Should Europe be seriously worried about the latest developments in Italian politics or simply shrug its shoulders and tick off the forthcoming parliamentary elections as yet another convulsion of a chronically unstable system? I have just received a nice envelop from the Italian Consulate in Paris with all the materials to vote to renew the […] The post What is going on in Italy? appeared first on European Notepad.
Italian defense minister Guido Crosetto said Wednesday that his country had to be "realistic" about Ukraine's battlefield prospects and that "the time seems to have come for effective diplomatic action." Crosetto said that Italy and Europe had to maintain its military support for Ukraine, but that continued aid did not mean avoiding talks of diplomacy. "We have two paths: that of aid without 'ifs and buts,'" explained Crosetto. "And that of attempting to build a diplomatic path that brings us to the end of the conflict. The coming months will have to balance deterrence and diplomacy." The defense minister's formulation is similar to those made by advocates of diplomacy in the United States, but is quite notable given Italy's steely support for Ukraine's war effort in the past. "It is quite true, as the Biden administration has warned, that ending U.S. aid to Kyiv would quickly result in Ukraine's collapse. Sufficient aid to help Ukraine to stand successfully on the defensive should therefore continue," the Quincy Institute's George Beebe and Anatol Lieve wrote in RS this week. "But what U.S. policymakers need to understand and honestly acknowledge is that absent a compromise peace settlement, massive levels of aid will have to continue not just for the coming year, but indefinitely." When Giorgia Meloni became Italy's prime minister in October 2022, there were concerns that Rome might back off of its support for Kyiv's war effort. But under Meloni's leadership, Italy has continued to deliver aid to Ukraine, and is now preparing an eighth tranche of military support. Crosetto, though, said that the disappointing outcome of Kyiv's counteroffensive means that it is time to pursue a new approach. The Italian minister said that he had noticed "important signals" from both Moscow and Kyiv that made him optimistic about the prospect of peace talks, saying that both sides had shown signs of war fatigue and internal dissent. "In Ukraine, the domestic front no longer appears as united as in the past in supporting President Zelenskyy's policies, highlighting some political differences," Crosetto said. Publicly, however, neither Russia's Vladimir Putin nor Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky have significantly shifted from their rhetoric at the start of the war. Putin said during a recent end-of-year press conference that his goals remain "unchanged" and that there will be peace only when he achieves his objectives. Zelensky for his part said last month that discussions of peace talks were "not relevant" and that he will be willing to speak to Putin if Moscow accepts Ukraine's ten-point peace plan, which calls for the withdrawal of all Russian troops from all Ukrainian territory. Zelensky repeated during a surprise trip to Lithuania on Wednesday that, contrary to recent reports, he has received "no pressure" from allies to freeze the conflict and enter negotiations. In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine: —Ukraine and a group of allies held a secret meeting in Riyadh in mid-December to try to solidify support for Kyiv's vision of a peace plan, according to Bloomberg. The summit followed a series of similar meetings over the last year, including ones in Copenhagen, Jeddah, and Malta, and before the next publicly announced one in Davos later this month. The discussions have featured evolving groups of countries from the West and Global South, though Russia has yet to be invited. Representatives from India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey were reportedly at the latest summit, though those from other nations who were present at previous iterations, including China, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates, did not attend. "There was no major progress at the latest meeting, held in Riyadh, according to people familiar with the session who asked for anonymity to discuss matters that aren't public. Ukraine and its G-7 allies continued to resist calls from the Global South nations to engage directly with Russia," reports Bloomberg. —National security adviser Jake Sullivan convened a meeting with companies from the defense industry on Monday to discuss how battlefield technologies could support Ukraine's war effort, according to the Los Angeles Times. The meeting reportedly included executives from Palantir, Anduril, and Fortem. "Officials emphasized that the discussions with defense companies are not a substitute for urgently needed supplemental funding from Congress," reads the report. "Rather, they said, they wanted to hear directly from companies about the capabilities they are developing." —The Biden administration is supporting Congressional legislation that would allow it to seize $300 billion in frozen Russian assets, according to Bloomberg. "Biden's support for the move emerges as Republicans in Congress have blocked more than $60 billion in funding for Ukraine, partly over concerns that Washington is carrying too much of the financial burden as Kyiv's counteroffensive stalls," reports Bloomberg. "The idea of using Russia's own money to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine is seen as a way to bolster US support for the war as some Republicans balk at continued funding." The legislation has received bipartisan support in Congress, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) called it "eminently responsible" during an interview last November. U.S. State Department news: The State Department did not hold a press briefing this week.
In Italy, the Milan city council is considering a law that would ban the sale of ice cream, pizza, and other takeout food and drinks after 12:30 a.m. on weekdays and 1:30 a.m. on weekends and holidays. The move is aimed at reducing people congregating on the streets and creating noise late at night. The…
On May 7th 2024 Italy updated its list of safe countries of origin (SCO) for the second time after the introduction of the notion in the national legal system in 2019. Notably, the latest update retained the most contentious addition to the list from last year, Nigeria. Until then, only Cyprus considered Nigeria as generally safe. The legal issues underlying this designation illustrate how country of origin information (COI), largely provided to Member States by the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), is (mis)used to produce policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policies.
The latest data covering global arms sales shows that sale of arms in 2010 decreased to around $40.4 billion, 76% of which went to developing countries. This was a substantial 38% decrease in arms sales compared to 2009, and the lowest since 2003.
The global financial crisis has affected many countries, and developing countries have started to see a decrease in purchases in the last couple of years. Although most arms are sold to developing countries, 10 countries account for some 60% of all sales in the period 2003 to 2010, which the data covers. Saudi Arabia tops that list followed by India and the United Arab Emirates. (As well as concerns about some of the regimes in the top buyers, some of this spending is also said to be due to modernizing efforts.)
Updated graphs and charts on arms sales data are provided here.
The arms trade is big business. The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China), together with Germany and Italy, account for approximately 84% of the arms sold between 2003 and 2010.
Some of the arms sold go to regimes where human rights violations will occur. Corruption often accompanies arms sales due to the large sums of money involved.
