CUBA SUPPORT GROUP - IRELAND
CUBA SUPPORT GROUP - IRELAND
This year Cuba celebrates not just the forty-fifth anniversary of the Revolution but forty-five years of revolution. It has secured a standard of living for its people undreamed of in other countries in the region and in many instances surpasses the levels of social welfare available in so-called developed countries. This has been achieved against all the odds. Cuba has survived against all the predictions of friends and foes alike. Suffering aggression from the United States and its allies—now gallantly joined by the European Union—and reeling from the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba did not interrupt its revolution. It responded by adopting measures considered necessary to achieve its primary aim—the survival of the revolution—and then, where possible, the development of the revolution. Today Cuba stands proudly against the aggressive military and economic policies and adventures of the United States and of imperialism generally. For this it has earned the respect of people and governments throughout the world, and the disdain of the imperialists and the exploiters. Cuba now faces a dangerous period. The European Union is eager to please its US master and willingly engages in aggressive action against Cuba. The United States—for all its economic and military power—is terrified of the example that Cuba provides to progressive people, organisations and governments, especially in Latin America. Now considered a “rogue (disobedient) state,” operating in a new “axis of evil” (working on shared interests with other countries), Cuba is “playing with fire” (not behaving as the US government dictates) and is on the Americans’ list for “regime change” (military invasion?). Cuba has shown that the countries of Latin America need not be condemned to poverty and backwardness, that progress can be made and the highest standard of health care and social welfare achieved. It has also shown that it can withstand the threats, the aggression and the vindictiveness of the United States and its lackey allies. Cuba has struggled to defend the gains of its Revolution. Join the Cuba Support Group in supporting that struggle.
The Bush regime has eliminated cultural exchange licences that allowed US citizens to travel to Cuba. Commonly known as “people-to-people” licences, they were introduced in 1999 by the Clinton regime and were supposedly intended to let Cubans and Americans learn about each other through educational trips. In fact they were intended to contaminate Cubans with exposure to “freedom and democracy,” US-style. Now US government officials say the exchanges had become little more than thinly veiled tourism and have eliminated the scheme. About 160,000 Americans visited Cuba legally in 2002 (the last year for which statistics are available), according to the US Treasury Department. Many others travel there illegally by departing from airports outside America. Cuba received a just over 1.9 million visitors from abroad in 2003, a 12% growth on the previous year’s total – the majority from Europe and the United States, followed by Latin America and Asia. The Centre for Cuban Studies, Common Ground Education and Travel and Global Exchange have now suspended their tours to Cuba. “It was creating dialogue,” according to Laura Sitkin, marketing co-ordinator for Common Ground. “The dialogue was changing American policy.” The problem for the US authorities is that it was supposed to be changing Cuban policies. Funny old world!
The Cuba Support Group’s connections with the municipality of Cotorro, near Havana, over the years led to Irish support being directed towards three particular areas: a secondary school, a polyclinic, and the cultural centre. The connection with the cultural centre was first established by the Belfast Branch, which financed the initial stages of the centre. Last November the Belfast Branch and Cuba Support Group central funds combined to provide $1,500 for specific improvements to the centre. In addition, the Cuba Support Group provided equipment to facilitate the upgrading of computers in the offices of the Cuban Institute for Friendship with Peoples (ICAP).
Dáil deputies, including Finian McGrath, Tony Gregory, and John Gormley, among others, have been joined by the Labour Party in an appeal for justice for the Miami Five. In a statement signed by Emmet Stagg TD, Labour Party whip, on behalf of all Labour Party TDs and senators, Stagg said: “We, the undersigned members of the Irish Parliament, are acquainted with the details of the case of the Miami Five and believe that their convictions are unsafe. We call on the US authorities to initiate an immediate review of the case to examine the legality of the proceedings used to convict them, the conditions of their incarceration and the denial of their human rights whilst in custody. “We call on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal to grant a retrial in a neutral venue in response to their appeal. “We recognise the right of sovereign nations to defend themselves against terrorist acts originating in a Foreign Territory and commend the Miami Five for their efforts to protect Cuban citizens and tourists from terrorist attacks launched from within the territory of the USA.”
