By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
It has been repeatedly said that the American people are the only ones who could perform the Herculean task of bringing down the most powerful and bloodthirsty empire ever known to humankind. Humanity anxiously hopes to see the US people act, and will provide the solidarity they would have earned.
The frequent US asymmetric wars against countries incomparably poorer and militarily weaker than the only superpower have awakened the humanitarian consciousness of many Americans who have strongly demonstrated solidarity with these abused peoples.
The continuous embarrassing exposure of prisoners’ human rights violations – including torture and serious indignities– in US public or secret prisons scattered around the world, have awakened the awareness of millions of Americans who condemn such injustice.
However, as a result of the manipulation and deceit they are subjected to in their religious faith, or the naivete that for years has been instilled by the media dominated by corporate and banking elites, Americans have been impregnated –for more than a century– with the influence of a neo-conservative policy with fundamentalist traits that today some consider their national feature.
After the collapse of the USSR and the European socialist bloc –which meant the end of the Cold War– the US government intensified its economic war against Cuba, a country that had remained as a thorn in the throat of imperialism.
With new laws, there was a better definition of the set of tools aimed at the economic and financial drowning of the island. There were also other measures whose goal was to “cause shortages, suffering, and the overthrow of the Cuban government” –as originally defined, more than half a century ago, by the objectives of the US blockade, euphemistically called an “embargo”.
Fidel Castro, called on the Cuban people to “tighten their belts” and prepare for shortages and greater sacrifices. Cubans responded by closing ranks around the leader of the Revolution. The results of their heroic resistance can be seen today. Reason, justice, and patriotism were victorious. The internationalist solidarity of countless people around the world who stimulated the success of the Cubans with their sincere help has also been victorious.
A uni-polar world followed the end of the Cold War. A single superpower tries to impose its selfish interests on the rest of the planet. The neoliberal globalization imposed on the world’s peoples, with its consequences of hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, discrimination, and many other ills of humanity. This proves that it is not geographical fatalism, or an alleged racial inferiority, but the very essence of the bourgeois order that determines these evils in human societies.
Neo-liberalism, the order which the North spreads, imposes on the South, and recommends itself as a panacea for all the misfortunes of humankind that which is precisely the basic cause of the great evil and cruel abandonment suffered by the peoples living in the poor countries, and the poor who live in the rich countries.
Neoliberal capitalism, with its praise and proclamation of the market –not the human being– as the absolute axis for the functioning of society, has increased poverty and expanded inequalities on a universal scale. Constantly generating crises, the capitalist order tries to ignore the asymmetries it causes, and always manages to unload its effects on the humble people of the planet.
The capitalist system of relations, instead of calling for cooperation and solidarity, calls for competition, selfishness and the law of the richest.
With Bernie Sanders’ campaign for nomination as Democratic Party candidate in the United States presidential election, Americans have begun to hear about many things that were not mentioned in the recent past.
Sanders offers to end nearly four decades of neo-liberal policies. He condemns Wall Street greed, the corruption of the electoral and political systems, and the stealing of the futures of young people and American workers. He recalls the glorious struggles for equality, civil and labor rights, and the rights of immigrants.
These are things not heard in the United States for a long time. Let’s hope they are a prelude to a change that only the US people can promote.
April 26, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
El pueblo de Estados Unidos -se ha dicho muchas veces- es el único que podría llevar a cabo la titánica hazaña de hacer caer al imperio más poderoso y sanguinario que haya conocido la humanidad, que espera ansiosa ver a ese pueblo actuar para ofrecerle la solidaridad a que se hará acreedor.
Las frecuentes guerras asimétricas de Estados Unidos contra países incomparablemente mucho más pobres y militarmente débiles que la superpotencia única, despertaron la conciencia humanitaria de muchos estadounidenses que se ha manifestado enérgicamente en solidaridad con estos pueblos abusados.
La continuada exposición de vergonzosas violaciones de los derechos humanos de prisioneros, incluyendo torturas y gravísimos vejámenes en cárceles públicas o clandestinas estadounidenses diseminadas por el mundo, despertaron la conciencia de millones de estadounidenses que condenaron tales injusticias.
Sin embargo, como resultado de la manipulación y el engaño a que han estado sometidos en su fe religiosa o por la ingenuidad que durante años han inculcado en el ciudadano común de ese país los medios de publicidad y de prensa dominados por la élite corporativa y bancaria, los estadounidenses han sido sometidos durante más de un siglo al influjo de una orientación política neoconservadora con proyecciones fundamentalistas, que algunos consideran hoy su característica nacional.
Tras el derrumbe de la URSS y el bloque socialista europeo, que significó el fin de la Guerra Fría, el gobierno de Estados Unidos intensificó su guerra económica contra Cuba, que quedó como una espina en la garganta del imperialismo.
Con nuevas leyes, la codificación del conjunto de instrumentos destinados a ahogar económicamente a la isla y otras medidas dirigidas a “provocar escaseces, sufrimientos y el derrocamiento del gobierno cubano” según fueron definidos originalmente, más de medio siglo antes, los objetivos del bloqueo que Estados Unidos eufemísticamente llama “embargo”.
Fidel Castro, llamó al pueblo a “apretarse los cinturones” y prepararse para carencias y sacrificios mayores. Los cubanos respondieron cerrando filas en torno al líder de la Revolución y ya se han podido ver los resultados de la heroica resistencia. Triunfó la razón, la justicia, el patriotismo. Venció también la solidaridad internacionalista de innumerables personas en todo el mundo que han estimulado la proeza de los cubanos con su ayuda sincera y, por ello, son también dueños del éxito.
El mundo unipolar que siguió al fin de la Guerra Fría, con una única superpotencia que imponiendo sus egoístas intereses al resto del planeta y la globalización neoliberal impuesta a los pueblos, con su secuela de hambre, enfermedades, analfabetismo, degradación ambiental, discriminación, y tantos otros males que sufre la humanidad, puso de manifiesto que no es el fatalismo geográfico, ni una supuesta inferioridad racial, sino la esencia misma del orden burgués lo que determina estos males en las sociedades humanas.
El neoliberalismo, ordenamiento que el Norte disemina, impone en el Sur y recomienda como panacea para todas las desventuras de la humanidad, es precisamente la causa fundamental de los grandes males y los crueles desamparos en que viven los pueblos de los países pobres y los pobres en los países ricos.
El capitalismo neoliberal, con su proclamación del mercado y no del ser humano como eje absoluto del funcionamiento de la sociedad, ha multiplicado la miseria y ampliado las desigualdades a escala universal. Generador constante de crisis, el orden capitalista pretende ignorar que son las asimetrías las que las provocan y se las arregla siempre para descargar sus efectos en las personas humildes del planeta.
El sistema capitalista de relaciones, en vez de convocar a la cooperación y la solidaridad, llama a la competencia, el egoísmo y la ley del más rico.
Con la campaña de Bernie Sanders por lograr incluirse como candidato del partido demócrata en las elecciones presidenciales de Estados Unidos, los estadounidenses han comenzado a oír hablar de muchas cosas que no se mencionaban en el pasado reciente.
Sanders ofrece poner fin a casi cuatro décadas de políticas neoliberales. Condena la avaricia de Wall Street, la corrupción del sistema electoral y político, y el robo del futuro de los jóvenes y de los trabajadores estadounidenses. Recuerda las gloriosas luchas por la igualdad, los derechos civiles y por los derechos laborales y de los inmigrantes.
Son cosas que no se escuchaban hace mucho tiempo en Estados Unidos y que ojalá fueran la antesala de un cambio que solo a los estadounidenses corresponde promover.
Abril 28 de 2016.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Any reasonably sane person would assume that after the recent public acknowledgment by US President Barack Obama of the foreign policy errors that are implicit, and even explicit, in his efforts to normalize political relations with Cuba, there would be a process of apologies and explanations for the big and small lies that the immense defamation apparatus of Washington has spread about Cuba around the world, trying to justify its economic, commercial and financial blockade against the rebel island.
Even in the simplest parts of the propaganda war against Cuba, we find evidence of the lies with which the smear campaign has sought to support its purposes –to the embarrassment of honest Americans who are becoming aware of the truth- as the curtain is drawn aside as a result of the timid measures that the White House has taken citing legal incapacity to eliminate the shameful blockade.
An example of this is provided by José Manzaneda, site coordinator of Cubainformación that originates in Spain and is dedicated to promoting solidarity with the island on the Internet. Manzaneda recalls one of the many deceitful facets of the propaganda campaign against Cuba that somehow now clashes with the truth.
Cuba has rock bands in all genres –from heavy metal to hardcore, death metal, alternative rock and punk. The Caribbean country hosts local and international groups that take part in thirteen festivals of rock music (Caimán Rock, Brutal Fest, Festival Metal HG among them) and has a unique experience in the world: a state-owned Cuban Rock Agency devoted to the promotion, distribution and hiring of rock bands. Despite this, during the recent Havana concert by the English band the Rolling Stones, the US-financed media from around the world devoted extensive space to promote their stale falsehoods against Cuba.
Manzaneda notes that Spanish channel La Sexta, in its coverage of the Stones’ artistic visit, said “Cuba has vibrated to the sound of those “Satanic Majesties” (…) and showed their trademark tongue after 40 years of rock censorship in the island “.
Another Spanish channel, Cuatro, repeated the same nonsense about the alleged “censorship” that Cuba applied to the music of the British band “whose music had been banned in Cuba until now”.
The same lie was repeated by Antena 3, another Spanish channel: “The Rolling Stones displayed their energy in the same island where their sound was banned until recently.”
Other media did not go that far but repeated over and over the same message: not now, but for decades the Cuban Revolution “censured”, “discriminated” or “banned” rock “.
Meanwhile, the international corporate media insisted on another message openly more counterrevolutionary: the concert was due to a supposed transition, an opening, or even a political “spring” in Cuba. “A concert that marked the cultural opening of Cuba,” said Deutsche Welle TV). “A historic event that shows the opening of Cuba to the West –that albeit slow, is already unstoppable.” (Cuatro TV).
