soon it will be a guantanamo beach & resort.
-------------------------------
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Raul. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Raul. Mostrar todas las entradas
miércoles, diciembre 31, 2014
martes, diciembre 30, 2014
No Matter How You Spin It, Obama Betrayed Freedom-Loving Cubans
By Guillermo Martinez in The Sun-Sentinel:
No matter how you spin it, Obama betrayed Cuban exiles
One thing is absolutely clear in my mind: I am delighted that Alan Gross is free and back in the United States with his family.
The American contractor jailed for the last five years for taking satellite equipment to the small Jewish community in Cuba did not deserve the punishment he got, for what he did is not a crime in a civilized world.
How his freedom came about is another story. They say he was released for humanitarian reasons. But attached to his freedom came many unsavory agreements.
The much-ballyhooed agreement for Cuba and the United States to re-establish diplomatic relations brings more questions than answers to mind.
For example:
Why now? Why President Barack Obama waits for the day after Congress ends its session to make the announcement of the new opening in relations with Cuba?
Why now when the price of oil is putting Venezuela and Russia in dire economic straits?
How much has Cuba really given to achieve this agreement? It has promised to listen respectfully to American demands in future negotiations — listen, nothing else.
Obama gave Cuba everything the island nation wanted, and in return got the release of a handful of political prisoners, a long-time intelligence agent that nobody knew anything about, and the promise it would listen to American demands — listen, nothing else.
It is obvious the answers to the questions raised explain clearly why the announcement came now, and give us an indication of what we can expect in the future.
President Obama waited until Congress finished its session so it would have time to create a lobby for his actions before the new Republican-dominated Congress convenes on Jan. 6. He wants to give the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is desperate to start selling products to Cuba, time to convince the Republican Congress it is in their best interest to open relations with Cuba.
Cuba accepted the deal now because Venezuela's economy is rapidly deteriorating and won't be able to continue providing cheap oil too much longer.
Raúl Castro is not as charismatic as Fidel, but he is a wise old man and he clearly understood that unless he allowed the U.S. to give him a helping hand, Cubans would be desperate for their basic needs.
It is important to note most of the dissidents in Cuba have criticized the new deal between Cuba and the United States. They know better than anyone else that Cuban security agents will not stop beating them up for demanding the right to free association and free speech. They cannot forget that less then a week ago, they were beaten for trying to gather on the day the United Nations celebrates Human Rights Day.
Now let's look at what comes next.
The U.S. Congress is going to have to approve the nomination of a new ambassador to Cuba. With all Cuban-American representatives and senators opposed to the new agreement, that will not be an easy task.
It is also going to be hard to get Congress to finance opening a new embassy in Havana and consulates throughout the island. It will closely study the new proposals to see if they violated the Helms-Burton law passed in 1996 under the Clinton Administration.
This reminds me that we have to talk about the relatives of the four Brothers to the Rescue members who were shot down by Cuban Migs in international waters over the Florida Straits. Brothers to the Rescue watched for rafts floating from Cuba so the U.S. Coast Guard could pick them up and prevent them from drowning.
To the relatives of Brothers to the Rescue, to the veterans of the Bay of Pigs, to the many Cubans who were infiltrated back into the island to fight the Castro regime, to the thousands of people who have been killed by the communists in Cuba, to the many tens of thousands of former political prisoners and to all decent Cubans, what President Obama has done is unacceptable. He has betrayed the exile community and the people of Cuba.
No matter how you spin it, Obama betrayed Cuban exiles
One thing is absolutely clear in my mind: I am delighted that Alan Gross is free and back in the United States with his family.
The American contractor jailed for the last five years for taking satellite equipment to the small Jewish community in Cuba did not deserve the punishment he got, for what he did is not a crime in a civilized world.
How his freedom came about is another story. They say he was released for humanitarian reasons. But attached to his freedom came many unsavory agreements.
The much-ballyhooed agreement for Cuba and the United States to re-establish diplomatic relations brings more questions than answers to mind.
For example:
Why now? Why President Barack Obama waits for the day after Congress ends its session to make the announcement of the new opening in relations with Cuba?
Why now when the price of oil is putting Venezuela and Russia in dire economic straits?
How much has Cuba really given to achieve this agreement? It has promised to listen respectfully to American demands in future negotiations — listen, nothing else.
Obama gave Cuba everything the island nation wanted, and in return got the release of a handful of political prisoners, a long-time intelligence agent that nobody knew anything about, and the promise it would listen to American demands — listen, nothing else.
It is obvious the answers to the questions raised explain clearly why the announcement came now, and give us an indication of what we can expect in the future.
President Obama waited until Congress finished its session so it would have time to create a lobby for his actions before the new Republican-dominated Congress convenes on Jan. 6. He wants to give the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is desperate to start selling products to Cuba, time to convince the Republican Congress it is in their best interest to open relations with Cuba.
Cuba accepted the deal now because Venezuela's economy is rapidly deteriorating and won't be able to continue providing cheap oil too much longer.
Raúl Castro is not as charismatic as Fidel, but he is a wise old man and he clearly understood that unless he allowed the U.S. to give him a helping hand, Cubans would be desperate for their basic needs.
It is important to note most of the dissidents in Cuba have criticized the new deal between Cuba and the United States. They know better than anyone else that Cuban security agents will not stop beating them up for demanding the right to free association and free speech. They cannot forget that less then a week ago, they were beaten for trying to gather on the day the United Nations celebrates Human Rights Day.
Now let's look at what comes next.
The U.S. Congress is going to have to approve the nomination of a new ambassador to Cuba. With all Cuban-American representatives and senators opposed to the new agreement, that will not be an easy task.
It is also going to be hard to get Congress to finance opening a new embassy in Havana and consulates throughout the island. It will closely study the new proposals to see if they violated the Helms-Burton law passed in 1996 under the Clinton Administration.
This reminds me that we have to talk about the relatives of the four Brothers to the Rescue members who were shot down by Cuban Migs in international waters over the Florida Straits. Brothers to the Rescue watched for rafts floating from Cuba so the U.S. Coast Guard could pick them up and prevent them from drowning.
To the relatives of Brothers to the Rescue, to the veterans of the Bay of Pigs, to the many Cubans who were infiltrated back into the island to fight the Castro regime, to the thousands of people who have been killed by the communists in Cuba, to the many tens of thousands of former political prisoners and to all decent Cubans, what President Obama has done is unacceptable. He has betrayed the exile community and the people of Cuba.
domingo, diciembre 28, 2014
Why Isn't Obama Being Transparent About His Deal With Cuba's Regime?
When President Obama first took office in 2009, he declared that "transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their government is doing."
Well, either Obama is not being transparent about his secret deal with Cuban dictator Raul Castro.
Or the deal is even worse than we thought.
In exchange for a myriad of concessions from the United States, the Castro regime was supposed to release 53 political prisoners.
Apparently, Obama was unaware that the Castro regime has been trading political prisoners for concessions for decades -- just ask Jimmy Carter -- and then re-arrests them (or new ones) later.
However, no negotiated political prisoner release has ever been surrounded with such silence and mystery -- or lack of "transparency" -- as the current 53.
As Reuters reported this morning:
"Cuba's most prominent dissidents say they have been kept in the dark by U.S. officials over a list of 53 political prisoners who will be released from jail as part of a deal to end decades of hostility between the United States and Cuba. For years, dissident leaders have told the United States which opponents of Cuba's communist government were being jailed or harassed, but they say they were not consulted when the list of prisoners to be freed was drawn up or even told who is on it. The lack of information has stoked concern and frustration among the dissidents, who worry that the secret list is flawed and that genuine political prisoners who should be on it will be left to languish."
According to Obama, the Castro regime also agreed to release a Cuban, U.S. intelligence asset, who is widely believed to be Rolando Sarraff Trujillo.
Sarraff Trujillo was exchanged for three Cuban spies imprisoned in the U.S., including one serving a life sentence for a conspiracy to kill Americans.
As if this 1-for-3 deal wasn't bad enough, there's still no information about Sarraff or his whereabouts.
As Reuters also reports, "his parents said they are desperate to hear from their son as they haven't spoken with him since before Obama's Dec. 17 announcement."
Meanwhile, former spy and double agent, Bill Gaede, who worked closely with Sarraff in the 1990s, has shed further doubts:
"The only reason people strongly suspected that the mysterious spy might be Rolando Sarraff Trujillo (a.k.a. Roly) is that his family can't find him. Cuban prison officials told them that their son had been transferred, but not to worry about him. He was in 'good hands'. Certainly, Roly fit most of the description made by Obama at his press conference announcing reestablishment of relations with Cuba: a Cuban intelligence officer locked up for 20 years for providing cryptographic information that led to the capture of the aforementioned spies. So who else could it be? And if in addition the Obama Administration 'carelessly leaks' the name through 'unidentified official' sources, we have the makings of what appears to be 'disinformation'. This speculation is reinforced by Roly's resume. It certainly meets the '20 years' part. It does not even come close to meeting the part about 'cryptography and the capturing of the Cuban spies'. There's a contradiction somewhere. Either the secret spy is not Roly or President Obama is lying through every corner of his mouth."
Needless to say, we believe the President of the United States over a former double-agent like Gaede.
But Obama's lack of transparency is not making it easy.
Well, either Obama is not being transparent about his secret deal with Cuban dictator Raul Castro.
Or the deal is even worse than we thought.
In exchange for a myriad of concessions from the United States, the Castro regime was supposed to release 53 political prisoners.
Apparently, Obama was unaware that the Castro regime has been trading political prisoners for concessions for decades -- just ask Jimmy Carter -- and then re-arrests them (or new ones) later.
However, no negotiated political prisoner release has ever been surrounded with such silence and mystery -- or lack of "transparency" -- as the current 53.
As Reuters reported this morning:
"Cuba's most prominent dissidents say they have been kept in the dark by U.S. officials over a list of 53 political prisoners who will be released from jail as part of a deal to end decades of hostility between the United States and Cuba. For years, dissident leaders have told the United States which opponents of Cuba's communist government were being jailed or harassed, but they say they were not consulted when the list of prisoners to be freed was drawn up or even told who is on it. The lack of information has stoked concern and frustration among the dissidents, who worry that the secret list is flawed and that genuine political prisoners who should be on it will be left to languish."
According to Obama, the Castro regime also agreed to release a Cuban, U.S. intelligence asset, who is widely believed to be Rolando Sarraff Trujillo.
Sarraff Trujillo was exchanged for three Cuban spies imprisoned in the U.S., including one serving a life sentence for a conspiracy to kill Americans.
As if this 1-for-3 deal wasn't bad enough, there's still no information about Sarraff or his whereabouts.
As Reuters also reports, "his parents said they are desperate to hear from their son as they haven't spoken with him since before Obama's Dec. 17 announcement."
Meanwhile, former spy and double agent, Bill Gaede, who worked closely with Sarraff in the 1990s, has shed further doubts:
"The only reason people strongly suspected that the mysterious spy might be Rolando Sarraff Trujillo (a.k.a. Roly) is that his family can't find him. Cuban prison officials told them that their son had been transferred, but not to worry about him. He was in 'good hands'. Certainly, Roly fit most of the description made by Obama at his press conference announcing reestablishment of relations with Cuba: a Cuban intelligence officer locked up for 20 years for providing cryptographic information that led to the capture of the aforementioned spies. So who else could it be? And if in addition the Obama Administration 'carelessly leaks' the name through 'unidentified official' sources, we have the makings of what appears to be 'disinformation'. This speculation is reinforced by Roly's resume. It certainly meets the '20 years' part. It does not even come close to meeting the part about 'cryptography and the capturing of the Cuban spies'. There's a contradiction somewhere. Either the secret spy is not Roly or President Obama is lying through every corner of his mouth."
