By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
The US power elite is involved in many ways in the dispute over global domination, its exercise and defense.
The precarious balance of forces in the bipolar world in which we lived after World War II prevented US imperialism from imposing its absolute hegemony world-wide. That was based on the nuclear blackmail it threatened after its genocidal bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Later, a tense arms race would arrive, promoted by the so-called “balance of terror”. According to this notion, which the forerunner power in the production of weapons would cause an imbalance in the international arena. The one with the most and deadliest weapons would be able to destroy the other.
Losing all hope that the end of the Cold War would open the way to a world without wars, an unstoppable arms race along the roads of neoliberal globalization has arrived. It has shaped imperialism into the dark reality it is today: the most powerful, brutal and ruthless hegemonic superpower in the history of humanity, bearing the greatest dangers to the survival of our species.
Today, we live in a uni-polar world, with one single superpower imposing its selfish interests on the rest of the world. This shows that it is the predatory nature of the prevailing capitalist order that causes most evils. There is a vital need to replace it with a new, just, and humane order.
In the struggle for global domination, the US government, far from taking the limited opportunities open through disarmament and peaceful coexistence, has based the pillars of its economy on a growing dependence on war situations.
It is in this context that Think Tanks (TTs) become important in the United States. These are public or private academic and study institutions staffed by personalities fully identified with the US capitalist system. They produce political and ideological documents intended to provide US governments with weapons for their confrontation with the world they seek to dominate.
They are part of a system that produces ideological content for the defense of imperialist interests. Their mission includes propagating ideas useful to the US capitalist system by spreading its doctrines in books, magazines, and other media. To do this they have billion-dollar budgets.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) founded in 1921 by the Rockefeller economic group, is considered to be the first existing think tank. It had the task of providing the governing authorities (of either of the two parties in the US political scheme) with new ideas in foreign policy and the training of specialists and leaders.
Nearly 4,000 citizens work at the CFR, some with much more objective perspectives than the usual extreme right. Among them there are names as notorious as George Soros, the billionaire magnate of global financial speculation.
Its main publication is the journal Foreign Affairs which publishes academic papers containing their views on foreign policy.
According to surveys of academics and experts carried out annually for the Think Tanks Index in 2015, the Brookings Institution ranked as the most important TT in the world for eight consecutive years. The list also included the CFR, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the RAND Corporation, the Heritage Foundation, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In the United States of America there are 11 think tanks specialized in political and economic matters; forty-nine in foreign affairs and international security; sixteen on the environment, science and technology; and twelve on the arts and humanities.
Most of them are registered as “non-profit” entities, but some are funded by the government or by legal or business organizations; others obtain funds from their research work on specific projects. In countries other than the United States, the TT Index registers Chatham House and the International Institute for Strategic Studies in the United Kingdom, and the Bruegel in Belgium.
Like their namesakes in war, think tanks are intended to demolish their opponents through a display of apparent superiority of resources that does not always correspond to reality.
May 10, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
La élite del poder estadounidense participa de muchas formas en la disputa por el dominio global, su ejercicio y su defensa.
El precario balance de fuerzas del mundo bipolar en que vivimos tras la segunda guerra mundial evitó que el imperialismo estadounidense impusiera su hegemonía absoluta por todo el mundo a partir del chantaje nuclear que planteara Estados Unidos con los bombardeos genocidas sobre Hiroshima y Nagasaki.
Vendría después una tensa carrera armamentística promovida por el llamado “equilibro de terror”, según el cual, la potencia que se colocase al frente en la producción de armas provocaría un
desequilibrio en el escenario internacional. La que tuviera mayor número y más mortíferas armas, sería capaz de destruir a la otra. Perdida ya toda esperanza de que el fin de la guerra fría abriera el camino a un mundo sin guerras, una galopante carrera por los caminos de la globalización neoliberal ha llegado a configurar al imperialismo en esa tenebrosa realidad que es hoy: la superpotencia hegemónica más poderosa, brutal y despiadada de la historia de la humanidad, portadora de los más grandes peligros para la supervivencia de nuestra especie.
El mundo unipolar del presente, con una única superpotencia que impone sus egoístas intereses al resto del planeta, demuestra que es la naturaleza depredadora del orden capitalista imperante la causante de los males y lo que aconseja la necesidad vital de su reemplazo por un nuevo orden justo y humano.
En la lucha por la dominación global, el gobierno de Estados Unidos, lejos de aprovechar las escasas oportunidades que se abren para el desarme y la coexistencia pacífica, ha conformado los pilares de su economía a una dependencia cada vez mayor en las situaciones de guerra.
Es en ese contexto en el que cobran importancia en Estados Unidos los denominados tanques pensantes (en inglés Think Tanks -TT) que son iinstituciones públicas académicas y de estudios, integradas por personalidades plenamente identificadas con el sistema capitalista estadounidense que elaboran documentos de carácter político e ideológico destinados a suministrar a los gobiernos de Estados Unidos las armas para su enfrentamiento con el mundo que pretenden dominar. Son parte de un sistema que elabora contenidos ideológicos destinados a la defensa de los intereses imperialistas. Su misión incluye propagar ideas convenientes al sistema capitalista norteamericano mediante la difusión de sus doctrinas en libros, revistas, y otros medios, y para ello cuentan con presupuestos de miles de millones de dólares.
Se atribuye al Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) o Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores, fundado en 1921 por el grupo económico Rockefeller, la condición de primer tanque pensante existente, con la tarea de suministrar nuevas ideas a las Administraciones gobernantes (de cualquiera de los dos partidos del esquema político
estadounidense) en materia de política exterior y para la formación de especialistas y dirigentes.
Laboran en el CFR casi 4 mil ciudadanos, algunos con visiones mucho más objetivas que las habituales de la extrema derecha. Entre ellos hay también otros tan connotados como George Soros, el multimillonario magnate de la especulación financiera global.
Su publicación fundamental es la revista Foreign Affaires, que publica ensayos académicos contentivos de sus líneas de política exterior. Según las encuestas a académicos y expertos que anualmente se realizan para el Think Tanks Index, la Institución Brookings clasificó, por octavo año consecutivo en 2015, como el TT más importante del mundo en una relación en la que también entraron el CFR, la Fundación Carnagie para la Paz Internacional, la Corporación Rand, la Fundación Heritage, el Centro Internacional Woodrow Wilson para Académicos y el Centro Internacional de Estudios Estratégicos e Internacionales.
Hay en Estados Unidos 11 tanques pensantes especializados en asuntos políticos y de la economía; cuarenta y nueve en temas sobre relaciones internacionales y seguridad; dieciséis sobre medio ambiente, ciencias y tecnología y doce sobre artes y humanidades.
La mayor parte de ellos están registrados como “entidades sin fines de lucro” (en inglés “non-profit”), pero hay algunos financiados por el gobierno, organizaciones jurídicas, empresariales o que obtienen ganancias derivadas de trabajos investigativos acerca de proyectos específicos. De países distintos a Estados Unidos, aparecen
clasificados en el TT Index, Chatham House y el Instituto
Internacional de Estudios Estratégicos (IISS, por sus siglas en inglés), del Reino Unido, así como el Bruegel, de Bélgica.
Al igual que sus homólogos de guerra, los tanques pensantes tienen como fin demoler al contrario mediante un alarde de evidente superioridad de recursos que no siempre corresponde a la realidad.
Mayo 10 de 2016.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Louis A. Pérez Jr., historian and professor from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, the United States, is the author of a number of important books about Cuban national identity. He has published an interesting essay that delves into the meaning of the present links between Cuba and the United States. The title may confuse many about its content: Visit Cuba before it changes!
“There has been something of an implacable tenacity with which the United States has pursued change in Cuba, a single-minded resolve over the course of 55 years: one armed invasion, scores of assassination plots, years of covert operations, and decades of punitive economic sanctions. An embargo –“harsher than toward any other country in the world,” as Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson acknowledged in 2015– designed with malice aforethought: to inflict adversity upon the Cuban people, to deepen Cuban discontent through economic privation, in the hope that such hardship would act to bestir the Cuban people to rise up and, in one fell swoop, bring about the overthrow of the Cuban government.”
This is how Professor Perez summarizes the tragic history of aggression and humiliation endured by the Cuban people because of their firm decision to carry out their project of independence and socialist change.
When the Cuban revolution had barely begun (although it had already produced impressive and universally-applauded popular benefits such as land reform and literacy throughout its people), Washington declared that tourism to Cuba was contrary to the foreign policy and national interests of the United States. Travel to Cuba was thus forbidden by law for all US citizens as part of a cruel policy of hostility.
It is known –because surveys indicate is– that most US citizens wanted and still want friendly relations with Cuba despite the poison that the US mass media has been injecting for more than half a century.
Regrettably, not all Americans base their thinking on the fact that these policies violate basic principles of international law and basic norms of human coexistence. There are
many people who only see the issue from the point of view of what befits the corporations that, as a result of many years of media manipulation, are considered the reason and symbol of the US nation.
The merit of the Obama administration has been in recognizing the failure of the policy pursued by their country for more than half a century. The United States had insisted on political change in Cuba as a precondition for the establishment of normal diplomatic relations.
Near the end of his term, Obama turned this policy on its head, proposed normal diplomatic relations as an initial step; revitalized the system of selective authorization for “people-to-people” travel; modified regulations; softened controls and relaxed restrictions in order to expand the categories of authorized travel to Cuba. He declared himself powerless against the blockade, but urged Congress to lift it.
“Through engagement we have a better chance of bringing about change than we would have otherwise,” said President Obama to justify the modification of his policy towards Cuba. “US presence in Cuba would serve to spread among the Cuban people the values of the United States.”
Cuba accepted the challenge posed by Washington’s “people-to-people” policy because, despite its stated intention that the visitors would promote “democracy” (the term Washington uses to mean the capitalist system) among Cubans, the Cubans took that purpose as an opportunity to show visitors that the defamatory campaign, that US corporate media have been waging at global scale against Cuba for more than half a century, was false.
The distance between the manipulations of the campaign and the truth is so great that from the first minute of contact with Cuban reality, US visitors –as a rule– are open to understanding the reasons that led to the historic popular achievement that is the Cuban revolution. At the same time, they see the senselessness of U.S. government’s policy of hostility of the against the small island nation.
Lies crashing against evidence eventually awakened a strong current of attraction to the Cuban revolution’s process of independence and social justice.
It seems that the new US policy against Cuba is to increase contacts with the Cuban people, support what Washington means by civil society in Cuba, and so to disrupt the interaction between Cubans and their local authorities. All this is based on obvious neo-liberal goals of dividing the people from the state and encouraging the development of a capitalist class on the island.
Cuba, meanwhile, will continue in its revolutionary determination to change what needs to be changed, seizing opportunities, but avoiding traps. Revolution is the mother of change!