In almost all news reports, this great concert was linked to the absurd events and incomprehension towards rock that occurred in Cuba in the 60s. But the reality is that if the Rolling Stones and other big bands did not act earlier on the island it was not due to obstacles from Cuba other than economic. There were big free concerts in Havana, like the Manic Street Preachers in 2001 and Audioslave in 2005. All of these, as with the Stones now, were funded by the artists themselves.
Manzaneda recalls: “It is not Cuba that has made a cultural opening to the world. What has really changed is that the US government and its accompanying media have modified their policy of aggression against Cuba. And now, for a band like the Rolling
Stones, performing on the island they are no longer at high risk of reprisals and
smear campaigns; but rather the opposite.”
It is true that in the early years of the Revolution, and until the mid 70s, rock and English language were not broadcast by Cuban radio stations as part of an inexperienced and naive defensive reaction against the huge cultural aggression promoted and financed by the United States.
In those years, Cubans certainly committed many errors of this type, including their dislike of persons that were then, and remain today, idols of US American youth, who were inspired precisely by the ideals and struggles of Cuban youth and their leaders, such as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.
April 22, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Cualquier persona medianamente sensata podría suponer que, tras el reciente reconocimiento público por el Presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, de los errores de su política exterior que están implícitos, e incluso explícitos, en su propósito de normalizar las relaciones políticas con Cuba, ocurriría un proceso de disculpas y justificaciones por las grandes y pequeñas mentiras que sobre Cuba ha difundido por el mundo el inmenso aparato de difamación de Washington, pretendiendo justificar su bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero contra la isla rebelde.
Hasta en las más simples piezas de la guerra propagandística contra Cuba hallamos elementos demostrativos de las falsedades con que la campaña de infundios ha pretendido fundamentar sus propósitos, para vergüenza de los estadounidenses honestos que se van enterando de las verdades a medida que se descorre el telón por efecto de tímidas medidas que la Casa Blanca ha tomado, alegando incapacidad jurídica para eliminar el bochornoso bloqueo.
Un ejemplo de ello lo ofrece José Manzaneda, coordinador del sitio “Cubainformación” originado en España, dedicado al fomento en Internet de la solidaridad con la isla, quien recuerda una de las muchas facetas embusteras de la campaña propagandista contra Cuba que de alguna forma choca ahora con la verdad.
Habiendo en Cuba bandas de rock en todos sus géneros -desde el heavy metal al hardcore, pasando por el death metal, el rock alternativo y el punk- y siendo el país caribeño sede de agrupaciones locales e internacionales que participan en trece festivales de este tipo de música (Caimán Rock, el Brutal Fest, Festival Metal HG, entre ellos) y donde existe, como experiencia única en el mundo, una Agencia Cubana del Rock, de propiedad estatal, dedicada a promover la distribución y contratación de bandas de rock, — durante el reciente concierto en La Habana de la banda inglesa de los Rolling Stones, la prensa financiada desde Estados Unidos en todo el mundo dedicó extensos espacios a su pretensión de justificar sus añejas falsedades contra Cuba.
Manzaneda hace notar que en el canal español La Sexta, en su cobertura sobre esa visita artística, dijo que “Cuba ha vibrado al son de esas “satánicas majestades” (…) enseñando su característica lengua por esos 40 años de censura del rock en la Isla”.
Otro canal español, el Cuatro, repetía este mismo disparate, refiriéndolo a la supuesta “censura” que Cuba aplicaba a la música de la banda británica “cuya música había estado prohibida en Cuba hasta ahora”.
La misma mentira repetía Antena 3, otro canal español: “Los Rolling Stones desplegaron su energía en la misma Isla donde sus acordes estaban prohibidos hasta hace poco”.
Otros medios no llegaban a tanto pero “repetían, con precisión machacona, un mismo mensaje: ahora no, pero hace décadas la Revolución cubana “censuró”, “discriminó” o “prohibió” el rock”.
Al mismo tiempo, los medios corporativos internacionales insistían en otro mensaje más directamente contrarrevolucionario: el concierto se debió a una supuesta transición, una apertura o incluso a una primavera política en Cuba. “Un concierto que marcó la apertura cultural de Cuba”, decía Deutsche Welle TV). “Un evento histórico que demuestra que la apertura de Cuba hacia Occidente, aunque lenta, es ya imparable” (Cuatro TV).
En casi todas las noticias se asocia este gran concierto con los absurdos e incomprensiones hacia el rock que ocurrieron en los años 60 en Cuba. Pero la realidad es que si los Rolling Stones y otras grandes bandas no actuaban antes en la Isla no era por obstáculos desde Cuba que no fueran los económicos. Hubo grandes conciertos gratuitos en La Habana, como el de Manic Street Preachers en 2001 y el de Audioslave en 2005. Todos, como ahora el de los Stones, han sido costeados por los artistas.
Manzaneda recuerda: “No es Cuba la que realiza una apertura cultural al mundo. Lo que ha cambiado realmente es que el Gobierno de Estados Unidos y los medios de comunicación que le acompañan han relajado su agresión política a Cuba. Y ahora, para una banda como los Rolling Stones actuar en la Isla ya no supone un alto riesgo de represalias y campañas de desprestigio. Sino más bien todo lo contrario”.
Es cierto que en los primeros años de la Revolución y hasta mediados de la década de los 70, el rock en idioma inglés no era programado en las emisoras de radio cubanas como parte de una reacción defensiva inexperta e ingenua ante la magnitud de la agresión cultural promovida y financiada por Estados Unidos.
En aquel período los cubanos ciertamente cometieron no pocos errores de este carácter, incluyendo su ojeriza ante figuras que constituían entonces, y siguen siendo hoy, ídolos de la juventud norteamericana que se inspiraron precisamente en los ideales y las luchas de la juventud cubana y en sus líderes, como Fidel Castro y Che Guevara.
Abril 22 de 2016.
In Miami today, Hillary Clinton forcefully expressed her support for normalization of U.S. relations with Cuba and formally called on Congress to lift the Cuba embargo. Hillary emphasized that she believes we need to increase American influence in Cuba, not reduce it — a strong contrast with Republican candidates who are stuck in the past, trying to return to the same failed Cold War-era isolationism that has only strengthened the Castro regime.
To those Republicans, her message was clear: “They have it backwards: Engagement is not a gift to the Castros – it’s a threat to the Castros. An American embassy in Havana isn’t a concession – it’s a beacon. Lifting the embargo doesn’t set back the advance of freedom – it advances freedom where it is most desperately needed.”
A full transcript of the remarks is included below:
“Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I want to thank Dr. Frank Mora, director of the Kimberly Latin American and Caribbean Center and a professor here at FIU, and before that served with distinction at the Department of Defense. I want to recognize former Congressman Joe Garcia. Thank you Joe for being here – a long time friend and an exemplary educator. The President of Miami-Dade College, Eduardo Padrón and the President of FIU, Mark Rosenberg – I thank you all for being here. And for me it’s a delight to be here at Florida International University. You can feel the energy here. It’s a place where people of all backgrounds and walks of life work hard, do their part, and get ahead. That’s the promise of America that has drawn generations of immigrants to our shores, and it’s a reality right here at FIU.
“Today, as Frank said, I want to talk with you about a subject that has stirred passionate debate in this city and beyond for decades, but is now entering a crucial new phase. America’s approach to Cuba is at a crossroads, and the upcoming presidential election will determine whether we chart a new path forward or turn back to the old ways of the past. We must decide between engagement and embargo, between embracing fresh thinking and returning to Cold War deadlock. And the choices we make will have lasting consequences not just for more than 11 million Cubans, but also for American leadership across our hemisphere and around the world.
“I know that for many in this room and throughout the Cuban-American community, this debate is not an intellectual exercise – it is deeply personal.
“I teared up as Frank was talking about his mother—not able to mourn with her family, say goodbye to her brother. I’m so privileged to have a sister-in-law who is Cuban-American, who came to this country, like so many others as a child and has chartered her way with a spirit of determination and success.
“I think about all those who were sent as children to live with strangers during the Peter Pan airlift, for families who arrived here during the Mariel boatlift with only the clothes on their backs, for sons and daughters who could not bury their parents back home, for all who have suffered and waited and longed for change to come to the land, “where palm trees grow.” And, yes, for a rising generation eager to build a new and better future.
“Many of you have your own stories and memories that shape your feelings about the way forward. Like Miriam Leiva, one of the founders of the Ladies in White, who is with us today – brave Cuban women who have defied the Castro regime and demanded dignity and reform. We are honored to have her here today and I’d like to ask her, please raise your hand. Thank you.
“I wish every Cuban back in Cuba could spend a day walking around Miami and see what you have built here, how you have turned this city into a dynamic global city. How you have succeeded as entrepreneurs and civic leaders. It would not take them long to start demanding similar opportunities and achieving similar success back in Cuba.
“I understand the skepticism in this community about any policy of engagement toward Cuba. As many of you know, I’ve been skeptical too. But you’ve been promised progress for fifty years. And we can’t wait any longer for a failed policy to bear fruit. We have to seize this moment. We have to now support change on an island where it is desperately needed.
“I did not come to this position lightly. I well remember what happened to previous attempts at engagement. In the 1990s, Castro responded to quiet diplomacy by shooting down the unarmed Brothers to the Rescue plane out of the sky. And with their deaths in mind, I supported the Helms-Burton Act to tighten the embargo.
“Twenty years later, the regime’s human rights abuses continue: imprisoning dissidents, cracking down on free expression and the Internet, beating and harassing the courageous Ladies in White, refusing a credible investigation into the death of Oswaldo Paya. Anyone who thinks we can trust this regime hasn’t learned the lessons of history.
“But as Secretary of State, it became clear to me that our policy of isolating Cuba was strengthening the Castros’ grip on power rather than weakening it – and harming our broader efforts to restore American leadership across the hemisphere. The Castros were able to blame all of the island’s woes on the U.S. embargo, distracting from the regime’s failures and delaying their day of reckoning with the Cuban people. We were unintentionally helping the regime keep Cuba a closed and controlled society rather than working to open it up to positive outside influences the way we did so effectively with the old Soviet bloc and elsewhere.
