Author: Juan Antonio Borrego | internet@granma.cu
July 13, 2021 23:07:00 PM
Translated by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
With the accumulation of more than six decades of blockade, the impact of the 243 measures adopted during Donald Trump’s administration -all in force until today- and the wear and tear of the already prolonged confrontation with the coronavirus crisis, now at its worst moment since its appearance in the archipelago in March 2020, it would seem that Cuba is witnessing the “perfect storm”.
Lester Mallory, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, who died in 1994, would be rubbing his hands and boasting that it has been worth waiting 61 years to reap the fruits of the doctrine that he and his advisors conceived, drafted and did not hesitate to put on the table to the Eisenhower administration so that it could be applied.
Faced with the undeniable support of the people for the nascent Revolution, which is precisely the same that keeps it alive and well to this day, the official provided the US government with a secret memorandum containing the essence of the genocidal policy to be followed to the letter in order to overthrow the surprising revolutionary project, which by then (April 1960) was already a thorn in the empire’s side.
“The only foreseeable way to subtract internal support from it (he refers to Fidel and the Revolution) is through disenchantment and dissatisfaction arising from economic malaise and material difficulties… all possible means must be quickly employed to weaken the economic life of Cuba…. a line of action which, being as skillful and discreet as possible, will achieve the greatest progress in depriving Cuba of money and supplies, to reduce its financial resources and real wages, to provoke hunger, despair and the overthrow of the Government”, reads verbatim the document which, with greater or lesser rigor, has guided imperial policy against Cuba up to the present day.
In the fruitful television appearance this Monday, at the request of the First Secretary of the Party and President of the Republic, Miguel Diaz-Canel, Rogelio Polanco, a member of the Secretariat of the Central Committee and head of its Ideological Department, confirmed an irrefutable truth: although it is presented by certain media as a social explosion, what we have experienced this Sunday in Cuba constitutes a chapter of the unconventional war.
Indistinctly called hybrid warfare or color revolutions, fourth-generation warfare, or soft coup, the strategy followed against Cuba is part of a manual that has been rigorously applied in several countries, both in the Middle East and in Europe and also in Latin America -Venezuela, for example-, a perverse system, scientifically conceived, which, as it is easy to notice, has communicating vessels with the famous Lester Mallory’s memorandum.
Unconventional war has an important media component, now increased with the development of social networks that facilitate the generation of false news, misrepresentation, manipulation of facts and so-called half-truths, a world in which Cuba puts the news day after day and almost minute by minute, under the protection of a flourishing colony of media that presume to be independent and impartial and always have at hand the voice of an influencer or “a source who preferred not to reveal his identity”.
In this concept, nothing is more important than discrediting institutionality, denying the impact of the blockade and presenting the shortcomings that the world’s greatest power has been creating for 60 years with its web of laws, obstacles and threats to third parties, as the exclusive result of the ineffectiveness of a supposedly corrupt and obsolete government.
Another element consubstantial to this foggy but equally cruel and effective war modality is the promotion of street violence, which showed its hairy ear this Sunday in some places of the country -Güines and Cárdenas, for example-, with images of youths assaulting a store or overturning a police patrol car, the same photos that these days were on the front pages of important news media.
Provoking the forces of law and order, inducing repressive actions, seeking international condemnation, all secured from the media point of view, are also part of the ABC of unconventional war. It has been applied against the island and sustained with not inconsiderable sums of money, a “financial courtesy” whose most recent amount has just been made public in these same pages.
President Joe Biden, who pledged, not to us, but to the American electorate, to review the Trump administration’s policy towards Cuba -the last of whose measures was to include it once again on the list of state sponsors of terrorism-, then diluted along the way with the statement that it was not a priority or that he was conducting a detailed study of relations, something that six months ago seemed even logical, but today sounds very different.
What is suspicious is that only a few hours after Sunday’s events, originated in the first place by the policy of asphyxiation that his administration may not have designed, but has assumed as its own, officials of his government, and he himself, are sticking their noses into the neighbor’s problems.
Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, a member of the Political Bureau of the Party, recently told the United Nations General Assembly: “Cuba’s demand is to be left in peace”, and President Miguel Diaz-Canel reiterated it, in other words, this Monday: “We are not interested in what may happen within the conception of how the government and the American people want to make their system of government, but we do demand that they respect our self-determination, sovereignty and the way in which the majority of Cubans have agreed to defend socialism”.
The haste with which these characters came out to show solidarity with the vandals, while blaming the Cuban government, reveals the interventionist approach that is being promoted and financed from abroad:
Here is the Mallory Memorandum of 1960:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499
By Esther Barroso Sosa, June 20, 2021/
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
At the age of 84, after having been Cuba’s representative to the UN, Minister of Foreign Affairs and President of Parliament for two decades, among other political functions, he dedicates his days to “things like this”, that is, to giving interviews, such as the one we have asked him to give for the TV series Relatos in(contables), an audiovisual proposal still in the making. Even knowing that the recording has no broadcast date, he has not hesitated to accept.
He lights up a cigar only after the long conversation on a subject he is passionate about is over. And that’s when, at my insistence, he replies, “Yes, I’m writing something about my life, but if I’m going to tell everything I know…” The unfinished answer is probably hotter than the cigar that is already being consumed as we say goodbye. Me, with the promise to publish in full and in print what I have narrated. He, recreating himself with the shapes drawn by the smoke of his cigar.
Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada is a descendant of the family of the second wife of the Father of the Cuban Homeland: Ana de Quesada y Loynaz (1843-1910), who died in Paris, as one more emigrant and after a brief stay in the U.S., where Carlos Manuel de Cespedes sent her, trying to protect her from the rigors of the manigua [jungle] and the threats that were already made against the deposed president of the republic-in-arms.
The nation-emigration issue has not been alien to Alarcón. On the contrary. And not only because his predecessors are scattered around the world, but also because he was one of the promoters of the first dialogue between the Cuban revolutionary government and a representative group of the Cuban community in the United States.
From 1966 to 1978, Alarcón remained in New York as Cuba’s permanent ambassador-representative to the United Nations. From there he witnessed the birth and evolution of initiatives that sought a rapprochement, often critical, with Cuba and its Revolution. Organizations such as Juventud Cubana Socialista, magazines such as Areíto and Joven Cuba, the Institute of Cuban Studies or the Antonio Maceo Brigade -with its impressive first trip to the island at the end of 1977- were some of the antecedents of the Dialogue that would finally be held on November 20 and 21, 1978, after a press conference in September in which Fidel invited representatives of the community to come to the island for that purpose, with the sole condition that no leaders of the counterrevolution or active terrorists would attend.
Seventy-five members of the Cuban community in the United States participated and 140 in a second meeting held on December 8. Alarcón was one of the nine Cuban leaders who, headed by Fidel, made up the representation of the government of the island.
Esther: Shortly before the 1978 Dialogue, you had just returned from the Cuban Mission to the UN. There you had experienced the rapprochement of Cuban emigrants who were interested in being reunited with their country. They had a vision of the Cuban Revolution different from that of the most radical elements of the right-wing of the Cuban community in that country. How did that rapprochement take place, what do you remember of that stage in New York?
Alarcón: The 1978 dialogues with the Community were part of an interesting process of rapprochement. The Antonio Maceo Brigade and other projects arose and everything changed at that time and it will change more and more. It was at the Cuban Mission to the UN, in New York, where it all began. I was the only one at that table who knew almost all the Cuban emigrants who participated in the meeting.
Since I arrived in New York I have had many relationships with Cubans who were living abroad. That is not after the Revolution. You just get there and you discover that lots of Cubans who came to the U.S., many of them illegally, had originally received a B-29 visa, a type of visa that the U.S. gave for visitors, and the classification was with the letter B and for 29 days.
There were many friends that I knew who had arrived for 29 days before 1959 and were still there. It was amazing. They had a strong relationship with the only diplomatic representation Cuba had, because this was before the Interests Section existed. It was logical for them to look for that space. How could a Cuban in New York connect with his family if there were no flights and hardly any communication?
At the same time, there was the Casa de las Americas, which was the continuation of Casa Cuba, dating back to the Revolution of 1930 or earlier, Cubans living in the U.S. who maintained ties with their country of origin and with the Revolution. Little by little, we became closer to them. I used to go to Casa de las Americas a lot, it was the only social place where we could meet Cubans, play dominoes, drink beer. And it was maintained with the contribution of those Cubans.
When you look at their history, there were a lot of them who were B-29s, others were their children. It was a contact center that allowed us to meet a lot of people who, regardless of their ideology, wanted to have a link with their country of origin.
That explains why I was given the task of organizing, inviting and bringing representatives of that community to Cuba, because they were not representatives of something, nobody had elected them, but they were representative of that diversity. We are talking about 1978, almost 20 years after the triumph of the Revolution. There were people who had been changing their point of view. Practically all those who came, I knew them. There were also militant Batista supporters, some of them famous.
Esther: But there was a predominance of young people and especially Cubans who had left very young in the first years after the triumph of the Revolution?
Alarcón: Yes, and for them, it was a challenge. What they were doing was contrary to U.S. government policy. They were emigrants, people residing in a foreign country, so they were in a weak situation. It is logical that among the younger ones there were people willing to take those risks, besides the fact that they had very little connection with the counterrevolution, unlike the older ones.
Esther: There was also a context that favored that: Carter’s position towards Cuba on the one hand and on the other the Cuban government’s willingness to receive them and talk. To what extent did that dialogue come about because of pressure from those Cubans in the U.S. and to what extent did the fact that Fidel and the revolutionary leadership realized that it was necessary to establish that link have an influence? Does what they achieved deserve recognition? What was the driving force behind that dialogue? They had three fundamental objectives that became the three great themes of the Dialogue: that the emigrants be allowed to visit Cuba, family reunification and the release of political prisoners.
Alarcón: Fidel was interested in it being a dialogue with Cubans and not with the U.S. government. Those Cubans achieved, among other things, the visits to Cuba and those permits also depended on the U.S. But the release of the counterrevolutionary prisoners was a unilateral decision of the Cuban government. And it was made, not with Carter, but with the Cubans who came to that meeting. They were given very important moral support.
We held a meeting at the Riviera Hotel, in a room that was the old casino. I met with former compañeros of the 26th of July who had broken with the Revolution, who were ex-prisoners. One of them came to see me and told me: “I have to leave Cuba, every time I ask for a job, they look for my record and I am a person who has just been released from prison as a counterrevolutionary, I have to leave this country, but how can I leave?”
What perspectives did a person like that have? And there were a lot of prisoners who had already served their time and were trying to live their lives. Their families had left for the U.S. They felt they had a right to be allowed to enter the country. The U.S. policy was to allow that element to exist inside Cuba. That is why it was a vindication and an achievement of the Cuban government and of the representatives of the Cuban community abroad who participated and reached that agreement.
Esther: How would you describe the atmosphere of the meetings?
