to vote on Thursday. Is Plan B, which comes after President Obama made some of his biggest concessions in the fiscal-cliff debate (chained CPI, moving the income marker to $400,000), a way to strengthen Boehner’s negotiating hand with the White House? Is it to prove a point to his rank-and-file members that they can’t have their entire way in these negotiations? (It’s highly doubtful that Boehner even has the votes to pass Plan B.) Or is it a way to scuttle the talks with the White House? Here’s the answer from Boehner’s office: “Making sure we protect 99.81% of Americans from a tax hike.” What we’re watching today: Do Boehner and House GOP leaders spend more time trying to get votes for Plan B, or do they spend more time negotiating with the White House?

*** Three reasons why the move is so puzzling: There are three reasons why Plan B -- if it’s a serious effort -- seems so puzzling. One, as we wrote yesterday, the two sides are thisclose in getting a deal done. (Where the two sides are publicly is not where they were Monday night; they have both moved in each other’s direction further.) Two, if we go over the fiscal cliff (and time is running out, folks), Republicans might not realize the extent to which President Obama will own the bully pulpit in January. After all, there’s a certain inaugural address on Jan. 21, as well as the State of the Union. And three, are enough House Republicans really going to cast a tough vote -- raising taxes -- without getting any spending cuts or resolution on the sequester in return? And are they going to cast a vote for legislation that breaks a longstanding pledge on taxes that has zero chance of becoming law simply to give Boehner leverage? If Boehner and leadership do pull this off and convince their rank-and-file to vote on legislation that is designed just to give Boehner leverage, it would be quite the political feat. But for what end? Boehner already had one big piece of invisible leverage over the White House: a 2013 domestic agenda. The White House knows not getting a deal now, while politically more damaging for Republicans, probably means he’ll get very little down legislatively next year -- perhaps his ONLY year in a second term to focus on passing legislation.

Keep reading >>

Allen West: Negotiating with 'Marxist' President is 'Silly'

Foxnews

Allen West was on with Mark Levin last night in what I think was one of his better interviews. Not only did Levin put West on the spot and really press him on his future, but West weighed in on this debate over the ‘fiscal cliff’ saying that the House should be passing good policy and not negotiating with a “Marxist, Socialist, rigid ideologue” like Obama. He says that instead of Obama telling people how he’s going to give them $2,000 by keeping their taxes low, West says Obama should be telling them how he’s decimated the median family income by $4,000 through printing money and inflation.

On his future, West said he’s gotten good offers and he has no plans to stop fighting for this country. Levin called him a “national treasure” and implored him to remain in public service.

La ignominia de una UE que quiere un nuevo acuerdo con Cuba

los 27 mamelucos de la vieja europa que han creado por irresponsabilidad politica e institucional, la mas grave crisis en la region despues de las dos guerras mundiales, tienen los deseos y el tiempo para asistir a la finca biranica que les falta para resolver los propios, apreciando una evolución positiva en cuba en momentos en que se despliega una brutal ola represiva contra la disidencia.

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

Los ministros de Relaciones Exteriores de la Unión Europea (UE) instaron este lunes a la jefa de la diplomacia del bloque, Catherine Ashton, a iniciar las negocaciaciones hacia un acuerdo de cooperación con Cuba, señaló el secretario de Estado español de Asuntos Exteriores, Gonzalo de Benito.

Los ministros pidieron a Ashton "un mandato para negociar" un acuerdo de cooperación, informó de Benito, al finalizar una reunión con los cancilleres de la UE en Bruselas.

La UE debe presentar unas "directrices" de negociación para "revisar las relaciones" con el gobierno del presidente cubano Raúl Castro, agregó.

Esta posibilidad está contemplada en la Posición común de la UE, aprobada en 1996, precisó el funcionario español.

Las relaciones entre el bloque europeo y Cuba están dictadas desde entonces por la Posición Común de la UE, impulsada por el exmandatario español José María Aznar. Esta condiciona las relaciones con la isla caribeña a los avances en los derechos humanos y la democracia en Cuba.

Sin embargo, de Benito no especificó los cambios que consideraron los europeos para dar este "gran paso" y se limitó a decir que lo "importante es que se ha hecho una valoración".

Cuba tiene acuerdos bilaterales con trece países de la UE, destacó.

Cuba proposes bilateral talks with the U.S.

Tracey Eaton

Bruno Rodríguez. Photo: La Radio del Sur

Cuba's foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez, repeated his government's willingness to hold talks that could lead to a normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba.
He also hinted that Cuba is willing to trade jailed American Alan Gross for the Cuban Five.
Rodríguez said:

I reiterate, on behalf of President Raúl Castro Ruz, the firm willingness on the part of the Cuban government to move on towards the normalization of relations with the United States through a respectful dialogue, without preconditions, on the basis of reciprocity and sovereign equality, without undermining in the least our independence and sovereignty.

