A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
When industrialized nations state that the remittances sent by immigrants from “developing countries” to relatives in their countries of origin represent “aid for development” they are masking a cruel form of exploitation of the South by the North.
The same is true when they attribute to migration the positive quality of being a decompressing factor of the social tensions in poor nations because remittances are a source of income of monetary resources that mitigate extreme situations.
It is true that the fresh money transfers emigrants make to their families help improve the balance of payments in their home countries, and sometimes represent a significant part of the gross product of these countries.
But in a longer term, the exodus of young workers and the dependence arising from cash transfers are in reality detrimental to the development of the countries that issue the migrants.
To put it more clearly: the economic crisis causes the exodus; the remittances of the migrants mitigate its immediate negative effects but –in the medium or long term– the crisis deepens because the conditions that caused it have not changed and the increasing exodus of the workforce aggravates it.
The family remittances of Latin American immigrants resident in the US represent for their countries of origin a higher income than their agricultural exports; they exceed their income from tourism; and in times of depressed oil prices exceed the value of the oil sales of some countries traditionally exporters of the hydrocarbon.
When the US government announces –or hints– its intention to deport undocumented immigrants, many Latin American governments are forced to request clemency because such a measure would lead to the emergence of insurmountable governance crises and the collapse of the economies of their home countries. They are not able to assimilate their deported nationals; neither can they do without their remittances.
A media suggestion that Washington is threatening to prohibit remittances of migrants from a specific country is enough to abruptly change predictions and polls and a presidential candidate with enough popularity to win an election by a wide margin, may suffer a setback and be forced to abandon the race.
When, a few years ago, it seemed that the candidate of left wing Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front, Shafik Jorge Handal, would be elected President of El Salvador by a very large margin, the President of the United States threatened to
prohibit remittances from Salvadoran migrants established in the US if this happened. Reliance on remittances turned that country into a hostage of the empire; so much so that it was able to impose the candidate of the rightist Alianza Republicana
Nacionalista (ARENA).
Given the sustained growth of remittances and their high amount it would seem that the affluent North is beginning to compensate the South for the damages of its historical plunder. But this is far from being the case. For centuries, the global capitalist system has cruelly plundered the poor countries. It has stripped them of their natural resources, and subjected them to an unfair exchange of their goods. It has also ruthlessly exploited their workforce.
The fact that migrant remittances are increasingly becoming the base for sustaining the economies of a growing number of impoverished Third World countries should be seen as a crime against humanity, and not as a reason for complacency.
With the current terms of trade, if real aid for development is not increased; if the external debt –that is suffocating the economies of the underdeveloped countries in the world– is not cancelled; if the creation of mechanisms of false “integration” are insisted upon; if the practice of agricultural and trade protectionism –that rich countries impose acting inconsistently with their own neoliberal claims– is not abandoned, remittances will not mean anything good for the poor nations.
If mechanisms that stimulate the exports from developing countries are not created; if systems that force transnational companies to be subject to control measures –against labor exploitation, transfer of profits, speculation to avoid de-capitalization and brain drain of poor countries– are not implemented; if investments –that expand the labor market to contribute to the permanence of the population– are not promoted, then remittances will be nothing more than a palliative applied to an injustice that will become increasingly unbearable.
January 13, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Cuando en las naciones industrializadas se afirma que las remesas de los inmigrantes de países “en vías de desarrollo” a sus familiares en sus países de origen constituyen “ayuda al desarrollo”, se enmascara una cruel forma de explotación del Sur por el Norte.
Lo mismo ocurre cuando se atribuye a la emigración la cualidad positiva de ser factor de descompresión de las tensiones sociales en las naciones pobres porque sus remesas son fuente de ingreso de recursos pecuniarios que atenúan situaciones extremas.
Es cierto que las transferencias de dinero fresco que hacen los emigrantes hacia sus familiares contribuyen a mejorar las balanzas de pagos en sus naciones de origen y a veces llegan a representar una parte significativa del producto bruto de éstas.
Pero, a más largo plazo, el éxodo de trabajadores jóvenes y la dependencia que surge de las transferencias de dinero, se traducen en perjudiciales para el desarrollo del país emisor de migrantes. Más claro: la crisis económica suscita el éxodo, las remesas de los emigrantes atenúan sus efectos nocivos inmediatos, pero, a mediano o largo plazo, la crisis se profundiza porque no han cambiado las condiciones que la provocaron sino que se han agravado precisamente a causa del éxodo de la fuerza de trabajo que sigue aumentando. Las remesas familiares de los inmigrantes latinoamericanos residentes en Estados Unidos aportan a sus países de origen más que sus exportaciones agrícolas, superan sus ingresos por concepto de turismo y en tiempos de depresión de los precios del petróleo sobrepasan el valor de las ventas petroleras de algunos países tradicionalmente exportadores del hidrocarburo.
Cuando el gobierno de Estados Unidos anuncia, o insinúa, su disposición de expulsar inmigrantes indocumentados, son muchos los gobiernos latinoamericanos que se han visto obligados a demandar clemencia porque tal medida provocaría el surgimiento de insalvables crisis de gobernabilidad y el desplome de las economías de sus países de origen, incapaces de asimilar a los expulsados, e impedidos de prescindir de sus remesas.
Basta que trascienda por la prensa una amenaza por parte de Washington de prohibir las remesas de los emigrados de un país específico para que cambien bruscamente las predicciones de las encuestas y un candidato a Presidente con popularidad suficiente para ganar una elección por amplio margen, sufra un descalabro y deba abandonar la carrera.
Cuando hace algunos años parecía que el candidato del izquierdista Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional, Schafik Jorge Handal, habría de ser electo Presidente de El Salvador por un margen muy amplio, el Presidente de Estados Unidos formuló la amenaza de prohibir las remesas de los migrantes salvadoreños establecidos en Estados Unidos si ello ocurría. La dependencia en las remesas convirtió a ese país en rehén del imperio, que de tal manera fue capaz de imponer al candidato de la derechista Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (ARENA).
Por el sostenido ritmo de crecimiento de las remesas y su monto tan elevado, parecería que se está logrando que el Norte opulento empiece a compensar al Sur por los daños de la histórica expoliación. Pero ni remotamente es esto así. Durante siglos, el sistema capitalista global ha saqueado a los países pobres de manera cruel. Les ha despojado de sus recursos naturales, y sometido a un intercambio injusto de sus mercancías, además de la explotación inmisericorde de su fuerza de trabajo.
