Rene Gonzalez' lawyer has filed a motion to allow him to travel to Cuba for two weeks to be with his sick brother. He is currently serving probation after being released from prison where he spent over a decade after his questionable trial in Miami. There have been many suggestions that he, along with the other five Cubans who were collecting information on violent groups in Miami, could be part of an exchange for the American, Alan Gross, who is currently serving a fifteen year sentence in Cuba for crimes he committed while working as a contractor for U.S. government programs. But the U.S. has so far been unwilling to entertain the idea of working something out.
Rene has so far complied with the terms of his probation and there is no reason to believe that he is a threat to the United States. The fact that he is being forced to remain here to complete probation after which he will undoubtedly return to Cuba, makes it seem like a decision based on spite. But for now, that's besides the point.
The case of Alan Gross. The U.S. government has not only demanded that Alan Gross be released, but has also stated that he should be released at the very least on humanitarian grounds. He has two family members who are currently sick and if he were to have to spend the entire fifteen years in prison, there is a good possibility that he would miss the opportunity to be with them ever again. On a personal level, it's hard to think about the pain that they feel knowing that this possibility exists.
Now we have an unfortunate situation where Rene's brother is very sick and according to his doctors, is not responding to treatment and his condition continues to worsen. His prognosis is not good and he has been hospitalized for the past couple of weeks.
Surely there is someone in the court system or administration that is capable of seeing that there are humanitarian grounds for letting Rene Gonzalez travel to be with his brother. If they are able to see the humanitarian side of the Alan Gross situation, they cannot be blind to the urgent humanitarian response that Mr. Gonzalez should be afforded. What would be lost by showing goodwill? Nothing at all. There is much to be gained.
Rene Gonzalez can hardly be considered a flight risk. Sure, it would be easy to stay in Cuba if he were allowed to go. But keeping in mind that the goal of the Cuban people is to see all five Cubans return, it would be counterproductive to that goal if Rene Gonzalez would decide not to return. All five have served there time honorably, and Mr. Gonzalez has met every requirement of his probation up to this point. It can be expected with certainty that he would return as required after the two weeks with his brother. And there is no doubt that that his family would appreciate the chance to be together during this tough time.
The cases of the Cuban 5 and of Alan Gross are not at all related. They were convicted of different crimes, under different circumstances, and in different places and times. The only thing that those cases have in common is that the governments on both sides would like them to be returned. Some people on both sides have conceded that there are humanitarian concerns. Hopefully the court in Miami sees and agrees with the reasons for allowing Rene Gonzalez the two weeks with his brother. His plea should be granted and he should be with his brother for at least this small window of time.
Monday, February 27, 2012
New Attitudes and Old Rejections
It’s hard to comment on something that hasn’t yet taken place, but we can certainly comment on the attitudes of certain people. Cuba has announced plans to hold a meeting with Cubans living in the United States in Washington at the end of April. There is a recognition on the part of many people, in both countries, that the bonds between people are more important than the politics that often dominate relations.
It is this recognition that is likely the reason for such a meeting to be called. The attitudes of the Cuban community living in this country has evolved over the years. Those who arrived at the beginning of the revolution, who have played a large role in creating the policies implemented by Washington in regards to Cuba have an idea that the island should be cut off and strangled to the point that conditions would become ripe for the revolution to fail. Many of them have stopped at nothing to create tensions between the two countries and peoples.
The Cold War was a time in which the fear of communism and the view that communists could not be dealt with prevailed to such a degree that propaganda was enough to make many Americans believe that Cuba was a threat, an enemy. So maintaining an aggressive policy towards the island was an easy thing to convince people to accept. Things have since changed. Americans no longer view Cuba in this context. Lots of Americans scratch their heads and wonder why Cuba is still off limits to them.
Many years have passed and many more Cubans have come to the United States. The last large wave of immigrants was during the 1990′s when the Cold War had been declared over, Washington decided to further squeeze the Cuban nation, and the Special Period did in fact make life very difficult for people on the island. Those who came during that time period have maintained close relationships with their loved ones and many of those people have the opinion that the policies of the United States are counterproductive, not only in not achieving the goal of eliminating the revolution, but also counterproductive in the sense that it unnecessarily puts a great strain on families separated by such a small body of water.
A growing number of people are truly interested in changing the status quo, the deadlock that has lasted for decades. Many people are interested in helping their homeland, their brothers and sisters, as things change. There can be new opportunities for cooperation, something that hasn’t always been the case. Their voices have been heard loudly as they made their discontent known when the representatives of the old guard tried to barriers to travel and even earlier than that when many felt that Elian Gonzalez was better off with his father in Cuba rather than have him turned into a political prize for the forces of extremism in Miami. A recognition of family bonds as being more important than political ideologies.
With the situation in Cuba changing, and by this I don’t mean Cuba submitting itself to the will of Washington, but a process of correcting certain problems that have arisen do to the situation in the world, possibilities exist now more than ever during the last 50 years for relations to develop more harmoniously. The politicians in Washington may do their best to pretend that things like this aren’t happening, but the people involved, on both sides, are anxiously awaiting the future.
There are of course the skeptics who struggle to make sense of the new reality. They suggest that this is a ploy by the government of Cuba to increase remittances simply to bring in more cash. They want to ignore that things are changing, both here and there. Some accuse the government of “milking the exiles” because they refuse to accept how people really feel and that bridges are being built. Some choose to slander those who would like better relations (which is nothing new), calling them cowards. Having almost run out of steam, the pro-embargo crowd is stuck sounding more out of touch than ever. They haven’t the ability to stop the desires of peoples so they just resort to old and worn out excuses and label people as traitors and other things that reveal the bankruptcy of their position.
These people can say whatever they’d like to convince themselves that they are right or might still have the upper hand in the debate. But the policy of refusing to engage Cuba is one that has unsustainable. It is of no use to anyone except those who make their livings based on the anti-Castro industry. They can’t stop the feelings that have become prevalent among the Cuban community in the United States. They can choose to live in denial until the end of time, prisoners of their own cynicism. They can try to promote the idea that the Cuban government is our enemy and can’t be trusted, while their own policies have caused the most harm to people. Let them be sidelined if they’d like. As Carlos Saldrigas, a Cuban American businessman said, “If one hopes to influence, or be part of the solution, one has to be part of the process.” The hard liners obviously not only don’t want to be part of the process of reconciliation, but want to prevent it.
Hopefully the meeting will be a fruitful one. I wish the best for all those who will participate. Perhaps it will shed more light on the feelings so often ignored as the terrible game of politics tends to overshadow them. And hopefully the administration will take notice and find the political courage to take positive steps towards normalizing relations between the two countries. There is much to be gained from such a meeting and opportunities shouldn’t be squandered.
It is this recognition that is likely the reason for such a meeting to be called. The attitudes of the Cuban community living in this country has evolved over the years. Those who arrived at the beginning of the revolution, who have played a large role in creating the policies implemented by Washington in regards to Cuba have an idea that the island should be cut off and strangled to the point that conditions would become ripe for the revolution to fail. Many of them have stopped at nothing to create tensions between the two countries and peoples.
The Cold War was a time in which the fear of communism and the view that communists could not be dealt with prevailed to such a degree that propaganda was enough to make many Americans believe that Cuba was a threat, an enemy. So maintaining an aggressive policy towards the island was an easy thing to convince people to accept. Things have since changed. Americans no longer view Cuba in this context. Lots of Americans scratch their heads and wonder why Cuba is still off limits to them.
