• Brother Obama

   

  We don’t need the empire to give us anything. Our efforts will be legal and peaceful, because our commitment is to peace and fraternity among all human beings who live on this planet.

   

   

  Author: Fidel Castro Ruz | internet@granma.cu

   

  march 28, 2016

• The kings of Spain brought us the conquistadores and masters, whose footprints remained in the circular land grants assigned to those searching for gold in the sands of rivers, an abusive and shameful form of exploitation, traces of which can be noted from the air in many places around the country.

   

  Tourism today, in large part, consists of viewing the delights of our landscapes and tasting exquisite delicacies from our seas, and is always shared with the private capital of large foreign corporations, whose earnings, if they don’t reach billions of dollars, are not worthy of any attention whatsoever.
• Since I find myself obliged to mention the issue, I must add - principally for the youth - that few people are aware of the importance of such a condition, in this singular moment of human history. I would not say that time has been lost, but I do not hesitate to affirm that we are not adequately informed, not you, nor us, of the knowledge and conscience that we must have to confront the realities which challenge us. The first to be taken into consideration is that our lives are but a fraction of a historical second, which must also be devoted in part to the vital necessities of every human being. One of the characteristics of this condition is the tendency to overvalue its role, in contrast, on the other hand, with the extraordinary number of persons who embody the loftiest dreams.
• Nevertheless, no one is good or bad entirely on their own. None of us is designed for the role we must assume in a revolutionary society, although Cubans had the privilege of José Martí’s example. I even ask myself if he needed to die or not in Dos Ríos, when he said, “For me, it’s time,” and charged the Spanish forces entrenched in a solid line of firepower. He did not want to return to the United States, and there was no one who could make him. Someone ripped some pages from his diary. Who bears this treacherous responsibility, undoubtedly the work of an unscrupulous conspirator? Differences between the leaders were well known, but never indiscipline. “Whoever attempts to appropriate Cuba will reap only the dust of its soil drenched in blood, if he does not perish in the struggle,” stated the glorious Black leader Antonio Maceo. Máximo Gómez is likewise recognized as the most disciplined and discreet military chief in our history.
• Looking at it from another angle, how can we not admire the indignation of Bonifacio Byrne when, from a distant boat returning him to Cuba, he saw another flag alongside that of the single star and declared, “My flag is that which has never been mercenary...” immediately adding one of the most beautiful phrases I have ever heard, “If it is torn to shreds, it will be my flag one day… our dead raising their arms will still be able to defend it!” Nor will I forget the blistering words of Camilo Cienfuegos that night, when, just some tens of meters away, bazookas and machine guns of U.S. origin in the hands of counterrevolutionaries were pointed toward that terrace on which we stood.

• Obama was born in August of 1961, as he himself explained. More than half a century has transpired since that time.

   

  Let us see, however, how our illustrious guest thinks today:

   

  “I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas. I have come here to extend the hand of friendship to the Cuban people,” followed by a deluge of concepts entirely novel for the majority of us:

• “We both live in a new world, colonized by Europeans,” the U.S. President continued, “Cuba, like the United States, was built in part by slaves brought here from Africa. Like the United States, the Cuban people can trace their heritage to both slaves and slave-owners.”

   

  The native populations don’t exist at all in Obama’s mind. Nor does he say that the Revolution swept away racial discrimination, or that pensions and salaries for all Cubans were decreed by it before Mr. Barrack Obama was 10 years old. The hateful, racist bourgeois custom of hiring strongmen to expel Black citizens from recreational centers was swept away by the Cuban Revolution - that which would go down in history for the battle against apartheid that liberated Angola, putting an end to the presence of nuclear weapons on a continent of more than a billion inhabitants. This was not the objective of our solidarity, but rather to help the peoples of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau and others under the fascist colonial domination of Portugal.

• In 1961, just one year and three months after the triumph of the Revolution, a mercenary force with armored artillery and infantry, backed by aircraft, trained and accompanied by U.S. warships and aircraft carriers, attacked our country by surprise. Nothing can justify that perfidious attack which cost our country hundreds of losses, including deaths and injuries

   

  As for the pro-yankee assault brigade, no evidence exists anywhere that it was possible to evacuate a single mercenary. Yankee combat planes were presented before the United Nations as the equipment of a Cuban uprising.

• The military experience and power of this country is very well known. In Africa, they likewise believed that revolutionary Cuba would be easily taken out of the fight. The invasion via southern Angola by racist South African motorized brigades got close to Luanda, the capital in the eastern part of the country. There a struggle began which went on for no less than 15 years. I wouldn’t even talk about this, if I didn’t have the elemental duty to respond to Obama’s speech in Havana’s Alicia Alonso Grand Theater.

   

  Nor will I attempt to give details, only emphasize that an honorable chapter in the struggle for human liberation was written there. In a certain way, I hoped Obama’s behavior would be correct. His humble origin and natural intelligence were evident. Mandela was imprisoned for life and had become a giant in the struggle for human dignity. One day, a copy of a book narrating part of Mandela’s life reached my hands, and - surprise! - the prologue was by Barack Obama. I rapidly skimmed the pages. The miniscule size of Mandela’s handwriting noting facts was incredible. Knowing men such as him was worthwhile.
• Regarding the episode in South Africa I must point out another experience. I was really interested in learning more about how the South Africans had acquired nuclear weapons. I only had very precise information that there were no more than 10 or 12 bombs. A reliable source was the professor and researcher Piero Gleijeses, who had written the text Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976, an excellent piece. I knew he was the most reliable source on what had happened and I told him so; he responded that he had not spoken more about the matter as in the text he had responded to questions from compañero Jorge Risquet, who had been Cuban ambassador and collaborator in Angola, a very good friend of his. I located Risquet; already undertaking other important tasks he was finishing a course which would last several weeks longer. That task coincided with a fairly recent visit by Piero to our country; I had warned him that Risquet was getting on and his health was not great. A few days later what I had feared occurred. Risquet deteriorated and died. When Piero arrived there was nothing to do except make promises, but I had already received information related to the weapons and the assistance that racist South Africa had received from Reagan and Israel.

• I do not know what Obama would have to say about this story now. I am unaware as to what he did or did not know, although it is very unlikely that he knew absolutely nothing. My modest suggestion is that he gives it thought and does not attempt now to elaborate theories on Cuban policy.

   

  There is an important issue:

   

  Obama made a speech in which he uses the most sweetened words to express: “It is time, now, to forget the past, leave the past behind, let us look to the future together, a future of hope. And it won’t be easy, there will be challenges and we must give it time; but my stay here gives me more hope in what we can do together as friends, as family, as neighbors, together.”

• I suppose all of us were at risk of a heart attack upon hearing these words from the President of the United States. After a ruthless blockade that has lasted almost 60 years, and what about those who have died in the mercenary attacks on Cuban ships and ports, an airliner full of passengers blown up in midair, mercenary invasions, multiple acts of violence and coercion?

   

  Nobody should be under the illusion that the people of this dignified and selfless country will renounce the glory, the rights, or the spiritual wealth they have gained with the development of education, science and culture.

   

  I also warn that we are capable of producing the food and material riches we need with the efforts and intelligence of our people. We do not need the empire to give us anything. Our efforts will be legal and peaceful, as this is our commitment to peace and fraternity among all human beings who live on this planet.

   

  Fidel Castro Ruz

   

  March 27, 2016

   

  10:25 p.m.

10 more annotations...

• Obama in Cuba: How Political Prisoners Hit the Corporate International Media Headlines

   

    

      ARNOLD AUGUST 

   

  Saturday, March 26,2016

   

   

   HAVANA: In the course of President Obama’s visit to Cuba on March 20–22, 2016, the issue of supposed Cuban “political prisoners” took centre stage in Cuba–US relations for at least 24 hours in much of the international mainstream media. 

   

  The sets of international foreign television outlets were situated on a floor of the emblematic Lonja del Comercio (the fully renovated former Stock Exchange in pre-revolutionary Cuba) overlooking Old Havana. 
• A cacophony of phrases from the reporters about political prisoners emanated from the sets. It seemed that “Obama in Cuba” had become equated with “political prisoners.” The only exception appeared to be TeleSUR, based in Caracas, Venezuela.

   

   

   

  How did this come about? In the joint press conference offered by Presidents Raúl Castro and Barack Obama on March 21, Obama stated in reference to the discussions with the Cuban government:
• “...as we do wherever we go around the world, I made it clear that the United States will continue to speak up on behalf of democracy, including the right of the Cuban people to decide their own future. We’ll speak out on behalf of universal human rights, including freedom of speech, and assembly, and religion.”

   

   

   

  The tone of the US President’s remarks, couched in a very diplomatic speech, was not overtly hostile and did not contain accusations as such against the Cuban government. There was no mention of political prisoners. 
• One can say, as indeed Obama himself stated, that this is the basic narrative of the US when dealing with some countries. However, the haughty White House-lecture to Cuba on democracy and human rights, as many Cuban colleagues justifiably consider it to be, are based on the exclusive notions held by the US of democracy and human rights. They are often directed to some Third World countries on a very arbitrary basis with varying emphasis and priority depending on the affinity of these countries to US foreign policy.

   

   

   

  After the presentations by the two heads of state in the joint press conference, the floor was opened to questions from the large number of international and Cuban journalists. Obama immediately recognized the source of the first query: Jim Acosta, the Senior White House Correspondent for CNN. As Acosta indicated in his introduction to his question directed to Raúl Castro, he is a Cuban-American whose parents left Cuba. 
• Such a prelude may serve as credentials, in the eyes of a reporter, to ask any question. This would allow for the ensuing interrogation to be carried out despite the reporter’s virtually non-existent knowledge about Cuba, which has been circumscribed by his deeply ingrained preconceived US views of Cuba.

   

   

   

  Obama completed his remarks in this way, according to the official White House transcript: 

   

   

   

  “Muchas gracias. Thank you very much.
• First question, Jim Acosta.”

   

   

   

  Acosta addressed his first question to Barack Obama, and then asked Raúl Castro:

   

  “And, President Castro, my father is Cuban. He left for the United States when he was young. Do you see a new and democratic direction for your country? And why [do] you have Cuban political prisoners? And why don’t you release them?” 

   

   

   

  Response by President Castro:

   

  “Give me the list of political prisoners and I will release them immediately. Just mention a list. What political prisoners? Give me a name or names. After this meeting is over, you can give me a list of political prisoners. And if we have those political prisoners, they will be released before tonight ends.”
• This question and response then immediately travelled virtually around the globe as headline news, but centred mainly on the US as the protagonist of Cuba. The airwaves were jammed with this controversy. The issue of political prisoners completely dominated international conglomerate news on Cuba for at least 24 hours.

   

   

   

  Obama did not have to mention political prisoners, which would have been considered by both the White House and the Cuban government a breach of protocol and diplomatic behind-closed- doors negotiations and exchanges – which is a positive feature of the new Cuba–US relations. Conveniently for the President, the CNN Senior White House Correspondent raised the question for him. However, by Obama’s body language and the look on his face, he seemed to be very satisfied with the question.
• Does this mean that it took place as a result of collaboration between the White House and Acosta? Obama and Acosta know each other very well. The CNN correspondent’s role not only brings him regularly to the White House, but has also called for him to travel with the President on many occasions around the globe. Despite this intimate relationship, however, there is no need for them to carry out any conspiratorial agreement.

   

   

   

  Noam Chomsky analyzed this dynamic many years ago in his groundbreaking book Manufacturing Consent, based mainly on the study of the US media. He pointed out that mainstream monopoly media are guided by:
• “...the selection of right-thinking personnel and by the editors’ and working journalists’

   

  internalization of priorities and definitions of news-worthiness that conform to the institution’s policy.”

   

   

   

  These journalists know exactly what to ask in press conferences, what to write and what to broadcast in order to not only maintain their jobs as correspondents, but also to climb the ladder toward ever more lucrative income and prestigious positions. For example, had Acosta asked the US President – in the multitude of news conferences at the White House touching on a wide variety of issues – about the hundreds of political prisoners in the US, would he have even been around to travel to Havana with the President? If Acosta had had this gumption and interest in human rights as practised in the US, he would not even have been “selected” – in Chomsky’s words – in the first place.
• In an earlier article, I wrote about Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Cuba on August 14, 2015 to officially hoist the US flag in front of the reopened US Embassy as part of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba. One of CNN’s most prestigious anchors, Jake Tapper, was sent to Cuba to cover the event. The article exposes how virtually all the television reports consisted of little more than a litany of buzzwords about Cuba being a “dictatorship” and the “Castro brothers’ tyranny.” This was, of course, amplified and repeated by other anchors in the US-based CNN headquarters in their treatment of this event.
• In all fairness, however, one has to admit that not all CNN reporters deal with Cuba with such flagrant media disinformation that borders on hysteria. For example, Chris Cuomo, a high-ranking CNN anchor, is the brother of the current Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo. Governor Cuomo recently visited Cuba as the head of a high-ranking political and business delegation. He thus has good and respectful relations with the Cuban government. When CNN’s Chris Cuomo covered Pope Francis’s visit to Cuba in February 2016, the rants by his CNN colleagues against the Cuba government and “the Castros” were not at all present. Cuomo was also part of the large delegation of CNN reporters covering the Obama visit. We can perhaps examine his reporting on another occasion. However, suffice it to write for the moment that he wore a traditional Cuban guayabera shirt, given to his father by Fidel Castro.
• As for Acosta’s role in Havana in March 2016 and other similar situations that unfortunately seem to be a main feature of CNN, what can one conclude? Primarily the relationship between CNN and the White House can be thought of as not that CNN has a senior correspondent in the White House, but rather that the White House has a trusted correspondent at CNN. This is a very strange situation for a country that lectures others about the need for “independent press and journalists.”

   

   

   

  With regard to political prisoners, it seems that no journalist – to the knowledge of this writer – has yet taken up Raúl Castro’s challenge to furnish facts to back up Acosta’s accusations. Given that the media war being waged by the US against the Cuban people is an ongoing news story, we can expect there will be more to say on the matter.

   

  
   

   

  (Arnold August, a Canadian journalist and lecturer, is the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections and, more recently, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion. Cuba’s neighbours under consideration are, on the one hand, the US and, on the other hand, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. )

10 more annotations...

• Read a Transcript of Obama’s Press Conference in Havana

     
   
   
   
  •   Ryan Teague Beckwith

• President Obama met with Cuban President Raúl Castro in Havana, Cuba, Monday, where the two held a joint press conference.

   

  Here is a transcript of the full event.

• CASTRO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Mr. President Barack Obama, we are pleased to welcome you on this, the first visit of a president of the United States of America to our country in 88 years.

   

  We have observed that in the 15 months that have passed since the decision was made to establish our diplomatic relations, we have obtained concrete results. We were able to resume direct postal exchanges and we signed an agreement to resume commercial flights.
• CASTRO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We have signed two memorandums of understanding on the protection of the environment and maritime areas, and another one to secure the safety of sea navigation. Today, another one will be signed on cooperation of the area of agriculture. At the moment, another set of bilateral instruments are being negotiated to cooperate in such areas as counter narcotics, the safety of commerce, and travelers and health. About this last issue, we have agreed to deepen our cooperation in the prevention and treatment of transmissible diseases, such as Zika, and non-transmissible chronic diseases, cancer included.

• This cooperation is beneficial not only for Cuba and the United States, but also for our hemisphere at large. Following the decisions made by President Obama to modify the application of some aspects of the blockade, Cuban enterprises and their American counterparts are working to identify possible commercial operations that could materialize in the still restrictive framework of existing regulations.

   

  The fact is that some have already materialized, especially in the area of telecommunications — an area in which our country already has a program designed on the basis of its priorities and the necessary technological sovereignty, one that can secure the appropriate (ph) views and the service of national interests.

• Progress has also been made toward the acquisition of medicines, medical materiel and equipment for power generation and environmental protection, these among others. Much more could be done if the blockade were lifted.

   

  We recognize the position of President Obama and his administration against the blockade, and his repeated appeals to Congress to have it removed. The most recent measures adopted by his administration are positive but insufficient. I had the opportunity to discuss with the president other steps that we think could be taken in order to remove restrictions that remain in force, and make a significant contribution to the debunking of the blockade.

• This is essential, because the blockade remains in force and because it contains discouraging elements and intimidating effects and extra-territorial outreach.

   

  I put forward to the president some examples on this, showing their negative consequences for both Cuba and other countries. The blockade stands as the most important obstacle to our economic development and the wellbeing of the Cuba people. That’s why its removal will be of the essence to normalize bilateral relations. And actually, it will also bring benefits to the Cuban emigrants who wish the best for their families and their country.

• In order to move forward towards normalization, it will also be necessary to return the territory illegally occupied by Guantanamo Naval Base. Since they stand as the two main obstacles, these issues were again dealt with in the editorial ran on March 9 by the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba.

   

  CASTRO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And again, only four days ago, in the press conference offered by our Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, those pieces extensively reported by the media.

• Other policies should also be abolished for normal relations to develop between the United States and Cuba. No one should intend to have the Cuban people renounce the destiny it chose in freedom and sovereignty, the same for which you have made enormous sacrifices.

   

  We also discussed international issues, particularly those that could have an impact on regional peace and stability. We had thought to discuss other issues, but we did not have enough time. I had planned to raise our concern over the destabilization some are trying to promote in Venezuela, something which we consider to be counterproductive to the overall situation in the continent. I did not have the chance to raise with him, I’m raising it here.
• Likewise, we talked about the ongoing peace process in Colombia and the effort to put an end to that conflict. There are profound differences between our countries that will not go away. Since we hold different concepts on many subjects such as political systems, democracy, the exercise of human rights, social justice, international relations and world peace and stability.

• We defend human rights. In our view, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights are indivisible, interdependent and universal. Actually, we find it inconceivable that a government does not defend and insure the right to health care, education, Social Security with provision and development, equal pay and the rights of children. We oppose political manipulation and double standards in the approach to human rights.

   

  Cuba has much to say and show on this issue. That is why I have reiterated to the president our willingness to continue moving forward with the dialogue on this matter that was already initiated.
• On December 17th, 2014, as we announced the decision to re- establish diplomatic relations, I said that we should learn the art of co-existing with our difference in a civilized manner. In my remarks to Parliament on July 15, 2015, I said changing everything that needs to be changed is the sovereign and exclusive concern of Cubans. The revolutionary government is willing to advance to a normalization of relations, for it is convinced that both countries can co-exist and cooperate in a civilized manner and for the mutual benefit regardless of existing and future differences and thus contribute to peace, security, stability, development and equity in our continent and around the world.

• CASTRO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Today, I reaffirm that we should exercise the art of civilized co-existence, which involves accepting and respecting differences and preventing these from becoming the center of our relationship.

   

  We should instead promote links that can benefit both our countries and peoples while focusing on those things that bring us closer and not on those that pull us apart. We agree that a long and complex path still lies ahead. But what is most important is that we have started taking the first steps to build a new type of relationship, one that has never existed between Cuba and the United States.
• Actually, destroying a bridge can be an easy and quick undertaking. However, its solid reconstruction can prove a lengthy and challenging endeavor. After four failed attempts and giving proof of the will and perseverance, on September 2, 2013, American swimmer Diane Nyad managed to cross the Florida Strait swimming without an anti-shark cage to protect her.

• To that exploit of conquering the geographical differences between our two countries. It was for that exploit that on August 30th, 2013, as the national anthems of Cuba and the United States were played she was presented with the Order of Sport Merit, a declaration awarded by the State Counsel. Such feat carries a powerful message.