El hecho de que las remesas de los emigrantes lleguen a ser base de sustentación de las economías de un número cada vez mayor de países depauperados del Tercer Mundo, debe ser visto como la denuncia de un crimen contra la humanidad y no como un motivo de complacencia.
Con los actuales términos del intercambio, si no se incrementa la ayuda verdadera al desarrollo; si no se conmuta la deuda externa que ahoga las economías de los países subdesarrollados del mundo; si se insiste en forzar la creación de mecanismos de falsa “integración”; si no se renuncia a la práctica del proteccionismo agrícola y comercial que los países ricos imponen en acto de inconsecuencia con sus propios reclamos neoliberales, las remesas nada bueno significan para las naciones pobres.
Si no se crean mecanismos de estímulo a las exportaciones de los países subdesarrollados; si no se apoyan sistemas que obliguen a que las empresas transnacionales se sometan a medidas de control contra la explotación laboral, el traslado de beneficios y la especulación para evitar la descapitalización y la fuga de cerebros de los países pobres que ellas generan; si no se promueven inversiones que expandan el mercado laboral para contribuir al arraigo de la población, las remesas no serán más que un paliativo aplicado a una injusticia que se hará cada vez más insoportable.
Enero 13 de 2016.
by Iroel Sánchez
[* Allusion to a popular Cuban saying that illustrates a very unfair fight: Una pelea de león contra mono amarrao’ – a fight between a lion and a tied up monkey.]
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
In recent weeks, several sources have been announcing a possible visit to Cuba by US President Barack Obama. This would be part of a Latin American tour that would include Argentina, Colombia, and Peru, in late March.
Undoubtedly –if it actually happened– the visit would be a boost to the normalization of relations between the two countries, and a blow to those sectors that oppose the process publicly initiated on December 17, 2014.
Judging by his statements to Yahoo News a few weeks ago, Obama also sees this visit as a tool to force the changes that the US has historically been seeking in Cuba, and as a way to strengthen US influence in the Western Hemisphere –an idea he just reiterated in his State of the Union speech before Congress.
“If you want to consolidate our leadership in the continent, you must recognize that the Cold War is over and lift the embargo,” Obama said to the plenary of the House and Senate this January 12, recognizing tha/t more than fifty years of economic blockade have not brought democracy –as Washington sees it– to Cuba.
Once again, the President has left to Congress a task to which he can contribute much more than he has done so far. Not only by the number of changes within presidential power that can weaken the blockade without the intervention of the legislative –such as authorizing the use of the US dollar in Cuban international transactions; reversing the policy of financial persecution against the island; allowing US imports of Cuban products and services; and authorizing direct exports to Cuba– but also by specific decisions requested by entities in his country which have been waiting for the approval of his government for months.
Among these are the MLB authorization request so Cuban baseball players can play in the United States without breaking from their country of origin; or the granting of a license to a company that produces tractors for private farmers so it can settle in the Special Economic Zone of Mariel, west of Havana.
Another instrument of the Cold War strategy against Cuba that the president could change is the policy of automatic acceptance –as political refugees– of all Cuban immigrants who reach US soil. This encourages human trafficking and illegal migration but the US uses it as a tool to destabilize the island just as the more than fifty million US dollars they distribute among people they organize and train for “programs to promote democracy” on Cuban territory.
The President has not considered either the historical claim of the Cuban people about the territory of Guantanamo under US military occupation. This has become a torture camp that Obama has not been able to shut down. A military base that is not a relic of the Cold War, but of the opportunism displayed by the US when it intervened in the independence war that Cubans were fighting against Spain. They came as allies of the Cubans but acted as occupiers and imposed a constitutional amendment giving them the right to set up military bases as they deemed necessary, and the right to intervene by force whenever they wished.
In his last State of the Union address the to Congress, the US president said “The United States is the most powerful nation on Earth; period”. This emphatic “period” reminds us of something that has no discussion: The US is king of the “jungle” their policies have turned the planet into.
Given the history of the relations between Cuba and the US –and also given the circumstances in which it could take place– a visit by the President of the United States to Havana would still be part of a confrontation. However, a confrontation must be –as Cuban leader Raul Castro, said– on an equal footing and in a civilized manner.
So as a Cuban song says: let the beast come, we are waiting. But considering his country is so powerful, Obama should not be afraid to loosen up the chains a bit before doing the honor of visiting us. Or is it –as another saying goes in Cuba– that the town bully only takes on a fight as a lion against a monkey… when the monkey is tied up?
¿Obama en Cuba?: Que venga la fiera pero que suelte al mono.
by Iroel Sánchez
En las últimas semanas varias fuentes han estado anunciando una posible visita del Presidente estadounidense Barack Obama a Cuba que ya tendría fecha como parte de una gira latinoamericana que incluiría Argentina, Colombia, y también Perú, a fines de marzo.
Sin dudas, de producirse, tal hecho sería un impulso hacia la normalización de relaciones entre los dos países y un golpe a aquellos sectores que se oponen a tal proceso desatado públicamente el 17 de diciembre de 2014.
A juzgar por sus declaraciones a Yahoo News semanas atrás, la visita de Obama también es vista por este como un instrumento para forzar los cambios que históricamente EEUU ha estado buscando en Cuba y fortalecer su influencia en el hemisferio occidental, cosa que acaba de reiterar en su discurso sobre el estado de la Unión ante el Congreso.
“Si quieren consolidar nuestro liderazgo en el continente tienen que reconocer que la Guerra Fría se acabó, levanten el embargo”, dijo Obama ante el pleno de las dos cámaras legislativas este 12 de enero, tras reconocer que más de cincuenta años de bloqueo económico no trajeron la democracia, como la entiende Washington, a la mayor de las Antillas.
Una vez más, el Presidente ha dejado en manos del Congreso una tarea a la que él puede contribuir mucho más de lo que ha hecho. No solo por la cantidad de modificaciones al alcance de la potestad presidencial que pueden debilitar el bloqueo sin necesidad de que el legislativo intervenga -la autorización del uso del dólar estadounidense en las transacciones internacionales de Cuba; revertir la política de persecución financiera contra la Isla; permitir las importaciones a EEUU de servicios o productos cubanos y autorizar las exportaciones directas a la Isla, están entre ellas- sino también por decisiones puntuales solicitadas por entidades de su país que esperan hace meses por la aprobación de su gobierno. Entre estas últimas están la autorización tramitada por la MLB para que beisbolistas cubanos puedan jugar en Estados Unidos sin romper con su país de origen, o la licencia a una empresa de produccción de tractores con destino a agricultores privados para establecerse en la Zona Económica Especial de Mariel, al Oeste de La Habana.
