Why the shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis is so significant – expert Q&A

Spread the love
A woman holds a sign reading ‘Stop ICE terror now!’ at a memorial for Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 25. Craig Lassig / EPA

Mark Shanahan, University of Surrey

Federal immigration agents in the city of Minneapolis are accused of having wrestled a 37-year-old intensive care nurse called Alex Pretti to the ground and then shooting him dead. The killing took place just over a mile from where another American citizen, Renee Good, was allegedly fatally shot by federal agents weeks earlier.

The latest incident prompted angry protests from people in Minneapolis who want the immigration enforcement operation in their city to end. We spoke to Mark Shanahan, an associate professor of political engagement at the University of Surrey, to address several key issues.

Why has sending in federal immigration agents caused such trouble in Minnesota?

Since returning to the White House in January 2025, the national guard has been deployed to several US cities to quell what have generally been Donald Trump-inflated crises, with illegal migration among the most prominent. However, in December, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump did not have authority for such deployments.

So, since then we have seen federal agents with US Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement taking the battle largely to minorities in cities with Democratic party leadership as part of the president’s violent attack on illegal immigration, a situation he has described as “the greatest invasion in history”.

Minneapolis is a Democrat-run city in a Democrat-led state. The governor is Tim Walz who ran for vice-president on the Kamala Harris ticket against Trump in the 2024 election. Walz has faced allegations, which he denies, of overlooking alleged widespread fraud in the financing of public safety net programmes, supposedly involving segments of the Somali-American community.

While most of these allegations have been refuted, they gave Trump reason to send in federal agents. This has ramped up tensions between state officials and the administration, causing brutal and unnecessary deaths in the community and pitting ordinary Minnesotans against federal government officials.

How does the situation in Minnesota reflect the second amendment right to bear arms?

It’s a reversal of virtually all of the second amendment debates that have been seen in recent years. The second amendment was introduced to the US constitution in 1791 through the Bill of Rights due to a deep mistrust of centralised military power and a desire to ensure that the newly formed federal government could not disarm the populace.

The founding fathers envisaged a “natural right of resistance and self-preservation”. Trump’s actions in sending in armed federal agents to conduct enforcement operations in various states appear to fulfil the founding fathers’ concerns.

The agents are trampling all over not only citizens’ second amendment right to bear arms (officials seemingly connected Pretti’s killing to him carrying a weapon) but also their first amendment right to freedom of assembly.

Federal officers detain a protester in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 24. Craig Lassig

How have the fatal shootings affected Trump’s popularity?

Trump’s popularity is on the decline. His failure to deliver on the economic promises outlined in his election campaign, scatter-gun approach to international relations and the widening gulf between rhetoric and achievement have all damaged his standing in the polls.

In a CNN poll published on January 16, almost six in ten respondents described Trump’s first year back in office as a failure with the president focused on the wrong priorities.

And what support he does have is ebbing rapidly as federal immigration agents appear out of control, targeting many more documented citizens than illegal migrants, spreading fear and operating as if they are above the law.

With what looks like high levels of gaslighting coming from Homeland Security officials, voters are turning against the increasing autocracy of this administration, believing in the evidence widespread across the media rather than highly contentious statements from Trump’s lieutenants.

Is it unusual for former presidents to speak out the way Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have?

It certainly is. There is a longstanding tradition in the US of, and implicit agreement among, former presidents to avoid public criticism of the incumbent. Such reticence to speak is generally a sign of respect for the office and an acknowledgement of the unique and difficult challenges of the presidency.

But Trump 2.0 is no normal presidency. The 47th president’s style is both combative and retributive, and there seems to be an increasing feeling of it being out of step with the desires and best interest of the country he leads.

Trump’s march to autocracy creates crises where he regards himself as the hero the country needs to overcome its ills. His predecessors take a different view.

Whether it’s Obama calling out the assault on core American values or Clinton’s condemnation of the “horrible scenes” in Minneapolis as “unacceptable” and avoidable, Democrat past presidents have not held back. Notably, the only living previous Republican president, George W. Bush, has so far kept his own counsel.

What can be done to prevent further violence?

Most simply, Trump could end the deployment of federal immigration agents to Minneapolis and refrain from similar actions in the future. He is clearly looking for an off-ramp and sending his “border czar”, Tom Homan, to Minneapolis to direct operations could be the first step to de-escalation. But Trump abhors being called out as wrong and, at least beyond Minneapolis, is far more likely to double down on the immigration enforcement activities.

