Biden 13
U.S. double-standards on women’s rights
La Pupila Insomne
Washington’s double standard on women’s rights
By Iroel Sanchez
September 23, 2022
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews
This Sunday, Cubans will vote in a referendum for a new Families Code that will mean a substantive development in rights and guarantees for all citizens, but especially for sexual minorities, the elderly, women and girls. In Cuba, for more than five decades, there has been paid maternity, the right of women to decide on their pregnancy with universal and free medical care, and to receive equal pay for equal work as men. All of this, part of guaranteeing legislation that now advances and is consolidated with the new Code, is nothing more than an aspiration for U.S. women.
However, the U.S. government, which in the name of Human Rights, unleashes wars, sanctions countries and applies against Cuba the longest and most complete system of economic punishment ever known, far from diminishing them, these days increases them by forcing any traveler to the Island who wants to visit U.S. territory to require a visa, thus damaging tourism, one of the main lines of the Cuban economy.
And worse: In its anti-Cuban propaganda war, Washington is now putting all the machinery of terrorism 2.0 in digital networks, which it finances for regime change on the island, to promote a vote against a Code that will allow, among many things, equal marriage and solidarity motherhood [surrogacy without exchange of money]. Experts say that in terms of sexual and family rights it is one of the most advanced legislations in the world and deals a hard blow to patriarchy.
Nevertheless, the U.S. foreign policy discourse sets itself up as a defender of women’s rights. It does so after creating, with its mujahideen friends, the backward Taliban to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and which set back by thousands of years the freedoms that Afghan women won with a socialist-oriented government.
Or allying with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the country Biden has just visited as an arms dealer, where women are deprived of any social and political life and condemned to medieval punishments if they deviate in the slightest from the strict rules established by a monarchy without parliament or elections of any kind. None of that arouses scruples in Washington, nor do the hundreds of women and girls “collateral damage” from its drone, helicopter and bomber fire in the Middle East and beyond.
That politicized, biased and opportunistic view of Human Rights, and in particular women’s rights, is President Joe Biden’s when he said this week at the UN to “stand with the brave citizens and brave women of Iran” over protests where the U.S. hand is evident.
Since the times when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, back in 2009, admitted to Fared Zakariah on CNN that Washington was using Twitter to foment rebellions against the government in Tehran, much has evolved in technology but not in the cynicism installed in the White House.
Since then, there are enough elements, including U.S. diplomats arrested in the middle of previous protests, to know that although there may be real elements of nonconformity behind a street demonstration, as anywhere in the world, the long hand of the U.S. special services and the powerful media that are akin to them, are decisive in what the world perceives as real.
This time the motive is the death of young Masha Amini, who died in a police station in Tehran, after being arrested by the body known as the Morality Police, for not wearing the Islamic veil properly. The Iranian authorities have claimed that she died of a heart attack, and a security camera video released by them shows Amini in a kind of conference where only women are seen without any trace of violence, from which she gets up, walks, goes to talk to another woman and falls down on her own feet, receives medical attention and is taken away in an ambulance. Nothing to do with the victims of American drones, those tortured in clandestine prisons or Guantanamo and Abuh Ghraib, whose images outrage our retinas.
Much less the shooting of the crowds of women and children who flooded the Kabul airport trying to flee with the American troops who, in their stampede from Afghanistan, left Afghan women in the hands of the Taliban extremists. Closer to home, the names of anti-capitalist social activists Bertha Cáceres (Honduras) or Marielle Franco (Brazil), gunned down, have never been uttered by a U.S. leader. However, the mainstream media do not stop talking about the former and keep quiet about the latter.
For Afghan women, victims of a regime brought about by Washington’s failed adventures in the Middle East, there are no kind words among the governments of the West, nor for the Yemeni women who are dying themselves and their children from starvation or bullets in a war instigated by Riyadh and supported by Washington, nor for the Cuban women who day by day face the shortages imposed by the genocidal blockade that Biden is tightening against Cuba and who, starting this Sunday, despite this, will go out to vote for more and broader rights that U.S. women lack.
Double standards, hypocrisy, and geopolitical interests, zero legitimate concern for Human Rights, is the only thing shown by the American discourse on women, whether in America, Asia or the North Pole. “Brave”, for cynics, are those who with the truth right under their noses seem to ignore it.
How much of Trump does Biden have?
How much of Trump does Biden have?
In the time that has elapsed since he assumed the presidency until today, he has often identified himself with Donald Trump’s political actions and, at least, he applies inertia as a strategy so as not to change what was established by his predecessor.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The high metal fences on the border with Mexico are compared to a kind of apartheid. Photo: Reuters.
I can’t imagine Joe Biden summoning his followers to “take over” the Capitol, or insisting on proclaiming electoral fraud in the “cradle of democracy”.
However, in the time elapsed since he assumed the presidency until today, he has not infrequently identified with Donald Trump’s political actions and, at least, he applies inertia as a strategy to avoid changing what was established by his predecessor.
Being a Republican, in the case of Donald Trump, or a Democrat, in the case of Joe Biden, does not at all ensure, within the concept of American “democracy”, that there are differences when it comes to implementing policies.
Not to be surprised, but Biden was “other” when he was only serving as vice president, in Barack Obama’s time. Now, as president, it is valid to ask how much of Trump is Biden.
A few examples may define the answer.