Needless to say, we believe the President of the United States over a former double-agent like Gaede.
But Obama's lack of transparency is not making it easy.
Did Obama Lie to Cuban-Americans?
By Russ Sloan in The Daily Commercial:
Lies and politics are close cousins in the White House
“Lying can never save us from another lie” is probably the most famous quote from Vaclav Havel, the first president of the Czech Republic. In politics we have often been subjected to political spin, half truths, exaggeration and downright lies. But when political lies consistently follow one after another, at what point can we believe anything that source says?
On May 23, 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama was speaking to the Cuban-American Foundation’s annual Cuban Independence Day luncheon, where he said the following: “My policy towards Cuba will be guided by one word, liberty. The road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba’s political prisoners, the right of free speech, a free press, freedom of assembly, and it must lead to elections that are free and fair. This is my commitment.”
He stated that he would not begin to “normalize” relations with Cuba until all political prisoners are released. To all of the political prisoners still in Cuba, President Obama’s promise must ring very hollow today based on his decision to renew relations with the Castro brothers’ oppressive regime. To those of us who know what he said in 2008, it is just one more significant lie piled on a continuous stack of presidential lies.
One wonders how any politician today, knowing that there exists volumes of recorded utterances, can so blatantly ignore what they promised and now do the exact opposite. Apparently the president shares the beliefs of Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor who scoffed that the American people were stupid as they drafted and passed Obamacare.
I ask myself, how many times can anyone lie before you recognize that this person is no longer trustworthy? The entire litany of President Obama’s lies would exceed my column space, but the important ones would be his 30-plus promises that you could keep your health care plan, doctor and save money, or his 20-plus utterances that he could not ignore a significant portion of our immigration laws since he was a president not an emperor.
Obama campaigned against the spending of George Bush, only to make Bush look like a miser. He said Bush was un-American for adding $4 trillion to our national debt over eight years, only to see his administration run up $7.4 trillion more debt during his six years. He states that he has issued fewer executive orders than previous presidents but does not mention that his numerous presidential proclamations virtually amount to the same thing. This was just a deliberate half truth. We’re making progress.
Throughout his administration, over 20 times, he has promised that Iran would not get nuclear weapons. Does anyone now believe that? Iran has played Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama like novices in a high stakes poker game. It is one thing to disagree with the president based on an honest difference of opinion, but to constantly be inundated with lies is dumbfounding.
Vaclav Havel was correct, “Lying can never save us from another lie.” For the past six years, we have been subjected to a series of major lies that can all be fully documented by the president’s very own words.
Lies and politics are close cousins in the White House
“Lying can never save us from another lie” is probably the most famous quote from Vaclav Havel, the first president of the Czech Republic. In politics we have often been subjected to political spin, half truths, exaggeration and downright lies. But when political lies consistently follow one after another, at what point can we believe anything that source says?
On May 23, 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama was speaking to the Cuban-American Foundation’s annual Cuban Independence Day luncheon, where he said the following: “My policy towards Cuba will be guided by one word, liberty. The road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba’s political prisoners, the right of free speech, a free press, freedom of assembly, and it must lead to elections that are free and fair. This is my commitment.”
He stated that he would not begin to “normalize” relations with Cuba until all political prisoners are released. To all of the political prisoners still in Cuba, President Obama’s promise must ring very hollow today based on his decision to renew relations with the Castro brothers’ oppressive regime. To those of us who know what he said in 2008, it is just one more significant lie piled on a continuous stack of presidential lies.
One wonders how any politician today, knowing that there exists volumes of recorded utterances, can so blatantly ignore what they promised and now do the exact opposite. Apparently the president shares the beliefs of Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor who scoffed that the American people were stupid as they drafted and passed Obamacare.
I ask myself, how many times can anyone lie before you recognize that this person is no longer trustworthy? The entire litany of President Obama’s lies would exceed my column space, but the important ones would be his 30-plus promises that you could keep your health care plan, doctor and save money, or his 20-plus utterances that he could not ignore a significant portion of our immigration laws since he was a president not an emperor.
Obama campaigned against the spending of George Bush, only to make Bush look like a miser. He said Bush was un-American for adding $4 trillion to our national debt over eight years, only to see his administration run up $7.4 trillion more debt during his six years. He states that he has issued fewer executive orders than previous presidents but does not mention that his numerous presidential proclamations virtually amount to the same thing. This was just a deliberate half truth. We’re making progress.
Throughout his administration, over 20 times, he has promised that Iran would not get nuclear weapons. Does anyone now believe that? Iran has played Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama like novices in a high stakes poker game. It is one thing to disagree with the president based on an honest difference of opinion, but to constantly be inundated with lies is dumbfounding.
Vaclav Havel was correct, “Lying can never save us from another lie.” For the past six years, we have been subjected to a series of major lies that can all be fully documented by the president’s very own words.
Doce demandas para la movilización de amplios sectores sociales dentro de Cuba
La artista Tania Bruguera ha convocado a realizar un audaz performance
en la Plaza de la Revolución el próximo 30 de diciembre —"Yo también
exijo"— para que los ciudadanos cubanos puedan acudir allí a expresar
sus anhelos y exigencias. Es de agradecer esta iniciativa a la que me
sumo por vía digital, consciente de que en nuestro mundo global toda
acción local se expande en el ciberespacio.
Al hacerlo he estudiado y tomado en cuenta las demandas de amplios
sectores de la sociedad cubana, así como de la disidencia, la oposición y
el exilio. No hablo a nombre de nadie que no sea yo mismo y a partir de
ahora estas exigencias pertenecen a cualquiera que desee apoyarlas. A
quien las considere desmesuradas le recuerdo que son reclamos de
derechos universales e inalienables por los que hay que luchar, no
limosnas que respetuosamente se solicitan al poder que los viene
pisoteando desde hace medio siglo.
Como cubano veo la necesidad de abordar y contribuir a resolver la
esencia interna del conflicto que el Estado cubano ha desarrollado
contra los derechos de la nación por más de medio siglo. El bilateral
entre Cuba y Estados Unidos —en el que han participado otros actores
externos como la URSS y Venezuela— no es otra cosa que la
internacionalización de ese conflicto interno.
La normalización de relaciones entre La Habana y Washington no deja
resueltas las causas de nuestro gran diferendo nacional. Con relación a
esto último solo los cubanos podemos y tenemos derecho a definir
nuestras perspectivas, demandas y prioridades. Tendremos que luchar para
hacerlos realidad.
Entonces, en respuesta a la invitación de Tania Bruguera, hago
constar que yo, como ciudadano cubano, también exijo el fin de la
beligerancia del Estado contra la voluntad popular y que acepte la
inevitabilidad de avanzar hacia la normalización de relaciones del
Estado con la nación cubana. Para ello es imprescindible el
levantamiento de las medidas gubernamentales de su bloqueo interno al
ejercicio de derechos universales básicos y al libre desarrollo de la
creatividad y prosperidad general de la sociedad cubana.
Este listado de demandas representa lo que a mi juicio son las
condiciones mínimas necesarias para poder recuperar y ejercer la
soberanía nacional. Constituye una posible hoja de ruta para poder
llegar a elegir libremente a un nuevo gobierno. Una vez alcanzado ese
momento fundacional, Estado y nación podrán enfrentar juntos la herencia
que nos dejará el pasado y asumir el desafío de construir un nuevo
país: moderno, libre, soberano, equitativo, plural, tecnológicamente
avanzado y próspero. Ese proyecto, cuando sea factible, requerirá de una
nueva hoja de ruta.
En el contexto actual creo necesario exigir de inmediato, entre otras medidas, las siguientes:
1) Fin de la Ley Mordaza y de la criminalización de la libre
expresión personal, intelectual o artística. Derogar de inmediato la Ley
Mordaza, titulada Protección de la Independencia Nacional y la Economía
de Cuba (Ley 88), así como cualquier otra ley o regulación que coarte
el derecho de libre expresión. Ordenar el cese inmediato de todas las
actividades policiacas y parapoliciales contra las personas, académicos,
periodistas, intelectuales y artistas que ejercen su derecho a
acceder y diseminar información o a expresar pacíficamente —de forma
privada o pública, individual o colectiva— su opinión sobre cualquier
tema.
2) Fin de los actos de repudio. Paralizar y desautorizar públicamente
de inmediato los llamados "actos de repudio" contra cualquier ciudadano
o grupo de la sociedad civil que libremente haya expresado sus
criterios políticos, sociales o económicos en público o privado.
3) Amnistías. Liberar de inmediato a los presos políticos —incluyendo
a los que están bajo licencia extrapenal— y decretar también una
amnistía general a favor de todo el exilio político para que todos
puedan acceder con garantía suficiente de seguridad a la patria y, si lo
desean, residir en ella nuevamente. Una vez concluida la reforma del
Código Penal se procederá a decretar una amnistía general adicional para
todas las personas que fueron encarceladas por acciones que de ahora en
adelante se descriminalizarían.
4) Ratificación e implementación de pactos y convenios
internacionales de derechos. Ratificar de inmediato y sin reservas los
dos Pactos Internacionales de DDHH (Políticos y Civiles; Económicos,
Sociales y Culturales) y suscribir el Protocolo Adicional del Pacto
contra la Tortura permitiendo la constante supervisión de prisiones del
Relator Especial, y comenzar una reforma sustantiva del sistema
constitucional y jurídico (Código Penal y otros) para alinearlos con los
principios de estos instrumentos internacionales.
5) Libre sindicalización y contratación laboral. Cumplimiento
irrestricto e inmediato de los convenios de la Organización
Internacional del Trabajo (OIT), de la que Cuba es miembro, sobre
derechos laborales y sindicales. Debe cesar de inmediato el monopolio
estatal de contratación de la fuerza de trabajo para servir a empresas y
gobiernos extranjeros y de ese modo evitar que el Estado se apodere de
la mayor parte de sus salarios y favorezca a los que desea privilegiar.
6) Libre acceso a internet. Autorizar de inmediato la conexión a
internet a cualquier ciudadano en precios adecuados al nivel salarial
del país y disponer también de inmediato el cese de toda persecución
contra aquellas personas que acceden a internet o a estaciones de radio y
TV extranjeras por medios propios.
7) Libertad de medios de comunicación. Decretar una nueva Ley de
Medios que comience a regir de inmediato y ofrezca garantías a la
libertad de expresión pública y privada, al derecho de acceder y
diseminar información como individuos o como institución, y a la cesión
de horarios de los medios de comunicación de TV y radio estatales a
diferentes, iglesias, instituciones y grupos ciudadanos no
gubernamentales.
8) Plebiscito sobre el actual sistema electoral. Se ha de celebrar un
plebiscito antes de cualquier nueva elección del Poder Popular para
reconocer el derecho soberano de la nación cubana de derogar el artículo
5 de la actual Constitución que otorga el poder supremo al Partido
Comunista de Cuba y exigir en su lugar la celebración de elecciones
libres, secretas, universales, plurales, directas e internacionalmente
supervisadas para elegir al próximo gobierno. El nuevo parlamento que
resulte electo se hará cargo de culminar la aprobación definitiva de la
reforma constitucional y legal que se requiere en acatamiento de los
Convenios y Pactos Internacionales ratificados.
9) Libertad de movimiento nacional e internacional de los cubanos.
Decretar de inmediato la plena libertad de movimiento tanto para fijar
residencia entre municipios y provincias como para entrar y salir de la
Isla en favor de todos los ciudadanos cubanos, sin que ello se requiera
de permisos estatales de ningún tipo. Reconocimiento de la doble
ciudadanía a aquellos cubanos que así lo soliciten.
