Barack, Raúl y la democracia

laprensa/ Emilio Guede

Aunque las discusiones para el restablecimiento de relaciones entre Estados Unidos y Cuba se plantean en términos de igualdad, existe una gran diferencia entre los dos jefes de Estado envueltos.

Barack Obama es el representante democrático de su pueblo, elegido limpiamente en dos ocasiones. Raúl Castro ostenta el poder, por el dedo de su hermano, sin que un proceso electoral avale su mandato.

Votar en un país en donde todos, absolutamente todos los candidatos son de un único partido (el comunista) es participar en una burda campaña de propaganda y dejar que todo siga tan mal como hasta entonces. No hay otro resultado.

En esos eventos obligatorios, para simular que en la isla hay elecciones democráticas, han tenido que participar todos los cubanos durante los 56 años de castrismo.

Esta es una verdad innegable que pone en tela de juicio cualquier acuerdo al que pudiera llegarse en las pautadas conversaciones, pero también es una oportunidad para exigirle a la dictadura que legitime su autoridad, a través de las urnas –que pudiera ser mediante un plebiscito–, para que el pueblo pueda decir “sí” o “no” a seguir siendo gobernado por un dictador.

Para eso no hacen falta partidos políticos. Basta con que se abra un período prudente de libertad de expresión y que, a partes iguales, ambos bandos estuvieren en capacidad de defender sus puntos de vista, incluyendo a líderes del exilio. Sin la persecución de los del “no”. Existe un precedente en el Chile de Pinochet.

Por supuesto, dada la extensa historia del castrismo, con tretas engañosas, mentiras y traiciones (como luchar contra Batista por el rescate de la democracia y después imponer el comunismo), es de esperar que el necesario plebiscito sea manipulado por la dictadura, sin el menor de los escrúpulos.

Es ahí cuando habría que exigir la fiscalización del proceso electoral por las organizaciones internacionales de derechos humanos, así como de las Naciones Unidas, para validar los resultados de la votación.

The Cuba Deal: How Raúl Castro Duped Obama - Forbes

forbes

Néstor T. Carbonell*

On December 17, following a year and a half of secret negotiations with the Castro regime, President Obama trumpeted what many have called a historic breakthrough—a new course to normalize relations with Cuba.

The course, however, is not really new. It was pursued by 10 previous American presidents who tried to engage Fidel Castro directly or through intermediaries both during and after the Cold War. The desired rapprochement failed mainly because the Cuban dictator would not agree to stop his subversive activities and open up the island, or offer a modicum of respect for human rights.

What’s new about President’s Obama’s détente is that he is engaging Raúl Castro—not his ailing brother Fidel—and has not established any preconditions for normalization.

How different is Raúl from Fidel? He is certainly less charismatic and verbose than his older brother, but more focused and disciplined. While Fidel roused and manipulated the masses, Raúl, with Soviet assistance, quietly bolstered the armed forces and built the totalitarian infrastructure of the regime. Despite their contrasting physique and personality, they both share a visceral hatred of the United States, cold-blooded ruthlessness and mastery of deceit.

Fidel’s duplicity, combined with a fair amount of histrionics, is well known. He bragged about tricking the Cuban people, who fell for his promise to restore democracy, and unabashedly proclaimed in December 1961: “I am a Marxist-Leninist and will be one until the last day of my life.”

Fidel also was able to dupe U.S. presidents and senior government officials into believing that he would be amenable to a fair settlement of all outstanding disputes. Even David Rockefeller, a strong advocate of engagement who had a good rapport with Fidel, felt that he could help strike a deal with him.

Heading an impressive delegation of foreign policy heavyweights, Rockefeller presented to Fidel Castro in February 2001 a proposal developed by the Council on Foreign Relations to normalize U.S. relations with Cuba. After five hours of marathon discussions which ended at 4AM, Fidel rejected the “half-measures” proposed by the Council and demanded the unconditional lifting of the U.S. embargo without acquiescing to any significant economic and political reforms. A disillusioned Rockefeller wrote in his memoirs: “Castro harangued us continuously throughout the night…I think there is little possibility for change while Castro remains in power…”

But that was Fidel Castro. What about with Raúl now calling the shots and posing as a pragmatist? Even though Raúl had only introduced non-systemic, revocable reforms to alleviate the appalling living conditions on the island, Obama thought that he could be lured or tamed with goodwill gestures and concessions. So shortly after taking office in 2009, the President relaxed restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba and voted in favor of inviting the Cuban regime to rejoin the Organization of American States, only to be rebuffed by both Castro brothers.

