Tuesday 4 July 2017

RAWLINGS: Nii Lante Says he can’t criticize him openly

Nii Lante Vanderpuye
By Kent Mensah
The MP for Odododiodoo constituency, Nii Lante Vanderpuije, has said he does not believe in openly criticising the founder of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Jerry John Rawlings.

“I don’t believe in the situation that, whereby the founder does something and I go out there and criticise him in the open and I do something and the founder go out there and criticize me in the open,” the outspoken politician stated.

He stressed: “I still believe in the ideals and the things he stands for,” adding the former president has been a “great inspiration.”

Speaking on Accra-based Radio Gold, Vanderpuije advised that anytime an issue comes up within the party, it must be dealt with as it is.

“If we are in a party and I am doing something that is wrong, the best way to address it as a party; I don’t believe in open criticisms, I don’t believe in we standing on rooftop and criticising one another,” the former broadcaster emphasised.

He noted “for every one of us, what we should be doing is to use the party’s structures, see ourselves as members of the same family and try and correct one another.”

Editorial
IRAN
The claim that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism is laughable having regard to the fact that it has been and still is a victim of terrorism.

A needless imperialist war imposed on Iran through the proxy of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the false hope that it would push the proud people of Iran on to their knees begging for mercy.

Only recently, Iranian scientists were assassinated by terrorists in the pay of imperialism and Zionism with the aim of halting scientific advances made by the revolution.

In June this year, the Parliament of Iran was viciously attacked by gun men who wanted to spread fear as a means of destabilising the country.

When Iran attempts to fight back the terrorists, it is accused of state sponsored terrorism.

Perhaps the detractors of Iran want it to fold its arms in the face of aggression so that they can sing the requiem mass for a country they love to hate.

The Insight is convinced that Iran is not a state sponsor of terrorism but a strong pillar against terrorism in all its manifestations.

We declare our solidarity with the people of Iran in their bold confrontation with terrorism.


Local News:
Interdict BOST Director– Minority
Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu

By Marian Ansah & Duke Mensah Opoku
The Minority in Parliament has called for the immediate interdiction of the Managing Director of the Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation (BOST)Company, Alfred Obeng Boateng, over the sale of 5 million litres of contaminated fuel.

This call comes barely 24-hours after ACEP also called on the CEO to step aside for investigations into the matter.

According to the Minority, the transaction between BOST and an unlicensed company, Movenpiina, is fraught with irregularities and possible corruption to the tune of 14.25 million cedis.

Addressing the press, Minority Spokesperson on Mines and Energy, Armah Kofi Buah, argued that “the justification by BOST that the contaminated products were sold for use by manufacturing companies is untenable.”

“The norm and practice is that, when such contamination occur, corrective treatment of these products are undertaken by the Tema Oil Refinery through blending. Why did BOST not arrange with TOR for the treatment of this particular fuel? Available information indicates that BOST failed to exhaust all means to ensure TOR blends this contaminated fuel.”

“The argument by BOST that the blending couldn’t be done at TOR because the CDU is down is most untenable,” Mr. Buah added.

Mr. Buah, on behalf of the Minority  therefore demanded a full scale investigation into the sale of the contaminated oil.
The Minority also made the following requests:
• Full scale investigation by the regulatory authorities
• The immediate withdrawal of the contaminated product from the market to protect consumers and assurances that this will not recur.
• That the financial loss estimated at GHS 14.25 million be retrieved by surcharging the offending officials at BOST in line with the recent Supreme Court decision.
We didn’t err in dealings with Movenpiina, ZUPOIL – BOST
The Minority’s demands come hours after the Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company Limited (BOST), refuted claims it failed to carry out due diligence in its award of contracts to Movenpiina and ZUPOIL with regards to the sale 5 million litres of contaminated fuel.
BOST in response to ACEP’s claim indicated in a statement that its technical team inspected the facility of ZUPOIL “and was satisfied.”

“BOST deploys the use of bulk road vehicles that have tracking devices installed and have dully met the requirements of NPA to haul products. Thus, rendering BOST extremely responsible. Anyone with information on the illegal sale of the product at the pumps should report to the appropriate authority for immediate action.”

We didn’t err in dealings with Movenpiina, ZUPOIL – BOST
Alfred Obeng, BOST CEO
By Delali Adogla-Bessa
The Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company Limited (BOST), has refuted claims it failed to carry out due diligence in its award of contracts to Movenpiina and ZUPOIL with regards to the sale 5 million litres of contaminated fuel.

This claim was made by the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP).
Among the claims, against BOST,  ACEP said the company’s management exhibited unreasonable discretion in the award of the contract to Movenpiina and ZUPOIL.
ACEP also held that, there was “a puzzle” about where ZUPOIL’s facility is located and that BOST had not put in place measures to monitor the movement of the product from ZUPOIL’s facilities to unsuspecting consumers.
But BOST retorted in a statement that its technical team inspected the facility of  ZUPOIL “and was satisfied.”

Also, “the product released was going to be scheduled to reflect the capacity of the facility at any point in time,” the statement added.

“BOST deploys the use of bulk road vehicles that have tracking devices installed and have dully met the requirements of NPA to haul products. Thus, rendering BOST extremely responsible. Anyone with information on the illegal sale of the product at the pumps should report to the appropriate authority for immediate action.”

ACEP also challenged BOST to show the public where the ZUPOIL storage facilities are located but, BOST’s statement did not address that.

