By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation by Walter Lippmann
Exclusive to the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico. Http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
In recent days, a book written by a Cuban who has been a mercenary in the service of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been published in the United States and has played dissimilar roles in that criminal organization’s actions not only in the Washington battle against his Home country, but also to other infamous plans of the agency in other parts of the world and in the United States, including the latter, to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
The American magazine Newsweek, in its May 28, 2017 issue, publishes a review by journalist Jefferson Morley on the book “Trained to Kill: The CIA Secrets about His Plans Against Castro, Kennedy and Che,” written by his ex Operative agent Antonio Veciana.
The terrorist “exploits” of this mercenary were widely known in Cuba and recognized by the American press, but the value of the infamies confessed by Veciana is that he adds elements to the multiple versions of the CIA’s leading role in the assassination of Kennedy .
According to Veciana, in 1960, he worked as an official of the Cuban government when, having already tried to subvert it from within, he stole official funds and used the money to finance attacks against government offices, factories and warehouses.
Two years later, he used his position in the government to distribute propaganda falsely announcing that the government planned to take custody of school-age children with the purpose of provoking panic in Cuban families and having some send their children to the United States , Where they would be welcomed by the Catholic Church in South Florida. The operation was called Peter Pan, separated 14,000 Cuban children from their families and was described in the press as “a disinterested effort to rescue the victims of communist oppression.”
Controller of Veciana for the operation was “Maurice Bishop” whose real name was David Atlee Phillips, who would become Head of the Division of the CIA for the Western Hemisphere until his retirement in 1975.
After the failure of Bay of Pigs, at Playa Girón, Phillips expressed his contempt for Kennedy, explains Veciana. After JFK’s peaceful conclusion to the missile crisis, Phillips created Alpha-66, a terrorist organization to attack Cuban targets that became a CIA instrument to pressure Kennedy with his actions.
In March 1963, Veciana and his group attacked a Russian merchant ship headed for Cuba, generating headlines around the world. Phillips sought to humiliate the Russians and embarrass JFK to take more aggressive action against Cuba. But Kennedy downplayed the issue and “Castro’s enemies, including Phillips, became even more furious,” Veciana says.
Veciana confirms how she met Kennedy’s alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, in the lobby of the Southland Center, the tallest building in Dallas, where he was introduced by Bishop.
“That was full of people, but Bishop, standing in a corner, was talking to a young man, pale, insubstantial. When he introduced me, I do not remember if he did it by his name (he might have said, ‘Tony, this is Lee. Lee, this is Tony.) But what I’m sure of is that Lee did not say anything. “
Following the assassination in Dallas on November 22, 1963, Oswald was arrested, and his face was broadcast on television. “I recognized him immediately,” writes Veciana. “He was, without a doubt, the same pale, insignificant young man he had seen eleven weeks before” in the company of Maurice Bishop. “
Veciana recalls that early in 1964 the agency man asked if a cousin of his who was a Cuban intelligence officer would be willing to state that he had conspired with Oswald before JFK was killed. Phillips offered to pay for such testimony, but Veciana replied that his cousin was communist and could not be bought.
A decade later, in 1975, when the JFK investigation was reopened, a congressional investigator, knowing that Veciana had worked for the CIA, approached him to learn more about how the agency collaborated with Cuban exiles. Veciana told her the story of her work with Bishop, including meeting with Oswald. Arrangements were made for an artist to draw a picture of Bishop based on Veciana’s description and the result was a portrait that closely resembled Phillips. Veciana was then taken to Washington for a meeting with Phillips, but he pretended not to know Veciana who, out of fear of reprisals from the CIA denied that Bishop and Phillips were the same person. “A lie that I have maintained until today”, emphasizes Veciana.
Certainly, in the confessions of this bloodthirsty terrorist there are elements that contribute data to the clarification of some half truths and manipulations in the criminal history of the USA.
June 5, 2017.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusivo para el diario POR ESTO! de Mérida, México. http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
En días recientes se publicó en Estados Unidos un libro escrito por un cubano que hizo carrera como mercenario al servicio de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) y desempeñó disímiles papeles en acciones de esa organización criminal vinculadas, no solo a la batalla Washington contra su país natal, sino también a otros planes infamantes de la agencia en otras partes del mundo y en los propios Estados Unidos, incluyendo entre estos últimos, al magnicidio de John F. Kennedy.
La revista norteamericana Newsweek, en su número de 28 de mayo de 2017, publica una reseña del periodista Jefferson Morley sobre el libro “Entrenado para matar: Los Secretos de la CIA sobre sus planes contra Castro, Kennedy y Che”, escrito por su ex agente operativo Antonio Veciana.
Las “hazañas” terroristas de este mercenario eran ampliamente conocidas en Cuba y reconocidas por la prensa estadounidense, pero el valor de las infamias que confiesa Veciana radica en que agrega elementos a las múltiples versiones acerca del papel rector de la CIA en el asesinato de Kennedy.
Según Veciana, en 1960, él trabajaba como funcionario del gobierno cubano cuando, teniendo ya como proyecto subvertirlo desde dentro, robó fondos oficiales y utilizó el dinero para financiar ataques contra oficinas, fábricas y almacenes del gobierno.
Dos años más tarde, utilizó su posición en el gobierno para distribuir propaganda anunciando falsamente que el gobierno planeó tomar la custodia de niños en edad escolar, con el propósito de provocar pánico en las familias cubanas y hacer que algunas enviaran a sus hijos a Estados Unidos, donde serían acogidos por la Iglesia Católica en el sur de la Florida. La operación fue llamada Peter Pan, separó a 14 mil niños cubanos de sus familias y fue descrita en la prensa como “esfuerzo desinteresado para rescatar a las víctimas de la opresión comunista”.
