Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
For a formatted printable facsimile pdf file of this draft click here.
The draft Constitution of the Republic approved by the National Assembly of People’s Power in its ordinary session on July 21 and 22, 2018, and which is now being submitted for consultation to our people, is the result of in-depth work begun in 2013.
At that time, the Political Bureau agreed to create a working group, chaired by Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba, with the objective of studying the possible changes to be introduced in the constitutional order. This follows the agreements of the Sixth Congress and the First National Conference of the Party, the process of strengthening the institutions developed in the country, the need to bring the Constitution into line with our reality, the foreseeable future and the other measures that have been approved in recent years; having as an essential presupposition the thought of the historical leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro Ruz.
During all this time, an in-depth study was carried out of our history and constitutional tradition, the constitutional processes developed in Latin America in recent years and the experiences derived from those countries that are building socialism, as well as constitutional texts from other nations.
As is well-known, the National Assembly of People’s Power, in the exercise of its constituent power, agreed, in its extraordinary session of June 2, to form a committee among its deputies. Its task is to represent an important part of the sectors that make up our society, under the leadership of comrade Raúl Castro Ruz, with the aim of preparing a preliminary draft of the Constitution of the Republic.
The Commission has worked intensively, taking as a reference the studies carried out previously and the contribution of experts and specialists from various institutions, and after extensive debates presented the National Assembly of People’s Power with a draft Constitution of the Republic.
The text consists of the preamble, 224 articles (87 more than the current Constitution), divided into 11 titles, 24 chapters and 16 sections.
Eleven articles of the current Constitution of the Republic are maintained, 113 are amended and 13 are deleted.
It is distinguished by a coherent and systematic structure, achieving a logical rearrangement of its contents and avoiding its dispersion.
The language used corresponds to the terminology that should characterize a constitutional text and to our political, economic and social reality. The general wording of its contents confers greater flexibility, durability, security and applicability of the Constitution.
The draft reaffirms the socialist character of our political, economic and social system, as well as the leading role of the Communist Party of Cuba.
The concept of the socialist rule of law is incorporated in order to strengthen the institutional framework and the rule of law, including the supremacy of the Constitution.
The economic system being reflected maintains as essential principles the socialist ownership of all the people of the fundamental means and planning, in addition to the recognition of the role of the market and of new forms of non-state ownership, including private ownership.
Of particular note is the development of a wide range of rights in keeping with the international instruments to which Cuba is a party in this area. Those relating to the right to defense, due process and popular participation are highlighted. The economic and social rights are reformulated, in particular, the right to health and education, which are maintained as a function of the State and free of charge, although it is envisaged that the law will define other issues related to them. The content of the right to equality is further developed by incorporating non-discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnic origin and disability into existing rights (skin color, sex, race, etc.).
It provides for the possibility for individuals to apply to the courts for restitution of their rights or for compensation or reparation for damage or injury caused by the act or omission of State organs, managers, officials or employees in the improper exercise of their functions. In relation to marriage, the current conception that it is only possible “between a man and a woman” is modified and defined as being between two persons.
With regard to citizenship, the fundamental change lies in the fact that our affiliation to the non-admission of dual citizenship is changing and, instead, we are proposing to accept the principle of “effective citizenship”, which consists in the fact that “Cuban citizens, within the national territory, are governed by this condition and cannot make use of a foreign citizenship”.
With regard to the organs of the State, an appropriate balance is maintained between them. The figures of the President of the Republic are incorporated as Head of the State and that of the Prime Minister in charge of the Government of the Republic; both are required to be deputies to the National Assembly of People’s Power. The Council of State retains its character as a permanent body of the National Assembly of People’s Power, with greater interaction with it, among other aspects, because the President, Vice-President and Secretary of both institutions are the same persons. A novelty among the State bodies is the National Electoral Council, a permanent institution in this area, and the inclusion of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic in the Constitution has been resolved.
As for the local bodies, the provincial assemblies of People’s Power were eliminated and a Provincial Government was established, composed of the Governor and a Council at that level.
The municipalities acquire greater relevance from the recognition of their autonomy, which they exercise in correspondence with the interests of the nation.
The Municipal Administration Council is ratified as the body that directs the Municipal Administration, in charge of an Intendent, a term that is proposed to replace that of President and Chief currently employed.
With regard to the Electoral System, it is maintained that Cubans over 16 years of age have the right to vote, with the exceptions provided for by law. The National Defense and Security Act appears in a Title, which specifies the mission of the National Defense Council, with powers to carry out tasks since peacetime, and the recognition of a Disaster Situation, in addition to the other exceptional ones.
With regard to the mechanism for Constitutional Reform, unlike the current Constitution, the legitimacy to promote it is pointed out and the intangibility clauses are specified.
Special, transitional and final provisions are established for the entry into force of the main issues regulated in the Project, as well as the period during which the complementary rules must be issued and others in force amended.
The consultation process that is proposed to be developed is an expression of the democratic and participative character of the revolutionary state and constitutes an exercise of the sovereign power of the people, which has become the constituent body of the nation, and which distinguishes us favorably from other processes developed in various countries.
This particularity represents a high responsibility of all citizens in the study of the project and in the participation in the popular consultation, as well as in each of the proposals made. It must be borne in mind at all times that the Constitution is a norm that establishes essential and minimum principles and values, which implies not covering and expressing in detail all areas of political, economic and social life.
