Manuel E. Yepe 239
What the United States Owes to Haiti
What the United States Owes to Haiti
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.
The crass coarseness of the president of the United States, Donald Trump, in matters of civic and formal education cannot justify the daily barbs of this false lunatic turned head of state that, ultimately, goes to the main detriment of the reputation and dignity of US citizens.
Following Trump’s racist pronouncement, which described Haiti and the whole of the countries of Africa as “shithole nations”, Cuban journalist José A. Téllez Villalón published on the Spanish site “Rebelion” a work to remind us that a large part of the arms, ammunition and men with which France contributed to the independence of the then Thirteen Colonies, passed through the then-French colony of Saint-Domingue (today Haiti) which had contributed with the blood of its children to the triumph of the forces in struggle for their independence from the British metropolis.
On March 12, 1779, the French colonizers began the recruitment of a body of volunteers to participate in the American Revolution. “The Volunteer Hunters of Saint-Domingue,” as the contingent was called, was made up of French settlers and between 500 and 800 black and mulatto freedmen.
Between the end of 1780 and the middle of 1781, the troops commanded by General George Washington and those commanded by the French general Jean Batiste de Vimeur, Count of Rochambeau, had been left without resources to land a final blow on the English troops positioned in Yorktown.
George Washington, the leader of the independence movement, reflected it on May 1, 1781 in his diary: “In a word, instead of having everything ready to go to the campaign, we have nothing. Instead of having the perspective of a glorious offensive campaign before us, we have but a confused and defensive situation, unless we receive powerful aid in the form of ships, land troops and money from our generous allies. For now, this is too eventful to be able to count on it. “
French Marshal Rochambeau wrote to French Admiral François Joseph Paul, Count de Grasse: “I must not hide from you, Sir, that the Americans are at the limit of their resources. Washington does not have half the troops it calculates, and in my opinion, although he remains silent about it, he does not have 6,000 men, nor does Mr. de La Fayette gather 1000 regulars in the militia to defend Virginia … “.
Téllez Villalón explains that Rochambeau asked the head of the fleet to recruit troops and bring them with him as reinforcements for General Washington’s Continental Army. The Admiral complied with instructions, recruited 3,000 volunteers from Port-au-Prince and Cap-Haïtien, and placed them under the orders of the young officer Claudius Henry of Saint-Simon who was the founder of French socialism and utopian socialism. The same man who, for Engels, was, together with Hegel, the most encyclopedic mind of his time and in whose work most of the later ideas of socialism are contained.
The multinational reinforcement, consisting of a battalion of ex-slaves, pardos [tri-racial descendants of European, black and indiginous peoples] and mulatos from Port-au-Prince and Cap-Haïtien commanded by Saint-Simon, disembarked in the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, and took part, between September 26 and October 19, 1781, in the Siege of Yorktown.
So, says Tellez, the Americans owe a lot to foreign forces -French, Latin American and Haitian- for the achievement of their Independence. It was ratified by the United States Congress on November 15, 1784, after Great Britain capitulated on September 3, 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of the American nation, acknowledged in an editorial published on July 5, 1803 in the New York Evening Post that “to the fatal climate of Saint-Domingue (Haiti), and to the courage and obstinate resistance of its black inhabitants, that we owe the obstacles that delayed the colonization of Louisiana until the favorable moment when a rupture between England and France gave a new turn to the latter’s projects”.
Nevertheless, another American founding father, Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, who was second vice president (1797-1801) and third president (1801-1809) of the United States, showed no gratitude for this assistance. On the contrary, he suspended all trade with Haiti in 1804.
The United States resisted recognizing the newly independent country for many years, joining the European empires in punishing Haiti for its insubordination. It was not until June 5, 1862 that President Abraham Lincoln granted American diplomatic recognition of the generous and heroic Fatherland of Toussaint Louverture and Jean-Jacques Dessalines.
February 7, 2018.
The “American Dream” has Become a Nightmare
The “American Dream” has Become a Nightmare
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
The projected wall to separate Mexico from what had been its own territory until the day that it was taken away by United States. US President Donald Trump’s characterization of some nations in Africa as shitholes. The eviction from US soil of Salvadoran, Nicaraguan and Haitian residents. The deportation of undocumented young people who’d arrived in the US in childhood and are known as the “dreamers”. The rejection of refugees. The reduction of green cards by half. These and other anti-immigration actions have characterized Washington’s foreign policy during the Trump administration.
Wide-reaching, all over the world, hegemonic corporate propaganda has always presented the US as a model of democracy and a welfare paradise. It has made the US a dreamland fantasized about by millions of would-be emigrants from poor nations. Now, the US President is doing even the unimaginable. He wants put an end to such an image, by resorting to decisions that may bring about great violence.
The project of an expanding nation has prevailed since English immigrants, through the annexation of lands populated by indigenous peoples or occupied by Dutch immigrants, created the Thirteen English colonies. They later united to fight
against the natives and especially against the French immigrants.
The United States, in a continuous and expansionist process, through the purchase of territories from France and Spain, the dispossession of Mexico from a good part of its territory and several asymmetrical wars, has expanded its territory, possessions, and global hegemony..what today President Donald Trump defends with the motto “America First!” and consists of closing borders as a new phenomenon, opposed to expansionism.
The US of the fantasized American Dream is no longer being built. Having achieved its objective, it has turned to defending its accomplishments. Now, the America First doctrine is the calling card of a nation that Trump, as a white multimillionaire in love with his own genetics, considers the best in the world.
By the way, when we talk about a country called “the United States of America” we refer to an impossible entity or an entelechy. This is because America is geographically a continent made up of several independent nations. None should claim the right to represent the union of all the states that make up the continent.
Originally, the name “United States of America” could have been the expression of a legitimate and plausible aspiration of the precursors of a dream of unity that has never been made possible, but which today embodies a deceptive purpose of domination and hegemony.
Even if this were the historical reason for the imbroglio, the nations of the affected continent can survive the terminological confusion provided there is absolute respect for the sovereignty of all countries involved.