Today, here and now, I am again submitting to the US government a draft agenda for a bilateral dialogue aimed at moving towards the normalization of relations which includes, as fundamental topics:

• the lifting of the economic, commercial and financial blockade;
• Cuba’s exclusion from the arbitrary and illegal list of terrorism-sponsoring countries;
• the abrogation of the Cuban Adjustment Act and the wet foot/dry foot policy;
• the compensation for economic and human damages;
• the return of the territory occupied by the Guantánamo Naval Base;
• the end to the radio and TV aggressions, and;
• the ceasing of the financing of internal subversion.

An essential element in this agenda is the release of the Five Cuban anti-terrorists who remain cruelly and unjustly imprisoned or retained in this country. An act of justice, or at least a humanitarian solution, will arouse the gratitude of my people and a response by our Government.

I likewise offer here and now the US government to negotiate several cooperation agreements in the areas of greatest mutual interest, such as the combat of drug trafficking, terrorism, human smuggling and for the full normalization of migratory relations, as well as for the prevention and mitigation of natural disasters and the protection of the environment and our common seas. We also propose to resume the talks that were unilaterally suspended by our counterpart about migration issues and for the resumption of postal services.

The latest on U.S. secret meetings with Iran

WND/ Reza Kahlili

Obama said to need diplomatic victory badly after Benghazi.

The United States and Iran are moving forward with secret negotiations, despite denying earlier meetings took place, according to a source highly placed in the Islamic government.

The source, who remains anonymous for security reasons, added that teams from both sides will resume the talks in the coming days with the hope of reaching agreement to announce a breakthrough before the U.S. elections.

The source said the Obama administration seems to need a diplomatic victory before the elections in the wake of the attack in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans because the administration failed to adequately protect the Benghazi consulate.

If President Obama is not re-elected, however, the source contends any agreement reached after the elections will be announced and enforced while he is still in office, once Iran’s supreme leader receives written guarantees from Obama.

The source adds, on a related note, that President Obama chose not to destroy the American, sensitive-technology RQ-170 stealth drone, which was captured by the Iranian forces after it crashed in Iran in December of 2011, because he feared jeopardizing the ongoing secret negotiations.

The negotiations to date have reportedly gone beyond the Iranian nuclear program to include such issues as South America, the Persian Gulf and Syria. On the latter issue, the U.S. has already stepped back from its demand that President Bashar Assad be removed. The source added that both parties have agreed on a broad range of incentives that have been offered to the Islamic regime and which will be revealed in time.

The source said the revelation of the secret meetings has caused internal rifts between Iranian factions. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has already alerted the Americans that he might remove President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and establish an emergency government. He has already seized authority over much of the affairs of the country, including international matters.

Khamenei has decided to push for Ali Akbar Velayati, the former foreign minister and the current close adviser to the supreme leader on international affairs, as the new president in the upcoming Iranian presidential elections next June, the source added. The American negotiators have already signed off on that.

Velayati is wanted by Argentina for the Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people.  More on WND.com  >>

Mikoyan's "Mission Impossible" in Cuba: New Soviet Evidence on the Cuban Missile Crisis

First day in Havana, young Sergo Mikoyan is in the center of the photo. Courtesy of Sergo Mikoyan.

National Security Archive/Svetlana Savranskaya, Anna Melyakova and Amanda Conrad

DC, October 27, 2012 – The Cuban Missile Crisis continued long after the "13 days" celebrated by U.S. media, with U.S. armed forces still on DEFCON 2 and Soviet tactical nuclear weapons still in Cuba, according to new documents posted today by the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org) from the personal archive of the late Sergo Mikoyan. This is the second installment from the Mikoyan archive donated to the National Security Archive and featured in the new book, The Soviet Cuban Missile Crisis.

These documents, which give one an insight into Soviet thinking and decision making at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis are supplemented with transcripts of extraordinary interviews with key Soviet political and military figures, all of whom have passed away. These interviews were generously provided to the National Security Archive by our long-time partner, Sherry Jones of Washington Media Associates. Sherry, a five-time Emmy Award winner, conducted these interviews in the summer of 1992 for the groundbreaking documentary "Cuban Missile Crisis: What the World Didn't Know," produced by Sherry Jones for Peter Jennings Reporting, ABC News (Washington Media Associates, 1992). [Jump to the interviews]

On October 28, after Khrushchev and Kennedy had just resolved the most acute and public part of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet leaders decided to send Anastas Mikoyan to Cuba to settle the crisis between the Soviet Union and their ally, Cuba. Fidel Castro, who was not consulted or even informed about the negotiations between the Soviets and the Americans, sent Khrushchev an angry letter "disagreeing" with the policies of the Soviet government. Khrushchev knew he had a real problem in Cuba-with 42,000 Soviet military personnel armed with tactical nuclear weapons-and an emotional revolutionary leader, who felt betrayed and abandoned by the Kremlin.

