Photo: Taken from Internet
After the riots that took place last July 11 and 12, as part of the political-communicational operation encouraged and paid for by the US government against Cuba, supposed lists of missing persons have begun to circulate on the Internet.
But, are there really missing persons in the country? Are such lists real? What is the procedure for the detention of a person? What limits are there to the actions of the authorities?
In answering these questions, during an appearance this Tuesday on the program Hacemos Cuba, Colonel Victor Alvarez Valle, second chief of the Specialized Body of the General Directorate of Criminal Investigation of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT), categorically assured that in Cuba there are no missing persons, neither of the processes referred to the recent disorders, nor of any other that has been carried out.
“We have as a principle, in the Revolution, and it is also what characterizes the actions of the authorities, the right to life, to freedom, the right to the preservation and security of people,” said the colonel, while informing that Cuba is a signatory of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
This position, he said, was also recognized in the Constitution approved by the majority of Cubans and, although in our legal system it is not characterized as a crime, there is a group of figures that cover and punish those who commit these actions, in the event that the occurrence of an enforced disappearance is proven.
Furthermore, he added, “there is no secret establishment for the processing of persons who, for any reason, or for the commission of crimes, are taken to one of the dependencies of MININT”.
Regarding the process of detention of a citizen, José Luis Reyes Blanco, head of the Department of Supervision of the Directorate of Criminal Proceedings, of the Attorney General’s Office (FGR), explained that “the records of this process, the detention record that is signed by the person involved, the information on the detainee and the presence of the Prosecutor’s Office throughout the criminal process from the beginning, contribute to control the investigation and allow us to ensure that in our country after 1959 there have never been missing persons”. Evidently, if there were events of this nature in the country, the number of denunciations in the Prosecutor’s Office, through all its channels of attention to the citizens, would be considerable.
However, commented Reyes Blanco, in the year 2020, in the middle of the pandemic, the Prosecutor’s Office attended more than 129,000 people throughout the country; during the first semester of this year, the attention exceeded 49,000 and, as of July 12, for events associated to the riots, 63 people have addressed to this organ, mostly through face-to-face channels.
“But none of these complaints or claims have been related to disappearances”, he stressed, but to arrests, that is to say, in search of certain information, which they have received in the places to which the interested parties have gone.
Today, he commented, the Prosecutor’s Office is investigating five claims related to general non-conformities in the process, but no case is pending to define the place where the person is located. There is information and, more importantly, the family knows it”.
In this sense, Colonel Alvarez Valle pointed out that when a person is taken to a police unit, the first thing that is done is to register him/her in a logbook, manually, and the arrest record is drawn up. Therefore, the person knows why they are being taken to the station.
Then, he continued, there follows a process that can take place in the first 24 hours, which contemplates his first statement, and the measures that, depending on the crime, can be imposed.
“In the first 24 hours, the family generally knows where the person is because, in addition, MININT has a system of attention and information to the population, automated and interlinked among all units, where each of the detained persons is recorded.
“In recent cases, all the families know where their detainees are, they have gone to the places, they have delivered belongings with personal hygiene materials or specific medicines; in other words, the information on the whereabouts of the people is established and auditable by the control bodies of the Prosecutor’s Office”, he explained.
Subsequently, he also referred to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, to which Cuba is a party and was reviewed in 2017.
As applied in the country, Article 17, specifically, establishes, among other elements, that:
No one shall be secretly detained.
Without prejudice to other international obligations of the State party regarding deprivation of liberty, each State party, in its legislation:
Shall establish the conditions under which orders of deprivation of liberty may be issued.
Determine the authorities empowered to order deprivation of liberty.
Guarantee that any person deprived of liberty shall be held only in officially recognized and controlled places of deprivation of liberty.
Guarantee that any person deprived of liberty shall be authorized to communicate with and be visited by his family, a lawyer or any other person of his choice, subject only to the conditions established by law, and in the case of a foreigner, to communicate with his consular authorities, in accordance with applicable international law.