Alarcón: It was a very civilized, relaxed dialogue. In that previous meeting with me, it was agreed to make a tribute to Martí, in the Plaza de la Revolución. And a young emigrant, Mariana Gaston, together with a professor who had left Cuba before the triumph of the Revolution, Jose Juan Arrom, laid a wreath there.
I remember already during the sessions a Batistiano who had been senator for Camagüey and his only objective was to visit Camagüey. He said he wanted to see the co-religionists, a word that was no longer used. There was, for example, Luis Manuel Martinez, who had been a notorious Batista supporter and had a radio program that was like a spokesman for the dictatorship. But the atmosphere was not tense. It may have helped that we had known each other before and that the Cuban mission to the UN had made the arrangements.
That 1978 meeting, from the point of view of U.S. policy, was contrary to the interests and position of the U.S. We must recognize that all those who came, whatever their political position, did not fail to break that line. And there was also the longing for the land, which is very important in people’s lives.
===================
Esther: There is a whole history of emigration from Cuba to the U.S. before 1959 and up to the present. You have insisted on not seeing this milestone of ’78 as an isolated event but as a continuity of a whole historical process that goes back to the 19th century. How do you propose to value that connection?
Alarcon: Let’s think about what happened in Havana between February and September 1869. According to official publications of the Kingdom of Spain at that time, 100,000 people left for New York through the port of Havana. Cuba then had a population of 1 million inhabitants. There have been other mass exoduses, but none compares to that one. In addition, they traveled to Mexico, Hispaniola and Venezuela. The element of emigration is absolutely vital to understand the history of Cuba. This is not the case with other countries, but it is with us.
At the same time, there is the manipulation of the subject by the U.S. government. I have here the book Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960. This is volume VI, dedicated to Cuba. If you look up the final days of the Batista regime and the early days of ’59, it looks like a mystery novel. Where was the Secretary of State on Christmas Eve? In his office communicating with his ambassador in Havana. Where was he on December 31? In his office, just the same. What did you do in the first days of January? Organize an air bridge between Columbia and the U.S. through which many henchmen left.
Later, when he installed the Cuban Adjustment Act in 1964, it is unique. It was not to adjust the status of those who were there, but for those who arrived on or after January 1, 1959. And were there few who had arrived before? According to official U.S. data, no. The Immigration and Naturalization Service published annual immigration reports. In 1958, there were three categories: Mexico, Cuba and the rest, from Canada to Argentina. There were many more Cubans illegally in the U.S. than registered, and the sum of Cubans is greater than those from the Western Hemisphere, except Mexico.
According to U.S. specialists, the number of illegal and undocumented Cubans was similar to the number of legal Cubans. Therefore, it can be assumed that the number of Cubans was significant. And what did the U.S. do? It passed a law that discriminated against those who had arrived before 1959 and, on the other hand, opened the doors to those who arrived after that date, in order to turn it into an instrument of destabilization. It was a unique case and there is no other similar law for any other country on the planet.
If you go through this book you will see how since 1958 the U.S. government tried to save Batista, then tried to save the Batista regime, then see how they tried to put an end to the Cuban Revolution, everything is explained here since 1958.
The Cuban is a peculiar human being, he was born or belongs to the family of a people, of a unique nation, in the sense that they have attributed to him the right to move from Cuba to the USA, on the one hand. On the other hand, facing a government that does everything possible to prevent such a thing from happening naturally.
We must remember, for example, the case of Nicolás Gutiérrez Castaño, known as Niki. He was born in Costa Rica. Later he moved to Miami. He is the president of the Association of Cuban Farmers in exile. They are still organized, they aspire to recover all that. I have read several interviews with him that are nice, he has a sense of humor. Once he was asked: “Do you want to take away people’s houses and lands? He said: “No, what I want to remind them is that they owe me 60 years of rent”. He is the heir of a family that owned a good part of what goes between Cienfuegos and Santa Clara, from the Zapata Swamp to the Escambray, all that belonged to his great-grandfather, actually the owner was Nicolás Castaño, but he had no sons, a female married a certain Gutiérrez and that’s where he comes from.
We are talking about a situation that has accompanied us throughout history and is still with us. It would be a mistake to think that it does not exist. One of the fundamental problems that Cubans face in the relationship with the U.S. is manipulation, on the one hand the enormous difference between the fact that for the U.S., Cuba is an issue of minor importance. Now, for Cuba, the U.S. is the big issue, it is the big problem. How to deal with that? How to change that situation?
Putting an end to that hostility requires a lot of work and effort to achieve something that is essential, not so much for people my age but for people like you and your sons and daughters. Niki claims his great-grandfather’s property. Those who will be affected if that property were to pass again to its supposed former owners, do they know? How many Cubans today are aware of the terrible threat that has existed over Cuba from the U.S.?
On the other hand, you find people who have never been to Cuba, who have never lived here, but who know what belonged to their great-grandfather and aspire to get it back. That is not a joke, it is in the laws, the Helms Burton Act says so. It says that in the future of Cuba, after the Revolution falls, relations between a future government of Cuba recognized by the U.S. will continue to have as an indispensable condition the solution of the issue of the properties nationalized in Cuba in 1959. That law is in force today. How much time do we spend explaining that?
Esther: I was a child, but I lived through the visit of the Antonio Macero Brigade and the Dialogue of ’78. For a 20-year-old, that’s already history. In my opinion, that meeting was a turning point in terms of the Cuban government’s relationship with Cubans living abroad. What is your personal vision, and above all from the human point of view, about the importance for Cuba of the Cubans living abroad? Do you feel that the leadership of the Cuban Revolution really recognizes that it is unavoidable to take into account that emigration is part of Cuba? Or not? And I ask you to think about how the issue has evolved since that crucial moment in 1978 until today.