“So in 2009, we tried something new. The Obama administration made it easier for Cuban Americans to visit and send money to family on the island. No one expected miracles, but it was a first step toward exposing the Cuban people to new ideas, values, and perspectives.
“I remember seeing a CNN report that summer about a Cuban father living and working in the United States who hadn’t seen his baby boy back home for a year-and-a-half because of travel restrictions. Our reforms made it possible for that father and son finally to reunite. It was just one story, just one family, but it felt like the start of something important.
“In 2011, we further loosened restrictions on cash remittances sent back to Cuba and we opened the way for more Americans – clergy, students and teachers, community leaders – to visit and engage directly with the Cuban people. They brought with them new hope and support for struggling families, aspiring entrepreneurs, and brave civil society activists. Small businesses started opening. Cell phones proliferated. Slowly, Cubans were getting a taste of a different future.
“I then became convinced that building stronger ties between Cubans and Americans could be the best way to promote political and economic change on the island. So by the end of my term as Secretary, I recommended to the President that we end the failed embargo and double down on a strategy of engagement that would strip the Castro regime of its excuses and force it to grapple with the demands and aspirations of the Cuban people. Instead of keeping change out, as it has for decades, the regime would have to figure out how to adapt to a rapidly transforming society.
“What’s more, it would open exciting new business opportunities for American companies, farmers, and entrepreneurs – especially for the Cuban-American community. That’s my definition of a win-win.
“Now I know some critics of this approach point to other countries that remain authoritarian despite decades of diplomatic and economic engagement. And yes it’s true that political change will not come quickly or easily to Cuba. But look around the world at many of the countries that have made the transition from autocracy to democracy – from Eastern Europe to East Asia to Latin America. Engagement is not a silver bullet, but again and again we see that it is more likely to hasten change, not hold it back.
“The future for Cuba is not foreordained. But there is good reason to believe that once it gets going, this dynamic will be especially powerful on an island just 90 miles from the largest economy in the world. Just 90 miles away from one and a half million Cuban-Americans whose success provides a compelling advertisement for the benefits of democracy and an open society.
“So I have supported President Obama and Secretary Kerry as they’ve advanced this strategy. They’ve taken historic steps forward – re-establishing diplomatic relations, reopening our embassy in Havana, expanding opportunities further for travel and commerce, calling on Congress to finally drop the embargo.
“That last step about the embargo is crucial, because without dropping it, this progress could falter.
“We have arrived at a decisive moment. The Cuban people have waited long enough for progress to come. Even many Republicans on Capitol Hill are starting to recognize the urgency of moving forward. It’s time for their leaders to either get on board or get out of the way. The Cuba embargo needs to go, once and for all. We should replace it with a smarter approach that empowers Cuban businesses, Cuban civil society, and the Cuban-American community to spur progress and keep pressure on the regime.
“Today I am calling on Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell to step up and answer the pleas of the Cuban people. By large majorities, they want a closer relationship with America.
“They want to buy our goods, read our books, surf our web, and learn from our people. They want to bring their country into the 21st century. That is the road toward democracy and dignity and we should walk it together.
“We can’t go back to a failed policy that limits Cuban-Americans’ ability to travel and support family and friends. We can’t block American businesses that could help free enterprise take root in Cuban soil – or stop American religious groups and academics and activists from establishing contacts and partnerships on the ground.
“If we go backward, no one will benefit more than the hardliners in Havana. In fact, there may be no stronger argument for engagement than the fact that Cuba’s hardliners are so opposed to it. They don’t want strong connections with the United States. They don’t want Cuban-Americans traveling to the island. They don’t want American students and clergy and NGO activists interacting with the Cuban people. That is the last thing they want. So that’s precisely why we need to do it.
“Unfortunately, most of the Republican candidates for President would play right into the hard-liners’ hands. They would reverse the progress we have made and cut the Cuban people off from direct contact with the Cuban-American community and the free-market capitalism and democracy that you embody. That would be a strategic error for the United States and a tragedy for the millions of Cubans who yearn for closer ties.
“They have it backwards: Engagement is not a gift to the Castros – it’s a threat to the Castros. An American embassy in Havana isn’t a concession – it’s a beacon. Lifting the embargo doesn’t set back the advance of freedom – it advances freedom where it is most desperately needed.
“Fundamentally, most Republican candidates still view Cuba – and Latin America more broadly – through an outdated Cold War lens. Instead of opportunities to be seized, they see only threats to be feared. They refuse to learn the lessons of the past or pay attention to what’s worked and what hasn’t. For them, ideology trumps evidence. And so they remain incapable of moving us forward.
“As President, I would increase American influence in Cuba, rather than reduce it. I would work with Congress to lift the embargo and I would also pursue additional steps.
“First, we should help more Americans go to Cuba. If Congress won’t act to do this, I would use executive authority to make it easier for more Americans to visit the island to support private business and engage with the Cuban people.
“Second, I would use our new presence and connections to more effectively support human rights and civil society in Cuba. I believe that as our influence expands among the Cuban people, our diplomacy can help carve out political space on the island in a way we never could before.
“We will follow the lead of Pope Francis, who will carry a powerful message of empowerment when he visits Cuba in September. I would direct U.S. diplomats to make it a priority to build relationships with more Cubans, especially those starting businesses and pushing boundaries. Advocates for women’s rights and workers’ rights. Environmental activists. Artists. Bloggers. The more relationships we build, the better.
“We should be under no illusions that the regime will end its repressive ways any time soon, as its continued use of short-term detentions demonstrates. So we have to redouble our efforts to stand up for the rights of reformers and political prisoners, including maintaining sanctions on specific human-rights violators. We should maintain restrictions on the flow of arms to the regime – and work to restrict access to the tools of repression while expanding access to tools of dissent and free expression.
“We should make it clear, as I did as Secretary of State, that the “freedom to connect” is a basic human right, and therefore do more to extend that freedom to more and more Cubans – particularly young people.
“Third, and this is directly related, we should focus on expanding communications and commercial links to and among the Cuban people. Just five percent of Cubans have access to the open Internet today. We want more American companies pursuing joint ventures to build networks that will open the free flow of information – and empower everyday Cubans to make their voices heard. We want Cubans to have access to more phones, more computers, more satellite televisions. We want more American airplanes and ferries and cargo ships arriving every day. I’m told that Airbnb is already getting started. Companies like Google and Twitter are exploring opportunities as well.
“It will be essential that American and international companies entering the Cuban market act responsibly, hold themselves to high standards, use their influence to push for reforms. I would convene and connect U.S. business leaders from many fields to advance this strategy, and I will look to the Cuban-American community to continue leading the way. No one is better positioned to bring expertise, resources, and vision to this effort – and no one understands better how transformative this can be.
“We will also keep pressing for a just settlement on expropriated property. And we will let Raul explain to his people why he wants to prevent American investment in bicycle repair shops, in restaurants, in barbershops, and Internet cafes. Let him try to put up barriers to American technology and innovation that his people crave.
“Finally, we need to use our leadership across the Americas to mobilize more support for Cubans and their aspirations. Just as the United States needed a new approach to Cuba, the region does as well.
“Latin American countries and leaders have run out of excuses for not standing up for the fundamental freedoms of the Cuban people. No more brushing things under the rug. No more apologizing. It is time for them to step up. Not insignificantly, new regional cooperation on Cuba will also open other opportunities for the United States across Latin America.
“For years, our unpopular policy towards Cuba held back our influence and leadership. Frankly, it was an albatross around our necks. We were isolated in our opposition to opening up the island. Summit meetings were consumed by the same old debates. Regional spoilers like Venezuela took advantage of the disagreements to advance their own agendas and undermine the United States. Now we have the chance for a fresh start in the Americas.
“Strategically, this is a big deal. Too often, we look east, we look west, but we don’t look south. And no region in the world is more important to our long-term prosperity and security than Latin America. And no region in the world is better positioned to emerge as a new force for global peace and progress.
“Many Republicans seem to think of Latin America still as a land of crime and coups rather than a place where free markets and free people are thriving. They’ve got it wrong. Latin America is now home to vibrant democracies, expanding middle classes, abundant energy supplies, and a combined GDP of more than $4 trillion.
“Our economies, communities, and even our families are deeply entwined. And I see our increasing interdependence as a comparative advantage to be embraced. The United States needs to build on what I call the “power of proximity.” It’s not just geography – it’s common values, common culture, common heritage. It’s shared interests that could power a new era of partnership and prosperity. Closer ties across Latin America will help our economy at home and strengthen our hand around the world, especially in the Asia-Pacific. There is enormous potential for cooperation on clean energy and combatting climate change.
“And much work to be done together to take on the persistent challenges in our hemisphere, from crime to drugs to poverty, and to stand in defense of our shared values against regimes like that in Venezuela. So the United States needs to lead in the Latin America. And if we don’t, make no mistake, others will. China is eager to extend its influence. Strong, principled American leadership is the only answer. That was my approach as Secretary of State and will be my priority as President.
“Now it is often said that every election is about the future. But this time, I feel it even more powerfully. Americans have worked so hard to climb out of the hole we found ourselves in with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression in 2008. Families took second jobs and second shifts. They found a way to make it work. And now, thankfully, our economy is growing again.
“Slowly but surely we also repaired America’s tarnished reputation. We strengthened old alliances and started new partnerships. We got back to the time-tested values that made our country a beacon of hope and opportunity and freedom for the entire world. We learned to lead in new ways for a complex and changing age. And America is safer and stronger as a result.
“We cannot afford to let out-of-touch, out-of-date partisan ideas and candidates rip away all the progress we’ve made. We can’t go back to cowboy diplomacy and reckless war-mongering. We can’t go back to a go-it-alone foreign policy that views American boots on the ground as a first choice rather than as a last resort. We have paid too high a price in lives, power, and prestige to make those same mistakes again. Instead we need a foreign policy for the future with creative, confident leadership that harnesses all of America’s strength, smarts, and values. I believe the future holds far more opportunities than threats if we shape global events rather than reacting to them and being shaped by them. That is what I will do as President, starting right here in our own hemisphere.