Controlador de Veciana para la operación era “Maurice Bishop” cuyo verdadero nombre era David Atlee Phillips, quien llegaría a ser Jefe de la División de la CIA para el Hemisferio Occidental hasta su retiro en 1975.
Tras el fracaso de Bahía de Cochinos, en Playa Girón, Phillips manifestó su desprecio por Kennedy, explica Veciana. Luego de la conclusión pacífica abogada por JFK para la crisis de los misiles, Phillips le creó Alpha-66, organización terrorista para atacar objetivos cubanos que se convirtió en instrumento de la CIA para presionar a Kennedy con sus acciones.
En marzo de 1963, Veciana y su grupo atacaron un buque mercante ruso que se dirigía a Cuba, generando titulares en todo el mundo. Phillips buscaba con ello humillar a los rusos y avergonzar a JFK para que tomara acciones más agresivas contra Cuba. Pero Kennedy restó importancia al tema y “los enemigos de Castro, incluyendo a Phillips, se pusieron más furiosos aún”, dice Veciana.
Veciana confirma cómo conoció al supuesto asesino de Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, en el vestíbulo del Centro Southland, el edificio más alto de Dallas, donde le fue presentado por Bishop.
“Aquello estaba lleno de gente, pero Bishop, de pie en un rincón, hablaba con un hombre joven, pálido, insustancial. Cuando me lo presentó no recuerdo si lo hizo por su nombre (podría haber dicho: ‘Tony, este es Lee. Lee, este es Tony’). Pero de lo que estoy seguro es de que Lee no dijo nada.”
Tras el asesinato en Dallas el 22 de noviembre de 1963, Oswald fue arrestado, y su rostro transmitido en la televisión. “Lo reconocí inmediatamente,” escribe Veciana. “Era, sin lugar a dudas el mismo hombre joven, pálido e insignificante que había visto once semanas antes” en compañía de Maurice Bishop”.
Veciana recuerda que, temprano en 1964, el hombre de la agencia le preguntó si un primo suyo que era oficial de inteligencia cubano, estaría dispuesto a declarar que él había conspirado con Oswald antes de que JFK fuera asesinado. Phillips le ofreció pagar por tal testimonio, pero Veciana le respondió que su primo era comunista y no podía ser comprado.
Una década más tarde, en 1975, cuando la investigación JFK se reabrió, un investigador del Congreso, sabiendo que Veciana había trabajado para la CIA, se acercó a él para conocer más sobre cómo la agencia colaboraba con los exiliados cubanos. Veciana le contó la historia de su trabajo con Bishop, incluida la reunión con Oswald. Se hicieron arreglos para que un artista hiciera un dibujo de Bishop basado en descripción de Veciana y el resultado fue un retrato que se parecía mucho a Phillips. Veciana fue entonces llevado a Washington para una reunión con Phillips, pero éste fingió no conocer a Veciana quien, por miedo a represalias de la CIA negó que Bishop y Phillips fueran la misma persona. “Una mentira que hasta hoy mantuve”, subraya Veciana.
Ciertamente, en las confesiones de este sanguinario terrorista hay elementos que aportan datos al esclarecimiento de algunas medias verdades y manipulaciones en la historia criminal de EEUU.
Junio 5 de 2017.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Proof that neoliberal capitalist domination is universal lies in the real estate speculation that underlies the neoliberal dream that “wealth is easy in the capitalist world”.
The most common evidence is finding a sumptuous building being built where previously there had been many modest homes and/or small businesses. If there is not a billboard to inform you, investigate and you will find that the new construction will house or serve a small number of families in very sumptuous conditions.
This phenomenon of capitalism is called “gentrification.” Sometimes it affects whole neighborhoods of humble population and leaves beautiful spaces that certainly can make wide sectors of the citizenship proud –even popular sectors– despite the fact that they hurt the sensitivity of those who worry about the worsening situation of those who previously inhabited those areas.
I remember that, shortly after the triumph of the revolution in Cuba, more than half a century ago, for the first time, I heard of this from a young dreamer named Eusebio Leal.
If I am not mistaken, he, being a history lover, began working as an assistant to the elder historian of the city of Havana, Emilio Roig de Leuchsenring (1889-1964). Eusebio devoted himself so thoroughly to his work that he became, first, a faithful and indispensable assistant to this erudite figure and, after his death, his replacement.
The process of restoration of the historical center of Havana City has gone through several stages after the Office of the Historian was founded –with managerial and operational autonomy– in 1938, on Dr. Emilio Roig de Leuchsenring’s initiative Its purpose was the promotion of the culture of Havana and the conservation of the valuable monumental legacy that the capital of the country treasures.
Eusebio added to his mentor’s teachings his own considerations and theories about the course to be applied to the conservation, reconstruction, and development projects of the capital city of all Cubans. He did it with such brilliance that it soon became clear that no one but he could undertake the complex task of conducting the work.
He was officially appointed Historian of the City when he had already demonstrated, in daily practice, that he was the ideal person to carry out the ambitious projects that were only in his mind but which he described as fait accompli.
So many people had to be convinced that the need to save Havana was so pressing that it would have to be taken on as a priority together with the education, public health and defense of the country.
This implied such tasks of convincing and promoting that made Eusebio Leal excel as a tribune and diplomat as well as administrator and builder.