Europeans have become increasingly pessimistic about the chances that Ukraine can recover territories that it has lost since the Russian invasion two years ago, according to a new poll of 12 EU member states.And an aggregate average of 41 percent of respondents in the 12 countries said they would prefer that Europe "push Ukraine towards negotiating a peace with Russia" compared to 31 percent who said Europe "should support Ukraine in taking back the territories occupied by Russia."The poll, which was released by the European Council on Foreign Relations Wednesday, was conducted during the first half of January, before the latest advances by Russian forces in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine, notably in their takeover of the town of Avdiivka, which is likely to add to the impression that Kyiv is increasingly on the defensive.The survey interviewed a total of more than 17,000 adults in the 12 countries, which included Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden.It found that continued support for Ukraine's war aims was strongest in Sweden, Portugal, and Poland where pluralities of respondents said Europe should support Kyiv's efforts to take back its territory. Support was weakest in Austria, Romania, Italy, Greece, and Hungary, where significant pluralities or large majorities in the five countries said Europe should focus on achieving a negotiated settlement. In France, Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany, opinion was more divided between the two alternatives.The poll's results offered a marked contrast to previous polling by ECFR, according to Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard, co-authors of a report released with the survey. In June 2022, ECFR found that many Europeans favored a quick resolution to the war, even if that meant Ukraine would have to give up territory. But buoyed by Ukraine's battlefield successes in regaining territory one year later, a subsequent poll in 2023 found that a plurality of respondents in nine EU countries that were surveyed at the time wanted to support Ukraine's war aims and believed they were achievable."Now, in the aftermath of Ukraine's disappointing counteroffensive and amid flagging support in Western capitals, some of that optimism seems to have dissipated," according to the two co-authors.Indeed, an aggregate average of only ten percent of respondents in the new poll now believe that Ukraine will defeat Russia, while twice as many, or 20 percent, believe that Moscow will prevail. Across all countries, a plurality of respondents (37 percent on average) believes that a compromise settlement between the two countries will be the most likely outcome.The survey also queried respondents on the impact of a possible victory by former president Donald Trump in November's U.S. elections on the Ukraine war. An aggregate average of 43 percent of respondents said a new Trump presidency would make a Ukrainian victory "less likely." Asked what Europe should do if Trump were to end U.S. aid to Ukraine, an aggregate average of 41 percent respondents said they would favor maintaining (21 percent) or increasing (20 percent) aid to Kyiv, while a third of respondents said they would prefer to follow the U.S. in limiting assistance.
The latest data covering global arms sales shows that sale of arms in 2011 increased to around $85 billion, 84% of which went to developing countries. This was almost double the arms sales compared to 2010 which was the lowest since 2004. One major factor for the increase was the US sales of arms to Saudi Arabia. Most other major arms sellers otherwise saw a decrease in sales and the trend in recent years had been declining sales. The global financial crisis has affected many countries, and many developing countries started to see a decrease in purchases in the last few years. However, just 10 developing countries account for some 85% of all sales to developing countries in the period 2004 to 2011, which the data covers. Saudi Arabia tops that list followed by India and the United Arab Emirates. (As well as concerns about some of the regimes in the top buyers, some of this spending is also said to be due to modernizing efforts.) Updated graphs and charts on arms sales data are provided here. The arms trade is big business. The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China), together with Germany and Italy, account for approximately 85% of all arms sold between 2004 and 2011. Some of the arms sold go to regimes where human rights violations will occur. Corruption often accompanies arms sales due to the large sums of money involved. Read full article: The Arms Trade Is Big Business
Dragged down in important part by disapproval over the U.S. position on the Gaza war, the popular image of the United States abroad has declined over the past year, according to a new poll of public opinion in 34 countries released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.The survey, the latest in an annual series that dates back more than two decades, also found that international confidence in U.S. democracy has fallen. A median of four in ten of the more than 40,000 respondents said U.S. democracy used to be a good model for other countries to follow but no longer is. That view was most pronounced in the ten European countries covered by the poll.This year's survey also found that respondents in 24 of the countries have more confidence in President Joe Biden to "do the right thing" in world affairs than they have in his rival, former President Donald Trump, while Trump was favored over Biden in two countries (Hungary and Tunisia). It found that there was no significant difference in confidence in the two men in the remaining eight countries.At the same time, however, confidence in Biden's stewardship of international issues fell over the past year in 14 of the 21 countries that were polled by Pew both this year and in 2023, by double digits in eight of the countries, notably South Africa, Australia, the UK, Poland, Sweden, Spain, Israel, and Japan.The survey was conducted from early January this year through the latter part of May. In addition to Hungary, the UK, Poland, Sweden, and Spain, European countries included France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and the Netherlands. In the Americas, the poll covered Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru.In the Asia-Pacific region, ten countries were polled. In addition to Australia and Japan, they included Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Besides South Africa, sub-Saharan African countries included Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria.Overall, views of the United States remained more positive than negative across all of the countries with a median of 54% of respondents offering a favorable opinion, with the most positive ratings found in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. In ten of the 21 countries that were also surveyed last year, however, favorable views fell by six percentage points or more, with the biggest declines found in Australia, Israel, South Africa, and Germany. As for confidence in Biden "to do the right thing" in world affairs, confidence was highest in sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of South Africa where opinions were evenly split. In the Middle East, on the other hand, nearly 90% of respondents in both Turkey and Tunisia said they had "no confidence" in the U.S. president whose ratings were also mostly negative in Latin America (with the exception of Colombia), southern Europe, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, France and Hungary.Of five specific issues on which respondents were asked to rate Biden's performance, by far the most negative appraisals were related to his handling of the Gaza war. A median of 31% across the 34 countries said they approve of his conduct in that conflict, while a median of 57% said they disapproved. The most negative assessments were recorded in predominantly Muslim Turkey (8% approval), Tunisia (5%), and Malaysia (15%). Twenty-five percent or less of respondents in Hungary, Italy, Peru, Mexico, and Chile also said they approved of Biden's policy on Gaza.With respect to the war in Ukraine, a median of 39% of respondents voiced approval of Biden's policies. The most positive views of his performance in that war were recorded in Canada and Europe, particularly in Poland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, and the UK. In Asia, views were most favorable in Japan and South Korea, although they still fell short of 50%. As with Ukraine, a median of 39% of respondents said they approved of Biden's approach to China with his strongest support of around 50% coming from respondents in Poland, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Kenya, and Nigeria.Asked to rate their confidence in four current national leaders "to do the right thing" in world affairs, French President Emmanuel Macron scored highest at 44% of all respondents, followed closely by Biden at 43% . Chinese President Xi Jinping received a median confidence score of 24%, and Russian President Vladimir Putin placed lowest at 21%. The lowest confidence scores for Putin came from European respondents (with the exception of Greece), Japan, South Korea, Australia, Israel, Brazil, and Chile. European respondents also gave Xi poor marks, as did respondents in Japan, South Korea, Australia, Israel, Turkey, Brazil, and Chile.
