Translations 676

Translations, mostly from Spanish to English. Mostly edited and posted to the Web by Walter Lippmann. Translations prior to August 2015 can be found here.

The Cuban Project

1 year ago CubaDebate, Translations,

cuba-debate

The Cuban Project

By Agustín Lage Dávila
25 January 2022

Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.

We are approaching January 28 and we have to talk about José Martí. He lived and died for a project of a country that did not yet exist in his time. But millions followed him, and fell in love with that project, because great historical projects, even if they are formulated by exceptional leaders, are viable only when they synthesize the aspirations of many human beings.

This is what he himself said in an article published in the newspaper Patria in April 1892: “What a group covets, falls. What a people wants, endures”.

And in that shared project, Cuban national consciousness was formed: it emerged from decades of war in the 19th century, in a population of just over a million inhabitants, occupied by tens of thousands of enemy soldiers. It made annexation to the United States impossible. It forced the repeal of the Platt Amendment. It resisted, in the first half of the 20th century, 60 years of American ideological and cultural pressure, and thereafter, another 60 years of economic warfare, military hostility and ideological subversion. And it faced the challenge derived from the disappearance of the European socialist camp. So what are we Cubans who have been the protagonists of all this?

Let’s start by saying what we “are not”. We are not a nationality united by common ethnic roots, nor by religious confessions: Here there is “an ajiaco” of everything, as Don Fernando Ortiz said. Nor are we defined by an exclusive language: we have the language used by the largest number of countries in the world. We are not a closed economic space: we have always had an open economy. We do have our own culture that makes us proud, but it is not a closed culture either, it shares roots with many other cultures from several continents.

So what is it that identifies and unites us? We are essentially a nationality with ethical roots, united around a special sensitivity for social justice. We are Cubans because we share a set of moral values and a project of human coexistence.

This is what Martí also wrote when he called for the necessary war in the Manifesto of Montecristi: “…when a warrior of independence falls on Cuban soil…he falls for the greater good of man (and) the confirmation of the moral republic in America…”

The 1959 revolution reinforced in Cubans that fusion between nationality and social justice, now synthesized in Fidel’s thought and in the concrete achievements of these last 60 years, which showed us in deeds what the people always knew: that social justice is possible.

Total literacy and schooling, free education and health for all, full-coverage social security, full employment, elimination of racial discrimination, equality and development of women, universalization of culture and university education, home ownership, scientific development; these are truths that must be said and repeated, because we are so accustomed to these achievements that sometimes we forget how advanced they are and how much they contradict the dominant ideology of today’s savage capitalism.

The permanent defense of national sovereignty has allowed us to build our own political, social and economic alternative. Revolutions do not crystallize and become irreversible immediately when they denounce the social preconditions that need to be changed, not even when they formulate noble ideas and strategic projections. Revolutions become lasting and creative when they succeed in building the alternative. In Cuba we did it.

National sovereignty is the safeguard of our project of society, of our own concepts of justice and human coexistence, as they have emerged from our own history.

Photo: Alejandro Azcuy Domínguez

Martí’s project of the nation was born in opposition to the one that was simultaneously emerging in the United States, based on ambition and competition among people.

This is what he wrote in his “Notebook No. 1”: “Our life does not resemble theirs, nor should it in many points. American laws have given the North a high degree of prosperity and have also raised it to the highest degree of corruption. They have monetized it to make it prosperous. Prosperity at such a cost be damned!”

169 years have passed since Martí’s birth, but the essential battlefields of ideas are still there.

The ideas about how we want our lives to be are now synthesized in the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba. It was approved with 86.85% of the votes. There it is “what a people wants”, what Martí predicted is what endures.

Does it have enemies? Of course, it does. The “Cuba Project” always had them, here and abroad. In his time, Martí himself had to fight battles of ideas against autonomists and annexationists. But today those enemies are few, and they lack legitimacy before the people.

Cubans have all the right in the world to fight for “what a people wants” and to defend it from its enemies, both here and abroad.

Are there different opinions in Cuba on the concrete ways to conduct the “Cuba Project”? That is another matter. Of course, there are such opinions, and it is good that they exist. Discussing them will allow us to perfect the project, adjust it to the new times, and make its building more solid, but without ever damaging the foundations.

Human beings are moral entities, not only biological or economic, and we embrace collective projects, beyond individual projects. For those who stop thinking and acting (there are some) based on an idea of the future, the present collapses and empties of content. The truth is, although the usual cynics and skeptics do not understand it, that people fall in love with projects, even in the midst of the harsh realities of the present.

Martí’s project was the project of thousands of young mambises. Fidel’s project was the project of thousands of young rebels, before and after the triumph of 1959. The project of the nation that our Constitution enunciates is and will be the collective project of millions of young Cubans today.

This is described in Article 1: “Cuba is a socialist state of law and social justice, democratic, independent and sovereign, organized with all and for the good of all as a unitary and indivisible republic, founded on the work, dignity, humanism and ethics of its citizens, for the enjoyment of freedom, equity, equality and individual and collective prosperity”.

On January 28, in a few days, it is time to evoke the founding ideas of our nationality and our project of society, and to reinforce the broad consensus we have on the need to defend them and make them endure.

We will return the following day to the discussions on what needs to be changed to achieve this.

The man of two Havanas reinvents himself

1 year ago Radio Miami TV, Translations

The man of the two Havana’s reinvents himself

By Jorge Gómez Barata
January 7, 2022

Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.

At 91 years of age, Max Lesnik (b.1930), is the living Cuban, akin to the revolutionary process, with the longest career and political experience. Active in politics for 77 years, almost all of them accompanying Fidel Castro whom he met in 1948, with whom he was a militant in the youth of the Orthodox Party and whose slogan of armed struggle he joined in 1957, Max reinvents himself as an asset of Cuban foreign policy.

When the Revolution triumphed in 1959, Max returned to journalism and soon differences with the process arose due to reservations about the prominence of the leaders of the Popular Socialist Party (Communist) and the alliance with the Soviet Union, options he did not share. In 1961 he went into exile in the United States, where he was arrested.

In Miami, Max did what he had done all his life: politics, with the difference that instead of allying himself with the counterrevolution, he continued to fight, now not only the Batista hangovers, but also U.S. policy against Cuba. To that end, he created his own radio program and founded the magazine “Replica”.

In 1976, summoned by Fidel, he returned to Cuba, renewing political and emotional ties. political and emotional ties.

Taking advantage of his access to then-President James Carter, he participated in the promotion of the dialogue with the Cuban community abroad. In the promotion of the dialogue with emigrants in 1978 headed by Fidel Castro, and given his relations with Fidel Castro, and given his relations with the Catholic hierarchy, he influenced the rapprochement with the Church and State and participated in the visit of Pope John Paul II to the island in 1998, who received him in Havana in a private audience in Havana.

“The man of two Havanas”, as his daughter, filmmaker Vivian Lesnik, baptized him, Vivian Lesnik, in a film of the same name, is an asset to Cuban foreign policy.

Max is, after Fidel Castro, the man linked to the process who survived the most attacks, about ten. His work has not met the same fate. The magazine Réplica, started in 1968, was closed in 1989 in the midst of a terrorist wave against it. An attempt was made to re-publish it again in 2000 but there were no resources or support to sustain it, something that may be happening with the Alianza Martiana, virtually the only surviving organization of what was the political base of the progressive Cuban community abroad.

Seemingly recovered from three major losses: Fidel, Eusebio Leal and Mirian, Max rises to his feet and, in reinventing himself, makes three suggestions associated with the dispute with the United States.

Last December 29, Max recalled his wedding with Mirian in 1955. Among the witnesses were some of Cuba’s liberal elite at the time: Raúl Chibas, Millo Ochoa, Roberto Agramonte, Miguel Angel Quevedo, Pelayo Cuervo Quevedo, Álvaro Barba, Raúl Rivero, José Manuel Gutiérrez Gutiérrez Planas and José Antonio Echevarría. The great absentee was his friend Fidel Castro, who was in exile in Mexico, with whom he met the day after the ceremony. Though it was not his intention, Max presents credentials to those who know him little.

1-According to Max, social networks report the existence of a high number of detainees in Cuba as a result of the “Guarimbas” who are in jail due to the United States, from whom they expect support. In a way, Max recalls the history of the defeated invaders in the Bay of Pigs who were exchanged for food. Max believes that there can be a formula and quotes an old saying: “What is equal is not a trap. a deal is a deal and any agreement is preferable to a lawsuit”.

2-Because it is highly unlikely that U.S. policy toward Cuba will change in the immediate future, he believes that: “The best thing the Cuban government can do is to turn the page in terms of waiting for the U.S. to give up its ambitions. There should be no illusions. Cuba must continue on its own path with its own efforts. It is better to walk alone than to be badly accompanied by a powerful and ambitious neighbor, who is still bent on its imperial dreams”.

3-Max tells me that Ben Rhodes, a former advisor to President Obama, prominent in the reestablishment of relations with Cuba, described Biden’s policy towards the island as clumsy and “Trumpist”, which nobody expected from the vice president of that country. Although senior officials at the time disagreed with Biden’s Cuba policy, they remain silent as they wait for Obama to cast the first stone. Max believes that in this regard it would be necessary and the former president should be encouraged to speak out on current Cuba policy. Let Obama speak! Who’s going to bell the cat?

A mutual friend with whom I discussed the suggestions told me: “El Duende (a pseudonym that they say conceals Max’s identity) is on a tight leash…”. The same thing would have been said, I replied, if someone had suggested that that in 1978 Fidel would hold a dialogue with emigrants and as a result would free thousands of political prisoners… Neither would I have believed that El Duende, would talk privately with the pope. Because I enjoy his friendship and have collaborated in some of his projects, one day I will ask him: What did you talk about? 

Imaginative Cuban politics and Max Lesnik are not predictable. Something is up to something. See you there.

Voter Suppression in the United States

1 year ago CubaDebate, Translations, ,

cuba-debate

Voter suppression in the United States and whom does it affect?

By Dalia González Delgado, professor at the Center for Hemispheric Studes and about the United States (CEHSEU) at the University of Havana.

Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.

==

Photo: Kristopher RadderAP

“One person, one vote” has been an aspiration and a rallying cry for many Americans. The claim makes sense, if we think of the tangled Electoral College system that dilutes the will of the majority, and as a consequence of which, for example, in 2016 Donald Trump won the presidency despite having obtained fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton. 

