Having the Pope visiting Cuba next week will be a positive experience for the Catholics who live there. Not only will it be an experience for only those who live on the island, but a number of people from the United States will be travelling there to witness the event. Many of these plans are being arranged or aided by the Catholic Church in Miami and Archbishop Wenski of that city.
Of course as all things relating to Cuba are politicized, the media and certain personalities have done what they can to politicize the Pope's trip. The usual extremists in South Florida have expressed their dismay with the event, powerless to do anything about it. They are also powerless when it comes to convincing many of the Cubans on this side of the straits that they shouldn't want to travel to the island.
In the weeks leading up to the Pope's visit, all that these individuals and the press have been able to do is attempt to create more bad publicity for the island than they usually do. The most interesting and absurd event took place the other day when a group of individuals decided to enter a church in Havana and stay there demanding the Pope's attention.
Perhaps realizing the unlikelihood of having the Pope as an audience, their demands evolved. They decided on demanding the release of individuals that they and other "dissident" groups like to consider political prisoners. The weakness of their case is that the individuals who they call "political" prisoners are actually people who have committed violent acts and are not considered "prisoners of conscience" by anyone serious. If these people committed violence for political aims, most places would consider them terrorists! But having so few issues to rally behind, these folks decided to make this their cause.
After refusing to leave the church for some days despite the church officials asking them to, the church asked the authorities to intervene to bring this situation to an end. Nothing terrible happened to these people, they left the church in a matter of a few minutes and didn't face any sort of prosecution or anything. Everything went peacefully and the situation was over.
Here is where things are interesting. This event was treated in our press as if there was some sort of outrageous reaction by the church and the police involved. Like I said, things ended peacefully.
According to the Miami Herald, "The operation to end the occupation of the Minor Basilica of the Church of Our Lady of Charity in downtown Havana was specifically requested by Cardinal Jaime Ortega, Archbishop of Havana, according to a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Havana, Orlando Marquez.
A statement released shortly after the dissidents were extracted from the church and published Friday in Granma, the Cuban’s Communist Party’s paper and website, said the 13 repeatedly refused to evacuate despite “unilateral’’ requests from church officials and others.
“For this reason” the cardinal asked government authorities to “invite” the occupants to leave the church, the statement said, adding that the Cardinal was assured the dissidents would be safe once outside the church.
The group, which entered the church Tuesday, was demanding the release of political prisoners, Internet access, free speech and discussion of a road map for building the rule of law in Cuba.
The statement said that the eviction took place at 9 p.m. Thursday and lasted 10 minutes.
“The 13 occupiers were invited to leave the church and offered no resistance. The officers who executed the operation had assured the church that they would not carry weapons, would move the 13 people to a police station and then would take them home. Authorities also gave assurances that they would not be prosecuted,” the statement said."
This became a major story over the course of a few days. Let's take a look at another situation and how it was handled in England recently.
According to the Guardian, "Police and bailiffs moved in to begin clearing the Occupy London encampment in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Activists protesting against the financial and banking elite were told by bailiffs that they had five minutes to pack their tents and leave or they would be obstructing a court order.
Dozens of activists started clearing away tents and belongings, but others began building a barricaded enclosure using wooden pallets and debris.
Hundreds of police officers with riot helmets ready by their sides and dozens of bailiffs in yellow vests waited alongside rubbish lorries and watched the eviction."
Ok. If people are engaged in civil disobedience, they are often times expecting this sort of outcome. But why is it that the show of force by the police in a country that is not Cuba not questioned in the same manner that the police in Cuba are? Comparing the two situations, we know that the police in Havana treated the people who refused to leave in a manner that appears to be a lot less intimidating that the way the London police chose, but we are supposed to feel that somehow the police in Cuba are oh so repressive and horrible. Seems like that's the image that our press tries to create for us as we read about Cuba.
This is an example of how our press chooses to report on Cuba. Rarely are things put in to context, as if Cuba existed in a bubble and there would be no way to compare its actions and decisions with those of other countries. Given the number and size of the protests that have sprung up all over the world during the past year, it seems ridiculous to compare the small number of actions in Cuba by mainly people who are in constant contact with the U.S. Interests Section's officials and news agencies which are historically hostile towards Cuba. These things lend credibility to the idea that much of the information we receive about Cuba through our press and government officials are designed to misinform us about the situation in Cuba. This is something more easily done by limiting our ability to travel to the island and see things for ourselves. Many of the athletes and groups of travellers who have been able to get to the island, come back with a much different perspective than what they had expected. They get to see Cuba as it is, with its blemishes and imperfections, but also for its positive aspects also. This must be what those people who so vehemently oppose opening travel and relations fear the most, losing control of the ability to dominate what we know about Cuba.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
A Needed "Adjustment" to the Cuban Adjustment Act
Joe Cardona, in the Miami Herald, asks the question "Time to revisit the Cuban Adjustment Act?" I have an answer for him.
Go ahead and revisit the Cuban Adjustment Act. While you're at it, eliminate it.
The reason people like Mr. Cardona and Rep. Rivera want to tinker with it is because the results are embarrassing. People take advantage of it. Why wouldn't they? They can avoid the hassles of going through the normal immigration process; some waits for visas for some countries are over twenty years. Sure, they fudge a little bit when they say that they are seeking asylum, but that only bothers the anti-Cuba group because what these "refugees" do show the Adjustment Act to be preposterous. Actual people who have sought asylum don't happily travel back to the place of their persecution, as the Cubans here do. It's not a secret that these people weren't fleeing persecution, it's obvious enough. Plus the situation causes others to see the unfairness of the immigration policy that allows this option for Cubans only.
The "chatter" around the coffee shops in Miami about this issue shows that there exist great divisions within the Cuba community. We have the old guard, who is stuck on Kennedy's decision not to launch a war during the invasion of the Bay of Pigs. On the other hand, we have the growing number of people who came to the U.S. for economic reasons, not political ideology. They are younger, fresher, and have a much more close connection with the island. That is why they support more openness and a large number don't support the hurtful policies of the U.S. They are some of the same people who suffered the effects of the economic strangulation of their homeland which the old guard supported wholeheartedly, and still does. So naturally, they are less concerned with what image is projected by the Cuban Adjustment Act, they simply used it to their advantage.
The pro-embargo, pro-isolationist, pro-living in the past, pro-provocation crowd now wants to remedy the situation. Why? How? Not by recognizing that the people claiming political asylum are actually coming for economic reasons, but by leaving in place the opportunity for the mirage to continue so they can continue to claim that there continues to be a flow of persecuted people from Cuba. They want to clean up parts of the mess that their propaganda has produced so they want to impose restrictions to travel for those who have taken advantage of the law. It certainly has become hard for them to claim that these people are real asylum seekers when the supposed refugees return so quickly and so often without the slightest fear of running into a problem.