Realistically, the most likely de-escalator is Congress showing some teeth and refusing to fund further federal immigration enforcement activity. Democrats could force another government shutdown over the issue, and need just a handful of Republicans to flip in order to refuse to sanction a 2026 budget for the Department of Homeland Security.

At a public level, the greater the scrutiny of immigration enforcement agencies, the closer the fact-checking of official statements and the more cohesive the opposition to Trump’s deportation policy, the greater the chance of effectively opposing it.

It is midterm year – and the greater the public pressure, the more likely Republican legislators are to cleave away from the Trump line. While he currently controls the levers of power, that control remains fragile. Even Trump may soon realise that overt, violent, coercive autocracy is not a vote winner.

Mark Shanahan, Associate Professor of Political Engagement, University of Surrey

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn't bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.
Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.

Continue ReadingWhy the shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis is so significant – expert Q&A

Israel’s War with Iran Isn’t America’s Fight—And Voters Know It

Spread the love

Original article by Medea Benjamin republished from Mint Press News under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

When Israel launched a surprise military strike on Iran last week, it did more than risk igniting a catastrophic regional war. It also exposed long-simmering tensions in Washington—between entrenched bipartisan, pro-Israel hawks and a growing current of lawmakers (and voters) unwilling to be dragged into another Middle East disaster.

“This is not our war,” declared Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), one of the House’s most consistent antiwar voices. “Israel doesn’t need U.S. taxpayers’ money for defense if it already has enough to start offensive wars. I vote not to fund this war of aggression.” On social media, he polled followers on whether the U.S. should give Israel weapons to attack Iran. After 126,000 votes (and 2.5 million views), the answer was unequivocal: 85% said no.

For decades, questioning U.S. support for Israel has been a third rail in Congress. But Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran—coming just as the sixth round of sensitive U.S.-Iran nuclear talks were set to take place in Oman—sparked rare and unusually direct criticism from across the political spectrum. Progressive members, already furious over Israel’s war on Gaza, were quick to condemn the new offensive. But they weren’t alone.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) called Israel’s strike “reckless” and “escalatory,” and warned that Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to drag the U.S. into a broader war. Rep. Chuy García (D-IL) called Israel’s actions “diplomatic sabotage” and said, “the U.S. must stop supplying offensive weapons to Israel, which also continue to be used against Gaza, & urgently recommit to negotiations.”

Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) was even more blunt. “The war criminal Netanyahu wants to ignite an endless regional war & drag the U.S. into it. Any politician who tries to help him betrays us all.”

More striking, however, were the critiques from moderate Democrats and some Republicans.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), a longtime advocate for requiring congressional approval before the U.S. gets involved in new wars, blasted Israel for jeopardizing planned U.S.-Iran diplomacy. “The American people have no interest in another forever war,” he wrote. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that strikes “threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians but the stability of the entire Middle East and the safety of American citizens and forces.”

Some pro-Israel Democrats are feeling comfortable speaking out on this conflict because it fits their anti-Trump critique. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said:

We are at this crisis today because President Trump foolishly walked away from President Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement under which Iran had agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear program and to open its facilities to international inspections, putting more eyes on the ground. The United States should now lead the international community towards a diplomatic solution to avoid a wider war.”

Adding to this diverse chorus of opposition are some Republicans from the party’s non-interventionist wing. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) declared, “War with Iran is not in America’s interest. It would destabilize the region, cost countless lives, and drain our resources for generations.” Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) lamented that “some members of Congress and U.S. Senators seem giddy about the prospects of a bigger war.”

And in a rare show of agreement with progressive critics, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) blasted the hawks in both parties. “We’ve been told for the past 20 years that Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb any day now. The same story. Everyone I know is tired of U.S. intervention and regime change in foreign countries. Everyone I know wants us to fix our own problems here at home, not bomb other countries.”

Of course, many in Congress rushed to support Israel. Senate Republican leader John Thune said, “Israel has determined that it must take decisive action to defend the Israeli people.” Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) voiced full support for the strike and urged the U.S. to provide Israel “whatever is necessary—military, intelligence, weaponry.”

The most crass was Senator Lindsey Graham, who posted:

Game on. Pray for Israel.”