Alarcon: Of course they are part of the Cuban nation. I have gone back over history to refer to something that is obvious and has been so for a long time. Since Cuba began to crawl as a nation, a fundamental element was the Cubans who did not reside in Cuba. From Céspedes, through Martí and up to Fidel, the issue of emigration is key to the whole Cuban political process.
In addition, we must take into account that the current situation is more complicated, since Trump arrived,. In one fell swoop he put an end to things that had been achieved at the end of the Obama administration and that facilitated Cuba’s ties with its emigration. I have no doubt that none of that is going to put an end to the pressure of Cubans who want to exercise their right to have a link with their country. It is an issue that is going to remain in force.
Esther: I feel that perhaps you have something left to say, perhaps on a personal level… And I also think that to close the cycle we should remember that you also witnessed the so-called Rafters’ Crisis and had an important participation in the negotiations that followed…
Alarcón: I participated in I don’t know how many meetings with representatives of the U.S. government to deal with issues related to emigration. We reached an agreement in 1994 that gave Cuba practically nothing, but they could receive up to 20,000 Cubans in the U.S. It is impossible for any country to have that number of Cubans. It is impossible for any country to have that number. And in 1995 we reached an agreement that literally says that the U.S. commits to giving 20,000 visas every year. They enforced it pretty exactly, especially in the early days. Why did they do this? They had to recognize that there was a moral obligation, a duty of the U.S. to make sure that Cubans who wanted to emigrate could do so because the Cuban is the only human being who believes he was born with the right to live in the U.S. That is the fault of history, of all times.
I will tell you something more personal. When I was in MINREX, I had to go to Paris. And Raúl Roa Kourí was the Cuban ambassador to France. He told me: “here is a lady who says she is your cousin and wants to talk to you”. With that cousin, with whom I communicate in French because she doesn’t even speak Spanish, I had a long conversation there. She wanted to come and visit Canagüey because she remembered the stories an aunt used to tell her and that stuck with her. That’s why I tell you that this issue of emigration and the nation has to be looked at very carefully, at least for Cubans.
When I was in New York as ambassador, I met another cousin, a Salvadoran, she was a diplomat, with the last name of Quesada. Because when the war of 1868, the Quesada family went to Paris and Central America.
This idea of terroir, that one belongs to a narrow little place on Earth with little connection to the rest of the world, there are those who can understand it that way, but it is very difficult for someone with my last name not to see himself as part of the world or not to see himself reflected, in the personal and family case, in a reality that we call emigration.
By: Esteban Morales, July 1, 2021. Reveived via email. Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann. If only you, Mr. President, would think carefully about Cuba. You are reviewing Cuba policy, so they say. But I think, you have already taken too long. It is true that your priorities, quite justifiably, have been other, but you should not extend the deadline to define the policy towards Cuba any longer. Because this is a conflict that has been going on for more than 60 years and we should solve it. Even if you continue to wait to define it, you could, at least, adopt some measures that would not contradict any policy, unless what they want is to punish the Cuban people on both sides of the Florida Straits. That would be a truly unscrupulous and criminal infamy. I believe that the deeper policy could wait, let’s say, to remove us from the infamous list of those who do not “collaborate with the fight against terrorism”. Which, it is understood, is a bit of a no-brainer, but the other measures either? Those issues, which were unjustified barbarities, of Trump’s policy, I think, could be fixed. While you analyze in a deeper way, what could be the policy. I see no contradictions in that you could apply that parallelism, within a waiting period, which is already long. Even if you continue to wait to define the policy, you could at least adopt some measures that would not be in contradiction with any policy, unless you want to punish the Cuban people on both sides of the Florida Straits. Which would be a truly unscrupulous and criminal infamy. What could it have to do with politics that you decided to restore remittances, facilitate visas and continue academic exchanges? If all these activities have done is to maintain people-to-people contact. And in particular, the academic exchange, which has done so much to keep the two peoples from coming to blows. I believe that the most profound policy could wait, let’s say, to remove us from the infamous list of those who do not collaborate with the fight against terrorism. Which, understandably, is a little more difficult. But those issues, which were unjustified barbarities, of Trump’s policy, could be fixed. While you analyze in a deeper way, what could be the policy. I don’t see contradictions in that you could apply that parallelism. What is it costing you, Mr. President, that people think you are worse than Trump. They would realize that they should not make the Cuban people pay for what they consider to be the government’s faults. Do not fall into that political mistake. Get along with the government and do not continue to punish the people, who are not the government. I mean, if that is true. Well, one of your mistakes has always been to confuse the people and the government, putting them both in the same bag. Or to say that the punitive measures are against the government and not against the people; when it is known that this is an infamous lie. A few days ago I told you that the problem is not political but humanitarian. And it seems that you have understood this. Now what