ACEP’s claims
ACEP said Movenpiina initiated the transaction with BOST on 19th May, 2017, some ten days before it became a legally recognized company in Ghana.

Also, Movenpiina had not obtained the requisite license from the NPA to trade in the industry, according to the centre.

ZUPOIL LTD, the company which was named “the off-taker” was said to have a storage facility that could accommodate the volume of product, but was not known in Ghana’s petroleum industry.
Thus ACEP said it was illegal for BOST to have engaged Movenpiina and ZUPOIL LTD in the sale and storage of the off-spec petroleum product.

GHc 7 million lost in dealings
The claims follow the revelation Ghana is said to have lost about GHc 7 million in revenue following attempts by the BOST to sell the contaminated fuel to some oil marketing companies.
Documents sighted by Citi News indicate that, BOST agreed to sell about GHc 5 million litres of the contaminated fuel to Movenpiina.

Following the controversy, ACEP has called on the Chief Executive Officer of BOST, Alfred Obeng, to step aside for a full-scale investigation into the alleged sale of contaminated fuel.

Use Chinese support to make Ghana great – Lloyd Amoah
Ghana's Vice President Mahamudu Bawumia
By Godwin A. Allotey & Pearl Akanya Ofori
The Head of the Legon Centre for Asian Studies, Dr. Lloyd Amoah, has downplayed suspicions around China’s commitment to invest about $21 billion dollars into Ghana’s economy.

Following the Vice President Dr Mahamadu Bawumia’s visit, a number of Memoranda of Understanding were signed to invest $15 billion dollars while an additional $4 billion dollars is expected to be signed soon.

But critics say the offer is too good to be true, given the country’s previous experience with the $3 billion dollar Chinese loan which was never fully disbursed.

But speaking on the Citi Breakfast Show on Tuesday, Dr. Lloyd Amoah advised Ghana to rather take advantage of the help China is offering to grow the economy.

“These are guys who are becoming a world power, they have the resources, but they want to gain from those resources. So you have to do your homework well….It’s a mixture of how the policy infrastructure at the highest level in Ghana and also in terms of bureaucracy how they are fed into the whole processes. So if you don’t do your homework well and you are not able to take advantage of an opportunity and then you say we should be skeptical, I don’t get your reasoning, it’s a very dubious one.”

He explained that most developed countries capitalized on other countries to be great.
“All the major countries in the world—Japan took advantage of America when America was powerful. China took advantage of Japan even though Japan is its arch-rival and rode to greatness. Korea took advantage of America,” he added.

Meanwhile, the Executive Director of the Integrated Social Development Centre, Dr. Steve Manteaw, who also spoke on the Citi Breakfast Show, said he is “cautiously skeptical” about the help China is offering.

“Whether or not we will be able to access what has been said will be dependent on our ability to meet the conditions or the triggers for the release of these funds… we may need to have the full benefit of what the conditions are to be able to assess,” he added.

Parliament cannot make changes to Legislative Instruments - Opare-Ansah
Rt. Hon Speaker of the Ghanaian Parliament, Mike Ocquaye
Parliament cannot make changes to Legislative Instruments (LIs) brought before it by the Executive arm of government, Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Suhum has said.

He said the challenge with LIs was that Parliament actually had very little control over them.
He said when a LI was laid before the House, it required two-third majority of all MPs to vote to annul a particular LI, otherwise it would automatically come into being.

Mr Opare-Ansah made these remarks in his presentation at the 2017 annual World Public Services Day celebration in Accra.

In 2003, the United Nations dedicated June 23 for the commemoration of the annual World Public Services Day.

This year the commemoration focused on the move towards amplifying tax justice campaigns through the unavoidable linkages of socio- economic contract tax payers and government.
The event was organised by the Ghana Integrity Initiative (GII) in partnership with the Tax Justice Coalition and the Public Service International.

Some Acts of Parliament delegate to the executive arm of government the power to make detailed rules and regulations that supplement the parent Act and have the same legal force.

Such rules and regulations are called LIs, Constitutional Instruments (CIs) and Executive Instruments (EIs).

These instruments are not passed directly by Parliament, but are placed by the Executive arm of government before the House for a stipulated period of 21 days, after which they mature.

Mr Opare-Ansah said: "There is a lot of 'mischief' that can be created by the use of LIs, unless you really have a very compelling reasons why a particular Legislative Instrument or Constitutional Instrument or Executive Instrument should not come into being, it will be very difficult to stop it.

"Remember that no one side of the House has TWO-thirds majority. And so if it is the policy of government to have something done, first of all the minority with their rare numbers can't begin to oppose it and then the majority also do not have the two-thirds majority. Anytime we have LIs and CIs coming before the House, it is a very difficult situation."

Mr Opare-Ansah, who is also a Member of the African Parliamentarians Network on Illicit Financial Flows and Tax (APNIFFT), said the Network had the desire and commitment to spearhead the fight against illicit financial flows in Africa.

He said Association's main aim was to provide a platform for African legislators to undertake sustained advocacy - related dialogue and debate in a simplified manner on IFFs, tax governance and domestic resource mobilisation.

Mrs Linda Ofori-Kwafo, the Executive Director of the GII, said the commemoration of the World Public Services Day was to deepen workers and the public’s understanding of tax justice and its direct connection with efficient delivery of public services.

