Search - Menendez

By Cindy Casares/WashingtonCuban immigrants account for less than 1% of the US population, but they are uniquely poised by our immigration system to receive power and status that, in just one generation, can produce a candidate - or two - ready to enter the political scene on a national level. That’s why, though most Hispanics lean Democrat, though they are the largest minority population in the US, and though Donald Trump’s entire presidential campaign should be a Hispanic recruitment coup for the Democratic party, it’s not actually surprising that the two Hispanic frontrunners in the presidential race, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, are both Republicans. When pollsters say the vast majority of Hispanics lean Democrat, they’re speaking of Mexican Americans, who make up the largest group of Hispanics by a landslide. Nearly two-thirds of Hispanic Americans - 64% - are of Mexican descent. Sixty-five per cent of those, or 22.3mn, are US-born. Hispanics of Mexican origin make up 11% of the US population. But Mexican and Cuban immigrants have had vastly different experiences immigrating to this country. When Cubans are caught entering the US without documentation, they’re granted refuge if they have at least one foot on US soil. Before 1980, when both Marco Rubio’s parents and Ted Cruz’s father arrived in this country, any Cuban could receive political refuge in the US even if they were rescued at sea. A year after arriving, those Cuban immigrants could apply for permanent residency and eventually US citizenship. Think about that the next time you hear Ted Cruz’s father Rafael bragging about coming to the US legally. Immigration policy is just the beginning of the Cuban immigrant’s advantage in the US. During Fidel Castro’s Cuba, which lasted until 2008, US banks pioneered small business loans for Cuban exiles who had no credit or collateral in this country. With that startup capital, Cuban immigrants were uniquely set up by the American establishment to succeed financially. Their neighbourhoods and communities were able to develop robust economic and political systems to support the success of newer Cuban immigrants. Their descendants had a fast track to join the American elite. As a result, according to the Pew Research Center, compared with the rest of the Hispanic population in the US, Cubans have a higher level of education, higher median household income and higher rate of home ownership. Mexican Americans, on the other hand, inherit a legacy of discrimination that goes back to the founding of this country. The highly controversial Mexican American war, which secured Texas, California and the land in between for the US, is acknowledged by historians to be a land grab of dubious moral imperative. General Ulysses S Grant, who fought in it, said it was “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.” The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, but many of the Hispanic families that remained in the newly created American south-west had their land grants stolen by Anglo settlers. These grabs were often backed by the American states’ court systems. Thus began a grand American tradition of redlining American citizens of Mexican descent that continued openly until the 1980s, when it went largely underground. It still exists today in the form of economically depressed neighbourhoods and even whole regions, like the one from which I hail: the Rio Grande valley of Texas. The legacy of over 150 years of Mexican Americans - and later, immigrants from throughout Latin America - being segregated into the poorest communities our country has to offer has resulted in Hispanic Americans’ devastatingly low educational attainment rate and high rates of poverty, unemployment, incarceration and poor health. These circumstances hardly provide a pool brimming with high-level political talent. So Mexican Americans and other Hispanics are still not appearing in positions of national political power in proportion to their numbers - especially not within the Democratic party. In fact, a recent op-ed from NBC News points out that Bob Menendez is the only Latino Democrat in the US Senate, and he’s in danger of losing the job due to possible federal corruption charges. There are also only two Latino governors in the country, and they are both Republicans. There are exceptions to these dire numbers. I know hundreds of them. Latinos who, despite growing up in less-than-ideal circumstances, managed through great parenting, the advantages won by civil rights activists of the baby boomer generation and some God-given brains, to rise to the top of their fields. Two high-profile examples of this, and the best chance Americans have for a future Democratic presidential candidate of Hispanic descent, are the 41-year-old Castro twins of San Antonio, Texas. Joaquin is a US congressman, and Julián was the mayor of San Antonio and now serves as the US secretary of housing and urban development. Their mother, Rosie, is an activist who raised her sons on her own. She taught them to value community service and education, and they both graduated from Stanford University and Harvard Law. They have been in the national spotlight since Barack Obama ran for re-election and I believe they are, wisely, waiting until they are a little older before one of them throws his hat in the ring for the White House - though there are rumours that Julián is on the shortlist to become Hillary Clinton’s running mate should she gain the Democratic nomination. Texas Democratic party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa - the first Hispanic to hold the position - told me in a written statement that his organisation believes many issues important to Latinos, such as increasing incomes, making debt-free college a reality, ensuring paid-family leave, improving healthcare and fixing a broken immigration system, have been well represented by the current list of Democratic presidential candidates, but his organisation hopes that whoever wins the nomination will consider a Latino running mate. “Texas Democrats like Julián and Joaquin Castro have the values, government and leadership experience to be president,” Hinojosa said. For today, Hispanics have a choice between voting for a party that openly hates them and one that takes them for granted, because who else are they going to vote for? How long can Democrats hold on to Hispanics with this tactic? If the Republicans keep recruiting conservative Cubans, sooner or later they will grab a larger share of the rest of the Hispanic vote, too. - Guardian News & Media