Of course, the works and projects of the Office of the Historian of Havana earned enthusiastic patronage from the highest political leadership of the Cuban state, including that of the top leader Fidel Castro, who gave them their full support whenever necessary.
With Eusebio’s personal participation in every promotional detail, the historic center of the Cuban capital was declared a World Heritage SIOPite by UNESCO in 1982. This fueled a process of restoration that has transcended the patrimonial conservation framework and became an example of sustainable local development.
The restoration process had, as a central aim, the concept that the historic center would be not only an act of high architectural and urban value, but also the creation of a site with great cultural, economic and social potential. Eusebio was convinced that a successful rehabilitation should be self-financing and socially participatory.
The restoration process of the Historic Center of Old Havana –based on a model of self-management with a participatory and community approach– has been successful in the Cuban patrimonial context. It has contributed to the objective of guaranteeing the social achievements of the Cuban people within the socialist revolution.
One undoubted social impact of the restoration process is that it created a new awareness about the value of the city, its potential and the feasibility of its recovery.
The restoration of old hotels, the creation of hostels and extra-hotel services of various kinds has created the most visible side of the economy of the historic center. These, together with the commercial activity and handicraft production, have formed a profile that describes the historic center of the city.
Havana will not be gentrified. The population that has given it worldwide fame for its joy, traditions, hospitality, generosity and solidarity will continue to be the absolute owner of the increasingly beautiful and welcoming city.
May 4, 2017
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Una prueba de que el capitalismo neoliberal es universal en su dominación, está en la especulación inmobiliaria que fundamenta el sueño neoliberal de que la riqueza es fácil en el mundo capitalista. Lo más común es encontrar un suntuoso edificio construido donde antes hubo muchas viviendas modestas y/o pequeños comercios. Si no hubiera una valla que se lo informe, investigue y generalmente conocerá que la nueva construcción alojará o dará servicio a un reducido número de familias pero en condiciones muy suntuosas.
Este fenómeno propio del capitalismo se llama “gentrificación”. A veces afecta a barrios enteros de población humilde y deja bellos espacios que ciertamente pueden constituir orgullo de amplios sectores de la ciudadanía –incluso sectores populares- aunque hieran la sensibilidad de quienes se preocupan por la peor situación en que quedaron quienes habitaban esas áreas.
Recuerdo que poco después del triunfo de la revolución en Cuba, hace más de medio siglo, oí hablar por vez primera de este fenómeno a un joven soñador nombrado Eusebio Leal, quien -si no me equivoco- por ser aficionado a la historia, comenzó a trabajar como asistente del anciano historiador de la ciudad de La Habana, Emilio Roig de Leuchsenring (1889 – 1964). Se entregaba con tanto esmero a su labor que se convirtió, primero, en fiel e imprescindible ayudante de este sabio y, luego de su muerte, en su sustituto.
El proceso de restauración del centro histórico de Ciudad de La Habana ha pasado por varias etapas desde que, en 1938, se fundó con carácter autónomo la Oficina del Historiador por iniciativa del Dr. Emilio Roig de Leuchsenring, con el propósito de fomentar la cultura habanera y promover la conservación del valioso legado monumental que la capital del país atesora.
Eusebio incorporó a las enseñanzas de su mentor sus propias
consideraciones y teorías acerca del curso que debía aplicarse a los proyectos de conservación, reconstrucción y desarrollo de la ciudad capital de todos los cubanos con tal brillantez que bien pronto se hizo evidente que nadie más que él podría asumir la compleja tarea de conducir esos trabajos. Fue designado oficialmente Historiador de la Ciudad cuando ya había demostrado, en la práctica cotidiana, que era la persona idónea para impulsar los ambiciosos proyectos que apenas bullían en su mente pero que ya describía como hechos consumados. Había que convencer a tanta gente de que la necesidad de salvar a La Habana era tan presionante que tendría que ser asumida de manera prioritaria y simultánea con las de educación, salud pública y defensa del país.
Ello implicaba un trabajo de convencimiento y promoción que hizo que Eusebio Leal sobresaliera como tribuno y diplomático tanto como administrador y constructor. Por supuesto, las obras y proyectos de la Oficina del Historiador de La Habana obtuvieron patrocinio entusiasta de la máxima dirección política del Estado cubano, incluyendo el del máximo líder Fidel Castro quien les dio todo su apoyo cuando ello fue necesario.
Con su participación personal en cada detalle promocional, el centro histórico de la capital cubana fue declarado Patrimonio de la Humanidad por la UNESCO en 1982, algo que impulsó un proceso de restauración que ha trascendido los marcos de la conservación patrimonial y se convirtió en ejemplo de desarrollo local sostenible. El proceso restaurador apuntaba a que el centro histórico no sería solamente un acto de alto valor arquitectónico y urbanístico, sino además un sitio de gran potencial cultural, económico y social, con la convicción de que una rehabilitación exitosa debía ser autofinanciable y socialmente participativa.
El proceso de restauración del Centro Histórico de La Habana Vieja basado en un modelo de autogestión con enfoque participativo y comunitario ha sido exitoso en el contexto patrimonial cubano y ha aportado al objetivo de garantizar las conquistas sociales logradas por el pueblo cubano con la revolución socialista.
Un indudable impacto social del proceso de restauración, es que a partir de su propia labor, se ha creado una nueva conciencia sobre los valores de la ciudad, sus potencialidades y la factibilidad de su recuperación.
A partir de la restauración de antiguos hoteles, la creación de hostales y de servicios extrahoteleros de diverso orden, se ha constituido en la cara más visible de la economía del centro histórico, junto con la actividad comercial, y ha conformado un perfil que al igual que la actividad artesanal, califica al centro histórico de la ciudad.