“I’m running to build an America for tomorrow, not yesterday. For the struggling, the striving, and the successful. For the young entrepreneur in Little Havana who dreams of expanding to Old Havana. For the grandmother who never lost hope of seeing freedom come to the homeland she left so long ago. For the families who are separated. For all those who have built new lives in a new land. I’m running for everyone who’s ever been knocked down, but refused to be knocked out. I am running for you and I want to work with you to be your partner to build the kind of future that will once again not only make Cuban-Americas successful here in our country, but give Cubans in Cuba the same chance to live up to their own potential.
Thank you all very, very much.”
###
For Immediate Release, July 31, 2015
Contact: press@hillaryclinton.com
PAID FOR BY HILLARY FOR AMERICA
Contributions or gifts to Hillary for America are not tax deductible.
Hillary for America, PO Box 5256, New York
======
Cuban media coverage, an example:
Hillary Clinton Calls in Miami for Lifting of U.S. blockade on Cuba
HAVANA, Cuba, Aug 1 (acn) Democrat pre-candidate to the 2016 presidential elections in the United States, Hillary Clinton, asked Congress on Friday, from Miami, Florida, to lift the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba since 1962, the Prensa Latina news agency reported.
In a speech at the International University of Florida, the former Secretary of State asked lawmakers to take advantage of this decisive moment, after the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries and the reopening of embassies in the respective capitals on July 20.
The U.S. policy towards Cuba is at a crossroads and next year’s elections by the White House will determine whether we will carry on with a new course in this regard or return to the old ways of the past, she added.
We must decide between commitment and sanctions, between adopting new thinking and returning to the deadlock we were during the Cold War, she pointed out.
She added that even many Republicans on Capitol Hill are beginning to recognize the urgency of continuing onward to dismantle the sanctions and this is the moment when their leaders must join this task or get out of the way of those who carry on.
Clinton added that the blockade must end once and for all; we must replace it with “more intelligent measures that manage to consolidate the interests of the United States,” and called the red party leadership on Capitol Hill to join this policy.
The former Secretary of State reiterated her support for the policy of rapprochement with the island that began after December 17, when Cuban President Raul Castro and his U.S. counterpart, Barack Obama, announced the decision of reestablishing diplomatic relations.
For years, the state of Florida was the base of a strong opposition to bonds with Havana, which made the blockade an untouchable issue among those who aspired to be elected for posts in that territory, especially for Republicans.
On several occasions, the former first lady has defended the lifting of the blockade against the Caribbean nation, particularly in her book Hard Choices, in which she assures that while she was Secretary of State (2009-2013) she recommended Obama to review the policy towards Cuba.
A survey conducted last week by the Pew Research Center showed that 72 percent of U.S. citizens are in favor of lifting the blockade against Cuba and 73 percent approve Obama’s decision of reestablishing diplomatic relations with the Caribbean island.
A survey by the McClatchy newspaper chain and the Marist Institute for Public Opinion released on Friday showed that 44 percent of likely voters prefer Clinton; 29 percent Republican Jeb Bush; and 20 percent controversial aspirant Donald Trump, for the November 2016 elections.
Cuba: Permit me to disagree
By Guillermo Almeyra
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
[Reformatted for easier reading on the web.]
Two kinds of problems arise in the recent changes made in the Cuban government, some of form, others of content.
Regarding the former, neither Raúl nor Fidel, or any other official, have taken into account the need to make room for an economic alternative other than the existing one that depends on rules dictated by the market forces, or, for that matter, the need to introduce economic methods based on direct democracy and self-management, where the Cuban citizens-producers would play a more active role as much in decision-making as in the implementation of what is decided thereby.
More centralization, more institutionalization, more resolutions coming from the pinnacle of power, and more wartime-like economics has been the motto, and even the ousting of Pérez Roque and Lage were made, it has been said, to create a more functional structure of government, which reveals unspoken criticism leveled at the typical voluntarism practiced both by those seen as Fidel’s men and by Fidel himself.
That way Cuba has taken some sort of step toward the Chinese path… which we all know where it ended. In other words, a strong power underpinned by its single monolithic party that tries to steer its way into a pragmatic opening to the capitalistic market in order to modernize the country’s economy, increase labor productivity and reduce production costs without too much heed to the social consequences.
However, Cuba is not China, as it has a small, if highly educated, population with a low birth rate and a history of poor productivity, unable to resort to huge amounts of foreign capital because of its very limited domestic market and the lack of a powerful and wealthy Cuban nationalistic bourgeoisie overseas which might be willing to invest in the island.
To cap it all off, a relative shortage of young people makes labor more expensive and, truth be told, Cubans are not easily satisfied, since the Revolution taught them to protest and demand. Furthermore, Cuba can’t just apply the Chinese recipe in the middle of a terrible worldwide crisis which is bound to become worse.
So much for the problems of form: rather than democratize the country, laying the foundations of a government planned from the bottom up by workers’ councils and sidelining the State’s bureaucratic apparatus, the Cuban establishment chose to have a go at the utopian purpose of rationalizing red tape and make the arbitrariness and squandering typical of any vertical system even more effective.
Moreover, I also differ on other points: why weren’t these problems happening in the highest circles informed to or discussed with the men and women in the street?
Instead of presenting the people with a number of faits accomplis, unexplained and obscure as befits a government-owned media which fearful of critical thinking and prone to underestimate the workers’ level of comprehension, why weren’t the merits and flaws of each leader publicly debated?
If the foreign minister and the vice-president of the Council of Ministers misbehaved and misused their status, as hinted in the press release, how responsible are their fellow leaders, starting with Fidel and Raúl?
If they were comrades in the said statement, and kept their high-ranking positions in the Political Bureau, the Central Committee and the government up until they announced their resignation in regrettable Stalin-like self-critical notices where they admit to mistakes not even mentioned, why does Fidel Castro, by whose side they worked for many years, say they became greedy and unworthy men who fed on the sweet nectar of power and had thus played into the hands of the enemy?
Do Raúl and the political and state leaders call comrades and invest powers in unworthy potential traitors, as Fidel tagged them, or is he (Fidel) using their statements to wreck another line –the victorious one?
Was the remark thrown over to Michelle Bachelet about vindicating Bolivia’s right to an outlet to the sea just a gaffe or an internal maneuver about an issue the Cuban government had decided to hush while awaiting for the Chilean president’s visit to consolidate his comeback to the Latin American stage?
Is the uncalled-for anger oozing from Fidel’s statements a symptom of old age or a camouflaged political torpedo destined to keep the various bureaucratic factions –the victors, the centralist military brass, and the vanquished– from engaging in a certain modus vivendi?
What does such cloaked goings-on in the upper echelons have to do with the battle of ideas, that is, with the socialist moral and political education (a task which Raúl has just assigned to the former chief of police Ramiro Valdés)?
What was discussed with Hugo Chávez? The possibility that Venezuela may be forced to cut down on the assistance he gives to Cuba given the fall in oil prices and Cuba’s necessity to take immediate economic action as a result?
Why not disclose and hold an open discussion about Cuba’s outlook and future tasks, especially now that it’s making preparations to hold the Party Congress and restructure the State apparatus?
Are by any chance the moral lynching of leaders who are answerable to and controlled by collective bodies a blow to the ethics of the Party’s rank and file and the respect they deserve?
Socialism cannot break away from democracy, and democracy requires freedom of information and forthright discussion of ideas and proposals.
Bureaucratic secrecy opens your flank to the enemy no less served by those who are always ready to welcome whatever comes down from the state Olympus and spit today on those who until yesterday were their leaders. It’s criminal, particularly in difficult times, to mislead, misinform and depoliticize those who will have to put their creativity, understanding and effort to good use in order to overcome hardship.
Por Guillermo Almeyra
Domingo 8 de marzo de 2009
institucionalización, más decisiones desde el vértice, desde el poder, más
economía de guerra, ha sido la consigna, e incluso los cambios de Pérez Roque y de Lage han sido efectuados en el nombre del funcionamiento de las intituciones, en crítica implícita al voluntarismo que caracterizó tanto a los que aparecían como hombres de Fidel como a Fidel mismo. Se abre así una especie de
camino cubano a la vía china… que todos sabemos adónde condujo. O sea, a un poder fuerte basado en el partido único monolítico que trata de pilotar una apertura pragmática al mercado capitalista para modernizar la economía del país, aumentar la productividad de los trabajadores y reducir los costos de los productos, sin tener demasiado en cuenta las consecuencias sociales.
