A Meeting with U.S. Senator Marco Rubio in Washington DC

by Marielena Montesino de Stuart

A Meeting with U.S. Senator Marco Rubio in Washington DC: 

- ISRAEL

- THE UNITED NATIONS 

- THE WAR IN LIBYA

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio and Marielena Montesino de Stuart

On Israel

During a recent visit to Washington DC I had the distinct pleasure and honor of meeting with one of America’s greatest leaders, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, from the State of Florida.

As always, Senator Rubio is both distinguished and humble.  I felt the same warmth and sincerity from him, now that he is a U.S. Senator, as I did when I met with him during his campaign in 2010.

My visit with Senator Rubio was an auspicious moment to pose my questions, which were centered on Israel, as well as the war in Libya.

Senator Rubio, who had just met with the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, described to me how Chancellor Merkel shared his opposition to a United Nations unilateral action for Palestinian statehood, which could take place in September, during the annual UN General Assembly. The United Nations vote could serve as a proclamation of a Palestinian state, whose territory would include the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

A United Nations resolution proclaiming Palestinian statehood would also claim the 1967 “borders” as the boundary– which is nothing more than the 1949 armistice lines– whether President Obama’s admonitions on “land swaps” are included or not.  The Jordanian-Israeli 1949 armistice line [1] marked the farthest westward military point reached by Jordan during Israel’s War of Independence, also known as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The Elusive Line in the Sand

The term “a line in the sand” takes a whole different meaning in this ancient region, when considering  international  borders  and battle frontlines.

The armistice lines established in 1949, to a certain extent overlapped, or were in proximity to the borderline  of Palestine during the British Mandate— except for the region of Judea and Samaria, and the surrounding  area of the Gaza Strip.

On the Syrian and Egyptian fronts  there had been a history of international borders between the British  Mandate of Palestine and their neighbors.  The international border between the British Mandate of Palestine and Egypt became the armistice line between Israel and Egypt;  however, the armistice line with Syria closely corresponds with the frontline.

The armistice line with Lebanon is close to the international border that existed during the British Mandate, with some overlapping.

As to the Jordanian front, Article II of the Jordanian-Israeli 1949 Armistice Agreement did not dictate territorial lines, stating that the provisions of the agreement were being “dictated exclusively by military considerations.”

After the 1967 Six-Day War, the drafters of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 [2] declared that the old armistice line needed to be replaced with a new border– which became the reference point for the Arab-Israeli peace talks.  Resolution 242 did not recognize the line where the conflict began, and ignored the fact that the 1967 line was never an international border.  Yet, one of the framers of Resolution 242, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Arthur Goldberg, acknowledged the historical absence of clear territorial boundaries in the region. This is why Resolution 242 did not ask for complete withdrawal from all territories captured by Israel in 1967 during the Six Day War, until secure and recognized borders could be established.

With the passage of time, boundaries, battle lines and lives have been erased, as agreements and documents are drawn in search of peace, sometimes even twisting the terminology in an attempt to rewrite history.  Meanwhile, the Palestinian National Authority staunchly refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

On April 14, 2004 President George W. Bush wrote a letter to Ariel Sharon, Israel’s Prime Minister at the time, as part of a final peace settlement:

EXCERPT:  “Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. [2][3]. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

President Barack Obama appears to ignore the legal fact that President Bush’s letter was approved by a bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress.

Declaring that Palestine is a “state” does not grant it membership in the U.N.; furthermore, General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, so the General Assembly will not have the power to legitimize a state; however, a vote such as this would create significant political pressure– and that is exactly what the Palestinians want, knowing full well that there is no veto power in the General Assembly.

“Not the Right Approach”

Senator Rubio emphasized that “this is not the right approach”– referring to the impending U.N. resolution.

Many on Capitol Hill are considering the possibility of limiting contributions to the U.N., should this unilateral vote take place.  This is more than justified, given the United Nations abysmal record of embracing Communist states, that also harbor terrorists (such as Cuba) [4].  This time the U.N., would also be embracing Hamas [5] which the United States lists as a terrorist organization (the U.N., does not).  Hamas is part of the coalition government known as the Palestinian National Authority.  Limiting contributions to the United Nations is also a great opportunity for the U.S. to save money, during these desperate economic times.

In 2009, the current Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, Salam Fayyad, announced that Palestinians would seek independent statehood by 2011.  This was echoed last September by President Obama, when he announced that the framework for a Palestinian state could be announced in a year.

