by Peter Koenig
The lame duck, Obama, extending a conciliatory hand to Cuba by opening an embassy in Havana, by reopening, after 54 years of a criminal and crippling embargo, diplomatic relations? – At the same time Obama is making not a single concession in terms of lifting the blockade. This smells like a trap. Cuba beware!
Imagine – a US Embassy in Havana – it would open the floodgates for US NED (National Endowment for Democracy) funded ‘NGOs’, for Washington’s spies and anti-Castro propaganda machine; it would have free hand to destabilize the country. And what would Cuba gain? – Zilch, zero, nothing. Not even a gradual lifting of the embargo had been announced. To the contrary, it would open Cuba’s borders to the vultures of Florida Cubans, eventually to theirs and other foreign investments, subjugating the country’s huge social gains over the last half a century – universal free education and health services, by far the best social system of the Americas – to the sledgehammer of neoliberal privatization.
Why would Cuba now need a US Embassy? After 54 years of struggling and surviving against Washington’s nod? – In fact, nobody needs the empire – the empire’s consent to financially and economically survive. Suffice it to look at the ‘engineered’ decay of the Russian ruble which eventually will leave Russia better off than before the downward slide of its currency and the likewise ‘engineered’ downward spin of the price of petrol. Everybody knows that the Middle Eastern oil producers, Obama’s stooges, will not forever shoot themselves in the foot by flooding the petrol market and foregoing their oil revenues.
What Cuba needs is free access to international markets – outside and independent of the United States. Cuba needs to integrate into an independent financial and monetary system, detached from the corrupt casino dollar. Solidarity by the rest of the world which has already helped Cuba survive the illegal, inhuman US embargo is now more than ever of the order. The support of a unity of nations must now help stem the temptation to bend to Washington’s offer of ‘diplomacy’.
With the establishment of diplomatic relations, Cuba would be condemned to adopt the dollar as trading currency – no escaping the dollar, if ever Cuba wanted to hope for the good deeds of the empire – the lifting of the blockade.
Look what happened in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador – once a US Embassy is established, all the nefarious destabilizing elements could sneak in, willy-nilly. Plus, economic ‘sanctions’, would be nearer than ever, if Cuba doesn’t behave. Both Bolivia and Venezuela have learned their lessons the hard way. After they closed the US Embassy and sent US organizations and NGOs home, they could breathe again. Though Venezuela is still suffering from Washington’s diabolical arm of propaganda and direct interference in domestic affairs, she has no longer the burden of maintaining a ‘diplomatic’ tie with the northern aggressor.
Most importantly, however – the US is vying for Cuban hydrocarbons, estimated today at 20 billion barrels of offshore oil reserves. Cuba, like Venezuela, is close to US Mexican Gulf shores, where the major refineries are waiting for the crude. During his tour of South America in July 2014, President Putin in a meeting with Cuban President, Raul Castro, signed an agreement whereby the Russian oil company, Rosneft, will assist the Cuban oil producer, Cupet, exploring and exploiting the island’s offshore petrol.
Is it coincidence or sheer self-interest, that just now, when Russia is digging for oil in Obama’s backyard that he is offering diplomatic ties with the 54 years embargoed Caribbean island? – Your guess.
Venezuela has the world’s largest remaining hydrocarbon reserves, about 300 billion barrels. They are close to the US shores and would be the best bet for US mega-oil. But the White House’s destabilizing efforts in Venezuela seem to fail. These efforts and other State Department blunders have helped increase US isolation in Latin America.
Why not trying another approach? – A well disguised lie; insinuating with the opening of an embassy in Havana that the deadly embargo might ease in some undefined future between the brutal Goliath of the north and castigated, downtrodden David of the Caribbean. An embassy in Cuba may also earn some much needed kudos with other Latin American neighbors which have been upset for years about the criminal strangulation by the empire of one of their brothers.
In fact, first reactions from Latin America to Obama’s diplomatic initiative were positive. But more than caution is in order. – The establishment of a US embassy in Havana might be more than just a floodgate for US secret service agents and anti-Cuba propaganda. A US Embassy in Havana might begin breaking down US isolation in South America, especially in Brazil and Argentina. It might become a backdoor for Washington to gain access to these countries huge natural resources.
Knowing about Washington’s agenda of world dominance, it would be difficult to imagine that there is even a shred of goodwill behind Obama’s move to ‘normalize’ relations with Cuba. – Havana beware!
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, the Voice of Russia, now Ria Novosti, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.
Showing posts with label Cuba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cuba. Show all posts
Monday, December 22, 2014
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Reflections by Fidel Castro: The Yankee Bases and the Latin American Sovereignty
by Fidel Castro Ruz for Cubanow.net
The concept of nation emerged from the combination of common elements such as history, language, culture, costumes, laws, institutions and others related to the material and spiritual life of human communities.
Bolivar, who worked the great heroic deeds that made him be known as ‘The Liberator’ during his struggle for the freedom of the peoples of the Americas, urged them to create what he called “the greatest nation in the world: less for its extension and riches than for its liberty and glory.”
In Ayacucho, Antonio José de Sucre waged the last battle against the empire that for more than 300 years had transformed much of this continent into a royal property of the Spanish Crown.
That was the same America that tens of years later, after being divided in part by the rising Yankee imperialism, was called by Martí ‘Our America.’