Reuters/WashingtonUS Senator Ben Cardin said yesterday he would vote against the nuclear agreement with Iran, lessening the chances that President Barack Obama can win enough votes to avoid having to use his veto power to protect the international agreement. “This is a close call, but after a lengthy review, I will vote to disapprove the deal,” Cardin, the top Democrat on the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an opinion column to be published in The Washington Post. The Maryland lawmaker became the third Senate Democrat to announce his opposition. The others, Charles Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, came out against it last month. But the “yes” list in the Senate reached 38 yesterday, as Michael Bennet of Colorado announced his support for the deal. All of the lawmakers in favour are Democrats or independents who generally vote with them. That left just five of Obama’s fellow Democrats in the chamber undecided, including Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Gary Peters of Michigan and Ron Wyden of Oregon. Under a law co-written by Cardin and signed by Obama in May, Congress has until September 17 to vote on a “resolution of disapproval” of the nuclear agreement, announced on July 14 between the United States, five other world powers and Tehran. If such a resolution passed Congress and lawmakers overrode Obama’s promised veto, it would weaken the nuclear deal by eliminating the president’s ability to waive many sanctions on Iran, a key component of the pact. When Cardin’s fellow Maryland Democrat, Barbara Mikulski, became the 34th senator supporting the deal on Wednesday, Obama was assured that Congress would sustain a veto. Deal opponents need two-thirds majorities in both the 100-member Senate and 435-seat House of Representatives to override a veto. Deal supporters have been hoping to muster 41 Senate votes to use the filibuster procedural rule to block a vote on a disapproval resolution in the Senate and keep Obama from having to use his veto. Cardin’s announcement makes that target a more difficult one, more so as a spokesman for Manchin said he had decided he would not support a filibuster, although he has yet to make up his mind about the nuclear agreement itself. Lawmakers will begin to consider the resolution of disapproval as soon as they return from their August recess on Tuesday. The first vote in the House of Representatives is expected next week and the Senate could also begin voting as soon as next week. With Republicans virtually united in opposition, Democrats have spent the past two months rallying support for an agreement seen as a potential legacy foreign policy achievement for the president. Bennet, like many other lawmakers who support the pact, said it is not perfect but seems like the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. “Our primary objectives are to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, make sure Israel is safe and, if possible, avoid another war in the Middle East,” Bennet said in a statement. “This agreement represents a flawed, but important step to accomplish those goals.” No Republican in either the House or Senate has backed the nuclear deal. One Republican seen as a possible deal supporter, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, is expected to announce her position after Congress returns to Washington next week.

The deal now has 34 backers in the Senate—the number needed to uphold a certain Obama veto should Congress pass a resolution against itAFPWashingtonUS President Barack Obama yesterday earned sufficient congressional backing to ensure the Iran nuclear deal does not get blocked, when a 34th senator announced her support for the accord. Most US lawmakers are opposed to the deal, which would ease punishing economic sanctions on Tehran while preventing it from advancing its nuclear programme. Many Republicans warn that Iran will seek to cheat its way to an atomic bomb. But with Senate Democrat Barbara Mikulski announcing her support yesterday, the deal now has 34 backers in the Senate—the number needed to uphold a certain Obama veto should Congress pass a resolution that disapproves of the deal. Overcoming the veto would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate and House of Representatives. While the deal is not perfect, Mikulski said, “I have concluded that this is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb.” Some Republicans have urged walking away from the deal and renegotiating tougher terms with Tehran, but US negotiators have warned that such a move could see the fragile international coalition that secured the agreement fall apart. “It’s unclear if the European Union, Russia, China, India and others would continue sanctions if Congress rejects this deal,” said Mikulski, the longest-serving female senator in history. “At best, sanctions would be porous, or limited to unilateral sanctions by the US.” Republicans are unified in their opposition, warning that easing sanctions will provide Iran with a windfall of up to $150bn, which they say could be funnelled toward terrorist operations. “Iran deal done. With Mikulski, Obama has all the votes he needs,” number two Senate Republican John Cornyn posted on Twitter.  