Recently, the Irish Data Protection Commission halted the launch of Google's new artificial intelligence (AI) product, Bard, over concerns about data privacy under European Union (EU) law. This follows a similar action by Italy following the initial launch of ChatGPT in the country earlier in 2023. Debate continues over whether potential regulation is needed to address concerns about AI safety. However, the disruptive nature of AI suggests that existing regulations, which never foresaw such a rapid development, may be preventing consumers from accessing these products. The difficulty of launching AI products in Europe shows one of the problems of the use of static regulation to govern technology. Technology often evolves faster than regulation can adapt. The rapid uptick in the use of generative AI is the latest example of the increasingly fast adoption of new technologies by more consumers. But regulations typically lack the flexibility to consider such disruption, even if it might provide better alternatives. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is an EU law that created a series of data protection and privacy requirements for businesses operating in Europe. Many American companies spent over $10 million dollars each to ensure compliance, while others chose to exit the European market instead. Furthermore, the law led to decreased investment in startups and development of apps in an already weaker European tech sector. But beyond these expected outcomes stemming from static regulations, the requirements of GDPR have raised questions about whether new technologies can comply with the specific requirements of the law. Stringent and inflexible technology regulations can keep us stuck in the past or present rather than moving on to the future. At the time, much of this concern was focused on blockchain technology's difficulty in complying with GDPR requirements, but now the disruptive nature of AI is showing how a regulatory and permissioned approach can have unintended consequences for beneficial innovation. A static regulatory approach impedes the evolution of technology, which, if permitted to develop without such restrictions, could potentially rectify the very deficiencies that the regulations originally aimed to prevent. Unlike market‐based solutions or more flexible governance, such a compliance‐focused approach presumes to know what tradeoffs consumers want to make or "should" want to make. Ultimately, it will be consumers who lose out on the opportunity and benefits provided by new technologies or creative solutions to balancing these concerns. While there may be privacy debates to be had over the use of certain data by the algorithms that power AI, regulations like the GDPR presume privacy concerns should always win out over other values that are significant to consumers. For example, more inclusive data sets run afoul of calls for data minimization in the name of privacy but are more likely to respond to concerns about algorithmic bias or discrimination. Europe has long seemed set on continuing a path of heavy‐handed regulation over a culture of innovation, and the growing regulatory thicket is starting to result in regulations that contradict one another on issues such as privacy. As the U.S. continues to consider any data privacy regulations and any regulatory regimes impacting AI, policymakers should carefully watch the unintended consequences the more restrictive approach in Europe has yielded.
Earlier this month, Democratic Texas congressman Henry Cuellar was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice on charges of "bribery, unlawful foreign influence, and money laundering." The accusations revolve around a set of deals in which Cuellar allegedly accepted money from a state-owned Azerbaijani oil company and a Mexican bank in exchange for an agreement to push U.S. foreign policy in their favor.As concerning as this may be, it's not even the first such indictment against a sitting member of Congress this year. In March, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) received a superseding indictment which expands further upon earlier accusations that the former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman took bribes to advocate on behalf of the Egyptian and Qatari governments. These cases make it clear that foreign bribery, in which representatives of one country pay money to manipulate the representatives of another, is still a serious problem in the United States. As the world's most powerful and interventionist nation, no other government has more influence over the rest of the world's affairs — influence which can be bought. The recent charges against Rep. Cuellar and Sen. Mendendez show how significant of a problem bribery and undue influence has been for the U.S. congress, while also drawing attention to the ongoing efforts to prevent this corruption from continuing.Bribes offered in exchange for political favors are nothing new in Congress. The first congressional bribery investigation on record took place in 1854, when a lobbyist attempted to bribe members of Congress into extending the patent for the Colt revolver handgun. The question of bribery across borders, however, did not receive much attention in Congress until fairly recently. Concerns about foreign bribery emerged most forcefully in the mid-1970s as a result of the Watergate investigation and the Church Committee, which investigated abuses by U.S. intelligence agencies. These investigations identified slush funds run by large companies that could be used for illegal political donations and undisclosed foreign payments, including several U.S.-based corporations with overseas operations. In the words of then-committee chairman Sen. Frank Church (D-Ida.), the Church Committee was "concerned with the foreign policy consequences of these payments by U.S.-based multinational corporations… It is no longer sufficient to simply sigh and say that is the way business is done. It is time to treat the issue for what it is: a serious foreign policy problem."There are two types of foreign bribery: attempts by foreign figures to bribe U.S. officials, and attempts by U.S. figures to bribe foreign officials. The Church Committee began by looking into the latter, focusing on political contributions that U.S.-based oil and defense companies had made abroad. What they found was shocking: oil companies were funding politicians in South Korea and Italy; Northrop was paying off a Saudi general; and Lockheed spent millions on bribes to foreign officials in Japan, the Netherlands, Indonesia, and more. Lockheed even sought to claim tax deductions for its bribes, a practice which was legal until 1975.These and other revelations caused major scandals abroad. Congress was rattled by the way that some countries reacted to the corruption, including the Peruvian government's expropriation of assets belonging to a corrupt U.S. oil company. Combined with the American public's disgust towards the corruption of the Watergate scandal, conditions were ripe for serious reform. In 1977, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) was signed into law, making it illegal for U.S. citizens to bribe foreign officials. Until this rule was turned into a treaty 20 years later, the U.S. was alone in the world in adopting this form of anti-corruption policy.For much of the U.S.'s history, political corruption was both common and partially normalized, explained away as a necessity to achieve political and business goals. When a corrupt middleman helping U.S. weapons companies make deals in Saudi Arabia explained his role to Pentagon officials in 1973, one official present described the activities as "an inexpensive economic aid program." It was the fallout from Watergate and the Church Committee that turned bribery into a proper taboo. This sharp cultural change caught some off guard: one key Lockheed executive who was ejected from the company due to the bribery scandal complained that "all of a sudden, there's a different set of standards… I looked at these payments as necessary to sell a product. I never felt I was doing anything wrong." The public's attention next turned to the