SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
barack obama
'Far Too Little, Far Too Late,' Say Critics as Biden Finally Removes Cuba From Terror List
"Seriously? You wait until six days before leaving office to do what you promised to do during your 2020 campaign?" said one observer.
Jan 14, 2025
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.
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."
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 terrorism, attempted subversion, failed assassination attempts, economic 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."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sunrise Launches 'People, Not Billionaires' Pledge for DNC Chair Candidates
"The influence of corporate money in the Democratic Party is undermining Democrats' ability to win elections," said one organizer.
Jan 14, 2025
As Democratic National Committee members prepare to vote on the next party chair in February, leading progressive advocacy groups on Tuesday launched an open letter to candidates to warn that Democratic leaders "must decisively show that the party is for the people—not billionaires or corporations."
To do that, said the Sunrise Movement and several allied organizations, the winning candidate must pledge to revive the Obama-era ban on corporate lobbyist donations to the DNC and to ban super PAC spending in Democratic primaries.
The groups, which also include Gen-Z for Change, Justice Democrats, and the Green New Deal Network, are calling on candidates to sign the "People, Not Billionaires" pledge.
The committee is voting on the new chair on February 1, days after President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office and three months after the Democratic Party suffered devastating losses in the federal elections.
"The influence of corporate money in the Democratic Party is undermining Democrats' ability to win elections," said Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the Sunrise Movememt. "It's time for the Democratic Party to represent everyday Americans and return power to the people."
As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama introduced a ban on DNC donations from corporate lobbyists and PACs, promising, "We are going to change how Washington works."
The restriction was rolled back in 2016, angering economic justice and pro-democracy advocates who warned the move was "out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington," as Democracy 21 founder Fred Wertheimer toldThe Washington Post at the time.
On Tuesday, the Sunrise Movement said reinstating the ban on lobbyist and PAC donations is essential for the Democrats to "decisively show that the party is for the people—not billionaires or corporations."
The pledge reads:
I pledge to build a party that delivers for everyday people and fights to end the corrosive influence of big money in our politics. I will work to ensure that billionaire donors cannot shape the Democratic party or Democratic party primaries.
I will revive President Obama's ban on contributions from corporate lobbyists and PACs to the DNC.
I will use every tool at my disposal to ban SuperPAC spending in Democratic primaries, including: (a) forming and chairing a committee of DNC members to investigate how to end SuperPAC influence in Democratic primaries; (b) I will urge and support state Democratic parties to ban SuperPAC spending over $5,000 in Democratic primaries (c) I will cut ties between the DNC and any donors or consultants that work with those SuperPACs.
With super PACs being "bankrolled by oil CEOs, crypto moguls, and GOP billionaires like Elon Musk," said Sunrise, the wealthiest people and corporations in the country are being given "free rein to buy our elections—and defeat candidates who represent the needs of working people."
Efforts to ban super PAC spending in primaries will ensure that "candidates who represent the voices of working people" have a chance of winning the support of voters, "rather than being undermined" by wealthy groups.
The progressive think tank Data for Progress found in a poll in December that 70% of all voters—and 80% of Democrats—support a ban on super PAC spending in Democratic primaries. Three-quarters of voters said that without such spending, elected officials would be "more responsive to their voters."
"The Democratic Party must be the party of the people—not billionaires or corporations," said Shiney-Ajay. "Young people are organizing for a future where our democracy works for us, not the wealthy few."
Candidates for the DNC chairmanship include Ben Wikler, Wisconsin Democratic Party chair; Ken Martin, chair of the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party; former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley; and former presidential candidate Marianne Williamson.
Progressive lawmakers including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) have spoken out in recent months about corporate and super PAC spending, with Sanders saying in August, "If you're serious about the power of money in politics, you can say today, sorry, no super PACs allowed in primaries."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Democratic Party Deserves Its Image as a Party of War
To explore possibilities for how that might change will require a candid assessment of how that image came into focus in the 21st century.