Otro instrumento de la estrategia de Guerra Fría hacia Cuba que el presidente puede modificar es la política de acogida automática, en carácter de refugiados políticos, a todo emigrante cubano que llegue a suelo estadounidense, lo que fomenta el tráfico de personas y la emigración ilegal, como herramienta de desestabilización contra la Isla junto a los más de cincuenta millones de dólares que EEUU distribuye entre personas que organiza y entrena para “programas de apoyo a la democracia” en territorio cubano.
El Presidente tampoco ha considerado el reclamo histórico del pueblo de Cuba sobre el territorio de Guantánamo que EEUU ocupa militarmente y ha convertido en un campo de torturas que Obama no ha podido cerrar. Una base militar que no es una reliquia de la Guerra Fría sino del oportunismo con que Washington intervino en la guerra de independencia que los cubanos libraron contra España, llegando como aliado de los libertadores pero actuando como ocupante, e imponiendo una enmienda constitucional que le daba derecho a instalar todas las bases militares que estimase necesarias, además de la prerrogativa para intervenir por la fuerza cada vez que lo desease.
En su último discurso sobre el estado e la Unión ante el Congreso el Presidente norteamericano dijo “los Estados Unidos de América es la nación más poderosa de la Tierra. Punto”. El “punto” nos recuerda que se dice algo que no tiene discusión: EEUU es el Rey de la selva en que sus mismas políticas han convertido el planeta.
Por la historia de las relaciones entre Cuba y EEUU, y también por las circunstancias en que se desarrollaría, una visita del Presidente de Estados Unidos a La Habana no dejaría de ser parte de una confrontación pero una confrontación que como ha dicho el líder cubano, Raúl Castro, debe transcurrir de modo civilizado y entre iguales.
Así que como dice una canción bailable cubana, que venga la fiera que la estamos esperando. Pero si su país es tan poderoso, Obama no debería temer soltarnos un poco las amarras antes de hacer el honor de visitarnos, ¿o es que como dice otro dicho popular en la Isla, al guapo del barrio sólo le gustan las peleas de león a mono y con el mono amarrado?
CUBA: CONSUME CUBAN PRODUCTS.
By Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
January 5, 2015
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
The phrase that has been used as the title of this article is intended for many people in our country for whom everything that is produced –or comes from– abroad has a high value and a special meaning.
Examples of this are seen when they use the words “clowns” instead of the Spanish payasos, “performance” instead of the Spanish actuación, trying to give a different meaning to something that can be perfectly expressed in Spanish. They think that with the foreign word the object may seem different and higher ranking.
Something similar happens when we invite a foreign scholar to offer a lecture on a Cuban subject, while in our country we do not give a national expert the chance to give the lecture.
As for books and newspaper articles something similar happens.
Recently an article was published –I received it on January 3rd this year– that said the Bush family had financed the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. The article gave as reference the book George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (in the article the word Unauthorized was incorrectly translated as Indeseable [undesired]). It also said the authors are Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, and incorrectly labeled them as US Americans. This is a very interesting and real situation.
We must point out that in the book Estados Unidos, de raíz [The United States, from the Roots] published in Cuba by the Centro de Estudios Martianos in 2007 –that is, 11 years ago– a section is devoted to the links between US companies and persons, including the Bush family, with the regime of Adolf Hitler. The section begins on page 218 and ends on page 222.
The book mentions and explains in detail the cooperation between the Ford Motor Company and the Nazi regime and how this US company, in coordination with Hitler’s representatives, used the slave labor of Jews and other war prisoners in their industry. In 1939, the company gave Hitler a million marks for his fiftieth birthday, which was reciprocated with a medal the Nazi regime gave to Henry Ford.
General Motors was also involved in this type of activity. Nearly 300 United States companies were involved; some with subsidiaries such as German Steel Trust, one of whose owners was Clarence Dillon.
Among the law firms that provided assistance to the government of Hitler was the US American firm Sullivan and Cromwell, where one of its top executives was John Foster Dulles.
International Business Machines’ (IBM) services were highly regarded by the German regime; so much so that Adolf Hitler himself gave its founder, Thomas J Watson, the Cross of Merit of the German Eagle with a Star. The services of IBM and the census the company carried out for the Third Reich were used as the source for the arrest of Jews and the organization of the concentration camps.
Some banking companies joined this cooperation: Chase National Bank of Paris, a subsidiary of the Chase Manhattan Bank, owned by the Rockefeller family. The Union Banking Company also established strong relationships with the fascist regime. Two of its top executives were Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George Herbert Walker. They united their capitals with that of German Fritz Thyssen, a close friend of Adolf Hitler.
The rest of the story, and more details about it, can be found in the aforementioned book, published in Cuba, eleven years ago, written by a Cuban author from the barrio Juanelo in Luyanó. His name was Néstor García Iturbe.
Big Capital respects no borders and has no scruples when it comes to making money.
CUBA.- CONSUMA PRODUCTOS CUBANOS.
Por .Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
5 de enero 2015
La frase que se ha utilizado como título de este artículo, responde a una situación existente en nuestro país, donde todo aquello que se produzca o venga del extranjero, tiene para muchas personas un alto valor y un significado especial.
Eso sucede cuando a los payasos les decimos “clown”, a las actuaciones “performance”, tratando de que eso varíe el significado de algo que puede decirse perfectamente en español, pero que dicho de esa forma se trata de que parezca algo distinto y de mayor categoría.
Algo similar sucede cuando traemos un académico extranjero para que nos imparta una conferencia sobre un tema de Cuba, mientras que en nuestro país no le damos oportunidad de dar la conferencia a un experto criollo.
En cuanto a los libros y los artículos periodísticos sucede algo similar.
Recientemente se publicó un artículo, que lo recibí el día 3 de enero de este año, donde se planteaba que la familia Bush había financiado la ascensión al poder de Adolfo Hitler y se daba como referencia el libro George Bush The Unauthorized Biography (George Bush Biografía no autorizada, donde incorrectamente se tradujo la palabra Unauthorized como Indeseable ). Se plantea que los autores son los estadounidenses ( que se calificaron también incorrectamente como norteamericanos ) Webster G. Tarpley y Anton Chaitkin. Una situación muy interesante y verdadera.