The hard liners like to have and tout the statistics showing that there is a steady steam of asylum seekers leaving Cuba. For this reason they want to leave the Cuban Adjustment Act in place. They just can't figure out how to explain that these asylum seekers can freely and willingly return to the place of their supposed repression. It's quite a pickle that these hard liners have gotten into! As they evolve their rationale for maintaining the embargo and all of the silly policies and government handouts that go along with the provocative policies against Cuba, such as Radio Marti and the numerous "democracy programs" that they prosper from, they choose to ignore the obvious, that the policy is wrong.
How weak their position is if all they can come up with is continuing the Adjustment Act but not allowing people to travel back if they want to. Just let the "refugees" test their luck. If they really believed that they would face a problem upon their entrance to the island and choose to go anyway, then that is their choice. But as we can see they don't worry to much about that possibility since they are often eager to return for visits. And who wouldn't want to visit and help their relatives that they moved away from.
What these people like Rep. Rivera and Mr. Cardona don't have the strength to admit is that the whole political asylum thing is a myth. The policy should be abandoned. In doing so we shouldn't retroactively punish those who took advantage of this foolish policy created to create an illusion. We should simply stop pretending that Cubans are any different than the rest of the people trying to relocate to find a better economic situation. We should grant asylum to the people truly seeking it for real reasons, from anywhere, but maintaining this special law just for Cubans is beyond ridiculous.
As for the Cubans in this country, the quickest way to contribute to a better situation between your new home and your homeland is to register to vote and clear out these disgruntled relics in our government and elect some people who are genuinely concerned with improving relations.
Go ahead and revisit the Cuban Adjustment Act. While you're at it, eliminate it.
The reason people like Mr. Cardona and Rep. Rivera want to tinker with it is because the results are embarrassing. People take advantage of it. Why wouldn't they? They can avoid the hassles of going through the normal immigration process; some waits for visas for some countries are over twenty years. Sure, they fudge a little bit when they say that they are seeking asylum, but that only bothers the anti-Cuba group because what these "refugees" do show the Adjustment Act to be preposterous. Actual people who have sought asylum don't happily travel back to the place of their persecution, as the Cubans here do. It's not a secret that these people weren't fleeing persecution, it's obvious enough. Plus the situation causes others to see the unfairness of the immigration policy that allows this option for Cubans only.
The "chatter" around the coffee shops in Miami about this issue shows that there exist great divisions within the Cuba community. We have the old guard, who is stuck on Kennedy's decision not to launch a war during the invasion of the Bay of Pigs. On the other hand, we have the growing number of people who came to the U.S. for economic reasons, not political ideology. They are younger, fresher, and have a much more close connection with the island. That is why they support more openness and a large number don't support the hurtful policies of the U.S. They are some of the same people who suffered the effects of the economic strangulation of their homeland which the old guard supported wholeheartedly, and still does. So naturally, they are less concerned with what image is projected by the Cuban Adjustment Act, they simply used it to their advantage.
The pro-embargo, pro-isolationist, pro-living in the past, pro-provocation crowd now wants to remedy the situation. Why? How? Not by recognizing that the people claiming political asylum are actually coming for economic reasons, but by leaving in place the opportunity for the mirage to continue so they can continue to claim that there continues to be a flow of persecuted people from Cuba. They want to clean up parts of the mess that their propaganda has produced so they want to impose restrictions to travel for those who have taken advantage of the law. It certainly has become hard for them to claim that these people are real asylum seekers when the supposed refugees return so quickly and so often without the slightest fear of running into a problem.
The hard liners like to have and tout the statistics showing that there is a steady steam of asylum seekers leaving Cuba. For this reason they want to leave the Cuban Adjustment Act in place. They just can't figure out how to explain that these asylum seekers can freely and willingly return to the place of their supposed repression. It's quite a pickle that these hard liners have gotten into! As they evolve their rationale for maintaining the embargo and all of the silly policies and government handouts that go along with the provocative policies against Cuba, such as Radio Marti and the numerous "democracy programs" that they prosper from, they choose to ignore the obvious, that the policy is wrong.
How weak their position is if all they can come up with is continuing the Adjustment Act but not allowing people to travel back if they want to. Just let the "refugees" test their luck. If they really believed that they would face a problem upon their entrance to the island and choose to go anyway, then that is their choice. But as we can see they don't worry to much about that possibility since they are often eager to return for visits. And who wouldn't want to visit and help their relatives that they moved away from.
What these people like Rep. Rivera and Mr. Cardona don't have the strength to admit is that the whole political asylum thing is a myth. The policy should be abandoned. In doing so we shouldn't retroactively punish those who took advantage of this foolish policy created to create an illusion. We should simply stop pretending that Cubans are any different than the rest of the people trying to relocate to find a better economic situation. We should grant asylum to the people truly seeking it for real reasons, from anywhere, but maintaining this special law just for Cubans is beyond ridiculous.
As for the Cubans in this country, the quickest way to contribute to a better situation between your new home and your homeland is to register to vote and clear out these disgruntled relics in our government and elect some people who are genuinely concerned with improving relations.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
"Ruthless Dictatorship"
The editorial section today in the Miami Herald, once again blessed us with a gem of an opinion. This time the opinion was offered by one of the writers/ editors at the Miami paper, Fabiola Santiago. She goes on about the Mass held this past Sunday in Havana by Cardinal Jaime Ortega and how he included prayers for the health of Hugo Chavez and his recovery after removing a cancerous tumor.
I'm not going to comment on people's religious beliefs. To each his own. I really couldn't care less about if or what religion a person decides to follow. But I will say that the suggestion made by Fabiola Santiago, that "Sometimes, as happened Sunday in Havana, that prayer reaches our ears in Miami and rattles our faith, breaks our hearts." if hearts are broken because of a prayer for someone's health to be bettered is heartbreaking to some in Miami, it is a reminder of the lack of respect for humanity that some in Miami's right wing Cuban community show. These twisted individuals who feel that giving the key to Hialeah to the air plane bomber, Luis Posada Carriles, is a good thing, somehow feel that praying for the health of Venezuela's president is offensive and heart breaking.
These right wing, anti-Cuban people are not in the least concerned about the well being of the people of Venezuela. They really couldn't care less about the leadership of Venezuela or any other country as long as they would lend a hand at isolating the Cuban people. But since Hugo Chavez decided that solidarity with the Cuban people would be his country's path, he is now an enemy of the powerful anti-Castro elite in South Florida.
She finds it cynical that such a mass would take place on the island based on the idea that decades ago "all but prohibited religious worship". Even if this were the case then, it isn't now and religious worship does take place, so much so that the Pope will be visiting Cuba later this month. As opposed to opening her mind and accepting the way things are now, she traps herself by the outdated logic prevalent in those that search for ways to rationalize the United States' policy of trying to isolate Cuba. Countless errors have been made in Cuba since 1959, just as mistakes are made by every government in the world, but there has been nothing more harmful to the Cuban people than the laws supported by the extremist in Miami. They have been willing to find any mechanism possible to attempt to cause as many hardships for ordinary Cubans over the past five decades, ironically professing their love for those same victims of their policies.