Trump, with his unpresidential style, invented and signed 243 new sanctions against Cuba, which were added to those already contained in more than 60 years of blockade. During his electoral campaign, Biden said -and said again- that he would eliminate such measures, but in almost a year and a half of his termin the White House, he has maintained the legislation and has mocked -as Trump did- the UN resolutions, the appeals of world leaders and the demands of Americans and other personalities of the planet, who demand an end to such criminal actions.
Biden allowed himself to be trapped by the group of extreme right-wing counterrevolutionaries of Cuban origin settled in Florida, who, during the Trump era, took control of the Cuba issue and decide -always against the Cuban people- the line of action of the State Department and the Presidency.
Another coincidence in the way of acting: when Trump decided to surround with high metal fences the border with Mexico, the international community compared the fact to a kind of apartheid. Biden, in his campaign, assured that he would stop such construction and dismantle what was already fenced. What has happened? The wall has not been dismantled, rather areas that are considered less secure are being repaired to stop immigration.
An unusual fact: Donald Trump abruptly destroyed and threw in the trash the documents supporting the Iran Nuclear Deal; an arbitrary and dangerous decision condemned everywhere in the world. Trump was putting humanity itself at risk, his critics said. Biden, more tenuously, also opposed the Republican’s actions.
The Democrat, in his first attempts to reverse such a situation, spoke several times of “returning to the Nuclear Agreement” with the Persian nation. But, once again, the inaction of the current ruler has thrown away his commitments, and he continues to bet on sanctions against Teheran and not on the renewal of the Agreement.
U.S. specialists say that in critical areas, the Biden administration has not made major changes, which shows how difficult it is to chart new courses in foreign policy in Washington. This was evident in the President’s tour of Israel and Saudi Arabia, aimed, in part, at further strengthening ties with those states.
In this regard, Emma Ashford, senior researcher at the Atlantic Council, a group of experts also known as “think tanks”, said that “over time, Biden has not kept many of his campaign promises and has maintained the status quo in the Middle East and Asia”.
Meanwhile, Stephen Biegun, former Undersecretary of State, said that “there is a great force of gravity that takes policies to the same place. It’s still the same problems. It’s still the same world. We still have the same tools to influence each other to achieve the same results, and it’s still the same United States.”
Why isn’t Trump being prosecuted?
A question floats in the ether: Why isn’t Donald Trump being prosecuted?
The more the inquiries into the events of January 6, 2021 progress, the more the evidence points to an attempted coup d’état and the former president as its instigator, but…
Published: Saturday 23 July 2022 | 11:54:30 pm.
Author:
Juana Carrasco Martin | juana@juventudrebelde.cu
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Trump supporters’ mob inside Capitol Hill put congressmen’s lives at risk. Author: AFP Published: 23/07/2022 | 10:18 pm
Everything points to Donald Trump in the hearings of the U.S. House of Representatives Panel investigating the events of January 6, 2021, when a mob of supporters of the outgoing president, under the claim of fraud, stormed the Capitol in an attempt to reverse the election results that had given the triumph to Democrat Joe Biden.
Already that committee -chaired by Democratic Representative Bennie Thompson, and whose vice-chair is Republican Liz Cheney-, enunciated in the first of six public hearings that there was an “attempted coup d’état” and held Trump responsible. But the question floating in the ether is: why is the Justice Department of the Biden administration not accusing and prosecuting him when the former president’s actions led to a serious disruption of American democracy and endangered the representatives of one of its main institutions?
Some of those representatives, the so-called progressives, are clamoring for him to be tried -even though at the time he was able to dodge impeachment-, and now without presidential powers, he can be convicted. This is because they consider that not prosecuting him can have serious consequences for democracy, since each testimony given in the hearings is demonstrating that the insurrection was violent and coordinated to silence the decision of the voters, the people. Furthermore, it showed and that far-right groups discussed the need to keep Trump in office and that he would have supported the mob’s calls to “hang” Vice-President Mike Pence, who was fulfilling his role of presiding over the House session that would certify Biden’s victory.
Progressive legislators warn that if the Attorney General has brought charges against more than 850 people for their participation in the events, and if all the pieces of the puzzle are falling into place, why not do it with the main instigator?
When things reach this point, the recent statements to CNN by Trump’s former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, about his express participation in the organization of coups in other countries -a confession to be taken into account, since he also served in the administration of Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush, the son-, seal the riddle about the character in question, who was warned by more than one of his close collaborators in the administration that he had lost the elections, among them his Attorney General, Bill Barr.
But he did not listen to any of them and decided to speak to the most extremist of his followers in front of the White House that “Three Kings Day”. Their “gift” shook the United States and perplexed the world, urging them to march to the legislative hill, to “fight like hell” for his presidency, there where the session presided over by his vice-president, Pence, who in Trump’s eyes turned out to be a “traitor”, was taking place.
Cassidy Hutchinson’s recent statements before the panel are among the most enlightening about the degree of Trump’s stubbornness and contribution to the events in his intention of not moving out of the White House. This is because even though some of his mansions were waiting for him. Among them was the one located in the most sympathetic, understanding, warm and Floridian Miami, headquarters of other extremist, anti-Cuban and anti-Bolivarian groups, which Trump served in abundance.
As much as they tried to influence and intimidate Hutchinson, a senior aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, she dropped very high-caliber bombshells to the panel in her 20 hours of testimony. Among these was that Trump knew that some of those listening to him on January 6 were armed and, moreover, demanded official protection for those supporters and even wanted to march with them to reclaim “his presidency.”
