Top Cuban official says Obama lied in Copenhagen

[demoleft]

Source: ap

HAVANA – Cuba's foreign minister called President Barack Obama an "imperial and arrogant" liar Monday for his conduct at the U.N. climate conference, a reflection of the communist island's increasingly fiery verbal attacks on the U.S. government.

Bruno Rodriguez spent an hour and a half lambasting Obama's behavior in Copenhagen, telling a news conference, "at this summit, there was only imperial, arrogant Obama, who does not listen, who imposes his positions and even threatens developing countries."
...
He singled out comments Obama made during a news conference in Copenhagen, when the U.S. president said no agreement had yet been reached but he was confident one would before the summit ended. "Obama knew he was lying, that he was deceiving public opinion," the foreign minister said.

When asked if Cuba was serious about forging a climate agreement given that President Raul Castro declared Copenhagen a failure days before it ended, Rodriguez said, "Cuba's prestige is well-recognized in international negotiations."


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091222/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_us_obama

---

ok. this is an escalating verbal aggression against obama on the part of cuba, in a delicate moment of his presidency.
aiming to what?

[bemildred]

1. Mr Rodriquez is doing Obama a favor here.

I dunno what his real motives might be, a number of possibilities come to mind, but I would expect that Obama welcomes this "abuse".

[demoleft]

2. you're right. but indeed, i do not understand cuba political strategy these weeks. n/t

[bemildred]

6. I don't know either.

On the other hand I don't see any reason why they would want to suck up to Obama at this point.

[ChangoLoa]

25. Status quo favors some? nt

[bemildred]

29. Why yes, I suppose it probably does. nt

[nyy1998]

22. Indeed, this definitly helps Obama

Cuban Americans in Florida will probably notice that Obama and Castro aren't exactly friends. As the saying goes "an enemy of my enemy...."

[David__77]

35. I doubt that the audience is the US public in this case.

The point is that Cuba is attempting to reiterate that the US has not fundamentally changed in character since the presidency of Obama. That point would be true.

[bemildred]

44. There can be more than one audience, and audiences other than the "intended" one.

That said, I agree with what you say, it is not likely that he intends to address the US public.

[Cal Carpenter]

3. I wasn't aware an *island* could launch a verbal attack

:eyes:

[FiveGoodMen]

7. It's a magical, talking island. That's why we've been afraid of it for all these years.

[WriteDown]

4. I wonder what Cuba's biggest CO2 emmitter is . nt

[kjones]

14. Cigars? nt

[demoleft]

49. hehe ;) good one. n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

39. If their CO2 levels are very low they might be worry that their neighbors

would make the world a trash can

[WriteDown]

43. Kind of like how China's pollution drifts into California?

I can see that.

[EFerrari]

5. When Obama announced to the press that an accord had been reac hed

more of the attending members -- like the G77 for example -- didn't know anything about it and had not ratified it. I believe that is what Rodriguez is referring to.

[demoleft]

8. yes, but you would admit that there's a returning chord striking these days...

...and it's against obama from cuba. a concentration of very aggressive tones and words.
this makes me curious. i do not understand where cuba heads to with this.

ciao.

[Mika]

15. Maybe you should check out Mr Obama's statements and comments about Cuba.

First he was dead set against the unproductive and harmful (to both countries) US sanctions on Cuba, but then, when he came prezidentshull campaigning to Miami he suddenly was for the US sanctions on Cuba. He remains so. Since then, many of his comments about Cuba and Venezuela have been right outta the BFEE/Milton Friedman/disaster capitalism textbooks. It gets the blood money running in the US and in Cuba and Venezuela. For US entities it means profits (at the expense of the crumbling infrastructure that needs resources). For Cuba it means defensive costs (at the expense of an ever expanding and improving infrastructure that needs resources to more fully build out Cuba's social endeavors). No comment on Venezuela (I'm not all that familiar with the country now).


:hi:

[EFerrari]

27. The honeymoon Obama enjoyed in Latin America, including with Cuba

is over, I'm afraid. :(

[demoleft]

50. and that's a pity, because part of the hope for a new turn in politics...

...is on US and on obama. that's why i hope it's just time he needs. he's in a very delicate moment, part of this lays on the fact that his candidacy was fed with hope and faith in change. expectations he has to meet.

ciao to you. :)

[Joe Chi Minh]

53. Weird, meaningless, rhetorical platitudes, as well a 'untruths' seem to be a speciality of

Obama. The first give-away for me was probably the name of that book he wrote: The Audacity of Hope.