"Sometimes a prayer sounds less like a prayer and more like a political move." This is how Fabiola Santiago describes the prayers offered for Chavez. Yet she imagines that if the Pope were to decide to visit the so-called dissidents, the ones who have countless connections with the anti-Cuba group in Miami and U.S. government officials, that it wouldn't be a "political move" meant to please the spectators in South Florida. Political is the description offered by Mrs. Santiago of Cuba's government as a "ruthless dictatorship" who, according to her and others in Miami, causes the suffering of the Cuban people. She fails to recognize even once the effects that the embargo and all of the corresponding laws have on the "suffering" Cuban people. Under what she describes as a ruthless dictatorship, the Cuban people go to sleep every night peacefully knowing that not one child on the island goes without a place to call home. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", health care is a right, not a commodity, which all people have including the actors/dissidents who receive their financial support from groups who are openly enemies of the system which guarantees that right. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", people can study as long as they'd like, free of charge, because the "ruthless dictatorship" puts an enormous emphasis on education and, like health care, doesn't view education as a commodity.
Just to be clear, the definition of ruthless is having or showing no pity or compassion for others. The tens of thousands of Cuban doctors who have gone to the farthest corners of the earth on international missions can be considered functionaries of some sort of the "ruthless dictatorship". The children who suffered from health problems from the meltdown at Chernobyl and were saved and offered free care by Cuba's medical system may find it interesting that some folks consider the Cuban government ruthless.
To me, ruthless is a term better used to describe those who fatten themselves up thanks to the inability to fight the gluttonous urge to indulge on the foods so plentiful in countries not blockaded by more powerful ones, while they point to the fact that such food choices aren't readily available on the island, choosing to conveniently ignore one of the reasons for the situation, their own policies. Ruthless is a man with half of a chin, who walks freely in Hialeah although he helped mastermind the blowing up of a civilian airliner and says that he sleeps like a baby. Ruthless are those who are willing to intentionally separate families, by outlawing travel to Cuba.
But then again, ruthless is nothing more than a term used by Fabiola Santiago to describe something that she doesn't like. She can use it however she wants to, but too many people understand the true meaning of the word to find sympathy for the people she speaks for, the extremists in Miami.
I'm not going to comment on people's religious beliefs. To each his own. I really couldn't care less about if or what religion a person decides to follow. But I will say that the suggestion made by Fabiola Santiago, that "Sometimes, as happened Sunday in Havana, that prayer reaches our ears in Miami and rattles our faith, breaks our hearts." if hearts are broken because of a prayer for someone's health to be bettered is heartbreaking to some in Miami, it is a reminder of the lack of respect for humanity that some in Miami's right wing Cuban community show. These twisted individuals who feel that giving the key to Hialeah to the air plane bomber, Luis Posada Carriles, is a good thing, somehow feel that praying for the health of Venezuela's president is offensive and heart breaking.
These right wing, anti-Cuban people are not in the least concerned about the well being of the people of Venezuela. They really couldn't care less about the leadership of Venezuela or any other country as long as they would lend a hand at isolating the Cuban people. But since Hugo Chavez decided that solidarity with the Cuban people would be his country's path, he is now an enemy of the powerful anti-Castro elite in South Florida.
She finds it cynical that such a mass would take place on the island based on the idea that decades ago "all but prohibited religious worship". Even if this were the case then, it isn't now and religious worship does take place, so much so that the Pope will be visiting Cuba later this month. As opposed to opening her mind and accepting the way things are now, she traps herself by the outdated logic prevalent in those that search for ways to rationalize the United States' policy of trying to isolate Cuba. Countless errors have been made in Cuba since 1959, just as mistakes are made by every government in the world, but there has been nothing more harmful to the Cuban people than the laws supported by the extremist in Miami. They have been willing to find any mechanism possible to attempt to cause as many hardships for ordinary Cubans over the past five decades, ironically professing their love for those same victims of their policies.
"Sometimes a prayer sounds less like a prayer and more like a political move." This is how Fabiola Santiago describes the prayers offered for Chavez. Yet she imagines that if the Pope were to decide to visit the so-called dissidents, the ones who have countless connections with the anti-Cuba group in Miami and U.S. government officials, that it wouldn't be a "political move" meant to please the spectators in South Florida. Political is the description offered by Mrs. Santiago of Cuba's government as a "ruthless dictatorship" who, according to her and others in Miami, causes the suffering of the Cuban people. She fails to recognize even once the effects that the embargo and all of the corresponding laws have on the "suffering" Cuban people. Under what she describes as a ruthless dictatorship, the Cuban people go to sleep every night peacefully knowing that not one child on the island goes without a place to call home. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", health care is a right, not a commodity, which all people have including the actors/dissidents who receive their financial support from groups who are openly enemies of the system which guarantees that right. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", people can study as long as they'd like, free of charge, because the "ruthless dictatorship" puts an enormous emphasis on education and, like health care, doesn't view education as a commodity.
Just to be clear, the definition of ruthless is having or showing no pity or compassion for others. The tens of thousands of Cuban doctors who have gone to the farthest corners of the earth on international missions can be considered functionaries of some sort of the "ruthless dictatorship". The children who suffered from health problems from the meltdown at Chernobyl and were saved and offered free care by Cuba's medical system may find it interesting that some folks consider the Cuban government ruthless.
To me, ruthless is a term better used to describe those who fatten themselves up thanks to the inability to fight the gluttonous urge to indulge on the foods so plentiful in countries not blockaded by more powerful ones, while they point to the fact that such food choices aren't readily available on the island, choosing to conveniently ignore one of the reasons for the situation, their own policies. Ruthless is a man with half of a chin, who walks freely in Hialeah although he helped mastermind the blowing up of a civilian airliner and says that he sleeps like a baby. Ruthless are those who are willing to intentionally separate families, by outlawing travel to Cuba.
But then again, ruthless is nothing more than a term used by Fabiola Santiago to describe something that she doesn't like. She can use it however she wants to, but too many people understand the true meaning of the word to find sympathy for the people she speaks for, the extremists in Miami.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Humanitarian Plea
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.
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.
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.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Dear President Obama
January 30, 2011
Dear President Obama,
Dear President Obama,
As usual, the state of Florida is expected to have another close election. I'm sure that although you "aren't paying attention" to the GOP primary, behind the scenes you must be getting a few good laughs in. It may be obvious to some people that the GOP finds itself trapped by not only appearing to be the party that puts ordinary people second to business interests, but by having to appeal to a part of the population that is the least informed and also the most selfish people in our country. Your party traditionally stood for things that were more progressive. Although that was the tradition of the Democrat Party, recent times have shown that this party too is extremely cozy with some of the same interests as the GOP. The lack of enthusiasm for your presidency can be explained by the hopes that were in many ways dashed by what your administration has done, or not done. I won't trouble you anymore with that kind of political analysis, I'm sure that you have plenty of professionals who can tell you the same types of observations.