The moment of chaos depicted on Trumpian grounds after the November 2020 presidential election, with the then-president insisting on his victory, staff members at the Pennsylvania Avenue executive mansion, campaign operatives, members of his Cabinet and Congressional leaders urging and even pressuring him to admit Biden’s victory and withdraw the rhetoric that the election had been stolen from him, became more acute that January 6. It was only the decision by Secret Service bodyguards not to allow him to go to Capitol Hill and Barr’s warning that such an attitude could lead to criminal charges against him, prevented his intention to do so.
There are other facts that make him responsible for what happened: he did not give the order to deploy the National Guard in view of the seriousness of the situation. He did not make the slightest effort to work with the Justice Department to coordinate and deploy law enforcement forces, among other contemplative or complicit attitudes.
According to the video statement of U.S. Armed Forces Chief of Staff Mark Milley, it was Mike Pence who ordered National Guard troops to respond to the attack.
The reality is that although new evidence of his involvement comes to light with every witness, he continues to say that January 6 “represented the greatest movement in the history of our country.”
If Trump faces several possible charges, there are already those who advocate adding one more, that of witness intimidation, under the legal title of 18 USC 1512(b), given the pressures exerted on Hutchison.
The big decision
But the worst of all is that Donald Trump, without officially declaring it, wishes to be reelected in 2024 and, campaigning for politicians of his tendency for representative, senatorial or gubernatorial positions that will be at stake in the mid-term elections next November, he [in fact] crusades for himself.
He just published in an interview with New York Magazine that his “big decision” will be announced before or after the midterm elections and added that “people want him to run.” The Post reported that Trump has begun meeting with major donors to discuss the 2024 election, and his team has instructed others to have an online infrastructure ready if he announces soon.
The RealClearPolitics polling average shows Trump well ahead of his likely Republican rivals, averaging 53 percent of the vote, and more than doubling the next closest challenger, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis with 20.5 percent.
In mid-June, Trump released a 12-page rebuttal to the hearing on the events of Jan. 6. In it, he accuses Democrats of creating the panel to distract the country from the problems it faces, which are indeed many: “Seventeen months after the events of Jan. 6, Democrats are incapable of offering solutions,” Trump said in the statement released through his Save America PAC, created in November 2020 for campaign fundraising. “They are desperate to change the narrative of a failed nation,” he added and does not turn the page on their false accusations of fraud in the 2020 election.
The “big decision” would not be this House of Representatives panel that has no power to judge him, it only investigates and collects evidence of the coup attempt. [The “big decision” would be] a judicial process and substantiated accusations by the Attorney General at the head of the Justice Department, Merrick Garland. However, according to The New York Times, he [Garland] “has given no indication that the department is building a case against Trump”.
Of course, the background seems to be the tremendous legal and political implications of the case, and perhaps fears that Trump’s extremist supporters will stage other scenes of pressure and violence.
Perhaps they are waiting for a closer proximity to the November elections of this year or to know the results and the support that the results may or may not give to the politicians supported by Trump and to Trump himself, who as it is known has donors and lawyers to face the trial if it happens.
For now, the former president “is still at large and unvaccinated”, as my grandmother would say.
Los Angeles and the prelude to a Summit
Los Angeles and the prelude to a Summit (+ Video)
Some Miami-based anti-Cuba hate-mongers, especially in the South Florida media, have begun to appear, announcing their attendance to the Summit.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
In Los Angeles, three out of four homeless people have no bed in any shelter or temporary solution. PHOTO: AP
Prelude to the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles, United States, at the end of the first weekend of June, the meeting continues to suffer from a “strange” silence on the part of its hosts and, except for a last-minute invitation to the President of the Spanish government to attend as Joe Biden’s guest -is it that Spain is in America?-, little is known about the subject.
The invitation from across the seas is focused on the issue of migrants. I am not very convinced that Biden’s power of persuasion can involve a country in this issue that continues to lead the European Union in unemployment, with a rate of 13.3%.
The U.S. administration hopes that Spain will agree to double or triple the number of temporary workers from Central America, according to Axios.
Regarding the participation of the President of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador [AMLO], it was reported that the U.S. President wishes his Mexican counterpart to accompany him in person at the meeting.
López Obrador has stated that, if Washington does not invite all the countries of the Americas to the Summit, he would not cancel his nation’s participation in the event, but would send his representative, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Also in the last few days, especially in the South Florida press, some Miami-based anti-Cuba hate-mongers have begun to appear, announcing their attendance at the Summit. The publications do not explain whether they are part of the so-called civil society, knowing that they are counter-revolutionaries of Cuban origin.
The rest of this poorly made movie has been put in the hands of the media related to its organizers so that they can “make a fuss” about the ups and downs and manipulations of the hosts, which are not at all transparent.
For the Spanish newspaper El País, the city is “the misery capital of the United States”, and argues that the number of “homeless” people there has increased by 23% in one year, and details that three out of four homeless people do not have a bed in any shelter or temporary solution.
Across the United States, there are 553,000 people sleeping on the streets.
According to the RT website, the “hidden face” of Los Angeles is its poverty rate. It is estimated that there are about 66,433 homeless people in the city, and the African-American population continues to be the hardest hit by this scourge, if one compares the proportion of 33.7% with the total population, since this community only represents 7.9% [of the whole].