May 14, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Louis A. Pérez Jr, sociólogo y profesor de la Universidad de Carolina del Norte en Chapel Hill, Estados Unidos, y autor de importantes libros acerca de la identidad nacional cubana, ha publicado un interesante ensayo en el que hurga en el significado de momento actual de los vínculos entre Cuba y Estados Unidos. El título puede confundir a muchos acerca del contenido: “¡Visite Cuba antes de que cambie! “
Con implacable tenacidad Estados Unidos se ha propuesto conseguir el cambio en Cuba. Ha sido una determinación con carácter de fijación en el transcurso de cincuenta y cinco años: una invasión armada, veintenas de complots de asesinato, años de operaciones encubiertas y decenios de sanciones económicas punitivas. Un embargo más duro que el impuesto a cualquier otro país del mundo, según lo admitiera la secretaria de Estado adjunta Roberta Jacobson en 2015. Todo diseñado para infligirle adversidad al pueblo cubano y profundizar el descontento mediante la privación económica, con la esperanza de que las penalidades obren en el sentido de incitar al pueblo cubano a rebelarse para que, en una arremetida, precipite el derrocamiento del gobierno cubano.”
Así resume el profesor Pérez la trágica historia de agresiones y vejaciones que ha soportado el pueblo cubano por su firme decisión de llevar a cabo su proyecto de cambio independentista y socialista. Cuando la revolución cubana apenas se iniciaba (aunque ya había producido impresionantes conquistas populares aplaudidas
universalmente, como la reforma agraria y la alfabetización de todo el pueblo), Washington declaró que el turismo a Cuba era contrario a la política exterior y los intereses nacionales de Estados Unidos. Los viajes a Cuba quedaron así vedados por ley para todos los
estadounidenses como parte de una cruel política de hostilidad. Se conoce, porque las encuestas así lo indican, que la mayoría de los ciudadanos estadounidenses deseaban y siguen queriendo relaciones de amistad con Cuba no obstante el veneno que durante mas de medio siglo les han estado inyectando los medios masivos.
Lo lamentable es que no todos los norteamericanos basan sus criterios en el hecho de que esas políticas violan principios básicos del derecho internacional y normas elementales de convivencia humana. Son muchos los que sólo ven el asunto desde el punto de vista de lo que conviene a las corporaciones que, por efecto de muchos años de manipulación mediática, son consideradas la razón y el símbolo de la nación estadounidense.
El mérito del gobierno de Barack Obama ha estado en haber reconocido el fracaso de la política seguida por su país durante más de medio siglo. Estados Unidos había insistido en el cambio político en Cuba como precondición al establecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas normales. Próximo el final de su mandato, Obama viró esa política de cabeza, propuso relaciones diplomáticas normales como paso inicial; reanimó el sistema de autorizaciones selectivas “pueblo a pueblo”; modificó regulaciones; suavizó controles y relajó restricciones para ampliar los viajes autorizados a Cuba. Se declaró impotente contra el bloqueo, pero exhortó al Congreso a levantarlo.
“Mediante el compromiso, tenemos una mayor oportunidad de inducir cambios que por otros medios” declaró el Presidente para justificar el reajuste de su política hacia Cuba. “La presencia estadounidense en Cuba serviría para difundir en el pueblo cubano los valores de Estados Unidos”.
Cuba había aceptado el reto que suponía la política “pueblo a pueblo” de Washington porque, no obstante su declarada intención de que los visitantes promovieran entre los cubanos la “democracia” (término con que Washington designa al sistema capitalista), los cubanos apreciaban tal propósito como oportunidad para demostrar a los visitantes las falsedades de la campaña difamatoria que desde hacía más de medio siglo libraban a escala global los medios corporativos de Estados Unidos contra Cuba.
La distancia que media entre las manipulaciones de esa campaña y la verdad es tan grande que desde el primer minuto de contacto con la realidad, los visitantes –como regla– se abren al entendimiento de las razones que dieron lugar a la histórica hazaña popular que es la revolución cubana y la sinrazón de la política de hostilidad de su gobierno contra el pequeño país insular.
Las mentiras, al chocar contra las evidencias, acabaron por despertar una fuerte corriente de atracción hacia el proceso independentista y de justicia social que es la revolución cubana.
Todo parece indicar que la nueva política estadounidense contra Cuba consiste en incrementar los contactos con el pueblo cubano, apoyar lo que ellos entienden por sociedad civil en Cuba y romper la interacción entre los cubanos y sus autoridades populares. Todo ello partiendo de claros fines neoliberales de separar al pueblo del Estado y fomentar el desarrollo de una clase capitalista en la isla.
Cuba, por su parte, seguirá en su empeño revolucionario de cambiar lo que tenga que cambiarse, aprovechando oportunidades, pero evitando trampas. ¡La revolución es la madre de los cambios!
Mayo 14 de 2016.
A CubaNews-Google translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Leon Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronstein). Russian intellectual, theoretician and politician. He actively participated in the Russian Revolution (1917) and was the organizer of the Red Army.
[hide]
Content
1 Biodata
1.1 Studies
1.2 revolutionary activities
1.3 Exile
1.4 The return to Russia
1.5 Exile
1.6 Death
2 Outstanding works
3 Contributions
4 External links
Biographical data
He born in Yakovka (Ukraine) on November 7, 1879 in a Jewish family of farmers owners.
Studies
He studied in Odessa and Mykolayiv, and was outstanding out for his intellectual ability.
He studied law at the University of Odessa.
Revolutionary activities
He got his start in politics in 1896, joining in Mykolayiv populist circles, although he soon joined the Marxist movement. He had a profound knowledge of Marxist theory, which contributed to developments such as the theory of permanent revolution.
In 1897 he founded the Workers League of Southern Russia, whose activities against the Tsarist autocracy would get him arrested, imprisoned and exiled.
Exile
He was arrested several times and exiled to Siberia; escaped from his exile in 1902 and moved to Europe adopting the pseudonym Trotsky (the name of a jailer who had guarded him). During his stay abroad, he joined Vladimir Lenin, Julius Martov, Georgi Plekhanov and other members of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) who edited the Iskra (The Spark) newspaper.
When the second congress of the RSDLP, held in London in 1903, he had marked differences with Lenin and the Bolsheviks and joined the Menshiks without establishing strong ties.
After the failure of the 1905 revolution, he was deported to Siberia again and escaped again in 1907 and devoted the next decade to defending his ideas, engaging in frequent ideological disputes.
When the start of the Russian Revolution in February 1917 Trotsky was in New York when it occured, collaborating in a Russian newspaper, so he moved to Russia and joined the Petrograd Soviet, engaging directly with the Bolsheviks in the revolutionary process as part of the Central Committee of the party.
The return to Russia
After touring several countries contacting hotbeds of revolutionary conspirators, he moved to Russia when the Revolution broke out in February 1917, which overthrew [Tsar] Nicholas II.
During the first stage of the Russian Revolution, he becomes a confidante of Vladimir Lenin, participating in several missions, including the negotiated withdrawal of the First World War (1914-1918) by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918)
He played a central role in the conquest of power by Lenin, was responsible for the taking of the Winter Palace by the Bolsheviks.
Then he was Commisar of War (1918-1925), a position from which he organized the Red Army in very difficult conditions and defeated what were called the White armies (counterrevolutionaries) and their Western allies (1918-1920) in a long civil war
Lenin was forced to retire from political life in May 1922 after suffering a stroke as a consequence of an attack. After Lenin’s death, he was dismissed from his post of commissar of War in 1925 and expelled from the Politburo in 1926.
Exile
Stalin sent him into exile to Central Asia in 1928 and was banished from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1929. He spent the rest of his life making public his criticism of Stalin.
He lived in Turkey, France, Norway and finally in Mexico, invited by the Mexican President, General Lazaro Cardenas, in1937. He initially lived at a home belonging to Mexican painter Diego Rivera and his wife Frida Kahlo.
Death
He was the subject of several attacks in almost all countries and cities where he lived in exile, including the one carried out by a commando of the Mexican Communists.
Ramon Mercader, a Catalan trained by Soviet intelligence and sent from the USSR and penetrated Trotsky’s inner circle. Mercader attacked Trotsky in this occupied residence in the Mexican city of Coyoacán, on 20 August 1940 with an ice ax (ax mountaineer), which sank into his head; but he was able to react and asked for help. Trotsky died the next day.
Outstanding works
He wrote numerous essays, an autobiography, My Life (1930), A History of the Russian Revolution (3 volumes, 1931-1933), The Revolution Betrayed (1936), and articles on major current issues of his day (Stalinism, Nazism, fascism or the Spanish Civil War).
His works are also highlighted:
The Permanent Revolution (1930)
Socialism in the Balkans (1910)
Literature and Revolution (1924)
Results and Prospects (1906)
Contributions
He is considered by many one of the most important Marxist theorists of the twentieth century, especially in relation to the theory of revolution in the imperialist epoch: his theory of permanent revolution.
As a journalist and historian, was recognized as one of the greatest political writers of the century. their contributions were also highlighted in the field of art and culture.
External links
Biography of Leon Trotsky. Biographies and lives taken.
Phrases and thoughts
The man who loved the dogs. Leonardo Padura, 2009.
Leon Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronstein). Intelectual, político y teórico ruso. Participó activamente en laRevolución Rusa (1917) y fue organizador del Ejército Rojo.
[ocultar]
Nació en Yákovka (Ucrania) el 7 de noviembre de 1879 en el seno de una familia judía de labradores propietarios.
Cursó estudios en Odesa y Mykolayiv, destacándose por sus aptitudes intelectuales.
Estudió Derecho en la Universidad de Odessa.
Tuvo sus inicios en la política en el año 1896, integrándose en los círculos del populismo de Mykolayiv, aunque no tardó en sumarse al movimiento marxista. Fue un profundo conocedor de la teoría marxista, a la que aportó desarrollos como la teoría de la revolución permanente.
En 1897 funda la Liga Obrera del Sur de Rusia, cuyas actividades contra el régimen autocrático zarista harían que fuera detenido, encarcelado y condenado al exilio.
Fue detenido varias veces y desterrado a Siberia; escapa de su destierro en 1902 y se traslada aEuropa adoptando el seudónimo de Trotsky (nombre de un carcelero que le había custodiado). Durante su estancia en el extranjero, se unió a Vladimir Lenin, Julius. Mártov, Gueorgui Plejánov y otros miembros del Partido Obrero Socialdemócrata Ruso (POSDR) que editaban el periódico Iskra (La Chispa).
Cuando se celebra el segundo congreso del POSDR, de Londres en 1903, marcó diferencias con Lenin y los bolcheviques y se une a los mencheviques, sin establecer vínculos fuertes.
Al fracasar la revolución de 1905, fue deportado otra vez a Siberia y escapa una vez más en 1907 y dedica la siguiente década a defender sus ideas, implicándose en frecuentes disputas ideológicas.
Cuando se produce el inicio de la Revolución Rusa en febrero de 1917 Trotsky se encuentra en Nueva York, colaborando en un periódico ruso, por lo que se traslada a Rusia y se integra al soviet de Petrogrado, implicándose directamente con los bolcheviques en el proceso revolucionario, formando parte del Comité Central del Partido.