you have to do is to apply it. It is the families who, on both sides, suffer from the application of measures that you could begin to free us from. There are more than 240 measures, Mr. President, that you have maintained for 5 months; I hope you realize that they are already yours. And you have not even loosened a single one of them. What do you want people to think of you Mr. President? Move over, Trump has already launched his candidacy. And the congressional races are close. You know that, because of your attitude towards Cuba so far, many on this side compare you to Trump. And on the other side as well. Besides, you should take into consideration that solidarity with Cuba has grown a lot this year. And his defeat, yours already, in the UN, with the Cuban Resolution against the Blockade, has been crushing. I don’t think you should allow that, because let’s say, many on this side and on the other side, think that you are worse than Trump. And the truth is, you should not allow yourself to be compared to such a guy. Trump is not a decent person. You know that he’s a mobster and a cheat. And I don’t know of an American president, neither do you, I’m sure, who has been so indecent. Not even Nixon with Watergate. You, Mr. Biden, have worked too hard and held too many important positions in American politics to end your days with such a group of companions. You would be throwing away everything that it has cost you to be a decent politician. On the other hand, do not pay attention to Marco Rubio, nor to his entourage,. They are all failures in their attempts at anti-Cuba policy. If there is anything they owe to the American governments, except with Obama, it is the money they have taken from the American treasury, and to have gone down with them in the failure of the anti-Cuba policy. These people are corrupt, Mr. President; the only thing they are interested in is money. Do not allow them to discredit you. You are not corrupt like them. Don’t hang out with them, Mr. Biden, it affects your image. Review the history of each one of them and you will see that what I am telling you is true. How many have believed in them and have sunk? Do what you want with your Cuba policy, but do it yourself, do not be guided by that bunch of “enlightened” criminals. If you are guided by those people, you will end up, as 11 American presidents have already done…? Aren’t more than 60 years enough for you to realize it? Cuba is not so important, Mr. President, what is really important are the mistakes that, with the policy towards my country, the U.S. governments have made and the failures that the United States has already had with its policy. Do not repeat them. You don’t need to. Think carefully about what you will do, you have no need to repeat historical mistakes. Cuba has never harmed the United States; it is we in Cuba who have had to suffer its policies. We have always been willing to sit at the negotiating table with you. The only condition is that you respect our sovereignty and independence, which has cost us so much blood and sacrifice to achieve. I do not believe that after having failed so much, it is difficult, or a bad way, to try to reach an understanding with Cuba. A neighboring country, so close, not only geographically, that has never practiced hatred against you, nor has it harmed your interests, beyond the duty to defend ours. A country that has much to offer to yours, as has been demonstrated several times. Educational, health and cultural experiences that we could share. I would recommend you to meet with some students and people who have passed through Cuba, to see what their life experiences have been. I am sure they will tell you many things that you do not know. Dare to visit Cuba, see us up close, get closer to our culture, our life and you will see how much we have in common. We have been close peoples, those who have tried to separate us. We Cubans are the most similar to you in this hemisphere. We were colonized by the Spaniards, but we were neo-colonized by you and thus, painfully, you also remained in our culture. You brought modernity to Cuba, not the Spaniards. That is why we love American music, we love your cigars, we love apple pie, turkey, popcorn, American cars, cowboy movies, we wear jeans, we go on picnics, that is how you entered our Cuban culture. American consumerist culture quickly entered Cuba. As well as the advances of technology in urban life, family life, clothing, food, junk and non-junk. In many ways North American culture has entered Cuba. However, when you confront Cubans, you lose, because you have to deal with a version of yourselves, only improved. Thus, it is possible to see you allying yourselves with the Cubans/Americans, who take money and support away from you in order to attack Cuba with a policy that has continually failed on the island. I want you to realize that, both in Cuba and in the United States, you have always failed with the Cubans; both on the side of the revolution and on the side of the counterrevolution. That is why I suggest you have your own policy, without allies from one side or the other. But a policy forged by yourselves, which will be, I am sure, the one that will lead you to have a coherent and convenient behavior in your relationship with Cuba. It already happened to the US with the Batista Dictatorship, therefore, abandon the current variant of re-imposing the dictatorship in Cuba, forging the most convenient policy to relate with a Triumphant Revolution. For if the mediation mechanisms they tried to seek to get rid of Batista did not work for them, much less will they work now to mediatize the Cuban Revolution already in power. Play with the Cubans here, they are not going to give you headaches, nor will they ask you for money to settle with them. If it is a question of ideology, abandon it, it will no longer give you any results. For we are no longer in 1934, when they allied themselves with Batista, nor in 1952, when they supported his coup d’état, nor in 1958, when they tried to replace him in order to defeat Fidel Castro. Now it is with revolutionary Cuba, with which they have to understand each other. And remember, Mr. President, that with the needs, the suffering, the pains, the food, the medicines and the money of the people, you do not play games. That, for a politician like you, should always be sacred. The people are always right. Wherever they live. Greetings
