Russia 14
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.
Extortions against Russia hit Latin America
Extortions against Russia hit Latin America
By Hedelberto López Blanch
April 21, 2022
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The war situation between Russia and Ukraine, together with the numerous extortions that the United States and its allies have imposed against Moscow, not only hit economically this nation but also Latin American countries.
One of the most affected is Ecuador because, if in 2021, 20% of the bananas it exported were destined to Russia (about 85 million boxes) now it has nowhere to place them and they will be spoiled with the consequent monetary loss.
Last year Ecuador obtained 706 million dollars for banana exports to the Eurasian giant; 142 million dollars for shrimp; 99 million dollars for flowers; 28 million dollars for fish and 17 million dollars for coffee.
Paraguay had Russia as its second buyer of beef and in 2021 it sent 79 213 tons which represented an income of 314 million dollars and now with Moscow’s disconnection from the international banking system (swift) it does not know how to collect or send the product.
Something similar is happening with Brazil. In the previous period, Brazil sold soybean to Russia for 343 million dollars; 167 million for poultry meat; 133 million for coffee and 117 million for beef.
As for Mexico, it sent cars, computers, beer, tequila and other products to that nation and bought fertilizers. If it lacks this supply, agriculture will suffer losses and food will become more expensive.
This situation will lead to a worsening of the economic crisis in those nations with the consequent wage cuts, layoffs of workers and price hikes.
The enormous pressures exerted by the United States for Latin American nations to join the Russophobia policy it has imposed on the planet by controlling the main communication media, may increase these problems.
For example, an intergovernmental cooperation agreement between Russia and Argentina for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, particularly in the areas of basic and applied research, construction and operation of nuclear power plants and reactors, would be halted.
In addition, Moscow has expressed its interest in participating in a tender for the construction of a dry storage facility for spent nuclear fuel at the Atucha II nuclear power plant in the South American nation.
Washington uses all kinds of extortion to that end: political influence, economic promises and blackmail, as was the case during the recent vote at the UN General Assembly to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council. After the vote, several delegates expressed that for various reasons they had been forced to vote that way.
Due to the impact of the Western “sanctions” war, the supply of fertilizers has been affected, which poses a threat to Latin American farmers, but is advantageous for the United States, which manufactures large quantities of fertilizer. Already, U.S. producers are looking to increase exports to countries in the region.
Fertilizer prices are currently at an all-time high and in the first quarter of 2022, they rose by 30%, which exceeds those reached in 2008 during the global financial crisis.
Due to the “sanctions”, shipments from Russia have been interrupted and this country is one of the main producers and exporters globally.
Moscow is the largest exporter of nitrogen fertilizers and the second-largest exporter of potash and phosphorus fertilizers.
In 2021 the Eurasian giant shipped fertilizers worth $12.5 billion. Among its main buyers were Brazil and the European Union with 25% respectively, and the United States with 14%.
As is to be expected, if the fertilizers do not arrive, agricultural production in these countries will be greatly affected.
This complex scenario comes at a time when the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reported that the food price index reached an all-time high of 159.3 points in March, while in February it had already beaten the record since the creation of the cost index in 1990.
The agency added that among the five categories that make up the index, four have never recorded such high prices: vegetable oils (248.6 points), cereals (170.1), dairy products (145.2) and meat (120.0).
Two of the categories increased their prices in February due to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict: cereals by 17% and vegetable oils by 23%. These countries together export 30 % of the wheat and 20 % of the corn consumed in the world.
The present and future prospects for the Latin American economies are considered difficult because they will have to face the high costs of food products, without yet recovering from the enormous losses caused by the covid-19 pandemic.
As a corollary, it can be stated that the string of extortions imposed by the United States, not only to Russia but to more than 30 countries in the world, are leading several Latin American nations into an abyss.
Hedelberto López Blanch, Cuban journalist, writer and researcher.
Chernobyl in our memory
Chernobyl in our memory
Fidel had conceived a medical care and rehabilitation program for those victims of radiation exposure from the accident nuclear plant. Almost all of them were Ukrainians, and some Russians and Belarusians.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Photo: Granma Archive
As a journalist, there were several occasions when I visited groups of Ukrainian children affected by the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Tarará, a beach east of Havana.
Fidel had conceived a program of medical care and rehabilitation for those victims of exposure to radiation from the accident nuclear plant. Almost all of them were Ukrainians, and some Russians and Belarusians.
I was also able to witness the admiration and gratitude to Fidel from the families of those children, whom the Commander-in-Chief visited on several occasions, after having received the first group on the steps of the plane that took them to our country. He signed his olive green cap and gave it as a gift to a Ukrainian girl, he inquired with doctors and directors about the whole program of attention to the minors, their most common pathologies and about their evolution during their stay on the island.