No se puede dejar de señalar, que en el libro Estados Unidos, de raíz, publicado en Cuba por el Centro de Estudios Martianos en el año 2007, hace 11 años, se dedica un epígrafe a la vinculación de personas y empresas estadounidenses con el régimen de Adolfo Hitler, lo cual incluye a la familia Bush. Este epígrafe comienza en la página 218 y termina en la 222.
Se menciona y explica en detalle, la cooperación con el régimen nazi de la Ford Motor Company y como dicha empresa, en coordinación con los representantes de Hitler, utilizaron en la industria el trabajo esclavo de los judíos y otros prisioneros de guerra. Esta empresa entregó en 1939 un millón de marcos a Hitler por su cincuenta cumpleaños, lo cual fue compensado con una medalla que dicho régimen entregó a Henry Ford..
También la General Motors estuvo involucrada en este tipo de actividad, cerca de 300 empresas estadounidenses lo estuvieron, algunas con filiales como la German Steel Trust, de la que uno de sus propietarios era Clarence Dillon.
Dentro de las firmas de abogados que prestaron ayuda al gobierno de Hitler estuvo la estadounidense Sullivan and Cromwell, donde uno de sus principales ejecutivos era John Foster Dulles.
La empresa International Business Machine (IBM), cuyos servicios al régimen alemán fueron altamente reconocidos, cuando el propio Adolfo Hitler entrego a su fundador Thomas J Watson, La Cruz del Mérito del Aguila Alemana con Estrella.. Los servicios de la IBM y el censo realizado por esta empresa, se tomaron como base por el Tercer Reich para apresar a los judíos y organizar los campos de concentración.
Algunas firmas bancaria se sumaron a esta colaboración, como el Chase National Bank de Paris, filial del Chase Manhattan Bank, propiedad de la familia Rockefeller. También estableció fuertes relaciones con el régimen fascista, la Union Banking Company, donde uno de su principales ejecutivos era Prescot Bush y su suegro George Herbert Walker, los que unieron sus capitales con el alemán Fritz Thysen, amigo íntimo de Adolfo Hitler.
El resto de la historia y más detalles de la misma, pueden ustedes leerlo en el libro antes mencionado, publicado en Cuba, hace once años, escrito por un cubano, del Barrio de Juanelo, en Luyanó, cuyo nombre es Néstor García Iturbe.
Los grandes capitales no reconocen fronteras, ni tienen escrúpulos, cuando de ganar dinero se trata.
CUBA-USA: THE WHITE HOUSE TALKS ABOUT OBAMA’S CUBA TRIP AGAIN
By: Dr. Néstor García Iturbe.
January 4, 2016
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
On December 26, from Honolulu, where the Nobel Peace Prize-awarded President was spending his Christmas holidays, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told reporters that Obama’s trip to Cuba would be decided in a couple of months.
He further said that it would be at a time when the relationship process was irreversible; when they considered Cuba had improved in the treatment of human rights and when “the communist country” allowed private companies to do business.
He added that Cuba had to give its citizens greater access to information and the Internet.
The key issue determining whether or not Obama would travel to Cuba –according to Rhodes– is whether his trip would help improve these points.
We recall that one of Obama’s statements –when the speculation about the trip began– was that he would meet in Cuba with those who have expressed their opposition to the Revolution and are fighting for freedom of expression.
The US media considers that this would be a historic journey that could serve to pressure Cuba to make reforms (Reuters, article by Jeff Mason, Edited by W Simon.) Remember that: pressure Cuba.
Surely the announcement of the trip was made by the Deputy National Security Deputy because this is not just any ordinary visit: this is a visit to the only country officially declared ENEMY of the United States after Obama signed a presidential proclamation in which Cuba was included under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
It is clear that Cuba –with its position in the international arena, particularly in Latin America– is endangering the national security of the United States, which is governed by the Monroe Doctrine.
Mr. Ben Rhodes expressed some ideas –I don’t know if they are his own– that indicate total ignorance of the situation in Cuba; the state of relations between the two countries and international norms for the establishment of diplomatic relations.
He argues that the visit of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning President will be made at a time in which they consider the process of re-establishment of relations is irreversible. Perhaps this advisor has not read the speeches of our President Raul Castro who has explained that this process has two stages: restoration and normalization. We are in the first stage; the second has not yet begun.
Moreover, whether the process is irreversible –or not– will be decided by the outcome of the US presidential elections, because some of the presidential candidates have argued that if they win they will break diplomatic relations with Cuba. Cuba’s interests must also be taken into consideration when discussing this matter.
What could Mr. Rhodes advise Obama to help the process be irreversible, if that is really what he wants?
Primarily, he should advise Obama to consider the points Cuba raised to begin the process of normalization. The chief executive has powers that he has not used to reduce the blockade to a minimum, should Congress refuse to lift it.
The president could instruct the agencies under his command to suspend all actions representing interference in the internal affairs of Cuba. He could prevent giving more funds than those authorized for the State Department to sponsor the opposition in Cuba. He could order the Office of Broadcasting for Cuba to shut down Radio and TV Marti. He could order USAID to stop the recruitment of journalists, as contractors, to travel to Cuba and contact opponents of the Revolution.
If, in compliance with US laws, it is required to fine a bank or a financial company for doing business with Cuba, he could instruct that the fine not be hundreds of millions of dollars. The law could be enforced with a much smaller fine, if Obama so ordered it.
He could also submit for Congressional approval, the annulment of the Treaty of Relations between the Republic of Cuba and the United States of America, signed in Washington on 29 May 1934, which confirmed the presence of the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo, as first agreed in the Treaty of 1903.
In a recent article, I suggested other conditions to be met by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning President to be welcomed in Cuba –if not as a friend at least as a neighbor. I will not repeat them here.
Apart from all the above, it is not enough that Obama deems his visit to Cuba beneficial for the United States, it is also essential that Cuba deems inviting him beneficial.
CUBA.- EU.- LA CASA BLANCA HABLA NUEVAMENTE DEL VIAJE DE OBAMA A CUBA.
Por: Dr. Néstor García Iturbe.
4 de enero del 2016
El día 26 de diciembre, desde Honolulu, donde el Premio Nobel de la Paz estaba pasando sus vacaciones navideñas, el Asesor Asistente para la Seguridad Nacional, Ben Rhodes, informó a la prensa que el viaje de Obama a Cuba sería decidido en un par de meses.
Planteó además, que sería en un momento en que el proceso de relaciones fuera irreversible, cuando se considere que Cuba ha mejorado en el tratamiento de los derechos humanos, que lo que el calificó como “el país comunista” permita a empresas privadas hacer negocios.