All the proposals and suggestions made will be duly assessed. We Cubans must be aware of the commitment that the new Constitution of the Republic, forged by the people to give continuity to the Revolution and socialism, implies for present and future generations.
More than ever, the following words of our undefeated Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz are valid:(1)
“One of the things that concerns us, and that must be of perennial concern, is that […] the Constitution that we make be complied with strictly. We cannot have or approve a single one of these precepts that is not rigorously applied. The Revolution cannot create a Constitution, cannot create institutions, cannot create principles that are not fulfilled.
“That’s why it is our purpose once this Constitution has been approved, to fight consistently and tenaciously, so that each and every one of the precepts of that Constitution will be fulfilled; so that no one can ever blame the Revolution for agreeing to laws and principles that were decided but not fulfilled”.
(1) Excerpts from the remarks of Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro Ruz, Revista Cubana de Derecho, Año 5, No. 11, enero–junio, 1976, La Habana, pp. 54 y 55.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I want the first law of our Republic to be the worship of Cubans for the full dignity of man;
54 (c) to preserve national security;
55 (d) to ensure equality in the enjoyment and exercise of rights and the fulfilment of the duties enshrined in the Constitution;
59.(h) to protect the natural, historical and cultural heritage of the nation; and
60 (i) to ensure the educational, scientific, technical and cultural development of the country.
129.(a) foreigners who acquire citizenship in accordance with the provisions of the law.
ARTICLE 39: The Cuban State shall guarantee the enjoyment and exercise by the individual of the inalienable, indivisible and interdependent enjoyment and exercise of human rights, in accordance with the principle of progressivity and without discrimination. Their respect and guarantee are obligatory for everyone.
161.(i) be deprived of one’s rights only by decision of a competent authority or a final judgement of a court; and
Any evidence obtained in violation of this provision is null and void and those responsible are punished in accordance with the law.
ARTICLE 51: In its prison policy, the State shall promote the social reintegration of persons deprived of their liberty, guarantee respect for their rights and compliance with the rules established for their treatment in prison establishments.
400.The President of the Republic is the Head of State.
(i) the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, in matters within its competence;
ARTICLE 190. Delegates have the following rights:
712.ARTICLE 214. In order to be valid, the sessions of the Municipal Assembly of People’s Power require the presence of more than half of the total number of its members. Its resolutions are adopted by a simple majority of votes. 213The National Defense Council shall be composed of the President of the Republic, who shall preside over it, who shall in turn appoint a Vice-President and such other members as may be determined by law.
TITLE XI: REFORM OF THE CONSTITUTION
The numbers incorporated at the beginning of each paragraph are intended to facilitate discussion during the popular consultation and the analysis and processing of the opinions expressed.
Glossary of terms
For the purposes of a better understanding of the draft Constitution of the Republic, the following terms are specified:
INALIENABLE PROPERTY: These are those goods of socialist property of the entire people and those that make up the cultural heritage; they may not be sold, assigned, donated or exchanged under any circumstances.
IMMEMBERABLE PROPERTY: These are those goods owned by the whole people and which are part of cultural heritage; they cannot be seized or confiscated by any authority.
CONSTITUTION: It is the fundamental law of a State. It establishes the essential principles and values of a country’s socio-political organization and contains its political, economic, social and legal foundations, as well as the structure of the State and its relations with individuals.
POPULAR CONSULTATION: A form of participation in which the people express their opinion on a particular issue, without this having binding effect.
ENTITIES: It is used in its broadest sense as a legal entity that performs economic, social, cultural, scientific, etc. functions. Includes non-state actors.
STATE: It is the system of organs through which public power is exercised and includes various functions (legislative, executive, judicial, control, etc.).
SOCIALIST STATE OF LAW: It is the conception of the State that reflects that its structure and functioning are governed by the observance of what is established in the Constitution of the Republic and in the rest of the normative dispositions that make up the legal system.
GOVERNORS: Position with which the authorities in charge of the executive-administrative functions in the province are recognized.
GOVERNMENT: This includes the bodies whose essential objective is to carry out executive-administrative acts. At the national level it is the Council of Ministers; in the province, the provincial governments and in the municipality, the councils of the administration.
HABEAS CORPUS: Legal procedure that safeguards the freedom of citizens from illegal or arbitrary deprivation of liberty and guarantees the right of individuals to go to court to decide whether or not detention is legal.
IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY: It means that the rights over the socialist property of all the people and those that make up the cultural heritage, do not prescribe, that is, do not lose validity over time.
INDIVISIBILITY OF RIGHTS: It means that human rights cannot be divided or fragmented.
SUPERINTENDENT: Position with which the Board of Directors in the municipalities is identified.
INTERDEPENDENCE OF RIGHTS: Recognizes that all human rights are intertwined with each other. For the realization of a human right, the realization of other rights will be necessary; if one right is violated, it is undeniable that others will be understood to have been violated.
LAWS: Although the term literally refers to the normative dispositions approved by the National Assembly of People’s Power, it is also conceived in the text to refer to any type of norm regardless of the body that issues it.
ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: This is the mode of voting in which more than half of the votes are required to reach a decision, taking into account the total number of members of the deciding body.
SIMPLE MAJORITY: It is the voting system by which a decision is taken to obtain more votes in favor than against, regardless of the number reached.
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION: Is the act by which a citizen wields a certain belief in order not to fulfill an obligation or duty established by law.