Thousands of Cubans were involved in the program, and more than 25,457 people, including 21,378 children, received specialized medical care.
Our country placed its health institutions at their service, and more than 300 children were treated for hematological diseases, mainly leukemia, 136 for different tumors, and 14 complex heart surgeries, two kidney transplants, six bone marrow transplants, among many other treatments, were performed.
Everything was done free of charge, as an expression of love and solidarity, attributes that contrast with those who today send thousands of tons of weapons to Ukraine, a country that has become hostage to the hegemonic policy of the u.s. and nato, to confront Russia.
On April 2, 2010, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Program for the care of children affected by radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, in a ceremony in Havana, the former Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma, recognized Fidel as the greatest inspirer of a human work that meant the care of these Ukrainian minors.
On the occasion, Kuchma announced the awarding to Fidel of the Order of Merit of the First Degree, and to then-President Raúl Castro, the Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise, of the First Degree.
He awarded distinctions to doctors, diplomats and collaborators who contributed to the successful achievement of that program, all in order to save the lives of children and young people, those who will forever carry in their hearts the indelible mark of the friendship between the peoples of Ukraine and Cuba.
Today, when that country is going through difficult times in a war provoked by the United States and NATO, we remember those moments of tears and joy of children who came with their families from that distant country, to whom Cuba gave part of what it had to save their lives.
We remember those Ukrainians at moments like today, and together with them, we ask for the war to end and for that country to join the international community without warlike aspirations and with a neutral character that should not change, no matter how much the promoters of hatred and confrontation, that is, the U.S. government and nato, want to take it down the wrong path, as a hostage of their expansionist policies.
Ukraine: the war that must end
Ukraine: the war that must end
It is not a matter of mere assessments to blame the U.S. Government for what is currently happening in Ukraine, but there are statements that very lightly limit themselves to “it was Russia who attacked Ukraine”.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Photo: Sputnik
These are not mere assessments to blame the US government for what is currently happening in Ukraine, but there are statements that very lightly limit themselves to “it was Russia who attacked Ukraine”.
It is necessary to go to safe sources, committed to peace, and go back to the history of U.S. wars, aggressions, bombings and other actions in the international arena.
Zhao Lijian, spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, warned: “We must never forget who is the real threat to the world”. And he explained: “of the 248 armed conflicts that took place between 1945 and 2001 in 153 regions of the world, 201 were initiated by the US, accounting for 81% of the total”.
I don’t think anyone can be in any doubt as to who is really responsible for what is happening in Ukraine today. Washington’s destabilizing attempts to impose its hegemony are directed towards Russia.
Now, this justification –in the current case– has the ingredient that the Yankee power itself has made the European Union as an entity, as well as several of its main leaders, into spokespersons in favor of what the empire says and does.
What sense does it make for a continent -the European continent-, fiercely punished by two world wars that left millions of its children dead, wounded and mutilated, and entire cities destroyed, to ally itself again with those who were the first and only ones in the world to use the nuclear bomb, or who more recently and without consulting anyone, bombed Yugoslavia, a nation of that region?
Why not devote all the political forces in Europe to demanding withdrawal of all U.S. nuclear weapons, or the dozens of military bases installed on its territory and its hundreds of thousands of soldiers?
What other country in the world has an endorsement as questioned as that of the United States? What other power has hundreds of military bases scattered around the globe?
There was not supposed to be war in Ukraine, but unfortunately, there is. Therefore, all the strength and resources of the world should be directed to bringing the confrontation to an end as soon as possible. Let no more Ukrainians, Russians or other nationalities continue to die. Let only Russia and Ukraine seek the best way to live as neighbors: in peace and mutual respect.
A neutral Ukraine, where all its inhabitants, whether Russians or Ukrainians, live together in harmony and tranquility, united in the common desire to build an inclusive and prosperous country.
But militarizing Ukraine or encouraging it to join NATO is, above all, an historical irresponsibility with unpredictable consequences.
In this regard, the Russian Foreign Ministry has pointed out that financing Ukraine and supporting it militarily goes against the principles and agreements signed by the European Union.
It lists, among others, the fact that Kyiv ignores its obligations under the Minsk agreements, endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2202. Also the violation of human rights, with the use of weapons provided by the West for the ongoing repression in Donbas.
Russia warns about the risks of an escalation of the conflict due to the delivery of more weapons, which, in addition, threatens regional security and stability. It also points out the danger of deliveries of these war devices falling into the wrong hands, including those of terrorist organizations, given the uncontrolled distribution to the Ukrainian population.