She said there was a global push for multi-national companies to pay their fair share of tax to fund quality public services and sustainable economic development.
GNA

CODEO wants end to political party vigilantism
Delta Forces of the NPP
The Coalition of Domestic Election Observers (CODEO), a civil society organization in Ghana has appealed to the media to support advocacy to end the menace of political party vigilantism which was threatening the democratic governance of the country.

The Coalition appealed to the Ghana media to support the fight against the menace of political party vigilantism on the public agenda and make it the centre of public discussions on the media front.

This was contained in a press briefing organized by the Coalition and addressed jointly by Messrs John Larvie and Nicholaus Akyire, both members of the CODEO Advisory Board after the first regional roundtable discussion on the menace of political party vigilantism in the Ghanaian politics at Koforidua.

The participants at the roundtable discussion included the media, representatives of the security services, civil society organizations, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), National Commission on Civic Educatiojn(NCCE) and representatives of the Political parties in the country.

CODEO urged all stakeholders including the political parties, security services and the public to work together to ensure the end of political party vigilantism in the country.

During the roundtable discussions, the participants blamed the inability of the security services in the country especially the police to provide equal and adequate security for the political parties and politicians during the electioneering process, which forced the political parties in opposition to raise their own security structures for their protection.

The participants called for constitutional reforms to eliminate the winner takes all syndrome from the politics of the country and review the appointment of the leadership of the security services to guarantee their tenure of office.

The participants also called for a collective efforts to provide jobs for the youth to help reduce the high unemployed young men and women who were easily recruited to serve in the various political vigilante groups in the country.
Occupied Western Sahara to pursue resource thieves
Policy Statement of the government of the Saharawi Republic on the risk and liability of ships carrying natural resources from occupied Western Sahara.

The government of the Saharawi Republic (the SADR) avails itself of the opportunity to identify the material risks and express its policy in the matter of the ocean carriage of natural resources from occupied Western Sahara.

For more than four decades, the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara has been partly occupied under armed force with its inhabitants, the Saharawi people, denied the opportunity to exercise their right of self-determination. This period has seen the continuing large-scale plunder of natural resources including phosphate mineral rock, the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem fishery, and sand aggregates. The illegal sale and export of such resources is contrary to established principles of international law which guarantee the Saharawi people permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. This sale and export is a violation of international humanitarian law defined in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The purchasing of such resources can bring no certainty of right or enforceable title to them. The carriage by sea of these resources aids and abets the war crime of pillage as defined in the Convention and the Statute.

In recent years, the SADR government has informed ship owners, charterers and managing enterprises that an involvement with Western Sahara’s exported natural resources presents reputational and legal risks. The purpose of this policy statement is two-fold. First, such risks are restated. Second, the SADR government declares that it will more actively pursue ships, ship owners, and ship charterers by legal measures in liability for the carriage of Western Sahara’s resources.

The reputational risk for ship owners and charterers is that which results from knowingly participating in the export of resources from a territory widely referred to as Africa’s last colony. This entails possible rejection of trade by parties interested in an end to the occupation of Western Sahara, including commercial enterprise and governments throughout Africa and elsewhere.

The legal risk to ship owners and charterers is manifold. It includes possible civil legal action to detain (or interdict) and therefore recover cargos of Saharan resources on a worldwide basis. Moreover, claims for damages, including reparations, as well as equitable remedies are now intended to be pursued – including the individual ships involved (as proceedings in rem) where conveniently found – on a continuing basis into the future. An example of such risk is detailed in the decision of South Africa’s High Court Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic and Another v Owner and Charterers of the MV 'NM Cherry Blossom' and Others [2017] ZAECPEHC 31 (15 June 2017), available online.

A first priority of the SADR government in civil legal proceedings is, accordingly, against those ships, their owners and charterers where a single ship has routinely carried cargos from Western Sahara or where a charterer has provided multiple ships on time or voyage fixtures in carriage of resources from the territory. In addition, ships which carry the valuable commodity of phosphate rock from occupied Western Sahara will be pursued on a standing basis for legal action.

The SADR government wishes to caution ship owners and charterers to insulate themselves and their ships from such prospective liability and compensation-attachment proceedings. Voyage charterers and managing enterprises may not always candidly disclose such risks. Therefore, the SADR government suggests contracts between ship owners and charterers prohibit the carriage of resources or any commodity from Western Sahara. A suitable charter party term would provide that:

“Charterers are not permitted to trade this vessel to El Aauin (also known as Laayoune) and Dakhla in Western Sahara.”
The SADR government notes that the act of illegally exporting and trading in resources from the occupied area of Western Sahara is presently being defined as an offence in national law.
Questions about this policy statement from industry and other stakeholders are invited.
For additional information and media contact:
Mr. Kamal Fadel
Saharawi Republic representative for Australia and New Zealand
Senior Executive, SADR Petroleum and Mining Authority
T: + 61 2 92 65 82 58

Cuba will not make concessions essential to its sovereignty and independence, nor will it negotiate its principles or accept conditions
Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez during the press conference in Austria on President Donald Trump's announcements. Photo: Cubaminrex

MODERATOR.- Welcome to this press conference which has been called by the Minister of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Cuba, the honorable Bruno Rodríguez Parilla. The Minister will presently make a statement in Spanish and English languages; and then take a few questions.

We would like to inform all those present that interpretation services in English are available at this conference. That said, Minister, over to you. 

Bruno Rodríguez
.- Thank you very much.
I wish to express my condolences to the people and government of Portugal for the disaster which has cost dozens of human lives; as well as to the government and people of the United Kingdom following recent events in London.