flip side of foreign bribery: foreign representatives paying off U.S. officials. While the FCPA criminalized foreign bribery committed by U.S. citizens, it did not fully criminalize foreign bribery aimed at U.S. citizens. New investigations into bribes directed at members of the U.S. congress helped to demonstrate the scale of this issue.In the "Koreagate" scandal of the late 1970s, a well-connected South Korean businessman offered bribes to U.S. members of Congress in exchange for favorable treatment of the nation's dictatorship. Many lawmakers were implicated, and one was sent to jail. Congress launched investigations into alleged bribery campaigns by Iranian and South African officials in 1979 and 1980, respectively, but ultimately found "no evidence of intentional misconduct." Little did they know that something much larger was brewing beneath the surface.In 1980, NBC News revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had conducted a large-scale sting operation against corrupt politicians. "Abscam," short for "Arab scam," involved FBI agents posing as the agents of a wealthy Middle Eastern sheikh and offering bribes to seven members of Congress, all of whom were eventually convicted. This investigation, controversial for the use of tactics which many might consider entrapment, formed the basis of the 2013 comedy film "American Hustle."Abscam was the last major entry in this burst of investigations, but new scandals continued to emerge over the years. After congressman Jay Kim (R-Cal.) narrowly won his 1992 reelection campaign, it was revealed that more than a third of his campaign contributions were illegal, including money with its origins in South Korea and Taiwan. Five years later, Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) pressured Turkemenistan's ambassador to the U.S. on behalf of a Florida-based company seeking a natural gas deal with the country; the same company had previously paid for her trips overseas. She also was accused of accepting a car from a Malian businessman as a gift for her daughter.The next large scandal came in the form of congressman William J. Jefferson (D-La.), who was convicted of a litany of crimes in 2009. Jefferson accepted large bribes from U.S. companies in exchange for promoting their business interests across western Africa. He was finally caught after accepting a $100,000 cash bribe from a woman who instructed him to pass it on to the vice president of Nigeria. What he didn't know was that the woman was an FBI asset wearing a wire; the Bureau raided his Capitol Hill apartment days later.These issues have continued into the 2020s, even before the bombshell indictments of Rep. Cuellar and Sen. Menendez. In 2022, congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) was convicted of lying to the FBI about illegal campaign money which originated from a Nigerian billionaire. His conviction was later reversed on technical grounds, but new charges were filed against him earlier this month.Recent efforts have helped to strengthen U.S. laws against foreign bribery. President Biden signed the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act into law late last year, making it illegal for foreign officials to demand or accept bribes from U.S. citizens. This reform directly addresses the "demand side" of the bribery issue which the FCPA left untouched. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission has stepped up its enforcement of the FCPA ever since creating a "specialized unit" to enforce the law in 2010. However, there is more that can be done to strengthen the law. For example, Congress could repeal the 1988 amendment to the law which creates an exception for "facilitating or expediting payments."Other reforms can help in fighting corruption. Congressional ethics committees need to be strengthened in order to identify and address ethics violations more quickly. Stronger enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act could make it harder for middlemen acting as agents of foreign governments to hide in the shadows.Members of Congress must also have a zero tolerance policy for their colleagues who are caught engaging in foreign bribery. Senator Menendez has already faced calls for resignation from the majority of senators from his own party; although he gave up his leadership role on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he continues to cling to office. Rep. Cuellar, on the other hand, has faced little opposition from his Democratic colleagues so far.Finally, these scandals should lead Washington to reconsider U.S. foreign policy more generally. The United States frequently intervenes in the affairs of other nations, even in contexts where it makes little sense. Members of Congress can use this global reach to line their own pockets; simultaneously, this same power makes them prime targets for foreign interests who wish to manipulate the way that the United States interacts with the rest of the world. A foreign policy that turns away from coercive interventionism while still encouraging international cooperation would provide fewer opportunities for foreign bribery to occur in the first place.U.S. foreign policy should be dictated by the interests of the American people, not the personal financial interests of politicians, wealthy businessmen, and foreign governments. The cases of Rep. Cuellar and Sen. Menendez are only the most recent in a substantial history of such behavior. To fix U.S. foreign policy, we need to clean up Congress and put an end to foreign bribery.
The Pentagon is marshaling a new international task force to combat Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, and not a moment too soon, it would seem, as it has been expending millions of dollars in munitions to intercept the militants' drones and missiles since Oct. 7.
But is it essentially expanding the "target set" for the Houthis, who are clearly bent on proving their own strength (with, of course, Iranian backing) and scoring political points against Israel? Will this task force, named Operation Prosperity Guardian, bring the U.S. one step closer to a regional war that will, in the end, cost Americans much more?
According to the Department of Defense, the Houthis have conducted 100 drone and ballistic missile attacks since Oct. 7, targeting cargo vessels involving more than 35 flags from different nations in the Red Sea, including U.S Navy destroyers. Most have been intercepted, though some have hit their targets, causing minor injuries and damage. But with the hijacking of one ship, plus the major disruptions to shipping (the Houthis are blocking an estimated $10 billion in cargo a day) and resulting price hikes, the situation has put security in the region on high alert.
It is also costing the United States a pretty penny to act as the key defender of these predominant global shipping lanes. Each munition used to shoot down the Houthi missiles and drones costs between $1 million and $4.3 million and the ships cannot reload at sea and will have to return to port — perhaps Djibouti? — to reload if the kinetic activity goes on much longer, according to experts that talked to Responsible Statecraft this week.
According to experts, the US Carney and US Mason destroyers (also joined by U.K. warships in some cases) could be using a mix of RIM66 SM-2 and RIM66 SM-6 interceptors as well as ESSM Sea Sparrows to take down the drones. The Carney is outfitted with SM-3s as well, but it is not clear that they are being used. This is all part of a "layered defense" that deploys different interceptors depending on the threat. The missiles mentioned so far in numerous interception reports have been the SM-2 and the Sparrows.
According to the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (as of 2022), the SM-2 costs $2.1 million per unit; the SM-6 costs $4.3 million; and the ESSM Sea Sparrows costs $1.7 million. The destroyers are also fitted with the Rolling Airframe missile, which cost $905,000 in 2022. One source suggested, however, not to assume the high end of the cost, adding that the U.S. Navy was likely cleaning out their old stocks and not using the latest versions of these interceptors.