   

  One that should serve as an example to honor bilateral relations. For it confirms that if she could do it, then we can do it too. President Obama, I reiterate our appreciation for his visit and the willingness of the government of Cuba to continue moving forward in the well being of our countries. Thank you very much.
• OBAMA: Buenos dias, President Castro, to you, the Cuban government and the Cuban people, thank you for the welcome they’ve extended to me, my family and to my delegation. You know, for more than half a century, the sight of a U.S. president here in Havana would have been unimaginable, but this is a new day.
• This nuevo dia between our two countries. With your indulgence, Mr. President, I want to go just briefly off topic because during this weekend, I received news that one of our outstanding United States armed service members, Marine Staff Sergeant Louis F. Cardin of Temecula, California, was killed in northern Iraq as we assisted the Iraqi government in dealing with ISIL, the terrorist organization there. And I just wanted to give my thoughts and prayers to the family there and those who have been injured. It’s a reminder that even as we embark on this historic visit, there are U.S. armed servicemembers who are sacrificing each and every day on behalf of our freedom and our safety, so I’m grateful to them.
• My wife Michelle and I have brought our daughters. And by the way, they don’t always want to go with us. They’re teenagers now. They have friends at home and they have things to do. But they wanted to come to Cuba because they understood and we wanted to show them the beauty of Cuba and its people.
• OBAMA: We were moved by the Cubans who received us yesterday, smiling and waving as we drove in from the airport. We were grateful for the opportunity to experience Old Havana and some excellent Cuban food. Our visit to the cathedral was a reminder of the values that we share and the deep faith that sustains so many Cubans and Americans, and it also gave me an opportunity to express my gratitude to Cardinal Ortega who, along with His Holiness Pope Francis, did so much to support the improved relations between our governments.

• This morning, I was honored to pay tribute to Jose Marti, not only his role in Cuban independence, but the profound words that he wrote and spoke in support of liberty and freedom everywhere.

   

  I bring with me the greetings and the friendship of the American people. In fact, I’m joined on this trip by nearly 40 members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans. This is the largest such delegation of my presidency and it indicates the excitement and interest in America about the process that we’ve undertaken. These members of Congress recognize that our new relationship with the Cuban people is in the interest of both nations.

• I’m also joined by some of America’s top business leaders and entrepreneurs because we’re ready to pursue more commercial ties, which create jobs and opportunity for Cubans and Americans alike.

   

  And I’m especially pleased that I’m joined on this trip by so many Cuban-Americans. For them and for the more than two million proud Cuban-Americans across the United States, this is a moment filled with great emotion. Ever since we made it easier to travel between our countries, more Cuban-Americans are coming home. And for many, this is a time of new hope for the future.

• So President Castro, I want to thank you for your — the courtesy and spirit of openness that you’ve shown during our talks. At our meeting in Panama last year, you said that we’re willing to discuss every issue and everything’s on the table. So with your understanding, my statement will be a little longer than usual.

   

  President Castro always jokes with me about how long Castro brother speeches can be, but I’m going to actually go a little longer than you probably today, with your indulgence. We have a half a century of work to catch up on.
• You know, our growing engagement with Cuba is guided by one overarching goal, advancing the mutual interest of our two countries, including improving the lives of our people, both Cubans and Americans. That’s why I’m here. I’ve said consistently after more than five very difficult decades, the relationship between our governments will not be transformed overnight. We continue, as President Castro indicated, to have some very serious differences, including on democracy and human rights. And President Castro and I have had very frank and candid conversations on these subjects.

• The United States recognizes the progress that Cuba has made as a nation, it’s enormous achievements in education and in health care. And perhaps most importantly, I affirm that Cuba’s destiny will not be decided by the United States or any other nation. Cuba is sovereign and rightly has great pride and the future of Cuba will be decided by Cubans, not by anybody else.

   

  At the same time, as we do wherever we go around the world, I made it clear that the United States will continue to speak up on behalf of democracy, including the right of the Cuban people to decide their own future. We’ll speak out on behalf of universal human rights, including freedom of speech and assembly and religion. Indeed, I look forward to meeting with and hearing from Cuban civil society leaders tomorrow.

• But as you heard, President Castro’s also addressed what he views as short comings in the United States around basic needs for people and poverty and inequality and race relations, and we welcome that constructive dialogue as well because we believe that when we share our deepest beliefs and ideas with an attitude of mutual respect that we can both learn and make the lives of our people better.

   

  OBAMA: A part of normalizing relationships means that we discuss these differences directly, so I’m very pleased that we’ve agreed to hold our next U.S.-Cuba human rights dialogue here in Havana this year. And both of our countries will welcome our visits by independent United Nations experts as we combat human trafficking, which we agree is a profound violation of human rights.

• Even as we discuss these differences, we share a belief we can continue to make progress in those areas that we have in common. President Castro, you said in Panama that we might disagree on something today on which we would agree tomorrow. And that has certainly been the case over the past 15 months and the days leading up to this visit.

   

  And today, I can report that we continue to move forward on many fronts when it comes to normalizing relations. We’re moving ahead with more opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba and interact with the Cuban people.

• Over past year, the number of Americans coming here has surged. Last week, we gave approval for individual Americans to come here for educational travel. U.S. airlines will begin direct commercial flights this year. With last week’s port security announcement, we’ve removed the last major hurdle to resuming cruises and ferry service — all of which will mean even more Americans visiting Cuba in the years ahead and appreciating the incredible history and culture of the Cuban people.

   

  We’re moving ahead with more trade. With only 90 miles between us, we’re natural trading partners. Other steps we took last week, allowing the U.S. dollar to be used more widely with Cuba, giving Cubans more access to the dollar in international transactions and allowing Cubans in the U.S. to earn salaries.

• These things will do more to create opportunities for trade and joint ventures. We welcome Cuba’s important announcement that it plans to end the 10 percent penalty on dollar conversions here, which will open the door to more travel and more commerce. And these steps show that we’re opening up to one another.

   

  With this visit, we’ve agreed to deepen our cooperation on agriculture to support our farmers and our ranchers. This afternoon, I’ll highlight some of the new commercial deals being announced by major U.S. companies. And just as I continue to call on Congress to lift the trade embargo, I discussed with President Castro the steps we urge Cuba to take to show that it is ready to do more business, which includes allowing more joint ventures and allowing foreign companies to hire Cubans directly.

• We’re moving ahead with our efforts to help connect more Cubans to the Internet and the global economy. Under President Castro, Cuba has set a goal of bringing Cubans online, and we want to help.

   

  At this afternoon’s entrepreneurship event, I’ll discuss additional steps we’re taking to help more Cubans learn, innovate and do business online, because in the 21st century, countries cannot be successful unless their citizens have access to the Interned.

• We’re moving ahead with more educational exchanges. Thanks to the generous support of the Cuban-American community, I can announce that my 100,000 Strong in the Americas Initiative will offer new opportunities for university students to study abroad, more Americans at Cuban schools and more Cubans at U.S. schools.

   

  And going forward, educational grants and scholarships will be available to Cuban students. And in partnership with the Cuban government, we’ll offer more English language training for Cuban teachers, both in Cuba and online.

• Even as Cubans prepare for the arrival of the Rolling Stones, we’re moving ahead with more events and exchanges that bring Cubans and Americans together as well.

   

  We all look forward to tomorrow’s matchup between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Cuban national team. And more broadly, we’re moving ahead with partnerships in health, science and the environment.

• Just as Cubans and American medical teams have worked together in Haiti against Cholera, and in West Africa against Ebola, and I want to give a special commendation to Cuban doctors who volunteered and took on some very tough assignments to save lives in West Africa, in partnership with us and other nations. We very much appreciate the work that they did.

   

  Our medical professionals will now collaborate in new areas, preventing the spread of viruses like Zika and leading new research into cancer vaccines.

• Our governments will also work together to protect the beautiful waters of this region that we share. And as two countries threatened by climate change, I believe we can work together to protect communities and our low-lying coasts. And we’re inviting Cuba to join us, and our Caribbean and Central American partners at this spring’s Regional Energy Summit in Washington.

   

  OBAMA: And finally, we’re moving ahead with our closer cooperation on regional security.

• We’re working to deepen our law enforcement coordination, especially against narcotraffickers that threaten both of our peoples. I want to thank President Castro and the Cuban government for hosting peace talks between the Colombia government and the FARC. And we remain optimistic that Colombians can achieve a lasting and just peace.

   

  And although we didn’t have an extensive discussion of Venezuela, we did touch on the subject. And I believe the whole region has an interest in a country that is addressing their economic challenges, is responsive to the aspirations of its people and is a source of stability in the region.

• That is, I believe, an interest we should all share. So, again, President Castro, I want to thank you for welcoming me. I think it’s fair to say the United States and Cuba are now engaged in many areas and with each passing day more Americans are coming to Cuba, more U.S. business and school and faith groups are working to forge new partnerships with the Cuban people.

   

  More Cubans are benefiting for the opportunities that this travel and trade begin. As you indicated, the road ahead will not be easy. Fortunately, we don’t have to swim with sharks in order to achieve the goals that you and I have set forth. As you say here in Cuba (SPEAKING IN SPANISH) despite the difficulties, we will continue to move forward.

• We’re focused on the future. And I’m absolutely confident that if we stay on this course, we can deliver a better and brighter future for both the Cuban people and the American people. So muchos gracias, thank you very much.

   

  MODERATOR (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We now will have a short Q&A session. So I kindly ask the journalists to identify themselves and use the mics that are in their room. First question for President Barack Obama.

   

  OBAMA: First question, Jim Acosta.

• QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Gracias, President Castro. Thank you, President Castro, for your hospitality here in Havana.

   

  QUESTION: In your meeting with President Castro and members, did you use to urge him to pursue Democratic reforms and expand human rights here in Cuba? Will you invite President Castro to the White House? We know he’s been to New York. And why did you not meet with Fidel Castro?

   

  And President Castro…

• (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): My father is Cuban. He left for the United States when he was very young. This is a new Democratic direction for your country. And please sir, why do you have political, Cuban political prisoners? And why don’t you release them? And another last question, who do you prefer, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Thank you.

   

  OBAMA: Well, as I think we both indicated, we had a very fruitful conversation around issues of democracy and human rights. Our starting point is that we have two different systems. Two different systems of government, two different economies. And we have decades of profound differences, both bilaterally and internationally.
• What I have said to President Castro is that we are moving forward and not looking backwards. That we don’t view Cuba as a threat to the United States. I hope that my visit here indicates the degree to which we’re setting a new chapter in Cuban-American relations. But as is true with countries around the world where we have normalized relations, we will continue to stand up for basic principles that we believe in.
• OBAMA: America believes in democracy. We believe that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are not just American values but are universal values. They may not express themselves exactly in the same way in every country. They may not be enshrined in the founding documents or constitutions of every country in the same way or protected legally in exactly the same ways, but the impulse, the human impulse towards freedom, the freedom that Jose Marti talked about, we think is a universal longing.

• President Castro, I think has pointed out that in his view, making sure that everybody is getting a decent education or health care, has basic security in old age, that those things are human rights as well. I personally would not disagree with that, but it doesn’t detract from some of these other concerns.

   

  And the goal of the human rights dialogue is not for the United States to dictate to Cuba how they should govern themselves, but to make sure that we are having a frank and candid conversation around this issue, and hopefully that we can learn from each other.
• It does not mean that it has to be the only issue we talk about. Economics, health, scientific exchanges, international cooperation on issues of regional as well as global import are also important. But this is something that we are going to stay on, and, you know, I actually welcome President Castro commenting on some of the areas where he feels that we’re falling short, because I think we — we should not be immune or afraid of criticism or discussion as well.
• Here’s — the one thing I do know is that when I talk to Cuban American — and Jim, you’re second-generation and so I think I speak not for you directly but for many that I’ve talked to around the United States — I think there’s enormous hope that there can be reconciliation and the bridge that President Castro discussed can be built between the Cuban-American community and Cubans here. They’re family ties and cultural ties that are so strong, and I think everyone would benefit from those ties being re-established.

• One of the impediments to strengthening those ties is these disagreements around human rights and democracy. And to the extent we can have a good conversation about that and to actually make progress, that I think will allow us to see the full flowering of a relationship that is possible. In the absence of that, I think it will continue to be a very powerful irritant.

   

  And, you know, this is not unique to U.S./Cuban relations, it’s one that, as you know, I have conversations with when we go to bilateral meetings with some of our very close allies as well as countries that we don’t have as close of a relationship to, but I think this is something that matters.
• And I’ve met with people who have been subject to arbitrary detention, and that’s something I generally have to speak out on because I hear from them directly and I know what it means for them. Excuse me.

• (CROSSTALK)

   

  (LAUGHTER)

   

  CASTRO: I was asking if he was — if his question was directed to me or to President Obama. You talked about no — you talked about political prisoners.

   

  OBAMA: And Trump and Hillary.

   

  CASTRO: Him or for me?

• QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR.): For you, President Castro, what did you say about political prisoners? Can you repeat that question about political prisoners?

   

  CASTRO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Did you ask if we had political prisoners? Did you ask if we had political prisoners?

   

  QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I wanted to know if you have Cuban political prisoners and why you don’t release them.

• CASTRO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, give me a list of the political prisoners and I will release them immediately. Just mention the list. What political prisoners? Give me a name or names or when — after this meeting is over, you can give me a list of political prisoners, and if we have those political prisoners, they will be released before tonight ends.

   

  QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): What about your preference for…

   

  QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): My greetings for President Obama.

• CASTRO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, I — I cannot vote in the United States.

   

  QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): My question is for President Raul Castro. My name is Bores Frente (ph). I’m from the Cuban TV.

   

  President Raul Castro, you have repeatedly stated and today, once again, that we must learn to coexist in a civilized manner with our differences. Could you broaden this concept at this historical moment that — that we are living?

   

  And then I have a brief question for President Obama. President Obama, could U.S. government give more space to eliminate U.S. blockade during your mandate so that another generation of Cubans would not have to suffer this economic and commercial blockade against Cuba?

• CASTRO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The first question was for me. Please repeat your question because I couldn’t hear well.

   

  QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): You have said repeatedly — that we must learn to coexist in a civilized manner with our differences.

   

  CASTRO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, President Obama himself has referred to that. We have given the first steps, many for being the first steps, and we must continue giving these steps. And I’m sure that we will be able to coexist peacefully in an environment of mutual cooperation as we are doing already in many fields for the benefit of both countries and for the benefit of other countries, as we have already done.

• In Haiti, when the cholera and in Africa, with the Ebola. That is the future of mankind if we want to save the human species. So the water grows — the level of water grows and the island may become smaller. That is — you are making too much questions — too many questions to me. I think questions should be directed to President Obama.

   

  OBAMA: So we have administratively already made a number of modifications on the embargo. I referred to a number of them in my opening statement. And we’ve actually been fairly aggressive in exercising as much flexibility as we can, given that the law, putting the embargo in place, has not been repealed by Congress.
• There may be some technical aspects of the embargo that we can still make adjustments on, depending on problems as they arise. So for example, the issue around the dollar and the need to make modifications in terms of how the embargo was implemented to encourage rather than discourage reforms that the Cuban government itself is willing to engage in and to facilitate greater trade in commerce, that is something that grew out of the dialogue between our governments and we have made appropriate adjustments to it. It will take some time for commercial banks to understand the new rules, but we actually think that this is an area where we can improve current circumstances.

• OBAMA: But I’ll be honest with you, that the list of things we can do administratively is growing shorter, and the bulk of changes that have to be made with respect to the embargo are now going to rely on Congress making changes.

   

  I’ve been very clear about the interest in getting that done before I leave. Frankly, Congress is not as productive as I would like during presidential election years. But the fact that we have such a large congressional delegation, with Democrats and Republicans with us, is an indication there is growing interest inside of Congress for lifting the embargo.

• As I just indicated my earlier answer, how quickly that happens will, in part, depend on whether we can bridge some of our differences around human rights issues. And that’s why the dialogue, I think, is so important. It sends a signal that at least there’s engagement between the two countries on these matters. OK.

   

  Now, I promised the president I would take one more question. Andrea Mitchell of NBC.

   

  Andrea, if you can get the mic.

   

  QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

• Do you feel after your meeting today that you have made enough progress to even accelerate the pace? And that the Cuban government is able to quickly enough, so the changes that you have made through these technical adjustments to the embargo, will be permanent, cannot be reversed by the next president?

   

  And what advice have you given to President Castro about the ability of having the blockade, the embargo lifted? Because he has said again today this is continuous issue, which is blocking progress, from their standpoint.

• OBAMA: Right.

   

  QUESTION: And you said the conversations about human rights were frank and candid and that you want to move forward. But even as you were arriving, there were dramatic arrests of peaceful protests, the Ladies in White.

   

  What signal does that send? Can you have civilized coexistence, at the same time you have such profound disagreements about the very definitions about what human rights means, as President Castro has expressed today?

• And for President Castro, for many of us, it’s remarkable to hear you speak about all these subjects. Would you tell us what you see in the future? President Obama has nine months remaining. You have said you would be stepping down in 2018.

   

  What is the future of our two countries, given the different definitions and the different interpretations of profound issues like democracy and human rights?

   

  Thanks.

• OBAMA: Well, Andrea, I — the embargo’s going to end. When, I can’t be entirely sure. But I believe it will end, and the path that we’re on will continue beyond my administration. The reason is logical. The reason is that what we did for 50 years did not serve our interests or the interests of the Cuban people. And as I said when we made the announcement about normalization of relations, if you keep on doing something over and over again for 50 years and it doesn’t work, it might make sense to do something new.

   

  And that’s what we’ve done. And the fact there’s been strong support, not just inside of Congress, not just among the American people, but also among the Cuban people indicates this is a process that should and will continue.

• Having said that, lifting the embargo requires the votes of a majority in Congress, and maybe even more than a majority in the Senate.

   

  And as I indicated to President Castro, two things I think will help accelerate the pace of bringing the embargo to an end.

   

  The first is to the degree that we can take advantage of the existing changes that we’ve already made and we see progress, that will help to validate this change in policy.

• OBAMA: So, for example, we have said that it is no longer a restriction on U.S. companies to invest in helping to build Internet and broadband infrastructure inside of Cuba. It is not against U.S. law. As it’s been interpreted by the administration.

   

  If we start seeing those kinds of commercial deals taking place and Cubans are benefiting from greater access to the Internet and when I go to the entrepreneurship meeting later this afternoon, I understand that we’re going to meet some young Cubans who are already getting trained and are faster at using the Internet and interested in start-ups, that builds a constituency for ending the embargo.

• If we build on the work we’re doing in agriculture and you start seeing more U.S. farmers interacting with Cuban farmers and there’s more exports and imports, that builds a constituency. The possibility of ending the embargo increases. So hopefully taking advantage of what we’ve already done will help. And the second area, which we’ve discussed extensively, is the issue of human rights.

   

  People are still concerned about that inside of Cuba. Now, keep in mind, I’ve got fierce disagreements with the Chinese around human rights. I’ll be going to Vietnam later this year. I have deep disagreements with them as well. You know, when we first visited Burma, people questioned whether we should be traveling there because of long-standing human rights violations in our view.

• And the approach that I’ve taken has been that if I engage, frankly, clearly, stating what our beliefs are, but also being clear that we can’t force change on any particular country. Ultimately it has to come from within, then that is going to be a more useful strategy than the same kinds of rigid disengagement that for 50 years did nothing.

   

  I guess ultimately what this comes down to, Andrea, is I have faith in people. I think if you meet Cubans here and Cubans meet Americans and they’re meeting and talking and interacting and doing business together and going to school together and learning from each other, then they’ll recognize people are people. And in that context, I believe that change will occur.

• QUESTION: President Castro?

   

  OBAMA: OK, now I’m done, but, Senor President, I think Andrea had a question for you, just about your vision. It’s up to you. He did say he was only going to take one question, I was going to take two. But I leave it up to you if you want to address that question. Andrea’s…

• (LAUGHTER)

   

  She’s one of our most esteemed journalists in America and I’m sure she’d appreciate just a short, brief answer.

   

  CASTRO: Andrea.

   

  QUESTION: Mr. President.