I convey our most heartfelt condolences to the people and government of Colombia regarding the terrorist attack which has led to several deaths.

Last June 16, the President of the United States Donald Trump announced in Miami the policy his government has decided to implement with regard to Cuba.

The Cuban government, meanwhile, issued an official statement. Cuban civil society organizations have also made declarations.

Among others, the President of the United States approved the following measures: the prohibition of economic, commercial and financial relations between U.S. companies and Cuban entities linked to the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces and the Ministry of the Interior; the prohibition of individual travel by U.S. citizens under the category of “people-to-people” exchanges, and greater monitoring of all travelers; as well as a review of all the programs directed against Cuba’s constitutional order, to supposedly ensure their effectiveness.

Also repealed was the Presidential Directive issued by President Barack Obama in October 2016, which despite being profoundly interventionist, and aimed at changing the constitutional order of the Republic of Cuba, did however recognize our country’s independence, sovereignty, and self-determination; Cuba’s revolutionary government as a legitimate and equal interlocutor, and also proposed a new civilized relationship intended to benefit both peoples.

The Directive, which has now been vacated, also recognized the blockade as a failed policy, which has been unsuccessful, failed to achieve its objectives, and should be eliminated.

All of these measures were announced in a Theater named after Manuel Artime, civilian leader of the mercenary brigade that invaded our country at Playa Girón or the Bay of Pigs. It was a grotesque Cold War-era spectacle, made before a small audience, composed of old henchmen and thieves of the Batista dictatorship, mercenaries from the Playa Girón brigade, terrorists, demagogues and “lackeys.”

President Trump greeted several of these individuals by name, and was surrounded or accompanied by others at the time of the signing. These included a terrorist arrested in 1995 in California, with an arsenal of weapons to be used to commit violent actions, and who was implicated in an assassination attempt on President Fidel Castro Ruz in 1997. Another was part of a 1974 armed infiltration in Cuba; a third was the author of terrorist actions and pirate attacks at sea on Cuban fishing boats, between 1972 and 1975.

Also present was the spouse of a sergeant who committed acts of torture during the Batista dictatorship, and one of those responsible for financing the planting of bombs at tourist locations in Cuba which exploded in 1997, as revealed by infamous terrorist Posada Carriles in an interview with the New York Times. As we know, Posada Carriles was the author of the mid-flight bombing of a Cubana de Aviación civilian aircraft in 1976, the first terrorist act against an aircraft in flight.

Many of these individuals worked for the CIA at some point.

I strongly protest the United States government given such derision, and implore it to confirm or deny if the terrorists I have mentioned were beside President Trump or not. This is an affront to the Cuban people, to the people of the world, and to the victims of international terrorism across the globe.

When, during this show, the President of the United States alluded to the father of the out-of-tune violinist who played the U.S. national anthem, he failed to state that Captain Bonifacio Haza, mentioned on several occasions by the President of the United States, was directly responsible for the murders of Carlos Díaz and Orlando Carvajal toward the end of the Batista dictatorship, and personally participated in the murder of well-known revolutionary fighter Frank País, as well as his comrade Raúl Pujol, and later, Frank País’ younger brother, who was only 19 years of age at the time.

This is an outrage our people will never forget.
The packed audience was completed by several foreign agents who are paid by U.S. government agencies in Cuba. These are the new mercenaries.

It was outrageous to see this annexationnist and Plattist audience respond to every phrase against Cuba, chanting “USA, USA.”

President Trump’s policy without a doubt marks a step back in bilateral relations, as has been recognized by countless voices within and outside of the United States, the majority of which out rightly reject the announced changes.
I anticipate that said measures will affect relations between the government of the United States and those of Latin America and the Caribbean, and will severely damage the credibility of its foreign policy.

These frankly unpopular measures ignore overwhelming support for the lifting of the blockade and the normalization of relations with Cuba by members of the U.S. Congress, many of whom are Republicans; the country’s business sector; various civil society organizations; the Cuban émigré community; the press; social networks; and public opinion in general.

President Trump - once again ill-advised - who lost the vote of Cubans in the counties with the highest concentration of Cuban residents during the Presidential elections in Florida; who lost the Cuban vote in Florida, is making decisions which only benefit the petty interests of an aging, extremist minority of Cuban origin and a handful of politicians.

Any measured analysis leads one to anticipate that, as in the past, the announced measures will not meet the proclaimed objectives, but rather the opposite: they will restrict the freedoms of U.S. citizens, cost taxpayers more money, reduce the opportunities of companies and business people against their competition, lose income and jobs.

It is necessary to wait until the government of the United States reveals the regulations that will implement these measures before expressing an opinion on their scope and depth.
These measures also ignore the overwhelming majority view of the Cuban people, who wish to have a better relationship with the people of the U.S. They will cause human harm and deprivation; they will affect Cuban families. They will bring economic damage not only to state-owned enterprises in Cuba, but also to cooperatives, and will especially harm self-employed or private workers. They will also harm and increase discrimination against Cuban émigrés settled in the United States.

It seems childish to predict that, with this policy, they will be able to separate the people from the government, or the citizens from our glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces and Ministry of the Interior, who are the uniformed people. On the contrary, these measures reinforce our patriotism, our dignity, our determination to defend national independence by all means, in the spirit of José Martí, Antonio Maceo and Fidel Castro Ruz.