Finally, Russia recalls that Ukraine’s economy is suffering as a result of the armed conflict.
How to Achieve Peace in Ukraine
How to achieve Peace in Ukraine
By Max Lesnik
March 01, 2022
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
We can learn from history and thus avoid repeating past mistakes by seeking to replicate the successes only.
The crisis between Russia and Ukraine that has led to an open war between these neighboring countries, with the invasion of the territory of the latter by the former, leading to a very serious situation that could lead to a disastrous nuclear catastrophe for all mankind.
How was the so-called “October Crisis”, which almost led to a nuclear holocaust between the United States and the now defunct Soviet Union, resolved in 1962?
Diplomacy and not arms resolved the dangerous conflict that almost turned the “Cold War” into a “Hot War” that would have turned the world into a planetary cemetery at that time.
Cuba, already harassed by the United States since the triumph of its Revolution, was threatened by the “Colossus of the North” with invasion of its territory in Imperial response to the courageous attitude of the small Caribbean island that dared to defend its independence and sovereignty at whatever price was necessary.
It was then that another world power, the Soviet Union, rival of the United States in the so-called “Cold War”, in an attitude of solidarity and with the acquiescence of the revolutionary government, installed rocket batteries with atomic capacity on Cuban soil in order to respond militarily to the United States, in the event of an American invasion of the rebellious Cuba.
The world was on the brink of atomic war. But dialogue and diplomacy prevailed. An exchange of messages and letters ensued between Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev  and U.S. President John F. Kennedy, a dialogue that led to an honorable agreement between the conflicting parties .
The Soviets would withdraw the rockets which, according to Kennedy, because they were only a few miles from U.S. territory, threatened the security of his country. A solid and convincing argument.
In addition, Cuba would not be part of the so-called “Warsaw Pact”, a military alliance of the communist nations of Europe, equivalent to NATO, which unites militarily the United States with the nations of Western Europe.
In reciprocity, the United States would withdraw the atomic rockets they had in Turkey, which, because of their proximity to the territory of the Soviet Union, threatened the security of that nation. A solid argument that also convinces.
And most importantly. The United States accepted the commitment not to attack Cuba militarily. No invasion.
The so-called “Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact” saved the world from a nuclear holocaust.
In the current political-military crisis between Russia and Ukraine, the parties in conflict should seek a compromise to resolve their differences diplomatically, as was done during the October Crisis of 1962.
The Russians withdraw from Ukrainian territory and undertake not to invade neighboring Ukraine in the future. For its part, Ukraine renounces to be part of NATO and commits itself that in its territory, so close to Russia, atomic weapons that threaten Russian security will never be deployed. A solid argument that convinces.
This time Putin is in the role of Kennedy and Biden in that of Nikita Khrushchev.
I believe that Putin understands and would accept this commitment to world peace.
Will President Biden understand it as President Kennedy understood it then?
To be or not to be. That is the question!
MINREX: For international peace and security
Call for the preservation of international peace and security
Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Author: MINREX | internet@granma.cu
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
The United States’ endeavor to impose NATO’s progressive expansion towards the borders of the Russian Federation constitutes a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation and to regional and international peace.
The U.S. Government has for weeks been threatening Russia and manipulating the international community about the dangers of an “imminent massive invasion” of Ukraine. It has supplied weapons and military technology, deployed troops in several countries in the region, applied unilateral and unjust sanctions, and threatened other reprisals. At the same time, it has unleashed an anti-Russian propaganda campaign.
Cuba has previously warned about the danger of this policy.
On February 22, 2014, the then President of the Councils of State and Ministers, Army General Raul Castro Ruz, warned, “Right now, alarming events are taking place in Ukraine. The intervention of Western powers must cease (…). It should not be ignored that these events could have very serious consequences for international peace and security”.
Years later, on September 26, 2018, before the United Nations General Assembly, the President of the Republic, Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, warned that, “The continued expansion of NATO towards the borders with Russia causes serious dangers, aggravated by the imposition of arbitrary sanctions that we reject.
We call on the United States and NATO to seriously and realistically address the well-founded demands for security guarantees from the Russian Federation, which has the right to defend itself.
Cuba advocates a diplomatic solution through constructive and respectful dialogue.
We call for the preservation of international peace and security.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba
Havana, 22 February 2022
Ukraine and the spark of Donbass
Ukraine and the spark of Donbass
In a tweet, the member of the Political Bureau and Cuban Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, wrote: “We strongly reject the propagandistic and communicational hysteria unleashed by the U.S. government against Russia and we firmly oppose the expansion of NATO to the borders of that brother country”.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
Russia estimates that more than 40 000 refugees from Donbas are already on its territory. Photo: Sputnik
The last week – that of the Russian “invasion” of Ukraine, fabricated by Washington – ended, and with it even the Russian military maneuvers, scheduled in advance, began the timeline for the return home of those involved.