10) Igualdad de derechos económicos de todos los cubanos. Decretar
una Ley para la Inversión, Producción, Comercio y Desarrollo Nacional
que equipare los derechos de los cubanos donde quiera que tengan su
residencia actual con los que se ofrecen hoy a los inversionistas
extranjeros. Entre esos derechos se ha de incluir la simplificación y
agilización de trámites para registrar legalmente y operar una empresa
privada nacional sea personal o cooperativa, el cese de la lista
restrictiva de actividades autorizadas, la autorización a los nacionales
para invertir y participar en cualquier área de la economía nacional,
el levantamiento de las restricciones a los profesionales para ejercer
sus especialidades de modo privado, el otorgamiento de privilegios y
facilidades fiscales en la etapa de amortización de la inversión inicial
y el derecho de contratación libre y directa de la mano de obra por
empresas extranjeras y nacionales por igual.
11) Cese del monopolio de comercio y producción estatal. Tanto en la
Ley para la Inversión Extranjera como en esta nueva Ley para la
Inversión, Producción, Comercio y Desarrollo Nacional se introducirán
cláusulas que reconozcan y den garantías a la propiedad privada y se
complementará con un código mercantil y un sistema moderno de arbitraje y
apelaciones. Dicha ley anularía el monopolio estatal sobre la
producción y servicios en cualquier sector económico, así como sobre el
ejercicio del comercio nacional y exterior, autorizando a partir de ese
momento la participación en todas esas actividades de empresas privadas
nacionales y extranjeras. Se derogarán de inmediato las últimas
disposiciones de la Aduana para la importación de diferentes medios
requeridos para el desarrollo personal y del sector privado.
12) Libertad de asociación. Decretar una nueva Ley de Asociaciones
que las libere del patronato estatal para ser registradas y no incluya
clausulas discriminatorias por razones de raza, género, orientación
sexual, creencias religiosas o políticas, así como que puedan tener sus
propios medios de comunicación y se les permita ser autosustentables por
iniciativas económicas propias, cotización de miembros o donaciones. La
nueva Ley de Asociaciones debe reconocer también el derecho de libre
sindicalización y las organizaciones de esa naturaleza que los
trabajadores puedan querer darse a sí mismos.
La mayor parte de estas demandas son escuchadas a diario en la Isla.
Muchas de ellas fueron formuladas por grupos disidentes u opositores en
sus programas e iniciativas. Su materialización no reclama la unidad de
todos en un solo partido u organización. Basta con que cada sector de la
nación se empeñe proactivamente en alcanzar aquellas reivindicaciones
que le son más cercanas para que se geste un movimiento general
emancipador.
Cuando se asiente el polvo de las desmedidas expectativas surgidas al
calor de los recientes acuerdos entre la Casa Blanca y el general
presidente Raúl Castro, cristalizará con mucha mayor nitidez una visión
genuinamente realista y pragmática. Las ansias de libertad y progreso
hay que asentarlas en las exigencias y movilización de los más amplios
sectores sociales y no en las dádivas que la elite de poder esté
dispuesta a conceder en algún congreso del PCC ni en las transacciones a
las que aquella llegue con los actores externos del conflicto cubano.
Los regalos de Obama
Si ayer los demócratas cubanos estaban solos hoy podemos conjeturar
que vamos a seguir muy solos. Quizás por un buen rato. El
restablecimiento de relaciones con EEUU puede haber asegurado la
transición dinástica de la dictadura, que ya tiene posicionadas a su
segunda y tercera generación en los puestos de mando de la política y la
economía. "¡Ahora sí que ganamos la guerra!", exclamó Raúl Castro ante
la Asamblea Nacional parafraseando a Fidel en otra lejana circunstancia.
No tanto, Raúl, pero sí ganaste una importante batalla.
Por más de medio siglo, la renuencia de EEUU a aceptar la dictadura
castrista marcó una posición condenatoria en la arena internacional. De
esa raya en la arena se aferró la oposición interna y externa frente a
las habituales indiferencia de Europa y el compadrazgo de la mayoría de
los gobiernos latinoamericanos. Un gesto político que servía de asidero
moral. Esta vez, una ola (parece que es la ola del olvido) ha borrado
la raya. En el momento de su decrepitud, los Castro reciben un segundo
aire. Con las variantes propias de la época, Washington les ayudará a
convertirse en los Somoza.
Corridas las cortinas, vemos el entramado. Más de año y medio de
negociaciones conducidas desde la parte estadounidense por gente con muy
poco conocimiento y mucho menos afecto por el pueblo cubano. En ese
período Raúl definió el marco protector de sus intereses. Una ley del
embudo sobre las inversiones extranjeras y la actividad privada que deja
a la gente de a pie las desventuras del cuentapropismo y promete a la
elite la vida loca del capitalismo salvaje. Todo lo demás es decorado.
El modelo raulista es de una represiva perfección cleptocrática. Sus
iguales no están en las dictaduras colegiadas de China y Vietnam, ni
siquiera en la mafiosa Rusia de Putin, sino en las dinastías
postcomunistas de Africa: Angola , República del Congo, Guinea
Ecuatorial, por citar. A diferencia de estas, cuenta en su fase de
arranque con una amplia red de agentes de influencia, poderosos
empresarios (algunos de ellos cubanoamericanos) y líderes congresionales
en Estados Unidos. Cuenta, además, con el empuje de una exótica
coalición: los grandes intereses de Washington y el ala izquierda del
Partido Demócrata. Unos lavan sus crímenes en nombre del progreso y
otros en nombre de la distensión.
Ninguneada por el presidente Barack Obama, la oposición interna gana,
eso sí, el beneficio de la claridad total. Ya no puede llamarse a
engaño. Todas las recetas que se le proponen apuntan a facilitarle
tiempo, dinero y prestigio a la dictadura. Hasta la misma tesis de que
Obama le ha hecho un regalo envenenado a Raúl es una invitación a
cruzarse de brazos. El tren de los cambios pasará de largo por la
estación del Estado de derecho. No veo a General Motors, a Caterpillar y
al Chase amenazando con cerrar negocio por una pateadura a las Damas de
Blanco.
En el exilio, la categoría de los celebrantes no permite dudas de
estar viviendo un humillante y retrógrado punto de inflexión en nuestra
historia, preñado de desmemoria, deshonor y codicia. Con todo, merecemos
sufrir el ruidoso ascenso de esta comparsa de la esclavitud. Estamos
enfermos del pusilánime prurito de ser tolerantes frente a un mal
radical. Por eso les dimos un sagrado lugar en el debate y nos inhibimos
de quebrar a sangre y fuego el diálogo con aquellos que cortan orejas y
arrancan lenguas. Hemos sido así de mansos y obtusos que hoy son esos
mercaderes de la reconciliación quienes se presentan ante el mundo como
los legítimos representantes de una "diáspora" ansiosa de complacer a
los verdugos de la nación.
A propósito de la visita papal que nuestra Iglesia Católica le regaló
a Fidel y Raúl en marzo del 2012, el líder del Movimiento Cristiano
Liberación (MCL), Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, alertó sobre la inminencia del
cambio fraude. Un cambio sin derechos para el pueblo, con la inserción
de poderosos intereses que escamotean la democracia y la soberanía. Ah, y
con el concepto de una "oposición leal", salido del taller de trucaje
de la brigada de respuesta laica del cardenal Ortega. Cinco meses
después, Payá fue asesinado. Triste hora para Cuba si al hablar de la
decencia, la justicia y la libertad, el eco de los muertos se oye más
alto que la voz de los vivos.
viernes, diciembre 26, 2014
The Pope's Cuban Blunder
By Nicholas G. Hahn in The New York Daily News:Cuban dissident voices & Pope Francis’ deaf ears
The wives of imprisoned critics of the Castro regime deserved better
When Berta Soler met Pope Francis, it had been a long time coming.
Soler’s Ladies in White, a Catholic opposition movement comprised of relatives of jailed human rights activists in Cuba, had pleaded numerous times for a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. He declined and visited the communist island in 2012 only to continue a policy of détente established by his predecessor, John Paul II.
But a short blessing by Pope Francis in March 2013 signaled a slight shift in direction — or that’s at least what Soler believed.
“We think a Latin American Pope is very good for us. Pope Francis knows a little better the problems that our peoples have, he comes from far down and he can help the people who are suffering,” Soler told the Italian newspaper La Stampa after receiving some papal encouragement.
If only Soler and her Ladies had known better. Last week, the Vatican confirmed that for more than 18 months, the Holy See had been working to restore diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. The pontiff seems to have blessed the Cuban opposition with one hand, and the Castro brothers with the other.
Soler’s Ladies, Cuban exiles, and other dissident groups have long lobbied against new relations without any concessions from the communist regime. They aren’t as hopeful as others who say more U.S. trade with the Caribbean island may lead to more freedom.
The international aid worker Alan Gross’ release is perhaps the only Cuban concession — and thank goodness for that — but even so, it came as a small part of a lopsided prisoner swap.
“Democracy and freedom for the Cuban people aren’t going to be achieved by what Obama has given to the Cuban government,” Soler said in a post on her group’s website. In his announcement of re-establishing diplomatic relations, President Obama thanked Pope Francis for helping broker a Cold War-era thawing, saying his “moral example shows us the importance of pursuing the world as it should be, rather than simply settling for the world as it is.”
The President and the Pope may be settling for far less than they might think. Sen. Marco Rubio, a Catholic and son of parents who fled the communist paradise, denounced, warning that the move as “more than just putting U.S. national security at risk, President Obama is letting down the Cuban people, who still yearn to be free.” Rubio didn’t spare any words for his spiritual shepherd, who he politely encouraged to “take up the cause of freedom and democracy, which is critical for a free people — for a people to truly be free.”
The Argentine pontiff should know a thing or two about the church’s cause for freedom. When a military junta in his own country took power in a 1976 coup during what is called the “Dirty War,” Father Bergoglio was head of the Jesuits.
The future-Pope saw many of his priests and seminarians jailed and killed. Bergoglio is reported to have helped many flee the country and even met with the military dictatorship to save the lives of two imprisoned priests.
But those experiences may not have been on the pontiff's mind when he wrote personal letters to Obama and Castro or when he hosted delegates from Cuba at the Vatican.
While it might be fodder for sensational journalism, Rubio and other Catholics who make public policy shouldn’t have to correct their pontiff on foreign affairs. Clerics are spiritual leaders, not political ones. When prelates pretend to be diplomats, it dilutes their authority on issues of faith and morals.
Francis might have done one better by prodding the Castro brothers about their regime’s woeful human rights record. That would have been in a Pope’s wheelhouse.
And it would have been what Berta Soler deserved.
Hahn is the editor of RealClearReligion.org.
Obama’s One Hand Clap With Castro
There
was really only one good reason to maintain the embargo: Trade with
Cuba strengthens the Castros. So what, exactly, are we getting in return
for Obama’s radical step?
“No cerveza, no trabajo” is about all I’ve retained from Brother Victor Serna’s Spanish II class at St. Mary’s High School.
Of course it’s been over 40 years, and that’s a long time to remember anything. But truth be told, I never came close to mastering the language despite my excellent grades.
I did not deserve them.
While I accepted every A- and B+ as a gift from the school gods, Brother Victor Serna was forever chastising me for slacking off from my “usual” stellar A/A+ efforts.
Brother Victor had taught my brother, Jeff, the previous year with far greater success. After years at the head of a parochial school classroom, he could no longer distinguish one blond Irish Catholic kid from another. I coasted through Spanish II on Jeff’s stellar effort.
What I won’t ever forget were Brother Victor’s periodic anti-communist tirades. His face a brilliant crimson, neck veins bulging and spittle flying, he looked like America’s most famous Cuban, Ricky Ricardo, after Lucy had pissed him off and left him sputtering in his native tongue.