What I'm interested in providing you is a perspective on how you may be able to make inroads in my state, Florida. As you are aware, Rep. Castor is not like the representatives that are around in South Florida. She also stands out when compared to your party Chairwoman. She has taken a bold stance supporting a new type of relationship with Cuba. She has been able to do so comfortably because in this area people are able to see through the stale rhetoric that permeates the South Florida air. For many years, the business community in the Tampa Bay area has been interested in forging a relationship with Cuba. If you have been paying attention, you already know that Tampa's City Council sent a friendly letter to Cuba, and was able to do so over the objections of one councilman who unfortunately is tied to the past. Since your administration gave the OK for direct flights from Tampa, there have already been new flights added to the schedule at TIA. There is much enthusiasm for travel to Cuba and the increase in the number of arrivals from the US shows that.
Recently, the Senator from your home state traveled to the island and stated called for more constructive engagement between the two countries. You can choose to ignore that the Cuban government has also expressed its willingness to engage with your administration, but by doing so you are showing a lack of incentive, a lack of desire to take the bold steps that people believed and hope that you are capable of. We can have the issue of Alan Gross remain as a stumbling block, or there can be an honest effort by your administration to find a solution to this problem.
I understand that the thought of driving the hard liners wild and giving them a talking point during a campaign year may be a bit unsettling for a candidate. But I believe with all of my heart that they are a lot louder than they are effective. The winds of change, both here and on the island are making the hard liner position marginalized. There have never been such displays of division within their own districts as when their representatives attempted to limit their abilities to visit their families. It is clear that the hard line position is weakened and now may be a better time than ever to completely marginalize it.
Many of the people that take a tough stance on Cuba, and in my humble opinion an incorrect one, will never support you. They have dismissed your party since the era of President Kennedy and I see pandering to them as futile. Perhaps pandering is too strong of a word, so I would suggest appealing to the people who would prefer a future which differs from the unfortunate past which has been hurtful for too many people on all sides. Changing the indefensible policy towards Cuba will happen. The question is when and who will be the president who shows the courage to take that step.
I feel that you are the one president, the one person who has it in you to take that step. What better time than now, or when the bumbling GOP figures out which candidate will challenge you. Putting them on the defensive on an issue such as this perpetual political football, would show the kind of courage that so many Americans once dreamed that you were capable of showing. Let your opponents spin in circles trying to defend a policy that almost everyone agrees is outdated and has proven to be incapable of achieving its goals. Whether an American is supportive of Cuba's right to determine its own path or just can't figure out why Vietnam is a trading partner and Cuba isn't, it is becoming openly criticized by people of all political stripes as a bad policy.
No longer should it be considered political expedience to treat Cuba as some sort of terrible enemy. In many news outlets, on many occasions, the hypocrisy of the policy is talked about. I understand the twisted politics of this issue and I'm trying to show a way that it can become untwisted. How would it feel to have Republicans in the House and Senate wind up supporting you on this issue during a campaign year? They would either have to change their positions and look like they are more concerned about party politics or just simply admit that the Democrat candidate is correct on at least this issue. How many farmers in "red" states may be very satisfied with open trade with Cuba? I'm sure there are enough to cause a bit of uncertainty for the GOP. How about the oil industry which is usually a Republican leaning constituency? They are aware that our policy is the major obstacle to their participation in oil exploration in Cuban waters. Even environmentalists would be a bit more comfortable knowing that the two countries would be working on plans together in the case of an accident. You could make a campaign stop in Key West, whose representative is so stubbornly irrational on this issue, and upstage her by explaining that it is beneficial to do more than just threaten foreign oil companies, and cooperation in this area would provide more protection for their beautiful islands and livelihood. The Tampa Bay area would be yours. You would like make inroads for the Democrat party within the South Florida Cuban community.
This is not necessarily a plea to your humanitarian side, but a fundamental explanation of how a bold political strategy may help you. But of course, there are many humanitarian reasons to do away with this poilicy. Your campaign can consider this a political tool and have a drasticly positive humanitarian effect as a result.
Please take all of this in to consideration and perhaps you will go down in our history books as one of the better presidents we've had.
What I'm interested in providing you is a perspective on how you may be able to make inroads in my state, Florida. As you are aware, Rep. Castor is not like the representatives that are around in South Florida. She also stands out when compared to your party Chairwoman. She has taken a bold stance supporting a new type of relationship with Cuba. She has been able to do so comfortably because in this area people are able to see through the stale rhetoric that permeates the South Florida air. For many years, the business community in the Tampa Bay area has been interested in forging a relationship with Cuba. If you have been paying attention, you already know that Tampa's City Council sent a friendly letter to Cuba, and was able to do so over the objections of one councilman who unfortunately is tied to the past. Since your administration gave the OK for direct flights from Tampa, there have already been new flights added to the schedule at TIA. There is much enthusiasm for travel to Cuba and the increase in the number of arrivals from the US shows that.
Recently, the Senator from your home state traveled to the island and stated called for more constructive engagement between the two countries. You can choose to ignore that the Cuban government has also expressed its willingness to engage with your administration, but by doing so you are showing a lack of incentive, a lack of desire to take the bold steps that people believed and hope that you are capable of. We can have the issue of Alan Gross remain as a stumbling block, or there can be an honest effort by your administration to find a solution to this problem.
I understand that the thought of driving the hard liners wild and giving them a talking point during a campaign year may be a bit unsettling for a candidate. But I believe with all of my heart that they are a lot louder than they are effective. The winds of change, both here and on the island are making the hard liner position marginalized. There have never been such displays of division within their own districts as when their representatives attempted to limit their abilities to visit their families. It is clear that the hard line position is weakened and now may be a better time than ever to completely marginalize it.
Many of the people that take a tough stance on Cuba, and in my humble opinion an incorrect one, will never support you. They have dismissed your party since the era of President Kennedy and I see pandering to them as futile. Perhaps pandering is too strong of a word, so I would suggest appealing to the people who would prefer a future which differs from the unfortunate past which has been hurtful for too many people on all sides. Changing the indefensible policy towards Cuba will happen. The question is when and who will be the president who shows the courage to take that step.
I feel that you are the one president, the one person who has it in you to take that step. What better time than now, or when the bumbling GOP figures out which candidate will challenge you. Putting them on the defensive on an issue such as this perpetual political football, would show the kind of courage that so many Americans once dreamed that you were capable of showing. Let your opponents spin in circles trying to defend a policy that almost everyone agrees is outdated and has proven to be incapable of achieving its goals. Whether an American is supportive of Cuba's right to determine its own path or just can't figure out why Vietnam is a trading partner and Cuba isn't, it is becoming openly criticized by people of all political stripes as a bad policy.