Many years have passed and many more Cubans have come to the United States. The last large wave of immigrants was during the 1990′s when the Cold War had been declared over, Washington decided to further squeeze the Cuban nation, and the Special Period did in fact make life very difficult for people on the island. Those who came during that time period have maintained close relationships with their loved ones and many of those people have the opinion that the policies of the United States are counterproductive, not only in not achieving the goal of eliminating the revolution, but also counterproductive in the sense that it unnecessarily puts a great strain on families separated by such a small body of water.
A growing number of people are truly interested in changing the status quo, the deadlock that has lasted for decades. Many people are interested in helping their homeland, their brothers and sisters, as things change. There can be new opportunities for cooperation, something that hasn’t always been the case. Their voices have been heard loudly as they made their discontent known when the representatives of the old guard tried to barriers to travel and even earlier than that when many felt that Elian Gonzalez was better off with his father in Cuba rather than have him turned into a political prize for the forces of extremism in Miami. A recognition of family bonds as being more important than political ideologies.
With the situation in Cuba changing, and by this I don’t mean Cuba submitting itself to the will of Washington, but a process of correcting certain problems that have arisen do to the situation in the world, possibilities exist now more than ever during the last 50 years for relations to develop more harmoniously. The politicians in Washington may do their best to pretend that things like this aren’t happening, but the people involved, on both sides, are anxiously awaiting the future.
There are of course the skeptics who struggle to make sense of the new reality. They suggest that this is a ploy by the government of Cuba to increase remittances simply to bring in more cash. They want to ignore that things are changing, both here and there. Some accuse the government of “milking the exiles” because they refuse to accept how people really feel and that bridges are being built. Some choose to slander those who would like better relations (which is nothing new), calling them cowards. Having almost run out of steam, the pro-embargo crowd is stuck sounding more out of touch than ever. They haven’t the ability to stop the desires of peoples so they just resort to old and worn out excuses and label people as traitors and other things that reveal the bankruptcy of their position.
These people can say whatever they’d like to convince themselves that they are right or might still have the upper hand in the debate. But the policy of refusing to engage Cuba is one that has unsustainable. It is of no use to anyone except those who make their livings based on the anti-Castro industry. They can’t stop the feelings that have become prevalent among the Cuban community in the United States. They can choose to live in denial until the end of time, prisoners of their own cynicism. They can try to promote the idea that the Cuban government is our enemy and can’t be trusted, while their own policies have caused the most harm to people. Let them be sidelined if they’d like. As Carlos Saldrigas, a Cuban American businessman said, “If one hopes to influence, or be part of the solution, one has to be part of the process.” The hard liners obviously not only don’t want to be part of the process of reconciliation, but want to prevent it.
Hopefully the meeting will be a fruitful one. I wish the best for all those who will participate. Perhaps it will shed more light on the feelings so often ignored as the terrible game of politics tends to overshadow them. And hopefully the administration will take notice and find the political courage to take positive steps towards normalizing relations between the two countries. There is much to be gained from such a meeting and opportunities shouldn’t be squandered.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Betrayal?
The opinion piece in the Miami Herald crying about the "Gang of 5" Latin American countries who are betraying Latin American traditions is nothing more than a viewpoint which is propagated dishonestly to avoid dealing with the real roots of the tensions between the United States and Latin America.
Yes, these governments have betrayed traditions. Traditionally, the governments of Latin America bent and twisted which ever way that Washington desired. Dependency, US installed dictatorships, and operations like Condor were the traditions in Latin America. Now that these governments march to the beat of their own drums. A beat, the heartbeat of their people, whose desires for governments who respected the will of the people. New constitutions have been written and overwhelmingly supported by the votes of their people.
The United States needs to learn to deal with the new reality. Instead of funding, and creating in some instances, opposition parties, Washington needs to see that by supporting coups and coup attempts, it is undermining its own supposed values and is seen as a hypocritical power.
The stunning thing about the events of the past decade or so, is the fact that these supposed dictators came to power under a system that had been established by the ones we now call the opposition. In actuality, these governments have broadened democratic participation within their countries. How many elections must be won in order for the results to be respected? All of the "gang of 5", as they are referred to in this article, enjoy majority support. They have decreased the indebtedness of their governments, expanded social programs to help the poor who had been previously left out. Literacy rates have risen in all of these countries, as have health statistics.
ALBA is a logical organization based on the idea of development and mutual respect. There are no free trade agreements which are crafted to aid the interests of multi-national corporations. Under ALBA, there will be no subsidized agriculture corporations dumping cheap food products in countries putting farmers out of business. There are investments in infrastructure and productive capabilities which will help develop these nations in rational ways that take into consideration the needs of the countries and not just investors in North American cities.
Where is there in the U.N. Charter a part that states that a vote against a U.S. supported resolution isn't permitted? And if the U.S. believes so much in the U.N.'s General Assembly, why is it that two decades of votes condemning the U.S. embargo of Cuba have been brushed aside by the folks in Washington? In the Security Council, where the votes actually do carry weight, there has never been a country that has utilized the veto more than the United States, often times against the will of most nations.
The United States feels comfortable only in organizations in which it can manipulate, or at the very least have a say that has more weight than most others do. It is no wonder why the Organization of American States is losing its credibility as a meaningful institution, something that should have been recognized years ago, but as long as Latin America had U.S. backed regimes in place the point was often ignored. So it is no wonder why the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is seen as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy and also lacks in credibility. How can a country like the U.S. hold people without charges, considered to be out of the Judicial branch's jurisdiction, or find it acceptable to assassinate people in foreign lands without due process, including U.S. citizens, criticize some Latin American leaders' feelings that this IACHR is incapable of living up to its supposed purpose? Has the U.S. had to answer to the court for its own human rights violations? Of course not. The self-appointed deciders of how things should be wouldn't stand for such a thing.
Washington needs to get off of its high horse, which to many seems more like a slave driver with a whip that a moral example. The situation is one that demands recognition. The author is correct in asserting that "never has there been so much need for cooperation in hemispheric relations, yet never have the divisions been so gaping." What the author fails to interpret correctly is that the next statement that reads: "Those fissures divide one set of countries that espouse democracy and human rights and another that are dismantling those very values." is one that rings hollow. It is presumptuous and arrogant to make such a statement. It is also the very attitude that has helped create the situation that now exists.
This is a link to the article I've referred to.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/22/2655450/gang-of-5-betrays-latin-american.html
Yes, these governments have betrayed traditions. Traditionally, the governments of Latin America bent and twisted which ever way that Washington desired. Dependency, US installed dictatorships, and operations like Condor were the traditions in Latin America. Now that these governments march to the beat of their own drums. A beat, the heartbeat of their people, whose desires for governments who respected the will of the people. New constitutions have been written and overwhelmingly supported by the votes of their people.
The United States needs to learn to deal with the new reality. Instead of funding, and creating in some instances, opposition parties, Washington needs to see that by supporting coups and coup attempts, it is undermining its own supposed values and is seen as a hypocritical power.
The stunning thing about the events of the past decade or so, is the fact that these supposed dictators came to power under a system that had been established by the ones we now call the opposition. In actuality, these governments have broadened democratic participation within their countries. How many elections must be won in order for the results to be respected? All of the "gang of 5", as they are referred to in this article, enjoy majority support. They have decreased the indebtedness of their governments, expanded social programs to help the poor who had been previously left out. Literacy rates have risen in all of these countries, as have health statistics.