A Spaniard by birth, Victor Serna left home shy of his 14th birthday and entered the monastery to become a Marist brother. By 1943, he was missioned to Cienfuegos, Cuba.
In 1950, Serna earned his Ph.D. from the University of Havana, where he had befriended a classmate named Fidel Castro.
By 1961 Castro had seized power and Serna publicly criticized his old friend for his regime’s barbaric suppression of individual and religious rights. This courageous act earned him a late-night knock on the door with orders for Serna to vamos from Cuba. He had 24 hours to pack.
He never returned.
It’s fair to ask exactly what we got other than the return of Alan Gross. Right now it looks like the diplomatic equivalent of one hand clapping.
“I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result,” said President Obama as he announced his intention to undo the policy of isolation followed by the previous 10 presidents.
The prison camp island nation known as Cuba erupted in celebration.
Closer to home, the reaction has been mixed.
With the midterm elections safely in the rearview mirror, Obama is on legacy patrol.
The Affordable Care Act is safely embedded, with repeal unlikely even with a freshly minted Republican Senate. His executive order granting work privileges and immunity from deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants may be headed to court, but not any time soon. Now he’s taking a radical new approach to the hemisphere’s only Stalinist government.
It’s hard to argue for the continuation of the U.S. embargo of Cuba. If the embargo were effective, the Castro brothers would have been doing Love Letters with the Duvaliers years ago. We trade with China and Vietnam, so why not Cuba, right?
Well, here’s one big reason to continue the embargo: Trade with Cuba strengthens the regime.
The Cuban government siphons off revenue from nearly every business transaction in the country. Until 2011, barbers were employees of the state. While cruise ship companies would like nothing more than to add Havana to their ports of call, the people of Cuba will still be paid a pittance. The average Cuban makes between $20 and $50 a month.
That’s not a typo.
On the upside, we’re likely to get better jazz, slick fielding middle infielders, and an army of great mechanics.
Granted, we’ve been waiting for half a century for the Cuban economy to collapse.
It hasn’t. Not even after its parent company, the Soviet Union, took a dive in 1991.
Obama has latched on to the failure of the embargo to topple the Castros as justification to shuffle the deck. But does he really want the Castos toppled? If so he has yet to say so publicly.
What he has said publicly is an apology for colonialism, something we are not guilty of in Cuba. The only other thing he has offered is vague boilerplate about a more “open” Cuba in the future after exposure to “American values.”
But the blunt truth is that nothing we do will free the Cuban people as long as they are subjugated by a thuggish government modeled on Stalin’s police state. Our secret weapon may be the hardening of Fidel’s and Raul’s arteries.
Poverty in the Caribbean worker’s paradise is not the result of America’s embargo. It’s the result of decades of draconian socialism.
While the president correctly points out that the United States is the only country with an embargo on Cuba, he misses the obvious point: If the Cubans are free to trade with the rest of the world, why aren’t they driving Subarus and Fiats?
Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, Germany, France, and every other nation on earth does business with Cuba, but the people there are still driving ’56 DeSotos, and many lack Internet access and nearly every other tool of the modern world. The reason? Fidel and Raul Castro.
Obama’s gambit is not irrational. Insanity, after all, is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, right? But the president’s new policy is naive.
For all his gifts, Obama has had one consistent glaring blind spot: He’s a terrible judge of tyrants. The Castros are the latest in a long line of despots he believed he could negotiate with.
From Vladimir Putin to Hosni Mubarak to Bashar al-Assad and the Kim du jour in North Korea, Obama seems the last person to recognize the monstrous evil these thugs represent.
It’s fair to ask exactly what we got in the president’s bargain with Cuba other than the return of Alan Gross. Right now it looks like the diplomatic equivalent of one hand clapping.
While the days of exploding cigars are happily behind us, the iron grip of an intolerant despot has not and is not likely to loosen under Obama any more than it did in the days of JFK.
“No cerveza, no trabajo” is about all I’ve retained from Brother Victor Serna’s Spanish II class at St. Mary’s High School.
Of course it’s been over 40 years, and that’s a long time to remember anything. But truth be told, I never came close to mastering the language despite my excellent grades.
I did not deserve them.
While I accepted every A- and B+ as a gift from the school gods, Brother Victor Serna was forever chastising me for slacking off from my “usual” stellar A/A+ efforts.
Brother Victor had taught my brother, Jeff, the previous year with far greater success. After years at the head of a parochial school classroom, he could no longer distinguish one blond Irish Catholic kid from another. I coasted through Spanish II on Jeff’s stellar effort.
What I won’t ever forget were Brother Victor’s periodic anti-communist tirades. His face a brilliant crimson, neck veins bulging and spittle flying, he looked like America’s most famous Cuban, Ricky Ricardo, after Lucy had pissed him off and left him sputtering in his native tongue.
A Spaniard by birth, Victor Serna left home shy of his 14th birthday and entered the monastery to become a Marist brother. By 1943, he was missioned to Cienfuegos, Cuba.
In 1950, Serna earned his Ph.D. from the University of Havana, where he had befriended a classmate named Fidel Castro.
By 1961 Castro had seized power and Serna publicly criticized his old friend for his regime’s barbaric suppression of individual and religious rights. This courageous act earned him a late-night knock on the door with orders for Serna to vamos from Cuba. He had 24 hours to pack.
He never returned.
It’s fair to ask exactly what we got other than the return of Alan Gross. Right now it looks like the diplomatic equivalent of one hand clapping.
“I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result,” said President Obama as he announced his intention to undo the policy of isolation followed by the previous 10 presidents.
The prison camp island nation known as Cuba erupted in celebration.
Closer to home, the reaction has been mixed.
With the midterm elections safely in the rearview mirror, Obama is on legacy patrol.
The Affordable Care Act is safely embedded, with repeal unlikely even with a freshly minted Republican Senate. His executive order granting work privileges and immunity from deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants may be headed to court, but not any time soon. Now he’s taking a radical new approach to the hemisphere’s only Stalinist government.
It’s hard to argue for the continuation of the U.S. embargo of Cuba. If the embargo were effective, the Castro brothers would have been doing Love Letters with the Duvaliers years ago. We trade with China and Vietnam, so why not Cuba, right?
Well, here’s one big reason to continue the embargo: Trade with Cuba strengthens the regime.
The Cuban government siphons off revenue from nearly every business transaction in the country. Until 2011, barbers were employees of the state. While cruise ship companies would like nothing more than to add Havana to their ports of call, the people of Cuba will still be paid a pittance. The average Cuban makes between $20 and $50 a month.
That’s not a typo.
On the upside, we’re likely to get better jazz, slick fielding middle infielders, and an army of great mechanics.
Granted, we’ve been waiting for half a century for the Cuban economy to collapse.
It hasn’t. Not even after its parent company, the Soviet Union, took a dive in 1991.
Obama has latched on to the failure of the embargo to topple the Castros as justification to shuffle the deck. But does he really want the Castos toppled? If so he has yet to say so publicly.
What he has said publicly is an apology for colonialism, something we are not guilty of in Cuba. The only other thing he has offered is vague boilerplate about a more “open” Cuba in the future after exposure to “American values.”
But the blunt truth is that nothing we do will free the Cuban people as long as they are subjugated by a thuggish government modeled on Stalin’s police state. Our secret weapon may be the hardening of Fidel’s and Raul’s arteries.
Poverty in the Caribbean worker’s paradise is not the result of America’s embargo. It’s the result of decades of draconian socialism.
While the president correctly points out that the United States is the only country with an embargo on Cuba, he misses the obvious point: If the Cubans are free to trade with the rest of the world, why aren’t they driving Subarus and Fiats?
Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, Germany, France, and every other nation on earth does business with Cuba, but the people there are still driving ’56 DeSotos, and many lack Internet access and nearly every other tool of the modern world. The reason? Fidel and Raul Castro.
Obama’s gambit is not irrational. Insanity, after all, is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, right? But the president’s new policy is naive.
For all his gifts, Obama has had one consistent glaring blind spot: He’s a terrible judge of tyrants. The Castros are the latest in a long line of despots he believed he could negotiate with.
From Vladimir Putin to Hosni Mubarak to Bashar al-Assad and the Kim du jour in North Korea, Obama seems the last person to recognize the monstrous evil these thugs represent.
It’s fair to ask exactly what we got in the president’s bargain with Cuba other than the return of Alan Gross. Right now it looks like the diplomatic equivalent of one hand clapping.
While the days of exploding cigars are happily behind us, the iron grip of an intolerant despot has not and is not likely to loosen under Obama any more than it did in the days of JFK.
WaPo: As a Cuban exile, I Feel Betrayed by President Obama
By professor Carlos Eire in The Washington Post:
As a Cuban exile, I feel betrayed by President Obama
I am furious, in pain, and deeply offended by those who laud this betrayal of the Cuban people as a great moment in history.
My family and native land were destroyed by the brutal Castro regime. In 1959, as an 8-year-old, I listened to mobs shout “paredon!” (to the firing squad!). I watched televised executions, and was terrified by the incessant pressure to agree with a bearded dictator’s ideals.
As the months passed, relatives, friends, and neighbors began to disappear. Some of them emerged from prison with detailed accounts of the tortures they endured, but many never reappeared, their lives cut short by firing squads.
I also witnessed the government’s seizure of all private property – down to the ring on one’s finger – and the collapse of my country’s economy. I began to feel as if some monstrous force was trying to steal my mind and soul through incessant indoctrination.
By the age of 10, I was desperate to leave.
The next year, my parents sent me to the United States. I am one of the lucky 14,000 unaccompanied children rescued by Operation Pedro Pan. Our plan to reunite within a few months was derailed by the policies of the Castro regime, which intentionally prevented people like my parents from leaving Cuba. Although my mother did manage to escape three years later, my father remained stuck for the rest of his life. When he died, 14 years after my departure, the Castro regime prevented me from attending his funeral.
I am now a professor of history and religion at Yale University.
And I long for justice. Instead of seeing Raúl Castro shaking President Obama’s hand, I would like to see him, his brother, and all their henchmen in a court room, being tried for crimes against humanity. I also long for genuine freedom in Cuba. Instead of seeing his corrupt and abusive regime rewarded with favors from the United States, I long for the day when that regime is replaced by a genuine democracy with a free market economy.
The fact that I am a historian makes me see things differently, too. I earn my living by analyzing texts and documents, sifting evidence, and separating facts from lies and myths. I have been trained to read between the lines, and to discern the hidden meaning in all rhetoric.
While much attention has been paid to President Obama’s Cuba policy speech, hardly any has been paid to dictator Raúl Castro’s shorter speech, broadcast in Cuba at exactly the same time.
In his spiteful address, the unelected ruler of Cuba said that he would accept President Obama’s gesture of good will “without renouncing a single one of our principles.”
What, exactly, are those principles?
Like his brother Fidel, whose name he invoked, and like King Louis XIV of France, whose name he dared not mention, Raúl speaks of himself as the embodiment of the state he rules, as evidenced by his mention of “our principles,” which assumes that all Cubans share his mindset. Raúl claims that he is defending his nation’s “self-determination,” “sovereignty,” and “independence,” and also dares to boast that his total control of the Cuban economy should be admired as “social justice.”
In reality, he is defending is his role as absolute monarch.
Cubans have no freedom of speech or assembly. The press is tightly controlled, and there is no freedom to establish political parties or labor unions. Travel is strictly controlled, as is access to the Internet. There is no economic freedom and no elections. According to the Associated Press, at least 8,410 dissidents were detained in 2014.
These are the principles that Raúl Castro is unwilling to renounce, which have driven nearly 20 percent of Cuba’s population into exile.
Unfortunately, these are also the very principles that President Obama ratified as acceptable, which will govern Cuba for years to come.