No longer should it be considered political expedience to treat Cuba as some sort of terrible enemy. In many news outlets, on many occasions, the hypocrisy of the policy is talked about. I understand the twisted politics of this issue and I'm trying to show a way that it can become untwisted. How would it feel to have Republicans in the House and Senate wind up supporting you on this issue during a campaign year? They would either have to change their positions and look like they are more concerned about party politics or just simply admit that the Democrat candidate is correct on at least this issue. How many farmers in "red" states may be very satisfied with open trade with Cuba? I'm sure there are enough to cause a bit of uncertainty for the GOP. How about the oil industry which is usually a Republican leaning constituency? They are aware that our policy is the major obstacle to their participation in oil exploration in Cuban waters. Even environmentalists would be a bit more comfortable knowing that the two countries would be working on plans together in the case of an accident. You could make a campaign stop in Key West, whose representative is so stubbornly irrational on this issue, and upstage her by explaining that it is beneficial to do more than just threaten foreign oil companies, and cooperation in this area would provide more protection for their beautiful islands and livelihood. The Tampa Bay area would be yours. You would like make inroads for the Democrat party within the South Florida Cuban community.
This is not necessarily a plea to your humanitarian side, but a fundamental explanation of how a bold political strategy may help you. But of course, there are many humanitarian reasons to do away with this poilicy. Your campaign can consider this a political tool and have a drasticly positive humanitarian effect as a result.
Please take all of this in to consideration and perhaps you will go down in our history books as one of the better presidents we've had.
Sincerely,
Jimmy C
A Tampa resident
Sunday, January 29, 2012
U.S. Hypocricy Needs to Change
For all of the money and effort spent by the folks in Washington to create an opposition movement in Cuba, and all of the pressure put on the nation of Cuba by the laws enacted by Washington, Cuba continues to advance in peace. Cuba remains on the U.S. terrorist list, yet no evidence can be found that Cuba has supported terrorism, nor has it been an aggressive nation. It is acknowledged by military and intelligence officials as not posing any threat to the U.S. Record numbers of Americans are traveling to the island explaining upon their return that the image of Cuba presented to us in the press doesn't match what they experienced. Within the community of Cubans living in the United States, there is a growing support for changing the policies that have endured for over a half of a century. The business community in the U.S. has been openly speaking of the advantages of opening more trade with Cuba. Many cities in the United States have sent delegations to Cuba expressing good will and hopes that things can change so that relationships can be expanded.
In spite of all of the positive attitudes that exist, the official line of the United States is to continue to state that Cuba must change its form of government and that Cuba must respect human rights. It is none of the business of Washington to determine what kind of government Cuba should have. The complaints about human rights in Cuba is a talking point which has nothing to do with Cuba's reality. Washington complains of arrests of supposed dissidents while protesters are routinely arrested in the U.S. This is pure hypocrisy. The supposed dissidents who are arrested on the island have been shown to be working with the U.S. government which openly considers itself an enemy of Cuba's government. Is a nation supposed to allow some people to work to undermine it on behalf of an enemy government? Of course not. What is truly absurd is that the protesters in the United States who are arrested are never found to be working for a foreign government. Their dissent is natural. Their dissent is born from a feeling within the United States.
It is not considered a human right in the U.S. to have a home or shelter. If it were, the U.S. would be a massive violator of human rights. Homelessness is rampant here and increasing. Also not considered human rights are medical care and education. These are considered commodities that are to be bought by those who can afford them.
Cuba has a different perspective. There are no homeless people in Cuba. Cuba has taken all possible measures to ensure that people have a place to call home, even if the conditions aren't what the average citizen in developed countries would expect for themselves. Medical care is provided for free for the people of Cuba, even the so-called dissidents. Higher education is also available for no charge by anyone who decides to pursue it.
The disconnect from reality by our politicians serves nobody well. It simply helps perpetuate the ignorant status quo of Cuba policy in Washington. Hopefully the positive forces that have been growing within the United States can force their way ahead of the extremist interest group which is headquartered in Miami. When the thoughtful voices are taken seriously, there will undoubtedly be positive engagement between Washington and Havana for the benefit of everyone.
In spite of all of the positive attitudes that exist, the official line of the United States is to continue to state that Cuba must change its form of government and that Cuba must respect human rights. It is none of the business of Washington to determine what kind of government Cuba should have. The complaints about human rights in Cuba is a talking point which has nothing to do with Cuba's reality. Washington complains of arrests of supposed dissidents while protesters are routinely arrested in the U.S. This is pure hypocrisy. The supposed dissidents who are arrested on the island have been shown to be working with the U.S. government which openly considers itself an enemy of Cuba's government. Is a nation supposed to allow some people to work to undermine it on behalf of an enemy government? Of course not. What is truly absurd is that the protesters in the United States who are arrested are never found to be working for a foreign government. Their dissent is natural. Their dissent is born from a feeling within the United States.
It is not considered a human right in the U.S. to have a home or shelter. If it were, the U.S. would be a massive violator of human rights. Homelessness is rampant here and increasing. Also not considered human rights are medical care and education. These are considered commodities that are to be bought by those who can afford them.
Cuba has a different perspective. There are no homeless people in Cuba. Cuba has taken all possible measures to ensure that people have a place to call home, even if the conditions aren't what the average citizen in developed countries would expect for themselves. Medical care is provided for free for the people of Cuba, even the so-called dissidents. Higher education is also available for no charge by anyone who decides to pursue it.
The disconnect from reality by our politicians serves nobody well. It simply helps perpetuate the ignorant status quo of Cuba policy in Washington. Hopefully the positive forces that have been growing within the United States can force their way ahead of the extremist interest group which is headquartered in Miami. When the thoughtful voices are taken seriously, there will undoubtedly be positive engagement between Washington and Havana for the benefit of everyone.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Gingich: The History Professor
As I've explained before, the anti-Cuba rhetoric during Florida campaigns is the same as it always has been. Newt Gingrich is attempting to set the bar of ignorance even higher than it usually is. He suggested that he, as president, would bomb Cuba if he thought the situation called for it. He was supposed to be a history professor at one point in his career. One would think that a history professor would have some sort of grasp of history, but in the case of Gingrich, apparently not.
Not only is he imagining some sort of right of the United States to intervene in Cuba, but he doesn't even have a grasp of current bombing campaigns by the U.S. and the outcomes of those campaigns. He is one of those ignorant people who actually believes in the idea that bombs and war create peaceful situations. This is not 1960, a time when the governments of Latin America were easily pressured by Washington to go along with trying to isolate Cuba. The year is 2012, and he should be aware of the strong bonds that Cuba has with the rest of the world, especially Latin America. Surely, Mr. Gingrich would try to claim that after bombing the proud people of Cuba, they would greet us with flowers!