Cuba vigorously rejects the new measures that strengthen the blockade, which we will denounce in the next United Nations General Assembly, because it is unjust, inhumane, genocidal, extraterritorial, and in violation of International Law and the sovereignty of all states.

I firmly reject the political manipulation and double standards in addressing the issue of human rights by President Trump. The United States government has no moral authority, it cannot give lectures on human rights or on democracy. Cuba has much to show and say on this matter.

The new measures are not at all democratic. According to recent U.S. surveys, 73% of U.S. citizens, 63% of Cuban residents, and 62% of Republicans support the lifting of the blockade – curious that: 62% of Republicans. The normalization of bilateral ties is favored by 75%, three quarters, of U.S. citizens; 69% of Cuban residents, and 62% of Republicans.

Among Cubans in the United States, the younger they are, the more support there is for the lifting of the blockade and normalization.

However, the new measures reinforce the ban on U.S. citizens traveling as tourists to Cuba, and restrict their civil liberties; they limit the freedom of U.S. citizens to travel.
As regards human rights, in the United States there are numerous and systematic murders, brutality, and abuses by police, particularly against Afro-Americans. The limits on the right to healthcare, pay inequality for women, the lack of educational access, the almost absent unionization, the repression against immigrants and refugees, the marginalization of minorities and the increasing discrimination against Islamic culture and religion are well known.

The war crimes and the killing of civilians in U.S. military attacks and interventions are frequent. The imprisonment, without trial, and the massive and systematic use of torture in the Guantánamo Naval Base are brutal.

I reiterate Cuba’s willingness to continue the respectful dialogue and cooperation in areas of mutual interest and to negotiate pending bilateral issues with the United States, on the basis of equality and absolute respect for our independence and sovereignty.

As demonstrated by the advances achieved in the last two years, Cuba and the United States can cooperate and coexist in a civilized manner, respecting the profound differences between our governments and promoting all that benefits both countries and peoples.

We will continue our efforts together with people of good will in the United States, who are the vast majority. But I advise you: Cuba will not make concessions essential to its sovereignty and independence, will not negotiate its principles or accept conditions, as it has never done, never, throughout the history of the Revolution. As the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba establishes, we will never negotiate under pressure or threats.

We will act invoking the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, signed by heads of state and government of the region in Havana in January 2014, which recognizes the inalienable right of heads of state to decide their political, economic, social and cultural system; rejects foreign intervention and interference in internal affairs, and opposes and condemns the threat and use of force.

It will not be a Presidential Directive of the United States that will thwart the sovereign course of Cuba, as they have been unable to do in more than 50 yeas of aggression, state terrorism, blockade, media war, and subversion. We have been through it all, our people has already been through it all, and have run the risk. What could they threaten us with today that they haven’t already, and failed?

In Cuba, by the way, no one was on tenterhooks waiting for this imperialist announcement. Our people worked as normal, foreign policy functioned, we demonstrated respect for Europe on this visit. In fact, the Cuban people, closely linked to their Communist Party, recently debated and amended the draft Conceptualization of the Cuban Economic and Social Model of Socialist Development and the National Development Plan through 2030, and the upcoming People’s Power general elections were called.

The changes that may be necessary in Cuba will be independently decided by the Cuban people: only by the Cuban people, as they have always done. We will not ask anyone else for their opinion or permission.

Many thanks.

Moderator.- The Minister will take some questions. Please, we remind you to identify yourselves, use the microphones that we have placed at both sides of the room. We open the session.
George Jahn (AP).- I have a question related to the ban on U.S. citizens from engaging in relations with the Army. Is Cuba willing to impose new taxes on those wishing to do business in Cuba, and will it agree to return Assata Shakur to the U.S. as requested?

Bruno Rodríguez.- The measures announced, as I have said, will fundamentally harm U.S. citizens and U.S. companies. The Cuban government will consider the measures to be taken in a timely manner. It will be necessary to wait for the United States government to issue the relevant regulations to analyze the scope of these measures.

Contrary to the objectives invoked, the measures are not only a setback in bilateral relations, but will damage the sectors with which U.S. businesspeople prefer to deal with in our country.

Regarding the issue of the so-called “U.S. fugitives in Cuba,” I can reaffirm that, under our national law and international law and the Latin American tradition, Cuba has granted political asylum or refuge to U.S. civil rights fighters. Of course these people will not be returned to the United States, which lacks the legal, political, and moral foundation to demand this.

Secondly, U.S. citizens who committed crimes in Cuba, such as the hijacking of aircraft, were sentenced by Cuban courts and served long prison terms in Cuba. By unilateral decision, and in an act of goodwill, the Cuban government in recent years has returned to the United States 12 U.S. citizens who were fugitives from the U.S. justice system.

Vincent Montagud (teleSUR).- I wanted to ask you, Minister, it’s been a long time, they are two different historical moments, but why do you think that President Trump is now returning to this clearly Cold War rhetoric? Secondly, if I may, paradoxically, President Trump himself has said that he could study improvements in relations if concrete progress is made – and I quote – in certain domestic matters. The question is: would the government of Cuba be willing to negotiate a new treaty with the Trump administration?

Thank you very much.

