Harry C. Blaney III

George C. Marshall was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for his economic recovery plan for Western Europe. The Marshall Plan’s legacy lives on today in programs of cooperation and dialogue across the Atlantic. The irony is that after seven decades of essential peace in Europe and effective deterrence from Soviet aggression, Donald Trump is trying to dismantle the fabric of Atlantic cooperation which threatens a disaster for America and out allies. Let’s hope the Europeans are smarter than our administration.

When we have a president and many in the powerful Republican far right that rejects a seven decades old set of policies that provide for the entire globe a more secure, more prosperous and lasting framework for international cooperation and comity but now sadly we are threatened by our own administration with a radical dismantling of that durable and beneficial structure by a group of misguided and malicious leaders bent to destruction of all that has held the fabric of our often risky world together.

People forget also that it was not just the Marshall Plant that our post World War II leaders under President Harry Truman created but also many elements we have today that keep the international order to the benefit of all nations. These include importantly the United Nations and many of it associated agencies like UNHCR and World Health Organization, UNICEF,  the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, NATO, the OECD, the later creation of UNEP to protect our environment, and not least European unity now embodied in the European Union today.

We need to not just remember these acts we need in this generation to support these structures, provide adequate funding, and give them the capacity to help keep our fragile world at peace and with justice and support for humanitarian goald and care for those most vulnerable.

We welcome your comments! (See comments section below text.)




Harry C. Blaney III

As we face a coming November election which will be historic on so many different levels and which could bring not just to America great tribulations but also throughout the world. The simple fact is that our acknowledged discontent is mirrored also in many countries including democracies like our own.

This discontent has been exacerbated by the impact of the global “great recession” and the rise of religious conflicts which have destabilized much of the Middle East and beyond. But also by the growth a pernicious inequality and greed authored by authoritarian parties and governments and criminal corporations, banks, and super rich ideologues among the elite.

In America, it has been a deliberate trajectory sent in motion by much of the Republican Party and the mainline conservative media not least Fox news and “talking heads” hate radio shows spuing bigotry, lies, greed and far right-wing attacks on minorities, the poor, and good science. Not least, a key enabler was the Koch Brothers and others with the buying of State legislators, support for rigging of elections against minorities and other opposition voters, and backing candidates filled with hate and racism.

Trump which made a name as a Birther” an act of pure racism; a man who wants to build a wall with Mexico, keep Muslims out of America, and destroy our relations with our allies, and thinks Putin is just lovely. But he and the Republican Tea Party and its racists are also a threat to our some 250 years as a democratic republic.

Yet beyond America, we are seeing true threats to democracy, human rights, sense of a wider cooperative community and support for authoritarianism. This is accompanied also by particularism, narrow right wing nationalism of the neo-fascist Hitler type in Europe and beyond.

We will see soon a vote in Great Britain on the question of continued membership in the European Union. This crackbrained self-defeating idea is spurred by just the forces we have noted. The vote will take place on June 23rd and I plan to be in London to observe one of the truly great historic debates about the future of Europe which could lead to the ascendancy in Britain to the same kind of governance we could see in Donald Trump and those he would put in power.

Yes, we have a common problem. Britain has Boris Johnson, who may run for Prime Minister on the Tory ticket who makes Hitler comparisons that are outrageous and seems to hate the idea of a peaceful and united Europe (what is the other option?). And is also a bit crazy. We have Donald trump who makes racist, bigoted remarks, lies, and impugns our presidents birth place. He also seems to disparage a united Europe and NATO and admires the dictatorial and aggressive Vladimir Putin. And yes both have the same hair style!

The EU is an attempt, so far successful, to keep “Europe free and safe” The reality remains that the EU and the idea of a peaceful united Europe was and is a common dream of much of Europe and the UK; it remains the most significant result of Europe’s enlightened polices that brought prosperity to Europe, and held back aggression from the Soviet Union. That unity is as needed in today’s high risk world as it was in the 1940s and 50s.

Within the continent there are equally dangerous forces on the right that have already bred authoritarian governments in places like Poland, Turkey, Hungary, and in many places the rise of neo-Nazi and racist parties. More on this trend in another post.