It happens that not all votes have the same weight in the final result. And that in the case of those who manage to get to the polls. The problem is more serious for those who are disenfranchised, a phenomenon known as voter suppression that is as old in the United States as the very existence of the country.

Martin Luther King’s birthday commemorations this week were marked by calls against voter suppression. The family of the civil rights fighter, assassinated in 1968, led the annual march in Washington DC on Monday that pays tribute to his legacy. On this occasion, the participants demanded that Congress approve legislation that would protect the right to vote against the maneuvers of certain sectors that seek to limit electoral participation.

Democrats on Capitol Hill, backed by a Joe Biden eager to make good on any of his campaign promises, are pushing two pieces of legislation: the “Free to Vote Act” and the “John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,” which seek to eliminate some of the current restrictions. They would expand early and mail-in voting, make Election Day a national holiday, and curb gerrymandering, which manipulates electoral districts.

But in a context of growing polarization and partisanship within Congress, those bills have met with rejection from Republicans. On Wednesday night those proposals were blocked in the Senate. And it is not a question here of good or bad, but of cost or benefit for both parties. Voter suppression mechanisms affect more some minorities, blacks, Latinos, women, poor people, who usually support Democratic candidates in the majority.

This phenomenon has a long history, which we can trace, as I said, to the very emergence of the United States as an independent country . We the people , the phrase with which the Constitution begins, never included all people.

Initially, only white men with property could vote, in an electoral system designed to perpetuate certain sectors in power, at that time the southern elites. The property requirement was gradually phased out, but it was many years before blacks and women could cast a vote. Not to mention the Indians, stripped of their land, who were only considered US citizens in 1924.

The first stumbling block is that the United States does not have a federal electoral law. Therefore, the way in which the entire process is carried out depends on the regulations in each of the states . As historian Eric Foner makes clear, the Constitution does not explicitly grant anyone the right to vote; States determine eligibility, and their rules and procedures vary greatly. Over time, some constitutional amendments have tried to prevent states from limiting the franchise.

After the Civil War, the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited states from denying the right to vote on racial grounds. Years later, in 1920, the 19th Amendment made it possible for women to vote. But in a scenario where elections and their regulations are local, multiple ways have been developed to limit participation.

The 15th Amendment was flouted with the so-called Jim Crow laws, which institutionalized racial segregation and white supremacy with the term “separate but equal.” Many states, especially southern ones, began to demand from literacy tests to the payment of a tax so that people could vote; a veiled way to prevent African-Americans or the poor from exercising their constitutional right. There were also less subtle mechanisms, such as members of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups that prevented, with intimidation or armed violence, potential African-American voters from reaching the polls.

After a long struggle and almost a hundred years of history, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. Since then, the mechanisms of vote suppression have been transformed but persist, with the same objective they have had since their emergence: to keep certain groups in power by preventing the participation of others.

A Supreme Court ruling in 2013 struck down a key part of the landmark Law of ’65, freeing southern states from federal oversight of their election laws. Such oversight had been put in place to prevent states that had previously had Jim Crow laws from using other mechanisms to suppress the black vote. But the Court decided that regulation was unnecessary.

To give you an idea of ​​what that means in practice, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) shared a list of some of the methods currently used to prevent certain people from voting.

One of the most common ways is to restrict the terms and requirements of voter registration; require documents to prove citizenship or identification, or limit the time period in which voters can register. For example, according to the ACLU, in 2011 Kansas championed a law requiring residents to show “proof of citizenship” documents in order to register to vote, such as a passport or birth certificate. As a result, the law blocked the records of more than 30,000 people.

Other states go further, imposing absurd requirements and harsh penalties to intimidate voters. In Georgia, it is a crime to offer food and water to voters lining up at the polls, lines that are typically long in that state for African-American communities where there are fewer polling places.

In some states, people convicted of a crime cannot vote, which also affects more blacks or Latinos, who make up the majority of the prison population in that country. The elections are on a weekday and have reduced the possibilities for early voting and by mail. We must also mention the effect of the redistricting of electoral districts and gerrymandering, to which we have already dedicated a comment in this space.  

According to ACLU data, some groups are more affected. For example, counties with larger minority populations have fewer polling places and poll workers per voter; 25% of black Americans of voting age do not have a photo ID as some places require; 18% of voters with physical disabilities reported difficulty voting in person in 2020.

These are just a few examples to briefly illustrate an extremely complex phenomenon in the United States, a country that questions foreign electoral systems and even sanctions them, while preventing millions of its citizens from exercising their right to vote.

 

Attorney General’s report on July 11 trials

1 year ago CubaDebate, ,

cuba-debate

Office of the Attorney General of the Republic reports on the status of criminal proceedings arising from the riots of July 11, 2021

By  Attorney General of the Republic
January 25, 2022

Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.

For the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, it is a duty to continue informing the people and international public opinion about the legal response given to the serious events that occurred on July 11, 2021, which attempted against the constitutional order and the stability of our socialist State.

As has been explained, these events occurred in a particularly complex context of world economic crisis, aggravated by an unprecedented pandemic that took the lives of many Cubans, and the intensification of the economic, commercial and financial blockade by the United States government against our country, which continues to try, without being able to achieve it, to destroy the Revolution.

In a tendentious manner, the manipulations and opinion matrixes continue, which seek to accuse Cuba of human rights violations, trying to delegitimize the criminal proceedings initiated to investigate conduct constituting a crime, in accordance with the laws in force.

The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, as part of its mission, verified compliance with the constitutional rights and guarantees of due process, and monitored the development of the investigations carried out by the bodies of the Ministry of the Interior, the right to defense was guaranteed, the lawyers provided evidence and had access to the proceedings.

The Prosecutor’s Office received, once the investigation was concluded, 117 preparatory phase files corresponding to the most significant events, with 790 persons charged with acts of vandalism, attacks against the authorities, persons and property, as well as serious disturbances of order. Twenty-one percent of these persons had a criminal record.

Of these, 110 files have been submitted to the courts, with 710 defendants for trial, 69% of them secured with the precautionary measure of pre-trial detention.

Of the total number of defendants in these files, 115 are between 16 and 20 years of age, against whom it was decided to bring criminal action before the courts, due to the seriousness of the acts committed and their proven participation:

– 55 are between 16 and 18 years of age, of whom 28 secured with the precautionary measure of pre-trial detention. Based on the possibilities offered by the law and as a result of the practice of the evidence in the oral proceedings, the acknowledgment of the facts, repentance shown and the condition of students, the Prosecutor’s Office modified the sanction request for 18 of these defendants, for others of lesser severity.

– Likewise, 60 are between 19 and 20 years of age, of which 41 are secured with provisional imprisonment.

The decision of the Prosecutor’s Office to bring the accusation before the courts, in all cases, was based on the evidence provided, among them the declarations of witnesses and victims, expert analysis of videos published in different media and others taken, which allowed the identification of the accused in facts that typify crimes of public disorder, instigation to commit crimes, damages, robbery with force and violence, attack, sabotage and sedition.

The decision to indict for the crime of sedition, although it has severe penalties, corresponds to the level of violence demonstrated in the vandalism that in a tumultuous manner caused injuries and endangered the lives of citizens, officials and members of the forces of order, by attacking them with the use of cutting, blunt and incendiary objects, with the serious disturbance of public order and the deliberate purpose of subverting the constitutional order.

In different localities, official institutions, hospitals, exchange houses (CADECA), commercial establishments and fuel outlets were stoned; many of them, as a consequence of the violence generated, were looted and goods were stolen, causing considerable damage; means of transportation were also besieged, overturned and damaged.

Cuban police cars that were overturned by demonstrators on a Havana street. Photo: AFP / Archive.

The sanctions requested by the Prosecutor’s Office are in correspondence with the seriousness of the facts, the level of participation and the damage caused to society.

As a result of the 84 trials carried out, the Prosecutor’s Office has been notified of 44 sentences issued by the courts, in which 172 defendants who were sanctioned [convicted], had the right to file the corresponding appeals.

In Cuba, minors under 16 years of age are not subject to criminal law. In the investigations, the participation of 27 was accredited, to whom the established legal procedure was applied: 10 were interned in integral and behavioral training schools, for participating, together with adults, in the commission of these acts; 17 were given individualized attention in the school of the National Education System where they are studying.

The Prosecutor’s Office, in accordance with its constitutional function, met with 508 citizens who requested information on these criminal proceedings and processed 238 complaints or petitions. The prosecutors interviewed the persons and verified the exposed elements that were contributed to the criminal investigation. The results were personally explained by the prosecutor to the complainants, offering the legal arguments in each case.

The Attorney General’s Office of the Republic reiterates that it will act in accordance with its constitutional mandate, within the framework of legality, in compliance with due process, the protection of the interests of the State and respect for the rights of all citizens.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC

 

Hegemony is at stake every day

1 year ago CubaDebate, Translations,

cuba-debate
Hegemony is at stake every day

Javier Gomez Sanchez
19 January 2022
Translated by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.

Ernesto Estévez Rams (Havana, 1967) is a full professor at the University of Havana, a member of the Cuban Academy of Sciences and a writer on scientific, political, philosophical and social issues. This is part of the interview conducted for the documentary La Dictadura del Algoritmo, which has been included in the digital book La Dictadura del Algoritmo: Entrevistas y artículos sobre redes sociales y guerra mediática en Cuba (Ocean Sur, 2021) available for free download.

Given the massive arrival of the Cuban population to digital social networks, how is the conquest of the subjectivity of this new mass of politically significant users being structured?

Cuba is immersed in a war of ideological type, and when I say ideological I mean a war of ideas, not from now, nor from the use of digital social networks, but for 60 years.  Even before that, when our country, then a neo-colony, turned out to be a field of ideological experimentation of U.S. imperialism. We were one of the first Latin American countries where radio, television and comics penetrated. We were one of the first countries in the region where television advertising was used and experiments were made to measure its effectiveness.

This made it possible to test the ways of introducing certain ideas in the population, to influence a significant mass of it with certain messages and that these became, in a “natural” way, part of the common sense of that population, becoming part of its referents.