Raúl then played the hostage trick on Obama, and it worked. He arrested Alan Gross, a USAID contractor who was distributing computer equipment to the Jewish community in Havana to gain access to the internet, and sentenced him to 15 years in prison. Fearing that Gross, in poor health, might die behind bars in Cuba, the President accepted the swap proposed by Castro—Gross for three convicted Cuban spies, including one serving a life sentence in the U.S. for conspiring to commit murder. Trying to balance out the uneven swap, Castro released several dozen political prisoners, a bargaining chip he uses when it suits his purpose.

To conduct the secret negotiations, which were broadened beyond the exchange of prisoners, Castro assigned two of his sharpest KGB-trained intelligence officers, fluent in English and well versed in diplomacy as a cover for espionage in the U.S., Josefina Vidal and Gustavo Machin. The deal they were able to extract from the American delegation is so one-sided in favor of the Castro regime that it could well be called the Cuban Munich.

Indeed, from a weak position, with Cuba in dire straits and facing the possible loss of its Venezuelan financial lifeline, Castro got pretty much what he wanted. And Obama, who surrendered the U.S. leverage of continued economic pressure on the Cuban regime and support for the dissident movement, got virtually nothing in return.

The U.S. will restore diplomatic relations with Cuba while repression continues on the island, and will ship telecommunications technology with no assurance that censorship will end. In addition, the Castro regime will receive more dollars from U.S. “purposeful visits,” which will flow to the owners of the tourist industry in Cuba: the military.

But for Castro, more important than those concessions is the removal of Cuba from the U.S. list of terrorist states which would open doors to the IMF, World Bank and other international financial institutions. His regime gets this provision despite smuggling 240 tons of heavy weapons to North Korea in violation of U.N. sanctions, maintaining close links to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, and harboring dozens of fugitive terrorists and criminals, including one of the FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted Terrorists, Assata Shakur.

To meet Castro’s ultimate requirement for normalization of relations, President Obama promised to seek congressional approval for the unconditional lifting of the U.S. trade embargo. This would open the floodgates for U.S. investments in bankrupt Cuba, but in a subordinate position to the only authorized partner—the Cuban government—which controls the economy, hires and fires the labor force, and pockets 92 cents on every dollar of each worker’s salary. Not quite Deng Xiaoping’s model of capitalism.

Not content with that, the cagey Raúl Castro surprised the White House last month with two additional demands that did not surface during the negotiations: payment by the U.S. to Cuba of reparations for the alleged damages caused by the embargo (his claim is for $100 billion), and the return to Cuba of the U.S. Naval Base of Guantanamo. Moreover, he declared that he will not change his Socialist system—not one iota, he emphasized. So democracy, human rights and free enterprise are out.

The Cold War may be over but Raúl Castro seems intent on  reigniting it. Last year, he offered Putin an espionage listening post on the island, and is currently training and equipping Venezuela’s repressive forces in support of President Maduro’s plan to Cubanize his country.

The only way out of the President’s one-sided deal with Cuba is not to give the deceitful Cuban ruler a blank check, but to insist on a step-by-step quid pro quo that would safeguard the interests and security of the U.S., as well as the long-fought aspirations of freedom-loving Cubans.

-------------------------

* Mr. Carbonell is an international affairs consultant and author of "And The Russians Stayed: The Sovietization of Cuba."

Sevcec entrevista a Roberta Jacobson

AmericaTeVeCanal41

Analyzing Obama’s Cuba Policy

capitolhillcubans

By Elliott Abrams of The Council on Foreign Relations:

Analyzing Obama’s Cuba Policy

The shortcomings of the new Obama administration policy toward Cuba have been sharply described in a recent blog post at the Cuban civil society web site Estado de SATS, by Antonio G. Rodiles. Rodiles, a human rights activist, was beaten and arrested in 2012, and released after Amnesty International and other groups protested this arrest.