It shall guarantee the access of any competent authority and institution empowered by law to places of deprivation of liberty, if necessary with the prior authorization of judicial authority.
For his part, the prosecutor clarified that all persons detained after the events of July 11 are able to appoint a lawyer, that some do not have one is up to the choice of each individual.
And to totally deny the mentioned lists, at another moment of the program, communication was established with one of the alleged missing persons, who also spoke of other colleagues who swell the records circulated on the Internet and who are in perfect condition.
The Second Chief of the Specialized Body of the General Directorate of Criminal Investigation of MININT reiterated that these lists lose credibility due to the lack of data, and because it has been proven that many of those registered therein have never been arrested or even interviewed by the authorities.
Reyes Blanco commented that, among the detainees, a group has already been released because it has been confirmed that they have had no criminal participation, others are under a non-detaining precautionary measure, and there are defendants in the preparatory phase, with a precautionary measure of provisional imprisonment.
TORTURE WILL NEVER BE A PRACTICE OF THE CUBAN AUTHORITIES.
Another matrix that has been tried to be positioned in the social networks puts the dart in the occurrence of torture with those involved in the destabilizing actions.
Colonel Alvarez Valle said, “just like forced disappearances, torture is not a practice in Cuba. The history of the Revolution proves it, and it is not and will not be the practice of the combatants of the Ministry of the Interior to use force against those being prosecuted”. He also said that Cuba is a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
José Luis Reyes detailed that, after the riots, the presence of prosecutors in the units has increased, because it is in the interest of hearing the opinion of the detainees, and this is a favorable scenario for dialogue and to convey any concerns or complaints.
The broadcast of Hacemos Cuba also called attention to a complaint of a young man who has escalated in recent hours in social networks, referring to acts of violence committed against him, after being detained after the riots.
This person, the colonel pointed out, is subject to a precautionary measure of house arrest for a previous process, which implies requirements that he has to comply with; however, he was in the street, outside the vicinity of his home, in the middle of the disturbances of the order, which breaks the provisions, of which he was informed.
Prosecutor Reyes Blanco added that, among the complaints in progress at the Prosecutor’s Office, there is that of this young man, since his father presented himself at the said body. All the data were taken and the pertinent inquiries and investigations will be carried out, with total transparency.
Should any irregularity arise, said the colonel, the circumstances in which the facts occurred would be clarified and the corresponding measures would be taken, either in the disciplinary order, if he were a combatant, or in the criminal order if the conduct were to be in violation of the law.
Therefore, arguments were sufficiently clear that in Cuba there are no disappeared or tortured persons, and, if any irregularity occurred or had occurred in the actions of the Ministry of the Interior or the Prosecutor’s Office, it will be investigated, the results will be made known and, if violations are found, measures will be taken to allow the restitution of legality.
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.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
“For Elián, the best book ever written for a child…”, this is how Fidel began the dedication of the copy of The Golden Age that he gave him, on July 14, 2000, in the first meeting they had 20 years ago, after the long battle for the return of the little boy to his homeland. Photo: Granma Archive
Twenty-one years have passed since the return to the homeland, on June 28, 2000, of that six-year-old boy kidnapped in Miami by distant relatives in collusion with the Cuban-American mafia, after losing his mother in the shipwreck of a boat that was trying to reach the U.S. coasts, as a consequence of the irregular migration encouraged by the Cuban Adjustment Act.
He was returned to Cuba under the guardianship of his father seven months after his kidnapping, after the mobilization of all the people of Cuba and a long judicial process, in violation of international law and U.S. laws themselves, since both legislations recognize that the jurisdiction over these cases belongs only to the courts of the country of origin.
Elián González, 20 years after Cuba’s colossal battle for his return
Elián González Brotons was just a six-year-old pionero when, on November 22, 1999, his mother tried to smuggle him out of Cuba. The shipwreck of the boat in which they were traveling caused the death of 11 of the occupants except for Elián and two others. The boy, clinging to a tire, was rescued by fishermen and taken to U.S. territory, where he became, after the just demands of his father, the center of the battle of an entire people during seven months for his return.