Secretary of State John Kerry, delivering a major speech in Philadelphia on the Iran deal, said Iran will be required to live up to the agreement in full before it starts to benefit from sanctions relief. “Without this agreement, Iran’s so-called breakout time (to produce enough fuel for a nuclear weapon) was about two months. With this agreement it will increase by a factor of six, to at least a year, and will remain at that level for a decade or more,” Kerry said. He also reiterated arguments he has been making in the two months since the deal was signed, insisting it is not based on trusting Tehran but on its ability to police its activity. “The United States and the international community will be monitoring Iran non-stop and you can bet that, if we see something, we will do something,” he said. “The standard we will apply can be summed up in two words: ‘Zero tolerance.’” Kerry made no mention of reaching the 34-vote Senate threshold, seeking to avoid the image of a victory lap as he aims to broaden support for the deal. The White House is now eyeing another key threshold in the Senate. If it gains backing from seven of the remaining undecided Democrats to boost its numbers to 41, it could filibuster, meaning Republicans would not have the 60 votes needed to force a vote on the resolution of disapproval. That would save Obama the embarrassing step of cobbling together a minority coalition for a veto to preserve his landmark agreement, a process that would sow doubts among a sceptical American public and Washington’s international partners, which are keen to see strong US commitment to the accord. Two top Democratic senators—Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez—are opposed to the deal, as are a handful of House Democrats, including Steve Israel, the chamber’s highest-ranking Jewish member. Congress is set to vote later this month on the accord, which was reached in July between Tehran and six world powers: Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. Among Democrats in support, many have expressed deep concern about Iran’s adherence to the deal, and stressed it is the lesser of several evils. “The alternative, to me, is a scenario of uncertainty and isolation,” Senator Chris Coons said on Tuesday as he announced his support. Republican presidential candidates have slammed the deal as a concession to an odious regime. “When I’m president, we won’t just reverse President Obama’s dangerous Iran deal. We will increase sanctions on Iran,” Senator Marco Rubio said.

Barack Obama speaks to the media before boarding a boat for a tour of the Kenai Fjords National Park in Seward, Alaska. The presidents has earned sufficient congressional backing to ensure the Iran nuclear deal does not get blocked. AFP/Washington US President Barack Obama on Wednesday earned sufficient congressional backing to ensure the Iran nuclear deal does not get blocked, when a 34th senator announced her support for the accord. Most US lawmakers are opposed to the deal, which would ease punishing economic sanctions on Tehran while preventing it from advancing its nuclear program. Many Republicans warn that the Islamic republic will seek to cheat its way to an atomic bomb. Should Congress pass a resolution that disapproves of the deal, Obama would veto it. Overcoming the veto would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate and House of Representatives. With veteran Senate Democrat Barbara Mikulski announcing her support on Wednesday, the deal now has 34 backers in the Senate - the number needed to uphold Obama's veto. While the deal is not perfect, Mikulski said, "I have concluded that this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb." She added that while she will vote for the deal, "Congress must also reaffirm our commitment to the safety and security of Israel." Republicans are unified in their opposition to the Iran accord, warning that the easing of sanctions will provide Iran with a windfall of up to $150bn, which they say could be funnelled toward terrorist operations or actions against US ally Israel. Democrats "own it," number two Senate Republican John Cornyn posted on Twitter. "Iran deal done. With Mikulski, Obama has all the votes he needs." Kerry makes the case   Secretary of State John Kerry, in Philadelphia to deliver a major speech on the Iran deal, said the Islamic republic will be required to live up to the agreement in full, including taking steps to expand its weapons breakout time, before it starts to benefit from sanctions relief. "Without this agreement, Iran's so-called breakout time was about two months. With this agreement it will increase by a factor of six, to at least a year, and will remain at that level for a decade or more," Kerry said. Two top Democratic senators - Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez - are opposed to the deal, as are a handful of House Democrats, including Steve Israel, the chamber's highest-ranking Jewish member. Congress is set to vote later this month on the accord, which was reached in July between Tehran and six world powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the US. The White House is now eyeing another key threshold in the Senate. Should 41 senators back Obama, they could filibuster, meaning Republicans would not have the 60 votes needed to advance the resolution of disapproval. That would save Obama the embarrassing step of cobbling together a minority coalition for a veto to preserve his landmark agreement, a process that would sow doubts among an already skeptical American public and Washington's international partners, which are keen to see strong US commitment to the accord. Among Democrats in support, many have expressed deep concern about Iran's adherence to the accord, and stressed it is the lesser of several evils.