We should remember once again that on May 19, 1895, a few hours before dying in combat for the independence of Cuba -the last bastion of Spanish colonialism in the Americas-, Jose Marti prophetically wrote that everything he had done and would do was to “…timely prevent, with the independence of Cuba, that the United States could expand over the Antilles and fall with that additional force over our American lands."
In the United States, the recently liberated thirteen colonies did not take long to engage in a disorderly expansion to the West in their quest for land and gold -while exterminating indigenous populations- until they reached the Pacific coast. The agricultural and slave States of the South competed with the industrial States of the North that exploited wage labor in an attempt to create other States to protect their economic interests.
In 1848 Mexico was robbed of more than 50 per cent of its territory during a war of conquest launched against that country that was then militarily weak. The conquerors occupied the capital and imposed humiliating peace conditions. Mexico’s big reserves of oil and gas, which remained in the territory that was robbed, would later on be supplied to the United States for more than a century and in part they continue to be so now.
The Yankee filibuster William Walker, encouraged by “the manifest destiny” declared by his country, landed in Nicaragua in 1855 and proclaimed himself as President, until he was expelled by the Nicaraguans and other Central American patriots in 1856.
Our National Hero realized how the destiny of Latin American countries was being shattered by the rising United States Empire.
After Marti’s death in combat there was a military intervention in Cuba at a time when the Spanish army had already been defeated.
The Platt Amendment, which granted that powerful country the right to intervene in the Island, was imposed on Cuba.
The occupation of Puerto Rico - which has lasted for 111 years now- a country nowadays called “Free Associated State” that is neither free nor a State, was another consequence of that intervention.
The worst was still to come for Latin America, as was confirmed by the brilliant premonitions of Marti. The rising empire had already decided that the canal that would connect the two oceans would go through Panama and not through Nicaragua. The Panama isthmus, the Corinth dreamed of by Bolivar as the capital of the biggest Republic of the world he had envisaged, would become a Yankees’ property.
Despite that, there were worst consequences that occurred in the course of the 20th century. With the support of the national political oligarchies, the United States became the owner of the resources and the economies of Latin American countries. Military interventions multiplied; the armies and police forces fell under the US aegis. The Yankee transnationals took control over the fundamental productions and services, banks, insurance companies, foreign trade, railways, ships, warehouses, electricity and telephone services. Others, to a greater or lesser degree, were also finally controlled by them.
It is true that the sharp social inequities led to the emergence of the Mexican Revolution in the second decade of the 20th century -which became a source of inspiration for other countries. The Revolution made it possible for Mexico to make progress in different areas. But the same empire that in the past devoured much of the Mexican territory, is also devouring today important natural resources that still remain in that country, imports cheap labor and is even forcing the Mexican people to shed its own blood.
NAFTA is the most brutal economic agreement ever imposed on a developing country. For the sake of brevity, it will suffice it to point out that the US Government has recently stated that in this moment, when Mexico has been hit by a double blow, not only because of its economic slowdown, but also because of the effects of the AH1N1 virus, the US would probably want to see a more stable economy there before engaging in a long discussion about new commercial negotiations. And of course, not a single word is said about the fact that, as a consequence of the war unleashed by drug trafficking - for which Mexico has deployed 36 000 troops-, almost 4 000 Mexicans have died in 2009. The same phenomenon repeats itself to a greater or lesser degree in the rest of Latin America. Drugs not only cause serious health problems; they also give rise to violence which is causing lot of pain in Mexico and Latin America as a consequence of the insatiable appetite of US markets, which are an undepletable source of the hard currency that is used to foment the production of cocaine and heroine. The US is the country that supplies the weapons that are used in that ferocious and unadvertised war.
Those who die in the territory between Rio Grande and the farthest corners of South America are all Latin Americans. Thus, general violence is breaking new records of deaths and the victims, resulting mostly from drugs and poverty, surpass the figure of 100 000 a year in Latin America.
The empire does not wage the war on drugs within its borders; it does so in the Latin American countries.
In our country we do not grow coca or poppy. We efficiently combat those who attempt to introduce drugs in our country or use Cuba as a transit point. The number of persons who die as a result of violence is decreasing every year. And for that we do not need Yankee soldiers. The war on drugs is a pretext to establish military bases in the whole hemisphere.
Since when the vessels of the Fourth Fleet and modern combat planes are used to combat drugs?
The true objective the US pursues is to control the economic resources, the markets, and to struggle against social changes. Was there any need to reactivate that fleet, which was demobilized after the Second World War, now, more than 60 years later, after the cold war is over and the USSR no longer exists? The arguments used for the installation of seven air and naval bases in Colombia are an insult to intelligence.
History will not forgive those who have been so disloyal to their own peoples, or those who resort to the exercise of sovereignty as a pretext to legitimize the presence of Yankee troops. What type of sovereignty they refer to? Is it the one conquered by Bolivar, Sucre, San Martin, O’Higgins, Morelos, Juárez, Tiradentes and Martí? None of them would have accepted such a repugnant argument to justify the granting of military bases to the Armed Forces of the United States, an empire far more dominant, powerful and universal than the Crowns of the Iberian Peninsula.
If as a consequence of such agreements promoted illegally and unconstitutionally by the United States, any government in that country uses those bases, as was done by Reagan during the dirty war, and Bush at the time of the Iraq war, to provoke an armed conflict between two sister nations, this would be a big tragedy. Venezuela and Colombia were born together in the history of the Americas, after the battles of Boyacá and Carabobo, under the leadership of Simon Bolivar. The Yankee forces could promote a dirty war as they did in Nicaragua, and even recruit soldiers of foreign nationalities who are trained by them and attack any country. But the combative, brave and patriotic people of Colombia would hardly let itself be dragged into a war against a people from a sister nation like Venezuela.