New Year greetings to the Cuba Support Group were received from President Fidel Castro, Felipe Pérez Roque, Cuban Foreign Minister, José Fernández de Cossío, Cuban ambassador to Ireland and Britain, Teresita Trujillo, chargé d’affaires of the Cuban embassy in Ireland, José Balaguer, member of the Political Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, Sergio Corrieri, president of the Cuban Institute of Friendship with Peoples (ICAP), Elio Gamez, European Desk at ICAP, and Osiris Oviedo, International Department of the Central Organisation of Cuban Trade Unions.
This year the Cuba Health and Education (CHE) Project will contribute at least $2,000 for the continuation of MediCuba Europe projects. The main projects include providing raw materials to the Cuban pharmaceutical industry, providing equipment to the National Institute of Oncology and Radiobiology, and providing financial support for the investigation and development of medication for the treatment of asthma.
More than fifty thousand delegates, including Stephen McCloskey and Simon McGuinness from the Cuba Support Group, attended the Second European Social Forum, held in Paris from 12 to 15 November 2003. Stephen McCloskey reports: It was refreshing to find that Cuba featured strongly in the forum’s programme of events and remains an example of a development that, more than forty years into the revolutionary process, continues to inspire civil society movements throughout the world. As a curtain-raiser to the forum the French trade union federation CGT convened a European network meeting of Cuba solidarity groups and activists. The meeting combined statements of solidarity from a dozen countries with speeches from Cuban representatives, including Aleida Guevara, daughter of Che, and Elio Gomes, who holds responsibility for liaison with Cuba solidarity groups in Europe. A packed auditorium gave a ringing endorsement of Cuba’s anti-imperialist stance in the face of renewed US aggression and suggested a burgeoning support for Cuba within French society, with numerous contributions at the event from local politicians, trade unions, and Cuba support groups. Lazaro Mora from Cuba confidently described the revolutionary process that had carved out a socialist model of development in the face of continued overt and covert US attempts to overthrow the Cuban government. By playing on the ESF’s mantra, “Another world is possible,” Mora suggested that Cuba had proved the case that an alternative model to that espoused by the United States was not only possible but already a reality. The positive reaction to Mora’s comments suggests that the Cuban model remains an example to follow for other countries in the southern hemisphere, particularly in Latin America. Indeed the increasing number of civil society and political movements in Latin America gravitating to the left or electing more progressive governments points to the influence that Cuba continues to have on many of its neighbours in Central and South America. Another debate on Cuba dealt with the deteriorating relations between the European Union and Havana following the imposition of sanctions against Cuba by the European Commission, on human rights grounds. The muddled and contradictory EU common position on Cuba, which on the one hand condemns the US blockade and on the other hand introduces new sanctions of its own, seems to be constructed to curry favour with Washington. The inconsistencies in the European Union’s common position demand a unified response and coherent action from Cuba solidarity groups throughout Europe, and this debate, as part of the forum, was a positive step in that direction. The closing event of the forum was a march boasting fifty thousand participants through the streets of Paris. It was conducted in a comradely spirit, full of colour and spectacle and free from any hint of violence, thus denying the more malevolent elements in the media any opportunity to slander the marchers and the forum. Cuba was well represented in the march, with many other groups—trade unions, political parties, and solidarity organisations—carrying images of Che Guevara, who remains an enduring symbol of the kind of revolutionary change to which so many still aspire.
The United States has accused Cuba of “playing with fire” in its latest episode of aggression and is now showing clear signs of fear, bordering on paranoia, regarding the respect and influence that Cuba has attained in the region. The Cuban newspaper Granma went so far as to say that the latest attack “induces pity” for the US officials involved. Roger Noriega, US assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, has criticised Cuba for allegedly “destabilising democratic governments” and stated that Latin American countries had complained about Cuba’s behaviour. “It should be made very clear to Fidel Castro that his actions have caught the attention of Latin American leaders and that his actions to destabilise Latin America are increasingly provoking the inter-American community, including the United States.” The Granma editorial asks the obvious question: where did Noriega get the idea that Cuba has adopted a provocative position aimed at destabilising Latin America, and which countries are complaining? “With the exception of the contemptible whiner who governs Uruguay, an abject lackey of the United States, and the ‘breath of fresh air,’ as Mr Bush so poetically describes the man who governs El Salvador . . . the government of our country maintains normal and respectful diplomatic relations with the rest of the states in our region. None of them have made complaints or uttered a single word concerning destabilising plans on the part of Cuba in relation to their governments. “What does destabilising mean? Sending thousands of doctors to co-operate with governments in the care of the poorest and most needy people? Since when did promoting education and culture destabilise governments? . . . “What does playing with fire mean? You do not have the mettle to intimidate any Cuban patriot. Those who believe that the Cuban people can be intimated any time are defeated before they start!” As for undermining governments in the region, who would know more about that particular activity than good old Uncle Sam? The principal US goal for the hemisphere is to conclude a so-called free trade agreement—the Free Trade Area of the Americas—to extend from Alaska to Argentina by early 2005. Many countries are showing decreasing levels of enthusiasm for the proposal. Apart from Fidel Castro, no leader is more critical than Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, who said that its adoption would be “like committing suicide.” Of course there is a reason for the United States to be worried, but it has nothing to do with Cuba or Venezuela undermining governments in the region. It has to do with Cuba and Venezuela undermining the United States in the region.
