Poliomielitis, Covid-19 y el Socialismo
Poliomielitis, Covid-19 y el Socialismo
Por Louis Proyect
14 de marzo de 2020
Traducido por Walter Lippmann por CubaNews.
Paul Alexander, uno de los pocos supervivientes que quedan, pasa casi todo el día dentro de su pulmón de acero.
En 1952, cuando yo era muy joven, el miedo se apoderó de mi pequeño pueblo en Catskills y también de todo Estados Unidos. Ese año, sesenta mil niños se vieron afectados por el virus de la poliomielitis, que dejó 3.000 muertos y a miles más paralizados. Algunos niños fueron mantenidos con vida en un pulmón de hierro que funcionaba como el ventilador de hoy en día, pero que los mantenía confinados en un virtual ataúd viviente.
A ese verano lo llamaron la “estación de la polio”. En Woodridge, teníamos el lago Kaplan, un estanque mas bien, en el que nadaban los niños de por allí. Yo iba allí principalmente a caminar cerca de la playa. Un verano, nuestros padres nos dijeron que lo iban a cerrar por la epidemia de la polio. También nos advirtieron que no nos sentáramos demasiado cerca en los cines, un verdadero problema cuando la última película de Martin y Lewis tenía a los niños haciendo cola alrededor de la manzana para comprar una entrada en el Lyceum Theater de Woodridge.
FDR fue probablemente la víctima de la poliomielitis más conocida en Estados Unidos, pero muchos otros padecieron la enfermedad, como Neil Young y Francis Ford Coppola, que tuvieron casos más leves. Patrick Cockburn, nacido en 1950, enfermó de polio a los seis años. En 2005 escribió un libro sobre su experiencia, titulado “The Broken Boy” (El chico roto). En una entrevista con NPR ese año, el presentador le dijo: “Te quedó una cojera, una cojera severa. Pero usted entrevistó a otros supervivientes que estaban realmente mucho peor”. Cockburn respondió:
Sí, muchos de ellos. Un hombre que se convirtió en empresario tuvo que aprender a firmar su nombre con los dientes, con un bolígrafo clavado en los dientes y un aparato especial. A muchos otros les afectó la espalda, los pulmones y las piernas. Pero mucha gente se defendió. Conocí a un agricultor que tenía miedo de que cuando volviera a casa, por estar tan lisiado, la gente no lo aceptara. Pero, en realidad, su familia -y las familias irlandesas son muy fuertes- readaptó la granja para que pudiera manejar la maquinaria agrícola, para que pudiera ser un agricultor trabajador. Y muchas otras personas lucharon contra dificultades extraordinarias.
Para muchos médicos, el objetivo de desarrollar una vacuna para prevenir la polio se convirtió en algo primordial. FDR fundó la Fundación Nacional para la Parálisis Infantil en 1938 y promovió la Marcha de las Monedas de 10 centavos para la investigación de la polio. Cuando Harry Truman llegó a la presidencia, se comprometió a luchar contra la poliomielitis utilizando un lenguaje que recordaba al New Deal de los años 30:
La lucha contra la parálisis infantil no puede ser una guerra local. Debe ser a nivel nacional. Debe ser una guerra total en cada ciudad, pueblo y aldea del país. Porque sólo con un frente unido podemos esperar ganar cualquier guerra.
Dos médicos investigadores, judíos de Nueva York, fueron fundamentales en el desarrollo de una vacuna. Ninguno de ellos vio esto como una forma de hacerse rico. Su objetivo era únicamente salvar la vida de los niños.
Nacido en Nueva York en 1914, Jonas Salk desarrolló en 1955 una vacuna basada en virus muertos de la polio. El respaldo a su proyecto fue universal, con 100 millones de contribuyentes a la Marcha de las Monedas de 10 centavos, y 7 millones de voluntarios caminando por las calles con el emblemático banco colector.
Collection bank. 2005.3016.11.
Salk podría haber ganado millones patentando la vacuna, pero prefirió que estuviera lo más disponible posible. Cuando acudió al popular programa “Person to Person” de Edward R. Murrow, el presentador le preguntó a quién pertenecía la patente. Salk respondió: “Bueno, yo diría que a la gente. No hay ninguna patente. ¿Podría usted patentar el sol?” (Si se hubiera patentado, valdría 7.000 millones de dólares).
Da la casualidad de que Salk se graduó en el CCNY, un semillero de radicalismo en la década de 1930. No es de extrañar que J. Edgar Hoover tuviera su número. Cinco años antes de que presentara la vacuna, fue objeto de una investigación del FBI. Al escribirle a Dillon Anderson, uno de los más cercanos ayudantes de Eisenhower, Hoover recapituló sus transgresiones:
•Tres asociados no identificados de Salk, profesores de la Universidad de Michigan, dijeron que durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial Salk contribuyó a la ayuda de guerra para la Unión Soviética y fue “muy abierto” en sus elogios a ese país. Los asociados dijeron que Salk elogió los avances técnicos del país, mientras que su esposa, Donna, era aún más abierta en sus elogios a todos los aspectos de la vida soviética, escribió Hoover.
•Uno de los asociados profesionales de Salk en la U-M en la década de 1940 dijo que Salk estaba “muy a la izquierda del centro”. Otro asociado señaló que una organización liberal de la que Salk fue tesorero en 1946 se convirtió en “izquierdista” bajo el liderazgo de Salk.
•Salk y su esposa se inscribieron para votar al Partido Laborista Americano a principios de la década de 1940, dice la carta. Según un informante, el Partido Comunista se convirtió en una fuerza de control del ALP dentro de las áreas de la ciudad de Nueva York durante ese tiempo.
•Un informante informó que el hermano de Salk, Lee, era miembro del Partido Comunista en Ann Arbor en 1948.
•Según un informante, dijo Hoover, el nombre de Salk apareció en la lista de correo de la Conferencia de Nueva York por los Derechos Inalienables en 1941. El grupo fue citado como fachada comunista por el Comité de Actividades Antiamericanas de la Cámara de Representantes.
Nacido como Albert Saperstein en Bialystok, Polonia, en 1906, Albert Sabin se licenció en medicina en la Universidad de Nueva York, al igual que Salk. A diferencia de Salk, el objetivo de Sabin era desarrollar una vacuna basada en el virus debilitado de la polio. Ambas vacunas funcionaron, pero la de Sabin tenía la ventaja de poder tomarse por vía oral y ser más duradera.
Desafiando la histeria de la Guerra Fría, Sabin trabajó estrechamente con médicos y científicos del bloque soviético, lo que le valió la reputación de trabajar en una “vacuna comunista”. En un artículo titulado “La vacunación y el Estado comunista: la poliomielitis en Europa del Este”, Dora Vargha concluye que los Estados comunistas eran capaces de “hacer cosas buenas”, como ha dicho Bernie Sanders:
Tanto Oriente como Occidente compartían la percepción de lo que era el Estado comunista y su papel ideal en la prevención de la poliomielitis. Tras la aparición y la aplicación con éxito de las vacunas con poliovirus vivos, los estados de Europa del Este se consideraron especialmente aptos para lograr la eficacia en la contención -y erradicación- de la poliomielitis gracias a su participación en el desarrollo de la vacuna y su distribución. Occidente, aunque no respaldaba ideológicamente estos regímenes políticos, estaba de acuerdo. De hecho, Checoslovaquia, Hungría y Polonia se convirtieron en pioneros en la introducción, prueba y aplicación de vacunas de poliovirus vivo a escala masiva, mientras que sus pares de Europa del Este se apresuraron a seguirles en la vacunación masiva.
Desde una perspectiva geopolítica más amplia, la poliomielitis planteó cuestiones incómodas sobre el lado positivo de los regímenes comunistas (es decir, el control eficaz de las epidemias) y en poco tiempo llegó a simbolizar la ciencia “neutral” que rompía las barreras entre Oriente y Occidente. La organización vertical de los ensayos de vacunas y la inmunización, que en aquel momento se consideraba especialmente comunista y de Europa del Este, también pasó a considerarse la forma más eficaz de erradicar la poliomielitis a escala mundial.
Sabin continuó colabronado con las demonizadas sociedades post-capitalistas mucho tiempo después. En un artículo de 2014 titulado “Epidemias y oportunidades de colaboración entre Estados Unidos y Cuba”, Marguerite Jiménez describió su perspectiva internacionalista:
Varios años después de su apertura a la colaboración con la Unión Soviética, Sabin puso sus ojos en un colaborador comunista mucho más pequeño, uno que estaba mucho más cerca de casa. Sabin había viajado a Cuba varias veces antes de la revolución cubana de 1959, pero no había podido volver desde principios de los años cincuenta. A pesar de haber recibido múltiples invitaciones de funcionarios de salud pública de la isla a principios de la década de 1960, la escalada de las hostilidades entre Estados Unidos y Cuba hizo casi imposible una visita de tan alto perfil por parte de un famoso científico estadounidense.
La entusiasta búsqueda de Sabin de oportunidades de colaboración con la Unión Soviética durante la década de 1950 presagió sus esfuerzos en Cuba por superar los obstáculos políticos y el melodrama diplomático. En consecuencia, a finales de 1965, cuando el Departamento de Estado anunció una relajación de las restricciones a los viajes a las naciones comunistas por parte de ciertas categorías de profesionales, Sabin aprovechó rápidamente la oportunidad. El Departamento de Estado informó de que la relajación había respondido a la “insistencia de la comunidad médica” y se había hecho por razones de “humanidad” para promover una mayor cooperación internacional en la lucha contra las enfermedades. Aunque la investigación médica justificaba el carácter humanitario de la medida, el New York Times informó de que “la esperanza en los círculos oficiales era que los científicos médicos pudieran abrir la puerta a una cooperación más estrecha en otras áreas científicas.” Sabin envió inmediatamente copias del anuncio a sus colegas en Cuba y en veinticuatro horas recibió una invitación a través de la Misión Permanente de Cuba ante las Naciones Unidas.