Bruno Rodríguez.- One would have to ask President Trump what his real motives are for having performed these latest acts. I do not know if he could say why in public. I do not know if the President of the United States has been badly advised and whether someone has “sold” him the idea that he won the Florida vote with the Cuban vote or due to the Cuban vote. If he has been told that, he has been deceived. The figures exist related to the result of the elections in the five counties with the highest concentrations of Cuban voters in Florida, and in all of these President Trump lost the majority vote, that is, he lost the elections in the counties with citizens of Cuban origin. There is survey data and the election results themselves. It can be categorically stated that President Trump did not win the Cuban vote, and he did not win Florida because of the Cuban vote, but due to other electoral sectors.
As I have said, Cuba is ready for dialogue, cooperation, and the negotiation of pending bilateral issues, just as it will refuse to negotiate any issue affecting the sovereignty, independence, and self-determination of the Cuban people.

Just as the Cuban government will not demand of the U.S. government, as a condition for negotiation, that it change elements of its domestic policy that are very unpopular, and that we do not like at all, or that it cease the international wars in which it is involved, or that it have a better standard of protection for the exercise of human rights in its own country, or that it stop violating human rights across the world.
We hope that the U.S. government does not make the mistake of expecting that Cuba make internal changes to favor agreements or negotiations.

President Trump consistently said throughout the election campaign that he supported the change of policy toward Cuba; but that he would seek “a better arrangement,” a better deal with our country. A better deal would mean lifting the blockade, returning the territory of the Guantánamo Naval Base, accepting the concept of mutual compensation that would greatly benefit certified U.S. property owners, due to the nationalizations of the 1960s.

On the other hand, it is false to affirm that President Barack Obama made concessions to Cuba. He maintained the fundamental elements of the blockade of Cuba, and attempted to advance U.S. interests, including the subversion of the constitutional order of our country. President Trump should recognize, or should know that a favorable change, the continuity of the normalization process, the lifting of the blockade, are in the national interest of the United States, in the interest of U.S. voters, in the interest of those who pay taxes in the United States, who sustain the government, and therefore he would not be doing Cuba any favor, but rather attending to the United States' own interests and international law.

To that extent, yes, there is a willingness to negotiate with the U.S. government, to attempt to resolve bilateral issues that affect both countries, but on the basis of absolute, sovereign equality and full respect for our sovereignty and independence.

Luisa María González García (Prensa Latina).- Good afternoon, Minister, if you would allow me, two questions:
The first, as you have said in your speech, numerous surveys show the growing desire of U.S. society to advance in rapprochement with Cuba. Given this context, do you believe that the measures announced by Trump are sustainable over time?
The second concerns Cuba's position. Cuba has reiterated its willingness - you just reaffirmed this - to dialogue on the basis of mutual respect and equality of conditions. Why maintain this position when the interlocutor is not disposed to talks on these terms?
Thank you very much.

Bruno Rodríguez.- The measures which President Trump just announced, the scope of which must be seen in the regulations, are absolutely unsustainable. First, because there is a historical tendency that defines the era in which we live. The blockade is a piece of the Cold War; it is criminal, genocidal, according to the Geneva Convention on Genocide. In the second place, it is absolutely unjust and arbitrary. It is a crude, systematic violation, flagrant and systematic, of the human rights of all Cubans, hurting Cuban families, causing damage and deprivation.

On the other hand, the blockade infringes on the interests of U.S. citizens, of its companies, of its business people, and also constitutes a violation of the civil liberties and political rights of U.S. citizens who are prohibited from traveling to Cuba, exclusively Cuba.

Thus there is a historic tendency. Will it be during the Trump administration, or during a subsequent one? But there is no doubt that history, the era, will oblige the United States government to lift the blockade and normalize relations with Cuba. And we have all the patience, the endurance, and the will to wait for that moment to arrive, and above all, to work actively to make it happen, in the company of the vast majority of the U.S. people, of Cuban émigrés, and the international community - on the basis of the sovereign decision and very broad, majority support of our people.

It is not known if this administration will be an acceptable interlocutor or not. That will be a decision which must be made by the U.S. government, which will act to the country's benefit or to its detriment, however it decides, but Cuba is ready to dialogue, to cooperate, to negotiate on the basis of absolute equality and respect.

Brinley Bruton (NBC).- Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Would you do me the favor of answering in English. I am going to ask the question in English, too, thank you.
This past week, NBC broadcast an exclusive report on the extensive cooperation between Cuba and the United States which allowed the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. to combat illegal credit card use. Could this change as a result of the decisions made by President Trump?

Bruno Rodríguez.- I don't have any new information that the decisions of the U.S. government include the repudiation of the dozens of agreements signed over the last two years between the two governments. Nor have I heard of any measure directed toward impeding bilateral cooperation, in particular in the area of national security and law enforcement. It would do no good; it would seriously damage the very interests of the United States and of its citizens, if the U.S. government prevented or disassociated itself from cooperation with Cuba, which is a neighboring country and contributes to stability in the region, to the solution of regional and hemispheric problems, which has been a victim of, and actively fights, international terrorism, as well as drug trafficking; trafficking in persons; cyber-crime; against the use of digital media from one country to surreptitiously attack another; against crimes of fraud, money laundering, in which, necessarily, the interests of the continent's countries coincide.

Thus I can reaffirm that Cuba will attend to, honor, the agreements signed, and I reiterate our willingness to negotiate and sign new cooperation agreements in other areas. Because our way of thinking is to respect, in a civilized manner, the great differences which exist between our governments, but to advance in all that can benefit the two peoples, in our national interest and that of the Cuban people.