Planteó también que Cuba tenía que dar a sus ciudadanos más acceso a información y a INTERNET.
El punto crucial para determinar si Obama viaja o no a Cuba, según Rhodes, será, si su viaje ayudará a que mejoren estos asuntos.
Recordamos que uno de los planteamientos de Obama cuando se comenzó a especular sobre el viaje , fue que se reuniría en Cuba con los que han planteado su oposición a la Revolución y luchan por la libertad de expresión.
La prensa estadounidenses considera que será un viaje histórico y que servirá para presionar en función de que Cuba realice reformas (Reuters,artículo de Jeff Mason, Editado por W Simon.) Recuerden eso, presionar a Cuba.
Seguramente el anuncio del viaje lo realiza el Asesor Asistente para la Seguridad Nacional, porque este no es un viaje cualquiera, es un viaje al único país declarado ENEMIGO de Estados Unidos oficialmente, después que Obama firmó la proclama presidencial donde nos incluyo en la Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo.
Es evidente que Cuba, con su postura en el campo internacional y en particular en América Latina, está poniendo en peligro la Seguridad Nacional de Estados Unidos, que se rige por la Doctrina Monroe.
El señor Ben Rohdes expresó algunas ideas que desconozco si son de su cosecha, pero que indican un total desconocimiento de la situación en Cuba, el estado de las relaciones entre los dos países y de las Normas Internacionales para el establecimiento de Relaciones Diplomáticas.
Plantea que el viaje del Premio Nobel de la Paz se efectuará en un momento, en que se considere el proceso de relaciones sea irreversible. Quizás este señor no ha leído los discursos de nuestro Presidente Raul Castro donde se explica que ese proceso tiene dos etapas, el restablecimiento y la normalización. Estamos en la primera, todavía no ha comenzado la segunda.
Por otra parte, si el `proceso es irreversible o no, se decidirá con el resultado de las elecciones presidenciales estadounidenses, pues algunos de los aspirantes a la presidencia han planteado que de ganar estas, romperán relaciones diplomáticas con Cuba. También el interés de Cuba debe ser tomado en consideración cuando se habla de este asunto.
¿Qué pudiera aconsejar a Obama el señor Rohdes para dificultar que el proceso sea reversible, si esa es realmente su intención.?
Principalmente debería aconsejar a Obama que cumpla con lo planteado por Cuba para el inicio del proceso de normalización. El ejecutivo tiene potestades que no ha utilizado para llevar el bloqueo a su mínima expresión, en caso de que el Congreso lo mantenga.
El presidente puede orientar a las agencias que reciben órdenes suyas, suspender todo tipo de acción que implique una injerencia en los asuntos internos de Cuba. Que no se entreguen más fondos de los que tiene autorizado el Departamento de Estado para sufragar la oposición en Cuba. Ordenar a la Oficina de Transmisiones para Cuba, el cierre de Radio y Televisión Martí. Ordenar a la USAID que no lleve adelante el reclutamiento de periodistas, como contratistas, para viajar a Cuba y contactar personas desafectas con la Revolución.
Si de acuerdo con las layes establecidas se requiere multar algún banco u empresa financiera por realizar transacciones con Cuba, que la multa no sea de cientos de millones de dólares. La ley se puede cumplir, si Obama lo ordena, con una multa muchísimo menor.
Elevar al Congreso, para su aprobación, la anulación del Tratado de Relaciones entre la República de Cuba y los Estados Unidos de América, firmado en Washington el 29 de mayo de 1934, el cual ratificó la presencia de Estados Unidos en la Base Naval de Guantánamo, recogida en el Tratado de 1903.
En artículo reciente, planteamos otras condiciones que debían cumplirse para que el Premio Nobel de la Paz fuera recibido en Cuba, si no como un amigo, al menos como un vecino. No voy a repetir estas.
Además de todo eso, no es suficiente que Obama considere beneficioso para Estados Unidos el viajar a Cuba, es también imprescindible que Cuba considere beneficioso invitarlo.
By: Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
December 27, 2015
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
President Obama, undeserved Nobel Peace Prize Winner, can say that the U.S. has declared war on the poor, but not on poverty.
The war is conducted by the repressive police forces of different States, killing in cold blood anyone who seems suspicious of wanting to violate the established order.
The victims of this war are mainly black people, followed by Latinos and a few Whites in the group of least fortunate, those who have no jobs, no money and often no shelter.
This war is motivated by the social differences existing in the United States: the ruling class and its servants against the dispossessed who are less of a problem dead than living. To the social differences one must add race differences which also have an important role in this war.
According to website http://killedbypolice.net/, this year –until December 25– police in the different States killed 1182 people, including 95 in December alone. In this article we offer the data of those killed in December 2015.
The organization also provides figures of those killed during the years 2013 and 2014. As an example we show figures of those killed in December, because the total would be of about 4,000 people.
The list we offer first shows the consecutive number of the person killed; the date when it was murdered; the State where it died; the sex (F for female, M for male); the race (B for Black, W for White, L for Latin); name and age of the person. When the data is not complete it is because –according to authorities– the deceased has not yet been identified.
In this war more casualties are reported monthly than those the Pentagon reports of troops stationed in different countries, military bases and fleets overseas.
A black, a Latino, or a Poor White, is less likely to die in Afghanistan than in Florida or California; all that thanks to the Nobel Peace Prize Winner and the and American Way of Life, which for them would be the American Way of Dying.
EU.- GUERRA CONTRA LOS POBRES, NO CONTRA LA POBREZA.
Por: Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
27 de diciembre 2015
El presidente Obama, inmerecido Premio Nobel de la Paz, puede decir que en Estados Unidos se le ha declarado la guerra a los pobres, pero no a la pobreza.
La guerra la llevan a cabo las fuerzas represivas policiacas de los distintos Estados, asesinando a mansalva a todo aquel que parece sospechoso de querer violar el orden establecido.
Las víctimas de esta guerra son en primer lugar las personas de la raza negra, seguidos por los latinos y también algunos de la raza blanca que se encuentran en el grupo de los desafortunados que no tiene trabajo, ni dinero y muchas veces ni un techo donde refugiarse.
Esta guerra está motivada por las diferencias sociales existentes en Estados Unidos, la clase dominante y sus servidores contra la clase de los desposeídos, que muertos representan menos problema que vivos, a las diferencias sociales deben agregarse las raciales, que también tienen un peso importante en esta guerra.