Therefore, this is not a new phenomenon, it has been around for many years. What has been changing are the scenarios and the means, to the extent that technology has been advancing, and when I say technology I am not only referring to equipment, but to techniques of psychology, sociology, anthropology. To the extent that these have been developing, to the same extent the way of making that discourse with the same objective of producing a desired state of affairs has been changing.

But it is a phenomenon that is exacerbated when the Revolution triumphs, and also changes its nature. What was a general mechanism of ideological influence, becomes a very concrete objective, which is the overthrow of a social movement and a structural revolution in a Latin American country. This completely changed the way in which the issue was being approached and the US began to see the Cuban state as its enemy for the first time since the first US intervention.

US imperialism had been an enemy of the people as a social factor, but the Cuban State had been its accomplice, and from then on it was its enemy. Therefore, it implements all its tools against them, both physical and symbolic violence.

At a moment within this historical scenario, another very important change occurred, when Soviet socialism and its environment -the socialism that really existed, as Eric Hobsbawm called it- was defeated. That implied an important change because many of the references that had existed up to that moment collapsed. Globally, all the heterogeneous ideas that had been grouped together for years under a generic name: postmodernism, began to expand much more in the cultural and social science framework.

Because we are in an era to which many names are given and one of them is the postmodern era. Here many ideas are instrumentalized by capitalism that were being worked on mostly in academic spaces. They come out of those spaces and instrumentalize them as ideological weapons in a context of euphoria, where they had won, and in which, therefore, they considered that the superiority of capitalism over socialism had been made clear.

Then, what they proposed was a final offensive against what was left, the remnants of what those ideologues of capitalism saw as the last strongholds of resistance of that enemy they had had for many years.

Shortly afterwards came the Internet revolution, which produced a tool that had not existed until then and which allowed a socialization of information unparalleled in the history of mankind. Then the whole postmodernist ideological discourse is adapted to the nascent reality of the Internet, and then to the apparently global dynamics of social networks.

Digital social networks – I like to point out that social networks have always existed – give the illusion of being global, but in reality they are not, although they bring together millions of people who otherwise would not have had communication between them, nor would they have known each other, and make them find points of convergence in common aspects that make these people identify themselves in certain areas, such as fashion, music, literature, as well as politics.

As it is a difficult tool to prevent it from reaching people, because censoring the Internet is something that obviously does not make any sense, that old ideological war then puts its fundamental weight on the networks.

*** 

Nor can one forget the fact that behind this there is a machinery, which in the case of Cuba is financed, with very specific objectives. Sometimes we say: “The United States in its budget has put a certain amount of money for subversion in Cuba and has created a task force for the issue of the networks”, but we leave it in the abstract. Well, where does this money go? What is done with it? They don’t tell us that. But what is clear is that this money is not to buy water bottles. That money is to create particular products, to reach particular people.

The use of algorithms -although on more than one occasion their political use has been revealed-, in the case of other countries could be aimed at a commercial advertising use, to sell a soccer jersey or a trip on a cruise, what would they sell us Cubans?

What are they selling us? They sell us the defeat of our social system. What they want to sell us is that our social system is inoperative, that our State is inoperative, and that the objectives of the Revolution are meaningless. Therefore, what they want to defeat is the illusion.

The collapse of a national project that Cuba has been building for 60 years. That is what they want to sell us. And look, you were talking about the fact that in other places what they sell is a certain commercial product. Part of that ideological message also goes through there.

They sell us commercially certain symbols, such as success, prosperity. They sell us that the goal in life is reduced to those things on the basis of the exacerbation of individualism, of personal success as the summun of human aspirations. The message that any social illusion is dangerous, any illusion that is not an individual illusion.

The idea that all human narratives and aspirations that have been on the basis of grand aspirations, on the basis of universal social values are dangerous and are also failures, they lead nowhere. There is one element on which I always insist and that is that capitalism as a system stopped selling itself a long time ago.

Since the 18th Brumaire, Marx said it: Capitalism stopped selling us that a better world is possible. Now it is selling us the idea that there is no better world than the one we have: the capitalist one. Therefore, it is insisting on showing us that any alternative is worse than what we have today.

Capitalism has managed to perfect its working tools a lot, they are always hijacking the things that are happening in their environment to take away the transforming edge and to turn it into an instrument of the reproductive system. They did it with the famous Arab Spring, which is something they are desperately trying to reproduce in Cuba, taking the successful example of what happened in other countries, a kind of spring that will destroy the State and the Revolution.

They want to send us the message that a society is possible, which is not ours, a society which, of course, they do not call capitalist, because capitalism does not like to be mentioned. That a society is possible in Cuba that has the social benefits that our society has, but in a context that is not socialist. This idea is constantly sold to us. It is an illusion. It is false.

That has not been achieved in any country in Latin America, in any country in Africa. If it were possible to maintain the education indexes, if it were possible to maintain the health indexes, our social services, and we could make a longer list. If that is possible, why haven’t they done it in other places, why haven’t they done it in… Honduras? But they sell us the idea that it would be possible in Cuba.

That brings us to one of the most common things today in this war against Cuba: the creation of extremes. They want to create the idea that there are two extremes: One, the recalcitrant right-wing extreme that would like to collapse this in a crude way and take us back to a semi-feudal reality or something like that, and therefore frightens people; and the other, a radical left-wing extreme, which is also an enemy and touches the other extreme.

And that therefore the truth is in the center, the way is in the center. It is precisely that center who says: “We could take the good of Cuban socialism, combine it with the elements of bourgeois liberal democracy and create an ideal society that has all that”.

I already told you the first lie to that: Why have they not done it?  No country has done it, every time a country has proposed something like that it has had no result. The developed capitalist countries that have achieved high standards of living have done so in contexts that no longer exist and on the basis of inserting themselves in world systems of inequality. No developed capitalist country is alien as a product of global capitalist exploitation of the underdeveloped world.

Check the financial flows, to which banks the financial flows go; check where the global arms export companies are from; check who are -apart from the US banks- the creditors of Third World debts; check where some of the most predatory companies acting in Africa or Latin America are from; check the NATO members and US allies in their adventures since the fall of the Soviet Union. There are many surprises to be found there, among them several countries that like to present themselves as free from exploitation and as havens of social fulfillment.

The role of the “opinion leaders”, of the “independent journalists”, who present themselves as a supposed alternative, would then be to act as transmitters and spokespersons of these ideological messages?

There is a media construction in Cuba of things that were tried in other places, for example, the opinion leaders in the color revolutions, virtual leaders, who called for certain social and political action in the networks, but many of them were not real actors. Many times they are only virtual leaders, because that leader of the networks, in real life and in the daily context of what is happening, that person is not a leader. It is a false leadership constructed in the networks.

How do I build that alternativity? One of the curious things about alternativity is that it is constructed in terms of opposites, that’s why you need the two extremes. They need to build their alternativity based on the construction of enemies, firstly, to victimize themselves: “I am the victim of the extremes”, secondly, because they need those extremes to be able to place their discourse, if the extremes do not exist, that discourse is completely empty.

Today there is a phenomenon that had never happened before in this way, which is unprecedented, and that is to naturalize what until a few years ago in this country had a tremendous stigma: counterrevolutionary. When someone received financing from abroad to influence Cuba, to influence public opinion, to carry out counterrevolutionary activities, that carries a tremendous stigma in this country.

They are trying to erase that stigma, to present that it is no longer important to receive money from private and public entities from the United States, or from other countries – because they have also diversified the sources, the money no longer comes directly from the US, it comes from NGOs from European or Latin American countries, and so now we want to naturalize it: “That is not important, that has not taken away my independence” and one hears it and asks oneself: “From when did he who pays not rule? But you see how they make the discourse that this does not take away their independence: “They never tell me what I have to say”. Of course not, because they don’t need to be told, nor do they need to force them, they simply know that if they don’t follow that editorial line they won’t have the financing.

Nowadays it is often said that “Cuban society is very diverse”. What situations inherent to that diversity have helped the expansion of this type of war?

We have to be very clear and honest about these things, that is why I have to say that many of these phenomena occur and have developed on the basis of our own mistakes. On the basis of not realizing that there is a different context, that many times we have not worked in the right way to win over and to keep people, certain groups, on the side of the Revolution and what we have done is to scare them away because of the attitudes of people who have been incorrect, who have been sectarian, this has happened and one cannot turn one’s back on that.

But also, within all this sea of ideas, there is an intentionality to make contentious speeches that can be very revolutionary, very correct at a given moment, end up being speeches that are passed on to the enemy and in those battles we have lost a few of them.

We have not lost them because the enemy has been more effective than us -which it has been-, we have lost them because we have not known how to face those battles. So, gradually they pass it to the enemy and something that emerged as a possible alternative not channeled through the mass organizations or political organizations of the country, which is a valid alternative independent from them -if we are going to see independence in that sense-, ends up being something that falls into the nets of another officialdom, of the officialdom that finances you, which is not Cuban, it comes from somewhere else.

Thus there are blogs and digital media, in which the discourse is transformed little by little, sometimes in a very calculated way, their transformation process has been designed, they are transformed until they reach a certain editorial line, because the people who run these media already have a clear purpose of going over to the enemy.

And the fourth generation war sometimes we see it as the enemy, the enemy, the enemy. Look, that enemy can’t get its head in if we don’t let it, but it succeeds because we have vulnerabilities and we make mistakes. We will continue to make them because making mistakes is something inherent to the fact of acting.  The biggest mistake is to do nothing.

We make mistakes in the functioning of society, facing very complex social dynamics. This occurs in the midst of the tension in which we all live on a daily basis, including the people who have to make decisions. The vast majority of our civil servants, those who are so vilified, are subjected to the same levels of daily stress that we are subjected to.

They are people who, when they leave work, have to stand in the same queues, face the same problems, their electricity goes out as it does for anyone else, therefore, many of these errors are part of the fact that there is no ideal social dynamic and that people are individual beings who arrive at a certain moment in their lives with a whole cultural backpack behind them.

We have worked badly on what is called – I do not like the word, but for lack of a better one I repeat it – political-ideological work. In the first place, because we mix the political and the ideological, to begin with, in the same sentence we are mixing them as if they were the same thing and they are not. Secondly, because we codify it, we think, for example, at the level of formal education, that the political-ideological work has to be transferred and translated into the number of hours we teach in universities, in other levels of teaching of certain subjects, such as History, Social Sciences, etc. We think that this is a mechanism to reach us with political-ideological messages.