The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, has asked for Cuba to be included in the inter-American system of nations. “Why isn’t Cuba part of it? Who was consulted to exclude it?” Responding to recent claims that Cuba and Venezuela are promoting political destabilisation in the region, Chávez stated that he and the President of Cuba, Fidel Castro, are destabilisers, but of hunger and death. “Yes, we are destabilisers, Cuba and Venezuela, Fidel and Chávez. Fortunately we are not the only ones: each day the destabilisers of death . . . are growing in number.”Chávez said that the integration model between Venezuela and Cuba is being presented as an alternative to the neo-liberal model promoted by the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
General Smedley Butler, a celebrated and much-decorated American war hero of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with thirty-four years’ military service, later reflected on his campaigns in a book entitled War as a Racket. “I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism . . . I helped make Honduras ‘right’ for American fruit companies in 1903. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long.” And getting longer by the day.
Diplomatic relations between Argentina and the United States deteriorated in January after the United States said the country’s left-leaning government was too soft on Cuba. Roger Noriega, US assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, said he was “disappointed” that officials visiting Cuba had failed to meet “dissidents,” referring to the recent trip by the foreign minister, Rafael Bielsa. “We consider the declarations aggressive . . . and inopportune,” the Argentine vice-foreign minister, Jorge Taiana, responded. President Kirchner upset the United States last year with his criticisms of the International Monetary Fund, blaming it for Argentina’s economic collapse in 2002. Kirchner also restored full diplomatic relations with Cuba. US officials have said there is a growing alliance between Cuba on the one hand and Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina, countries that have swung to the left in recent years amid a backlash against the free-market policies advocated by Washington. With Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and other countries in the Americas starting to get uppity, where will it all end?
More than six hundred and sixty people, including some children from more than forty countries are locked up in the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay, accused of being suspects in the “war on terror.” The United States has denied them prisoner-of-war status and instead designated them “enemy combatants,” a term not recognised in international law. They have never been told why they have been deprived of their liberty, nor when or how they might be released, charged, or tried, nor given any opportunity to challenge their status before a court or a “competent tribunal” to determine status, as required by article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. The strangeness of the US position is that although it does not consider the Guantánamo captives prisoners of war in the formal, Geneva Convention sense, it considers them prisoners of war in one very specific sense: they can be held until the war is over. To the question “What war?” the Bush administration responds, “The war on terror.” In other words, the captives can be held for as long as the US president likes; for ever, in fact, since, unlike real wars, where a particular territory and a particular military entity is involved, this one exists only as a concept. The “war” was going on before 11 September 2001—it is hard to think of a year in recent decades in which US citizens or US interests have not come under terrorist attack—and it is difficult to see how any US leader could ever take the political risk of declaring a “war on terror” to have finished. Enemy combatant status means that the Guantánamo detainees are kept captive until the end of a potentially endless “war,” without the opportunity to plead before a court that they had nothing to do with that “war.” The United States does not consider itself obliged to put them on trial, so it has no obligation to give them lawyers; even if they are put on trial, and are acquitted, under its own rules the United States might simply lock them up again.
At the end of 2003 Noam Chomsky visited Cuba to participate in the Third Latin American and Caribbean Social Sciences Conference in Havana. During an interview with Bernie Dwyer of Radio Havana he responded to questions on Cuba’s role in the world and on the Miami Five, among other issues.