Well, hope is never notably audacious, unless it's foolhardy. It is one of the default attitudes of sentient human-beings, or they would commit suicide. 'Hope springs eternal in the human breast.' Reformed drug-addicts need it, if they are to overcome their addiction. That anecdote McCain plagiarised from Solzhentizin about the prison guard is a wonderful illustration of its power. But far from being audacious, when Solzhenitzin was inspired by it, it was like a load off his back - and that, in the direst of circumstances, in the Siberian prison camp.

In the case of Obama, the American people felt like that, when he won the presidency. But it was a 'teaser', wasn't it? And that was the fear all along. You were 'buying a pig in a poke'. So, believing in Obama really was audacious. Well, foolhardy. But after Bush, who wouldn't have wanted to believe Obama would repeal the policies that had been the most lethal to the people: hold-overs of Bush in terms of the banks, mortgages, credit-cards, the health-system and the wars.

You knew, more or less, what to expect, certainly to fear, from Hillary, what with Bill's ever cosier relationship with the Bushes. But another of Obama's 'teaser' was 'Change you can believe in!' It would have sounded so much less equivocal had he been more specific and said, 'Change you can see and measure; in the most important area of your life: survival.' Joe Bageant wrily remarked of older generations in one of his essays, they are scared of change, for crying out loud! The only changes they'd ever seen were for the worse! There was a lot of black humour in that, until now - and you realise Joe's people knew a thing or two about American politics.

[EFerrari]

54. "Change you can believe in" is not the statement of a pragmatist.

lol

:hi:

[Joe Chi Minh]

55. Nor, it seems, an idealist, at least with a spark of fire in his belly!

lol

:fistbump:

[Goldstein1984]

9. Just tossing this out for conversation, but...

Both Cuba and Venezuela have increased the anti-American and anti-imperialism rhetoric of late. Chavez received a standing ovation from developing nations several times while condemning capitalism and imperialism in Copenhagen. Evo Morales also condemned capitalism and imperialism in Copenhagen.

Hugo Chavez initially expressed hope following the election of Barack Obama, but now he says he smells sulfur again.

Could it simply be that it isn't Obama but the American Empire being attacked? That Obama is just the figurehead, and he may be turning out to be as big a disappointment to the Third World as he has been to many American Progressives?

Hugo Chavez gave Barack Obama a book, "Open Veins of Latin America," by Eduardo Galeano. A very good history of 500 years of institutionalized exploitation of the people of Latin America by foreign empires. He obviously had high hopes for Obama. With Obama's handling of Honduras; his expanding military ties with Columbia; and his continuation of illegal Bush/Cheney wars and targeted killings in the Middle East, perhaps there is something real and legitimate about the concerns of our neighbors to the south.

Just a thought.

[WriteDown]

10. Just tossing this out for conversation, but...

Its odd that these reps from countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, etc. never give a mention to the world's BIGGEST CO2 producer, China.

[Goldstein1984]

11. Total, or per capita?

And China hasn't been backing coups in Latin America for decades.

[WriteDown]

16. If Cuba had been talking about the US's role in LA than that's what I would have addressed...

They only chose to address Copenhagen. So if you have more people then we'll let climate change slide?

edited for grammar

[Goldstein1984]

30. Per Capita is what counts

The point is that in terms of population, the U.S. has for times the impact per person. We're 5% of the worlds population, we're entitled to 5% of the environment to use as our trash heap. We use much more.

(That said, if China keeps up as it's going, it won't be long before they catch up.)

As far as Cuba goes, the issue being addressed goes far beyond climate change. The third world is waking up. The statement from the Cubans, while addressing the behavior of Obama, was just as much a part of a general movement and addressed Obama's behavior in general. Chavez's speech was delivered at COP15, but it went far beyond climate change to address imperialism and capitalism in general.

This idea that the rest of the world should postpone or restrict development because we got into the pollution business first and staked our claim doesn't fly.

They are entitled to every bit of per capita pollution that the U.S. is, or they are entitled to compensation to make up for prohibited development.

There will be no workable climate treaty until developed nations accept that.

Sorry, but I'm a biologist and an environmental engineer. You can't ignore population and area when measuring environmental impact. That some of us believe that our rate of consumption and waste generation on a population doesn't matter just proves that the developing world is correct about us.

[WriteDown]

32. If that's the case then why worry about climate change at all..

Without countries such as China and India on board any reforms mean nothing. They would just serve to put the US at a disadvantage which seems to be the objective at this point.

If Cuba's statement was about general behavior than they should have said that. Why disguise the language? Say what you mean.

"This idea that the rest of the world should postpone or restrict development because we got into the pollution business first and staked our claim doesn't fly."