The Pentagon spent $12.3 billion on its missile defense programs in 2022 and $24.7 billion on its missiles and munitions. There is a lot in the stockpile. Plus the countries called into the new task force will have their own capabilities. They include, according to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, the United Kingdom, Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Seychelles and Spain. Interestingly it does not include NATO ally Turkey, or Saudi Arabia (which of course is currently tied to a ceasefire in its own conflict with the Houthis in Yemen).
Maybe cost isn't the most urgent concern, then. Others who have spoken to RS said the threat of escalation — that the U.S. is close to engaging in an all-out war in the Red Sea at a time when its energy and resources are stretched in Ukraine and in sending Israel everything it asks for in the Gaza conflict — is key right now. Our Navy fleets — and U.S. troops/sailors in the region — are in harm's way, and it is important for the American people to assess if what happens next is truly in the national interest.The Houthis have said they will target the ships and U.S. Navy in the Red Sea until Israel stops its bombardment of Palestinians in Gaza. If this video is any indication, the new Operation Prosperity Guardian is going to have its hands full, and millions more dollars in U.S. missile interceptors will be expended before this situation is resolved.
Japan has gone through a gradual process of dismantling its self-imposed ban on exporting lethal weapons, a process that reached a new plateau with last month's decision to permit the export to third countries of the next-generation fighter aircraft to be developed jointly with the United Kingdom and Italy.When this policy change is read in conjunction with the U.S.-Japan Joint Leaders' Statement issued on April 10, 2024, it is likely that Japan has agreed to jointly develop and produce missiles with the United States and export them to third countries. (It also marks the latest development in its departure from its pacifist defense policy that dates back to the immediate post-World War II era.) This article tries to explain the background and implications of Japan's policy changes.Eroding the arms export banAfter the end of World War II, the Japanese government refrained from exporting arms. In 1967, then-Prime Minister Eisaku Sato made it clear that Japan would not allow the export of weapons either to communist countries, countries whose arms exports are prohibited by U.N. resolutions, or countries involved in international conflicts. In 1976, the cabinet of his successor, Takeo Miki, issued a unified government opinion that banned all arms export. Despite some subsequent exceptions, such as the supply to the United States of technologies related to missile defense, Japan continued to make it a national policy to refrain from exporting arms.The ban on arms exports began to wear away in 2011. In that year, the cabinet of then-Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, the leader of the Democratic Party of Japan, eased regulations in order to permit joint development of weapons with countries that cooperate with Japan on security matters, and export the products to partners in the joint development program. Pursuant to this exception, Japan tried to sell jointly produced submarines to Australia in 2015-16.In 2014, the cabinet of then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe enabled the export of military equipment for such uses as rescue, transport, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Under this reform, Mitsubishi Electric began delivering the Air Surveillance Radar Systems to the Philippine Air Force just last year.In December 2023, the cabinet of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida approved exporting domestically produced weapons under license to the provider of the license. Thus, PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors, which are manufactured in Japan under a U.S. license, will be exported to the U.S., effectively replacing what Washington has provided to Ukraine in its war against Russia. This measure is reportedly based on a request from the U.S. government.Getting close to lifting the whole banMost recently, Kishida made a cabinet decision on March 26 to permit the export to third countries of the next-generation fighter aircraft that will be developed jointly with the United Kingdom and Italy. At the same time, the National Security Council amended the Implementation Guidelines on the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology. Although the government set three conditions on the export of fighter jets to third countries in the document, the new policy change has broad implications.First, the government asserts that exports to third countries will be allowed only for the next-generation fighter aircraft, which is the only item now listed in the Implementation Guidelines. However, joint development of Glide Phase Interceptor (GPI) and unmanned aerial vehicles is already under consideration. The very recent U.S.-Japan joint statement also put missiles on the agenda. Once these are materialized, the only thing the government will have to do is add them to the guidelines.Second, Japan and the recipient country must "conclude an international agreement obligating the use of defense equipment transferred from Japan in a manner consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." Currently, 15 countries are signatories to such agreements, including some authoritarian regimes like Vietnam and the United Arab Emirates. Negotiations are underway with Bangladesh to conclude a similar agreement. The number of signatory countries that will presumably be eligible to buy the jointly-developed weapons will continue to grow. Third, the ban on exporting the fighter to "a country where combat is currently deemed to be taking place as part of an armed conflict" will remain in effect. For example, if a next-generation fighter plane were completed tomorrow, Japan could not export it to Ukraine. Once sold to an eligible buyer, however, it would of course be possible that it could be transferred to a country that is engaged in conflict.Rationales for deregulationThe most recent decision, of course, begs the questions of why Japan is so determined to pursue joint development and export, and why it chose the United Kingdom and Italy as its partners.First and foremost, declining to engage in joint production and exports to third countries would be tantamount to abandoning the efficient introduction of advanced weapons systems in Japan's future. When the United States started the joint development with its allies and partners of the F-35, Japan was unable to participate in the program because its arms export ban was intact at the time. As a result, Tokyo had to pay much more to buy the warplane and also wait much longer for delivery. As weapon systems become more sophisticated and development costs soar, forgoing participation in the joint development of advanced weapon systems would very negatively affect Tokyo's arms procurement policy. Moreover, other participants in a joint development program would effectively disqualify participation by a country that did not agree to the export to third countries. When it comes to arms procurement, Tokyo has been disappointed with Washington's performance. In 1987, Japan and the United States began co-production of the current support fighter, the F-2. During the process, however, the U.S. assumed complete control of the development and refused to disclose key technologies to Japan. In the late 2000s, Japan showed interest in purchasing the F-22, but was rebuffed by the U.S. In more recent years, aspects of U.S. weapons development goals have failed to meet the needs of the Self-Defense Forces. As a result, Tokyo has grown skeptical of Washington's willingness to be flexible. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, appears to have satisfied Japanese requirements for partnership in the joint development of the next-generation fighters.Domestically, more than 100 companies have withdrawn from the defense industry over the past 20 years, and there is a growing sense of crisis in maintaining the country's defense industrial base and employment. Because the Japanese companies have limited experience and the domestic market is still too small, the only way to preserve and promote the industry is through joint production and export.There is a strong desire within the Japanese government to strengthen the alliance and enhance deterrence against China through cooperation with the United States. The Russia-Ukraine war has also reinforced the government's belief that relying on the U.S. alone will be insufficient in the event of a future conflict with China, and that Japan will need broader support from the West. In this view, joint development is useful for deepening security relationships with the West. In addition, Japan hopes to create a more favorable security environment by exporting arms to Southeast Asia and elsewhere.Finally, nostalgia for the pre-World War II period also has its appeal for some Japanese. As former Prime Minister Abe advocated "dismantling the postwar regime," many Diet members from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party want to once again realize the "combination of military and nationalism" that existed before the war. Fostering the defense industry through arms exports has been their long-cherished wish.After approving the export of jointly developed weapons to third countries, political leaders vow that Japan would uphold its basic principles as a peace-loving nation. Coupled with a sharp increase in defense spending and the stipulation of "counterstrike capabilities" that enables attacks on other national territories in its National Security Strategy, however, few would take these words at face value. At the very least, the meaning of "peace-loving nation" has changed completely. While the main pillar of the traditional notion of peace-loving nation was for Japan to maintain its military asceticism and not become a threat, Japan today emphasizes the reinforcement of deterrence in order to achieve peace.Unfortunately, the military buildup that Japan has recently embarked on and the increase in arms exports alone is unlikely to bring about the improvement in the security environment that Japan desires. Despite the Biden administration's apparent increased density of dialogue with China following the November 2023 U.S.-China summit, Tokyo has recently shown virtually no interest in direct communication with China. If Tokyo pursues deterrence by further building its military infrastructure, promoting arms exports, and strengthening alliances without offering reassurance to Beijing, it will inevitably result in the security dilemma for both countries. The real concern is that Japan is underestimating the risk.