Khrushchev's three priorities in regard to Cuba at the moment were: to negotiate a smooth withdrawal of the missiles without provoking the Americans; to get Castro to accept inspections because those were the condition for the American non-invasion pledge; and to keep Cuba as a close ally and thus preserve the Soviet Union's legitimacy in the global communist movement.

Difficult negotiations. Courtesy of Sergo Mikoyan.

There was only one person he could turn to with this tall order-his reliable trouble shooter, Anastas Mikoyan. As Fidel Castro put it at a state dinner on November 17, addressing Mikoyan, "Who if not you, and only you, can carry out this mission! If you cannot do this, then it proves that in general this is impossible."

According to Sergo Mikoyan, his father understood his tasks in Cuba to be the following:

First, he had to convince the Cuban leadership that Cuba's security had been assured and that there was no danger of invasion, even though the missiles were being removed.
Second, it was necessary to explain the Kremlin's decisions, which were already announced, and come to an agreement regarding which additional Soviet weapons and military forces could be withdrawn from Cuba with the Cuban leadership's consent, and which should stay on the island.
Third, it was necessary to explain why Khrushchev had agreed to an international ground inspection in Cuba without obtaining Cuba's agreement.
Fourth, it was important to convince the Cuban leaders that this time, in this situation, after such a crisis and such a dangerous moment in international relations, the U.S. President's pledge of non-aggression toward Cuba and his commitment not to allow others to attack Cuba should not be received as yet another empty promise that could be revoked at any moment and under any pretense.
Fifth, it was important to convince Castro to restrain his feelings for some time, even if for a short period, and thus not fire at U.S. surveillance planes.
Sixth, was to return Soviet-Cuban relations as close as possible to their pre-October state.

One may add that the seventh major task was to explain the decisions taken by the Kremlin to their own officers and soldiers, who had not been informed by their own government about the negotiations. Those people, who had worked day and night to assemble the missiles and were preparing to fight and die to defend the Cuban revolution against an imperialist aggression, were certainly surprised by the total turnaround by their government, which seemed to be making one concession after another under U.S. pressure.

A lighter moment during the talks. Courtesy of Sergo Mikoyan.

The documents, published today for the first time, allow us to be a fly on the wall as Mikoyan goes about trying to fulfill his mission-first in New York and then in Havana. We see him as a tough negotiator with John McCloy and Adlai Stevenson, defending the Cuban position, knowing at the same time that Soviet concessions had already been made and that his bargaining position was extremely weak. In Cuba, Mikoyan, faced with Castro's flat rejection of ground inspections, is trying to find a compromise position with inspections by ambassadors from Latin American countries who are already in Cuba. We see how crucial he was in the dynamics of negotiating the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis-at the very nexus of a three-party negotiation, negotiating with the Cubans, privy to all communications between Moscow and its representatives at the U.N., and in daily contact with the Presidium and Nikita Khrushchev himself.

Mikoyan is also very sensitive to the issue of revolutionary legacy and concerned about the effect of the Soviet withdrawal on Chinese influence in Cuba. He is using every "opportune moment" to criticize the Chinese position and draw comparisons between the Soviet willingness to defend Cuba with the real blood and life of its own soldiers and the Chinese efforts to donate blood by their embassy people in Havana. He suggests that if China was serious about helping Cuba, it could have created a distraction-create a crisis around Taiwan, or take over some Portuguese or British bases, like Hong Kong.

In one of Mikoyan's most eloquent moments during the Cuban trip, he addresses the officers of the Pliev group of forces to explain the decisions of the Soviet government. This is one of the first Soviet efforts to spin the results of the Cuban Missile Crisis to make it look as if Khrushchev has envisioned it to turn out just exactly as it did, that the main goal-the defense of the Cuban revolution-has been achieved. Mikoyan assures them that their task has been carried out brilliantly and that the correlation of forces in the world is changing in the Soviets' favor. In this speech, however, there is some real criticism of the way the Soviet military carried out Operation Anadyr. Mikoyan takes a stab at the rocket forces decision makers (Marshall Biryuzov), describing how the Americans discovered the missiles: "they flew the U-2 and discovered that our missiles were sticking up just like they were at a military parade in Red Square. Only in Red Square they would be placed horizontally, and here they were deployed vertically. Apparently, our rocket forces decided to make an offensive gesture to the Americans."  More >>

El traspatio que espera [o la inmunidad vitalica de Castro]

la crisis de los misiles o de octubre para kubichilandia, no fue mas que el otorgamiento de la inmunidad vitalicia a fidel castro por parte de los superpoderes de la epoca.  lo demas es paisaje para expertos, analistas, testigos presenciales, periodistas, cineastas y toda esa fauna que vive del cuento.