ATTACK AGAINST THE PEOPLE`S FORUM REJECTED
The attacks against the headquarters of The People’s Forum, in New York City, have been rejected by institutions and social movements that warn of the action of right-wing groups in the United States, with the support of the police.
“From Casa de las Americas we send all our support and solidarity to the members of The People’s Forum (TPF), whose headquarters in New York City has been the object of an illegal attack by reactionary forces of the extreme right”, a communiqué from this institution states.
According to Prensa Latina reports, more than a dozen New York Police Department agents entered TPF without being invited and acted as security for the extreme right-wing, which carried out the illegal attack.
The Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP) expressed its strong rejection of the aggression against the organization.
It is noteworthy that this attack takes place when many TPF staff and leadership members are in Los Angeles organizing the People’s Summit for Democracy, ICAP stressed.
Joe Biden takes off his mask
Joe Biden takes off his mask
Let us always remember that, with or without masks, U.S. presidents have the endorsement of being champions of war, genocide, torture, the most criminal sanctions, being the only country in the world to use the nuclear bomb against defenseless peoples, etc., etc.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
When the President of the United States, Joe Biden, appeared without a mask at the North American Building Trades Union Legislative Conference, and there he assured them: “if I have to go to war, I will go to war with you, I mean it”, his country had, that same Wednesday, April 6, 8214 new deaths and 446,871 infections due to COVID-19.
The United States continues to lead the world in both negative indicators, with 705,284 deaths and 43,950,779 people infected. But this silent war that kills and maims is less and less talked about every day in the mainstream media.
It turns out that since the war in Ukraine and the crusade against Russia, organized by the Biden administration, the pandemic has moved to other levels of attention and, moreover, information to the American population has plummeted.
In his speech, the President assured his audience that “the U.S. will continue to support Ukraine. The U.S. will continue to support Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, and that this fight is far from over”.
He then announced that his administration continues to “supply Ukraine with the necessary weapons and resources”, and was pleased to report that he signed “another package to send more Javelin missiles (…), to continue to get an uninterrupted supply to the Ukrainian army”.
In turn, he promised to further increase sanctions and economic isolation against Russia.
On March 24, 1999, then-President of the United States, William Clinton -also a Democrat- was unmasked when he ordered -without consulting the UN- the bombing of Yugoslavia, killing thousands of civilians, using prohibited weapons such as depleted uranium and provoking the disintegration of that country.
And what about that Friday, February 16, 2001, when another U.S. president, Republican George W. Bush, ordered the bombing and invasion of Iraq, which has cost that Arab country more than one million dead, maimed and wounded, and where Washington still maintains military bases and troops, and appropriates -through Iraqi territory- natural resources from neighboring Syria, while supporting terrorist groups that destabilize that nation.
Now, when the government of Joe Biden and others pronounced themselves at the UN for the suspension of Russia from the Human Rights Council, it would be worthwhile, at least, [to ask] some questions and [make some] reflections, so as not to lose historical memory. Since the U.S. nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, through those carried out against Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq, the attacks on Libya and the assassination of its President, the invasion of Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Yemen, and many others, has it ever been raised and achieved at the UN that U.S. governments be accused and expelled from the Human Rights Council?
So humanity, what are we talking about now when Russia is condemned for its actions in Ukraine?
Let us always remember that, with or without masks, U.S. leaders have the endorsement of being champions of war, genocide, torture, the most criminal sanctions, being the only country in the world to use nuclear bombs against defenseless peoples, etc., etc.
Final recommendation: put on your mask, President Biden, protect your people from the COVID-19 pandemic, work for peace, without war and without sanctions, and contribute – as you promised in your campaign, and have not fulfilled – to foster a friendlier and freer world.
Empty shelves in the U.S.?
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.
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.
US maintains remittance restrictions
White House decides to maintain restrictions on remittances to Cuba
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
People wait to be served at a Western Union office on its last day of operations in Havana, Cuba, Monday, Nov. 23, 2020. Photo Credit: AP.
The U.S. government said Friday that the ban on sending remittances to Cuba will remain even longer, with which the White House hinders the right of families to help their loved ones living in the Caribbean nation.
A White House official told the media on Tuesday that the administration of President Joe Biden continues to study how to ensure that the money sent to the island does not favor the government of the largest of the Antilles, according to Reuters.
According to the source, the objective is to ensure that the benefits reach the Cuban people directly, although he did not mention how the U.S. economic blockade has been suffocating the inhabitants of the Caribbean country for six decades, even in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.
In July, Biden asked the Treasury and State Departments to suggest options for remittances to reach the beneficiaries, under the argument that the Caribbean nation’s executive appropriates between 20 and 40 percent of the remittances.
Last August, the manager of the Cuban commercial company Fincimex, Yamil Hernández, denied that the government of Havana or the armed forces obtained part of the amount sent from U.S. territory.
That theory repeated by politicians of the North American nation put an end to the relations of the Western Union company with the Cuban financial institutions in charge of processing remittances, specifically Fincimex, in October 2020.
The measure – imposed by former President Donald Trump (2017-2021) and maintained by the current administration – unilaterally ended the flow through regular and institutional channels, on the basis of totally unfounded pretexts, Hernandez asserted at the time.
The current U.S. president promised during his election campaign to change the hostile policy of his predecessor against Cuba, however, so far the 243 coercive measures imposed by Trump to reinforce the blockade remain unchanged.