La Habana no será gentrificada. La población que le ha dado fama mundial por su alegría, sus tradiciones, su hospitalidad, su generosidad y su solidaridad seguirá siendo dueña absoluta de la cada vez más bella y acogedora ciudad.
Mayo 4 de 2017
By Dr. Néstor García Iturbe, 2016
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
I recently received an objective and interesting note published by “CUBA NEWS” where academician Nelson Valdés explains Obama’s views on democracy and gives us an insight into how a single topic can get a different treatment depending on the surrounding atmosphere.
The note in question pointed out that in his speech of June 4 in Egypt, Obama said: “So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other”.
However, on April 13, just 52 days before, he had remarked the following: “The promotion of democracy and human rights in Cuba is in the national interest of the United States and is a key component of this nation’s foreign policy in the Americas”.
Among the explanations the scholar tried to give to the President’s contradictory approach to this issue in such a short period were:
This gentleman has either a poor memory or two speechwriters. In his opinion, Cuba is not an independent nation, but a part of U.S. territory.
As I see it, both of Obama’s phrases are nothing but a confirmation of the way his country has practiced foreign policy ever since it was founded. Besides, they throw light on the ambivalent stance the U.S. often takes on terrorism (the good one and the bad one), human rights (who violates them and who doesn’t), immigration, children’s rights, and everything they use to boast the “good things” of a system which, truth be told, becomes more corrupted by the day.
By Manuel E. Yepe
September 2009
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Who is this monster, the United States’ worst enemy in South America, who is worse than Fidel Castro and Osama bin Laden? The who supports all terrorists and drug traffickers in the world, from Al Qaeda to Hamas, who promotes hate against the wealthy, and who can also count on enough popular support to win all the elections?
With questions such as these begins the documentary “South of the Border” by the prominent American filmmaker Oliver Stone. The film is about the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, Hugo Chávez, to be presented on Sunday September 6, to the press at the Venice Film Festival. According to reports, the film includes testimony about the personality and career of the charismatic Venezuelan leader by Latin American presidents, Cristina Fernandez of Argentina, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, and Raúl Castro of Cuba.
The announcement of the completion of this film project coincided with the failure of a campaign funded by the Colombian oligarchy, supported by groups of the wealthy Venezuelan opposition, and the U.S. It was orchestrated under the slogan “No more Chavez.” The campaign sought to organize simultaneous marches on 4 September 2009 in ninety cities worldwide, “to protest the insults against Colombia which were made by the Venezuelan leader.”
According to press reports, the event was convened, by “a group of young Colombian entrepreneurs” who had predicted the event would be attended by great numbers of people, in major cities worldwide however, it only managed to attract small crowds using social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter on the Internet.
The movement, considered, by Venezuelan-American lawyer, writer and journalist Eva Golinger, to be “a call for assassination, hatred and destabilization” failed when it only brought together groups of a few hundred people in a number of cities – much smaller numbers than the projected. “They failed and were made to appear ridiculous with the demonstrations they called against Chavez for Friday and Saturday,” said the president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Cilia Flores.
Organizers affirmed, without giving specific numbers, that they were successful in carrying out rallies in Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, Sydney, Brussels, Hamburg, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Santiago, Tegucigalpa, several cities in Venezuela, as well as thirty locations in Colombia.
The most popular of these was, without a doubt, the rally that was “called” in Tegucigalpa, by the military government that took power by military coup on July 1 and which, removed the constitutional President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya. The insurgents reported that about two thousand people participated in an event led by Roberto Micheletti, the de facto head of state.
In Bogota, several groups marched from the northern suburbs of the city, areas that have high concentrations of the upper class, to the historic center. In the downtown area of Bogotá, and in other areas, the anti-Venezuela protests were rejected by grassroots groups with whom they exchanged shouts and at times, even blows.
Popular Protesters came out against President Álvaro Uribe’s proposal to make changes in current law in order to run for re-election again, and also, in opposition to Uribe’s military pact with the U.S. government. Which, according to the official version, has as its aim to put Colombian military facilities at the service of U.S. operations against drug trafficking in the region. For all the other South American leaders – primarily Chavez, this action represents the surrender of Columbia to U.S. military occupation and poses a threat to the independence of Latin America nations.
In Caracas, popular and opposition groups gathered at a safe distance from each other in order to avoid confrontation, and to express, respectively, rejection and support for President Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian revolution. The demonstrations were preceded by appeals to keep the marches peaceful.
In the demonstration against Chavez, where a few hundred opponents chanted “No more Chavez,” the counterrevolutionary slogan launched from Bogota, the metropolitan mayor Antonio Ledezma, of the opposition, demanded freedom of expression in an act that, paradoxically, was being protected by authorities and broadcast by several radio stations and local television stations. There was also criticism of a law passed by parliament that expands educational options to low-income sectors.
On the side of Chavez supporters, thousands of citizens dressed in red, the color of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), and marched in support of the Bolivarian leader, while at the same time other hundreds of marches in support of Chavez were taking place in inland towns. Diosdado Cabello, a leader of PSUV reported in Caracas that the Venezuelan opposition maintains its plan of assassination because of the inability to defeat Chavez at the polls in democratic processes.
By telephone, from Tehran, Iran, where he was on an official visit, Hugo Chávez, the evil defender of the humble, the enemy of the rich and of American hegemony on the continent, ratified the Venezuelan peoples commitment demonstrated in their mass rally against the foreign ministry in Caracas, by stating, “homeland, freedom and socialism.”