But I am often amazed to see students who have passed a degree course and have received dozens of hours of Marxism, History of Cuba, etc., and then you see them on the networks repeating amazing ingenuities and one wonders: “But did they really pass the courses? Yes, they passed the courses and passed them, and one wonders, “And where did that leave them?”, “What is the result of this that we have given them?”. Look, the result seems to be minimal.  We must realize that there are dynamics that it is necessary to adopt in this political-ideological work, that we have to convey our message in new ways without simplifying it, without making it superficial. We do not have to give in to the enemy, we have to create our own discourse, sometimes you hear: “Nowadays you have to give short messages to the youth”, but that is a sacrifice according to what the hegemonic discourse is imposing.

Would this hegemony of simplification be the greatest intellectual and political challenge in the face of social networks?

The problem we have had is that the importance of the networks was not sufficiently appreciated. We thought that the traditional means we had to reach the population were enough and that we were not going to lose that hegemony.  But hegemony is at stake every day.

The good thing about these battles is that they make us become active, hegemonies are built every day, because let us begin with a concrete fact: the greatest hegemony that exists today is the world hegemony of capitalism, let us not deceive ourselves, and to think that Cuba can escape from that hegemony is an illusion.

What we have to build is a counter-hegemony, because despite the fact that this counter-revolutionary discourse wants to present us that the hegemony of ideas in Cuba is the one managed by the State, as a dictatorial and totalitarian element, that is not the reality.  The totalitarian hegemony is the global capitalist hegemony. We are paying in some way the consequences of being a rock of resistance in a global capitalist hegemony and the consequences that the socialism that really existed collapsed, and that suddenly the balance of the hegemony of ideas at world level was no longer that of socialist ideas. That is our context. In which the offensive in favor of capitalism is assaulting our socialist rock with everything.

So we cannot reproduce the discourse of “The message has to be brief” or “The youth is only interested in the brief”, we want the youth to read and to go deeper. We do not make our ideas superficial as much as the contrary ideas are superficial.

We must always remember Fidel’s phrase: “We do not tell people to believe, we tell them to read”. Let us translate “read” to mean that we tell people to think, to go deeper, that their conception of the world is based on having thought. 

Violence, repression and summary trials…

1 year ago CubaDebate, Translations

cuba-debate

Violence, repression and summary trials… depending on where they occur

By Iroel Sanchez, Cuban engineer and journalist. He works at the Office for the Informatization of Cuban Society. Former President of the Cuban Book Institute. On twitter @iroelsanchez

Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.

“Since Monday, more than 1,100 people arrested for the riots have been on trial…”
(…)
“At the rate of about 10 detainees per hour, the judges cannot cope. According to one of the lawyers, between 11:30 a.m. Monday and noon today, a hundred youths had already filed through the courts. The influx is such that several police vans full of defendants are queuing up in front of the courts, which do not have enough space in the building’s dungeons.”

Contrary to what the believing reader of the international mainstream press might think, the above are not reports on the trials, intensely and very critically covered by Western media, of people involved in the riots that occurred in Cuba on July 11 and 12 last year. I have taken them from the coverage by the same press of the events in London and other British cities in August 2011.

The events of 2011 in Great Britain occurred on a Sunday and already on Monday the trials were taking place, but the media I have quoted (El País) did not call them “summary”, despite deciding on the accused at the rate of “ten detainees per hour”. Using as evidence the recordings of TV cameras installed in the streets and expressions on social networks, only six minutes were enough on average to convict.

The Western media then did not question the procedure and never used the word repression, but rather applauded the repressive action against those who receive nothing from a democracy and a justice system that excludes them.

None of the voices that, from the U.S. government and some international agencies, are now raised against Cuba for trying people accused of acting violently, protested when ten years ago the young people of London, hit by unemployment and exclusion, were prosecuted and sentenced at the pace of a sausage factory.

Speaking of young people, not 18 years old, as the British press now cites a case in Cuba, but 11, 15, 16, half of those 1100 prosecuted at conga pace, according to a headline in El Pais, were minors. Unlike in Cuba, in Great Britain children over 10 years old can be prosecuted with criminal responsibility in case they have committed crimes such as theft, arson and violence, but the good guys of the Madrid newspaper wrote about it in positive terms by introducing the word SOLO “In the UK minors between 10 and 17 years old can only be prosecuted with criminal responsibility in case they have committed crimes such as theft, arson and violence”.

For its part, El Mundo. has collected some examples of young people involved in the protests taken from the British press, not to condemn that they were repressed, but to recommend “parental control over young people”, passing over the repression against those who called for the protest from networks such as Facebook and the use by the repressors of “rubber balls” (really rubber bullets), while qualifying as “alleged” the culpability of the police in the death that unleashed the riots, police that preempting the recommendations by Covid-19 only called bonhomously to “be at home”, nothing like a curfew. They call for parental control, but not a single parent of the defendants is interviewed, something the press can do when the trials take place across the ocean.

It is worth reading the whole dispatch because it is a real gem: how to describe repression without seeing it anywhere (the bold letters are from elmundo.es):

“The Metropolitan Police recommends not to leave home to the youngest and, through a local newspaper, has made “an appeal to parents and those responsible for young people to work together with the Police to ensure that the latter are not immersed in the kind of disorder that we have seen.”

“Riots sparked by the death of Mark Duggan, allegedly caused by local police, has landed an 11-year-old boy in jail, as Skynews reports, over the altercations in the capital.

“Strathclyde Police in Glasgow, Scotland, have arrested a 16-year-old boy for sending a Facebook message allegedly inciting disorderly conduct, reports the BBC. Police have said they will be keeping a close eye on social networking sites and will take what they call “decisive action” to prevent violence in the Strathclyde area by copycats.

“The person responsible for the link to ‘Let’s start a riot in Glasgow’, which is no longer available on the aforementioned social network, is due to appear in court tomorrow.

“In Folkestone, within the county of Kent where the prestigious University of Canterbury is located, two 18-year-olds have been arrested for spreading inflammatory messages via Facebook. In addition, a 16-year-old girl is being questioned in Glasgow for the same reason, reports the English newspaper BBC.

“Finally, police in Essex have arrested a 17-year-old boy after encouraging others via Facebook to gather in the county and take part in riots.

“Robbery, fire and police charges have also been seen in Manchester, where 70 to 80 youths have clashed with Police. In West Bromwich they are smashing windows. Meanwhile, in London, the 16,000 officers that Cameron has highlighted for the fourth day are getting ready. In the Islington neighborhood, the Islington gazette newspaper picks up a Police warning: “Be at home”.

“The reason, the rubber balls that will be taken out tonight against the youth mob. For this reason, in the same writing they recommend a parental control over young people, to keep them away from the street so that they are not immersed in the riots.”

But let’s talk about Cuba. Cuban press reports after July 11 listed one by one 44 stores assaulted and looted, which were not the only ones, information that none of those media objected to because it was useful for them to talk about the extent of the protests.


Images of several overturned police and civilian cars and Molotov cocktail throwing have also circulated profusely in the networks. Calculating in a very conservative way the number of people involved in some of these events, which undoubtedly can be described as violent anywhere in the world, there would be several hundred participants in them, but for the Western press all those tried in Cuba for these events are peaceful demonstrators (!).

A little context, memory and logical thinking, please, gentlemen who enlighten us in this so-called free journalism and this so-called rule of law.

(Taken from La Pupila insomne)

Millions moved to destabilize Cuba

1 year ago Granma, Translations,


This is how millions are moved to destabilize Cuba

We reproduce the long list that the NED published on February 23, 2021, on its website, detailing the NGOs and foundations that received money to intervene in Cuba during 2020

Author: Granma | internet@granma.cu
January 16, 2022 20:01:36

Translated by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.

Graphic: Lacoste

In 1983, Republican President Ronald Reagan created the National Endowment for Democracy, known by its acronym in English as NED (National Endowment for Democracy). Since its inception, this organization, together with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has functioned as one of the economic arms of the interventionist policy of the United States Government, financing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and foundations, that are disguised with names of very laudable values ​​such as democracy or freedom, but that seek the change of governments that do not subordinate themselves to Washington’s policies.

These interventionist policies have been developed in many countries of the world, especially in those that are located in what the United States considers its backyard: Latin America and the Caribbean.

As detailed on the NED’s own website, in 2020, the National Endowment for Democracy’s LAC program provided critical support to supposedly promote democracy in countries under what they consider to be the most authoritarian regimes: Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.  In his opinion, two countries in transition, Ecuador and Bolivia, offered important opportunities to reverse previous “authoritarian” legislation on freedom of expression and judicial independence and to encourage citizen participation in electoral processes.

They report expanding what they see as anti-corruption, digital media, and human rights programs, just as the NED reaffirmed commitments to the largest countries in the region: Brazil and Mexico, which for them currently face threats from right-wing populist governments. and left, respectively.

As can be seen, the organization calls Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela “more authoritarian regimes”, countries that were openly attacked through the network of foundations and NGOs that this entity has, and defamed by the media. of communication that are also financed through these organizations or other similar ones.

The NED website also reports that, on November 30, 2018, a meeting was held in which the Democratic senator, Robert “Bob” Menéndez, and the Republican member of the House of Representatives, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, participated. , two well-known activists against popular processes in the region and with links to the most reactionary sectors of Cuban emigration based in Miami.

Along with them, the president of the NED, Carl Gershman, and the administrator of the USAID, Amb. Mark Green, with the aim of promoting alleged leaders in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Gershman took the opportunity to thank Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for her unwavering support for the work of “democratic” activists around the world, presenting her with a framed print of the Goddess of Democracy, built in China’s Tiananmen Square, nearly 30 years ago.

Later, NED Senior Director for Latin America and the Caribbean, Miriam Kornblith, participated in a panel with activists from Venezuela and Cuba. Then it is added that “this event brought together US development agencies and legislators with “democratic leaders” from Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.”

LOOK AT CUBA

Since the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the United States has sought by all means to force a change of government on the Island. The criminal economic, commercial and financial blockade that Washington illegally and unilaterally maintains against Cuba, and that has been rejected by the vast majority of the international community in 29 votes in the United Nations Organization (UN) is, without a doubt, the most concrete example of this systematic aggression that the US Government maintains against our people.

The promoters of the blockade have confessed on more than one occasion that this series of measures is intended to suffocate the Cuban people, cause chaos and thus generate a change of government and political system.