In summary, Both Johnson and Trump are guided by an ignorant a-historical perspective and driven by misguided far right ideology along with dangerous personal ambitions that would put America, Britain, and Europe along a path of mutual destruction. National security requires many factors not least a sense of common decent goals, committed allies, and a moral center with wise leadership. These all are in danger on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond. In many ways these trends may be as dangerous to national security than what we face from Russia or China.

We Welcome your comments!



Harry C. Blaney III


This penultimate initial look at 2016 and its challenges will examine more of the most important global challenges and issues we will face in this year. In our last section we covered such issues as Europe, China, and East Asia and North Korea. In this edition we look at Nuclear proliferation and dangers, the India-Pakistan conflict, poverty and inequality, and climate change and other topics in future posts. As we have done earlier we will analyze possible developments in key areas, what risks and dangers lie with the topic and what policies or actions might affect outcomes good or bad and not least what America could, should, or should not do to address the dangers and problems each topic poses. In short, a quick tour of some of the most difficult questions our president and his successor will likely face.

This is a high priority area addressing one of the truly great existential dangers to human civilization. The best tools we have are the pending and existing multilateral treaties and the international organization that limits and monitors nuclear weapons worldwide. The existing treaty frameworks are vital but always in constant danger of being undermined. This includes the Nuclear Proliferation treaty (NPT), the and IAEA that monitors nuclear treaty obligations by nuclear and non-nuclear states. Further, there are bilateral treaties that limit U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons. The still pending Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) remains in a kind of limbo with neither Russia nor America and some other key states in not ratifying the pact. Areas of nuclear spread and crisis as we have cited like India-Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel, and monitoring Iran all require higher attention in 2016.

Key danger points remain such as the India-Pakistan conflict with both nations having nuclear weapons in a unstable context. Israel has according to reports undeclared nuclear weapons, Russia has possibly strengthen its nuclear weapons and missile systems for delivery as has the U.S. The key issue now is how best to contain the nuclear dangers and especially how to deal with an arms race with Russia which is counterproductive for both nations and the world.


As noted, India and Pakistan are nuclear armed nations that constitute a “hot spot” which needs urgent attention by not only the leaders of both nations but also America, European and Asian nations. Both are increasing their nuclear capabilities. A very small ray of light is an on-going dialogue between the leaders of both countries on how to defuse the conflict but there are groups mainly the military on each side which seems to want the tensions and conflict to persist.

In my view the Pakistan nuclear weapons pose the greatest dangers given the instability, ambiguity in their real objectives and duplicity in their dealing with us and others and their fermenting of unrest in places like Afghanistan and helping some terrorist groups. The basic instability of the nation poses risks that are all too high for terrorist getting control over these weapons. The Pakistan government always says these weapons are “safe” but are unable even to deter or stop horrific attacks on their own military by powerful terrorist groups in Pakistan.

We have been engaged for decades with Pakistan with small gains and continued big problems and the debate rages in Washington on which tact to take re use of carrots and/or sticks, and the time has come for some serious rethinks of the basic relationship and need to seek new leverage on not only reconciliation between the two nations but also action to stop Pakistan playing a double game. Closing their border with Afghanistan to terrorists remains a necessity as does ending their support of the Taleban and other terrorist leaders and troops that live in Pakistan. But 2016 may see a final answers to the direction of Pakistan and many observers are not sanguine for a good outcome.


Yes, inequality and poverty is a national security issue for the entire globe. But it will not be solved in 2106, but the question is not an immediate solution but rather if real substantial progress can be made on this problem that lies behind much of the unrest and instability we see around the globe.

Global indicators are mixed but the trend in key nations of even greater inequality from Africa to the United States makes for a dark assessments unless 2016 brings new governments, new political movements against unfair policies and corrupt parties and governments. We see the cost of this from Indonesia, Thailand, Malvasia, Russia, Ukraine, the Stands, Nigeria, China, and even some nations in Europe and in the United States. Education, reform and assistance to promote democracy and economic growth that is widely shared all are part of this needed process. But to right these problems assistance remains too small and more money is illegally flowing out of Africa by corrupt leaders into Swiss and other banks than assistance is flowing in.


As we noted the 2015 Paris climate change conference was a gain in terms of holding nations to their pledges but the key is followup and close and yearly checking on progress and true accountability that is transparent to all. This year starts must be made in the investment in clean energy and limits on dirty energy. Low price oil and gas are threatening the economic competitiveness of clean energy and there will be a need to provide for some years subsidies for renewable clean fuels and a tax on carbon and or more restrictive direct regulation to reduce pollutants. We are making important strives toward more efficient new renewable energy systems but direct government support to establish economic large-scale manufacturing of solar cells, and wind-turbines will be required to bring these systems on line to meet critical C20 reductions if catastrophe is to be avoided.