Además, discrepo igualmente en lo que se refiere a la forma: ¿por qué no se informó y se discutió con los cubanos de a pie
lo que estaba pasando en el aparato? ¿Por qué no se discutieron abiertamente los méritos y defectos de cada dirigente y, en cambio, se prefirió presentar hechos consumados, sin explicarlos y en la oscuridad tan característica de la prensa oficial que teme el pensamiento crítico y subestima la capacidad de comprensión de los trabajadores? Si el canciller y el vicepresidente del Consejo de Ministros fueron indisciplinados y poco institucionales
, como sugiere el comunicado, ¿cuál es la responsabilidad de sus colegas dirigentes, empezando por Fidel y Raúl? Si para el comunicado eran compañeros
y siguieron ocupando altos cargos (en el Buró Político, el Comité Central y el gobierno) hasta que renunciaron
con lamentables autocríticas de tipo estalinista, reconociendo todos sus erroes
que ni siquiera mencionan, ¿por qué Fidel Castro, a cuyo lado trabajaron por muchos años, dice que eran ambiciosos e indignos, cebados en las mieles del poder
y proclives a ser utilizados por el enemigo? ¿Raúl y la dirección política y estatal califican de compañeros y dan responsabilidades a indignos y potencialmente traidores como sugiere Fidel, o éste utiliza sus declaraciones como torpedos contra otra línea, la triunfante? ¿No fue una gaffe sino una maniobra interna el arrojarle a Michelle Bachelet la reivindicación de la salida al mar para Bolivia cuando el gobierno cubano callaba al respecto para aprovechar la visita de la presidenta chilena para afianzar su retorno al concierto de los países latinoamericanos? ¿La furia fuera de lugar que empapa las declaraciones de Fidel no es una manifestación de senilidad sino una cobertura para un torpedo político destinado a impedir unmodus vivendi entre las diversas facciones burocráticas, la vencedora, la militar burocrática centralista, y la perdedora? ¿Qué tendría que ver esa fronda en el aparato con una batalla por las ideas, o sea, con la educación moral y política socialista? (que ahora Raúl ha dejado en manos del ex jefe de policía Ramiro Valdés). ¿Qué discutieron con Hugo Chávez? ¿La posibilidad de que Venezuela pueda verse obligada a reducir su ayuda a Cuba ante la caída del precio del petróleo y la necesidad, por consiguiente, de que Cuba tome desde ya medidas económicas? ¿Por qué no informar, no discutir abiertamente las perspectivas y las tareas, sobre todo en un periodo de preparación del congreso del partido y de reorganización del aparato del Estado? ¿Los linchamientos morales de los dirigentes que siempre responden a organismos colectivos y están controlados por éstos no son acaso un golpe a la ética y al respeto a los militantes? El socialismo no se puede escindir de la democracia y ésta exige libertad de información, plena discusión de ideas y propuestas. El secreto burocrático abre el flanco al enemigo y a éste sirven también los que dicen sí a todo lo que viene del Olimpo estatal y están dispuestos a escupir hoy sobre quienes hasta ayer consideraban sus dirigentes. Particularmente en las épocas difíciles es criminal confundir, desinformar y despolitizar a quienes deberán superar las dificultades con su creatividad, su comprensión, su esfuerzo.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
2016 is an extremely tense year for Cuba’s tourism industry. The island has had to face many challenges arising from the need to respond to a surprisingly high number of visitors. This was caused by the coincidence of a series of factors that turned the country into the absolute star of the leisure industry in the Caribbean and a “fashionable” destination on a world scale, with the successive visits of celebrities, including the President of the United States with his family, which attracted immense publicity.
Paradoxically, the US government has maintained gigantic campaign against Cuba, for seven decades, with the support of all the resources of its espionage and subversion agencies. As well, Washington has had the open complicity of their capitalist satellites around the world.
This has been recognized as the most intense, prolonged and costly libelous campaign launched against any nation in the history of the planet. This policy contributed to the intensification of global curiosity about this small country and its people which was so persistent and determined to decide its own destiny despite a hostile global context.
A basic factor in the sudden success has been, obviously, the sustained development of the tourism industry designed by the Cuban government more than twenty years ago. Its goal was to cope with the effects of US policy. The economic blockade –still in place– imposed by the United States against the Island,was aggravated by the disappearance of the Soviet Union. The USSR was a bastion of solidarity in the economic field for the resistance of Cuban against the ravages of Washington’s imperialist policy.
At the end of December 2015, it was reported that, in the course of that year, the total number of visitors to Cuba had surpassed the three and a half million. This was by far the highest figure in the country’s history with a growth over the previous year that also amounted to a historical record.
This result was obtained despite the fact that Cuba remains the only country where citizens of the United States –the natural and traditional source of visitors to the island for historical and geographical reasons– are forbidden by US law to travel to Cuba as tourists. This prohibition has been in force for over half a century.
It is true that this prohibition began weakening when the United States proclaimed a policy called “people-to-people”. The aim of that policy was to allow certain categories of citizens to visit Cuba on the assumption that this would stimulate the exodus of Cubans from their country once they learned of the “benefits of capitalism.”
Cuba accepted the challenge –even knowing its hostile purposes– with the certainty that it would provide an opportunity to dismantle, through these exceptionally authorized travelers, the falsehoods of Washington’s great disinformation campaign against Cuba. Cuba aimed to turn the “people-to-people” policy around into a boomerang against its promoters in Washington as it has turned out to be.
The sudden growth of international arrivals has not only been due to the increase in visitors from the US who are exceptionally authorized by Washington and who require special authorization be granted for twelve categories of US citizens. Apart from a certain flexibility in the application of these requirements, after the official announcement of Obama’s visit to Cuba, there has also been a significant growth in the number of visitors from Canada, Europe, Asia and Latin America.
However, the phenomenon of such a broad acceptance of the Cuban tourist product
has brought out much evidence of the shortcomings in the infrastructure of the island’s tourist sector. These are not only in hotel capacity, transportation and distribution of food, but also in quality of services and the lack of some essential supplies for the development of an industry that demands many unique services for very demanding consumers.
According to Zane Kerby, President of the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA), “at least two million US Americans could visit Cuba in 2017, if Congress finally votes to lift the current restrictions.
To manage this increase in a sector that is accurately identified as the engine of the economy and that now faces new challenges derived from the complex international scenario, Havana and Washington have decided to restore their diplomatic ties despite the persistence of significant differences in both their political views and principles.
April 7, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Para Cuba, 2016 está siendo un año extremadamente tenso en su industria del turismo. La isla se vio obligada que encarar un cúmulo de retos derivados de la necesidad de responder a una demanda sorpresivamente elevada de visitantes por efecto de la coincidencia de una serie de factores que convirtieron al país en vedette absoluta de la industria del ocio en el Caribe y destino “de moda” a escala mundial, con la visita sucesiva de un buen número de celebridades diversas, incluyendo la del Presidente de Estados Unidos con su familia, que concitó una inmensa publicidad.
Paradójicamente, la gigantesca campaña contra Cuba que ha mantenido el gobierno estadounidense con apoyo de todos los recursos de sus agencias de espionaje y subversión, con la abierta complicidad de sus satélites del capitalismo en todo el mundo durante siete décadas -reconocida como la más intensa, prolongada y costosa campaña difamatoria contra cualquier nación en la historia del planeta- contribuyó a la intensificación de la curiosidad mundial por conocer ese pequeño país y su pueblo tan persistente y decidido a darse su propio destino pese a un contexto mundial tan hostil.
Factor básico del éxito repentino ha sido, obviamente, el desarrollo sostenido de la industria del turismo diseñado por el gobierno cubano desde hace algo más de una veintena de años a fin de hacer frente a los efectos del aun vigente bloqueo económico impuesto por Estados Unidos a Cuba, agravado éste por la desaparición de la Unión Soviética, bastión solidario en el terreno económico de la resistencia de los cubanos frente a los embates de la política imperialista de Washington.
A fines de diciembre de 2015 se conoció que, en el curso de ese año, el total de visitantes a Cuba había superado la cifra de tres millones y medio, por mucho la más alta en la historia del país, con un crecimiento respecto al año anterior que igualmente constituía record histórico.
Este resultado se obtuvo no obstante el hecho de que Cuba sigue siendo el único país del mundo a donde los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos, -que son la cantera natural y tradicional de los visitantes a la Isla por razones tanto geográficas como históricas-, han tenido prohibido por el gobierno estadounidense, desde hace medio siglo, viajar como turistas.
Es cierto que esta prohibición comenzó a presentar fracturas cuando Estados Unidos proclamó una política que llamó de “pueblo a pueblo” porque su objetivo era permitir a ciertas categorías de ciudadanos suyos visitar a Cuba en el supuesto que con ello estimularía el éxodo de cubanos de su país al conocer las “bondades del capitalismo”. Cuba aceptó el reto, aun conociendo sus torcidos propósitos, con la certeza de que ello daría oportunidad para desmontar –por conducto de esos viajeros excepcionalmente autorizados- las falsedades de la gran campaña de desinformación sobre Cuba y hacer de esa política “pueblo a pueblo” un boomerang contra sus promotores en Washington , como así resultó en efecto.
Este crecimiento repentino de las llegadas internacionales no se ha debido solo al incremento de los visitantes norteamericanos
–excepcionalmente autorizados por Washington a hacerlo mediante permisos especiales previstos para doce categorías de ciudadanos de Estados Unidos. Además de cierta flexibilización en la aplicación de estos requisitos a tenor del anuncio de la visita oficial de Obama a Cuba, también se han registrado importantes crecimientos de viajeros procedentes de Canadá, Europa, Asia y América Latina.
Pero el fenómeno de la aceptación del producto turístico cubano de manera tan amplia ha traído consigo muchas evidencias de carencias en la infraestructura del sector en la isla, tanto en capacidad hotelera como en transporte y distribución de alimentos, calidad de los servicios, carencia de algunos abastecimientos imprescindibles para el desenvolvimiento de una industria que demanda muchos servicios singulares para sujetos que son consumidores muy exigentes.
Según Zane Kerby, presidente de la Sociedad Americana de Agentes de Viajes (ASTA, por sus siglas en inglés) “al menos dos millones de estadounidenses más podrían visitar Cuba en 2017, si finalmente el Congreso vota por levantar las restricciones vigentes.
Para manejar este incremento en un sector que justamente se identifica como locomotora de la economía y ahora se enfrenta a nuevos retos derivados del complejo escenario internacional, La Habana y
Washington, han decidido restablecer sus nexos diplomáticos no obstante la persistencia de sus grandes diferencias políticas y de principios.
7 de abril 2016
By Jorge Camarero Leiva, Social Communications student
March 18, 2009 01:27:03 GMT
A CubaNews translation by Giselle Gil.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
If anyone wants to see the reverence and affection the citizens of Havana have for their city, they can take a stroll around trash bins and enjoy the festival of ugliness and uncleanness that surround them.
Absent from our neighborhoods for many years, sorely deficient in quantity, the poor containers have been saddled with the blame for the violation of the hygiene and cleanness of our streets. “What can I do if there are no trash cans?”, says our everyday negligent citizen flinging his detritus into the air and letting it fall every which way.
During the most agonizing days of the special period trash containers from Seville, Valencia and the Basque Country appeared as a result of the solidarity among citizens and mayors. And, predators followed who, trampling on the nobility of our friends, began cannibalizing those containers. They removed, and remove still, the lids and wheels, especially the wheels, to build wagons, in high demand among street vendors.
In recent years, with great effort, the country has acquired trash containers, and still the needs of communal services are not met. That’s why it hurts so much that these hooligans viciously butcher them until they render them useless.