ORGANS OF THE STATE: It includes all the organs, agencies and institutions that allow the performance of the functions of the State.
PLEBISCITE: Form of direct popular participation, aimed at knowing whether or not to approve a certain political or government act or measure of relevance to society.
PROGRESS IN RIGHTS: It is the possibility of future recognition of rights not understood at a historical moment, without this leading to a setback or regression of those already achieved.
REFERENCE: Form of direct participation, through which the approval, modification or repeal of a certain legal provision of transcendence is submitted to the people for their decision.
UNIVERSALITY OF RIGHTS: Assumes that all people enjoy all human rights, without distinction of any kind.
NOMINAL VOTING: The one that is carried out by indicating each voter’s decision in person when he or she is appointed to the respective list.
=========
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
I’d like to thank two people who helped mightily to bring this about. Kimberly Sloss, computer technician, without whose help I would never have even thought to take on such a project.
Peter Roman, whose proofreading of a first draft found many since-corrected errors. Prof. Roman is the author of PEOPLE’S POWER: Cuba’s Experience with Representative Government (Westview Press 1999).
Please let me know of any other errors or omissions you may find. I’m happy to correct all errors. I’d rather not argue over small nuances in translation, but will happily read comments, questions or corrections.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
After several years of U.S. military occupation, Cuba lived a period as a pseudo-independent republic under U.S. tutelage. The island served as a model semi-colony that would attract former Spanish possessions already independent and new acquisitions to be captured for that status.
During that period, until the triumph of the liberating revolution in 1959, Cuba experienced technological advances propitiated by North American companies. They used the introduction of infrastructural and technological advances for their own expansion and for experimental and advertising purposes. That was why Cuba became the leader in Latin America in terms of the introduction and diffusion of new technologies in the mass media and telecommunications.
One of the first objectives of the revolutionary process begun in 1959 in Cuba had to be the extension of public services throughout the country. Sectors such as electricity and the mass media received a high priority in order to extend their coverage to almost the entire population of the island.
This was not the case with telephone service, which was not identified as a priority sector in the same way as radio, television and the print media, considered to be of greater social significance. It is estimated that until the early 1990s, around 40% of telephone installations were manufactured in North America before 1960. Its infrastructure became obsolete and without authentic spare parts because of the blockade imposed by the United States and showed problems of compatibility with the technology of countries that could dodge it to trade with the Island.
From 1959 to 1994, telecommunications in Cuba fell below the level of the other Latin American countries. National security and defense issues had to be given high priority in the face of constant aggressiveness by Washington and its agencies of terrorist subversion and domination.
Paradoxically, the situation changed substantially when the U.S. Congress passed the Torricelli Act (“Cuban Democracy Act”) in 1992. It reinforced the policy of trade sanctions against the island in “Track One” but, in “Track Two”, supposedly favored the democratization of Cuba through an active policy of promoting communications and contacts with the island. It explicitly included the lifting of sanctions on telephone and postal communications.
Cuba had denounced this “Track Two” as a weapon of ideological subversion in Washington’s war against the island. But the Cuban government did not put obstacles in the way of the re-establishment of telephone communications between the two countries.
Finally, in October 1994, the US Federal Communications Commission gave the green light for the agreements that Cuba had negotiated with a number of U.S. telephone companies on the distribution of revenue from calls. On November 25, 1994, direct telephone communication between the two countries was officially reopened.
Due to the imperative of its reintegration into the capitalist world economy, Cuba had to carry out a restructuring of its productive apparatus including a greater opening to foreign investment. Cuba had to modernize its telecommunications, an enormous task given the existing infrastructure backlog and, above all, the tight economic and financial blockade that it still suffers to this day.
The Cuban government, placed great hopes in information technology since 1964, when Che Guevara, Minister of Industry, inaugurated an automation department. In 1969, the Center for Digital Research was founded. In 1970, the Center built the first Cuban computer, the so-called “CID-201”.
As a result of bilateral agreements of 1973 and 1976, the USSR committed itself to supporting Cuba in the creation of a computer industry, and in 1978 the first computer assembly plant on the island came into service. In 1980, the Second Congress of the Communist Party stressed the need to encourage the development of information technologies, and in 1982 an automated national and international data exchange centre was created.
In 1983, the first international satellite connection was established, giving Cuba access to some 50 Soviet data banks. In August 1994, Empresa de Telecomunicaciones de Cuba, S.A. (ETECSA) was created as a monopoly for fixed telephony, with the character of a public limited company and a mixed company.
Cuba’s official adhesion to the Internet took place in October 1996. In 1999, the National Information Policy was formulated. It took up Strategic Guidelines and the Program for the Informatization of Society, announcing their technological convergence in the same Ministry of Electronics, Informatics and Telecommunications.
September 17, 2018.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The U.S. CIA and the Saudi Arabian monarchy conspired to keep secret the details of the attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and other targets in the United States on September 11, 2001, according to a documented book by journalists John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski that will soon be released.
The authors achieved in 2009 an astonishing interview with Richard Clarke, antiterrorist advisor of the White House during the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, whose publication enraged the CIA, especially its director, George Tenet, who had hidden crucial information about the plans and movements of Al-Qaeda, including the arrival in the United States of the future participating kidnappers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.
The CIA and the NSA, with Saudi complicity, articulated a false cartoon to cover up the U.S. government’s involvement in the affair.