By Stella Callóni
Thursday, June 25th 2009
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Buenos Aires, June 24. Human rights organizations, family members and survivors from the military dictatorship repudiated statements made by Cuban doctor Hilda Molina and declared her persona non grata for offending the Mothers and Grandmothers of the May Plaza.
Molina, a doctor that used to belong to the Cuban Communist Party and who confronted the government when it was discovered that she received money from people for services that are given fee in Havana, recently received authorization to leave the island and make a temporary visit to Argentina. Her son, who lives here, was also accused of embezzlements against Cuba at the time. When she arrived she said she was going to be politically discreet to avoid the host country any embarrassment. When she was bombarded with interviews from the extreme right media, she forgot her commitment.
She declared to ultra-right media Perfil (Profile) that the mothers and grandmothers of the May Plaza: “suffered the persecution of a dictatorship, however they worship others, like the one in Cuba. The one in Cuba is leftist while the one they suffered belonged to the extreme right. I knew they were not going to do anything because those who worship that dictatorship like to make demons out of those who think differently.”
“If you consider the Cuban revolution a dictatorship and liken it to the Fascist and criminal dictatorship of Jorge Videla and Emilio Massera, you offend all Argentineans that suffered terrorism”, says the official statement of the Argentinean human rights organizations.
By Ortelio Gonzalez Martinez
June 23, 2009
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
CIEGO DE AVILA.- There are good, silent men who move quietly, without arrogance, and do not see themselves as important, but in fact they are important manuel, to the center, and francisco (left) advise an interested client on how to diminishing the electricity cost of their company.
This is how those who are fighting the battle against excessive electricity expenditure behave as members of the Energy Supervision Groups in the country (ESG). They were created in Sancti Spíritus in February 2007 and later in the rest of the country.
Those in my province don’t monopolize the press, yet many know them, and think about them, especially when they arrive at the companies and insist on saving measures, key positions, load redistribution, expenditure plan, energy balance…fight against fraud intensifies in the residential sector
ANOTHER TURN OF THE KEY IN FAVOR OF THRIFTINESS
For electric engineer Manuel Sánchez Fernández, head specialist of the Group in the Basic Electric Organization (OBE) in Ciego de Avila, it is time to give another turn to the key in favor of thriftiness; because, there is a hidden source of energy that needs to be found and exploited for the good of all. “The thing is to avoid spending more energy than the one planned. Reserves appear and it is our duty to find them, by organizing work better, and changing for the better the disposition of those that squander it”, he declared.
He said that Load Distribution Manuals had appeared since the ’70s. . Companies were supposed to follow them to determine their saving policy. However, those books were kept in the drawers and very few mangers – and fewer workers – consulted them.
Nowadays, when the world crisis threatens us, the country spent during the first four months of this year 40 000 tons more fuel for electric generation than planned. These groups are necessary – I would say crucial – to discover anomalies and provide counsel when needed.
“In the beginning – Manuel asserts -, company managers resented us, especially the squanderers. This is changing, although we have to sensitize many managers. There are still places which don’t even have an expenditure plan. For this reason up to June 19, 42 companies had been denied electricity service. Most of them belong to MINAZ, MINAGRI and Trade and Gastronomy.”
In our province the Group is formed by four experienced specialists and, contrary to what some people think, they aren’t snipers. Yet, they are uncompromising with those who disregard the saving policy indicated by our country’s maximum leaders. There is no alternative.
Real life shows us that there are leaks of electrical energy, caused by lack of control, and irresponsibility.
What should we call those that do not study the company load, do not read the counters and care more about the expenditure of fuel than that of electricity?
Inspections made (more than 100 in the province) discovered anomalies everywhere. It is no laughing matter, for example, that in certain workplaces they ignore the existence of an expenditure plan, or that in a store of the Interior Trade Ministry the inspection detected a large expenditure of electricity even when the freezer was not in working order. Further investigation revealed that several nearby homes were connected to the store and the residents did not pay for electricity.
In the opinion of Thermo-energy Engineer Francisco Ramírez Díaz, also member of the ESG, saving is not possible without management supervision. Thus, he brings another problem out on the open; the ineffectual analyses made countless times by Management Councils, Party committees, Young Communist organization committees, and union representatives at workplaces.
During the enquiries, Granma found out that the way the issue is discussed is boring, repetitive and, therefore in spite of good intentions, the reason for excessive electricity expenditures is not found.
The issue of energy consumers is in the agenda of every workplace visited. We concede that. However, comments on the subject are restricted to: “How much electricity did we use? We cannot overdraw the expenditure plan. It is necessary to work in that direction… “, Discussions should dig deeper than that during collective debates.
CUT OFF THE POWER…
It is not a matter of “cutting off the power and turning on the gas lamp” as the popular saying goes. Engineer María Antonia Valdés Alfonso, head of the Rational Use of the Energy Managerial Base Unit of the OBE in Ciego de Avila province, affirms that the maximum leaders of the country have stated this as the last option.
Without forgetting the residential sector, for the time being emphasis is put now on the state sector, the biggest consumer in the county. When companies and state units overdraw their plans service is withdrawn. “Service is withdrawn for 72 hours to those [companies] who consume electricity over the amount planned. If they recur, more severe measures are applied to managers. They put the squeeze and it has given results.”
Engineer Aidel Suárez López, who also walks with the control calendar always ready, is categorical: “Most managers think that their companies have done everything possible merely because they have turned off lights and motors; that this solves the saving problem. They push to the background very important words like energy balance, load redistribution, deviation from the real consumption, energy efficiency…, but we won that battle. The final objective is to put the cork back in the bottle.”