The other need is to stop the burning of forests and the release of carbon/methane and addressing the destruction and pollution of our oceans which are a vital part of uptake of carbon and control of global warming impacts. Here the leadership of the United States, Europe and China and India is vital and follow through will require the highest priority to this area by the leaders of these key countries.
SEE OUR COMING CONCLUSION OF THIS SERIES: That new section will cover g the role and question of how to make more effective international institutions, global trade, and later on American presidential politics and the foreign and security issues implications for America’s future global role”

We welcome your comments!

See our section on 2016 Presidential Quotes by both party candidates on this blog.



Harry C. Blaney III

As New Year starts it is worthwhile to look back since the past is prologue for what is to come. It is an annual exercise that many columnists, pundits, strategists, and yes bloggers do as it sets a framework for what is to come and to look back at the whole of a year and wonder what it all means for the security and peace of our clearly very fractured and conflict ridden globe. I promise a look forward at our strategic landscape which will include some policy ideas, in time, follow after the second part of this topic is posted..

First, a global view and then a look at some of the specific component elements that are each critical for the international system to gain some semblance of sanity.




The fundamental factors that a the driving forces on a global scale include the growing gap in resources between the very very rich and the rest of humanity most of which is just hanging on or worse. This divide is a key reason that we see so much conflict, instability, terrorism. and democracy being threaten around the world.

We see some progress as in some countries people rose above the poverty line but in others the divide just got worse. Here the failure was both due to indifferent nation’s governments and the still lingering consequences of the ubiquitous “austerity” polices of too many rich and poor governments. Add the lack of political will, due to growth of right-wing and authoritarian governments and in 2015 nations becoming more that are the decision making power in these countries. Then add to the mix international organizations with members both developed and developing too weak to face the major challenges of our age and providing inadequate, even very poor, resources to the key international institutions that were designed to deal with global economic, security, social, and health major crises and catastrophes.



Another global challenge is that of climate change. Every country and region in the world is threaten by this human created environmental phenomena and it has already shown its destructive power and the loss of many hundreds of thousands of lives across the globe. No single event can be ascribed directly to this cause, but taken together there is little doubt of the reality of the impact of rising global temperatures.

Again, up to now we have not done enough to effectively put this existential danger to our entire ecosystem on a sustainable path. The best event, as we have noted here, is the outcome of the 2015 Paris climate change conference. That conference at least shows us a path forward and specified the necessary action that states and all of us need to take to make real progress. But many scientists think we need to do more and they may be quite right. We have now a process and promises and an official “score card” for keeping tract of progress or lack thereof. That was a positive note for 2015.



That about sums it up as to why we are in such a tragic mess we seem to have and why the global trajectory seems so dark. But there are some rays of light………hate to end a year and start a new one with just gloom and doom.

On nuclear weapons and their spread, the really good news was the 2015 agreement with Iran by the key global powers that limits their capacity of producing nuclear weapons. As of this date Iran seems to be carrying out its obligations under the agreement with especially the shipment of almost all of its enrich uranium some 25,000 pounds, to Russia (which is a major milestone that leaves the Islamic Republic without enough low-enriched uranium to manufacture a nuke). There is the ongoing dismantling of its research reactor and most of its centrifuges. If the terms of the agreement are kept the world can be a bit safer since the alternative was the capacity to build a bomb in months not a year, and the agreement going for 10 years plus for key elements with the safeguard/inspections of the IAEA unlimited.

The other great danger that existed before 2015 and is still with us are the nuclear weapons in the hands of India and Pakistan, the nuclear weapons of North Korea and not least the nuclear weapons in the hands of a type like Putin who seems to think they are his leverage and plaything for enhancing his ego.

The India/Pakistan threat has two dimensions, one is the on going conflict between the two countries over Kashmir. Recently there was a meeting between the two national leaders and perhaps some moves towards sanity.