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

newyorker.com

elnuevoherald.com/ Vicente Echerri

A medio siglo exacto de la llamada “crisis de los misiles” o “crisis de octubre” son inevitables los textos conmemorativos del momento más peligroso de la guerra fría, cuando el estacionamiento de misiles nucleares soviéticos en Cuba estuvo a punto de desencadenar el holocausto nuclear.
Esta es una rememoración acostumbrada. Año tras año por esta fecha vuelven los analistas políticos, los testigos de primera mano que quedan y los historiadores a recordarnos la imprudente jugada soviética de poner este pavoroso arsenal al alcance de un loco, así como “el valor”, “la inteligencia”, “la sangre fría” y no sé cuántas otras virtudes del presidente Kennedy por evitar el Armagedón y lograr que los misiles salieran de territorio cubano, al precio de que el castrismo sobreviviera y perdurara.
En mi opinión, la crisis misma –que puso a una buena parte de la humanidad, y a los cubanos en particular, al borde de la extinción– fue el episodio más dramático de un proceso mucho más largo que se desenvuelve ante la mirada casi indiferente de Kennedy –y que puede servir para medir la ineptitud de este mandatario a quien una muerte violenta vino a salvar a tiempo de una ignominiosa posteridad.
Por imprevisión, cobardía o sensibleros prejuicios (por no lastimar la susceptibilidad de América Latina reincidiendo en una política imperial), el presidente Kennedy no obró de manera decisiva para abortar el fenómeno del castrismo que estaba montando una base de subversión internacional, contra los intereses de este país, en su propio traspatio.
La geografía –que si bien ha sido el más formidable aliado del proyecto castrista debido a nuestra condición insular– nos destinaba a ser ese traspatio que no tenía nada de denigrante. Gracias a esa envidiable cercanía y a la sagacidad de su clase política, Cuba fue, incluso antes de la independencia, el privilegiado arrabal de sus vecinos del Norte. La vecindad nos reportó grandes dividendos que, en pocas décadas de vida republicana, nos llevaron a las puertas del desarrollo. Los políticos cubanos de todo pelaje habían sabido vivir –con virtud o malicia, que parecían haber incorporado a su ADN– en perpetuo equilibrio con la incontrastable fuerza centrípeta de Estados Unidos sin sucumbir enteramente a su atracción, al tiempo que se aprovechaban de su proximidad. Era el mejor de los mundos posibles hasta que se instauró el delirio revolucionario.
Este fenómeno maduró con la tácita anuencia de Kennedy, que permitió que EE.UU. perdiera una natural esfera de influencia, Cuba se convirtiera en un país hostil y los cubanos en una nación esclava antes que ser tildado de imperialista, como si fuera posible presidir el país más poderoso de la historia sin ejercer un papel imperial. Esos pruritos presidenciales, causantes del fiasco de Bahía de Cochinos, son directamente responsables de lo sucedido año y medio más tarde: octubre de 1962 no es más que una secuela de abril de 1961 seguido por un rosario de torpezas e indecisiones.
Si el gobierno de Washington no previó que Fidel Castro, después de Bahía de Cochinos, trataría de blindar su régimen a cualquier costo, y que la forma más expedita y segura de lograrlo sería entregarse a los soviéticos, es prueba de una peligrosa miopía; si, por el contrario, vio venir el fenómeno y no hizo nada decisivo para evitarlo, resalta una estupidez poco común. Que el presidente reaccionara con cierto nivel de energía cuando ya los soviéticos habían plantado los misiles en Cuba sólo sirve para subrayar la desesperación de alguien a quien los acontecimientos han tomado por sorpresa.
Cincuenta años después, el status quo derivado de la solución negociada de la crisis se mantiene en vigor, pese a que uno de los actores, la Unión Soviética, desapareciera del escenario político hace más de dos décadas. Es cierto que el castrismo conserva el poder, pero lo hace en un país destruido por la arbitrariedad y la ineficacia de su gestión y sobre una nación envilecida por la corrupción que siempre engendra la opresión absoluta. Que Estados Unidos haya consentido pasivamente en que Cuba se convirtiera en un infecto basurero sin hacer nada decisivo por revertir esta situación en todo el tiempo que los rusos llevan fuera del juego es un misterio para muchos cubanos. Los mismos que esperamos que alguna vez –enmendando la ignorancia y perfidia de Kennedy– los americanos se decidan por fin a la tarea, aplazada por más de medio siglo, de limpiar el traspatio.

Negociacion Colombia - FARC

Al Jazeera-Colombia

Colombia's first peace talks in a decade were brief, symbolic and largely perfunctory. Held at a secret venue in Norway, they lasted seven hours and were followed by word that substantive talks will begin on November 15 in the Cuban capital of Havana.

The next round will tackle "comprehensive agrarian development", though little else appears to have been agreed upon, as the opening talks concluded on Thursday.

The government's lead negotiator, Humberto de la Calle, sought to set a businesslike, cordial tone in brief remarks at a joint news conference at a lakeside hotel north of Oslo.

He said the government sought "mutual dignified treatment" in the talks and did not expect the sides to agree on all issues.

The Norway talks focused chiefly on logistics, and De la Calle said his delegation would return to Colombia on Friday after just two days in the Scandinavian country.