The imperialists would be making a mistake if they equally underestimate the other Latin American peoples. None of them would agree with the presence of Yankee military bases; none of them will fail to express its solidarity with any other Latin American people that is attacked by imperialism.
Martí felt great admiration for Bolivar, and he was not wrong when he said: “And that is how Bolivar is in the sky of America: vigilant and frowning…still wearing his campaign boots; because what he did not do, still remains undone today: because Bolivar still has things to do in the Americas.”
Fidel Castro Ruz
August 9, 2009
The concept of nation emerged from the combination of common elements such as history, language, culture, costumes, laws, institutions and others related to the material and spiritual life of human communities.
Bolivar, who worked the great heroic deeds that made him be known as ‘The Liberator’ during his struggle for the freedom of the peoples of the Americas, urged them to create what he called “the greatest nation in the world: less for its extension and riches than for its liberty and glory.”
In Ayacucho, Antonio José de Sucre waged the last battle against the empire that for more than 300 years had transformed much of this continent into a royal property of the Spanish Crown.
That was the same America that tens of years later, after being divided in part by the rising Yankee imperialism, was called by Martí ‘Our America.’
We should remember once again that on May 19, 1895, a few hours before dying in combat for the independence of Cuba -the last bastion of Spanish colonialism in the Americas-, Jose Marti prophetically wrote that everything he had done and would do was to “…timely prevent, with the independence of Cuba, that the United States could expand over the Antilles and fall with that additional force over our American lands."
In the United States, the recently liberated thirteen colonies did not take long to engage in a disorderly expansion to the West in their quest for land and gold -while exterminating indigenous populations- until they reached the Pacific coast. The agricultural and slave States of the South competed with the industrial States of the North that exploited wage labor in an attempt to create other States to protect their economic interests.
In 1848 Mexico was robbed of more than 50 per cent of its territory during a war of conquest launched against that country that was then militarily weak. The conquerors occupied the capital and imposed humiliating peace conditions. Mexico’s big reserves of oil and gas, which remained in the territory that was robbed, would later on be supplied to the United States for more than a century and in part they continue to be so now.
The Yankee filibuster William Walker, encouraged by “the manifest destiny” declared by his country, landed in Nicaragua in 1855 and proclaimed himself as President, until he was expelled by the Nicaraguans and other Central American patriots in 1856.
Our National Hero realized how the destiny of Latin American countries was being shattered by the rising United States Empire.
After Marti’s death in combat there was a military intervention in Cuba at a time when the Spanish army had already been defeated.
The Platt Amendment, which granted that powerful country the right to intervene in the Island, was imposed on Cuba.
The occupation of Puerto Rico - which has lasted for 111 years now- a country nowadays called “Free Associated State” that is neither free nor a State, was another consequence of that intervention.
The worst was still to come for Latin America, as was confirmed by the brilliant premonitions of Marti. The rising empire had already decided that the canal that would connect the two oceans would go through Panama and not through Nicaragua. The Panama isthmus, the Corinth dreamed of by Bolivar as the capital of the biggest Republic of the world he had envisaged, would become a Yankees’ property.
Despite that, there were worst consequences that occurred in the course of the 20th century. With the support of the national political oligarchies, the United States became the owner of the resources and the economies of Latin American countries. Military interventions multiplied; the armies and police forces fell under the US aegis. The Yankee transnationals took control over the fundamental productions and services, banks, insurance companies, foreign trade, railways, ships, warehouses, electricity and telephone services. Others, to a greater or lesser degree, were also finally controlled by them.
It is true that the sharp social inequities led to the emergence of the Mexican Revolution in the second decade of the 20th century -which became a source of inspiration for other countries. The Revolution made it possible for Mexico to make progress in different areas. But the same empire that in the past devoured much of the Mexican territory, is also devouring today important natural resources that still remain in that country, imports cheap labor and is even forcing the Mexican people to shed its own blood.
NAFTA is the most brutal economic agreement ever imposed on a developing country. For the sake of brevity, it will suffice it to point out that the US Government has recently stated that in this moment, when Mexico has been hit by a double blow, not only because of its economic slowdown, but also because of the effects of the AH1N1 virus, the US would probably want to see a more stable economy there before engaging in a long discussion about new commercial negotiations. And of course, not a single word is said about the fact that, as a consequence of the war unleashed by drug trafficking - for which Mexico has deployed 36 000 troops-, almost 4 000 Mexicans have died in 2009. The same phenomenon repeats itself to a greater or lesser degree in the rest of Latin America. Drugs not only cause serious health problems; they also give rise to violence which is causing lot of pain in Mexico and Latin America as a consequence of the insatiable appetite of US markets, which are an undepletable source of the hard currency that is used to foment the production of cocaine and heroine. The US is the country that supplies the weapons that are used in that ferocious and unadvertised war.
Those who die in the territory between Rio Grande and the farthest corners of South America are all Latin Americans. Thus, general violence is breaking new records of deaths and the victims, resulting mostly from drugs and poverty, surpass the figure of 100 000 a year in Latin America.
The empire does not wage the war on drugs within its borders; it does so in the Latin American countries.