But Pakistan is itself a problem due to the government’s instability, the danger of internal terrorists, and an army that seems at times to not be capable and responsible. North Korea remains a conundrum with few good solutions with clearly erratic leadership that seems to not be seriously seeking a mutually agreeable long-term solution but likes to rattle the world with nuclear activities. A possible consequence is that South Korea or Japan might one day see it necessary to obtain their own weapons.

The other component of the dangers to the security of our world’s population in 2015 and beyond is growing sectarian conflicts, growing efforts to divide societies, and malevolent leaders and groups that see aggression and violence as a favored means to gain power and destroy what they see as their “enemies.” This is not the place now to get into the many causes and antecedents of these dangerous forces, but to simply say that peace in our world will not be obtained until these dark forces are tamed, reformed, and or defeated. This is undoubtedly a long term effort. But better and more responsible national leaders and a more engaged and informed and less bigoted, fearful, and empowered citizenry is the best antidote for societal disintegration and conflict.



The good news is that some progress was made in recognizing this reality. This is clearly the case in 2015 with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry who have been working hard to get both the Shia and Sunni groups and nations to see a common interest against ISIS, with some but still fragile, success. Prejudices of centuries are hard to mend. The key test points are in Iraq and Syria, both of which are case studies in sectarian hate, past distrust, outside partisan powers, and levels of murky loyalties and unknowns to make even the wisest expert shudder.

The challenges in the Middle East are almost impossible. If you add the animosities and stupidities of national leaders comforting each other in the Israeli and Palestinian arena one may wonder if there will ever be a solution. But there is an equitable solution facing each leader, all know what it is, which is the best outcome possible and one which will at last bring both parties to some real accommodation and security. Frankly, the behavior in 2015 of Prime Minister Netanyahu this last year and beyond has deliberately poisoned relations not only with the Palestinians but with large segments of Europe and the United States. If 2016 could turn this nasty tide I say try, but one man seems to want to make Israel even more at existential national risk long-term and is churning up hate rather than tolerance and compromise.

In our own American backyard in 2015 American politics turned even more divisive and partisan, in my view, which some will disagree with. But the partisan battles have greatly weakened America abroad and the blame rest squarely on the conservative Republicans and their reckless statements and actions. On most foreign policy and national security issues, let alone the many national issues, we see the damage caused by the far right crazies to American democracy, economic and technological progress, and to gaining needed security and peace. Their threatening the closing of government, their efforts to make America default on its debt, their denial of climate change, their efforts to stop the Iran deal that prevents Iran from building early nuclear weapons, their inability to look at reality rather than ideology, and not least seeking narrow political gain rather than the national interest. These have made our allies abroad question our leadership in the future after Obama’s administration, and help our adversaries like Russia and China who seek to exploit our weakness and lack of unity.

Part II of this 2015 look shortly follows.

We welcome your comments!


Photo: VOA News


Harry C. Blaney III

The final decision still awaits in the Paris Climate change outcome. The now revised shorter text of the agreement is being negotiated on Friday and Saturday and perhaps beyond. Still we see mutual recriminations both at home and globally from all sides. Having started down the road for agreement it seems that most key powers recognize the problem and are working to put together a final document that will hopefully move us all forward towards a cleaner safer and livable world. But problems abound.

The initial release of the draft COP21 climate agreement text was criticized by environmental groups as not going far enough, especially on the side of shutting down carbon based energy sources by 2050 and not providing enough funding to do all that needs to be done. A new shorter draft text has been issued which many think still leaves key issues unresolved.

There has appeared to be many objections by a wide range of nations to the draft text. India and Malaysia want a stronger text including more resources from the richer nations. Advanced richer nations want the text to apply to everyone as the best way to deal with the climate crisis.

As we have noted, the stumbling blocks towards the last days of the conference are appearing. China especially, has a wide range of objections to the existing text including not wanting to accept a “review every five years of the pledges of action to reduce carbon emissions and to reassess the target of no more than a 2 degrees Celsius increase in temperatures.” The Chinese representative said Beijing would not be able to change its climate plans for at least another 25 years.

Many other countries have agreed, including developed and developing to reviewing the targets. The Chinese representative was against trying to look at a possible goal of a rise of just 1.5C and said it was not something that is realistic. China opposed the measure in the agreement to broaden the base of nations delivering money to help poorer countries fight climate change. The 1.5C was also opposed by Saudi Arabia in another spanner in the negotiations.