'Olive branch'

His counterpart, Ivan Marquez, said the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, had come to Oslo "with an olive branch."

Then he began criticising Colombia's "corrupt oligarchy," its alleged masters in Washington, "state-sponsored violence," the government's "deceptive and backward" land policies, and the "vampires" of transnational oil and mining that FARC says are ravaging the nation.

"We want to denounce the crime of capitalism and neo-liberalism," Marquez said during a 35-minute discourse that denounced some companies and individuals by name, including a cousin of president Juan Manuel Santos and a relative of one of the government negotiators.

"There is a great chasm between the two parties that is going to be very difficult to overcome," said political scientist Vicente Torrijos at Bogota's Universidad del Rosario.

'Not a hostage'

Colombia's business community is also hostile to the FARC. Its TV and radio stations cut away to commercials early in the FARC's separate news conference on Thursday.

Land ownership issues are at the heart of Colombia's conflict, which is fuelled by cocaine trafficking and aggravated by far-right militias that have colluded with a military widely questioned for human right abuses. Colombia's most fertile land has been largely concentrated in the hands of cattle ranchers and drug traffickers.

Colombia's president has said he expects the talks to last months, not years, as did the failed 1999-2002 talks that were held in a Switzerland-sized safe haven. Santos ruled out a safe haven this time and rejected FARC's request for a cease-fire.

"The government has said it is not a hostage to this process," De la Calle noted. Santos has said he will break off negotiations unless there is measurable progress.

A key member of its five-man negotiating team, former police director Oscar Naranjo, did not attend.

EEUU: Cuba miente sobre el caso de Alan Gross

By Chris Simmons

FOX5 Washington, Posted: Sep 18, 2012 7:31 AM EDT Updated: Sep 18, 2012 7:31 AM EDT 

Cuba Lying

The State Department says the Cuban government is lying about negotiating the release of a Maryland man.  Cuba says it is waiting to hear from the U.S. about exchanging Alan Gross for five Cuban men held in an American federal prison on espionage charges. Gross has been in a Cuban prison for almost three years on similar charges. Now he's reportedly very ill.

The State Department issued a statement saying in part, "We have repeatedly made clear to the Cuban government that we reject the notion of exchanging members of the so-called 'Cuban Five' for an American citizen who the Cuban government has imprisoned simply for trying to bring internet access to the Cuban people. But we have always been ready to hear from Cuba about a humanitarian gesture to release Mr. Gross."

Colombia y y FARC firmaron en Cuba acuerdo para iniciar diálogo

lo que corrobora las denuncias que se habian venido produciendo y ratifica las buenas relaciones que aun mantiene con la narco-guerrilla colombiana el regimen de la'bana.

Popper y el Kubiche

mientras estaba en paro involuntario durante casi un mes solo un acontecimiento "significativo" salio en el asunto de kubichilandia: el dialogo y el anti-dialogo. para gente como nosotros que seguimos el hora a hora del tema es muy facil actualizarse luego de unos largas vacaciones en algun atolon perdido sin conexion del pacifico. trata de hacer lo mismo con el "mundo" y no te alcanzara el resto del ano para ello. entonces meditaba sobre la necesidad de dejar establecido conceptualmente el "dialogo" como introduce ichikawa sabiendo que el asunto esta solo esbozado en sus pespuntes "proscenicos".
lo que si marcha a manada de caballos desbocados persiguiendo a la yegua en celo son los "cambios" neokaxtriztas [a nueva zelandia le tomo 10 anos hacer una reforma decente, veinte y pico a los narras y anamitas y, siguen], aunque casi unanimemente patricios y plebeyos solo aprecien inmovilismo.

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

Ichikawa/

No voy a citar en extenso la meditación de Popper. Solo el último párrafo porque demuestra algo esencial: cuando de verdad las partes necesiten entenderse, cuando llegue el momento del diálogo, el diálogo se dará, incluso si las premisas del mismo son falsas. Mientras, podemos elogiar estos debates como anunciación de ese instante. Dice Popper: “Al final, se llegó a un compromiso, al principio de complementariedad, que equivalía a decir que los dos tenían la razón, y que las dos soluciones –la de Heisenberg y la de Schrödinger- son complementarias. Bohr era indudablemente un gran físico y tenía tal reputación y autoridad entre los físicos, que la interpretación de Copenhague de la mecánica cuántica, que incorpora el principio de complementariedad, fue y todavía es ampliamente aceptado. Pero como usted ve, es trivialmente falsa. No hay experimentos complementarios.” (Monterín, J. “Entrevista con Karl Popper” ARBOR, Julio de 1989, pp. 12-13)   Full >>

Mahmoud Abbas asked Cuba to free Alan Gross

(MaanImages/Omar Rashidi, Pool)

Ma'an News Agency/ By George Hale

RAMALLAH (Ma'an) -- In early March, President Mahmoud Abbas approached Cuban leader Raul Castro with an unusual request.