Dwyer: During these times of US world domination, what role do you see Cuba playing?
Chomsky: Well, Cuba has become a symbol of courageous resistance to attack. Since 1959 Cuba has been under attack from the hemispheric superpower. It has been invaded, subjected to more terror than maybe the rest of the world combined—certainly any other country that I can think of—and it’s under an economic stranglehold that has been ruled completely illegal by every relevant international body. It has been at the receiving end of terrorism, repression, and denunciation, but it survives. If you look back at the declassified record and the problems that Cuba was posing, and therefore had to be overthrown, one intelligence analyst said that “the very existence of the Castro regime is successful defiance of US policies that go back a hundred and fifty years.” He’s not talking about the Russians: he’s talking about the Monroe Doctrine, which says “We are the masters of the hemisphere.” It goes on to say that this is really dangerous, as it offers a model that others might want to follow. That’s what is called “communist aggression.” You have a model that somebody wants to follow; so you have to destroy the virus. Kissinger, for example, during the other “9/11”—the one that happened in 1973—was concerned that Allende, with his democratic victory and social programmes, would spread contagion not only in Latin America but even in Italy, where the United States at the very same time was carrying out large-scale subversive operations to try to undermine Italian democracy and even supported fascist parties in Italy. Yes, Cuba is the symbol of successful defiance that accounts for the venomous hostility. The very existence of the regime, independent of what it does, by not subordinating itself to power, is just an unacceptable defiance for the rest of the world. It’s a symbol of what can be done without using harsh conditions. It’s once again a case of those under the most severe conditions are doing things that others can’t do. So, for example, let’s take Cuba’s role in the liberation of Africa. It’s an astonishing achievement that has almost been totally suppressed. Now, you can read about it in scholarship, but the contribution that Cuba made to the self-liberation of Africa is fantastic. And that was against the entire concentrated power of the world. All the imperialist powers were trying to block it. It finally worked, and Cuba’s contribution was unique. That’s another reason why Cuba is hated. Just the plain fact that black soldiers from Cuba were able to beat back a South African invasion of Angola sent shock waves throughout the continent. The black movements were inspired by it. The white South Africans were psychologically crushed by the fact that South African forces could be defeated by a black army. The United States were infuriated. If you look at the next couple of years, the terrorist attacks on Cuba got much worse. But yes, it’s a symbol of successful defiance. One can have arguments about what society is like and what it does, but that’s for Cubans to decide. But for the world its symbolic significance is not slight.
Dwyer: You are aware of the plight of the five Cuban political prisoners in the United States.
Chomsky: The thing with the Cuban Five is such a scandal, it’s hard to talk about it. Cuba was providing the FBI with information about the terrorist actions taking place in the United States, based in the United States—completely criminal. So instead of arresting the terrorists they arrested the people that provided the information, which is so ridiculous I find it difficult to talk about it. They put them under very hard conditions, and it’s not recorded. You can’t read about it. So one of the reasons it goes on is because nobody knows about it. There were a few brief mentions, but all it said was that these people were informing Cuba that an unarmed plane was going to fly over Havana. That’s about the only story that was reported. The actual facts of the matter are not secret, but no-one knows . . . The US has vetoed resolutions calling on all states to observe international law. It vetoed the Security Council resolution affirming the World Court judgement which condemned the US for pronounced international terrorism. No-one mentions this, nobody knows it, it’s not part of anyone’s consciousness. You go into the faculty club or the editorial offices and people will never have heard about it. That’s what it means to have extreme power, and a very subservient intellectual class. It’s out of history; it didn’t happen.