On the other side Island nations and others said without the 1.5C limit they will cease to exist. This hoped for goal is supported by a wide groups of developing nations and Europeans to deal with the climate crisis. The real problem is that even with the pledges on the table now it will be hard to meet the goal of keeping temperatures well below even the 2 degree C target. The bottom line seems that more, much more will be needed now or in the near future if the science is right on emissions and means to limit them.

This new test was issued after intense overnight negotiations Wednesday, and the Conference is going into at least Saturday or Sunday. It would be a wonder if even that extension would be met unless major compromises were found. Island nations were especially asking for yet stronger language. The reality is likely that any agreement will likely have some changes but not meet fully what any side desires. The question is does the “imperfect” defeat any agreement that will move towards the needed solutions?

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced an $800 million climate pledge by 2020 from the U.S. at the UN climate change conference in Paris on Wednesday. He criticized deniers of global warming, saying: “Make no mistake: If, as a global community, we refuse to rise to this challenge—if we continue to allow calculated obstruction to derail the urgency of this moment—we will be liable for a collective moral failure of historic consequence.” He said also that deniers are “so out of touch with science that they believe rising sea levels don’t matter, because in their view, the extra water will just spill over the sides of a flat Earth.” (See speech here) Kerry came back to the conference to try to bring the sides together

On the other side, the climate deniers, coal, oil and other polluters and Republican supporters of the deniers and industry, already say it goes too far. Environmental groups in Paris believe it is too weak and they have a real case to be made, but these global negotiations are places of hard realities and the real question is are we truly moving forward? No document of this comprehensive and negotiated type, with 195 participant countries, will ever please all sides.

This new draft of 29 pages is down from 49, in which the key top members from the main nations will argue and work out a new, hopefully consensus, draft in the next few days, (or not), that will again not satisfy everyone likely. There are, according to reports, some 100 items where decisions have not been made due to conflicts over objectives or methods. Officials say the key issue is still how to define the obligations of nations developed or developing in addressing climate change.

The conference will in the future either be seen as a major negative catastrophic event for the globe or the starting point for some real progress. It is this text and the commitments that will follow that will prove if the international community – all sides – are in this together and all share a responsibility or we abandon our earth and the avoiding of mass disasters that we can in fact mitigate.

An assessment of the results and future paths and options will be posted after the results are known!


Click on the title of this post where you can leave a comment! 


President Barack Obama shakes hands with His Highness Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al Sabah, Amir of the State of Kuwait, as Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders prepare to have a group photo with the President outside of the Laurel Cabin at the conclusion of a summit meeting at Camp David, Md., May 14, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

By: Harry C. Blaney III

It seems many commentators had already drawn up their criticism in advance and did the same following the Camp David Middle East Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Summit that President Barack Obama had called to address the many conflicts, challenges, and discord in that region. Some, especially those on the hawkish right have pronounced it either a failure, misguided, or even worse. On the other hand there is a group of experts that see it as the start of a better more enlightened engagement on the many problems that plague that region. 

The naysayers seem intent on not letting Obama find some useful middle ground between making war with Iran and withdrawing America’s interest in the region. Some misguided conservatives at the Council on Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Fox, and the Wall Street Journal seems to view it as a failure unless American makes, a “NATO like” commitment to the Sunni states, tying American troops to the possible Saudi agenda of a war like stance with Iran or even the largely Shia nations and populations.

These naysayers’ position tracts that of the oil, banking, and military industries, who see large profits in such a strategic alliance relationship which would be without many restrictions on the buying of American weapons, energy contracts, and financial services.  This misguided position for America and our real allies ends in disaster and plungers us into taking one side of a messy regional, religious, and geo-strategic centuries old conflict which can only end in even more catastrophe for all.  What were they thinking? These are the same people and views that lead us into the Iraq madness.  Significantly, Obama promised at the GCC Summit assistance against external aggression which is a reasonable if still problematic stance.

The skeptics seem to be driven by ideology and not good strategic sense and honest analysis of the realities on the ground or real American interests. What is needed is not creation of an alliance bent on making war between religious sects but rather help on coming to some measure of common ground and reconciliation between the Sunni and Shia factions.

In place of a NATO type US-Sunni alliance, a better approach would be a larger region wide security framework which would ensure a large measure of security for all participants in the region as well as more prosperity for the citizens of the region. This is something that Obama and also the Western allies can help bring about, if and only if, the Gulf Sunni States see a wider vision and the long-term advantage of a settlement of the age old conflicts and desire stability, peace, and mutual security for the whole region rather than an endless internecine war.