In our country we do not grow coca or poppy. We efficiently combat those who attempt to introduce drugs in our country or use Cuba as a transit point. The number of persons who die as a result of violence is decreasing every year. And for that we do not need Yankee soldiers. The war on drugs is a pretext to establish military bases in the whole hemisphere.
Since when the vessels of the Fourth Fleet and modern combat planes are used to combat drugs?
The true objective the US pursues is to control the economic resources, the markets, and to struggle against social changes. Was there any need to reactivate that fleet, which was demobilized after the Second World War, now, more than 60 years later, after the cold war is over and the USSR no longer exists? The arguments used for the installation of seven air and naval bases in Colombia are an insult to intelligence.
History will not forgive those who have been so disloyal to their own peoples, or those who resort to the exercise of sovereignty as a pretext to legitimize the presence of Yankee troops. What type of sovereignty they refer to? Is it the one conquered by Bolivar, Sucre, San Martin, O’Higgins, Morelos, Juárez, Tiradentes and Martí? None of them would have accepted such a repugnant argument to justify the granting of military bases to the Armed Forces of the United States, an empire far more dominant, powerful and universal than the Crowns of the Iberian Peninsula.
If as a consequence of such agreements promoted illegally and unconstitutionally by the United States, any government in that country uses those bases, as was done by Reagan during the dirty war, and Bush at the time of the Iraq war, to provoke an armed conflict between two sister nations, this would be a big tragedy. Venezuela and Colombia were born together in the history of the Americas, after the battles of Boyacá and Carabobo, under the leadership of Simon Bolivar. The Yankee forces could promote a dirty war as they did in Nicaragua, and even recruit soldiers of foreign nationalities who are trained by them and attack any country. But the combative, brave and patriotic people of Colombia would hardly let itself be dragged into a war against a people from a sister nation like Venezuela.
The imperialists would be making a mistake if they equally underestimate the other Latin American peoples. None of them would agree with the presence of Yankee military bases; none of them will fail to express its solidarity with any other Latin American people that is attacked by imperialism.
Martí felt great admiration for Bolivar, and he was not wrong when he said: “And that is how Bolivar is in the sky of America: vigilant and frowning…still wearing his campaign boots; because what he did not do, still remains undone today: because Bolivar still has things to do in the Americas.”
Fidel Castro Ruz
August 9, 2009
Friday, May 30, 2008
Fidel Castro: My Questions For Obama
Many thanks to Toufic for this very interesting contribution - VS
The brightest and best of the presidential hopefuls seeks to extend a cruel, immoral Cuba blockade
By Fidel Castro
It would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing Barack Obama's speech delivered at the Cuban American National Foundation last Friday. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries a favour. I have therefore no reservations about criticising him and expressing myself frankly.
What were Obama's statements? "Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy ... I won't stand for this injustice ... I will maintain the embargo."
This man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate for the US presidency, portrays the Cuban revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the same argument US administrations have used again and again to justify crimes against our country. The blockade is an act of genocide. I don't want to see US children inculcated with those shameful values.
No small and blockaded country like ours would have been able to hold its ground for so long on the basis of ambition, vanity, deceit or the abuse of power, the kind of power its neighbour has. To state otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of our heroic people.
I am not questioning Obama's great intelligence, his debating skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.
Is it right for the president of the US to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext? Is it ethical for the president of the US to order the torture of other human beings? Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the US as an instrument to bring peace to the planet?
Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment to only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilise it, good and honourable when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? Are the brain drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable?
Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks? Is it honourable and sane to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military-industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over? Is that the way in which the US expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?
Before judging our country, Obama should know that Cuba - with its education, health, sports, culture and science programmes, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world, and in spite of the economic and financial blockade and the aggression of his powerful country - is proof that much can be done with very little. Cuba has never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the US our help when hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our revolution can mobilise tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilise an equally vast number of teachers and citizens who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfil any noble purpose, not to usurp rights or take possession of raw materials.
The goodwill and determination of people constitute limitless resources that would not fit in the vault of a bank. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire.
· Fidel Castro is former president of Cuba. This is an edited version of an article that appeared in Granma, the Cuban Communist party newspaper granma.co.cu
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/29/barackobama.cuba
The brightest and best of the presidential hopefuls seeks to extend a cruel, immoral Cuba blockade
By Fidel Castro
It would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing Barack Obama's speech delivered at the Cuban American National Foundation last Friday. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries a favour. I have therefore no reservations about criticising him and expressing myself frankly.
What were Obama's statements? "Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy ... I won't stand for this injustice ... I will maintain the embargo."
This man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate for the US presidency, portrays the Cuban revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the same argument US administrations have used again and again to justify crimes against our country. The blockade is an act of genocide. I don't want to see US children inculcated with those shameful values.
No small and blockaded country like ours would have been able to hold its ground for so long on the basis of ambition, vanity, deceit or the abuse of power, the kind of power its neighbour has. To state otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of our heroic people.
I am not questioning Obama's great intelligence, his debating skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.
Is it right for the president of the US to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext? Is it ethical for the president of the US to order the torture of other human beings? Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the US as an instrument to bring peace to the planet?Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment to only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilise it, good and honourable when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? Are the brain drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable?
Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks? Is it honourable and sane to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military-industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over? Is that the way in which the US expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?