Poor containers! Do they feel it? Soon we will have to switch and instead of saying something lasts as long as candy in a school yard, we’ll have to say, as long as a trash container on a street corner.
But, the greatest mockery, the absolute insult, is watching the dumping sites teeming around containers. It’s a scorn on decency and civility. They’re throwing respect in the trash and burying it there forever.
TRANSLATOR’S NOTE: I spent several hours trying to find an idion that speaks about fleeting things. I didn’t find it and so, I had to translate the idea of the one we have in Spanish.
Por: Jorge Camarero Leiva, estudiante de Comunicación Social
Si alguien quiere constatar la veneración y el cariño que profesan muchos habaneros por su ciudad, que merodee por los contenedores de basura y se sumerja en esos festivales de fealdad y desaliño que los rodean.
Ausentes durante años de nuestros barrios, agónicos en cantidades, los pobres contenedores cargaron con la culpa de tanto atropello al ornato y la higiene: No hay cesto, qué voy a hacer, decían los displicentes de siempre, lanzando al aire, en cualquier sitio los detritus.
En los días más agónicos del período especial aparecieron los contenedores de Sevilla, Euskadi o Valencia, frutos de la solidaridad de los pueblos y alcaldías. Y no faltaron los depredadores que, pisoteando la nobleza de los amigos, comenzaron a eviscerar aquellos depósitos: se llevaban —se llevan aún— las tapas y las ruedas. Sobre todo las ruedas, para armar carretillas, muy demandadas en los negocios callejeros.
A puro esfuerzo, en estos años el país ha ido adquiriendo contenedores, sin que aún se satisfagan todas las necesidades de Servicios Comunales. Por eso duele más aún que los vándalos se ceben sobre estos, hasta inutilizarlos.
Pobres depósitos… si sintieran. Falta poco para que cambie el refrán, y en vez del merengue en la puerta de un colegio, haya que decir: Dura menos que un contenedor en la esquina.
Pero la burla mayor, el escarnio sin límites, es ver cómo pululan los vertederos a la sombra de los tanques. Algo así como un reto a la decencia y la urbanidad. ¿No estarán vaciando el respeto allí, hasta enterrarlo para siempre?
Some who have fallen into disgrace have ended up shot, others in prison, and the rest live poorly, isolated from power.
By M.L. DE GUEREÑO/ Havana
March 8, 2009
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Carlos Lage and Felipe Pérez Roque have had to pay for their “errors” by being forced to resign from all their positions, and from the privileges that go with them. They are the latest, and highest ranking of the functionaries who have been purged for similar motives in the course of the history of the revolution.
Unless their removal from power leads to a criminal trial, both will be able to return to the working world in posts related to their training. Lage is a pediatrician and his natural destiny would be a hospital. Pérez Roque’s would involve chemical engineering related to agronomy. Another option would be for them to spend a period of time in the “pajama plan,” as it is known in Cuba when someone remains home without any specific assignment.
That would not be so bad either considering that some of their predecessors ended up in front of a firing squad, like General Arnaldo Ochoa, a soldier honored as a “hero of Cuba” who was a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (PCC). His participation in missions in Nicaragua, Angola, and Ethiopia did not save him from being tried for drug trafficking and finally executed on July 13, 1989, when he was 59 years old.
Linked to the “Ochoa case,” General José Abrantes also fell. Abrantes had been for thirty years chief of Fidel Castro’s escort, minister of the Interior, and member of the Political Bureau of the PCC. He was dismissed for laxity, abuse of power, negligence in service, and wrongful use of resources. He was sentenced to 20 years, but died in prison of a heart attack in 1991 at age 55.
Torralba and Aldana
In 1989, Diocles Torralba, vice-president of the Council of Ministers and in charge of Transportation, was sentenced to 20 years for embezzlement, abuse of authority and wrongful use of resources. He was released before completing his whole sentence and lives in the Cuban capital. The fall of the all-powerful Carlos Aldana was also much discussed. At 50 years of age he was the head of International Relations for the PCC, one of the revolution’s ideologues, and was considered the number three man in Cuba. He was accused of “deficiencies and grave errors” in 1992, and since then he has resided on the island completely removed from power.
Roberto “little Robbie” Robaina, saw his shining carrier cut short, a carrier that overnight catapulted him from leader of the Communist youth to Foreign Minister in 1993. Six years later he was removed from that post for “disloyalty to Fidel Castro.” He spent some years as head of Almendares Park and recently found a better means of living in painting. Another who was shown the door was Luis Ignacio Gómez, member of the Central Committee of the PCC and in charge of Education. In April 2008 he was removed from that post. In one of his “reflections,” Fidel asserted that it was for having lost “revolutionary energy and consciousness” and for having traveled abroad “more than seventy time” in ten years.
The fall of Carlos Valenciaga, the Comandante’s personal secretary until just a few months ago, was more circumspect. It has not been announced in the media, but he no longer has use of an official car, he travels by “guagua” (bus) and has a new job in the archives of the National Library.
Carlos Lage y Felipe Pérez Roque han tenido que pagar con la forzada renuncia a todos sus cargos, y los privilegios que estos implicaban, por sus ‘errores’. Son los últimos, y de más alta jerarquía, en la relación de funcionarios que a lo largo de la historia de la revolución han sido purgados por motivos similares.
Salvo que su alejamiento del poder derive en un proceso penal, ambos podrían ser reincorporados a la vida laboral en puestos relacionados con su formación. Lage es pediatra y su destino natural sería un hospital. El de Pérez Roque se acercaría a la ingeniería química en su apartado agronómico. Otra opción es que pasen una temporada dentro del ‘plan pijama’, como se conoce en Cuba a quedarse en casa sin cometido específico.
Tampoco estaría tan mal, considerando que algunos de sus predecesores acabaron en el paredón, como el general Arnaldo Ochoa, militar distinguido como ‘héroe de Cuba’ y que pertenecía al Comité Central del Partido Comunista (PCC). Su participación en misiones en Nicaragua, Angola y Etiopía no impidió que fuera juzgado por narcotráfico y finalmente fusilado el 13 de julio de 1989, cuando contaba 59 años.
Vinculado al ‘caso Ochoa’ también cayó el general José Abrantes, que durante treinta años fue jefe de la escolta de Fidel Castro, ministro de Interior y miembro del Buró Político del PCC. Lo destituyeron por tolerancia, abuso de poder, negligencia en el servicio y uso indebido de recursos. La pena fue de veinte años, pero murió en prisión de un infarto en 1991, a los 55.
Torralba y Aldana
En 1989, Diocles Torralba, vicepresidente del Consejo de Ministros y titular de Transporte, era condenado a veinte años por malversación, abuso de autoridad y uso indebido de recursos. Fue excarcelado antes de cumplir la totalidad de la condena y vive en la capital cubana. Muy sonada fue también la caída del todopoderoso Carlos Aldana. Con 50 años era el jefe de Relaciones Internacionales del PCC, uno de los ideólogos de la revolución y se le consideraba el tercer hombre en Cuba. Acusado de «deficiencias y graves errores» en 1992 reside desde entonces en la isla completamente ajeno al poder.
Roberto Robaina, ‘Robertico’, vio truncada su fulgurante carrera que le catapultó de la noche a la mañana de dirigente de la juventud comunista a ministro de Exteriores en 1993. Seis años después fue separado del cargo por «deslealtad a Fidel Castro». Pasó varios años dirigiendo el parque Almendares y recientemente encontró en la pintura un mejor medio para vivir. Otro defenestrado fue Luis Ignacio Gómez, miembro del Comité Central del PCC y titular de Educación. En abril de 2008 era separado del cargo. Una ‘reflexión’ de Fidel aseguró que fue por perder «energía y conciencia revolucionaria» y haber viajado al exterior «más de setenta veces» en diez años.
Más discreta fue la caída de Carlos Valenciaga, secretario personal del Comandante hasta hace apenas unos meses. No ha sido anunciada en los medios, pero ya no dispone de coche oficial, viaja en ‘guagua’ (autobús) y tiene un nuevo trabajo en el archivo de la Biblioteca Nacional.
Thanks to cartoonist Stan Mack for permission to share.
To me it’s a great commentary on the perfectionism which some women put in their personal ad profiles describing the kind of men they’re seeking. Published in 1987, in New York’s VILLAGE VOICE newspaper, and still valid, three decades later. (in 2016)
Stan Mack’s website: http://www.stanmack.com/
To me it’s a great commentary on the perfectionism which some women put in their personal ad profiles describing the kind of men they’re seeking. Published in 1987, in New York’s VILLAGE VOICE newspaper, and still valid, three decades later. (in 2016)
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Venezuela and Brazil are the scenes of a new form of coup d’état that would set the continent’s political calendar back to its worst times. Meanwhile, in Argentina, the brutal model for the demolition of democracy is set forward by the continental oligarchic right and the hegemonic forces of US imperialism who wish to impose their model in the region.
As we can see in the previews that test the memory of the peoples in the continent, it is difficult to accept that the new types of coups are actually softer and more covert than those which Latin America suffered for so long.
What has been shown so far in Argentina is no less cruel, in terms of contempt for the masses, than the coups carried out by the bloodthirsty dictatorships that sprouted in time of Operation Condor.
In Venezuela the president of the opposition majority in the National Assembly, Henry Ramos, openly declares that in view of the severity of the economic crisis, he fails to see Maduro concluding his term and adds they should put an end to Nicolas Maduro’s legitimate government within six months. Such statements did not compel the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, to formulate even the mildest rejection to such a coup-like declaration. This indicates they are returning to the era of open and brutal coups in the backyard of the United States of America.
Meanwhile, in Argentina, the newly-elected president, Mauricio Macri, moves forward the implementation of his “democratic model” with a brutal demolition of all the advances the nation had made after the collapse it suffered as a result of the neo-liberal economic and political crisis from which it had been rescued by the consecutive popular governments of Nestor Kirchner and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.
Argentinean writer, journalist, and researcher Stella Calloni, explains that the current coup in Argentina began the same day Macri took office. He is an extreme-right businessman who, since 2007 (according to Wikileaks) offered his services to the US embassy in Buenos Aires.