(With information from PL)
Without masks… and with neocolonial garnish
Without masks… and with neocolonial garnish
The U.S. Government, which claims to be a Democrat, is disrespected when three senators from President Joe Biden’s own party set up a virtual conference with an interlocutor lacking in merit and authority, such as the Venezuelan Juan Guaidó.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The Government of the United States, which claims to be democratc, is disrespected when three senators of President Joe Biden’s own party set up a virtual conference with an interlocutor lacking in merit and authority, such as the Venezuelan Juan Guaidó. There, in addition to giving him guidance on the peace process and the upcoming elections, they put the neocolonial garnish of insults against the Government and the democratically-elected president, Nicolás Maduro Moros. Do they really believe they have the right to such action?
That such slips occurred in the Republican government of Donald Trump, although immoral, was contemplated as one more of those actions displayed by the president, where irrationality and fundamentalism were determinant.
It is incredible that, at this point in time, a Democratic administration in a country where law and order supposedly prevails, three members of Congress ignore everything and attack Venezuelan legislation and authorities and dare to establish a dialogue with a nobody like Guaidó.
The Yankees who protect him know very well that this gentleman has no capacity or morals whatsoever to speak and act on behalf of a country and a people against whom he has even asked for foreign military intervention since he has never been elected by Venezuelans to be their president.
Everything he does is illegal and illegitimate -including the money he takes or is allowed to take, in foreign banks where it remains as patrimony of the Bolivarian nation-.
Now it turns out that three legislators of the U.S. Congress, the number two of the Democratic majority in the Senate, Dick Durbin; the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Bob Menendez, and the head of the subcommittee for Latin America, Tim Kaine, met virtually with Guaidó, under the suthat they were providing guidance and listening to views of the “interim president” of Venezuela.
This was an interventionist action far from the system of international relations, of respect for the laws and in defiance of the vast majority of the Venezuelan people. They democratically elected Maduro as President and together with him participate in the construction of a more just and equitable society, where solidarity and love predominate. This is quite the opposite of the hatred and confrontation used as a banner by the U.S. administrations and their internal lackeys.
According to EFE news agency, the U.S. senators and Juan Guaidó spoke about the “political impasse” facing Venezuela.
And that statement of “dead-end” could say it all, since both those in Washington who fabricated an “interim president”, as well as the character selected to carry that label, could be feeding ideas from the years of Donald Trump -and still present today-, of seeking a “solution” to unblock the dead-end with armed intervention, through the volatile border with Colombia. Interference is done “with a mask off” and with neo-colonial dressing, even though we are in the 21st century.
No originality in the script
No originality in the script
The purpose remains the same: to employ asphyxiating maneuvers until the prey loses all possibility of survival. The 243 measures of the U.S. administration to cut off the slightest maneuver of the Cuban government in the midst of the effects of the pandemic, bet on bringing the end of the pandemic closer.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Photo: Illustration taken from Cubaenresumen
After six decades, the cast changes and the script remains the same. Such a long-standing political strategy requires operatives to renew the tactics in the field. The purpose remains the same: to employ asphyxiating maneuvers until the prey loses all possibility of survival. The 243 measures taken by the U.S. administration to cut off the slightest maneuver of the Cuban government in the midst of the effects of the pandemic, bet on bringing the end closer.
Faced with this scenario, Biden continued in the footsteps of his predecessors. Now, in a context that has even motivated the Pope’s reflections and rejection, the President must find pretexts to justify his policy towards the archipelago. Hence, the most active official of his government on the Cuba issue threatened the independent and sovereign nation of the Caribbean. To an international media, the principal director of National Security for the Western Hemisphere, Juan Gonzalez, declared that Washington will respond with sanctions if the promoters of the provocative march announced for November 15 in several cities of the country are prosecuted.
In recent months, through social networks, platforms through which the U.S. Government intends to build a parallel reality for Cuba and manage its interventionist strategy, the federal employee even exchanged with Cuban influencers to expose the vision of his administration towards the Island.
Promoting the “free flow of information”, supporting political operators associated with culture and “independent” journalism, as well as erasing the legitimacy of the Cuban Revolution in the international scenario, have been the matrices presented to the public opinion by the also advisor to President Biden. But these ideas need their correlate in practice in order to achieve their objective.
Weeks ago, in the midst of the VI Celac Summit, while several leaders were betting on cooperation to face the current scenario, a president chose “complacency” with Washington’s dictate towards Cuba, and was out of tune with a sepia speech on democracy and human rights.
To support these arguments in the international arena, the White House supports operators in Cuban territory. And now, once again, behind the “peaceful” discourse, the intention is to stage an event that articulates and advances the U.S. agenda and, furthermore, justifies it before public opinion. Whether or not the purpose has been achieved, the strategists have already ensured the counter-response: a justification to sustain the blockade and to point the finger once again at the Government of the Island for declaring such a “civic” expression unconstitutional.
The main promoter of the “peaceful march” has denied any link with organizations that respond to the US government; however, he himself revealed that the demonstration would be led by several citizens and civil society groups of which there is evidence of their financial and operational dependence on Washington. Among them, members of the self-styled 27N Movement and the Council for Democratic Transition. At the same time, all the press financed through projects of the NED, USAID and other organizations with similar purposes, maintains in its headlines any content related to the march or its organizers.
The date chosen for the performance could not be otherwise. They take advantage of the month and the day of the opening to international tourism, of the return to schools, of the restart of cultural life. Right now it is the information that the algorithms in the large servers of the social networks, all managed by U.S. corporations, rank in relation to Cuba.
