during the closing ceremony of the Sixth Session of the Seventh Legislature of the National People’s Power Assembly at Havana’s Conference Center. December 18th, 2010, “Year 52 of the Revolution.”
December 18th, 2010
After the publication of the Draft Guidelines for the Economic and Social Policy on November 9th last, the train of the Sixth Party Congress has taken on steam. The true congress will be the open and honest discussions –as is being the case- of said Guidelines by Party members and the entire people. This genuine democratic exercise will allow us to further enrich that document and, without excluding divergent opinions, we intend to achieve a national consensus about the need and urgency of introducing strategic changes in the way the economy operates, so that Socialism in Cuba could be sustainable and irreversible.
We should not be afraid of opposing criteria. This instruction, which is not new, should not be construed as one applicable only to the discussions of the Guidelines. The differences of opinion, preferably expressed in the proper place, time and way, that is, at the right place, at the right moment and in the correct form, shall always be more desirable than the false unanimity based on pretence and opportunism. Moreover, this is a right nobody should be deprived of.
The more ideas we are capable of inspiring in the analysis of any given problem, the closer we shall come to its appropriate solution.
AT THE CLOSING SESSION OF THE 9TH CONGRESS OF THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE, HAVANA, APRIL 4, 2010, YEAR 52 OF THE REVOLUTION
APRIL 4, 2010
Today more than ever we need cadres that can carry on an effective ideological work that cannot be a dialogue of the deaf or a mechanical repetition of slogans. We need leaders who bring sound arguments to the discussion, who do not think they own the absolute truth; leaders who are good listeners even if they don’t like what some people say; leaders who are capable of examining other peoples’ views with an open mind, which does not exclude the need to refute with sound arguments and energy those views considered unacceptable.
Such leaders should foster open discussions and not consider discrepancy a problem but rather the source of the best solutions. In general, absolute unanimity is fictitious, therefore, harmful. When contradictions are not antagonistic, as in our case, they can become the driving force of development. We should deliberately suppress anything that feeds pretending and opportunism. We should learn to work collegially, to encourage unity and to strengthen collective leadership; these features should characterize the future leaders of the Revolution.
http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/rauldiscursos/2010/ing/r030410i.html
By Manuel E. Yepe
Exclusive to the daily BY THIS! Of Merida, Mexico.
Http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Marcel Hatch, an American resident in Cuba, tells us that he owns a tourism agency that brings visitors to the island. Marcel and his agency and have a long history of more than 20 years of solidarity with Cuba. His agency helps US citizens travel to Cuba and overcome obstacles which have been raised by President Donald Trump and Republican Senator Marco Rubio (a fierce anti-Cuban who has never been to the island). These roadblocks rest on the fact that, in the imagination of ordinary American, a reference to “military” is fundamentally chilling.
This is because, inevitably, a nexus of similarity is established with the terrifying role played in the world by the Pentagon as an instrument of the superpower to secure and expand its global hegemony. As a terrifying offensive organization of covert operations operating in hundreds of territories to suppress by any means the opposition to American expansionism. It’s also an administrative body that sucks up most of the taxes paid by American workers. The US military, in turn, has a budget greater than the sum of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the majority of the nations of the planet.
For the average American, the armed forces mean billions of dollars in devastating weapons with state-of-the-art technology and highly qualified personnel at the disposal of the nation’s President. He, in turn, has several generals and a military industry which decides which nations will survive, which will perish or be subject to invasions, blockades, and intimidation, and as a result, which will be condemned to suffer famine, impoverishment and epidemics.
It must be remembered that on January 17, 1961, in his farewell address, then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower advised Americans to take care of the power acquired by what he called the “military-industrial complex.” He noted that the United States had gone “from lacking an army and a defense industry to having an Armed Forces with more than three and a half million people employed to protect its security at a cost greater than all business profits of Their big corporations together. “
His warning had a profound impact coming from a military president who had experienced -even in the exercise of the nation’s first office- the ability to exert pressure that the Pentagon and the war industry had acquired “with strong influence in each city hall, state legislature and federal office of the nation.”
“The Cold War imposed the need to dispose of those resources,”Eisenhower said, “but we can not overlook the serious implications of granting so much power to the military.”
Thus, with such a background, for many Americans, the very idea of supporting the military is disgusting and frightening. Meanwhile, in stark contrast, it is evident that the Cuban army is seen by its people as its main defensive tool for protecting citizens from external threats, and to ensure that national sovereignty resides in the island’s people.
The recent directives emanating from President Trump have not completely reversed the modest advances made by former President Obama’s policies a few days before his term comes to an end, but one that forbids US citizens and companies from participating In direct financial transactions with entities or subsidiaries that “disproportionately benefit” the Cuban military.
It is a fact that, when the Cuban military is not involved in defense tasks, responsibly and conscious of its role in society, it is involved in civilian objectives and in protecting the infrastructure and development of the country. In the past, in response to calls for help from people struggling for independence, Cuban civilians and military have come to their solidarity support.