Before judging our country, Obama should know that Cuba - with its education, health, sports, culture and science programmes, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world, and in spite of the economic and financial blockade and the aggression of his powerful country - is proof that much can be done with very little. Cuba has never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the US our help when hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our revolution can mobilise tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilise an equally vast number of teachers and citizens who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfil any noble purpose, not to usurp rights or take possession of raw materials.
The goodwill and determination of people constitute limitless resources that would not fit in the vault of a bank. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire.
· Fidel Castro is former president of Cuba. This is an edited version of an article that appeared in Granma, the Cuban Communist party newspaper granma.co.cu
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/29/barackobama.cuba
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Ron Paul on US policies towards Cuba
Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Still No Cigars
by Rep. Ron Paul
Since Raul Castro seems to be transitioning to a more permanent position of power, the administration has begun talking about Cuba policy again. One would think we would be able to survey the results of the last 45 years and come to logical conclusions. Changing course never seems to be an option, however, no matter how futile or counterproductive our past actions have been.
The Cuban embargo began officially in 1962 as a means to put pressure on the communist dictatorship to change its ways. After 45 years, the Cuban economy has struggled, but Cuba's dictatorship is no closer to stepping to the beat of our drum. Any ailments have consistently and successfully been blamed on U.S. capitalism instead of Cuban communism. They have substituted trade with others for trade with the U.S., and they are "awash" in development funds from abroad. Our isolationist policies with regard to Cuba, meanwhile, have hardly won the hearts and minds of Cubans or Cuban-Americans, many of whom are isolated from families because this political animosity.
In the name of helping Cubans, the U.S. administration is calling for multibillions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for Internet access, education, and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backward. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the U.S. Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans!
The irony of supposed free-marketeers inducing communists to freedom with government handouts should not be missed. We call for a free and private press in Cuba while our attempts to propagandize Cubans through the U.S.-government-run Radio/TV Marti have wasted $600 million in American taxpayer dollars.
It's time to stop talking solely in terms of what's best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba? Let's stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans – which is not our government's responsibility – and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China. Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being: it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose whom to buy from or where to travel – not our government.
Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba, it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.
by Rep. Ron Paul
Since Raul Castro seems to be transitioning to a more permanent position of power, the administration has begun talking about Cuba policy again. One would think we would be able to survey the results of the last 45 years and come to logical conclusions. Changing course never seems to be an option, however, no matter how futile or counterproductive our past actions have been.
The Cuban embargo began officially in 1962 as a means to put pressure on the communist dictatorship to change its ways. After 45 years, the Cuban economy has struggled, but Cuba's dictatorship is no closer to stepping to the beat of our drum. Any ailments have consistently and successfully been blamed on U.S. capitalism instead of Cuban communism. They have substituted trade with others for trade with the U.S., and they are "awash" in development funds from abroad. Our isolationist policies with regard to Cuba, meanwhile, have hardly won the hearts and minds of Cubans or Cuban-Americans, many of whom are isolated from families because this political animosity.
In the name of helping Cubans, the U.S. administration is calling for multibillions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for Internet access, education, and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backward. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the U.S. Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans!The irony of supposed free-marketeers inducing communists to freedom with government handouts should not be missed. We call for a free and private press in Cuba while our attempts to propagandize Cubans through the U.S.-government-run Radio/TV Marti have wasted $600 million in American taxpayer dollars.
It's time to stop talking solely in terms of what's best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba? Let's stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans – which is not our government's responsibility – and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China. Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being: it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose whom to buy from or where to travel – not our government.
Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba, it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Cubans treat man who killed Che
BBC - Cuban doctors working in Bolivia have saved the sight of the man who executed revolutionary leader Che Guevara in 1967, Cuban official media report.
Mario Teran, a Bolivian army sergeant, shot dead Che Guevara after he was captured in Bolivia's eastern lowlands.
Cuban media reported news of the surgery ahead of the 40th anniversary of Che's death on 9 October.
Mr Teran had cataracts removed under a Cuban programme to offer free eye treatment across Latin America.
The operation on Mr Teran took place last year and was first revealed when his son wrote to a Bolivian newspaper to thank the Cuban doctors for restoring his father's sight.
But Cuban media took up the story at the weekend as the island prepares for commemorations to mark Che Guevara's death 40 years ago.
"Four decades after Mario Teran attempted to destroy a dream and an idea, Che returns to win yet another battle," the Communist Party's official newspaper Granma proclaimed.
"Now an old man, he [Teran] can once again appreciate the colours of the sky and the forest, enjoy the smiles of his grandchildren and watch football games."
Wounded
Che Guevara, who played a key role in the Cuban revolution of 1959, travelled to Bolivia in 1966 to start a social revolution.
But in October 1967, the Bolivian army, with assistance from the CIA, captured Guevara and his remaining fighters.
Che Guevara, wounded in the fighting, was taken to a schoolhouse in the village of La Higuera on 8 October where the soldiers debated what to do with him.
Mario Teran is reported to have drawn the short straw and been ordered to execute the captured guerrilla.
Che Guevara was killed on 9 October and his body taken to a hospital in nearby Vallegrande, where his corpse was paraded before the world's media.
In 1997 his remains were discovered, exhumed and returned to Cuba, where he was reburied.
Mario Teran, a Bolivian army sergeant, shot dead Che Guevara after he was captured in Bolivia's eastern lowlands.
Cuban media reported news of the surgery ahead of the 40th anniversary of Che's death on 9 October.
Mr Teran had cataracts removed under a Cuban programme to offer free eye treatment across Latin America.