ALBA is a logical organization based on the idea of development and mutual respect. There are no free trade agreements which are crafted to aid the interests of multi-national corporations. Under ALBA, there will be no subsidized agriculture corporations dumping cheap food products in countries putting farmers out of business. There are investments in infrastructure and productive capabilities which will help develop these nations in rational ways that take into consideration the needs of the countries and not just investors in North American cities.
Where is there in the U.N. Charter a part that states that a vote against a U.S. supported resolution isn't permitted? And if the U.S. believes so much in the U.N.'s General Assembly, why is it that two decades of votes condemning the U.S. embargo of Cuba have been brushed aside by the folks in Washington? In the Security Council, where the votes actually do carry weight, there has never been a country that has utilized the veto more than the United States, often times against the will of most nations.
The United States feels comfortable only in organizations in which it can manipulate, or at the very least have a say that has more weight than most others do. It is no wonder why the Organization of American States is losing its credibility as a meaningful institution, something that should have been recognized years ago, but as long as Latin America had U.S. backed regimes in place the point was often ignored. So it is no wonder why the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is seen as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy and also lacks in credibility. How can a country like the U.S. hold people without charges, considered to be out of the Judicial branch's jurisdiction, or find it acceptable to assassinate people in foreign lands without due process, including U.S. citizens, criticize some Latin American leaders' feelings that this IACHR is incapable of living up to its supposed purpose? Has the U.S. had to answer to the court for its own human rights violations? Of course not. The self-appointed deciders of how things should be wouldn't stand for such a thing.
Washington needs to get off of its high horse, which to many seems more like a slave driver with a whip that a moral example. The situation is one that demands recognition. The author is correct in asserting that "never has there been so much need for cooperation in hemispheric relations, yet never have the divisions been so gaping." What the author fails to interpret correctly is that the next statement that reads: "Those fissures divide one set of countries that espouse democracy and human rights and another that are dismantling those very values." is one that rings hollow. It is presumptuous and arrogant to make such a statement. It is also the very attitude that has helped create the situation that now exists.
This is a link to the article I've referred to.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/22/2655450/gang-of-5-betrays-latin-american.html
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Pedro Roig's Train to Nowhere
The former head of Radio Marti has left his delusions on the pages of the Miami Herald. He describes Cuba's government as "a train to where". He unfortunately doesn't realize that he himself has a seat in the actual train to nowhere, the one which the extremist circles of South Florida have commandeered for decades, chugging along to the brink of irrelevance.
He refers to the very real changes that are occurring in Cuba as being empty. As is typical for the anti-Cuba crowd in Miami, only by ignoring the people of the island, can he claim that the train is empty. A great number of people have been experiencing the positive changes that have been adopted, but of course to Mr. Roig, any changes must be ignored if they don't include a re-establishment of the semi-colonial type of government which was overthrown in 1959.
His description of Cuba as a Jurassic Park is better suited for those groups that meet yearly in Miami at the Bay of Pigs Museum to pay homage to the most quickly defeated group of mercenaries that the hemisphere has ever known. Sure, Cuba has a long way to become a fully developed country, but its advancements in many fields is quite impressive and its gestures of true international solidarity is well documented and praised world wide. The same can't be said of the groups sipping cafecitos on Calle 8 plotting ways to destroy what good people have built.
Having headed a radio station named after Jose Marti, a station created by the empire bent on crushing the dreams of the Cuban revolutionary, it's hard to understand how he claims that revolutionary Cuba is morally bankrupt. Not only was he a paid lackey of the U.S. government, whose job was to propagate nonsense to the island of Cuba, but his time in that position was embarrassingly useless and cronyism plagued the tax payer funded radio station. He was, as the station itself still is, a parasite industry which serves no purpose other than tickling the bellies of the anti-Cuba crowd as they enrich themselves at the expense of the American people.
"But the tragic show must go on. It is obvious that we Cubans have difficulties for profound meditation and logical analysis." These are Mr. Roig's words. They don't describe the people on the island, but the people within his small group of associates. He is doing his best to prove himself correct!
He refers to the very real changes that are occurring in Cuba as being empty. As is typical for the anti-Cuba crowd in Miami, only by ignoring the people of the island, can he claim that the train is empty. A great number of people have been experiencing the positive changes that have been adopted, but of course to Mr. Roig, any changes must be ignored if they don't include a re-establishment of the semi-colonial type of government which was overthrown in 1959.
His description of Cuba as a Jurassic Park is better suited for those groups that meet yearly in Miami at the Bay of Pigs Museum to pay homage to the most quickly defeated group of mercenaries that the hemisphere has ever known. Sure, Cuba has a long way to become a fully developed country, but its advancements in many fields is quite impressive and its gestures of true international solidarity is well documented and praised world wide. The same can't be said of the groups sipping cafecitos on Calle 8 plotting ways to destroy what good people have built.
Having headed a radio station named after Jose Marti, a station created by the empire bent on crushing the dreams of the Cuban revolutionary, it's hard to understand how he claims that revolutionary Cuba is morally bankrupt. Not only was he a paid lackey of the U.S. government, whose job was to propagate nonsense to the island of Cuba, but his time in that position was embarrassingly useless and cronyism plagued the tax payer funded radio station. He was, as the station itself still is, a parasite industry which serves no purpose other than tickling the bellies of the anti-Cuba crowd as they enrich themselves at the expense of the American people.
"But the tragic show must go on. It is obvious that we Cubans have difficulties for profound meditation and logical analysis." These are Mr. Roig's words. They don't describe the people on the island, but the people within his small group of associates. He is doing his best to prove himself correct!
Thursday, February 16, 2012
A Summit of Some?
Soon there is to be the Summit of the Americas in Colombia. There is one sticking point that may cause the summit to have less than full participation, the fact that Cuba is not invited. In an act of solidarity with Cuba, and a quite logical position, the ALBA group of nations have stated that they are not interested in attending a Summit of the Americas if all of the Americas aren't allowed to participate. The U.S. is faced with a dilemma, should it put its own internal politics ahead of the interests of the region or will it be respectful to the nations of the Americas and not insist on going on without extending an invitation to one of the region's countries?
If the summit is about regional integration, then Cuba should be invited. It's counterproductive, and counter to the goal of regional integration, to pretend that the island of Cuba is not part of the region. If the US insists on continuing to turn its back on Cuba, then the goal of the summit is political, not truly about what it is stated to be.
What is revealing though, is despite the slanderous accusations in our press calling many of these countries un-democratic and totalitarian, the US officially doesn't believe so. Being that the excuse not to invite Cuba is just that, the US cedes that it considers the often slandered governments of ALBA are democratic.
The choice remains Washington's. Invite Cuba or continue to marginalize itself for its indefensible position on Cuba. CELAC is now a reality, ALBA continues to grow, and along with other organizations, regional integration and development is happening. New opportunities for the nations of the south are being taken advantage of and acted on, and they are able to be worked on respectfully despite differences between the governments and peoples of the Americas.
It's time for the U.S. to recognize that it is not the center of the universe with some sort of divine right to be the judge of others. All nations have problems, and the United States is no exception. Many problems need to be addressed on their own, within each nation, but there are many issues that are better addressed with international cooperation, and that means sitting down and discussing them, together.
If the summit is about regional integration, then Cuba should be invited. It's counterproductive, and counter to the goal of regional integration, to pretend that the island of Cuba is not part of the region. If the US insists on continuing to turn its back on Cuba, then the goal of the summit is political, not truly about what it is stated to be.