With no ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas in sight and Houthi forces in Yemen still firing missiles and drones at commercial shipping in the Red Sea, the EU's efforts at addressing conflict in Gaza and its broader regional ramifications keep flailing.After weeks of discussions, the EU officially launched its naval operation in the Red Sea on February 19 to protect international commercial shipping from Houthi attacks. The Houthis claim they wantto force a ceasefire in Gaza. Yet, while the ceasefire remains elusive, the attacks impose real costs on EU members: the EU commissioner for economy Paolo Gentiloni recently estimated that the rerouting of shipping from the Red Sea has increased delivery times for shipments between Asia and the EU by 10 to 15 days and the consequent costs by around 400%. Around 40% of the EU's total trade with the Middle East and Asia passes through the Red Sea.Protecting that shipping route thus is an important collective economic and security interest for the EU. Yet only four countries — France, Germany, Italy and Belgium — out of the 27 member states have agreed to provide warships for the new operation. Spain, which refrained from using its veto power to block the initiative, nonetheless declined to participate, having expressed concerns from the outset that any armed operation would reduce pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire in Gaza. A bigger question is how effective this new EU operation will be in countering the Houthi threat given its purely defensive mandate to provide "situational awareness, accompany vessels and protect them against possible attacks at sea." Accordingly, the participating EU warships will be authorized to fire on Houthi targets only if they themselves or commercial vessels they are to protect are attacked. That rules out pre-emptive action against Houthi missile batteries or related targets.The defensive nature of the operation, however, may not be enough to convince the Houthis to refrain from attacking the European ships. In fact, Houthi leaders warned Italy, one of the new operation's chief promoters, that it will become "a target if it participates in attacks on the Houthis." If this threat comes to fruition, will the EU authorize offensive action against the Houthis, potentially drawing itself into a wider conflict? Will it rely on U.S. hard power for protection given that Washington is already engaged against the Houthis through "Operation Prosperity Guardian," in which a few EU nations – Denmark, Netherlands and Greece, as well as non-EU NATO members Britain and Norway -- are also participating? Would such developments not lead to a de facto merging of the U.S. and EU-led operations under Washington's lead — an outcome Europeans sought to avoid and which is the very reason why they launched their own mission in the first place? That these are not abstract questions is underscored by the failure, so far, of scores of U.S.- and UK-led strikes to degrade the Houthis' capabilities to the point where they would no longer pose a significant threat. Indeed, just as the EU announced its mission, the Houthis hit a British cargo ship which was at risk of sinking in the Gulf of Aden in what the Yemeni rebels claimed was their biggest attack yet. The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations confirmed the incident, though it did not name the ship.Ironically, the safest way for the EU to avoid a direct military engagement with the Houthis, apart from testing their vow to stop attacking shipping if Israel ends its Gaza offensive, would be to reduce the number of targets in the Red Sea by encouraging ships to reroute. But such an outcome would, of course, vindicate the Houthi strategy to impose costs on the Western powers for the failure to stop the war in Gaza.And that brings us back to the mother of all conflicts in the Middle East: the continuing war in Gaza. The EU's approach so far has been to delink Gaza from the crisis in the Red Sea and the broader escalation in the region, including clashes between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah. Yet mounting tensions on that front show that its approach is not working. Some actors in the EU understand the urgent need for a ceasefire in Gaza as a necessary condition for regional de-escalation. The EU high representative on foreign policy Josep Borrell has been particularly vocal in his criticism of Israel. He suggested limiting arms sales to Tel Aviv on the grounds that such transfers violate EU guidelines that ban sales to countries accused of violations of the international humanitarian law. A Dutch appeals court recently ordered a halt to exports of F-35 jet parts to Israel on the same grounds. However, it is highly unlikely that the EU as a whole would adopt such a position, given that a number of countries – especially Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary – strongly support Israel.A stronger point of leverage could be to suspend fully or partially the association agreement between the EU and Israel. The EU is Israel's largest trading partner. In 2023, that agreement enabled 46.8 billion euros worth of bilateral trade. The prime ministers of Spain and Ireland, Pedro Sanchez and Leo Varadkar, respectively, asked the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to "urgently review" whether Israel is violating the human rights clauses included in that agreement. On February 19, the Spanish foreign minister, Jose Manuel Albares, insisted that the review should be completed in time for the next EU foreign ministers meeting on March 18.A full suspension of the agreement seems very unlikely even if the Commission finds Israel to have violated its human rights obligations because that would call for a unanimous decision by all member states. A partial suspension would require a qualified majority: 55% of member states (or 15 out of 27) representing 65% of the EU's total population. Notably, the only precedent for taking such an action came in 2011 when the EU suspended an association agreement with Syria in response to mass violations of human rights by the Bashar al-Assad regime. Meanwhile, the EU proved unable last week to issue even an official appeal to Israel not to follow through with its plans to carry out a ground invasion of Rafah, the southernmost city in Gaza, which has become the last refuge of nearly a million refugees from elsewhere in the enclave. In the face of a veto threat by Hungary, the other 26 member states instead issued a joint statement warning of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences should Israel move ahead with such an invasion. Notably, however, Hungary was isolated in its opposition to the appeal as Germany and other member states that have traditionally been reluctant to criticize Israel's conduct of war were on board. That is a step forward, but it's too little and it comes too late. As long as the EU keeps avoiding imposing real consequences on Israel for its conduct, it will keep losing influence in the Middle East.