“The coup offensive began with decrees that allowed for the intervention of institutions and absolutely illegal measures, such as the appointment by decree of two judges to the Supreme Court. All economic measures favor the powerful and mark a path of exclusion for the common people,” says Calloni.
Violating the constitution and the laws, and ruling by Necessity and Urgency Decrees
(NUDs) since December 2015, Macri took a road that evidently seeks to deliver the country to the global hegemonic power and the destruction of a work that had earned Argentina worldwide admiration and respect. He is delivering the country to the
sinister designs of the International Monetary Fund and other agencies, banks and foreign institutions. All his economic actions favor the powerful and mark a path of exclusion for the population”.
“The negative opposition in Congress is part of the ongoing coup the US and its local puppets are carrying out against Venezuela,” Calloni says.
While the United States and its network of partners and local employees –with applause from the hegemonic power– support Macri’s unconstitutional decrees, in Venezuela, the decree of “economic emergency” signed by President Nicolas Maduro, was rejected by the legislative opposition with the acquiescence of the same power.
Never before was the right more willing to violate the Constitution and call to sedition, warned former Venezuelan Vice-President and journalist Jose Vicente Rangel. “Seldom in our country had a coup been announced so clearly and at the same time so elusively; the option would be the presidential recall, but this option –within our constitution– is only tangentially alluded to.”
According to Rangel, the opposition sails in two rivers by affirming, on the one hand, that within six months Nicolas Maduro will leave –by peaceful and constitutional means–Miraflores Palace (seat of government) and, on the other, that they will not even wait that long to oust the Venezuelan president.
“The right has grown presumptuous after its legislative victory of last December 6. But they still remember the failed coup of 2002: a resounding failure that made them switch to peaceful methods –as the ones they are apparently trying to use now– to overthrow the socialist power, But neither the soft blows, the carnival costumes used to confuse, or the violent coups can occur with impunity,” concludes José Vicente Rangel.
April 19, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Venezuela y Brasil están siendo escenarios de una nueva modalidad de golpe de estado que haría retroceder el almanaque político del continente a tiempos peores. En Argentina, mientras tanto, se adelanta el modelo de demolición brutal de la democracia que pretenden la derecha oligárquica continental y las fuerzas hegemónicas del imperialismo estadounidense en la región.
Según se advierte en los adelantos que ponen a prueba la memoria histórica de los pueblos del continente, es difícil aceptar que los nuevos esquemas de golpes de estado sean realmente más blandos y encubiertos que aquellos que ha sufriera durante tanto tiempo América Latina.
Lo que se ha mostrado hasta ahora en Argentina no tiene nada que envidiar, en términos de desprecio por las masas, a los golpes de estado que implantaron las sangrientas dictaduras que brotaron en tiempos de la Operación Cóndor.
Cuando en Venezuela el presidente de la mayoría opositora en la Asamblea Nacional, Henry Ramos Allup, declara abiertamente que ante la gravedad de la crisis económica no vislumbra a Maduro concluyendo su mandato y que se debe terminar con el gobierno legítimo de Nicolás Maduro antes de seis meses, sin que ello lleve al secretario general de la Organización de Estados Americanos, Luis Almagro, a formular el menor reparo por tamañas “goriladas”, se advierte que se está regresando a la época del golpismo abierto y brutal en el patio trasero de Estados Unidos.
Entre tanto, en Argentina, el recién electo presidente Mauricio Macri adelanta la implementación de su “modelo democrático” con una demolición brutal de todo lo que había avanzado esa nación tras el derrumbe que sufrió como resultado de la crisis económica y política neoliberal de la que fue rescatado por los sucesivos gobiernos populares de Kichner y Cristina.
La escritora, periodista e investigadora argentina Stella Calloni, hace ver que el golpismo actual en Argentina comenzó el mismo día de la asunción de Macri, un empresario ultraderechista que desde 2007 (de acuerdo a WikiLeaks) ofreció sus servicios a la embajada de Estados Unidos en Buenos Aires.
“La ofensiva golpista comenzó con decretos que determinaron la intervención de instituciones y medidas absolutamente ilegales, como el nombramiento por decreto de dos de los jueces en la Corte Suprema. Todas las medidas económicas favorecen a los poderosos y marcan un camino de exclusión para el pueblo”, afirma Calloni.
Violando la constitución y las leyes, y gobernando por Decretos de Necesidad y Urgencia (DNU) desde diciembre de 2015, Macri inició un camino que con toda evidencia busca conducir al país a su entrega al poder hegemónico mundial y la destrucción una obra que le mereció a Argentina admiración y respeto de todo el mundo, entregándola a los siniestros designios del Fondo Monetario Internacional y otros organismos, bancos e instituciones extranjeras. “Todas sus medidas económicas favorecen a los poderosos y marcan un camino de exclusión para el pueblo”.
“La negativa opositora en el Congreso es parte del golpismo continuo que Estados Unidos y sus títeres locales ejecutan contra Venezuela, sostiene Calloni.
Mientras Estados Unidos y su red de asociados y empleados locales apoyan los decretazos anticonstitucionales de Macri, tan aplaudidos por el poder hegemónico, en Venezuela el decreto de “emergencia económica” firmado por el presidente Nicolás Maduro fue rechazado por la oposición legislativa con la complacencia de ese mismo poder. Nunca antes la derecha estuvo más dispuesta a violar la Carta Magna y llamar a la sedición, alertó el ex vicepresidente y periodista venezolano José Vicente Rangel. “Pocas veces en nuestro país se había anunciado un golpe de Estado de manera tan clara y, al mismo tiempo, tan elusiva; la opción sería el revocatorio presidencial, pero solo se alude tangencialmente a esa figura que consagra la actual ley de leyes”.
Según Rangel, la oposición navega en dos aguas al afirmar, por un lado, que en seis meses Nicolás Maduro saldrá por vías pacíficas y constitucionales del Palacio de Miraflores (sede del Gobierno) y, por el otro, que ni siquiera esperarán ese plazo para arremeter contra el mandatario.
“La derecha está ensoberbecida por la victoria legislativa del 6 de diciembre pasado. Pero recuerda todavía el fallido golpe de Estado de 2002, un fracaso rotundo que le hizo cambiar a métodos pacíficos para derrocar al poder socialista, como el que al parecer intentan utilizar ahora. Pero ni golpes blandos, ni disfraces carnavalescos utilizados para confundir, ni los golpes violentos pueden darse impunemente”, concluye José Vicente Rangel.
Abril 19 de 2016.
By Authors Name Here
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Andrés Gómez, Director of Areítodigital / April 11, 2016
Miami.- I have lived in Miami since November 29, 1960, and now I’m 68 years old. I was 13 when I arrived with my family, much like almost 130,000 Cubans who left their country in that year as a result of the radical changes made by the Cuban revolutionary process and war threats issued by the United States that were partially carried out in April 1961, five months later, with the Bay of Pigs invasion, the defeat of which those 55 years ago will be soon celebrated by the Cuban people in revolution.
Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, and not in Miami. After living in that city for so many years I know very well that “clear monument”, as Obama described Miami, calling it an example of hope for the Cubans, especially the young people,” in his well-timed and much-quoted speech of March 22 in Havana’s Gran Teatro.
Like others, I have written extensively about the idyllic and unreal image of Miami that U.S. Administrations have stubbornly insisted on creating and using as a contrast for more than 57 years, since the beginning of this long-lived nightmare, to the great work and example that the Cuban people’s Revolution has been. This virtual vision is the “clear monument” that Obama brought back to life in his speech.
Above all else, Mr. Obama, Miami is the irrefutable example of the Cuban people’s success in maintaining and developing their socialist revolutionary process and, therefore, their independence and sovereignty. Miami is conclusive proof of the defeat suffered by the Cuban counterrevolutionaries and their imperial masters in their attempts to destroy Cuba’s independence.
Miami, the clear monument that Obama presents to the Cuban people as their hope for the future. It is where his terrorists live, those of the U.S. governments, who have planned and committed acts of terrorism against the Cuban people. These victims, killed as a result, have been men and women that include many, many members of that youth that you, Mr. Obama, constantly encourage to forget the past.
And those victims have also been boys and girls, fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, female and male friends and neighbors… It’s an endless list, Mr. Obama. Not to mention, Mr. President, the suffering of their families and friends for the loss and absence of their loved ones in so many years of horror.
In 57 years there have been thousands of terrorist acts against the Cubans as a result of the State Terrorism policy designed by U.S. governments, one of which you preside over today, brother Obama, as you were called by Fidel, whom these U.S. terrorists have tried to kill countless times.
You see, it was those U.S. governments which in 1959, two years before you were born, started to recruit, train, arm, fund and lead those terrorists who lived or are still living in Miami. Some of them, who have died –of natural causes, by the way– and the U.S. government has protected them and let them do what they do with total impunity.
Those terrorist monsters are now living freely here in Miami, your “clear monument” and example to the Cubans, “especially the young people”. They don’t worry that they will ever be brought to justice for their heinous crimes as required by law and decency, thanks to the protection that your government, Mr. President, gives them.
How many are the Cuban victims of that terrorist policy? Official figures have it that 3,478 have died and 2,099 have been physically disabled. Given the horror caused by the imperial policies of aggression and war against other peoples in the last decades, maybe the readers will not be shocked by the number of Cuban men and women who have died or been disabled in all these years of sustained terrorist campaigns led by the United States.
Fidel managed to put into the right context in his memorable speech of October 6, 2011 in memory of the 73 victims of the loathsome act committed by these same beasts when they planted a bomb on a civilian plane of Cubana Airlines and blew it out of the sky 35 years before that day.
Fidel explained then: “Comparing the Cuban population [on October 6, 1976] with the U.S. population last September 11, it’s as if seven American planes, each with 300 on board, had been shot down on the same day and at the same time… And if we compared the two populations, the 3,478 Cuban lives lost to these terrorist acts originated in the United States, it would be as if 88,434 Americans had been killed by terrorists, a number equivalent to the number of American soldiers killed in the Vietnam War and the Korean War together.”
