Three way war on Cuba offshore oil drilling: adding the environment to the attack strategy
Three way war on Cuba offshore oil drilling:
adding the environment to the attack strategy
Potential offshore oil drilling by Cuba and China, in the Cuban waters near the Florida Keys, has provoked attacks from the left, right, and center of the U.S. Congress.
Taking a leftist approach we have Sen. Bill Nelson claiming to be concerned about the coral reefs and the tourist industry of the Florida Keys. On the right we have Cuban- American extremist Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen rabid at the thought of Cuba being prosperous and glomming on to a chance at causing a border dispute between the island and the US. And for good measure we have a Larry Craig of Idaho, sticking up for the U.S. business sector’s “right” to be making money off Cuban oil instead of “Red China.” While they all seem to have different concerns, the bottom line for all three is to STOP Cuba from exploiting its oil resources in a joint venture with China. The differences in tactics for reaching this goal are merely details, and fit together so perfectly that it is highly unlikely to be a coincidence.
Thhe oil deposit in question is estimated to equal that of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, while this quantity may be insignificant to the voracious, wasteful appetite of the U.S., it is quite substantial for a small, fuel poor, energy conscious country. Moreover, given the limited economic options of the island due to the nearly 50 year US blockade, the exploitation of these deposits is even more significant and much more understandable than would be U.S. drilling in the ANWR, which is constantly on the block.
While Sen. Bill Nelson has an impressively high League of Conservation Voters (LCV) environmental rating, and thus it seems natural for him to be concerned about oil drilling near the Florida coast regardless of who is doing it, his point of view does not take into account Cuba’s reality, but instead demonstrates a single issue, NIMBY approach to the environment that does not recognize global ecology or the negative environmental effects of underdevelopment, and which would deny a humble nation the ability to alleviate the pressure of the longest economic blockade in history by exploiting an amount of oil and gas that is equal to only a few months of US consumption, according to the USGS.
The Senator is obviously not motivated by his concern for the environment alone. Instead of a positive solution, he proposes punishment of those who would cooperate with Cuba in developing these resources revealing that this is just another poorly masked attempt at strengthening the blockade and strangling the Cuban economy.
And of course, that is the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward Cuba and especially the current administration’s Cuba transition plan, soon to be updated. In fact the 500-page, 2004 report to the president by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba contained an entire section complaining about Venezuelan cooperation with Cuba in the energy sphere, perhaps this current controversy is a sneak preview of the May 20th update that might list other countries by name as hindering the sought after “transition.”
It is obvious that Ros-Lethinen, who voted FOR opening the ANWR to drilling twice in 2005 and who sports an 11% LCV rating, is not at all concerned with the environment. And although she has publicly given lip service to the environmental angle and has managed to gathered up a few cosponsors who generally vote more environmentally, seven of the eleven Floridian cosponsors to her bill are the usual suspects: Lincoln Diaz-Balart (11% LCV), Mario Diaz-Balart (11% LCV), Connie Mack (22% LCV), Katherine Harris (17% LCV) etc. All seven joined her in voting FOR drilling in the ANWR twice in 2005. The house version of this bill is just an opportunistic ride for the rightwing Miami extremists whose sole purpose for being is to destroy the Cuban Revolution.
Their true interest lies in the section of the Nelson’s bill that would cancel the 1977 Maritime Boundary Agreement, which could potentially result in a border dispute between the two countries, escalating their already severely strained “relationship,” and perhaps providing a pretext for military aggression.
And the third angle? Larry Craig of Idaho extolling U.S. business’ right to make a buck whenever possible, period. Cuba has long been exploiting off shore petroleum resources, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, with the cooperation of several diverse countries. Larry Craig has, for a while now, been pushing for access to the Cuban market in many areas. While this is arguably in Cuba’s favor, as normalizing trade relations would allow the island to flourish, in this case he has brought up the US blockade within the context of protectionist fervor and warmed-over cold war fears that will do more harm to his cause than good. In a recent New York Times article Craig said, “Red China should not be drilling for oil within spitting distance of our shores.” Framing the current controversy in this manner is illogical. Appealing for approval to cooperate with communist Cuba in order to stop communist China, makes no sense.
So in summary: Craig wants to drill—with Cuba. Nelson doesn’t want any drilling at all. Ros-Lehtinen and Co. couldn’t care less about drilling as long as Cuba does not profit. Each one’s specifics cancel out the others’ no matter how you arrange them, leaving only the common denominator: stopping a Cuba/China joint venture from drilling for oil in the waters between Cuba and the Florida Keys.