During the years of the pandemic, 2020 and 2021, the US administration (first under the leadership of Donald Trump and now under Joe Biden) deepened the blockade with new measures. The entry of medicines, respirators, fuel and economic resources to face the crisis caused by covid-19 was prevented. In this framework, protests were fomented to destabilize the Government and thus try to give the Island the final blow (a new failed attempt that generated discomfort and suffering in the Cuban people, but that did not succeed in breaking it).

In the chapter dedicated to Cuba on the NED’s own website, the list of resources that, during the year 2020, that organization has allocated to promote destabilization is shown.

According to data released by the NED, during that year more than five million dollars (5,077,788) were invested for this purpose, to which must be added the resources provided to NGOs and foundations that do not appear in the Cuba chapter. , but that act against the Island and, also, add the funds channeled through USAID and other similar organizations.

We reproduce the long list that the NED published on February 23, 2021, on its website, detailing the NGOs and foundations that received money to intervene in Cuba during 2020 (with figures ranging from 20,000 to 650,000). Dollars).

  • International Platform for Human Rights in Cuba (for EU-Cuba relations): $87,253
  • Cubalex (for complaints of human rights violations): $150,000
  • Fundación Cartel Urbano (to turn hip hop artists into leaders): $110,000
  • Democratic National Institute for International Affairs (to reduce gender-based violence): $500,000
  • Freedom of information (for new ways of reporting): $80,000
  • Publisher Hypermedia Inc.: $93,941
  • Latin American Center for Nonviolence: $48,597
  • Institute of Communication and Development: $79,300
  • Electoral Transparency: $74,945
  • Research and Innovation Factual ac (for regional media networks): $74,000
  • Cuban Human Rights Observatory: $150,000
  • Freedom of Information (for sports coverage): $50,000
  • Agora Cuba Inc. (for information): $75,860
  • Cuban Daily Association: $215,000
  • Freedom of information: $72,000
  • Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba, Inc.: $126,000
  • Cuban Institute for Freedom of Expression and the Press: $146,360
  • Freedom of information (news media): $56,500
  • Democratic Culture (for the arts): $49,106
  • Freedom of information (attention to journalists and bloggers): $33,180
  • Cuban Democratic Directorate (civil society): $650,000
  • Democratic ideas and values ​​(for marginal populations): $23,500
  • Freedom of information (for independent media): $75,000
  • Accountability and Governance: $120,267
  • Promotion of the use of data in journalism in Cuba: $91,319
  • Government and Political Analysis ac: $115,000
  • Asociación Civil Cronos (for innovation in journalism): $80,000
  • Freedom of information (social media work): $50,000
  • Inter-American Institute of Human Rights: $95,000
  • Freedom of Information (Critical Thinking): $99,980
  • Center for International Private Enterprise: $309,766
  • Press and Society Institute: $70,523
  • Public Space Foundation (independent media): $108,000
  • People in Need Slovakia (for civil society): $60,000
  • Clovek v. tisni, ops (for news outlets): $150,882
  • Political Institute for Liberty: $85,000
  • Arlenica, Art, Language and Research for Social Change, a Supplement: $11,940
  • Center for a Free Cuba (for human rights): $80,000
  • Institute for War and Peace Reporting (iwpr): $145,230
  • International Group for Corporate Social Responsibility in Cuba (support for independent unions, freelancers, and labor rights): $230,000
  • Vista Larga Foundation Corp (for writers and artists): $83,000
  • Democratic ideas and values ​​(for intervention in various sectors): $71,339

 

Source: Diariocontexto.com.ar

January 1959: on the road to Santiago

1 year ago Granma, Translations,


January 1959:
Cuba’s destiny on the road to Santiago

Five years, five months and five days earlier, the assault on the Guillermon Moncada Barracks in Santiago de Cuba and Carlos Manuel de Cespedes Barracks in Bayamo, on July 26, 1953, had been the attempt to launch a popular insurrection.

Author: Frank Josué Solar Cabrales | internet@granma.cu
December 31, 2021 15:12:04 pm

Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.

Fidel went to Céspedes Park, the main park in the city, to speak to the compact and euphoric mass gathered there from the balcony of the City Hall and proclaim the triumph of the Revolution on January 1st, 1959. At his side, Commander Raúl Castro Ruz. Photo: Granma Archive

When, on January 1, 1959, Fidel Castro Ruz, at the head of his troops, advanced on Santiago de Cuba and its garrison of some 5,000 soldiers, to begin what would perhaps have been the bloodiest and hardest battle of the anti-Batista insurrection, it was curious and strange to hear on the radio that in the city the people were in the streets with flags of the 26th of July Movement, cheering the rebel leader and celebrating the revolutionary triumph. What were the circumstances that made up such a paradoxical situation? How was the victory finally consummated in the eastern city?

Five years, five months and five days earlier, the assault on the Guillermon Moncada Barracks in Santiago de Cuba and Carlos Manuel de Cespedes Barracks in Bayamo, on July 26, 1953, had been the attempt to launch a popular insurrection that would grow and advance towards Havana until it broke the resistance of the dictatorial regime. The success of the plan rested on the surprise factor and the response of the people to the call to combat. The military importance of the Moncada, together with the symbolism of Santiago de Cuba and the traditions of rebellion of its inhabitants, made the main action take place there, generating the historical merit of having been the place where this last stage of the revolutionary struggle began.

Later, with the landing of the Granma yacht in its political-administrative jurisdiction, today’s Heroic City rose up in arms on November 30, 1956, in what could have been a new insurrectional outbreak that made possible, with other pronouncements of the 26th of July Movement and other forces, the overthrow of the dictatorship. Santiago was once again, despite other actions, the capital symbol of the revolutionary activity of the country. The two most important moments of the struggle against Batista until then had taken place in its urban perimeter and/or jurisdictional space. It was an extraordinary accumulation.

If the immense majority of the nuclei in favor of the violent struggle were betting on the success of a fulminating operation in Havana, in which the joint effort of military conspiracies and armed civilian bodies would provoke a rapid fall of the regime, the July 26th Movement based its efforts on a two-phase strategy, starting with the partial or total control of the province of Oriente, whose center would be the capture of the city of Santiago de Cuba, to expand the revolutionary thrust from there towards the rest of the Island.

Entrance of Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz to Santiago de Cuba, in 1959. At his side Manuel Piñeiro (the one with the beard). Photo: Granma Archive

The strategic importance of the city can be measured by the design and execution of Operation Santiago, the rebel attack for its encirclement and surrender, which, together with the invasion of the west of the Island, was the most important insurgent offensive operation in the final months of 1958.

The battle for Santiago de Cuba, now not by a surprise attack as in 1953 nor by an internal uprising as in 1956, but by the combative approach of guerrilla units, personally led by Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz, had the potential to become the equivalent of the battle of Ayacucho in the independence of South America: decisive in determining the end of the war of liberation. It is also true that the distance from Havana did not necessarily have to be settled, in case of a rebel victory in the city, with the fall of the dictatorship. Once Santiago de Cuba was taken, the regime still had room for maneuver in the theater of operations, especially due to the concurrence of neutralizing maneuvers and foreign intervention.

The devastating guerrilla advance on Santa Clara, halfway to Havana, together with the success of the progressive isolation and encirclement of Santiago de Cuba put the dictator and his acolytes in check. The imminence of a disaster was decisive for the activation or hastening of various attempts to prevent the revolutionary triumph or to achieve its mediatization. Within the military ranks, desertions, accelerated surrenders and conspiratorial proposals increased. Fidel had never been reluctant to the possibility of military conspiracies that would bring the fall of the dictatorship closer with less bloodshed, as long as they did not compromise the fulfillment of the revolutionary program.

In this sense, he sought that the military pronouncements would come about through his incorporation into the rebel forces and not by means of a coup d’état in the nation’s capital.

That is why he agreed to the unconditional collaboration offered by the Chief of Army Operations in the eastern province, Major General Eulogio Cantillo y Porras, on December 28, 1958, when the Batista regime was already tottering and its overthrow seemed a matter of days. The high-ranking officer committed himself to the uprising of the commanders loyal to him, in coordination with the guerrilla forces. This implied a joint pronouncement and the articulation of a common force, which would advance on the enemy positions that did not join the uprising or would not withdraw their hostile attitude. This is how the Commander in Chief explained it:

“The plan was agreed upon in all its details: on the 31st, at 3:00 in the afternoon, the garrison of Santiago de Cuba would revolt. “Immediately several rebel columns would penetrate the city, and the people, with the military and with the rebels, would immediately fraternize, launching a revolutionary proclamation to the country and inviting all the honorable military to join the movement. It was agreed that the tanks in the city would be placed at our disposal, and I personally offered to advance towards the capital with an armored column, preceded by the tanks. The tanks would be delivered to me at 3:00 in the afternoon, not because it was thought that we had to fight, but to foresee in case the movement in Havana failed and there was a need to place our vanguard as close as possible to the capital”.

Cantillo, however, betrayed the agreement. He went to Havana and dedicated himself to organize, in agreement with Batista, a counterrevolutionary conspiracy. To gain time, he sent Fidel a note on December 30 recommending him not to do anything until January 6, because “circumstances had changed a lot in a favorable sense for a national solution”. The rebel chief, sensing the maneuver, replied that the note was a departure from what had been agreed and that hostilities would be broken as of the day and time set for the uprising. Once the attack on Santiago had begun, there would be no other way out than unconditional surrender.

Meeting in El Escandel, where Fidel Castro and Raul Castro meet with a group of officers of the army of the tyranny, on January 1st, 1959, to agree on the surrender of the military square of Santiago de Cuba. Photo: Granma Archive

Faced with the energetic reaction, General Cantillo insisted that he was working on a national solution, not a local one, favorable to the interests of the insurgents, and warned them that they should change the plan and not enter Santiago de Cuba. Just as it had happened in 1898, an upstart ally was trying at the last minute to take power, to hide the popular triumph and to prevent the entry into Santiago of the true freedom fighters.