Shortly before the mid-term elections that will renew Congress and one-third of the U.S. Senate, the Democratic Party runs the risk of losing control of Congress. The Republicans would only need five more seats in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate to regain the majority. In this dispute, despite not fulfilling his campaign promises, Biden reaffirms his votes with the most recalcitrant and powerful representatives of the Cuban community in the North American country.
A march or any other representation, in tune with the counterrevolution industry, will continue to be postable content in the profiles of U.S. government officials and agencies. Meanwhile, Cuba follows its own agenda. More than 7,000,000 people have received the complete COVID-19 vaccination schedule. Florida and Washington know it.
Cuba’s Place in the New Cold War
Translated by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews. If you doubt the assertion that we are facing a new cold war, by carefully reading the main international media and specialized publications you will be able to verify that -from different points of view- in a growing number of cases, the interpretation and hypothesis of a new cold war seems to dominate the most varied interpretations at present. This seems irrefutable when examining the growing tensions and conflicts from Brussels to Moscow, from the Arctic to the Black Sea, from the Caucasus to the Middle East, throughout the length and breadth of South and East Asia, bordering the land and sea borders of China and its neighbors, and in all of them the direct presence and gravitation of the US, from NATO that today touches Russia’s borders to a renewed alliance -like the defunct NATO- that seeks to confront the countries of the region to the supposed Chinese threats. Where to and how How does tiny Cuba fit into this new context? We are a long way from the Missile Crisis or the Soviet submarine base in Cienfuegos… Does the Havana government seek to engage in any of these conflicts in alliance with Russia or China? Not even remotely! Havana’s close economic relations with Moscow -in frank decline for decades- and Beijing -with a worrisome decrease in the last ten years- have nothing to do with the geostrategic spaces mentioned above. There will be areas of political-diplomatic convergence in the international agenda (the presence of China and Russia as permanent members of the Security Council is an important capital for Cuba), but nothing that would serve to imagine or fabricate “conspiracy theories” that Cuba would respond to any of these orbits in any kind of aggressive truculence. The significant reduction of these economic relations ranges from large unresolved debts up to today and consequently a significant reduction in credits and various kinds of financing, in addition to significant cuts in the sphere of bilateral trade. A considerable list of projects agreed upon with both countries and in which Cuba placed great hopes have been shelved or put in the trash bin, from railroads to mining and oil exploitation, hotels and others. Except for very specific areas -such as biotechnology in China- it is difficult to identify today the completion of major projects by Russia and China in Cuba or any significant trade increases. Recent figures indicate that barely 10 of the 60 projects agreed with Russia will be implemented, while trade with China has been cut by 40%. Therefore the search for other investments, advanced technologies and trade links must prioritize the options that can be found in Western Europe, which is also where the bulk of Cuba’s foreign debt with the Paris Club rests. To a lesser extent, some Asian markets such as Japan (which in the early 1970s became Cuba’s second-largest trading partner) and South Korea (pending diplomatic recognition) may eventually offer some important opportunities. Paradoxically, a new space of reinsertion for Cuba is already the Arab World -not in its old relations of collaboration with Algeria, Palestine or Syria in some areas- and in particular with the monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula with which cooperation relations have increased as never before. This has not been and is not the case with the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, with the exception of the fragile and changing relationship with Venezuela or a possible political turnaround in Brazil. Cuba is not in a position today to join areas of conflict, except in the case of Venezuela. Nothing that involves major links or confrontations in latitudes distant from Cuba. Cuba will continue to seek to consolidate and expand its active participation in the multilateral agenda and practices (and the legitimacy it offers) promoted by the UN. Cuba will continue to promote the possibilities offered by the cooperation and assistance programs offered by various countries with which it has normal relations, and which have helped it a great deal up to now. A similar approach will be reinforced in two hemispheric directions (CELAC, CARICOM and the Summit of the Americas), especially with those countries where the so-called “pink wave” facilitates relatively closer ties, although not at the commercial or direct investment levels, with the exception of Caracas and Brasilia. Another geostrategic space in which Cuba will have to explore in the near future are its very controversial possibilities is that of the U.S. with Biden -something that seems more improbable with each passing day- or with the administration that emerges victorious in 2024, This will depend on a prior dismantling of the economic war design applied by Trump and so far maintained by Biden and to lessen -but not suppress, a possibility that will remain for an unpredictable future- the sustained impact of the past embargo and the current economic war that will make possible in part a discrete improvement in the links between both economies. This will include the whole spectrum of collaboration and mutual trust derived from the agreements signed at the end of the Obama administration. Let me be a bit more specific: Some three months ago it was public info: 40% less trade (makes sense, among other reasons, some 800 million was connected to the tourist industry) with China. Besides, Cuba owes them a lot a money, a lot of arrears, plus growing concerns among