   

  CASTRO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The other day I asked a question to our foreign minister, Andrea. But there is a program here to be fulfilled. I know that if I stay here, you’ll make 500 questions. I said that I was going to answer one. Well, I’ll answer one and a half.
• President Obama has already helped me out with the answer here, Andrea. Well, Andrea. I was reading here something I think about human rights, but I’m going to make the question to you now. There are 41 — there are 61 international instruments to recognize how many countries in the world comply with all the human rights and civil rights that have been included in these 61 instruments.

• CASTRO (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): What country complies with them all? Do you know how many? I do. None. None whatsoever. Some countries comply some rights, other comply others. And we are among these countries. Out of these 61 instruments, Cuba has complied with 47 of these human rights instruments.

   

  There are countries that may comply with more, those that comply with less. I think human rights issues should not be politicized. That is not correct. If that is a purpose, then we will stay the same way. Like, for example — for Cuba that does not fulfill all the rights.

• Do you think there is any other — more sacred right than the right to help so that billions of children don’t die just for the lack of a vaccine or a drug or a medicament. For example, do you agree with the right to free education for all those born anywhere in the world or in any country? I think many countries don’t think this is a human right.

   

  In Cuba, all children are born in a hospital and they are registered that same day because when mothers are in advanced pregnancy, they are — they go to hospitals days before, many days before delivery, so that all children are born in hospitals. It doesn’t matter if they live in faraway places or in mountains or hills.

• We have many other rights — a right to health, the right to education. Do you — and this is my last example that I will mention. Do you think that for equal work, men get better pay than women just for the fact of being women? Well in Cuba, women get same pay for same work. I can give you many, many examples, so I don’t think we cannot use the argument of human rights for political confrontation. That is not fair. It’s not correct.

   

  I’m not saying that is not honest, it’s part of confrontations, of course. But let us work so that we can all comply with all human rights. It’s like talking about pride — and I’m going to end here because there is a commitment that we should end in time. It’s not correct to ask me about political prisoners in general. Please give me the name of a political prison, and I think with this is enough.

• OBAMA: Thank you.

   

  CASTRO: We have concluded. Thank you for your participation.

67 more annotations...

• Do the Cuban People Have the Right to Choose Their Leaders?

   

      

   

         

   

  Arnold August

      

   

         

   

      

   

         

   

               

   

      

   

         

    15/03/2016

• In the context of developing Cuba-US relations, on March 2, 2016 in Geneva, the Deputy secretary of State of the US State Department, Antony J. Blinken, issued the National Statement at the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. In this statement he indicated that Obama during his visit to Cuba in March “will emphasize that the Cuban people are best served by an environment where people are free to choose their political parties and their leaders...”

   

  Let us concentrate for the moment on the theme of “choosing their leaders.”

• The election of the Council of State and its president: one step

   

  The National Assembly of People’s Power (Asamblea Nacional del Poder Popular- ANPP, or Parliament) has a five-year mandate. As a first step before initiating the new sessions, it meets to elect from among its members its officials (president, vice-president and secretary) and then the Council of State.

   

  From among the deputies, the ANPP then elects the Council of State. It consists of the Council of State president and first vice-president, other vice-presidents, a secretary and 23 other members, totalling 31 members. The president of the Council of State is also the head of state and head of government (Council of Ministers). (The current president of these two bodies is Raúl Castro.) Finally, the Constitution states, “The Council of State is accountable for its action to the National Assembly of People’s Power, to which it must render accounts of all its activities.”

   

  Cuba does not have a “presidential system” nor does it pretend to have one. The president of the Council of State is elected from among the deputies, who are elected by the citizens.

• Raúl Castro: how was he elected to the parliament?

   

  Let us take the example of Raúl Castro based on a very summary description of some of the steps leading to his election as President of the Councils of State and Ministers. In the last 2013 general elections, he was elected as Deputy to the Cuban ANPP (Parliament) from a municipality in his home province of Santiago de Cuba. While there is only one candidate per seat, a candidate needs at least 50% of the popular vote. In the 2013 general elections, Raúl Castro garnered 98.04% of the vote. This was one of the highest among the 612 Deputies elected.

   

  The Comisión de Candidaturas Nacional (CCN — National Candidacies Commission) is responsible for organizing the nomination and elections of the ANPP’s officials and the Council of State. It initiates consultations with the deputies as soon as they are elected.

   

  In 2013 the elections took place on February 3rd. The electoral process is completed by February 24 when the newly mandated ANPP meets to constitute itself. Each deputy has the right to propose any deputy to any post among the ANPP’s officials and Council of State.

• The nomination of deputies to the Council of State

   

  Prior to the February 24 constitution of the new ANPP mandate, the CCN provides each deputy with a tabloid containing the biographies of the 614 elected deputies, as well as those of the outgoing Council of State members (Interview, María Ester Reus González).

   

  This procedure was further explained in a separate interview with the CCN, which, at the time was initiating the process. When the deputy arrives at the CCN office, after having had ample time to review the tabloid, he or she is provided with two blank sheets — one for the Council of State proposals and one for the ANPP’s officials. The person can then elaborate a personal list of suggestions, also including the preferences for specific posts, such as presidents and vice-presidents of the Council of State and officials of the ANPP. The list is unsigned and is deposited in secret (Interview, Pérez Santana, Marchante Fuentes and Fajardo Marin).

   

  Deputy Daniel Rafuls Pineda (at the time) elaborated on this procedure. He reported that the CCN personally provided him with the list of 614 biographies several days before his February 7 appointment at the CCN headquarters. He thereby had “the total freedom to make [his] decision in private” (Daniel Rafuls Pineda, email message to the author, March 15, 2008).

• Deputy Jorge Gómez’s opinion regarding this nomination

   

  Deputy Jorge Gómez (director of the musical band Moncada) related his experience on this process. It also provided an interesting inside account of the period from January to February 2008. At that time, Fidel Castro had already temporarily relinquished his presidency position to first vice-president Raúl Castro, in 2006. On February 19, 2008, Fidel Castro publicly released his announcement of the previous day: “I will neither aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief”.

   

  According to Jorge Gómez, in his private session at the CCN headquarters, this took place before the above-mentioned announcement by the Cuban leader, thus the deputy had proposed Fidel Castro for president of the Council of State. He also listed the name of Raúl Castro as first vice-president and José Machado Ventura as the next-in-line vice-president, along with his other choices for that body. Jorge Gómez also indicated his choice for the ANPP’s officials on the other sheet handed to him.

• Following a question to Jorge Gómez on continuity of the Revolution’s leadership, the non-Communist Party deputy, was of the opinion that, in the absence of Fidel Castro having a formal position in the Council of State, it was necessary to “reinforce the historical leadership of the Revolution.”

   

  On another query as to a February 2008 Granma article reporting that Fidel Castro suggested to the CCN that Machado Ventura be nominated as first vice-president, Gómez responded that this was Fidel’s logical preoccupation. His goal has been to make sure at all times that the essence of the Revolution is not lost. Gómez was of the opinion that Machado Ventura, as one of the historical leaders of the Revolution, with long-standing experience, should be nominated (Interview, Jorge Gómez Barranco).

• The role of the National Candidacies Commission

   

  Once all the deputies had gone through this process of proposing candidates for the ANPP’s officials and the Council of State, the CCN then tabulated the ballots on sheets of paper. According to the number of votes, it elaborated the list of 31 Council of State members, including its leading positions. The CCN formulated another list of the three ANPP officials (Interview, Pérez Santana, Marchante Fuentes and Fajardo Marin).

   

  Based on the author’s attendance at the 1998 constitution of the new ANPP mandate at that time and the interviews regarding the 2008 mandate, the final steps of the elections took place in the following manner. On the day of the constitution of the ANPP mandate (February 24, 2008), the President of the Comisión Electoral Nacional (CEN, National Electoral Commission) María Esther Reus González presided over the ANPP until its officials were elected. The list of the three proposed officials was presented to the deputies: Ricardo Alarcón for president, Jaime Alberto Crombet Hernández-Baquero for vice-president and Miriam Brito Sarroca for secretary.

• The vote of the deputies

   

  A show-of-hands vote followed to determine whether the deputies agreed with these three nominations or whether they had any other proposals. There were no other proposals. Therefore, the list of three nominees became official. The ANPP session was then adjourned for a secret-ballot vote in the lobby, outside the main meeting hall. Once the three nominees were elected and announced as such by the CEN, the new officials took over the presidency of the ANPP.

   

  The same procedure ensued for the 31 members of the Council of State. Raúl Castro was elected president of the Council of State and ipso facto president of the Council of Ministers, therefore head of state and head of the government (according to Article 74 of the Constitution) (Interview, Balseiro Gutiérrez and Amarón Díaz; Interview, Pérez Santana).

   

  With this, the general elections — which had begun in July 2007 with the municipal first-phase elections — ended on February 24, 2008. The 2012–13 general elections followed the same beginning in July 2012 and ending in February 2013.

• The role of the revolution’s leadership

   

  The nominations and elections of the ANPP’s officials and the Council of State may seem quite formal. This is in fact true, especially when compared with the elections to the municipal assemblies and the ANPP itself. It would be naive, however, to believe that the Revolution’s leadership is not involved in choosing the leaders of this highest level of state.

   

  Regarding the roles and positions of Fidel Castro and Raúl Castro themselves, it is also a question of quality and not — as often charged by the U.S. and their dissident spokespersons — a question of nepotism.

• Nepotism? No. The example of Raúl Castro

   

  Raúl Castro assumed the leadership on a temporary basis in 2006 when Fidel Castro fell ill. He took up this position, according to the Constitution, as first vice-president of the Council of State. On February 24, 2008, Raúl Castro was elected president of the Council of State and Council of Ministers. Several factors should be taken into account. First, he has been involved in the struggle without let-up since the Moncada attack in 1953. He has made his own innovative contributions, even before the 1959 victory. One such breakthrough was organizing the liberated territories in the II Frente Oriental “Frank País” (Frank País Second Eastern Front). This amounted to a virtual state within the state. It served as a precedent, to a certain extent, for the new revolutionary government established in January 1959.

• There have been many other examples of Raúl Castro’s role since that time, such as the institutionalization of the People’s Power system of government in 1974–76. The enterprise improvement system in the 1990s was inaugurated under his leadership through the ministry of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias (FAR — Revolutionary Armed Forces), of which he was the minister until 2008. Since his 2008 election as president of the Council of State and Council of Ministers, and while retaining his position as General of the FAR, he has been further institutionalizing the collegial leadership. He is doing so by holding regular expanded sessions (including other people aside from the official members) of either or both the Council of State and Council of Ministers.

   

  Raúl Castro is also at the forefront in the attempt to put a stop to bureaucracy and high-level, white-collar corruption. At the same time, he is leading, along with others, innovations to preserve and improve socialism.

• Against US-centric views

   

  The Cuban political system allows for legal and formal channels so that the people can vote for its leaders. One has to insist that this procedure does not try to conform to the US-centric presidential system that exists in the US and other countries.

   

  The objective of this article is not to offer more details and analysis regarding these general elections. However, this is how Raúl Castro was elected President of the Council of State (and thus, Council of Ministers).

   

  March 14, 2016

   

  Arnold August, a Canadian journalist and lecturer, is the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections and, more recently, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion. Cuba’s neighbours under consideration are, on the one hand, the US and, on the other hand, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Arnold can be followed on Twitter @Arnold_August.

   

   

  The original Spanish version of this article first appeared in ALAINET.org:
  http://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/175980

11 more annotations...

•   Wed Mar 9, 2016 3:14pm EST   

    Related:     World,   Election 2016,   Politics,   Cuba   

   

  Cuba issues bristling editorial ahead of Obama visit

   

    HAVANA  |   By Marc Frank

• Cuba said it would welcome President Barack Obama to Havana later this month, but the Communist government had no intention of changing its policies in exchange for normal relations with the United States.

  In a long editorial on Wednesday in Communist Party newspaper Granma and other official media, Cuba demanded Washington cease meddling in its internal affairs and said Obama could do more to change U.S. policy.

  The White House brushed off the piece and defended the president's trip next month as an opportunity to engage both with Cuba's government and its citizens.

• Obama will visit on March 20-22, 15 months after he and Cuban President Raul Castro agreed to end more than five decades of Cold War-era animosity.

  They have restored diplomatic ties, and Obama has relaxed a trade sanctions and travel restrictions, leading Republican opponents and some of the president's fellow Democrats to question whether Washington was offering too much without reciprocation from Havana.

     

  But the editorial made it clear that Cuba still has a long list of grievances with the United States, starting with the comprehensive trade embargo. Obama wants to rescind the embargo but Republican leadership in Congress has blocked the move.

• Cuba also objected to U.S. support for its political dissidents, whom some Americans consider champions of human rights but whom the Cuban government views as an unrepresentative minority funded by U.S. interests.

  "(The United States) should abandon the pretense of fabricating an internal political opposition, paid for with money from U.S. taxpayers," the nearly 3,000-word editorial said.

     

  White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that Obama's "long agenda includes visiting with political opposition of the Cuban government and standing up for, in a very tangible way, the universal human rights of the Cuban people."

  Obama visit will be only the second by a U.S. president and the first since the 1959 revolution led by Fidel Castro that overthrew a pro-American government.

• The editorial said Cuba no one should assume Cuba had to "renounce any of its principles or cede the slightest bit in its defense" to do so.

  The two countries have also negotiated greater cooperation on law enforcement and environmental issues and agreed to resume scheduled commercial flights and postal services. Obama has removed Cuba from a list of state sponsors of terrorism.

  The editorial acknowledged Obama had taken positive steps but criticized their "limited nature and the existence of other regulations and intimidation caused by the overall blockade that has been in force for more than 50 years."

3 more annotations...

• Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:08pm EDT   

    Related:     World,   Election 2016,   Politics,   Cuba   

   

  Cuba, U.S. renew talks while differing over Venezuela

   

    HAVANA  |   By Daniel Trotta
• U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson appears at a news conference during talks between the U.S. and Cuba at the State Department in Washington February 27, 2015.

• Cuba and the United States renewed talks on restoring diplomatic relations on Monday, this time amid secrecy and with the longtime adversaries differing sharply over Venezuela, Cuba's closest ally.

  Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson met in Havana with Josefina Vidal, the Cuban foreign ministry's chief of U.S. affairs, for the first day of open-ended talks.

  Jacobson and Vidal led their respective delegations with intense media coverage in Havana in January and in Washington in February, but reporters were excluded from this session.

  A U.S. State Department spokeswoman attributed the media blackout to a desire keep the talks "lower key" and said it had no relation to sensitivities over Venezuela or other policy issues.

• "Their focus is on rolling up their sleeves, and having tough discussions, and getting the work done," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters in Washington.

     

  Before agreeing to restore ties, Cuba wants to be removed from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism and also to find a bank willing to handle transactions for its diplomatic post in Washington.

  For its part, the United States wants to increase staff at its mission in Havana and have unrestricted travel for its diplomats on the island.

• During the first two rounds, the two Cold War rivals reported progress toward restoring ties that had been severed in 1961 and opening embassies in each other's countries.

  Then on March 9 the United States declared Venezuela a security threat and ordered sanctions against seven officials from the oil-rich country, drawing rebukes from left-leaning governments in Latin America. Venezuela has replaced the Soviet Union as Cuba's main benefactor.

  U.S. officials have said the Venezuela issue should not affect the Cuba talks, but Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said Washington "has provoked serious damage to the environment in the hemisphere on the eve of the Summit of the Americas."

• "I hope that the U.S. government understands that it can't handle Cuba with a carrot and Venezuela with a garrote," Rodriguez said on Saturday while visiting Venezuela.

  U.S. President Barack Obama told Reuters on March 2 he hoped the United States would open an embassy in Cuba before that Western Hemisphere summit in Panama set for April 10-11, when he and Cuban President Raul Castro could have their first face-to-face meeting since shaking hands at Nelson Mandela's funeral in December 2013.

  (Reporting by Daniel Trotta in Havana and Arshad Mohammed in Washington; Editing by David Adams, Eric Walsh and Bernard Orr)

4 more annotations...

• Honduran congress honors Fidel  

     
   
  •     Friday, 18 December 2015
• Fidel received the Grand CrossExtraordinarywith a Gold Plaque awarded by the Honduran Congress, a distinction which has only been presented to national leaders or former leaders, as well as Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon.

• TEGUCIGALPA. – The Honduran Congress awarded its highest distinction to the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, in recognition of the island's constant support and solidarity offered to the Central American nation.

   

  The Grand CrossExtraordinarywith a Gold Plaque, awarded by the Honduran Congress, is a distinction which has only been presented to national leaders or former leaders, as well as Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon.

   

  Cuban Ambassador to Honduras, Sergio Oliva, accepted the accolade in acknowledgement of the contribution made by Cuban professionals across various sectors such as education, health, sports and disaster response.

   

  During the act, the President of the Honduran Congress, Mauricio Oliva, said that the one chamber parliament wished to recognize and highlight the contribution of the indisputable Latin American leader, Fidel Castro, to the causes of human solidarity around the world.

• He noted the efforts of Cuban collaborators after hurricanes Francelia, (1969), Fifi (1974) and Mitch (1998) hit the country; treating 300,000 citizens suffering from sight problems through Operation Miracle and teaching another 250,000 to read and write with the Yo, sí puedo (Yes, I can) literacy program.

   

  Oliva also thanked the Cuban leader for receiving and training hundreds of young Honduran students in the Latin American School of Medicine and contributing to the professional development of coaches in order to better prepare athletes across various sporting disciplines.

   

  "Thank you Cuban brothers, our people hold in the depths of their heart all these expressions of love and fraternity shown over many decades by the people and government of the sister Republic of Cuba," Oliva highlighted.

   

  For his part, the island's ambassador thanked the Honduran Congress for the gesture, and in particular the representatives of the Liberty and Refoundation Party (LIBRE), for their contribution to the decision to award the distinction.

   

  Participating in the ceremony were former president Manuel Zelaya, leader of LIBRE; members of the diplomatic corps and the Cuban medical brigade.

2 more annotations...

• Armand Mattelart: “Las TIC’s también benefician las formas de dominación”
• 8 diciembre 2015
• El reconocido investigador franco-belga, Armand Mattelart, ofreció la conferencia inaugural del VIII Encuentro Internacional de Investigadores y Estudiosos de la Información y la Comunicación ICOM-2015. Antes, el decano de la Facultad de Comunicación de la Universidad de La Habana, Raúl Garcés y el asesor de los Consejos de Estado y de Ministros, Abel Prieto; habían dedicado palabras de elogio a la obra y personalidad del veterano académico. A continuación, fragmentos de su conferencia magistral:

• Conferencia de Armand Mattelart en ICOM-2015

   

  Lo primero es agradecer a la Universidad de La Habana por el Doctor Honoris Causa, una distinción que me produce un orgullo intenso.

   

  En julio de 1972 impartí en el Alma Mater un primer seminario. Un año más tarde Michelle, mi compañera, el 11 de septiembre de 1973 – día del golpe de estado a Salvador Allende – estaba dando también un seminario en la Universidad de La Habana. Yo estaba en Santiago de Chile y a ella le fue imposible regresar a allí conmigo, pero pudo apreciar la cálida solidaridad de los compañeros cubanos, en especial de la UH, el Ministerio de la Cultura, el ICAIC y la Casa de las Américas.

• En febrero de 1974 volví a La Habana para buscar material con fines de realizar la película La Espiral. En un gesto solidario, el ICAIC nos regaló el material que necesitábamos

   

  En diciembre de 1979, por ocasión del primer Festival de Nuevo Cine Latinoamericano se organizó un seminario paralelo al Festival sobre “Información, Cultura y Hegemonía”. En las secciones sucesivas de este evento participamos Michelle y yo en encuentros organizados con investigadores latinoamericanos sobre las problemáticas de la cultura y la comunicación.