Obama: All of the options available to the United States – including the military option – will remain available through the life of the deal and beyond.AFP/Reuters/WashingtonThe United States will respond firmly if Iran fails to honour the accord aimed at curbing its nuclear programme, President Barack Obama said yesterday as he works to win over undecided US lawmakers.“We have a wide array of unilateral and multilateral responses that we can employ if Iran fails to meets its commitments,” Obama said in a letter dated August 19 and sent to Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat in the House of Representatives who announced that he will vote to approve the accord.In his letter released by the White House, Obama reiterated his view that the accord reached last month in Vienna is good for the United States, Israel and the Middle East in general.The president also insisted, as he has many times, that all options remain on the table if Iran does not abide by the accord.The agreement lifts economic sanctions against Tehran in exchange for restrictions and other measures designed to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.“All of the options available to the United States – including the military option – will remain available through the life of the deal and beyond,” Obama said.The letter was released as opponents of the accord wage a fierce campaign against it ahead of a vote in Congress in September.Opponents say the accord goes too easy on Iran, by not allowing spot inspections of nuclear sites or forcing it to halt support of militant groups, for instance.So far only two Democratic senators – Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez – have come out publicly against the accord.It is unlikely that opponents can muster the two-thirds majority they would to override a certain Obama veto if an initial vote by lawmakers rejects the accord.Nadler said yesterday that he supports it.It is not perfect, but it “gives us the best chance of stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon”, he said in a statement.Nadler said that he had reached this conclusion from his perspective as “an American Jew who is both a Democrat and a strong supporter of Israel”.The accord, vehemently opposed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has sharply divided the US Jewish community.Obama needs to win the backing of one-third of either the House of Representatives or the Senate to prevent Republicans from killing the nuclear deal announced in July.Signed by world powers and Iran, the agreement would require Tehran to abide by new limits on its nuclear programme in return for western governments easing economic sanctions.According to a Reuters tally, Obama is eight votes away from capturing one-third of the Senate, or 34 senators, with about a month remaining to find the additional support he needs.The Bipartisan Policy Centre, which is tracking lawmakers’ positions, said on Thursday that 69 House members now support the Iran deal, with another 140 in the 435-member chamber still undeclared.Obama would need the support of at least 146 House members to safeguard the agreement in that chamber.Even though Congress is on a five-week summer recess and Obama is vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard, the White House has kept up pressure on the president’s fellow Democrats to provide him with enough support when Congress casts votes in September.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, this month told a Kentucky newspaper that the battle in Congress “is stacked in the president’s favour”.In a letter to colleagues yesterday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she was confident Democrats would prevent an override of a veto by Obama of a measure to kill the agreement.

Secretary of State John Kerry clapping during the raising of the US flag over the newly-reopened embassy in Havana yesterday.Reuters/HavanaWatched over by US Secretary of State John Kerry, US Marines raised the American flag at the embassy in Cuba for the first time in 54 years yesterday, symbolically ushering in an era of renewed diplomatic relations between the two Cold War-era foes. Three retired Marines who last lowered the flag in 1961 participated in the ceremony, handing a new flag to the Marine Color Guard, which raised it on the grounds outside the embassy building on the Havana seafront. Kerry, the first US secretary of state to visit Cuba in 70 years, told the ceremony it was obvious that “the road of mutual isolation and estrangement that the US and Cuba have been travelling is not the right one and that the time has come for us to move in a more promising direction”. The symbolic event took place eight months after Havana and Washington agreed to restore ties and nearly four weeks after the US and Cuba formally renewed diplomatic relations and upgraded their diplomatic missions to embassies. While the Cubans celebrated with a flag-raising in Washington on July 20, the Americans waited until Kerry could travel to Havana. Kerry made plain in his remarks that despite the historic opening, Washington has not set aside criticism of Communist-run Cuba’s human rights record. “We remain convinced the people of Cuba would be best served by a genuine democracy, where people are free to choose their leaders,” he said. Kerry met Cuban dissidents opposed to the island’s one-party political system at the US embassy residence in Havana later yesterday. But dissidents were not invited to the morning flag-raising in deference to the Cuban government, generating criticism from opponents of US President Barack Obama’s opening to Cuba. Critics of Obama’s move, which seeks to end decades of US isolation and was announced last December in a landmark agreement with Cuban President Raul Castro, complain the Cuban government has made no concessions in exchange for diplomatic ties. “It is shameful that on the grounds of our embassy in Havana, the Cuban regime can dictate to the US government who may or may not attend this ceremony,” Bob Menendez, a Cuban-American senator from New Jersey, said in a statement. Overnight, workers attached a sign reading “Embassy of the US of America” above the entrance of the building, accompanied by a US seal. Three classic American cars like those that still ply the streets of Havana were parked on the street behind the podium where Kerry spoke: a 1955 and a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 1959 Chevrolet Impala, from the year of the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power. Fidel Castro handed over power to his brother, Raul Castro, in 2008 because of poor health. Buildings surrounding the embassy were draped with large Cuban flags but the numerous flag poles in front of the embassy were bare but for one Cuban flag. In last December’s agreement, Obama and Raul Castro announced they would restore diplomatic ties, reopen embassies and work to normalize relations. With ties now restored, there are plenty of hurdles along the way to normal relations between the two neighbors. Cuba wants the US to end its economic embargo of the island, return the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in eastern Cuba and halt radio and television signals beamed into Cuba. The Americans will press Cuba on human rights, the return of fugitives granted asylum and the claims of Americans whose property was nationalised by Fidel Castro’s government. President Dwight Eisenhower severed diplomatic ties with Havana as relations soured soon after the 1959 Cuban Revolution. The seven-story building in Havana and Cuba’s mansion in Washington were closed from 1961 until 1977, when they reopened as interests sections. Obama has defended his move to open up to the Caribbean island saying Washington’s long policy of trying to force change through isolation did not work.

