The things about which Panama should be neutral

Panama should be neutral about the nationality of ships that come in peace to take legal cargoes and passengers through the canal. We are committed to this by treaties.

Panama should not be neutral about fundamental human rights. It doesn’t mean that we should go around the world demanding regime change for every country that abuses people’s rights, but it does mean upholding the rule of international law, especially within Panama. We are committed to this by treaties.

Taking marching orders from the Pentagon or any other foreign power is an alignment that conflicts with Panamanian neutrality. But joining in an international effort against notorious non-state criminals is not the same thing as becoming some other country’s puppet.

On the level of Panama’s relations with individuals and families, it is not a betrayal of our sovereignty to take in some of those who have been driven from their homes by the Islamic State. It’s a matter of common human decency and national pride to do so. Of course we should be on the lookout for people seeking to come here under false pretenses, and we should also understand that people traumatized by war often take social, psychological or medical issues with them wherever they go. We can deal with all that. We have done so before. Little Panama should welcome our share of refugees, because that’s the sort of people who we are.

The end of Era K

In the person of Mauricio Macri the Argentine right has won the presidency in a fair election for the first time in a long time. He will come to office controlling neither legislative chamber and we shall see how he deals with that.

The Kirchner era was over before the runoff, before the general election. That faction lost within the Peronist party, which opted for a less polarizing character with politics from the last century. But it wasn’t really about ideology so much as people grown weary after a dozen years of the Kirchners and everything that people came to find annoying about them. That stuff usually happens when a party, faction, family or person is in office for too long.

Will Macri have a long run? Will he be the vanguard of a rightward turn in Latin America?

Everywhere but in Bolivia and Uruguay South America’s left governments are unpopular. Venezuela’s Chavistas may lose their legislative majority fair and square next month. Scandals have devastated the Brazilian left and undermined support for Chilean President Michelle Bachelet. Rafael Correa won’t seek another term as president of Ecuador. But farther north, wih the exception of an unpopular Nicaraguan government and the Cuban singularity, it is the hard right that reaps most of the harvest of failure and disapproval.

However, any thought of a return to a bygone age does not take into account changed public expectations, changed economic conditions and shifted balances of geopolitical power. Macri will have to lead Argentina through new terrain, in which heirloom seeds of policy solutions from the north are unlikely to thrive. He will have to show Argentina something new to succeed and he may well do it, but he might also just be a placeholder between Kirchnerism and a new proposal from that side of the spectrum.

For Panama it should not much matter. It shouldn’t for Washington either. Given the fog of unreality that surrounds so much of US politics today, perhaps it will be Panama’s historic role to explain it all to the Americans.

Bear in mind…

~ ~ ~

The announcements below are interactive. Click on them for more information

What Bernie Sanders says about dealing with the Islamic State

excerpts from his speech at Georgetown University

Our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous approaches to foreign policy. It begins with the acknowledgment that unilateral military action should be a last resort, not a first resort, and that ill-conceived military decisions, such as the invasion of Iraq, can wreak far-reaching devastation and destabilize entire regions for decades. It begins with the reflection that the failed policy decisions of the past — rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, or Guatemalan President Árbenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President Allende in 1973. These are the sorts of policies that do not work, do not make us safer, and must not be repeated.

…

I’m not running to pursue reckless adventures abroad, but to rebuild America’s strength at home. I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will never send our sons and daughters to war under false pretense or pretenses or into dubious battles with no end in sight.

And when we discuss foreign policy, let me join the people of Paris in mourning their loss, and pray that those who have been wounded will enjoy a full recovery. Our hearts also go out to the families of the hundreds of Russians apparently killed by an ISIS bomb on their flight, and those who lost their lives to terrorist attacks in Lebanon and elsewhere.
To my mind, it is clear that the United States must pursue policies to destroy the brutal and barbaric ISIS regime, and to create conditions that prevent fanatical extremist ideologies from flourishing. But we cannot — and should not — do it alone.
…

Our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous approaches to foreign policy. It begins with the acknowledgment that unilateral military action should be a last resort, not a first resort, and that ill-conceived military decisions, such as the invasion of Iraq, can wreak far-reaching devastation and destabilize entire regions for decades. It begins with the reflection that the failed policy decisions of the past — rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, or Guatemalan President Árbenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President Allende in 1973. These are the sorts of policies that do not work, do not make us safer, and must not be repeated.

…

We must create an organization like NATO to confront the security threats of the 21st century — an organization that emphasizes cooperation and collaboration to defeat the rise of violent extremism and importantly to address the root causes underlying these brutal acts. We must work with our NATO partners, and expand our coalition to include Russia and members of the Arab League.

…

But let’s be very clear. While the US and other western nations have the strength of our militaries and political systems, the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations — with the strong support of their global partners.