Tras recorrer varios países entrando en contacto con los focos de conspiradores revolucionarios, se trasladó a Rusia en cuanto estalló la Revolución de Febrero de 1917, que derrocó a Nicolás II.
Durante la primera etapa de la Revolución Rusa, se convierte en hombre de confianza de Vladimir Lenin, participando en varias misiones, entre ellas la retirada negociada de la Primera Guerra Mundial (1914–1918), mediante el tratado de Brest–Litovsk (1918)
Desempeñó un papel central en la conquista del poder por Lenin, fue responsable de la toma del Palacio de Invierno por los bolcheviques.
Luego fue comisario de Guerra (1918-1925), cargo desde el cual organizó el Ejército Rojo en condiciones muy difíciles y derrotó en una larga guerra civil a los llamados ejércitos blancos (contrarrevolucionarios) y a sus aliados occidentales (1918–1920).
Lenin se vio obligado a retirarse de la vida política en mayo de 1922, tras sufrir una apoplejía consecuencias de un atentado. Tras la muerte de Lenin, le destituyeron de su cargo de comisario de Guerra en 1925 y le expulsaron del Buró Político en 1926.
Stalin le envió al exilio a Asia central en 1928 y fue desterrado de la Unión de Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas (URSS) en 1929. Pasó el resto de su vida haciendo públicas sus críticas a Stalin.
Residió en Turquía, Francia, Noruega y finalmente en México, invitado por el general Lázaro Cárdenas, presidente del país, en 1937. Vivió inicialmente en casa del pintor mexicano Diego Rivera y de su esposa Frida Kahlo.
Fue objeto de varios atentados en casi todos los países y ciudades donde vivió en el exilio, incluyendo el llevado a cabo por un comando de los comunistas mexicanos.
Ramón Mercader, un catalán entrenado por la inteligencia soviética y enviado desde la URSS, penetró en el círculo más próximo a Trotsky y perpretró su asesinato. Mercader atacó a Trotsky en la residencia que este ocupaba en la ciudad mexicana de Coyohacán, el 20 de agosto de 1940 con un piolet (Hacha de alpinista), que hundió en su cabeza; pero éste pudo reaccionar y pidió ayuda. Trotsky falleció al día siguiente.
Escribió numerosos ensayos, una autobiografía, Mi vida (1930), una Historia de la Revolución Rusa (3 volúmenes, 1931–1933), La revolución traicionada (1936), y artículos sobre los principales temas de la actualidad de su época (estalinismo, nazismo, fascismo o la Guerra Civil espaňola).
Se destacaron además sus obras:
Se considera por muchos uno de los más importantes teóricos marxistas del Siglo XX, especialmente con relación a la teoría de la revolución en la época imperialista: su teoría de la revolución permanente.
Como periodista e historiador, fue reconocido como uno de los más grandes escritores políticos del siglo. También se destacaron sus aportes en el terreno del arte y la cultura.
By Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada
A CubaNews/Google translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
He came to Cuba often. The last time was in February 2015, on the occasion of the International Book Fair in which the Spanish edition of “Who Killed Che? How the CIA Got Away with Murder” was presented. It was the result of painstaking research and more than ten years demanding access from relevant authorities to official documents jealously hidden.
The work of Michael Ratner and Michael Steven Smith proved beyond doubt that the murder of Ernesto Guevara was a war crime committed by the US government and its Central Intelligence Agency, a crime that does not have a statute of limitations, Although the authors are on the loose in Miami and flaunt their cowardly misdeed.
We met again in July on the occasion of the reopening of the Cuban Embassy in Washington. We were far from imagining that we would not meet again. Michael Ratner looked healthy and showed the optimism and joy that always accompanied him. Then we celebrated the return of our Five anti-terrorists Heroes to the country and also the fact that President Obama had no choice but to admit the failure of Washington’s aggressive policy against Cuba.
Michael was always in solidarity with the Cuban people since as a very young person he joined the contingents of the Venceremos Brigade. That solidarity remained unwavering at all times. His participation in the legal battle for the freedom of our companions, including the “amicus” he presented to the Supreme Court on behalf of ten Nobel Prize winners, was decisive.
A tireless fighter, for him no cause was alien. He stood always on the side of the victims and faced with courage, even at the risk of his life, the oppressors who dominated that judicial system. He also did it with rigor, integrity and love. More than a brilliant legal professional, he was a passionate fighter for justice.
He was present in 1968 at the Columbia University strike before completing his studies, and fought racial discrimination together with the NAACP. The recent graduate represented the victims of brutal repression at the Attica prison. Thus he began a remarkable career –impossible to describe in an article– which knew no borders: Nicaragua, Haiti, Guatemala, Palestine, and so on.
When nobody did, he undertook the defense of the hostages in the illegal naval base in Guantanamo. He convened more than 500 lawyers to do so –also for free– and achieved a legal victory with an unprecedented decision by the Supreme Court recognizing the rights of the prisoners.
Many other cases absorbed his time and energy, working in a team, without necessarily appearing in the foreground. He did not hesitate, however, to legally prosecute powerful characters like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush whose “impeachment” he tried very hard to obtain.
He also accused Nelson Rockefeller, when he was governor, and more recently Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He published books and essays in favor of legality and human rights. He was considered one of the best American lawyers and chaired the National Lawyers Guild and the Center for Constitutional Rights and founded Palestine Rights. He combined his work as a litigator with university teaching at Columbia and Yale and helped train future jurists able to follow his example.
He was the main defender of Julian Assange and Wikileaks in the United States. An insuperable paradigm of a generation that wanted to conquer the sky, he was an inseparable part of all their battles and will remain so always until victory.
—–
Reposted: https://ajiacomix.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/micheal-ratner/
juhn
Muchas veces vino a Cuba. La última fue en febrero del 2015, con motivo de la Feria Internacional de Libro en la que fue presentada la edición en español de “¿Quién mató al Che? Como la CIA logró salir impune del asesinato”, fruto de minuciosa investigación y más de diez años reclamando a las autoridades el acceso a documentos oficiales celosamente ocultos. La obra de Michael Ratner y Michael Steven Smith demostró de manera inapelable que el asesinato de Ernesto Guevara fue un crimen de guerra cometido por el gobierno de Estados Unidos y su Agencia Central de Inteligencia, un crimen que no prescribe aunque sus autores andan sueltos en Miami y hacen ostentación de la cobarde fechoría.
Nos encontramos de nuevo en julio en ocasión de la reapertura de la Embajada cubana en Washington. Lejos estábamos de imaginar que no nos veríamos más. Michael Ratner parecía saludable y mostraba el optimismo y la alegría que siempre le acompañaron. Celebramos entonces que ya nuestros Cinco Héroes antiterroristas habían regresado a la Patria y que el Presidente Obama no tuvo otro remedio que admitir el fracaso de la política agresiva contra Cuba.
Porque Michael fue siempre solidario con el pueblo cubano desde que muy joven integró contingentes de la Brigada Venceremos y esa solidaridad la mantuvo sin flaquezas en todo momento. Fue decisiva su participación en la batalla legal por la libertad de nuestros compañeros incluyendo el “amicus” que presentó a la Corte Suprema a nombre de diez ganadores del Premio Nobel.
Incansable luchador para él ninguna causa fue ajena. Se puso siempre del lado de las víctimas y encaró con valor, aun a riesgo de su vida, a los opresores que dominan aquel sistema judicial. Y lo hizo, además, con rigor, entereza y amor. Más que un brillante profesional del derecho fue un apasionado combatiente por la justicia.
Estuvo presente en 1968 en la huelga de la Universidad de Columbia y antes de concluir sus estudios combatió la discriminación racial junto al NAACP. Recién graduado representó a las víctimas de la brutal represión en la prisión de Attica. Inició así una trayectoria admirable imposible de describir en un artículo y que no conoció fronteras: Nicaragua, Haití, Guatemala, Palestina, y un largo etcétera.
Cuando nadie lo hacía asumió la defensa de los secuestrados en la ilegal base naval de Guantánamo, pudo incorporar a más de 500 abogados que lo hicieran también gratuitamente y alcanzó una victoria jurídica sin precedentes con la decisión de la Corte Suprema reconociendo los derechos de los prisioneros. A muchos otros casos también dedicó su tiempo y energías, trabajando en equipo, sin aparecer necesariamente en primer plano. No vaciló sin embargo en encausar legalmente a personajes poderosos como Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton y George W. Bush cuyo “impeachment” trató afanosamente de conseguir, y acusó también a Nelson Rockefeller cuando era Gobernador y más recientemente al Secretario de Defensa Donald Runsfeld. Publicó libros y ensayos a favor de la legalidad y los derechos humanos. Considerado uno de los mejores abogados norteamericanos presidió el National Lawyers Guild y el Center for Constitutional Rights y fundó el Palestine Rights. Conjugó su labor como litigante con la docencia universitaria en Columbia y Yale y ayudó a la formación de futuros juristas capaces de seguir su ejemplo.
Era el principal defensor en Estados Unidos de Julian Assange y Wikileaks. Paradigma insuperable de una generación que quiso conquistar el cielo fue parte inseparable en todas sus batallas y lo seguirá siendo hasta la victoria siempre.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
A very recent survey by the elite and prestigious, Harvard University in Massachusetts, indicates that most young Americans reject the basic principles of the US economy and do not support capitalism.
This is a fact of major political importance, considering that, since the end of the Cold War, all US internal and external propaganda has had as its primary objective the formation of a free market-oriented consciousness and the protection of corporations and private capital in general, dismissing the social purposes of the state.
In fact, in its foreign policy, Washington conflates the terms “capitalism” and “democracy”, to the extent that it almost never uses the first term. Its capitalist allies in are called “democracies” and those who do not accept its global hegemony are not. It’s as simple as that.
The Harvard University survey, which polled young adults between ages 18 and 29, found that 51 percent of respondents do not support capitalism. Just 42 percent said they support it.
According to the pollsters, most respondents who said they don’t support capitalism said they were concerned about the unpredictability of the free-market system.
“Capitalism can mean different things to different people, and the newest generation of voters is frustrated with the status quo, broadly speaking.” Zach Lustbader, a senior at Harvard involved in conducting the poll, argues that “the word ‘capitalism’ doesn’t mean what it used to in the US. For those who grew up during the Cold War, capitalism meant freedom from the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes. For those who grew up more recently, capitalism has meant a financial crisis from which the global economy still hasn’t completely recovered.”
Although the information on the results of the survey, provided by Amy Cavenaile in The Washington Post on April 24, 2016, does not clarify what alternative socio-economic systems the young people in the poll would prefer, it indicated that 33% percent said they supported socialism. The survey had a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points.
A subsequent survey that included people of all ages found that somewhat older Americans also are skeptical of capitalism. Only among respondents at least 50 years old was the majority in favor of capitalism.