But these crude pro-war responses, once guaranteed to go unchallenged, are now being met with resistance–and not just from activists. With public opinion shifting sharply–especially among younger voters, progressives, and “America First-ers” – the political calculus on unconditional support for Israel is changing. In the wake of Israel’s disastrous war in Gaza and its widening regional provocations, members of Congress are being forced to choose: follow the AIPAC money and the old playbook–or listen to their constituents.

If the American people continue to raise their voices, the tide in Washington could turn away from support for a war with Iran that could plunge the region into deeper chaos while offering no relief for the suffering people of Gaza. We could finally see an end to decades of disastrous unconditional support for Israel and knee-jerk support for catastrophic wars.

Feature photo | Israelis gather next to a direct hit site following an Iranian missile strike against Israel, June 16th 2025. Matan Golan | AP

Medea Benjamin is co-founder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace. She is the co-author, with Nicolas J.S. Davies, of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, available from OR Books in November 2022. Other books include, “Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran” (2018); “Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection” (2016); “Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control” (2013); “Don’t Be Afraid Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks from the Heart” (1989), and (with Jodie Evans) “Stop the Next War Now” (2005).

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

Original article by Medea Benjamin republished from Mint Press News under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

Continue ReadingIsrael’s War with Iran Isn’t America’s Fight—And Voters Know It

Trump returns: nine things to expect for the climate

Spread the love

Below the Sky/Shutterstock

Jack Marley, The Conversation

Climate scientists are probably among those most aggrieved by Donald Trump’s return as US president.

Trump has scoffed at the increasingly dire warnings of these scientists and declared his enthusiasm for digging up and burning the coal, oil and gas that is overheating Earth. His empowerment of the far right dims prospects for collective solutions to collective problems, but what is he likely to change about US climate policy?


This roundup of The Conversation’s climate coverage comes from our award-winning weekly climate action newsletter. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed.


Trump has not published a climate agenda. To discern his impact on domestic and international policy, we have to sift through statements, appointments to political positions and the record of his first term.

Here, our academics glean grim portents for the years ahead – and some continuities with supposedly pro-climate presidents of the past.

1. It’s still ‘drill, baby, drill’

Trump’s three-word campaign slogan, “drill, baby, drill”, is intended to sum up his plans for the US oil and gas industry. It’s also an apt summary of existing US energy policy.

Since 2008, when Democrat Barack Obama was elected, oil production has soared from a 50-year low of 6.8 billion barrels a day to 19.4 billion in 2023.

A dry landscape littered with oil derricks.
Not starved of investment: an oil field in California. Alizada Studios/Shutterstock

“The United States is already producing more crude oil than any country ever,” says Gautam Jain, an energy and finance expert at Columbia University.

“Oil and gas companies are buying back stocks and paying dividends to shareholders at a record pace, which they wouldn’t do if they saw better investment opportunities.”

2. We won’t always have Paris (or even Rio)

Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Paris agreement on the first day of his second term (it took him six months to do it last time).

Jain frets that he may go further and exit international negotiations entirely, by rescinding his country’s membership of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Rejoining would be “nearly impossible”, Jain says, as a future president would need the consent of two-thirds of the Senate.

The US risks dropping the mantle of climate leadership on China, he adds. A recent analysis by Oxford economists Matthew Carl Ives and Natalie Sum Yue Chung suggests that that ship may have sailed years ago.

“China already processes most of the clean energy supply materials and has an advanced manufacturing base that is more capable of scaling up production to meet the rising demand,” they say.

3. The bucks stop here?

A US retreat from international climate diplomacy would afflict people who are particularly vulnerable to the mounting crisis in Earth’s atmosphere. Jain highlights how Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden donated several billions of dollars more towards renewable energy and adaptation in the developing world, compared with Trump in his first term.

However, a 2023 study that estimated each country’s “fair share” of this climate finance pot according to income, population size and historical emissions, issued this withering assessment while Biden was president:

“Based on these metrics, we found that the US is overwhelmingly responsible for the climate finance shortfall,” says environmental economist Sarah Colenbrander (University of Oxford).

“The world’s largest economy should be providing US$43.5 billion of climate finance a year. In 2021, it gave just US$9.3 billion – a meagre 21% of its fair share.”

4. Biden’s green tax credits may endure…

Trump could keep some Biden-era investments in clean energy (tax breaks for investors in renewables, for example) as the benefits are accruing in Republican states, Jain says.