Although President Obama did acknowledge the lack of “freedom and openness” in Cuba, and also hinted that Raúl Castro should loosen his grip on the Cuban people, his rhetoric was as hollow as Raúl’s. He didn’t make any demands for immediate, genuine reforms in Cuba. Equally hollow was his reference to Cuba’s “civil society.” He made no mention of the constant abuse heaped on Cuba’s non-violent dissidents, or of the fact that the vast majority of them have pleaded with him to tighten rather than ease existing sanctions on the Castro regime.
But it was not just what was left unsaid that made his rhetoric hollow. Some of the “facts” cited in support of his policy changes were deliberate distortions of history that lay most of the blame for Cuba’s problems on the United States.
Among the most glaring of these falsehoods was the claim that “our sanctions on Cuba have denied Cubans access to technology that has empowered individuals around the globe.” The real culprit is not the embargo, but the Castro regime itself, which actively prevents Cubans from accessing the Internet. Cuba has been purchasing all sorts of cutting-edge technology from other countries for use by its government, its military, its spies, and its tourist industry.
If studied carefully, what President Obama’s artful speech reveals is a fixation on the failures of American foreign policy, and on his role as a righteous reformer. Moreover, the speech is riddled with false assumptions and wishful thinking.
Does President Obama really believe that somehow, magically, an influx of American diplomats, tourists, and dollars is going to force Raúl Castro and his military junta to give up their beloved repressive “principles”?
Dream on. President Obama knows all too well that the Castro regime has had diplomatic and economic relations with the rest of the world and hosted millions of tourists from democratic nations for many years. Such engagement has brought no freedom or prosperity to the Cuban people. He also knows that tourism has only served to create an apartheid state in which foreigners enjoy privileges that are denied to the natives.
President Obama’s disingenuous formulation of a new Cuba policy has been praised by many around the world, but will be challenged by the legislative branch of the government of these United States.
Thank God and the Constitution for that.
The American people and the Cuban people deserve a much better future and a much better interpretation of history than those offered to them in President Obama’s shameful speech.
 |
| Talking with Castro |
As a Cuban exile, I feel betrayed by President Obama
I am furious, in pain, and deeply offended by those who laud this betrayal of the Cuban people as a great moment in history.
My family and native land were destroyed by the brutal Castro regime. In 1959, as an 8-year-old, I listened to mobs shout “paredon!” (to the firing squad!). I watched televised executions, and was terrified by the incessant pressure to agree with a bearded dictator’s ideals.
As the months passed, relatives, friends, and neighbors began to disappear. Some of them emerged from prison with detailed accounts of the tortures they endured, but many never reappeared, their lives cut short by firing squads.
I also witnessed the government’s seizure of all private property – down to the ring on one’s finger – and the collapse of my country’s economy. I began to feel as if some monstrous force was trying to steal my mind and soul through incessant indoctrination.
By the age of 10, I was desperate to leave.
The next year, my parents sent me to the United States. I am one of the lucky 14,000 unaccompanied children rescued by Operation Pedro Pan. Our plan to reunite within a few months was derailed by the policies of the Castro regime, which intentionally prevented people like my parents from leaving Cuba. Although my mother did manage to escape three years later, my father remained stuck for the rest of his life. When he died, 14 years after my departure, the Castro regime prevented me from attending his funeral.
I am now a professor of history and religion at Yale University.
And I long for justice. Instead of seeing Raúl Castro shaking President Obama’s hand, I would like to see him, his brother, and all their henchmen in a court room, being tried for crimes against humanity. I also long for genuine freedom in Cuba. Instead of seeing his corrupt and abusive regime rewarded with favors from the United States, I long for the day when that regime is replaced by a genuine democracy with a free market economy.
The fact that I am a historian makes me see things differently, too. I earn my living by analyzing texts and documents, sifting evidence, and separating facts from lies and myths. I have been trained to read between the lines, and to discern the hidden meaning in all rhetoric.
While much attention has been paid to President Obama’s Cuba policy speech, hardly any has been paid to dictator Raúl Castro’s shorter speech, broadcast in Cuba at exactly the same time.
In his spiteful address, the unelected ruler of Cuba said that he would accept President Obama’s gesture of good will “without renouncing a single one of our principles.”
What, exactly, are those principles?
Like his brother Fidel, whose name he invoked, and like King Louis XIV of France, whose name he dared not mention, Raúl speaks of himself as the embodiment of the state he rules, as evidenced by his mention of “our principles,” which assumes that all Cubans share his mindset. Raúl claims that he is defending his nation’s “self-determination,” “sovereignty,” and “independence,” and also dares to boast that his total control of the Cuban economy should be admired as “social justice.”
In reality, he is defending is his role as absolute monarch.
Cubans have no freedom of speech or assembly. The press is tightly controlled, and there is no freedom to establish political parties or labor unions. Travel is strictly controlled, as is access to the Internet. There is no economic freedom and no elections. According to the Associated Press, at least 8,410 dissidents were detained in 2014.
These are the principles that Raúl Castro is unwilling to renounce, which have driven nearly 20 percent of Cuba’s population into exile.
Unfortunately, these are also the very principles that President Obama ratified as acceptable, which will govern Cuba for years to come.
Although President Obama did acknowledge the lack of “freedom and openness” in Cuba, and also hinted that Raúl Castro should loosen his grip on the Cuban people, his rhetoric was as hollow as Raúl’s. He didn’t make any demands for immediate, genuine reforms in Cuba. Equally hollow was his reference to Cuba’s “civil society.” He made no mention of the constant abuse heaped on Cuba’s non-violent dissidents, or of the fact that the vast majority of them have pleaded with him to tighten rather than ease existing sanctions on the Castro regime.
But it was not just what was left unsaid that made his rhetoric hollow. Some of the “facts” cited in support of his policy changes were deliberate distortions of history that lay most of the blame for Cuba’s problems on the United States.
Among the most glaring of these falsehoods was the claim that “our sanctions on Cuba have denied Cubans access to technology that has empowered individuals around the globe.” The real culprit is not the embargo, but the Castro regime itself, which actively prevents Cubans from accessing the Internet. Cuba has been purchasing all sorts of cutting-edge technology from other countries for use by its government, its military, its spies, and its tourist industry.
If studied carefully, what President Obama’s artful speech reveals is a fixation on the failures of American foreign policy, and on his role as a righteous reformer. Moreover, the speech is riddled with false assumptions and wishful thinking.
Does President Obama really believe that somehow, magically, an influx of American diplomats, tourists, and dollars is going to force Raúl Castro and his military junta to give up their beloved repressive “principles”?
Dream on. President Obama knows all too well that the Castro regime has had diplomatic and economic relations with the rest of the world and hosted millions of tourists from democratic nations for many years. Such engagement has brought no freedom or prosperity to the Cuban people. He also knows that tourism has only served to create an apartheid state in which foreigners enjoy privileges that are denied to the natives.
President Obama’s disingenuous formulation of a new Cuba policy has been praised by many around the world, but will be challenged by the legislative branch of the government of these United States.
Thank God and the Constitution for that.
The American people and the Cuban people deserve a much better future and a much better interpretation of history than those offered to them in President Obama’s shameful speech.
miércoles, diciembre 24, 2014
Cuando la Base Naval sea una playa de Oriente -U.S. prepares to accelerate detainee transfers from Guantanamo Bay prison
siguiendo las motivaciones politicas e ideologicas de barack obama era posible predecir la aceleracion del traslado de los terroristas detenidos en la base naval de guantanamo, tal y como recientemente subrayabamos aqui >>, no se necesita mucha mollera neuronal para dejar establecido que antes que el actual inquilino de la white house la abandone, la actual instalacion militar arrendada a cuba desde 1903, aunque los castros se nieguen a aceptar el pago, se convertira en una nueva victoria de los que ahora si van a construir el socialismo prospero y sustentable, cuando se convierta en una "playa de oriente" como pedia el trovador erik sanchez ["cuando aparezca el petroleo" >>], o en el exclusivo complejo turistico para pesetuos -aunque algun charquito le dejaran a los guantanameros- con terminal de cruceros y marina incluidos: victoria resort-patria o muerte, venceremos.
--------------------------
The Washington Post
--------------------------
The Washington Post
The Obama administration is accelerating its efforts to shut down the
Guantanamo Bay detention center, preparing to move dozens of inmates
out of the prison in coming months in a step forward for President
Obama’s redoubled attempt to achieve a core national security objective
before he leaves office.
U.S. officials, describing
administration plans to significantly reduce the Guantanamo population
over the next six months, said they are in talks with a wide range of
countries that they hope will accept all 64 detainees approved for
transfer.
President Obama has spoken to fellow heads of
government in an effort to arrange transfers, the officials said, one
sign of the increased personal role they expect he will take as he
inches closer to the closure of the prison.
“He does not want to
leave this to his successor,” Paul M. Lewis, the Pentagon’s special
envoy for shutting down Guantanamo, said in an interview.
After a
virtual halt to detainee transfers in 2011-2013, officials hope to
whittle the prison’s population from 132 to the mid-120s by the middle
of next month. That would leave roughly half the number of detainees
housed at the military complex in Cuba when Obama took office in 2009.
Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved the transfer of five detainees to a
host country by the end of 2014, officials said. Relocating those
prisoners would bring to 28 the total number of detainees transferred
this year. Five or six more prisoners are expected to be moved in the
first weeks of January.
Obama remains a long way from achieving
his goal of closing Guantanamo and could yet be forced to threaten
executive action if he cannot overcome congressional opposition to
moving or releasing detainees. But officials are optimistic that they
can make significant progress in pressing other countries to accept
transfers.
They are betting in particular on leaders in Latin America, who they hope will follow the lead of Uruguay, which welcomed six Guantanamo detainees this month. Officials also are hoping that Obama’s decision to recast U.S. policy on Cuba and recent calls by the Vatican for the prison’s closure will encourage potential host countries.
At
the same time, officials still must resolve the fate of detainees from
Yemen, who make up the largest portion of the remaining prisoners and
are unlikely to be sent home anytime soon because of U.S. concerns about
militant activity in their home country.
“We’ve been able to break the logjam,” said Clifford Sloan, who steps down
this month from his position as Lewis’s counterpart at the State
Department. “There’s a very clear path ahead for significant progress
and ultimate closure of the facility.”
The accelerated effort to
close Guantanamo is at the center of a larger effort to wind down a
war-time detainee system that was created after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks.
Also this month, the U.S. military shut down the Parwan
detention facility in Afghanistan, which held a small number of
prisoners on a military base near Kabul. Parwan was a final vestige of
what was once a massive U.S. military operation to capture, process and
house around 30,000 prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If
officials can find host countries for all 64 detainees who have been
cleared for transfer out of Guantanamo, they will then tackle the even
harder task of dealing with the remaining prisoners. Ten detainees,
including five accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks, are at some stage
of a military trial process. Almost 60 more are slated to undergo
official reviews that may result in some being deemed eligible for
transfer. But officials expect that others — perhaps more than a dozen —
will remain permanently in legal limbo, considered too dangerous for
release but ineligible for trial because of insufficient or problematic
evidence.
Increasingly, Obama is making a financial argument for
closing the prison, which costs $400 million to $500 million a year to
operate. Keeping the lights on at Guantanamo becomes even more costly on
a per-detainee basis as the prisoner population falls.
Keeping Guantanamo open “is contrary to our values, and it is wildly expensive,” Obama told CNN over the weekend.
But
he faces significant obstacles to closing the prison, including deep
congressional opposition and turnover among his top detainee officials.
Sloan and J. Alan Liotta, a senior Pentagon official on detainee policy,
are stepping down around the end of the year.