Upon arrival in Florida, the child was placed in the care of Lázaro González, his paternal great-uncle living in Miami, who soon after, in open complicity with the anti-Cuban mafia, opposed any attempt to return him to Cuba.
Elián’s father, Juan Miguel González, was unaware of his son’s departure from Cuba and immediately requested his repatriation, an act that was supported by the Cuban Government and all its people.
In spite of the opposition of Elián’s distant relatives to his return to his country, on January 5, 2000, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of the United States recognized Juan Miguel’s parental rights over his son.
The decision was endorsed by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and President William Clinton, and the child was scheduled to be returned by January 14. But relatives and anti-Cuban groups in Miami appealed the decision and took the case to the U.S. courts.
On January 21, Elián’s grandmothers traveled to the United States to look for their grandson. Five days later, after multiple steps, they were able to see him, but only for a few hours, and they had to return alone to Cuba.
Faced with the silence of the U.S. authorities, on December 5, young people from the Technical Youth Brigades (BTJ) protested in front of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana (SINA), against the child’s detention.
The action was the prelude to what would later turn out to be a wave of mass demonstrations, including marches of hundreds of thousands of people -the Marches of the Combatant People-, combative Open Tribunals in different cities of the country and the beginning of the Battle of Ideas.
On December 23, 1999, in front of a group of children who guarded the U.S. Interests Section in Havana on the occasion of the march for the child Elián González, in the José Antonio Echeverría social circle, the Commander in Chief, Fidel Castro, said: “What is beginning today is the second stage of the battle of the masses that we have been waging since Sunday, December 5. It has been and is a battle of ideas, of national and international public opinion, of legal, ethical and human principles, between Cuba and the empire, which in our Homeland is supported by one of the largest and most combative mobilizations that has taken place throughout our history”.
What the SINA officials could not foresee at that time is that this would be the most prolonged and massive popular movement, of those that had taken place since January 1st, 1959, up to the present day.
Elian’s father, Juan Miguel González, traveled to Washington on April 6, but it was not until 16 days later that he was reunited with his son after a federal operation rescued the boy from the kidnappers. The maneuvers reached the Atlanta Court, which in two instances rejected demands for political asylum for Elián, but not an injunction preventing his return.
On Monday, June 26, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in just two days, settled a case that had lasted more than seven months and denied all legal remedies to the abductors. On June 28, 2000, the boy and his father returned to Cuba.
“I feel happy in Cuba, that the result of that struggle led by the Cubans to which the American people and many personalities joined, led by Fidel, gave me the possibility to grow up here, to know him, to be his friend and it is my greatest pride,” Elián said on May 12, 2016.
In July 2010, Elián made public statements in which he thanked the people of Cuba and the United States for having achieved his release and supported his father Juan Miguel at all times; he also declared he did not to hold a grudge against his Miami relatives, protagonists of the kidnapping.
On December 6, 2018, the then President of the Councils of State and Ministers of Cuba, Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, congratulated Elián through his Twitter account on his 25th birthday, and recalled that the battle for his freedom, led by Fidel, showed how many challenges can be overcome together.
His hometown awarded, on December 29, 2019, the young industrial engineer Elián González the title of Illustrious Son of Cárdenas, conferred during the provincial act of Matanzas for the 61st anniversary of the Triumph of the Revolution. The title of Illustrious Son given to the already militant of the Union of Young Communists coincided with the 20th anniversary of the emergence of the Battle of Ideas.
Related information
Youth is the present and future of Cuba, says Elián González
Elián González: “Young people are not the future, they are the present”.
Special program The Battle for Elián
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
This Saturday, June 26th, Rebel Army Captain Orlando Borrego Díaz died in Havana, at the age of 85, due to problems associated with the COVID-19.