He may still cut tax credits for people buying electric vehicles, though. This would slow the transition from combustion-engine transport by making it harder for people to afford an EV. (Biden’s 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs hasn’t help either).

5. … but his methane tax probably won’t

Jain predicts that the greatest damage inflicted by Trump will be to the regulation of fossil fuels and emissions. In his crosshairs is a federal charge for the release of methane from oil and gas wells and pipelines.

Biden identified cutting methane emissions as a potential brake on the accelerating pace of global heating. That’s because methane is a greenhouse gas that lingers in our atmosphere for decades instead of centuries like CO₂ and is far more potent in trapping heat during that time.

Reducing methane emissions could reduce climate change quickly – a climate action lifeline we will be sorry to see thrown away.

6. The nuclear option

Trump seems to have a soft spot for one low-carbon energy source: nuclear power. Perhaps because civil nuclear maintains the skills and supply chains needed for its military applications?

7. Up is down, left is right

Democrats may regret making “trust the science” their dividing line against Trump.

Eric Nast, an environmental governance expert at the University of Guelph, tracked how the first Trump administration altered language on US government websites.

He expects Trump to disguise his regulation bonfire as “strengthening transparency” (blocking air pollution standards that rely on private health data) and championing “citizen science” (dismissing academics from advisory boards for private citizens rich in time and money, who might benefit from scrapping rules and limiting scrutiny).

8. Fighting fire with money

Tesla’s Elon Musk, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg attended Trump’s second inauguration. Their presence – plus a pointed farewell speech by Biden – has provoked murmurs of “oligarchy”: rule by people whose immense wealth and influence has utterly captured ostensibly democratic societies.

At the still-raging LA fires, an oligarch-friendly response to climate change has presented itself: firefighters-for-hire.

“As public firefighters struggle to cope, affluent residents and businesses have turned to private firefighting services to protect their properties,” says Doug Specht, a University of Westminster geographer.

9. Arctic relations

What explains Trump’s sudden interest in the Arctic? Oil, gas and critical minerals newly liberated by thawing ice in a region warming four times faster than the global average says engineer Tricia Stadnyk at the University of Calgary.

“The second Trump administration is aware of both the new opportunities and risks as global temperatures shatter new records and thresholds, and an ice-free Arctic becomes a possibility,” she says.

Jack Marley, Environment + Energy Editor, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Continue ReadingTrump returns: nine things to expect for the climate

‘Far Too Little, Far Too Late,’ Say Critics as Biden Finally Removes Cuba From Terror List

Spread the love

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

CodePink led a November 2, 2022 rally against the U.S. economic blockade of Cuba outside the White House in Washington, D.C. (Photo: CodePink)

“Seriously? You wait until six days before leaving office to do what you promised to do during your 2020 campaign?” said one observer.

In a move likely to be reversed by the incoming Trump administration, President Joe Biden on Tuesday notified Congress of his intent to remove Cuba from the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list, a designation that critics have long condemned as politically motivated and meritless.

Noting that “the government of Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism” and has “provided assurances” that it will not do so in the future, the White House said in a memo that the Biden administration is moving to rescind the first Trump administration’s January 2021 addition of Cuba to the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) list and take other measures to ease some sanctions on the long-suffering island of 11 million inhabitants.

Cuba’s SSOT designation was based mostly on the socialist nation’s harboring of leftist Colombian rebels and several U.S. fugitives from justice for alleged crimes committed decades ago, even though no other country has been placed on the SSOT list for such a reason and despite right-wing Cuban exile terrorists enjoying citizenship—and even heroic status—in the United States.

“Despite its limited nature, it is a decision in the right direction and in line with the sustained and firm demand of the government and people of Cuba, and with the broad, emphatic, and repeated call of many governments, especially Latin America and the Caribbean, of Cubans living abroad, political, religious and social organizations, and numerous political figures from the United States and other countries,” the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.

“It is important to note that the economic blockade and much of the dozen coercive measures that have been put into effect since 2017 remain in force to strengthen it, with full extraterritorial effect and in violation of international law and human rights of all Cubans,” the ministry added.

https://twitter.com/cidelson/status/1879273086085939288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1879273086085939288%7Ctwgr%5Ea895ab5425ec3540961455b263e9b98fa9fd162d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fcuba-ssot

Sorry, this content could not be embedded.