Finalmente, tras casi dos años de planificación, Sabin llegó a La Habana el 4 de diciembre de 1967. Durante su estancia en Cuba, tuvo la oportunidad de visitar y reunirse con personas de una amplia gama de instituciones científicas y médicas, así como de hospitales, policlínicas e instalaciones de investigación. Aunque otros elementos de su viaje se hicieron públicos gracias a un puñado de artículos periodísticos sobre el tema publicados tanto en Estados Unidos como en Cuba, lo que no es comúnmente conocido es que durante su viaje, Sabin se reunió con Antonio Núñez Jiménez, un joven y prominente líder dentro del régimen de Fidel Castro y presidente de la Academia de Ciencias de Cuba. Sabin describió a Jiménez como una persona “de armas tomar” y “muy agradable”.
Ayer me acordé de Salk y Sabin tras leer un informe del Instituto de Investigación Sunnybrook, un hospital asociado a la Universidad de Toronto. Titulado “El equipo de investigación ha aislado el virus COVID-19”, revelaba que el Dr. Robert Kozak, la Dra. Samira Mubareka y el Dr. Arinjay Banerjee habían aislado el coronavirus del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo 2 (SARS-CoV-2), el agente responsable del actual brote de COVID-19.
Esa información sería fundamental para desarrollar una vacuna. Al describir su descubrimiento, Arinjay Banerjee se mostró muy en la tradición Salk/Sabin: “Ahora que hemos aislado el virus del SRAS-CoV-2, podemos compartirlo con otros investigadores y seguir trabajando en equipo. Cuantos más virus estén disponibles de este modo, más podremos aprender, colaborar y compartir.”
Colaborar y compartir. Eso no sólo es necesario para superar el COVID-19, sino para salvar al mundo de la destrucción capitalista.
Farhad Manjoo, uno de los únicos columnistas de opinión del New York Times que se pueden leer, estaba en lo cierto cuando escribió que “todo el mundo es socialista en una pandemia”. Escribió:
Puede haber un resquicio de esperanza: ¿Y si el virus obliga a los estadounidenses y a sus representantes a reconocer la fuerza de un ethos colectivista? El coronavirus, de hecho, ofrece algo así como un anticipo de muchas de las amenazas a las que podríamos enfrentarnos por los peores efectos del cambio climático. Como el virus no discrimina y es casi ineludible, nos deja a todos, ricos y pobres, en el mismo barco: La única manera de que cualquiera de nosotros esté realmente protegido es si el más pequeño de nosotros está protegido.
Amén.
…
The Virus of Inequality
The virus of inequality or inequality in the virus
Two reports warn of a truth, the deadly Covid-19 pandemic has increased inequities and global differences and although anyone can get sick, those with lower incomes add up much more in the statistics, are poorer and will have less access to the hopeful vaccine …
Author: Juana Carrasco Martin
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The combined wealth of ten of the world’s richest people could pay for vaccines to immunize everyone Author: Twitter Published: 02/02/2021 | 03:38 pm
Oxfam has been adamant that the combined wealth of the world’s ten richest people could pay for vaccines to immunize the entire world. At the same time, the International Labor Organization stated in a report that the Covid-19 pandemic has caused the loss of 255 million jobs.
Social inequity, unequal opportunities to access goods and services such as housing, education or health are among the consequences of the world’s health situation, where more than 103 million people have fallen ill and more than two million have died, and the count continues, while the vaccines already in use, which are not enough and are the object of disputes between first world countries that can afford them and are among their manufacturers, do not seem to be distributed fairly….
Those who have called it the virus of inequality are right. Here are some data that prove it.
The Oxfam report is titled “The Inequality Virus: Reuniting a coronavirus-torn world through a fair, just and sustainable economy,” and it announces all that it means and is needed.
Paul O’Brien, vice president of Oxfam America, in an interview with Democracy Now, noted of the pandemic situation: “The 10 richest people ended up making half a trillion dollars during the pandemic. The richest thousand got back all the money they lost in the pandemic, and they reached the same level of wealth in nine months. But at the same time, it has been disastrous for people at the extreme end of poverty.”
The report of this international confederation of 19 non-governmental organizations, which carry out humanitarian work in 90 countries under the slogan “working with others to combat poverty and suffering”, as they describe it on the Internet, warns that in the face of these exorbitant profits of billionaires, poor people will not recover from the economic and health crisis for at least a decade. If it does, it should be noted.
“In every country we looked at, inequality has worsened during the pandemic,” O’Brien added.
The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) pointed out that this economic crisis and the slow exit from it will lead to the closure of 2.7 million companies in the region alone and some 8.5 million more workers will lose their jobs, in an emergency that by 2020 had already led to a significant drop in growth and economic contraction.
The economic recovery will be fragile and uneven, is the sharp forecast of ECLAC; the painful conclusion for millions of Latin Americans and Caribbeans who were already going through a limited growth, to which now add the consequences of the pandemic as the lower export of raw materials and the collapse of tourism, among other indices in decline.
ECLAC’s Executive Secretary, Alicia Bárcena, added other significant data in red: 54 percent of the region’s labor force does not have social protection or access to public health services.
Of this proportion, 57 percent are women, and this index added an aggravating factor that is reproduced in other regions of the world, even in developed countries. The International Labor Organization also brought its concerns to the 51st World Economic Forum in Davos, which met virtually this week and not in its usual snowy retreat in the Swiss Alps.
Globally, the pandemic cost workers $3.7 trillion in lost income and the destruction of the equivalent of 255 million jobs in 2020, four times the impact of the 2009 global financial crisis, the ILO reported.
But the summit meeting of politicians, businessmen and representatives of social and cultural organizations, which this time did not take place as usual in Thomas Mann’s Magic Mountain, did not exactly provide prodigious solutions at a peremptory moment for the planet. On the contrary, the widespread resurgence of the coronavirus, and even the new strains, highlighted the old weaknesses of health systems around the world, the injustices, the inaccessibility to medical care and vaccination that should be for everyone.
The slogan “The Great Reset” was crushed by an avalanche, and in this January 2021, as in the novel of the great writer, the problems discussed at the Davos Forum and the lack of intention to address them from what is fair, can be seen as the decadence of a way of life where the selfishness of those who only count profits in their finances over world health takes precedence.
The pandemic is conjunctural, although of extreme gravity. That is why its combination with structural problems, the same ones year after year, multiply the effects of inequity.
Check it out in these statements by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, when the bloc intensified stricter monitoring of vaccine exports to countries outside the union. This is the case of the United Kingdom, because they had invested billions of euros and that “companies must now deliver” their vaccines to the 27 member states. “… We will set up a transparency mechanism for vaccine exports. Europe is determined to contribute. But it also means business.”
Ultimately that is the transparent truth,. The EU is a union of high-income rich countries, home to 342 billionaires; however, 123 million people at risk of poverty also reside there, Oxfam reported.
So what should we leave for the always neglected Africa? Cyril Ramaphosa, president of the African Union and of South Africa – one of the countries most affected by the coronavirus and even contributing a new strain, apparently of greater spread and lethality -, during his speaks at the 51st edition of the Davos Economic Forum, rightly criticized what he defined as “vaccine nationalism”, that is, the implementation of this selfish and inhuman attitude of hoarding, which hinders an equitable distribution of vaccines. “The rich countries of the world went out and acquired large doses (…) Some even acquired up to four times more than what their population needs excluding other countries”, a denunciation that he joined to the substantial comment: an increase in poverty is “expected for the first time in decades” and added, “the challenges we face were not created by the virus, they were created by us”.
You and I are not “us”, it is clear who fall into that category in the current pandemic and in the ancestral ills of that continent, the most powerful nations of the world that were colonial or neo-colonial empires.
The AFP news agency commented in this regard that bilateral agreements between governments and companies manufacturing vaccines against the Covid-19 virus could raise the prices of the drug and limit its supply to some regions.
Of course, the EU is not alone in this hoarding, where the United States and Donald Trump’s promise-threat that his country would be the first to be immunized and the willingness to buy all the vaccines produced in the world takes the lead.
Ramaphosa ratified the necessary denunciation: “We are concerned about vaccine nationalism (…) The rich countries of the world are holding on to these vaccines and we say: release the excess vaccines you have ordered and stockpiled”.
Reuters reported these days that the United Kingdom ordered 367 million doses of seven different vaccines for its population of approximately 67 million inhabitants, and the European Union secured almost 2.3 billion doses for a population of 450 million inhabitants.
However, the African continent, with some 1.3 billion inhabitants, barely completed 600 million doses of the international vaccine Covax, under the aegis of the WHO, which is also being requested by the rich countries.
We are faced with the confirmed presence of inequality in the midst of the terrible coronavirus.
Provocation in its Context
Provocation in its Context (+Video)
It is surprising how dates that have special significance in the collective imagination continue to be used to try to colonize our memory. There must be a limit to the lack of legality, responsibility and decorum with which some want to manage the affairs of the nation.
Author: Karima Oliva Bello | internet@granma.cu
February 1, 2021 01:02:44 AM
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Photo: Ismael Batista Ramírez
The most recent events in front of the Ministry of Culture are not an expression of the violence of our State against young people with a critical stance, who want to dialogue, although this is how the anti-Revolutionary media present it. Instead, the events manifest the agenda of a group that, although it uses dialogue as a media façade, in reality assumes a frankly sabotaging attitude towards it. Dialogue, in this particular case, has not been the intention of the staging we have seen.
It is, rather, an unjustified siege of a Cuban institution (and its workers) that has created the conditions for dialogue to become viable. It is inscribed, with a markedly provocative character, within a dynamic of events that in recent times have been capitalized by known agents at the service of the outgoing U.S. government for the destabilization of the country, and the deployment of a coup d’état for political change in Cuba.
Two aspects are evidence of the opportunism with which the provocation was projected. In the first place, we are facing the most difficult moment since the pandemic began due to the number of daily infections, while the Cuban State is making commendable efforts to save lives, to create a vaccine that will allow us to be immunized as soon as possible and to carry forward, at the same time, a process of order that was necessary, but which creates a complex socio-economic context.
