Bush Threatens to Destabilise Cuba

George Bush has made yet another attempt to determine the future of the Cuban people. As most sane people have suspected, Bush is eager for Castro to die in order for the American empire to extend to one of the few countries prepared to adopt an alternative system to the US. His speech, riddled with double standards, contained the usual posturing synonymous with Bush's supposed moral high ground. In his address, Bush claimed:

"As with all totalitarian systems, Cuba's regime no doubt has other horrors still unknown to the rest of the world. Once revealed, they will shock the conscience of humanity, and they will shame the regime's defenders and all those democracies that had been silent."

One wonders how the President of the United States can adopt such a self-righteous tone. The only difference, one supposes, being that the horrors of the American regime are well known (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Blackwater etc etc). In fact, Bush even had the cheek to describe Cuba as a "tropical gulag". Do the words "glass" and "houses" sound familiar??

The address itself also made it quite clear that the US would waste no time in influencing the post-Castro Cuba. Bush added:

"Now is the time to support the democratic movement growing on the island. Now is the time to stand with the Cuban people as they stand up for their liberty. And now is the time for the world to put aside its differences and prepare for Cubans' transitions to a future of freedom and progress and promise."

The 'world' is, of course, a euphemism for the US and her allies. However, this passage raises one very obvious question: what right has the 'world' got to 'prepare' for Cubans' transitions??? It is quite clear that the US is preparing to spend big in the event of Castro's death in order to influence the post-Castro regime. Have no doubt that, come Castro's death, the US will ensure some US friendly party will mysteriously come to power. Either by military means or by applying pressure for 'democratic' elections (Cuba does already have elections of course, but this is barely mentioned).

Once more, the American state is attempting to destabilise a foreign nation. Only imagine if another country made similar statements about the US. They would be widely condemned. We live in a world in which everything is seen through the prism of American hegemony. Anything that doesn't fit in with this view is to be opposed at all costs. Every nation that takes an opposing ideology to US based capitalism must be destabilised, invaded and converted. No country must be permitted its own free existence if it contradicts the American way. This was the same arrogance upon which the British Empire was built and every other empire before and since. It will sow the seeds of its own destruction. The attacks of 9/11 were, after all, a direct result of US imperialism (despite what the nutjobs say about Islam and all the other bullshit they spout).

Thankfully, not everyone is blinded by the supposed universal truth that guides US policy. Dr Ian Gibson, of the All Party Group of MPs on Cuba, chastised the US with this statement:

“the aggressive interventionist foreign policies of the US were not appropriate in Iraq and they are not appropriate for Cuba. The US must stop attempting to undermine the sovereignty of nation states and recognise the important strategic role Cuba now holds in Latin America. We must promote stability through engagement and leave behind these US bullying tactics.”

MP Colin Burgon also added:

“The ignorance of international law of the current US President is very well known. However, this latest statement on the internal affairs of Cuba is tantamount to calling for a coup against a sovereign state. The arrogance of the US is both worrying and lamentable.”

As Rob Miller, the director of the UK-based Cuba Solidarity Campaign, puts it: the US needs to move to a policy of engagement rather than "aggression, intervention, destabilisation and conflict". It could be a hard habit to break for a state hooked on empire building like some crack addicted whore.

UPDATE: Davide at Nether-World writes the post that I wish I had written.

John Edwards To Speak Out Against Blackwater

Now, I'm no big fan of the Democrats in the US. As far as I am concerned, they are virtually indistinguishable from the GOP. Having said that, I have to admit I was quite impressed by John Edwards during the last Presidential campaign. After Howard Dean lost a lot of momentum, Edwards seemed like the next best bet (if you can deal with his car salesman look). I have to say that this campaign looks no different. Again, I have to reinforce the point, I would not vote for either party in the US, but Edwards comes closer than any other Democrat ever could (sadly, my opinion counts for nothing as I do not have a say in the outcome of the election).

With this in mind, it was good to see that Edwards was planning to speak out against the prevalence of unaccountable security firms being employed to do the military's dirty work. From the Associated Press:

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards wants to limit the role of security contractors working in Iraq and elsewhere, joining the growing criticism of a shootout that left 11 Iraqi civilians dead.

Edwards' remarks, planned for Wednesday, targeted Blackwater USA, a private security firm under investigation for its role in the Sept. 16 incident in Baghdad. The confrontation has become fodder for congressional hearings and outcry from war critics.

"We must put the democracy back in our military and prevent a disaster like the continuation of the Iraq War from ever occurring again," Edwards says in remarks provided to The Associated Press. "As commander in chief, I will transfer most security missions currently performed by contractors back to military command, where they belong."

Edwards' speech also takes a swipe at chief Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has refused to make a pledges to end all military operations in Iraq, citing the need to stay on offense against terrorism.

"Come on. If you're not ending combat operations, you're not ending the war," Edwards says.

Edwards wants to end all combat missions in Iraq and have a full exit of troops within 10 months, except those needed to protect diplomatic efforts including the U.S. Embassy.

Edwards said there is no federal oversight for contractors working in Iraq and called for a centralized budget for contractors who work across U.S. agencies, including the State Department and Pentagon.

"There should never be any mystery about when a contractor can use force and the consequences for improper action," he says. "We also must make sure not only that we have laws, but that we use them ... to ensure alleged crimes by contractors are always investigated and prosecuted."

About 50,000 private contractors currently work in Iraq and in most cases operate outside the military chain of command and without legal oversight.

Edwards blames the Bush administration's outsourcing of security tasks to "political cronies." Poor management led directly to the Blackwater incident, along with a separate shooting of an Iraqi security agent by an allegedly drunk Blackwater employee after a 2006 Christmas party, he maintained.

In testimony before a House committee Tuesday, Blackwater chairman Erik Prince rejected suggestions that his employees were cowboys immune from prosecutions. "I believe we acted appropriately at all times," he said.

The underlined incident is a particularly worrying example of the dangerous nature of these private security groups. From The Guardian:

But a memo by congressional staff said Blackwater has been involved in an average of 1.4 shootings a week. The memo detailed various incidents, including one on December 24 when a 26-year-old Blackwater staffer killed a 32-year-old guard to Adil Abd al-Mahdi, the Iraqi vice-president, provoking an angry response from the Iraqi government.

The memo said that documents it had obtained say "the Blackwater contractor, who worked as an armourer, had attended a party on the evening of December 24, had consumed several alcoholic beverages and was described as drunk by witnesses who encountered him that evening".

Armed with a Glock 9mm pistol he passed through a gate near the compound of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, when he was confronted by the Iraqi security guard. He opened fire with his pistol, hitting one of the guards, Raheem Khalif, three times. Khalif, 32, later died at a US military hospital.

The Blackwater employee fled to a guard post, where he said he had been in a gunfight with Iraqis who were chasing him and shooting at him. But the guards had not heard any shots.

And the following sums up exactly why these groups should have no business running security in war zones:

Mr Prince said the employee had been sacked and fined. Asked why he had been whisked out of Iraq within two days without being charged, Mr Prince said the company had no power to detain anyone. "We can't flog him, we can't incarcerate him," he said.

Rogue elements do not face the same justice that members of the military have to face up to (theoretically, the army always seem to wiggle out of their obligations too). These men aren't even obliged to adhere to the Geneva conventions (much like their leaders it would appear). Companies like Blackwater should be dissolved with immediate effect and its directors imprisoned. They are just as guilty of war crimes as their superiors. Justice must be served.