Both the President of the United States, Joe Biden, as well as the highest exponents of NATO and some European rulers or subordinates were left wanting the shots to ring out and insisted on new lies on the same subject, but now more towards the inside of Ukraine than in the foreign environment.
The Kyiv government, used as “bait” for Russia to “take the bait” of the West and provoke a war, seems to be disappointed by so many lies and manipulation of those who have promised it NATO membership and the guarantee of its security in the face of a possible reaction from Moscow.
However, with these actions, the only thing they have caused Ukraine is a substantial economic loss that already exceeds $3 billion, without counting the bills that will be passed on later for the “aid” in weapons of all kinds that they are providing it with. But where are the shots and the supposed casualties caused by the Russian invasion? Where did the tanks and artillery that Washington announced would reach Kyiv come in.
Then they remembered a key piece in this puzzle: the separatist republics of Donbass with their territories of Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR), in Ukraine, became, overnight, the spark of a new provocation against Moscow.
Kyiv, with its army, is staging a montage that cannot be sustained, but which already this weekend left some civilians dead and more than 40,000 people of Russian origin were forced to cross the border and take refuge in the Russian region of Rostov.
In view of the heated warlike mood, both Russia and Belarus, which had already ended their joint military maneuvers, have decided to prolong them. Belarusian Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin described the current scenario as “a strong smell of gunpowder” in the region, with the possibility of “Europe being pushed into a war”, as several neighboring countries are accumulating more advanced weapons, according to RT.
He also reiterated that the goal of the Russian and Belarusian maneuvers remains the same: “to ensure an adequate response and de-escalation of the enemies’ military preparations.”
In the meantime, the spark in Donbas may become, with the help of the West and the mainstream press at its service, a detonator that will make what Russia and the international community want to avoid – a war – a reality.
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)
Russia Increases Parliament’s Role
Russia Increases Parliament’s Role
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
During his annual message to the Federal Assembly (Russian Parliament), the President of that nation, Vladimir Putin, proposed a series of constitutional amendments that he considered important for the development of Russia as a legitimate social state, one whose highest value lies, he said, in the freedoms and rights of citizens, the dignity of people and their welfare.
Putin proposed that a package of legislative actions to be put to a citizens’ vote, the outcome of which would serve to make the final decisions. Putin’s most publicized proposal was to transfer from the President to Parliament the power to approve nominations of the Prime Minister and members of the government.
It also gives Parliament the power to approve, on the proposal of the head of government, the appointment of all deputy prime ministers and federal ministers. However, the Prime Minister shall retain the power to dismiss the Prime Minister, his vice ministers and other ministers, when they lose their confidence or perform their duties incorrectly.
It consolidates the regular indexation of pensions and sets the minimum wage that cannot be below the level of the current subsistence minimum. It prohibits the adoption of foreign citizenship or any residence permit abroad for certain categories of public officials who hold positions critical to ensuring the country’s security and sovereignty, such as regional leaders, parliamentarians, ministers, heads of other federal agencies and judges.
It adjusts the requirements in order to ensure that candidates for the Russian presidency have permanent residence in the country for no less than 25 years and that they do not have citizenship or a residence permit in a foreign country.
It consolidates the status and role of the Council of State, so that the highest leaders of all regions of the country are included in this high legislative body.
Limits the priority of international law so that the requirements of international law and treaties, as well as the decisions of international bodies, may act on the territory of Russia only to the extent that they do not restrict the individual rights and freedoms of citizens, and do not contradict the [Russian Federation’s] Constitution.
It grants the Council of the Federation (the upper house of the Russian Parliament) the power to dismiss federal judges and, in some cases, to remove – on the proposal of its president – judges of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court.
It strengthens the role of the Constitutional Court, giving it the right to verify the constitutionality of federal laws that are initiated by the President, before they are signed by the Head of State.
It assigns to the Russian President the power to appoint the heads of law enforcement agencies, after agreement with the Council of the Federation.
Currently, under the Russian Constitution, the President only requires authorization from the State Duma to appoint the head of government and, after that, to appoint the head of the Cabinet, his
deputy ministers and all ministers.
Now Putin has proposed changing this order and entrusting the State Duma not only with the authorization, but also with the approval of the candidacy of the President of the Government of the Russian Federation, and then, on the proposal of the President of the Government, of all the deputy prime ministers and federal ministers”.
