The Donroe Doctrine
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
My record would say I am a Liberal if number of votes tallied was the criteria, but don’t let that get in the way of your utter ignorance.
Interesting, in a historical context to lay a foundation for the Donroe Doctrine, at least as far as justification for the current Presidents behaviour to his neighbours in general and Cuba in particular? I had never heard of this before this morning and stumbled across it by accident. I was looking up project blue balls, & this was down the same rabbit hole.
Short version. . . we swiped Cuba from the Spanish in the Spanish-American War in 1902, and imposed a provision in the constitution of "independent" Cuba that the U.S. could "intervene" and "supervise" whenever absolutely necessary or we felt like it.
Over the decades, Cuba became a country of dirt-poor sugarcane and coca farmers and glitzy hotels on the coast with gambling, hookers, and blow for Yanks who were far too good Christians to do that stuff at home. Cuba was run for cheap sugar and easy access to the aforementioned GH&B until it decide to get really independent in 1959. Having experienced the U.S. version of capitalism, Cuba chose to be communist in name, though it doesn't really matter what tag you hang on a thugocracy. So we tried stupid interventions for a few years, which drove Cuba into the arms of the Soviets for self-defence. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba fell on hard times, though they still cling to the "Communist" tag.
It's ultimate fate will be that of any other tropical island off the shore of a military and economic superpower. If they had sense enough to pound sand down a rathole, they'd go all in for GH&B, and use the proceeds to provide a decent life for their people (as well as mega-riches for the connected). But they don't, so what're ya gonna do?
Canucks and the rest of the world have been going there for GB&H all along.
Cuba sees short-term relief as Russian oil begins to flow — Reuters
Cubans this week began to reap the benefits of a recent 100,000 metric ton delivery of Russian oil, a temporary lifeline for the energy-starved nation and the first major shipment of oil to the island since the United States moved to cut off its fuel early this year.
Zambia's government said on Monday that it opposed a U.S. attempt to tie health funding to access to critical minerals, giving details for the first time about why negotiations with Washington over two proposed agreements have stalled.Zambia's Foreign Minister Mulambo Haimbe said the United States had offered support of up to $2 billion over the next five years in a proposed health agreement, but that some of the terms regarding data sharing would violate Zambians' right to privacy? Data sharing?
Separately, he said Zambia had objections to the content of a proposed critical minerals agreement.
"A further concern... is the coupling of the proposed agreements and frameworks to one another such that the conclusion of the critical minerals agreement is made conditional to the conclusion of the Health MOU," Haimbe said in a statement.
Medicine for Minerals: US Foreign Assistance in Africa - Foreign Policy Research Institute
In a March 16, 2026 article, The New York Times reported that it had obtained the draft of a memo indicating that the State Department is considering
www.fpri.org
"The Zambian Government has been consistent that the agreements must be considered separately on their respective merits," he added. He did not specify what health data the U.S. was asking for???
Regarding the critical minerals agreement, he said Zambia was reluctant to accept the terms due to an insistence on preferential treatment for U.S. companies. The U.S. State Department has said that it does not disclose details of bilateral
Health advocates had warned that the proposed health deal linked the money to mining access and brought data-sharing risks, but Zambia's government previously said only that parts of it were not aligned with the country's interests.
A number of African nations have signed memorandums of understanding which represent the Trump administration's new approach to foreign aid. Ghana and Zimbabwe have rejected them over data sharing demands.
The statement from Haimbe was issued in response to criticism from outgoing U.S. ambassador Michael Gonzales, who accused Zambia of failing to engage on the health funding offer, something which Haimbe denied?
Zambia says US health deal must be uncoupled from minerals access — Reuters
Zambia's government said on Monday that it opposed a U.S. attempt to tie health funding to access to critical minerals, giving details for the first time about why negotiations with Washington over two proposed agreements have stalled.
AI-driven copper mine in Zambia breaks ground — Semafor
Silicon Valley-based KoBold used AI to help find a previously unknown concentrated copper ore deposit on the site.
Ghana Rebuffs US Health Deal – But South Africa And Zambia Struggle Without Aid - Health Policy Watch
Ghana has become the latest African country to reject the United States’ terms for bilateral health assistance, particularly the requirement to share
The agreements were stalled because of U.S. insistence that the health money would be conditional on a minerals deal, he said. It was the first time Zambia has disclosed details of the dispute.
Canadian companies First Quantum Minerals Ltd. FM-T and Barrick Mining Corp. ABX-T are among the biggest investors in Zambia’s mining sector, together producing more than half of Zambia’s copper annually. Chinese and Middle Eastern companies are also major players in the Zambian mining sector.
But U.S. investors are scrambling to catch up. Last week, U.S. company KoBold Metals broke ground on the Mingomba copper mine, a planned US$3-billion project that would become Zambia’s biggest copper mine. The company is backed by U.S. billionaires Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.
U.S. tied health deal to critical mineral access, Zambia says — The Globe and Mail
African nation rejects Trump administration’s bid for preferential treatment in its mining sector
Is the US forcing Zambia to trade minerals for lives?
Zambia must decide by April 30 if it will provide American businesses with preferential access to its minerals, or lose support for 1.3 million people who re...
www.youtube.com
A missed April 30, 2026 deadline to accept the deal has left funding uncertain.
Understanding the global copper supply crunch is essential context for evaluating why the Zambia US health aid minerals deal has attracted such intense geopolitical attention from Washington.
Copper is not simply a commodity in this context. It is a foundational input for the energy transition. Every electric vehicle requires roughly two to four times more copper than a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle. Offshore wind installations, solar farms, and grid-scale battery storage systems all carry similarly elevated copper intensity compared to legacy energy infrastructure.
The International Energy Agency has consistently identified copper supply adequacy as one of the most pressing constraints on clean energy deployment timelines.
Fully electric Zamboni ice resurfacers, such as the Model 552AC and Model 650, provide zero-emission, quiet operation for indoor rinks, powered by advanced lithium-ion or lead-acid batteries. These machines offer high-torque, low-maintenance performance with reduced operating costs, featuring four-wheel drive and efficient ice-cutting technology designed for rinks up to 200 ft. x 100 ft..
The proposed health compact between Zambia and the United States was structured as a bilateral agreement estimated at approximately $2 billion, designed to fund HIV/AIDS treatment, malaria programmes, and maternal health services over a multi-year period.
Approximately 1.3 million Zambians currently receive antiretroviral therapy under US-supported health programmes, making the continuity of this compact a matter of direct, measurable consequence for a substantial portion of the population. The April 30, 2026 deadline passed without a signed agreement, creating an operational grey zone for programmes that now lack formal structural funding guarantees.
https://www.ft.com/content/fb275aae-355f-481f-ab30-999d861b7d42?syn-25a6b1a6=1
Donald Trump doesn’t like renewable energy. He has cut tax credits and regulations that favour green investments, claimed offshore wind farms make whales go “a little bit loco” and pulled the US out of the Paris climate agreement (again). And yet, since his return to the White House in January 2025, the president’s actions have inadvertently raised the long-term appeal of green energy around the world. Ahhh…the eight dimensional chess thing…
These are Chinese exports but
.