Borrego was born in Holguin, on March 3, 1936. From a very young age he began his revolutionary activities. In October 1958 he joined Column No.8 Ciro Redondo, under the command of Commander Ernesto Guevara, in the Escambray.
After the triumph of the Revolution he occupied various responsibilities as Chief of the Military Economic Board of the La Cabaña Regiment (1959) and of the Industrialization Department of INRA (1959-1960), as First Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Industries (1961-1964) and then as Minister of the Sugar Industry (1964-1968). He also served as advisor to the Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers (1973-1980) and as an economic advisor to the Che Guevara Chair of the University of Havana, as well as to the Minister of Transportation. He was also a close collaborator of Comandante Ernesto Che Guevara.
Orlando Borrego graduated with a degree in Economics from the University of Havana, and in 1980 he obtained the Scientific Degree of Doctor in Economic Sciences at the Institute of Economics and Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
He was the author of several books, among them: El desarrollo de la Industria Azucarera en Cuba (1965), La ciencia de dirección, antecedentes y enfoques actuales (1987), El Che en el socialismo (1989), El Che del siglo XXI (1997) and Che, el camino del fuego (2001).
For his successful service to the Revolution he received numerous decorations and awards. His body was cremated.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Photo: Cover of the book
Forced to walk on tiptoe, deprived of the outside world, longing for air and freedom, sharing with others that loneliness that persists even when accompanied, trusting that the end would be “good”, that is how Anne Frank lived her last two years.
She went from being the talkative 13-year-old schoolgirl who was always “the first to play jokes, the eternal joker,” to feeling “conscious of being a woman of moral strength and courage.”
She, whirlwind and din, independent, flirtatious, interested in the history and mythology of Greece and Rome, should be remembered not only for the causes that brought death upon her, but for the vitality with which she faced them, certain that, at the end of that terrible struggle, she would be recognized as other people and not only as a Jewess.
“I want to go on living, even after my death. That is why I am grateful to God who, since my birth, gave me the possibility (…) of expressing everything that happens in me. When I write I forget everything, my sorrow disappears and my courage is reborn. But – and this is the main question – will I ever be able to write something lasting, will I ever be able to be a journalist or a writer?”
No wonder then that, that night of March 28, 1944 while listening to the radio, all eyes around her turned to her and her diary seemed “taken by storm,” after hearing Minister Bolkestein say that at the end of the war letters and memoirs concerning that time would be collected. “Fix yourself a novel about the annex published by me! Wouldn’t that be interesting, wouldn’t it?” she left initialed in her notes on the evening.
Thanks to the memoirs she so skillfully recorded in her diary, humanity has been able to know how those eight Jews who clandestinely lived in the annex of a warehouse in Holland ate, slept, talked and spent their days, terrified by the constant bombing and the fierce fear of being “discovered and shot” by the Gestapo, all this while half the world was sinking into hunger, misery and death unleashed by the Second World War.
In Kitty – as she called “the very first surprise” she received on June 12, 1942, on her thirteenth birthday – she found someone to whom she could confide without reserve everything she was unable to express, not even to her parents and sister. Overwhelmed by family conflicts, those of adolescence and those caused by confinement, war and the feeling of being besieged, Anne gave no respite to her pen and diary, the basis of her truncated yearnings to have fun, ride a bicycle, go to school, dance, whistle, have a place in the world and work for her fellow humans.
There, amid the suffocation of confinement, she found love in Peter, the son of the family with whom the Franks shared the annex. “Every time he looks at me with those eyes (…) a little flame seems to light up in me”. Anne understood in the midst of all the horror that “he who is happy can make others happy. Whoever loses neither courage nor confidence, will never perish from misery”.
She, like so many other Jews, died in a concentration camp, just one month before it was liberated. Today, when the world is plunged in hatred and conflicts, the firmness of spirit is the best tribute to that young woman murdered by human monstrosity.