But Palestinians are not united.  There is ongoing discord between Fatah, which is the dominant party in the West Bank, and the Islamic extremist group, Hamas, which is in control of Gaza.  A summit held in Cairo during  the month of June came to a screeching halt, when the President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah Party)– and Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, continued to disagree on the leadership of an interim government.  Negotiations between the two parties are now at a breaking point.

Fatah has nominated Salam Fayyad, to lead the future interim government. Hamas rejects this plan, since they see Fayyad as being under the control of the United States and Israel.

Negotiations are underway to hold a Quartet meeting in mid July (the members of the Quartet are the US, EU, Russia and the UN)  to try to bring Israel and the Palestinians to the negotiating table– and to attempt to dissuade the Palestinian National Authority from seeking a vote for statehood, during the UN General Assembly.

Senator Rubio added that “we have to be a leading voice on this issue”– referring to the opposition of a unilateral move by the United Nations.

On Libya

I asked Senator Rubio to share his views on the war in Libya– in light of the 268 to 145 vote by the House on June 3, approving a resolution which strongly criticized President Obama for not obtaining congressional oversight of the military campaign in Libya.

Senator Rubio stated that he supports President Obama’s decision to attack Libya, “as a matter of U.S. national interest”– but he was quick to point out that he does not support the way in which President Obama has gone about this military action, without first seeking congressional approval.

In contrast, Senator Bill Nelson, (D) from Florida, whom I chatted with a few minutes after meeting with Senator Rubio, believes that President Obama did not have to go to Congress for approval to attack Libya.  When I asked Senator Nelson if he understood President Obama’s strategy in Libya, he responded:  “I don’t know if he has the right strategy.”

Senator Rubio is concerned that the war in Libya could be “dragged and dragged” and become “complicated.”   He added that the United States “is not leading”– and that is a concern.  Senator Rubio believes that had President Obama obtained the approval of Congress, the war plan in Libya could have been “decisive, quick and precise.”

I asked Senator Rubio if the tribal differences in Libya could affect the long term unity against Gadhafi and his forces.  His response was optimistic.  Senator Rubio believes that “rebel groups are well organized– and Libya, being a nation-state, has a national identity.”

Unity and national identity will definitely be crucial factors that will help the Libyan people as they fight to overthrow Gadhafi’s dictatorship, and hopefully establish a democratic government. In a situation like Libya’s, one can’t help but consider how Palestinian disunity and terrorist elements have set back the creation of a Palestinian state.

“They came to Washington DC”– added Senator Rubio, referring to the National Transitional Council, the rebel group fighting Gadhafi’s forces.  The National Transitional Council was recently invited to open an office in Washington DC.

Senator Rubio added, “any time we can take out a terrorist, we should– and Gadhafi is a terrorist.”

♦  ♦  ♦

Additional Commentary: 

Senator  Rubio’s position on Libya, as stated during our meeting, was again manifested on Tuesday, June 28, when he voted in support of a resolution [6] which authorizes the U.S. to continue participating in the NATO-led military actions in Libya.  The resolution sets a time limit by stating that “the authorization for such limited use of United States Armed Forces in Libya expires one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.”

The resolution “does not support deploying, establishing, or maintaining the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense of United States Government officials (including diplomatic representatives) or to rescuing members of NATO forces from imminent danger.”

The U.S. Senate panel’s resolution will be considered on the Senate floor, during the week of July 11.

The U.S. Senate has also passed, by unanimous consent, Resolution (SRES 185) [7] cosponsored by Senator  Marco Rubio, “reaffirming the commitment of the United States to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, reaffirming opposition to the inclusion of Hamas in a unity government unless it is willing to accept peace with Israel and renounce violence, and declaring that Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations, and will have implications for continued United States aid.”

An article titled “We won’t let US derail our statehood bid, says PA official” by The Jerusalem Post  (June 29) quoted  statements made by Nimer Hammad, adviser to Mahmoud Abbas (President of the Palestinian National Authority).  Hammad responded to U.S. Senate resolution 185 by stating that Palestinians “can’t sacrifice their freedom in return for financial aid.” Hammad said that the PNA wants to maintain good relations with the United States – “but not at the expense of the Palestinians’ national project.”

The Jerusalem Post also published an article on June 30 titled ‘We recognize Israel, they should recognize Palestine’– where Mahmoud Abbas is quoted defending the PNA’s effort  to  obtain unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, claiming that such an attempt “does not seek to ignore or dismiss or delegitimize Israel.”