Moderator.- Minister, we have received a question from Havana. It's the newspaper Juventud Rebelde, which has sent you an e-mail. If you would allow me, I'll read it: "Minister, the President of the United States would like to present itself as the defender of the Cuban people and alleges that the measures just adopted, as part of its policy toward Cuba, will not affect the Cuban people, but rather only state enterprises linked to the Revolutionary Armed Forces or the Ministry of the Interior. Nevertheless," Juventud Rebelde asks, "Does the tightening of the blockade perhaps not affect the economic and social life of the country in general? For example, won't more limitations on travel to Cuba from the U.S. affect all economic management modalities in Cuba, including the self-employed sector?

Bruno Rodríguez.- Well, they have a great sense of humor. It is clear that the measures being implemented by the U.S. government will harm the Cuban people, and especially harm sectors with which the U.S. government has expressed the most interest in building relations. In Cuba, it would be impossible to hurt the state sector of the economy without seriously hurting the cooperative sector, the self-employed, or small private businesses, in particular in the areas that some of these measures address, like the ban on individual travel by U.S. citizens under "people-to-people" licenses.

One would think that the U.S. government would pay greater attention to the interests of its citizens, than those of Cubans, as has always occurred in the past, but these measures, no doubt, prejudice U.S. interests.

The paradox is strange, because the U.S. President has said that his priority is the U.S. citizenry, the creation of jobs, seeking opportunities for U.S. companies and businesses, making them more competitive.

With these measures, he is doing exactly the opposite. What is his motivation? Thinking perhaps of the votes of some Cubans in the United States, of an aging, illegitimate minority? Does he want to win some indispensable votes in the Senate? That would be a good question to ask the President of the United States.

But there is no doubt that these measures contradict the very platform which the President proposed to voters, and presumably the reason he won the Electoral College vote, because we must remember that President Trump did not win the popular vote, he won the election with fewer votes than his opponent. That's the way democracy works in the United States.

Boris Kuznetsov (Russia Today).- Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.
My question is: Taking a step backward in the normalization of relations with Cuba, Donald Trump has in fact resuscitated the old political rhetoric of the Cold War. In this sense, other countries must react in some way to respond to this aggressive policy of Donald Trump. Russia, for example, yes, has declared that all of this leads to a new Cold War, this counterproductive policy toward Cuba.

Bruno Rodríguez.- President Trump has presented himself as a renovator, he won the U.S. elections offering a change to the U.S. people. What he has done with Cuba is not innovate, nothing creative, what he has done is return to the policies of 10 other U.S. administrations, that is, moreover, to a policy that has failed, over time, to bring the U.S. closer to the objectives it has proposed. A well known Republican Senator said: Well, 50 years of a policy that doesn't get results is reason enough to change it. And this is what President Obama did.

The famous adage that trying, trying, and trying, again and again, to do the same thing, expecting to get different results, makes no sense at all, Einstein said.

Thus there is no doubt that these policies resurrected ice floes from the Cold War.
One could ask if this is only in policy toward Cuba. I see alarming signs in the international situation, growing threats to peace and international security, growing instability, the proliferation of conflicts, an increase in nuclear arsenals and military spending.
I also see profound ignorance of the way in which the causes of these problems must be addressed, including international terrorism, the only solution to which lies in international cooperation, not war. In the same way, these policies related to the egotistical, brutal restriction of trade, and the rejection of the Paris Accords on climate change, which threatens the existence of the human race, indicate that the planet is, in fact, approaching a tempestuous situation.

His Holiness Pope Francis has said, with good reason, that the world is already in a Cold War by stages. There is, no doubt, reason to be worried, and above all to act, to increase international cooperation, mobilize the world's conscience for the survival of the human race, and to change an international order that is incompatible with this survival, which is totally irrational, unsustainable, and seriously threatens world peace.
Thank you very much.

Moderator.- Thank you very much for attending this press conference.

Iran: "State Sponsor of Terror" or Major Victim?
By Andrew Korybko
The Western Establishment would have the rest of the world believe that Iran is the “largest state sponsor of terrorism”, though in reality it’s been a major victim of terrorism for decades.
Iran has just been hit by multiple terrorist attacks in its national parliament and the revered Ayatollah Khomeini mausoleum, completely shattering the Western-promoted myth that the Islamic Republic is the “largest state sponsor of terrorism”. While cynics will inevitably suggest this might be a stereotypical case of “blowback”, the truth couldn’t be more different.

The only so-called “terrorist group” that Tehran directly supports nowadays is Hezbollah, which is only designated with such a false appellation because of its resistance to Israel. Iranian backing of the Houthi national liberation movement in Yemen is limited only to political, informational, and moral support, and there has yet to be presented any incontrovertible evidence other than hearsay that Tehran is arming the rebels, though Saudi Arabia says that they are and also calls the group “terrorists” simply because they ousted Riyadh’s political proxy in the country.

It’s unimaginable that either Hezbollah or the Houthis would dare stage such a horrendous terrorist attack against their partner, hence why the “blowback” argument falls flat on its face if anyone takes the time to think about it.

This logically brings one around to wondering which other forces could have been behind the coordinated strikes, and the one on everybody’s mind is Daesh, which threatened the Islamic Republic during last year’s Ramadan in what Iran described as “one of the biggest plots” ever.
If it was indeed Daesh which launched the latest attacks in Tehran, then it would mean that the ultra-sectarian group succeeded in carrying out its first-ever operation on Iranian soil against the majority-Shiite nation whose people it has officially condemned to death for being “apostates”.