Chinese businesspeople from additional sanctions by the Trump administration. Then add Chinese discontent (made public on several occasions) because of Cuba’s refusal to implement overall reforms (the Shenzhen road). Concerning Russia, we have that only 10 of the 60 projects agreed with Russia during Medvedev’s last visit might be implemented, including the monumental railway in Cuba (east-west, known as the Tren Central plus of the significant oil drilling projects, just one so far). Let no one argue now that this smacks of “claudication.” In other words, surrender under the worse possible terms. Cuba is not in the vicinity of Singapore or the China Seas, nor is it in Gibraltar or the Balkans. It is an integral part of the American hemisphere and we live 90 miles from the United States, where almost one million Cubans and their descendants are settled and growing every day. The simplest example is the cost of transportation from Chinese or Russian ports to U.S. ports in the Gulf of Mexico. This scenario may seem far away, but it is actively encouraged by many of Washington’s major allies (Canada, Mexico and the EU), who can, to some extent, contribute to some level of normalization. I repeat what I have argued on other occasions: Washington may well draw some positive lessons from the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation. This eventual partial normalization will inevitably include the Cuban-American population factor at three different levels: a. Remittances; b. An inter-family trade that will bring about a significant relief and promote levels of informal trade (inevitable in the current conditions); c. Attracting the first direct investment projects on the part of these Cuban-Americans with the due authorization of the United States. It is within these different spaces, conditions, limits, potentials and agendas, in which Havana will be able to reinsert itself in a scenario where the dominant cold war tendencies on the world scene weigh heavily on any decision-making process for any country scarce of resources, without an economy of scale or balanced economic relations of its external sector. Time and again Cuban leaders have insisted in recent years that they must learn from the costly and disastrous experiences of concentrating the largest and most sensitive part of their economic relations with a single country and this should set an important tone for their reinsertion. Important limitations to this reintegration Four limitations stand out for their importance in making this reintegration process more viable or not. They are as follows: The integral redesign of the provenly inoperative economic model is indispensable and cannot be postponed. All the official discourse in Cuba tries to present the current legislation on foreign investment, the model symbolized by the ZEDM and the Investment Portfolio designed for potential investors, as the best credentials to attract foreign investment that the official discourse now accepts as a strategic component of its development. The reality is that –in addition to the aforementioned economic war– current legislation is still perceived as very restrictive and incomplete, ZEDM is still far from producing what was expected and must -among other aspects- articulate an export project to the region and beyond that does not exist today. If the ZEDM aspires to follow “the path of Shenzhen” and the Investment Portfolio does not meet its objectives due to the same factors, it’s will be necessary in addition to the investment proposals that the Cuban authorities have rejected over the last 25 years for clinging to monopolizing and restrictive formulas. After the successful renegotiation of its foreign debt and the satisfactory start of its payments, Havana has entered a new process of non-payments and subsequent increased interest and penalties and thus an almost total loss of its credit possibilities. This places the Cuban authorities in an extremely precarious situation from the point of view of its international finances. It is more than evident to highlight its crisis in this regard. Last but not least, Cuba persists in its obstinate rejection of any level of collaboration, association or membership with respect to the international financial system (International Monetary Fund, World Bank and, on a regional scale with the IDB). All this is tantamount to reinforcing and prolonging its singular condition of “financial pariah” in the real world. The sum of these factors places Cuba in an enormously disadvantageous and prejudicial situation, in an extreme degree of vulnerability, to face and achieve an effective international reinsertion in the complex framework of a new cold war.
Si duda de la afirmación de que nos enfrentamos a una nueva guerra fria, con proponerse un lectura cuidadosa de los principales medios internacionales y de publicaciones especializadas podrá comprobar que -desde diferentes ópticas- en un creciente número de casos, la interpretación e hipótesis de una nueva guerra fria parece dominar en la actualidad las más variadas interpretaciones. Esto parece irrefutable al examinarse las crecientes tensiones y conflictos que van desde Bruselas a Moscú, del Artico hasta el Mar Negro, desde el Cáucaso hasta el Medio Oriente, a lo largo y ancho de Asia Meridional y Oriental, bordeando las fronteras terrestres y marítimas de China y sus vecinos, y en todos ellos la presencia y gravitación directa de EEUU, desde la OTAN que hoy toca a las fronteras de Rusia hasta una renovada alianza -al estilo de la fenecida OTASO- que busca enfrentar los países de la región a las supuestas amenazas chinas. Hacia dónde y cómo ¿Cómo encaja la minúscula Cuba en todo este nuevo contexto? Muy lejos estamos de la Crisis de los Cohetes o la base de submarinos soviéticos en Cienfuegos…¿Busca acaso el gobierno de La Habana comprometerse en algunos de esos conflictos en alianza con Rusia o China? Ni remotamente! Los esquemas de estrechas relaciones económicas de La Habana con Moscú -en franca declinación desde hace décadas- y Beijing -con una preocupante disminución desde los últimos diez años- nada tienen que ver con las espacios geoestratégicos mencionados más arriba. Habrán áreas de convergencia politico-diplomática en la agenda internacional (la presencia e China y Rusia como miembros permanentes del Consejode Seguridad