According to the veteran Israeli negotiator who set up the call, Abbas wanted Castro to free Alan Gross, a Jewish American contractor jailed by Havana since late 2009.

The intermediary, peace activist Gershon Baskin, says Gross “is being held hostage.” The view is shared by much of the US Jewish community as well as the State Department, which has no direct ties with Cuba. Palestine, however, has an excellent relationship with the island nation, so Baskin contacted Abbas.

"I asked the Palestinians, and he did that," Baskin said in an interview. "It was a very good, humanitarian gesture on the part of Abu Mazen," he said, although the talks failed to secure Gross' release.

What does an American jailed in Cuba have to do with the Palestinians? Emails stolen in May from a Palestinian Authority cabinet minister may provide a clue.

Posted online, the messages depict Palestinian officials desperate to convince a powerful Cuban-American lawmaker to lift a hold on $147 million allocated for civilian aid to the Palestinians.

The congresswoman, Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is one of the Castro regime’s fiercest critics in Washington. Gross is from Maryland but his plight is a priority for many of the lawmaker's south Florida constituents.

Three weeks after Abbas contacted Castro, Ros-Lehtinen relented on half the funds -- about $89 million -- that she had withheld for seven months in protest of Palestinian efforts to seek membership in the UN. On March 23, the lawmaker sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explaining that she would “no longer object” to distributing the aid for water programs, healthcare and food.

The letter made no mention of the Palestinian overtures to Castro, but a person involved in the campaign to free Gross said the congresswoman had agreed to consider releasing the money if Abbas succeeded. She was first approached with the proposal by one of Gross' attorneys.

Baskin confirmed this account but said Ros-Lehtinen was also under pressure from the State Department and even AIPAC, an influential pro-Israel lobby group. And she was not the only one blocking Palestinian money; Republican Kay Granger of Texas had a similar hold in place.

Still, the Palestinians understood their intervention as necessary to appease Ros-Lehtinen, not Granger. Baskin said he initiated the talks as a goodwill gesture to Ros-Lehtinen, although she is not mentioned by name in the messages stolen from Mahmoud Habash, a senior Palestinian official.

How Canada broke up with the U.S.

National Post/  Andrew Coyne

As veteran diplomats and foreign policy specialists trade blows over who is to blame for the crisis in Canada-U.S. relations — How Obama Lost Canada; How Obama Won Canada; Obama Didn’t Lose Canada; Maybe Canada Lost Obama, Ever Think of That? — thoughtful observers on both sides of the border are concerned that important nuances in the debate are being overlooked.

While managing a bilateral relationship is never easy, especially one as complex and multi-faceted as that between Canada and the U.S., sources close to the Canadian government stress that America totally did not break up with Canada, Canada broke up with it first. They point to the Obama administration’s politically motivated decision to block approval of the Keystone XL pipeline extension as an important irritant in the relationship, adding that America has been avoiding Canada in the halls for weeks.

On the other hand, long-time State Department watchers suggest Canada may have erred in focusing its diplomatic efforts too intently on the administration, in a capital in which power is increasingly dispersed, and besides Canada didn’t even look at America in the library even though they were like studying at the same table.

Seeking to downplay tensions, they note that today’s disputes pale in comparison to the controversies that have sometimes roiled relations between the two countries in the past, such as over Vietnam or that thing at the party last year after grad.

Nonetheless, it is clear that on a number of issues there is a gathering sense of grievance on the Canadian side, a feeling that Canada’s concerns are not taken seriously in official Washington. Sources in the department of Foreign Affairs, who did not want to be named because they had English Lit with America right after lunch, cited a long list of perceived slights, from the Buy America provisions in the stimulus bill to the failure to support Canada’s bid for a seat on the Security Council to the lack of recognition of Canada’s contribution to the Afghanistan mission. Would it have killed America, these sources ask, just to call?

In response, Canada has moved to more aggressively assert its interests, for example warning it might cultivate China and other export markets for its crude oil, scaling back its commitment to Afghanistan and changing its Facebook status to “it’s complicated.” Notwithstanding the two countries’ partnership in the North American Free Trade Agreement, it has pursued its own trade agreements with a number of other powers. In bilateral meetings the tone has noticeably cooled. People familiar with the situation say you could see it in their body language — nothing overt, but let’s just say, awkward.  More >>

Iran Nuclear Talks Fail

European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton (L) meets with Iran’s Chief Negotiator Saeed Jalili in Moscow, June 18, 2012. — Reuters Photo

Frederick W. Kagan
Director, Critical Threats Project
The threat of Iran's illicit nuclear program is mounting as another round of meetings between the P5+1 and Iran ended in failure this week. Tehran’s continued intransigence suggests that the regime will not compromise on its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, despite the impact of recent economic sanctions.