Secondly, these are acts of provocation that may further complicate the scenario of relations between Cuba and the United States, just at a time when a president has just taken office in the neighboring country who has declared his intention to review the current state of the aggressive policies of the previous administration, aimed at aggravating the economic blockade, genocidal violence perpetrated by the same people who pay some of the protagonists of the provocation we have just seen.
We invite you to weigh all these basic questions and to think about the violence that would be unleashed against our people if we were to allow the plans of those who wish to destabilize the country, assuming such irresponsible positions at a time like the present, to be carried out.
We are also facing facts that have an important symbolic connotation, we cannot ignore that they occurred on January 27, on the eve of another anniversary of the birth of our Apostle. It is surprising how dates that have special significance in the collective imagination continue to be used to try to colonize our memory. There must be a limit to the lack of legality, responsibility and decorum with which some want to manage the affairs of the nation.
On the life and legacy of MLK Jr.
Martin Luther King Jr., comments on his life and legacy
Author: Víctor Fowler
lajiribilla@cubarte.cult.cuJanuary 01 to January 25, 2021
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
On December 1, 1955, during a public bus ride in Montgomery City, Alabama, a 42-year-old black seamstress named Rosa Parks refused to give a white man the seat in which she was sitting. The codes of segregated behavior at the time included that Black people (in the southern states) paid their fare by boarding at the front door, where the driver was located, alighted to re-enter the bus now at the rear door, and only then sought accommodation in the back seats. Black people were not even allowed to walk through the aisle of the bus between white passengers to the back of the bus.
If they acted otherwise, for example, by remaining seated (which is what Parks did), the driver – who, in all likelihood, would offend the offender – was to call the police to take them to the station and, later, to try and punish the Black man or woman foolish enough to violate the rules. A little more than ten years earlier, Parks herself had had an altercation when, after paying, she refused to enter through the back door; on that occasion, rather than be arrested, Parks chose to leave the bus.
“Segregation in theaters, restaurants, hotels and buses was a constant irritation in daily life and an insulting nuisance.” Photos: Internet
The above episode is known as one of the main moments, the detonator, of a protest of leaders and, in general, Black demonstrators who – opposed to this segregationist practice – maintained a boycott against the company that extended, heroically, throughout a year and that would draw the attention of the mass media of the entire country to the violence and cruelty of racial discrimination in the South of the American nation. As stated from the very beginning of the volume Civil Rights in America. Racial desegregation of public accommodations. A National Historic Landmarks theme study:
Physical separation of the races in public accommodations was an uncomfortable and degrading practice for those who were denied equal access. Segregation in theaters, restaurants, hotels and buses was a constant irritation in daily life and an insulting nuisance. This resulted in direct confrontations between racial minorities who demanded their right to pay for goods and services in the marketplace, and white business owners who demanded the right to only serve whom they chose.[i] The segregation of theaters, restaurants, hotels, and buses was a constant irritant in daily life and an insulting nuisance.
The roots of the problem extend to the beginning of the 19th century when the northern states of what would become the United States of America virtually abolished slavery thanks to a variety of “constitutional, judicial or legislative” actions (p. 6). At the same time, in the South, the practices of separation between races intensified.
Along with this, the anxiety of contact meant that in the most racist nuclei of the northern elites, efforts to extend spaces differentiated according to skin color also multiplied. An example of this is the introduction of cars for Black people on trains and the numerous cases of protest and refusal to travel in them (even the great black abolitionist Frederick Douglass was removed from his seat on one occasion for refusing to change cars).
An 1857 court case, Scott v. Sandford (where a slave, Dred Scott, tried to prove that – because he had resided in non-slave states – he should be considered a free man), was to have enormous consequences for the struggles that were to take place a hundred years later and that we know today as the Civil Rights Movement. In the Dred Scott case, which Scott lost, the Supreme Court ruled not only that the plaintiff was not a citizen, but that “Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in the territories”.
In other words, decisions about slavery (and others in this area involving customs) were left to the states and local governments. Another important decision was Hall v. DeCuir (1877) where it was decided that “the laws of a state are not applicable to interstate ship voyages and that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce”. Finally, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) opened the door for the extension of “segregation of the races, provided the separate facilities were of equal quality.” [ii]
Although protests throughout the century led seven southern states to eliminate laws that favored segregation in the public space, legal decisions such as those mentioned above made possible a reality where supply found its most evident application in Black individuals of high economic capacity .For the same price as their white counterparts, Blacks could travel in a sophisticated train carriage, while in the lower economic strata the difference was perfectly visible in the quality of supply and in the treatment received.
II
Parks’ arrest was followed by a mobilization on her behalf whose movers and shakers included Edgar Daniel (E. D.) Nixon, leader of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters (with whom Parks had worked in the NAACP); Clifford Durr, a white Montgomery lawyer and strong advocate of interracial democracy with his wife Virginia; Jo Ann Gibson, an English professor at Alabama State College; and – among the clergy who offered support – a young pastor, just 26 years old, named Martin Luther King Jr. The success of the boycott, planned to last one day, was such that the organizers decided to extend it, and so it ended up spanning an entire year; along the way, on January 30, 1956, a bomb exploded in King’s house and on February 21 -along with almost 90 protest leaders- he was arrested and charged with having organized a boycott considered illegal. On November 13, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited racial segregation in interstate as well as intrastate travel, and so, on December 21, 1956, Reverend King “along with several black and white companions boarded a bus for a historic unsegregated ride” (p. 46).
“Parks’ arrest was followed by a mobilization in her favor.”
From this point on, the life of Martin Luther King Jr. began to become more risky, complex and to grow into a legend. The son and grandson of Baptist pastors, a pastor himself, MLK developed his political, social, religious and cultural action in the brief period from 1955 to April 4, 1968, the date on which he died in Memphis, assassinated by James Earl Ray, a racist shooter. In this brief period, he became a leading figure in the Montgomery bus boycott (1955-1956); he helped found and was the first president (1957) of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLS); led the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in August 1963, where he delivered his famous I Have a Dream speech, recognized as one of the most important pieces of oratory delivered in the country; was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 and was a leading figure in securing passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In addition, he was the central figure in two of the greatest battles for civil rights: those that took place in the cities of Birmingham and Selma, both in the state of Alabama, in 1963.
III
In the first of these, on April 13, 1963, King was arrested and during the three days he was behind bars he wrote his well-known Letter from Birmingham Jail in which he said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable tissue of mutuality, bound together in a simple fabric of destiny. Anything that affects one directly affects all indirectly.” In that same document, MLK would explain the essence of nonviolence (the Gandhian-inspired mode of protest that he breathed into the Civil Rights Movement) as follows:
Why direct action, sit-ins, marches and the like? Isn’t negotiation a better way? You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, that is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the problem. (…) I have worked and preached vigorously against violent tension, but there is a kind of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth.[iii] I have worked and preached vigorously against violent tension, but there is a kind of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth.[iii]
“There is a kind of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth.”
The condition of nonviolence could only find its foundation in the love that cares for the suffering other and that, as part of God’s created works, even embraces the other who oppresses. Because of this, King’s nonviolence opposes both the part of the Black community that accommodates segregation (be it the lower strata or the academic sectors) and those who preach hatred and separation between the races (which, in context, pointed to the Black nationalists of Elijah Muhammad).
IV
Martin Luther King’s social thought reached its greatest radicalism when, in an endeavor that would bring him multiple misunderstandings (even among leaders of the anti-racist struggles) as well as numerous new enemies (both among whites and Blacks), he became one of the most prominent intellectuals and political figures who publicly opposed the Vietnam War. The statement that gained the greatest resonance in this regard was the speech Beyond Vietnam: The Time to Break the Silence, delivered on April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church before an audience of about 300 people, exactly one year before his death, whose first sentence was: “Tonight I have come to this magnificent house of worship because my conscience leaves me no other choice”, and where he singled out the United States as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”. The finesse of the socio-political analysis that MLK was able to develop shines through in excerpts such as the following:
Repeatedly we have been confronted with the cruel irony of watching black and white youths on television screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. We have seen them in brutal solidarity, burning shacks in a poor village, but we understand that they would never live together on the same block in Detroit. I cannot remain silent in the face of this cruel manipulation of the poor.[iv] Increasingly, by choice or by choice alone, the poor are being manipulated.
Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has played – the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and pleasures that come from the immense benefits of investments across the sea.
I am convinced that, if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we need, as a nation, to undergo a radical revolution of values. We need to quickly begin the transformation from a “things-oriented” society to a “people-oriented” society. When property rights and the profit motive are more important than the person, it is impossible to conquer the gigantic trio of racism, materialism and militarism.[v] (Idem)
V
The other enormous cause to which MLK devoted a great deal of energy was the struggle of American workers for better wages, health care, education for their children, and decent housing. The satisfaction of such demands had to derive, in Luther King’s thinking, from the action of workers integrated into a powerful, organized, highly conscious and nonviolent labor movement; the speech delivered to the Illinois state labor union meeting on October 7, 1965, in Springfield is an illustration of that idea as the following quote shows:
The labor movement was the main force transforming misery and despair into hope and progress. As a result of hard-fought battles, economic and social reforms gave birth to unemployment insurance, age pensions, government assistance for the indigent, and, above all, new standards of living that meant mere survival, if not tolerable living. The captains of industry did not lead this transformation; they held out until they were overrun.[vi]
For Cornel West, editor of the volume The Radical King, MLK’s growing engagement with progressive guild leaders “is integral to his calling”; according to the well-known scholar, poverty was for King not only “a barbaric form of tyranny to be banished from the Earth,” but that “the greatness of nations or civilizations is measured not by military might, architectural prowess, or the number of multimillionaire citizens; the greatness of who or what we rather consist in how we treat the least of these: the weak, the vulnerable, the orphan, the widow, the widow, the stranger, the poor, the marginal, and the prisoner (West, 2014).