Author:
Marina Menéndez Quintero | marina@juventudrebelde.cu
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The pencil is the symbol of Peru Libre, which “the Professor” carries to seal his words in the large rallies that have accompanied him. “Word of a teacher”, he assures when he explains to the crowds. Author: Taken from Internet Published: 05/06/2021 | 08:01 pm
It could be said that, as Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador were in their time, he is also an outsider: a man outside politics who is said to have formulated his candidacy as a presidential candidate on the same day that the registration period closed. On that date, he was accepted by Peru Libre. Today, Pedro Castillo has real possibilities of being elected president and of bringing about changes.
But only the primordial character in these matters relates him to those other candidates who, like him, came to the elections virtually outside the parties, when in the formal political sphere they were still little known: the distances between Castillo and those other outsiders of the region are enormous.
His formation as a very humble rural teacher in a remote locality of Puña, in Cajamarca, where he still lives and, recently, a social activism that placed him as leader of two popular mobilizations let him be seen -of course, from a distance- as a man with bullet-proof authenticity that he proclaims wearing the native hat of his homeland, and that he has shielded with his speech. It is the same hat he wore as a “comunero” and “rondero”, as they call in his country the peasants who stand guard to protect their region from the violent ones.
He speaks simply because he is simple; also, perhaps, because of that gift of explaining clearly that a teacher always has and, surely, so that those from below understand. And he “speaks well”, because in academic matters he is not an improvised: he studied Pedagogy at the University and also has a master’s degree in Educational Psychology.
By antagonism, these qualities gain weight when Pedro Castillo has in front of him, for the second electoral round that will decide the presidency of Peru this Sunday, a precocious candidate worn out as a political figure from so much climbing to the proscenium, on whom weighs repeated accusations of corruption and the 25-year prison sentence that her father Alberto Fujimori is serving for those and other sins. A candidate with a portfolio full of the same empty promises that only portend more of the same.
In spite of this, Keiko Fujimori is running for the third time for the first magistracy, and the polls say that she finished the campaign on the heels of her rival, although better positioned than when she started.
Keiko, the political heir of her father, Alberto Fujimori, would keep the neoliberal model intact. Hers could be a term of social and legal instability because there are legal cases against her. Photo: Reuters.
In the face of the right-wing candidate of Fuerza Peru and her deceitful speech, political “virginity” and, at the same time, the will for change of “the Professor” stands out, as Castillo is known with the respect that the teaching profession awakens, especially among the poor, because for them education is almost always something foreign.
When one examines his program, it may be thought that he gathers the sentiments of the dispossessed and, therefore, that he has been able to overcome the skepticism created by the accusations of corruption that persecuted six former presidents in the last 20 years, and for some of whom exercising the Government turned out to be a form of profit.
The disbelief that this provoked was visible in the almost 30 percent abstention rate and the 17 percent of invalid votes in the first round: altogether, a figure that placed these indices as real winners.
Previously, in November, non-conformity exploded through the resounding demonstrations provoked by the deposition in Congress of the penultimate former president, Martin Vizcarra, because the legislature had once again disregarded the laws and the people.
A cardinal aspect is that the aspirant of Peru Libre has included among his proposals the installation of a Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution, a demand to which the radicalized demands of the street protests were directed.
Pedro Castillo has said that he will sponsor foreign investment, but “with order”, and has criticized that they take the money out of the country, for which he speaks of nationalizing the wealth, as well as the renegotiation of the tax stability contracts with the big companies. He has promised what he calls a “second agrarian reform”.
In addition, he proposes the universalization of the health system, the creation of the Ministry of Science and Technology “because Peru cannot be only a primary exporting country”, he has said on Twitter. He also proposes an increase of the budget for research in development and free entrance to higher education, as well as decentralizing public universities.
However, the first focus of his eventual government would be aimed at combating the pandemic, for which he has proposed, among other measures, the creation of a council composed of scientists, public health technicians and researchers, in order to design effective measures against Covid-19.