So other countries are entitled to make any mistake we have made? Destroying indigenous peoples, etc. Interesting. Too bad for Tibet I suppose. Are they also allow to dump as much chemical, nuclear waste into the Earth as they like?

[Goldstein1984]

33. There will be no agreement if we don't accommodate the

developing nations. There will be no climate change treaty if we expect others to sit stagnant while we continue to emit greenhouse gases. It would take an extreme act of imperialism on our part to force a one-sided treaty down the throats of the Third World.

And no, they should not repeat all of our crimes against humanity, but that is for the United Nations to deal with, not us. Nor should we be allowed to continue to benefit disproportionately for our crimes.

To think that the rest of the world should comply with greenhouse gas restrictions, uncompensated, while we continue to consume energy and pollute the atmosphere is an act of imperial hubris equal to any committed by Bush/Cheney.

Any treaty must be equitable.

And the statement by Cuba was part of a larger pattern of anti-imperialism.

[WriteDown]

42. There will be no agreement even IF we accomodate teh developing nations..

as China clearly showed at Copenhagen. They clearly said that they would tolerate no new regulation or their enforcement. Case closed.

The United Nations? Seriously?! I guess that is the "feel good" position when you know nothing will ever get done. Talk about ineffective. And interestingly enough, last time I checked, we were a big force in the UN.

Uncompensated? So they have to be bribed? What else should we pay them for? To not use child labor? How about to not use slavery? Shouldn't they have a chance to grow their economies the way we did?

Once again, Cuba should say what it means. Maybe it has more to do with Cuba's oil deal with China than anything else . Same as Venezuela.

[Goldstein1984]

46. And that, in a nutshell, is why COP15

ended in failure, unless you call a non-binding agreement between the U.S., China, Brazil, and a few other nations a success.

It isn't bribery, it's equity. The U.S. produces 25% of the world's greenhouse emissions with only 5% of the world's population. If we're going to keep doing that, then we're going to have to compensate those that we ask to produce fewer emissions. Otherwise, they will do what is in their interest and develop just as we have done.

Again, to think we have the write to produce five times our share of greenhouse emissions while other nations voluntarily remain underdeveloped is the height of imperial hubris. If that's okay with you, then we disagree, and there is nothing further to argue.

Cuba did say what it meant, it was just part of a larger pattern developing in the world--push-back against empire. Again, if you do not see that general pattern developing, and this Cuba's statement isn't a part of it, then we disagree, and there is nothing further to argue.

As far as the U.N. goes, would you rather that the U.S. continue to involve itself is Bush/Cheney style intervention everywhere its "vital national interests" are at stake? The United States, with it's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, is among the major reasons the U.N. is ineffective. We ignore it when it suits our purpose, then we wonder why others ignore it when it suits theirs.

We're going to need five planets if 100% of the world's population decided to consume resources and pollute the way we do. There is no reasonable option besides working cooperatively and equitably with other nations. And we can't afford to be the police force for the entire world.

[WriteDown]

47. Failure?

Non-binding agreement sounds exactyly like a "U.N." success to me!

It's a euphemism. Plain and simple. The exact same thing could be said about child labor.

According to you, Cuba did not say what it meant.

The U.N. has been ineffective long before Iraq and Afghanistan, but nice strawman.

It amazes me that someone so concerned about the U.S.'s greenhouse gas emmissions spends time posting on the internet. Isn't that a waste of precious resources and contributing to more greenhouse gas emmissions. Seems like you should be living a more agrarian life to show other people how its done. Right?

[Goldstein1984]

48. A non-binding agreement means nothing. It wasn't the goal.

Obama made one of his typically eloquent speeches trying to pass it off as a major success, though.

I share the views of Bjorn Lomborg where climate change is concerned. Yes, it's real. Yes, there is likely a huge anthropogenic component. No, short-term fixes like carbon-cap-and-trade and carbon taxes are not going to be meaningful solutions.

Long-term fixes using sustainable energy sources are needed. Until then, we shouldn't expecting the developing nations to remain underdeveloped so we can continue as we are.

My carbon footprint is pretty low. We live in a home about 1/4 the size of most people in my income range. We drive small cars. We don't consume for the sake of consuming. Unlike most Alaskans, we don't participate in motor "sports" with 4-wheelers, snow machines, boats, etc.

We disagree on Cuba. They said exactly what they meant. And what they said was part of a larger pattern.

And I never buy into that "why are you sitting at a computer instead of doing something" argument. From this computer, from all the way up here in Alaska, I support organizations that very effectively work toward my goals. My money is being used to interfere with Japanese whaling as I write this. My money was being used the past two weeks in Copenhagen, supporting NGOs there demanding justice for all people of the world. I'm going to be in Washington, D.C. in March for anti-war protests. And the list goes on. My activist credentials go back to the 60s. I have nothing to prove to anyone.