With reports of the inexorable nature of the rebel offensive in Las Villas and Oriente, the dictator Batista decided to abandon power and flee abroad. After midnight from December 31 to January 1, he executed the plan: he left the country to a Civic-Military Junta, with Major General Eulogio Cantillo as the new Chief of the Army. General Cantillo tried to form a new civilian administration, with the summoning of the “oldest magistrate of the Supreme Court of Justice” as “presidential substitute”, Dr. Carlos Manuel Piedra y Piedra. At the same time, he tried to shore up his authority before the various regular commands of the country, ordered a ceasefire and fraternized with the rebel troops. Forming a civilian government and gaining time with the fraternization of his demoralized military garrisons in the face of the growing guerrilla forces, he believed, would help him consolidate his emerging authority, leaving him in a position to administer the salvation of most of the levers of the old regime.

Then Santiago de Cuba became the heart of the events. Where the insurrection began, the essential issue was resolved: the seizure of power.

Fidel Castro’s response, through Radio Rebelde from Palma Soriano, was immediate and forceful: To denounce and reject the maneuver in the capital as counterrevolutionary, qualifying it as a coup d’état; not to accept cease-fire or fraternization with the military forces; to order the advance of the insurgent forces on the enemy positions, only accepting parliament for unconditional surrender; to order the commanders Camilo Cienfuegos and Ernesto Che Guevara to culminate the military operations in Las Villas and to advance on Havana to take, respectively, the Military City of Columbia and the Fortress of La Cabaña, the two main garrisons of the country; to issue an ultimatum to the military square of Santiago de Cuba to lay down their arms by the end of the afternoon or face a bloody battle, with the historical responsibility for the bloodshed that would ensue; and to call for a general strike until the total fall of the dictatorship and the complete triumph of the Revolution.

The military command of Santiago de Cuba, while complying with the ceasefire and fraternization order, began to send signals of parliament to the rebel leadership. In the afternoon of that day, the military commander of the city, Colonel José Rego Rubido, met with Fidel Castro in the Alto de Villalón, and expressed himself in favor of a joint pronouncement.

After Commander Raul Castro accompanied Rego Rubido to the Moncada Barracks and met with his officers, the latter went up to El Escandel to meet with Fidel, with whom he sealed the agreement that avoided a bloody and exhausting battle for the control of the city, which would have facilitated the possible consolidation of the counterrevolutionary plans in Havana. The eastern officers agreed to “disapprove of the rigged coup in [Camp] Columbia (…) and to support the Cuban Revolution”. The originally agreed uprising of the Santiago garrison took place, now not against the dictator in flight, but against the military junta installed in the capital.

A column of guerrillas and soldiers, with their chiefs at the head, left in a motorized caravan towards Santiago de Cuba, where they entered on the night of January 1st. Fidel headed towards Céspedes Park, the main park of the city, to speak to the compact and euphoric mass gathered there from the balcony of the City Hall, and proclaim the triumph of the Revolution. For the first time, after seven years of dictatorship, the rebel leader communicated directly and massively with a liberated population. Dr. Manuel Urrutia Lleó was sworn in as Provisional President of the Republic, and given his constitutional mandate as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he appointed Fidel Castro as his delegate to the country’s armed institutions. In addition, the rebel leader proclaimed Santiago de Cuba as the new provisional capital of the Republic. This last decision portrays the uncertainty of the circumstance, the danger that in Havana and other cities a counterrevolutionary maneuver would be consolidated. The proclamation was intended to complete a victory in its final phase, in the midst of the ambivalent situation in the capital of the country: the clandestine movement dominates police institutions and strategic buildings, but the main military installations have not yet been occupied by the rebel forces.

These are critical and decisive moments, which will have a favorable outcome in the coming hours with the surrender of several military posts in the country to the guerrilla columns.

It is true that granting Santiago de Cuba the condition of provisional capital had the purpose of materializing the victory, but it also had a symbolic meaning due to the role it had played in the war and throughout the revolutionary history of Cuba.

Trump’s 243 measures against Cuba

1 year ago Translations, ,

Compendium of Trump’s measures against Cuba

Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Thanks to Johana Tablada of MINREX for this compilation.
January 20, 2021

The policy of hostility of Donald Trump’s government against Cuba registered unprecedented measures and actions, which stood out for their systematicity. All spheres of our society and the daily life of citizens suffered the impact of this design, accentuated in the context of the pandemic.

More than 240 measures have been counted. Most of them were actions to tighten the blockade with the aim of economically suffocating the country, subverting the internal order, creating a situation of ungovernability and overthrowing the Revolution.

The emphasis on hindering the main sources of income and hindering our trade relations was notorious in scope.

The main affectations generated by the policy towards Cuba during the Trump administration presented the following behavior:

Title III of the Helms-Burton Act.

The decision to allow lawsuits in U.S. courts under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act was an unprecedented action, after 23 years of successive suspensions of this possibility. This has had an indisputable impact on the prospects of attracting foreign investment, since it constitutes a disincentive that adds to the already existing obstacles due to the regulatory framework of the blockade. So far 28 legal proceedings have been initiated in U.S. courts under the Act.

Travel

The travel sector has been a recurrent target of attack during the Trump administration.

Travel alerts to citizens under the pretext of alleged health incidents were followed by the banning of cruise ship travel, the suspension of the “people-to-people” educational travel subcategory, and the modification of two of the licenses allowing visits by U.S. citizens to Cuba.

The creation of the List of Prohibited Accommodations in Cuba, which included 422 hotels and rental houses, constituted an additional disincentive to travel.

Scheduled and charter flights were cancelled to all parts of the country except Havana, whose frequencies were also limited. The effects of this announcement reached both U.S. citizens and Cuban families.

Remittances

The decision to limit the amount of remittances to US$1,000 per quarter, the suspension of non-family remittances and the prohibition of remittances from third countries through Western Union, imposed greater difficulties on the income of many Cubans.  

The impossibility of processing remittances through Fincimex and AIS eliminated the main formal channels for remittances.

Medical cooperation

Within the framework of the campaign to discredit Cuba’s international medical cooperation and a regional scenario favorable to the right, the U.S. promoted the termination of agreements with several countries in the area and increased pressure on multilateral organizations and third countries. In addition to the undeniable human cost of these actions, the economic impact for Cuba has been considerable.  

Trade and Business

Regulatory changes issued by the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury dismantled existing provisions and created new coercive instruments. The measure preventing the importation of products from any country containing more than 10% U.S. components was reimposed on Cuba. In a globalized economy, this constitutes a real obstacle to acquiring necessary inputs, regardless of the market of origin.

In the interest of curtailing one of the main exportable items, the importation into the U.S. of rum and tobacco of Cuban origin was banned, an announcement that was combined with rhetoric aimed at discrediting those products.      

The creation of the List of Restricted Cuban Entities by the State Department, with which persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are prohibited from engaging in direct financial transactions, was aimed at hindering foreign trade and the export of goods and services. A total of 231 companies are included in the list.

The decision not to renew the operating license in Cuba of the hotel company Marriot International, in order to sow a climate of uncertainty in the business community, stood out.

The effects on the business system and commercial operations in the country were considerable, as foreign counterparts sometimes interpreted that they could not relate with Cuba or continue operating with entities subject to coercive measures.

Banking-financial sector

A thorough prosecution of Cuba’s banking-financial operations took place during the Trump administration. Of the 22 monetary penalties imposed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on companies that violated the blockade laws, 9 were against entities in this sector. There was a notable increase in reports of bank account closures, denial of transactions and other obstacles faced by diplomatic and business representations abroad, as a result of US pressures and due to the extraterritorial nature of the blockade.  

Fuel

In parallel to the strategy against Venezuela and under the pretext of Cuba’s alleged interference in that country, measures were adopted against ships, shipping companies, insurance and reinsurance companies linked to the transportation of fuel. In 2019 alone, 53 vessels and 27 companies were penalized. The pressures against the governments of registration or flag of vessels were also notable.

Additional measures

The outline of the policy towards Cuba combined the severe blockade measures with additional actions, which contributed to sustain in time the systematicity of the announcements and creating a climate of permanent aggressiveness. The visa restrictions and other provisions against high-ranking Cuban leaders responded to this objective.

The State Department reports on Human Rights, Religious Freedom, Human Trafficking and Terrorism reinforced the rhetoric against Cuba and the discrediting in these areas.

The arbitrary and unilateral listing pursued the same objective of demonizing and satisfying the demands of the anti-Cuban sectors. The designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism represented the culminating point in the effort to impede any process of advancement and eventual improvement of bilateral relations.

 

Donald Trump’s administration. Measures against Cuba
Year Total Extraterritorial Blockade Others

Year Total Blockade Extraterritorial Others
2017  50 9 37 4
2018 44 5 39 0
2019 86 44 31 11
2020 55 21 28 6
2021 7 4 1 2
  242 83 136 23

2017
Blocking

June 8 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed a sanction against American Honda Finance Corporation (AHFC) for USD 87 255 because one of its subsidiaries in Canada, Honda Canada Finance Inc. approved and financed 13 car leasing agreements between the Cuban Embassy in Canada and a Honda dealership in Ottawa between February 2011 and March 2014. The same company had already rejected, on March 30, 2015, a transfer from the Cuban Embassy in Canada for the replacement of the vehicle fleet that was to be replaced by the company.

On June 26, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed a sanction against the US company American International Group (AIG) in the amount of 148,698 dollars for allegedly violating several US government sanctions programs, including the blockade against Cuba. According to the text of the sanction, between 2007 and 2012, AIG engaged in 29 apparent violations of the blockade by providing insurance coverage, various shipments of goods to or from Cuba or related to a Cuban entity, including the processing of premiums or claims arising from that service.

September 8 US President Donald Trump signed a memorandum addressed to the Secretaries of State and Treasury in which he extended for 1 year the application of economic sanctions on Cuba under the legal framework established in the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.

September 26 The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) banned a donation to an NGO in Cuba because the ship carrying the cargo belonged to the US company Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.

November 8 The State Department announced the creation of the Cuban Restricted Entities List, in which it included 179 Cuban companies with which US citizens cannot carry out direct financial transactions.

November 8 OFAC announced regulatory changes to the Cuba sanctions program. Individual “people-to-people” educational travel was eliminated.

November 8 OFAC modified the category of educational and support travel to the Cuban people. It established that each traveler must participate in a full-time program of activities involving genuine interaction with individuals in Cuba. These activities must also increase contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the independence of the Cuban people from Cuban authorities.  