What does Rodiles say?

First, the Obama approach grants treats the Castro regime as the legitimate government of Cuba. But it has never been elected, and should not be granted that legitimacy.

Second, the Obama approach grants that Cuba’s future and its “transition to democracy” will be in the hands of the current regime and its top officials. No political preconditions have been put in place before the United States moves forward toward diplomatic relations, removing the embargo, and taking other steps that aid the regime. The assumption seems to be that today’s powers that be –the Castros and their closest collaborators–will remain tomorrow, but that is a formula for continuing authoritarianism.

Third, the Obama approach treats democratic development and respect for human rights as the eventual product of supposed economic transformations in Cuba. But freedom should be the prime goal, not a hypothetical by-product of economic change.

Finally, Rodiles notes that this Obama approach will of course favor those Cubans who go along, as against those who seek a quicker move toward liberty and view the regime as brutally repressive and illegitimate. This too helps the Castro regime. Instead, the goal should be to open sufficient space for political actors and civil society to have the main say in the direction of change in Cuba.

Cuban dissidents, democracy activists, and human rights activists have many opinions about U.S. policy, all the products of a living under the Castro regime where they face and often experience brutality and prison. It’s unfortunate in the extreme that those views appear to have no role in the formulation of American policy toward Cuba.

So How’s That Cuba Deal Going?

capitolhillcubans

By Mary Anastasia O'Grady in The Wall Street Journal:

So How’s That Cuba Deal Going?

Raúl Castro’s demands include reparations and no more U.S. asylum for doctors who defect.

Less than two months after his “historic” outreach to Havana with a promise to “normalize relations,” the U.S. commander in chief is getting the back of Raúl Castro’s hand.

On Dec. 17, President Obama floated his plan to revise a half-century-old U.S.-Cuba policy by promising engagement. “We intend to create more opportunities for the American and Cuban people,” he said. The trouble is that as his statements in recent weeks have shown, Raúl Castro has no interest in doing things differently.

The message from Havana is that if Mr. Obama wants a Cuba legacy it will have to be on Cuba’s terms. That means he will have to go down in history as the U.S. president who prolonged the longest-running military dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere.

Days before Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs Roberta Jacobson arrived in Havana on Jan. 21 for talks, the Cuban state newspaper Granma published the government’s list of “demands” for normalizing relations. One of them was that the U.S. recognize Cuban state-run community groups as nongovernmental organizations. It did not name any, but the notorious “Committees to Defend the Revolution,” which exist to enforce repression by spying on the neighbors, come to mind. Also on the list published in Granma was a demand that the U.S. end its asylum program for Cuban doctors who escape while serving in third-world countries where they have been sent to work for slave wages.

A few days later, at a summit of Latin American and Caribbean leaders in Belén, Costa Rica, the 83-year-old little brother of Fidel reiterated some of his other demands. He said that relations would not be normalized unless Washington unilaterally lifts the embargo, returns Guantanamo Bay to Cuba, ceases radio and television transmissions beamed into Cuba and makes reparations for the half-century-long embargo.

Mr. Obama may want to give back Guantanamo as his critics claim. But it is not clear that he could do so without congressional approval. He definitely needs Congress to lift the embargo and there’s not a snowball’s chance in Havana that Congress is going to accept any such thing as embargo reparations, let alone pay them. Raúl Castro knows this, so in other words he’s telling Mr. Obama to take a hike.

But Mr. Obama wants to be friends with the military dictatorship. To prove it, he has promised to use his executive pen to streamline the permit process for so-called educational and cultural travel by Americans to the island. The military owns the tourism industry and more American tourists will mean more dollars going into its coffers.

No problem there for the Castros. But don’t expect any quid pro quo that requires a softening of the totalitarian machine. That much was made clear in the days following Mr. Obama’s speech.

Mr. Obama said that Cuba had pledged to release 53 prisoners of conscience in exchange for three Cubans serving lengthy sentences in the U.S. for espionage. This was supposed to be proof that Havana would behave more reasonably if only Washington would show more humility.