   

  Y en 1988 impartimos un seminario en la Escuela Internacional de Cine y TV de San Antonio de los Baños. Es muy significativo que para ese año el seminario tratara de las “rupturas y continuidades en los modos de encarar las teorías y las prácticas de la Revolución”.

• Por una crítica de los sociositemas técnicos de control

   

  Las tecnologías de información y comunicación favorecen ciertas formas de emancipación, de eso no cabe dudas, pero a la vez benefician a las maneras de dominación.

   

  La vigilancia de masa forma parte del orden del día público desde que en junio de 2013 Eduard Snowden sacó a la luz las operaciones clandestinas de cibercontrol a escala mundial perpetradas por el gobierno de los Estados Unidos y la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional.

   

  Ese tipo de programa es desvelador de una dimensión del complejo tecno-informacional sobre la cual los discursos mesiánicos sobre las promesas redentoras de la guerra de la información han hecho oídos sordos a lo largo de los decenios anteriores.

   

  En el medio académico la temática de la vigilancia y el control se ha construido desde los inicios de este siglo un espacio propio, que se autodefine como un grupo de estudios de “carácter interdisciplinar cuya finalidad es entender los procedimientos según los cuales los datos personales son recolectados, almacenados, transmitidos, controlados y utilizados como métodos de influencia para administrar a la gente”.

• Conviene recordar que las doctrinas de vigilancia masiva de la actualidad no pueden disociarse del triste e infame legado dejado por las políticas represivas de conceptos como contrainsurgencia, pacificación, Estado de emergencia, seguridad nacional y enemigo interno. Estas doctrinas llevaron, en muchos casos, a destruir el orden constitucional y provocar el terrorismo de Estado.

   

  Lo nuevo del régimen de control actual se entiende mejor cuando se le compara con fórmulas anteriores. Michel Foucault lo mostraba en 1975 cuando escribía sobre el autocontrol que durante más de tres siglos ha podido ganarse la credibilidad de los comportamientos en Occidente. Los dispositivos disciplinarios fueron los que fabricaron a un individuo conforme con su convivencia.

• Está emergiendo una nueva forma de gobernabilidad fundada sobre la predicción que saca provecho de los grandes volúmenes de información almacenados en bases de datos públicas o privadas, concentradas en gigantes centros, lo que los anglosajones denominan Big Data. El tratamiento de datos masivos puede engendrar errores masivos y por ende malas decisiones de un alcance catastrófico.

   

  (…)

   

  La historia reciente enseña que bajo todas las latitudes el marco político que en nombre de la lucha antiterrorista provoca la penetración de las técnicas para el control social, corren el riesgo de sobrepasar los objetivos que se fijan, ya que introducen en amplios espacios sociales, prácticas de vigilancia hasta entonces ilegales.

   

  Pienso que, incapaces de combinar los tableros de libertad con la certeza de seguridad, las cabeceras del sistema mundo se escudan detrás de la guerra en vez de declarar la guerra a los mecanismos que producen las desigualdades.

• Los cambios después del 11/S

   

  A continuación les daré tres pistas para saber qué ha cambiado en el modelo de globalización a partir de esa fecha:

   

  1- La lucha contra el terrorismo que los Estados Unidos dice llevar a cabo consagra la nueva orientación estratégica basada sobre la anticipación y el conocimiento y avala a esas informaciones como instrumentos de vigilancia y monitoreo, así como el establecimiento de ficheros cada vez más numerosos sobre un número de personas cada vez más importante.

   

  Dicha lucha inspira el reordenamiento de las funciones, del conjunto de los servicios de inteligencia civiles y militares, nuevos vínculos entre el territorio nacional norteamericano y el espacio global, la seguridad interior y exterior, el universo policial y el universo militar, fuentes secretas y fuentes abiertas.

• 2- Con la lucha contra el terrorismo el axioma de la seguridad nacional deviene global, es ella la que legitima la guerra sobre la separación de los poderes y la garantía de los derechos, los dos pilares del estado de derechos. Es ella la que cohesiona a los diversos sectores del aparato estatal, sirviendo de guion entre “las sociedades” encargadas de la aplicación de la ley y la defensa nacional, la seguridad interior y civil por una parte, los asuntos exteriores y la economía. Se reactivan el discurso de la guerra fría y se “oxigenan” para establecer un lazo entre la industria, la defensa y la investigación académica.

   

  La centralidad conferida a la seguridad nacional que, por una parte ha contribuido a convertir a la OTAN en la cabeza de la lucha contra el bloque comunista, es una fuerte convocación de intervención global para defender los intereses occidentales.

• 3- Lo que es quizás más importante ha generado el debilitamiento del derecho internacional. El objetivo perseguido por el despliegue de las estrategias de vigilancia masiva. El objetivo perseguido ha sido una gobernanza global de la economía mundial de manera que pueda continuar el modo de articulación de capital transnacional conforme a la hegemonía del modelo neoliberal.

   

  La lucha contra el terrorismo llegó realmente a la parte conclusiva, pues se ha estrechado el control de los flujos constitutivos del modo de comunicación y circulación de las personas, de los bienes y de los mensajes.

   

  Lo que ha cambiado desde el 11 de septiembre de 2001 es el frágil equilibrio “democrático” entre seguridad y libertad, secreto y transparencia, coacción y consentimiento, sugestión y resistencia.

9 more annotations...

• Message from Raúl to Maduro

    

    Dec 7th, 2015

• We will always be with you, Army General Raúl Castro expressed, in a message sent to the President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, following the legislative elections held this Sunday

   

  Dear Maduro:

   

  I followed, minute by minute, the extraordinary battle that you have fought and listened to your words with admiration.

   

  I am sure there are new victories to come for the Bolivarian and Chavista Revolution under your leadership.

   

  We will always be with you.

   

  An embrace

   

  Raúl Castro Ruz

• Nunca como hoy urge contar con lúcidos y honestos como Armand Mattelart

   

   

    Por:   Abel Prieto Jiménez 

   

    En este artículo:   Armand Mattelart, Comunicación Social, Medios de Comunicación 

   

   

    8 diciembre 2015

• Cuando Garcés me pidió que dijera “las palabras de elogio” de Armand Mattelart en este acto, le expliqué que en todo caso, lo que podría compartir aquí con ustedes sería un mensaje de admiración, de afecto, de gratitud, por él, por Armand, y también (inevitablemente y con gran placer) por Michèle.

   

  Hay que felicitar a Armand por haber encontrado a Michèle y por haber fundado con ella una pareja para la vida y para el trabajo en común. Es un privilegio. Los felicito a los dos. (En Cuba tenemos el caso de dos poetas y ensayistas de los más grandes de nuestra historia literaria, Fina García Marruz y Cintio Vitier, dos martianos además, que vivieron y escribieron juntos hasta que Cintio lamentablemente falleció. “Destinada mía”, le llamó Cintio a Fina en un bello poema. Así, como la pareja de Fina y Cintio, veo yo a la pareja de Michèle y Armand. Es decir, que Michèle es la destinada de Armand y viceversa.)

   

  Volviendo a al tema de “las palabras de elogio”, quiero decir que he estado presente en muchos actos de este tipo y he visto que “las palabras de elogio” son auténticas conferencias magistrales. Estas notas que hice no tienen nada que ver con eso.  En todo caso, la culpa es de mi querido compañero Garcés.

• Yo hubiera necesitado un año sabático, o más, un quinquenio sabático quizás, para adentrarme en la amplísima obra, tan excepcional, tan grande en extensión como en profundidad, de Armand (formada por libros hechos en solitario o en coautoría con Michèle y otros estudiosos),  y tal vez un quinquenio extra para elaborar unas legítimas “palabras de elogio”, realmente dignas de la extraordinaria figura del pensamiento antihegemónico que hoy recibe el título de Doctor Honoris Causa de la UH.

   

  Empezaré con una confesión personal: aquel libro tan célebre de Armand, hecho en coautoría con Ariel Dorfman, Para leer al Pato Donald, tuvo un efecto muy impactante en mi formación, cuando estudiaba Letras en la universidad. Si algún día se me ocurre escribir una especie de Bildungsroman autobiográfica, es decir, una de aquellas clásicas “novelas de aprendizaje”  en las que el protagonista va pasando por una serie de “iniciaciones” sucesivas, asociadas al descubrimiento del mundo y de sí mismo y a la pérdida de la inocencia, tendría que referirme a mi encuentro con el Pato Donald desmenuzado por Armand y Dorfman.

   

  Es más: podría comparar, sin exagerar demasiado, la experiencia reveladora y algo perturbadora que significó ese libro para mí, con aquella otra, que me ocurrió muchos años antes, cuando un niño de mi escuela me dijo que los Reyes Magos no existían, que eran los padres.

• Yo había sido de los que se había creído con total ingenuidad el cuento de los Reyes Magos, de Melchor, Gaspar y Baltasar, de los que ponía yerba y agua para los camellos y hacía cartas diciendo que me había portado impecablemente y que merecía tal o más cuál regalo. Por supuesto, me daba cuenta de que estos Reyes no eran totalmente justos, porque había niños en mi barrio, los niños de familias más pobres, que se portaban muy bien y recibían regalitos ridículos. Pero, bueno, lo cierto es que me sentí engañado, traicionado, al saber que todo aquello era una farsa.

   

  Yo me había creído también, como todos los niños cubanos de mi generación, y como los de muchos otros países y generaciones, el cuento de los personajes de Disney, del Pato Donald, de Mickey Mouse, de Tribilín (aquí le llamábamos Tribilín; en otras partes, Goofy). Y aunque cuando cayó en mis manos Para leer al Pato Donald ya yo sabía muy bien que en las películas del Oeste de mi infancia los “malos” eran los cowboys y no los indios, todavía conservaba un espacio benevolente (y hasta un poco nostálgico) para las criaturas de Disney.

• Hasta que llegaron Armand y Dorfman y (del mismo modo brutal de aquel compañero de escuela que me dijo “Los Reyes son los padres”) me advirtieron (y lo probaron brillantemente) que Disney me había estado envenenando con sus patos asexuados, con su legión de sobrinos, con un símbolo extremo del egoísmo capitalista, el Tío Rico Mac Pato, que se presentaba como un tacaño  invenciblemente simpático, al que uno siempre terminaba perdonando.

   

  Después supe más: que Disney era un anticomunista furibundo, que había reprimido vengativamente al sindicato de sus estudios y que trabajó como colaborador del siniestro Edward Hoover. Y hace poco la serie de Oliver Stone (La historia no contada de los EEUU) nos recordaba al buenazo de Disney,  el papá tierno de tantos patos y ratones y ardillas y enanitos encantadores, cuando denunciaba a colegas suyos ante el tribunal de la inquisición del Macartismo.

   

  Preparando estas notas, recordaba el reciente Consejo Nacional de la UNEAC, hace tres días. Discutíamos allí sobre ciertos símbolos yanquis que han tomado fuerza entre nosotros y mucha gente los recibe como algo “moderno” o “divertido”. Y pensaba en qué falta nos hace difundir más, ahora mismo, en este país, el agudísimo instrumental crítico de Armand, de Michèle y de otros investigadores de los mecanismos de dominación cultural e informativa. Un instrumental, como sabemos, ajeno a consignas y exhortaciones, que nos ayuda a distanciarnos de la hipnosis y a desmontar las manipulaciones.

• Como Gramsci (que nació y se formó en el Sur de Italia, en Cerdeña, en un contexto rural muy pobre, muy del Tercer Mundo, y esta coyuntura marcó de un modo muy especial su pensamiento filosófico y político), Armand y Michèle Mattelart son intelectuales del Norte con raíces entrañables en el Sur. Son nuestros, como Gramsci es nuestro. (Incluso Gramsci es martiano, muy martiano, avant la lettre. Es el primer marxista-martiano, antes que Mella, antes que Fidel.)

   

  El hecho es que Armand y Michèle supieron despojarse de todo vestigio de paternalismo europeo y buscar el Sur y habitarlo no como un paisaje exótico sino como un destino (si Michèle fue la destinada de Armand; el Sur estaba destinado para los dos). Y supieron comprometerse a fondo, desde el punto de vista intelectual,  político,  moral y afectivo, con el Sur.

• La estancia de Armand Mattelart en Chile, entre principios de los 60 y 1973, fue decisiva para la estructuración de su pensamiento orientado hacia el Sur, hacia la descolonización y la emancipación. Y tuvo que ser decisiva la experiencia intensa y amarguísima de vivir junto a Allende y a la Unidad Popular la ofensiva de los medios al servicio de la oligarquía nacional y del Imperio y la escalada desestabilizadora y finalmente la barbarie del golpe y del subsiguiente genocidio. En una entrevista que le hizo María Cappa en Madrid publicada en Cubadebate, Mattelart evoca:

   

  “…lo que viví durante los tres años que estuve en contacto con la Unidad Popular, en Chile, donde mis compañeros y yo vimos, claramente, la importancia de los medios para construir a la oposición. El Mercurio (…) fue el verdadero constructor del intelectual colectivo opositor. …los editoriales de este periódico (…) tuvieron un verdadero efecto al llamar hacia la movilización contra Allende…”

• De hecho, publica desde 1963 varios libros en Chile que van desde  estudios demográficos y sociológicos hasta valoraciones sobre el papel ideológico, político y de poder de los llamados mass media, es decir, desde su Diagnóstico social sobre América Latina. Las estructuras sociales, freno al desarrollo económico (1963) hasta Los medios de comunicación de masas. La ideología de la prensa liberal (con Michèle y Mabel Piccini) (1970), texto que, según algunos estudiosos como Enrique Bustamante, marca el comienzo de las contribuciones de Armand a la comunicación, pasando por  Integración nacional y marginalidad, ensayo de regionalización social en Chile (con Manuel Antonio Garretón) (1965), Atlas social de las comunas de Chile (también del 65), La mujer chilena en una nueva sociedad, un estudio exploratorio acerca de la situación e imagen de la mujer en Chile (en coautoría con Michèle) (1968),  Juventud chilena, rebeldía y conformismo, (también con Michèle) (1970), Comunicación masiva y revolución socialista (con Patricio Biedma y Santiago Funes) (1971) y Agresión desde el espacio. Cultura y napalm en la era de los satélites (1972), entre muchos otros.

   

  Después del golpe y de su exilio codirigió La Spirale (La espiral), un documental sobre el período de la Unidad Popular exhibido en el Festival de Cannes en 1976.

• Anoche, cuando todos estábamos pendientes de los resultados electorales en Venezuela, que ya sabemos cuáles fueron, vi a Ramonet comentándole a Telesur acerca de la gran conspiración mediática internacional que ha cercado sin piedad, sin tregua, al gobierno del presidente Maduro. Y en marzo de 2014, en la entrevista que cité ahorita de Armand con María Cappa, una excelente entrevista, en medio de la más rabiosa campaña de los medios hegemónicos contra la Venezuela Bolivariana, cuando tantas voces desde la derecha y desde una supuesta izquierda se alzaban día a día para unirse al coro de los que impulsan la Contrarreforma en América Latina y quieren liquidar lo que empezaron a construir Chávez y Fidel con el ALBA y que nos llevó hasta algo tan inimaginable en otros tiempos como la CELAC, Armand Mattelart, nuestro Armand Mattelart, declaró valientemente:

   

  “…creo que hay un plan del Pentágono y del Departamento de Estado de EEUU para derrocar y terminar con el régimen chavista… (…) A Estados Unidos le molesta que gobierne el chavismo en Venezuela desde un punto de vista geopolítico. Pasa igual con otros países. Creo que es una nueva guerra en contra de lo que ellos llaman el retorno de la subversión contra EEUU. Es evidente que han repensado esto e, incluso, cada vez tienen más estrategias de uso de las nuevas tecnologías para participar activamente. (…) Lo que ocurre es que todos los grandes medios occidentales se han puesto de acuerdo para condenar al Gobierno de Venezuela pero no al estadounidense. No quieren contar que Estados Unidos está acorralando a los diferentes gobiernos que, por diferentes motivos, no les gustan…”

• En esta misma entrevista, Mattelart señala que los medios actuales trabajan “para justificar aquello que denuncian ciertos sectores reaccionarios. (…)…sirven de respaldo para estos discursos emergentes de la extrema derecha (…). // [Y añade] La guerra determinante en la historia del manejo de los medios de comunicación fue la I Guerra Mundial, (…) una guerra de propaganda en la que apareció por primera vez una oficina de censura y de orientación de la información (…).

   

  [Aquí habría que acotar que estuvo antes la intervención de los EEUU en la guerra que libraban los cubanos contra España y el papel en esa historia de la prensa controlada por William Randolf Hearst.]

• [Y continúa Mattelart]…fue el Gobierno estadounidense quien aconsejó sobre la estrategia que tenían que seguir los medios para convencer a la población de que su país debía participar en el conflicto. (…) Este es un elemento fundamental porque las estrategias que aprendieron del comportamiento de los medios en una guerra para movilizar a las masas o, más específicamente, para lavar los cerebros, los usaron después con la sociedad civil. …en situaciones tanto de guerra como de paz, hasta llegar al punto más representativo que fue el comportamiento de los medios en el atentado de las dos torres fue fundamental.

   

  // (…) Si nos fijamos en EEUU, en la guerra contra el terrorismo, su comportamiento se basa en un conjunto de excepciones: respecto a la libertad de expresión, a la libertad de prensa y, finalmente, a la libertad de movimiento de los ciudadanos, todo ello justificado por la mayor parte de los medios. // Incluso la vulneración del derecho a la privacidad…”

   

  Y ante una pregunta sobre la continuidad entre las dictaduras militares de los 70 y la represión del neoliberalismo, responde:

• “…hay una línea de continuidad, aunque como cuentan con otras tecnologías, se da un fenómeno en el que a la vez hay continuidad y ruptura. Por eso han redefinido su doctrina militar a partir de lo que llaman el soft power, el poder blando. Las prácticas de tortura, por ejemplo, son igual de drásticas que antes. (…) En ese sentido, creo que no han cambiado, sino que continúan con sus prácticas represivas (…). Esto es lo que trato de demostrar en un libro que publiqué en 2009 llamado El mundo vigilado, donde parto de la Guerra Fría hasta llegar a las estrategias de Bush, para acabar comprobando cómo las prácticas de hoy son hijas de las de ayer.”

   

  Justamente en el “Epílogo” de Un mundo vigilado, Mattelart, después de estudiar el itinerario de las fórmulas de espionaje y control en las llamadas “sociedades democráticas”, demanda sumar “el derecho a la seguridad” a aquellos derechos sin los cuales “no puede haber dignidad humana”, es decir, “el derecho al trabajo, a la educación, a la vivienda, a la salud, a la comunicación”, es decir, a la verdad.

• Puedo imaginar cuánto sufrieron Armand y Michèle Mattelart el exterminio por el fascismo del noble proyecto de la Unidad Popular y de tantos hombres y mujeres cargados de utopía. Supongo (aunque no se los he preguntado) que fue también muy duro para ellos ver cómo el sistema liquidaba aquel movimiento liberador de los 60 y absorbía a sus líderes o los condenaba a la más humillantes frustraciones.

   

  Asistieron también al derrumbe del Muro, a lo que Fidel llamó “desmenrengamiento” de la URSS y del socialismo llamado real, a la desmoralización generalizada de la izquierda, a las teorías del “fin de la historia” y a los cantos triunfales de los adoradores del Dios Mercado. Sin embargo, Armand y Michèle mantuvieron la ruta tercamente antihegemónica, humanista y emancipadora de sus investigaciones.

   

  “No he perdido mi capacidad de indignarme (declaró Armand en una ocasión). Pueden haber cambiado muchas cosas, pero no mi indignación constante ante los desniveles de equidad y ante la injusticia. En eso sigo siendo el mismo de siempre.”