Although the results are startling, Harvard’s questions are in accord with other recent research on how Americans think about capitalism and socialism. In 2011, for example, the Pew Research Center found that people ages 18 to 29 were frustrated with the free-market system.
In that survey, 46 percent had positive views of capitalism, and 47 percent had negative views. As to socialism, by contrast, 49 percent of the young people in Pew’s poll had positive views, and just 43 percent had negative views.
On specific questions about how best to organize the economy, the Harvard poll found a greater influence of capitalist ideas among young people. Just 27 percent believe government should play a large role in regulating the economy, and just 30 percent think the government should play a large role in reducing income inequality. Only 26 percent said government spending is an effective way to increase economic growth.
Yet 48 percent agreed that “basic health insurance is a right for all people.” And 47 percent agreed with the statement that “basic necessities, such as food and shelter, are a right that the government should provide [it] to those unable to afford them.”
It has been considered that Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic Party nomination for the Presidential election has been a significant factor in the changes detected now. The fact that so many young people feel moved by the word of a candidate of such an advanced age was a great surprise.
What the polls are now showing about US youth is rather significant. It could be the prelude to major changes within and beyond the borders of the American superpower.
May 3, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Una muy reciente encuesta realizada por la elitista, aunque prestigiosa, Universidad de Harvard, en Massachussets, indica que la mayoría de los jóvenes estadounidenses rechaza los principios básicos de la economía de Estados Unidos y que no se consideran a sí mismos compatibles con el capitalismo.
Es este un dato de la mayor importancia política, razonando que desde el fin de la guerra fría toda la propaganda interna y hacia el exterior de Estados Unidos ha tenido como objetivo fundamental la formación de una conciencia orientada al libre mercado y a la protección de las corporaciones y el capital privado en general, con desdeño de los fines sociales del Estado.
De hecho, en su política exterior, Washington confunde los términos “capitalismo” y “democracia” a tal extremo que casi nunca utilizan el primero. Sus aliados en el capitalismo son “democracias” y los que no aceptan su hegemonía global no lo son, así de sencillo.
La pesquisa de la Universidad de Harvard, que encuestó a jóvenes estadounidenses de entre 18 y 29 años de edad, reveló que el 51% de ellos no apoya al capitalismo contra el 42 % que si es partidario de este sistema.
Según los encuestadores, la mayoría de los encuestados que dijo no sentirse compatibles con el capitalismo atribuyen sus discrepancias a los vaivenes del libre mercado.
“El capitalismo puede significar diferentes cosas para diferentes personas, y la generación más nueva de votantes está frustrada con el status quo, en términos generales”. Zach Lustbader, uno de los expertos de Harvard que condujo la encuesta, argumenta que el término “capitalismo” no tiene hoy en Estados Unidos el mismo significado que antes. A los que crecieron durante la Guerra Fría, les inculcaron la idea de que el capitalismo era un arma para liberar a la Unión Soviética y a otros regímenes totalitarios. Pero para otras
generaciones mas recientes el capitalismo ha significado una crisis financiera constante de la que la economía global aún no se ha recuperado.
Aunque la información sobre los resultados de la encuesta que brinda Amy Cavenaile en The Washington Post el 24 de abril de 2016, no aclara cuales otros sistemas socio-económicos preferirían los jóvenes como alternativa, se indica que el 33 % de ellos elegiría el socialismo. La encuesta tiene un margen de error de 2,4 puntos porcentuales. Un posterior estudio que incluyó a personas de todas las edades reveló que entre estadounidenses algo mayores también existe escepticismo acerca del capitalismo. Sólo entre encuestados que sobrepasan los 50 años de edad hubo una mayoría a favor del capitalismo.
Aunque estos resultados son sorprendentes, Harvard los compara con otros estudios recientes acerca de lo que piensan los estadounidenses sobre el capitalismo y el socialismo. En 2011, por ejemplo, el centro de Investigación Pew encontró que en personas de 18 a 29 años de edad existía mucha frustración con el sistema de libre mercado.
En ese sondeo se constató que el 46% de la ciudadanía tenía puntos de vistas positivos acerca del capitalismo, y 47 % tenía opiniones negativas. En relación con el socialismo, por el contrario, 49 % de los jóvenes en la encuesta de Pew tenían opiniones positivas, y sólo el 43 % tenían opiniones negativas.
La encuesta Harvard halló una mayor influencia de las ideas capitalistas en los jóvenes estadounidenses ante preguntas específicas sobre la mejor manera de organizar la economía. Sólo el 27 % cree que el gobierno debe jugar un papel importante en la regulación de la economía, únicamente el 30 % cree que el gobierno debe desempeñar un papel substancial para reducir la desigualdad de los ingresos y apenas el 26 % dijo que el aporte gubernamental era una manera eficaz para impulsar el crecimiento económico.
Pero el 48 por ciento aceptó que “tener seguro de salud es un derecho para todas las personas”. Y un 47 % estuvo de acuerdo con la declaración de que “las necesidades básicas, como alimento y vivienda, son derechos que el gobierno debe proporcionar a quienes que no pueden pagarlos”.
Se ha considerado que la campaña de Bernie Sanders por la candidatura presidencial del partido demócrata ha constituido un factor significativo en los cambios que ahora se constatan. El hecho de que tanta gente joven se sintiera movilizada por el verbo de un aspirante de tan avanzada edad sorprendió grandemente.
Lo que ahora las encuestas están demostrando en la juventud estadounidense no es algo de poca monta. Podría ser el preludio de grandes cambios en y más allá de las fronteras de la superpotencia americana.
Mayo 3 de 2016.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
It has been repeatedly said that the American people are the only ones who could perform the Herculean task of bringing down the most powerful and bloodthirsty empire ever known to humankind. Humanity anxiously hopes to see the US people act, and will provide the solidarity they would have earned.
The frequent US asymmetric wars against countries incomparably poorer and militarily weaker than the only superpower have awakened the humanitarian consciousness of many Americans who have strongly demonstrated solidarity with these abused peoples.
The continuous embarrassing exposure of prisoners’ human rights violations – including torture and serious indignities– in US public or secret prisons scattered around the world, have awakened the awareness of millions of Americans who condemn such injustice.
However, as a result of the manipulation and deceit they are subjected to in their religious faith, or the naivete that for years has been instilled by the media dominated by corporate and banking elites, Americans have been impregnated –for more than a century– with the influence of a neo-conservative policy with fundamentalist traits that today some consider their national feature.
After the collapse of the USSR and the European socialist bloc –which meant the end of the Cold War– the US government intensified its economic war against Cuba, a country that had remained as a thorn in the throat of imperialism.
With new laws, there was a better definition of the set of tools aimed at the economic and financial drowning of the island. There were also other measures whose goal was to “cause shortages, suffering, and the overthrow of the Cuban government” –as originally defined, more than half a century ago, by the objectives of the US blockade, euphemistically called an “embargo”.
Fidel Castro, called on the Cuban people to “tighten their belts” and prepare for shortages and greater sacrifices. Cubans responded by closing ranks around the leader of the Revolution. The results of their heroic resistance can be seen today. Reason, justice, and patriotism were victorious. The internationalist solidarity of countless people around the world who stimulated the success of the Cubans with their sincere help has also been victorious.
A uni-polar world followed the end of the Cold War. A single superpower tries to impose its selfish interests on the rest of the planet. The neoliberal globalization imposed on the world’s peoples, with its consequences of hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, discrimination, and many other ills of humanity. This proves that it is not geographical fatalism, or an alleged racial inferiority, but the very essence of the bourgeois order that determines these evils in human societies.
Neo-liberalism, the order which the North spreads, imposes on the South, and recommends itself as a panacea for all the misfortunes of humankind that which is precisely the basic cause of the great evil and cruel abandonment suffered by the peoples living in the poor countries, and the poor who live in the rich countries.
Neoliberal capitalism, with its praise and proclamation of the market –not the human being– as the absolute axis for the functioning of society, has increased poverty and expanded inequalities on a universal scale. Constantly generating crises, the capitalist order tries to ignore the asymmetries it causes, and always manages to unload its effects on the humble people of the planet.
The capitalist system of relations, instead of calling for cooperation and solidarity, calls for competition, selfishness and the law of the richest.
With Bernie Sanders’ campaign for nomination as Democratic Party candidate in the United States presidential election, Americans have begun to hear about many things that were not mentioned in the recent past.
Sanders offers to end nearly four decades of neo-liberal policies. He condemns Wall Street greed, the corruption of the electoral and political systems, and the stealing of the futures of young people and American workers. He recalls the glorious struggles for equality, civil and labor rights, and the rights of immigrants.
These are things not heard in the United States for a long time. Let’s hope they are a prelude to a change that only the US people can promote.
April 26, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
El pueblo de Estados Unidos -se ha dicho muchas veces- es el único que podría llevar a cabo la titánica hazaña de hacer caer al imperio más poderoso y sanguinario que haya conocido la humanidad, que espera ansiosa ver a ese pueblo actuar para ofrecerle la solidaridad a que se hará acreedor.
Las frecuentes guerras asimétricas de Estados Unidos contra países incomparablemente mucho más pobres y militarmente débiles que la superpotencia única, despertaron la conciencia humanitaria de muchos estadounidenses que se ha manifestado enérgicamente en solidaridad con estos pueblos abusados.
La continuada exposición de vergonzosas violaciones de los derechos humanos de prisioneros, incluyendo torturas y gravísimos vejámenes en cárceles públicas o clandestinas estadounidenses diseminadas por el mundo, despertaron la conciencia de millones de estadounidenses que condenaron tales injusticias.
Sin embargo, como resultado de la manipulación y el engaño a que han estado sometidos en su fe religiosa o por la ingenuidad que durante años han inculcado en el ciudadano común de ese país los medios de publicidad y de prensa dominados por la élite corporativa y bancaria, los estadounidenses han sido sometidos durante más de un siglo al influjo de una orientación política neoconservadora con proyecciones fundamentalistas, que algunos consideran hoy su característica nacional.
Tras el derrumbe de la URSS y el bloque socialista europeo, que significó el fin de la Guerra Fría, el gobierno de Estados Unidos intensificó su guerra económica contra Cuba, que quedó como una espina en la garganta del imperialismo.
Con nuevas leyes, la codificación del conjunto de instrumentos destinados a ahogar económicamente a la isla y otras medidas dirigidas a “provocar escaseces, sufrimientos y el derrocamiento del gobierno cubano” según fueron definidos originalmente, más de medio siglo antes, los objetivos del bloqueo que Estados Unidos eufemísticamente llama “embargo”.
Fidel Castro, llamó al pueblo a “apretarse los cinturones” y prepararse para carencias y sacrificios mayores. Los cubanos respondieron cerrando filas en torno al líder de la Revolución y ya se han podido ver los resultados de la heroica resistencia. Triunfó la razón, la justicia, el patriotismo. Venció también la solidaridad internacionalista de innumerables personas en todo el mundo que han estimulado la proeza de los cubanos con su ayuda sincera y, por ello, son también dueños del éxito.