But for hundreds of family members and an increasing number of former FBI agents, this year’s September 11 ceremony fanned a calmed, but not extinguished, rage over the conspiracy of silence maintained by senior former U.S. and Saudi Arabian officials.
For many former national security officials, the unanswered questions about the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks overshadow those of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, because September 11 changed the whole world. Not only did it lead to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the fracture of the Middle East and the advance of Islamic militancy, but it also brought the United States closer to its virtual conversion into a repressive national security state. This is manifested, according to the authors of the book, in that U.S. foreign policy has endowed itself with a strategy for the extermination of popular movements in Latin America.
According to the new book, Mark Rossini, one of the two FBI agents assigned to the CIA’s “Osama bin Laden” unit, said he was sad and depressed because the agency’s managers mysteriously prevented them in 2000 from informing their headquarters about the presence in the United States of the future Al Qaeda conspirators who would execute the great terrorist act, and again in the summer of 2001. “It is clear that the attacks did not need to occur and that there has been no justice,” Rossini said, according to the book.
In 2002, Tenet swore to Congress that he was not aware of the imminent threat because that information came on an unmarked urgent cable and “nobody read it. But five years later he learned the truth when Senators Ron Wyden and Kit Bond forced him to disappear an executive summary of the CIA’s 9/11 investigation, which stated that no fewer than 50 people read one or more of the Agency’s six communications containing travel information related to these terrorists.
Until then, Clarke had trusted Tenet, his close colleague and friend. Claiming desperation for not having the means to spread the astounding revelation, in 2009 the former anti-terrorist aide wrote a book he titled, Your Government Failed You, which was largely ignored.
Clarke says he long believed that it was a small group of low-level officials who obtained this information and did not realize its importance. But it turned out that more than fifty CIA officials knew, including Tenet. Tenet and two of his “anti-terrorist” aides, Rich Blee and Cofer Black, issued a statement calling Clarke’s theory “reckless and deeply wrong.
But now Clarke is not alone. Duffy and Nowosielski found other former agents and key FBI officials who have developed deep doubts about Tenet’s history. The only element on which they disagree is what officials were responsible for the alleged subterfuge.
John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski’s book relates many other aspects that add gravity to their denunciation: Saudi complicity with kidnappers; Saudi government support for al-Qaeda in recent years; the discovery of the role of monarchy agents surreptitiously funding public relations efforts to derail a congressional bill that would allow a group of family members to sue the kingdom for 9/11 damages; that officials from the Saudi kingdom’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs were actively helping kidnappers settle in California.
The ghost of September 11, 2001 continues to haunt the White House as one of its greatest historical excesses.
September 6, 2018
This article may be reproduced by quoting the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Just over a month before Brazil’s October 7 presidential elections, the judges of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal rejected, four votes to one, the candidacy of the population’s undisputed favorite in the largest and most populous nation in Latin America.
This occurred despite the fact that a resolution to this effect by the International Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (UN) stipulated that the Brazilian State must allow former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to exercise his political rights as the presidential candidate of the Workers’ Party and a coalition of movements and parties that are already legally entitled to compete in the upcoming elections.
No one doubts that Lula da Silva would be a broad winner in these elections but it happens that, since April, Lula has been held in a Federal Police cell in the state of Curitiba. He has been sentenced to 12 years in prison in an arbitrary trial, with no sign of legality, on charges of passive corruption and money laundering. No evidence of such charges against the top left-wing political leader, simply because the crimes have never existed.
The latest polls published make it clear that Lula da Silva, who has almost 40% of the voting intentions, would be elected in the first round. But if he fails to do so, he will wipe out all the other contenders in a possible second round of voting.
Former army captain and deputy Jair Bolsonaro, candidate of the Social Liberal Party, which represents the extreme right, is second in the polls, with 19% of the intention to vote.
The candidate considered to be the representative of the (not extreme) right is the one presented by the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB) with the support of the Brazilian Democratic, Labor, Social Democratic and Solidarity parties. He is the former governor of Sao Paolo Geraldo Alckmin. He is ranked third in the polls with about 5% of the declarations of intent to vote.
Other parties that have announced their own candidates are the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB), with Manuela d’Avila as its presidential candidate and the ruling Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB) of former Finance Minister Henrique Meirelles, both with very low voter intention rates.
Alckmin’s campaign strives to gain followers among the owners of capital with an irrational, homophobic, racist and misogynistic discourse. They have very abundant financial resources, but the public fears that a large part of the right wing will choose to join the right-wing extremist campaign.
There has been massive manipulation by the unelected government of Michael Temer and the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia to prevent the election of Lula as president of the largest nation in South America. This has transformed the Brazilian popular leader, from a central protagonist and determinant of a national electoral process into an emblematic figure of Latin American independence in the face of the imperialist hegemonic power of the United States.
Thus, Brazil will have a presidential election this year that should have been aimed at restoring to the South American giant the precarious normality it had achieved in 1985. After 21 years of a military dictatorship widely supported by the owners of capital and representatives of imperialist interests in Brazil, Brazil’s tenuous normality was broken by the institutional coup that removed Dilma Rousseff in April 2016 and culminated in the arbitrary imprisonment of Lula two years later.
The solution could be in the hands of the magistrates of the Superior Electoral Court or, ultimately, those of the Supreme Court of Justice. However, this would require that the country’s vital decisions be returned to the hands of the Brazilian people.