Just as the experiences and outcomes of this vile and endless U.S. policy of State Terrorism have been terrible for the Cuban people, so too have they been for us Cubans who, also for decades, have defended our people right from the dens where these monsters who spearhead such a policy are living and enjoying the impunity offered them by Washington.
Next April 28 will mark the 37th anniversary of the bomb attack in San Juan, Puerto Rico, that caused the death, one day later, of Carlos Muñiz Varela, our companero at the National Committee of the Antonio Maceo Brigade, and his terrorist killers, who are members of the Miami-based Cuban extreme right, are yet to be taken to court so that justice is done.
The federal authorities in charge of these dreadful matters, and mainly the FBI, Mr. President, are to blame for the fact that nothing has been done about it. They refuse to disclose the evidence they have that can prove those murderers guilty.
In Puerto Rico, however, Carlos’s family and friends, Cubans and Puerto Rican alike, under the guiding hands of Carlos’s son –now considerably older than his father when he fell in 1979 at the age of 25– and our comrade Raúl Álzaga, keep demanding justice for both Carlos and Santiago Mari Pesquera, a young Puerto Rican pro-independence fighter, recently recalled again by our comrade of old, Ricardo Alarcon, in an excellent article.
So how is it, Mr. President? What’s with the “clear monument” that you hold Miami is as an example of hope for the Cubans, “especially the young people”? What about those scoundrels who are your terrorists, Mr. President, still free and unpunished thanks to your decision, not that of other presidents –ten of them, to be precise– who ruled before you, but your own one?
Here in Miami, alive and free and waiting for your decision to bring them to justice as required by law, are, among others: Félix Rodríguez, Luis Posada Carriles, Pedro Remón Rodríguez, Ernesto Lluesma Pares, Ruperto Pérez Ortega, Frank Castro Paz, Santiago Álvarez Magriñat, Reynol Rodríguez González, Osvaldo Bencomo Robaina, Sergio Ramos Suárez, Armando Ruiz Maceira, Secundino Carreras Bencomo, Ramón Saúl Sánchez, Guillermo Novo Sampol, Antonio de la Cova, Virgilio Paz Romero, Héctor Fabián, José Dionisio Suárez Esquivel and Luis Crespo.
Not many of them are mentioned here, Mr. President, Sir. The above names are just a sample of your terrorists. Many, however, are their heinous crimes.
Por Andrés Gómez, director de Areítodigital
11 de abril de 2016
Miami.- Vivo en Miami desde el 29 de noviembre de 1960 y hoy tengo 68 años de edad. Llegué a los 13 años de edad con mi familia, como también salieron de Cuba casi 130 mil cubanos aquel año de 1960, producto de los radicales cambios del proceso revolucionario cubano y de las amenazas de guerra por parte de Estados Unidos que se concretaron parcialmente en abril de 1961, cinco meses después, con la invasión por Playa Girón, cuya derrota, en su 55 aniversario la celebrará, en revolución, el pueblo de Cuba próximamente.
Barack Obama, nació el 4 de agosto de 1961, y no fue en Miami. Por haber vivido tanto años en Miami conozco a fondo a ese “claro monumento” que afirmó Obama que es Miami, “como ejemplo de esperanza para el pueblo cubano, especialmente, los jóvenes,” en su oportuno y muy citado discurso el 22 de marzo pasado en el Gran Teatro de La Habana.
Como otros, mucho he escrito sobre la obra que por más de 57 años los gobiernos de Estados Unidos se han empecinado en construir de una visión de Miami, idílica e irreal, para contraponerla desde el principio de esta larga pesadilla, al magno ejemplo y obra que ha sido la Revolución de los cubanos y las cubanas. Es esta visión virtual, “el claro monumento” que Obama resucita en su discurso en el Gran Teatro de La Habana.
Miami es, señor Obama, por sobre todo, el ejemplo fehaciente de la victoria del pueblo cubano por mantener y desarrollar su proceso revolucionario socialista y así su independencia y su soberanía. Miami es la prueba máxima de la derrota de la contrarrevolución cubana y la de sus amos imperiales por destruir la independencia de Cuba.
Miami, el claro monumento que Obama ofrece al pueblo cubano como la esperanza de su futuro, es donde viven sus terroristas, los terroristas de los gobiernos de Estados Unidos, los que han llevado a cabo actos y planes de terrorismo contra el pueblo de Cuba, cuyas víctimas, los muertos que han causado, han sido hombres y mujeres, muchos, muchos de éstos, jóvenes, señor Obama, a los que usted continuamente incita a que olviden el pasado. Como también niños y niñas, padres y madres, hermanas y hermanos, esposas y esposos, hijos e hijas, amigos y amigas, vecinos y vecinas… y así interminablemente señor Obama. Sin olvidarnos, señor presidente, de sus familiares y amigos que a través de tantos y tantos años de horror han sufrido sus pérdidas y ausencias.
Miles de acciones terroristas cometidas contra el pueblo de Cuba a través de 57 años como resultado de la política de Terrorismo de Estado de los gobiernos de Estados Unidos, el gobierno que usted preside, hermano Obama, como le llamara Fidel, a quien planes terroristas de Estados Unidos han intentado asesinar tantas, tantas, y tantas veces.
Porque esos terroristas que viven o vivieron en Miami, aquellos que han muerto –por muerte natural, debo aclarar, — y los muchos que aún viven, señor presidente, los gobiernos de Estados Unidos desde un principio, me refiero al año 1959, desde dos años antes de usted haber nacido, los comenzó a reclutar, a entrenar, a armar, a financiar, a dirigir, y hasta el presente los protege y les brinda absoluta impunidad.
Porque esos monstruos terroristas, viven hoy libremente, aquí en Miami, su “claro monumento, ejemplo de esperanza para el pueblo cubano, especialmente los jóvenes”, sin preocupaciones de ser llevados ante los tribunales de justicia por sus odiosos crímenes como la ley exige, como la decencia exige, gracias a la protección que su gobierno, señor presidente, les garantiza.
¿Cuántas son las víctimas en Cuba de esa política de terrorismo? De acuerdo a las cifras oficiales han sido 3,478 los muertos y 2,099 los incapacitados físicos. Dado el horror producto de las políticas imperiales de agresión y guerra a otros pueblos durante las últimas décadas quizás no resulte terrible a los lectores el número de cubanas y cubanos muertos y discapacitados a consecuencia de todos estos años de una sostenida campaña terrorista por parte de Estados Unidos.
Fidel lo supo poner en el contexto correcto en un memorable discurso el 6 de octubre de 2001 al recordar a las 73 víctimas del infame atentado, perpetrado por estas mismas bestias, contra un avión civil de Cubana de Aviación el 6 de octubre de 1976.
Explicó Fidel: “Comparando la población de Cuba [el 6 de octubre de 1976] con la de Estados Unidos el 11 de septiembre pasado, es como si 7 aviones norteamericanos cada uno con 300 pasajeros a bordo hubiesen sido derribados el mismo día, a la misma vez… Y si estimásemos en la misma proporción de poblaciones las 3,478 vidas cubanas perdidas debido a estas acciones terroristas originadas en Estados Unidos es como si 88,434 personas hubiesen sido asesinadas en Estados Unidos en actividades terroristas, que equivale al número de soldados norteamericanos muertos en las guerras de Corea y Vietnam.”
Interminable y terrible es la vivencia y los resultados de esta vil política estadounidense de Terrorismo de Estado contra el pueblo cubano. Como también, salvando las diferencias, duro lo ha sido para nosotros los cubanos que, también por décadas, hemos defendido a nuestro pueblo en las mismas madrigueras que los monstruos que han ejecutado esta política viven y gozan de la impunidad brindada por Washington.
El próximo 28 de abril se cumplirán 37 años del atentado y muerte, un día después, de nuestro compañero del Comité Nacional de la Brigada Antonio Maceo, Carlos Muñiz Varela, en San Juan de Puerto Rico sin que aún sus asesinos, terroristas miembros de la extrema derecha cubana radicada en Miami y Puerto Rico, hayan sido llevados ante los tribunales para que se haga justicia.
Las autoridades federales encargadas de esos terribles asuntos, el FBI principalmente, señor presidente Obama, son los culpables de que no se haya podido hacer justicia. Se niegan a hacer público las pruebas en su poder que demuestran la culpabilidad de los asesinos.
Pero en Puerto Rico también los familiares y compañeros de Carlos, cubanos y puertorriqueños por igual, dirigidos por su hijo, Carlos Muñiz Pérez, hoy bastante mayor que su padre era cuando en 1979 cayera asesinado con 25 años de edad, y nuestro compañero Raúl Álzaga, no han cesado en su empeño por lograr que se haga justicia a él y a Santiago Mari Pesquera, joven luchador independentista boricua, como recientemente nos lo volviera recordar en un excelente trabajo, nuestro compañero de siempre, Ricardo Alarcón.
¿Entonces, qué, señor presidente? ¿Qué de su ese “claro monumento” que usted mantiene que es Miami, “como ejemplo de esperanza para el pueblo cubano, especialmente, los jóvenes”? ¿Qué de esos miserables, sus terroristas, señor presidente, que siguen libres e impunes por su decisión, no la de otros presidentes, 10 para ser exactos, que gobernaron antes que usted, sino de la suya propia?
Aquí están en Miami, libres y vivos esperando, señor presidente, por su decisión de llevarlos ante los tribunales de justicia como la ley lo obliga. Algunos de ellos son: Félix Rodríguez, Luis Posada Carriles, Pedro Remón Rodríguez, Ernesto Lluesma Pares, Ruperto Pérez Ortega, Frank Castro Paz, Santiago Álvarez Magriñat, Reynol Rodríguez González, Osvaldo Bencomo Robaina, Sergio Ramos Suárez, Armando Ruiz Maceira, Secundino Carreras Bencomo, Ramón Saúl Sánchez, Guillermo Novo Sampol, Antonio de la Cova, Virgilio Paz Romero, Héctor Fabián, José Dionisio Suárez Esquivel y Luis Crespo.
No son muchos los aquí nombrados, señor presidente Obama, es sólo una muestra de sus terroristas, pero sí son muchos sus odiosos crímenes.//
You must be logged in to post a comment.