There also has been friction between the White House and Pentagon over the pace of detainee transfers.
Administration
officials see glimmers of hope in Congress despite lawmakers’
long-standing ban on moving prisoners to the United States for trial or
detention. They hope that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has expressed
some support for closing the prison, will build momentum as he takes
leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee next year.
But
Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), now the committee’s top Republican,
cautioned that political fault lines on Guantanamo may remain unchanged.
“Democrats
and Republicans in the House and the Senate — they’re not real excited
about lining up with him on these things that he’s doing,” Inhofe said.
“I don’t think he’ll get by with it.”
Congressional objections
are driven in part by the reappearance of some released Guantanamo
detainees on the battlefield. U.S. intelligence officials have said that
17 percent of the more than 600 Guantanamo detainees released or
transferred since 2002 have reengaged in militant activity and that
12 percent more are suspected of doing so.
The phenomenon is not limited to Guantanamo detainees. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State, was once a prisoner at a U.S. detention center in Iraq.
Obama
“is definitely putting his agenda way ahead of our national security,”
Inhofe said. “He should not be doing this, but it’s consistent with
other things that he’s done.”
Officials declined to say what
actions Obama would, or could, take if hoped-for congressional support
does not materialize. But any steps to circumvent Congress are sure to
stir the kind of Republican outrage that followed the president’s recent
executive action on immigration policy.
Liotta
said that the risks of transferring or releasing detainees could be
reduced but not eliminated. “The only way to have a zero reengagement
number is to never release anybody, a position the Defense Department
has never supported,” he said.
Julie Tate and Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.
lunes, diciembre 22, 2014
Telequinesis coital y Gitmo
la sapiencia popular sentencio aquello que "secretico en
reunion es mala educacion", pero esta gentuza se pasa por los overocos
la opinion publica ciudadana y la transforman de conciencia critica social
en objeto de manipulacion. varias son las clausulas secretas del pacto
que se iran develando como el que no quiere la cosa. luego de la
telequinesis coital autorizada del gerardito con adrianita o de ella con
el, sobre el que levita -entre otros quizas- el ghost del infeliz aquel
a cargo de su atencion en cierta epoca y que voluntariamente se
reventara la cabeza contra la acera en caida libre desde el piso 14 del
edificio de linea y A, porque eso de mariquitas y tarruos es pasatiempo publicitario de la infanta marielita castro, pero defenestrados para los cojonudos guerrileros geriatricos.
y gitmo no puede faltar en la agenda por revelar.
es
un viejo sueno compartido por los brothers y el califa. en lo que va del mes de diciembre este ultimo mando a 6
terroristas para uruguay, donde el godfather guerrillero de mujica les brindo
proteccion humanitaria con todos los gastos pagados y libre circulacion
nacional e internacional y gustoso espera a otros; mientras tanto 4
aterrizaron en kabul. de los 132 restantes, 63 tienen aprobados sus traslados y en el caso de otros 59 se esta evaluando. quedarian 10 con cargos o cumpliendo
sentencias que seran levantados o cambiados por asuntos si importancia y
definitivamente devueltos a casa o a la capital que mas les plazca.
entonces, con los recortes al
presupuesto de defensa andando, para que quiere el imperio una base militar en
cuba, si esta no representa ningun peligro militar ni geoestrategico
-putin por donde va y su complejo de tipo duro en cualquier momento se
pone a vender hielo siberiano derretido como agua potable-, maxime ahora que somos
pangas?: cambiarsela a raulito por 11.2 millones de vasitos de leche.
la operacion patty candela 2 esta en marcha, asi que en mayami que vayan levantando el protestodromo. estan avisados.
la operacion patty candela 2 esta en marcha, asi que en mayami que vayan levantando el protestodromo. estan avisados.
Sarah Palin: Light a Candle for Cuban Freedom Fighters
On Monday, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin urged Americans to
light a candle and put it in their windows this Christmas eve to show
solidarity with Cubans who are still fighting for their freedom and
human rights.
Palin accused under President Barack Obama of emboldening the oppressive Castro regime with his announcement last week that the two countries will begin to ease its relations.
“I am so ashamed with what the Obama administration has done to Cuban people. I do not support it,” Palin, speaking in front of a lit candle, says in a video that will be seen on The Sarah Palin Channel. “This Christmas eve, I intend to light a candle and put it in my window to show my solidarity with every brave Cuban fighting for freedom and every political dissident languishing in Castro’s prisons.
“I encourage you to do the same. Let’s join together in this. Let’s show them that the light of freedom shall never be extinguished.”
Palin is taking a page out of President Ronald Reagan’s playbook. In 1981, Reagan addressed Americans and asked them to light a candle to support Polish freedom fighters against the oppressive Soviet Union.
After the Soviet Union declared martial law in Poland in 1981, former Polish Ambassador Romuald Spasowski defected and was granted asylum in the United States. In a meeting with Reagan, Spasowski asked if Reagan would light a candle and put it in his window for the people of Poland.
Reagan, Palin says, “did him one better” with a televised address in which Reagan urged every American to light a candle for the people of Poland so the millions of candles can give notice that the light of freedom won’t be extinguished.
“Once, earlier in this century, an evil influence threatened that the lights were going out all over the world. Let the light of millions of candles in American homes give notice that the light of freedom is not going to be extinguished,” Reagan told Americans then. “We are blessed with a freedom and abundance denied to so many. Let those candles remind us that these blessings bring with them a solid obligation, an obligation to the God who guides us, an obligation to the heritage of liberty and dignity handed down to us by our forefathers and an obligation to the children of the world, whose future will be shaped by the way we live our lives today.
“Christmas means so much because of one special child. But Christmas also reminds us that all children are special, that they are gifts from God, gifts beyond price that mean more than any presents money can buy. In their love and laughter, in our hopes for their future lies the true meaning of Christmas.”
Palin said Obama’s actions on Cuba reminded her of how Ronald Reagan dealt with communists. She referenced Stephen K. Bannon’s In The Face of Evil documentary, which Palin said was one of her “favorite documentaries about President Reagan.” It is clear that Obama has probably neither seen it nor learned its lessons.
Reagan, Palin says, rejected the notion that the Soviet Union was here to stay and Americans “had to get used to it” and pretend there was some type of moral equivalency.
Palin contrasted Reagan’s “moral clarity” during the Cold War against the Soviet Union with Obama’s recent appeasement on Cuba. She mentioned that Reagan knew that the Soviet Union’s economic model was “a total failure” but did not collapse only because the Soviets were able to manipulate Americans into propping it up with grain deals and technology exchanges. She blamed “naive diplomats” and “Wall Street greed” for combining to “prop up the most repressive regime in human history” that “would have crumbled so much sooner under the weight of its own incompetence if it were not for” the policies of appeasement.
Reagan, Palin notes, had the “moral clarity” to call the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and declare that his strategy for the Cold War was simply, “we win, they lose.”
When Reagan supported Lech Walesa and the shipyard workers in Poland who were demanding basic human rights and freedom, it was a pebble that would start an avalanche, Palin says. Reagan’s gestures were not “empty” and “symbolic” because he “gave assistance behind the scenes to the freedom fighters,” and that is how Reagan won the Cold War.
Palin urged viewers to contrast Reagan’s moral clarity with Obama’s decision to “spit in the face of every human rights activist in Cuba.” She said Obama’s decision to reverse U.S. policy toward Cuba “enriched their oppressors and sanctioned their abuse.” She said that “greedy crony capitalists are propping up a failing Communist regime” in Cuba, and Obama just gave the “Castro regime the hard currency and the economic boost to remain in power forever.”
Palin said it is “ludicrous” to think that Cubans will enjoy democracy and human rights because corporations can sell products there.
“Ask human rights activists in China how that’s working for them,” Palin said, noting that the Cuban government will pocket 92% of wages of their workers to empower the apparatus that controls them.
She ultimately accused Obama of giving “away all of our leverage to fight for human rights” and betraying “the people who are courageously putting their lives on the line fighting for freedom.” She even said Obama was “spitting in the face of every human rights activist on the globe” before asking Americans to light candles to support the Cuban freedom fighters that the Obama administration betrayed.
Palin accused under President Barack Obama of emboldening the oppressive Castro regime with his announcement last week that the two countries will begin to ease its relations.
“I am so ashamed with what the Obama administration has done to Cuban people. I do not support it,” Palin, speaking in front of a lit candle, says in a video that will be seen on The Sarah Palin Channel. “This Christmas eve, I intend to light a candle and put it in my window to show my solidarity with every brave Cuban fighting for freedom and every political dissident languishing in Castro’s prisons.
“I encourage you to do the same. Let’s join together in this. Let’s show them that the light of freedom shall never be extinguished.”
Palin is taking a page out of President Ronald Reagan’s playbook. In 1981, Reagan addressed Americans and asked them to light a candle to support Polish freedom fighters against the oppressive Soviet Union.
After the Soviet Union declared martial law in Poland in 1981, former Polish Ambassador Romuald Spasowski defected and was granted asylum in the United States. In a meeting with Reagan, Spasowski asked if Reagan would light a candle and put it in his window for the people of Poland.
Reagan, Palin says, “did him one better” with a televised address in which Reagan urged every American to light a candle for the people of Poland so the millions of candles can give notice that the light of freedom won’t be extinguished.
“Once, earlier in this century, an evil influence threatened that the lights were going out all over the world. Let the light of millions of candles in American homes give notice that the light of freedom is not going to be extinguished,” Reagan told Americans then. “We are blessed with a freedom and abundance denied to so many. Let those candles remind us that these blessings bring with them a solid obligation, an obligation to the God who guides us, an obligation to the heritage of liberty and dignity handed down to us by our forefathers and an obligation to the children of the world, whose future will be shaped by the way we live our lives today.
“Christmas means so much because of one special child. But Christmas also reminds us that all children are special, that they are gifts from God, gifts beyond price that mean more than any presents money can buy. In their love and laughter, in our hopes for their future lies the true meaning of Christmas.”
Palin said Obama’s actions on Cuba reminded her of how Ronald Reagan dealt with communists. She referenced Stephen K. Bannon’s In The Face of Evil documentary, which Palin said was one of her “favorite documentaries about President Reagan.” It is clear that Obama has probably neither seen it nor learned its lessons.
Reagan, Palin says, rejected the notion that the Soviet Union was here to stay and Americans “had to get used to it” and pretend there was some type of moral equivalency.
Palin contrasted Reagan’s “moral clarity” during the Cold War against the Soviet Union with Obama’s recent appeasement on Cuba. She mentioned that Reagan knew that the Soviet Union’s economic model was “a total failure” but did not collapse only because the Soviets were able to manipulate Americans into propping it up with grain deals and technology exchanges. She blamed “naive diplomats” and “Wall Street greed” for combining to “prop up the most repressive regime in human history” that “would have crumbled so much sooner under the weight of its own incompetence if it were not for” the policies of appeasement.
Reagan, Palin notes, had the “moral clarity” to call the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and declare that his strategy for the Cold War was simply, “we win, they lose.”
When Reagan supported Lech Walesa and the shipyard workers in Poland who were demanding basic human rights and freedom, it was a pebble that would start an avalanche, Palin says. Reagan’s gestures were not “empty” and “symbolic” because he “gave assistance behind the scenes to the freedom fighters,” and that is how Reagan won the Cold War.
Palin urged viewers to contrast Reagan’s moral clarity with Obama’s decision to “spit in the face of every human rights activist in Cuba.” She said Obama’s decision to reverse U.S. policy toward Cuba “enriched their oppressors and sanctioned their abuse.” She said that “greedy crony capitalists are propping up a failing Communist regime” in Cuba, and Obama just gave the “Castro regime the hard currency and the economic boost to remain in power forever.”