John Kerry walks next to the Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Havana Jeffrey DeLaurentis upon his arrival at Jose Marti international airport in Havana on Friday. Reuters/Havana Watched over by US Secretary of State John Kerry, US Marines raised the American flag at the embassy in Cuba for the first time in 54 years on Friday, symbolically ushering in an era of renewed diplomatic relations between the two Cold War-era foes. Three retired Marines who last lowered the flag in 1961 participated in the ceremony, handing a new flag to the Marine Color Guard, which raised it on the grounds outside the embassy building on the Havana seafront. Kerry, the first US secretary of state to visit Cuba in 70 years, told the ceremony it was obvious that "the road of mutual isolation and estrangement that the US and Cuba have been travelling is not the right one and that the time has come for us to move in a more promising direction." The symbolic event took place eight months after Havana and Washington agreed to restore ties and nearly four weeks after the US and Cuba formally renewed diplomatic relations and upgraded their diplomatic missions to embassies. While the Cubans celebrated with a flag-raising in Washington on July 20, the Americans waited until Kerry could travel to Havana. Historic opening Kerry made plain in his remarks that despite the historic opening, Washington has not set aside criticism of Communist-run Cuba's human rights record. "We remain convinced the people of Cuba would be best served by a genuine democracy, where people are free to choose their leaders," he said. Kerry will meet Cuban dissidents opposed to the island's one-party political system at the US embassy residence in Havana later on Friday. But dissidents were not invited to the morning flag-raising in deference to the Cuban government, generating criticism from opponents of US President Barack Obama's opening to Cuba. Critics of Obama's move, which seeks to end decades of US isolation and was announced last December in a landmark agreement with Cuban President Raul Castro, complain the Cuban government has made no concessions in exchange for diplomatic ties. "It is shameful that on the grounds of our embassy in Havana, the Cuban regime can dictate to the US government who may or may not attend this ceremony," Bob Menendez, a Cuban-American senator from New Jersey, said in a statement. Overnight, workers attached a sign reading "Embassy of the US of America" above the entrance of the building, accompanied by a US seal. Three classic American cars like those that still ply the streets of Havana were parked on the street behind the podium where Kerry spoke: a 1955 and a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 1959 Chevrolet Impala, from the year of the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power. Fidel Castro handed over power to his brother, Raul Castro, in 2008 because of poor health. Buildings surrounding the embassy were draped with large Cuban flags but the numerous flag poles in front of the embassy were bare but for one Cuban flag. In last December's agreement, Obama and Raul Castro announced they would restore diplomatic ties, reopen embassies and work to normalise relations. Hurdles to come With ties now restored, there are plenty of hurdles along the way to normal relations between the two neighbors. Cuba wants the US to end its economic embargo of the island, return the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in eastern Cuba and halt radio and television signals beamed into Cuba. The Americans will press Cuba on human rights, the return of fugitives granted asylum and the claims of Americans whose property was nationalized by Fidel Castro's government. President Dwight Eisenhower severed diplomatic ties with Havana as relations soured soon after the 1959 Cuban Revolution. The seven-storey building in Havana and Cuba's mansion in Washington were closed from 1961 until 1977, when they reopened as interests sections. Obama has defended his move to open up to the Caribbean island saying Washington's long policy of trying to force change through isolation did not work. The Democratic president also has used his executive power to relax some US travel and trade restrictions. But the Republican-controlled Congress has resisted his call to end America's wider economic embargo.