VI
“The other enormous cause to which MLK devoted a great deal of energy was the struggle of American workers for better wages, health care, education for children, and decent housing.”
MLK’s last (and unfinished) great battle was the so-called “Poor People’s March” -which sought to repeat the massive demonstration of people in front of the Capitol in Washington, which in 1963 had attracted a quarter of a million people-, but now to demand a fairer redistribution of wealth in the country. In political terms, the most outstanding feature of this new mobilization was that it was intended to convene and represent a multiracial sector which, in addition to Black Americans, was intended to include Native Americans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and poor white Americans. Thus, in a speech delivered in New York on March 10, 1968, he was able to say:
Now, I said poor people, too, and by that I mean all poor people. When we go to Washington we are going to have black people with us because black people are poor, but we are also going to have Puerto Ricans because Puerto Ricans are poor in the United States of America. We are going to have Mexican-Americans because they are mistreated. We are going to have Native Americans because they are mistreated. And for those who don’t let their prejudices lead them to blindly support their oppressors, along with us in Washington we’re going to have Appalachian whites (West, 2014).
VII
MLK’s last public speech was the sermon he delivered in Memphis the night before his assassination. Known as I Have Been to the Mountaintop, this beautiful oratorical piece is inspired by the biblical story of Moses (who, after the Exodus, leads the people of Israel to the very Holy Land, although he dies without entering it) to establish a chilling parallel -in light of what was to happen the next day- between the biblical prophet and Martin Luther King himself. Following several investigations and testimonies about those last weeks, the amount of pitfalls, persecution, threats and misunderstanding around MLK damaged his spirit and health, to the point of causing depression and lack of sleep, among other ailments. Some testimonies even speak of the fact that, after years of threat, MLK began to feel, foresee or expect to meet an early death. The speech begins with a strange proposition that the speaker receives from the Almighty himself: to choose the era in which he prefers to live and this, after a long journey through time, turns out to be the one in which we find ourselves. At the end, after mentioning the possible threats to his life, MLK pronounced the following closing paragraph:
We’re going to have some tough days ahead, but I’m not interested in that right now. Because I’ve been to the top of the mountain. And I don’t worry about it. Like anyone else, I’d like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not worried about it now. I just want to fulfill God’s wishes and He has allowed me to climb the mountain. And I’ve looked around. And I have seen the Promised Land. I may not go in there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. And I am happy, tonight. I am not worried about anything. I fear no man. My eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord (West, 2014).
VIII
During the funeral of Martin Luther King Jr., following the wishes of his widow, Coretta, excerpts from the sermon entitled The major drum, King delivered on February 4, 1968, at his Ebenezer Church in Atlanta, Georgia, were heard. May these words serve as a farewell:
If any of you are around when it’s my turn to find my day, I don’t want a long funeral. And if you have someone to say the eulogy, tell them not to talk too much. (…)
Tell him not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize, for that is not important.
Tell him not to mention that I have been awarded three or four hundred other recognitions, because this is not important.
Tell them not to mention where I went to school.
But I would like someone to mention that day that Martin Luther King Jr. tried to give his life in service to others.
I would like someone to say that day that Martin Luther King Jr. tried to love someone.
I want you to say that I tried to take the right stand on the issue of war. I want you to be able to say that day that I tried to feed the hungry.
And I want you to be able to say that in my life I tried to clothe the naked.
I want you to be able to say that day that I tried to visit those who were in prison.
I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.
Yes, say – if you wish – that I was a drum major; say that I was a drum major for justice.
Say I was a drum major for peace.
I was a drum major for honesty and all the other superficial things won’t matter.
I had no money to leave behind me.
I didn’t have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind me.
But I do want to leave a life of commitment and this is all I want to say.
If I can help someone as I pass.
If I can celebrate someone with a word or song.
If I can show someone that their journey is wrong,
then my life will not have been in vain.
If I can do my duty as a Christian,
If I can bring salvation to this world once built,
If I can spread the message as the master taught,
then my life will not have been in vain.
Yes, Jesus, I want to be at your right hand and at your left, But not for any selfish reason.
I want to be on your right and on your left, not in terms of some political kingdom or ambition, but I want to be right there in love and justice, in truth and commitment to others, so that it will make this old world a new world. (Idem)
CITATIONS:
[i] Cianci Salvatore, Susan. Civil Rights in America. Racial desegregation of public accommodations. A National Historic Landmarks theme study. Washington, D. C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2009.
[ii] Schultz, David (ed.) Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. New York: Facts of File, 2005.
[iii] West, Cornel (ed.) The radical King. Boston: Beacon Press, 2014.
[iv] Idem.
[v] Idem.
[vi] King, Jr., Martin Luther. All labor has dignity. Boston: Beacon Press, 2011.
Cuban vaccine engineering
Vaccines and sovereignty (IV)
Cuban vaccine engineering
By Luis A. Montero Cabrera
January 28, 2021
This is the fourth in a series of articles
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Cuba is rapidly developing four vaccine projects against coronavirus. Photo: Ahora.
It has been news in Cuba for months that we are generating our vaccines from platforms already created. The centers generating such projects work in partnership, exchanging experiences and knowledge, and also competing, as it should be done in a society that works for the good of all. Any group that participates will be happy for the triumph of the other, because what matters is the welfare of the whole society. Obviously they will also be very happy if their own vaccine candidate is successful.
It has been mentioned that our vaccines are all based on a key antigen of the COVID 19 virus: the constituent molecules of the outer spikes of the aggregate that makes up the virus. This molecular complex is referred to as RBD, from the acronym for receptor binding domain. We have also learned that adjuvants are substances that increase the effectiveness of vaccines. Their use is a common practice of this “engineering”, even to achieve vaccines against several diseases simultaneously.
The Finlay Vaccine Institute (IFV) is an institution that has grown from the success in the 80’s of the last century with the world’s first vaccine against meningococcus B. The current management has another very important success under its belt, in this case from the University of Havana (UH), with the world’s first commercial synthetic vaccine. This was put into practice at the beginning of this century against haempphilus influenzae. IFV is now working on at least two vaccine candidates known as SOBERANA 01 and SOBERANA 02. The RBD antigens of both are chemically treated variants of the coronavirus spikes.
The SOBERANA 01 antigen is based on the RBD produced from live mammalian cells into which DNA has been introduced with the codes to make them produce the desired molecules. This is why it is called “recombinant” RBD. The great advantage is that these molecules are identical to those of the virus but have been obtained without the intervention of this harmful entity and in a very efficient and harmless way in our industrial plants for this purpose in the neighboring Center for Molecular Immunology (CIM). The latter has a long experience in these matters and a proverbial willingness to empower itself through collaboration.
The RBD has been transformed with highly advanced laboratory chemical methods to duplicate it in a single structure. This is a so-called “dimeric” form that in preliminary tests proved to be more stimulating to the immune system. In short, it is more immunogenic than the simple “monomeric” form.
SOBERANA 01 also contains proteins that are harmless antigens of the outer membrane of the dreaded meningococcus bacteria in conjunction with aluminum hydroxide as adjuvants. The meningococcal antigen helps to “trigger” the generation of antibodies. Aluminum hydroxide is harmless, but it prolongs the presence of the antigen and gives our defenses more time to react. The interest in the effectiveness of a vaccine lies in the fact that it causes us to generate antibodies (immunogenicity) and that these are the ones that trigger the defense actions against COVID 19 (specific immunogenicity).
The SOBERANA 02 antigen is the same RBD of the COVID 19 virus but in monomeric form. The aim is to provoke the immune response of the organism by conjugating it (molecularly binding it) with another well-known and harmless antigen as adjuvant: the “tetanus toxoid”. This substance is associated with the bacteria that produce tetanus, but is chemically inactivated to render it harmless. It has long been used as their highly effective vaccine. A construction of the RBD with the toxoid creates a complex containing more specific antigens. It can be said that it would be “multimeric”. Thus an interesting engineering of the antigen with an adjuvant ensues.
The Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB), one of the most important institutions in Cuban science, has generated the other vaccines. Its track record is transcendental in these matters. It has two candidates also based on the RBD antigen whose coded name is CIGB 669 for nasal application and CIGB 66 for intramuscular application. Their applications have “combat” names such as MAMBISA and ABDALA. The mambisas were the women who joined the forces of the liberating army against the peninsular crown at the end of the 19th century. This denomination was reviled and even pejorative in the Spanish royalist press of the time. They made it equivalent to something like “terrorist” today. However, when the forces of freedom triumphed, it became a symbol of sublime militancy. ABDALA is the name of a play in poetry by José Martí, his first and adolescent literary work. The hero Abdala appears as a young man who is a convinced defender of his homeland, who puts it before all other personal and family interests. Our vaccines are samples of sovereignty, the fight for freedom and love for the homeland.
The nasal formulation of the preparation CIGB 669 takes advantage of the excellent permeability capacity of the intranasal membranes. Most of our skin is shielded against the penetration of molecules of any kind. But nasal membranes are not like that. They encompass a large surface area that is very dense in blood vessels and very permeable, which makes them a very attractive route for medicating. This pathway is also naturally selected to generate some very neutralizing antibodies and in the same location that is the route of virus entry.
Its RBD is accompanied as an adjuvant with another antigen that is used in the proven “HeberNasvac”, the chronic hepatitis B vaccine that is also administered nasally. This is its nucleocapsid, which is what the central molecular complex in a virus particle is called. Viruses are not cells, but they usually have this kind of “nucleus”. HeberNasvac” is the world’s first therapeutic vaccine against a chronic infectious disease. This platform is patented by CIGB for its vaccines. In the world there is only one other nasal vaccine on the market, the FluMist and Fluenz Tetra (according to their applications in the USA and Europe) and it is used against influenza. It has the advantages of being non-invasive and can be applied even in precarious hygienic conditions, as can be the case in many places in this disparate world.