In 2003 Cuba attained a 6.3 infant mortality rate on the international indicator that measures the state of health of the population and in particular the development of maternal and infant care. That makes Cuba the Latin American country with the lowest rate. According to The State of the World’s Children, 2004, published by UNICEF, the United States registers 7.0. The infant mortality measure includes all the deaths of children aged up to one year within the live birth population over a twelve-month period. The rate is affected by multiple social, economic and scientific factors, and the maximum and minimum rates give an idea of differences that exist among countries and also within geographical areas of the same country. While industrialised countries have a rate of 5 deaths per thousand live births, the so-called developing countries have a rate of 60 or more and the least-developed record over 100, with heightened differences within each country in relation to wealthy and poor areas, even in highly developed countries. In the developing countries, transmitted diseases—in their majority preventable through vaccination or curable with medical attention—account for seven of the ten main causes of infant mortality and are responsible for approximately 60 per cent of all infant deaths. In Cuba, mortality in the first twelve months of life occurs as a result of postnatal ailments (those appearing in the first few days of life); congenital disorders, fundamentally cardiovascular; influenza and pneumonia; sepsis; and accidents, particularly in the home. During their first year of life Cuban infants receive an average of twenty-five medical checks and are progressively immunised against thirteen diseases. According to preliminary data there were 136,772 births in Cuba in 2003, 4,243 less than in 2002.
Purchases of agricultural products and livestock from the United States doubled in 2003 and are expected to increase over the coming year, despite restrictions imposed by the US government on trade and travel between the two countries. Since December 2001 when sales began, Cuba has paid more than $590 million in cash. It should not be forgotten that Cuba is not allowed to export 1 cent worth of products or materials to the United States. The trade is all one way and Cuba could buy these items anywhere but chooses to buy from the United States. While the trade may be one way, the political pressure resulting from the sales is on the Bush régime - Cuba can pay, US enterprises can provide and the only obstacle to that arrangement is Bush and his Cuban-American friends in Miami. There is little doubt that there is a substantial political component to each purchasing decision made by Cuba as it relates to the United States. While the sales may be good for the US economy, Bush will soon learns that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Cuba will go to the Olympic Games in Athens with 170 athletes and the hope of remaining among the top ten countries in the table of medals. With a small area and population but huge interest in sports, Cuba joined the select group of the word’s top ten countries in the 1976 Olympic Games in Montréal, and has remained in the group ever since. Cuba’s best performance was in Barcelona in 1992, where it won fourteen gold medals and finished fifth. According to Angel Iglesias, vice-president of the National Institute for Sports, Physical Education, and Recreation, the best options for the Cuban delegation are athletics, boxing, baseball, canoe, cycling, judo, wrestling, and tae kwon do. Cuba will participate in sixteen of the twenty-eight sports during the coming Olympic Games.
Cuba increased its oil production last year by 2.5 per cent, reaching more than 260 million barrels. According to the latest estimates, Cuba will be able to supply 60 per cent of its energy needs by 2005, without taking into account oil drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Cuba at present has contracts with Brazilian and Canadian drilling companies, which are working to find new oil deposits off the country’s coasts. In addition, a considerable amount of natural gas is being extracted and is used for generating electricity.
Cuba’s economy grew by 2.6 per cent in 2003, according to Cuba’s economy minister, José Luis Rodríguez. Addressing the Cuban Parliament, Rodríguez made it clear that this growth in gross domestic product is 1.1 per cent higher than projected, and it would be 3.8 per cent if the country’s spending on free social services were included. In contrast, Latin America’s economy will grow by 1.5 pr cent, and its GDP per capita will continue to be lower than that of 1997.
The United Nations Resident Co-ordinator in Cuba, Bruno Moro, has stated that Cuban protection of the ozone layer is a model for other Third World countries. He praised the growth in the exploitation of clean and renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaic, wind, and water, mainly in health, education, and culture. He noted that Cuba and Brazil were the first countries to stop using methyl bromide, a pesticide that attacks the ozone layer, in the growing of tobacco. The Cuban government has signed all international agreements in relation to the protection of the ozone layer.