• De ahí que cuando Pablo González Casanova y otros intelectuales mexicanos, cubanos y de otros países de nuestra América lanzaron la convocatoria de formar una red de intelectuales, artistas y movimientos sociales “En defensa de la Humanidad”, Armand y Michèle se adhirieron de inmediato.  Era en ese momento post-Muro una red diseñada y concebida escandalosamente a contracorriente de los procesos de la cultura dominante.

   

  Precisamente en un texto titulado “Los intelectuales y los media”, fechado en la fecha ya remota de 1985, Armand y Michèle adelantaron la caracterización de un fenómeno que ha venido creciendo y articulándose más y más hasta llegar en el presente a un panorama patético. Voy a citarlo:

   

  “La larga tradición de análisis crítico sobre los (…) medios de comunicación de masas parece hoy barrida (…) en el momento (…) en que la explosión de las nuevas tecnologías de la comunicación y la información dan a la cultura mediática un papel cada vez más determinante en la vida social…”

• Se ha legitimado, aseguran, ante el festejado “advenimiento de la sociedad de la información y la filosofía del mercado”, “la cultura mediática”, que cuestiona “toda una parte de la historia occidental de las ideas y de las teorías sobre la cultura (…) [y] también la historia de las relaciones que ha mantenido con los media la clase intelectual. Con ella, igualmente, la historia de las relaciones que los intelectuales han mantenido con las otras clases y grupos sociales…” [El hecho es que el papel de líderes espirituales que tuvieron en otras épocas escritores como Zola, Víctor Hugo, Tolstoi, Sartre, entre otros, ha sido entregado por esta “cultura mediática” a los llamados “famosos”, cuyas travesuras y frases vacías son seguidas en las redes sociales por millones de fanáticos.]

   

  En el contexto posmoderno (dicen Michèle y Armand) ya no es ciertamente el intelectual tradicional el que está llamado a ocupar el lugar central.” Son “los nuevos sectores profesionales del tratamiento del saber sobre el comportamiento de las diversas categorías sociales” quienes “conciben y administran el nexo social, en nombre mismo de su desaparición y de la evaporación de lo político”.// Si se quiere sobrevivir en este nuevo campo de fuerzas, resulta oportuno observar las reglas de la puesta en escena mediática, con el riesgo de dejarse en el vestuario toda interrogación sobre las apuestas del trabajo intelectual. Es necesario ocupar el terreno preocupándose ante todo de definir la mejor imagen para ofrecer al público (…). // Como observa la novelista Armie Ernaux: “Existe como una renuncia progresiva y casi generalizada a las preguntas que siempre se ha planteado (…) la literatura sobre su papel, su finalidad; su relación con lo real, con la sociedad, aunque sólo fuera para negarla… Es posible que (…) la literatura renuncie a todos los poderes distintos de los del placer y la distracción”.”

• Con respecto a la reducción de la cultura al mero papel de mercancía, señalan:

   

  “…la conexión cultura-negocio, sobre la que (según la expresión de Umberto Eco) se han arrojado los apocalípticos, se ha procurado (ya) un lugar (…) [bajo el] sol. [Ahora, treinta años después de escrito este texto, hay que decir que esa conexión cultura-negocio ha desplazado brutalmente del mercado cultural a todo lo que no sea vendible. En este, como en tantos otros temas, los Mattelart han sido unos adelantados. Es impresionante cómo vieron muy temprano, por ejemplo, la farsa de la tecnología presentándose con ropaje democratizador.] [Y continúan:] En algunos medios intelectuales no se ha llegado a discernir lo verdadero de lo falso en las teorías de la Escuela de Fráncfort. Y algunos se libran hoy alegremente de las dudas que, a sus ojos, han inhibido a tantos de sus predecesores….” Y nos recuerdan aquello que decían Adorno y Horkheimer: que ellos “no detestaban la cultura de masas porque fuera democrática, sino precisamente porque no lo era”.”

• Y aparecen, por supuesto, las musas predilectas de la todopoderosa industria del ocio: “El placer, el deseo, lo lúdico…”

   

  “…en Francia durante la discusión sobre los usos sociales de las nuevas tecnologías (videotexto, teletexto, cable, etcétera) y (…) el papel que puede jugar la investigación en las ciencias sociales para acompañar al dominio democrático de las nuevas redes. (…) En el curso del debate fueron (…) atacados aquellos sociólogos presentes que, apelando a una idea renovada del servicio público, veían en la experimentación social una de las vías más democráticas para asociar a los ciudadanos con las opciones tecnológicas (…). “Si yo miro”, confesaba ese publicitario, “lo que sucede actualmente fuera de Francia, lo que me llama la atención en particular en el Silicon Valley, en California… En todas esas exposiciones que escucho hay un gran ausente: el deseo. …lo que está pasando con esas tecnologías es un formidable trastorno del deseo, un formidable aspirador movido por el deseo; lo que pasa en California es que las gentes tienen ganas de ello. Cuando digo las gentes hay que tomar el término en una acepción muy amplia: son quizá los publicitarios, los jóvenes empresarios, las asociaciones de consumidores, etcétera. Se trata (…) de crear las condiciones para que las gentes tengan ganas de jugar con… Van a llegarnos nuevos productos japoneses o estadounidenses porque ellos habrán conseguido crear las condiciones en que las gentes van a jugar con el deseo e inventar productos y usos nuevos”…

• Es decir, concluyen Michèle y Armand, “Frente a la pesadez de la herencia de un servicio público cuyo pensamiento sobre lo social se asimila a las formas arcaicas del cuadriculado tecnocrático, he aquí legitimado como natural el empuje de las nuevas tecnologías porque responden a la dinámica, también natural, de los deseos, “deseo de comprar, deseo de comunicar, deseo de utilizar los nuevos medios”…

   

  Así quedan prácticamente suprimidos el derecho y la obligación del Estado de establecer políticas culturales públicas ante la avalancha neoliberal, en la práctica y en la producción teórica.

• Para integrarse a la realidad domesticada por el mito, había que “admitir las bases sobre las que se edificaba la ideología dominante, es decir, a condición de admitir el punto de vista particular de una clase propietaria de la cultura legítima como parámetro de objetividad y de universalidad”.

   

  Esa ideología dominante es capaz de apropiarse “del campo semántico de los múltiples procesos de liberación que agitaban a la sociedad” y así, por ejemplo,  podía convertir el “ideal de la mujer moderna” en “la línea de impacto de las estrategias de ventas”. De este modo, “Esa modernidad se (…) alimentaba con las pulsiones del movimiento de emancipación de la mujer…”

   

  En suma, “Es la época del look, la era de las apariencias la que se abre. Se asiste a la pérdida del vínculo social. (…) En el goce de la forma y sus resplandores ha dejado de tener importancia el contenido”. [Algo que vemos de manera escandalosa en la política, donde “dar una buena imagen”, fotografiarse del modo más “atractivo” o “sexy”, es más ventajoso que las ideas programáticas.]

• Al propio tiempo, Armand y Michèle anuncian la desintegración acelerada de “los órdenes y las jerarquías”. “Todo se da en el instante”, y ya no es posible saber que es “importante y no importante, esencial y no esencial, entrada y salida, “primera instancia” y “última instancia”, preámbulo y desenlace”.

   

  En un libro de Armand y Michéle del 86, Pensar sobre los medios, señalan al paso algo que ya habían advertido en el Chile acosado de Allende, cuando los obreros desatendían la información sobre la crisis para ver las telenovelas: “el consumo (el consumo cultural, pero también de forma más general los modelos de consumo) apenas si ha sido tomado en cuenta por la izquierda”. Advierte una “carencia histórica del movimiento obrero”, en los partidos y en los sindicatos, un “desinterés por la dimensión consumo y más generalmente por el marco de vida, y por los problemas de la vida cotidiana de la gente”.

   

  Por eso, consideran, “han nacido nuevos movimientos sociales” y algunos reivindican “un sindicalismo del marco de vida”. Consumo cultural y modelos de consumo, marco de vida, una construcción subjetiva que tiene que ver con el sentido de la vida, la hegemonía de la “nueva cultura” que nos exigía Gramsci.

• Hay que decir que en los debates de la izquierda (y entre nosotros también) han faltado muchas veces los que tienen que ver con los temas de este congreso. Una de las batallas que perdió aquel socialismo que se derrumbó fue el de la comunicación y la información, el de la cultura, el del “sentido de la vida”, y por eso es tan significativo tener aquí con nosotros a Michèle y a Armand y a otros especialistas internacionales muy importantes, como me explicaba Garcés, para enriquecer nuestras discusiones con otros puntos de vista, con material teórico del más alto nivel.

   

  Para terminar, quiero recordar que este homenaje se da en uno de los momentos más terribles de la historia contemporánea. La política debe verse como un show; la guerra, como un show; las catástrofes ecológicas y humanitarias, como shows. El Papa Francisco dijo que se había iniciado una 3ª Guerra Mundial por etapas, y uno se siente tentado a darle la razón.  Vivimos, como todo el mundo sabe, una crisis medioambiental, ética, de legitimidad de la política tradicional, económica y sistémica, de los valores más elementales de solidaridad entre seres humanos, de la memoria cultural e histórica, de la inteligencia, del humanismo.

   

  Junto a esto, asciende el fascismo, la xenofobia, el racismo, el odio, el culto a la violencia. El Frankenstein creado por la CIA para sacar a los soviéticos de Afganistán se ha ramificado y terminó proliferando y convirtiéndose en un monstruo mucho mayor y más poderoso y, por lo pronto, sirve para provocar el pánico (tan útil en medio de las crisis del sistema) y, de paso, favorecer electoralmente a la ultraderecha.

• El Frente Nacional en Francia acaba de obtener una resonante victoria en las elecciones municipales. (No olvidemos que, cada vez que bajaba la popularidad de Bush, aparecía un video aterrador de Bin Laden con amenazas que funcionaban para reforzar el apoyo a los “halcones” neoconservadores y a su delirante cruzada contra el terrorismo.)

   

  Aparte de sus drones y de su armamento cada vez más sofisticado, el sistema sigue contando con el Pato Donald, un ejército de súper-héroes hollywoodenses y mísiles de alcance global para llevar sus mentiras a todas partes. Cultura y napalm siguen juntos, muy unidos, para defender los intereses imperiales.

   

  Nunca como hoy nos urge contar con personas lúcidas y honestas, de una lucidez y una honestidad a toda prueba, como Armand y Michèle Mattelart.

20 more annotations...

• An End to Cuban Exceptionalism
• Dec 7, 2015
• By       Editorial Board           
   
   
  • a
   
  • A
   
   
    
   

  Just as U.S. policy toward Cuba has changed, so must U.S. policy toward Cubans -- specifically, those Cubans who find their way to the U.S. But the change in immigration policy, like the change in diplomatic policy, needs to proceed carefully, or it may trigger exactly the kind of crisis both countries want to avoid.

  For almost half a century, Cubans have received unique treatment under U.S. immigration law. So long as they set foot on U.S. soil, Cubans are all but guaranteed admission. They can get a green card within a year and are basically exempt from deportation and immigration enforcement policies affecting other noncitizens. Plus, since they're treated as refugees, they qualify for federal assistance and other benefits.

• Yet as ties have improved between the U.S. and Cuba, some unforeseen consequences of this policy have become glaringly evident. The easing of travel restrictions by both sides has led to "refugees" who freely shuttle back and forth between the two countries. (Unlike other refugees, Cubans can travel back to their country without jeopardizing their U.S. immigration status.) Moreover, the lack of rigorous background checks has created what Florida's Sun Sentinel calls the "Cuban Criminal Pipeline," a burgeoning population of petty and not-so-petty crooks, many of whom fraudulently claim federal benefits.

    <script type="text/javascript">  window.__bloomberg__.ads.createAd({  adCode: "view.topics/latin-america//story",  id: "_view_topics_latin_america__story_box1",  dimensions: {"mobile":[[300,250]]},  targeting: {  position: "box1",  url: "/"  }  });  </script>

   

   

  Cubans, who live under a repressive regime that distributes poverty rather than opportunity, have good reason to emigrate. And Cuban immigrants have immeasurably enriched the U.S. But the anomalies and widespread abuses of U.S. immigration policy toward Cuba have sparked an outcry even among the most die-hard opponents of the Castros. Defending the existing policy is even harder in the face of the much higher hurdles that face those fleeing violence in Syria and Central America.
• Yet changing the system comes with its own risks. Fears among Cubans of a change in policy have already triggered a near-doubling in arrivals during the 2015 fiscal year, to 43,159. Mexico and the nations of Central America are struggling with the increased flow, which has been abetted by the region's smuggling gangs. (More than 4,000 are stuck in Costa Rica, their journey northward blocked by Nicaragua's government.) A protracted legislative battle to repeal or rewrite the Cuban Adjustment Act, the 1966 law that codifies U.S. immigration policy toward Cuba, would send even more rushing for the exits.

• President Barack Obama could use his executive authority to subject all Cubans who arrive in the U.S., by whatever means, to screening: They would have to prove they faced a credible fear of persecution in order to be paroled into the U.S. Those who were economic, rather than political, refugees would be sent back to Cuba. That change could be made relatively quickly, and might deter many Cubans from making an expensive and now more uncertain trek. Once that administrative measure is in place, Congress should then junk the Cuban Adjustment Act.

  Of course, the best way to persuade Cubans to stay in Cuba would be for the U.S. Congress to drop its embargo and for President Raul Castro to speed up the opening of his country's economy and political system. That's the adjustment Cuba really needs.

  To contact the senior editor responsible for Bloomberg View’s editorials: David Shipley at davidshipley@bloomberg.net.

4 more annotations...

• United States and Cuba Hold Claims Talks In Havana

  <!-- END TITLE --> 

  
  

  Media Note

  Office of the Spokesperson

   

  Washington, DC
   

  December 7, 2015

  
  <!-- TOP-META END -->

   

  Share on facebookShare on twitter   

     

   

  ---

  <!-- CENTERBLOCK START -->

  The United States and Cuba will hold their first government-to-government claims discussion in Havana on December 8. The U.S. delegation will be led by Mary McLeod, Acting Legal Adviser for the U.S. Department of State. This initial meeting will allow the two sides to exchange information on a wide variety of claims. These include claims of U.S. nationals that were certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, claims related to unsatisfied U.S. court judgments against Cuba, and claims of the United States Government. The Government of Cuba has also raised claims against the United States related to the embargo. The meeting is the first step in what we expect to be a long and complex process, but the United States views the resolution of outstanding claims as a top priority for normalization.

   

  The reestablishment of diplomatic relations allows us to more effectively represent U.S. interests and values in Cuba and strengthen our ties with the Cuban people.

• Mon Dec 7, 2015

• Exclusive: Cuba nears deal with Paris Club on debt forgiveness

     

    HAVANA  |   By Marc Frank

• Cuba is near a deal with 15 rich creditor nations of the Paris Club to restructure $16 billion in debt stemming from a 1986 default, with creditors expected to forgive most of the amount owed, diplomats close to the talks said.

  The parties will meet in Paris later this week and, after two years of informal discussions, are close to a multilateral deal, the diplomats said.

  "Cuba has agreed to pay the principal of around $5 billion owed since its 1986 default in exchange for forgiving $11 billion in service charges, interest and penalties," said one diplomat from a major creditor nation. "Negotiations are now more about how much time they need to pay it and how much of the money will be reinvested in Cuba."

  Cuba has secured investment agreements from creditors in previous debt negotiations and is seeking similar commitments from the Paris Club nations, the diplomats said.

• The Paris Club is an informal group of creditor governments from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States.

  It has a 15-member working group on Cuba that excludes those countries - the United States among them - that do not hold the debt under negotiation.

  Most of the creditors are willing to show flexibility due to their increased interest in doing business in Cuba following the Communist-run island's detente with the United States and continuing domestic reforms.

     

  U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro announced a year ago their governments would work toward a normalization of relations after decades of confrontation, although a U.S. trade embargo of Cuba remains in place.

• Castro, who replaced his ailing brother Fidel as president in 2008, has made restoring Cuba's international financial credibility a priority. He has reined in imports and cut state payrolls and subsidies while insisting the near-bankrupt government get its financial house in order.

  Cuba has had a trade and current account surplus since 2011 and has improved its payments record to creditors and suppliers.

  In the past four years, Cuba has restructured its debt with Japanese commercial creditors, Mexico and Russia, each time obtaining reductions of 70 percent to 90 percent in what was owed and extended payment plans it could meet in exchange for greater investment opportunities on the island.

     

  Cuba also has restructured its debt with China, estimated by local economists at more than $6 billion.

  "Our companies want this out of the way so they can obtain financing for investments," one European diplomat said. "They want to get here before the Americans lift the embargo."

• Cuba is not a member of the World Bank nor any other multilateral lending institution.

  "A comprehensive deal would go a long way toward normalizing Cuba's international financial relations and gaining access to official trade credits," said Richard Feinberg, a non-resident senior fellow of the Washington-based Brookings Institution and the author of several studies on Cuba's need to join the international financial community.

     

  "However, a deal with the Paris Club will not get Cuba a good international credit rating. That can only come from more robust export earnings and a healthier sustainable balance of payments," Feinberg said.

  Cuba does not comment on debt negotiations.

  The government last reported its "active" foreign debt, accumulated after it defaulted in 1986, at $12.5 billion in 2012. It no longer reports its "passive" debt from before the default, the principal of which local economists estimate at $8 billion.

  The Economist Intelligence Unit estimated Cuba's total foreign debt as $26 billion at the end of last year.

  This week's formal negotiations with the Paris Club creditors are the first since negotiations failed in 2001.

4 more annotations...

• Restoration of U.S.-Cuba diplomatic relations sparks a trademark battle Add to ... 

   

   

   JAIME HAMRE 

   

   CAMAGUEY, CUBA — Reuters

   

   

  Published Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2015

• When Julio Manzini decided two years ago to name his small restaurant McDonald’s after the famous fast-food chain, he had no idea it could cause any trouble. He has since been frightened into removing the name.

  “I don’t even know what McDonald’s tastes like, I just thought the name was striking, like Shakira or something,” he said at the lunch counter of what used to be “Cafeteria La McDonald’s Camagueyana” in the Cuban city of Camaguey, about 500 km east of Havana.

   <!-- This is a catch-all ASF view; only displays when an unsupported article type is put in an ASF drop zone --> 

  This month, Mr. Manzini stripped “McDonald’s” and the famous golden arches from his handcrafted sign as a precaution after he said his establishment was visited by a lawyer sent by the company.

• The place is now simply called “Cafeteria La Camagueyana.”

  His counterfeit McDonald’s illustrates a potential battlefront between Cuba and the United States over trademark and intellectual property rights as Cuba’s economy opens up to more private enterprise and closer ties with the U.S.

  The two countries restored diplomatic relations this year after half a century of Cold War hostility and are now working to improve ties. Trademark and intellectual property issues will be on the negotiating table, both sides have said.

  Both have grievances. The U.S. has denied Cuban companies the same trademark protection enjoyed by brands from everywhere else, forcing marquee names such as Havana Club rum and Cohiba cigars into long, expensive court battles.

  And while Cuba protects trademarks registered with the government, it also tolerates or officially sanctions the resale of unlicensed music, software and entertainment. State television routinely pirates American movies and shows for broadcast.

• In a socialist economy that only in recent years has allowed small-scale private businesses, knowledge of trademark law is poor. Mr. Manzini said he never thought to check with the Cuban Office of Industrial Property (OCPI) to see if the McDonald’s name was available. It is not: McDonald’s has registered trademarks in Cuba since at least 1985.

  Despite the 53-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, companies from both countries have continued registering trademarks and patents in the other.

  Since 1966 about 1,500 U.S. businesses have filed nearly 6,000 trademarks in Cuba, including renewals, according to data from Saegis, the online trademark database from Thomson Reuters.