Related  documents:

[1] – The Jordanian-Israeli Armistice Agreement, signed on April 3, 1949  Island of Rhodes, Greece

[2]  United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

[3] United Nations Security Council Resolution 338

[4]  CUBA:  As a State Sponsor of Terrorism -  U.S. Department of State (Chapter 3, Page 6)  (Released: August 2010)

[5]  HAMAS:  Terrorist Organization – U.S. Department of State (Chapter 6, Page 6)  (Released: August 2010)

[6] U.S. Senate panel resolution on Libya (June 28, 2011)

[7] U.S. Senate S.RES.185 112th Congress, 1st Session

♦  ♦  ♦

© Marielena Montesino de Stuart  

E-Mail:    ContactTRCW@aol.com

Marielena Montesino de Stuart

You may also read Marielena Montesino de Stuart’s commentaries through: RenewAmerica, USAToday, The Dallas Morning News, U.S. Politics Today (an EIN Service for Political Professionals-*) Poynter Online, Spero News, Daily Estimate, The New Liturgical Movement-Poland, The Naples Daily News, Les Femmes-The Truth, Culture War Notes,  ProLife Blogs,  The Wanderer, The Times of India, etc.

© All Rights Reserved

Rebellion in China

by Marielena Montesino de Stuart

“The Communist thugs in Beijing are now interested in social stability—after decades of exterminating their own people. This sudden benevolence is nothing but a theatrical mask to cover Beijing’s fear of political uprisings—such as the ones occurring in the Middle East—also known as the “Arab Spring”.   Imagine millions of Chinese on the streets protesting.  Imagine the tumultuous effect of a mammoth Tiananmen Square-like protest.”– Marielena Montesino de Stuart in The Beijing Affair (May 19, 2011).

Beijing feared this moment– but it’s here– rebellion in China.  This may not be the first time that the Chinese people rebel against their communist oppressors– but it is different, in that it follows in the footsteps of the “Arab Spring”– in other words, the feeling that rebellion is in the air.  This trend was also very evident today when several women in Saudi Arabia defied one of their country’s laws, which denies them the right to drive a vehicle.  Social media messages circled the globe offering support by saying, “Saudi women, start your engines”.  This is far from a small step for women in Saudi Arabia, where they can be killed, under the law, if accused of infidelity or pre-marital relations.

The Chinese Communist government knows that this environment of rebellion challenges their dictatorship in ways that they may not be able to control, except through massacre or imprisonment of protestors. But Chinese citizens are defying their oppressors, by mobilizing  against corruption and persecution.  These large scale outbursts and unrest taking place across China appear to have started as a reaction to the Chinese government’s abusive practices in compensation owed to citizens, for land seized for development.

Last week, in Guangzhou province, police pushed a pregnant migrant worker to the ground, to force her to move her food stand off a road in the town of Xintang.  Angry migrant workers filled the streets, setting vehicles on fire and hurling bricks at police buildings. By Sunday, communist government forces were using shotguns and tear gas to control the protestors.

This is why China’s Premier, Wen Jiabao, during the Fourth Session of the Eleventh National People’s Congress, made promises to urgently address inflation as a threat to social stability and future economic growth.  As I wrote in The Beijing Affair, this concern for social stability is not because the Beijing communist despots care about China’s citizens– but simply because they fear a “Chinese Spring”– similar to the Middle Eastern and North African protests, commonly referred to as the “Arab Spring”.

Chinese culture generally measures the acceptance of changes through the prism of its ancient history.  Yet nothing could be more foreign to the traditional Chinese family than the communist way of life.  Exposure to capitalism has not solved China’s biggest problem in modern times– that is, that this ancient culture lives under the control of a brutal and murderous communist government– a dictatorship which has also controlled the way in which they experience modern life.

Meanwhile, diplomatic circles on both sides seem to be dealing with the news of these riots in a rather quiet way.  Henry Kissinger, the guru of U.S.-China diplomacy since 1971, spoke to Greta Van Susteren during an interview which was aired Wednesday night on Fox, where Van Susteren asked Kissinger questions centered around the promotion of his new book titled, On China.

Kissinger spoke about China’s history, and the importance of a “partnership” which should include American awareness of Chinese sensibilities.  This, of course, is common diplomatic talk– which almost always excludes any mention of Communism as the true affront on the Chinese culture– such as mass sterilization of its citizens, violent forced abortions, as well as imprisonment and execution of dissenters.