Unlike the Finlay Vaccine Institute vaccines, the adjuvant nucleocapsid in CIGB 669 is recombinant and is produced in a typical culture medium. Its RBD, also recombinant, from CIGB is produced in yeast. MAMBISA is actually a procedure consisting of dose combinations of the two CIGB vaccine candidates. ABDALA is intramuscular only with the CIGB 66 candidate.
The success of a vaccine as a drug needs to be demonstrated before mass application. How is the most indicated and effective one known? How is work being done to test Cuban vaccines in times when a single day’s delay in application can cost a life?
Luis Alberto Cabrera Montero holds a Doctorate Chemical Sciences. He is a Senior Researcher and Full Professor at the University of Havana. He is President of the Scientific Advisory Council of the University of Havana and is a Merit Member and Coordinator of Natural and Exact Sciences of the Academy of Sciences of Cuba. For a full biography, see http://www.academiaciencias.cu/en/node/674
Vaccination against selfishness and inequality
Vaccination against selfishness and inequality
By: Randy Alonso Falcón
January 27, 2021
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
“It will not be an exhausted and outdated world order that can save humanity and create the indispensable natural conditions for a dignified and decent life on the planet. (…) This is not an ideological question; it is already a question of life or death for the human species.”
Fidel Castro Ruz
Speech at the Open Tribune of the Revolution, held in San José de las Lajas
January 27, 2001
Solidarity and Justice are still words in disuse even when the catastrophe concerns us all, like a great universal Titanic. A tiny and sticky virus has moved fears, shaken societies and health systems, provoked countless reflections on today and the future, but it has not succeeded in making equity and love for others prosper.
This week will mark the 100 millionth person infected with COVID-19 in the world and already more than 2 million people have died.
“Every day the gap between the haves and have-nots grows. The pandemic has reminded us that health and economics are linked and that we are all in the same boat. The pandemic will not end until it ends everywhere,” said World Health Organization Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Monday.
The numbers bear incontrovertible witness to the expert’s assessment.
The privileged cure
Despite numerous calls from the UN and various world leaders to seek a global response to the pandemic and to facilitate and share access to a cure for the disease, narrow views and deaf ears predominate.
“Science is succeeding, but solidarity is failing,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres noted on January 15. Several vaccines are already available worldwide to tackle the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but access to them is as deeply unequal as the world we inhabit.
Some 66.33 million doses have been administered to date, 93% of which were delivered in just 15 countries: the US, China, UK, Israel, United Arab Emirates, Germany, India, Italy, Turkey, Spain, France and Russia, according to the data analysis platform Our World in Data, based on figures from Oxford University.
In all of sub-Saharan Africa, only 25 doses of vaccine could be administered in Guinea. Populous countries like Nigeria, with 200 million inhabitants, are waiting for the first dose.
The same scramble that took place at the beginning of the pandemic with lung ventilators, masks and protective suits is now being staged with vaccines: hoarding, overpricing and speculation. “An immoral race to the bottom,” as the WHO’s top executive described it.
The COVAX fund, created as a sort of global effort to make vaccines accessible to the poorest nations or those with limited resources, announced that in February it will begin to deliver the first doses (they first said that in January), but it recognizes that it has been limited by the lucrative agreements of various individual nations with the pharmaceutical companies that produce the anti-COVID vaccines.
Another handicap has been the high cost of the vaccines that have the most international approval so far. As Norwegian expert John-Arne Rottingen told The Guardian, “The difficulty is that we really only have widespread international approval for marketing two vaccines: the two mRNA vaccines. The challenge is that one, the Moderna vaccine is very expensive, and the other, the Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine, which was first available and is now being applied in Europe, is moderately expensive compared to others, and requires a super cold chain. The price and cold chain makes it not the ideal vaccines for a global vaccine.”
While nations like India and South Africa are calling on the WHO to campaign for pharmaceutical companies to relinquish intellectual property rights to COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. That would allow other qualified manufacturers in the South to expand production of those antidotes; countries like the US, UK and Canada have opposed the initiative. Those three wealthy nations have purchased or reserved enough doses to inoculate their populations at least four times.
High-income countries account for 16% of the world’s population, but hold more than 60% of the vaccines purchased so far.
Rich countries account for the lion’s share of vaccine production. Graphic: The Guardian
Some forecasts put the total population of middle-income and poor countries that could be vaccinated this year at 27%. Duke University’s Center for Global Health Innovation estimates that there will not be enough vaccines to immunize the world’s population until at least 2023.
“The world is on the brink of a catastrophic moral failure, and the price of this failure will be paid in lives and livelihoods in the world’s poorest countries,” Dr. Tedros regretfully sentenced.
The virus of inequality
“Vaccine nationalism” is the exact reflection of an unequal and unjust world in which a few remain the great beneficiaries of wealth, for which billions must make do with the leftovers.
It is the “inequality virus” that OXFAM denounces in its most recent report, in which it evidences that the current failed economic system “allows a super-rich elite to continue to accumulate wealth in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, while billions of people face great hardship to get by.”
While billionaires saw their fortunes increase between March and December 2020 by a total volume of $3.9 trillion-to amass an unimaginable $11.95 trillion-the poorest people on the planet will need “more than a decade to recover from the economic impacts of the crisis” accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Racial differences have also deepened. In the United States, the most powerful nation on the planet, if mortality rates were equal to those of the white population, nearly 22,000 Latinos and blacks would not have died from the coronavirus outbreak. In Brazil, people of African descent are 40% more likely to die from COVID than whites.
One of the conclusions of the Oxfam report is that “the pandemic is likely to increase inequality in a way never seen before”. The World Bank has warned that, in the current context, more than 100 million people could reach extreme poverty.
The 10 richest men in the world saw their net worth increase by $540 billion in the pandemic 2020 period. That list is topped by Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. It also includes luxury group LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault, Bill Gates and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. According to Oxfam, the money hoarded by these potentates would be enough to prevent people from falling into poverty due to the effects of the virus and would also guarantee a vaccine for everyone on the planet.
Sunshine of the moral world
Among so much inequity and indifference, a small archipelago in the Caribbean, called Cuba, has been able to send thousands of doctors and nurses, in some 50 brigades of the “Henry Reeve” Internationalist Contingent, to more than thirty countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, to collaborate in the fight against the deadly disease.
Thousands of lives saved or recovered in a scenario of total complexity are the fruit of their solidarity work. The human and professional quality of these sons and daughters of the Cuban people overcomes the most diverse obstacles. It leaves a mark of affection, gratitude and example that is recognized by all those with whom they have shared and whom they have cared for.
That same country, with scarce economic resources but abundant in trained and educated talent, has been able to build an advanced biopharmaceutical industry, which is now preparing to produce 100 million doses of Soberana 02, one of the 4 vaccines on which its scientists are working. This would make it possible to immunize the entire Cuban population (it would be one of the first countries to achieve this) and to have more than 70 million doses available for other peoples of the South. There are already countries interested in acquiring it, such as Vietnam, Iran and Venezuela, Pakistan and India, the Director General of the Finlay Vaccine Institute recently announced.
Researchers from that institution are working with countries such as Italy and Canada to test the impact of the Soberana 01 vaccine on people who have already had COVID-19 and are convalescing, but are at risk of reinfection.
“We are not a multinational where (financial) return is the number one reason. We work the other way around, creating more health and return is a consequence, it is never going to be the priority,” Dr. Vicente Vérez, leader of the main vaccine research center in Cuba, explained to the press last week.
“Our world can only beat this virus one way: united,” the UN Secretary-General recently emphasized. Unfortunately, the vaccines of solidarity and justice have not been able to be applied in the rich world that dominates.
Challenges and Priorities for Cuba Today
- English
- Español
Challenges and Priorities for Cuba Today
By Domingo Amuchastegui.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Received by email January 27, 2020.
Written during the Trump administration.
Cuba today faces its most critical and complex situation. This is the result of the interaction of three factors. The most recent is the multifaceted impact of the arrival of the coronavirus or COVID-19, which ranges from damage to the health-care system and the population in general to the impact on its economy. Added to this is the economic war of the Trump administration against Cuba, and with a no less harmful gravitation, the persistence of a proven inoperative model that refuses to deepen and broaden the path of reforms.
In such a context, it is essential to examine the challenges and priorities that in the short and immediate term -and with a level of urgency as never before- the Cuban leadership will have to deal with and find the best and most lasting solutions to ensure its recovery and stabilization.
At the level of the INTERNAL SECTOR:
The need to minimize and reduce to a minimum the complexities and costs of the effects of the pandemic in the shortest possible time.
Undertake the redesign of the economic model with the necessary comprehensiveness and depth. This has been lacking in the reform measures adopted so far, which appear as isolated and incomplete patches that fail to energize the entire economy at the levels it requires. Let no one be scandalized by what I am saying. Let us recall Fidel Castro’s words to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg for the important US publication The Atlantic (9/8/2010): “The Cuban Model Doesn’t Even Work for Us Anymore”.
Such a redesign in which the state concentrates on what Cuban economists repeat over and over again: the fundamental means of production (key sectors) of the island (sugar industry, not its agricultural part; nickel/cobalt, biopharmaceuticals, tourism industry, exportable medical services, energy, citrus, fishing, rum and tobacco), which must be consistently opened to its association with foreign capital (an aspect that President Diaz-Canel and the Minister of Economy, Alejandro Gil, have been insisting on repeatedly, but still without translating them into actions and projects consistent with such an imperative).
At the same time, to get rid of the heavy and unproductive burden that has been represented for decades by the costly and unproductive ownership and administration of tens of thousands of small businesses that should be transferred to the cooperative and private sectors, in a broad and sustained project for the promotion of SMEs [Small and Medium Enterprises].
Recovery and effective dynamization of the key sectors mentioned above in terms of productivity and export capacity. SMEs -private, cooperatives and tenants or farmers- must be exempted from the tax burdens and bureaucratic interference that today slow down and asphyxiate their normal operation and development. This includes their more functional and flexible articulation to the export/import and financing processes and space in the national banking system. Open these sectors to investments by Cuban emigrants.