Regrettably, there have been, and still are, many occasions when conflicts arise because one of the parties, always Washington, takes advantage of the semantic confusion for its own benefit.
The United States was born practically accompanied by the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. This is the idea that the United States of America will expand because of its obvious (manifest) need and definite destiny. First, it would expand from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific. Then, the northeastern states would carry their concept of “civilization” throughout the continent through territorial expansion.
For US commercial interests, expansion offered great and lucrative access to foreign markets. This allowed them to compete under better conditions against the British. Owning ports facing the Pacific would facilitate trade with Asia.
The ideological and philosophical connotation of its name was not embraced by all of US society. Differences within the country about the objectives and consequences of the policy of expansion would determine its acceptance or rejection.
Only when the peoples who inhabit the region today known as the American continent want to proclaim in common the unification of their territorial sovereignties, could the resulting nation be legitimately declared the “United States of America”; or else when humanity reaches its eternal yearning to live in a communist world, without classes or borders.
January 30, 2018
Unrest Within US Diplomacy
Unrest Within US Diplomacy
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
The multiple crises affecting Donald Trump’s administration from the day the real estate multi-billionaire entrepreneur arrived at the Oval Office of the White House has not spared the State Department.An article by journalist Gardiner Harris, correspondent for the The New York Times at the White House, discusses the serious situation the diplomacy of the superpower has been going through since that day. He predicts it will tend to grow more serious in tune with the vices inherent in Trump’s administration, even when, in this case, it is Secretary of State, Rex W. Tillerson, the first-acting figure.
Harris describes what has been happening in the upper ranks of the State Department as “a parade of dismissals and early retirements”. Tillerson’s intense campaign to clean out the State Department has called upon each office of the Department to contribute to this goal.
The guarded optimism that greeted the arrival of Rex Tillerson to the post of Secretary of State soon gave way to concern about the lack of communication between the boss and his subordinates.
By midyear, Tillerson’s reiterated focus on issues such as inefficiency and the need to reorganize foreign policy provoked increasing anger and concern about his performance within the department.
Now, the estrangement is in the open. Diplomats going out the door are making their feelings known and a number of members of Congress have raised questions about the impact of these firings and resignations on US foreign policy.
In a recent message addressed to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the Democratic members of the House Foreign Relations Committee of Representatives, citing what they said was the “exodus of more than 100 Senior Foreign Service Officers of the State Department since January “, expressed concern about what “appears to be the intentional hollowing out of our senior diplomatic ranks.”
Tillerson, a former chief executive of the EXXON corporation and a supporter of fundamentalist capitalism, has made no secret of his belief that the State Department is a bloated bureaucracy. He regards much of the day-to-day diplomacy that lower level US diplomats conduct (and he now leads) as unproductive.
Even before Tillerson’s appointment was confirmed by the Senate, his team of assistants fired 6 of the State Department’s top career diplomats, including some who had been appointed during governments headed by Republican presidents. None were given any reasons for their dismissals.
Secretary Tillerson announced a reorganization to be carried out in the following months. He stressed that this would be the most important action that he would do while in office. He hired two consulting companies to lead the process.
Since he announced, before arriving at the State Department, that he would slash its budget by 31%, many in the Department have always seen the reorganization as a smokescreen for drastic cuts.
Tillerson has frozen most hiring and offered $25,000 buyouts, hoping to get about 2,000 career diplomats and civil servants to leave their positions by October 2018.
His small group of assistants has managed to fire some diplomats and gotten others to resign by refusing them the assignments they wanted, or taking their duties away altogether.
Among those fired or sidelined there is a high proportion of Latino and African-American diplomats, as well as women. These were important to maintain the Department’s troubled diversity balance.
Gardiner Harris quotes Nancy McEldowney, a career diplomat and former ambassador who retired last June after 30 years as a US Foreign Service Officer, “There is a vacuum throughout the State Department and the junior people now working in these top jobs lack the confidence and credibility that comes from a presidential nomination and a Senate confirmation.”
An example of the trend being followed in the State Department was seeing during the farce against Cuba about “sonic attacks” (which never existed and were probably the result of Senator Marco Rubio’s initiative to promote his image as the probable future Republican president). One of the episode’s first outcomes was the reduction of the staff at the US Embassy in Havana to such an extent that it practically brought to a standstill the consular relations between both sides of the Florida Strait.
January 23, 2018.
Marco Rubio’s Sonic Attacks
Marco Rubio’s Sonic Attacks
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Observers of US policy argue that senator Marco Rubio has been developing a project for some time aimed at becoming the first Latino president of the United States.
The logic of those who support him within the Republican establishment rests on the idea that if the Democratic Party could achieve it with a Black person and almost did it with a woman, it may be time to shine for a Latino Republican who, theoretically, enjoys the favor of the Pentagon and of Wall Street.
Rubio’s hopeful project involves risks and many conflicts, but the young senator seems to be willing to risk a conventional political career that is going well in order to keep the Republican Party in the White House. Even more so, given the circumstance that Trump’s re-election looks increasingly doubtful considering his constant blunders exercising the presidency.
Not too long ago, Marco Rubio was seen raging furiously against Trump in his bid for the Republican nomination. Later, he’s been allying with Trump from a position of blackmail. This is because Rubio sits on a Senate committee that could result in Trump’s impeachment due to his alleged collusion with Russia once he entered the White House.
Currently, Rubio is deeply involved in the chancy accusation against Cuba for the alleged “sonic attacks”. If successful, it could win him prestige as a skilled politician who was able to get Trump a victory “out of nothing” against the rebellious island. This would be something that a dozen previous administrations –of both parties– have not been able to achieve. Rubio has disregarded the possibility that this move may carry the risk of ridicule for him and his acolytes in the adventure.
After several months of investigations and four trips to Cuba with all the facilities and official support from the top officials of the Cuban government, the Technological Operations Division of the US Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) officially declared that they have not found any evidence of those alleged “sonic attacks” against US diplomatic personnel in Havana.
The conclusions of the US investigators concur with those of the Cuban Expert Committee which conducted an exhaustive investigation on the alleged incidents.