Palin said it is “ludicrous” to think that Cubans will enjoy democracy and human rights because corporations can sell products there.
“Ask human rights activists in China how that’s working for them,” Palin said, noting that the Cuban government will pocket 92% of wages of their workers to empower the apparatus that controls them.
She ultimately accused Obama of giving “away all of our leverage to fight for human rights” and betraying “the people who are courageously putting their lives on the line fighting for freedom.” She even said Obama was “spitting in the face of every human rights activist on the globe” before asking Americans to light candles to support the Cuban freedom fighters that the Obama administration betrayed.
Acuerdos Castro-Obama y los actores encubiertos
 |
| Foto: Alberto Borrego-Granma |
si a ricardo alarcon a.k.a. "cabeza de bombillo", lo tronaron de presidente de la asamblea nacional el 24 de febrero de 2013 supuesto por el asunto de asesor y la
mujer de este, que HACE en 1ra plana del granma junto a los 5 espias en el 1er
balcon de la asamblea nacional???
su historia de estar en el
pasado a cargo de la causa de los 5 desaparece ante el truene. luego,
paso a formar parte del equipo negociador despues de su salida de la
presidencia o incluso podia haberlo encabezado.
todo el mundo desde agencias de prensa y medios, hasta expertos y anticastristas emborronan paginas con los protagonistas del pacto obama-castro. que si el papa francisco 1ro y sus taimados lugartenientes, que si el catracho-yuma zúñiga, que la complice hospitalidad del conservador primer ministro de canada mr. harper; pero nadie menciona ni a los negociadores del regimen de la habana ni a la iglesia catolica cubana que encabeza al cardenal jaime ortega y alamino, quien envio una numerosa delegacion al vaticano con motivo de la colocacion de una imagen de la virgen de la caridad del cobre en los jardines vaticanos.
entre los mas 80 "invitados", la mayoria de ellos haciendo "bulto", se encontraban el Cardenal Tarcisio Bertone quien presidio la ceremonia por parte del vaticano y los cubanos Mons. Dionisio García Ibáñez,
Arzobispo de Santiago de Cuba y Presidente de la Conferencia Episcopal
de Cuba, Mons. Arturo González Amador, Obispo de Santa Clara, y Mons.
Juan de Dios Hernández s.j., Obispo Auxiliar de la Habana, estos últimos
Vicepresidente y Secretario General de la Conferencia Episcopal
respectivamente, Mons. Emilio Aranguren Echeverría, Obispo de Holguín,
Mons Wilfredo Pino Estévez, Obispo de Guantánamo – Baracoa y Mons.
Héctor Peña Gómez, Obispo Emérito de Holguín.
tambien estuvieron presentes los cardenales Antonio Cañizares, prefecto de la Congregación para el Culto Divino y Giuseppe Bertello, presidente del Gobernación del Estado de la Ciudad del Vaticano, así como Fernando Vérgez Alzaga, secretario general del Gobierno de la Ciudad del Vaticano. no podia faltar en la ocasion, el embajador del regimen cubano ante la Santa Sede y su distinguidisima esposa.
tambien estuvieron presentes los cardenales Antonio Cañizares, prefecto de la Congregación para el Culto Divino y Giuseppe Bertello, presidente del Gobernación del Estado de la Ciudad del Vaticano, así como Fernando Vérgez Alzaga, secretario general del Gobierno de la Ciudad del Vaticano. no podia faltar en la ocasion, el embajador del regimen cubano ante la Santa Sede y su distinguidisima esposa.
esto ocurre el 28 de agosto de 2014, cuando ya estan definidos los borradores de los acuerdos y el convite con el pretexto de la virgen esta servido con la carne de los carneros y la sangre de los muertos.
sábado, diciembre 20, 2014
Line By Line: Every Empty Promise in Obama's Cuba Speech
President Obama announced sweeping changes to the United States’ approach to diplomacy with Cuba yesterday, in a statement broadcast simultaneously with a speech by President Raúl Castro in which he declared the changes a step towards “prosperous and sustainable socialism.”
Many on both sides of the aisle are expecting President Obama’s policies to bring about significant improvements in the lives of average Cubans– and, were President Obama’s promises to ring true, this might well be the case. However, the President is promising the Cuban people something that, without the Castro government yielding to any demands, is simply impossible. Below, a line-by-line analysis of every inaccurate statement and unfulfillable promise in President Obama’s speech yesterday that he does not have the power to fulfill, and for which there is no evidence that the Castro regime will help.“Proudly, the United States has supported democracy and human rights in Cuba through these five decades. We have done so primarily through policies that aimed to isolate the island, preventing the most basic travel and commerce that Americans can enjoy anyplace else. And though this policy has been rooted in the best of intentions… it has had little effect beyond providing the Cuban government with a rationale for restrictions on its people.”
The idea that the embargo has not had any effect on the Cuban government’s ability to function is a hugely flawed one, based almost entirely on the fact that it has failed to dethrone the Castro brothers. It ignores the ambitions for international influence that led Cuba to send soldiers to fight in far-off wars in Africa– most prominently in Angola, where an estimated 10,000 Cubans died fighting for communism– and advisors to Venezuela. Thanks in large part to Cuba’s influence, Venezuela’s socialist government has turned an OPEC nation into a place where products such as oil, eggs, and even water are either rationed or bought on the black market. Had the Castros enjoyed an influx of millions from the American tourism industry, it is feasible that dangerous ties to even more distant nations like Iran and China could have been strengthened, threatening American interests.
While the embargo failed to create regime change, it certainly has not “had little effect” on the Castros.
“As a start, we lifted restrictions for Cuban Americans to travel and send remittances to their families in Cuba. These changes, once controversial, now seem obvious. Cuban Americans have been reunited with their families, and are the best possible ambassadors for our values.”
It is true that the United States has eased its restrictions on travel to Cuba. It is not true that restrictions no longer exist. In September, the Cuban government applied more restrictions on travel by family into Cuba, possibly in response to the US government easing its own restrictions, which significantly limit the amount of necessary goods that enter the country. It does not limit tourism or how much a foreigner without family on the island can bring to the country, but those with known relatives in Cuba will have their goods confiscated if they bring too much underwear or shampoo for their families in their luggage.
This is not so much a lie on the President’s part as it is misdirection. It blames the American government solely for any distance between Cuban Americans and their families, when the Castro regime made very clear this year that it will work diligently to keep those family ties broken. And as this current deal demanded nothing of the Castro regime but the release of Alan Gross and an unnamed U.S. agent, there is no guarantee that any of these reforms will have an effect.
“Where we can advance shared interests, we will -– on issues like health, migration, counterterrorism, drug trafficking and disaster response.”
America has no shared interests in any of these fields. For America, health is a humanitarian mission, one into which the government pours billions of dollars internationally. For Cuba, health is an $8 million a year slave trade (doctors are paid only a “living stipend” when they are forced to leave the country for medical work, which hardly pays for food and shelter). Similarly, migrating out of Cuba is a near impossibility. Restrictions have grown so much in 2014 that Florida is seeing the highest influx of exiles braving the 90 miles on rafts since the 1994 balsero exile. While America leads the international war on terror, Cuba provides safe harbor for the leaders of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the biggest non-jihadist terrorist group in the world– which is also one of the largest drug trafficking operations on earth. And so on.
“I’ve instructed Secretary Kerry to review Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism… at a time when we are focused on threats from al Qaeda to ISIL, a nation that meets our conditions and renounces the use of terrorism should not face this sanction.”
It is complete misdirection to imply that, because Cuba does not have openly known ties to jihadist groups, it is not supporting terrorism internationally. As mentioned above, the Castro regime has been indispensable to the FARC.
“So we will facilitate authorized transactions between the United States and Cuba. U.S. financial institutions will be allowed to open accounts at Cuban financial institutions. And it will be easier for U.S. exporters to sell goods in Cuba.”
There is no way for President Obama to guarantee that “it will be easier for U.S. exporters to sell goods in Cuba” without the cooperation of the Cuban government. There is no indication that President Obama demanded and received the cooperation of the Cuban government. While it is true that, now, U.S. exporters may attempt to do business in Cuba without having to worry about American sanctions, there is no guarantee that the Cuban government will not punish them, or expropriate their inventories on the island as they did in 1959.
“Unfortunately, our sanctions on Cuba have denied Cubans access to technology that has empowered individuals around the globe. So I’ve authorized increased telecommunications connections between the United States and Cuba. Businesses will be able to sell goods that enable Cubans to communicate with the United States and other countries.”
Without Raúl Castro’s approval, businesses will not be able to sell anything on the island. Yes, this new policy means businesses will not face legal action in the United States for trying to sell these items, but there is no guarantee they will not face retribution from the communist government.
José Martí once said, “Liberty is the right of every man to be honest.”
José Martí actually said: “Libertad es el derecho que todo hombre tiene a ser honrado, y a pensar y a hablar sin hipocresía”– “Liberty is the right that all men have to be honest, and to think and speak without hypocrisy.” Wonder why President Obama left that out?
Much of the rest of President Obama’s rhetoric that does not directly address the reforms– his homage to Miami as “a profoundly American city,” his call to “leave behind the legacy of both colonization and communism, the tyranny of drug cartels, dictators and sham elections”– rings disingenuous given how little the Castro regime has had to sacrifice in order to attract the piggy bank that is American tourism, if he chooses to allow it. But most disturbing are the details that he provided on how America will approach this nearby enemy, and how little it appears the United States will actually do to empower a viable opposition movement in Cuba, or even protect American companies who dare do business on the island from any future expropriation.
Castro to Pocket 92% of Worker Salaries from Foreign Companies
Just one day before President Obama announced sweeping changes that would allow potential American investment in Cuba, the Cuban government apparently had begun preparing itself by announcing new measures that would allow Cubans who work for foreign companies to keep only 8% of their salaries.
In an official announcement in state newspaper Granma, government officials announced a system in which employees who work for corporations with foreign capital will be paid two Cuban Pesos for every Convertible Cuban Peso (CUC) the corporation actually pays them. The Convertible Peso (CUP) is almost exclusively for the use of tourists and is of significantly greater value; one CUC is the equivalent of an American dollar and the equivalent of 26.5 CUPs. The other 24 CUPs Cuban workers will not receive amount to 92% of their salaries.Granma explains:
The payment will now be agreed to with businesses possessing foreign capital taking into consideration the salaries issued to workers in jobs of similar complexity in entities in the same area or sector of our geographic area, the salary scale that is applied in the country (as a reference point) and some additional payments for the corresponding law.In other words, even if a foreign company has the means to pay more than a Cuban company, the worker will receive the same salary as if he were working for a Cuban company, and the government will pocket the rest.
The Havana Times, an online publication dedicated to issues related to Cuba, notes that Zamira Marín Triana, vice-minister of Labor and Social Security, described the new laws as offering a “significant increase” for workers.
In addition to the 92% of salaries being pocketed by the Cuban government, Cuban government employment offices will charge 20% of the salary of each worker they connect to the corporation for the service of finding said corporation employees. Employees will also lose 9.09% of their salaries for “vacation time.”
The new measures, though enacted hours before the release of USAID worker Alan Gross and President Obama’s announcement of new trade measures, should inspire caution in American companies that would like to do work on the island. American companies would be keeping very little of the money they invest and earn in business on the island, while lining the pockets of the communist government. As Raúl Castro noted in his speech, the Cuban government made no concessions in this recent negotiation with the United States, save the freedom of Gross and one other American agent whom President Obama did not name, which leaves it open to sanctioning American companies who dare attempt to do business on the island as they see fit.