Durante el tiempo transcurrido durante este año, hasta el día 25 de diciembre, según el sitio http://killedbypolice.net/ , la policía de los distintos Estados, asesinó 1182 personas, de ellas 95 en los días transcurridos en Diciembre. En este artículo se ofrecen los datos de los asesinados en Diciembre 2015.
Esta organización también ofrece las cifras de los asesinados durante los años 2013 y 2014. Solamente ponemos como ejemplo los asesinados en Diciembre, pues si reflejáramos el total serían cerca de 4,000 personas.
El listado que le ofrecemos tiene en primer lugar el número consecutivo de la persona asesinada; la fecha en que fue asesinada; el Estado en que murió; sexo F femenino, M masculino; la raza B negro, W blanco, L latino, nombre de la persona y edad. Cuando los datos no aparecen, según las autoridades, el occiso todavía no ha podido ser identificado.
En esta guerra se reportan más bajas mensuales que las que reporta el Pentágono sobre las tropas que están acantonadas en distintos países, bases militares y flotas de ultramar.
Un negro, latino, o blanco pobre, tiene menos posibilidades de morir en Afganistán, que en La Florida o California, todo eso gracias al Premio Nobel de la Paz y el Americna Way of LIfe, que para ellos sería el American Way of Die.
Within Cuban society, especially among the younger generations, there are latent tendencies to apathy and lack of motivation. These are triggers for the demolition of life projects and the destruction of personal futures, both material and spiritual.
By: Javier Gómez Lastra
Nevertheless, the main shortcoming of these teenagers is the lack of accurate guidance in their lives.
However, all three agree on something: they are determined not to work for the state for a simple salary; because any business brings in more money than spending the whole month working in a factory, and in the end what you get paid is not enough. In their view to do that is to sacrifice for nothing.
In the struggle
The deep economic crisis of the early 90s of last century affected almost all the families in the island, and brought all kinds of material and spiritual changes among the people.
The new style of coping with everyday existence was dubbed “the struggle”. It describes the legal and illegal mechanisms designed to cope with the drastic decline in living standards. There were many urgent readjustments families had to make in order to survive and these included substantial alterations in their way of thinking and acting which were imposed by the prevailing harsh reality.
Silhouettes of young people with bubbles
“At the same time, the situation broke the link –which had existed until then– between education and working conditions; that is, the chain: instruction-occupation-income dissipated because there was a proliferation of work proposals that did not require a high educational level, but did offer attractive incomes.”
“It should be added that this combination of elements individually and collectively impacted their vision and interpretation of reality, and many individuals did not hesitate to take on new strategies in order to solve everyday economic demands which could not be postponed.”
“Likewise, their aspirations of material wellbeing in many cases could not be satisfied by the previously generally accepted mechanism (study-work-pay). Therefore new ways emerged –some formally promoted, and others informally, or even illegal such as the activities of the underground economy. A number of sources of income and immediate benefit were welcomed regardless whether they were associated with prostitution, pimping, begging, drug abuse or crime.”
“Other behaviors stigmatized until then –like not being involved with study and work, felonies, or other such behaviors– gradually stopped receiving all the rejection they deserved, and within some social groups they gained a certain degree of approval that legitimized them. Meanwhile the coexistence rules present in other times were challenged,” said Elaine, author of the study: “Marginalization of Adolescents and Young Persons: An Analysis in Cuba.”
I got tired of being without money
Finding alternatives to address their economic needs became a major concern. This began to occupy a prominent place in Cuban daily life since the crisis began.
Amid these conditions, many young people took the strategy of migrating to provincial capitals in the country, or abroad. Selectivity of employment increased and many did not perform the job for which they were trained in their studies but did something else that could guarantee higher pay and better conditions to the detriment of personal motivations.
Among the advantages associated with formal employment is the way in which individuals are inserted into and integrated into society, and the potential for instructional upgrading and the diversity of perspectives offered to do so. Work linked to the state entails a level of security and stability that had been traditionally associated with the guarantee of salary and social security with retirement pensions for years of service, age or health conditions.
The main disadvantages of this sector are: income limitations that do not offer adequate compensation given the demands and responsibilities; lack of material stimulation; controls to which the worker is subjected; rigid schedules and inadequate conditions for the performance of the tasks in the job.
With a fuming head
The employment problem of young people is, in the current conditions of the country, another very complex and controversial issue. However, work continues to play a key role in structuring the country’s institutions and the lives of individuals, according to María Josefa Luis Luis, historian and researcher at the Centro de Estudios Sobre la Juventud [Center for Studies on Youth], in her analysis “Considerations on Work Socialization.“
She explains that “irregularities in the labor market, unemployment and underemployment rates, as well as instability and precarious working conditions are realities faced by workers around the world. For young people, these abnormalities affect personal development and conceptions about work. Although the traditional model (livelihood, rights, moral responsibility, sense of accomplishment) is valid for most, in practice it is very difficult or impossible to attain for a good number of them.”
“In Cuba, there are numerous contradictions related to employment that significantly damage employment relations and the role of these as an effective means of socialization and education of the new generations.”
“The economic crisis eroded the material and technological foundation of the workplace due to the lack of means of work, or the obsolescence of others. The rules of organization, protection and hygiene, individual and collective productivity, as well as work motivation, were affected.”
“This, in turn, had an impact on individual expectations and possibilities for job satisfaction, as well as contributions and income. It generated frustration and dissatisfaction and reduced job stability.”
The slogan promoted years ago by a domestic soap opera is a way of thinking for some Cubans for whom life is perennial leisure. They don’t realize the damage this ideology of leisure can cause.
It also indicates the boasting of a supposedly superior status, based on the myth of money, and encourages reaching that level at any price. It becomes a philosophy of lack of interest and apathy that dangerously gains ground.
Young people are a highly impressionable group, ready to make changes in search of better educational opportunities, more access to culture and employment, among other factors. In this regard, it is essential to know the expectations they have, as well as their ability to make plans and realize them under current conditions.
To meet those material goals or aspirations is not a subject for reproach. On the contrary, to live without them –doing nothing to achieve them– means a real problem, or extremely harmful conflict from a spiritual point of view.
We must not clip the wings of those who have aspirations and wish to embrace them. On the contrary, we should lead them to the realization of their goals, always on the right track; since the key issue is related to the methods or the means chosen in order to achieve these objectives.
When there is no experience, going off the right track to achieve success can be easy and have negative consequences that would last a lifetime. We must encourage and guide young people based on sound principles, openly, without reservations or fear of sacrifice, always aided by study and honest work.