What is revealing though, is despite the slanderous accusations in our press calling many of these countries un-democratic and totalitarian, the US officially doesn't believe so. Being that the excuse not to invite Cuba is just that, the US cedes that it considers the often slandered governments of ALBA are democratic.
The choice remains Washington's. Invite Cuba or continue to marginalize itself for its indefensible position on Cuba. CELAC is now a reality, ALBA continues to grow, and along with other organizations, regional integration and development is happening. New opportunities for the nations of the south are being taken advantage of and acted on, and they are able to be worked on respectfully despite differences between the governments and peoples of the Americas.
It's time for the U.S. to recognize that it is not the center of the universe with some sort of divine right to be the judge of others. All nations have problems, and the United States is no exception. Many problems need to be addressed on their own, within each nation, but there are many issues that are better addressed with international cooperation, and that means sitting down and discussing them, together.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
What's the Holdup?
I woke up Saturday morning and the first bit of news that caught my attention was an article about a passenger ferry company's license application to provide travel by sea to Cuba being in a sort of limbo. For years I've noticed articles about possible ferry services from the United States to Cuba and given the increase in airports allowed to offer direct flights to the island, I had to scratch my head and wonder why there seems to be some hesitation on the part of the OFAC in granting the license for this alternative form of travel.
As we know, since President Obama has taken office, he has greatly expanded the kinds of travel that is allowed to the island of Cuba. He has pleased many who had been greatly restricted in their travels to visit relatives and on top of that, many other Americans have had the chance to visit Cuba and see things with their own eyes taking away experiences that would have been prohibited just a few short years ago under former President Bush's administration. The close relationship that Bush has with the anti-engagement crowd caused him to pursue a mean spirited policy which caused strain on families divided by a narrow stretch of water, people so close yet kept so far away. Obama's reversal of the travel restrictions has opened new doors and it seems to be a policy that he defends. In December, some congressional Republicans attempted to add to a major bill legislation to turn back the clock and re-institute Bush's policy and the White House made it clear that such a thing was unacceptable. That initiative was dropped and the bill was passed.
Given the presidents defense of this expanded, although still limited travel, we have to wonder about the OFAC's handling of applications. Adam Szubin is the director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control. He was appointed by the former president Bush in 2006. And although many licenses have been granted over the past year, it has been reported that there is a backlog of applications, only about 1/3 of the applications have been approved. I know that this is an election year and that means that the blazing hot issue of Cuba is a difficult one for politicians, but this can hardly explain the lethargic work of the OFAC. No regulations need to be changed to act on the applications in limbo, existing rules should suffice for providing licenses to those organizations and companies that fall into the existing approved categories.
One regulation, 31 CFR 515.572, specifically states that "persons arranging through transportation to Cuba; persons chartering an aircraft or vessel on behalf of others in Cuba" is within what is acceptable under the laws. One such company offering travel by sea, Havana Ferry Partners LLC., has had an application in limbo since the middle of 2010. This is one of the companies mentioned in the article that had caught my attention Saturday morning. Havana Ferry isn't offering flights to Cuba, but travel by a sea vessel. Given the increased travel to the island, I would imagine that another option for getting to the island would be welcomed. And since a vessel can be considered a boat, that shouldn't be a problem. If the OFAC doesn't want to consider a boat a vessel, one has to question why the regulation makes a distinction between an aircraft and a vessel. Certainly a road trip to the island isn't possible, so what other vessel would the regulation be referring to? A spaceship?!
I also wonder about the possibility of the Bush appointee having some sort of unwillingness to implement fully his new boss' policy. We can see how the anti-engagement crowd who wishes for a return to the previous administration's policies holds up Obama appointees on the basis of them "being to soft on Cuba". Is it possible that the OFAC suffers from a political appointee by the hardliner Bush, and therefore it is less that enthusiastic to getting around to catching up with the opportunities opened by the Obama administration? I'm just wondering. I'm sure that endless bureaucratic excuses would be made before such an admission would be made.
With the upcoming trip to Cuba by the Pope, and the great number of people interested in traveling from the U.S. to Cuba to witness the event, Havana Ferry has resubmitted its application to provide travel to the island. It's ability to transport a larger number of people than an airplane makes it a unique asset for people wishing to be on the island for the Pope's visit. Certainly having this added form of transportation would help provide religious travel to the island as President Obama supports. Will the OFAC drag its feet or will it help implement Obama's goals?
I reached out to Havana Ferry and asked them if the had anything that they felt like adding to the original article that I had read. I am appreciative that they responded to me and provided me with some information. They seem to be frustrated with the process, yet they do seem to keep an optimistic view.
First, here is a letter from Havana Ferry to the Licensing Division at the OFAC:
Also there is a letter from Havana Ferry's vice-president, Jorge Fernandez, who is also a founder of the Humanitarian group Hope for Cuba to the reporter who wrote the article I read yesterday, Doreen Hemlock:
Dear Ms. Hemlock;
On behalf of the principals of Havana Ferry Partners LLC, I applaud your recent article for bringing awareness relative to our efforts to bring a much needed ferry passenger service from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and other Florida ports to Cuba.
We are truly very frustrated, but optimistic that we will succeed in our efforts to obtain the necessary OFAC approvals as well as those from Treasury in the near future for the simple reason that this service is needed and will compliment the expanding number of US airports being granted permission to offer direct flights to Cuba. Our passenger ferry service will offer an alternative mode of transportation for passengers going to Cuba that would be more economical and at the same time offer the opportunity for these passengers to bring along more baggage and humanitarian supplies to the island nation. Groups that would benefit the most would be those religious and university groups that can now travel under a general licence; and like most non-profit organizations, they usually travel in larger groups and have limited resources for their trips. The Havana Ferry Partners vessels will be able to better accommodate these organization by offering more capacity, comfort, and savings.
Another benefit from our ferry operations will be the creation 100's of new jobs to the Ft.Lauderdale area.
As for any possible objections to our proposed passenger ferry service to Cuba from the Cuban-America community in Southern Florida, as a Cuban-American myself that was born in Havana, Cuba , I can assure you that based on the preliminary interviews I have conducted myself with leading Cuban-Americans from the Miami-Ft.Lauderdale area and related organizations, the response has been very positive and supportive.Accordingly, we cannot believe that this very worthwhile and needed service would be one that the "politicians" would be afraid to embrace.
In closing, we will stay focused on our mission that is to provide a ferry passenger service that is much needed and will continue pushing forward aggressively with the appropriate agencies in Washington until we obtain the necessary OFAC licenses. We truly believe that Washington has nothing to fear by granting the approvals requested and will stay consistent with this administrations commitment to expand the travel service to Cuba as demonstrated by their recent announcements of approving over 9 more US airports to offer direct flights to Cuba...and yes, we expect our approvals before the next elections.
Mr.Jorge Ignacio Fernandez
Vice President, Corporate Development &
Humanitarian Releif Services
Havana Ferry Partners, LLC
As we can see, it would be in the interest of the Obama administration to see that the OFAC doesn't continue to drag its feet any longer. Mr. Szubin needs to make sure that he is doing his job the way that his boss desires it to be done. Hopefully this backlog, reffered to in the press as a "black hole", is dealt with and the pending licenses, all of them that should be approved, are finally taken out of the desk drawers and worked on to maximize President Obama's loosening of travel. In my view, the entire travel ban should be done away with as should the embargo as important steps to improve the half century stalemate between the countries of Cuba and the United States.