These same sentiments have been echoed by those in the region. Jordan’s King Abdallah II said in a speech on Sunday that terrorism is the “greatest threat to our region” and that Muslims must lead the fight against it.

…

Saudi Arabia has the 3rd largest defense budget in the world, yet instead of fighting ISIS they have focused more on a campaign to oust Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Kuwait, a country whose ruling family was restored to power by US troops after the first Gulf War, has been a well-known source of financing for ISIS and other violent extremists. It has been reported that Qatar will spend $200 billion on the 2022 World Cup, including the construction of an enormous number of facilities to host that event — $200 billion on hosting a soccer event, yet very little to fight against ISIS. Worse still, it has been widely reported that the government has not been vigilant in stemming the flow of terrorist financing, and that Qatari individuals and organizations funnel money to some of the most extreme terrorist groups, including al Nusra and ISIS.

All of this has got to change.

…

Further, we all understand that Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator who has slaughtered many of his own people. I am pleased that we saw last weekend diplomats from all over world, known as the International Syria Support Group, set a timetable for a Syrian-led political transition with open and fair elections. These are the promising beginnings of a collective effort to end the bloodshed and to move to political transition.

The diplomatic plan for Assad’s transition from power is a good step in a united front. But our priority must be to defeat ISIS.

…

While individual nations indeed have historic disputes — the US and Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia — the time is now to put aside those differences to work towards a common purpose of destroying ISIS. Sadly, as we have seen recently, no country is immune from attacks by the violent organization or those whom they have radicalized.

Thus, we must work with our partners in Europe, the Gulf states, Africa, and Southeast Asia — all along the way asking the hard questions whether their actions are serving our unified purpose.

The bottom line is that ISIS must be destroyed, but it cannot be defeated by the United States alone. A new and effective coalition must be formed with the Muslim nations leading the effort on the ground, while the United States and other major forces provide the support they need.

~ ~ ~

The announcements below are interactive. Click on them for more information

What Hillary Clinton says about dealing with the Islamic State

excerpts from her speech to the Council on Foreign Relations

To impose the toughest sanctions in history on Iran, to stop a dictator from slaughtering his people in Libya, to support a fledgling democracy in Afghanistan, we have to use every pillar of American power — military, and diplomacy; development, and economic, and cultural influence; technology, and, maybe most importantly, our values. That is smart power.

…

An immediate war against an urgent enemy and a generational struggle against an ideology with deep roots will not be easily torn out. It will require sustained commitment in every pillar of American power. This is a worldwide fight, and America must lead it.

…

So we need an immediate intelligence surge in the region, including technical assets, Arabic speakers with deep expertise in the Middle East, an even closer partnership with regional intelligence services.

…

we need to lay the foundation for a second “Sunni awakening.” We need to put sustained pressure on the government in Baghdad to gets its political house in order, move forward with national reconciliation, and finally, stand up a national guard. Baghdad needs to accept, even embrace, arming Sunni and Kurdish forces in the war against ISIS. But if Baghdad won’t do that, the coalition should do so directly.

…

We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air.

…

Now, much of this strategy on both sides of the border hinges on the roles of our Arab and Turkish partners

…

The United States should also work with our Arab partners to get them more invested in the fight against ISIS. At the moment they’re focused in other areas because of their concerns in the region, especially the threat from Iran. That’s why the Saudis, for example, shifted attention from Syria to Yemen. So we have to work out a common approach.

…

In September I laid out a comprehensive plan to counter Iranian influence across the region and its support for terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. We cannot view Iran and ISIS as separate challenges.

…

And as we work out a broader regional approach, we should of course be closely consulting with Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East. Israel increasingly shares with our Arab partners and has the opportunity to do more in intelligence and joint efforts as well.

…

And, once and for all, the Saudis, the Qataris, and others need to stop their citizens from directly funding extremist organizations, as well as the schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path to radicalization.

…

Overlapping conflicts, collapsing state structures, widespread corruption, poverty, and repression have created openings for extremists to exploit. Before the Arab spring, I warned that the region’s foundations would sink into the sand without immediate reforms. Well, the need has only grown more urgent.

We have to join with our partners to do the patient, steady work of empowering moderates and marginalizing extremists, supporting democratic institutions and the rule of law, creating economic growth that supports stability, working to curb corruption, helping train effective and accountable law enforcement, intelligence, and counterterrorism services.

…

This is a time for American leadership. No other country can rally the world to defeat ISIS and win the generational struggle against radical jihadism. Only the United States can mobilize common action on a global scale. And that’s exactly what we need. The entire world must be part of this fight, but we must lead it.

…

To impose the toughest sanctions in history on Iran, to stop a dictator from slaughtering his people in Libya, to support a fledgling democracy in Afghanistan, we have to use every pillar of American power — military, and diplomacy; development, and economic, and cultural influence; technology, and, maybe most importantly, our values. That is smart power.

~ ~ ~

The announcements below are interactive. Click on them for more information