Reuters/WashingtonThe Cuban flag was raised over Havana's embassy in Washington on Monday for the first time in 54 years as the United States and Cuba formally restored relations, opening a new chapter of engagement between the former Cold War foes. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez presided over the reinauguration of the embassy, a milestone in the  diplomatic thaw that began with a breakthrough announcement by US President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro on Dec. 17. The US Embassy in Havana was also officially reopened for business. But the Stars and Stripes will not be hoisted there until a visit by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry expected next month. Without fanfare in the pre-dawn hours, maintenance workers also hung the Cuban flag in the lobby of the US State Department, where it joined the banners of other countries with which the United States has diplomatic relations. Serious differences remain between the United States and Communist-ruled Cuba, and efforts toward full normalization of ties are expected to proceed slowly for now. But the steps that officially took effect on Monday carried enormous symbolism after more than two years of initially secret negotiations between governments that had long shunned each other. More than 500 people, including Obama administration officials, US lawmakers and a large visiting Cuban delegation, attended the ceremony at the nearly century-old mansion that was being converted back into the Cuban Embassy. The US delegation was headed by Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson. A three-man honor guard marched onto the front lawn where the Cuban flag was mounted on a newly installed pole while a band played the Cuban national anthem. As the flag was slowly raised, there were competing chants from the crowd outside the gates. "Cuba si, embargo no!" Shouted one group. "Cuba si, Fidel no," yelled a much smaller group. In a further sign of a desire to move past decades of enmity, Kerry and Rodriguez, the first Cuban foreign minister on an official visit to Washington since the Cuban Revolution, were due to meet at the State Department and then hold a news conference later on Monday.  No invitations to anti-Castro lawmakers The crowd at the embassy reopening included members of Congress who have supported rapprochement. But no invitations went to hard-line anti-Castro lawmakers, such as Senators Marco Rubio and Bob Menendez, who have opposed Obama's outreach and modest easing of restrictions on business and travel. "You don't invite into your home those who want to do you harm," Gustavo Machin, deputy director for US affairs in the Cuban Foreign Ministry, said in Havana last week. The meeting between Kerry and Rodriguez will be their first since April during the Summit of the Americas in Panama, where Obama and Castro also held talks. The opening to Cuba marks not only a legacy achievement for Obama but also a major application of his presidential doctrine of negotiating with enemies, a concept that now faces an even tougher test with a nuclear deal reached with Iran last week. The re-establishment of embassies could usher in a new era of engagement between the United States and Cuba by easing government contacts heavily constrained since the United States broke off diplomatic relations in 1961. A full-service US mission in Havana could offer some reassurance to companies interested in investing in Cuba and also help seed the way for more - although still heavily restricted - travel to the island by American citizens. But both countries have made clear that restoration of ties, agreed on July 1, will be just a step in a long normalization process that is only inching along because of lingering disputes as well as Havana's desire to keep a tight rein on Cuba's society and its state-run economy. Differences include the US economic embargo, Cuba's human rights record, outstanding legal claims against each country, American fugitives still sheltered in Cuba and Washington's retention of its naval base at Guantanamo Bay. The embargo will remain in place, and only Congress can lift it, something that majority Republicans are unlikely to do anytime soon. Neither side has named an ambassador. The Obama administration has made clear it is in no rush, mindful that  Republicans have vowed to block any nominee. 