Here is a link to the original article by Doreen Hemlock:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-cuba-ferry-business-20120212,0,7037791.story
As we know, since President Obama has taken office, he has greatly expanded the kinds of travel that is allowed to the island of Cuba. He has pleased many who had been greatly restricted in their travels to visit relatives and on top of that, many other Americans have had the chance to visit Cuba and see things with their own eyes taking away experiences that would have been prohibited just a few short years ago under former President Bush's administration. The close relationship that Bush has with the anti-engagement crowd caused him to pursue a mean spirited policy which caused strain on families divided by a narrow stretch of water, people so close yet kept so far away. Obama's reversal of the travel restrictions has opened new doors and it seems to be a policy that he defends. In December, some congressional Republicans attempted to add to a major bill legislation to turn back the clock and re-institute Bush's policy and the White House made it clear that such a thing was unacceptable. That initiative was dropped and the bill was passed.
Given the presidents defense of this expanded, although still limited travel, we have to wonder about the OFAC's handling of applications. Adam Szubin is the director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control. He was appointed by the former president Bush in 2006. And although many licenses have been granted over the past year, it has been reported that there is a backlog of applications, only about 1/3 of the applications have been approved. I know that this is an election year and that means that the blazing hot issue of Cuba is a difficult one for politicians, but this can hardly explain the lethargic work of the OFAC. No regulations need to be changed to act on the applications in limbo, existing rules should suffice for providing licenses to those organizations and companies that fall into the existing approved categories.
One regulation, 31 CFR 515.572, specifically states that "persons arranging through transportation to Cuba; persons chartering an aircraft or vessel on behalf of others in Cuba" is within what is acceptable under the laws. One such company offering travel by sea, Havana Ferry Partners LLC., has had an application in limbo since the middle of 2010. This is one of the companies mentioned in the article that had caught my attention Saturday morning. Havana Ferry isn't offering flights to Cuba, but travel by a sea vessel. Given the increased travel to the island, I would imagine that another option for getting to the island would be welcomed. And since a vessel can be considered a boat, that shouldn't be a problem. If the OFAC doesn't want to consider a boat a vessel, one has to question why the regulation makes a distinction between an aircraft and a vessel. Certainly a road trip to the island isn't possible, so what other vessel would the regulation be referring to? A spaceship?!
I also wonder about the possibility of the Bush appointee having some sort of unwillingness to implement fully his new boss' policy. We can see how the anti-engagement crowd who wishes for a return to the previous administration's policies holds up Obama appointees on the basis of them "being to soft on Cuba". Is it possible that the OFAC suffers from a political appointee by the hardliner Bush, and therefore it is less that enthusiastic to getting around to catching up with the opportunities opened by the Obama administration? I'm just wondering. I'm sure that endless bureaucratic excuses would be made before such an admission would be made.
With the upcoming trip to Cuba by the Pope, and the great number of people interested in traveling from the U.S. to Cuba to witness the event, Havana Ferry has resubmitted its application to provide travel to the island. It's ability to transport a larger number of people than an airplane makes it a unique asset for people wishing to be on the island for the Pope's visit. Certainly having this added form of transportation would help provide religious travel to the island as President Obama supports. Will the OFAC drag its feet or will it help implement Obama's goals?
I reached out to Havana Ferry and asked them if the had anything that they felt like adding to the original article that I had read. I am appreciative that they responded to me and provided me with some information. They seem to be frustrated with the process, yet they do seem to keep an optimistic view.
First, here is a letter from Havana Ferry to the Licensing Division at the OFAC:
Licensing Division
Mr. Jeffrey R. Braunger
Office of Foreign Assets Control
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20220
Dear Mr. Braunger, Case # CU-80304
Our company, Havana Ferry Partners LLC submitted to your office our application for OFAC Licensing on July, 15, 2010 and the USPS /RRR was returned to us as delivered.
You will find our re-application in this correspondence.
Havana Ferry Partners, LLC (“Havana Ferry”) is seeking authorization as a Travel Service Provider, 31 CFR 515.572(a)(1) and as a Carrier Service Provider, 31 CFR 515.572(a)(2) of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (“CACRs”).
Havana Ferry wishes to primarily provide transportation via sea-going vessels to Cuban-Americans to visit close relatives in Cuba. Havana Ferry would also offer transportation to other persons authorized to travel to Cuba under various categories of OFAC licenses. Please note that 31 CFR 515.572 specifically authorizes “persons chartering an aircraft or vessel” (515572 (a) (1) emphasis added), and “carrier services by aircraft or vessels incidental to their non-scheduled flights or voyages to, from, or within Cuba” (515572 (a) (2) emphasis added).
We fully support the President Obama’s goals of our increased understanding with the Cuban people through people to people contacts. We wish to be able to provide lower cost transportation, thereby opening travel to Cuba to more people wishing to go. The airlines could be made safer by not having to carry ‘load limit’ cargo of returning passengers. Under current regulations we legally can do so. We seek OFAC approval for our application.
We also support the U.S. government’s goals as stated by Ricardo Zuniga, the State Department's acting coordinator for Cuban affairs in his March 2010 affidavit (Martinez v. Republic of Cuba et al, Florida Southern District Court) of “easing family travel between the two countries, improving the flow of information across the Florida Straits and promoting such things as religious, artistic and sporting events and exchanges.” To paraphrase Mr. Zuniga, we believe that providing a passenger ferry service to Cuba, as well as direct flights, “are vital for maintaining contacts that are in the national interest."
Respectfully,
Leonard D. Moecklin Sr.
V/P Havana Ferry Partners LLC
havanaferrypartners@earthlink.net
Mr. Jeffrey R. Braunger
Office of Foreign Assets Control
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20220
Dear Mr. Braunger, Case # CU-80304
Our company, Havana Ferry Partners LLC submitted to your office our application for OFAC Licensing on July, 15, 2010 and the USPS /RRR was returned to us as delivered.
You will find our re-application in this correspondence.
Havana Ferry Partners, LLC (“Havana Ferry”) is seeking authorization as a Travel Service Provider, 31 CFR 515.572(a)(1) and as a Carrier Service Provider, 31 CFR 515.572(a)(2) of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (“CACRs”).
Havana Ferry wishes to primarily provide transportation via sea-going vessels to Cuban-Americans to visit close relatives in Cuba. Havana Ferry would also offer transportation to other persons authorized to travel to Cuba under various categories of OFAC licenses. Please note that 31 CFR 515.572 specifically authorizes “persons chartering an aircraft or vessel” (515572 (a) (1) emphasis added), and “carrier services by aircraft or vessels incidental to their non-scheduled flights or voyages to, from, or within Cuba” (515572 (a) (2) emphasis added).
We fully support the President Obama’s goals of our increased understanding with the Cuban people through people to people contacts. We wish to be able to provide lower cost transportation, thereby opening travel to Cuba to more people wishing to go. The airlines could be made safer by not having to carry ‘load limit’ cargo of returning passengers. Under current regulations we legally can do so. We seek OFAC approval for our application.
We also support the U.S. government’s goals as stated by Ricardo Zuniga, the State Department's acting coordinator for Cuban affairs in his March 2010 affidavit (Martinez v. Republic of Cuba et al, Florida Southern District Court) of “easing family travel between the two countries, improving the flow of information across the Florida Straits and promoting such things as religious, artistic and sporting events and exchanges.” To paraphrase Mr. Zuniga, we believe that providing a passenger ferry service to Cuba, as well as direct flights, “are vital for maintaining contacts that are in the national interest."
Respectfully,
Leonard D. Moecklin Sr.