Snookered again. The spies were released but Havana did not keep its side of the bargain until pressure mounted weeks later, and not even then in any true sense. When the names of the prisoners finally were made public, the Havana-based Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation found that about a dozen of them had been released before the “swap” was even announced. Some had completed or were close to completing their sentences and were already scheduled for release.

Marcelino Abreu Bonora was on the list. He had been released in October. He was rearrested on Dec. 26 and spent two weeks in a solitary punishment cell before being released again in mid-January. His crime was holding a sign that said “change.” There were some 200 political arrests in the four weeks following Mr. Obama’s speech.

Cuba has never granted freedom to prisoners of conscience, as the treatment of the 75 dissidents rounded up during the “Black Spring” of 2003 shows. Sixty-three of them were exiled. The 12 who refused to leave are sporadically detained and denied the right to travel abroad.

Mr. Obama says Cuba can help the U.S. fight drug trafficking. Cuba certainly knows the business. It runs Venezuelan intelligence these days—and Caracas is home to some of the region’s most notorious drug capos. But who can believe that Havana would interfere with the cash flow the trade generates for its closest revolutionary ally?

Cuba’s top demand is that it be taken off the U.S. list of state-sponsors of terrorism. But in 2013 it was caught running weapons for North Korea. It is an Iranian ally. Last week the Colombian military intercepted 16 Russian-made antiaircraft rocket launchers bound for the Cuba-supported Colombia guerrilla group FARC.

No one doubts that Mr. Obama is hard up for friends these days, but courting Cuba makes him look desperate.

House members question how new Cuba policy will improve human rights

One America News Network

Chairman Royce: Obama Gives Cuban Regime New Lease on Life

capitolhillcubans

bbgwatch.com

Excerpts from the opening remarks of U.S. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House

[T]alks with the Cuban regime were conducted by two White House officials. Unfortunately the White House was unwilling to provide these key witnesses today. This Committee, charged with oversight of our foreign policy, is handicapped when those officials most involved in policy making are unavailable. The Administration’s growing track record of secret negotiations, whether Iran or the release of the “Taliban Five,” is increasingly troublesome.

Had the White House consulted more widely, it may have heard that Havana is facing the threats of losing Venezuelan oil subsides and mounting public pressure for basic reforms. This could have been used to leverage meaningful political concessions by the regime. But this was a one-sided “negotiation,” with the U.S. making a series of concessions to Havana [...]

In defending this policy change, the President has compared our economic relationship with Cuba to that of China and Vietnam. But in China and Vietnam - while Communist - at least foreign firms can hire and recruit staff directly, without their pay going directly to the government.

Not so in Cuba, which is more like North Korea than China. A Cuban worker at the foreign-owned resort receives only a fraction of their salary – as little as 5 percent. Castro or Kim, the method is the same – extract hard currency from foreign business and invest in the security apparatus.

Instead of dismantling a 50-year-old failed policy, as it claims, the Administration may have given a 50-year-old failed regime a new lease on life to continue its repression at home and militant support for Marxist regimes abroad.

Foreign Affairs Committee, during today's Cuba policy hearing:

El gran alarde de Raúl Castro

Cuba Encuentro

Eugenio Yáñez
Raúl Castro habló claro y fuerte en la Cumbre de CELAC en Costa Rica. A gobernantes extasiados con el antiimperialismo del régimen, y la izquierda cuyo deporte preferido es atacar a EEUU.

Sin embargo, habló sobre todo para La Caverna en la Isla: los “come-candela”, los “patria o muerte”, los de “pa’lo que sea, Fidel, pa’lo que sea”, siempre listos para el mitin de repudio, la golpiza, la cajita del almuerzo o la jabita mensual. Los que después de más de medio siglo en la estulticia se sienten colgados de la brocha desde el 17 de diciembre, cuando Raúl Castro les quitó la escalera. Más aun después del discurso de Obama sobre el Estado de la Unión y las medidas de relajamiento del embargo, que mueven al mundo a clamar: “Raúl Castro: levántate y anda”.