Iran's ongoing enrichment activities at the Natanz and Fordow facilities are increasing its enriched uranium stockpile, which is now large enough to produce fuel for five nuclear weapons after conversion to weapons-grade, and reducing the time it would need to produce bomb-grade fuel. Iran would need one month to produce 25 kilograms weapons-grade uranium at the larger Natanz enrichment facility (using its 3.5% and 20% enriched uranium stockpiles) and approximately eight months total to produce 25 kilograms weapons-grade at the smaller, buried Fordow enrichment facility (using its 20% enriched uranium stockpile). Iran has already produced enough 20% enriched uranium with which to produce the 15 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium needed to fuel a warhead designed with a high level of technical capability in 2-8 weeks. For technical notes and further information on these estimates, see “The Iranian Nuclear Program: Timelines, Data, and Estimates.”

There is no indication that Iran is prepared to verifiably dismantle its nuclear program (including ending uranium enrichment and heavy water related activities), remove nuclear material from Iran, adhere to the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, or cooperate with the IAEA’s ongoing inquiry into Iran’s weaponization work. Iranian negotiators have continued to invoke the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)--a treaty they are in standing violation of--as the basis for their supposed “right” to enrichment; the NPT does not, in fact, bestow any right to enrichment. Even the limited, short-term proposal put forth by the P5+1 aimed at curbing Iran’s 20% enriched uranium production--which would have limited impact on Iran’s ability to quickly produce weapons-grade fuel and fails to address the broader threat posed by the nuclear program--was dismissed in Moscow by Iran’s negotiator Saeed Jalili.

U.S. pulls negotiating team from Pakistan

Security Clearance/  By Barbara Starr

The U.S. is withdrawing its negotiating team from Pakistan because after several weeks, the two sides have failed to reach an agreement on re-opening land routes from Pakistan into Afghanistan that have been used to carry supplies for the war.

"We have not reached resolution," said George Little, Pentagon press secretary. He noted that some of the team left Pakistan over the weekend, and others are expected to leave shortly. "We expect others to leave soon unless circumstances change."

The group had been in Pakistan for about six weeks, according to Little.

Little would not say whether the decision to leave came before or after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's remarks last week that the U.S. was running out of patience with Pakistan's safe havens for terrorists including the Haqqani network.Pakistan closed two routes for NATO supplies into Afghanistan last year after a number of Pakistani forces were inadvertently killed along the border in a U.S. strike. Little said the US still hopes to resolve the matter and get an agreement to reopen the border crossings.  He noted the U.S. could still supply troops in Afghanistan and complete the withdrawal from Afghanistan by using northern land routes, but added "the more options you have the better."

Pakistan wants to charge new fees for NATO crossings which the U.S. has not agreed to. However "there is an agreement in concept" to reopen the routes, Little said.

Cuba's oil blackmail finally revealed

Especially thanks to  Capitol Hill Cubans

capitolhillcubans.com

The AP ran an article over the weekend, which reveals how the intense Cuba oil campaign of the last few years has simply been a ploy to pressure the U.S. to lift sanctions.

The fact remains -- as we've been stating for years -- that U.S. sanctions remain the biggest impediment for the Castro regime to ever become a petro-dictatorship.

Read the following article carefully (with our observations in parenthesis):

It was supposed to be Cuba's economic savior: vast untapped reserves of black gold buried deep under the rocky ocean floor.

But the first attempt in nearly a decade to find Cuba's hoped-for undersea oil bonanza has come up dry, and the island's leaders and their partners must regroup and hope they have better luck - quickly.

Experts say it is not unusual that a 3-mile (4.8-kilometer) deep exploratory well drilled at a cost of more than $100 million by Spanish oil giant Repsol was a bust. Four out of five such wells find nothing in the high-stakes oil game, and petroleum companies are built to handle the losses.

But Cuba has more at stake, and only a few more spins left of the roulette wheel. The enormous Scarabeo-9 platform being used in the hunt is the only one in the world that can drill in Cuban waters without incurring sanctions under the U.S. economic embargo, and it is under contract for only one to four more exploratory wells before it heads off to Brazil.

"If oil is not found now I think it would be another five to 10 years before somebody else comes back and drills again," said Jorge Pinon, the former president of Amoco Oil Latin America and a leading expert on Cuba's energy prospects. "Not because there is no oil, but because the pain and tribulations that people have to go through to drill in Cuba are not worth it when there are better and easier options in places like Angola, Brazil or the U.S. Gulf of Mexico."

(CHC: Chalk one up for sanctions.)

A delay would be catastrophic for Cuba, where 80-year-old President Raul Castro is desperately trying to pull the economy out of the doldrums through limited free-market reforms, and has been forced to cut many of the subsidies islanders have come to expect in return for salaries of just $20 a month.

It could also leave the Communist-governed island more dependent on Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez is ailing with cancer. Chavez provides Cuba with $3 billion worth of heavily subsidized oil every year, a deal that might evaporate if he dies or fails to win re-election in October.

(CHC: Chavez's billionaire oil subsidies to Castro have left Venezuela's national oil company, PDVSA, on the verge of collapse, so he needs an out.)