Specific issues of utmost importance are the need to: a) Significantly increase productivity levels and reduce production costs, especially in the tourism and biopharmaceutical industries; b) Eliminate the mechanisms of compulsory contracting by foreign companies through state agencies and the tax overload that this mechanism entails; c) Guarantee the sale of all goods and services to the Cuban economy, especially in the tourism and biopharmaceutical industries; d) Ensure the sale of all goods and services to foreign companies through state agencies and the tax overload that this mechanism entails; e) Ensure that all goods and services are sold in the Cuban market. To guarantee the sale of all supplies and equipment rental to SMEs (otherwise theft, corruption, and the so-called underground economy will continue to reign); d. To reduce by no less than 50% the tax on purchases in convertible currency stores (MLC).
Last but not least: To advance definitively, and in a comprehensive manner, in the process of monetary and exchange unification in order to stabilize in a real way the income of the population and the exchange and transfer of foreign companies operating in Cuba.
At the EXTERNAL SECTOR level:
To promptly and effectively face and settle foreign debt obligations as well as commercial credits owed.
In line with the official emphasis on the need to promote foreign investment (FI) as a strategic component, review and update the 2014 Investment Law in order to make it more attractive and encourage the arrival of foreign capital, including foreign direct investment (FDI) and other modalities that more effectively meet the requirements of foreign investment. Avoid at all costs, negotiating disasters such as those conducted with GLAXO and the Siemens/Total energy project, among others. Rationalize the Portfolio of Opportunities offered every year to foreign entrepreneurs attending the Havana International Fair (FIHAV), making it more selective and with greater incentives.
With the utmost urgency, design a strategy -and as an effective practice- to boost the growth of investments in the Special Development Zone of Mariel (ZEDM) and its Container Terminal, since so far its revenues barely cover its operating and maintenance costs. This project -the most important in the Cuban economy so far in the new century- may perish due to starvation or lack of relevant projects. Attracting important projects with the capacity to re-export to the entire region is no less indispensable.
It is time for the Cuban leadership to reflect on its pariah status with respect to the international financial system, its institutions and mechanisms, and to consider exploring and advancing in this direction, which could well begin through levels of association and cooperation with the World Bank. If successful in this approach to the World Bank, and considering that the OAS sanctions were lifted several years ago, Havana could manage -without a formal return to that organization- an approach that could be sponsored by CELAC members and that would result in some level of association and cooperation with the IDB. Such steps would undoubtedly serve to give confidence and encourage the flow of EI and credits to the Cuban economy.
Desafios y Prioridades para Cuba Hoy
Por Domingo Amuchastegui
Jan 27, 2021 8:57 AM
Cuba enfrenta hoy su más crítica y compleja situación. Ello es resultado de la interacción de tres factores. El más reciente lo constituye el impacto multifacético de la llegada del coronavirus o COVID-19, que va desde los perjuicios al sistema de salud y a la población en general hasta el impacto a su economía (Ver Coronovirus y Cuba). A esto se suma la guerra económica de la administración Trump contra Cuba, y con una gravitación no menos perjuidical, la persistencia de un modelo probadamente inoperante que se resiste a profundizar y ampliar el camino de las reformas.
En semejante contexto, resulta imprescindible un examen de los desafíos y prioridades que a corto e inmediato plazo -y con un nivel de urgencia como nunca antes- la dirigencia cubana tendrá que lidiar con ello y encontrar las mejores, y más duraderas, soluciones que aseguren su recuperación y estabilización.
A nivel de SECTOR INTERNO:
Aminorar y reducir al mínimo las complejidades y costos de los efectos de la pandemia en el más breve posible plazo.
Acometer el rediseño del modelo económico con la integralidad y profundidad necesaria, y de lo cual han carecido las medidas de reformas hasta ahora adoptadas, que aparecen como parches aislados e incompletes que no logran dinamizar la totalidad de la economíaa los niveles que la misma require. Nadie se escandalice por lo que planteo. Recordemos las palabras de Fidel Castro al periodista Jefrrey Goldberg para la importante publicación estadounidense The Atlantic (9/8/2010): “The Cuban Model Doesn’t Even Work for Us Anymore.”
Un rediseño tal en los cuales el Estado se concentre en lo que los economistas cubanos repiten una y otra vez: los medios fundamentales de producción (sectores claves) de la isla (industria azucarera, no su parte agrícola; níquel/cobalto, biofarmacéuitica, industria turística, servicios médicos exportables, energía, cítricos, pesca, ron y tabaco), que deben abrirse consistemente a su asociación con el capital extranjero (aspecto éste en el que viene insistiendo repeidamente el presidente Díaz-Canel y el Ministro de Economía, Alejandro Gil, pero todavía sin traducirse en acciones y proyectos consistentes con semejante imperativo).
Paralelamente, desembarazarse de la pesada e improductiva carga que ha venido representando durante décadas la propiedad y administración costosísima e improductiva de decenas de miles de pequeños negocios que deben ser transferidos a los sectores cooperativo y privado, en un Amplio y sostenido proyecto de fomento de las PYMES.
Recuperación y efectiva dinamización de los sectores claves antes apuntados en términos de productividad y capacidad exportadora. Las PYMES -privadas, cooperativas y arrendatarios o finqueros- deben ser eximidas de las cargas fiscales e injerencias burocráticas que frenan y asifixian hoy su normal funcionamiento y desarrollo, incluyendo su articulación más funcional y flexible a los procesos de exportación/importación y de financiamiento y un espacio en el sistema bancario nacional. Abrir estos sectores a las inversiones de la emigración cubana.
Cuestiones puntuales de suma importancia son: a) Aumentar sensiblemente los niveles de productividad y reducir costos de producción, en especial en la industria turística y en la biofarmacéutica; b) Suprimir los mecanismos de contratación obligatoria por compañías extranjeras por intermedio de agencias estatales y la sobrecarga impositiva que este mecanismo acompaña; c. Garantizar la venta de todos los suministros y alquier de equipos varios, a las PYMES (de lo contrario seguirán reinando el robo, la corrupción y la llamada economía sumergida); d. Reducir en no menos de un 50% el gravamen sobre las compras en los comercios en moneda convertible (MLC).
Por ultimo y no por ello de menor importancia: Avanzar definitivamente, y de manera integral, en el proceso de unificación monetaria y cambiaria a fin de estabilizar de manera real los ingresos de la población y de cambios y transferencias de las empresas extranjeras que operan en Cuba.
A nivel de SECTOR EXTERNO:
Afrontar y solventar con prontitud y eficacia las obligaciones de la deuda externa asi como de los créditos comerciales adeudados.
En consonancia con el énfasis oficial en la necesidad de promocionar como componente estratégico la inversion extranjera (IE), revisar y actualizar la Ley de Inversiones del 2014 en función de hacer más atractivo e incentivar la llegada del capital del capital extranjero, incluída de manera destacada la inversion extranjera directa (FDI) y otras modalidades que se ajusten más aficazmente a los requerimientos de la IE. Evitar a toda costa, desastres negociadores como las conducidos con GLAXO y el proyecto energético Siemens/Total, entre otros. Racionalizar la Cartera de Oportunidades que cada año se oferta a emporesarios extranjeros asistentes a la Feria Internacional de La Habana (FIHAV), haciéndola más selectiva y con mayores incentivos.
Con máxima urgencia, diseñar una estrategia -y una práctica efectiva- para dinamizar el crecimiento de las inversiones en la Zona especial de Desarrollo de Mariel (ZEDM) y su Terminal de Contenedores pues hasta ahora sus ingresos apenas cubren sus costos de operaciones y mantenimiento. Este proyecto -el más importante en la economía cubana en lo que va del nuevo siglo- puede perecer por inanición o ausencia de proyectos relevantes. Atraer proyectos de peso y con capacidad reexportadora hacia toda la region, es algo no menos indispensable.
Es hora ya de que la dirigencia cubana reflexione acerca de su status de paria con respecto al sistema financiero internacional, sus institucones y mecanismos, y considere explorar y avanzar en esta dirección que bien pudiera comenzar por medio de niveles de asociación y cooperación con el Banco Mundial. Caso de tener éxito en esta aporoximación al Banco Mundial, y onsiderando que las sanciones de la OEA ya fueron levantadas hace ya varios años, La Habana pudiera gestionar -sin un regreso formal a dicha organziación- gestion que pudiera ser auspiciada por miembros de la CELAC y que se tradujera en algún nivel de asociación y cooperación con el BID. Semejantes pasos, indudablemente, servirían para dar confianza e incentivar los flujos de IE y créditos parfa la economía cubana.
