Cuba is not responding to requests from Panama and the U. N. Security Council for more details about an arms shipment that was interdicted on its way to North Korea, which Havana originally claimed was to have been returned after the weapons were repaired, Reuters reported on Friday.
Panamanian Foreign Minister Fernando Nunez Fabrega said there has been no communication between Havana and Panama City since an investigation into the weapons, discovered in July on the Chong Chon Gang North Korean freighter, revealed they were “obviously not obsolete” — as the Cuban government originally claimed.
Cuba called off a planned September meeting with Panama at the United Nations and has ignored all other Panamanian requests for contact.
“It was like talking to a brick wall,” Nunez Fabrega said in an interview.
The Security Council subcommittee with oversight on North Korean sanctions also has been unsuccessful in its requests for information from Cuba about the interdicted shipment of 25 containers of undeclared weapons, according to Reuters. U.N. sanctions experts already have inspected the arms and are preparing an official report on the matter.
Security Council sanctions forbid all U.N. member states from engaging in any weapons dealings with Pyongyang.
An analysis by independent experts has concluded the arms shipment was much greater in size than Havana originally admitted and that a number of the armaments were in “mint condition.” The report states the weapons — including two Soviet-era MiG fighter jets, anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank guns — were meant for North Korea’s military.
“Of the 15 [discovered] jet engines, 10 were in immaculate condition,” Nunez Fabrega said.
Panama has decided to soon allow almost all of the 35-member North Korean ship crew to go free, as they appear to have been unaware they were transporting weapons, the minister said. The freighter’s captain and his first mate could face prosecution.
The Chong Chon Gang also will likely be released to its owner, he said.
What We're Following See More »
Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."
In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin gives Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the longread treatment. The scourge of corrupt New York pols, bad actors on Wall Street, and New York gang members, Bharara learned at the foot of Chuck Schumer, the famously limelight-hogging senator whom he served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. No surprise then, that after President Obama appointed him, Bharara "brought a media-friendly approach to what has historically been a closed and guarded institution. In professional background, Bharara resembles his predecessors; in style, he’s very different. His personality reflects his dual life in New York’s political and legal firmament. A longtime prosecutor, he sometimes acts like a budding pol; his rhetoric leans more toward the wisecrack than toward the jeremiad. He expresses himself in the orderly paragraphs of a former high-school debater, but with deft comic timing and a gift for shtick."
President Obama has announced another round of commutations of prison sentences. Most of the 58 individuals named are incarcerated for possessions with intent to distribute controlled substances. The prisoners will be released between later this year and 2018.
The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"