At least in Ciego de Ávila, the “cork” is beginning to stop squandering. Since June 1st when saving measures began, to the 19th, the province fulfilled the 15 day plan. This result is due in part to the “bad guys in the movies”. Nobody doubts that.
But their performance should not be restricted to moments of crisis. It should be systematic and they should work every day against squanderers and the inefficient use of energy carriers.
Author: Sara Flat Sariol
August 8, 2009
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
GRANMA. – Because it increased the number of inspectors, this territory expects to be able to follow up the program designed to achieve bigger electric power savings in factories and service units.
The insufficient number of inspectors hampered the detection of management flaws in controlling the measures to optimize savings. In July – to mention one period – the territory exceeded its expenditure plan by 3,6%. This means it used around 2,000 MW*hour more. This is equivalent to covering the demand of the territory for more than 24 hours.
According to information received from managers of the Electric Company of Granma, the province was able to employ one hundred new supervisors. This will allow it to systematically control each of its units.
Examiners in each Popular Council, will support these inspections, which will intensify during this month of August when the celebration of carnivals in Bayamo and Manzanillo can increase electricity expenditure.
Although daily assignment has been raised for this period with respect to the previous month, local authorities insist on carrying saving measures to the maximum. They plan to influence those companies that persist in using electricity without defining their [savings] plans or that do not follow self reading procedures, among other frequent violations.
Author: ALBERTO NÚÑEZ BETANCOURT
Havana, July 7, 2009
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Honduras is living proof that, if describing the violators of democracy is up to powerful mass media, we’ll never see words such as ‘coup d’état’ or ‘usurping government’, let alone phrases like ‘legitimate, constitutional president acclaimed by the majority of the people’ to talk about Honduran dignitary José Manuel Zelaya.
Once again, injustice hides behind euphemisms: ‘coup’ is replaced by ‘forced succession’, a term often used by CNN in its Spanish broadcastings, as if to make sure it ends up engraved on the mind of its large audiences.
Since June 28th, when the coup took place, CNN News has reported that a new government ‘unanimously’ approved by Congress had been legally set up and was even ‘consolidating’ its newly appointed cabinet.
That day an anchorwoman kept proudly repeating that all e-mails received in the network stated their support of the de facto regime. Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega was right when he said that CNN was the coup faction’s channel.
Just hours after the swipe, plenty of carefully edited footage showed a rally in support of Micheletti, whose actions enjoyed extensive coverage while the popular opposition was barely mentioned despite the fact that increasing numbers of people were gathering in the area around the Presidential House and all roads and highways were jam-packed with citizens who were heading for the capital city from all over the country. ‘Groups of Zelaya’s supporters’ is how CNN in Spanish prefers to call that great mass of citizens seemingly undeserving of many camera shots.
You’ve got to laugh at the argument initially employed by the CNN correspondent that she could not get anywhere near the Presidential House to take pictures of the first demonstrations in favor of the Honduran constitution. Nevertheless, she fought for, and managed to get in no time, an interview with Micheletti, whom she even called ‘President’, in clear recognition of he who had just taken the Presidency by force.
Meanwhile, a fearless Telesur network got by at best it could to transmit objective news from streets and rooftops at the cost of seeing its film crew arrested.
History repeats itself. Much like in Venezuela in April 2002, powerful media are now striving to do a real balancing act to justify the coup in Honduras. Everything goes, from blaming Chávez for the conflict caused by a stubborn Honduran oligarchy to presenting analysts who swear that Manuel Zelaya violated the Constitution, hinting at the convenience of a ‘political solution between the parties’ to help the country return to normal, or fabricating a climate in which Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba are portrayed as enemies of Honduras’s sovereignty.
No information monopoly is in the least interested in clarifying that Zelaya’s intention to hold a referendum is by no means in violation of his nation’s Magna Carta.
Why don’t they explain in one of their many news programs that the current chaos in this Central American country is a result of a crystal clear conspiracy planned by the brass hats, the judiciary and power-thirsty congresspeople? Why not remind us that the Hondurans were peacefully getting ready to take part in a plebiscite? Why not decry the gag order given since day one by the de facto government?
Countless questions come to mind on what the big media have to say now about their much-trumpeted concepts of democracy and freedom of the press, because their outrageous attitude makes their words sound empty or funny, to say the least.
No less noticeable is the fact that some networks would rather broadcast the latest jet-set gossip or cartoons for entertainment and misinformation than what’s going on in Honduras today.
Euphemisms as masks: that’s some lesson we’re receiving these days from the media at the service of oligarchs and liars!
By Graziella Pogolotti
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Among my most distant memories, the name of Alberto Yarini comes to mind. Grown-ups would mention him with a wicked smile, which aroused my curiosity. I gradually came to learn that he was a famous pimp who had been killed in a fight by his French rivals in the San Isidro neighborhood. Supremely elegant, he projected a singular image, that of an aristocratic pimp riding around the city. Later Carlos Felipe turned the legend into myth. With his famous Requiem, he gave a tragic flavor to the announced death of a hero of a nocturnal and marginal Havana, a recurrent obsession of the author, who also wrote El chino. The director Gilda Hernández, however, provided quite a different perspective of the production on the occasion of the premiere of the play. The realistic approach showed the character-portrayed by Helmo Hernández-in his underpants in a sordid setting. Social referents were emphasized by this point of view, including the stage curtain which served to project obituaries of the family of resounding names and of the Conservative Party, signed by generals and commanders of the Liberation Army as well as by notorious San Isidro pimps.The character has come back to the present in the recently premiered feature film, Los dioses rotos (The Broken Gods).