The polls
He was a man virtually unknown in Peru two months ago, until he was the most voted candidate in the other round with only 19 percent of the ballots. A surprise.
Now he seems a step away from victory. But the margins of difference with Keiko are so close that it is difficult to predict.
It could be said that the flood of endorsements has come to Castillo in a “natural” way if one takes into account the scarcity of resources of his campaign and the same austerity and relative youth of the party that welcomed him and launched him into the arena, and against the backdrop of dirty campaigns.
Peru Libre was founded in 2007 under the slogan “Force born of the people!”, with the declared purpose in its statutes of “the search for social justice expressed in the welfare of man as the highest aspiration, making Peruvian society more equitable, less exclusive and that all Peruvians have equal opportunities formerly denied, striving for development from each of the angles in which they act and develop”.
The right-wing insists on branding Castillo as a communist in order to close the way to him, re-editing an old fear that seemed to be buried with the era of McCarthyism.
As expected, the conservative media campaign has been furious against him and includes other accusations against the candidate and the leaders of Peru Libre, without discarding the lawfare chapter that could be the accusations of money laundering that are once again waved against the general secretary of the group, Vladimir Cerron, wielded this week in a hurry in the clear desire to disqualify the leftist candidate until the last minute, as in a final sprint.
Thus, the voting intention has been “polarized”. The candidates represent antagonistic programs and, therefore, very different social classes.
Everything could be seen, a little superficially, in this way: those who want the status quo have closed ranks behind Keiko, even valuing that of “the lesser evil”, just to stop the opponent. The poor and those who want change are rallying behind Castillo.
Opinion polls show that she is stronger in the northern departments and cities; he has preeminence in the countryside and the central and southern regions.
Seven days ago, the latest polls showed the aspirant of Peru Libre in the lead, but only two points and tenths ahead of his rival, whom three weeks ago he was leading, however, by up to ten percentage points.
The resounding 51 percent that opinion polls showed for “the Professor” last Sunday, and the 48.8 percent registered by Fujimori, suggested a technical tie.
Whatever the result, the “news” was already carried by the surprising emergence of Pedro Castillo into political life. Even if he did not win, this could be his start as leader of the sectors that bet on a different Peru.
By Cuban members of Latin American Studies Association.
Spanish original, comments, and a place to sign on here:
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/carta-abierta-LA
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
On relations between LASA and its Cuban membership.
For more than forty years, against all odds, relations of collaboration and exchange have been forged between Latin Americanists and academic institutions in the United States and Cuba. This cooperation has been possible because the spirit of dialogue and goodwill has prevailed over ideological differences, and has been able to overcome, with intelligence and perseverance, all obstacles, which have been legion. Wind and tide have included the legacy of mistrust, ideological mistrust, bureaucratic obstacles, attempts to hijack, politicize or instrumentalize the meeting spaces, among them, the one offered by the Latin American Studies Association (LASA).
No other North American institution has contributed so much to open the way for cooperation and to develop mutual trust between the two sides. Through that door opened thanks to the perseverance and patience of both sides, other institutions, universities, NGOs, foundations, research centers, agencies, organizations, and a stream of academics and intellectuals, artists and professionals in communication, social research and the sciences, have built, step by step, an alternative path, both to interference and to the fortress mentality under siege. Their merit, after more than four decades, has been to prevent the closing of a window of dialogue and understanding between civil societies and the culture of both shores, to create a climate of academic freedom, and to promote critical and rigorous social sciences and humanities.
So much progress has been made that LASA decided 24 years ago to set up a Cuba Section. This existed only with some countries in the field of Latin American studies, charged with fostering exchange and making democratic decisions regarding mutual relations, with the active presence of academics from both sides, both in its membership and in its governance. Each year, access to the Section’s membership and steering committee has been open to all persons eligible for membership in LASA. Its positions have been elected through open nomination and secret and direct elections. The Section’s membership and access to these positions have followed LASA’s own rules, which do not discriminate on the basis of gender, skin color or political ideology. Cuban members, particularly those of us who have played a role in promoting this exchange, have actively contributed to the respect for these rules.