By Mike Hytner in Sydney/theguardian.comThe father of Australian tennis star Bernard Tomic has said his family is considering taking legal action against Tennis Australia following an e-mail sent on Monday that stated the country’s top-ranked men’s player was to feature in the “Hall of Shame Tennis Championships”.John Tomic issued a statement through Fairfax Media which made clear his frustration at the latest instalment of the very public disintegration of the Tomic family’s relationship with the governing body.“The Tomic family is very disappointed by TA’s continual shaming and misrepresentation of Bernard,” John Tomic’s statement read. “Bernard has already been punished by his non-selection for the upcoming Davis Cup tie.“Bernard accepted his sanction in a professional manner and was willing to move on ... how typically childish and arrogant of TA to permit publication of such material and then expect to get away with it. We have no alternative but to refer the matter to our legal people for advice.”Tennis Australia was on Monday forced into issuing an apology for the typo in the email which should have said Tomic would be playing in the Hall of Fame Tennis Championships, taking place this week in the US city of Newport. A TA statement blamed the faux pas on a “simple clerical error”.Tomic is only playing at the tournament in Rhode Island after being dumped from the Australian Davis Cup team for his 10-minute tirade against TA officials following his exit from Wimbledon a week and a-half ago. He lost his first round encounter against fellow Australian John-Patrick Smith in straight sets 6-3, 7-5.Australia’s Davis Cup team is playing Kazakhstan in a World Group quarter-final this weekend.Smith sends tomic crashing AFP/NewportAustralian John-Patrick Smith won his first ATP main draw victory on Monday, upsetting third-seeded countryman Bernard Tomic 6-3, 7-5 in the first round of the Hall of Fame Championships. Smith, ranked 156th, needed only 70 minutes to dispatch Tomic, taking 15 of 23 points off Tomic’s second serve and surrendering only one service break to the world number 25. Smith had been 0-5 in ATP matches after first-round losses this year to South African Kevin Anderson at Delray Beach and Frenchman Kenny De Schepper in five sets at Wimbledon. Next up for Smith will be 166th-ranked American Jared Donaldson, who beat 125-rated compatriot Austin Krajicek 6-7 (5/7), 6-3, 6-2 in another opener on the grass courts outside the tennis legends honour hall where induction ceremonies will be staged on Saturday. Croatian second seed Ivo Karlovic blasted 11 aces and never faced a break point in battling past Ukraine’s Illya Marchenko 7-6 (7/4), 6-7 (6/8), 6-4. Karlovic took the only break of the match to advance after two hours and 23 minutes. Japan’s Tatsuma Ito outlasted US wildcard Noah Rubin 6-3, 6-7 (7/9), 6-4 to book  a second-round date with US seventh seed Steve Johnson, who downed Germany’s Michael Berrer 6-7 (6/8), 6-1, 6-2. Also moving on was Colombia’s Alejandro Falla, who ousted Spain’s Adrian Menendez-Maceiras 6-1, 7-5.

HH the Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani with the Leader of Minority in the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and other senior officials in Washington yesterday.   QNA /WashingtonHH the Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani met number of members of the US Senate at the Congress here yesterday. The Emir held the first meeting with Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Senator John McCain, Intelligence Committee Chairman Council Senator Richard Barr, Deputy Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Senator Jack Reed, and Vice-Chairman of the Intelligence Committee Senator Dianne Feinstein. The meeting reviewed bilateral relations between Qatar and the US and the prospects for developing co-operation between the two countries. In the second meeting, HH the Emir met the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, and several members of the Committee. Discussions during the meeting dealt with bilateral ties and areas of co-operation and ways to promote them in order to serve the common interests, as well as exchange of views on the latest developments in the Middle East. The meeting was attended by the members of the official delegation accompanying the Emir. The Emir also met at the US Congress with the Democratic House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi. Discussions during the meeting dealt with topics of mutual interest. The meeting was attended by the members of the official delegation accompanying the Emir.

Reuters/WashingtonUS House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress on Iran without consulting President Barack Obama, and the White House questioned whether protocol had been violated.Setting up a diplomatic showdown on an issue that has sharply divided Obama and congressional Republicans, Boehner announced the invitation the day after Obama pledged in his State of the Union address to veto Iran sanctions legislation being developed in Congress.An Israeli official said that Netanyahu, whose relationship with Obama has often been tense, was looking into the possibility of meeting with Obama when he comes to Washington to address a joint meeting of Congress – both the Senate and House – on February 11.White House spokesman Josh Earnest said: “The protocol would suggest that the leader of one country would contact the leader of another country when he’s travelling there. This particular event seems to be a departure from that protocol.”Asked by a reporter if inviting Netanyahu without speaking to the White House was a “poke in the eye” to Obama, Boehner, a Republican, said: “The Congress can make this decision on its own. I don’t believe I’m poking anyone in the eye.”A Republican aide later said that Netanyahu will travel to Washington in March to address Congress so he can make one trip instead of two in the run-up to the March 17 Israeli election.“The Israelis initially agreed to a date in February, but decided they only wanted the prime minister to make one trip to the US before the election, so they asked to change to the first week in March,” the aide said yesterday.Lawmakers trying to amass enough support to override any veto by Obama are developing several pieces of Iran-related legislation, including a bill to tighten sanctions if a final nuclear agreement is not reached before the end of June.On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a contentious hearing on Iran with administration officials.The Senate Banking Committee is due to vote on the sanctions bill next week.Speaking to reporters travelling with Obama aboard Air Force One, Earnest said that the White House was reserving judgment until there was a chance to discuss Netanyahu’s trip with Israeli officials.