Personas que respeto y estimo consideran el discurso de Raúl Castro en San José de Costa Rica, coordinado con la carta de Fidel Castro a la FEU el día anterior, el pistoletazo de arrancada para liquidar la política de acercamiento de Obama, que habría fallecido seis semanas después de anunciada.

A quienes dicen eso les sigo respetando y estimando, aunque yo tengo una percepción alternativa sobre esos acontecimientos. Para decirlo menos sofisticadamente, mi opinión es diferente a la de ellos. Lo cual no significa que estén equivocados y yo tenga razón. ¡Como si no fuera posible un error mío o, peor aun, que estuviéramos equivocados tanto ellos como yo! Y de antemano aviso que mi punto de vista no gustará a muchos.

El Partido Comunista de Cuba, después de más de medio siglo hablando de chicharrones no puede hablar ahora de colesterol. Cambiar el lenguaje virulento sobre el imperialismo al más oportunista sobre “el vecino del norte” no se logra en dos días. Y las expectativas de los cubanos de a pie se elevaron demasiado el 17 de diciembre: si la causa de todos los males y pesares, decía el régimen, era la hostilidad de EEUU, la “normalización” de relaciones debería traducirse casi de inmediato en mejoría de las condiciones de vida. Algo que nunca ha estado ni está en los planes de ninguno de los Castro o sus presuntos herederos, más allá de lo imprescindible para que no estalle la olla. Pero los cubanos en la Isla se alborotan: rumores en la calle dicen que a partir de abril se espera un millón de turistas americanos por semana. Es imposible, pero ese es el rumor.

Siendo así, tanto el líder “histórico” de la llamada revolución (que aparentemente no estaba muerto, como aseguraban muchos), como su hermano menor y actual gobernante, tenían que lanzar urgentemente baldes de agua fría sobre las esperanzas y anhelos de la población. ¿Y qué mejor manera de hacerlo que exigir condiciones que los cubanos saben que no prosperarán, y que a la vez inyectan “moringa revolucionaria” al antiimperialismo de los duros de la Isla?

Nadie en su sano juicio entendería que la superpotencia más poderosa de la historia, por una simple pataleta de Raúl Castro, aceptara entregar la Base Naval de Guantánamo, levantar el embargo, eliminar Radio y TV Martí, y regalarle al régimen más de un millón de millones de dólares de los contribuyentes americanos en compensación por supuestos daños causados por “el criminal bloqueo” durante más de medio siglo (¿de qué esotérica contabilidad del régimen surgiría esa fabulosa cifra?). Y todo eso a cambio de nada, de a porque sí. “No sería ético, justo ni aceptable que se pidiera a Cuba nada a cambio. Si estos problemas no se resuelven, este acercamiento diplomático entre Cuba y Estados Unidos no tendría sentido”, dijo en Costa Rica el dictador.

La misma historia de los desquiciados “cinco puntos” de Fidel Castro cuando la Crisis de Octubre. Siempre creyéndose ombligo del mundo. Ahora, después de más de medio siglo con el régimen proclamando la misma cantaleta de David y Goliat, el hermano menor intenta que el régimen pase de víctima plañidera a guapo de barrio, y exige a EEUU casi una rendición incondicional. ¿Con qué? Una superpotencia impone condiciones cuando desea. O una potencia podría hacerlo por un tiempo, no mucho más. Sin embargo, no puede hacerlo la dictadura cubana, con el país en bancarrota, agotado, descapitalizado, ineficiente, perdiendo población continuamente, y sin perspectivas de mejoría en ningún terreno. Un país que vive de subsidios y regalos de Venezuela, otro país en crisis por su gobierno de ineptos y corruptos, cuyo torpe gobernante, actual mecenas del régimen de los Castro, no duerme tranquilo, inventando conspiraciones de todo el mundo contra él, y preguntándose cómo estará mañana el precio del petróleo.

Entonces, aunque se alegue, con razón, que cada vez que EEUU intenta un acercamiento al régimen la respuesta de La Habana es violenta y grosera (crisis de Octubre, subversión en América Latina, invasión de Angola y Etiopía, éxodo masivo Mariel 1980, éxodo masivo de balseros 1994, derribo de avionetas civiles de Hermanos al Rescate, declarar “constitucionalmente” irreversible al socialismo), no se puede olvidar que esas fueron acciones, provocaciones, hechos concretos, nunca discursos y declaraciones solamente, que es lo que ha habido en este caso hasta ahora.