“It is natural, therefore, that in times of relative peace, the uniformed people – as Camilo Cienfuegos, one of their initial leaders called it – put their organizational and administrative resources at the disposal of the national economy. This is, in my opinion, the case with their active participation in tourism and many other social and productive activities,” Hatch emphasizes.
Cuban society highly values the concepts of unity and equality. It is understandable that, with a capitalist perspective as exaggerated as that of the American establishment, it is embarrassing to explain the civic-military harmony that strengthens the Cuban nation in all areas, and that is why Cubans feel so proud of their military.
July 21, 2017
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusivo para el diario POR ESTO! de Mérida, México.
Me comenta Marcel Hatch, un norteamericano residente en Cuba propietario de una agencia de turismo que lleva visitantes a la isla y tiene un largo historial de más de 20 años de solidaridad con este país, que las trabas para dificultar los viajes de ciudadanos estadounidenses a la isla que han planteado el Presidente Donald Trump y el senador republicano Marco Rubio (feroz anticubano que nunca ha estado en Cuba), descansan en el hecho de que en el imaginario del estadounidense común la referencia a “militares” es fundamentadamente escalofriante.
Ello ocurre porque inevitablemente se establece un nexo de similitud con el papel aterrador que juega en el mundo el Pentágono estadounidense como instrumento de la superpotencia para asegurar y ampliar su hegemonía global; como terrorífica organización ofensiva de operaciones encubiertas que opera en cientos de territorios para suprimir por cualquiera medio la oposición al expansionismo norteamericano, y como cuerpo administrativo que succiona la mayor parte de los impuestos que abonan los trabajadores estadounidenses que a su vez dispone de un presupuesto superior a la suma mayor que la sumatoria del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) de la mayoría de las naciones del planeta.
Para el común de los estadounidense, las fuerzas armadas significan miles de millones de dólares en armas devastadoras con novísima tecnología y personal altamente calificado a la disposición del Presidente de la nación, quien cuenta con varios generales y una industria militar que deciden cuáles naciones sobrevivirán, cuales perecerán o quedarán sujetas a invasiones, bloqueos e intimidaciones, y como resultado de ello, cuales serán condenadas a sufrir hambrunas, empobrecimiento y epidemias.
Hay que recordar que el 17 de enero de 1961, en su discurso de despedida, el entonces presidente Dwight D. Eisenhower aconsejó a los estadounidenses cuidarse del poder adquirido por lo que bautizó como “complejo militar-industrial”. Señaló que Estados Unidos había pasado, “de carecer de un ejército y una industria de la defensa, a disponer de unas Fuerzas Armadas con más de tres millones y medio de personas empleadas para proteger su seguridad a un costo mayor que todos los beneficios empresariales de sus grandes corporaciones juntas”. Su advertencia tuvo profundo impacto por provenir de un militar devenido Presidente que había experimentado -incluso en el ejercicio de la primera magistratura de la nación- la capacidad de ejercer presión que el Pentágono y la industria de la guerra habían adquirido “con fuerte influencia en cada ayuntamiento, legislatura estadual y oficina federal de la nación”.
La Guerra Fría impuso la necesidad de disponerle esos recursos-justificó Eisenhower- pero no podemos pasar por alto las graves implicaciones derivadas de la concesión de tanto poder a los militares.
Así, con tales antecedentes, para muchos estadounidenses la sola idea de apoyar a los militares es algo repugnante y aterrador. Pero, en marcado contraste, es evidente que el ejército cubano es visto por su pueblo como su principal herramienta defensiva para la protección de la ciudadanía de las amenazas del exterior, y para asegurar que la soberanía nacional resida en el pueblo de la isla.
Las recientes directivas emanadas de las orientaciones del Presidente Trump no han hecho retroceder totalmente los discretos avances aportados por las políticas del ex presidente Obama pocos días antes de concluir su mandato, pero entre ellas destaca una que prohíbe a los ciudadanos y empresas de Estados Unidos participar en transacciones financieras directas con entidades o subsidiarias que “beneficien desproporcionadamente” a los militares cubanos.
Es un hecho cierto que, cuando los militares cubanos no están involucrados en tareas de la defensa, responsablemente y por conciencia de su papel en la sociedad, se involucran en objetivos civiles y en la protección de la infraestructura y el desarrollo de su país. En el pasado, atendiendo a reclamos de ayuda de pueblos en lucha por su independencia, civiles y militares cubanos han acudido en su apoyo solidario.89d
“Es natural, por tanto, que en épocas de paz relativa, el pueblo uniformado -como lo llamara Camilo Cienfuegos, uno de sus jefes iniciales- ponga sus recursos organizacionales y administrativos a disposición de la economía nacional. Tal es, a mi juico, el caso de su activa participación en el turismo y en muchas otras actividades sociales y productivas”, enfatiza Hatch.
La sociedad cubana valora altamente los conceptos de unidad e igualdad. Es comprensible que con una óptica capitalista tan exagerada como la del “establishment” estadounidense, resulte embarazoso comprender la armonía cívico-militar que fortalece a la nación cubana en todos los ámbitos, y que los cubanos se sientan tan orgullosos de sus militares.
Julio 21 de 2017.
You must be logged in to post a comment.