  Among them are Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Levi’s , Nike, Starbucks Coffee, Pfizer , Intel, Burger King, KFC and Goodyear.

• Another 1,355 trademarks of U.S. origin, including Wal-Mart and Google, are protected under an international treaty known as the Madrid Protocol, according to World Intellectual Property Organization data.

  Aside from the “special hamburgers” and “American coffee” on offer, there is little that separates Mr. Manzini’s hole-in-the-wall operation from hundreds of other snack bars tucked in doorways across the island.

  But he was likely violating trademark protections by using the McDonald’s name and the golden arches on his sign. He said he only fully understood he could be in trouble after the lawyer visited the restaurant recently while he was away.

  “I’m really afraid. I don’t even pull in 1,000 pesos ($40) a day,” Mr. Manzini said.

  McDonald’s would have to complain to the OCPI to legally stop Mr. Manzini and others, such as the “McDunald” cafe in the city of Santa Clara, which also uses the golden arches on its sign.

  A spokeswoman for McDonald’s declined to comment except to say that “we are committed to vigorously protecting our intellectual property.”

3 more annotations...

• References
• Operation Northwoods

• Operation Northwoods was a proposed operation against the Cuban government, that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration.^[2]

   

  At the time of the proposal, communists led by Fidel Castro had recently taken power in Cuba. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the US Government (so called "false flag operations").^[3] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

   

   

  The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

   

   

  Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various US military and civilian targets. The operation recommended developing a "Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

   

  The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the US government's anti-communist Cuban Project, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. According to currently released documentation, none of the operations became active under the auspices of the Operation Northwoods proposals.
• Reaction
• References
• Further reading
• External links
• Origins and public release

• The main proposal was presented in a document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)," a top secret collection of draft memoranda written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS).^[1] The document was presented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on 13 March 1962 as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that both the covert and overt aspects of any such operation be assigned to them.

   

  The previously secret document was originally made public on 18 November 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board,^[4] a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy's assassination.^[5][6] A total of 1,521 pages of once-secret military records covering 1962 to 1964 were concomitantly declassified by said Review Board.

   

  "Appendix to Enclosure A" and "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A" of the Northwoods document were first published online by the National Security Archive on 6 November 1998 in a joint venture with CNN as part of its 1998 Cold War television documentary series^[7][8]—specifically, as a documentation supplement to "Episode 10: Cuba," which aired on 29 November 1998.^[9] "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A" is the section of the document which contains the proposals to stage terrorist attacks.

   

  The Northwoods document was published online in a more complete form, including cover memoranda, by the National Security Archive on 30 April 2001.^[10]
• Content

• In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations of the Cuba Project, Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the document listed methods, and outlined plans, that the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. According to the documents, the plan called for the following:

   
   
   
  1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for U.S. military intervention in Cuba, a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as had been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.
   
  2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.^[11]
   
  3. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
   
  4. Commence large scale United States military operations.
• Related Operation Mongoose proposals

• In addition to Operation Northwoods, under the Operation Mongoose program the U.S. Department of Defense had a number of similar proposals to be taken against the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro.

   

  Twelve of these proposals come from a 2 February 1962 memorandum entitled "Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba," written by Brig. Gen. William H. Craig and submitted to Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the commander of the Operation Mongoose project.^[12][6]

   

  The memorandum outlines Operation Bingo, a plan to "create an incident which has the appearance of an attack on U.S. facilities (GMO) in Cuba, thus providing an excuse for use of U.S. military might to overthrow the current government of Cuba."

   

  It also includes Operation Dirty Trick, a plot to blame Castro if the 1962 Mercury manned space flight carrying John Glenn crashed, saying: "The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al. Cuba [sic]." It continues, "This to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans."

   

  Even after General Lemnitzer lost his job as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff still planned false-flag pretext operations at least into 1963. A different U.S. Department of Defense policy paper created in 1963 discussed a plan to make it appear that Cuba had attacked a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) so that the United States could retaliate. The U.S. Department of Defense document says of one of the scenarios, "A contrived 'Cuban' attack on an OAS member could be set up, and the attacked state could be urged to take measures of self-defense and request assistance from the U.S. and OAS."

   

  The plan expressed confidence that by this action, "the U.S. could almost certainly obtain the necessary two-thirds support among OAS members for collective action against Cuba."^[13][14]

   

  Included in the nations the Joint Chiefs suggested as targets for covert attacks were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Since both were members of the British Commonwealth, the Joint Chiefs hoped that by secretly attacking them and then falsely blaming Cuba, the United States could incite the people of the United Kingdom into supporting a war against Castro.^[13] As the U.S. Department of Defense report noted:

   

   

  Any of the contrived situations described above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty. If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it should be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the most highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation."^[13]

   

   

  The U.S. Department of Defense report even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo."^[13]
• Reaction

• Kennedy personally rejected the Northwoods proposal, and it would now be the Joint Chiefs' turn to incur his displeasure. A JCS/Pentagon document (Ed Lansdale memo) dated 16 March 1962 titled MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, 16 MARCH 1962 reads: "General Lemnitzer commented that the military had contingency plans for U.S. intervention. Also it had plans for creating plausible pretexts to use force, with the pretext either attacks on U.S. aircraft or a Cuban action in Latin America for which we could retaliate. The President said bluntly that we were not discussing the use of military force, that General Lemnitzer might find the U.S so engaged in Berlin or elsewhere that he couldn't use the contemplated 4 divisions in Cuba."^[15] The proposal was sent for approval to the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, but was not implemented.

   

  Following presentation of the Northwoods plan, Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963. American armed forces leaders began to perceive Kennedy as going soft on Cuba, and the President became increasingly unpopular with the military, a rift that came to a head during Kennedy's disagreements with the service chiefs over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

   

  On 3 August 2001, the National Assembly of People's Power of Cuba (the main legislative body of the Republic of Cuba) issued a statement referring to Operation Northwoods and Operation Mongoose wherein it condemned such U.S. government plans.^[16]
• See also
• • Body of Secrets
   
  • Gulf of Tonkin incident
   
  • Reichstag fire
   
  • Family Jewels (Central Intelligence Agency)
   
  • Operation WASHTUB
   
  • Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group
   
  • Operation Himmler
   
  • Bay of Pigs Invasion
• "Cold War Teacher Materials: Episodes," and "Educator Guide to CNN's COLD WAR Episode 10: Cuba," Turner Learning (Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.).
• • U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)", U.S. Department of Defense, 13 March 1962. The Operation Northwoods document in PDF format on the website of the independent, non-governmental research institute the National Security Archive at the George Washington University Gelman Library, Washington, D.C. Direct PDF links: here and here.
   
• "Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962," National Security Archive, 30 April 2001.
• • Ruppe, David (May 1, 2001). "U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba". ABC News. Retrieved January 21, 2012. 
   
• Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A: Pretexts to Justify U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba, media.nara.gov, accessed 3 September 2009
• Zaitchik, Alexander (3 March 2011) Meet Alex Jones, Rolling Stone
• "The Records of the Assassination Records Review Board," National Archives and Records Administration.
• Mike Feinsilber, "At a tense time, plots abounded to humiliate Castro," Associated Press (AP), 18 November 1997; also available here.
• "Media Advisory: National Archives Releases Additional Materials Reviewed by the Assassination Records Review Board," Assassination Records Review Board (a division of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration), 17 November 1997. A U.S. government press-release announcing the declassification of some 1,500 pages of U.S. government documents from 1962 to 1964 relating to U.S. policy towards Cuba, among which declassified documents included the Operation Northwoods document.
• James Bamford, Chapter 4: "Fists" of Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency From the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century (New York: Doubleday, first edition, 24 April 2001), ISBN 0-385-49907
• Mike Feinsilber, "Records Show Plan To Provoke Castro," Associated Press (AP), 29 January 1998.
• Tim Weiner, "Documents Show Pentagon's Anti-Castro Plots During Kennedy Years," New York Times, 19 November 1997; appeared on the same date and by the same author in the New York Times itself as "Declassified Papers Show Anti-Castro Ideas Proposed to Kennedy," late edition—final, section A, pg. 25, column 1.
• Lansdale Memo of 16 Mar 1962. This memo records a high-level meeting in the White House 3 days after McNamara was presented with Operation Northwoods. [1]
• "Statement by the National Assembly of People's Power of the Republic of Cuba," National Assembly of People's Power of Cuba, 3 August 2001; also available here.
• • "National Security Archive: COLD WAR: Documents," National Security Archive, 27 September 1998 – 24 January 1999.
   
• U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Appendix to Enclosure A: Memorandum for Chief of Operations, Cuba Project" and "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A: Pretexts to Justify U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba," U.S. Department of Defense, c. March 1962. First published online by the National Security Archive on 6 November 1998, as part of CNN's Cold War documentary series. "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A" is the section of the Operation Northwoods document which contains the proposals to stage terrorist attacks.
• Further reading
• Jon Elliston, editor, Psywar on Cuba: The Declassified History of U.S. Anti-Castro Propaganda (Melbourne, Australia and New York: Ocean Press, 1999), ISBN 1-876175-09-5.
• James Bamford, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency From the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century (New York: Doubleday, first edition, 24 April 2001), ISBN 0-385-49907-8. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 4: "Fists" of this book.
• External links
• • The Full Operation Northwoods document in both JPEG and fully searchable HTML format.
   
  • High resolution scans from the National Archives, main pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
   
  • Scott Shane and Tom Bowman with contribution from Laura Sullivan, "New book on NSA sheds light on secrets: U.S. terror plan was Cuba invasion pretext," Baltimore Sun, 24 April 2001.
   
  • Ron Kampeas, "Memo: U.S. Mulled Fake Cuba Pretext," Associated Press (AP), 25 April 2001.
   
  • Bruce Schneier, "'Body of Secrets' by James Bamford: The author of a pioneering work on the NSA delivers a new book of revelations about the mysterious agency's coverups, eavesdropping and secret missions," Salon.com, 25 April 2001.
   
  • David Ruppe, "U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba; Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba," ABC News, 1 May 2001.
   
  • "The Truth Is Out There—1962 memo from National Security Agency," Harper's Magazine, July 2001.
   
  • Chris Floyd, "Head Cases," Moscow Times, 21 December 2001, pg. VIII; also appeared in St. Petersburg Times, Issue 733 (100), 25 December 2001.
   
  • National Security Archive, "Pentagon Proposed Pretext for Cuba Invasion in 1962", April 30, 2001.

36 more annotations...

• Does God work for the CIA?
• Published time: 15 Jan, 2014
• The arrest and imprisonment in North Korea of US citizen Kenneth Bae raises once again the issue of the use of religion and humanitarianism as covert vehicles for furthering US hegemony.

• The controversy surrounding former NBA star Dennis Rodman’s  “basketball diplomacy” in North Korea centers around his  apparent refusal to “speak on behalf” of Kenneth Bae, a  US citizen imprisoned in North Korea for what Pyongyang has  referred to as “crimes against the state.” Naturally,  the Western media narrative on the Bae case is that he is a  devout Christian who simply may have broken North Korean laws  regarding religion and religious paraphernalia. 

    As reported by The Telegraph, Bae and his group were using  his tourist agency as a vehicle for proselytizing their Christian  beliefs in the stridently atheist country. Participants in Bae’s  group admitted to smuggling Bibles into the country, singing  Christian songs and, in reference to the biblical story of  Jericho, “praying for the walls to come down.” Whether  one disagrees with a religious ideology being criminalized, it is  an incontrovertible fact that Bae and his groups committed what  Pyongyang considers to be a very serious crime. 

    While the imprisonment of an American in North Korea is already a  story, his arrest has aroused suspicions in certain international  circles that Bae, like so many before him, was in fact working  with the CIA or other US intelligence agency. While it is  impossible to say definitively whether Bae was in North Korea  operating a legitimate tour business, or was simply using that as  a cover for covert espionage, the incident again reminds us of  the long-standing, sordid relationship between the US  intelligence community and religious/humanitarian groups and  institutions. 

• God and country 

    Religious leaders and groups have for decades provided fertile  ground for the recruitment and employment of intelligence  operatives. In the wake of the Watergate scandal in the United  States, when many Americans began seriously questioning US covert  espionage domestically and internationally, the US Senate formed  a committee to study the operations and activities of the CIA and  other US intelligence agencies. Led by Senator Frank Church of  Idaho, the “Church Committee” as it came to be known,  issued its final report in 1975. The report covered far reaching  topics from the origins of the various agencies to their  financial records. One important topic the committee looked at  was the utilization of clergy and religious groups by the CIA. As  the   report noted on page 202: 

  “The number of American clergy or missionaries used by the  CIA has been small. The CIA has informed the Committee of a total  of 14 covert arrangements which involved direct operational use  of 21 individuals…In six or seven cases, the CIA paid salaries,  bonuses, or expenses to the religious personnel, or helped to  fund projects run by them. Most of the individuals were used for  covert action purposes. Several were involved in large covert  action projects of the mid-Sixties, which were directed at  “competing” with communism in the Third World.”
• Of course, it should be noted that the decidedly “small  number” of 21 individuals is somewhat misleading. First,  this is merely the number voluntarily provided by the CIA, and  fitting their definition of “direct operational use.” It  is quite easy to imagine that a much greater number of  individuals had working relationships with the agency but were  not classified as “directly operational.” This would  undoubtedly include many who may have interacted with the agency  through proxies and other third parties, as well as those who,  through various front operations, may have not even known that  they were working for the agency.

• Secondly, the report was issued in 1975, nearly 40 years ago. In  the meantime, the scope and breadth of US covert actions has  grown dramatically, encompassing nearly every political,  economic, social, technological and cultural sphere. This  expansion of the intelligence apparatus itself makes the report  more of a framework for understanding a broad policy, rather than  a precise historical document. As such, the Church Committee’s  report essentially provides a glimpse into the shadows, rather  than shining a direct spotlight on all activities. 

    Finally, the above excerpt deals exclusively with the CIA. It  does not include other intelligence agencies and their various  offshoots including the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), State  Department with its attendant National Endowment for Democracy  (NED), US Agency for International Development (USAID) and many  more. Taken in total, the various organizations make up the  greater intelligence apparatus within which one would be likely  to find thousands upon thousands of religious individuals and  organizations. To be sure, not every one of these is working  toward nefarious ends. However, it certainly raises questions  about the very nature of their relationship. 

• Bibles, bullets and bombs 

    The release of the Church Committee’s findings in 1975 stunned  many in the United States and around the world. For the first  time, the public began to get a sense of the sheer scope of the  intelligence agencies’ operations and the relationship between  major world events and covert actions. As public attention faded,  the United States continued its imperial domination of Latin  America and other parts of the world, often using humanitarianism  and charity as effective cover. 

    In 1996, veteran journalists Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett  published their classic book “Thy Will Be Done – The Conquest  of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of  Oil,” which painstakingly documented the incestuous  relationship between the US intelligence apparatus and the  private religious sphere. Specifically, the book illuminated the  personal and professional friendship of Nelson Rockefeller and  William Cameron “Cam” Townsend, founder of Wycliffe  Bible Translators, the world’s largest fundamentalist missionary  group. Colby and Dennett write: 

  “…many clergy became direct collaborators with the CIA. One  member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) was  proud of this collaboration. William Carlsen, a missionary in  northeastern Thailand, considered it "a privilege to share  information with responsible agencies of the government where  they seek us out." Carlsen gave an eight-hour briefing to the CIA  on Thailand's tribal areas when he returned home for a furlough.  Most C&MA missionaries did likewise, according to a CIA  source. Most of the information gleaned was about people, their  actions, opinions, and grievances.”

• Merely one example pulled from a rich history of such  collaborations, the above excerpt demonstrates not only the  interaction between the Agency and Christian missionaries, but  some of the ways in which they were utilized. Because of their  hands-on experience with indigenous peoples and cultures, the  missionaries were used to map the human and cultural geography of  disparate groups, facilitating the creation of a vast  intelligence database to be used for covert action. 

    As the connections between the CIA and religious groups such as  Wycliffe and its associated Summer Institutes of Linguistics  (SIL) had become known, the public perception of this  relationship became very worrisome. So, as Colby and Dennet  write: 

• “President Nixon's director of [US]AID, John Hannah, had  admitted publicly that AID had funded CIA operations in Laos, and  subsequent revelations pointed to CIA-AID collaboration in  Ecuador, Uruguay, Thailand and the Philippines. These revelations  could hurt all missionary efforts, but the Summer Institute of  Linguistics (SIL) was particularly vulnerable... By the 1960s,  SIL was receiving a hefty income from AID indirectly through  foreign governments that received US foreign aid or directly  through AID-funded programs in bilingual education and  agricultural development cooperatives. This income was  supplemented by surplus military equipment, including helicopters  that were retired from Vietnam and donated to SIL.”

    Wycliffe-SIL was merely one node within a large and complex  network of religious organizations working in the interests of US  imperialism and the military-industrial complex. However, these  revelations cannot be understood in a vacuum. Rather, one must  incorporate such a systemic understanding into an analysis of  real-world events in recent years to see just how such covert  action, carried out under religious, humanitarian and  “democratic” auspices, continues to be used. 

• ‘What have you done for me lately?’ 

    There have been many arrests of individuals operating all over  the world under religious and humanitarian cover in recent years.  One notable example is the highly publicized arrest and  conviction of US “contractor”Alan Gross, convicted in Cuba of crimes  against the state. Although the US media portrays Gross as an  innocent victim merely in Cuba to help the Jewish community to  expand its internet connectivity, the reality is much more  insidious. In fact, Gross was in Cuba as part of a $20 million US  government program that provided him the cover to engage in  covert subversive actions designed to lay the groundwork for a  destabilization of the Castro government. 

• Gross was an employee of Development Alternatives Inc., a  development firm based in Maryland whose major client  list includes some of the most powerful corporations and  development agencies in the world. One of DAI’s principal clients  is none other than USAID. The working relationship between the  two organizations runs deep, including no less fifteen current  lucrative contracts active worldwide. 

    That Gross, a man with almost no Spanish-language skills,  travelled to Cuba a number of times over a short period on a  travel visa undoubtedly raised suspicions. That there has yet to  be any substantive evidence provided to refute the Cuban court  decision lends further credence to the fact that, whatever Gross  was doing in Cuba, it was not benevolent nor humanitarian. 

• Like Cuba, Bolivia has managed to expose the political agenda of  USAID and its affiliated organizations. Bolivian President  Evo Morales led the charge to eject USAID  from his country, stating that there was “no lack of US institutions which  continue to conspire against our people and especially the  national government, which is why we’re going to take the  opportunity to announce…that we’ve decided to expel USAID.”  Morales pointed out that USAID’s programs have “political  rather than social ends.” Despite vigorous denials by USAID  officials and the US political establishment, there is ample  evidence backing up the Bolivian president’s assertions. 

    As reported by Bejamin Dangl in The  Progressive of February 2008: 

• “Declassified documents and interviews on the ground in  Bolivia prove that the Bush Administration is using US taxpayers’  money to undermine the Morales government and co-opt the  country’s dynamic social movements—just as it has tried to do  recently in Venezuela and traditionally throughout Latin America.  Much of that money is going through the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID). In July 2002, a declassified  message from the U.S. embassy in Bolivia to Washington included  the following message: ‘A planned USAID political party reform  project aims at implementing an existing Bolivian law that would  . . . over the long run, help build moderate, pro-democracy  political parties that can serve as a counterweight to the  radical MAS or its successors.’ MAS refers to Morales’s party,  which, in English, stands for Movement Toward Socialism.”

    Of course, this information comes as no surprise to anyone in  Latin America, where the United States has attempted to maintain  its imperial control for over a century. What becomes clear from  these revelations is that USAID, like Wycliffe and SIL, is part  of a vast intelligence apparatus that is intended to project US  power and influence political developments in other countries in  the interest of the ruling class in the United States. 