The operation on Mr Teran took place last year and was first revealed when his son wrote to a Bolivian newspaper to thank the Cuban doctors for restoring his father's sight.
But Cuban media took up the story at the weekend as the island prepares for commemorations to mark Che Guevara's death 40 years ago.
"Four decades after Mario Teran attempted to destroy a dream and an idea, Che returns to win yet another battle," the Communist Party's official newspaper Granma proclaimed.
"Now an old man, he [Teran] can once again appreciate the colours of the sky and the forest, enjoy the smiles of his grandchildren and watch football games."
Wounded
Che Guevara, who played a key role in the Cuban revolution of 1959, travelled to Bolivia in 1966 to start a social revolution.But in October 1967, the Bolivian army, with assistance from the CIA, captured Guevara and his remaining fighters.
Che Guevara, wounded in the fighting, was taken to a schoolhouse in the village of La Higuera on 8 October where the soldiers debated what to do with him.
Mario Teran is reported to have drawn the short straw and been ordered to execute the captured guerrilla.
Che Guevara was killed on 9 October and his body taken to a hospital in nearby Vallegrande, where his corpse was paraded before the world's media.
In 1997 his remains were discovered, exhumed and returned to Cuba, where he was reburied.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
The Tragic Ordeal of the Cuban Five
Victims of National Security Injustice
By Saul Landau
In 1953, a man I knew got busted for masturbating at a public urinal. A cop had hidden in the ceiling grate above him "to find perverts." The lawyer, a friend of our family, charged him $5,000. "I gave $500 to the cop," the lawyer explained, "bought the judge a present and paid two witnesses $250 each to testify that he was wearing a complicated truss and that's what made it seem like an unnaturally long time for him to get adjusted after he went wee wee," the defense lawyer explained to my father.
I have no idea if his behavior typified that era or remains a standard today. Comedian Lenny Bruce's quipped: "In the Hall of Justice the only justice is in the hall," where the payoffs occurred. Indeed, the poor, not the middle class and certainly not the rich, inhabit U.S. jails and prisons. Most Americans understand that equal justice for all means police will arrest a rich or poor man sleeping under the bridge or stealing a loaf of bread.
Those who can afford expensive lawyers usually get away with murder. Take the cases of Claus von Bulow, who overdosed his rich wife with insulin, or O. J. Simpson, a case where the Los Angeles police actually framed the right guy for wife and friend killing. The accused paid millions of dollars to top lawyers who skillfully placed seeds of doubt in the jurors' minds. Public defenders often lack the resources, time and will to build minimum defenses for poor clients.
In some case, however, even the best defenders can't buy justice, especially when the government cites "national security." The Cuban Five case became victims of that phrase that usually means the government will not tell the public what it is doing or why. It reeks with imperial arrogance and often with vengeance as well.
The FBI busted five men (Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Ramón Labañino, Fernando Gonzáles, and René Gonzáles) in 1998 and a Miami jury convicted them in 2001 for conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit espionage and other serious offenses. The case illustrated the U.S. standard of justice for third world nations that disobey its dictates.
Since Washington had failed to punish Cuba adequately for its near half century of disobedience, the opportunity presented by the Cuban Five fell like a serendipitous apple onto the vengeful ground of the national security elite, the group that wages war and regularly infringes on citizens' rights in order to "protect" the public. This bureaucratic posse inside executive agencies looks at the public as an obstacle to its imperial ambitions, to the notion of accountability as an irritant, the proverbial pimple on a sewer rat's butt. The following story illustrates.
In 2004, John Negroponte, then UN Ambassador en route to becoming Ambassador to Iraq and then top U.S. spy, explained why the security elite would have to reject an offer from the Iranian government (under Khatami) to reopen the U.S. embassy and normalize diplomatic relations. "In the last decades, Vietnam, Cuba and Iran have humiliated the United States," he explained to the diplomat -- a friend of mine -- who delivered the message from the Iranian government. "I suppose we've gotten even with the Vietnamese [4 million killed and 20 plus years of sanctions], but there's no way we're having relations with Iran or Cuba before they get what's coming to them." Since the elite will not wage war on Cuba -- Cubans will fight back -- they used the Cuban Five as surrogate punishment objects.
In the 1990s, these Cuban nationals infiltrated Florida-based anti-Castro terrorist groups and reported on the terrorists' activities to Havana. In 1998, an FBI delegation traveled to Cuba. Cuban officials gave the FBI some 1,200 pages of material, along with video and audio tapes that incriminated groups and individuals -- their names, weapons they carried or stored and other details that the Justice Department could use to prosecute the terrorists.
The FBI told their Cuban counterparts they would respond in a month. The Cubans are still waiting, but the FBI did use the material. They arrested the Cuban Five. The Justice Department then charged them with felonies.
Irony accompanied injustice. The five admitted they entered the United States to access U.S.-based groups plotting terrorism against Cuba. In fact, U.S. law actually allows people to commit crimes out of a greater necessity, one that would prevent greater harm.
"It is a form of self-defense, extended to acts which will protect other parties," argued Leonard Weinglass, attorney for Antonio Guerrero, one of the Five. Indeed, the Five's lawyers presented this argument to trial judge Joan Lenard, but she refused to let the jury consider it.
Weinglass and the other attorneys argued their appeals this month claiming the judge had erred by not submitting the "'defense of necessity' claim to the jury, because the Five came to the United States to prevent additional violence, injury and harm to others."