X

For 32 straight years, the United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly voted for resolutions condemning the U.S. blockade of Cuba. And for 32 years, the United States, usually along with a small handful of countries, has opposed the measures. Last year’s vote was 187-2, with Israel joining the U.S. in voting against the resolution.

Cuba followed Biden’s move by announcing it would “gradually” release 553 political prisoners following negotiations with the Catholic Church, The New York Timesreported.

Many progressives welcomed Biden’s shift. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that Cuba’s SSOT designation “has only worsened life for the Cuban people without advancing U.S. interests” and “has made it harder for Cubans to access humanitarian aid, banking services, and the ability to travel abroad.”

“It has also deepened food and medicine shortages and worsened the island’s energy crisis, especially after Hurricane Rafael,” she added. “These hardships have driven an unprecedented wave of migration, leading to the largest exodus in Cuba’s history.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called Biden’s move “a long overdue action that will help normalize relations with our neighbor.”

“This is a step toward ending decades of failed policy that has only hurt Cuban families and strained diplomatic ties,” Omar added. “Removing this designation will help the people of Cuba and create new opportunities for trade and cooperation between our nations. I look forward to continuing the work to build bridges between our countries and supporting policies that benefit both the American and Cuban people.”

https://twitter.com/dsa_intl_comm/status/1879288137966641462?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1879288137966641462%7Ctwgr%5E5bb7e50bbcb151d4ef02ea69a12198cf5b1fc9ef%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fcuba-ssot

Sorry, this content could not be embedded.

X

David Adler, the co-general coordinator at Progressive International, called the delisting “far too little, far too late.”

“POTUS removing Cuba’s SSOT designation in the final days of his presidency only means one thing: He knew—from day one—that the designation was simply an excuse to punish the Cuban people,” Adler added. “But he maintained it anyway. Sickening.”

The peace group CodePink released a statement welcoming Biden’s shift, but adding that “it is unacceptable that it took this administration four years to address these injustices.”

“President Biden made the inhumane decision every single day to not alleviate the suffering of millions of Cubans by keeping this designation in place,” the group added. “As we mark this overdue progress, we can only hope that the Trump administration does not reverse these crucial steps towards justice and diplomacy.”

Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is the son of Cuban immigrants and a fierce critic of Cuba’s socialist government. In 2021, Rubio introduced legislation aimed at blocking Cuba’s removal from the SSOT list. Trump has also tapped Mauricio Claver-Carone—a staunch supporter of sanctioning Cuba—as his special envoy for Latin America.

Alex Main, director of international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said Tuesday that “while this decision, which comes years after 80 members of Congress urged Biden to reverse Trump’s ‘total pressure’ approach should have been made long ago, it is better late than never.”

“Sixty years of failed policy should be more than enough, and hopefully the new administration will have the wisdom and the courage to pursue a new course, one that’s in the best interest of both the U.S. and the Cuban people,” Main added.

Cuba was first placed on the SSOT list by the Reagan administration in 1982 amid an ongoing, decadeslong campaign of U.S.-backed exile terrorismattempted subversionfailed assassination attemptseconomic warfare, and covert operations large and small in a futile effort to overthrow the revolutionary government of longtime leader Fidel Castro. Cuba says U.S.-backed terrorism has killed or wounded more than 5,000 Cubans and cost its economy billions of dollars.

In stark contrast, Cuba has not committed any terrorism against the United States.

Former President Barack Obama removed Cuba from the SSOT in 2015 during a promising but ultimately short-lived rapprochement between the two countries that abruptly ended when Trump took office for the first time in 2017.

“Cuba will continue to confront and denounce this policy of economic war, the interference programs, and the disinformation and discredit operations financed each year with tens of millions of dollars from the United States federal budget,” the Cuban Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. “It will also remain ready to develop a relationship of respect with that country, based on dialogue and noninterference in the internal affairs of both, despite differences.”

David Adler, the co-general coordinator at Progressive International, called the delisting “far too little, far too late.”

“POTUS removing Cuba’s SSOT designation in the final days of his presidency only means one thing: He knew—from day one—that the designation was simply an excuse to punish the Cuban people,” Adler added. “But he maintained it anyway. Sickening.”

The peace group CodePink released a statement welcoming Biden’s shift, but adding that “it is unacceptable that it took this administration four years to address these injustices.”