¿Qué podrían comenzar mañana esas acciones? Es posible, pero no obligado. Además, en ninguno de esos momentos mencionados las tensiones subyacían con tanta fuerza en los cubanos, ni la situación económica y social en la Isla era tan grave, compleja y sin futuro como en estos momentos, en que incluso la mayor apuesta económica de Raúl Castro, el súper-puerto de El Mariel, lleva más de un año llenándose de telarañas sin que aparezcan inversionistas, cuando el mismo régimen admitió necesitar $2.500 millones anuales en inversión extranjera.

Ninguno de los dos hermanos Castro es suicida como para rechazar, en medio del caos cubano creado por ellos mismos, la oportunidad de mantenerse en el poder con dólares de EEUU. Gritarán y lanzarán su “bluff” de jugador de póker, pero como el título de aquella película cubana, hasta cierto punto. De ahí no pasarán. Y todas sus demandas absurdas siempre irán quedando para después.

Lo dicho aquí no tendrá el favor de muchos, y puedo equivocarme en mi análisis, claro está. El tiempo dirá.

Rubio Op-Ed in CNN: Cuba Taking Advantage of U.S.

capitolhillcubans

By U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) in CNN:

Cuba taking advantage of U.S.

In "The Godfather Part II," Michael Corleone famously responds to a U.S. senator's demands by saying, "My offer is this: nothing."

Since President Barack Obama announced his normalization deal with the Cuban regime in December, life appears to be imitating art. Last week, Cuban President Raul Castro declared that his regime would not even entertain the Obama administration's requests to normalize ties until the United States abandons our naval base at Guantanamo Bay, ends the trade embargo, ceases pro-democracy radio and television broadcasts into Cuba and compensates the regime for "human and economic damages" the U.S. has, according to him, inflicted on the Cuban people. Last month, the regime's lead negotiator summed up its position even more succinctly after the first round of U.S.-Cuba normalization talks in Havana, saying, "Change in Cuba is not negotiable."

In other words, emboldened by the first wave of concessions Obama gave the Castro regime in the form of access to more U.S. dollars, it wants even more in exchange for nothing.

When dealing with tyrants, you can't wear them down with kindness. When that approach is attempted and one-sided concessions are made, tyrants don't interpret them as good faith gestures. They interpret them as weakness. This is a lesson the Obama administration has failed to learn from its dealings with Iran, North Korea and Russia, and even terrorists such as the Taliban.

On Tuesday, the American people will have their first opportunity to hear from the Obama administration about its dealings with the Castro regime when I chair a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere affairs. I look forward to hearing the perspectives of State Department officials, even though I am already concerned by the administration's reluctance to allow the American people to hear directly from the two White House officials who negotiated the deal with the Castro regime over the course of 18 months of secret negotiations, and without the input of our government's top diplomats and negotiators.

Many important questions remain about what exactly the Castro regime has done in exchange for Obama's softening of travel and banking regulations that will now allow more U.S. dollars to fill the Castro regime's coffers. For example, it's unclear why, with all the economic leverage it initially brought to the table, the administration apparently accepted a deal to free conditionally 53 political prisoners -- many of whom were released, but with charges pending or were threatened with more jail time if they renew their pro-democracy work. Indeed, some have already reportedly been rearrested in addition to hundreds of new detentions since the December announcement.

Questions also remain about what, if anything, the administration has done to secure the repatriation of what the FBI estimates to be more than 70 fugitives from justice being provided safe harbor in Cuba, including known cop killers such as Joanne Chesimard. Also unknown is what, if anything, the administration intends to do to secure billions of dollars' worth of outstanding American property claims and judgments against the Cuban government. The list of questions and concerns like these goes on and on.

In recent months, I've made clear that I believe the President and his allies in Congress are misguided for supporting a policy that gives away practically all the leverage the United States has to bring about democratic change in Cuba in exchange for virtually nothing. While reasonable people can disagree on the merits of what U.S.-Cuba policy should be in the 21st century, no serious person can argue that America is stronger when we give a cruel regime such as the one in Cuba everything it wants from the United States, including money it uses to repress its opponents, while we get nothing in return except more anti-American bluster from a geriatric dictator.