The U.S. government knew all about the terrorist "accomplishments" of Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, for examples. Both had boasted to reporters about their roles in terrorist acts, including the 1976 bombing of a Cuban commercial airliner -- they did this jointly -- in which 73 passengers and crew members perished. In 1998, Posada bragged about sabotaging Cuban tourist sites the previous year. In one bombing carried out by his paid agent, an Italian tourist died.
"We didn't want to hurt anybody," he told reporters Larry Rohter and Anne Bradach. "We just wanted to make a big scandal so that the tourists don't come anymore. We don't want any more foreign investment." Posada said he wanted potential tourists to think Cuba was unstable "and to encourage internal opposition."
Posada succeeded. Less tourists came to Cuba after the Italian died in the bombing. The Times reporters write that Posada "declared that he had a clear conscience, saying, 'I sleep like a baby.'" Then he said: "That Italian was sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time." (NY Times July 13, 1998)
The Five came here precisely to stop such activities, says Weinglass. "The Five's activities were justified and necessary in order to save lives." Weinglass had used this very argument to defend Amy Carter, when the President's daughter "occupied a building, with other students, at the University of Massachusetts, in opposition to the CIA agents who came to the campus to recruit students into the CIA. She acknowledged that her occupation of the building was a crime but she argued that that was justified by the doctrine of necessity because the CIA was then engaged in an illegal war in Nicaragua." The jury acquitted Amy and the other defendants.
Weinglass made a similar argument before a two-judge appeals court. In August 2005, this court initially heard the case and decided that the Five had not received a fair trial. The entire 12 judge panel of the 11th circuit reversed that decision despite massive evidence to show the Miami jurors had felt intimidated. From the window of the deliberation room they saw people taking photos of their license plates. Jurors had reason to fear serious retribution should they vote to acquit the Five.
The lawyers also appealed the conviction of Gerardo Hernandez for "conspiring" to commit murder. This charge arose from the February 1996 shoot-down by Cuban MIGs of two Brothers to the rescue planes that had violated Cuban airspace and were repeatedly warned of "grave consequences" should they enter Cuban territory without permission. At the trial, the Assistant U.S. Attorney acknowledged that he had no solid evidence to back up this charge.
Weinglass noted that the Gerardo conviction marked "the first time in history that an individual is being held liable for the action of a sovereign state in defending its airspace." Indeed, Cuba had every reason and the right to maintain sovereignty over its air space. The prosecutor made outrageous claims to the jury without citing evidence and the judge let him. He argued without facts that Cuba had sent the men to attack the United States. For the first time in legal U.S. history, the U.S. Attorney's office prosecuted a case without even referring to a single classified document.
The Five stole no secrets; unlike FBI Special Agent Robert Hansen, or the CIA's Aldrich Ames who passed tens of thousands of "top secrets" to the Soviet enemy, but two of them like the real spies, got life imprisonment.
Was U.S. justice fairer when a lawyer could bribe a cop in a meaningless case and rich guys could buy their way out of murder raps -- as they still do? Not if one recalls the "national security" framing of Sacco and Vanzetti in the 1920s and the 1953 execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, even though FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover and President Dwight Eisenhower both knew they had not passed atomic secrets to the Soviets. The government had invoked "national security" under which no justice occurs, not even in the halls.
Saul Landau is the author of A BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD. His films are available on dvd from roundworldproductions@gmail.com
For more information on the case of the Cuban Five please click here
By Saul Landau
In 1953, a man I knew got busted for masturbating at a public urinal. A cop had hidden in the ceiling grate above him "to find perverts." The lawyer, a friend of our family, charged him $5,000. "I gave $500 to the cop," the lawyer explained, "bought the judge a present and paid two witnesses $250 each to testify that he was wearing a complicated truss and that's what made it seem like an unnaturally long time for him to get adjusted after he went wee wee," the defense lawyer explained to my father.
I have no idea if his behavior typified that era or remains a standard today. Comedian Lenny Bruce's quipped: "In the Hall of Justice the only justice is in the hall," where the payoffs occurred. Indeed, the poor, not the middle class and certainly not the rich, inhabit U.S. jails and prisons. Most Americans understand that equal justice for all means police will arrest a rich or poor man sleeping under the bridge or stealing a loaf of bread.
Those who can afford expensive lawyers usually get away with murder. Take the cases of Claus von Bulow, who overdosed his rich wife with insulin, or O. J. Simpson, a case where the Los Angeles police actually framed the right guy for wife and friend killing. The accused paid millions of dollars to top lawyers who skillfully placed seeds of doubt in the jurors' minds. Public defenders often lack the resources, time and will to build minimum defenses for poor clients.
In some case, however, even the best defenders can't buy justice, especially when the government cites "national security." The Cuban Five case became victims of that phrase that usually means the government will not tell the public what it is doing or why. It reeks with imperial arrogance and often with vengeance as well.
The FBI busted five men (Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Ramón Labañino, Fernando Gonzáles, and René Gonzáles) in 1998 and a Miami jury convicted them in 2001 for conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit espionage and other serious offenses. The case illustrated the U.S. standard of justice for third world nations that disobey its dictates.
Since Washington had failed to punish Cuba adequately for its near half century of disobedience, the opportunity presented by the Cuban Five fell like a serendipitous apple onto the vengeful ground of the national security elite, the group that wages war and regularly infringes on citizens' rights in order to "protect" the public. This bureaucratic posse inside executive agencies looks at the public as an obstacle to its imperial ambitions, to the notion of accountability as an irritant, the proverbial pimple on a sewer rat's butt. The following story illustrates.