Unfortunately, in Latin America, the approach of the legal system to politics has given rise to repeated behavior in which judges and prosecutors prevaricate and lend themselves to the persecution of popular leaders. This has been shown in the cases of Brazil, Argentina and Ecuador, where former presidents Lula, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Rafael Correa are being harassed and prosecuted for crimes that they did not commit and which obviously cannot be proven.
In the event that the manipulation of the process through violence or corruption is imposed and Lula’s inclusion on the ballot is prevented, it is expected that a sufficient number of voters will choose to do so in favor of Fernando Haddad, former mayor of Sao Paolo and former minister of education during the government of the popular labor leader, who is already registered as an aspirant for the vice presidency with Lula.
In Brazil, the cards are on the table. What their people want is known. What is also known is just how much violence and cruelty imperialism and the local exploiters is capable of to impose their rule.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
“Bomb, invade, occupy a country to see it flourish.” Such is the logic of the absurd philosophy of imperialist interventionism that has been applied by the United States throughout the world in the name of the defense of freedom and western culture.
But war is the worst human calamity and, despite the feverish hopes and utopian promises of its promoters, humanitarian interventions almost always result in unimaginable killings, devastation, horror and suffering added to the situations that “justified” them.
The most recent United States wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria) should serve as sufficient proof of this fact: Future humanitarian warriors make serious professions of humanitarianism and end up killing many of those they promised to help.
I consider it very interesting to assess this dilemma from the point of view of the defenders of humanitarian warfare as an ideal mechanism to ensure its geopolitical and/or class advantages in circumstances such as the current ones we are analyzing here.
Let us examine what the imperialist camp is proposing about a possible U.S. military intervention in Venezuela by Doug Bandow. He is a senior researcher at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank founded in Washington D.C. in 1974 as the Charles-Koch Foundation, dedicated to lobbying and promoting capitalist public policies that challenge socialism based on the free principles of individual freedom, limited government and the pro laissez faire markets.
Bandow was President Ronald Reagan’s assistant and author of the book “America’s New Global Empire.
Previously, the warmongering “humanitarian” interveners went straight to looting but, over time, they refined their rhetoric and began to talk about trade and investment opportunities, increases in GDP and other more subtle forms of robbery.
According to Bandow, last year, President Donald Trump asked his aides if the United States should intervene militarily in Venezuela. Everyone argued against the idea. He then asked for the opinion of several Latin American leaders who also strongly opposed it.
However, the US intervention had to be assessed from the point of view of the economic benefits that this could bring, both for the oligarchic sectors of Venezuela and for the hegemonic interests of the United States.
Cynically, it was argued that the number of people killed by an American assault on Venezuela would be reduced. Extrapolating data from the U.S. assault on Panama cites an estimate of 3,500 civilian casualties.
He didn’t consider that war is not just another political tool. It is based on death and destruction. No matter how well-intentioned, military action is often indiscriminate. The course of the conflict is unpredictable and often unexpected.
Bandow admits that the pinkish predictions about the results of a U.S. expeditionary force landing in Venezuela are highly questionable. Such intervention could result in a mixture of civil war and insurgency in which the “good guys” would undoubtedly win, but the costs would be severe.
The Cato Institute researcher acknowledges that it is grotesque to try to justify military action on the grounds that fewer people could die if it didn’t happen. Should lives be treated as abstract numbers in an account balance? Whatever the number of victims, a war would mean that thousands of people would otherwise be alive and would die.
Who authorized US politicians to make that decision? who anointed Washington to play God with the future of other peoples?
If the security and humanitarian arguments are insufficient, the economic justification is laughable: How much economic benefit for life, American or Venezuelan, justifies war? Imagine a president writing to the families of the dead soldiers explaining that his sacrifice was justified because it helped to increase Venezuela’s annual GDP rate.
And then the height of cynicism: “The most important thing would be the impact on the United States. The main responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect its own people, and its uniformed officers, who should not be treated as pawns on tactics in some global chess game. Their lives should only be in danger when their own nation has something substantial at stake.”
Finally, it is striking that these assessments emanate from the ranks opposed to Chavism, and it is certainly the case that attempting a U.S. military intervention in Venezuela would be the worst, and perhaps the last, madness of U.S. imperialism!
August 29, 2018.
This article may be reproduced by citing the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
He went to war in Vietnam and did so at ease, convinced that by bombing the people of that country he was helping the greatness of the United States, while striking blows against communism, then identified as the Soviet Union.
This is Senator John McCain, who died recently at the age of 81, who at only 31 was a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Navy and on October 26, 1967, during an action against the Vietnamese population, the fighter jet he flew was shot down by a Soviet-made missile during his 23rd mission to the north of the Asian nation.
After their physical disappearance, due to cancer, not a few stories and fables have been spread to the world by the big media. An attempt has even been made to establish a supposed critical stance against the current president, Donald Trump.
Little or nothing, however, is brought to the international community’s attention regarding the war against Vietnam and the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese deaths, many of them from Agent Orange, a toxic chemical used savagely by Washington.
The war in Vietnam – I am sure – scarred this man of war and the system he represented, not only for the five years he was a prisoner of the Vietnamese army. In this regard, the period of time between his death and the broadcast by the media of the most varied lies, exhibits as an example those that stand out in the supposed “torture” that the U.S. military suffered.
Today the mainstream media highlights one aspect of McCain’s posthumous letter, in which he emphasizes the the deceased’s recommendation that Americans not hide behind walls. “It’s a veiled critique of Donald Trump,” reports the northern nation.
It is also recalled that whoever was a candidate in the 2008 elections, had numerous public confrontations with Trump despite being colleagues in the Republican Party. In his posthumous letter he calls for understanding between different positions.
As an example of the media’s treatment of the death, John McCain lived at a time when the political, military and cultural power of the United States was unrivalled in the world.
The Republican senator was born a few years before World War II and came to adulthood at the dawn of the United States becoming a global superpower. “Now he is leaving during what is, perhaps, the twilight of U.S. domination as the nation focuses inward, concerned about the potential risks and challenges of immigration, multilateralism and the global economy,” says Anthony Zurcher, BBC correspondent in Washington, D.C.
Another issue that has not escaped the media hype has to do with the occupation of McCain’s Senate seat and the references that his widow, Cindy, will be the nominee, since an Arizona state law – very “democratic” in the style of the United States, by the way – determines that it is the governor who appoints his replacement until 2020.
Although there has been little time between the death of the former U.S. military man who bombed Vietnam and the media coverage with its excesses and adulterations, would it not be too much to ask that, in moments of recollection like this, at least remember what happened in Vietnam.
Or is it that the truth may be different when it comes to the United States?
Cuban journalist. First Vice-President of UPEC and Vice-President of FELAP. She is a Doctor in Communication Sciences and author or co-author of the books “Antes de que se me olvide“, “Jineteros en La Habana”, “Clic Internet” and “Chávez Nuestro”, among others. He has been awarded the “Juan Gualberto Gómez” National Journalism Prize on several occasions. Founder of Cubadebate and its Editor-in-Chief until January 2017. On twitter: @elizalderosa
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The new digital platforms favor the emergence of groups of individuals organized like a claque, ready to unconditionally applaud the one who pays. Anyone who isn’t in a blockaded country like Cuba can create content, invest in it for specific groups to see and even rent or buy virtual applause to generate “likes” on Facebook or “followers” on Twitter.
This is the business model of these technology platforms, thanks to which, for example, in the first quarter of 2018 Facebook had a turnover of $11.79 billion, almost four billion more (49 percent) than a year ago. Of that total, about 98.5 percent comes from advertising.
Such a thing happens every day and it is difficult to generate a perception of popularity on networks without hundreds of thousands of followers. These are usually achieved by registering artificial identities that promote messages of support, and the favor is not free. There are hundreds of companies that offer this service without any complexes. Simply enter “buy followers” in any search engine to find them. And it is not expensive: the price of a thousand followers is between 15 and 20 dollars. Getting ten thousand more people to follow us costs less than $120.
“Troll farms” – editors responsible for spreading false information on the Internet – have been used by politicians, entertainment stars, American spies, Donald Trump’s campaign team, Macri’s campaign team, the British military, Israeli propaganda organizations and many others who have made these huge profits from the platform founded by Mark Zuckerberg possible and placed it among the ten largest companies in the world, according to its value on the stock exchange.
The numbers are impressive and not just for the profits: a study published in March 2017 by the universities of South Carolina and Indiana estimated that, within Twitter, the proportion of “troll farms” that use automated applications to replicate messages (known as bots) was between 9 percent and 15 percent of their total users. The number of automatically-controlled fake profiles is between 30 million and 48 million.
Not out of moral compulsion, but to tune in to Washington’s anti-Russian and anti-Iranian discourse, Facebook has been willing to shut down some “troll farms” and escape, even momentarily, from the wave of criticism that has fallen on it for buying and selling data without the consent of its more than 2.4 billion users. This is how hits decided to eliminate hundreds of accounts with “inauthentic behavior” on Tuesday, according to a press release
We eliminated 652 pages, groups and accounts for coordinated “non-authentic behavior” that originated in Iran and were targeted to people across multiple Internet services in the Middle East, Latin America, the United Kingdom and the United States.
But while Facebook eliminates foreign-generated fake accounts, allegedly of Russian or Iranian origin, it tolerates the U.S. government’s “troll farms” without any crisis of conscience. Before any of us had heard of this machinery of fake accounts, fake news and Cambridge Analytica – the London-based company that intervened in more than 200 elections by manipulating the users of Facebook – the Pentagon was already publicly boasting that it was using the blue thumb network as propaganda bait for its operations.
Defense One magazine reported in November 2016 that Michael Lumpkin, former director of the Global Engagement Center (GEC, Pentagon propaganda department), described how the Center used Facebook data to maximize the effectiveness of its operations:
“Using Facebook ads I can get an audience, choose Country X, a specific age group between 13 and 34, filter people who like Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi or any other group… and I can shoot and hit them directly with messages,” Lumpkin said. He stressed that with the right data, effective message targeting can be done with only pennies per click.
Yesterday, the Miami New Times, a weekly newspaper in Florida, released a document proving that a US government-funded broadcasting organization is creating fake Facebook accounts in disinformation operations. These are directed against a country, Cuba, that has not done the slightest damage to the United States and that cannot access the Facebook ad manager because of the US blockade laws.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will spend more than $23 million in fiscal year 2019 on its Office of Broadcasting to Cuba (OCB), which controls Radio and TV Martí, and its projects include no less than a troll farm.
According to the budget requested of Congress for 2019, OCB will use the money in fake Facebook accounts of the kind that it perfectly classifies as “non-authentic behavior” to promote regime change on the island.
Considering the disaster of inefficiency, waste and corruption that has accompanied Radio Martí and TV Martí in 33 years of existence at a cost of more than $800 million at the expense of the US taxpayer, the former head of the US Interests Office in Havana, Vicki Huddleston, echoed on Twitter the news of the digital propaganda project against the island, to which she added a phrase of contempt: “Same-old-same-old!!”.).
Will Facebook close the US government’s “non-authentic behavior” accounts, starting with those of Radio and TV Martí? To be or not to be, that’s the question, right, Zuckerberg?
(Taken from Cubaperiodistas)
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
The Latin American Freedom Forum, took place in 2017 in Buenos Aires with the participation of President Mauricio Macri and Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa. It discussed a strategy to defeat socialism at all levels, with tactics ranging from camp battles on university campuses to nationwide mobilization to force the removal of a constitutional government as occurred in Brazil shortly thereafter.
The pseudo-academic capitalist offensive was initiated by the capitalist international, an extreme right-wing libertarian movement operating as a conglomerate of centers and societies united by almost undetectable threads, in which the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, or Atlas Network, stands out.
Several of the leaders linked to the Atlas Network are ministers of the conservative Argentine government, ultra-right-wing senators from Bolivia and leaders of the Movimento Brasil Livre (MBL) who helped overthrow constitutional president Dilma Rousseff, and who have recently gained notoriety for their predatory actions.
The network functions as a tacit extension of Washington’s foreign policy. The think tanks associated with Atlas are funded by the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). They are a crucial arm of the U.S. soft-power strategy sponsored by the powerful ultraconservative multi-millionaires Koch brothers: Charles and David.
The NED and the State Department have public entities that function as centers of operation and deployment of lines and funds such as the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF), Freedom House and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). They are the main actors that distribute directives and resources in exchange for concrete results in the asymmetric war against the peoples of Latin America.
The Atlas Network comprises 450 foundations, NGOs and think tanks with an operating budget of some US $5 million, contributed by their associated “non-profit charitable foundations”. It has served to support, among others, the MBL in Brazil and organizations that participated in the offensive against Argentina. Among these are the Crecer y Pensar foundation, an Atlas think tank that joined the Republican Proposal Party (PRO) created by Mauricio Macri, as well as opposition forces in Venezuela and Sebastián Piñera, a right-wing candidate in the Chilean presidential elections.
Atlas has 13 affiliates in Brazil, 12 in Argentina, 8 in Chile and Peru, 5 in Mexico and Costa Rica, 4 in Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia and Guatemala, 2 in the Dominican Republic, Ecuador and El Salvador, and 1 in Colombia, Panama, Bahamas, Jamaica and Honduras.
The MBL and the Eléutera Foundation (a formation of neoliberal experts that was very influential in Honduras after the coup) received payments from Atlas and are part of the new generation of political actors trained in the United States.
The “new” extreme right is the libertarian movement that has now been assimilated into the US Republican Party. It bases its actions on a deliberate strategy of misinforming the masses and imposing its plutocratic policies. It has in the Atlas Network its main propellant in Latin America.
A key promoter of this movement is the multimillionaire Charles G. Koch (one of the two famous brothers who adopted the thesis of James McGill Buchanan, an economist from the University of Chicago and Nobel Prize winner. It was designed to disarm the state with an operational strategy in defense of “sacrosanct private property rights” with the slogan: “for capitalism to thrive, democracy must be put in chains”.
Koch funds some 15 major organizations, plus 60 from the U.S. Policy Network (SPN).
The International Private Enterprise (CIPE), a foundation affiliated with the NED, was created by the U.S. government to advance Washington’s foreign policy objectives. It funds political organizations in the Third World and was established by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, the largest lobbying organization in the country. 96% of its funding comes from the State Department and USAID.
CIPE plays a key role in funding the Atlas network and is the main force in its ongoing strengthening. Since 1991, the Atlas Network has been run by Alejandro Chaufen, an Argentinean apologist for the then bloody Argentine dictatorship.
With data from Aram Aharonian and Álvaro Verzi Rangel, Co-Directors of the Observatory on Communication and Democracy (OCD) and the Latin American Centre for Strategic Analysis (CLAE).
This article may be reproduced by citing the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
August 27, 2018.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Italian actress and director Asia Argento, a figure in the #MeToo movement after accusing producer Harvey Weinstein of rape, agreed to pay $380,000 in a settlement to a young man who said he was sexually assaulted by her, according to The New York Times.
The victim was rock actor and musician Jimmy Bennett, who reported being sexually assaulted by Argento in 2013 in a California hotel, according to the newspaper. In that state, the age of consent for sexual intercourse is 18. Bennett had worked with Argento playing his son in a movie.
The agreement would have been reached in the months following the revelations on the Weinstein case in October last year. In a letter dated April to Argento confirming the final details of the agreement and the payment schedule, the actress’s lawyer referred to the money as ‘help for Mr. Bennett’.
“We hope it never happens to you again,” attorney Carrie Goldberg wrote to her client, “you’re a powerful and inspiring artist and it’s miserable that you live surrounded by shitty individuals who have taken advantage of your strengths and weaknesses.
For the young actor, who as a child captivated Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis, that 2013 meeting was “a spiral of emotional problems,” reports the New York Times, citing the contents of the documents. According to the information, it was so traumatic that it hampered Bennett’s work, so his lawyers were initially seeking $3.5 million in damages because his mental state had affected his income.
The New York newspaper assures that it has had access to the accusations of the young actor and to the subsequent financial agreement reached by Argento and Bennett’s lawyers, who are now 22 years old, through documents that have been sent to them anonymously. These documents, which were sent via encrypted mail, include a selfie photograph, dated May 9, 2013, of the two actors lying in bed, reports Efe.
The newspaper adds that it has tried “repeatedly” to contact those involved in this issue without success. However, Bennett’s lawyer, Gordon K. Sattro, told the newspaper that his client would not agree to be interviewed about it and that he would “continue to do what he has been doing in recent months and years: focus on his music.
“A traumatic sexual assault”
Bennett was 17 when the alleged incident with the then 37-year-old actress occurred. Bennett’s lawyers described the meeting at the hotel as a “sexual assault” that traumatized their client, threatened his mental health, and called for compensation of 3.3 million euros.
For Bennett, seeing Argento present herself as a victim of sexual harassment was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It made him relive that episode in 2013, of which there is even a photo left on the actress’s Instagram profile. “What he felt that day came back when Argento became the voice of Harvey Weinstein’s victims,” Bennett’s lawyer said in the complaint document.
For Bennett, the Italian actress was both a mentor and a mother, and they had a certain amount of contact since they met in 2004 during the filming of The Heart is Liar, which she directed and starred in with him. The argument revolved around the relationship between a drug-addicted prostitute (Asia Argento) and her son (Jimmy Benett), and the relationship between them revolved around this mother-child relationship. Until May 9, 2013, she wrote on Instagram: “Waiting for my long-lost child Jimmy Bennett”, with a selfie at the door of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Marina del Rey, California. He replied, “I am coming”.
The New York Times’ account of the events recalls that the actor arrived in the room with a family member because of a vision problem that prevents him from driving. Argento asked the companion to leave them alone, gave him alcohol to drink and showed him some notes he had written for them. Then she kissed him, pushed him to bed, took off his pants and gave him oral sex. Finally, she climbed on top of him and they had a sexual relationship. She also asked for some photos to be taken and shared on social networks.
In the image that came to the newspaper along with the anonymous documentation, you can see them both with their torso uncovered. After the episode in the hotel room, they ate lunch together and, on the way home, Bennett began to feel “extremely confused, mortified and upset. A month later, however, she sent Argento a Twitter message with a picture of a bracelet she gave her that said, “I miss you, Mommy.”
Financial and family problems
Bennett’s life wasn’t easy back then. Around the time of his meeting with Argento, he had confronted his mother and stepfather in court, whom he accused of having thrown him out of the family home, of having stolen his possessions and of having appropriated, over the years, at least one and a half million dollars of his savings. Bennett was broke at the time and owed two months’ rent.
The financial agreement recently reached by the actors does not prevent the young person from making what happened public, but it does prevent him from demanding it. Nor would I be allowed, after accepting the money, to publish the photo of both of them. According to the New York Times, and although it is not known if both have spoken since the signing of the agreement, Argento would have given him a “like” on Instagram to a selfie of the actor in which he appeared caressed.
Asia Argento became a powerful voice in the #MeToo movement after accusing Weinstein of raping her in a hotel during the 1997 Cannes Film Festival when she was 21.
At the close of this year’s Cannes Film Festival, the actress told the audience: “Things have changed. We’re not going to let them get away with this.
(Taken from El Mundo)
Wednesday, July 18, 2018.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
From the blog of Cuban photographer Juvenal Balán.
The prisoner with the number 46664 and the first black president of South Africa, who spent most of those 27 years confined in a damp cell barely 2.4 metres high by 2.1 metres wide, who showed gallantry and who was not, nor could anyone break his fighting spirit that led him to become the world’s oldest political captive and an icon of the universal struggle against the hated apartheid segregationist regime that existed in his country, would now be 100 years old.
A man of universal stature who is remembered today by all because, as Fidel said in a reflection following his death: “No present or past event that I remember or have heard of, such as Mandela’s death, had such an impact on world public opinion, not because of his wealth, but because of the human quality and nobility of his feelings and ideas”.
Granma’s photojournalists had the good fortune and joy of immortalizing him with their photos. Arnaldo Santos while attending the inauguration of the new government in Namibia on March 24, 1990, where Nelson Mandela exchanged with the Cuban delegation led by Revolution Commander Juan Almeida Bosque and Jorge Risquet Valdés.
Then Liborio Noval when Mandela first visited Cuba — a year after his release from prison, met Fidel Castro personally and began a close friendship — and was present at the July 26, 1991 ceremony in Matanzas, where Fidel was decorated with the José Martí Order. It was an intimate friendship sealed in the common struggle, and it remained undisturbed, for the admiration between the two was mutual.
Fidel visited South Africa again in September 1998 – the first time was in 1994 – and I had the opportunity to immortalize these two greats of history who treated each other like brothers.
Fidel said about Mandela: “Old and prestigious friend, how pleased I am to see you converted and recognized by all the political institutions of the world as a symbol of freedom, justice and human dignity.
Mandela, on Fidel’s first visit to his homeland, said: “I am a loyal man and I will never forget that in the darkest moments of our homeland, in the struggle against apartheid, Fidel Castro was at our side.
And this relationship between the two great men, both symbols of the moral strength of principles and dignity, lasted until Mandela’s death on 5 December 2013 at the age of 95.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |||||
3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
31 |
You must be logged in to post a comment.