From: Esteban Morales <michel@cubarte.cult.cu>
Si el Sr. Presidente pensara detenidamente sobre Cuba. Autor: Esteban Morales. Ustedes están revisando la política hacia Cuba, según dicen. Pero creo, ya se han demorado mucho. Es verdad que sus prioridades, bastante justificadas, han sido otras, pero no debieran alargar más el plazo para definir la política hacia Cuba. Porqué se trata de un conflicto que ya lleva más de 60 años y debiéramos solucionalo Aun y cuando continuaran esperando por definirla, pudieran, al menos, adoptar algunas medidas, que no caerían en contradicción con cualquier política, a menos que lo que quisieran es castigar al pueblo cubano, de ambos lados del estrecho de la Florida. Lo cual sería, una verdadera, inescrupulosa y criminal infamia. Yo creo que la política más profunda pudiera esperar, digamos, quitarnos de la infamante lista de quienes no “colaboran con la lucha contra el terrorismo”. Que se entiende, es un poco memos fácil. ¿Pero las demás medidas tampoco? Esos asuntos, que fueron barbaridades injustificadas, de la política de Trump, creo, pudieran arreglarse. Mientras ustedes analizan de manera más profunda, cual pudiera ser la política. No veo contradicciones en que pudieran aplicar ese paralelismo, dentro de un tiempo de espera, que ya resulta largo. Aun y cuando continuaran esperando por definir la política, pudieran, al menos, adoptar algunas medidas, que no caerían en contradicción con cualquier política, a menos, de que quisieran castigar al pueblo cubano, de ambos lados del estrecho de la Florida. Lo cual sería una verdadera, inescrupulosa y criminal infamia. ¿Que puede tener que ver con la política, que ustedes decidiesen restaurar las remesas, facilitar los visados y continuar los intercambios académicos? Si todas esas actividades lo que han hecho es mantener el contacto pueblo a pueblo. Y en particular, el intercambio académico, que ha hecho tanto porque ambos pueblos no se vayan a las manos. Yo creo que la política más profunda pudiera esperar, digamos, quitarnos de la infamante lista de quienes no colaboran con la lucha contra el terrorismo. Que se entiende, es un poco más difícil. Pero esos asuntos, que fueron barbaridades injustificadas, de la política de Trump, pudieran arreglarse. Mientras ustedes analizan de manera más profunda, cual pudiera ser la política. No veo contradicciones en que pudieran aplicar ese paralelismo. Que les está costando, Sr. Presidente, que la gente crea que Ud. Es peor que Trump. Se percatarían de que no debieran hacer pagar al pueblo cubano, las culpas que considera son del gobierno. No caiga en ese error político. Entiéndanselas con el Gobierno y no siga castigando al pueblo, que no es el gobierno. Digo, si eso es cierto. Pues un error de ustedes ha sido también, siempre, confundir pueblo y gobierno, metiéndolos ambos en un mismo saco. O decir, que las medidas punitivas son contra el gobierno y no contra el pueblo; cuando se sabe, eso es una infamante mentira. Hace algunos días le dije que el problema no es político sino humanitario. Y parece que Ud. Lo ha comprendido. Ahora lo que tiene es que aplicarlo. Son las familias, las que, de ambos lados, sufren, por la aplicación de medidas, que Ud. Bien podría comenzar a liberarnos de ellas. Son más de 240 medidas Sr. Presidente, que Ud. ha mantenido por 5 meses; que espero se percate, de que son suyas ya. Y ni siquiera, ha aflojado una sola de ellas. ¿Que Ud. Desea que la gente piense de Ud. Sr. Presidente? Muévase, que ya Trump lanzó su candidatura. Y las congresionales están cerca. Sabe, Ud. Que, por su actitud hasta ahora mantenida con Cuba, muchos de este lado lo comparan con Trump. Y del lado de allá también. Además, debe tomar en consideración, que la solidaridad con Cuba creció mucho este ano. Y su derrota, la suya ya, en ONU, con la Resolución Cubana contra el Bloqueo, ha sido aplastante. No creo debiera permitir eso, porque digamos, muchos de este lado y del lado de allá, piensan que Ud. Es peor que Trump. Y la verdad es, que Ud. No debiera permitir que lo comparen Con semejante tipo. Trump no es una persona decente. Usted lo sabe, es un mafioso y un tramposo. Y yo no sé de un presidente norteamericano, Ud. Tampoco, estoy seguro, que haya sido tan indecente. Ni Nixon con Watergate. Usted, Sr. Biden, ha trabajado mucho y ha tenido posiciones importantes en la política norteamericana, como para terminar sus días, con semejante grupo de acompañante. Estaría echando por tierra todo lo que le ha costado ser un político decente. Por otro lado, no le haga caso a Marco Rubio, ni a su séquito, que todos son unos fracasados en sus intentos de política contra Cuba. Si algo les deben a los gobiernos norteamericanos a esos tipos, salvo con Obama, es el dinero que les han quitado al tesoro norteamericano, y haberse hundido con ellos en el fracaso de la política contra Cuba. Esa gente son unos corruptos, presidente; lo único que les interesa es el dinero. No permita que lo desprestigien. Que Ud. No es un corrupto como ellos. No se junte con ellos, Sr. Biden, que afecta su imagen. Repase la historia de cada uno y vera que es verdad lo que le estoy diciendo. ¿Cuantos han creído en ellos y se han hundido? Haga lo que Ud. Quiera con la política hacia Cuba, pero hágalo Ud. mismo, no se guie por esa piara de delincuentes “ilustrados”. Si Ud. ¿Se quía por esa gente, va a terminar, como ya lo hicieron 11 presidentes norteamericanos…? ¿No le son suficientes más de 60 años para percatarse de ello? Cuba no es tan importante, Sr. Presidente, lo verdaderamente importante, son los errores que, con la política hacia mi país, los gobiernos estadounidenses, han cometido y los fracasos que Estados Unidos ya ha tenido con su política. No los repita. No tiene necesidad de ello. Piense detenidamente lo que hará, que Ud. No tiene necesidad de repetir los herrores históricos. Cuba, nunca le ha hecho daño a los Estados Unidos, somos nosotros en Cuba, lo que hemos tenido que sufrir sus políticas. Estando siempre