El mundo unipolar que siguió al fin de la Guerra Fría, con una única superpotencia que imponiendo sus egoístas intereses al resto del planeta y la globalización neoliberal impuesta a los pueblos, con su secuela de hambre, enfermedades, analfabetismo, degradación ambiental, discriminación, y tantos otros males que sufre la humanidad, puso de manifiesto que no es el fatalismo geográfico, ni una supuesta inferioridad racial, sino la esencia misma del orden burgués lo que determina estos males en las sociedades humanas.
El neoliberalismo, ordenamiento que el Norte disemina, impone en el Sur y recomienda como panacea para todas las desventuras de la humanidad, es precisamente la causa fundamental de los grandes males y los crueles desamparos en que viven los pueblos de los países pobres y los pobres en los países ricos.
El capitalismo neoliberal, con su proclamación del mercado y no del ser humano como eje absoluto del funcionamiento de la sociedad, ha multiplicado la miseria y ampliado las desigualdades a escala universal. Generador constante de crisis, el orden capitalista pretende ignorar que son las asimetrías las que las provocan y se las arregla siempre para descargar sus efectos en las personas humildes del planeta.
El sistema capitalista de relaciones, en vez de convocar a la cooperación y la solidaridad, llama a la competencia, el egoísmo y la ley del más rico.
Con la campaña de Bernie Sanders por lograr incluirse como candidato del partido demócrata en las elecciones presidenciales de Estados Unidos, los estadounidenses han comenzado a oír hablar de muchas cosas que no se mencionaban en el pasado reciente.
Sanders ofrece poner fin a casi cuatro décadas de políticas neoliberales. Condena la avaricia de Wall Street, la corrupción del sistema electoral y político, y el robo del futuro de los jóvenes y de los trabajadores estadounidenses. Recuerda las gloriosas luchas por la igualdad, los derechos civiles y por los derechos laborales y de los inmigrantes.
Son cosas que no se escuchaban hace mucho tiempo en Estados Unidos y que ojalá fueran la antesala de un cambio que solo a los estadounidenses corresponde promover.
Abril 28 de 2016.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Any reasonably sane person would assume that after the recent public acknowledgment by US President Barack Obama of the foreign policy errors that are implicit, and even explicit, in his efforts to normalize political relations with Cuba, there would be a process of apologies and explanations for the big and small lies that the immense defamation apparatus of Washington has spread about Cuba around the world, trying to justify its economic, commercial and financial blockade against the rebel island.
Even in the simplest parts of the propaganda war against Cuba, we find evidence of the lies with which the smear campaign has sought to support its purposes –to the embarrassment of honest Americans who are becoming aware of the truth- as the curtain is drawn aside as a result of the timid measures that the White House has taken citing legal incapacity to eliminate the shameful blockade.
An example of this is provided by José Manzaneda, site coordinator of Cubainformación that originates in Spain and is dedicated to promoting solidarity with the island on the Internet. Manzaneda recalls one of the many deceitful facets of the propaganda campaign against Cuba that somehow now clashes with the truth.
Cuba has rock bands in all genres –from heavy metal to hardcore, death metal, alternative rock and punk. The Caribbean country hosts local and international groups that take part in thirteen festivals of rock music (Caimán Rock, Brutal Fest, Festival Metal HG among them) and has a unique experience in the world: a state-owned Cuban Rock Agency devoted to the promotion, distribution and hiring of rock bands. Despite this, during the recent Havana concert by the English band the Rolling Stones, the US-financed media from around the world devoted extensive space to promote their stale falsehoods against Cuba.
Manzaneda notes that Spanish channel La Sexta, in its coverage of the Stones’ artistic visit, said “Cuba has vibrated to the sound of those “Satanic Majesties” (…) and showed their trademark tongue after 40 years of rock censorship in the island “.
Another Spanish channel, Cuatro, repeated the same nonsense about the alleged “censorship” that Cuba applied to the music of the British band “whose music had been banned in Cuba until now”.
The same lie was repeated by Antena 3, another Spanish channel: “The Rolling Stones displayed their energy in the same island where their sound was banned until recently.”
Other media did not go that far but repeated over and over the same message: not now, but for decades the Cuban Revolution “censured”, “discriminated” or “banned” rock “.
Meanwhile, the international corporate media insisted on another message openly more counterrevolutionary: the concert was due to a supposed transition, an opening, or even a political “spring” in Cuba. “A concert that marked the cultural opening of Cuba,” said Deutsche Welle TV). “A historic event that shows the opening of Cuba to the West –that albeit slow, is already unstoppable.” (Cuatro TV).
In almost all news reports, this great concert was linked to the absurd events and incomprehension towards rock that occurred in Cuba in the 60s. But the reality is that if the Rolling Stones and other big bands did not act earlier on the island it was not due to obstacles from Cuba other than economic. There were big free concerts in Havana, like the Manic Street Preachers in 2001 and Audioslave in 2005. All of these, as with the Stones now, were funded by the artists themselves.
Manzaneda recalls: “It is not Cuba that has made a cultural opening to the world. What has really changed is that the US government and its accompanying media have modified their policy of aggression against Cuba. And now, for a band like the Rolling
Stones, performing on the island they are no longer at high risk of reprisals and
smear campaigns; but rather the opposite.”
It is true that in the early years of the Revolution, and until the mid 70s, rock and English language were not broadcast by Cuban radio stations as part of an inexperienced and naive defensive reaction against the huge cultural aggression promoted and financed by the United States.
In those years, Cubans certainly committed many errors of this type, including their dislike of persons that were then, and remain today, idols of US American youth, who were inspired precisely by the ideals and struggles of Cuban youth and their leaders, such as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.
April 22, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Cualquier persona medianamente sensata podría suponer que, tras el reciente reconocimiento público por el Presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, de los errores de su política exterior que están implícitos, e incluso explícitos, en su propósito de normalizar las relaciones políticas con Cuba, ocurriría un proceso de disculpas y justificaciones por las grandes y pequeñas mentiras que sobre Cuba ha difundido por el mundo el inmenso aparato de difamación de Washington, pretendiendo justificar su bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero contra la isla rebelde.
Hasta en las más simples piezas de la guerra propagandística contra Cuba hallamos elementos demostrativos de las falsedades con que la campaña de infundios ha pretendido fundamentar sus propósitos, para vergüenza de los estadounidenses honestos que se van enterando de las verdades a medida que se descorre el telón por efecto de tímidas medidas que la Casa Blanca ha tomado, alegando incapacidad jurídica para eliminar el bochornoso bloqueo.
Un ejemplo de ello lo ofrece José Manzaneda, coordinador del sitio “Cubainformación” originado en España, dedicado al fomento en Internet de la solidaridad con la isla, quien recuerda una de las muchas facetas embusteras de la campaña propagandista contra Cuba que de alguna forma choca ahora con la verdad.
Habiendo en Cuba bandas de rock en todos sus géneros -desde el heavy metal al hardcore, pasando por el death metal, el rock alternativo y el punk- y siendo el país caribeño sede de agrupaciones locales e internacionales que participan en trece festivales de este tipo de música (Caimán Rock, el Brutal Fest, Festival Metal HG, entre ellos) y donde existe, como experiencia única en el mundo, una Agencia Cubana del Rock, de propiedad estatal, dedicada a promover la distribución y contratación de bandas de rock, — durante el reciente concierto en La Habana de la banda inglesa de los Rolling Stones, la prensa financiada desde Estados Unidos en todo el mundo dedicó extensos espacios a su pretensión de justificar sus añejas falsedades contra Cuba.
Manzaneda hace notar que en el canal español La Sexta, en su cobertura sobre esa visita artística, dijo que “Cuba ha vibrado al son de esas “satánicas majestades” (…) enseñando su característica lengua por esos 40 años de censura del rock en la Isla”.
Otro canal español, el Cuatro, repetía este mismo disparate, refiriéndolo a la supuesta “censura” que Cuba aplicaba a la música de la banda británica “cuya música había estado prohibida en Cuba hasta ahora”.
La misma mentira repetía Antena 3, otro canal español: “Los Rolling Stones desplegaron su energía en la misma Isla donde sus acordes estaban prohibidos hasta hace poco”.
Otros medios no llegaban a tanto pero “repetían, con precisión machacona, un mismo mensaje: ahora no, pero hace décadas la Revolución cubana “censuró”, “discriminó” o “prohibió” el rock”.
Al mismo tiempo, los medios corporativos internacionales insistían en otro mensaje más directamente contrarrevolucionario: el concierto se debió a una supuesta transición, una apertura o incluso a una primavera política en Cuba. “Un concierto que marcó la apertura cultural de Cuba”, decía Deutsche Welle TV). “Un evento histórico que demuestra que la apertura de Cuba hacia Occidente, aunque lenta, es ya imparable” (Cuatro TV).
En casi todas las noticias se asocia este gran concierto con los absurdos e incomprensiones hacia el rock que ocurrieron en los años 60 en Cuba. Pero la realidad es que si los Rolling Stones y otras grandes bandas no actuaban antes en la Isla no era por obstáculos desde Cuba que no fueran los económicos. Hubo grandes conciertos gratuitos en La Habana, como el de Manic Street Preachers en 2001 y el de Audioslave en 2005. Todos, como ahora el de los Stones, han sido costeados por los artistas.
Manzaneda recuerda: “No es Cuba la que realiza una apertura cultural al mundo. Lo que ha cambiado realmente es que el Gobierno de Estados Unidos y los medios de comunicación que le acompañan han relajado su agresión política a Cuba. Y ahora, para una banda como los Rolling Stones actuar en la Isla ya no supone un alto riesgo de represalias y campañas de desprestigio. Sino más bien todo lo contrario”.
Es cierto que en los primeros años de la Revolución y hasta mediados de la década de los 70, el rock en idioma inglés no era programado en las emisoras de radio cubanas como parte de una reacción defensiva inexperta e ingenua ante la magnitud de la agresión cultural promovida y financiada por Estados Unidos.
En aquel período los cubanos ciertamente cometieron no pocos errores de este carácter, incluyendo su ojeriza ante figuras que constituían entonces, y siguen siendo hoy, ídolos de la juventud norteamericana que se inspiraron precisamente en los ideales y las luchas de la juventud cubana y en sus líderes, como Fidel Castro y Che Guevara.
Abril 22 de 2016.
In Miami today, Hillary Clinton forcefully expressed her support for normalization of U.S. relations with Cuba and formally called on Congress to lift the Cuba embargo. Hillary emphasized that she believes we need to increase American influence in Cuba, not reduce it — a strong contrast with Republican candidates who are stuck in the past, trying to return to the same failed Cold War-era isolationism that has only strengthened the Castro regime.
To those Republicans, her message was clear: “They have it backwards: Engagement is not a gift to the Castros – it’s a threat to the Castros. An American embassy in Havana isn’t a concession – it’s a beacon. Lifting the embargo doesn’t set back the advance of freedom – it advances freedom where it is most desperately needed.”