Cuba: Sixty Years as a Unique Actor
Having faced hostility, siege, aggression and sanctions from the U.S. for 60 years is no small thing in international relations, especially being a small island, with very scarce resources, located just 90 miles from the U.S. coast. It is now facing the toughest sanctions from the Trump administration, but it is surviving and still standing. A most unusual episode. Being the defunct Soviet Union its main ally, Havana did not hesitate to question, criticize and condemn, privately and publicly, different policies and actions of Moscow. Even more forceful were its clashes with China until the end of the 80s of the last century. Another very unusual episode in the field of alliances. “Toujour l’audace,” [“Always audacity”] was a guiding maxim of Havana, whether in its support of insurgent movements, of Vietnam in its critical years, of the surprising missile initiative that originated the most serious crisis of the so-called “cold war,” followed by the deployment of Cuban forces in Algeria, Angola and southern Africa or the Horn of Africa, all of them without consultation and contradicting Soviet and Chinese policies. Undoubtedly, a unique trajectory in these times. From another dimension, and for almost 30 years, the UN has witnessed almost unanimous votes condemning the US embargo against Cuba -which Washington continues to scorn- an unprecedented event in the multilateral system of relations of the post-World War II period. From a political-diplomatic siege for years agreed by the OAS -with the exception of Mexico- we have moved on to a situation today with reestablished relations with all its members, including the early recognition and cooperative relations between Cuba and CARICOM countries. No less relevant in this Latin American context have been Cuba’s notable contributions to the most important peace processes that have taken place in the region: Esquipulas, Guatemala and Colombia, while today from Norway to the Lima Group, from Prime Minister Trudeau to the head of the Spanish government, Pedro Sanchez, and six visits by the High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security of the European Union (EU), Federica Mogherini, recognize and call for Cuba’s participation in the management and possible settlement of the Venezuelan crisis. It is worth recalling that, in the heat of the collapse of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, more than 200 foreign correspondents gathered in Havana in expectation of a similar outcome in Cuba. They were left waiting because it did not happen. Meanwhile, in subsequent decades, dozens of heads of state and governments visited Cuba in search of a closer and more constructive relationship. To enumerate such visits would be endless, from the French President Francois Hollande to Pedro Sanchez, President of the Spanish Government, to three Presidents of China, the President and Prime Minister of Russia, plus the Prime Ministers of Canada and Japan, Presidents of Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela and others, as well as the visits of bitter Cuban-American enemies to Havana such as Carlos Carlos Gutierrez, Alfie Fanjul and Carlos Saladrigas, among others. The reasons for its non-collapse allow for easy answers, neither yesterday nor today. On the other hand, Havana, in spite of everything, has not ceased in its efforts to seek a normalization agreement with the US. At one time, John F. Kennedy himself even considered such a possibility and initiated contacts. With James Carter and Barack Obama, the first and only progress was made, culminating with the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. No less relevant has been Cuba’s sustained cooperation with U.S. institutions such as the DEA, the Coast Guard, and in the perimeter of the Guantanamo Naval Base, in addition to the close collaboration with Interpol. How can it be explained that the last three Popes (John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis) have visited Cuba and conversed with its main leaders? How can it be explained that the churches of Rome and Moscow agreed to meet, after more than a millennium of antagonism, not in Paris or Geneva, but in Havana? On the other hand, how can it be explained that the current Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, visits Havana and that sometime later he sends his special envoy, Kenji Furuya, on a special mission so far surrounded by speculation? Or that Prince Charles of the United Kingdom or the King and Queen of Spain decide to visit Havana at a time when Cuba’s relations with the United States are at their most critical level due to the economic and political-diplomatic war unleashed by the Trump administration against Cuba? And today, in the face of Trump’s current policy towards Cuba, the EU, its main authorities and several of its most important members such as Spain and France, reject the application of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, its extraterritoriality and illegal attempt to sanction those European and other countries’ companies involved in Cuba’s economic relations. Canada has done the same. All these factors have neutralized and weakened the implications of such an application, representing another setback for U.S. diplomacy against Cuba. Finally, let us remember: This is a small island, with no economy of scale, with very scarce resources, a pariah of the international financial system (IMF-WB-IDB), facing all kinds of limitations and diverse internal shortcomings, which may be the subject of objections and criticisms of very different kinds. But the undeniable fact has been and continues to be its singular stature in the international arena and which seems to bear no correspondence with its internal situation. Have the political genius of Fidel Castro and the heroic magnitude of Che Guevara been responsible for their disjunct international performance? Or perhaps their social projects at home and in the Third World arevof particular transcendence? Or perhaps the examples they may suggest, together with their proposals and initiatives for the resolution of not a few conflicts, their gravitation in the system of international relations (UN, Group of 77, Non-Aligned, CELAC, CARICOM and others), together with their extended and very active political-diplomatic network with its state and non-state components? And, perhaps, why not? Theere is always valid image of David versus Goliath? Let us avoid simplifications in order to give an answer to this singular case. The future may increase or reduce its specific gravity, but its singular protagonism is worthy of in-depth study. It is a challenge to rigorous inquiry for a better understanding of the Cuban case.
Haber enfrentado la hostilidad, asedio, agresiones y sanciones de EEUU durante 60 años no es poca cosa en materia de relaciones internacionales, sobre todo siendo una pequeña isla, de muy escasos recursos, situada apenas a 90 millas de las costas norteamericanas. Ahora enfrenta las mayores sanciones de parte de la administración Trump, pero sobrevive y sigue en pie. Episodio bien insólito. Siendo la fenecida Unión Soviética su principal aliado, La Habana no vaciló en cuestionar, criticar y condenar a ésta, de manera privada y pública, diferentes políticas y acciones de Moscú. Con más fuerza todavía fueron sus choques con China hasta fines de los 80 del siglo pasado. Otro episodio bien insólito en el campo de las alianzas. “Toujour l’audace,” fue una máxima rectora de La Habana, ya fuera en su apoyo de movimientos insurgents, de Vietnam en sus años críticos, de la sorpresiva iniciativa de cohetes que originaron la más grave crisis de la llamada “guerra fría,” seguido por los despliegues de fuerzas cubanas en Argelia, Angola y el sur de Africa o el Cuerno de Africa, todas ellas sin consultar y contradiciendo políticas soviéticas y chinas. Sin dudas, una trayectoria única en estos tiempos. Desde otra dimensión, y por casi 30 años, la ONU ha sido testigo de votaciones casi unánimes, condenando el embargo de EEUU contra Cuba -y que Washington sigue menospreciando- es un hecho sin precedentes en el sistema multilateral de relaciones de la segunda postguerra. De un cerco politico-diplomatico por años acordado por la OEA -con la excepción de México- se ha pasado a una situación hoy con relaciones restablecidas con todos sus miembros, incluyendo el temprano reconocimiento y relaciones de cooperación entre Cuba y países del CARICOM. No menos relevante en este contexto latinoamericano, han sido las notables contribuciones de Cuba a los procesos de paz más importantes que han tenido lugar en la región: Esquipulas, Guatemala y Colombia, mientras que hoy desde Noruega hasta el Grupo de Lima, desde el premier Trudeau hasta el jefe del gobierno español, Pedro Sánchez, y seis visitas de la Alta Comisionada de Relaciones Exteriores y Seguridad de la Unión Europea (UE), Federica Mogherini, reconocen y convocan la participación de Cuba en el manejo y posible arreglo de la crisis venezolana. Vale recordar que, al calor del derrumbe de Europa Oriental y la Unión Soviética, más de 200 corresponsales extranjeros se congregaron en La Habana a la espera de un desenlace similar en Cuba. Se quedaron esperando pues ello no tuvo lugar. Mientras, en décadas posteriores, decenas de jefes de Estado y Gobierno visitaban Cuba en búsqueda de una relación más estrecha y constructiva. Enumerar dichas visitas sería interminable, desde el presidente francés Francois Hollande hasta Pedro Sánchez, presidente del gobierno español hasta tres presidentes de China, el presidente y el primer ministro de Rusia, más los primeros ministros de Canadá y Japón, presidentes de Chile, Brasil, Colombia, México, Venezuela y otros.No menos relevante han sido las visitas de enconados enemigos cubano-americanos a la La Habana como Carlos Guti♪0rrez, Alfie Fanjul y Carlos Saladrigas, entre otros. Las razones de su no colapso no admite respuestas fáciles, ni ayer ni hoy. Por otra parte, La Habana, a pesar de todo, no ha cejado en su empeño de procurar un acuerdo de normalización con EEUU. En su momento el propio Johan F. Kennedy llegó a razonar tal posibilidad e iniciar contactos. Con James Carter y Barack Obama, se lograron los primeros y únicos avances, culminando con el restablecmiento de relaciones diplomáticas entre ambos países. No menos relevante, ha sido la sostenida cooperación de Cuba con insituciones norteaericanas como la DEA, los Guardacostas y en el perímetro de la Base Naval de Guantánamo, además de la estrecha colaboración con la Interpol. Desde otra dimension más que singular ¿Cómo se explica que los tres últimos Papas (Juan Pablo II, Benedicto XVI y Francisco hayan visitado Cuba y conversado con sus principales dirigentes? ¿Cómo explicar que las Iglesias de Roma y Moscú acordaran reunirse, tras más de un milenio de antagonismos, no en París o Ginebra, sino en La Habana? Por otro lado, ¿cómo se explica que el actual premier de Japón, Shinzo Abe, visite La Habana y que tiempo después haga llegar su envíado especial, Kenji Furuya, en una misión especial hasta ahora rodeada de especulaciones? ¿O que el príncipe Carlos del Reino Unido o los reyes de España decidan visitar La Habana en el momento en que las relaciones de Cuba con EEUU llegan a su nivel más crítico debido a la guerra económica y política-diplomática desatada por la administración Trump contra Cuba? Y hoy, frente a la política actual de Trump hacia Cuba, la UE, sus principales autoridades y varios de sus más importantes miembros como España y Francia, rechazan la aplicación del Título III de la Ley Helms-Burton, su extraterritorialidad e ilegal intento por sancioner aquellas empresas europeas y de otros países que participan en las relaciones económicas de Cuba. Canadá ha hecho otro tanto. Todos estos factores ellos neutralizado y debilitado las implicaciones de semejante aplicación, representando otro revés de la diplomacia norteamericana contra Cuba. Por ultimo, recordemos: Se trata de una pequeña isla, sin una esconomía de escala, de muy escasos recursos, paria del sistema financiero internacional (FMI-BM-BID), enfrentada a todo género de limitaciones y carencias diversas a lo interno, que podrá ser tema para objeciones y críticas de factura muy diferentes, pero lo inobjetable ha sido y continúa siendo su singular estatura en el quehacer internacional y que parecería no guardar correspondencia alguna con su situación interna. ¿Han sido el genio politico de Fidel Castro y la magnitud heroica de un Ché Guevara responsables por desemjante desempeño internacional? ¿ O acaso sus proyectos sociales a lo interno y a escala del Tercer Mundo de particular trascendencia? ¿Acaso los ejemplos que estos pueden sugerir junto a sus propuestas e iniciativas para la resolución de no pocos conflictos, su gravitación en el sistema de relaciones internacionales (ONU, Grupo de los 77, No Alineados, CELAC, CARICOM y otros), junto a su extendida y muy activa red política-diplomática con sus componentes estatales y no estatales? Y, tal vez ¿por qué no? La imagen siempre válida de David versus Goliat… Evitemos las simplifcaciones para dar respuesta a este singular caso. El futuro podrá acrecentar o reducir su gravitación, pero su singular protagonismo es digno de estudiarse con profundidad. Es un un reto a la indagación rigurosa para una mayor comprensión del caso cubano.
Cuba: Sixty Years as a Unique International Actor
By Domingo Amuchastegui
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
[Received via email on January 27, 2021. Evidently written during the Trump presidency.]60 Años de un singular actor internacional: Cuba
Por Domingo Amuchastegui
Cuban Science Needs Financial Support
Cuban Science in Urgent Need of Financial Support
By Domingo Amuchastegui
Received January 27, 2021 in English
In late December 2016, during the economic debates at Cuba’s National Assembly, Agustín Lage Dávila –renown Cuban scientist- publicly questioned the absence of explicit financial support to scientific institutions, making an urgent appeal to meet such needs (See my January 2017 column). The demand was most unusual; in fact, it was a serious warning. At that time, there were no official comments or reply from the new Minister of Economy and Planning, Ricardo Cabrisas or any other official…at least publicly.
A month later, it was obvious that Lage’s warning was not an isolated statement. Most Cuban scientists and experts, shared the following approach: “It is evident that among ourselves there isn’t full understanding about this vital issue (the proper and necessary funding for scientific development) and that it is required to go deeper in its analysis to be able to start effective actions, that today become very urgent.” The usual funds assigned at the beginning of every fiscal year for R&D and Science and Technology Activities (ACT in Spanish), had explicitly “disappeared” from the 2017 budget Supporting this view there were scientists and experts key institutions from the Ministry of Technology and Environment, Higher Education Ministry, BioCubaFarma, and others.
Furthermore, it was pointed out that over the last 10 years GDP growth did not include any increment in resources assigned to I+D, bringing down its contribution to the GDP to 0.42 percent. As a consequence, and despite some successes, scientific potentials were weakened. Resources to support the development of science in Cuba –together with taking pride in its biotech/pharmaceutical achievements- must be clearly stated in the nation’s budget seeking to promote I+D and ACT, putting an end to such negative trends.
Some may argue that currently –resulting from policies of economic decentralization- scientific institutions are allowed to invest a portion of its proceeds in ACT, but the truth is that such funds are extremely modest and are kept at a very low level due to current government policies. At the same time, exports coming from the field of science have been dragging for several years now the default in payments from some of Cuba’s largest markets like Venezuela, Angola, and others, thus aggravating its financial needs.
In recent years, again and again, it has become a familiar pattern to read in Cuba’s official economic reports about “the decline of exports of goods and services.” One important segment of such declining feature is connected, precisely, to that of the declining trend in the field of biotech/pharmaceutical research, production, and exports, including serious shortages in the local markets (hospitals and pharmacies), a most unusual problem.
Among Cuban scientists and experts some of the most relevant, and persistent, proposals and recommendation are the following:
— Funds for ACT should be a priority.
— Access to risk capitals is another option to explore.
— The new law to be discussed in the near future must include basic principals connected to ACT in the field of business operations.
— Resorting to foreign investment, putting an end to the official refusal to open up to such possibility. The example of how this can benefit scientific potentials and technologies can be found in the many benefits that foreign investment has added to Cuba’s nickel and oil industries.
–Keeping higher education institutions isolated from business-like projects and investments should come to an end, as well as their right to retain proceeds and benefits from such ties. Outdated legislation in this particular field should come to an end.
–A sound policy of stimulating those who excel in their work and achievements.
Government policies and actions need to pay very special attention, and care, to this situation, considering how important this field has been to Cuba’s development, economy, and also its international prestige. They cannot continue to turn their backs to such demands. A sense of urgency and the sound recommendations put in place, must not be overlooked nor postponed anymore.
Leni Riefenstahl and a final adjustment
Leni Riefenstahl and a final adjustment
Filmmaker Nina Gladitz did not rest in tracking down what she called the sinister side of what was once called “the eye of Hitler”
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The Riefenstahl, pampered by Hitler. Photo: Taken from the Internet
“The search for beauty in the image, above all and of all”, was the pretext used by the filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl every time she was reproached for having put her talent at the service of Nazism, and especially of Hitler, of whom she said in her memoirs (1987) that, after meeting him in a rally held in Berlin, 1932, “it was as if the earth opened up before me”.
Riefenstahl lived 101 years (1902-2003) and her actions have fueled a debate that involves art and ideology with the social and ethical responsibility of the artist.
Many did not forgive her fabricated naiveté to shake off a stigma that linked her to the crimes of Nazism, but there were those who extended a mantle of benevolence over her by arguing for the transcendence of her documentary, perfectionist and avant-garde work in German cinema.
Today, films such as The Triumph of the Will and Olympia are considered masterpieces of propaganda, based on a renovating formal aesthetic, taking into account the years in which they were conceived, and their capacity to transform reality into “ideological art”, if that is the concept for an ideology of extermination.
The first of these films turns the National Socialist [Nazi Party] Congress, held in Nuremberg in 1934, into an epic event of multitudes and leaders feverish with the word of a Hitler deified in images.
Olympia (1938) takes up again the fervor of the Führer for ancient Greece to link the 1936 Berlin Olympics with a symbolism of the Nazi racial myth, claiming that the proclaimed German civilization, superior in all respects, was the heir to an Aryan culture from classical antiquity.
“She is the only one of the stars who truly understands us”, Goebbels had said of the filmmaker in 1933, shortly after Hitler, a hardened film buff, signed her as the quintessential film diffuser of his party’s ideology.
The same Leni Riefenstahl, beautiful, willing, with a past that linked her to sports and snowy mountain climbing; also a dancer and actress who came to rival Greta Garbo in roles, was considered by Hitler an ideal of classic perfection. He put a lot of resources at her disposal and made her a pampered member of the group formed by the flower and cream of Berlin’s Nazism, who applauded her “neat and moving” style. And while there were those who spoke of a romance, she always denied it: “It wasn’t sexy, if it had been sexy, we would have naturally been lovers”. This did not prevent her from affirming, years later, that the triumph of Nazism had not been a political reaction, but the unusual adoration “of a unique leader”.
Riefenstahl managed to get Hitler to extend a high budget in 1940 to bring Tiefland (Lowland) to the screen, inspired by an opera (1903) by Eugen d’Albert that took place in Spain. The film would not be released until 1954 because, in addition to the author’s pedigree, there was something murky about it that had not been fully unraveled: Where had the gypsies from a concentration camp gone, since extras with a Mediterranean look were needed?
A murmur spread then: after the filming of Tiefland, those extras had been deported to Auschwitz.
Leni Riefenstahl, who after the war was investigated several times, subjected to four denazification processes, and finally exonerated under the ruling that she was only a “sympathizer” of the Nazis, protested against what she called slander and swore that she still had news, and even correspondence, with those gypsies.
In later years she would condemn the barbarism of which, she assured, she had witnessed nothing and used to reply to those who accused her: “my thing was art, to capture an era, a perception of ideology and not unrestricted support. Tell me, where is my fault, I did not throw atomic bombs, I have not denied anyone, where is my fault?”
In 1982, the gypsy nebula was brought to light in a television documentary by German filmmaker Nina Gladitz. The young filmmaker had located the descendants and they claimed that the director of Tiefland treated the extras like servants and then returned them to their origin, the Maxglan concentration camp in Austria, from where they were transferred, and killed, in the gas chamber of Auschwitz.
Leni complained to Gladitz, and although most of her allegations did not come to fruition, she came out saying that she had won the lawsuit. Her work had received by then a kind of rehabilitation, after the documentary Olympia had been shown, in 1972. When the filmmaker turned one hundred years old, she was, for many, more a legend admired for her technical and artistic contributions to cinema than a “circumstantial suspect” of having taken the symbols of Nazism to starry planes.
But the filmmaker Nina Gladitz did not rest in tracing what she called the sinister side of the woman who, at the time, had been called “the eye of Hitler”. A few days ago she published a book in which she exposes the complicity of Riefenstahl, and not only in “the artistic”. Documents show that 40 of the 53 gypsies were killed without the director doing anything to stop it, after having recruited them herself. Also, supported by archival materials, she reveals that the names of important collaborating filmmakers, such as Willy Zielke, who filmed the initial takes of Olympia (and ended up sterilized and mentally ill), were erased from her films, in addition to Leni interceding with Hitler’s top brass to prevent other filmmakers from filming; a behavior of which not a word had ever been said and in which she highlights -among other examples- the elimination of the credits, as co-director in Blue Light, of the Hungarian Béla Balázs.
According to Nina Gladitz’s book, the talented Willy Zielke was taken out of the asylum by Leni Riefenstahl with the aim of turning him into a prisoner-assistant. Shortly before the end of the war, she burned almost all the files she owned in the gardens of her villa. Judging by classified French intelligence materials reviewed by Gladitz, that fire included scenes of the destruction of a Jewish ghetto shot on Hitler’s orders, although no one knows if the film ever materialized.
A definitive adjustment then for the filmmaker who ran to film the Nazi invasion of Poland, where she was photographed in uniform, together with German soldiers and carrying a gun around her waist, and for whom, after the occupation of Paris, she wrote the following telegram to Hitler: “With indescribable joy, deeply moved and full of ardent gratitude, we share with you, my Führer, your greatest victory and that of Germany, the entry of German troops into Paris. You surpass all that the human imagination has the power to conceive, achieving facts without parallel in the history of humanity. How can we ever thank you? Congratulating you is too little to express the feelings that move me.”
How was that cable possible, Leni Riefenstahl was once asked, and she, with the unheard of “naivety” that some people still use at times to alternate with their inexplicable ravings, replied: “Everyone thought the war was over, and in that spirit, I sent the cable.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.