[WriteDown]

52. It was the goal of China and India so yes its a "success"

Thank goodness you recognize that cap-and-trade was a nightmare.

Your footprint is low, but just living in Alaska carries its own energy burden. Transporting goods, etc.

My final point is this. The well is dry. The US is spiraling down. Our economy is in shambles while the Chinese economy is thriving. You can't get blood from a stone and we can't afford to pay anyone right now (check out the deficit). Maybe China can pay other countries to not emit greenhouse gasses.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Actually China has been playing more in Africa than Latin A,merica as of recent

[Goldstein1984]

31. Yes, and they aren't making the ideological demands that the

U.S. makes, so they're getting a lot of cooperation. They are very strategic thinkers--they'll take their oil without attaching strings.

[David__77]

36. Those are model economic relations in a sense.

That sense is that economic cooperation should be premised on non-interference in internal affairs and respect for national sovereignty. China follows this course. On the other hand, these relations should also be aimed at facilitating all-around economic development for all parties, in a way that enhances the independence of each party. China misses the mark in some respects here.

[Goldstein1984]

38. So do the WTO and World Bank

[David__77]

40. Of course, and in a much more egregious manner.

If I were a leader of a developing country, I would look to China, not to those institutions.

[David__77]

37. The per capita point is very important.

And not only that, but the cumulative quantity. China is a virgin, relatively speaking, in this regard.

[Goldstein1984]

12. Based on 2006 National Emissions Data

The United States produces about four times the CO2 per person that China does.

That gap is probably growing.

But as I wrote, I really don't think the protestations coming from Latin America are solely about climate change. Copenhagen is just the latest issue in the news.

Source: Wikipedia (Other sources provided similar data.)

[swilton]

13. Although China is currently the world's biggest CO2

emitter, that only has happened in the past year or so. Prior to that time, the US had that distinction. Furthermore, abundance of the CO2 and heat trapping gases is a cumulative problem that is not owned by China as the industrialized world has dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of the industrial revolution. Population-wise, China's per-person rate of pollution is much less than that of the US, and China's fuel efficient cars surpass the Prius which is the most fuel efficient car sold in the US. China will reportedly become a leader in producing electric cars.

There was a report on China vis a vis Copenhagen on Amy Goodman's 21 December program today.
http://www.democraacynow.org/

[WriteDown]

17. So China is given a pass because?

They stated at Copenhagen that they won't tolerate any regulations or enforcement. You'd think Cuba would mention that (which is the topic). China is building one coal-burning power plant a week. I'm sure they're clean coal though.

[Mithreal]

24. Which is easier and wiser, change China from without or America from within

Stop promoting rightwinger talking points. But what is China going to do?

[WriteDown]

26. So hamstring the US and let China slide?

A US furniture maker makes about 15$ an average. A Chinese furniture maker makes about 15 cents per hour on average. Why do you think that is? If you mention tariffs or taxes, how do you propose we make that work with a trade deficit?

Also, if its just about the US, then there was no need to do Copenhagen at all. Why waste the fuel for the flights?

[Mithreal]

28. It wasn't just sbout the US. And fair trade is another topic entirely?

You're confusing me, though, so maybe explain?

[demoleft]

51. but what's irritating in castro's and his men's words is that china...

...is not considered an enemy of "mother earth", not even an empire.
in that, you see, lays much of the falsehood of their words.

going on attacking US like this won't do any good.
it's typical of "empires" and dictatorships to produce fuel for a war climate. it keeps the people close to the government in the name of the flag against the "enemy".

china has been a polluter and does not suffer interference in its economy.
curious, how cuba pretends to miss the point.

ciao you there.

[24601]

20. Is Hugo himself descended from indigenous tribal groups or from

the evil colonial exploiters?

[ChangoLoa]

23. From both and others, like almost all Venezuelans. nt.

[bitchkitty]

34. I think you're right.

I think Chavez is as disappointed in Obama as I am.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

45. Dude... you're a racist troll... be gone! n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. I was going along with what he said until he said...

"Cuba's prestige is well-recognized in international negotiations.". At that point the BS overflowed my hip waders.

Cuba has indeed been turning up the heat on Obama, who really has not done anything to annoy them. Perhaps its his lack of action after being elected on many promises that is fueling their ire. If so, Cuba is not alone in that position.

[pjt7]

21. The cuban rants against America is old

but it's another example of Obama mask being pulled.