The Head of State will also be obliged to appoint them to the post, i.e. he will not have the power to reject the nominations of officials approved by Parliament.
Putin said that this is “a very serious change in the political system that will increase the role of Parliament, as well as the importance of the State Duma, the parliamentary parties and the accountability of the head of government and all members of the Cabinet.
He assured that they will assign greater responsibility in the formation of the Executive with “more responsibility for the policies that the Government implements”.
Currently, under the Russian Constitution, the President only requires authorization from the State Duma to appoint the head of government, and after that the President appoints the head of the Cabinet, his deputy ministers and all ministers.
Putin argues that greater responsibility in the formation of the executive augurs well for greater accountability in the policies that are implemented.
After the opinions of 75 experts with diverse profiles created to discuss the constitutional amendments proposed by Putin are known, they will be voted today, Thursday 30th, in the Duma.
January 31st, 2020.
Sino-Russian Strategic Alliance
China and Russia in Strategic Alliance
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
The Russian magazine of the Strategic Culture Foundation (FCE) published on 7th June an important editorial dedicated to highlighting the strong contrast between the strategic alliance for the 21st century that is being consolidated between China and Russia and the situation of enmity and confrontation that can be seen among Western leaders.
Russian President Vladimir Putin received his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Moscow this week for a three-day state visit.
The meeting not only enhanced the personal affection cultivated among them in nearly 30 meetings over the past six years. President Xi referred to Putin as a close friend and a great international ally.
Even more important is the fact that the two nations are solidifying a strategic alliance that could define the geopolitics of the 21st century, the FCE editorialist considers.
Putin and Xi – who also recently attended the International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg – signed a series of bilateral trade agreements there that will boost Eurasian development and, indeed, global development.
Of particular importance is the continued drive by Moscow and Beijing to conduct international trade in national currencies, thus avoiding the use of the US dollar as a means of payment in international transactions. This is a crucial step in countering Washington’s purported hegemonic control of the global financial system.
Washington today abuses its privileged position of printing or retaining dollars to impose its imperial domination before the eyes of the world. This abuse must stop, and it will stop when Russia and China pave the way for a new, fairer mechanism of international finance and trade.
The policy of cooperation and partnership between equals described by Putin and Xi is based on mutual respect and peaceful prosperity. This vision is not only for those two nations, but for all the others because this policy implies a multi-lateral world without any kind of subjection. In the context of these principles, the consolidation of the alliance between Russia and China represents hope for a peaceful future for the planet, the Russian magazine of the FCE writes.
This positive view is especially welcome at a time when the United States, under President Donald Trump, has unleashed great tension and multiple conflicts in its attempt to shore up its deteriorating global dominance.
The United States is exerting sanctions and threats on numerous nations, including Russia and China, and is doing so even to its supposed allies in Europe, all in a desperate attempt to assert its hegemonic and uni-polar power.
This Imperial policy is the negation of the policies of solidarity and partnership outlined by the Russian and Chinese leaderships. The American style is not only useless, but above all it leads to destruction and war. A path by which, in short, nobody wins, says the FCE editorialist.
History has shown where a policy like the American one leads. In the 20th century, two horrendous world wars were fought – with nearly 100 million dead – largely due to imperialist rivalry.
Russia and China were the two nations that suffered the most in these conflagrations. Both know the horrible cost of conflict, but also how precious peace is. That is why it is encouraging to see those two countries forging a new paradigm of international cooperation based on solidarity and commitment to the development of the common good of all nations.
While Putin and Xi contribute to a solid project for the future, those of the United States and some other Western countries publicly show their disagreements. The false camaraderie of Western leaders is disproved by their ongoing disputes and rivalries. Trump and other European leaders have just celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landing in June 1944, a military event that announced the opening of the Western front in Nazi-occupied Europe. It contributed to the defeat of the Third Reich, but it was by far not the most important battle. The so-called D-Day was not a definitive milestone in the course of the war.
The historical truth is different. It is indisputable that it was the Soviet Red Army and the colossal sacrifices of Soviet citizens that constituted the fundamental force to defeat Nazi Germany and achieve the liberation of Europe from fascism. The momentous Battle of Stalingrad, which destroyed the Nazi war machine, ended in February 1943, some 16 months before the Western Allies launched their “D” day.
Western leaders enjoy smugly speculating about alleged past glories. This vanity fair does not change the historical record or objective truth. Those who do not learn from history repeat their mistakes and fall back into a dead end. They are leaders who are afraid of the future, says the FCE.
*This article can be reproduced by citing the newspaper POR ESTO! as a source.
You must be logged in to post a comment.