“President Biden made the inhumane decision every single day to not alleviate the suffering of millions of Cubans by keeping this designation in place,” the group added. “As we mark this overdue progress, we can only hope that the Trump administration does not reverse these crucial steps towards justice and diplomacy.”

Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is the son of Cuban immigrants and a fierce critic of Cuba’s socialist government. In 2021, Rubio introduced legislation aimed at blocking Cuba’s removal from the SSOT list. Trump has also tapped Mauricio Claver-Carone—a staunch supporter of sanctioning Cuba—as his special envoy for Latin America.

Alex Main, director of international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said Tuesday that “while this decision, which comes years after 80 members of Congress urged Biden to reverse Trump’s ‘total pressure’ approach should have been made long ago, it is better late than never.”

“Sixty years of failed policy should be more than enough, and hopefully the new administration will have the wisdom and the courage to pursue a new course, one that’s in the best interest of both the U.S. and the Cuban people,” Main added.

Cuba was first placed on the SSOT list by the Reagan administration in 1982 amid an ongoing, decadeslong campaign of U.S.-backed exile terrorismattempted subversionfailed assassination attemptseconomic warfare, and covert operations large and small in a futile effort to overthrow the revolutionary government of longtime leader Fidel Castro. Cuba says U.S.-backed terrorism has killed or wounded more than 5,000 Cubans and cost its economy billions of dollars.

In stark contrast, Cuba has not committed any terrorism against the United States.

Former President Barack Obama removed Cuba from the SSOT in 2015 during a promising but ultimately short-lived rapprochement between the two countries that abruptly ended when Trump took office for the first time in 2017.

“Cuba will continue to confront and denounce this policy of economic war, the interference programs, and the disinformation and discredit operations financed each year with tens of millions of dollars from the United States federal budget,” the Cuban Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. “It will also remain ready to develop a relationship of respect with that country, based on dialogue and noninterference in the internal affairs of both, despite differences.”

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue Reading‘Far Too Little, Far Too Late,’ Say Critics as Biden Finally Removes Cuba From Terror List

COP26 News review day 8

Spread the love

Obama implores world leaders to ‘step up now’ to avert climate disaster

Barack Obama has called on world leaders to “step up and step up now” to avert climate breakdown, singling out China and Russia for being foremost among countries that are failing to cut planet-heating emissions quickly enough.

Obama said that while progress has been made at the Glasgow climate talks, including significant pledges made by countries to reduce methane emissions and to end deforestation, “we are nowhere near where we need to be at” in cutting emissions and that “most nations have failed to be as ambitious as they need to be”.

HSBC led big banks’ charge against climate change action

HSBC coordinated efforts to try and water down action on climate change in the banking sector by seeking to delay a key deadline and scrap mandatory science-based targets for a major net-zero alliance, the Bureau can reveal.

Revealed: 1,000 fossil fuel and big business reps at COP26

Nearly 1,000 representatives from the fossil fuel industry, big business and nuclear power companies have registered to attend the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, according to an analysis by The Ferret.

They include executives from Shell, BP, Equinor, Chevron, Total, Gazprom and other major oil and gas companies, as well as multinational corporations such as McDonald’s, Bayer, Walmart, HSBC, PepsiCo, Nestlé and Microsoft.

There are also delegations from the coal industry, tobacco companies and pesticide manufacturers. Eleven people from two climate sceptic think-tanks have registered for the summit.

Wera Hobhouse MP: Tory fossil fuel funding is delaying an end date for fossil fuels

‘As long as we have a Government dominated by vested interests, the UK will make no progress on climate action.’

Wera Hobhouse is the Liberal Democrats’ justice spokesperson and MP for Bath.

To reach net zero, we need an end date for the use of fossil fuels. Yet, the Government is taking us backwards on tackling climate change. Any wonder when they are bankrolled by fossil fuel interests and climate sceptics? As long as we have a Government dominated by vested interests, the UK will make no progress on climate action. 

Earlier this week, an investigation revealed that the Conservative party and its MPs received £1.3m in gifts and donations from climate sceptics and fossil fuel interests since the election in 2019. 

How the UK Government is funnelling billions into fossil fuel projects abroad

While spinning itself as a ‘leader’ in fighting climate change, the UK is funnelling billions into climate wrecking fossil fuel projects overseas

Continue ReadingCOP26 News review day 8