Mr. Kissinger seems to miss the point.

Americans are not interested in disrespecting Chinese traditional values and sensibilities.  Americans are interested in combating the Communist dictatorship that is oppressing its people– and threatening the United States strategically, both through development of dangerous weapons and support of rogue states like North Korea and Iran.

While one can assume that Kissinger’s interview may have been recorded earlier, the absence of additional or updated commentary about the rebellion in China is more than noteworthy– considering that it erupted several days ago.

Communism, with its powerful persecution machine, represses freedom of expression and religion wherever it rears its ugly head– and that includes Vietnam.  Ironically, during the past two weeks Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City have had Anti-China riots, over disputed waters. Vietnam is carrying out live-fire drills in the South China Sea while tensions escalate with Beijing.

Chinese state news claims that the Vietnamese fire drill is a military show of force to defy Beijing.  So, Beijing is not only facing protests from its citizens– but now it is also facing protests from another communist state.  This may be the beginning of the self-destruction of communism in Asia.

Yesterday I spoke with a Vietnamese Buddhist monk and a nun, visiting the U.S. as part of a larger group.  I have chosen to protect their identities given the fact that they are trying to carry out their spiritual practices under the Vietnamese Communist government’s watchful eye.  Like any spiritual or religious group in a communist state, these Vietnamese Buddhist monks and nuns are always subject to government intervention and restrictions.

I asked the monk if the Vietnamese government restricted their practices, and from his response it appears that Hanoi’s repressive government is alive and well..  The nun argued that the Vietnamese government cannot control everything that over 90 million Vietnamese citizens do– and that through the practice of her spirituality she is able to mentally block the controlled environment.

Current Vietnamese Buddhism has become more and more syncretic, as such, it is also more understanding of the reality of other Buddhist groups.  So, I asked the monk how he felt about China’s recent shut down of occupied Tibet to foreigners– as a desperate measure to prevent protests during the upcoming 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party.  His response was mostly centered on the concern for the poverty and the suffering of the Tibetan people– who continue to practice the Yellow Hat form of Buddhism, in spite of Beijing’s occupation and relentless abusive practices.

The question is, what will Washington do as Beijing escalates its violence against the Chinese population– particularly when considering President Obama’s current strategy of taking out Ghadafi in Libya, for his violent treatment of the Libyan people.

When it comes to the human spirit, Chinese people are no different than Americans.  More important than Kissinger’s concern with China’s ancient ways, is the natural order that God has decreed for man, which includes the irrepressible hope for a better life.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;

Man never Is, but always To be blest:

The soul, uneasy and confin’d from home,

Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

                                     Alexander Pope, from An Essay on Man

Marielena Montesino de Stuart

♦  ♦  ♦

© Marielena Montesino de Stuart

E-mail:   ContactTRCW@aol.com

You may read about  Marielena Montesino de Stuart’s observations and opinions through: RenewAmerica, USAToday, The Dallas Morning News, U.S. Politics Today (an EIN Service for Political Professionals-*) Poynter Online, Spero News, Daily Estimate, The New Liturgical Movement-Poland, The Naples Daily News, Les Femmes-The Truth, Culture War Notes,  ProLife Blogs,  The Wanderer, etc.

© All Rights Reserved

TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION: Henry Kissinger, Greta Van Susteren,Fox News Network,Riots in China, Rebellion in China

President Obama on Notice

by Marielena Montesino de Stuart

By a vote of  268 to 145, the House approved a resolution that strongly criticized President Obama for not obtaining congressional oversight of the military campaign in Libya. 

On Friday, the House delivered its criticism by declaring that President Obama had failed “to provide Congress with a compelling rationale” — but the House did not demand a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Libya.  The resolution gives Obama 14 days to come clean with his strategy.  President Obama will also have to convince Congress that the attacks are essential to U.S. interests.

Legislators from both sides of the aisle said that they could take harsher measures should Obama fail to make his case in the next two weeks.  The measures include cutting the funding for the military operation, or voting formally to “disapprove” the operation.

♦  ♦  ♦

© Marielena Montesino de Stuart

E-mail:    ContactTRCW@aol.com

Marielena Montesino de Stuart

You may read about  Marielena Montesino de Stuart’s observations and opinions through: RenewAmerica, USAToday, The Dallas Morning News, U.S. Politics Today (an EIN Service for Political Professionals-*) Poynter Online, Spero News, Daily Estimate, The New Liturgical Movement-Poland, The Naples Daily News, Les Femmes-The Truth, Culture War Notes,  ProLife Blogs,  The Wanderer, etc.