Cuba should not be measured by a different yardstick than other Latin American countries, nor the United States itself. In fact, rejecting double standards and preconditions have been premises for intellectuals and artists involved in this exchange. LASA, however, has favored the continuity of our presence with specific policies for its Cuban members. It has made an effort to compensate for the disadvantages produced by US policies against Cuba. These reflect a Cold War pattern, which limits our access to those spaces; but also that of Latin Americanists there, whose research and academic and cultural programs in Cuba have been hindered, among other things, by mechanisms designed to prevent their counterparts from receiving direct support from the US. When LASA has adopted such special policies towards residents in Cuba, as well as when it has explicitly condemned the blockade, it has been consistent with an institutional position opposed to any ideological discrimination and in favor of the professional interest of its members.
The recent “Pronouncement on the protection of human rights in Cuba” does not facilitate the continuation of this pattern of understanding, nor does it contribute to the dialogue that has characterized our collaboration. Its effect is evidenced by the negative reactions it has elicited from both sides, in a short period of time, against LASA’s leadership, from opposing positions on the political spectrum.
This “Pronouncement” arose from a letter originally signed by a score of members, and a majority of non-members, which was echoed by the association’s Secretariat, despite being written in a tone alien to the respect it seeks to promote. Although the LASA “Pronouncement” does not have the character of a resolution, nor the tone of the letter that originated it, it does adopt a unilateral attitude, alien to the dialogue that has characterized relations. It states that LASA’s rejection of the blockade does not imply ignoring its “commitment to the values of freedom of expression, academic freedom and respect for human rights in the context of democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law.” As if those principles and values were alien to many of us, it adopts a sobering and strange tone, after so long of dialoguing and listening to each other.
If that text had been discussed with the members of the Cuba Section, we could have debated its real contribution and effectiveness in promoting academic freedoms and human rights. We could have explained how, throughout these difficult years, we have worked to expand critical discussion of our problems, not only in academic and cultural circles, but in civil society and among Cuban citizens, on the island and in the United States. We could have demonstrated how the exercise of academic freedom has extended to LASA’s exchange with institutions, researchers, professors and practicing artists throughout Cuba, beyond capital elites, who sometimes arrogate to themselves national representation. We would have presented a view of our problems, like the one we usually bring to LASA panels, neither satisfied nor apologetic, sharing lessons learned about democracy and sovereignty, from the concrete experience of having fought for both, as well as for a rule of law, which the current Constitution incorporates, and whose realization requires a climate of dialogue and understanding. None of the above is substituted by unilateral judgments.
This message from us to the LASA Secretariat does not suggest that it abused its prerogatives under the association’s bylaws, nor does it purport to represent the consensus of the Cuba Section. Nor should it be confused with any of the attacks against LASA that have been circulating in recent days. We write it as simple members of LASA, recognized by the award that the Section grants in democratic consultation with its members, for contributing to the development of this relationship. From that condition, we advocate constructive communication that avoids bad precedents and wars of pronouncements, the uncovering of which for any possible reason arising here or there would be harmful to bridges already exposed to incessant hostility.
It is no secret that during the short summer of the Obama administration, cultural and academic exchanges were the areas where most progress was made in terms of inter-institutional agreements. As is well-known, ideological polarization is the last thing that changes in Cuba need, as well as the delayed path of cooperation between Washington and Havana.
Only through the continuity of that dialogue, and the application of the concepts that govern LASA as an institution, will we be able to preserve a collaboration that has been an example of democracy and mutual respect, as well as contribute to the protection of our freedoms and human rights practices in the field of education and culture, here and there.
Aurelio Alonso Tejada
Miguel Barnet Lanza
Rafael Hernandez
Nancy Morejón
Pedro Pablo Rodriguez
Ambrosio Fornet
Spanish original, comments, and a place to sign on here:
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/carta-abierta-LA
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.