Western officials are starting to broach the idea of peace talks with Russia as the situation on the ground in Ukraine has devolved into a stalemate, according to a major new report from NBC News.American and European diplomats reportedly used a recent round of talks in Malta to encourage Ukraine to consider what concessions it may be willing to make — a significant shift from the public messaging around the summit, which was largely framed as an opportunity to build support for Ukraine's maximalist peace plan.Officials are now privately referring to the situation on the ground as a stalemate, and some "have privately said Ukraine likely only has until the end of the year or shortly thereafter before more urgent discussions about peace negotiations should begin," the report notes.A State Department spokesperson denied NBC's reporting on Tuesday, reiterating the administration line that "nothing should happen about Ukraine without Ukraine" and saying that the U.S. is "not aware of any conversations with Ukraine about negotiations outside of the peace formula structure that you've already seen a number of engagements take place on."The news comes at a difficult time for Ukraine as the world's attention has largely turned toward Israel and Palestine, where weeks of intense fighting has left Gaza in a humanitarian disaster. The West's differing reactions to the two conflicts have further complicated efforts to bolster Global South support for Ukraine.In the United States, President Joe Biden is now attempting to link $14.3 billion in aid for Israel to an additional $61.4 billion in funding for Ukraine, a move that House Republicans have so far rejected. The chances that there will be a gap in American funding for Kyiv have continued to grow as a potential government shutdown looms later this month.And in Europe, many leaders have begun to move away from full-throated support for Ukraine given the stalling efforts on the battlefield and the economic impact on the continent. Even Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has staked out a distinctly pro-Ukraine stance since taking office earlier this year, told Russian pranksters posing as African Union officials that "there is a lot of fatigue" in Europe due to the war."We [are] near the moment in which everybody understands that we need a way out," Meloni added.None of this guarantees that Russia is prepared for talks. Some experts argue that Russian President Vladimir Putin sees a chance to wait Ukraine and the West out through a war of attrition, a serious possibility given the extent of Ukrainian losses (the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now reportedly 43 years old) and the relatively low appetite for future funding among Republicans in the U.S.In fact, Russia appears to have already leaned into this approach with its renewed bombing campaign against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, a move that could cause blackouts across Ukraine during its often brutal winter.If Russian President Vladimir Putin does end up pursuing his advantage, Ukraine's strongest boosters may be kicking themselves for ignoring the advice of more skeptical voices, including former Joint Chiefs head Mark Milley, who said late last year that the winter could provide "a window of opportunity for negotiation.""There has to be a mutual recognition that a military victory is probably, in the true sense of the word is maybe not achievable through military means, and therefore you need to turn to other means," Milley said.As Branko Marcetic recently argued in Compact, the consequences of ignoring Milley's advice may be severe."[J]ust as pro-peace voices had warned, Ukraine is now looking at the worst of both worlds: accepting a far inferior peace deal, while having weathered the tremendous human and economic costs of a prolonged conflict," Marcetic wrote. "Most perversely, [Kyiv] has been put into this position by those who postured as its most ardent supporters, the hawks who thought of the war as a way of humiliating Russia on the cheap."In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:— The European Union executive recommended Wednesday that Ukraine start formal talks to join the bloc as soon as next year if it completes the necessary reforms for membership, marking one step closer to Kyiv joining the EU, according to Reuters. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the move a "historic step," though it does not completely clear the way for Kyiv, which will still have to convince holdouts in Hungary and now potentially Slovakia that Ukraine should be permitted to join the EU.— The foreign ministers of the Group of 7 (G7) reaffirmed their "steadfast commitment to supporting Ukraine's fight for its independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity" following a series of meetings in Japan on Tuesday and Wednesday, according to Al Jazeera. The group, which was keen to swat down the argument that events in Gaza have pulled their attention away from the war in Ukraine, also held a virtual discussion with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba. G7 members include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union.— Russia formally withdrew Tuesday from a post-Cold War treaty limiting the deployment of conventional weapons in Europe, drawing condemnation from NATO, which will now suspend its participation in the pact, according to Reuters. Moscow, which said the decision was a result of NATO's eastward expansion, had already stopped active participation in the treaty in 2015.— Egypt may give military equipment to Russia after reportedly reversing a decision to sell missiles to Moscow earlier this year, according to the Wall Street Journal. After the missile deal was scuppered, the report says, Russian officials asked Egypt to give back 150 helicopter engines that it had previously sold to Cairo in exchange for forgiving some Egyptian debts and guaranteeing a continued supply of Russian wheat to the country. The report, which cites three people "with knowledge of the incident," says that Egypt has agreed to the terms and the engine shipments could begin next month.— On Thursday, Russia struck a civilian ship in a Black Sea port near Odessa, Ukraine, raising questions about the safety of a new shipping corridor that Kyiv put in place following Moscow's withdrawal from the Black Sea grain deal, according to Reuters. The blast killed one crew member and injured four others. Ukraine played down the incident and said shipping traffic continues "despite Russia's systematic attacks on port infrastructure."U.S. State Department news:In a Tuesday press conference, State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel defended Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's decision to delay elections, arguing that Russia's occupation of large swathes of Ukraine and its continual bombing of civilian targets would make a fair vote impossible. "We also have made clear with our Ukrainian partners our commitment to supporting not just Ukraine in its fight but our commitment to support a careful and constitutional approach to keeping democracy strong in wartime," Patel said.