With Cuba in the news recently, many Americans are asking why Cuba matters to them and why they should care. The simple answer is that what happens with Cuba has far-reaching and potentially damaging implications far beyond the island nation. Cuba is not the only rogue regime with which Obama is engaging in an attempt to end bad behavior. When America sits at the negotiating table with one tyrant or radical regime, the others -- from Iran to North Korea and elsewhere -- watch closely and learn best practices that they can apply to advance their own anti-American agendas. Just as the Cuban regime reportedly cited our swap of five members of the Taliban in the negotiations for Alan Gross' release, the Iranians watched how North Korea exploited U.S. diplomacy, slow-walked negotiations and ultimately achieved their goal of developing a nuclear weapon.

There should therefore be no doubt that regimes around the world will be looking to emulate the Castro regime's so far successful efforts to take advantage of Obama's weaknesses and to undermine the U.S. role as the world's leading economic and military power.

When the President settles for one-sided deals with the Castro regime, it hurts the Cuban people and their aspirations for freedom. When Obama allows the Castro regime to get the best of him in negotiations, it emboldens tyrants around the world. As the President's engagement with the Castro regime continues, I will do all I can to ensure that his "normalization" does not come at all costs, becoming yet another instance of a failed foreign policy that makes America weaker in the world and, ultimately, less safe.

Cuba demands money from us and return of Guantanamo Bay

yazchat

El contrarrevolucionario Fidel Castro

Cuba Encuentro

Eugenio Yáñez

Habló. O mejor dicho, escribió. Nada importante ni trascendente, solo para desmarcarse de lo que sucede en estos días entre La Habana y Washington.

“No confío en la política de Estados Unidos ni he intercambiado una palabra con ellos, sin que esto signifique, ni mucho menos, un rechazo a una solución pacífica de los conflictos o peligros de guerra”, señala en una carta que menciona la prensa del régimen, la única permitida legalmente en Cuba.

Sus palabras fueron para asegurar que no tiene nada que ver con las decisiones de su hermano Raúl. Y recordar que el alacrán siempre clava el aguijón. En su exabrupto no puede ocultar rencor y rabia. Todos los gobiernos del mundo y casi todos los cubanos, independientemente de que apoyen o no la política del presidente Obama, mostraron satisfacción por lo que ocurría. Por eso Fidel Castro tenía que mostrar, si no su disgusto, porque hacerlo resultaría una torpeza monumental, al menos su indiferencia.

Eso de que lo que señala “no signifique, ni mucho menos, un rechazo a una solución pacífica de los conflictos o peligros de guerra” es difícil de creer, cuando fue precisamente él quien pidió a Nikita Jrushov, máximo dirigente soviético durante la crisis de los misiles de 1962, lanzar un primer golpe nuclear contra Estados Unidos. Fue él quien envió centenares de miles de cubanos a combatir a Angola y Etiopía para apoyar grupos políticos y dictadores aliados al comunismo. Fue él quien entrenó y exportó combatientes, guerrilleros, terroristas, dinero y recursos militares y de inteligencia a casi todos los países de América Latina, el Caribe y África, para inmiscuirse en sus asuntos internos y modificar por la fuerza sus sistemas políticos.

Tratando de restar méritos a su hermano, a quien ni menciona por su nombre, añadió que “el presidente de Cuba ha dado los pasos pertinentes de acuerdo a sus prerrogativas y las facultades que le conceden la Asamblea Nacional y el Partido Comunista de Cuba”. Como si la Asamblea Nacional sirviera para algo en Cuba.

Las destinatarios de su mensaje esta vez —aunque Fidel Castro sabe que sería reproducido por todos los medios de difusión del régimen— fueron estudiantes universitarios listos a recordar la llamada Marcha de las Antorchas. No tuvo trascendencia la marcha original en 1953, pero con ella hizo propaganda a su favor, como hace con todo lo que puede.