“We’ll need to hear from them about what their plans are and what he plans to say in his remarks to Congress before we have a decision to make about any meeting,” Earnest said.A Republican aide said Boehner’s office and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s office began discussing an invitation to Netanyahu at the staff level last year.The aide said Boehner called Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer on January 8 to gauge Netanyahu’s interest, just after he was re-elected Speaker.Dermer responded with “a quick affirmative response” and Boehner’s office offered a series of potential dates, the Republican aide said.An Israeli embassy spokesman declined comment.Netanyahu’s planned address to Congress would make him only the second foreign leader to address a joint meeting of Congress three times. The other was Britain’s war-time prime minister, Winston Churchill.In a statement announcing the invitation to Netanyahu, Boehner said: “In this time of challenge, I am asking the prime minister to address Congress on the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life.”Iran’s nuclear programme has been one of the more contentious issues in the Netanyahu-Obama relationship.Netanyahu has been a vocal critic of Obama’s Iran diplomacy, saying that the administration is making too many concessions to Iran for too little in return.Congressional Republicans, who overwhelmingly back stronger sanctions legislation, and some Democrats have accused the president of making too many concessions to Tehran and therefore not being sufficiently supportive of Israel.US Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified in the US Senate on Wednesday that there was still a “credible chance” for international negotiators to reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme.He said negotiators were aiming to conclude major elements of an agreement by the end of March and complete technical details by the end of June.Separately, the US State Department said US and Iranian negotiators would hold talks in Switzerland today and tomorrow about Iran’s nuclear programme.Lawmakers at Wednesday’s hearing insisted that Congress should be allowed to vote on any final nuclear agreement.Some disagreed with the administration’s strategy, including allowing Iran to continue low-level uranium enrichment in any final pact.“The more I hear from the administration ... the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran,” said Senator Robert Menendez, the leading Democrat on the Foreign Relations panel.Boehner said the House would also likely at some point hold hearings on more sanctions against Iran.

Cuban President Raul Castro (third right) receives released Cuban prisoners Ramon Labanino (second left), Gerardo Hernandez (third left), and Antonio Guerrero (second right), who were greeted also by Fernando Gonzalez (left) and Rene Gonzalez (right) upon their return from the US.  Labanino, Hernandez and Antonio Guerrero, released after more than 15 years behind bars in the US, arrived on Cuban soil following a prisoner exchange that paved the way for a historic breakthrough the Cold War standoff with the US. AFP Washington US President Barack Obama’s historic decision to renew ties with Cuba was a diplomatic triumph but he faces a tough battle with Congress over lifting the embargo at the heart of the dispute. As world leaders welcomed the groundbreaking announcement, the harsh reality remained that the embargo, a cornerstone of US policy, is here to stay, at least for the near future. “This Congress is not going to lift the embargo,” Republican senator Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American seen as a possible presidential candidate in 2016, told reporters. He blasted Obama’s moves as “a victory for oppression” and said he would “use every tool at our disposal in the majority to unravel as many of these changes as possible.” Experts agree that, in addition to government agencies signing off on rolling back the embargo, congressional legislation would be needed to repeal laws like the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which tightened prohibitions on US trade with Cuba. Obama said he would urge Congress to lift the embargo imposed in 1960, while using his presidential authority to advance diplomatic and travel links and ease restrictions on finance. “We are all Americans,” Obama declared, breaking into Spanish. But the Republicans will take full control of Congress in January and, with anger still pulsing over Obama’s unilateral immigration action last month, a swift repeal of the embargo is unlikely. While some backed Obama’s move, key Democrats, including senator Robert Menendez and congressman Eliot Engel, expressed opposition. “I believe that Congress must see a greater political opening in Cuba before lifting the embargo,” said Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Funding to re-open the US mission in Havana would require congressional appropriation, and lawmakers like senator Lindsey Graham say they would seek to block it. Meanwhile Zoe Valdes, one of the best-known Cuban authors, yesterday said the historic rapprochement was not likely to improve the lives of people in the communist-run island. “It’s very important progress, but for the Castro leaders, not for the people,” Valdes, who has lived in exile in France for close to two decades, said adding she was “very sceptical and pessimistic.” “I don’t think this will improve the lot of the Cubans. We will have to wait for the death of both Castros, or even more, for things to change.” Raul Castro, 83, took over from his ailing older brother Fidel in 2008 and set about toning down the government’s anti-American rhetoric and taking baby steps toward economic reform, helping to pave the way for the rapprochement. Castro and US President Barack Obama made simultaneous speeches Wednesday in Havana and Washington to make an announcement that took the world by surprise. “There is already a bad sign: Obama’s speech was not broadcast in Cuba,” said Valdes, who was born in Cuba in 1959. “In his, Raul Castro said: ‘we must begin to behave in a civilised manner’. Is he going to apply that inside the country? I don’t think so. And we don’t know the content of discussions between the two countries.”