By making such stupid remarks, it becomes obvious that he is simply pandering to the twisted right wing crowd in South Florida who can't for a single moment realize that Cuba does not belong to them. It isn't a U.S. territory, it isn't a colony, and it certainly isn't a client state of the U.S. It is a sovereign nation, which by international law, allows it to determine it's own affairs. The power brokers in Washington may hold on to a belief in the Monroe Doctrine, but they should be aware enough to realize that it is an imperialist doctrine rejected by the countries in the hemisphere. Imagining that it should or could be imposed is a grave error which only makes relationships with our neighbors more difficult.
In a few days, the Republicans will have their primary election in Florida and they will rush off to the next pandering battleground state. Their arrogance, ignorance, and flamboyant stupidity is on display for all to see. With almost every action and word they speak, they affirm Fidel Castro's description of them: "The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is - and I mean this seriously - the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been."
Not only is he imagining some sort of right of the United States to intervene in Cuba, but he doesn't even have a grasp of current bombing campaigns by the U.S. and the outcomes of those campaigns. He is one of those ignorant people who actually believes in the idea that bombs and war create peaceful situations. This is not 1960, a time when the governments of Latin America were easily pressured by Washington to go along with trying to isolate Cuba. The year is 2012, and he should be aware of the strong bonds that Cuba has with the rest of the world, especially Latin America. Surely, Mr. Gingrich would try to claim that after bombing the proud people of Cuba, they would greet us with flowers!
By making such stupid remarks, it becomes obvious that he is simply pandering to the twisted right wing crowd in South Florida who can't for a single moment realize that Cuba does not belong to them. It isn't a U.S. territory, it isn't a colony, and it certainly isn't a client state of the U.S. It is a sovereign nation, which by international law, allows it to determine it's own affairs. The power brokers in Washington may hold on to a belief in the Monroe Doctrine, but they should be aware enough to realize that it is an imperialist doctrine rejected by the countries in the hemisphere. Imagining that it should or could be imposed is a grave error which only makes relationships with our neighbors more difficult.
In a few days, the Republicans will have their primary election in Florida and they will rush off to the next pandering battleground state. Their arrogance, ignorance, and flamboyant stupidity is on display for all to see. With almost every action and word they speak, they affirm Fidel Castro's description of them: "The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is - and I mean this seriously - the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been."
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Old Bread
There is nothing more stale than the customary pandering to the extremists in Miami during the election cycles. There are more politicians repeating the same nonsense about Cuba to the usuals on Calle 8 than there are empty plastic coffee cups in the trash cans in Miami. It is the same usual routine; drink coffee at the Versailles bakery while rubbing elbows with the defenders of terrorists like Orlando Bosch an Luis Posada Carriles. Each and every candidate explains how he or she will be Castro's biggest enemy. Each and every candidate explains how he or she has the secret plan to finally bring down the Cuban revolution. Each and every candidate knows full well that their words are more useless than all of the covert and overt actions perpetrated by the U.S. against Cuba combined. Only the delusional dinosaurs of Calle 8 are mesmerized and believe the rhetoric.
Here's an excerpt from The Milwaulkee Sentinel dated October 24, 1960. "Castro is destined to go- whether or not Nixon or Kennedy becomes the new president. The embargo on exports is merely the beginning of contemplated moves moves with intervention blueprinted as the ultimate measure." That is an article from the time of the presidential campaign between Nixon and Kennedy. As we can see, this is not new rhetoric! History can show us that predictions from the U.S. have been wrong for over 50 years.
Here we are in 2012, new actors, excuse me, politicians have descended upon the world of Miami. The strange town that suffers from the Kennedy syndrome although he has been dead for almost a half of a century. They somehow hold on to the idea that they maintain some sort of significance on the island of Cuba. They are so far out of touch that they don't even recognize that they are becoming a minority in their own stronghold, Miami, the retirement home of ex-Latin American thugs and terrorists.
The only breath of fresh air comes from Ron Paul, who the media has treated as a circus act which only hurt his chances in the race. I think his economic policies would be disastrous, but his policy of not interfering with the internal workings of other countries should be a more common position in American politics.
So after the elections of 2012, the street sweepers in Miami will be busy once again cleaning up the countless anti-Castro political propaganda as this issue remains unresolved. Not the issue of Castro, which should not be the business of American politicians, but the issue of the embargo which isolates the U.S. from the rest of the world. Please, let's demand more than just stale bread. Let's find the strength to end the terrible policy of the embargo against Cuba and normalize relations so that the people in both countries can work together for a better future.
Here's an excerpt from The Milwaulkee Sentinel dated October 24, 1960. "Castro is destined to go- whether or not Nixon or Kennedy becomes the new president. The embargo on exports is merely the beginning of contemplated moves moves with intervention blueprinted as the ultimate measure." That is an article from the time of the presidential campaign between Nixon and Kennedy. As we can see, this is not new rhetoric! History can show us that predictions from the U.S. have been wrong for over 50 years.
Here we are in 2012, new actors, excuse me, politicians have descended upon the world of Miami. The strange town that suffers from the Kennedy syndrome although he has been dead for almost a half of a century. They somehow hold on to the idea that they maintain some sort of significance on the island of Cuba. They are so far out of touch that they don't even recognize that they are becoming a minority in their own stronghold, Miami, the retirement home of ex-Latin American thugs and terrorists.
The only breath of fresh air comes from Ron Paul, who the media has treated as a circus act which only hurt his chances in the race. I think his economic policies would be disastrous, but his policy of not interfering with the internal workings of other countries should be a more common position in American politics.
So after the elections of 2012, the street sweepers in Miami will be busy once again cleaning up the countless anti-Castro political propaganda as this issue remains unresolved. Not the issue of Castro, which should not be the business of American politicians, but the issue of the embargo which isolates the U.S. from the rest of the world. Please, let's demand more than just stale bread. Let's find the strength to end the terrible policy of the embargo against Cuba and normalize relations so that the people in both countries can work together for a better future.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Hard To Handle
For decades, the right wing Cuban community in the United States has comfortably and confidently controlled the politics and discussion in the United States in regards to Cuba. They have had the benefit of interests that coincided with the power structures in Washington and parts of corporate America, and with this alignment, they have maintained an unfortunate stranglehold on the issue of Cuba.
They have benefited from government subsidies to create expensive radio stations with no audiences and countless other programs that benefitted nobody except a select few, who have neither the interests of Cubans on the island nor in this country in mind. They have crafted special immigration laws for only themselves, which are viewed as unfair by many others, and have in fact been a dangerous enticement for people living in the island who either want to emigrate to the U.S. to reunite with family or have bought in to the idea of the American dream, which seems to be increasingly elusive for most people in this country.