We are already in a dialogue with Iran the de facto leader of  many of the Shia group of nations and people. Obama made the key point that an agreement with Iran over nuclear weapons programs with firm verification and other restraints would mean greater, not less, security for the Sunni nations but also for the whole region. The Administration is trying once again to get both sides to recognize that their interests are not in destructive sectarian war but in cooperation and mutual security. This approach may not work at first and it may take some time, but the alternative must be far worse for all sides.

Sectarian hatred and making conflict the only option of solving problems is something none can win without unacceptable costs. America is right to try rapprochement and seek some measure of a joint “win-win” strategy through diplomacy however difficult it might be, and those that oppose should remember its cost — continued deaths, hatred, and war!

More on the Middle East policy will follow.


We welcome your comments!


 President Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba shake hands at the Summit of the Americas on April 11, 2015.
President Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba shake hands at the Summit of the Americas on April 11, 2015.

By: Harry C. Blaney III

There are too few moments in our new century when we can say without much doubt that we have achieved a historic change of trajectory and have hope at last to move from mutual confrontation towards mutual dialogue and even cooperation. The decision of President Obama to open that dialogue, to start the process of establishing diplomatic relations, likely taking Cuba off of the list of “terrorist states”, and not least the one-on-one meeting between President Raul Castro and President Barack Obama at the Summit of the Americas in Panama.

Opening the front page of the Sunday New York Times and seeing Obama and Castro sitting side by side and another shaking hands, for someone who remembers well and vividly the period of the Cuban Missile crisis, living through the long history of mutual isolation and mistrust and even conflict, gave a sense of a kind of new dawning from a dark period that neither side should be proud of.

Obama’s act has also transformed our relations not only with Cuba but also Latin America; who have restored largely their own relations and criticized America for lagging in doing what was clearly wise in reaching out for some measure of starting what will be a long process of rapprochement and hopefully a more democratic Cuba in time.

President Obama said that clearly “there will still be problems to overcome, but he was optimistic that we will continue to make progress and that this can indeed be a turning point.” Castro also made jesters that indicated this was a path he was willing to go down. However, he most likely hopes to obtain more than what is possible now, as hard bargaining lies ahead.

There were a few moments of regressive behavior by some of the Cuban delegation at the Panama conference. This behavior indicated that in the Cuban government, those who wish to show the authoritarian side of the regime and are still clearly not accustomed to the rules and ways of public discourse and democratic dissent still exist. But, I think that was a sign of the last gasps of a weak and regressive and failing regime that is the past and not the future.

There is still a long road to full rapprochement, full diplomatic relations and setting the guidelines for this new relationship. Not least, is the continued authoritarian rule in Cuba on one side, and the opposition by the anti-Castro groups and far right types here in America on the other.  There will be many difficulties in this process but I think with time, and some acknowledgment by both sides that a “new day” is better than the “old animosities,” Cuba will find its own democratic footing. With this, America will leave behind its old and unsuccessful strategy of isolating Cuba and itself and gain by the new openness.

If we can talk with Putin, and can talk to China, and talk with Iran, we can talk with Cuba. In my earlier days, America wisely decided by both Republican and Democratic presidents that we could and should talk to a hostile and aggressive Soviet Union and achieve thereby significant cuts in nuclear weapons via treaties, establish a “hot line,” to avoid misunderstandings, deal with a variety of arms control agreements, have military to military contacts, and conduct cultural exchanges. Thus, we certainly can find ways of cooperating with a nation just 90 miles south, where the people also seek reconciliation. Our efforts at negotiations paid off for both sides in the end. There was no real “hot war” and frankly the West prevailed via its diplomacy and wise policies; and nations were freed from the control of a failed dictatorship.

President Obama, in these last two years of his presidency, without the restrictions of narrow politics, seems to act on his best values and instincts, helping shape a world if at all possible towards a more “soft landing” and enhanced security. Although it could mean disturbing our “Know Nothing” far right war hawk Republicans, he is taking chances to shape a safer and more prosperous and perhaps fairer world.


We welcome your comments! 

A version of this essay was also carried at the London School of Economics and Political Science Web Blog. Visit the Link Here:   http://bit.ly/1yXztYX