Trying to make sense of U.S. policy toward Cuba is like trying to make sense of a play in the theater of the absurd. The rationales offered by the policy's defenders make no sense, and when they try to explain, they sound like characters in an Ionesco play. Recent legislative proposals from Cuban American members of the House of Representatives are prime examples.Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.), chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, and Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, recently proposed new sanctions locking in Cuba's groundless designation as a sponsor of international terrorism, blocking assistance to Cuba's private sector on the grounds that it doesn't exist, and punishing countries hosting Cuban medical missions for practicing "modern slavery." The last two proposals became law in the omnibus appropriations bill passed last month to avoid a government shutdown.Cuba is on the State Department's terrorism list, even though the Department's latest Country Report on Terrorism offers no evidence for Havana engaging in international terrorism. It cites Cuba's harboring of U.S. fugitives who committed politically-motivated crimes in the United States more than 40 years ago. Meanwhile, the United States for years harbored notorious Cuban exiles like Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles guilty of myriad terrorist attacks against Cuba, including bombing a Cuban airline flight, killing all 73 people aboard, and bombing tourist hotels in Havana.Early in the Biden administration, the White House said it was "committed to carefully reviewing" Cuba's designation, and in October 2022, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Colombia's President Gustavo Petro, "We will continue as necessary to revisit those to see if Cuba continues to merit that designation." But just five months later, he told Congress, "We are not planning to remove them from the list." Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Eric Jacobstein told a group of Democratic lawmakers that, contrary to what they had been told previously, there was no review of Cuba's designation underway.Asked in a 2023 press briefing why Cuba was still on the terrorism list, a State Department spokesperson replied that it was because of Cuba's "long track record of egregious human rights abuses, suppression of a free press, suppression of civil society" — which has nothing to do with international terrorism. The official also acknowledged, oblivious to the irony, that the U.S. and Cuban governments engage in regular counter-terrorism cooperation talks under the auspices of a law enforcement agreement concluded during the Obama administration.Last year, Díaz-Balart joined Salazar to sponsor a bill preventing the Biden administration from removing Cuba from the terrorism list until it becomes a multi-party democracy. Although the bill is unlikely to become law this Congress, its disregard for the statutory criteria for designating a country as a sponsor of terrorism brings to mind Humpty Dumpty's declaration in Alice in Wonderland, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean."Díaz-Balart had better luck with the omnibus appropriation. When Congress fails to do its job passing the 12 appropriations bills that fund the government, it resorts to omnibus appropriations that lump all the unfinished bills together into one must-pass bill to avoid a government shutdown. All sorts of dubious measures make their way into omnibus appropriations because there just is not time to filter them all out. As chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Díaz-Balart was perfectly positioned to insert new Cuba sanctions into the omnibus.The omnibus appropriation prohibits the Biden administration from supporting Cuba's emerging private sector of some 10,000 new businesses, despite the fact that promoting private enterprise has been U.S. policy under Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden. Rep. Salazar calls the private sector a "myth" because some of the businesses are owned by relatives of government officials, even though the vast majority are not. A year ago, Díaz-Balart forced the Biden administration to abandon plans to help the private sector by threatening to block aid for Ukraine. His appropriations language, now law, blocks U.S. funding for "business promotion, economic reform, [or] entrepreneurship" in Cuba.Another provision of the omnibus appropriation would punish countries that pay Cuba for providing medical services on the grounds that such contracts constitute "modern slavery." Since the 1960s, Cuba has sent some 400,000 medical professionals to serve in 164 countries, but in the past two decades medical service contracts have become an important source of foreign exchange earnings.In 2006, President George W. Bush began offering entry to the United States and a fast path to citizenship to entice Cuban doctors serving abroad to defect. Some of those who defected criticized the pressure placed on them to serve abroad, harsh and restrictive working conditions, and the percentage of the contract fees they received. By contrast, doctors serving in the programs report that they volunteered because the wages are significantly higher than their wages in Cuba, and out of a desire to help people in need.During the Obama administration, U.S. and Cuban medical personnel worked together in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake and in west Africa fighting Ebola virus outbreak. President Obama, in his 2016 speech to the Cuban people, praised Cuba's medical internationalism, saying "No one should deny the service that thousands of Cuban doctors have delivered for the poor and suffering." But Cuban American Republicans do deny it.The original House version of the foreign operations appropriation that came out of Díaz-Balart's subcommittee and passed the House would have cut off U.S. assistance to the Pan American Health Organization and all countries and international organizations that have medical contracts with Cuba. Those provisions did not make it into the final omnibus legislation. But the bill that passed denies entry to the United States and threatens financial sanctions against "officials of foreign governments and their immediate family members" whose governments have medical service contracts with Cuba.Cuba has medical personnel serving abroad in dozens of countries, including Mexico, Italy, Qatar, Jamaica, several smaller Caribbean states, and Northern Ireland. Is it really in the U.S. national interest to ban their government officials from the United States? Would Mexico's indispensable cooperation on migration and narcotics trafficking survive such a ban? Luckily, during the negotiations over the final omnibus bill, cooler heads prevailed and made these sanctions subject to a presidential waiver. But they are still the law of the land, with Washington once again arrogating to itself the right to sanction other countries for their relations with Cuba, as if neither their sovereignty nor Cuba's counts for anything in Washington.That is the final absurdity of U.S. Cuba policy. It's not just that so much of it is built on false premises and distorted facts. It's that a small group of conservative Cuban American legislators, obsessed with reducing Cuba to penury, have been able to dictate policies that damage broader U.S. interests in Latin America, Europe, and the Global South. They get away with it because no issue is more important to them than Cuba, and Cuba is not important enough to Biden for him to stand up to them.These policies are not cost free. Like water dripping on a stone they gradually erode the good will of other countries, diminishing Washington's "soft power." The accretion of damage is chronicled by the annual vote at the United Nations General Assembly on Cuba's resolution condemning the U.S. embargo. When the resolution was first introduced in 1992, it passed with 59 countries in favor, 3 against (the United State, Israel, and Romania), and a majority, 71 abstaining. Last year 187 countries voted for the resolution. Ukraine abstained and only Israel joined the United States in voting no.When American patriots declared their independence from the British crown, they detailed their reasons in the Declaration of Independence out of a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." That respect is not a virtue Washington policymakers should abandon just because the United States has become a superpower.