Dec 21, 2024
While analyzing the tailspin of the Biden presidency and the failed campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris, few pundits have questioned that militarism is a political necessity as well as a vital tool of U.S. foreign policy.
Harris checked a standard box at the Democratic National Convention when she pledged to maintain “the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” Yet the erosion of the Democratic Party’s base is partly due to the alienation of voters who don’t want to cast their ballot for what they see as a war party.
That perception is especially acute among the young, and notable among African Americans. Many have viewed President Joe Biden’s resolute support for the Israeli war in Gaza as a moral collapse. When Harris remained loyal to it during the fall campaign, her credibility sank.
Conditions may soon shift for the Democratic Party to start moving beyond its war culture.
Events in recent weeks have done nothing to reassure those repelled by the Democratic administration’s approach. Biden’s purported 30-day deadline for Israel to start allowing adequate food into Gaza expired shortly after the election—without Israeli compliance—while the humanitarian disaster in Gaza actually became worse than ever. Biden’s White House pretended otherwise.
The ongoing hellish realities for Palestinian civilians in Gaza caused 40% of Senate Democrats to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) post-election resolution to block $20 billion worth of military aid to Israel. But near the end of November, Biden followed up by greenlighting an additional $680 million in arms sales to Israel. While Republicans remained in lockstep for arming Israel, the budding dissent from congressional Democrats remained ineffectual.
On Ukraine war policy, dissent has been rare from Democratic lawmakers. Two years ago, 30 progressive House Democrats sent a letter to Biden that suggested “a proactive diplomatic push” could be useful for achieving a cease-fire—but they quickly withdrew the letter after an angry backlash from hawkish leaders in their own party. (Republican lawmakers are split on Ukraine policy—many want the U.S. to recklessly confront China instead of Russia.)
Few Democrats have mustered more than feeble caveats about open-ended military aid to the Kyiv government, merely watching as the Biden administration repeatedly crosses its own red lines on such matters as approval of longer-range Ukrainian missile strikes into Russia. For the Ukraine war, in the lexicon of high-ranking Democrats, “diplomacy” has been a dirty word.
Overall, the president has accelerated the war train (sometimes hailing more war production as good for the U.S. economy), with party leaders providing fuel and Democratic constituents confined to the caboose. The opinions of the party faithful count for little.
Polling has made clear that an overwhelming majority of Democrats want a U.S. arms embargo against Israel. On Ukraine, a poll early this year found that while less than one-fifth of Democrats wanted to end all military aid to Ukraine, upwards of half wanted to make it conditional on diplomatic talks, a stance firmly rejected by the administration.
Fond of telling the world about the imperative of a “rules-based order” to stop cross-border aggression, Biden and his secretary of State, Antony Blinken, rationalize breaking the rules at will. This year, in the Middle East, the U.S. launched bombing attacks on Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. Objections from leaders of the president’s party have not been audible.
The Democratic Party deserves its image as a party of war. To explore possibilities for how that might change will require a candid assessment of how that image came into focus in the 21st century.
Soon after Barack Obama became president in 2009, he made the “war on terror” explicitly bipartisan. With the Democratic Party in tow, he tripled the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, peaking at 100,000 in 2010—swiftly escalating a war inflicting widespread carnage in rural areas out of media sight.
In Iraq, the war effort persisted as the number of U.S. boots on the ground slowly declined. Meanwhile, Obama stepped up drone attacks in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. And with disastrous consequences for Libya, Obama had the United States lead NATO’s seven-month bombing onslaught of that country in 2011, incubating terrorism that expanded far beyond its borders.
Today, the most powerful Democrats are well attuned to the dominant media messaging and the agendas of megadonors, establishment “think tanks,” Pentagon contractors, and their lobbyists swarming Capitol Hill. With the military budget approaching $1 trillion, along with multibillion-dollar weapons shipments to allied nations, corporations of varied sizes make huge profits from war. And revolving doors between arms sellers and government arms buyers never stop spinning.
Conditions may soon shift for the Democratic Party to start moving beyond its war culture. But that will require a willingness to challenge the assumptions of elected Democrats who are in sync with what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular