By Manuel E. Yepe
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Many observers and U.S. allies calculated that in Helsinki President Trump had intended to achieve the re-establishment of a triangulation between the United States, Russia and China. And there were good reasons for that hypothesis.
At a 2015 press conference, Trump advocated the Hanry Kissinger line: keep Russia and China divided so that they can never unite against Washington.
On that occasion, Trump said: “…One of the worst things that can happen to the US is for Russia to get closer to China. We’ve let them join in with the big oil deals that are being made. That’s a horrible thing for our country. We’ve made them friends because of a incompetent leadership.”
In an essay published by the Strategic Culture Foundation on July 23rd signed by Alastair Crooke, a former M16 agent, and British diplomat, there is speculation that perhaps, in Helsinki, Trump was doing something a little less strategic and more realistic – something more along the lines of The Art of The Deal [Trump’s book].
According to Crooke, “Over the decades, we have developed a model of how “people are supposed to behave when they’re not in a good mood. presidents and in the process of policy formulation. Bush and Obama were fully driven through that process. But obviously, Trump doesn’t fit that model. Trump’s process follows the following order:
1) Identify a major target (tax cuts, trade, etc.) balanced trade, a wall, etc..
2) Identify the points of influence in front of anyone who stands in your way (elections, tariffs, jobs, etc.).
3) Announce any extreme threat aggression to your opponent.
4) If the opponent backs down, mitigate the threat, declare victory and come home with a win.
(5) If the opponent responds, Trump applies the principle of double or nothing.
6) Eventually, the escalation must lead to negotiations with the perception of a victory for Trump – even though this is more apparent than real.
If we frame the Helsinki meeting in the context of this perception of Art of the Deal, we get that the divergences of vision between Russia and the United States are so substantial that the common ground is small and there are very few prospects for an ‘overall strategic agreement’.
In fact, President Trump has little to offer Russia: sanctions relief is not in his power (but in Congress’s), and you could not renounce Ukraine, “even if Trump understood that the US and Europe made a bad buy with their coup d’état.”
According to the Russian journalist specializing in the conflict in Ukraine, Rostislav Ishchenko, “We have a situation where both sides, even before they negotiated, they knew they could not reach an agreement and neither could bes even prepared for such a thing (there was no provision for the signature of a document after the negotiations).
At the same time, both sides needed the event to be successful. Trump, obviously, is blackmailing the European Union with a possible agreement with Russia. But I’ll tell you what, Putin also needs to show Europe that there are other fish in the the sea besides them.”
Europe’s position is clear. Not by chance, Trump, in listing Washington’s enemies (the EU, China and Russia), made it clear that he considers Russia to be a smaller problem than the EU because there are practically no economic contradictions with Moscow.
The main “enemy” of the United States is not China, with whom the US has the largest negative trade balance, but the European Union, which Trump defined as the main commercial competitor and which obtains from the relationship with the United States many unjustified economic benefits through political agreements.
With this, Trump solves his political-military contradictions with Russia and, consequently, reduces the value of the EU as an ally of Washington to zero. Recently, after the NATO summit, Merkel began to speak out clearly about Trump’s hostility to Europe. She considers it unjustified because of how much Europe has fought against Russia for the benefit of the interests of the United States.
Europe, which, unlike China, has not dedicated itself to the diversification of its economic ties in the world and which seemed to depend on access to the U.S. market, is not prepared for a strong confrontation with the United States.
Without running the risk of getting ahead of Trump on the issue of the normalisation of relations with Russia, EU leaders were fatally afraid that Trump and Putin, despite the difficulties, might do the impossible and come to an agreement, because both of them proved to be prepared for decisions that could change the world’s destiny in an instant.
July 30, 2018.
This article may be reproduced by citing the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
Author: Grupo Empresarial Correos de Cuba | email@example.com
July 30, 2018 18:07:43
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
The Directorate of Institutional Communication of the Business Group Correos de Cuba announced that as of Tuesday, July 31st, the Draft Constitution of the Republic of Cuba will be commercialized in all units and press boxes, in tabloid format of 32 pages, and will be commercialized through the national postal network at the price of one peso (cup).
First, on Tuesday, July 31st, it will be sold in the post office and press room units of the provinces of Havana, Mayabeque, Artemisa and the special municipality of Isla de la Juventud.
As of Wednesday, August 1, it will begin to be sold in the post office and press room units of the provinces of Pinar del Río, Matanzas, Cienfuegos, Villa Clara, Sancti Spíritus and Ciego de Ávila.
Meanwhile, starting on Friday, August 3, it will be sold in the post office and press room units in the provinces of Camagüey, Las Tunas, Holguín, Granma, Santiago de Cuba and Guantánamo.
As reported by the mass media, the draft Constitution of the Republic of Cuba will be submitted for popular consultation between 13 August and 15 November 2018.
Directorate of Institutional Communication Grupo Empresarial Correos de Cuba
July 21, 2018
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The first televised summaries of the debates in the committees of the National Assembly of People’s Power on future constitutional reform in Cuba confirmed Friday that the draft of the new Constitution proposes to redefine marriage as the voluntary union between two persons with legal capacity for this purpose, and incorporates the principle of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
According to one member of parliament, when asking for clarification on this issue, the new formulation on the matrimonial institution would be contained in article 68 of the proposal to be discussed and approved by the highest legislative body in the first ordinary session of the current legislature this weekend.
Hardly anyone escapes the fact that this amendment to the old 1976 Constitution, which reduced marriage to the bond between a man and a woman, would be the open door for later progress in the legalization of homosexual couples.
The principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity – contained in another article along with several other grounds of discrimination – would also allow for the progressive incorporation of other legal norms and public policies that would protect and equalise the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people in our country.
Of course, this is not the only major change, nor the only one that should interest and mobilize LGBTI people. As citizens, we have to be concerned about the fairness and complete perfection of our next law of laws, because it not only defines our sexual orientation or gender identity, neither as human beings nor as patriots.
However, we must be aware that the incorporation of a broader concept of marriage into this draft is only the first step on the road to the adoption of a new Constitution which will ensure greater legal guarantees for the specific LGBTI population.
After its approval in Parliament, this draft bill will have to go through a broad popular consultation with all citizens. This will be a deeply democratic process very similar to the one we already experienced during the debates promoted by the Communist Party of Cuba on the conceptualization of the economic and social model of socialist development. These are the bases of the strategic development plan until 2030 and the guidelines of the economic and social policy of the Revolution.
Based on the results of this consultation and on the consensus that we will be able to reach with all citizens, the National Assembly will have to consider and approve the final draft of the new constitutional text, which will be submitted to a vote by popular referendum, in order to seek its final promulgation.
So, months of hard work lie ahead. Activists and specialists, political and religious personalities, women and men of all sexual orientations and gender identities who understand justice and the revolutionary nature of this very human cause, we will have to fully attend this discussion in every neighborhood and workplace.
The fight won’t be easy. There are ideological and political positions opposed to these changes. Their representatives will do everything they can to ensure that these dreams, which are now possible and already so close, will come to nothing. Some are powers that believe they have the strength of many centuries of prejudice, stigma and taboos in their favor, which they want to impose on all of society as traditions and customs, or false natural or divine notions.
Nobody’s giving us anything. Our mission will be to offer arguments, explain experiences, transmit emotions that persuade and convince, illustrate and generate empathy, inspire and move.
Everyone should do it from their own perspective, according to their own possibilities of expression, with total honesty and frankness, without fear or shame. In every context and circumstance, let us use the language and tone that the occasion warrants. The scientific approach will be very useful, but also the intimate anecdote, the familiar and friendly reference, the hard episode of the past, the hope that already contains our best present.
Let us not rule out any recourse, provided that what is said is sincere and true, from reason or passion, and even from both. But we can’t stop speaking out. All of us, no matter if it may seem like a reiteration, or if we believe that someone has already said it before or said it better.
Nor should we think that if no one speaks out against it, there is no need to speak out in favor. If we do not say so in our meeting, perhaps in another meeting where we were not or will not be, the contrary position will appear, and there will be no one to defend this cause. Silence is not an option. Every opinion counts.
In particular, I urge LGBTI people to engage in all the spaces of debate within our reach, so that our families, work groups, and neighborhoods, know who we are and what we are worth, and why we consider this step to be just and revolutionary, even beyond our own particular well-being or benefit.
This year we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Revolution of 1868, the one that began our struggle for freedom, collective and individual. In another year 1968, a century later, the Western world was shaken up by great revolts between one of its many components, the so-called sexual revolution of those decades.
By pure chance, that is the same number that corresponded to the article that could cover marriage between two persons, regardless of their gender, in the next Constitution of the Republic of Cuba. So we can and must participate: it is our new revolution of ’68.
I am Francisco Rodriguez Cruz, also known as Paquito, from CUBA; I am a Marti follower and an author; I am a communist and gay journalist; I am a convinced and superstitious atheist; I am the father of a son whom I have adored and have been a partner for fifteen years with a seronegative man who loves me; I have been an AIDS patient since 2003 andam a survivor of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for more than twelve years; I am a university professor and a student of life; a follower of Cuban economic issues and a passionate devourer of universal literature; an incontinent and belligerent moderate; a friend of my friends and a compassionate friend of my enemies; often wrong and never repentant; a hardened and eternal enthusiastic optimist; alive and kicking; in short, another ordinary man who wants to share his story, opinions and desires with you…
By Lisbet Penín Matos
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Undoubtedly one of the most-discussed articles during the recently concluded first ordinary session of the IX Legislature of the National Assembly of People’s Power was article 68, which establishes the concept of marriage between two people.
The change with respect to the current constitution is that the one approved in 1976 includes marriage as the union between a man and a woman, while the current proposal, with a revolutionary vision, does not define sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
In this regard, the press spoke with Deputy Dr. Mariela Castro Espín. She said during the discussion that this article mixes the rights proposed by the Constitution to guarantee the institution of marriage with the responsibilities of mothers and fathers.
“That is a technical question, I wanted to separate them because simply when it comes to operationalizing all this in the laws, it makes it easier to differentiate them, and also, it reproduces a reproductive or reproductivist vision of marriage.
She stated that there are unmarried people who, while others marry and are unable or unwilling to have them, hence marriage does not pursue only the reproductive end.
The director of CENESEX commented that marriage has several purposes, among them the desire, the pleasure of living together where shared responsibilities are assumed in the home. “That’s fine, but then marriage takes on another purpose, another project, which is that of the children.
“If we’re going to consider the reproductive responsibility of mother and father within marriage, then when we put all this into practice in the law, we have to guarantee the same options and possibilities to heterosexual couples, same-sex couples and people who decide to become single mothers or fathers,” she said.
Dr. Mariela Castro also mentioned that the current constitutional reform has a more inclusive vision. She described the achievement of human rights-based marriage as wonderful.
She commented that no person can be excluded or discriminated against for any reason. She also said that today Cuban society has more knowledge and can openly discuss these issues with the intention of protecting couples who wish to join together, without exclusion.
Despite its proposal, the National Assembly adopted that the article should remain unchanged, but that it would be enriched by the views of the people.
“That is a wonderful revolutionary achievement,” she said, and continued, “hopefully, when the document is submitted for analysis by the people, the majority will be able to understand the very important step we are taking in the field of human rights, in recognizing all the rights of people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, because we have had difficulty reproducing the prejudices we have learned.
She reflected that there are people in the population with their dogmas, prejudices and beliefs who consider that homosexual people are not fit, capable of being mothers and fathers.
“And I repeat what I said in committee: motherhood and fatherhood is not a gift from nature, it is not an instinct as they believe: it is a learning experience”, based on observation of other mothers and fathers.
The only difference between heterosexual and homosexual mothers and fathers is simply their sexual orientation, she said.
“There are even those who believe that homosexuality is a disease, it sticks, it will be learned. No. If it were that simple, there would be no homosexuals, because they would be heterosexuals just like their parents were.
“It is an era in which this obscurantist, manipulative and retrograde thinking is being overcome with science, with scientific knowledge, inspired by the humanist spirit and based on the interest of the Cuban State in advancing the human rights agenda,” she concluded.
To make up Cuba, all the people contribute to and contribute to social and economic transformations.
This is an intentional and tempered draft project in the sense of the historical moment with the aim of guaranteeing more rights, more inclusion, independence, sovereignty and equality.
Author: Claudia Padrón Cueto
September 24, 2015
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
For the browsing experiences of web users to remain pleasurable in the country, the information strategy of our society must achieve a greater synergy. This is the responsibility of all those who are concerned with the education on the use of Information Technologies.
This past holiday season will probably be remembered as the “wifi summer in Cuba”. Undoubtedly the period was marked by the extension –through this type of connection– of the opportunities for web surfing at 2 CUC’s an hour. And while it is true that the price is still high for most, the wifi is welcomed.
Every day people go to the squares, parks or places with wifi reach to make use of internet navigation services. Many go to make video calls (using IMO) or check their Facebook profiles; while others find –in the wake of the wifi– a way to profit.
This is how it works in the city of Pinar del Rio: At the different access points some young people wait for new arrivals at the park or connection area and immediately offer “one hour of connection for only 1 CUC”, that is, half the official price.
They act as go-between working on commission for a percentage of the total amount collected. They take their customers/users to other persons who use their PCs and cell phones with wireless connection and sell the service to these temporary users.
Connectify Hotspot is a software –one of many– that allows sharing Internet by several users. Of course, in accepting this browsing option the speed and original connectivity potential is reduced, but still it is possible to access the web and even make video calls.
In addition to these agents of shared wifi, and of those others who hoard coupons to then sell them for 75 Cuban pesos [official price 2 CUC = 50 Cuban pesos], this journalist and some close friends were able to confirm the existence of other “merchants” who charge for a simple advice, for example: how to recharge a Nauta account that only requires to enter portal@…, and from this address type the card code.
This is a simple procedure that only takes a few minutes; but lack of knowledge makes some users resort to these “advisers” who take advantage of the inexperience and charge for the service 10 Cuban pesos. Such practices also involve certain risks, because those who offer “help” could even keep the data of the customer (username and password) and then use this information to access their accounts.
There are many who connect without even knowing how to turn on the wifi on their phone or what a browser is, what a web site, a web page or a network profile are. This is simply because without practice there is no possible knowledge. And such lack of knowledge frustrates the browsing experience of some, while others fill their pockets.
It’s been three months after the opening of the areas of wireless access service –indispensable in any modern society—and they are very much appreciated; but still the telecommunications company needs to improve its management so it is not limited only to the signing of contracts. It is also necessary to expand the benefits at the Joven Club [Free Computer Service Facilities] and provide guidance on the use of new technologies to solve the most dissimilar demands and problems of Cuban society in its way to computerization.
Schools should also join in this instruction task considering that today’s students options lead to new tools and benefits, provided by the use of ITs. These options need to be managed with dexterity so that users do not become easy preys to deception and theft.
By Luis Ángel Adán Roble
Posted: 22 Jul 2018 09:59 PM PDT
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews
August 8, 2017
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Cuban deputies received an explanation of a policy of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) that has been in force for a year or two to accept and place young homosexuals in military service, respecting their right to participate in the defense of the country.
The issue arose during the work session of the National Defence Commission, which on last July 10 evaluated the results of the inscriptions in the Military Register and the incorporation of young people into active military service (SMA).
As part of the debates prior to the last ordinary session of the National Assembly of People’s Power, representatives of military institutions and members of other permanent commissions such as Health and Sport; Education, Culture, Science, Technology and the Environment; and Care for Youth, Children and Equal Rights of Women also participated in this meeting.
Although this aspect of the discussion on compliance with the SMA did not transcend any of the journalistic versions I could consult on the meeting, its approach in our Parliament is undoubtedly of great news, relevance and political and public interest for the Cuban LGBTI community.
That is why I sought information from fellow journalists there, but it was not until only a few days ago that I had access to the audio recordings of the question posed by Joaquín Lázaro Cruz Martín, a member of parliament for the municipality of Boyeros in the capital and a member of the Committee on Youth, Children and Equal Rights for Women; and the response given by Brigadier General Juan Rafael Ruiz Pérez, also a member of parliament and chairman of the Committee on National Defence.
Perhaps another time is left for the analysis of the importance of this event. I believe that both interventions deserve to be analysed. I confess as an advance that right now it is difficult for me to assess what is more important, if the fact that a deputy asked about the participation of homosexuals in the army and defended it in public; or the response of the president of the National Defence Committee, when reporting on a policy that still has obvious discriminatory features – he himself admits that it is not perfect – but that in practice it represents without doubt a qualitative leap towards the recognition of the rights of LGBTI people in Cuba.
However, many concerns and doubts remain unresolved, not only regarding the inclusion of gay soldiers in the FAR, but also regarding the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who aspire to or even become officers.
Without further ado, I transcribe the question and the answer in its entirety, with only small adjustments that I had to make to try to be faithful in the written language to the tone and intention of the speaker, to separate the ideas into sentences as brief as possible, as well as to avoid direct or colloquial references and mentions to some people present whose names I found unintelligible in the recording.
Deputy Joaquín Lázaro Cruz Martín: The other issue I have, which concerns me greatly, is exactly what would be the policy to follow, in this material specifically, with young homosexuals and bisexuals.
How it is treated, how politics is with these young people, who are not different at all in our society; that is, they deserve a place of respect too, that is their sexual preference and I do not think that this will influence at all….
Right now it’s time to add, not subtract, and we need everyone’s support. It is no secret to anyone that at the moment, as we can see that they are not being discriminated against as much as in previous times – although discrimination still exists, it is a problem that concerns us all – many more are increasingly identified…
Thank you very much.
Congressman Juan Rafael Ruiz Pérez, President of the National Defence Committee: I am going to take the floor on this last issue to explain and make it clear.
As you have heard, there is in the Armed Forces – we have known this before – a commission of the body that establishes policy for the performance of military service.
In other words, military service is in a law, the law has its regulations, but this commission is establishing policies. For example, no law says anything about the year deferred, about the boy who took a college degree. That’s a policy.
Service is two years, everyone must complete it, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera… Ah, but if you pass the entrance exams and get a degree, then the policy is that you must only serve one year, to interfere as little as possible in your incorporation. That’s politics.
Then, with regard to this issue raised by the companero, a policy was established and approved a year ago, perhaps two years ago, which is essentially the following:
First, no young person, because of his social preference (sic) is excluded from being able to fulfill his preparation for the defense of his country.
Second, if that young man is called, but he considers that for this reason, he will not be able to perform his service in the conditions of a military place, he is excluded.
And thirdly, we also try to apply a third alternative that exists, and that can allow you to comply with the first, without having to fall into the traditional, let’s say, two-year service in a military unit, in maneuvers, etc…. It can also be conducted so that the performance of your military service, and therefore of the law, does so through alternative forms.
Therefore, a young person with these characteristics is called military service, gives basic military training, if possible, and is assigned to alternative military service. Say, he can be a nurse, an auxiliary in a hospital, he can even be in a military hospital, or he can be assigned to work elsewhere.
He’s doing his service, he’s complying with the law, he’s carrying out his duty to the homeland. He may have prepared for defense, and yet he is in conditions that may be more appropriate for the situation.
Ah, no, you’re capable that even if you have your… overcome that, and keep yourself… Because also the environment can influence a lot. We’re talking about a barracks with 80 of another preference, talking about other things, saying other things… Oh, not you?… Right, you’re not called and you’re given that chance.
What happens, that sometimes this happens when they say about a case that came in and that after it was detected. Well, this is sometimes not detected, because sometimes even the person doesn’t want to say it yet….
Is it detected later? We do that. You can’t, Counselor. Yeah, you’re licensed. Any chance you’re going to finish it by alternative means in one place, according to a plan, et cetera? That’s a variant. Another variant? No, you’re going home.
That is to say, what must be clear: that is why nobody is exempted – by politics – from their right to prepare themselves to defend their homeland.
But, taking into account the existing conditions and so on…. As you say yourself, military service is not a panacea, that’s what it is, that’s what it takes, that’s what it takes, that’s what it takes, that’s what it takes and so on. No (can’t)…, well, it’s not going, now. It’s not going. It’s not a disease, it just doesn’t go, because of the conditions, it’s a possibility you give it. Or also, to go towards that other channel that can be service through alternative forms.
That is the policy that is approved, in writing, oriented towards the whole country, what happens is that these things happen, because sometimes they are not detected and can be chosen, well, then you do what you did, you know what I mean?
But the policy is approved, and this is what is being followed. Doesn’t mean it’s perfect, everything here is provisional. But the issue has already been identified, and that is what is being done.
I am Paquito, from CUBA; I am a Marti follower and a an author; I am a communist and gay journalist; I am a convinced and superstitious atheist; I am the father of a son whom I have adored and have been a partner for fifteen years with a seronegative man who loves me; I have been an AIDS patient since 2003 andam a survivor of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for more than twelve years; I am a university professor and a student of life; a follower of Cuban economic issues and a passionate devourer of universal literature; an incontinent and belligerent moderate; a friend of my friends and a compassionate friend of my enemies; often wrong and never repentant; a hardened and eternal enthusiastic optimist; alive and kicking; in short, another ordinary man who wants to share his story, opinions and desires with you…
Author: Germán Veloz Placencia | firstname.lastname@example.org
24 de julio de 2018 22:07:37
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
By Manuel E. Yepe
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
An interesting controversy has been sparked on the Internet. It’s being reproduced by the conservative publication The American Conservative (TAC), published in Washington DC, on the role of US President Donald Trump in the alleged rapprochement with Russia that culminated with his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.
Ultra-conservative lawyer and writer Bruce Fein, senior partner at Fein & DelValle, former deputy attorney general and general counsel to the Federal Communications Commission during Reagan’s presidency, assesses Trump’s merits in defending the most reactionary positions and their contradictions with those of Putin:
“President Donald Trump has strengthened, not weakened, U.S. military and economic opposition to Russian President Vladimir Putin. This situation has not been properly clarified and is of the utmost importance. Regardless of the triumphs Trump claims over NATO or Vladimir Putin, the Military-Industrial Counter-Terrorism complex (MICC) governs U.S.-Russian ties as it has for seven decades. The nightmare of the MICC is not to lose a friend, but to lose an enemy, says Fein.
“False information is obsessed with personalities. Authentic information assumes that nations have no permanent friends or enemies, but only permanent interests. The executive branch, in particular, has a permanent interest in exaggerating threats in order to increase its own power and superfluous military spending.
According to Fein, President Barack Obama, in opposition to Russian objectives, refused to provide military assistance to Ukraine, while Trump has authorized the transfer of military weapons to that country. Obama limited the U.S. military mission in Syria to the goal of defeating ISIS or the Islamic State, while Trump has expanded that mission to remain in Syria indefinitely and to influence the outcome of that country’s protracted civil war.
Trump plans to invest $1.2 trillion in upgrading the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including low-yield tactical weapons, directed largely against Russia. In a recent report on national security strategy, Trump said Washington will respond to the economic, political, and military challenges posed by China and Russia to U.S. power, influence, and interests by attempting to erode U.S. security and prosperity. “They are determined to make their economies, less free and less fair, to increase their armies and the repression they exert on their societies.
Trump has supported the 30,000-strong NATO rapid response force in the face of a hypothetical Russian attack. He has has called on NATO members to increase their contributions to the alliance from 2 to 4 percent of their GDP.
Trump has stated that the attack on any NATO member will be considered an attack on the United States and will be responded to militarily, without the prior declaration of war required by the Constitution. Not a single soldier out of the more than 50,000 currently on US bases in NATO countries has been withdrawn.
Trump has maintained economic sanctions against Russia for its annexation of the Crimea and new military invasions in eastern Ukraine. He signed the Law to Counter America’s Adversaries through Sanctions, which the Russian Prime Minister called a “large-scale trade war” against his country.
In April, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the Trump administration – in consultation with the State Department – sanctioned seven Russian leaders and 12 companies owned or controlled by them, 17 Russian government officials and one Russian state-owned arms trading company and one of its subsidiary banks.
The assets of a sanctioned person or entity are frozen and business with Americans is prohibited.
Trump supported Montenegro’s NATO membership despite its obvious irrelevance to US national security.
Trump’s critics criticize his cowardice toward Putin. They deplore every positive thing he says about Russia and its alleged interference in American politics. But they cannot point to a single thing that the Trump administration has done to diminish Washington’s overwhelming military and economic superiority over Russia or to deter Russian aggression.
“Trump is just the background noise; the enduring script of American national security is written by the Military Industrial Complex with the consent of the American people while its armored knight gratifies him as always with the vicarious thrill of power and domination,” concludes the reactionary Bruce Fein.
July 23, 2018.
This article may be reproduced by citing the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
Symbol of the and militant protesting woman of the feminist movement, the French novelist visited Cuba and, hand in hand with its main leaders, learned about the Revolution and the role of the so-called weaker sex in the emerging Caribbean social process.
By Javier Gómez Lastra
May 26, 2016
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews
“The fact that determines the present status of women is the stubborn survival of the oldest traditions in the new civilization being outlined. That is what is unknown to hasty observers who see women as inferior to the opportunities offered to them today, or who see only dangerous temptations in those opportunities. The truth is that her situation lacks balance, and for that reason it is very difficult for her to adapt to it. (…)
“Everything still encourages the unmarried young woman to expect ‘Prince Charming’ fortune and happiness rather than to attempt the difficult and uncertain conquest alone. In particular, it will give her the hope of reaching a higher social stratum than her own, a miracle that will not reward her life’s work. But such hope is dire, because it divides their energies and interests; it is a division that is perhaps the most serious disadvantage for women. The parents still educate the daughter with a view to marriage more than they promote her personal development, and the daughter sees in it so many advantages (…)”.
This text, taken from the work “Le Deuxième Sexe” or “The Second Sex” by Simone de Beauvoir, a French writer, narrator and philosopher and an essential figure in 20th-Century literature and thought, was a theoretical starting point for various feminist groups and became a classic work of contemporary ideology.
The piece, which breaks the existing canons in Europe since the Second World War, tells a story related to the social status of women and analyzes the different characteristics of male oppression.
It also exposes the gender situation from the point of view of biology, psychoanalysis and Marxism, and destroys the existing feminine myths, inciting the search for the authentic and full gender liberation.
Considered ambitious, the text also maintains that the struggle for women’s emancipation is different and parallel to that of the classes and that the main problem to be faced by the so-called weaker sex is not the ideological but the economic front.
The publication evoked strong reactions because of the marked character of nonconformity that the women of that time began to show.
The big push for gender equality
The beginning of the second half of the 20th century had very particular characteristics in the socio-cultural field in Europe. If anything brought about radical changes in ethical, political and philosophical thought in the countries of the Old Continent after the World Wars, it was the enormous need to achieve fundamental human rights and the emancipation of women.
Faced with the example of the policy of equality for all, applied by the governments of the nations of the newly created socialist bloc, many thinkers, human rights fighters, writers, poets, philosophers, and even politicians in Western Europe took a 180-degree turn in their way of valuing life and began to call for true equality between men and between men and women.
It was in this context that Simone de Beauvoir stood out and left a deep mark on the universal history of the world, leaving behind not only her extensive literary work, but also her tireless struggle.
In spite of her bourgeois origin, from a very young age the intellectual knew the difficulties of her contemporaries in a world dominated by men, markedly masculine, made in the image and likeness of the male and where women were relegated to domestic chores or simply to love.
Her work reflected women’s problems, marked by exclusion from production and home-based processes and purely reproductive functions, which represented the loss of all social ties and the possibility of being free.
A radical change
Simone was born in Paris on January 9th, 1908, in a district where coffee shops were beginning to proliferate, where literary gatherings were present and intellectual environments that logically influenced the writer’s education were created.
Very early on she excelled as a brilliant student and studied philosophy at the Sorbonne. Until 1943, she was involved in teaching in high schools in Marseille, Rouen and Paris.
At the age of eighteen, she wrote the first literary essay where the protagonist has many traits in common with her. From that moment on, literature played an essential role in her work.
In 1929 he met the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who became her companion for the rest of her life. Together they shared almost five decades of existence.
Sartre’s influence was unquestionable and Simone began to make use of her existential freedom. This led her to renounce her family and friends, adapting to the real world and choosing a new system of life based on her encounter with the philosopher.
Under these principles, she managed to penetrate the world of the Parisian intellectuals of the 1930s, being one of the few women that this closed universe came to accept.
Extensive literary legacy
According to the vast majority of critics, researchers and scholars of Simone’s literature, in her literary texts she dared to revise the concepts of history and character and incorporated, from an existentialist perspective, the themes of freedom, situation and commitment.
Together with Sartre, Albert Camus and Merleau-Ponty, among others, she founded the magazine Les Temps Modernes [Modern Times], whose first issue was published in October 1945 and became a political and cultural reference point for French thought in the mid-20th century.
The thinker’s extensive work includes the texts “The Guest” (1943), “The Blood of Others” (1944), “Pyrrhus and Cinema” (1944), “All Men are Mortal” (1946), “For a Morality of Ambiguity” (1947), “America Today” (1948) and “The Farewell Ceremony” (1981).
In the latter, she openly dealt with the curious love relationship, from her youthful days to her old age, and the death of her companion, which implies their hard separation. Despite the absolute identification between them, they never shared the same roof, making use of freedom and with no other purpose than the mutual need to find each other, which allowed them to achieve a perfect symbiosis.
The work ends with the striking phrase: “His death separates us. My death will not bring us together, it is so. It’s been a long time since our lives could have melted together.
In the mid-twentieth century, with some feminists, she also established the Women’s Rights League, which set out to react firmly to any sexist discrimination, and prepared a special issue of Modern Times to discuss the subject.
Her many testimonial and autobiographical titles also included other texts such as “Memoirs of a Formal Young Woman” (1958), “The Fullness of Life” (1960), “The Power of Things” (1963), “A Very Sweet death” (1964), “Old age” (1968), “The End of Accounts” (1972) and “The Farewell Ceremony” (1981).
Character is destiny
The Algerian war broke out in 1954 and Simone felt powerless in the face of reality, thus beginning her period of political struggle.
She took part in anti-fascist demonstrations and gave lectures to the students, but all attempts to impose criteria against the system were unsuccessful, and, despite her efforts, Charles de Gaulle was declared President of the Republic.
This new political situation prompted Simone to rekindle the need to rebel once again, and she agreed to accompany Sartre to Cuba in 1960. There she met Fidel Castro and Ernesto Che Guevara, among other revolutionaries, in Havana. Cuban photographer Alberto Korda documented the meeting between the couple and the two leaders.
Both Sartre and Simone were always fascinated by the Heroic Guerrilla. At the time of his death, seven years later, Sartre wrote: “Che was not only an intellectual, but also the most complete human being of our time”.
The couple spent almost two months working on the main island of the Antilles, which led to their subsequent and continued dedication to the defense of the Cuban Revolution.
They made an intense tour of the island, which included a tour of the Ciénaga Zapata swamp, the inspirational examination of the book “Sartre Visits Cuba”, published in Havana in 1960 by Ediciones Revolución. In its pages, the philosopher narrated his experiences in the country.
Fundamental decade for women and their rights
The Frenchwoman’s ideas soon reached the rest of the world and Simone de Beauvoir centers began to proliferate everywhere.
The emancipation of women was her ideal of struggle. Without denying the biological differences, she was able to denounce a whole system of oppression that worked – and still persists – from levels such as the home and that can extend to entire nations where one sex is established and dominated by another.
Her main ideology was based on equal opportunities for both men and women and on the true emancipation of all, both at work and in society.
Simone disappeared physically in 1986, but her intense work of ideological activism and broad literary exercise remain imperishable as a sure guide to the struggle for full equality. This is what her work testifies to.