The lack of real joy, in the short and medium terms, makes a dent in young people who are vulnerable to the frustration caused by repetitive promises of a bright future, in contradiction to what they live from day to day, suffering disappointment at not being able to see the announced steps to progress.
Cuba’s national hero, Jose Marti taught us: “Being educated is the only way to be free”. Under this strategy we must guide the formation of the people and especially of the new generations.
WHAT LIES IN THE FUTURE OF CAPITALISM
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
US American economists of different political orientation have been commenting these days on Robert Reich´s new book entitled Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few, in the New York Review of Books (December 17, 2015).
For Paul Krugman “It was gratifying to find the stark candor behind the title of Reich’s book. ‘Saving capitalism’ assuredly implies that capitalism is on the ropes –in danger of expiring– an implication that I both believe and welcome.”
Marxist analyst Zoltan Zigedy says that Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz share lofty accomplishments in academic economics and constitute the intellectual triumvirate informing the non-Marxist left in the US.
Although they do not agree on everything, they share a core set of beliefs in the viability of capitalism and its need for reform. It is unusual to see Krugman and Reich blatantly suggesting the urgency of saving the capitalist order.
The urgency they feel turns on the dramatic increase in economic inequality in major capitalist countries, particularly the US. Krugman stresses that inequality was an issue that Reich and he “were already taking seriously” twenty-five years ago.
“That may be, but I think it’s fair to say that neither was taking the growth of inequality seriously as a structural feature of capitalism until the important work of Thomas Piketty two years ago.”
According to Zigedy, Krugman, Reich, and other non-Marxist economists modified their understanding of the causes of the growth of inequality over the last several decades. Krugman, says Zigedy, describes a currently- evolved capitalism resembling the capitalism that Marxists described well over half of a century ago.
Decades ago, liberal economists believed that rising inequality sprang from a poor match between technological requirements and workers’ skill sets –what Krugman calls “skill-based technological change” (SBTC). Education was seen as the great leveler, restoring wealth and income to those falling behind.
But with the correlation between levels of education and compensation broken today, all reject SBTC as an adequate explanation and the key to arresting the growth of inequality. The growth of debt-laden college graduates working in call centers surely shattered that illusion.
Krugman thus dismisses a technological explanation for the growth of inequality. Instead he urges that we consider the centerpiece of Reich’s study: monopoly power.
It is the concentration of economic power in the hands of fewer corporate players that accounts for growing economic inequality. According to Krugman and Reich: “…it’s obvious to the naked eye that our economy consists much more of monopolies and oligopolists than it does of atomistic competitors.”
Zigedy wonders, why did it take Reich and Krugman so long to arrive at this juncture, a place that Lenin had visited over a hundred years ago? Marxist writers like Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy devoted an entire influential book to monopoly capitalism nearly fifty years ago.
Thus, non-Marxist economists and their political allies have scorned the concept of monopoly power until recently, a concept that Marxists have made a centerpiece of their analyses.
Krugman and Reich reveal another crucial linkage –that between economic power (monopoly power) and political power. They see monopoly power as sustained, protected, and expanded by political actors. At the same time, they see political actors as selected, nourished, and guided by monopoly power. This creates a troubling conundrum for those seeking to reform capitalism.
Reich’s conclusion, in Krugman’s words: Rising wealth at the top buys growing political influence via campaign contributions, lobbying, and the rewards of the revolving door. Political influence in turn is used to rewrite the rules of the game in society. The result is a sort of spiral, a vicious cycle of oligarchy.
For Marxists, concentration necessarily begets monopoly capitalism, which subsequently completely fuses with the state, creating a mutually reinforcing synthesis. The state rules in the interest of monopoly capitalism while policing the economic terrain to maximize the viability and success of monopoly capital.
Nothing demonstrates the intimacy more than the crisis bailouts of mega-corporations (“too big to fail”) and the increasing monopoly capital’s dominance over the two-party political system that rules the United States.
January 8, 2016.
LO QUE DEPARA EL CAPITALISMO PARA EL FUTURO
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Economistas estadounidenses de diversa orientación política han estado opinando en estos días acerca del nuevo libro de Robert Reich titulado Salvando al capitalismo: para los muchos, no para los pocos, presentado en la Revista de Libros de Nueva York el 17 de diciembre de 2015.
Para Paul Krugman fue gratificante constatar la sinceridad descarnada que expresa el título de libro de Reich porque “salvar el capitalismo” implica que el capitalismo está contra las cuerdas, o sea, en peligro de extinción, “consideración en la que creo, saludo y comparto”.
El marxista Zoltan Zigedy señala que Robert Reich, Paul Krugman y Joseph Stiglitz comparten altos logros en la economía académica y constituyen un triunvirato intelectual no marxista bien informando. Aunque ellos no estén de acuerdo en todo, comparten un conjunto básico de creencias en la viabilidad del capitalismo y su necesidad de reforma. No obstante es raro ver a algunos sugiriendo manifiestamente la urgencia de salvar el orden burgués.
La urgencia deriva del espectacular aumento de la desigualdad económica en los principales países capitalistas, particularmente en Estados Unidos. Krugman confiesa que la desigualdad era una cuestión que Reich y él “empezaron a tomar en serio” ya hace veinticinco años. “Pero creo que es justo decir que no tomamos en serio ese crecimiento de la desigualdad como una característica estructural del capitalismo hasta que apareció el importante trabajo de Thomas Piketty hace dos años”.
Según Zigedy, los economistas no marxistas Krugman y Reich han modificado su interpretación de las causas del crecimiento de la desigualdad durante las últimas décadas. Krugman, afirma Zigedy, describe un capitalismo desarrollado actual que se asemeja al capitalismo que los marxistas vienen describiendo desde hace más de medio siglo.
Hace décadas, los economistas liberales sostenían que el aumento de la desigualdad era resultado de que había sectores de la clase obrera que no reunían los requisitos tecnológicos o carecían de las habilidades exigidas por el “cambio tecnológico basado en la habilidad” (SBTC, por sus siglas en inglés). La educación era vista por ellos como el gran nivelador, estabilizador de la riqueza y el avance de los atrasados.
Pero con la actual ruptura de la correlación ente nivel de educación y compensación, todos rechazan el SBTC como explicación adecuada y clave para detener el crecimiento de la desigualdad. El aumento del número de graduados universitarios abrumados de deudas rompió esa ilusión.