dispuestos a sentarnos a la mesa de negociaciones con ustedes. Poniendo como única condición que respeten nuestra soberanía e independencia, que tanta sangre y sacrificio nos ha costado conseguirlas. No creo, que después de haber fracasado tanto, sea difícil, o un mal camino, tratar de entenderse con Cuba. Un país vecino, tan cercano, no solo geográficamente, que nunca ha practicado el odio contra ustedes, ni ha dañado sus intereses, más allá del deber de defender los nuestros. Un país, que tiene mucho que ofrecer al suyo, como ha quedado varias veces demostrado. Experiencias educacionales, de salud, culturales, que pudiéramos compartir. Yo le recomendaría se reunieran con algunos estudiantes y personas que han pasado por Cuba, para que comprueben cuales han sido sus experiencias de vida. Estoy seguro le dirán muchas cosas que Ud. No sabe. Atrévase a visitar Cuba, véanos de cerca, acérquese a nuestra cultura, nuestra vida y vera cuanto tenemos en común. Hemos sido pueblos cercanos, a los que han tratado de separar. Los cubanos, somos en este hemisferio, los que más nos parecemos a ustedes. Es que a nosotros nos colonizaron los españoles, pero nos neocolonizaron ustedes y así, dolorosamente, quedaron también en nuestra cultura. Ustedes trajeron la modernidad a Cuba, no los españoles. Por eso, amamos la música norteamericana, nos encantan sus cigarros, nos encanta el pie de manzana, el pavo, las pok corn, los carros americanos, las películas de vaqueros, usamos Jeans, hacemos picnic, así entraron ustedes en nuestra cultura, cubana. La cultura consumista norteamericana entro rápidamente en Cuba. Como también entraron los adelantos de la técnica en a vida urbana, familiar, el vestir, las comidas, chatarra y no chatarra. De múltiples modos entro la cultura norteamericana en Cuba. Sin embargo, cuando ustedes se enfrentan a los cubanos, pierden, porque tienen que vérselas con una versión de ustedes mismos, solo que mejorada. Así es posibles verlos, como aliándose a los cubanos/americanos, estos últimos les quitan dinero y apoyo para agredir a Cuba, con una política, que, en la Isla, continuamente ha fracasado. Quiero que se percaten, de que, tanto en Cuba como en los Estados Unidos, ustedes siempre han fracasado con los cubanos; lo mismo del lado de la revolución, que de la contrarrevolución. Por lo que les sugiero tener una política propia, sin aliados de un lado ni del otro. Sino una política forjada por ustedes mismos, que será, estoy seguro, la que les llevará a tener un comportamiento coherente y conveniente de relación con Cuba. Ya les paso con la Dictadura de Batista, entonces, vuelvan a abandonar la variante actual de reimposición de la dictadura en Cuba, forjando la política más conveniente, para relacionarse con una Revolución Triunfante. Pues si los mecanismos de mediación, que trataron de buscar, para apartarse de Batista, no les dieron resultado; mucho menos, les darán resultado ahora, para mediatizar a la Revolución cubana ya en el poder. Jueguen con los cubanos de acá, que no les van a dar dolores de cabeza, ni les pedirán dinero para arreglarse con ellos. Si se trata de una cuestión ideológica, abandónenla, que ya no les va a dar resultado. Pues ya no estamos ni en 1934, cuando se aliaron a Batista, ni en 1952, cuando apoyaron su Golpe de Estado, Ni en 1958, cuando trataron de recambiarlo, para vencer a Fidel castro. Ahora es con Cuba revolucionaria, con la que se tienen que entender. Y recuerde Sr. Presidente, que, con las necesidades, los sufrimientos, los dolores, la comida, las medicinas y el dinero del pueblo, no se juega. Eso, para un político como Ud., Siempre debiera ser sagrado. El pueblo siempre, tiene la razón. De cualquier lado en que viva. Saludos
A Letter to US President Joe Biden
Una carta al Presidente de los Estados Unidos, Joe Biden
To: Walter Lippmann <walterlx@earthlink.net>
Subject: Traducir
Date:Jul 1, 2021 5:22 PM
Author:
María Esther Ortiz Quesada |digital@juventudrebelde.cuPosted: Saturday 26 June 2021 | 01:24:10 pm.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
This time drugs will not be at the center of attention, neither them nor their effects on the central nervous system. While it is true that they are among the great protagonists of the drama, I prefer to focus on the real protagonist: the person.
It all started just when drugs stopped being only in nature, stopped being collected by a hand and stopped being used only in ritual sessions under previously established guidelines. When the collecting hand was replaced by a hand that cultivates, harvests, processes and generates substances that alter the state of consciousness and that hand offers those products to other hands in exchange for lucrative goods, then drugs changed the nature of their relationship with people, or rather, people changed the nature of their relationship with natural psychoactive substances and drug trafficking appeared.
This commercial activity, as lucrative as it is destructive, forced the creation of regulations, prohibitions and agreements that sometimes create disagreements, interpretations and misinterpretations. The old legal maxim warns that ignorance of the law does not exempt from compliance and responsibility.
Although the value of knowledge of laws and regulations, agreements and disagreements goes far beyond the warning about compliance, it is the knowledge of the history and evolution of the laws governing the issue of drug trafficking, both for the confrontation and for the understanding of people’s beliefs about drugs and their use, for the design of prevention or treatment programs.
From this perspective, knowledge of the history of drugs in humanity has an effect on the fight against drug trafficking and an indisputable value for the socio-psychological and medical approach to drug abuse, in the same way that laws and agreements nurture history and provide guidelines for treatment approaches and have a preventive effect for many; Prevention and treatment, on the other hand, remove many people from the drug trafficking networks, weaken them and form informal armies of people who, after recovery, pass on their experiences to others with the explicit or not message of BETTER NOT STARTING.