In 2004, John Negroponte, then UN Ambassador en route to becoming Ambassador to Iraq and then top U.S. spy, explained why the security elite would have to reject an offer from the Iranian government (under Khatami) to reopen the U.S. embassy and normalize diplomatic relations. "In the last decades, Vietnam, Cuba and Iran have humiliated the United States," he explained to the diplomat -- a friend of mine -- who delivered the message from the Iranian government. "I suppose we've gotten even with the Vietnamese [4 million killed and 20 plus years of sanctions], but there's no way we're having relations with Iran or Cuba before they get what's coming to them." Since the elite will not wage war on Cuba -- Cubans will fight back -- they used the Cuban Five as surrogate punishment objects.
In the 1990s, these Cuban nationals infiltrated Florida-based anti-Castro terrorist groups and reported on the terrorists' activities to Havana. In 1998, an FBI delegation traveled to Cuba. Cuban officials gave the FBI some 1,200 pages of material, along with video and audio tapes that incriminated groups and individuals -- their names, weapons they carried or stored and other details that the Justice Department could use to prosecute the terrorists.
The FBI told their Cuban counterparts they would respond in a month. The Cubans are still waiting, but the FBI did use the material. They arrested the Cuban Five. The Justice Department then charged them with felonies.
Irony accompanied injustice. The five admitted they entered the United States to access U.S.-based groups plotting terrorism against Cuba. In fact, U.S. law actually allows people to commit crimes out of a greater necessity, one that would prevent greater harm.
"It is a form of self-defense, extended to acts which will protect other parties," argued Leonard Weinglass, attorney for Antonio Guerrero, one of the Five. Indeed, the Five's lawyers presented this argument to trial judge Joan Lenard, but she refused to let the jury consider it.
Weinglass and the other attorneys argued their appeals this month claiming the judge had erred by not submitting the "'defense of necessity' claim to the jury, because the Five came to the United States to prevent additional violence, injury and harm to others."
The U.S. government knew all about the terrorist "accomplishments" of Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, for examples. Both had boasted to reporters about their roles in terrorist acts, including the 1976 bombing of a Cuban commercial airliner -- they did this jointly -- in which 73 passengers and crew members perished. In 1998, Posada bragged about sabotaging Cuban tourist sites the previous year. In one bombing carried out by his paid agent, an Italian tourist died.
"We didn't want to hurt anybody," he told reporters Larry Rohter and Anne Bradach. "We just wanted to make a big scandal so that the tourists don't come anymore. We don't want any more foreign investment." Posada said he wanted potential tourists to think Cuba was unstable "and to encourage internal opposition."
Posada succeeded. Less tourists came to Cuba after the Italian died in the bombing. The Times reporters write that Posada "declared that he had a clear conscience, saying, 'I sleep like a baby.'" Then he said: "That Italian was sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time." (NY Times July 13, 1998)
The Five came here precisely to stop such activities, says Weinglass. "The Five's activities were justified and necessary in order to save lives." Weinglass had used this very argument to defend Amy Carter, when the President's daughter "occupied a building, with other students, at the University of Massachusetts, in opposition to the CIA agents who came to the campus to recruit students into the CIA. She acknowledged that her occupation of the building was a crime but she argued that that was justified by the doctrine of necessity because the CIA was then engaged in an illegal war in Nicaragua." The jury acquitted Amy and the other defendants.
Weinglass made a similar argument before a two-judge appeals court. In August 2005, this court initially heard the case and decided that the Five had not received a fair trial. The entire 12 judge panel of the 11th circuit reversed that decision despite massive evidence to show the Miami jurors had felt intimidated. From the window of the deliberation room they saw people taking photos of their license plates. Jurors had reason to fear serious retribution should they vote to acquit the Five.
The lawyers also appealed the conviction of Gerardo Hernandez for "conspiring" to commit murder. This charge arose from the February 1996 shoot-down by Cuban MIGs of two Brothers to the rescue planes that had violated Cuban airspace and were repeatedly warned of "grave consequences" should they enter Cuban territory without permission. At the trial, the Assistant U.S. Attorney acknowledged that he had no solid evidence to back up this charge.
Weinglass noted that the Gerardo conviction marked "the first time in history that an individual is being held liable for the action of a sovereign state in defending its airspace." Indeed, Cuba had every reason and the right to maintain sovereignty over its air space. The prosecutor made outrageous claims to the jury without citing evidence and the judge let him. He argued without facts that Cuba had sent the men to attack the United States. For the first time in legal U.S. history, the U.S. Attorney's office prosecuted a case without even referring to a single classified document.
The Five stole no secrets; unlike FBI Special Agent Robert Hansen, or the CIA's Aldrich Ames who passed tens of thousands of "top secrets" to the Soviet enemy, but two of them like the real spies, got life imprisonment.
Was U.S. justice fairer when a lawyer could bribe a cop in a meaningless case and rich guys could buy their way out of murder raps -- as they still do? Not if one recalls the "national security" framing of Sacco and Vanzetti in the 1920s and the 1953 execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, even though FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover and President Dwight Eisenhower both knew they had not passed atomic secrets to the Soviets. The government had invoked "national security" under which no justice occurs, not even in the halls.
Saul Landau is the author of A BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD. His films are available on dvd from roundworldproductions@gmail.com
For more information on the case of the Cuban Five please click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