They have had the luxury of a news media whose reference to them as exiles has painted a picture in the minds of many other Americans of a people forced from their homeland and banished forever, something that is actually not the reality. The original wave of Cubans (post 1959) was of mainly well off people who left willingly, with the belief that soon they would return after the pesky bearded guys returned things back to "normal" or were replaced by someone who would do so.
Remnants of the Batista regime set up shop in South Florida. Immediately, they did everything imaginable, from blockades to invasion to terrorism to try and inflict damage on the Cuban revolution, and by extension, the Cuban people suffered.
As time has gone on, much has changed and now, probably more than ever, changes are outpacing the old guard and their minions in Miami. The Cuban community in this country has many more people here now that favor engaging with their fellow Cubans on the island. Many of the newer arrivals suffered a great deal due to the politics of the original South Florida power brokers, the ones who long for a return to the days of pre-revolutionary Cuba. People are now making it known that they want greater connections with people on the island. There was incredible outrage within the Cuban community in South Florida when travel was greatly restricted under the Bush administration. When an attempt by Diaz-Balart to return to those restrictions was being kicked around in congress, it became obvious once again that the Batista crowd was on the wrong side of history. The measure was dropped, exposing a growing lack of political relevance of the Diaz-Valart brand.
Not only is the Cuban community changing, but there is an increasing desire on the part of businesses and cities which would benefit from a new relationship with Cuba. From Tampa to cities in states all over the nation, opinions pieces are carried in local media highlighting how their respective areas can benefit from an openness in U.S. policy. Flights are now departing from many cities across the country that touch down in Cuba and they are carrying American passengers.
Cuba remains the only country for which Americans need permission from our own government to travel. Americans are tired of it. There is pent-up desire to travel to the forbidden island and there are many options now available that fit under one of the few categories permitted by the Treasury Department. People are going and many are coming back with positive experiences. Educational trips and cultural exchanges are occurring more and more often.
"I think a lot of Americans have these stereotypes — that it's a communist
country, that you don't really have any rights and people don't really like
Americans," Cohen said. "All that kind of stuff was totally untrue in our eyes."
These are the words of a college baseball player who just finished playing some games against Cuban teams on the island.
All of the changes are very positive. The fact that the hard liners are less able to control so much on behalf of such a bitter few is very welcomed. That's not to say that they aren't trying to hold there ground, it's just they aren't able to. It's very hard for them to handle this new reality. Many will simply remain in denial, the same type of denial that led there choice to leave Cuba to be twisted in to there insistence that they were exiled. They will denounce ever step towards better relations and every honest gesture on the part of Cuba or the U.S. as having some sort of conniving move that is meant to deceive people.
Quoting Jose Manuel Palli in his analysis of the housing reforms in Cuba, "Here in Miami, we tend to discard anything we hear from Cuban officials as misleading propaganda, when in most cases we end up confirming later that what they said is exactly what they meant to say or do. " A brutally honest description of how the "exiles" are usually in denial.
They have benefited from government subsidies to create expensive radio stations with no audiences and countless other programs that benefitted nobody except a select few, who have neither the interests of Cubans on the island nor in this country in mind. They have crafted special immigration laws for only themselves, which are viewed as unfair by many others, and have in fact been a dangerous enticement for people living in the island who either want to emigrate to the U.S. to reunite with family or have bought in to the idea of the American dream, which seems to be increasingly elusive for most people in this country.
They have had the luxury of a news media whose reference to them as exiles has painted a picture in the minds of many other Americans of a people forced from their homeland and banished forever, something that is actually not the reality. The original wave of Cubans (post 1959) was of mainly well off people who left willingly, with the belief that soon they would return after the pesky bearded guys returned things back to "normal" or were replaced by someone who would do so.
Remnants of the Batista regime set up shop in South Florida. Immediately, they did everything imaginable, from blockades to invasion to terrorism to try and inflict damage on the Cuban revolution, and by extension, the Cuban people suffered.
As time has gone on, much has changed and now, probably more than ever, changes are outpacing the old guard and their minions in Miami. The Cuban community in this country has many more people here now that favor engaging with their fellow Cubans on the island. Many of the newer arrivals suffered a great deal due to the politics of the original South Florida power brokers, the ones who long for a return to the days of pre-revolutionary Cuba. People are now making it known that they want greater connections with people on the island. There was incredible outrage within the Cuban community in South Florida when travel was greatly restricted under the Bush administration. When an attempt by Diaz-Balart to return to those restrictions was being kicked around in congress, it became obvious once again that the Batista crowd was on the wrong side of history. The measure was dropped, exposing a growing lack of political relevance of the Diaz-Valart brand.
Not only is the Cuban community changing, but there is an increasing desire on the part of businesses and cities which would benefit from a new relationship with Cuba. From Tampa to cities in states all over the nation, opinions pieces are carried in local media highlighting how their respective areas can benefit from an openness in U.S. policy. Flights are now departing from many cities across the country that touch down in Cuba and they are carrying American passengers.
Cuba remains the only country for which Americans need permission from our own government to travel. Americans are tired of it. There is pent-up desire to travel to the forbidden island and there are many options now available that fit under one of the few categories permitted by the Treasury Department. People are going and many are coming back with positive experiences. Educational trips and cultural exchanges are occurring more and more often.
"I think a lot of Americans have these stereotypes — that it's a communist
country, that you don't really have any rights and people don't really like
Americans," Cohen said. "All that kind of stuff was totally untrue in our eyes."
These are the words of a college baseball player who just finished playing some games against Cuban teams on the island.
All of the changes are very positive. The fact that the hard liners are less able to control so much on behalf of such a bitter few is very welcomed. That's not to say that they aren't trying to hold there ground, it's just they aren't able to. It's very hard for them to handle this new reality. Many will simply remain in denial, the same type of denial that led there choice to leave Cuba to be twisted in to there insistence that they were exiled. They will denounce ever step towards better relations and every honest gesture on the part of Cuba or the U.S. as having some sort of conniving move that is meant to deceive people.
Quoting Jose Manuel Palli in his analysis of the housing reforms in Cuba, "Here in Miami, we tend to discard anything we hear from Cuban officials as misleading propaganda, when in most cases we end up confirming later that what they said is exactly what they meant to say or do. " A brutally honest description of how the "exiles" are usually in denial.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Pope's Visit and the Choices That the Cubans in Miami Face
This is my comment to the opinion by one person's take on the Pope's Visit to Cuba which was in the Miami Herald. As usual, the opinion tries to belittle the Pope's visit with the typical condescending tone of the anti-Cuba crowd, which is finding itself more marginalized by the day.
"From afar, by choice, the Cuban community in South Florida can do a few things. They can, under current law, send money and packages of helpful goods to their families on the island. Many do already and the gestures are always welcomed.
Also, they can become more vocal in their desires to build on the connections they have on the island by insisting that those who represent their districts do not support the hurtful policies that have a huge hand in some of the difficulties that the Cubans on the island experience. Cuba's economy should be able to grow without the unnecessary obstacles posed by the embargo and Helms-Burton.