Is it a coincidence that all bases were covered almost simultaneously, or is this a planned full court press? We can expect to see more of these three-way attacks in the near future as global resources become scarcer and as the current powers that be discover that they can add the environment to their attack strategy—from what falsely appears to be a leftist stance.
adding the environment to the attack strategy
Potential offshore oil drilling by Cuba and China, in the Cuban waters near the Florida Keys, has provoked attacks from the left, right, and center of the U.S. Congress.
Taking a leftist approach we have Sen. Bill Nelson claiming to be concerned about the coral reefs and the tourist industry of the Florida Keys. On the right we have Cuban- American extremist Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen rabid at the thought of Cuba being prosperous and glomming on to a chance at causing a border dispute between the island and the US. And for good measure we have a Larry Craig of Idaho, sticking up for the U.S. business sector’s “right” to be making money off Cuban oil instead of “Red China.” While they all seem to have different concerns, the bottom line for all three is to STOP Cuba from exploiting its oil resources in a joint venture with China. The differences in tactics for reaching this goal are merely details, and fit together so perfectly that it is highly unlikely to be a coincidence.
Thhe oil deposit in question is estimated to equal that of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, while this quantity may be insignificant to the voracious, wasteful appetite of the U.S., it is quite substantial for a small, fuel poor, energy conscious country. Moreover, given the limited economic options of the island due to the nearly 50 year US blockade, the exploitation of these deposits is even more significant and much more understandable than would be U.S. drilling in the ANWR, which is constantly on the block.
While Sen. Bill Nelson has an impressively high League of Conservation Voters (LCV) environmental rating, and thus it seems natural for him to be concerned about oil drilling near the Florida coast regardless of who is doing it, his point of view does not take into account Cuba’s reality, but instead demonstrates a single issue, NIMBY approach to the environment that does not recognize global ecology or the negative environmental effects of underdevelopment, and which would deny a humble nation the ability to alleviate the pressure of the longest economic blockade in history by exploiting an amount of oil and gas that is equal to only a few months of US consumption, according to the USGS.
The Senator is obviously not motivated by his concern for the environment alone. Instead of a positive solution, he proposes punishment of those who would cooperate with Cuba in developing these resources revealing that this is just another poorly masked attempt at strengthening the blockade and strangling the Cuban economy.
And of course, that is the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward Cuba and especially the current administration’s Cuba transition plan, soon to be updated. In fact the 500-page, 2004 report to the president by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba contained an entire section complaining about Venezuelan cooperation with Cuba in the energy sphere, perhaps this current controversy is a sneak preview of the May 20th update that might list other countries by name as hindering the sought after “transition.”
It is obvious that Ros-Lethinen, who voted FOR opening the ANWR to drilling twice in 2005 and who sports an 11% LCV rating, is not at all concerned with the environment. And although she has publicly given lip service to the environmental angle and has managed to gathered up a few cosponsors who generally vote more environmentally, seven of the eleven Floridian cosponsors to her bill are the usual suspects: Lincoln Diaz-Balart (11% LCV), Mario Diaz-Balart (11% LCV), Connie Mack (22% LCV), Katherine Harris (17% LCV) etc. All seven joined her in voting FOR drilling in the ANWR twice in 2005. The house version of this bill is just an opportunistic ride for the rightwing Miami extremists whose sole purpose for being is to destroy the Cuban Revolution.
Their true interest lies in the section of the Nelson’s bill that would cancel the 1977 Maritime Boundary Agreement, which could potentially result in a border dispute between the two countries, escalating their already severely strained “relationship,” and perhaps providing a pretext for military aggression.
And the third angle? Larry Craig of Idaho extolling U.S. business’ right to make a buck whenever possible, period. Cuba has long been exploiting off shore petroleum resources, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, with the cooperation of several diverse countries. Larry Craig has, for a while now, been pushing for access to the Cuban market in many areas. While this is arguably in Cuba’s favor, as normalizing trade relations would allow the island to flourish, in this case he has brought up the US blockade within the context of protectionist fervor and warmed-over cold war fears that will do more harm to his cause than good. In a recent New York Times article Craig said, “Red China should not be drilling for oil within spitting distance of our shores.” Framing the current controversy in this manner is illogical. Appealing for approval to cooperate with communist Cuba in order to stop communist China, makes no sense.
So in summary: Craig wants to drill—with Cuba. Nelson doesn’t want any drilling at all. Ros-Lehtinen and Co. couldn’t care less about drilling as long as Cuba does not profit. Each one’s specifics cancel out the others’ no matter how you arrange them, leaving only the common denominator: stopping a Cuba/China joint venture from drilling for oil in the waters between Cuba and the Florida Keys.
Is it a coincidence that all bases were covered almost simultaneously, or is this a planned full court press? We can expect to see more of these three-way attacks in the near future as global resources become scarcer and as the current powers that be discover that they can add the environment to their attack strategy—from what falsely appears to be a leftist stance.
posted by alba at 7:57 PM
<< Home