V/P Havana Ferry Partners LLC
havanaferrypartners@earthlink.net
Also there is a letter from Havana Ferry's vice-president, Jorge Fernandez, who is also a founder of the Humanitarian group Hope for Cuba to the reporter who wrote the article I read yesterday, Doreen Hemlock:
Dear Ms. Hemlock;
On behalf of the principals of Havana Ferry Partners LLC, I applaud your recent article for bringing awareness relative to our efforts to bring a much needed ferry passenger service from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and other Florida ports to Cuba.
We are truly very frustrated, but optimistic that we will succeed in our efforts to obtain the necessary OFAC approvals as well as those from Treasury in the near future for the simple reason that this service is needed and will compliment the expanding number of US airports being granted permission to offer direct flights to Cuba. Our passenger ferry service will offer an alternative mode of transportation for passengers going to Cuba that would be more economical and at the same time offer the opportunity for these passengers to bring along more baggage and humanitarian supplies to the island nation. Groups that would benefit the most would be those religious and university groups that can now travel under a general licence; and like most non-profit organizations, they usually travel in larger groups and have limited resources for their trips. The Havana Ferry Partners vessels will be able to better accommodate these organization by offering more capacity, comfort, and savings.
Another benefit from our ferry operations will be the creation 100's of new jobs to the Ft.Lauderdale area.
As for any possible objections to our proposed passenger ferry service to Cuba from the Cuban-America community in Southern Florida, as a Cuban-American myself that was born in Havana, Cuba , I can assure you that based on the preliminary interviews I have conducted myself with leading Cuban-Americans from the Miami-Ft.Lauderdale area and related organizations, the response has been very positive and supportive.Accordingly, we cannot believe that this very worthwhile and needed service would be one that the "politicians" would be afraid to embrace.
In closing, we will stay focused on our mission that is to provide a ferry passenger service that is much needed and will continue pushing forward aggressively with the appropriate agencies in Washington until we obtain the necessary OFAC licenses. We truly believe that Washington has nothing to fear by granting the approvals requested and will stay consistent with this administrations commitment to expand the travel service to Cuba as demonstrated by their recent announcements of approving over 9 more US airports to offer direct flights to Cuba...and yes, we expect our approvals before the next elections.
Mr.Jorge Ignacio Fernandez
Vice President, Corporate Development &
Humanitarian Releif Services
Havana Ferry Partners, LLC
As we can see, it would be in the interest of the Obama administration to see that the OFAC doesn't continue to drag its feet any longer. Mr. Szubin needs to make sure that he is doing his job the way that his boss desires it to be done. Hopefully this backlog, reffered to in the press as a "black hole", is dealt with and the pending licenses, all of them that should be approved, are finally taken out of the desk drawers and worked on to maximize President Obama's loosening of travel. In my view, the entire travel ban should be done away with as should the embargo as important steps to improve the half century stalemate between the countries of Cuba and the United States.
Here is a link to the original article by Doreen Hemlock:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-cuba-ferry-business-20120212,0,7037791.story
Friday, February 10, 2012
"Setting Record Straight" on Gutierrez-Baronat
One of the executives of the Directorio Democratico Cubano, Orlando Gutierrez-Baronat, must be worried. He felt that it was necessary for himself to "set the record straight" on the U.S. government funded programs directed towards interfering with Cuba. After the money for these programs were partly spent on Nintendos, Godiva chocolates, and cashmere sweaters, he begs people to understand why his group, and others like it, need to continue receiving dollars from the American people.
Unfortunately for him, his facts are phony. He refers to the "dissident" movements in Cuba, who are regularly featured in the international press, as grassroots movements. Let's take a look at how firmly these roots are planted in reality.
Since his little "Directorate" is one of the main sponsors for the Ladies in White", we can be safe to assume he imagines that group to be a "grassroots movement". They entered the scene a few years back when 75 people were jailed in Cuba for being found guilty of basically being on the payroll of the United States. What often goes unreported is that the participants of their marches are payed about $30 dollars per job, excuse me, per march. Receiving payments from abroad for marching may be enough to sustain a presence large enough for photo ops for the Miami Herald, but it certainly challenges Mr. Gutierrez-Baronat's assertion that they are homegrown protests or "grassroots". If there are roots, they are like to be found in the U.S. Interests Section or Miami. As the former head of the Interests Section pointed out, these people are ones “who are more interested in asking for money than carrying out programs.” As we all know, Johnathan Ferrar is no longer employed at the U.S. Interests Section after this revealing analysis!
Mr. Gutierrez-Baronat confirms what the Cuban government has long said calling the U.S. financial support a "permanent support infrastructure". When Cuban officials make this kind of a statement, the anti-Cuba extremists cry manipulation, yet this man, whose organization depends heavily on Washington's funding, is proud to be a part of the creation of such non-grassroots movements. If anything at all, I'd like to thank him for the acknowledgment of the U.S. hand in creating what is supposed to be considered internal dissent in Cuba. But by his own clumsy acknowledgement, he disputes his own logic. Unless he considers Cuban "grassroots" to be located in Miami!
He touts the media's manipulation of the "grassroots" movements as having made a contribution to the change in the international community's attitude towards Cuba. This is nearly delusional, a common symptom of the extremists operating in Miami, as he is surely aware that year after year the international condemnation of U.S. policy towards Cuba has only grown to almost complete solidarity with Cuba's right to determine its own course free from the pressures of the U.S. laws. Cuba's relationships have expanded acrross the globe, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, which was an incedent that caused many to believe that Cuba would too collapse.
"Reality belies the propaganda.", stated Mr. Gutierrez-Baronat. Yes it does! And for the national secretary of the Directorio Democratico Cubano, he must be worried about something. Perhaps he feels that there exists sufficient evidence that his group shouldn't continue to receive funding from Washington. Perhaps he won't get a chance to buy new cashmere sweaters, update the Nintendo with a Playstation, or replenish his box of chocolates! So he pleads his case in the Miami Herald, preaching his distortions in an attempt to justify the wasted dollars of the American taxpayers. Hopefully his group will lose the funding, and we can get a chance to see how deep those roots of dissent in Cuba really are.
Unfortunately for him, his facts are phony. He refers to the "dissident" movements in Cuba, who are regularly featured in the international press, as grassroots movements. Let's take a look at how firmly these roots are planted in reality.
Since his little "Directorate" is one of the main sponsors for the Ladies in White", we can be safe to assume he imagines that group to be a "grassroots movement". They entered the scene a few years back when 75 people were jailed in Cuba for being found guilty of basically being on the payroll of the United States. What often goes unreported is that the participants of their marches are payed about $30 dollars per job, excuse me, per march. Receiving payments from abroad for marching may be enough to sustain a presence large enough for photo ops for the Miami Herald, but it certainly challenges Mr. Gutierrez-Baronat's assertion that they are homegrown protests or "grassroots". If there are roots, they are like to be found in the U.S. Interests Section or Miami. As the former head of the Interests Section pointed out, these people are ones “who are more interested in asking for money than carrying out programs.” As we all know, Johnathan Ferrar is no longer employed at the U.S. Interests Section after this revealing analysis!
Mr. Gutierrez-Baronat confirms what the Cuban government has long said calling the U.S. financial support a "permanent support infrastructure". When Cuban officials make this kind of a statement, the anti-Cuba extremists cry manipulation, yet this man, whose organization depends heavily on Washington's funding, is proud to be a part of the creation of such non-grassroots movements. If anything at all, I'd like to thank him for the acknowledgment of the U.S. hand in creating what is supposed to be considered internal dissent in Cuba. But by his own clumsy acknowledgement, he disputes his own logic. Unless he considers Cuban "grassroots" to be located in Miami!