Algunos medios de prensa hablan de una “supuesta carta”. Poniendo en duda su autenticidad. ¿Cuándo aprenderán? ¿Todavía no conocen su estilo para escribir? O tal vez lo quieren muerto, porque no pueden creer que siga vivo. Aunque con posterioridad a la “supuesta” carta recibió a su compinche Frei Beto. A algunos por Miami se les podría caer el “tumbao” con la muerte del cadáver. Porque no lo quieren ni necesitan muerto. ¿Qué sería de ellos entonces? Y de las ayudas de “los yanquis” a vividores del anticastrismo, que en ocasiones gastan en “la Yuma” más del 75 % de lo que reciben para ayudar a “restablecer la democracia en Cuba”.

Sin embargo, en realidad lo que señala el otrora “invencible comandante” demuestra una vez más que su capacidad para interferir o vetar decisiones de la gerontocracia en el poder es cada vez más insignificante, si es que le queda alguna. Si hubiera tenido una salud aceptable y la mente lúcida, ni se hubieran producido conversaciones con EEUU, porque su estado natural de actuación es la confrontación, mientras más violenta mejor, siempre y cuando quienes participen en los choques y combates sean otros y no él.

Lo más cínico de su reciente mamotreto es el señalamiento de que Cuba —es decir, el régimen, porque para él ambas cosas son lo mismo, encarnadas en su persona— siempre defenderá “la cooperación y la amistad con todos los pueblos del mundo y entre ellos los de nuestros adversarios políticos. Es lo que estamos reclamando para todos”.

Habría que ver si reclamando para todos, pero de seguro no para disidentes y opositores dentro de la Isla, que no reciben del régimen cooperación ni amistad, sino todo lo contrario: condenas, cárcel, aislamiento, golpizas, amenazas, mítines de repudio, presiones, insultos, agresiones, discriminación, chantaje, acoso: castrismo puro y duro.

Afortunadamente para todos los cubanos —los de adentro y los de afuera— y el resto del mundo, Fidel Castro es cada vez más intrascendente. Su actuación contrarrevolucionaria ya no puede hacer mucho más daño que el que ha hecho hasta ahora, que ha sido demasiado.

En realidad, ya en estos momentos ni manda ni es noticia.

Aunque algunos aquí, allá y acullá, todavía no hayan podido sacarse definitivamente ese pequeño Fidel Castro que llevan en lo más profundo de su alma.

Obama to Meet With Cuban Dictator Raul Castro in Panama

townhall - Katie Pavlich

www.telemundoboston.com

It's been just one short month since the announcement of "normalization" between the United States and Cuba. Although a trip directly to Cuba isn't first on the list, President Obama will reportedly meet directly with Dictator Raul Castro during an April trip to Panama. 

President of Cuba Raul Castro Ruz will meet President of US Barak Obama on April 11 in Panama.
— Presidencia de Cuba (@PresidenciaCuba) January 13, 2015

This announcement comes shortly after the State Department confirmed 53 Cuba dissidents were finally released by the communist regime after weeks of being unable to confirm where they were located. As Fox News Latino reports, the status of those dissidents is still very unclear and serious questions remain about whether the Castro brothers have really changed.

The release of 53 political prisoners continues to be shrouded in secrecy even after the Obama administration confirmed they had all been set free.

Neither the U.S. or Cuban governments have released names of the political prisoners nor have they disclosed their whereabouts after their release. The Cuban government said it released the prisoners as part of last month's historic deal between the United States and Cuba.

"We welcome this very positive development and are pleased that the Cuban Government followed through on this commitment. Our Interests Section in Havana was able to verify these releases,” said a senior Obama official. “These political prisoners were individuals who had been cited by various human rights organizations as being imprisoned by the Cuban government for exercising internationally protected freedoms or for their promotion of political and social reforms in Cuba.

Most of the released dissidents belong to the Patriotic Union of Cuba, an anti-government group based in far eastern Cuba. The group’s spokesman told Fox News Latino that even though the political prisoners were sprung, the move is purely “cosmetic.”

Republicans like Senator Marco Rubio have vowed to stop Obama's normalization until further concessions from the Cuban regime are made. President Obama has been criticized on both sides of the aisle for normalizing relations with Cuba without preconditions.