November 8 BIS established a general policy of denial of license applications for export items that may be used by entities and sub-entities on the Restricted Cuban Entities List, among other measures. (4 specific measures)

November 17 OFAC imposed a sanction for USD 291,825 to the company BCC Corporate S.A. (BCC), a Belgian subsidiary of BCC. (BCC), a Belgian subsidiary of the US credit card company Alpha Card Group, for selling, between 2009 and 2014, credit cards that were used to make purchases in Cuba. 50% of the shares of Alpha Card Group belong to the U.S. company American Express.

 

Additional

September Travel Alert for Cuba – level 4

29 September Suspension of visa issuance at consulate in Havana.

May 23 Expulsion of 2 officials from the Cuban Embassy in Washington.

October 3 Expulsion of 15 officials from the Cuban Embassy in Washington.

 

2018
Blockade

22 February President Donald Trump issued a Presidential Proclamation to extend the state of National Emergency declared by President William Clinton on March 1, 1996 following the downing of two small planes belonging to the group c/r “Brothers to the Rescue”. The proclamation extends through 2019 the ability of the U.S. government to regulate the movement and anchorage of vessels within its territorial waters that will or are likely to travel to Cuba.

Sept. 10 U.S. President Donald Trump signed a memorandum to the Secretaries of State and Treasury extending for 1 year the application of economic sanctions on Cuba under the legal framework established in the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.

October 5 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed a penalty of $5, 263, 171 on the banking entity J.P. Morgan Chase for conducting unauthorized transactions and providing unauthorized services to clients included in the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List between 2008 and 2012.

November 15 The State Department updated the List of Restricted Cuban Entities, with the incorporation of 27 new companies, for a total of 206.

November 19 The banking-financial entity Société Générale S.A. based in Paris, France, agreed to a total payment of US$1,340,231,916.05 to the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the Federal Reserve and the New York State Department of Financial Services for violation of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, the Iran Sanctions and Transactions Regulations and the Sudan Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC, Société Générale S.A. processed 796 transactions involving Cuba totaling more than US$5.5 billion between July 11, 2007 and October 26, 2010. This is the fifth sanction applied by the Donald Trump administration and the second to be imposed in 2018.

 

2019
Blockade

January 16 The U.S. State Department announced through an official notice its decision to suspend for 45 days the application of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act as of February 1. The text of the note states that during this period the U.S. government will study in detail the possibility of implementing or not implementing Chapter III in the future, a decision that will respond to the objectives of “U.S. national security and its commitment to promote the transition to democracy in Cuba”. Likewise, the State Department communiqué mentions the alleged lack of freedoms and human rights violations in Cuba, while emphasizing support for “the corrupt and authoritarian regimes in Nicaragua and Venezuela”. The note concludes by warning those who do business with Cuba, particularly those who “traffic in confiscated properties and are accomplices of the dictatorship”, to reconsider their ties with our country.

February 14 The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Treasury Department imposed a sanction of 5 million 512 thousand 564 dollars on the company AppliChem GmbH, based in Darmstadt, Germany for 304 apparent violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. AppliChem, an entity that manufactures laboratory substances and chemicals for industrial use and operates as a subsidiary of U.S.-based Illinois Tool Works Inc, sold its products to Cuba between May 2012 and February 2016 in violation of embargo laws, according to OFAC.

Feb. 19 President Donald Trump issued a Presidential Proclamation to extend the state of National Emergency declared by President William Clinton on March 1, 1996 following the downing of two small planes belonging to the group c/r “Brothers to the Rescue.” The proclamation extends through 2019 the U.S. government’s ability to regulate the movement and anchorage of vessels within its territorial waters that will or are likely to travel to Cuba.

March 4 The State Department announced through an official statement an additional 30-day suspension, until April 17, 2019, of the right to file legal actions under Title III of the Helms Burton Act. However, it communicated that as of March 19, the suspension of these actions will not apply to companies on the Restricted Cuban Entities List.

March 11 The Department of State announced through an official release an update to the Restricted Cuban Entities List, scheduled to take effect as of March 12, 2019. The text of the note points out the incorporation of 5 new sub-entities (Gaviota Hoteles Cuba, Hoteles Habaguanex, Hoteles Playa Gaviota, Marinas Gaviota Cuba) and one entity belonging to Gaviota (Fiesta Club Adults Only, of Blau Marina Varadero). This brings the total to 211 entities.

March 3 The State Department announces the suspension of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act for only 15 days.

April 5 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) included 34 vessels owned by the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA, as well as two other foreign companies (Ballito Shipping Incorporated, based in Liberia, and ProPer In Management Incorporated, based in Greece) in its list of sanctioned vessels, alleging that they provide services to Caracas for the shipment of crude oil to Cuba.  According to the Treasury Department, the sanctions include the freezing of any financial assets they may have under U.S. jurisdiction and a ban on financial transactions with the listed entities and vessels.

April 9 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed a sanction on Standard Chartered Bank, a banking-financial sector entity based in England, for apparent violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and other sanctions programs applicable to Iran, Syria, Sudan and Myanmar. In order to avoid legal action, the British company agreed to pay 639 million 023,750 USD to OFAC and 2,715 million 100,479 USD to other US government and state institutions.

April 11 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed a sanction on Acteon Group Ltd. (Acteon), a company based in England, in the amount of US$227,500.

April 11 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed a sanction on 2H Offshore (2H Offshore), an entity based in England, for violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. The amount to be paid by the companies is USD 213,866.

April 12 The Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Treasury Department (OFAC) sanctioned 4 companies that operate in the Venezuelan oil sector and 9 vessels that transport Venezuelan crude oil, some of which, during the current year, have transported oil to Cuba.

April 15 The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the Treasury Department imposed a sanction to the German company UniCredit Bank AG.

April 15 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed a sanction to the company UniCredit Bank Austria.

April 15 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed a sanction on the Italian company UniCredit Bank SpA.

April 17 U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo offered statements to the press announcing the full activation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act as of May 2, 2019.

April 24 The State Department updated the Cuban Restricted Entity List by adding 5 new entities, for a total of 216.

June 4 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced regulatory changes to Cuba policy, primarily targeting the travel sector. The measures included the elimination of “people-to-people” travel.

June 4 OFAC announced a policy of denial of licenses for passenger travel (cruise ships), recreational vessels and private aircraft.

June 4 OFAC ruled that U.S. travelers arriving in Cuba under any of the 12 categories may not conduct direct financial transactions with Cuban companies on the Cuban Restricted Entity List. (3 specific measures)

June 13 The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on the US company Expedia Group Inc.

June 13 The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed sanctions on U.S. company Hotelbeds USA Inc.

June 13 The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on the U.S. company Cubasphere Inc. for violations to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. The three penalties pertained to transactions related to travel or travel services to Cuba.

July 3 The Treasury Department included the company CUBAMETALES in the List of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) alleging involvement of the Cuban entity in the importation of oil from Venezuela.

July 25 The State Department announced through an official press release an update to the Cuban Restricted Entity List, scheduled to take effect as of July 26, 2019, by including 2 new entities, for a total of 218.

September 6 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) updated the Cuban Assets Control Regulations by imposing a limit of up to US$1,000 per quarter on family remittances.

September 6 OFAC suspended gift (non-family) remittances.

Sept. 6 OFAC suspended Cuba-related transfers originating and destined outside the U.S. (U-Turn). (3 specific measures)

Sept. 13 President Donald Trump extended for another year the Enemy Trade with Cuba Act for Cuba.

Sept. 17 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) placed 3 individuals (2 Colombian and 1 Italian national) and 17 companies (12 based in Colombia, 4 in Panama, and 1 in Italy) on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List, alleging they were involved in transporting oil to Cuba.

September 24 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) included in the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List 4 companies (3 Panamanian and 1 Cypriot) and 4 vessels related to the transportation of Venezuelan oil. The companies added were: Bluelane Overseas SA, Caroil Transport Marine LTD, Tovase Development Corp and Trocana World INC; while the vessels were: Carlota, Giralt, Petion and Sandino; all four under Panamanian flag.

October 1 The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Treasury Department imposed a sanction of 2 million 718 thousand 581 dollars to the General Electric Company (GE), based in Boston, Massachusetts, for 289 apparent violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. The official statement issued by the Treasury referred that three GE subsidiaries (Getsco Technical Services Inc., Bentley Nevada and GE Betz) accepted payments made by The Cobalt Refinery Company (Cobalt) for goods and services rendered to a GE client in Canada. Cobalt is on the Specially Designated Nationals List.

October 18 The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced new amendments to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), scheduled to take effect on October 21. The new measures included a general policy of denying aircraft leasing licenses to Cuban state-owned airlines.

October 18 BIS provided for the prevention of re-export to Cuba of foreign goods containing more than 10% US components.

October 18 BIS announced the revision of the License Exception “Support for the Cuban People” so that certain donations to the government of Cuba and the Communist Party of Cuba cannot be made.

Oct. 18 BIS announced the elimination of authorization for the export of promotional items that “generally benefit the government of Cuba.”

October 18 BIS established that aircraft and vessels are not eligible for the license exception if they are used in charter mode by Cuban nationals or a State Sponsor of Terrorism, or if they are leased by them.

October 18 BIS limited the export of goods intended to improve the telecommunications infrastructure to those that facilitate the “free flow of information” among the Cuban people.  (6 specific measures)

October 25 The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced the suspension of the export of goods destined to improve telecommunications infrastructure to Cuba. (DOT) announced the suspension of all U.S. airline flights from the U.S. to Cuba, with the exception of those to Havana’s José Martí International Airport. With the measure, which went into effect on December 10, all U.S. flights to nine Cuban airports were suspended. According to the DOT note, this decision was taken at the request of the State Department and stated in a letter sent by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

October The most important leaders of the Spanish hotel chain Meliá Hotels International S.A., including its CEO, received notices from the State Department informing them of the prohibition to enter the US, as a consequence of the application of Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act.

November 15 The State Department announced by official release an update to the Cuban Restricted Entity List, by adding 5 new entities, scheduled to take effect as of November 19, 2019, for a total of 223.

November 26 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the inclusion of the company Corporación Panamericana S.A. on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List.

December 3 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced through an official communiqué the inclusion of 6 vessels (one Panamanian and the rest Venezuelan) in the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List for transporting crude oil to Cuba. In addition, it was identified that the vessel “Nevas”, sanctioned since April 2019, had been renamed “Esperanza”, so its entry on the SDN list was updated according to the new denomination.