He touts the media's manipulation of the "grassroots" movements as having made a contribution to the change in the international community's attitude towards Cuba. This is nearly delusional, a common symptom of the extremists operating in Miami, as he is surely aware that year after year the international condemnation of U.S. policy towards Cuba has only grown to almost complete solidarity with Cuba's right to determine its own course free from the pressures of the U.S. laws. Cuba's relationships have expanded acrross the globe, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, which was an incedent that caused many to believe that Cuba would too collapse.
"Reality belies the propaganda.", stated Mr. Gutierrez-Baronat. Yes it does! And for the national secretary of the Directorio Democratico Cubano, he must be worried about something. Perhaps he feels that there exists sufficient evidence that his group shouldn't continue to receive funding from Washington. Perhaps he won't get a chance to buy new cashmere sweaters, update the Nintendo with a Playstation, or replenish his box of chocolates! So he pleads his case in the Miami Herald, preaching his distortions in an attempt to justify the wasted dollars of the American taxpayers. Hopefully his group will lose the funding, and we can get a chance to see how deep those roots of dissent in Cuba really are.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Montaner's Poblem
Carlos Alberto Montaner suffers. He suffers the fool's disease. Somehow his musings make their way to the Miami Herald despite his perpetual lack of understanding how things really are.
His focus, for the most part, is to create myths about Cuba, maybe to make himself feel better about being on the wrong side of history. Maybe it's just because he represents the extremist community which has held a grip on U.S./Cuba policy for decades, a grip which is loosening. Now, he has side tracked a bit and created a poor literary work about Venezuela's political situation.
He wrote a fairy tale about Maria Corina Machado. She is one of the flies which the eagle doesn't hunt. She's also a Venezuelan politician who represents the oligarchs who were one in control of Venezuela. By virtue of being a lackey for the oligarchs, she has also become a favorite by the Washington "democracy organizations, receiving millions of dollars in attempts to challenge Hugo Chavez and the will of the Venezuelan people.
Mr. Montaner wrote about this woman in a way that shows his unwillingness to accept the revolutionary process occurring in Venezuela. Ignoring the overwhelming support that Chavez enjoys of his people, Mr. Montaner imagines that this woman is to be some sort of hero as she wages her campaign in favor of returning Venezuela to its formerly exploited state. That is why during the coup attempt against Chavez, Corina signed off on the documents by the coup leaders which shut down government institutions and abolished the new constitution approved by the Venezuelan people. She is firmly on the side against the masses, so she is a hero to Mr. Montaner.
Mr. Montaner was tickled pink by the fact that Maria Corina wants the Cubans out of Venezuela. Less tickled pink would be the great number of Venezuelans who have benefited from the strong ties and solidarity between the peoples of Cuba and Venezuela. To Montaner, a rupture in those relations would be welcomed since it would likely cause some difficulties to his arch enemy, Cuba. He, as others in the rabidly anti-Cuba clique, want to make life difficult on the island for the people that they pretend to love.
As problematic as reality is for Mr. Montaner, the poor politician Corina can't seem to shake the temptations of using the language of despots such as Pinochet. Her "popular capitalism" is an acknowledgement that populism itself is a greater than outright defense of the business interests eager to exploit. She tries to position herself as a populist, but the Venezuelan people are not stupid. They understand that giving reign to the oligarchs would mean their own exclusion from deciding their own destiny.
Poor Carlos Alberto. He imagines that the defeat of Chavismo is unstoppable. He ignores President Chavez's popularity. He walks through life with his eyes closed and clumsily bumps into stubborn facts. For a man who claims that Fidel suffers from dementia, his own has become pretty obvious. That is Montaner's problem
His focus, for the most part, is to create myths about Cuba, maybe to make himself feel better about being on the wrong side of history. Maybe it's just because he represents the extremist community which has held a grip on U.S./Cuba policy for decades, a grip which is loosening. Now, he has side tracked a bit and created a poor literary work about Venezuela's political situation.
He wrote a fairy tale about Maria Corina Machado. She is one of the flies which the eagle doesn't hunt. She's also a Venezuelan politician who represents the oligarchs who were one in control of Venezuela. By virtue of being a lackey for the oligarchs, she has also become a favorite by the Washington "democracy organizations, receiving millions of dollars in attempts to challenge Hugo Chavez and the will of the Venezuelan people.
Mr. Montaner wrote about this woman in a way that shows his unwillingness to accept the revolutionary process occurring in Venezuela. Ignoring the overwhelming support that Chavez enjoys of his people, Mr. Montaner imagines that this woman is to be some sort of hero as she wages her campaign in favor of returning Venezuela to its formerly exploited state. That is why during the coup attempt against Chavez, Corina signed off on the documents by the coup leaders which shut down government institutions and abolished the new constitution approved by the Venezuelan people. She is firmly on the side against the masses, so she is a hero to Mr. Montaner.
Mr. Montaner was tickled pink by the fact that Maria Corina wants the Cubans out of Venezuela. Less tickled pink would be the great number of Venezuelans who have benefited from the strong ties and solidarity between the peoples of Cuba and Venezuela. To Montaner, a rupture in those relations would be welcomed since it would likely cause some difficulties to his arch enemy, Cuba. He, as others in the rabidly anti-Cuba clique, want to make life difficult on the island for the people that they pretend to love.
As problematic as reality is for Mr. Montaner, the poor politician Corina can't seem to shake the temptations of using the language of despots such as Pinochet. Her "popular capitalism" is an acknowledgement that populism itself is a greater than outright defense of the business interests eager to exploit. She tries to position herself as a populist, but the Venezuelan people are not stupid. They understand that giving reign to the oligarchs would mean their own exclusion from deciding their own destiny.
Poor Carlos Alberto. He imagines that the defeat of Chavismo is unstoppable. He ignores President Chavez's popularity. He walks through life with his eyes closed and clumsily bumps into stubborn facts. For a man who claims that Fidel suffers from dementia, his own has become pretty obvious. That is Montaner's problem
Monday, February 6, 2012
Shameless, Weak
But in a battle of ideas, the truth eventually triumphs. The Cuban government released a statement explaining the circumstances of his death and the reasons for his incarceration. Quite simply, the man who had been instantly branded a dissident, was actually not. He was a person who had beaten his wife and was found guilty of that crime.
I know, we aren't supposed to believe Cuban authorities. They are supposed to be our enemy, a country still on the list of terrorist nations. But these "ideas" are nothing more that creations to justify the continued lack of political will of the folks in Washington. These ideas are weak, these ideas are withering.
Can we believe the newest member of the Ladies in White? This group is constantly given much respect within our press. Maritza Pelegrino joined these ladies after the death of her husband, Mr. Villar. Let's be aware that according to her, as reported by the Washington Post "Maritza Pelegrino said her late husband, Wilman Villar, was first arrested after her mother alerted neighbors and police in July 2011 about a marital dispute. Authorities say Villar beat Pelegrino, but she downplayed the seriousness of the incident."
Of course domestic violence is not of a political nature, so why would Mr. Villar be considered a "dissident"? Because knowing that he would face jail, he likely believed that by aligning himself with "dissident" groups, who themselves are aligned with the U.S., he felt that he could somehow be treated differently than ordinary criminals are. He joined up with some of those groups just a couple of months after his initial arrest. His belief was misguided and he ended up being sentenced anyway, as the common criminal that he was.