They can let it be known that the politicians such as Diaz-Balart, Ros-Lehtinen, and Rubio represent a shrinking minority of folks who don't want life to be better on the island.
One thing that they cannot do, nor ever will be able to do, is determine how Cuba decides to conduct its affairs. One can agree or disagree, but no one outside of Cuba can make a sovereign Cuba do anything that it doesn't feel is in its interest. Not even the Pope, who I'm sure won't be imposing himself on anyone. He will simply be lending his spiritual support to those who feel they would like it."
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/10/2583319/a-sliver-of-hope-in-popes-visit.html#storylink=cpy
"From afar, by choice, the Cuban community in South Florida can do a few things. They can, under current law, send money and packages of helpful goods to their families on the island. Many do already and the gestures are always welcomed.
Also, they can become more vocal in their desires to build on the connections they have on the island by insisting that those who represent their districts do not support the hurtful policies that have a huge hand in some of the difficulties that the Cubans on the island experience. Cuba's economy should be able to grow without the unnecessary obstacles posed by the embargo and Helms-Burton.
They can let it be known that the politicians such as Diaz-Balart, Ros-Lehtinen, and Rubio represent a shrinking minority of folks who don't want life to be better on the island.
One thing that they cannot do, nor ever will be able to do, is determine how Cuba decides to conduct its affairs. One can agree or disagree, but no one outside of Cuba can make a sovereign Cuba do anything that it doesn't feel is in its interest. Not even the Pope, who I'm sure won't be imposing himself on anyone. He will simply be lending his spiritual support to those who feel they would like it."
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/10/2583319/a-sliver-of-hope-in-popes-visit.html#storylink=cpy
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Dishonest Complaints
Here in the U.S., there is the constant search for reasons to claim that Cuba is oppressive. One of the common, yet more recent disingenuous complaints is the lack of Internet access for the people in Cuba. We are supposed to believe that Cuba is a totalitarian country which relies on controlling the information that the people get. I'm not going to go off in to a diatribe about how even though we here in the U.S. are supposed to enjoy the fact that we have a free press, but there is plenty of evidence that large numbers of people remain completely uninformed or flat out incorrect in what they believe to be fact. That's a whole other discussion.
What I will point out are some statistics about Internet access in the U.S. It is an eye opener, especially for those of us who do have high speed Internet access at home and even on our phones. As is pointed out in an article on "Counter Punch", "Naively, it has been assumed that the same conditions present in the developed industrial countries are also present in the rest of the less wealthy world. Yet, there is a digital divide that is not a function of politics, but of income." Income. It is quite simple. The more income one has, the more access to these wonderful things is possible. The same is true for countries. The U.S. has amassed more wealth than any other nation. In spite of this, in the Mecca of anti-Cuba rhetoric, Florida, 33% of households do not connect to the Internet via broadband. In the country, 64% of people earning $25,000 or less don't connect via broadband. 6% of people earning $100,000 or more don't. See the income factor? In Latin America, less than 7% are connected via broadband. I'm willing to bet that the poor aren't the lucky ones. Has anyone here complained about this fact?
Who are we trying to kid? Are we supposed to imagine that Cuba's economy is somehow equal to the U.S. economy? Is Fidel supposed to wave a magic wand and make the required infrastructure appear on the island? The Cuban economy has struggled along, especially since the demise of the Soviet Union, yet not one person has been evicted from there home. They may not have access to broadband, but there is no law preventing the people who are fortunate enough to pay the price from connecting to the Internet. It is slower, and to us that would be nerve wrecking! But the fact remains that Cubans are not prevented from using the Internet. In a certain way, Cubans suffer the same problems that many Americans do. Lack of income. The less developed nations will always be a step or two behind the developed countries, but we should stop and ask ourselves if the inflammatory rhetoric in this case about Cuba is really worthy of our attention. It is in my estimation that this, like so many issues, aren't presented to us honestly. And if the politicians in this country were really concerned about Internet access on the island of Cuba, they would stop impeding Cuba's economy. They would end the blockade of the nation and allow its economy to grow at a natural pace as opposed to being forced to participate in the world economy with two hands tied behind its back. But our politicians haven't yet found the courage to do the right thing and admit its errors in its policy towards Cuba. So for now we'll be forced to hear the usual nonsensical rhetoric and wait for Cuba to not be off limits to us and the much of the world be off limits (by our own doing) to Cuba.
(This is a link to the CounterPunch article I quoted> It is very informative.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/05/cuba-the-embargo-and-the-digital-divide/
What I will point out are some statistics about Internet access in the U.S. It is an eye opener, especially for those of us who do have high speed Internet access at home and even on our phones. As is pointed out in an article on "Counter Punch", "Naively, it has been assumed that the same conditions present in the developed industrial countries are also present in the rest of the less wealthy world. Yet, there is a digital divide that is not a function of politics, but of income." Income. It is quite simple. The more income one has, the more access to these wonderful things is possible. The same is true for countries. The U.S. has amassed more wealth than any other nation. In spite of this, in the Mecca of anti-Cuba rhetoric, Florida, 33% of households do not connect to the Internet via broadband. In the country, 64% of people earning $25,000 or less don't connect via broadband. 6% of people earning $100,000 or more don't. See the income factor? In Latin America, less than 7% are connected via broadband. I'm willing to bet that the poor aren't the lucky ones. Has anyone here complained about this fact?
Who are we trying to kid? Are we supposed to imagine that Cuba's economy is somehow equal to the U.S. economy? Is Fidel supposed to wave a magic wand and make the required infrastructure appear on the island? The Cuban economy has struggled along, especially since the demise of the Soviet Union, yet not one person has been evicted from there home. They may not have access to broadband, but there is no law preventing the people who are fortunate enough to pay the price from connecting to the Internet. It is slower, and to us that would be nerve wrecking! But the fact remains that Cubans are not prevented from using the Internet. In a certain way, Cubans suffer the same problems that many Americans do. Lack of income. The less developed nations will always be a step or two behind the developed countries, but we should stop and ask ourselves if the inflammatory rhetoric in this case about Cuba is really worthy of our attention. It is in my estimation that this, like so many issues, aren't presented to us honestly. And if the politicians in this country were really concerned about Internet access on the island of Cuba, they would stop impeding Cuba's economy. They would end the blockade of the nation and allow its economy to grow at a natural pace as opposed to being forced to participate in the world economy with two hands tied behind its back. But our politicians haven't yet found the courage to do the right thing and admit its errors in its policy towards Cuba. So for now we'll be forced to hear the usual nonsensical rhetoric and wait for Cuba to not be off limits to us and the much of the world be off limits (by our own doing) to Cuba.
(This is a link to the CounterPunch article I quoted> It is very informative.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/05/cuba-the-embargo-and-the-digital-divide/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)