© All Rights Reserved

The Shangri-La Dialogue

by Marielena Montesino de Stuart

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) is based in London.  The IISS is the world’s leading think-tank for political-military conflict and strategy.  Each year the IISS sponsors the Asia Security Summit, known as the Shangri-La Dialogue– a series of military-to-military meetings held at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore.

On the surface this may appear to be a friendly pow-wow– but in reality, it is not.  The tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, with the aggressive Chinese Communist  territorial agenda, including threats to Taiwan and the attempt to control major waterways– has increased tensions between Beijing and Washington.  Indeed, the Chinese suspended meetings with the U.S. military, when President Obama cut a weapons deal with Taiwan. Of course, the United States does not show the same degree of indignation, when China is caught providing military support to Iran and North Korea.

Various delegations that hold bilateral meetings during the Shangri-La Dialogue are also kept busy.  These delegations include many academicians and business analysts who have built careers around the opposing worlds of Communism and Democracy.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie held bilateral talks during the Shangri-La Dialogue. This is the first time the Chinese defense minister has participated in this dialogue.  Even though the meeting was described as “cordial”– Gates and Guanglie discussed various points of friction.

Gates and Guanglie met during the month of January, in Beijing– so this conference is a continuation of their discussions.

Today’s meeting berween Gates and Guanglie was held at the same time that U.S. authorities investigate Google’s allegations that hackers from China stole email passwords of senior U.S. officials. Beijing denies responsibility for these cyber attacks– and claims that they have also been victims of cyber attacks in the past.  China may be gaining a lot of ground militarily and economically– but its communist system is incompatible with transparency– so Beijing’s words are not worth much in the world of diplomacy.  Apparently the cyber attacks were not discussed between U.S. and Chinese military officials, during today’s meeting.

Gates also met with Japan’s defense minister and Malaysia’s prime minister.  A notable U.S. supporter was Singapore’s Defense Minister, Ng Eng  Hen, who expressed his appreciation of the U.S. involvement in addressing regional security threats.

Gates will deliver the opening address for the Shangri-La Dialogue, on Saturday morning.

This is is the last Shangri-La Dialogue that Gates will attend as secretary of defense, since he will soon be replaced by CIA Director, Leon Panetta.

♦  ♦  ♦

© Marielena Montesino de Stuart

E-mail:    ContactTRCW@aol.com

Marielena Montesino de Stuart

You may read about  Marielena Montesino de Stuart’s observations and opinions through: RenewAmerica, USAToday, The Dallas Morning News, U.S. Politics Today (an EIN Service for Political Professionals-*) Poynter Online, Spero News, Daily Estimate, The New Liturgical Movement-Poland, The Naples Daily News, Les Femmes-The Truth, Culture War Notes,  ProLife Blogs,  The Wanderer, etc.

© All Rights Reserved

Beijing Knocks on The Pentagon’s Door

by Marielena Montesino de Stuart

China's Military Forces

The Chinese Communists are at it again.

Beijing is trying to obtain Pentagon contracts through Chinese defense firms.

Beijing claims that China is not a threat to the United States– but in fact, it is– and that is why lawmakers in the US House of Representatives have voted to bar Chinese defense firms from receiving Pentagon contracts.  The U.S. Senate will need to approve the amendment, before it is sent to President Obama.

Chinese state-owned military contractor, China Aviation Industry Corp (AVIC) may be making a bid for a contract to supply the US presidential helicopter.  Yes, the presidential helicopter.

The Pentagon

The vote by the House to stop China’s latest intrusion in the U.S.,  means that any company that is owned by, or connected to the Beijing Communist thugs, would  be excluded from U.S. defense contracts.

Thank you.

Related Reading:  The Beijing Affair… revisited

♦  ♦  ♦

© Marielena Montesino de Stuart

E-mail:    ContactTRCW@aol.com

Marielena Montesino de Stuart

You may read about  Marielena Montesino de Stuart’s observations and opinions through: RenewAmerica, USAToday, The Dallas Morning News, U.S. Politics Today (an EIN Service for Political Professionals-*) Poynter Online, Spero News, Daily Estimate, The New Liturgical Movement-Poland, The Naples Daily News, Les Femmes-The Truth, Culture War Notes,  ProLife Blogs,  The Wanderer, etc.

© All Rights Reserved