A full transcript of the remarks is included below:
“Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I want to thank Dr. Frank Mora, director of the Kimberly Latin American and Caribbean Center and a professor here at FIU, and before that served with distinction at the Department of Defense. I want to recognize former Congressman Joe Garcia. Thank you Joe for being here – a long time friend and an exemplary educator. The President of Miami-Dade College, Eduardo Padrón and the President of FIU, Mark Rosenberg – I thank you all for being here. And for me it’s a delight to be here at Florida International University. You can feel the energy here. It’s a place where people of all backgrounds and walks of life work hard, do their part, and get ahead. That’s the promise of America that has drawn generations of immigrants to our shores, and it’s a reality right here at FIU.
“Today, as Frank said, I want to talk with you about a subject that has stirred passionate debate in this city and beyond for decades, but is now entering a crucial new phase. America’s approach to Cuba is at a crossroads, and the upcoming presidential election will determine whether we chart a new path forward or turn back to the old ways of the past. We must decide between engagement and embargo, between embracing fresh thinking and returning to Cold War deadlock. And the choices we make will have lasting consequences not just for more than 11 million Cubans, but also for American leadership across our hemisphere and around the world.
“I know that for many in this room and throughout the Cuban-American community, this debate is not an intellectual exercise – it is deeply personal.
“I teared up as Frank was talking about his mother—not able to mourn with her family, say goodbye to her brother. I’m so privileged to have a sister-in-law who is Cuban-American, who came to this country, like so many others as a child and has chartered her way with a spirit of determination and success.
“I think about all those who were sent as children to live with strangers during the Peter Pan airlift, for families who arrived here during the Mariel boatlift with only the clothes on their backs, for sons and daughters who could not bury their parents back home, for all who have suffered and waited and longed for change to come to the land, “where palm trees grow.” And, yes, for a rising generation eager to build a new and better future.
“Many of you have your own stories and memories that shape your feelings about the way forward. Like Miriam Leiva, one of the founders of the Ladies in White, who is with us today – brave Cuban women who have defied the Castro regime and demanded dignity and reform. We are honored to have her here today and I’d like to ask her, please raise your hand. Thank you.
“I wish every Cuban back in Cuba could spend a day walking around Miami and see what you have built here, how you have turned this city into a dynamic global city. How you have succeeded as entrepreneurs and civic leaders. It would not take them long to start demanding similar opportunities and achieving similar success back in Cuba.
“I understand the skepticism in this community about any policy of engagement toward Cuba. As many of you know, I’ve been skeptical too. But you’ve been promised progress for fifty years. And we can’t wait any longer for a failed policy to bear fruit. We have to seize this moment. We have to now support change on an island where it is desperately needed.
“I did not come to this position lightly. I well remember what happened to previous attempts at engagement. In the 1990s, Castro responded to quiet diplomacy by shooting down the unarmed Brothers to the Rescue plane out of the sky. And with their deaths in mind, I supported the Helms-Burton Act to tighten the embargo.
“Twenty years later, the regime’s human rights abuses continue: imprisoning dissidents, cracking down on free expression and the Internet, beating and harassing the courageous Ladies in White, refusing a credible investigation into the death of Oswaldo Paya. Anyone who thinks we can trust this regime hasn’t learned the lessons of history.
“But as Secretary of State, it became clear to me that our policy of isolating Cuba was strengthening the Castros’ grip on power rather than weakening it – and harming our broader efforts to restore American leadership across the hemisphere. The Castros were able to blame all of the island’s woes on the U.S. embargo, distracting from the regime’s failures and delaying their day of reckoning with the Cuban people. We were unintentionally helping the regime keep Cuba a closed and controlled society rather than working to open it up to positive outside influences the way we did so effectively with the old Soviet bloc and elsewhere.
“So in 2009, we tried something new. The Obama administration made it easier for Cuban Americans to visit and send money to family on the island. No one expected miracles, but it was a first step toward exposing the Cuban people to new ideas, values, and perspectives.
“I remember seeing a CNN report that summer about a Cuban father living and working in the United States who hadn’t seen his baby boy back home for a year-and-a-half because of travel restrictions. Our reforms made it possible for that father and son finally to reunite. It was just one story, just one family, but it felt like the start of something important.
“In 2011, we further loosened restrictions on cash remittances sent back to Cuba and we opened the way for more Americans – clergy, students and teachers, community leaders – to visit and engage directly with the Cuban people. They brought with them new hope and support for struggling families, aspiring entrepreneurs, and brave civil society activists. Small businesses started opening. Cell phones proliferated. Slowly, Cubans were getting a taste of a different future.
“I then became convinced that building stronger ties between Cubans and Americans could be the best way to promote political and economic change on the island. So by the end of my term as Secretary, I recommended to the President that we end the failed embargo and double down on a strategy of engagement that would strip the Castro regime of its excuses and force it to grapple with the demands and aspirations of the Cuban people. Instead of keeping change out, as it has for decades, the regime would have to figure out how to adapt to a rapidly transforming society.
“What’s more, it would open exciting new business opportunities for American companies, farmers, and entrepreneurs – especially for the Cuban-American community. That’s my definition of a win-win.
“Now I know some critics of this approach point to other countries that remain authoritarian despite decades of diplomatic and economic engagement. And yes it’s true that political change will not come quickly or easily to Cuba. But look around the world at many of the countries that have made the transition from autocracy to democracy – from Eastern Europe to East Asia to Latin America. Engagement is not a silver bullet, but again and again we see that it is more likely to hasten change, not hold it back.
“The future for Cuba is not foreordained. But there is good reason to believe that once it gets going, this dynamic will be especially powerful on an island just 90 miles from the largest economy in the world. Just 90 miles away from one and a half million Cuban-Americans whose success provides a compelling advertisement for the benefits of democracy and an open society.
“So I have supported President Obama and Secretary Kerry as they’ve advanced this strategy. They’ve taken historic steps forward – re-establishing diplomatic relations, reopening our embassy in Havana, expanding opportunities further for travel and commerce, calling on Congress to finally drop the embargo.
“That last step about the embargo is crucial, because without dropping it, this progress could falter.
“We have arrived at a decisive moment. The Cuban people have waited long enough for progress to come. Even many Republicans on Capitol Hill are starting to recognize the urgency of moving forward. It’s time for their leaders to either get on board or get out of the way. The Cuba embargo needs to go, once and for all. We should replace it with a smarter approach that empowers Cuban businesses, Cuban civil society, and the Cuban-American community to spur progress and keep pressure on the regime.
“Today I am calling on Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell to step up and answer the pleas of the Cuban people. By large majorities, they want a closer relationship with America.
“They want to buy our goods, read our books, surf our web, and learn from our people. They want to bring their country into the 21st century. That is the road toward democracy and dignity and we should walk it together.
“We can’t go back to a failed policy that limits Cuban-Americans’ ability to travel and support family and friends. We can’t block American businesses that could help free enterprise take root in Cuban soil – or stop American religious groups and academics and activists from establishing contacts and partnerships on the ground.
“If we go backward, no one will benefit more than the hardliners in Havana. In fact, there may be no stronger argument for engagement than the fact that Cuba’s hardliners are so opposed to it. They don’t want strong connections with the United States. They don’t want Cuban-Americans traveling to the island. They don’t want American students and clergy and NGO activists interacting with the Cuban people. That is the last thing they want. So that’s precisely why we need to do it.
“Unfortunately, most of the Republican candidates for President would play right into the hard-liners’ hands. They would reverse the progress we have made and cut the Cuban people off from direct contact with the Cuban-American community and the free-market capitalism and democracy that you embody. That would be a strategic error for the United States and a tragedy for the millions of Cubans who yearn for closer ties.
“They have it backwards: Engagement is not a gift to the Castros – it’s a threat to the Castros. An American embassy in Havana isn’t a concession – it’s a beacon. Lifting the embargo doesn’t set back the advance of freedom – it advances freedom where it is most desperately needed.
“Fundamentally, most Republican candidates still view Cuba – and Latin America more broadly – through an outdated Cold War lens. Instead of opportunities to be seized, they see only threats to be feared. They refuse to learn the lessons of the past or pay attention to what’s worked and what hasn’t. For them, ideology trumps evidence. And so they remain incapable of moving us forward.
“As President, I would increase American influence in Cuba, rather than reduce it. I would work with Congress to lift the embargo and I would also pursue additional steps.
“First, we should help more Americans go to Cuba. If Congress won’t act to do this, I would use executive authority to make it easier for more Americans to visit the island to support private business and engage with the Cuban people.
“Second, I would use our new presence and connections to more effectively support human rights and civil society in Cuba. I believe that as our influence expands among the Cuban people, our diplomacy can help carve out political space on the island in a way we never could before.
“We will follow the lead of Pope Francis, who will carry a powerful message of empowerment when he visits Cuba in September. I would direct U.S. diplomats to make it a priority to build relationships with more Cubans, especially those starting businesses and pushing boundaries. Advocates for women’s rights and workers’ rights. Environmental activists. Artists. Bloggers. The more relationships we build, the better.
“We should be under no illusions that the regime will end its repressive ways any time soon, as its continued use of short-term detentions demonstrates. So we have to redouble our efforts to stand up for the rights of reformers and political prisoners, including maintaining sanctions on specific human-rights violators. We should maintain restrictions on the flow of arms to the regime – and work to restrict access to the tools of repression while expanding access to tools of dissent and free expression.
“We should make it clear, as I did as Secretary of State, that the “freedom to connect” is a basic human right, and therefore do more to extend that freedom to more and more Cubans – particularly young people.
“Third, and this is directly related, we should focus on expanding communications and commercial links to and among the Cuban people. Just five percent of Cubans have access to the open Internet today. We want more American companies pursuing joint ventures to build networks that will open the free flow of information – and empower everyday Cubans to make their voices heard. We want Cubans to have access to more phones, more computers, more satellite televisions. We want more American airplanes and ferries and cargo ships arriving every day. I’m told that Airbnb is already getting started. Companies like Google and Twitter are exploring opportunities as well.
“It will be essential that American and international companies entering the Cuban market act responsibly, hold themselves to high standards, use their influence to push for reforms. I would convene and connect U.S. business leaders from many fields to advance this strategy, and I will look to the Cuban-American community to continue leading the way. No one is better positioned to bring expertise, resources, and vision to this effort – and no one understands better how transformative this can be.
“We will also keep pressing for a just settlement on expropriated property. And we will let Raul explain to his people why he wants to prevent American investment in bicycle repair shops, in restaurants, in barbershops, and Internet cafes. Let him try to put up barriers to American technology and innovation that his people crave.
“Finally, we need to use our leadership across the Americas to mobilize more support for Cubans and their aspirations. Just as the United States needed a new approach to Cuba, the region does as well.
“Latin American countries and leaders have run out of excuses for not standing up for the fundamental freedoms of the Cuban people. No more brushing things under the rug. No more apologizing. It is time for them to step up. Not insignificantly, new regional cooperation on Cuba will also open other opportunities for the United States across Latin America.