Así, Krugman sustituye la explicación tecnológica para el crecimiento de la desigualdad, por algo que es eje central del estudio de Reich, el poderío monopólico. Es la concentración del poder económico en manos de pocos jugadores corporativos lo que lleva al aumento de la desigualdad económica. Según Krugman y Reich: “… es evidente que nuestra economía se asienta mucho más en los monopolios y oligopolios que en la competencia atomística.”
Zigady pregunta ¿Por qué Reich y Krugman tardaron tanto tiempo en llegar en esta consideración a la que Lenin arribó hace más de cien años? Escritores marxistas como Paul Baran y Paul Sweezy dedicaron hace casi cincuenta años un influyente libro al capitalismo monopolista.
Así, los economistas no marxistas y sus aliados políticos hasta hace poco desdeñaban el concepto de poder de monopolio, que los marxistas han hecho pieza central de sus análisis.
Pero Krugman y Reich revelan otros acoplamientos cruciales: entre el poder político y el poder económico (poder monopólico) y los del mercado con el poder político. Ellos observan que el poder monopólico es sostenido, protegido y ampliado por actores políticos, así como que los actores políticos son seleccionados, alimentados y guiados por el poder de monopolio. Esto crea un preocupante problema para aquellos que buscan la reforma del capitalismo.
En palabras de Krugman, la conclusión a que llega Reich es que la creciente riqueza en el segmento poblacional superior incrementa su influencia política mediante contribuciones de campaña, cabildeo y recompensas. La influencia política, a su vez, sirve para reescribir las reglas del juego en la sociedad. El resultado es una especie de espiral, el círculo vicioso de la oligarquía.
Para los marxistas, la concentración engendra necesariamente capitalismo de monopolio, que posteriormente se funde con el Estado, creando una síntesis que convierte a las normas del Estado en policías en el terreno económico encargados de maximizar la viabilidad y el éxito del capital monopolista.
Nada demuestra mejor ese maridaje que los rescates de las mega-corporaciones (“supuestamente demasiado grandes para quebrar”) ante las crisis y el evidente incremento del dominio del capital monopolista en el sistema político de dos partidos que rige en Estados Unidos.
Enero 8 de 2016.
by Ricardo Alarcón
Published on December 19, 2015 in Opinión, Política, Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada
December 17 marks the first anniversary of the announcement that Cuba and the United States would reestablish diplomatic relations. Presidents Raul Castro and Barak Obama did it at the same time from Havana and Washington, respectively. They both admitted that it was barely the first step of a process toward the elimination of a hostile policy maintained for over half a century but failed in the end, as the White House resident himself acknowledged.
Since then, Embassies were reopened, some senior officials have visited Havana, several minor or relatively important problems have been solved, and representatives of both governments have held meetings to discuss a thick agenda of essential topics, including the economic blockade —still in place— the permanent occupation of Cuban territory in Guantanamo, and the subversive projects that remain in operation to undermine the Revolution. As long as Washington makes no radical changes in its policy —lifting the blockade completely, returning Guantanamo to Cuba and ending its interference in our affairs— calling such diplomatic relations “normal” would be a bad joke.
There is a question, however, that seems to be a favorite on the American side and to which several of that country’s most read publications have devoted their attention: the claims filed there for alleged losses suffered by corporations and individuals as a result of Cuba’s nationalization laws of 1960.
This issue would have to be discussed together with Cuba’s own claims for the damages caused by fifty years of economic war and aggression which are incomparably greater and have had a serious impact on the island’s population. An official document that used to be secret, but no longer is, recognizes that the purpose of the policy was to make the Cuban people “suffer” by “hunger and despair”. Approved in the spring of 1960, the text was written before the Cuban nationalizations, and its words are literally consistent with what the Geneva Convention calls the “crime of genocide”.
The revolutionary laws always included the right to fair compensation by the former owners. All those foreign companies that respected Cuba’s sovereignty and accepted our legislation benefited, without exception, from such laws, and have kept normal links with us through business and new investments. It was also the case, by the way, with individuals living in Cuba who adopted the same attitude.
The North American companies were the only ones excluded, owing to their government’s rejection of the Cuban legislation and their economic attacks.
Still, there is an aspect of this issue that the U.S. media are carefully ignoring. It’s been a long time now since those who were expropriated in Cuba received special and privileged treatment that allowed them to get compensation for what they supposedly lost to the revolutionary measures.
Starting in 1964, and ever since, regulations were amended and unique laws were adopted exclusively for that group of people that made it possible for them to obtain compensation for their losses by means of substantial tax deductions. No other American taxpayers were granted similar benefits.
As far as taxes were concerned, it was an exceptional treatment only comparable to what migrants receive under the Cuban Adjustment Act, which also came in handy to individuals who in 1960 had not yet become American citizens but also enjoyed those advantages and helped create the myth of a successful Cuban-American business sector.
It was the Cuban people who never got any compensation whatsoever. The blockade has been not only the main obstacle to the island’s development, but also the main cause of that people’s suffering. It’s a genocidal policy, the longest genocide in history. The United States has an obligation to lift it now, immediately and unconditionally, and they must try to compensate their victims if they wish to have relations with their neighbors worthy of being considered “normal”.
The film had its world premiere at the Telluride Film Festival, where it was a great success
Author: Cubasi | internet@granma.cu
December 21, 2015 11:12:23
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Hector Medina stars in the film
Film “Viva”, set in Cuba and directed by Paddy Breathnatch, was chosen by the Irish Academy of Film and Television to represent the country at the Oscar Academy Awards as best foreign language film.
In this regard, Aine Moriarty, President of the Irish Academy, said: “The Irish Academy is delighted that this wonderful film by Paddy Breathnach and Mark O’Halloran represents Ireland at the Oscars. It reflects the creativity and diversity of points of view of this Irish team while shooting a Cuban story that is so tender, intriguing and visually captivating.”
The film had its world premiere at the Telluride Film Festival, where it was a success. In October, it will be presented at the Busan Festival.
Written by Mark O’Halloran, the drama follows Jesus, an 18 year old Cuban who is lost and trying to find his true identity. Unsure of himself or his future direction, he works at a drag queen club in Havana. There he pursues his dreams of becoming an actor, while earning money through prostitution.
He finds his oasis at home listening to the albums his mother and grandmother left him; or even watching the boxers who train next door. Then, something comes to his life that will challenge his direction and his freedom: his missing father, a famous boxer, who returns after spending 15 years in prison for killing a person in a street fight when Jesus was a child.
The cast includes Hector Medina, Jorge Perugorría and Luis Alberto Garcia.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |||||
3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
31 |
You must be logged in to post a comment.