The second edition of San Isidro 1910, by the researcher Dulcila Cañizares, was launched at a recent book fair. Supported by numerous testimonials and a conscientious exploration of archives, the book reveals the character’s environment, located in the limited urban universe where he exercised control. The examination is intentionally made from the bottom in a republic which had hardly freed itself of colonial ties.
The neighborhood is brought back to life by a meticulous reconstruction of squalid tenements, cheap eateries, small stores, movie houses where musicians, who would some day be famous, play, places where pornographic images are viewed. From the background of this sordid everyday life emerges the indistinct figure of Yarini, settled in his house on Paula Street, surrounded by his harem, flanked by his staunch friend Basterrechea, an ambiguous bond of unknown origin.
Self-contained, the neighborhood lies on the city’s fringes, just as Carlos Felipe sensed it in his classic Requiem. But strong and subtle steel threads connect him to the ruling classes of the newly-formed republic. Barely a silhouette designed in the background, Yarini represents the link between these two worlds. Hence the reason for his actual strength and his lasting symbolic image. Deep down, beyond any differences imposed by social conventions, a common substratum converges in the field of values, a trap that subjugates whoever gets involved in politics, where no one manages to avoid the mud stains on their white attire. Yarini goes through the concentric circles of the Havana society of the time. Born into a well-established family, both financially and professionally, he stops by the bohemian and semi-parasitic scene of the “Louvre sidewalk”-also suggested by Estorino in some of his plays-where white slave trade and the commerce of journalism subsist, to establish his personal domain in San Isidro.
Coinciding with the pattern devised by Carlos Felipe, the anthropological perspective adopted by Dulcila Cañizares constructs the character as seen through the eyes of others. Unlike the playwright, the researcher places the neighborhood and its memories at center stage. The main character will grow and will be recognizable following his death with the significance of his remains and complicities extracted from the impersonal prose of legal documents. Here, as on the stage, class differences are noted in the refinement of the wardrobe and the value of the pendants, in contrast to the vulgar striped shirts and pants worn by small-time pimps. The quick execution of the French victim takes place by way of a pearly pistol and an accurate shot to the middle of the forehead.
The search for the truth is carried out through the disclosure of successive layers that hide new, perhaps unfathomable, mysteries. In Dulcila Cañizares’s book a key character, unknown until now, is outlined. Basterrechea, the inseparable shadow of the famous pimp, the handsome young man with green eyes who lacks trade and lineage will be his avenger. A shadyarea in his sexuality is sensed in the “San Isidro macho” with his harem of women that never included virgins. The documents of the period hint at actions taken by powerful political authorities to abandon the legal process and wipe Yarini’s avenger’s record clean. Jail will be for others, for the second-class perpetrators in the settling of scores with the French pimps. Basterrechea survived the republic in total obscurity, living on small government positions that were always available to him despite the frequent dismissals, hurricane winds that were inseparable from every electoral process. His silence was, without a doubt, part of the commitment made to the people who ultimately freed him from the administration of justice. At the time of the outcome, he left the scene in the same manner as the mysterious lady in black restored by Carlos Felipe. They left no trail. Memory and legend preserved only the reminiscence of the surprising social pact represented in the funeral where the neighborhood prostitutes and the representatives of the so-called active classes of the nation, representatives of high politics and high society, converged. The great show removed the stains, dressing the most sordid complicities in clean clothes. From a multiple set of voices and documents, Dulcila Cañizares opens up the silent zones and gives us back a disturbing vision of a past that is also a part of our cultural heritage. Because the yesterday that is within us has dazzling luminosities of struggle, generosity and creation. Inscribed in a context of values forged in the needs of survival, the memory of a sordid past, the source of a corruption that permeates society, interacting with the high and low strata of society, still lives on. These are the ones that are revealed in Carlos Felipe’s universe and, with more restrictive precautions, in Miguel de Carrión’s as well. Let us welcome then this necessary evocation of San Isidro 1910.
An Interview with Camilo Guevara, Son of El Che
10/16/98 – HUMO (Belgium)
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Q: You didn’t really know your father. You where five years old when he died. You probably know him like we all do: out of books.
Guevara: I have a few memories, but vaguely, things I’m not even sure off that they really happened or that I dreamed them, fantasy. I know him through the stories that my mother, family and friends of my father have told me.
Q: For believers in the free market and the Americans, he is a devil.
Guevara: That’s their problem, not mine. He is a devil for the U.S. government and American multinationals. Not for the North-American people. I am convinced that many North-Americans admire and respect El Che, that they love him and that they fight injustice in American society under his banner. In the U.S. there is a movement that declares its solidarity with Cuba and tries to lift the economic blockade.
Q: Your father’s life ended in controversy. He left Cuba because the Soviets came, whom he did not trust, so they say, and had problems with Fidel Castro who became more and more a pragmatic head of state.
Guevara: That isn’t true. My father left Cuba because he was an eternal revolutionary. He wrote as much in letters that might soon be published. He had no quarrel with Fidel at all. Fidel and Che stayed friends, brothers and comrades until the end. That they had problems with one another is a lie which was already launched before El Che’s death. The period he was in Congo during the sixties and the capitalist countries didn’t know where he was, the Western press wrote some crazy stories: he was dead; he was locked up in a Cuban jail. With these lies they wanted to harm the Cuban revolution and Fidel Castro as one of the international leaders of the left and of the poor in the world, still eighty percent of the world population today. On the other hand they tried to convince people that the revolutionary Guevara, this great symbol, wasn’t all that, but a man who had to flee from Cuba because he had problems with his colleague – revolutionary Fidel Castro.