With his scandalous lie against Cuba about to be exposed, Senator Rubio and his sponsors have been resorting to one manipulation after another, the last of which was to submit the case to the consideration of a Congressional Committee headed by the Florida Senator: Rubio himself.
To assess the “attacks”, several congress members and government officials testified, but the alleged victims of the attacks did not. They were excused because, being US intelligence and counter-intelligence officials accredited as diplomats in Cuba, their identities should not be revealed.
It seems evident that there has been no way to confirm the existence of the sonic attacks that Senator Marco Rubio claims. They only seem to exist in the imaginations of President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
For Trump, the whole thing could be taken as just another of his blunders, but for Rubio it could mean his political funeral. In this context, the senator fabricated his theory about the origin of the “sonic attacks” in a desperate effort to find sacrificial lambs for the big lie.
According to Marco Rubio, the attacks have been so sophisticated that they cannot even describe how they happened. They “could be the work of a) a group of Castro’s opponents with the purpose of damaging the Cuban initiatives to dialogue set forth by Obama; b) a dissenting force within the Cuban government; or c) a third country: logic pointing at Russia and Vladimir Putin. “
In the great farce of the “sonic attacks”, which already has overtones of slapstick, no guilty parties are identified and the alleged victims are not known. Evidently, they do not exist.
Used as the main sponsor of the show, was President Donald Trump of whom — as Michael Wolff points out in his book Fire and Fury-– a lot has been written. Examples: “his childish acting; psychopathologies such as delusions of grandeur and paranoia; ignorance, inability to read, listen and comply with the tasks and responsibilities of his high office.”
That is why it is foreseeable that, within a few weeks, nobody will remember the farce of Trump’s sonic attacks. These will have joined the list of his “eccentricities”. Rubio will do everything possible to get out of the scene and will think: “I lost, but it was a good try. They will blame Trump. “
January 16, 2018
Toward the Reunion of the Two Koreas
TOWARD THE REUNION OF THE TWO KOREAS
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
A CubaNews translation, edited by Walter Lippmann.
Just at beginning of the new year 2018, on Tuesday, January 2, South Korea proposed to North Korea the holding of high-level talks on the following week to discuss the participation of both countries in the Winter Olympic Games. They are to be hosted by Pyeong Chang, a South Korean county located about 70 kilometers south of the inter-Korean border. It would represent “an innovative opportunity to improve relations,” said the south.
South Korean Unification Minister Cho Myoung-gyon proposed that the two Koreas meet on Tuesday, January 9, in the truce village of Panmunjom, in the Demilitarized Zone, the usual place for this kind of encounter.
If Pyongyang accepts, and the proposed meeting takes place, it would be the first contact of this nature between the governments of the two Koreas in more than two years.
The proposal came after the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, in year’s end speech, said that he would be open to dialogue with the South so that his country could send a delegation to the Olympic event to be held in South Korea, February 19-25.
So far, only two artistic skaters from the DPRK have been announced: Ryom Tae-ok and Kim Ju-ik, already qualified for the Pyeong Chang games.
Joint military exercises between the United States and South Korea was to take place, as every year, in the next few days. However, the President of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, agreed to postpone them until after the Olympic Winter Games in Pyeong Chang. They want to try to improve conditions to work for an understanding between Pyongyang and Seoul.
“I think it would help enormously to ensure the success of the Pyeon Chang Winter Olympic Games that you show your intention to delay the exercises during the event” These were Moon’s words to Trump in a recent phone conversation. The US president agreed and told Moon that he could inform Pyongyang that there will be no war games during the sports event, as can be read in the transcript of the conversation
The decision to postpone joint military exercises occurred after the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, in his New Year’s message, expressed his wish that his country participate in the Winter Olympics.
Seoul had already asked Washington to consider postponing the exercises, to prevent the government of North Korea from responding by carrying out a new weapons test.
For now, North Korea’s response to the meeting proposed by Seoul for next January 9 is still pending. It is expected that the participation of the North Korean athletes in the games will be closely examined.
“Ratifying the will of our leader, we will maintain a close and sincere contact” regarding North Korean participation in the Olympic Games to be held in South Korea from 9 to 25 February,” said Ri Son-gwon, who leads inter-Korean affairs in Pyongyang, to the South Korean news agency Yonhap.
“We will hold working conversations about our potential sending a delegation to those Winter Olympics that will be held in South Korea.”
However, Ri did not specify whether North Korea would accept the offer to hold a high-level meeting on January 9, or if the talks for the time being will be limited to communication through the telephone line installed at the border. It has not been operated for two years and has been the only communications channel between the two countries.
In Seoul, Yoon Young-chan, on behalf of President Moon Jae-in, celebrated the news. “I think the announcement shows an advance towards a situation in which communication [between the two countries] is possible at all times,” he said in a brief statement to the media.
In case the high-level meeting takes place, it would be the first of this kind in more than two years between the two countries, which have remained [formally] at war for the last 65 years. It would come after a year of special tension over Pyongyang’s weapons tests, Yoon said to Yonhap.
The South Korean president, Moon, since coming to power last May, has tried to achieve a rapprochement through dialogue with the North Korean government headed by Kim Jong-un. He has also insisted that Pyongyang participate in the Winter Games.
It should be recalled that, in September 2017, Donald Trump made derogatory comments about Moon Jae-in because of his position toward Pyongyang. Trump offended the South Korean, calling him a “beggar,” for his insistence on dialogue with North Korea. “
January 4, 2018
Trump on Iran: Wrong Again
Trump on Iran: Wrong Again
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
A CubaNews translation edited by Walter Lippmann.
The United States’ intention to turn the protests in Iran between December 28, 2017 and January 3, 2018 into an “Iranian spring” failed miserably.
Washington’s expressions of support harmed a movement that, perhaps, arose spontaneously, but that did not last. It lost all its support due to the unwanted backing from Washington that made it offensive to the nation’s identity.
Trump took several days to figure out what was happening in his own country in August of 2017, with the social unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia. However, the US President saw the protests in Iran as an appetizing sweet served on his plate. He tried quickly to gobble it up. He issued half a dozen tweets in support of the protests, but it was obvious that his true intention was to fan the flames and not put them out.
There is no evidence that the protesters followed a script produced by Trump or that they paid any attention to what he wrote. It cannot even be assumed that the protesters were receiving instructions from outside.
For most Iranians, Trump is just a source of animosity toward their people. He had shown that from the moment he became President. While joyfully hugging the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Iran’s regional rival, Trump included Iranian nationals among the excludables in his anti-Muslim immigration rules. This, despite the fact that there has never been an Iranian involved in terrorist acts against the United States.
At the end of 2017, demonstrations and protests began to take place in several Iranian cities. These were apparently motivated by mass popular discontent. Among their demands: broader political and social freedoms, insistent denunciations of corruption in public administration. They rejected price increases in gasoline, eggs and other consumer goods and services. Added to this was dissatisfaction with the approval of a budget that projected the reduction of various social benefits and an increase in expenses related to military investment.
In an act of astonishing intervention into the internal affairs of another nation, Washington announced its support for the protests. White House Press Secretary, Sarah Sanders, called them “real popular uprisings led by brave Iranian citizens”. Trump posted his already-mentioned tweets and praised the Iranian protesters as “hungry for food and freedom” that Washington should assist. He even promised them support.
Since his arrival in the Oval Office, Trump has systematically opposed the Nuclear Agreement that the G5 + 1 group (USA, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom and Germany). It had been negotiated with Iran for 18 months, until it was signed on July 14. The historic agreement with Iran requires the limitation of certain aspects of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program on terms accepted by Tehran.
“The United States will not repeat the shameful mistake made in our past when others stayed on the sidelines and ignored the heroic
resistance of the Iranian people who were fighting against their brutal regime, ” said Vice President Mike Pence, who criticized Barack Obama’s Administration for staying out of the protests that took place in Iran in 2009.
Once the July Agreement was announced, President Barack Obama signed the executive order lifting economic sanctions on Iran. The official in charge of the European Union’s policy, Federica Mogherini, confirmed a similar decision by the EU after a long day of diplomatic negotiations. “All parties believe that this historic agreement is as strong as it is fair,” said Mogherini, who coordinated the negotiations of the six great powers with Iran.
The Iranian people had great hope that the nuclear agreement would serve not only to prevent a war with the United States, but to get their country out of political isolation and the financial situation imposed by Washington.
The agreement opens the door for the release of the Iranian assets frozen in several world banking institutions valued at between 45 and 90 thousand billion Euros. Iran plans to increase its oil exports by no less than half a million barrels when the sanctions are lifted.
Despite the failure of their plans to produce a self-destructive “Iranian spring” in Tehran, Washington keeps going ahead with its basic purpose. Now it is working toward calling a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to examine the situation.
Taking advantage of the widespread US media coverage of the Iranian protests and its wide impact on the global media, the US delegates are trying to put on the meeting’s agenda “a dangerous problem that harms the human rights of the Iranian people” in order to create a false image of Iran and promote its destabilization.
January 8, 2018.
Hondurans Seek Revenge at the Ballot Box
- English
- Español
Hondurans Seek Revenge at the Ballot Box
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
The deceptive trickery of the bourgeois governments sponsored by the United States has no limits. A few hours were enough for the candidate for presidential re-election in Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez (JOA), to convert, a difference of 5% of the votes counted in favor of his opponent, Salvador Nasralla, into an advantage of for him that would proclaim him reelected President.
JOA had remained in an electoral campaign throughout his government. While locking up, banishing or burying his adversaries, he gave away balls, cardboard houses, bags of beans labeled with his photograph and the logo of his party and other sacramental gifts “blessed with the blood of Christ”. He distributed even 50 Lempiras (equivalent to 2.5 dollars) to all impoverished voters.
Depressing was the surprise for him and his cohort when, at the end of the November 26 vote, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) announced that the candidate of the Free Alliance-PINU, Salvador Nasralla, was ahead of him by 5 points.
A few minutes later, the TSE suspended the count due to “technical problems of the system” and shortly thereafter announced that, in a new calculation, JOA was ahead of Nasralla by 1 point.
Popular protests immediately broke out. Hondurans could not placidly accept the monstrous fraud, which came to fill the cup of humiliation that infringed the nation’s coup that ousted President Manuel Zelaya in 2009.
Ollantay Itzamná, a Quechua nomad, son of Pachamama, activist and reflective defender of human rights and of Mother Earth, who also trained as a lawyer, anthropologist and theologian in Western science, has narrated, as a brilliant journalist, an understandable synthesis of the historical background of the phenomenon that is taking place in Honduras.
“The State of Honduras, in its almost 200 years, has been controlled and governed by an elite of landowners and self-designated conservative and liberal merchants. During the first 100 years, the leaders of Honduras were selected by means of bayonets and shotguns. At the beginning of the 20th century, the conservatives, to make the pantomime appear democratic, created the so-called Liberal party and, from that, Honduras lived a whole century under National-Liberal bipartisanship.
With the politico-military coup d’état of 2009, the rich in power accelerated their own political destabilization. In fact, the emergence of the social movement that became the National Front of Popular Resistance (FNRP), demanded the return to power of the deposed President Manuel Zelaya. It proposed profound structural changes in impoverished and alienated Honduras.
Beginning in 2012, the FNRP gave birth to the current political party Freedom and Free Refoundation, made up mostly of former liberal politicians, who, in its first participation in elections, took second place in the general elections of 2013, with 37 deputies from the 128 that make up the Congress of the Republic.
But the government of JOA, co-author of the coup d’état, which had control of the legislative and judicial powers, and made political life almost impossible. Not only did it exclude them from parliamentary committees, it systematically blocked their legislative initiatives.
After the 2009 coup, Honduras experienced a systematic “democratic” dictatorship, where illegality, corruption and the dissolution of rights were constantly promoted.
The illegality of the JOA dictatorship reached its maximum expression when, contrary to the provisions of the country’s Political Constitution, the presidential candidate announced he was seeking re-election, under the slogan: “The best life for Honduras can not stop”. Something unlikely in a country that has conquered the world record as “the country with the most violent war in the world,” and where the level of poverty worsened more than 10% after the 2009 coup.
Dissent or disseminating a critical thinking has been punished with harsh penalties and disrespect for human rights. It took on a murky look with massacres and selective killings, such as the murder of Berta Cáceres which was denounced worldwide.
“In these conditions, Honduras was forced to return to the ritual of the polls. The dictator, believing that his victims were defeated, tried to re-elect himself in the polls claiming to be ‘s anointed by God to continue governing Honduras for Christ. “
But, the resistance was not dead. It returned to him to ashes and defeated the dictatorship of fear, the dictatorship of the media and the divine dictatorship in which the oligarchy enrolled even the Cardinal, bishops, priests, pastors and apostles, says Itzamna.
At the end of this article, and without knowing the final pronouncement of the TSE, everything seemed to indicate a new confrontation between the oligarchy at the service of US imperialism and the mocked people. It could now be more violent and bloody than in 2009, if the poor don’t win electoral vengeance.
November 30, 2017.
VENGANZA HONDUREÑA POR LA VIA DE LAS URNAS
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusivo para el diario POR ESTO! de Mérida, México.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusivo para el diario POR ESTO! de Mérida, México.
La prestidigitación de los gobiernos burgueses patrocinados por Estados Unidos no tiene límites. Unas pocas horas bastaron para que el candidato a la reelección presidencial en Honduras Juan Orlando Hernández (JOA), convirtiera, una diferencia del 5% de los votos computados a favor de su contrario, Salvador Nasralla, en una ventaja suya que lo proclamaría Presidente reelecto.
JOA se había mantenido en campaña electoral durante todo su gobierno. Al tiempo que encerraba, desterraba o enterraba a sus adversarios, regalaba pelotas, casitas de cartón, bolsitas de frijoles rotulados con su fotografía y el logo de su partido y otros regalitos sacramentados y “bendecidos con la sangre de Cristo”. Distribuyó incluso 50 Lempiras (equivalente a 2.5 dólares) a todos los empobrecidos electores.
Deprimente fue la sorpresa para él y su cohorte cuando, al término de la votación del 26 de noviembre el Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) anunció que el candidato de la Alianza Libre-PINU, Salvador Nasralla, le aventajaba por 5 puntos.
Algunos minutos más tarde, el TSE suspendió el conteo por “problemas técnicos del sistema” y poco después dio a conocer que, en un nuevo cálculo, JOA iba delante de Nasralla por 1 punto.
Enseguida estallaron las protestas populares. Los hondureños no podían aceptar plácidamente el monstruoso fraude, que venía a colmar la copa de la humillación que infringió a la nación el golpe de estado que defenestró al Presidente Manuel Zelaya en 2009.
Ollantay Itzamná, nómada quechua, hijo de la Pachamama, activista y defensor reflexivo de los derechos humanos y de la Madre Tierra, formado también como abogado, antropólogo y teólogo en la ciencia occidental, ha narrado, como brillante periodista que es, una comprensible síntesis de los antecedentes históricos del fenómeno que está teniendo lugar en Honduras.
“El Estado de Honduras, en sus casi 200 años, estuvo controlado y gobernado por una élite de terratenientes y comerciantes auto titulados conservadores y liberales. urante los primeros 100 años, los dirigentes de Honduras eran colocados por medio de bayonetas y escopetas. A principios del siglo XX, los conservadores, para hacer aparecer democrática a la pantomima, crearon el denominado partido Liberal y, a partir de ello, Honduras vivió todo un siglo bajo el bipartidismo Nacional-Liberal.
Con el golpe de Estado político-militar de 2009, los ricos en el poder aceleraron su propia desestabilización política y, de hecho, el surgimiento del movimiento social que significó el Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular (FNRP) que exigía la restitución en el poder del depuesto Presidente Manuel Zelaya y proponía cambios estructurales profundos en la Honduras empobrecida y enajenada.
A partir del 2012, el FNRP dio origen al actual partido político Libertad y Refundación Libre, conformado en su mayoría por políticos ex liberales, que en su primera participación en comicios, ocupó el segundo lugar en las elecciones generales del 2013, con 37 diputados de los 128 que integran el Congreso de la República.
Pero el gobierno de JOA, coautor del golpe de Estado, tenía el control de los poderes legislativo y judicial, y les hizo la vida política casi imposible. No sólo les excluyó de comisiones parlamentarias, sino que les impidió sistemáticamente sus iniciativas legislativas.
Después del golpe de 2009, Honduras vivió una sistemática dictadura “democrática”, donde la ilegalidad, la corrupción y disolución de los derechos fueron constantemente promovidas.
La ilegalidad de la dictadura de JOA alcanzó su máxima expresión cuando en contra de lo dispuesto por la Constitución Política del país, se autoproclamó candidato presidencial buscando su reelección, bajo el lema: “La vida mejor para Honduras no puede parar”. Algo inverisímil en un país que conquistó la marca mundial de “país sin guerra más violento del mundo”, y donde el nivel de pobreza empeoró más del 10% tras el golpe de Estado de 2009.
Disentir o difundir un pensamiento crítico se ha castigado con duras penas y el irrespeto a los derechos humanos cobró visos dantescos con las masacres y asesinatos selectivos, con el caso del homicidio de Berta Cáceres como el más repudiado mundialmente.
“En estas condiciones, la hondureñidad fue obligada a volver al ritual de las urnas. El dictador, creyendo que sus víctimas estaban vencidas, intentó reelegirse en las urnas alegando ser el ungido del Dios para seguir gobernando en Honduras para Cristo”.
Pero, la resistencia no estaba muerta. Volvió sobre sus cenizas y derrotó a la dictadura del miedo, la dictadura de los medios de prensa y la dictadura divina en la que la oligarquía enroló hasta al Cardenal, obispos, curas, pastores y apósteles, señala Itzamná.
Al cierre de este artículo sin conocer el pronunciamiento final del TSE, todo parecía indicar un nuevo enfrentamiento entre la oligarquía al servicio del imperialismo estadounidense y el pueblo burlado, que pudiera ser ahora más violento y cruento que en 2009, si se desconoce esta venganza electoral de los pobres.
Noviembre 30 de 2017.
My Last Farewell to Armando Hart
- English
- Español
My Last Farewell to Armando Hart
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Tonight I will go to the Marti Studies Center of Cuba to give my last farewell to revolutionary combatant Armando Hart Dávalos, who died in Havana of a heart attack.
To say Armando Hart in Cuba is to invoke some of the most transcendental works of Fidel Castro’s revolution. Especially in the fields of education, culture, journalism and politics. Before meeting Armando Hart, I had had very casual relationships in the insurrectional camp with his brother Enrique Hart, whom I admired a lot but worked with very little, because although we both were active in the same revolutionary organization, the 26th of July Movement, my level in its hierarchy was far from from that which Enriquito and Armando had reached.
During my six years as Cuban Ambassador in Romania from 1962 to 1968, I used to do what I jokingly called “courtesy visits” to several colleagues with whom I had developed friendly relations at the time of the insurrectional struggle against the Batista dictatorship. which I consolidated during the period from 1959 to 1961 when I worked as “Introducer of Ambassadors”, a position that is also called Director of Protocol, in the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, then headed by the Chancellor of Dignity, Raúl Roa.
One of those habitual friends contacted during my always short vacation in Cuba was the young Armando Hart, at that time Minister of Education, with whom I exchanged my new diplomatic experiences, with his as minister and political leader.
Each annual meeting with Hart was for me a master class that left me better prepared to contribute to the revolutionary cause in my country while I felt that the experiences in international politics that Armando narrated were also well received.
When I finished my mission as an ambassador in Bucharest and introduced myself to Roa, the foreign minister informed me that, by indication, President Osvaldo Dorticos would go to work in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) with Armando Hart, who was then the Organization Secratary of the PCC. From then on, I served as head of the (unipersonal) section of international information of the Cuban party organization in a function that basically meant serving as Party spokesperson in permanent exchange with those responsible for international information of accredited national or foreign press organs.in Cuba.
For me, this was great news. It allowed me to continue for a few more years developing my intellect, which is the main benefit received by those who have had the honor to work as collaborators with Armando Hart.
A short time later, at Hart´s suggestion, I was selected Director General of the Prensa Latina news agency. There I maintained close working and friendship relations with this extraordinary Cuban revolutionary intellectual whose footprint will remain indelible in the history of the country.
In recent years I have shared with Dr. Armando Hart the role of collaborator with newspapers PORESTO! and a strong friendship with its General Director Mario Menéndez Rodríguez.
November 26, 2017.
MI ÚLTIMO ADIÓS A ARMANDO HART
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
MI ÚLTIMO ADIÓS A ARMANDO HART Por Manuel E. Yepe
Esta noche acudiré al Centro de Estudios Martianos de Cuba a dar mi último adiós al combatiente revolucionario Armando Hart Dávalos, fallecido en La Habana a causa de una crisis cardiaca.
Decir Armando Hart en Cuba es invocar algunas de las obras más trascendentales de la revolución de Fidel Castro. En especial en los terrenos de la educación, la cultura, el periodismo y la política. Antes de conocer a Armando Hart, había tenido relaciones muy eventuales en el campo insurreccional con su hermano Enrique Hart, a quien admiré mucho pero traté poco, porque aunque militábamos en la misma organización revolucionaria, el Movimiento 26 de Julio, mi nivel jerárquico distaba mucho del que habían alcanzado Enriquito y Armando.
Durante los seis años que me desempeñe como Embajador de Cuba en Rumanía 1962 al 1968, acostumbraba a realizar lo que yo llamaba jocosamente “visitas de cortesía” a varios compañeros con quienes había desarrollado relaciones de amistad en la época de la lucha insurreccional contra la dictadura batistiana, que consolidé durante el período de 1959 al 1961 cuando trabajé como “Introductor de Embajadores”, cargo que también se identifica como Director de Protocolo, en el Ministerio cubano de Relaciones Exteriores de Cuba, entonces encabezado por el canciller de la dignidad, Raúl Roa.
Uno de esos habituales amigos contactados durante mis siempre breves vacaciones en Cuba era el joven Armando Hart, a la sazón Ministro de Educación, con quien intercambiaba mis nuevas experiencias diplomáticas, con las suyas como ministro y dirigente político.
Cada encuentro anual con Hart era para mí una clase magistral que me dejaba mejor preparado para aportar a la causa revolucionaria en mi país mientras sentía que las experiencias en política internacional que narraba a Armando también eran bien recibidas.
Cuando terminé mi misión como embajador en Bucarest y me presenté ante Roa, el canciller me informó que por indicación el Presidente Osvaldo Dorticós yo pasaría a trabajar en el Comité Central el Partido Comunista de Cuba con Armando Hart, quien era entonces el Secretario de Organización de esa colectividad. Serví a partir de entonces como jefe de la sección (unipersonal) de información internacional de la organización partidista cubana en una función que básicamente constituía servir de vocero del Partido en intercambio permanente con los responsables de información internacional de los órganos de prensa nacionales o extranjeros acreditados en Cuba.
Ello constituyó, para mí, una gran noticia que me permitió continuar algunos años más desarrollando mi intelecto, que es el beneficio principal que reciben quienes han tenido el honor e trabajar como colaboradores de Armando Hart.
Poco tiempo después, a propuesta de Hart, fui seleccionado Director General de la agencia de noticias Prensa Latina en cuyo desempeño mantuve estrechas relaciones de trabajo y amistad con este extraordinario intelectual revolucionario cubano cuya huella permanecerá indeleble en la historia de la patria.
En los años más recientes he compartido con el doctor Armando Hart la función de colaborador con los periódicos PORESTO! y una fuerte amistad con su Director General Mario Menéndez Rodríguez.
Noviembre 26 de 2017.
Neo-McCarthyism and the New Cold War
- English
- Español
Neo-McCarthyism and the New Cold War
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Every American not anesthetized by anti-Russian hysteria should read Robert Parry’s essay “The Rise of the New McCarthyism” that highlights the similarities between the current overheated political pranks of Trumpism and the earlier manifestation of the shameful phenomenon in US history that is identified with the name of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Parry recalls in that, during and after the First World War, the Bolshevik revolution terrorized the American ruling class. It, in turn, reacted with its first “red scare,” an orgy of patriotism induced by war and fear, infused by frantic means inflamed by the mythical red barbarism that led to a feast of deportations and mass arrests.
The victory of the Soviet Union, the expansion of socialism, the intensification of struggles for national liberation and a challenge to the hegemony of the two parties stimulated the occurrence of a second “red scare” in the US ruling class.
With such a base of support, a critical mass of consensus was achieved that persisted throughout the cold war. It was driven by the Republicans and the right against a large part of the left and other sectors and individuals (democrats, liberals and progressives) attacked by Senator McCarthy as “anti-American” or “fellow travelers” of the communists.
The true beneficiaries of the new McCarthyism today seem to be the neocons. They take advantage of Trump’s rejection of liberals and democrats to attract a part of the left to the hysteria unleashed by the controversy over the supposed “political interference” by Russia in the US presidential election.
The neocons and their allies have already exploited the frenzy against Russia to extract tens of millions of additional dollars from taxpayers for programs to “combat Russian propaganda,” that is, to fund non-governmental organizations and dissident US “scholars” for this new cold war.
The Washington Post (WP), which for years has served as the flagship of neocon propaganda, is charting the new political course of the United States. It had done the same to build the public support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and to promote support for Washington’s pressure to achieve “regime change” in Syria and Iran.
US taxpayers are bearing the cost of wars or military actions in the Middle East, South America, Africa, the Caribbean and Asia. Any country that does not show obedience to the global leadership of the United States becomes the target of In its attacks. the WP is leading a global campaign aimed at blaming Russia for everything that displeases Washington.
Putin has become the great black beast for the neocons, because he has frustrated Washington by a large variety of schemes. He helped to avoid a major US military attack against Syria in 2013; helped President Obama achieve the nuclear agreement with Iran in 2014-15; opposed the frustrated neocon support for the coup in Ukraine in 2014; and the support of the Russian air force that ultimately decided the recent defeat of the “rebels” supported by the US in Syria, at the hands of the local army, in 2017.
In an article, the WP reminds its readers that Moscow, historically, has relied on social inequalities in the United States to attack Washington, “which,” says Parry, “brings us back to the comparisons between old and new McCarthyism” .
Yes, it is true that the Soviet Union denounced the racial segregation of the United States. They cited that ugly characteristic of American society when expressing solidarity with the American civil rights movement and the national liberation struggles in Africa. It is also true that the communists of the United States collaborated with the national civil rights movement to promote racial integration, Parry explains.
That was a key reason why J. Edgar Hoover FBI had Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. watched and persecuted Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other African-American leaders, because of his association with people known or suspected of being communists. Ronald Reagan’s administration, in the same way, was reluctant to support the global campaign for the release of Nelson Mandela because his party African National Congress accepted communist support for its struggle against the regime of white supremacy (apartheid) in South Africa.
Robert Parry warns that perhaps “new McCarthyism” is not the appropriate way to describe the situation that seems to be approaching in the United States, but that it should be a “new cold war.”
November 7, 2017.
Spanish
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Todo estadounidense no anestesiado por la histeria anti rusa debería leer el libro de Robert Parry “Auge del nuevo macartismo” que destaca las similitudes entre las recalentadas travesuras políticas actuales del trumpismo y la anterior manifestación del tan vergonzoso fenómeno en la historia de Estados Unidos que se identifica con el nombre del senador Joseph McCarthy.
Parry recuerda en su libro que, durante y luego de la Primera Guerra Mundial, la revolución bolchevique aterrorizó a la clase gobernante estadounidense que, a su vez, reaccionó con su primer “susto rojo”, orgía de patriotismo inducida por la guerra y el miedo infundido por frenéticos medios enardecidos por la mítica barbarie roja que llevó a un festín de deportaciones y detenciones en masa.
La victoria de la Unión Soviética, la expansión del socialismo, la intensificación de las luchas por la liberación nacional y un desafío a la hegemonía de los dos partidos estimularon la ocurrencia de un segundo “susto rojo” en la clase dominante estadounidense.
Con tal base de sustentación, se logró una masa crítica de consenso que persistió a todo lo largo de la guerra fría, impulsada por los republicanos y la derecha contra gran parte de la izquierda y otros sectores e individuos (demócratas, liberales y progresistas) afrentados por el senador McCarthy como “antiamericanos” o “fellow travelers” (compañeros de viaje) de los comunistas.
Los verdaderos beneficiarios del nuevo macartismo actual parecen ser los neoconservadores (neocon), que aprovechan el rechazo a Trump de liberales y demócratas para atraer a una parte de la izquierda a la histeria desatada por la polémica sobre la supuesta “intromisión política” rusa en las elecciones presidenciales estadounidenses.
Ya los neocon y sus aliados han explotado el frenesí contra Rusia para extraer decenas de millones de dólares adicionales de los contribuyentes para los programas de “combate a la propaganda rusa,” es decir, a financiar organizaciones no gubernamentales y “eruditos” disidentes estadounidenses para esta nueva guerra fría.
El periódico Washington Post (WP), que por años ha servido como buque insignia de la propaganda neocon, está trazando el nuevo curso político de Estados Unidos, como lo hizo en los mítines de respaldo público a la invasión de Iraq en 2003 y para promover apoyo a las presiones de Washington por lograr el “cambio de régimen” en Siria y en Irán.
Mientras a costa de los contribuyentes Estados Unidos lleva a cabo guerras o acciones de guerra en el Medio Oriente, América del Sur, África, el Caribe y Asia, y cualquier país que no demuestre aceptar el liderazgo global de Estados Unidos se convierte en blanco de sus agresiones, el WP encabeza una campaña mundial encaminada a culpar a Rusia por cuanta cosa desagrade al público de EEUU.
Putin se ha convertido en la gran bestia negra para los neocon, porque les ha frustrado una gran variedad de esquemas. Ayudó a evitar un gran ataque militar de Estados Unidos contra Siria en 2013; ayudó al Presidente Obama a lograr el acuerdo nuclear con Irán en 2014-15; se opuso al frustrado apoyo neocon al golpe de estado en Ucrania en 2014; y el apoyo de la fuerza aérea rusa que en última instancia fue lo que decidió la reciente derrota de los “rebeldes” apoyados por EEUU en Siria, a manos del ejército local en 2017.
En un artículo, el WP recuerda a sus lectores que Moscú, históricamente, se ha basado en las desigualdades sociales en Estados Unidos para atacar a Washington, “lo que –dice Parry- nos retrotrae a las comparaciones entre el macartismo viejo y el nuevo”.
Sí, es cierto que la Unión Soviética denunció la segregación racial de Estados Unidos y citó esa fea característica de la sociedad norteamericana al expresar su solidaridad con el movimiento de los derechos civiles estadounidense y las luchas de liberación nacional en África. También es cierto que los comunistas de Estados Unidos colaboraron con el movimiento de derechos civiles nacional para promover la integración racial, admite Parry.
Fue esa una razón clave por la que el FBI de J. Edgar Hoover había vigilado y perseguido a Martin Luther King Jr. y otros líderes afroamericanos debido a su asociación con personas conocidas o sospechosas de ser comunistas, del mismo modo que el gobierno de Ronald Reagan se resistió a apoyar la campaña mundial por la liberación de Nelson Mandela porque su partido Congreso Nacional Africano aceptaba el apoyo comunista a su lucha contra el régimen de supremacía blanca (apartheid) en Sudáfrica.
Robert Parry advierte que quizás “nuevo macartismo” no sea la forma apropiada para calificar la situación que parece avecinarse en Estados Unidos sino que debía hablarse de una “nueva guerra fría”.
Noviembre 7 de 2017.
Using Fear to Strike at Cuban Tourism
Using Fear to Strike at Cuban Tourism
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
The mysterious case of the alleged “acoustic attacks” against US diplomatic personnel in Cuba turns out to have been a media maneuver aimed at damaging tourism in terms of as part of the blockade against the island.
One of Cuba’s greatest attractions for foreign tourism is the guarantee of security offered by the island to visitors from any part of the world. Another is the high level of public health in Cuba, one of the highest in the Western Hemisphere with health indicators comparable to those of the most developed nations.
In addition to the exceptional conditions with which the island has been endowed by nature, the popular revolution of 1959 has incorporated the dsocial conditions of peace and harmony that the visitor appreciates from the first moment of their stay in Cuba.
More than half a century of possessive paranoia, aggravated by the economic, commercial and financial blockade, have not been able to counteract the enormous achievements of socialism, even if they have postponed or limited many revolutionary economic and social advances in the country.
Basque journalist José Manzaneda, coordinator of the Cubainformación website, a channel that broadcasts news, reports and commentaries on the island from Spain, has denounced the media’s objective against Cuba over the campaign of alleged sonic attacks.
Manzaneda remembers that it was the Argentine newspaper “Clarín”, among many other media, who published a report two years ago from the Associated Press. Its focus was on an American traveler who felt “a sudden loss of feeling in his four extremities, in the same hotel where some affected diplomats were staying.”
Then there’s the growing interest among students, the sector of American visitors that has grown the most in Cuba –118% in the first half of the year– given that conventional tourism is still prohibited by the US blockade, Diario de Cuba, half-financed by the governments of the United States and Spain, wrote: “There are signs that students and retirees (from the U.S.) plan to cancel their trips to the island”, since neither “Washington nor Havana have been able to prevent the attacks, which could generate an uncontrollable crisis”.
El Nuevo Herald, a mouthpiece for the extreme right-wing Cubans in Miami, assured its readers that Raúl Castro is turning a diplomatic crisis into an economic, potentially destabilizing one.
Agencies and media collaborated in this way with the objective of the White House that came to life on September 29. That was when, recognizing that ti was “not aware” of the origin of the supposed acoustic attacks, it officially recommended not traveling to the island.
“Coming from the government of a country where every year 30,000 people die by firearms, more than a thousand by police, and 31% of the world’s mass shootings are recorded, this alarm seems like a joke in bad taste,” says Manzaneda.
The extreme-right of Cuban origin of the Republican party, which, in exchange for its vote on other matters, already manages Donald Trump’a Cuba policy. It seeks to reverse the growth experienced through the trips of Americans to the island and damage the income from them which it brings to the Cuban economy.
In line with this campaign, the conservative Washington Examiner asked the House of Representatives to demand that Cuba “evaluate security at its ten international airports.” This is an inadmissible interference that seeks to reduce the number of visitors from the US, in this case by canceling the regular flights authorized by the Obama administration.
However, RESPECT, the largest US association of travel promoters in Cuba, rejected –as unnecessary and counterproductive– the “security warning” issued by the State Department, arguing that Cuba is a “safe destination.”
The Spanish newspaper El País followed with an interview with Thomas Shannon, US Undersecretary of State. He held Cuba responsible for everything that had happened, but without clarifying what he was referring to, and without contributing any element to such an unusual story. Republican Senator Marco Rubio, Donald Trump’s current spoiled scion, seems to be, according to analysts, the one who is behind the nefarious campaign about “sonic attacks” in Cuba.
Everything indicates that, now, the tactic chosen by the right, at the service of imperialism, is to generate fear more than to legislate against Cuba. This is because, since for the former they have the concurrence –conscious or unconscious– of powerful international agencies and media, so much so that, for the second, they run the risk of increasing the division in the Republican ranks in Congress.
Let it be known then that all this diabolical mischief of sonic attacks is nothing more than another element of the blockade against Cuba that this past November 1, was condemned almost unanimously by the world community in the UN for the 26th consecutive year.
November 2 of 2017.
You must be logged in to post a comment.