What I'm writing isn't an invention. I was a bit surprised that this correction to the original story was actually found in the Washington Post, one of the news outlets which had previously jumped on the "dead dissident" bandwagon. It was published on January 30, 2012.
Shamelessly though, on the very same day, the Director of the Foundation for Human Rights(!), Matt Brady, felt the need to stick to the untrue story. He continued to push the idea which had already disintegrated as the truth had come out. The Huffington Post published his article named "Letting Cuban Prisoners Die During Hunger Strikes Doesn't Make Sense...". What doesn't make sense is that a person would cling to such a silly lie, certainly knowing that the truth had already been told. He asserted that letting the man die shows a "complete disregard for humanity", surely knowing full well that the medical treatment that Mr. Villar received in one of the region's top medical facilities doesn't amount to a disregard for humanity. The best medical treatment in the world can't always prevent death.
Matt Brady is shameless. He chose to glorify a man who physically abused his wife and dishonestly embraced him as some sort of hero. Mr. Brady is a part of Freedom House, an organization which depends on U.S. tax dollars to operate, so it is no wonder why he would be interested in maintaining the status quo is far as the lies about Cuba go. What the American people should be questioning is why we spend money on organizations such as Freedom House when they are obviously not willing to be truthful in the information that they spread. It's not enough to question the integrity of organizations like that, we have to question the entire dialogue in our press about Cuba.
The simple fact is that the arguments and attacks against Cuba are shameless.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
The Cuban Spring
After witnessing what has been called the "Arab Spring", many commentators here in the U.S. ask the question "will there be a Cuban Spring?" A better question might be "will Americans be there?" Not many. The U.S. still doesn't allow American to travel freely to the island. Though there are now more opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba, a person must fall in to one of the few categories of approved licences by the Treasury Department. Hopefully, in the near future, our politicians will unshackle themselves from the cold hearted extremists who have controlled the issue for over 50 years.
Micheal Goodwin earlier this week, wrote a piece carried on the FOX website, asking that same tired question. In order for him to have formed his rationale, he had to be willing to play dumb for his audience.
He began his article with this quote from the right-wing Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” This is the typical slanderous jab at the system which seeks to create a more just society. It seems especially disingenuous when the United States depends so heavily on "other people's money." Not only does our government rely on borrowing from other countries, but one of the largest financiers is communist China. Perhaps the capitalist United States should keep its fingers crossed that it doesn't run out of communists to support its system of inequality. If it were to run out, we may experience our own special period.
He goes on to explain how Havana's buildings are crumbling. Certainly proof that socialism is bankrupt, right? But of course he fails to mention that a similar situation occurred in South America's largest economy, Brazil, within the last week. Perhaps the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota a couple of years back slipped his mind. Would these two examples be proof of the failed capitalist world? Perhaps.
Having forgotten such things, the author goes on to speak about rumors about Fidel having dementia. He must be referring to an article written by Carlos Alberto Montaner in early January. Intelligent people realize that Mr. Montaner is completely delusional, if not dishonest, about the subject of Cuba. Perhaps both suffer from dementia. Fidel is certainly lucid enough to accurately describe the Republican primaries!
He claims that Cubans are cut off from the outside world. The lack of iPhones is the measuring stick that he prefers in this instance. Then, he points out that the rest of the world, not the United States, is increasingly engaged in the island. He points out the silly positions taken by Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney opposing trade with Cuba. He points out the contradiction in trading with China and not Cuba. He actually correctly points out that they voice this opposition to trade with Cuba to appeal to the crowd in Miami. This must be the most pandered to group over the past five decades.
He then implies that Cuba isn't really interested in trading with the U.S. This claim comes despite many calls by the Cuban government and the rest of the world to end the embargo. How does he imagine this? Does he pretend that the embargo doesn't really effect the Cuban economy? Cubans would be delighted to be able to sell things to the largest consumer market in the world. Besides selling to us, the Cuban state would save millions of dollars not having to navigate its way around the most far reaching sanctions ever imposed on a nation.
"Their arrest of Alan Gross, an American working with the State Department to help Cuban Jews connect to the Internet, was a chilling illustration of who they are. Gross is serving a 15-year sentence." Statements like this are fine in the land of propaganda, but it ignores the simple fact that Mr. Gross is in prison for violating Cuban law by clandestinely working for USAID. What the situation really tells us is how the politicians, aware of the solution to the situation, prefer to have him remain imprisoned for now so as to have some sort of talking point against Cuba since their arguments no longer make much sense to anyone.
He finishes his article with a sarcastic statement which reads, "So don’t expect a Cuban Spring anytime soon." Allow me to answer the poor man with a bit of sarcasm but truth. Spring starts on Tuesday March 20.
Micheal Goodwin earlier this week, wrote a piece carried on the FOX website, asking that same tired question. In order for him to have formed his rationale, he had to be willing to play dumb for his audience.
He began his article with this quote from the right-wing Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” This is the typical slanderous jab at the system which seeks to create a more just society. It seems especially disingenuous when the United States depends so heavily on "other people's money." Not only does our government rely on borrowing from other countries, but one of the largest financiers is communist China. Perhaps the capitalist United States should keep its fingers crossed that it doesn't run out of communists to support its system of inequality. If it were to run out, we may experience our own special period.
He goes on to explain how Havana's buildings are crumbling. Certainly proof that socialism is bankrupt, right? But of course he fails to mention that a similar situation occurred in South America's largest economy, Brazil, within the last week. Perhaps the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota a couple of years back slipped his mind. Would these two examples be proof of the failed capitalist world? Perhaps.
Having forgotten such things, the author goes on to speak about rumors about Fidel having dementia. He must be referring to an article written by Carlos Alberto Montaner in early January. Intelligent people realize that Mr. Montaner is completely delusional, if not dishonest, about the subject of Cuba. Perhaps both suffer from dementia. Fidel is certainly lucid enough to accurately describe the Republican primaries!
He claims that Cubans are cut off from the outside world. The lack of iPhones is the measuring stick that he prefers in this instance. Then, he points out that the rest of the world, not the United States, is increasingly engaged in the island. He points out the silly positions taken by Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney opposing trade with Cuba. He points out the contradiction in trading with China and not Cuba. He actually correctly points out that they voice this opposition to trade with Cuba to appeal to the crowd in Miami. This must be the most pandered to group over the past five decades.
He then implies that Cuba isn't really interested in trading with the U.S. This claim comes despite many calls by the Cuban government and the rest of the world to end the embargo. How does he imagine this? Does he pretend that the embargo doesn't really effect the Cuban economy? Cubans would be delighted to be able to sell things to the largest consumer market in the world. Besides selling to us, the Cuban state would save millions of dollars not having to navigate its way around the most far reaching sanctions ever imposed on a nation.
"Their arrest of Alan Gross, an American working with the State Department to help Cuban Jews connect to the Internet, was a chilling illustration of who they are. Gross is serving a 15-year sentence." Statements like this are fine in the land of propaganda, but it ignores the simple fact that Mr. Gross is in prison for violating Cuban law by clandestinely working for USAID. What the situation really tells us is how the politicians, aware of the solution to the situation, prefer to have him remain imprisoned for now so as to have some sort of talking point against Cuba since their arguments no longer make much sense to anyone.
He finishes his article with a sarcastic statement which reads, "So don’t expect a Cuban Spring anytime soon." Allow me to answer the poor man with a bit of sarcasm but truth. Spring starts on Tuesday March 20.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)