es un importante capital para Cuba), pero nada que sirva para imaginar o fabricar “teorías conspirativas” de que Cuba responda a ninguna de estas órbitas en ningún tipo de truculencia agresiva. La sensible reducción de esas relaciones económicas abarca desde grandes deudas no resueltas hasta hoy y consecuentemente una sensible reducción en materia de créditos y financiamientos diversos, además de notables recortes en la esfera del comercio bilateral. Una considerable lista de proyectos acordados con ambos países y en los que Cuba cifraba grandes esperanzas han ido quedando engavetados o en el cesto de basura, desde ferrocarriles hasta explotaciones mineras y petroleras, hotelería y otros. Salvo áreas muy específicas -como la biotecnología en China- es difícil identificar hoy la materialización de grandes proyectos por parte de Rusia y China en Cuba o incrementos comerciales de alguna importancia. Cifras recientes indican que apenas 10 de los 60 proyectos acordados con Rusia serán ejecutados, en tanto que el comercio con China se ha recortado en un 40%. De aquí se desprende que la búsqueda de otras inversiones, tecnologías avanzadas y nexos comerciales, tengan que priorizar las opciones que pueden encontrarse en Europa Occidental y donde descansa, además, el grueso de la deuda externa de Cuba con el Club de París. En medida menor, algunos mercados asiáticos como Japón (país que a inicios de 1970 llegó a ser el segundo socio comercial de Cuba) y Corea del Sur (pendiente de un reconcimiento diplomático) pueden ofrecer eventualmente algunas oportunidades de importancia. Paradójicamente, un novedoso espacio de reinserción para Cuba lo es ya el Mundo Arabe -no en sus Viejas relaciones de colaboración con Argelia, Palestina o Siria en algunas áreas- y en particular con las monarquías de la peninsula arábiga con las que las relaciones de cooperación se han incrementado como nunca antes. No ha sido ni es así el caso de los países de América Latina y el Caribe, a excepción de la frágil y cambiante relación con Venezuela o un posible giro político en Brasil. Cuba no está en condiciones hoy de sumarse a espacios de conflicto, si exceptuamos el caso de Venezuela. Nada que involucre vinculaciones o confrontaciones de mayor envergadura en latitudes distantes de Cuba. Cuba continuará procurando consolidar y ampliar su activa participación en la agenda y prácticas multilaterales (y la legitimidad que ésta le ofrece) que promueve la ONU; continuará fomentado las posibilidades que ofrecen los programas de cooperación y asistencia que ofrecen diversos países con los cuales tiene relaciones normales, y que bastante le ayudan hasta hoy. Una aproximación similar reforzará en dos direcciones hemisféricas (CELA, CARICOM y Cumbre de las Américas), en especial con los países donde la llamada “oleada rosada” facilita nexos relativamente más estrechos, aunque no en los planos comerciales o de inversión directa, con excepción de Caracas y Brasilia. Otro espacio geoestratégico en el que Cuba tendrá que explorar en el futuro cercano son sus muy controversiales posibilidades es el de EEUU con Biden -cosa que cada dia que pasa se presenta más improbable- o con la administración que salga vencedora en el 2024, condicionado esto a un desmantelamiento previo del diseño de guerra económica aplicado por Trump y hasta ahora mantenido por Biden y aminorar -no suprimir, posibilidad ésta que quedará para un futuro impredecible- el sostenido impacto del pasado embargo y de la actual guerra económica que posibilite en parte una discrete mejoría de los nexos entre ambas economías. Esto incluirá todo el espectro de colaboración y confianza mutua derivados de los acuerdos suscritos al final de la administración Obama. Nadie venga a argumentar ahora que esto tiene sabor a “claudicación.” Cuba no está en las proximidades de Singapur o en los mares de China, tampoco en Gibraltar o los Balcanes. Forma parte integral del hemisferio americano y habitamos a 90 millas de EEUU, donde se encuentra radicado casi un millón de cubanos, sus descendientes y aumentando cada dia más. El más simple ejemplo lo constituyen los costos de transportación desde los puertos chinos o rusos a los de EEUU en el Golfo de México. Podrá parecer bien lejos este escenario, pero el mismo se ve activamente propiciado por muchos de los principales aliados de Washington (Canadá, México y la UE), que en alguna medida, pueden contribuir a algún nivel de normalización. Repito lo que he argumentado en otras ocasiones: Bien pudiera Washington extraer algunas experiencias positivas del Diálogo Político y de Cooperación entre la Unión Europea y Cuba. Esta eventual normalización parcial incluirá, inevitablemente, el factor de la población cubano-americana en tres planos diferentes: a. Remesas; b. Un comercio interfamiliar que propicie un alivio signficativo y promueva niveles de comercio informal (inevitable en las acondiciones actuales); c. Atraer los primeros proyectos de inversión directa de parte de esos cubano-americanos con la debida autorización de EEUU. Es en estos espacios, condiciones, límites, potencialidades y agendas diferentes, en los cuales podrá el Gobierno de La Habana reinsertarse ante un escenario donde las tendencias dominantes de guerra fria en la escena mundial gravitan considerablemente en cualquier proceso de toma de decisiones para cualquier país escaso de recursos, sin una economía de escala ni relaciones económicas balanceadas de su sector externo. Una y otra vez los dirigentes cubanos han insistido en años recientes que han de aprender de las costosas y desastrosas experiencias de concentrar la mayor y más sensible parte de sus relaciones económicas con un solo país y esto deberá trazar una pauta importante en su reinserción. Limitantes importantes en esta resinserción Cuatro limitantes sobresalen por su importancia en hacer más viable o no este proceso de reinserción. Son ellas: La suma de estos factores colocan a Cuba en una situación enormemente desventajosa y prejudicial, en un grado extremo de vulnerabilidad, para hacer frente y alacanzar una efectiva reinserción internacional en el complejo marco de una nueva guerra fria.
Cuba’s Place in the New Cold War
By Domingo Amuchastegui (4/27/2021)REINSERCION INTERNACIONAL DE CUBA ANTE UNA NUEVA GUERRA FRIA
Por Domingo Amuchastegui (4/27/2021)
You must be logged in to post a comment.