December 9 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the settlement to avoid a civil lawsuit, with Chicago-based Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company, in the amount of $170,535.00 USD.

December 9 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the settlement of a civil lawsuit with Switzerland-based Chubb Limited in the amount of $66,212.00 USD.  The sanctions are due to apparent violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) for conducting transactions and other operations related to travel insurance to Cuba.

Additional

January Cancellation of MLB and Cuban Baseball Federation agreement.

March 15 Reduction of the validity of the B2 visa to three months and with a single entry.

June 20 Inclusion of Cuba Level 3 Trafficking Report.

July 26 Visa restrictions on Cuban officials and family members related to Cuban medical cooperation services under Section 212 (a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

September 19 Expulsion of 2 officials of the Cuban mission to the UN.

September 26 Inclusion of General de Ejercito and his family on the sanctioned list under section 7031 (c) of the State Department Appropriations, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Act, prohibiting their entry into the US.

September 30 Visa restrictions on Cuban officials associated with international medical cooperation programs under Section 212 (a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

November 1 Inclusion of Cuba in annual Presidential Memorandum on Trafficking in Persons and consequent prohibition of federal funding for cultural and educational exchanges, among other measures.

November 16 Inclusion of Minister of the Interior Julio Cesar Gandarilla Bermejo and his children in the list of sanctioned persons under section 7031 (c) of the State Department Appropriations, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Act, which prohibits their entry into the US.

Dec. 20 Cuba placed on a Special Watch List under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.

Dec. 31 The Caribbean Confederation of Professional Baseball (CBPC) informed the Cuban Baseball Federation (FCB) that it will not be able to guarantee Cuba’s presence in the Caribbean Series, scheduled for Feb. 1-7 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, after yielding to U.S. pressure.

 

2020
Blockade

January 10 The U.S. Department of Transportation suspended until further notice all charter flights between the U.S. and Cuba, except those directed to Havana’s “José Martí” International Airport. In a note signed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, it is stated that 9 airports currently receiving this service will be affected and that charter operators will have 60 days to discontinue such flights.

January 10 The text adds that, at Pompeo’s request, the Department of Transportation will impose a limit on the number of charter flights directed to the “José Martí” airport. Finally, the statement notes that in the “near future”, the Department of Transportation will present an order with the procedures to implement such limit.

February 25 President Donald Trump issued a notice extending for one year the State of National Emergency related to Cuba, declared by President William Clinton on March 1, 1996, following the downing of the “Brothers to the Rescue” planes.

February 26 The new regulations of the US company Western Union, which eliminates the possibility of sending remittances to Cuba from third countries, went into effect.

May 6 The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a settlement to avoid a civil lawsuit with the entity BIOMIN America, due to apparent violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR). The amount to be paid by BIOMIN America, an animal nutrition company based in Overland Park, Kansas, is USD 257,862. According to the OFAC document, between July 2012 and September 2017, BIOMIN America and its foreign entities participated without authorization in a total of 30 sales of agricultural inputs produced outside the U.S. to Alfarma S.A. in Cuba, resulting in 44 alleged violations of the CACR.

June 3 The State Department announced the inclusion of seven entities on the Cuban Restricted Entity List, including FINCIMEX. One of the hotels was already incorporated and only its name was updated, so in practice six entities were added, for a total of 229.

June 5 The Treasury Department denied the renewal of the license that allowed Marriott International to operate a hotel in Cuba, while prohibiting the company from developing future business in the country.

July 8 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that it had reached a settlement to avoid a civil lawsuit with the US company Amazon Inc. The company must pay 134,523 dollars for violating multiple sanctions programs maintained by the US government, including that of Cuba. With respect to our country, it is only detailed that “Amazon accepted and processed orders on its websites for persons located in or employed by foreign missions from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria”, apparently between 2011 and 2018.

Aug. 13 The U.S. Department of Transportation announced the suspension of all private charter flights between the U.S. and Cuba, except those authorized to Havana and others for emergency medical, search and rescue purposes and those deemed to be in the U.S. interest.

September 9 President Donald Trump extended for one more year the blockade restrictions against Cuba under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The decision was made public through a White House communiqué.

Sept. 24 New Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) went into effect. The measures include: Creation of the Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List (CPA List) which will incorporate entities under the ownership or control of the government of Cuba, a “prohibited” official of the government of Cuba, a “prohibited” member of the Communist Party of Cuba, or their immediate family members.

September 24 The importation of alcohol and tobacco products of Cuban origin into the US was restricted.

 September 24 Authorization for persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to attend or organize professional meetings or conferences in Cuba was eliminated, affecting one of the 12 travel categories approved during the Obama administration.

 September 24 General license authorization for transactions related to public performances, clinics, workshops, sporting and other competitions and exhibitions was eliminated, leaving another of the 12 categories of travel approved during the Obama administration virtually without effect.

 September 28 A new update of the State Department’s List of Restricted Cuban Entities was announced, with the addition of American International Services (aka AIS Remesas), which became effective on September 29. This was the seventh update of the list and the second during 2020, bringing the total number of entities to 230.

 September 30 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) included Luis Alberto Rodríguez López-Calleja in the Specially Designated Nationals List. With this inclusion, there are now 112 entries related to Cuba on the list.

October 1 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) made public an agreement to avoid a civil lawsuit with the travel services company registered in New York, Generali Global Assistance, Inc (GGA). The amount to be paid by the entity is USD 5,864,860,000. GGA would have violated the blockade by making transfers related to travel to Cuba through a subsidiary in Canada, between 2010 and 2015.

October 23 The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) amended the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to prevent persons subject to US jurisdiction from processing remittances to and from Cuba involving companies included in the State Department’s Restricted List of Cuban Entities. Under these changes, shipments through FINCIMEX and American International Services (AIS) would be prevented.

On November 18, the Department of Transportation denied, at the direction of the State Department, a request by charters Skyway Enterprises, Inc. and IBC to operate flights to Cuba with humanitarian cargo.

On December 21, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) placed FINCIMEX, GAESA and KAVE COFFEE on the Specially Designated Nationals List.

On December 31, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed a sanction on the US company BitGo.

 

Additional

January 2 Inclusion of FAR Minister Leopoldo Cintra Frias and his sons on the list of those sanctioned under section 7031(c) of the State Department Appropriations, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Act, prohibiting their entry into the US.

May 13 State Department notification to U.S. Congress of certification of Cuba and other countries (Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela) under Section 40A(a) of the Arms Export Control Act as countries that “do not fully cooperate” with U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

July 8 Inclusion of Cuba on list of “foreign adversaries” allegedly engaged in conduct adverse to U.S. national security.

August 6 Inclusion of Cuba in Level 4 of the State Department’s Travel Alert System.

October 1 Presidential directive extending for one year restrictions on federal funding for cultural and educational exchanges to Cuba. Action stemming from Cuba’s continued placement in Tier 3 of the State Department’s Annual Trafficking in Persons Report.

7 December Maintenance on the Special Watch List under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, under which the Secretary of State annually designates governments that have “engaged in or tolerated systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.”

 

2021
Blockade

On January 1, the State Department included the International Financial Bank on the Cuban Restricted Entities List. The measure would become effective on January 8.

On January 14, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced new export controls on specific technologies and activities that may serve military intelligence in China, Cuba, Russia, Venezuela and other countries that allegedly support terrorism and are subject to U.S. unilateral measures.

On January 14, pursuant to the Department of Commerce’s designation of Cuba as a “foreign adversary,” the Export Control Regulations (EAR) were amended to prohibit certain transactions that pose an undue or unacceptable risk to U.S. national security in information and communications technology.

On January 15, 2021, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the inclusion of Cuba’s Ministry of the Interior and GB Minister Lazaro Alberto Alvarez Casas on the Specially Designated Nationals List.

 

Additional

January 11 Inclusion of Cuba on the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

14 January Inclusion of Cuba on the Department of Commerce’s list of Foreign Adversaries, by virtue of an executive order signed by Trump.

Empty shelves in the U.S.?

1 year ago Granma, Translations, , ,

Empty shelves in the U.S.?

The crisis caused by the pandemic is visible even in the country that sustains its abundance at the expense of the world.

Author: Nuria Barbosa León | internet@granma.cu
January 15, 2022 00:01:38 AM
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.

Empty shelves at a Trader Joe’s supermarket on Spring Street, New York. Photo: CNN

A news report, which seems unusual, is going around the world: CNN claims that there are shortages in supermarkets in the United States. It added that those who run the establishments do not see a solution in the short term, while “disgruntled” shoppers have given “vent to their frustration on social networks”.

Images of empty shelves at stores such as Trader Joe’s, Giant Foods and Publix astound those who still cannot believe the fact that there could be shortages in the land of consumerism.

According to CNN, the causes of the shortages are multiple. The two-year pandemic and the impact of the disease on the lack of personnel for functions such as transportation and logistics, which in turn affects the delivery of products and the restocking of stores.

The National Association of Grocery Stores indicates that many of its members have less than 50% of their workforce. Add to this a continuing shortage of truck drivers and record congestion at the ports.

$2.4 trillion was the value of U.S. imports in 2020, according to Statista. Demand for imported food products grew because it is cheaper to bring them in than to produce them. Consumption patterns that favor frozen and packaged products, which require a powerful industry for permanent supply, also play a role.

Due to the pandemic, import levels have decreased due to the impossibility of guaranteeing the transfer of goods from one country to another, and this affects the supply chain, to which is added the lack of suitable personnel to work, due to the increase of contagions within the country due to the circulation of the Omicron strain.

CNN reported that sick leave accounts for 60% of the total number of infections in the country, in addition to quarantine isolations and distancing protocols.

In addition to this situation, there are adverse weather conditions, with very low temperatures, as well as drought and fires that damaged crops such as wheat, corn, soybeans and coffee.

Today, in addition, the population is panicking about shortages and hoarding, which contributes to a further and rapid decrease in supply.

The increase in empty shelves and prices also poses a danger to Biden and the Democrats, as the Republican narrative exposes the ineffectiveness of the president, who promised, when he took office, to contain COVID-19 and economic dislocation for millions and millions of Americans. The crisis implied by the pandemic is visible even in the country that sustains its abundance at the expense of the world.

Skip to toolbar