A Day in Infamy - Barack Obama’s Cuban Pact
 |
| Anonimo |
For the most part of the Cuban-American community residing in Miami,
Florida, the day of Wednesday, December 17th, 2014, will—more likely
than not—go down in their history books as a day in infamy, much
the same as did December 7th, 1941, for all Americans. The former, when
Barack Obama announced the U.S. restoring full relations with Cuba,
including the opening of an embassy in the island—a bold move aimed at
ending over 50 years of hostility between the two countries—the latter
when the Royal Empire of Japan attacked the United States Pacific Fleet
at Pearl Harbor on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.
While,
for the average American, it would seem almost impossible to establish
any kind relevancy whatsoever between these two dates, for the average
Cuban-American, it is precisely the opposite. The reasons are simple and
unpretentious. First of all, Americans have been, and are for the most
part, highly uninformed regarding their own country’s affairs, let alone
being familiar with an insignificant little island of the Caribbean,
even when this island is located a mere 93 miles south from the
southernmost tip of the U.S., in Key West, Florida.
I would dare say that, to most Americans, other than an elite group
of Washington politicians, perhaps, Cuba is a foreign word - an alien
term of sorts. Little do most Americans realize that this irrelevant and
unbeknownst island-nation, has, in fact, had a magnanimous sway in
global politics and geo-political affairs throughout the years. Such was
this island country’s relevancy in global politics back in October
1962, when Cuba stood at center stage, playing [the] leading role in the
infamous Cuban Missile Crisis as the world came to a stand still
while the United States and Russia traded threats over Soviet ballistic
missiles deployed in the “irrelevant” Caribbean island - a tense
and overwrought moment, which escalated as close as the world has ever
come to a full scale nuclear war.
Notwithstanding the presumable ignorance now presiding over this
unheard of island nation, I shall then proceed to cite some of the
issues which qualify my contemptuous conclusion on Obama’s bold move to
renew political ties with the communist Caribbean island as nothing
short of a treasonous and antithetical assault on democracy; a travesty
and desecration to the otherwise most basic principles of righteousness
on which our country, the United States of America, was founded. A
betrayal to the American legacy, hence the relevancy to the Pearl Harbor
attack comparison—a conjecture, mind you, which I shall dare try to
demonstrate by quickly reviewing the history preceding Obama’s
treachery, albeit daringly constricted by the size of this dissertation.
As a matter of record, in the years prior to the communist revolution
takeover on December 31st, New Years’ eve of 1958-59, led by Fidel
Castro and his dirty band of revolutionary militia men, the Republic of
Cuba, in spite of a tumultuous history of corroded political leaders
teetering the legitimacy of its political system, the island did enjoy a
most enviable leadership position amongst all countries in
Latin-American, comprised, namely, of 26 nation-states bound by the
Romance languages of Spanish and Portuguese.
Some
of Cuba’s leading statistics compared to other Latin American nations
and/or the world just prior the advent of the communist revolution in
1958, were as follows:
- 3rd most-stable economy in Latin America with highest gold reserves, slightly behind Venezuela and Brazil.
- Lowest inflation rate [1.4%].
- 4th in world in income earned by blue-collar workers.
- 3rd in red-meat production per capita.
- 1st in the production of mineral cobalt in the world.
- 3rd in caloric consumption.
- 3rd in the highest per-capital telephone ownership.
- 3rd in the highest per-capital automobile ownership.
- 2nd in the highest per-capital radio ownership.
- 1st televisions per household.
- 3rd in most radio-stations.
- 3rd in T.V. networks.
- 2nd in movie theaters per capita.
- 2nd in number of physicians per capita.
- Lowest index of infant mortality in all Latin America.
- 4th lowest per capita index of illiteracy.
- Highest percentage of public debt earmarked for education.
- 5th in per capita colleges and universities attending students.
- In 1959, the Cuban monetary unit, the “peso” was par with the U.S. dollar - at times slightly higher.
- Highest number of movie-theaters in the world.
Now, to suggest that any of these statistics would have been possible
were it not for the prosperous relationship that had once existed
between the U.S. and Cuba preceding Castro’s takeover would be, if
nothing else, a preposterous lie at that. After the takeover, simply
put, communism managed to set back light years the once flourishing
Caribbean paradise island, turning the latter into a ghostly status of
its past glories.
Cuba, the once-affluent island, was soon to become but a faded
version of its joyous past. The nation’s once thriving economy and proud
statistics would soon turn into sorrowful epitomes of human deprivation
of the most basic necessities, including but not limited to the pursuit
of freedom and happiness. The island’s once picturesque promenades and
harbors would soon become the stage of escapade outlets for thousands of
freedom-seeking Cubans, daringly leaving the island in home-made rafts,
willing, if you will, to perish in crossing the Florida Straits in
their quest for freedom; a preferred alternative to the oppression of
the Castro regime. Statistical accounting of the Cuban prominence before
Castro would soon turn into grief-stricken statistics of the regime’s
genocidal prominence; statistics, which, as much sparse and imprecise as
could be expected under a reign of oversight and repression by Castro’s
tyrannical regime, would still claim a death toll in the hundreds of
thousands of innocent men and women who perished between 1959 and
1987[1], exclusively as a result of their political conviction; all
dying while bravely daring to challenge a system now sanctioned of by
none other than U.S.‘s impostor president Barack Obama.
Besides the home-made rafts, desperation for leaving the island
incited Cubans on using all sorts of cunningly constructed crafts,
including but not limited to, inflatable tubes used in truck-tires -
needless to say, a less-than-safe artifact for crossing the dangerous
currents in the Straits of Florida.
The escalating death toll of Cubans crossing the Straits paved the way for the founding of Brothers to the Rescue
- a good-willed missionary group of Miami-based pilots, touched by the
death of a fifteen-year-old Gregorio Perez Ricardo, who had perished
from severe dehydration while fleeing from Castro’s communist island on a
raft. The group,Brothers to the Rescue, described itself as a humanitarian organization aiming to assist and rescue raft refugees emigrating from Cuba and to “support the efforts of the Cuban people to free themselves from dictatorship through the use of active nonviolence”[2].
On February 24th, 1996, two of the Brothers to the Rescue Cessna Skymasters were shot down by a Cuban Air Force MiG-29UB, while a second jet fighter, a MiG-23, orbited nearby. Killed in the shoot downs were pilots Carlos Costa, Armando Alejandre, Jr., Mario de la Peña, and Pablo Morales. A third plane, flown by Brothers to the Rescue
leader Jose Basulto, was able to escape unharmed. In the days that
followed, the controversy over the shoot-down grew steadily over the
merciless killing of civilian U.S. air-pilots by trained pilots of the
Cuban Air Force, while the victims flew in international air-space.
The shoot-down incident also led to widespread condemnation of Cuba
back in the day, and was instrumental on the outcome of the trial of the
“Cuban Five” consisting of five Cuban intelligence officers arrested in September 1998 and later convicted in Miami of conspiracy to commit espionage, conspiracy to commit murder, acting as an agent of a foreign government, and other illegal activities in the United States. The trial of the ”Cuban Five” on espionage and conspiracy
charges resulted in convictions and long-term prison sentences for the
five Cuban agents who, for one, had been known to spy on the Brothers to the Rescue missions.
In May, 2012, the Obama administration, in the same old spirit of
deceit that has forever characterized this impostor president,
deceivingly declined a “spy swap” proposed by the Cuban
authorities, in exchange for the release of U.S., contractor Allan
Phillip Gross, imprisoned in Cuba for allegedly providing equipment to
Cuban Jews striving to have internet access. While leading public
opinion to believing that such a sullied swap would never take place
only seven month back, the swap did take place on December 17th, 2014,
whereby Gross and Rolando Sarraf, a Cuban who had worked as an agent for
American intelligence imprisoned in Cuba 20 years back, were exchanged
for the last three remaining prisoners of the “Cuban Five”, as two others members of this hideous group had been released earlier.
My dear fellow Americans, one more time, Barack Hussein Obama
utilizes the noble office and power bestowed upon him as president of
the United States of America, to desecrate the most basic values
inherent to our democracy; the most basic principles that stand for what
United States is all about. As far as I am concerned, by shaking the
hands and making any agreement with the Castro brothers, two of the most
renowned assassins in the world, Barack Obama is, one more time,
shamelessly and brazenly admitting his willingness to share in and be a
part of the thousands of deaths attributable to the Castro brothers and
to communism itself. Obama’s hands are as bloody today as the Castro
brothers’ are. Obama’s announcement of a renewed relation with Cuba and
the Castro brothers, is proof, one more time, of the man’s avatar
communist incline, and long history of Marxist devotion - a pious
advocate of the Saul Alinsky model. Barack Obama’s agreement with Cuba
on December 17th , 2014, shall make him, in my estimation, as
responsible as the Castro’s brothers for the thousands of deaths
suffered by young Cuban men and women who perished while crossing the
Florida Straits in search of freedom. Obama’s daring hypocrisy shall, I
hope, serve only as an everlasting reminder to the American public of
this man’s evil political nature. The lifeless remains of all the Cuban
martyrs who perished in the pursuit of freedom, I hope, shall only serve
as a friendly remembrance to all us that communism, that poisonous
system responsible for the death of over 100 million people throughout
the history of the world, is alive and well in the United States of
America - dangerously so represented, of all people, in the persona of
Barack Hussein Obama.
Throughout the past few days I have mournfully listened to the many
arguments made by media folk and otherwise, presumably astute political
contributors from both sides of the aisle, claiming the president did
not get enough in exchange for what he gave up in his trade with Cuba.
It was an unbalanced or uneven exchange, they claimed. To all those
making this argument, I say hogwash to all of you as I politely remind
you that there are no agreements whatsoever, bar none, which can be
construed as good or positive when you are dealing with communists or
communism, as in the end you will always be on the losing end,
regardless. Obama’s trade was no exception, and it is time for me to
remind all good people in this country to realize that we are in for the
greatest revelation of our lives if we, for a moment, think of this man
as anything other than a miserable diehard communist ideologue whom a
majority of Americans elected as our president twice in a row. Shame on
all of us and prayers for the end of this ugly chapter in American
history.
As a Cuban-born immigrant who came into this great country at age 14
in 1960, also fleeing from communism, I do consider Obama’s renewed
relations with the communist island and look upon it as one of the most
despicable political acts I have ever been a witness to. As a
naturalized citizen of this great country which we call the United
States of America, I can only forewarn you of the inherent evils of
Barack Obama and his administration. As an immigrant and citizen of the
U.S., both, I shall forever, reminisce of December 17th, 2014 as I do on
December 7th, 1941, both - “a day in infamy”, as I truly hope
that, for the simple and straight-forward reasons stated above, you will
too. May God save us all and may God save the United States of America.
[1] “Cuba”: The Human Cost of Social Revolutions.[2] ^ Jump up to: a b Website of Brothers to the Rescue - Background and information
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
La columna de Cubanalisis
NEOCASTRISMO [Hacer click en la imagen]
![NEOCASTRISMO [Hacer click en la imagen]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5jy0SZhMlaU/SsuPVOlq2NI/AAAAAAAAH1E/4xt2Bwd2reE/S150/ppo+saturno+jugando+con+sus+hijos.jpg)
¨Saturno jugando con sus hijos¨/ Pedro Pablo Oliva
Liborio
A la puerta de la gloria está San Pedro sentado y ve llegar a su lado a un hombre de cierta historia. No consigue hacer memoria y le pregunta con celo: ¿Quién eras allá en el suelo? Era Liborio mi nombre. Has sufrido mucho, hombre, entra, te has ganado el cielo.
Martha Colmenares
Un sitio donde los hechos y sus huellas nos conmueven o cautivan
CIF: Cuba Independiente http://CubaIndependiente.blogspot.com Registro (c) Copyright: ® DIN 189297780000 Gerente By: www.copyrightwww.com