“For years, our unpopular policy towards Cuba held back our influence and leadership. Frankly, it was an albatross around our necks. We were isolated in our opposition to opening up the island. Summit meetings were consumed by the same old debates. Regional spoilers like Venezuela took advantage of the disagreements to advance their own agendas and undermine the United States. Now we have the chance for a fresh start in the Americas.
“Strategically, this is a big deal. Too often, we look east, we look west, but we don’t look south. And no region in the world is more important to our long-term prosperity and security than Latin America. And no region in the world is better positioned to emerge as a new force for global peace and progress.
“Many Republicans seem to think of Latin America still as a land of crime and coups rather than a place where free markets and free people are thriving. They’ve got it wrong. Latin America is now home to vibrant democracies, expanding middle classes, abundant energy supplies, and a combined GDP of more than $4 trillion.
“Our economies, communities, and even our families are deeply entwined. And I see our increasing interdependence as a comparative advantage to be embraced. The United States needs to build on what I call the “power of proximity.” It’s not just geography – it’s common values, common culture, common heritage. It’s shared interests that could power a new era of partnership and prosperity. Closer ties across Latin America will help our economy at home and strengthen our hand around the world, especially in the Asia-Pacific. There is enormous potential for cooperation on clean energy and combatting climate change.
“And much work to be done together to take on the persistent challenges in our hemisphere, from crime to drugs to poverty, and to stand in defense of our shared values against regimes like that in Venezuela. So the United States needs to lead in the Latin America. And if we don’t, make no mistake, others will. China is eager to extend its influence. Strong, principled American leadership is the only answer. That was my approach as Secretary of State and will be my priority as President.
“Now it is often said that every election is about the future. But this time, I feel it even more powerfully. Americans have worked so hard to climb out of the hole we found ourselves in with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression in 2008. Families took second jobs and second shifts. They found a way to make it work. And now, thankfully, our economy is growing again.
“Slowly but surely we also repaired America’s tarnished reputation. We strengthened old alliances and started new partnerships. We got back to the time-tested values that made our country a beacon of hope and opportunity and freedom for the entire world. We learned to lead in new ways for a complex and changing age. And America is safer and stronger as a result.
“We cannot afford to let out-of-touch, out-of-date partisan ideas and candidates rip away all the progress we’ve made. We can’t go back to cowboy diplomacy and reckless war-mongering. We can’t go back to a go-it-alone foreign policy that views American boots on the ground as a first choice rather than as a last resort. We have paid too high a price in lives, power, and prestige to make those same mistakes again. Instead we need a foreign policy for the future with creative, confident leadership that harnesses all of America’s strength, smarts, and values. I believe the future holds far more opportunities than threats if we shape global events rather than reacting to them and being shaped by them. That is what I will do as President, starting right here in our own hemisphere.
“I’m running to build an America for tomorrow, not yesterday. For the struggling, the striving, and the successful. For the young entrepreneur in Little Havana who dreams of expanding to Old Havana. For the grandmother who never lost hope of seeing freedom come to the homeland she left so long ago. For the families who are separated. For all those who have built new lives in a new land. I’m running for everyone who’s ever been knocked down, but refused to be knocked out. I am running for you and I want to work with you to be your partner to build the kind of future that will once again not only make Cuban-Americas successful here in our country, but give Cubans in Cuba the same chance to live up to their own potential.
Thank you all very, very much.”
###
For Immediate Release, July 31, 2015
Contact: press@hillaryclinton.com
PAID FOR BY HILLARY FOR AMERICA
Contributions or gifts to Hillary for America are not tax deductible.
Hillary for America, PO Box 5256, New York
======
Cuban media coverage, an example:
Hillary Clinton Calls in Miami for Lifting of U.S. blockade on Cuba
HAVANA, Cuba, Aug 1 (acn) Democrat pre-candidate to the 2016 presidential elections in the United States, Hillary Clinton, asked Congress on Friday, from Miami, Florida, to lift the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba since 1962, the Prensa Latina news agency reported.
In a speech at the International University of Florida, the former Secretary of State asked lawmakers to take advantage of this decisive moment, after the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries and the reopening of embassies in the respective capitals on July 20.
The U.S. policy towards Cuba is at a crossroads and next year’s elections by the White House will determine whether we will carry on with a new course in this regard or return to the old ways of the past, she added.
We must decide between commitment and sanctions, between adopting new thinking and returning to the deadlock we were during the Cold War, she pointed out.
She added that even many Republicans on Capitol Hill are beginning to recognize the urgency of continuing onward to dismantle the sanctions and this is the moment when their leaders must join this task or get out of the way of those who carry on.
Clinton added that the blockade must end once and for all; we must replace it with “more intelligent measures that manage to consolidate the interests of the United States,” and called the red party leadership on Capitol Hill to join this policy.
The former Secretary of State reiterated her support for the policy of rapprochement with the island that began after December 17, when Cuban President Raul Castro and his U.S. counterpart, Barack Obama, announced the decision of reestablishing diplomatic relations.
For years, the state of Florida was the base of a strong opposition to bonds with Havana, which made the blockade an untouchable issue among those who aspired to be elected for posts in that territory, especially for Republicans.
On several occasions, the former first lady has defended the lifting of the blockade against the Caribbean nation, particularly in her book Hard Choices, in which she assures that while she was Secretary of State (2009-2013) she recommended Obama to review the policy towards Cuba.
A survey conducted last week by the Pew Research Center showed that 72 percent of U.S. citizens are in favor of lifting the blockade against Cuba and 73 percent approve Obama’s decision of reestablishing diplomatic relations with the Caribbean island.
A survey by the McClatchy newspaper chain and the Marist Institute for Public Opinion released on Friday showed that 44 percent of likely voters prefer Clinton; 29 percent Republican Jeb Bush; and 20 percent controversial aspirant Donald Trump, for the November 2016 elections.
Cuba: Permit me to disagree
By Guillermo Almeyra
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
[Reformatted for easier reading on the web.]
Two kinds of problems arise in the recent changes made in the Cuban government, some of form, others of content.
Regarding the former, neither Raúl nor Fidel, or any other official, have taken into account the need to make room for an economic alternative other than the existing one that depends on rules dictated by the market forces, or, for that matter, the need to introduce economic methods based on direct democracy and self-management, where the Cuban citizens-producers would play a more active role as much in decision-making as in the implementation of what is decided thereby.
More centralization, more institutionalization, more resolutions coming from the pinnacle of power, and more wartime-like economics has been the motto, and even the ousting of Pérez Roque and Lage were made, it has been said, to create a more functional structure of government, which reveals unspoken criticism leveled at the typical voluntarism practiced both by those seen as Fidel’s men and by Fidel himself.
That way Cuba has taken some sort of step toward the Chinese path… which we all know where it ended. In other words, a strong power underpinned by its single monolithic party that tries to steer its way into a pragmatic opening to the capitalistic market in order to modernize the country’s economy, increase labor productivity and reduce production costs without too much heed to the social consequences.
However, Cuba is not China, as it has a small, if highly educated, population with a low birth rate and a history of poor productivity, unable to resort to huge amounts of foreign capital because of its very limited domestic market and the lack of a powerful and wealthy Cuban nationalistic bourgeoisie overseas which might be willing to invest in the island.
To cap it all off, a relative shortage of young people makes labor more expensive and, truth be told, Cubans are not easily satisfied, since the Revolution taught them to protest and demand. Furthermore, Cuba can’t just apply the Chinese recipe in the middle of a terrible worldwide crisis which is bound to become worse.
So much for the problems of form: rather than democratize the country, laying the foundations of a government planned from the bottom up by workers’ councils and sidelining the State’s bureaucratic apparatus, the Cuban establishment chose to have a go at the utopian purpose of rationalizing red tape and make the arbitrariness and squandering typical of any vertical system even more effective.
Moreover, I also differ on other points: why weren’t these problems happening in the highest circles informed to or discussed with the men and women in the street?
Instead of presenting the people with a number of faits accomplis, unexplained and obscure as befits a government-owned media which fearful of critical thinking and prone to underestimate the workers’ level of comprehension, why weren’t the merits and flaws of each leader publicly debated?
If the foreign minister and the vice-president of the Council of Ministers misbehaved and misused their status, as hinted in the press release, how responsible are their fellow leaders, starting with Fidel and Raúl?
If they were comrades in the said statement, and kept their high-ranking positions in the Political Bureau, the Central Committee and the government up until they announced their resignation in regrettable Stalin-like self-critical notices where they admit to mistakes not even mentioned, why does Fidel Castro, by whose side they worked for many years, say they became greedy and unworthy men who fed on the sweet nectar of power and had thus played into the hands of the enemy?
Do Raúl and the political and state leaders call comrades and invest powers in unworthy potential traitors, as Fidel tagged them, or is he (Fidel) using their statements to wreck another line –the victorious one?
Was the remark thrown over to Michelle Bachelet about vindicating Bolivia’s right to an outlet to the sea just a gaffe or an internal maneuver about an issue the Cuban government had decided to hush while awaiting for the Chilean president’s visit to consolidate his comeback to the Latin American stage?
Is the uncalled-for anger oozing from Fidel’s statements a symptom of old age or a camouflaged political torpedo destined to keep the various bureaucratic factions –the victors, the centralist military brass, and the vanquished– from engaging in a certain modus vivendi?
What does such cloaked goings-on in the upper echelons have to do with the battle of ideas, that is, with the socialist moral and political education (a task which Raúl has just assigned to the former chief of police Ramiro Valdés)?
What was discussed with Hugo Chávez? The possibility that Venezuela may be forced to cut down on the assistance he gives to Cuba given the fall in oil prices and Cuba’s necessity to take immediate economic action as a result?
Why not disclose and hold an open discussion about Cuba’s outlook and future tasks, especially now that it’s making preparations to hold the Party Congress and restructure the State apparatus?
Are by any chance the moral lynching of leaders who are answerable to and controlled by collective bodies a blow to the ethics of the Party’s rank and file and the respect they deserve?
Socialism cannot break away from democracy, and democracy requires freedom of information and forthright discussion of ideas and proposals.
Bureaucratic secrecy opens your flank to the enemy no less served by those who are always ready to welcome whatever comes down from the state Olympus and spit today on those who until yesterday were their leaders. It’s criminal, particularly in difficult times, to mislead, misinform and depoliticize those who will have to put their creativity, understanding and effort to good use in order to overcome hardship.
Por Guillermo Almeyra
Domingo 8 de marzo de 2009
institucionalización, más decisiones desde el vértice, desde el poder, más
economía de guerra, ha sido la consigna, e incluso los cambios de Pérez Roque y de Lage han sido efectuados en el nombre del funcionamiento de las intituciones, en crítica implícita al voluntarismo que caracterizó tanto a los que aparecían como hombres de Fidel como a Fidel mismo. Se abre así una especie de
camino cubano a la vía china… que todos sabemos adónde condujo. O sea, a un poder fuerte basado en el partido único monolítico que trata de pilotar una apertura pragmática al mercado capitalista para modernizar la economía del país, aumentar la productividad de los trabajadores y reducir los costos de los productos, sin tener demasiado en cuenta las consecuencias sociales.