• It still remains a mystery just exactly what Kenneth Bae was  doing in North Korea. While his family contends that he is simply  a good Christian who was arrested for violating anti-religious  laws, the staggering amount of historical evidence pertaining to  the use of religious/humanitarian organizations and individuals  as forces of subversion casts some doubt. What cannot be disputed  is the fact that US hegemony has been, and continues to be,  maintained through a diverse collection of propaganda tools, of  which religion and humanitarianism are some of the most  effective. 

  The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

13 more annotations...

• October 16, 2015 

  Cuba–US Relations: Is Resistance to the Media War No Longer Valid?

   

    by Arnold August
• One of the most positively commented on articles I have written recently was the piece on freedom of the press and Cuba–US relations, published on September 9, 2015. The emails coming from the US, Canada, Europe and Cuba reflected a pent-up frustration – and even a barely veiled anger – at how some of the US press deals with Cuba. Readers of the article seemed to breathe a sigh of relief that writers are not getting caught up in illusions, in the wake of the new Cuba–US relations, about the traditional media war waged against Cuba since the 1959 Revolution. Another writer, Iroel Sánchez from Cuba, took on The Washington Post for its misinformation and bias regarding Cuba. My piece did not target CNN USA, but challenged one high-ranking CNN anchor, Jake Tapper. Furthermore, it dealt initially only with his reporting from Havana of the August 14, 2015 reopening of the US Embassy and the flag-raising ceremony conducted by John Kerry.
• As we follow the chronological exchanges between Tapper and me and others, what conclusion do we reach? One can only deduce that resistance to the media war and misinformation is more necessary than ever under these complicated conditions in which the Cuban Revolution finds itself. In order to be fair and get Tapper’s side of the story, I tweeted him on September 10: “What do you think of my piece on you and CNN? ‘Cuba–US Relations and Freedom of the Press’” with a link to the article. In his response, Tapper did not even come close to exhausting Twitter’s 140 character limit: “Not much.” I persisted: “Well, how about dealing with the points that I make?” He responded: “I would hardly know where to begin.” My rebuttal offered him a chance out: “Well, as an experienced journalist you should be able to deal with at least a few points.” Tapper’s answer: “Ask me in a couple of weeks and I will try to come up with more constructive criticism as I am busy with debate prep right now [the Republican presidential candidates’ debate in September that he hosted for CNN].” “OK, agreed,” I tweeted back. I also sent him my email address in case he would find this more convenient than Twitter.

• In order to deepen the debate, I tweeted him on September 22 with regard to a partial insert of a Reuters interview with me regarding the Pope’s visit to Cuba. The Reuters report reads as follows:

   

  “‘Dissidents in Cuba may be seen abroad by some as brave freedom fighters because much of the mainstream media describe them in this way. It is part of what I call continuous disinformation with regard to Cuba,’ said Arnold August, a Montreal-based author who sees Cuba as more democratic than most analysts.”

• I tweeted Tapper: “My comment in Reuters: #Cuba #Dissidents #Disinformation #CubanDemocracy http://reut.rs/1KsHZkN #PopeFrancis.” His response tweet to me just confirms the quote in Reuters: “Why you’re proud of your opposition to human rights and democracy activists is a mystery.” In any case, relishing a serious debate, I tweeted back to him: “Let us firstly deal with my article and your response. You promised to do it after the debate. Then I will deal with your comment.”

   

  Seeing as he was also reporting on the Pope’s visit to the US, I did not push the two-week waiting period, giving him more leeway. However, I did notice in his reporting from Philadelphia on September 26 that he arbitrarily interpreted the Pope’s comments there that day on “tyranny” as applying to Cuba. Here is what he said in an exchange with CNN senior Vatican analyst John Allen:

• “John Allen, to talk for a second about the religious liberty, the religious freedom aspect of this, there was a part where he talked about various forms of modern tyranny seeking to suppress religious freedom. He was in Cuba, a place where there is literal modern tyranny… Was there any one specific kind of tyranny he was addressing do you think or was it all of them?

   

  JOHN ALLEN: Well, I think it’s all of them and more. Because what you just mentioned were church state tensions vis-à-vis a government. And you’re right, in Cuba it takes a very certain form than it does in the United States, but tensions [in] both places.

   

  TAPPER: That’s literally a tyranny as exact to figure it out.

   

  ALLEN: Metaphorical tyranny, sure.

   

  TAPPER: Yes.”

• It seems that even the Vatican expert was not that interested in pointing to Cuba. In fact, he did not raise Cuba. Thus pushed to the wall by Tapper, the Vatican expert indicated it was only tyranny in a “metaphorical” manner, not literally applicable. Perhaps that was his polite way to register disagreement with Tapper, as the terms “metaphoric” and “literal” are opposites. In any case, I tweeted to Tapper: “Why did you say today that the Pope may be referring to #Cuba when he mentioned “tyranny”? #CubaUS #PopeInPhilly?” Tapper did not respond.

   

  On October 2, I tweeted Tapper: “The debate is over and so is the Papal visit. How about letting me know about your constructive criticism?” (in reference to the September 8 article).
• He never responded. Let us be clear that Tapper is not representative of CNN USA in the post-December 17, 2014 period, that is, since Presidents Raúl Castro and Barack Obama publicly announced the reopening of embassies. For example, when another CNN anchor, Chris Cuomo, covered the Papal visit in Cuba from the island, Cuomo
   never made any derogatory comments about Cuba and its political system or leaders. In fact, CNN is part of the new move in some media to convert the image of Cuba in the eyes of the world so that it is no longer seen as the demon, but rather as a sympathetic friend and a very trendy place to visit.
• So, what is the issue with Tapper? Why does he stand out even among CNN anchors? Is there a missing link? Yes, there is – and it was discovered only after the September 8 article. When my piece was tweeted, it got an immediate and very favourable response from other Twitter accounts. These Twitter users consist of organizations such as Cuban Americans for Engagement (CAFE) and mostly individual Cubans residing on the island and other Cubans living in the US. These social media exchanges go back to August 15–17, 2015, just one or two days after the flag ceremony in Havana. This Twitter debate predates mine and so I owe it to them for providing the missing link.

• Here is a transcript of some of these tweets: First salvo: “@jaketapper went to #Cuba not as a journalist but as propagandist of #USembargo groups. He should say it openly.” Second tweet: “No doubt, especially after reading @BurgosGOP immediately cheerleading him on.”

   

  Who is @BurgosGOP? He is Alex Burgos, Communications Director for US Senator and Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio.

   

  Another tweet from opponents of the Tapper reporting: “Perhaps @jaketapper needs interview w @marcorubio that’s why he doesn’t ask about embargo-violation-Human Rights.” Alex Burgos engaged by tweeting back: “Understandable you’re mad. @cnn @jaketapper challenged your b.s., & too bad for you, Cuban media couldn’t censor it.”

• The link and the possible career motivations of Tapper surfaced on October 6, 2015. CNN published an article complaining in its headline:

   

  “Marco Rubio: Everywhere…but CNN.” [It went on to lament]: “For more than two months, CNN has sent daily interview requests to Marco Rubio. And each time, the campaign has passed. Over that same period, every other GOP candidate has given multiple interviews to CNN. Only Rubio has been absent. Meanwhile, the Florida senator has appeared on several other news networks.”

• The same article pointed out that, on the one occasion that Rubio was interviewed [on CNN] way back on August 7, 2015 by CNN’s Chris Cuomo, it “got tense.” Among other points, this shows again that CNN International does not have a uniform position on Cuba. There appears to be one section in this cable network that opposes the thaw in relations and is against lifting the blockade. Others, however, take a more open-minded approach to the tactics, consistent with the Obama administration, even though the strategic goal remains. Moreover, one has to keep in mind that Tapper is not your run-of-the-mill anchor. Over the years, he has accumulated myriad contacts with many press outlets and developed the image of a policy-decision influencer. A Politico article on Tapper claims that he has the 4 p.m. weekday slot on CNN because “It’s when Washington decision makers are at their desks, with their TVs on, metabolizing the day’s news.”

   

  Contrary to the belief that the media war against Cuba is over, resistance to this disinformation and misinformation is all the more important to isolate those who are in favour of maintaining the blockade against Cuba. Thus, the media war is far from being over. After all, the lifting of the blockade is the Cuban people’s and government’s main international preoccupation at this time.

10 more annotations...

• September 18, 2015 

  Redefining Socialism in Cuba

   

    by Garry Leech
• US Secretary of State John Kerry travelled to Havana this past August for the flag-raising ceremony at the re-established US Embassy in Cuba. While this event was viewed as a landmark occasion by many in the United States, including the mainstream media, it was just the latest in a never-ending stream of landmarks for Cuba. From the victory of the socialist revolution in 1959 to emerging ties with the Soviet Union and the Socialist bloc during the 1960s to political and economic reforms in the mid-1970s to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and resulting “Special Period” during the 1990s to the far-reaching economic reforms of recent years. In other words, socialism in Cuba is not stagnant; nor is it reliant on US policy. To the contrary, Cuba’s socialism has constantly evolved as it has responded to both domestic and international conditions, and this constant redefining of the model continues today.
• The recent changes in Cuba’s socialist model are perhaps most evident in the country’s capital city of Havana. While being a major draw for foreign tourists, Havana is also home to 2.2 million Cubans. Tourist Havana is evident in the newly-renovated buildings in various neighborhoods of the old colonial section of the city. These buildings host boutique hotels, restaurants, bars and shops. These neighborhoods have their own tourist currency (the convertible peso, CUC) and are filled with English-speaking Cubans. This is the side of Havana, indeed of Cuba, that most foreigners have experienced since the country opened up to tourism during the 1990s to obtain the hard currency required to import necessities it cannot produce itself. But there is another side to the city that constitutes a very different world, and it is the world in which most Cubans live.

• Not far from the touristy parts of Old Havana is a neighborhood known as Belén. Its older buildings are not renovated and its streets are rarely traversed by foreigners. The convertible peso, or CUC, is largely useless here because everything is purchased using the national peso. In short, Belén is a typical urban neighborhood where Cubans go about their daily activities. What quickly becomes apparent in Belén though, are the social and economic changes that have occurred in Cuba’s socialist model over the past 20 years. At the root of these changes is a shift from state socialism to a more participatory model.

   

  In the 1980s, Cuba more closely reflected the state socialist model that ultimately failed in the Soviet Union. As one resident of Belén stated: “We were so dependent on the state to do everything for us that we’d call the government if we needed a light bulb changed.” But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the socialist trading bloc, Cuba had to become more creative if it was to survive both literally and figuratively as an island of socialism in an ocean of capitalism. And it was the creative survival strategies that emerged during the 1990s that have helped to redefine socialism in Cuba today.

• The collapse of the Soviet Union, in conjunction with a corresponding tightening of the five-decades-long US blockade, meant that Cuba could no longer import sufficient food or oil. The country responded to the shortage of petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers by becoming the world’s leader in organic agriculture. It responded to the shortage of fuel by becoming a leader in urban agriculture to diminish the need to transport food great distances to markets. As a result, more than 80 percent of the country’s agricultural production is now organic.

   

  This shift is evident in communities such as Belén, which contains four farmers’ markets within six blocks that are open 12 hours a day, seven days a week. One of the markets sells produce grown on urban plots while the other three offer fruits, vegetables and meats cultivated on farms located on the outskirts of the city. The markets are also cooperatives, highlighting another shift in Cuba’s socialism. In order to find alternatives to large-scale industrial farming and to stimulate production the government broke-up many large state-owned farms and turned them over to the farmers as smaller worker-owned cooperatives. The new cooperatives not only increased production, they also constituted a shift away from state socialism by empowering workers who previously had little or no voice in the running of their workplaces.

• This emerging worker democracy through cooperatives not only existed in agricultural production, it also occurred in the selling of products. A group of community members in Belén formed the Belén Agricultural Market as a cooperative to sell produce that they purchased from a farming cooperative situated on the outskirts of the city. Communities such as Belén now enjoy an abundance of inexpensive organic fruits, vegetables and meats that were harvested only hours earlier.

   

  According to Cuban permaculturalist Roberto Pérez, Cuba established the foundation for a more ecologically sustainable society more than fifty years ago “when the revolution gained sovereignty over the resources of the country, especially the land and the minerals, this was the base for sustainability. You cannot think about sustainability if your resources are in the hands of a foreign country or in private hands. Even without knowing, we were creating the basis for sustainability.”
• The shift to a more ecologically sustainable agricultural production has resulted in healthy organic food being the most convenient and inexpensive food available to Cubans. Because of the US blockade, processed foods are more expensive and not readily available. This reality stands in stark contrast to that in wealthy capitalist nations such as the United States and
   Canada where heavily-subsidized agri-businesses flood the market with cheap, unhealthy processed foods while organic alternatives are expensive and more difficult to obtain. The consequence in the United States is high levels of obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

• Cuba’s 2011 economic reforms expanded the cooperative sector to include a variety of business sectors including transportation. The reforms have also allowed people to establish small privately-owned businesses beyond allowing families to establish restaurants and rent out rooms in their homes. As a result, a walk along the ten blocks of Sun Street (Calle Sol) in Belén reveals a mixture of state-owned businesses, cooperatives and small private enterprises. The bakery, two egg shops, two bars, a restaurant, two gyms and a convenience store are owned by the state. As previously noted, the farmers’ markets are cooperatives, while private enterprises operating out of peoples’ homes consist of several repair shops, an ice cream vendor, two pizza parlors, two small household goods vendors and three coffee shops.

   

  When the Cuban government announced in 2010 that it was going to lay off more than half a million public sector workers, the US mainstream media proclaimed the failure of socialism and a shift towards capitalism. The Cuban government’s reduction in the public sector workforce was viewed in the same light as the austerity measures implemented by capitalist nations throughout the global South under neoliberalism. But such analysis highlighted a fundamental misunderstanding of Cuban socialism that is common in the Western mainstream media.

• Unlike in capitalist nations, Cuba has not simply laid off thousands of public sector workers and left them to fend for themselves as unemployed desperately seeking private sector jobs. The layoffs are a multi-year process and, due to the 2011 economic reforms, many workers will continue to perform the same job. For instance, in many sectors, such as stores, bars, restaurants and transportation, workers have been offered the opportunity to establish cooperatives and to take over their existing places of business.

   

  In one such case, five workers in a state-owned restaurant formed a cooperative and now lease the property from the state and run the business as their own. So while they are part of the downsizing of the public sector because they no longer work for the state, they continue to do the same job as previously. In the eyes of many, such a transition actually constitutes a strengthening of socialism rather than a shift towards capitalism because it is empowering workers who now have a meaningful voice in their workplace—something they didn’t have under state socialism and would not have under corporate capitalism.

• The establishment of small private enterprises constitutes a redefining of Cuban socialism because it liberates workers from the hierarchical structures of state socialism by allowing them to become their own bosses. Further evidence that allowing small businesses and cooperatives to emerge does not necessarily represent a shift to capitalism is the fact that it remains illegal to establish a corporation. Because an individual is only permitted to own one place of business, corporate chains that monopolize production and markets cannot be established so the overwhelming majority of businesses remain locally-owned and rooted in the community.

   

  What Cuba is attempting to avoid are the gross inequalities that inevitably result from monopoly corporate capitalism where workers have no meaningful voice in their daily work lives. So while many mainstream analysts in the United States view the shift to small private businesses as a move towards capitalism, such a view ignores the reality that small privately-owned businesses are not unique to capitalism, they existed in societies long before capitalist model came into existence.

• Other aspects of Cuba’s economic reality have also been seriously distorted by the US mainstream media. One such example is the reporting on the salaries earned by Cubans. It is often stated that the average state salary earned by a Cuban worker is $25 a month. While this is true, it is often stated out of context, thereby leaving the reader to believe that most Cubans must exist in dire poverty since they earn only a dollar a day. In actuality, less than 40 percent of Cubans exist solely on a state salary. The majority are earning beyond that as state employees earning tips in the tourist economy, private entrepreneurs, members of cooperatives, or recipients of remittances—or a combination of these.

   

  It is true, however, that for those Cubans who do have to exist on the state salary that life is indeed difficult. They earn just enough to cover their basic needs but can afford little else. So how can a Cuban meet his or her basic needs on only $25 a month? What most US media references to the average state salary fail to mention are the extensive state subsidies enjoyed by Cubans. All education and healthcare are provided free of charge as is after-school care. More than 80 percent of Cubans own their homes outright, therefore they pay no rent, mortgage or property tax. Electricity is heavily subsidized to the degree that most Cuban homes pay about $1 a month.
• Cubans also receive food ration coupons that provide them with meat, eggs, bread, rice, beans, cooking oil, soap and feminine hygiene products among other essentials. The ration supplies approximately 30 percent of a person’s monthly food needs, while another third is met through free lunches provided in workplaces and schools. Therefore, most Cubans only have to pay out of pocket for about one-third of their monthly food needs. And because of state subsidies, the prices of many essentials are extremely low. For example, eggs cost 4¢ each while a large loaf of bread is 20¢. Tomatoes sell for 40¢ lb, potatoes for 4¢ lb and large avocados are 20¢ each. Meanwhile, ice cream cones are 12¢ each and a bottle of beer in a state-owned bar costs 40¢. As for transportation, an individual can go anywhere in Havana on a municipal bus for 4¢. Consequently, a Cuban earning the average state salary can meet his or her basic needs.

• For the more than 60 percent of Cubans who live on more than the average state salary, they can also afford a certain amount of luxuries. This portion of the population can be seen spending convertible pesos in the more expensive tourist restaurants, hotels and stores as well as utilizing the new public Wi-Fi hotspots that have been established throughout the island. And while the dual economies that are largely differentiated by the tourist convertible peso and the domestic national peso have resulted in greater inequality in Cuba, the country still remains the most equal in Latin America by far.

   

  For years the US media has also suggested that Cuba’s government was restricting Internet access on the island as a means of controlling the population. In reality, the inability of the country to develop the necessary infrastructure for widespread Internet usage is a result of the US blockade. The obvious hi-speed connection point for Cuba is to run a fibre optic cable the 90 miles from Florida to the island, but the US economic blockade has prevented this from happening.

• After a failed attempt to run a fibre optic cable one thousand miles along the bottom of the Caribbean Sea from Venezuela to Cuba, a second attempt proved successful in 2013. This established hi-speed Internet in Havana and subsequently led to the creation of public Wi-Fi hotspots in parks and plazas throughout the country. It also led the government to slash the cost of access from $4.50 an hour to $2.00. While this still places the Internet beyond the financial means of those existing on state salaries, it has dramatically improved access for the rest of the population. This new reality is evident in the almost permanent presence of people in parks and plazas armed with their iPhones, tablets and laptops.

   

  Cuba’s socialist reforms have been implemented without any serious disruptions to the provision of free healthcare and education to the entire population. Cuba has one doctor for approximately every one hundred families, resulting in a ratio of physicians per 1,000 people that is twice as high as in the United States. As a result, in Havana, there is a family doctor for every two blocks and each neighborhood has a polyclinic that assures access to specialists and dentists as well as providing 24-hour urgent care, while hospitals handle serious illnesses and emergencies. This is the reality in Belén, which has a 24-hour polyclinic on Sun Street and a hospital less than a mile away.

• Because of its emphasis on healthcare and human well-being, Cuba has a life expectancy equal to the United States and infant and child mortality rates—deaths of children under one and under five years of age respectively—that are both superior to its northern neighbor. When Cuba’s health indicators are compared to capitalist nations in Latin America, the differences are astounding. Cuba’s infant mortality rate of 5.6 per 1,000 births compares to 19.0 in Mexico, 24.2 in Colombia and 14.4 in relatively wealthy Argentina. A similar discrepancy exists between socialist Cuba and its capitalist Latin American neighbors with regard to child mortality rates.