It would also indicate that the group is dedicated to seeking revenge against Iran for its decisive support in helping the Syrian Arab Army cripple the terrorists in their own self-declared “caliphate”.

Considering that Iran regularly accuses Saudi Arabia of backing Daesh, and pairing this accusation with Saudi Defense Minister Mohammed Bin Salman’s threat last month to take the regional proxy war to Iranian soil, it’s possible that Tehran could also interpret the latest events as Riyadh’s informal declaration of Hybrid Waragainst the Islamic Republic, which in that instance could contribute to an even more tense situation in the region coming on the heels of the recently revived Qatari-Saudi Cold War. In any case, and regardless of which group carried out the terrorist attacks and whoever their foreign backers may or may not have been, it wouldn’t be the first time that Iran has fallen victim to terrorism.

Just last year Iran announced that the “Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran” (KDPI) carried out attacks against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps along the western borderland region with Iraqi Kurdistan, and the country’s media pulled no punches in describing the perpetrators as terrorists.

This might sound strange to Western ears accustomed to hearing nothing but praise for Kurdish militant groups in the Mideast given the media-driven myth surrounding their anti-Daesh operations, but in reality the situation is much more complex. Individuals ordinarily sympathetic to these ethnic forces in general might be surprised to learn that the KDPI condemned Iran last year as the “Shiite ISIS”, which explains why Tehran takes such a strict attitude towards the group in designating it as the terrorists that they truly are.

Moving back along the timeline, most people shouldn’t have forgotten about the spate of assassinations against Iranian scientists during the height of the country’s nuclear energy standoff with the West.

Tehran blamed the US and Israel for these killings, and The Jerusalem Post published an article in August 2015 titled “Israel Behind Assassinations Of Iran Nuclear Scientists, Ya’alon Hints”, suggesting that the then-Israeli Defense Minister slyly let the cat out of the bag in an interview that he had just given during that time to Germany’s Der Spiegel. Tel Aviv never formally took responsibility for killing civilians in Iran, though it has consistently condemned the country’s nuclear energy program and its Mossad intelligence agency is widely regarded as having both the capabilities and motive for doing so.

Speaking of Western support for terrorism against Iran, Tehran claimed on multiple occasions that the “People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran” (known as Mojahedin-e Khalq and commonly reported on by its acronym MEK) is being backed by the US and its allies. The organization was patronized by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during the 1980s when it carried out a spate of attacks against the Islamic Republic, and had previously been designated a terrorist group by the US until 2012 for its killing of six Americans in the 1970s.

Iran believes that the US took the MEK off of the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations because it’s planning to use it as a Hybrid War vanguard against the Islamic Republic in the future, and interestingly enough, former Saudi spy chief Prince Turki al-Faisal addressed the group’s large-scale public gathering in Paris last year where he implored them to seek regime change against Iran.

Finally, when speaking about the MEK and its reference to Saddam Hussein, there’s no avoiding the fact that the Iran-Iraq War (or First Gulf War) was an act of brutal state terrorism by Baghdad against the fledgling Islamic Republic launched in the tumultuous year following its 1979 Revolution.

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians lost their lives in what amounts to their version of the Soviet Union’s Great Patriotic War, though they ultimately succeeded in preventing their country’s disintegration at the hands of its foreign enemies.

Iran has therefore suffered from terrorism much more than most of the world recognizes, which makes the West’s accusations that the country is the world’s “largest supporter of terrorism” absolutely ridiculous to even countenance.

The latest attacks in the country’s parliament and Ayatollah Khomeini mausoleum are a testimony to this fact, and should give cause to all serious Great Powers to unite behind Iran in its War on Terror if they truly aspire to see this global scourge eliminated once and for all.

Prince Harry says nobody wants to be king

Prince Harry
Prince Harry says nobody in the royal household wants to be the next king or queen, but will take on the burden out of public duty. Republicans replied that Britain “does not need [the royals],” and called on them to renounce their titles.

In an interview about his life and the future of the monarchy, the 32-year-old grandson of the Queen said there is no one in the Royal Family who would like to inherit the throne.

“We are involved in modernizing the British monarchy. We are not doing this for ourselves but for the greater good of the people,” Harry told Newsweek.

“Is there any one of the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don’t think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time.”

However, campaigners from Republic, which calls for an elected head of state and the abolition of the constitutional monarchy, responded to the prince’s comments. The group said the royals should step aside as Britain would manage perfectly well without them.

“If this is true, that no royal really wants to be king, then I have some sympathy. But the honest truth is Harry can walk away whenever he likes,” Graham Smith, the group's CEO, said in a press release on Thursday.

“It’s going to be hard for the royals to step back and see this objectively, but we don’t need them to carry on. 

“If they are reluctant royals then they should walk away – Britain will be fine without them.”

Whatever their feelings about public duty, Smith accused the Royal Family of readily enjoying the “perks” of their position.

“The country can easily find others to take on the role of head of state,”he said.

According to the campaign group, kings and queens do not have democratic legitimacy, and can therefore never act independently of government, meaning ministers are free to do what they want knowing they will not face further scrutiny by a higher-ranking official.

“What Britain needs now more than ever is an effective, accountable head of state, one that’s independent of the prime minister,” said Smith.

“There’s a real job to do and it’s not one the royals are willing to do or capable of doing.”
“The monarchy isn’t fit for purpose in the 21st century – it isn’t good for Britain. 
“It seems it isn’t good for the Windsor family either.”




No comments:

Post a Comment