An oil find, on the other hand, would potentially improve Cuba's long-bitter relations with the United States, some analysts suggest. They say the U.S. oil industry could lobby Congress to loosen the embargo so it could get in on Cuba's oil game. At the very least, coordination between the Cold War enemies would be necessary to prepare for any spill that could coat beaches in the U.S. and Cuba with black goo.

(CHC: There you have it.)

The Cuban government has not commented on Repsol's announcement May 18 that the first well came up dry, and declined to make any oil officials or experts available to be interviewed for this article.

(CHC: Note how it is the Castro regime that makes "experts" available to the media.)

Next in line for using the drilling rig in Cuban waters is Malaysia's Petronas, which holds the rights to explore an area in the Florida Straits known as the Northbelt Thrust, about 110 miles (180 kilometers) southwest of Repsol's drill site. Wee Yiaw Hin, Petronas' executive vice president of exploration and production, told The Associated Press that drilling has begun and he expects results by the end of July.

(CHC: It is not a coincidence that Petronas is now going through the same dog-and-pony show as Repsol, as they were both "coincidentally" granted billions worth of Venezuelan oil concessions by Chavez in 2010 -- around the same time they signed commitments to drill off Cuba's shores. Remember, Chavez needs an out quickly. Can you say blackmail?)

After that, two industry experts said, Repsol is under contract to drill a second well, though it could get out of the deal by paying a penalty to Saipem, the Italian company that owns the rig. Kristian Rix, a spokesman for Repsol in Madrid, said a decision on whether to sink another well was still being evaluated.

(CHC: Not going to happen. Repsol already announced that it is pulling out of Cuba altogether.)

Venezuela's PDVSA and Sonangol of Angola have options to drill next, but are under no obligation if they don't like their odds. While both countries are strong allies of Cuba, at $100 million a well, the decision to drill will likely be based solely on economics.

(CHC: Key phrase here is no legal "obligation.")

Even if oil is found, the Scarabeo-9 is under contract to power up its eight enormous thrusters and sail to Brazil after that, with no date set for its return to Cuba. The bottleneck highlights the difficulties Cuba faces, and why it could be well into the 2020s before the island sees any oil windfall.

(CHC: Say bye-bye Scarabeo.)

"Assuming they're successful in finding oil, to bring the oil to market will take years of development efforts," said Victor Shum, an energy analyst with consulting firm Purvin & Gertz in Singapore.

Once an exploratory well finds oil, companies generally drill between 10 and 20 additional wells nearby to get a sense of the reservoir's size. The process can take several years even under normal circumstances, and circumstances are not normal in Cuba.

The Scarabeo-9 was built in Asia with less than 10 percent U.S.-made parts to avoid violating Washington's embargo, making it the only rig in the world that meets the requirement. That means no other rig could be used in Cuba without risking U.S. sanction, and the additional wells would have to be drilled by the rig one at a time, with each taking about 100 days to complete. At about three wells a year, it could take up to six years for this second phase - assuming the rig is available.

After gauging a reservoir's size, an oil company then must assess whether the economics of a field make it a prime spot for exploitation, or whether to concentrate resources elsewhere.

If exploitation does go forward, complicated equipment is required to pull oil from such depths. Several industry experts said the only country that produces the necessary apparatus is the United States, although Brazil and other countries are working to catch up. Unless they do, the oil could not be removed unless the U.S. embargo was lifted or altered.

(CHC: There you have it. Even if oil is ever found, it cannot be extracted unless sanctions are lifted. Thus, this is all a big lobbying bet.)

"A lot of folks are looking at the energy sector in Cuba because they are looking at a Cuba of five years from now, or 10 years from now," said Pinon. "So a lot of people are betting that either the embargo is going to be lifted, or the relationship between the U.S. and Cuba is going to improve in some way."

(CHC: Like we said.)

Still, the benefits of hitting a gusher would be enormous for Cuba, and the impact could be felt long before any oil was pumped.

Because of the embargo, Cuba is shut off from borrowing from international lending institutions, and the island's own poor record of repayment has left most other creditors leery. Cuba, for instance, owes the Paris Club of creditor nations nearly $30 billion.

An oil find could change the game, with Cuba using future oil riches as collateral to secure new financing, economists say. They point to China and Brazil as potential sources of new funding, but say neither is likely to put money into the island without reasonable confidence they will get their investment back.

Lee Hunt, the recently retired president of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, said the stakes are enormous for Cuba that one of the wells hits oil before the Scarabeo-9 leaves. Hunt has worked to bring U.S. and Cuban industry and environmental groups together.

"If the only rig you can work with is gone, it's like somebody took your shovel away," Hunt said. "You are not going to dig any holes without a shovel, even if you know the treasure is down there."

(CHC: Isn't this the same guy on the D.C. lobbying circuit pretending he's only concerned about the potential environmental impact if a spill were to happen? Sounds like he has a bigger stake than that.)

Rising U.S.-Pakistan tension

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy