Manuel E. Yepe 239
An Inhumane and Excessive Prison System
- English
- Español
AN INHUMANE AND EXCESSIVE PRISON SYSTEM
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
It is a generally-held view, worldwide, that the United States penitentiary system is inhumane and excessive. This has been demonstrated by the fact that an Irish court recently rejected the extradition to the US of a suspected terrorist.
The court cited concerns that if he were sent to the U.S., he would probably be placed in Colorado’s “Supermax” prison, ADX Florence (Administrative Maximum Facility). The prison is nicknamed Colorado’s “Alcatraz of the Rockies” in reference to the region where it is located.
Irish High Court Justice Aileen Donnelly went as far as to write a 333-page report about why the suspect shouldn’t be extradited. One highlight from the court’s ruling was that incarceration at ADX Florence prison would amount to “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Donnelly said the prison “amounts to a breach of the constitutional requirement to protect persons from inhumane and degrading treatment and to respect the dignity of the human being.”
“Prolonged exposure to involuntary solitary confinement exacts a significant physiological toll, is damaging to the integrity of the mind and personality, and is damaging to the bodily integrity of the person,” she continued.
According to the Los Angeles Times, “An Irish resident originally from Algiers, Damache, 50, is accused of using online chat rooms to recruit American women into a would-be terrorist cell operating in the United States and Europe.
One man and two women, including Damache’s wife, have already been convicted in U.S. courts of providing material support to terrorists. And Damache was captured by Irish authorities in 2010 in Dublin on a separate charge of making a telephone death threat and held without bail.”
In 2011, Damache was indicted in absentia in a Philadelphia court on “charges of plotting to assassinate a Swedish cartoonist who depicted the prophet Muhammad as a dog.” Damache was released in May after serving his time, but the U.S. is still pushing for his extradition.
“After more than five years in jail, I am looking forward to moving on with my life here.” he said in a statement presented by his lawyers.
The Colorado prison has held some of the most well-known criminals in American history, keeping them in solitary confinement with extremely limited access to outside communication.
Among the most notorious inmates of ADX Florence are two of the most-publicized alleged terrorists in the history of the US: Timothy McVeigh, who detonated a truckload of explosives on April 19, 1995 in front of a Federal building in Oklahoma causing the death of 168 people and injuring more than 600; and Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person convicted in a civilian court for involvement in the 9/11 attacks against the Twin Towers of New York.
In his August 11th article for Anti-Media network, “Ireland Refuses to Extradite Man to US Because Prison System is Too Inhumane”, California journalist Cassius Methy says there are lawyers who have even argued that incarceration at ADX Florence is worse than the death penalty. Defense expert Mark Bezy called it “a mechanism to cut off an inmate’s communications with the outside world.”
Although isolation conditions vary, this regime usually consists of 23 hours of solitary confinement and only one hour daily outside the cell.”The refusal of the Irish court to extradite Damache added to a growing trend that is already apparent in many countries opting to exercise their own sovereignty despite the powerful pressures of US influence. These nations are increasingly moving to make decisions by themselves without being persuaded to follow orders from the powerful empire,” says Bezy.
In 44 of the 50 states that make up the Union, isolation regimes are used and 25,000 convicts are detained in prisons of maximum security similar to the ADX Florence.
Obviously, the US prison system is unable to provide models that could serve Washington when it demands human rights respect from those third world countries that do not abide by its imperial rule.
August 26, 2015.
UN SISTEMA PENITENCIARIO INHUMANO Y EXCESIVO
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Es criterio generalizado en todo el mundo que el sistema penitenciario de los Estados Unidos es inhumano y excesivo. Así lo ha confirmado el hecho de que una corte irlandeses rechazara recientemente la extradición a Estados Unidos de un presunto terrorista. La
preocupación principal de la corte citada consistía en que si se enviaba al reo a Estados Unidos éste podría ser recluido en la cárcel “Supermax” de Colorado ADX Florencia (instalación de máxima seguridad administrativa), prisión conocida como “Alcatraz de los Rockies”, en alusión a la región donde se encuentra.
La jueza Aileen Donnelly, de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de Irlanda, redactó un informe de 333 páginas con las razones por las cuales el sospechoso no debía ser extraditado. En la decisión de la Corte destacaba el argumento de que el encarcelamiento en la prisión ADX Florencia significaría un castigo “cruel e inusual”.
Según Donnelly, en sí misma la prisión “viola el requisito
constitucional de respetar la dignidad del ser humano y salvaguardar a las personas de tratos inhumanos y degradantes.”
“La exposición prolongada e involuntaria a reclusión solitaria provoca un daño fisiológico significativo, es perjudicial para la integridad de la mente y la personalidad, y perjudica la integridad corporal de la persona”, decía.
Según el diario Los Angeles Times, un residente irlandés oriundo de Argel de apellido Damache, de 50 años de edad, está siendo acusado de haber usado salas de chatear en línea para reclutar mujeres
estadounidenses a fin de incorporarlas a una célula terrorista en proceso de formación, destinada a operar en Estados Unidos y Europa. Un hombre y dos mujeres, incluyendo la esposa de Damache, habían sido anteriormente condenados por tribunales de Estados Unidos
atribuyéndoles brindar apoyo material a terroristas. En 2010, en Dublín, Damache fue incriminado por autoridades irlandesas por haber formulado amenazas de muerte telefónicamente y, al ser capturado, fue recluido en prisión sin derecho a prestar fianza.
En 2011, Damache fue acusado a distancia en un tribunal de Filadelfia, Estados Unidos, con “cargos de conspirar para asesinar al
caricaturista sueco que representó al Profeta Mahoma como un perro.” Damache fue excarcelado en mayo luego de servir su condena, pero Estados Unidos ha seguido presionando por su extradición.
“Después de más de cinco años encarcelado, deseo continuar aquí mi vida”, dijo en una declaración presentada por sus abogados.
La prisión de Colorado ha albergado, manteniéndolos en confinamiento solitario con muy limitado acceso a la comunicación exterior, a algunos de los más conocidos criminales en la historia estadounidense. Entre los mas notorios prisioneros de la ADX Florencia se incluyen dos de los más publicitados presuntos terroristas de la historia de Estados Unidos: Timothy McVeigh, quien hizo detonar un camión cargado de explosivos el 19 de abril de 1995 frente a un edificio de la ciudad de Oklahoma ocasionando la muerte de 168 personas y heridas a más de 600, y Zacarias Moussaoui, la única persona condenada por un tribunal civil por su implicación en los ataques del 11 de septiembre de 2001 contra las Torres Gemelas de Nueva York.
En un artículo del periodista californiano Cassius Methy para la red Anti-Media publicado el 11 de agosto con el título “Irlanda se niega a extraditar a una persona a E.U. porque el sistema de prisiones allí es demasiado inhumano” se señala que hay abogados que argumentan que el encarcelamiento en ADX Florencia es peor que la pena de muerte. El experto en defensa Marca Bezy la calificó de ” mecanismo para cortar las comunicaciones de un recluso con el mundo exterior”.
Aunque las condiciones del aislamiento pueden variar, este régimen por lo general consiste en 23 horas de encierro en solitario y solo una hora diaria fuera de la celda.
“La negativa de la corte irlandesa a extraditar a Damache se agrega a una creciente tendencia que ya se aprecia en muchas naciones que optan por ejercer su propia soberanía no obstante las presiones de la poderosa influencia estadounidense. Esas naciones se están moviendo cada vez más hacia la toma por sí mismos de las decisiones sin dejarse persuadir a acatar las órdenes del imperio poderoso” aprecia Bezy. En 44 de los 50 estados que integran la Unión, se emplean regímenes de aislamiento y se recluye a 25.000 convictos en prisiones de máxima seguridad similares a la ADX Florencia.
Evidentemente, el sistema de prisiones estadounidense no es capaz de aportar modelos que sirvan a Washington cuando exige respeto por los derechos humanos a aquellos países del tercer mundo que no acatan su imperio.
Agosto 26 de 2015.
Share this:
Liberalizing the Cuban Economy…For Whom?
- English
- Español
Liberalizing the Cuban Economy…For Whom?
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
The coming visit to Cuba, on March 21 and 22, of the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, has the expressed goal of contributing to the process of normalization of relations between the two countries.
But the road to such normalization cannot be undertaken mirroring the model of a situation that existed at some period in the past, because the links between the two sides have never been truly “normal”.
And, in what way could the US oligarchy obtain benefits from the negotiations that are taking place for that purpose in Washington and Havana?
Demands linked to a number of issues have already fallen into complete disrepute. These issues are: human rights (regarding which Cuba shows many accomplishments and the US serious deficiencies); democracy (a term the US foreign policy systematically confuses with capitalism); ties with US enemies (these change constantly because of US foreign policy’s inclination to war); religious intolerance (Cuba is highly regarded for its complete openness to all religions both internally and globally); political fanaticism (Cuban diplomacy enjoys great prestige and has earned outstanding successes in its contributions to conflict resolution in various parts of the world).
Now it appears –at least considering what is reflected by US-controlled or greatly influenced corporate media– that most efforts are focused on demands for the liberalization of the island’s economy to increase its vulnerability to the appetites of Wall Street.
The current slogan, repeated in different ways by these means is “the Cuban government must liberalize its economy in response to every step taken by the United States to partially soften its blockade of the island.”
Derived from this slogan is the warning that “the thaw between Cuba and the United States moves very slowly because of the decision of Havana not to lose control of its economy.”
On other occasions they have used officials or experts linked to the US government to express the claim that the continuation of the easing of sanctions, and some timid steps of the White House to allow exports of some of its products to Cuba –on credit– “will depend on the actions carried out by the Cuban government to liberalize its economy.”
There have also been more categorical demands that “if Cuba does not take steps towards greater openness, both of the economic and political systems, it will be impossible that issues such as the embargo or the Helms-Burton Act are repealed by Congress.”
Or, as bait, offering that if Cuba moves its chips in this regard it will be rewarded, because “then Obama could work wonders before a Congress and a Senate that from January on will have a Republican majority”.
All this leads to the threat that if Cuba wants to get rid of the blockade, it must make the changes demanded by the United States, the think tanks of capitalist thinking and the mass media advocating an economic opening directed to Cuba’s accepting a system of capitalist economy that Cubans rejected in 2011 when –at 163,000 very democratic assemblies– they added, removed or modified a basic text to endorse the roadmap of economic changes within socialism that are being implemented in the most recent period.
For years, the dominant message in the mainstream media indicated that the US blockade was a mere excuse of the Cuban government to hide its economic failure since this had little impact on the economy of the island. Today few dare sustain such a thing, because in just one year of timid measures by Obama, the Cuban economy grew by 4% and became an exception in the region whose GDP –according to the Comisión Económica para América Latina (CEPAL) [Economic Commission for Latin America]– has contracted by 0.4%.
The wisest thing would be for Washington to altogether accept the total failure of its economic war against Cuba and its attempt to reverse the victory of the popular Cuban socialist revolution, in the same way it had to admit defeat in its uneven confrontation against Vietnam four decades ago.
Only that, in this case, they have the possibility of ending its aggression in a civilized way, leaving the door open for a future of mutual respect and eventual reconciliation without the humiliation of having to gather on the roof, as they did in Saigon with low brows of defeat, to board the getaway helicopters.
February 22, 2016.
PARA QUIÉN LIBERALIZAR LA ECONOMÍA CUBANA
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
La visita que en los próximos días 21 y 22 de marzo realizará a Cuba el Presidente de Estados Unidos de América, Barack Obama, tiene el objetivo declarado de contribuir al proceso de normalización de las relaciones entre los dos países.
Pero el camino hacia tal normalización no puede emprenderse tomando como modelo una situación existente en algún período pretérito, porque nunca los nexos entre las dos partes han sido verdaderamente “normales”.
Y, ¿de qué otra manera pudiera la oligarquía estadounidense asegurarse ventajas en las negociaciones que están teniendo lugar para ese fin en Washington y La Habana?
Ya han caído en total descrédito las exigencias relacionadas con los derechos humanos (en cuyo respeto Cuba sobresale y Estados Unidos muestra serias carencias); democracia (término que la política externa de Estados Unidos confunde sistemáticamente con el capitalismo); vínculos con enemigos de Estados Unidos (porque éstos cambian constantemente a causa de la inclinación a las guerras de la política exterior estadounidense); intolerancia religiosa (Cuba disfruta de gran prestigio por su total apertura a todas las religiones tanto en lo interno como a escala global), o con fanatismo político (la diplomacia cubana goza de un prestigio muy sólido y ha obtenido muy sonados éxitos en sus aportes a la solución de conflictos en diversas partes del mundo).
Ahora todo parece indicar –al menos por lo que reflejan los medios corporativos bajo control o gran influencia estadounidense – que los esfuerzos se resumen a la demanda de liberalización de la economía de la isla para incrementar su vulnerabilidad ante los apetitos de Wall Street.
La consigna actual, repetida de manera diversa por estos medios, es que “el Gobierno de Cuba debe liberalizar su economía en respuesta a cada paso dado por Estados Unidos para suavizar parcialmente su bloqueo a la Isla”.
Deriva de este lema la advertencia de que “el deshielo entre Cuba y Estados Unidos avanza a paso muy lento por la decisión de La Habana de no aflojar demasiado el control de su economía”.
En otras ocasiones han puesto en boca de funcionarios o de expertos vinculados al gobierno estadounidense la afirmación de que la continuidad del alivio de las sanciones y de algunos tímidos pasos de la Casa Blanca que permiten la exportación a crédito de algunos productos a Cuba, “dependerá de las acciones que lleve a cabo el Gobierno cubano para liberalizar su economía”.
No han faltado exigencias más categóricas de que “si Cuba no da pasos hacia una mayor apertura, tanto del sistema económico como del sistema político, va a ser imposible que cuestiones como el embargo o la Ley Helms-Burton puedan ser derogadas por el Congreso de Estados Unidos”. O, a modo de cebo, el presionante ofrecimiento de que si Cuba mueve sus fichas en este sentido, será recompensada, porque “con ello, Obama podría hacer maravillas ante un Congreso y un Senado que a partir de enero tendría mayoría republicana”.
Todo esto se traduce en la amenaza de que si Cuba quiere librarse del bloqueo, deberá hacer los cambios exigidos por Estados Unidos, los tanques del pensamiento capitalista y los grandes medios de comunicación que preconizan una apertura económica dirigida a aceptar un sistema de economía capitalista que los cubanos rechazaron en 2011 cuando, en 163.000 asambleas muy democráticas, añadieron, quitaron o modificaron un texto básico hasta refrendar la hoja de ruta con los cambios económicos dentro del socialismo que se han venido aplicando en el período más reciente.
Durante años, el mensaje dominante en los grandes medios indicaba que el bloqueo de Estados Unidos era una mera excusa del Gobierno cubano para esconder su fracaso económico, ya que éste apenas impactaba sobre la economía de la Isla. Hoy, pocos se atreven a sostener tal cosa, cuando, en apenas un año de tímidas medidas de Obama, la economía cubana creció un 4% y se convirtió en una excepción en la región que, según la Comisión Económica para América Latina (CEPAL) ha contraído su PIB en un 0,4%.
Lo más sabio sería que Washington aceptara el fracaso total de su guerra económica contra Cuba y de su tentativa de revertir el triunfo de la revolución popular socialista cubana en toda la línea, de la misma manera que tuvo que reconocerlo en su dispar enfrentamiento con Vietnam hace cuatro décadas.
Solo que, en este caso, se les presenta la posibilidad de poner fin civilizadamente a su agresión, dejando la puerta abierta para un futuro de mutuo respeto y eventual reconciliación, sin la humillación de tener que atropellarse en los techos de los helicópteros con la frente baja por la derrota, como ocurrió en Saigón. Febrero 22 de 2016.
Obama Praises Colombia’s Peace Efforts
- English
- Español
OBAMA PRAISES COLOMBIA’S PEACE EFFORTS
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
US President Barack Obama recently welcomed President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia to the White House for a buoyant celebration of the $10 billion, US effort “to help Colombia vanquish its violent drug cartels and end its festering guerrilla war, the longest worldwide”.
It was also a chance for two leaders who reached out to longtime enemies to savor their success –Mr. Obama for his opening to Cuba, and Mr. Santos for his peace talks with his country’s guerrilla movement, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as the FARC.
The meeting was covered and very favorably reviewed by The New York Times on February 5, in an article titled “Obama Praises Colombia’s Peace Efforts With Rebels and Seeks Big Aid”, signed by journalist Mark Landler.
The Colombian government is expected to sign a final peace agreement with the rebels by March 23, bringing an end to the longest civil war in Latin America. An estimated 225,000 people have been killed and six million displaced in the conflict, says the New York newspaper, one of the most recognized sources of US corporate.
Speaking at the headquarters of the US government, Mr. Obama said that “a country that was on the brink of collapse is now a country on the brink of peace.” He announced that he would request $450 million in new aid for Plan Colombia, the program under which the United States has supplied Colombia with military equipment, training and economic assistance. That is an increase over the $300 million the White House had previously budgeted.
Plan Colombia, Mr. Obama said, will be renamed Peace Colombia to reflect its new purpose of helping the country keep the peace, rather than wage war. “In Colombia today,” he said, “there is hope.”
President Santos described how Colombia had rebounded from the chaos of the 1990s, when large parts of the country were under the control of the guerrillas or paramilitary groups. Today, he said, it has a thriving economy and an effective policy for cracking down on the drug trade.
He recalled that Mr. Obama was one of the first leaders in whom he confided his plans to negotiate with the guerrillas. “You not only believed it was possible,” Mr. Santos said, “you encouraged me to go ahead and gave me your full, enthusiastic support.”
Speaking for all people who live “south of the Rio Grande,” Mr. Santos thanked Mr. Obama for his “audacity in re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba.”
Mr. Santos was vocal in prodding the United States to end its half-century estrangement from Cuba, citing his own efforts to make peace as an example. Characterized by the NYT as “a fluent English speaker with a graduate degree from Harvard”, Mr. Santos made a persuasive case for the fact that the United States needed to make such a move towards Cuba.
The NYT columnist recalls that Plan Colombia has not been without detractors. Particularly in its early years, some critics said it was weighted too heavily toward military aid over civilian aid. The Colombian government was also criticized for disregarding human rights as it stepped up the war against the guerrillas.
There are also lingering questions about the role played by the United States in backing Colombian officials who colluded with extreme right-wing militias (paramilitaries) to fight the patriotic guerrillas.
According to the NYT, Obama’s meeting with Santos begins what is expected to be a busy year of Latin American diplomacy for the US President. The White House hopes that as early as March, he will make a landmark visit to Cuba. That trip could include a stop in Colombia. In November, he is scheduled to travel to Peru for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
February 16, 2016.
OBAMA ELOGIA ESFUERZOS DE PAZ EN COLOMBIA
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
El Presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, recibió en días recientes en la Casa Blanca a su homólogo de Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, con un vibrante anuncio sobre la asignación de 10 mil millones de dólares estadounidenses para “apoyar los esfuerzos de Colombia por acabar con los violentos cárteles de la droga y poner fin a la guerra de guerrillas más prolongada en el tiempo que se haya conocido a escala mundial”.
La oportunidad sirvió para que ambos líderes intercambiaran sus valoraciones acerca de sus respectivos avances en los tratos con sus históricos enemigos -Obama en su apertura hacia Cuba y Santos por sus conversaciones de paz con las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC).
El encuentro fue reportado y elogiosamente comentado por el diario The New York Times el 5 de febrero en un artículo titulado “Obama ensalza a Colombia por perseguir la paz con rebeldes y anuncia un gran aumento de la ayuda”, con la firma del periodista Marque Landler.
El gobierno colombiano espera firmar para el 23 de marzo un acuerdo final de paz con los rebeldes que pondría fin a la guerra civil más larga en la historia de América Latina, conflicto que ha dejado alrededor de 225.000 personas asesinadas y 6 millones de desplazados, asegura el periódico neoyorquino, uno de los mas reconocidos voceros de la prensa corporativa de Estados Unidos.
En la sede del gobierno estadounidense, Obama declaró que “un país que estaba al borde del colapso es ahora un país al borde de la paz”. Reveló que pediría $ 450 millones para nuevas ayudas en el Plan Colombia, un programa a través del cual Estados Unidos ha suministrado a Colombia equipamiento militar, asistencia económica y capacitación. Se trataría de un incremento de unos 300 millones de dólares sobre la cifra que la Casa Blanca había presupuestado previamente.
El Plan Colombia, dijo Obama, será retitulado “Paz Colombia” para reflejar el nuevo propósito de ayudar a la subsistencia del país en la paz, en vez de para hacer la guerra. “En Colombia hay hoy una esperanza”, subrayó el Presidente estadounidense.
Según el Presidente Santos, Colombia había salido del caos de la década de 1990, cuando gran parte del país estaba bajo el control de la guerrilla o de los grupos paramilitares y mostraba hoy una economía próspera y una política eficaz para reprimir el tráfico de drogas. Recordó que el Presidente Obama fue uno de los primeros líderes a quienes él confió sus planes de negociar con la guerrilla. “Usted, no sólo lo creyó posible,” dijo Santos, “usted me animó a seguir adelante y me dio su apoyo completo y entusiasta” reveló.
Hablando para todas las personas que viven “al sur del río Grande”, el Presidente Santos agradeció al Presidente Obama su “audacia en restablecer relaciones diplomáticas con Cuba”.
Santos recalcó que él conoció de la insistencia con que el presidente de los Estados Unidos ha defendido la idea de poner fin al alejamiento de Cuba de su país durante medio siglo, citando sus propios esfuerzos para lograr la paz como un ejemplo. Santos, a quien el periódico identifica como “un fluido angloparlante graduado en la Universidad de Harvard”, insistió siempre en que Estados Unidos debía hacer un movimiento de este tipo respecto a Cuba.
El articulista del NYT recuerda que el Plan Colombia ha sido muy criticado, particularmente en sus primeros años, por ponderar demasiado la ayuda militar por encima de la ayuda civil. El gobierno colombiano también ha sido muy criticado por ignorar los derechos humanos como caminó hasta la guerra contra la guerrilla.
Igualmente son persistentes las preguntas acerca del papel desempeñado por los Estados Unidos en respaldo a funcionarios colombianos que coludieron con las milicias de extrema derecha (paramilitares) para luchar contra a la guerrilla patriótica.
Según el NYT, la reunión de Obama con Santos dio inicio a lo que se espera que sea un año en el que la diplomacia con América Latina ocupe un espacio grande en la agenda del Presidente de Estados Unidos. “La Casa Blanca espera que en marzo Obama haga una histórica visita a Cuba que podría incluir una escala en Colombia”. En noviembre, tiene programado viajar a Perú para el foro de cooperación económica de Asia y el Pacífico.
Febrero 16 de 2016.
When Normalizing Relations Becomes Difficult
- English
- Español
When Normalizing Relations Becomes Difficult
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Quite a task is facing the US and Cuban leaders and officials who must try to reach agreements on the way to the normalization of relations between two neighbor countries that have so many differences.
In the first place, this is because normalization cannot be reduced to reproducing a past model; and because relations between Cuba and the United States have always been iniquitous.
The disagreements between the US and Cuba that cause the current tensions stem from conflicting policies of both states. These derive from the contradiction between the independent vocation of the Cubans, and the efforts of a certain elite of imperialist orientation which has little to do with the best interests of the US citizens.
In the early twentieth century, the United States imposed on Cuba a type of relationship
–a novelty at the time– which today is recognized as neocolonialist. The US had opportunistically intervened in the war of independence Cuba was waging against Spain. The US craved and finally obtained Spain’s colonial system.
Thus Washington managed to turn Cuba into a country dependent on the United States without conquering it in the traditional way. In fact, the term “sphere of influence” became, since then, an international euphemism for neo-colonialism.
Subsequently, the US intervened militarily in Cuba in 1906, 1909 and 1912. Since 1925 the US interests in Cuba were protected by a cruel dictator who was overthrown in 1933
by a popular uprising.
Washington sent to Cuba a special ambassador in charge of preventing the emergence of a left-leaning government after the powerful revolutionary movement that had developed on the Island to overthrow the tyrant.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, driven by strategic interests derived from the world war that would ensue, launched what he called “Good Neighbor Policy” and opposed
armed interventions in Latin America. This reduced tensions in the region.
Regarding Cuba, during this period the Platt Amendment was revoked, but the military base in Guantanamo Bay was kept, and a new sugar agreement was signed that reinforced Cuban dependence on the US.
After two decades of “representative democracy” supervised by Washington, in March 1952 the “strong man” of the United States in Cuba, Fulgencio Batista, carried out a coup d’état to prevent the rise of a government that seemed unusually honest and
enjoyed great popularity, but was not Washington’s favorite.
The armed struggle against the tyranny was the Cuban’s reaction. Batista received broad American support. There were US military advisors for all armed forces and the police. The US military base at Guantanamo supplied fuel and ammunition for the dictator’s aircraft that indiscriminately bombed rural areas and defenseless villages.
After the revolutionary triumph of January 1959, the US regime headed by Dwight D. Eisenhower initiated a period of hostile actions against Cuba. This was continued by successive administrations to the present, always with the CIA as a main instrument.
The United States cut the sugar quota allocated to Cuba and the Cuban government responded by nationalizing the US-owned sugar mills. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff immediately recommended to the President a total invasion of the Island.
A force of 1,500 mercenaries, trained, armed and directed by the CIA, landed at the Bay of Pigs on Cuba’s south coast. The invasion –defeated in only 72 hours– proved a humiliating failure for the United States.
Ten successive US administrations have tried to strangle the Cuban revolution with all the means at their disposal, except for an open and total war. US-sponsored terrorist activities have killed about 3,500 Cubans; while more than two thousand persons have been maimed by such actions. Sabotage of economic targets, biological warfare actions, and repeated attempts on the life of Fidel Castro and other leaders have been but some manifestations of this unequal confrontation.
In 23 consecutive annual gatherings, the economic blockade decreed by the US has been rejected by an overwhelming majority of member states of the United Nations General Assembly. However, Washington has not responded to this almost unanimous outcry from the international community.
Therefore, in the absence of fairer terms, for Cubans the normalization of relations with the United States can only mean a move towards more respectful and just links.
That’s what should be in Obama’s portfolio in his coming historic visit to Cuba.
February 18, 2016.
CUANDO NORMALIZAR SE TORNA DIFÍCIL
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Menuda tarea la encargada a los dirigentes y funcionarios de Estados Unidos y Cuba que deben ponerse de acuerdo para hallar el camino hacia la normalización en las relaciones entre dos países tan vecinos como diferentes.
Ante todo porque la normalización no puede reducirse a reproducir una situación pretérita, porque las relaciones entre Cuba y Estados Unidos siempre ha sido afrentosas.
Las desavenencias entre Estados Unidos y Cuba que originan las presentes tensiones provienen de políticas contrapuestas de uno y otro Estado que derivan de la contradicción entre la vocación
independentista de los cubanos y los afanes de una cúpula de orientación imperialista que poco tiene que ver con los mejores intereses de los ciudadanos de la nación estadounidense.
En los albores del siglo XX, Estados Unidos impuso a Cuba un tipo de relación -por entonces novedosa-, que hoy se reconoce como
neocolonialista. Estados Unidos había intervenido de manera
oportunista en la guerra de independencia que Cuba libraba contra España, cuyo sistema colonial apetecía y finalmente obtuvo.
Washington logró así convertir a Cuba en un país dependiente de Estados Unidos sin conquistarlo a la usanza tradicional. De hecho, el término “esfera de influencia” se convirtió, desde entonces, en un eufemismo internacional para el neocolonialismo.
Posteriormente, Estados Unidos intervino militarmente en Cuba en 1906, 1909 y en 1912. Desde 1925 los intereses de Estados Unidos en Cuba estuvieron protegidos por un cruel dictador que fue derrocado en 1933 por una insurrección popular.
Washington envió a Cuba un embajador especial encargado de prevenir el surgimiento de un gobierno de tendencia izquierdista tras el poderoso movimiento revolucionario que se había desarrollado en la Isla para derrocar al tirano.
El Presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt, movido por estratégicos intereses derivados de la guerra mundial que sobrevendría, declaró lo que denominó “Política del Buen Vecino” y se manifestó contrario a las intervenciones armadas en América Latina, lo que redujo las tensiones en la región.
Respecto a Cuba, se revocó en este período la enmienda Platt pero se mantuvo la base militar de Guantánamo y se firmó un nuevo acuerdo azucarero que reforzó la dependencia cubana de EEUU.
Tras dos décadas de “democracia representativa” supervisada por Washington, en marzo de 1952 el “hombre fuerte” de Estados Unidos en Cuba, Fulgencio Batista, produjo un golpe de estado llamado a impedir el ascenso de un gobierno que se anunciaba inusualmente honesto y por ello disfrutaba de mucha popularidad, pero no era el favorito de Washington.
La lucha armada contra la tiranía fue la réplica de los cubanos. Batista recibió amplio apoyo norteamericano. Había consejeros militares estadounidenses en cada arma y en la policía. La base militar de Guantánamo suministró combustible y municiones para los aviones del dictador que bombardeaban indiscriminadamente áreas rurales y poblados indefensos.
Luego del triunfo revolucionario de enero de 1959, el régimen estadounidense encabezado por Dwight Eisenhower inició un período de acciones hostiles contra Cuba continuado por las sucesivas
administraciones hasta la actual, siempre con la CIA como instrumento principal.
Estados Unidos cortó la cuota azucarera asignada a Cuba y el gobierno cubano respondió nacionalizando los centrales azucareros de propiedad norteamericana. Inmediatamente, el Estado Mayor Conjunto las Fuerzas Armadas de EEUU recomendó al Presidente que autorizara una invasión total a la Isla.
Una fuerza de 1 500 mercenarios, entrenados, armados y dirigidos por la CIA, desembarcó en la bahía de Cochinos, en la costa Sur cubana. La invasión resultó un humillante fracaso para Estados Unidos al ser derrotada en solo 72 horas.
Diez sucesivos gobiernos de los Estados Unidos han intentado estrangular a la revolución cubana con todos los medios a su disposición, a excepción de la guerra abierta y total. Las actividades terroristas promovidas por Estados Unidos han provocado la muerte de unos tres mil quinientos cubanos, en tanto que más de dos mil personas han quedado mutiladas por tales acciones. Sabotajes en objetivos económicos, acciones de guerra bacteriológica y repetidos atentados contra la vida de Fidel Castro y otros dirigentes ha sido algunas de las manifestaciones del desigual enfrentamiento.
En 23 votaciones anuales consecutivas, el bloqueo económico decretado por Estados Unidos, fue rechazado por una abrumadora mayoría de los Estados miembros de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, sin que Washington respondiera a tal clamor casi unánime de la comunidad internacional.
Por tanto, ante la inexistencia de referentes más justos, la normalización de las relaciones con Estados Unidos solo puede significar para los cubanos el avance hacia unos vínculos más respetuosos y más equitativos. Es eso lo que debía estar en la cartera de Obama en su próxima histórica visita a Cuba.
Febrero 18 de 2016.
Gun Control, or the Lack of It, in the United States
- English
- Español
Gun Control, or the Lack of It, in the United States
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Given their frequency, the shootings that leave several or many civilians casualties are no longer news in the United States. They only have space in the news when they involve some very exceptional circumstances.
Such were the circumstances on the morning of August 26 when TV reporter Alison Parker was interviewing –live for the local TV station WDBJ of Moneta, Virginia– a person who spoke about the importance of economic development for the community and, suddenly, there were shots and desperate screaming. Parker, 24, and the cameraman recording the interview, Adam Ward, 27, were shot.
When captured by police a few hours later, the murderer, Vester Lee Flanagan, committed suicide and died in hospital. A while before the act, he had posted on his Facebook profile a video he took at the time of the crime. According to initial investigations, labor discrepancies with the TV station had been the cause of the multiple murders.
It is extremely difficult to understand how in the United States weapon manufacturershave succeeded in imposing rules for the possession and use of firearms that keep alive the business of selling weapons to the population. It is one of the most lucrative businesses in the country despite the countless misfortunes that firearms bring to US society.
The cult of firearms in the United States has gone to extremes that contradict common sense and the most elementary standards for citizen security. This is the result of a mixture of very contradictory interpretations of the Second Amendment of the Constitution manipulated by the powerful congressional lobby known as the National Rifle Association (NRA), the greed of entrepreneurs willing to sell to citizens more lethal weapons to make money, and the whims of politicians at the White House and Congress who succumb to the lavish money spread by such interests and support their ambitions.
The .50 caliber rifle is a weapon of war capable of bringing down an airplane and piercing the defenses of armored vehicles. It has a high shooting accuracy at the distance of a mile. It has no use in sports, or hunting; but can be bought in forty of the fifty states of the Union (except in California) as an ordinary gun.
The House of Representatives has approved the export of this deadly weapon and allowed its domestic legal sale. This has led activist groups and the few journalists who oppose the expansion of firearm sales to people to predict that before long these rifles will be used in acts of terrorism and against US troops deployed by the government throughout the world performing the “anti-terrorist” war, or promoting the version of democracy Washington imposes in its relations with other nations by means of government-induced changes.
The harmful social effect of firearms extends as an epidemic across US borders to several neighboring countries. Mainly to Mexico, a nation where –although the origin of the problem is of its own making– the smuggling of lethal weapons that are legally sold in the United States has dramatically complicated the fight against mafias, and is deeply involved with illicit drug, human trafficking, and smuggling in general.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the massive firearm possession among the US population to some extent explains the aggressiveness of the police, forced to defend from an unlimited number of potential armed assailants.Although the number of civilians killed by police officers each year in the United States is not known; it is known that in 2014 police have killed a number of people that doubles the number of US citizens killed in mass shootings since 1982 in the entire American nation.
An ordinary US citizen is nine times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.
We can see a most unfortunate contradiction in the fact that a significant part of the more aware public favors the massive possession of weapons as a way to press against the abuses of the oligarchy; and the oligarchy –one of its most influential members being the group of congressional lobbying NRA– rows in the same direction.
August 29, 2015.
CONTROL O DESCONTROL DE ARMAS EN E.U.A.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Pro- Evo Morales graffiti in Villazón, Bolivia (Flickr/ Randal Sheppard)
On February 21, some 6.5 million Bolivian voters will decide whether to amend their Constitution to permit a third consecutive presidential term. A “Yes” vote will allow President Evo Morales and Vice-President Alvaro García Linera to run for reelection in 2019 for another 5 years. A “No” vote will require the ruling MAS (Movement Towards Socialism) party to select a new slate in 2019.
Morales, Bolivia’s longest-serving president, has just completed his first decade in office (2005–2015)—a remarkable achievement in a country which has suffered close to 200 coups. He also has the longest tenure [4] of any incumbent Latin American president, with a current term extending to 2020. The proposed amendment would actually allow him a fourth consecutive term— 20 years in total— counting his first (2005) election, which predates the new Constitution.
Morales wants 70% [5] of Bolivian voters to ratify the amendment—though only a plurality is required—to top the 54%, 64%. and 61% mandates he received, respectively, in the 2005, 2009, and 2014 elections. He also won a 2008 “recall” vote by a landslide (67%).
The referendum has been propitiously timed, coming just a month after festivities held to commemorate Morales’s 10-year tenure, and while the economy is still relatively strong—ahead of the growing threat posed by the worldwide plunge in commodities prices. Still, recent opinion surveys suggest a close contest, with polls weighted towards the large cities [6] showing the “No” ahead by a narrow margin, and others [7]slightly favoring the “Yes.” (Rural voters, who constitute 30% of the Bolivian electorate, strongly support Morales and tend to be under-represented in official polls.)
Overall, Bolivians appear to be split roughly 40%/40% between the “No” and the “Yes,” with 20% still undecided—despite Morales’s continuing high approval ratings (65%) [8]. For pro-government militants like Katu Arkonada, [9] the upcoming referendum represents the biggest challenge that Morales and the MAS have faced in the past 10 years.
Mobilizing for the “Yes” vote are MAS party leaders, mayors, governors, and affiliated social movements, including peasant, labor, and indigenous sectors, with Morales and García Linera acting as head cheerleaders. “Yes” proponents argue that Morales needs an additional term to complete the work he was elected to accomplish, represented by the Patriotic Agenda 2025, [10] an ambitious plan to reduce poverty and ensure basic services for all Bolivians through massive investment in hydrocarbons, energy, agriculture, mining, science, and technology.
Morales frequently recalls that the push to extend term limits originated with the social movements, who marched through the streets of La Paz last September to hand-deliver signed petitions to the Plurinational Legislative Assembly. “Workers and social organizations will not jeopardize this ‘process of change,’ and that is why we are supporting the reelection of President Morales,” said a workers’ representative [11] at the time.
Also supporting the “Yes,” though mostly behind the scenes, are substantial portions of the eastern lowlands agribusiness elite and other entrepreneurs who have benefitted from the “Evo-boom,” and who view Morales’s leadership as key to Bolivia’s continued economic stability. “We should be thankful we have Evo,” one businessman [12] recently told the Financial Times. “The government may be controlling…but here we may need that to have stability.”
The “No” campaign, too, is more diverse than might be expected. Among its proponents/ associates are familiar opposition figures like cement magnate Samuel Doria Medina, former conservative president Jorge (“Tuto”) Quiroga, and ex-Cochabamba governor and fugitive-from-justice Manfred Reyes Villa.
Joining them is a broad coalition of MAS dissidents and former MAS allies, led by La Paz Mayor Luis Revilla and La Paz Governor Félix Patzi from the new center-left Sol.bo party. This group largely represents disaffected urban middle class voters who split with Morales over the TIPNIS conflict [13], but also includes other disgruntled popular sectors, such as Potosí civic groups who feel shortchanged by the Morales government. This opportunistic alliance represents the first time that diverse MAS critics—ranging from vehement opponents of Morales’s political project to leftists who hope to rehabilitate a stagnating “process of change”—have attempted to unite around a common goal.
For progressive “No” supporters, extending presidential term limits violates the traditional Andean concept of leadership rotation, and will only serve to perpetuate autocratic tendencies within the MAS that preclude new leadership development. Changing the rules of the game for the benefit of incumbents, they note, could have unintended but lasting negative consequences for Bolivian democracy. Those more sympathetic to Morales, like ex-MAS prefect Rafael Puente, [14] argue that Morales himself would benefit from a political “time-out” to reconnect with his bases, in preparation for a future candidacy.
In fact, while the trend in Latin America is towards unlimited presidential reelection, most countries do require incumbents to step aside [15] for periods ranging from one term (in Chile) to 10 years (in El Salvador) before they can run again. A recent constitutional amendment in Ecuador [16]follows this pattern, forcing the incumbent Correa to sit out the next (2017) election. Four countries (Guatemala, Paraguay, Colombia, and Mexico) limit presidents to a single term with no reelection. Only 3 countries (Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Honduras) have completely abolished term limits.
As voting day approaches, the campaigns have intensified, with propaganda flooding the airwaves and social media—especially from the government side, which has not hesitated to exploit the advantages of incumbency. The Electoral Commission (TSE) has gone to some lengths to create a level playing field, especially by restricting air time for the delivery of public works. However, after a challenge by the government, this ruling was recently overturned [17]by Bolivia’s Constitutional Court (TCP).
The campaigns have been enlivened by creative tactics geared especially to capture the critically important youth vote. The “Yes” launched a Star Wars parody [18] video commercial (“Bolivian Wars: The “Yes” Awakens!”) starring Evo Morales as protagonist, and has been staging “human mosaics” in public venues, in which thousands of “Generation Evo” members participate. Félix Patzi has led bicycle caravans, [19] dubbed “Patzicletazos,” in support of the “No.”
The use of hyperbole, fear-mongering tactics, and “dirty tricks” has escalated on both sides. The Vice-President has assured Bolivians that a victory for the “No” will mean the end of the MAS project [20] and a return of U.S.-backed neoliberal regimes [21]. The “No” campaign, he and Morales allege, is part of a U.S.-financed strategy [22] to undermine and topple leftist governments in Latin America (while this could be true, the evidence to date is not convincing). Moreover, Bolivians risk losing their cash transfer benefits (for elderly, pregnant women, and schoolchildren) and even their homes [23], if the “Yes” is defeated.
For their part, proponents of the “No” charge that a victory for the “Yes” will keep Morales in office indefinitely, creating a state of virtual dictatorship. A campaign seeking to defame Morales personally through allegations of nepotism, corruption, and misspending—e.g. for an alleged $200 haircut— has gained little traction.
In effect, both the “Yes” and the “No” campaigns have turned the referendum into a plebiscite on the Morales government, its 10-year record, and its future promises—more like a presidential election than a consultation on constitutional reform. This works to Morales’s advantage, given his continuing high approval ratings.
In the end, the “Yes” vote will likely prevail, but by a much narrower margin than Morales has enjoyed in previous elections. Bolivians do appear to be uneasy about the implications of extending term limits for future presidents, if not the current one, and the failure of MAS party to cultivate new leadership.
Still, for most voters, these concerns are largely outweighed by material satisfaction as Bolivia’s economy remains among the strongest in Latin America, [24] powered by massive public investment. Foreign reserves, diligently built up by Morales and currently standing at 42% of GDP, are helping to cushion the blow of falling commodity prices, at least for now.
Bolivians also strongly identify with Morales’s ambitious national-popular agenda, including his signature achievements like the La Paz teleférico[25](cable car system), the communications satellite Túpac Katari— which has brought the internet to schools in remote villages— and the bold campaign to regain Bolivia’s seacoast from Chile. In contrast, the precariously-united “No” campaign has not presented a coherent programmatic alternative to the MAS, and is tainted by over-identification with unpopular traditional opposition politicians.
For better or worse, there appears to be a strong belief by many—Bolivian capitalists as well as indigenous and peasant voters—that Morales remains essential to moving the national-popular project forward. Still, as MAS deputy Manuel Canelas [26] has observed, a victory for the “Yes” in February far from guarantees Morales’s reelection in 2019.
If people give Evo another chance, says Canelas, they will be impatient to see that pending challenges are addressed. These include reforming the judicial system, confronting institutional violence against women, and moving away from extractivism towards a more diversified, productive economy, while balancing diverse sectoral demands for improved living conditions, jobs, and services.
With government revenues from gas exports slated to fall by 30% [12]this year alone, this is a tall order —even for a leader whose name (“evo”), notes columnist Pablo Stefanoni [27], means “duration of time without end” in the Royal Spanish Academy dictionary. (It’s true; look it up here [28].)
“Hate Cuba” Industry in Crisis
- English
- Español
The “Hate Cuba” Industry in Crisis
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
The process towards the normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States officially began with the reopening of their respective embassies in Washington and Havana. However, everyone knows that it will take a long time to repair the ruins caused by the absurd imperialist policy and to travel the dangerous road without perilous mishaps.
It is not that the goal is not clearly known. Everything about what normal relations between nations are is written down –almost to the smallest detail– in countless books and treatises on International Law, public and private. These explain the procedures that define non-interference and normalcy.
Jean-Guy Allard, a veteran Canadian journalist accredited to Havana and a regular contributor to Radio Havana Cuba and Granma, said in an interview with Dick Emanuelsson, Deputy Director of Colombian news agency Anncol, that “what is good for Cuba is that the machinery of US disinformation had to clean up Cuba’s image to make the change viable.
“When it suited the Empire, the island was transformed overnight from diabolical to sympathetic. Cuba has become a decent country in the US media. The day after that about-face in the media, many European countries, confirming their despicable subservience, flew to Havana to pay their respects. And with that Cuba already won. “
But now, says Allard, it is imperative to lift the infamous blockade –which the US euphemistically calls “embargo”– and to put an end to more than half a century of mistreating the Cubans. “You cannot torment a people for five decades without having to pay for the damages, which are huge.”
Allard, who has become a prominent observer of the strained relations between Washington and Havana, notes that “until now, the US presence in Cuba has meant espionage, infiltration, recruitment and penetration. We will have to see if the announced new diplomacy between neighbors is more civilized. “
Noting the development of Washington’s relations with other progressive countries in Latin America, the expert reporter wonders: “What will be the “new look” of US subversive activity in Havana? Surely they will not give up interference; they will fine-tune it”.
The prestigious French-Canadian journalist considers that, so far, the performance of all dissidents in Cuba has been designed for foreign consumption. It was from abroad where the donations come to initially breed them and keep them alive to this day. “Cuban dissidents, so widely promoted by the press abroad, are little less than invisible in Cuba,” noted Allard.
Regarding the situation of the of the revolution’s enemies abroad, Allard believes that “now the confusion is already apparent in the anti-Castro zoo. They do not know how to recycle themselves. “
“The hate-Cuba industry that generated millions for decades –and made the fortunes of hundreds of miameros [Miami-based enemies of Cuba]– no longer exists. Miami, the city of the CIA, became the narco capital and now it is said to be the Mecca of pornography. The anti-Cuban-Miami began with Batista´s gangsters and grew up with CIA money. Sooner or later, it will have to refocus on the new relationship between neighbors. “
The industry of hatred has been described as the most lucrative machinery in the state of Florida. Created fifty-five years ago by President Eisenhower, to promote and highlight the achievements of the Cubans living in “democracy” against those who live in Cuba, it gradually degenerated into a well-structured mafia with deadly tentacles in most of the hemisphere.
With a huge variety of ubiquitous tentacles, sometimes with absolute control over educational, financial, social, judicial, religious, political, labor and cultural spheres in South Florida … and even beyond, no one has been able to aspire to a leadership position without its approval and blessing.
By fanning the flames of a war that would eventually overthrow the Cuban government, this industry has swindled the US government out of billions of dollars.
Moral decadence placed Florida at the pinnacle of many crime statistics concentrating the largest group in the nation of officials –political or administrative– in prison, accused, on probation, or wanted. Florida has the most Medicare and Medicaid fraud, and the nation’s largest drug-trafficking center, among other niceties.
This criminal environment has made South Florida home to the largest and most diverse collection of Latin American former dictators, terrorists and murderers.
September 5, 2015.
EN CRISIS LA INDUSTRIA DEL ODIO A CUBA
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
El proceso hacia la normalización de las relaciones entre Cuba y Estados Unidos comenzó oficialmente con las reaperturas de las embajadas respectivas en Washington y La Habana, pero nadie ignora que tomará mucho tiempo reparar las ruinas provocados por la absurda política imperial, a fin de recorrer el complejo camino sin peligrosos contratiempos.
No se trata de que no se sepa cuál es la meta. Todo está previsto -casi hasta los mínimos detalles- acerca de lo que son las relaciones normales entre naciones en infinidad de libros y tratados sobre Derecho Internacional, público y privado, que explican los procederes que definen la no injerencia y la normalidad.
Jean-Guy Allard, veterano periodista canadiense acreditado en La Habana y colaborador habitual de Radio Habana Cuba y el diario Granma, opinó en entrevista que le hiciera Dick Emanuelsson, subdirector de la agencia de noticias Anncol, de Colombia, que “lo bueno para Cuba es que la maquinaria de desinformación de EEUU ha tenido que lavar la imagen de Cuba para hacer viable el cambio.
“Cuando al imperio le convino, la Isla pasó a ser, de un día para el otro, de diabólica a simpática. Cuba se ha convertido en un país decente en los medios estadounidenses. Al día siguiente de ese giro mediático, muchos países europeos, confirmando su servilismo execrable, volaban hacia La Habana a presentar sus respetos. Ya en eso Cuba ganó”.
Pero ahora, dice Allard, urge levantar el infame bloqueo –que eufemísticamente Estados Unidos denomina embargo- y terminar con más de medio siglo de maltratos a los cubanos. “No se puede martirizar a un pueblo durante cinco décadas sin pagar por los daños, que son enormes”.
Allard, quien se ha convertido en un muy destacado observador de las tensiones en las relaciones entre Washington y La Habana, hace notar que “hasta ahora la presencia norteamericana en Cuba ha significado espionaje, infiltración, captación y penetración. Habrá que ver si con la nueva diplomacia entre vecinos que se anuncia será más civilizada”. Observando el desarrollo las relaciones de Washington con los demás países progresistas de América Latina, el experto periodista se pregunta: “¿Cuál será el nuevo “look” de la actividad subversiva de EEUU en La Habana? Seguramente no renunciarán a la injerencia, la afinarán”.
El prestigioso periodista franco-canadiense considera que hasta ahora la actuación de toda la disidencia en Cuba está –o ha estado– orientada al consumo exterior, de donde provienen las donaciones que propiciaron su existencia y los mantienen con vida. “Los disidentes cubanos, tan promocionados por la prensa afuera, son poco menos que transparentes en Cuba”, hizo notar Allard.
Respecto a la situación de los enemigos de la revolución en el extranjero, Jean-Guy Allard opina que “ya se ve la confusión en el zoológico del anticastrismo. No saben de qué forma reciclarse”.
“Esta industria, que generó millones durante décadas e hizo la fortuna de cientos de miameros, ya no da. Miami, la ciudad de la CIA, pasó a capital del narco y ahora se dice que es la Meca del porno. La Miami anticubana se inició con los gánsteres de Batista y se desarrolló con el dinero de la CIA. Tendrá, tarde o temprano, que reorientarse hacia la nueva relación entre vecinos”. La Industria del odio ha sido descrita como la maquinaria más lucrativa en el estado de Florida. Creada hace cincuenta y cinco años por el Presidente Eisenhower para fomentar y destacar los logros de los cubanos que viven en “democracia” frente a los que viven en Cuba, degeneró poco a poco en una bien estructurada mafia con puntas mortales en casi todo el hemisferio.
Con una enorme variedad de tentáculos omnipresentes, a veces con dominio absoluto en aspectos educativos, financieros, sociales, judiciales, religiosos, políticos, laborales y culturales en el sur de la Florida… y un poco más allá, nadie ha podido aspirar a ejercer un liderazgo sin su aprobación y sus bendiciones.
Por avivar llamas de una guerra que eventualmente derroque al gobierno cubano, esta industria ha estafado al gobierno de Estados Unidos miles de millones de dólares.
La decadencia moral colocó a la Florida en el pináculo de muchas estadísticas de delincuencia concentrando el mayor grupo de funcionarios, políticos o administrativos acusados, en la cárcel, en libertad condicional o buscados en la nación; los más grandes fraudes de Medicare y Medicaid, y el mayor centro de comercio de drogas en la nación, entre otras linduras.
Este ambiente criminal ha concentrado en el Sur de la Florida la residencia de la mayor y más diversa colección de exdictadores, terroristas y asesinos latinoamericanos.
Septiembre 5 de 2015.
Development Aid for the Developed
- English
- Español
Development Aid for the Developed
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
The US government encourages domestic capital flight to poor regions through tax exemptions and other investment incentives for its corporate branches abroad. Such a strategy damages small and medium US producers and angers workers in that country who are affected by the flight of jobs that end up overseas.
Is this a kind gesture by the superpower in solidarity with the workers in the poor countries of the Third World? Of course it is not.
Note that, as far as industry and banks in the United States and other Western corporations increase their investments in the Third World, poverty in these regions is growing, rather than decreasing. When transnational capital comes into contact with therich natural resources of the South –with its low wages, high profits and almost total absence of environmental regulations, taxes, and safety labor provisions– everything changes in the interests of the new “benefactors” from the North.
As a result, transnational companies are replacing –in those countries where they have not done so yet– the local bourgeoisie, taking over their markets.
According to the Mexican experience of economic integration with the UnitedStates: in a short time the subsidized surplus products of the US agricultural tradecartel are supplying –with their artificially low prices– the local markets thus removing the Mexican producers and traders from those places.Through their agents, they expropriate the best land in these countries through the system of comprehensive crop buying (cash-crop) for export. These are usually monocultures which require lots of pesticides and are leaving less and lessspace for growing multiple varieties of the organic crops which have fed the local population for centuries.
It should be clarified that the savings that big corporations obtain from cheap labor in poor countries do not translate into lower prices for consumers in the United States or other places. Corporations do not hire labor in remote areas so that consumers in their countries save money; their goal is to increase their profit margin.
As a rule, foreign aid from the United States is linked to transnational investment and is designed to subsidize the building of infrastructures that corporations need to operate in the Third World, such as ports, airports, highways and refineries..
When aid is delivered to governments it comes with many strings attached.
Usually, the aid recipient nation is required to give preference in its purchases and sales to US entities; and the acquisition of goods and food for local consumption must givepriority to imported goods, so that, together with the debt, they create dependency.
Much of the aid money goes directly into the personal coffers of corrupt officials in the recipient countries who participate in the negotiations.
In 1944, he United Nations created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), allegedly responsible for channeling aid to developing nations.
However, in both organizations, the voting power is determined by the financial contributions of each country. This is why the United States, the largest donor, is the member which truly approves the decisions, assisted by a select group of bankers and officials of the economics ministries from the richest nations.
When any poor country fails to pay their debts to one of these two institutions, it runs the risk that the IMF will impose a “structural adjustment program” (SAP) by means of which they are forced to grant tax benefits to transnational corporations and reduce social benefits to their own workers.
The IMF puts pressure on debtor nations to privatize their economies, to sell their mines railways and public services belonging to the state at low prices. They must cut their subsidies for health, education, transport and basic foods; and spend less on the welfare of their people to meet their debt obligations.
Such is the true story of the “aid for development “.
February 10, 2016.
AYUDA AL DESARROLLO DE LOS DESARROLLADOS
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
El gobierno de Estados Unidos fomenta la fuga capitales de su país hacia regiones pobres mediante exenciones impositivas y otros estímulos a las inversiones de sus corporaciones en el exterior, lo que perjudica a medianos y pequeños productores estadounidenses e indigna a los trabajadores del país que se ven afectados por la fuga de los puestos de trabajo que de esa manera van a parar al extranjero. ¿Acaso se trata de un gesto bondadoso de la superpotencia en solidaridad con los trabajadores de los países pobres del tercer mundo? Por supuesto que no.
Nótese que en la medida que la industria y los bancos de Estados Unidos y otras corporaciones occidentales incrementan sus inversiones en el tercer mundo, crece, en vez de disminuir, la pobreza en estas regiones. Cuando el capital transnacional entra en contacto con los ricos recursos naturales del Sur, con sus bajos salarios, altas ganancias y la casi total inexistencia de regulaciones
medioambientales, impuestos, y disposiciones para la seguridad laboral, todo se modifica en función de los intereses los nuevos “benefactores” del Norte.
A resultas de ello las transnacionales están desplazando, allí donde no lo han hecho ya, a las burguesías locales, asumiendo el control de sus mercados.
Según la experiencia mexicana de integración económica con Estados Unidos, en poco tiempo los subsidiados productos excedentes de los integrantes del cártel estadounidense del comercio agrícola, abastecen con sus artificiales bajos precios a los mercados locales desplazando de esas plazas a productores y comerciantes mexicanos.
Mediante testaferros suyos, expropian las mejores tierras en estos países mediante el sistema de la compra integral de cosechas (cash-crop) para la exportación. Generalmente se trata de monocultivos que requieren gran cantidad de pesticidas y van dejando cada vez menos espacio para el cultivo de múltiples variedades de cosechas orgánicas con las que por siglos se ha alimentado la población local.
Pero es preciso aclarar que los ahorros que las grandes corporaciones obtienen con la mano de obra barata de los países pobres no se traducen en precios más bajos para consumidores de Estados Unidos ni los de otros sitios. Las corporaciones no contratan mano de obra en regiones lejanas para que los consumidores de su país puedan ahorrar dinero, el objetivo es incrementar su margen de beneficios.
Como regla, la ayuda al exterior de Estados Unidos va unida a la inversión transnacional y está diseñada para subvencionar la construcción de las infraestructuras que las corporaciones necesitan para poder operar en el Tercer Mundo, como son puertos, aeropuertos, autopistas y refinerías.
Cuando la ayuda se entrega a los gobiernos viene con muchas ataduras. Por lo general, a la nación receptora de la ayuda se le exige dar preferencia en sus compras a las ventas de entidades estadounidenses y la adquisición de mercancías y alimentos para consumo local deben dar prioridad a mercancías importadas, de manera que, junto a la deuda, creen dependencia.
Una buena parte de la ayuda monetaria, va directamente a las arcas personales de funcionarios corruptos de los países receptores que participan en las negociaciones.
La Organización de Naciones Unidas creó en 1944 el Banco Mundial y el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI), supuestamente encargados de canalizar la ayuda al desarrollo de las naciones.
Pero, en ambas organizaciones, el poder de voto está determinado por las contribuciones financieras de cada país, razón por la cual Estados Unidos, el mayor donante, es el que verdaderamente aprueba las decisiones, asistido de un selecto grupo de banqueros y funcionarios de los ministerios de economía de las naciones más ricas.
Cuando cualquier país pobre incurre en el impago de sus deudas con alguna de estas dos instituciones, corre el riesgo de que el FMI le imponga un “Programa de ajuste estructural” (SAP, por sus siglas en inglés) consistente en el otorgamiento de beneficios fiscales a las corporaciones transnacionales y reducción de beneficios sociales a sus propios trabajadores.
El FMI presiona a las naciones deudoras para que privaticen sus economías, vendan a precios bajos sus minas, ferrocarriles y servicios públicos pertenecientes al estado. Deben recortar sus subvenciones a la salud, la educación, el transporte y los alimentos básicos, gastando menos en el bienestar de su población para poder hacer frente a los pagos de la deuda.
Tal es la verdadera historia de la “ayuda al desarrollo”.
Febrero 10 de 2016.
A significant loss for the cause of peace
- English
- Español
A significant loss for the cause of peace
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann
With the recent death of Cuban Orlando Fundora, on February 2nd, at age 90, the global struggle for peace has lost one of its most illustrious fighters.
This was expressed with regret at the World Peace Council (WPC), where Fundora was Honorary President.
Orlando Fundora began his revolutionary actions in the student struggles of the Instituto de Segunda Enseñanza [High School] and the Escuela de Comercio [School of Commerce] in the city of Santa Clara in the center of the island.
In1945, he began working at a branch of the Royal Bank of Canada in Havana. There he became a prominent union leader within the banking system. For his participation in workers’ struggles he was the subject of systematic police persecution.
In 1954, he joined the July 26 revolutionary movement led by Fidel Castro, and participated in numerous revolutionary activities for which he was arrested six times, imprisoned, and repeatedly cruelly tortured by the repressive forces of the tyrannical regime of Fulgencio Batista.
Between 1957 and 1959, when he was forced into exile, he continued his patriotic struggle in Venezuela. For helping the revolutionary movement in that country he was arrested by the Venezuelan political police.
After the triumph of the revolution in Cuba he participated as war correspondent in Cuba’s defense against the mercenary invasion of Bay of Pigs in Playa Girón.
He took office as director of Cuba’s international broadcaster Radio Habana Cuba and later served for a brief period as director of Prensa Latina news agency.
In 1966, Fundora was promoted to the Foreign Relations Committee of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) and was appointed Chief Information Officer of its International Department. In 1973, he was appointed Head of the Departamento de Orientación Revolucionaria [Department of Revolutionary Orientation] of the Central Committee of the PCC.
In 1985 Orlando Fundora became President of the Movimiento Cubano por la Paz y la Soberanía de los Pueblos (MOVPAZ) [Cuban Movement for the Peace and Sovereignty of the Peoples] a position he held until 2006, when he had to step down due to health problems — mainly orthopedic ailments derived from the police tortures he suffered during his revolutionary struggles against the tyranny of Fulgencio Batista.
With support, encouragement and material support from the USSR and the Socialist countries and Communist parties aligned with the USSR, the World Peace Council (WPC) was born at the end of World War II as an open organization for the participation of other forces with different political orientations.
Because of this inevitable dependence, conflicts and divisions within the international communist movement were immediately reflected in the WPC. The collapse of the European socialist bloc –and especially the disintegration of the USSR at the beginning of the 90s– seriously threatened the WPC’s survival.
All member organizations of the former socialist countries in Europe were dissolved and only the political will of a group of formations –among which the Cuban played a leading role– managed to keep the World Peace Council.
However, the WPC had to overcome many and very powerful obstacles to survive.
It had to face trends toward surrender rooted in a social democratic orientation that still exist in some organizations in Europe and other parts of the world that resist the WPC playing an active role in confronting imperialism.
At the WPC Assembly held in Athens, Greece, in 2000, Fundora conducted intense activity for unity within principles that was instrumental in revitalizing the organization (which then changed its headquarters to Athens) and stated the objectives of the WPC’s struggle against imperialism.
In recognition of the leadership of the Cuban Movement for Peace (MOVPAZ) in the process of fighting for the survival of the WPC, the WPC Assembly in May 2004 in Athens, Greece, elected Fundora –by consensus without opposition– President of MOVPAZ, as President of the WPC. In the following Assembly, held in Caracas in 2008, he was elected Honorary President of the world organization, a rank he held with dignity and which he served until his death.
In announcing the sad news of his death, the WPC said that they had lost a tireless champion in the struggle for peace and socialjustice, a man who dedicated his life to the revolutionary anti-imperialist struggle and to the just cause of the poor and oppressed around the world. He will be remembered and will serve as an example for future generations.
February 4, 2016.
Sensible perdida para la causa de la paz
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Tras el fallecimiento del cubano Orlando Fundora López el reciente dos de febrero, a la edad de noventa años, la lucha mundial por la paz ha perdido a uno de sus más insignes combatientes.
Así lo anunció, con pesar, en Consejo Mundial por la Paz (CMP), del que Fundora era Presidente de Honor.
Orlando Fundora inició su accionar revolucionario en las luchas estudiantiles del Instituto de Segunda Enseñanza y la Escuela de Comercio de la ciudad de Santa Clara, el la región central de Cuba. A partir de 1945 trabajó en la sucursal del Royal Bank of Canada en La Habana, donde se formó como un destacado dirigente sindical en el sistema bancario. Por su participación en luchas obreras era objeto de sistemática persecución policial.
En 1954 se incorporó al movimiento revolucionario 26 de Julio encabezado por Fidel Castro, y participó en numerosas actividades revolucionarias por las que fue seis veces detenido, encarcelado y en varias ocasiones cruelmente torturado por las fuerzas represivas del régimen tiránico de Fulgencio Batista.
Entre 1957 y 1959, cuando se vio obligado a exiliarse, continuó su lucha patriótica en Venezuela. Por su colaboración con el movimiento revolucionario en ese país fue detenido por la policía política venezolana.
Después del triunfo de la revolución en Cuba participó en calidad de corresponsal de guerra en la defensa cubana contra la invasión mercenaria por la Bahía de Cochinos, en Playa Girón; asumió el cargo de director de la emisora internacional cubana Radio Habana Cuba, y, más tarde, se desempeñó por un breve período como director de la agencia de noticias Prensa Latina.
En 1966, Fundora fue promovido a la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de Cuba (PCC) y designado jefe de información de su Departamento Internacional. En 1973, se le nombró jefe del Departamento de Orientación Revolucionaria del Comité Central del PCC.
Orlando Fundora López asumió en 1985 la presidencia del Movimiento Cubano por la Paz y la Soberanía de los Pueblos (MOVPAZ) que desempeñó hasta 2006, cuando debió dejar el cargo por problemas de salud, fundamentalmente ortopédicos, derivados de las torturas policiales sufridas durante sus luchas revolucionarias contra la tiranía de Fulgencio Batista.
Con apoyo, estímulo y respaldo material de la URSS y los países socialistas y partidos comunistas alineados con la URSS, el Consejo Mundial por la Paz nació al término de la II Guerra Mundial como una formación abierta a la participación de otras fuerzas de diferente signo político.
Debido a esta inevitable dependencia, los conflictos y divisiones en el movimiento comunista internacional se reflejaban en el CMP de manera inmediata y el desplome del campo socialista europeo y especialmente la desintegración de la URSS, a inicios de la década de los 90, amenazaron seriamente su supervivencia.
Todas las organizaciones miembros de los que fueron países socialistas en Europa se disolvieron y solo la voluntad política de un grupo de formaciones, entre las que la cubana desempeñó un papel preponderante, logró mantener vivo al Consejo Mundial por la Paz.
Muchos y muy poderosos han sido, sin embargo, los obstáculos que el CMP tuvo que solventar para sobrevivir.
Tuvo que enfrentar tendencias claudicantes de orientación socialdemócrata que aún existen en algunas organizaciones de Europa y de otras partes del mundo que se resisten a que el CMP juegue un papel activo en el enfrentamiento al imperialismo. En la Asamblea del CMP que tuvo lugar en Atenas, Grecia, en el año 2000, Fundora desempeño una intensa actividad a favor de la unidad dentro de los principios que contribuyó decisivamente a la revitalización de la organización (que entonces cambió su sede para Atenas) y precisó los objetivos de la lucha del CMP contra el imperialismo.
Como reconocimiento al liderazgo del Movimiento Cubano por la Paz (MOVPAZ) en el proceso de lucha por la supervivencia del CMP, la Asamblea del CMP de mayo de 2004, en Atenas, Grecia, eligió por consenso, sin oposición alguna, el Presidente de MOVPAZ, Orlando Fundora López, como Presidente del CMP. En la siguiente, celebrada en Caracas en 2008, se le eligió Presidente de Honor de esa organización mundial, dignidad que conservó y a la que sirvió hasta su fallecimiento.
Al dar a conocer la triste noticia de su deceso, el CMP destacó que se había perdido un campeón incansable de la lucha por la paz y la justicia social que dedicó su vida a la lucha revolucionaria y antiimperialista, a la justa causa de los pobres y oprimidos de todo el mundo y que será recordado y servirá como ejemplo para las generaciones futuras.
Febrero 4 de 2016.
We live in an increasingly unequal world
- English
- Español
We live in an increasingly unequal world
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Economic growth is widespread in the world, but not to everyone’s benefit; rather the opposite, inequality is growing. 62 individuals have equal wealth as the 3.6 billion people that constitute the world’s poorest 50%.
Thus warns OXFAM, the international confederation of non-governmental organizations to combat poverty, in its recent report entitled “An Economy for the 1%” presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos (Switzerland), by its Director Winnie Byanyima.
“While the income of the wealthiest has increased 44% since 2010, that of the poorest half is down 41%. Although the global economy has doubled in 30 years to 78 billion and global wealth has reached 267 billion (net of all financial assets and non-
financial), it is increasingly evident that the majority are excluded from the deal.
Oxfam warns that extreme inequality is being installed at world scale. Nevertheless, it has ceased to be part of the concerns of the elite World Economic Forum, in its most recent meeting as in the previous Forum 2014.
“The economic recovery has distanced these select clubs from any concern over social issues. Structural paralysis and underemployment are still part of the risks included only when they are asked directly, as stated in the 2016 Report on Global Risks issued by this organization. “
Oxfam also believes that one of the tools that enable the most powerful to further increase their profits –aside from the trend of the past 30 years to reduce the marginal rates of the higher incomes– are tax havens.
Although there are no official figures, research by Oxfam refers to recent studies that show that these fiscal havens –with low or no taxation– conceal an amount equivalent to the total wealth of Germany and the United Kingdom.
Oxfam’s report states that it has examined about two hundred companies, including the world’s largest, associated with the World Economic Forum, and the result is that nine out of ten of these are present in tax havens.
The resources that thus escape the control of governments, is estimated at about 100 billion dollars a year, causing cuts in the welfare state or raising taxes that “disproportionately affect the poorest the sectors of the population.”
One of the keys to the concentration of wealth lies in the increase of capital returns — from interest rates to dividends. In fact, in all the economically-advanced states and in most developing countries, the share of wages in the national income has been shrinking, “which means they benefit less and less from the economic growth”. This was pointed out by French economist Thomas Piketty in his book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”, where he describes how the owners of capital observe their capital grow “steadily and at a significantly faster pace than the economic growth”.
In the labor scene, the wage gap between workers and management has expanded. The income of average employees has stagnated or declined, while those of top executives have skyrocketed. Indeed, “the wages not only fail to duly remunerate the efforts of the workers, but also fall short of the needs of individuals and families in terms of income.”
In the European Union (EU), about 9% of the people who work are at risk of poverty and this percentage has grown in the last decade, the report said. An indicator that clearly shows this is that the gap between the rate of labor productivity and the
growth of real wages has widened.
Oxfam is an international confederation of organizations working in 94 countries in finding solutions to poverty and what it considers injustices worldwide. It was originally founded in 1942 as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief by a group of Quakers, social activists and academics from Oxford University in Great Britain. Its original mission was to persuade the British government to allow food aid for famine relief to the citizens of Greece caught between the military occupation of Nazi Germany and the
naval blockades by the Allied powers.
January 30 2016
VIVIMOS UN MUNDO CRECIENTEMENTE DESIGUAL
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
El crecimiento económico se ha generalizado en el planeta, pero no en beneficio de todo el mundo sino, por lo contrario, con un aumento de las desigualdades. 62 individuos poseen igual riqueza que las 3.6 mil millones de personas que constituyen el 50% más pobre del planeta. Así lo alerta la confederación internacional de organizaciones no gubernamentales para la lucha contra la pobreza OXFAM, en su más reciente informe titulado “Una economía al servicio del 1%”, presentado ante el Foro Económico Mundial en Davos (Suiza) por su Directora Winnie Byanyima.
“Mientras que los ingresos de los más acaudalados se han incrementado desde 2010 un 44%; los de la mitad más pobre se han reducido el 41%. No obstante que la economía global se ha duplicado en 30 años hasta los 78 billones de dólares y la riqueza mundial ha alcanzado los 267 billones (valor neto de todos los activos financieros y no financieros), es cada vez más evidente que las mayorías quedan excluidas del reparto.
Oxfam advierte que la desigualdad extrema, se está instalando a escala mundial, pese a que ello ha dejado de formar parte de las preocupaciones de las élites del Foro Económico Mundial, tanto en su más reciente encuentro como en el anterior Foro de 2014.
“La mejoría económica ha alejado de estos selectos clubes la preocupación por las cuestiones sociales, aunque el paro estructural y el subempleo aún forman parte de los riesgos que sólo incluyen cuando se les pregunta, tal como se recoge en el Informe sobre riesgos globales 2016 emitido por este organismo”.
Oxfam considera igualmente que una de las herramientas que permiten a los más poderosos incrementar aún más sus ganancias, además de la tendencia de los últimos 30 años a reducir los tipos marginales de las rentas más altas, son los paraísos fiscales.
Aunque no existan cifras oficiales, el estudio de Oxfam hace referencia a estudios recientes según los cuales estos paraísos fiscales, con baja o nula tributación, esconden una suma equivalente a la riqueza total de Alemania y el Reino Unido.
El informe de OXFAM dice haber analizado unas doscientas empresas, incluyendo las más grandes del mundo asociadas al Foro Económico Mundial, resultando que nueve de cada diez de ellas están presentes en paraísos fiscales.
Los recursos que de tal manera escapan al control de los gobiernos, se estiman en unos 100.000 millones de dólares al año, provocando recortes en el estado del bienestar o elevaciones de los impuestos “que afectan desproporcionadamente en mayor medida a los sectores más pobres de la población”.
Una de las claves de la concentración de la riqueza reside en el aumento de los rendimientos del capital, desde los intereses hasta los dividendos. De hecho, en todos los Estados económicamente más avanzados y en la mayoría de los países en vías de desarrollo, la participación de los salarios en la renta nacional se ha estado reduciendo, “lo cual significa que se benefician cada vez menos en el crecimiento económico”, como advirtiera el economista francés Thomas Piketty en su libro “El capital en el siglo XXI” en el que éste señala cómo, en cambio, los dueños del capital observan cómo éste crece “de forma constante y a un ritmo significativamente más rápido que el crecimiento económico”.
En el ámbito laboral, la brecha salarial entre los trabajadores y los directivos se ha ampliado. Los ingresos de los asalariados medios se han estancado o han bajado, en tanto que los de los altos ejecutivos se han disparado. De hecho, “los salarios no solo no remuneran debidamente los esfuerzos de los trabajadores, sino que tampoco satisfacen las necesidades de las personas y las familias en términos de ingresos”.
En la Unión Europea (UE), alrededor del 9% de las personas que trabajan se encuentran en riesgo de pobreza y este porcentaje ha crecido en la última década, según el informe. Un indicador que lo refleja claramente es que el índice de productividad laboral ha acrecentado su brecha respecto al de crecimiento del salario real.
Oxfam es una Confederación Internacional de organizaciones que se desempeña en 94 países en la búsqueda de soluciones a la pobreza y a lo que considera injusticias en todo el mundo. Fue fundada originalmente en 1942 como Comité Oxford para la Alivio de la hambruna por un grupo de Cuáqueros, activistas sociales y académicos de la Universidad de Oxford, en Gran Bretaña. Su misión original era persuadir al Gobierno británico para que permitiera la ayuda alimentaria para aliviar la hambruna a los ciudadanos de Grecia atrapados entre la ocupación militar de la Alemania Nazi y los bloqueos navales de las potencias aliadas.
Enero 30 de 2016.
The Guatemalan Soap Opera
- English
- Español
The Guatemalan Soap Opera
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
The internal political situation in Guatemala in recent months resembles a political soap opera. It features corruption scandals at the highest levels of government, protests in the streets, and the former president and his former vice president being jailed awaiting trial.
To make matters worse, a famous comedian has been elected President of the Republic with broad popular support, but he is not welcomed by the traditional politicians Furthermore, there are questions about his links with the armed forces –particularly feared in this country given the sad story of its participation in Guatemalan politics, with the help of the US CIA, in the grim period 1964-1980 and their brutally repressive role in Guatemala’s civil war of 1960-1996.
In real life, the popular actor Jimmy Morales –who along with his brother Sammy, has starred for more than 15 years in a very popular and successful weekly television humorous show entitled “Moralejas“ [Morals]– was elected President of the Nation as the candidate for the Frente de Convergencia Nacional (FCN)[National Convergence Front (NCF)].
The newly elected president has mentioned as his favorite source of inspiration the satirical film “The Great Dictator”, a 1940 production in which Charlie Chaplin makes a mockery of tyrant Adolf Hitler. In his opinion: “There is no film with content as strong as that one; and it was made out of humor.”
“Humor opens doors that allow me to convey important messages,” reiterated Jimmy Morales after his electoral victory. However, it is believed that Morales is well-liked by the armed forces, because the political party that supported him in his election, the NCF, is credited with a close relationship with the highest military echelons.
Jimmy Morales portrays himself as a man of the people. After his electoral victory he said that humor –with doors wide open– allowed him to convey important messages. ” The propaganda slogan of choice for Jimmy Morales’ campaign for the presidency was “No corruption or thieves”. The launching of such a slogan, because of its content, could not have been more timely or accurate.
Brandishing this campaign slogan, Jimmy Morales placed himself at the forefront of the organizational work of demonstrations that began taking to the streets in weekly mass protests against the government in April 2015.
The protests were prompted by a report by a United Nations agency accusing several Guatemalan top politicians of having links with the so-called ring of corruption that involved the country’s customs agency. The report denounced the widespread corruption that reached to the highest levels of the nation, including then-President Otto Pérez Molina and Vice President Roxana Baldetti, both now jailed awaiting trial.
Morales said he realized that he must do something for his country in 1999, while studying in Spain. Away from home he realized –said he– how much he loved Guatemala and how painful it was to see what was happening in his country.
But he did not find the right time to get involved in national politics until 2008.
Despite being seen as a political outsider, there have been concerns in the population because the party that supports him has very close ties with the national army.
Morales takes credit for having helped the people regain some confidence in politicians because, thanks to him, “many people began to believe that politics is not synonymous with corruption”.
Many of his detractors, however, believe that his message of fighting corruption is insufficient. They say his accusations are limited to a few politicians at the highest level, when in fact the number of corrupt officials is not that low and some of Morales’ current collaborators were as dishonest as the ones he denounced, but opportunistically turned their coats.
“We have seen his popularity,his ability to communicate with the people and empathize with their problems,” said a politicalanalyst in Guatemalan social research. “It remains to be seen if he can capitalize on his popularity with a true political agenda for the people.”
January 28, 2016.
La telenovela guatemalteca
LA TELENOVELA GUATEMALTECA
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
La situación política interna en Guatemala en los últimos meses tiene gran parecido con una telenovela política, con escándalos de corrupción en los más altos niveles de gobierno, protestas en las calles, y con el ex presidente y su ex vicepresidente encarcelados en espera de juicio.
Para colmo, un famoso comediante ha sido electo Presidente de la República con un amplio respaldo popular pero no es recibido con beneplácito por los políticos tradicionales y surgen interrogantes acerca de los vínculos que pudieran unirlo a las fuerzas armadas, particularmente temidas en ese país, dada la triste historia de su participación en la política guatemalteca, de la mano de la CIA estadounidense, en el nefasto período de 1964 a 1980 y su brutal papel represivo en la guerra civil de Guatemala de 1960 a 1996.
En la vida real, el popular actor Jimmy Morales, quien, junto con su hermano Sammy, ha protagonizado durante más de 15 años un muy popular y exitoso programa televisivo humorístico semanal titulado “Moralejas”, fue electo Presidente de la Nación como candidato del Frente de Convergencia Nacional (FCN).
El recién elegido Presidente ha citado como su fuente preferida de inspiración a la película satírica “El gran dictador”, producción de los años 1940 en la que Charlie Chaplin hace burla del tirano Adolfo Hitler. “No hay ninguna película de contenido tan fuerte como esa- y se hizo a partir del humor,” según su opinión.
“El humor abre puertas que me permiten transmitir mensajes importantes,” ha reiterado Jimmy Morales a raíz de de su victoria electoral.
Sin embargo, se supone que Morales es bien visto por las fuerzas armadas porque al partido político que lo respaldó en su elección, el FCN, se le atribuye una relación estrecha con los más altos mandos militares.
Jimmy Morales se pinta a sí mismo como un hombre de pueblo. Ha dicho, luego de su victoria electoral, que el humor con puertas muy abiertas, le ha permitido transmitir mensajes importantes”.
La consigna propagandística que escogió Jimmy Morales para su campaña por la presidencia fue “Ni corruptos ni un ladrón”. El lanzamiento de tal consigna, por su contenido, no pudo tener lugar en momento más preciso y ni mejor.
Enarbolando esa consigna de campaña, Jimmy Morales se situó al frente de los trabajos de organización de manifestaciones que comenzaron a salir a las calles en protestas masivas semanales contra el gobierno en abril del pasado año 2015.
Las protestas fueron motivadas por un informe de un organismo de las Naciones Unidas que acusaba a varios políticos guatemaltecos de alto nivel de tener vínculos con el llamado anillo de corrupción que involucraba a la agencia de aduanas del país y denunciaba una corrupción generalizada que alcanzaba hasta los niveles más altos de la nación, entre los cuales se incluían el entonces Presidente Otto Pérez Molina y la Vicepresidente Roxana Baldetti, ambos ahora encarcelados en espera de juicio.
Morales ha declarado que se dio cuenta de que debía hacer algo por su país en 1999, cuando estudiaba en España. Lejos de casa comprendió, según ha manifestado, cuánto ama a Guatemala y cuánto dolor le causaba ver lo que estaba sucediendo en su país.
Pero no encontró el momento apropiado para involucrarse en la política nacional hasta 2008.
A pesar de ser visto como una persona ajena a la política, ha habido en la población preocupaciones por el hecho de que el partido que lo postulara tenga vínculos tan estrechos con el ejército nacional. Morales se atribuye como un mérito el haber logrado que el pueblo haya recuperado cierta confianza en los políticos porque, gracias a él, “mucha gente comenzó a creer que política no era sinónimo de corrupción”.
Muchos de sus detractores, no obstante, consideran que su mensaje de lucha contra la corrupción es insuficiente, porque sus acusaciones se limitan a unos pocos políticos del más alto nivel, cuando en verdad el número de corruptos no era ni es tan reducido y algunos de los actuales colaboradores de Morales eran tan deshonestos como los denunciados, pero oportunistamente cambiaron de bandera.
“Hemos visto su popularidad, su capacidad para comunicarse con la gente y empatizar con sus problemas”, ha dicho un analista político en la investigación social en Guatemala. “Queda por verse si puede aprovechar su popularidad en una agenda política fiel al pueblo”.
Enero 28 de 2016.
Enero 17 de 2016.
You must be logged in to post a comment.