Turning to individuals
There are non-consuming individuals and they are much more frequent than you can imagine, who never established a relationship with any psychoactive substance, including legal ones. There are others who, at the time broke their relationships with any psychoactive substance. Rejecting this reality means looking at it with a narrow, reduced, tunnel vision.
Consumers are divided into two groups: those who consume responsibly. In this group are all those who are medicated with psychotropic drugs, neuroleptics and other substances necessary to reduce discomfort or control illnesses. Although the fact that the substances consumed are prescribed by a physician is not enough to be considered responsible consumption. To do so, consumption must be limited to the substance, dosage, frequency and time indicated by the physician. This is the only way to be responsible.
The essence of the concept lies precisely in the fact that the substance that is introduced into the organism does not cause damage. This is either because the quantity does not exceed the levels that the organism can tolerate, or because the frequency does not interfere with the harmonious functioning of physiological and psychological processes. In other words, both quantity and frequency must be tolerable by the organism. In still other words, both quantity and frequency must be tolerable for the organism. I say this because of my work experience, practically all consumers say that they consume in a controlled manner.
The big problem is that the consumer generally loses or does not have the notion of self-care while the exercise of their critical judgment is diminished, so they cannot evaluate what is tolerable for their organism and what is not.
It is true that not all consumers are classified as addicts, but it is also true that all addicts, before becoming addicts, have been simply responsible consumers or not, but “uncomplicated” consumers.
I consider it important to be able to identify which people, and under what circumstances, become irresponsible consumers, also called abusive consumers. It classifies as irresponsible and abusive consumption, any amount of drugs, legal or not, by pregnant or breastfeeding women, by minors, by people who drive vehicles or handle precision equipment and instruments, people who are on medication, who suffer from mental illnesses, among others.
An overdose occurs as a consequence of irresponsible, abusive consumption by someone who may not even be a frequent user. It is someone who, in a certain place and occasion, in search of enhancing something he/she believes he/she lacks or with the intention of attenuating an uncomfortable or painful emotion or feeling, for which he/she is not able to solve with help and confused or gullible by what he/she has heard in the promotion of drug consumption, comes to believe that drugs are the solution. This type of irresponsible consumption, which leads to acute intoxication, generally occurs in situations of celebration, loss, grief and anger, causing unfortunate situations for others and for the consumer.
The consequences will always be in correspondence with the amount consumed, the type of drugs, the general state of the person, the circumstances in which the consumption occurred and of course, with the personality of the consumer.
Finally, although the subject of irresponsible consumption is much broader, I will refer to addiction, the last stop for the consumer, which in itself, has several substations and none can be described as pleasant, comfortable or successful. To illustrate a little: the consumption of drugs makes the organism work at the mercy of the substance and when this practice becomes frequent, when the doses increase, then the organism is left without possibilities to defend itself. This generates mediate and immediate damages that make the consumer suffer from certain disorders or illnesses that force they to visit hospitals (first substation). On the other hand, drugs make the person not always able to control their impulses, behavior and language, so it is not surprising that sometimes he becomes a victimizer or a victim, with possible legal consequences that sometimes go from court, to the penitentiary systems (second sub-station). Both sub-stations may be creating the basic conditions for the person with abusive or irresponsible consumption, turned the addict to endanger his life either by disease, violence, accidents or suicide (cemetery, third station).
The addicted person does not always present symptoms so spectacular and is not always easily identifiable, some manage to maintain a certain degree of functionality, although he/she is not exempt from going through the same substations as any other addict.
If someone were to ask me what are, from my point of view, the most significant signs that distinguish an addicted person from a non-addict, I could make a long list of indicators ranging from damage to health, to cognitive processes, to the economy, to the family, to social relations, in short, the list would be quite extensive. But I prefer to think of the non-addicted person, the person who lives according to his or her own mandates and not according to the impulses generated by a substance.
Functional non-addicted people prioritize objectives that facilitate them to achieve greater harmony and comfort in their lives and do not subordinate them to obtaining, buying and consuming substances.
The central objectives of functional non-addicted persons can be found focused on the family as a network of support, responsibility and affection; on friends, as that chosen family, with whom they have encounters and misunderstandings and with whom friendship always survives; on functional leisure, that which distracts, recreates and cultivates mind and body; on economic security for oneself, that which distracts, recreates and cultivates mind and body; in the economic security for oneself, for the family and to be able to dedicate time to the spiritual economy and one more objective, that although it is not the last one, it is very important as a social entity and is referred to the certainty of remaining an active and respected social entity.
Unfortunately, although to external eyes this does not occur with some addicts, most of these objectives are not prioritized by the addicted person and are subordinated to the places, situations and people that facilitate the obtaining of drugs and their consumption.
At this point a question may arise, why worry about responsible or low-risk users, if for them this is not the reality?
Let us return to an earlier statement: all addicts are users, although not all users are addicts. Anyone who uses drugs is much more likely than anyone else to go through the addictive process to addiction.
It is not about going to the place of the fire, it is about creating the conditions so that the fire does not occur; it is not only about having care services for addicts, it is about prevention where apparently there are no risks either, in order to enhance the strengths.
It is a matter of knowing the laws and agreements on the subject and making appropriate interpretations, always placing the person at the center of attention. I speak in the singular, because from this singularity arises the plural, the collective, the society, not as a numerical sum. It arises instead as a dynamic interaction of personal, family, local, national histories, of these cultural interactions and of the convictions and beliefs that these dynamics generate, convictions and beliefs that protect or unprotect. I insist, it is the person at the center of attention because any addiction is an affront to human dignity.
You must be logged in to post a comment.