Además, discrepo igualmente en lo que se refiere a la forma: ¿por qué no se informó y se discutió con los cubanos de a pie
lo que estaba pasando en el aparato? ¿Por qué no se discutieron abiertamente los méritos y defectos de cada dirigente y, en cambio, se prefirió presentar hechos consumados, sin explicarlos y en la oscuridad tan característica de la prensa oficial que teme el pensamiento crítico y subestima la capacidad de comprensión de los trabajadores? Si el canciller y el vicepresidente del Consejo de Ministros fueron indisciplinados y poco institucionales
, como sugiere el comunicado, ¿cuál es la responsabilidad de sus colegas dirigentes, empezando por Fidel y Raúl? Si para el comunicado eran compañeros
y siguieron ocupando altos cargos (en el Buró Político, el Comité Central y el gobierno) hasta que renunciaron
con lamentables autocríticas de tipo estalinista, reconociendo todos sus erroes
que ni siquiera mencionan, ¿por qué Fidel Castro, a cuyo lado trabajaron por muchos años, dice que eran ambiciosos e indignos, cebados en las mieles del poder
y proclives a ser utilizados por el enemigo? ¿Raúl y la dirección política y estatal califican de compañeros y dan responsabilidades a indignos y potencialmente traidores como sugiere Fidel, o éste utiliza sus declaraciones como torpedos contra otra línea, la triunfante? ¿No fue una gaffe sino una maniobra interna el arrojarle a Michelle Bachelet la reivindicación de la salida al mar para Bolivia cuando el gobierno cubano callaba al respecto para aprovechar la visita de la presidenta chilena para afianzar su retorno al concierto de los países latinoamericanos? ¿La furia fuera de lugar que empapa las declaraciones de Fidel no es una manifestación de senilidad sino una cobertura para un torpedo político destinado a impedir unmodus vivendi entre las diversas facciones burocráticas, la vencedora, la militar burocrática centralista, y la perdedora? ¿Qué tendría que ver esa fronda en el aparato con una batalla por las ideas, o sea, con la educación moral y política socialista? (que ahora Raúl ha dejado en manos del ex jefe de policía Ramiro Valdés). ¿Qué discutieron con Hugo Chávez? ¿La posibilidad de que Venezuela pueda verse obligada a reducir su ayuda a Cuba ante la caída del precio del petróleo y la necesidad, por consiguiente, de que Cuba tome desde ya medidas económicas? ¿Por qué no informar, no discutir abiertamente las perspectivas y las tareas, sobre todo en un periodo de preparación del congreso del partido y de reorganización del aparato del Estado? ¿Los linchamientos morales de los dirigentes que siempre responden a organismos colectivos y están controlados por éstos no son acaso un golpe a la ética y al respeto a los militantes? El socialismo no se puede escindir de la democracia y ésta exige libertad de información, plena discusión de ideas y propuestas. El secreto burocrático abre el flanco al enemigo y a éste sirven también los que dicen sí a todo lo que viene del Olimpo estatal y están dispuestos a escupir hoy sobre quienes hasta ayer consideraban sus dirigentes. Particularmente en las épocas difíciles es criminal confundir, desinformar y despolitizar a quienes deberán superar las dificultades con su creatividad, su comprensión, su esfuerzo.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
2016 is an extremely tense year for Cuba’s tourism industry. The island has had to face many challenges arising from the need to respond to a surprisingly high number of visitors. This was caused by the coincidence of a series of factors that turned the country into the absolute star of the leisure industry in the Caribbean and a “fashionable” destination on a world scale, with the successive visits of celebrities, including the President of the United States with his family, which attracted immense publicity.
Paradoxically, the US government has maintained gigantic campaign against Cuba, for seven decades, with the support of all the resources of its espionage and subversion agencies. As well, Washington has had the open complicity of their capitalist satellites around the world.
This has been recognized as the most intense, prolonged and costly libelous campaign launched against any nation in the history of the planet. This policy contributed to the intensification of global curiosity about this small country and its people which was so persistent and determined to decide its own destiny despite a hostile global context.
A basic factor in the sudden success has been, obviously, the sustained development of the tourism industry designed by the Cuban government more than twenty years ago. Its goal was to cope with the effects of US policy. The economic blockade –still in place– imposed by the United States against the Island,was aggravated by the disappearance of the Soviet Union. The USSR was a bastion of solidarity in the economic field for the resistance of Cuban against the ravages of Washington’s imperialist policy.
At the end of December 2015, it was reported that, in the course of that year, the total number of visitors to Cuba had surpassed the three and a half million. This was by far the highest figure in the country’s history with a growth over the previous year that also amounted to a historical record.
This result was obtained despite the fact that Cuba remains the only country where citizens of the United States –the natural and traditional source of visitors to the island for historical and geographical reasons– are forbidden by US law to travel to Cuba as tourists. This prohibition has been in force for over half a century.
It is true that this prohibition began weakening when the United States proclaimed a policy called “people-to-people”. The aim of that policy was to allow certain categories of citizens to visit Cuba on the assumption that this would stimulate the exodus of Cubans from their country once they learned of the “benefits of capitalism.”
Cuba accepted the challenge –even knowing its hostile purposes– with the certainty that it would provide an opportunity to dismantle, through these exceptionally authorized travelers, the falsehoods of Washington’s great disinformation campaign against Cuba. Cuba aimed to turn the “people-to-people” policy around into a boomerang against its promoters in Washington as it has turned out to be.
The sudden growth of international arrivals has not only been due to the increase in visitors from the US who are exceptionally authorized by Washington and who require special authorization be granted for twelve categories of US citizens. Apart from a certain flexibility in the application of these requirements, after the official announcement of Obama’s visit to Cuba, there has also been a significant growth in the number of visitors from Canada, Europe, Asia and Latin America.
However, the phenomenon of such a broad acceptance of the Cuban tourist product
has brought out much evidence of the shortcomings in the infrastructure of the island’s tourist sector. These are not only in hotel capacity, transportation and distribution of food, but also in quality of services and the lack of some essential supplies for the development of an industry that demands many unique services for very demanding consumers.
According to Zane Kerby, President of the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA), “at least two million US Americans could visit Cuba in 2017, if Congress finally votes to lift the current restrictions.
To manage this increase in a sector that is accurately identified as the engine of the economy and that now faces new challenges derived from the complex international scenario, Havana and Washington have decided to restore their diplomatic ties despite the persistence of significant differences in both their political views and principles.
April 7, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Para Cuba, 2016 está siendo un año extremadamente tenso en su industria del turismo. La isla se vio obligada que encarar un cúmulo de retos derivados de la necesidad de responder a una demanda sorpresivamente elevada de visitantes por efecto de la coincidencia de una serie de factores que convirtieron al país en vedette absoluta de la industria del ocio en el Caribe y destino “de moda” a escala mundial, con la visita sucesiva de un buen número de celebridades diversas, incluyendo la del Presidente de Estados Unidos con su familia, que concitó una inmensa publicidad.
Paradójicamente, la gigantesca campaña contra Cuba que ha mantenido el gobierno estadounidense con apoyo de todos los recursos de sus agencias de espionaje y subversión, con la abierta complicidad de sus satélites del capitalismo en todo el mundo durante siete décadas -reconocida como la más intensa, prolongada y costosa campaña difamatoria contra cualquier nación en la historia del planeta- contribuyó a la intensificación de la curiosidad mundial por conocer ese pequeño país y su pueblo tan persistente y decidido a darse su propio destino pese a un contexto mundial tan hostil.
Factor básico del éxito repentino ha sido, obviamente, el desarrollo sostenido de la industria del turismo diseñado por el gobierno cubano desde hace algo más de una veintena de años a fin de hacer frente a los efectos del aun vigente bloqueo económico impuesto por Estados Unidos a Cuba, agravado éste por la desaparición de la Unión Soviética, bastión solidario en el terreno económico de la resistencia de los cubanos frente a los embates de la política imperialista de Washington.
A fines de diciembre de 2015 se conoció que, en el curso de ese año, el total de visitantes a Cuba había superado la cifra de tres millones y medio, por mucho la más alta en la historia del país, con un crecimiento respecto al año anterior que igualmente constituía record histórico.
Este resultado se obtuvo no obstante el hecho de que Cuba sigue siendo el único país del mundo a donde los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos, -que son la cantera natural y tradicional de los visitantes a la Isla por razones tanto geográficas como históricas-, han tenido prohibido por el gobierno estadounidense, desde hace medio siglo, viajar como turistas.
Es cierto que esta prohibición comenzó a presentar fracturas cuando Estados Unidos proclamó una política que llamó de “pueblo a pueblo” porque su objetivo era permitir a ciertas categorías de ciudadanos suyos visitar a Cuba en el supuesto que con ello estimularía el éxodo de cubanos de su país al conocer las “bondades del capitalismo”. Cuba aceptó el reto, aun conociendo sus torcidos propósitos, con la certeza de que ello daría oportunidad para desmontar –por conducto de esos viajeros excepcionalmente autorizados- las falsedades de la gran campaña de desinformación sobre Cuba y hacer de esa política “pueblo a pueblo” un boomerang contra sus promotores en Washington , como así resultó en efecto.
Este crecimiento repentino de las llegadas internacionales no se ha debido solo al incremento de los visitantes norteamericanos
–excepcionalmente autorizados por Washington a hacerlo mediante permisos especiales previstos para doce categorías de ciudadanos de Estados Unidos. Además de cierta flexibilización en la aplicación de estos requisitos a tenor del anuncio de la visita oficial de Obama a Cuba, también se han registrado importantes crecimientos de viajeros procedentes de Canadá, Europa, Asia y América Latina.
Pero el fenómeno de la aceptación del producto turístico cubano de manera tan amplia ha traído consigo muchas evidencias de carencias en la infraestructura del sector en la isla, tanto en capacidad hotelera como en transporte y distribución de alimentos, calidad de los servicios, carencia de algunos abastecimientos imprescindibles para el desenvolvimiento de una industria que demanda muchos servicios singulares para sujetos que son consumidores muy exigentes.
Según Zane Kerby, presidente de la Sociedad Americana de Agentes de Viajes (ASTA, por sus siglas en inglés) “al menos dos millones de estadounidenses más podrían visitar Cuba en 2017, si finalmente el Congreso vota por levantar las restricciones vigentes.
Para manejar este incremento en un sector que justamente se identifica como locomotora de la economía y ahora se enfrenta a nuevos retos derivados del complejo escenario internacional, La Habana y
Washington, han decidido restablecer sus nexos diplomáticos no obstante la persistencia de sus grandes diferencias políticas y de principios.
7 de abril 2016
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
You must be logged in to post a comment.