   

  The result of Cuba’s socialist model is a highly educated and healthy population. Additionly, homelessness, malnutrition and violent crime—social maladies that are rampant in capitalist Latin American nations—are conspicuous by their absence in Cuban society. Cuba’s lack of violent crime is particularly noteworthy given that five of the top ten cities with the highest homicide rates in the world are located in Latin America. Because violent crime is almost unheard of in Cuba, Elias Carranza, a senior UN official for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders Institute, declared Cuba the safest country in the region.

• But despite all the benefits that Cubans enjoy from the socialist system some naturally still harbor frustrations. The most common complaints are low salaries and over-crowded housing. The country’s youth also yearn for greater access to the Internet. Consequently, some Cubans see a shift towards capitalism as a possible solution to these problems and for achieving a more luxurious lifestyle.

   

  Younger generations in particular, those too young to recall life prior to 1959 and who take many of the revolution’s social achievements for granted because they have existed since they were born, are inundated with capitalist propaganda in the form of Hollywood movies and TV shows as well as on the Internet. They are being seduced by the capitalist consumer dream—and this, perhaps more than anything else, poses the greatest threat to Cuba’s socialist model.
• This is not surprising given that it is the luxurious lifestyles of the upper-middle and upper classes in the United States that dominate in movies and on TV as well as the Internet. And, in conjunction with the seemingly endless flow of relatively rich foreign tourists that visit Cuba from wealthy capitalist nations, some Cubans link capitalism with material wealth. But only 20 percent of the world’s population live in the manner of people in the capitalist nations of North America and Europe; the majority of those living under capitalism in the global South endure poverty and misery. This inequality is inevitable under capitalism because the Earth cannot sustain 7 billion people living in the manner that North Americans live. Therefore, the imperialist powers are required to consume a disproportionate percentage of the planet’s resources to maintain their standards of living and they do so by using the resources of the poor.

• Geographically, the closest capitalist country to Cuba is not the United States, it is Haiti. And the poverty that is widespread in Haiti is far more reflective of the reality of most people in the world who live under capitalism than the standard of living of North Americans. But the plight of Haitians is rarely seen in Hollywood movies and on TV shows. It is rarely front and center on the Internet. It remains the hidden face of global capitalism.

   

  Given that Haiti is a capitalist nation, it is clear that capitalism in and of itself does not guarantee a relatively luxurious standard of living for all people, or even a majority—or Haitians would live like most North Americans. It is the combination of capitalism and imperialism that has created wealth in rich nations and poverty in poor nations. Rich nations such as the United States, Canada and Western European countries are imperialist powers because they wield a hugely disproportionate amount of influence over neo-colonial institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in addition the coercive capacities of their own foreign policies.

• But Cuba is not an imperialist nation. Therefore, a dismantling of socialism and a shift to capitalism would not allow Cubans to live as most North Americans do. Capitalism in Cuba would more closely reflect the capitalist reality of Haiti, Honduras, Guatemala and many other Latin American nations struggling with poverty, inequality and violence. Capitalism would generate wealth for perhaps 20 percent of the population while half of Cubans would likely endure poverty. In fact, not only would half the population still not have access to luxuries under capitalism, but they would also likely lose the social benefits they currently enjoy under socialism in the form of healthcare, education, food, housing and a crime-free neighborhoods.

   

  Ultimately, Cuba’s socialism seeks to achieve a higher level of human development than the materialistic dream achievable to only a minority under capitalism. Most Cubans recognize the Revolution’s social achievements and, as a result, would like to preserve the socialist model, albeit with a few more material comforts. But as long as the world remains dominated by capitalism there will be limits to the degree of material comfort that Cubans can obtain.

• On the other hand, if a significant socialist bloc were to emerge then a more equitable distribution of the planet’s resources might indeed be possible, which would not only improve the standard of living of many Cubans but also of those impoverished billions throughout the global South existing under capitalism.

   

  For more than fifty years Cuba has redefined socialism again and again in its constant quest to achieve ever higher levels of human development. The economic reforms of recent years that are so evident in neighborhoods such as Belén are not the first such transformations—and they won’t be the last. Ultimately, anyone seeking to achieve a more sustainable and just world could do a lot worse than look towards Cuba for inspiration.
• Garry Leech is an independent journalist and author of numerous books including Capitalism: A Structural Genocide (Zed Books, 2012); Beyond Bogota: Diary of a Drug War Journalist in Colombia (Beacon Press, 2009); and Crude Interventions: The United States Oil and the New World Disorder (Zed Books, 2006). ). He is also a lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Cape Breton University in Canada.

19 more annotations...

• Cuba-US Relations and Freedom of the Press
• By Arnold August

   

  Global Research, September 09, 2015
• At the August 14, 2015 flag-raising ceremony in Havana, Secretary of State John Kerry stated “we remain convinced the people of Cuba would be best served by genuine democracy.” This US promotion of democracy for Cuba is explicitly or implicitly referring to freedom of the press, among other features. Nonetheless, Kerry’s comment on democracy was not the main focus of his remarks; rather, he spoke mainly about the administration’s policy on US–Cuba relations, in recognition of the Cuban government and of the establishment of diplomatic relations and embassies as a step toward the possible normalization of relations as neighbours rather than enemies or rivals.

• But how did the US press deal with Kerry’s speech and his other formal engagements in Havana that day? Let us take CNN USA as an example. The latter sent one of its most important anchors, Jake Tapper, to Havana for the occasion. What spin did he provide to the Kerry speech? The CNN host declared: “But it is not as though, you know, snap, all of a sudden there is democracy and freedom of the press.” At another time that same day, he reported, “This is a country that does not have freedom of the press, does not have the right of assembly. You can go on and on.” Tapper broadcast on yet another CNN television spot that same day:

   

  One American flag does not solve every problem or release the Castro brothers’ grip on the people here… President Eisenhower said then – [whom I] quote – ‘Our sympathy goes out to the people of Cuba now suffering under the yoke of a dictator.’ [Tapper adds:] The dictator and his yoke now enforced [by] his brother, Raúl.
• By his own account, Tapper actively sought out Cuban dissidents, among others, to interview. He hung on to every word they uttered in their opposition to the unconditional re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. He summarized that “critics claim that today [August 14] only will give legitimacy to a dictator who has no interest in true change.” Tapper went further by playing a July 2007 presidential debate video clip in which then Senator Barack Obama, according to Tapper, was “laying out his rationale for engaging a rogue regime such as Cuba.” However, according to CNN transcripts, the question in July 2007 was whether the presidential candidates favoured “to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries.” The question and Obama’s response did not employ the term “rogue regime.”
• Thus, to summarize, while CNN did broadcast the flag-raising ceremony and Kerry’s statement, whose main feature was the promotion of diplomatic relations as neighbours, in its entirety, CNN did its own editing. The cable news network jumped on Kerry’s remarks about democracy for Cuba and one of its correlations, freedom of the press. During the entire day and on virtually every program going into the late evening, TV viewers were bombarded by the sound bites of “freedom of the press,” “dictatorship” and “rogue regime.”

• What is also significant, and serving as a corollary to the treatment of Kerry’s remarks, was what CNN blacked out. In addition to the flag-raising ceremony, there was a second important activity. Kerry was welcomed by his counterpart, Cuban Foreign Minster Bruno Rodríguez, at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building. The meeting behind closed doors was followed by public availability to the press at the Hotel Nacional. This event included remarks by both John Kerry and Bruno Rodríguez followed by an open question and answer period. The entire activity was virtually censored by CNN. It is unfortunate, because the US audience and others around the English-speaking world served by CNN USA missed the opportunity to hear what the Cuban side had to say about “democracy for Cuba.”

   

  During the question and answer period, AP journalist Andrea Rodríguez addressed Bruno Rodríguez: “Secretary Kerry today mentioned that he hopes to see in Cuba a genuine democracy. I would like to know your comments on this.” The Cuban Foreign Minister’s response never reached the US public via CNN. Here is what he said:

• I feel that we should work very actively in order to build confidence, mutual confidence, and to develop contacts in the areas where we have a very close approach or those areas where our ideas could come closer, and to be able to discuss in a respectful way about our respective differences. In some areas, it is true that differences are profound. However, I can say that some of these issues have been subject to an intensive international debate. For example, some electoral political models of industrialized countries that seem to be a unique model have gone into a very serious crisis, even in Europe. States have seen the need to develop their relations according to international law with peoples which have decided in the exercise of their self-determination to choose their own national destiny according to their culture and level of development. I feel very comfortable with the Cuban democracy, and at the same time there are things that could be further perfected.

   

  Today we are working actively as part of the processes related to the updating of our economic and social, socialist model. I can say that we are ready to speak on those issues on the basis of reciprocity, on sovereign equality. We have also a lot to say, we have concerns to share. There are attempts to increase international cooperation to solve problems related to civil and political liberties, which, in our opinion, should be guaranteed, such as the right to food, the right to gender equality, the right to life, the right to education, and health care.

• Readers can reach their own conclusion as to why these comments were suppressed by CNN. One take is that the Cuban Foreign Minister enunciated, as expected, some views that fly in the face of the CNN sound bites. On the question of democracy, he turned the attention toward a concern shared by many people in the US and elsewhere in the West. This preoccupation consists in the quality of democracy and the electoral process in these advanced industrial countries. This Cuban interjection throws a wrench in the CNN narrative regarding democracy. This portrayal hammers Cuba but leaves the US unscathed or even as the model, seeing as the US bases itself on the US-centric conception of democracy. The Minister’s remarks in defence of Cuban democracy were qualified with the very important caveat that it has to be improved. This logic of combining sovereign decisions with the recognition of improvements within the Cuban traditions and values also flies in the face of the US mainstream press such as CNN. Finally, the Minister threw the ball back into the court of the US in a very diplomatic manner by indicating that Cuba highly regards, for all countries, the guarantee for civil and political liberties, such as the right to food, the right to gender equality, the right to life, the right to education and to health care. Cuba’s accomplishments in these fields are well-known and internationally recognized, while the lack of these guarantees in the US is increasingly notorious in the country itself and internationally.

   

  How did the Cuban press deal with August 14? Did it carry out censorship, blackouts and misinformation? No. On the contrary, the entire day was broadcast live on Cuban TV and radio. This began with the arrival by Kerry at the airport in Havana and an informational biography of the Secretary of State that was not at all tinged by derogatory statements or qualifications. The entire ceremony and Kerry’s remarks at the US Embassy were transmitted. The full press availability mentioned above was equally on Cuban TV. The next day, the Cuban official press carried the full transcripts in Spanish of the flag-raising ceremony and the press availability.

• This aversion to censorship is part of the Cuban tradition when it comes to striving to normalize relations with the US. For example, in 2002, former President Jimmy Carter visited President Fidel Castro in Cuba. On this occasion, Carter’s speech in Spanish was broadcast in its entirety by Cuban TV and radio, even though it contained comments regarding democracy for Cuba similar to Kerry’s August 2015 remarks. In his own report on the visit, Carter wrote:

   

  That evening at the University of Havana I made a speech and then answered questions that, as promised, was carried live on television and radio. It was later rebroadcast, and the entire transcript was published in the two Cuban newspapers. Subsequently, we could not find anyone on the streets or in the markets who had not heard it.

   

  The diametrically opposed approaches of the Cuban press and of CNN in covering August 14 indicate that CNN does not have any grounds to criticize Cuba for the lack of freedom of the press. In fact, it was Cuba that gave a lesson to CNN about opposing censorship, blackouts and misinformation. Cuba turned the tables on the US.

• In the US, “freedom of the press,” like “democracy” itself, is presented in the abstract. They are buzzwords that are designed to make people in the US and abroad kneel down in homage to the US as the model. The First Amendment to the US Constitution (1791) proscribes that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The amendment gives the impression that there are no restrictions by abstracting the press from the socio-economic context in which it operates. Thus, supposedly, anybody can write and say anything.

   

  In Cuba, on the other hand, as the US logic goes, there are restrictions. Article 53 of the Cuban Constitution indicates that “citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society.” The US-centric framework dictates that in Cuba, there is no real freedom of the press, as there are constraints, while in the US there are supposedly no conditions.

• Does pure freedom of the press exist in the US? Let us take CNN’s reporting on August 14, 2015 as our ongoing example. How did host Jake Tapper and the other CNN anchors come to spin their story and reporting? It is possible that no one instructed them on exactly what angle to take. However, there was no need to, as they know that, in order to advance their careers, certain concepts have to be promoted, while others have to be blacked out or distorted. All of these contortions are broadcast in order to make their story coincide with the preconceived notions and interests of the ruling circles. Noam Chomsky unravelled the role of the US media as part of the establishment in his classic bookManufacturing Consent. He and his co-author wrote that the “media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them.” Chomsky goes on to unveil the inner workings of this phenomenon by indicating that the constraint that the establishment exercises over the media “is normally not accomplished by crude intervention, but by the selection of right-thinking personnel and by the editors’ and working journalists’ internalization of priorities and definitions of newsworthiness that conform to the institution’s policy.”¹ Yet it is well known that “crude intervention” also takes place.

   

  Taking into account the Chomsky view on the US media related to CNN and Jake Tapper, we can give the cable news outlet the benefit of the doubt that “crude intervention” was not carried out for the August 14 angle on US–Cuba relations. However, following the Chomsky thesis, in December 2012, Tapper was first selected by CNN, based on his career, as a “right-thinking” person. On August 14, 2015, he “internalized” or embodied the angle that CNN desired. In other words, by incarnating the US long-term view on Cuba held by some sections in the establishment, Tapper knew perfectly well what he was doing. It is part of building a career with the monetary rewards that accompany climbing the ladder.

• Tapper is a rising star in CNN and thus has been chosen to moderate the September 16, 2015 Republican presidential debate. There is a serious struggle between Fox News and CNN to capture more and higher- priced ads and increase their ratings as part of these Republican presidential debates. CNN is banking on Tapper to contribute toward attaining its goals. The corporate “freedom of the press” situation in the US is further emphasized when contrasted with the Cuban approach. Article 53 of its Constitution stipulates that the “mass media are state or social property and can never be private property.” This is not a restriction but rather a liberating factor, especially if one compares the US-corporate controlled press to the Cuban approach.

   

  However, as indicated above, Cuba, for its part, has an explicit constraint on freedom of the press: the press must coincide with the objectives of socialist society. There is no hypocritical attempt to hide it. The objectives of the Cuban socialist society and its principles with regard to Cuba–US relations require that diplomacy be fostered to the utmost as a crucial input toward bringing about changes to Cuba’s socialist model. This Cuban diplomatic effort included full press coverage of Kerry’s visit, irrespective of his declarations. For Cuba, it is also a question of principle to treat its US guests in that way, as did Fidel Castro with President Carter.

• Did CNN’s reporting on the August 14 activities in Havana contradict the current official US policy on Cuba? Did it represent one section of the ruling circles that is not favourable to the thawing of relations between the two neighbours against another faction of the US establishment that is inclined to the normalizing option? The situation is complex. One has to keep in mind that on August 17, 2014, when Presidents Obama and Castro made the surprising simultaneous announcement of the new US policy, both the White House and the State Department made – and continue to make – one point very clear. The new US approach represents only a change of tactics, while the objective of the US remains in place. US officials continue to promote the US version of democracy for Cuba. This ultimate goal, couched in a more diplomatic manner, and thus not as boorish as CNN, requires ongoing propaganda that Cuba is not democratic, that there is no freedom of the press, etc. The question remains as to why CNN did not contribute to the evolution of the diplomatic efforts by both countries by professionally informing the US public, as did the Cuban press with its people. CNN’s crass reporting serves as another reminder of this new situation with its very positive perspectives for both Cubans and Americans, as well as the dangers for Cuba. Cubans are very aware of this. Its press and journalists’ blogs presently serve as a forum for a very mature and lively debate on the significance of the new US approach. This debate is a result of the attempts by the leadership and the journalists to improve the Cuban press as part of the wide-ranging changes going on in Cuba.

   

  Arnold August, a Canadian journalist and lecturer, is the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections and, more recently, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion. Cuba’s neighbours under consideration are the US, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Arnold can be followed on Twitter @Arnold_August.

   

  Notes

   

  1. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon Books, 2002), XI.

12 more annotations...

•  

    

       

   

   

         

   

   

  Barack Obama, Raul Castro shake hands amid thawing relations

   

   

  The pair expected to meet again Saturday at summit in Panama

   

      Thomson Reuters    Posted: Apr 10, 2015

• U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro shook hands on Friday at a summit in Panama, a symbolically charged gesture as the pair seek to restore ties between the Cold War foes.

   

  A photograph showed Obama and Castro, both wearing dark suits, chatting in a small group of leaders at the summit's opening ceremony. A White House official confirmed the two men shook hands and spoke briefly.

   

  "This was an informal interaction and there was not a substantive conversation between the two leaders," the official said.

   

  Obama and Castro are expected to meet again on Saturday and talk about their efforts to restore full diplomatic relations and boost trade and travel between the two countries.

• Their rapprochement, first unveiled in a historic policy shift in December, is the central issue at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Panama.

   

  "As we move towards the process of normalization, we'll have our differences government to government with Cuba on many issues. Just as we differ at times with other nations within the Americas, just as we differ with our closest allies," Obama said earlier on Friday.

   

  But the 53-year-old Obama, who was not even born when Fidel and Raul Castro swept to power in Cuba's 1959 revolution, also said the United States is no longer interested in trying to impose its will on Latin America.

   

  "The days in which our agenda in this hemisphere so often presumed that the United States could meddle with impunity, those days are past," he said.

   

  Apart from a couple of brief, informal encounters, the leaders of the United States and Cuba have not had any significant meetings since the Castro brothers toppled U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista and then steered their Caribbean country into a close alliance with the Soviet Union.

• Heal a 'blister'

   

  Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos hailed Obama's push to improve relations with Cuba, saying it was helping to heal a "blister" that was hurting the region.

   

  However, Cuban dissident Guillermo Farinas said civic groups in Cuba have been sidelined from talks and appealed to Obama to support their push for more democracy.

   

  "The Cuban government is showing no goodwill ... They don't want to make any kind of concessions," he told Reuters.

   

  Obama, who met with activists from across Latin America, including two Cuban dissidents, appears to be close to removing communist-run Cuba from a U.S. list of countries that it says sponsor terrorism.

• Its inclusion on the list brings a series of automatic U.S. sanctions and Cuba is insisting it be taken off as a condition of restoring diplomatic ties.

   

  Washington imposed trade sanctions on Cuba from 1960 and broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1961, but the ensuing freeze did it no favors, said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser.

   

  "Our Cuba policy, instead of isolating Cuba, was isolating the United States in our own backyard," he noted.

   

   

  The two countries have maintained contact through interests sections in Havana and Washington since 1977, and in recent years they have increasingly cooperated on issues such as migration and drug trafficking.

• Sanctions on Venezuela

   

  The State Department has now recommended that Cuba be taken off the terrorism list, a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee aide said. Obama is expected to agree, although it is not clear whether he will announce it during the summit.

   

  Obama has already used his executive authority to ease some trade and travel restrictions, and is seeking to encourage nascent small businesses in Cuba by allowing more exports there.

   

  But only Congress, controlled by Republicans, can remove the overall U.S. economic embargo on the island. The rapprochement by Obama, a Democrat, has met some resistance in Washington and among some influential Cuban-Americans.

• Critics say Cuba should not be rewarded unless it changes its one-party political system.

   

  While Obama's policy has been widely praised around Latin America, this was tempered last month when his administration imposed sanctions on Venezuela, Cuba's closest ally and main benefactor.

   

  That controversy now hangs over the summit this weekend.

   

  Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro plans to present Obama with a petition signed by millions of people demanding that the sanctions be reversed. He is certain to receive support from Castro and other left-wing leaders in Latin America.

   

  "It is no time for imperialism, threats, it is time for peace, cooperation, union, progress, prosperity," Maduro said on arrival in Panama.

5 more annotations...