Q: How is life for the son of El Che in Cuba?
Guevara: You want to know if I’m privileged? Children of ‘the symbol’ have one advantage: a great part of the Cuban people still loves El Che. I often feel awkward about it, but a lot of Cubans treat us, the children of El Che, more warmly than others. I feel that the Cubans convey the affection that they had for my father onto me and my family. In that way we are indeed privileged.
Q: How are things in Cuba today? The economic situation seems to improve gradually?
Guevara: 1994 was rock-bottom for us. After that the Cuban economy gradually began growing again, which was a miracle, really. And El Che had nothing to do with it! (Laughs) Or maybe, a little. That year made a great impression on us all. Imagine: a country which is the victim of a rigorous economic blockade all of a sudden also loses eighty percent of its trade due to the collapse of Eastern Europe. At the same time the blockade is even tightened, and the prices of Western goods, which we desperately needed just like any other Third World country, keep on rising. And still we managed to let our economy grow. That is the miracle. A very dangerous example. We achieved this without one cent from the International Monitary Fund, nor of any other international financial institution whatsoever! We have showed that you can achieve a lot without money, but with a great political will. I suspect that capitalists around the world are a bit anxious that this example might be followed in other countries. That’s why they try to destroy us with even greater vigour.
Q: El Maximo Lider Fidel will sooner or later disappear from the scene. He is 72 now. What will happen then? In Florida huge groups of Cuban exiles are waiting for the day they can reclaim Cuba.
Guevara: There are few thing of which one can be sure in this world. (Laughs) The Cubans in Florida where already convinced back in 1959 that they would re-conquer Cuba quickly. Ha! We are forty years further now, and they are still in Florida. When Eastern Europe collapsed, they knew for certain: we take Cuba back! In the meantime that’s nine years ago.
For sixty years, from the beginning of the century until the end of the fifties, Cuba was a colony of the U.S. . We know capitalism, we have experienced its deeds. Until Fidel and a group of youngsters launched the revolution. What do you think the Cuban people are going to do after Fidel’s death? Do you think that everybody wants to go back to the period before 1959; that the people will allow the U.S. to come and boss us around?
Q: Wouldn’t it be possible that the Cuban regime imploded? The consumption goods of capitalism are very seductive. One notices it these days in Havana.
Guevara: In the West capitalism seduces many people, yes. And maybe a few ignorant people in the Third World too . . .
^ Back To Top
Q: Oh come on, the Cuban youth wants Nikes and Marlboro’s, Coca-Cola and walkmans too.
Guevara: Without a doubt, without a doubt. But that isn’t the majority of youngsters. Never! The Cuban people have reached a level of political and cultural awareness that cannot easily be ignored. The Cubans have seen what has happened to Eastern Europe: before the collapse of the Berlin Wall they had promised these people heaven, but what did they get? Nothing, absolutely nothing, except chaos and exploitation. We Cubans know this, we see it and we don’t want it to happen to us. OK, there are still some people that want to sell us out to the U.S. . But they are a minority.
Q: Wouldn’t it be wiser to completely ignore the U.S. and tighten the economic ties with Europe?
Guevara: The Europeans aren’t philanthropists either, hey. You have to be realistic: our relationship with Europe depends on what we can earn from one another. But the U.S. executes pressure onto Europe, a lot of pressure. Northern-Europe resists the Helm-Burton law (American law that tries to prevent non-American industry to trade with Cuba) and we are glad about that. But is that because the Europeans are in love with Cuba? No, its a question of sovereignty. How can one country accept that another country forbids it to trade with the rest of the world?
Q: Until recently Cuba was a isolated socialist ‘paradise’. Now you receive thousands of tourists and businessmen from Europe and South-America. Is that positive?
Guevara: Cuba has never been as isolated as you think. We have always had good contact with Europe. With Eastern-Europe, sure. But we have always been open to the European culture. In the past we have never promoted mass tourism from Western-Europe because we didn’t need it. Now it has become our most important source of income and a way to attract foreign investments.
Q: But mass tourism has a shadow side too: prostitution.
Guevara: For me it has more to do with the crisis of human values all over the world, than with tourists coming to Cuba.
Q: You really believe that?
Guevara: There’s prostitution in Belgium as well. I have seen it with my own eyes. People who have enough money to live on don’t prostitute themselves. People who lack money, do. Why?
Q: Because they want money?
Guevara: No! If I had no money and would go hungry every day, I would not prostitute myself! It is a question of values. So, what can we do about it? Must we throw out all tourists, or do we have to make sure that people do not only have enough money, but also have respect for the essential human values? In any case we are working hard to force back prostitution.
Q: You work for the Ministry of Fishery. Strange that you have such ministry. Cubans hardly eat fish.
Guevara: That’s true. But there is improvement. In the past, eating fish was for the poor. Or food for cats and dogs. Now we try to promote the fish consumption through fairs and feasts.
Q: Even Fidel seems to interfere?
Guevara: Yes, he once did an advertisement on TV. One saw an empty table in an empty room. Fidel entered and sat himself behind the table, looked into the camera very seriously but didn’t say a word. After a while a waiter entered and served him a plate of fish. Fidel ate the fish in silence. This took a few minutes. When only the fish-bones where left on his plate, Fidel rose up, looked imperatively into the camera, and spoke to his people the historical words “And now, YOU” And now we all eat fish.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |||||
3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
You must be logged in to post a comment.