The export of pharmaceutical products, vaccines and biotechnology is now helping to finance medical research in Cuba as well as a free health system with comprehensive coverage. Today the medical sector ranks sixth in exports and services, providing the country with vitally needed foreign exchange that was worth $250 million a year in 2002. Out of that figure, biotechnology alone accounted for more than $150 million. In the 1980s millions of dollars were invested by the Cuban government in developing vaccine laboratories and a massive centre for biotechnology. However, Cuba’s attempts to gain a foothold in the international pharmaceutical market have come up against formidable obstacles, both commercial and political, with the stringent US blockade. Cuba’s strength has been in the quality of its products, and during the last few years the biggest earner for Cuban biotechnology has been the export of hepatitis B vaccine to more than thirty countries. The Cuban vaccine is widely regarded as more effective than those produced in Belgium and the United States. Joint ventures with China, India and Russia have been established to set up vaccine plants in their countries, based on a transfer of Cuban technology. Another growing source of income is health tourism, with a number of specialist hospitals, clinics, health spas and resorts catering for foreign visitors. Last year more than five thousand foreign patients travelled to Cuba for a wide range of treatment, including eye surgery, neurological disorders, such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease, and orthopaedics. Most patients are from Latin America. The unique Cuban treatment for retinitis pigmentosa (often known as night blindness) has attracted many patients from Europe and North America, generating revenue of approximately $40 million a year. More than five hundred different medical products are manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry, which during the 1980s provided 80 per cent of domestic needs. Cuba’s new products for neck and breast cancer have caused the biggest stir in the world of biotechnology. They have just been licensed to a German pharmaceutical company, with rights to develop the drug theraCIM h-R3 for the European market. Analysts say that so far the commercial rewards for Cuba’s many medical innovations have been only a small fraction of their potential. But if theraCIM h-R3 receives regulatory approval it could become a standard cancer treatment in Europe in four or five years, with estimated sales of about $3 billion a year.
Cuba is co-operating with 165 countries, mainly in the fields of health care, education, and sport. 876 projects are with developing countries, mostly related to health care. Fifteen thousand Cuban medical specialists are working in sixty-four countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Europe. 51 out of the 54 African countries have benefited from these initiatives. In the Caribbean, Haïti is a major beneficiary of Cuban health expertise, and it is expected that new projects will begin soon with Trinidad and Tobago and Belize, together with a primary school teaching project in Belize. Cuban internationalist co-operation, which started forty years ago, also includes receiving foreign students in Cuba.
Cuba has drastically reduced its military expenditure in the last ten years. Fernando Remírez de Estenoz, Cuba’s first deputy minister of foreign affairs, has stated that “despite continuing to be the victim of the blockade, aggression and threats, our country’s military expenditure has not grown; on the contrary, it has dramatically fallen in the last ten years, while we have decided to maintain and increase spending in the sectors prioritised by our Revolution: education, public health, social security, culture, and sports.” Developing the issue of military spending, he asked: “How much could be done if just one part of the $849 billion of annual military expenditure—almost half of that total corresponding to just one country—was invested in attention to the 815 million people in the world suffering from hunger, the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty, the 854 million illiterate adults, the 115 million children without access to education, the 2.4 billion people without basic sanitation, or the 40 million with AIDS?” While two-thirds of the planet’s population is living in desperation and poverty, the world is spending more than $128 per capita on arms, he added, going on to say that “it would be much better to utilise those colossal sums to reduce the difference in income between the richest and the poorest countries, which was 37-fold in 1960 and is now 74-fold.” In various international forums Cuba has proposed as an immediate step an agreement to place 50 per cent of what is now directed to military expenditure in a fund for sustainable development at the disposition of the United Nations.
Addressing the Cuban National Assembly, the foreign minister, Felipe Pérez Roque, announced that Cuba maintains diplomatic and consular relations with 181 countries. Roque considered the condemnation by 179 countries of the US economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba at the United Nation last November as the major victory of Cuba’s foreign policy initiatives in 2003. He also said that the White House and the State Department were not able to condemn Cuba in any international forum, despite their strong pressures on the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, at the Organisation of American States, and at the Thirteenth Ibero-American Summit.
At he end of January, Robert Redford provided a private screening of The Motorcycle Diaries for the widow and children of the legendary Che Guevara in Havana. “I came to present the film that I produced on Che Guevara, and I am very happy to be in Cuba,” Redford said. The film is based on the diaries Guevara wrote on a nine-month trip through South America on an ancient Norton motorcycle in 1952, when he was an asthmatic 23-year-old medical student. Guevara’s journey opened his eyes to poverty in Latin America, and he later joined Fidel Castro in Mexico, where the Cuban leader was organising a landing party to launch the guerrilla movement that triumphed in 1959. “The film is excellent,” Guevara’s widow, Aleida, who provided the diaries to the film-makers, said after the screening, which was also attended by Guevara’s son and two daughters.
At the UN General Assembly debate on the US blockade of Cuba, the US representative descended to abusive language, Cuba, describing the Cuban government as an “evil and dictatorial regime,” to which they would like to say, “Hasta la vista, baby!” The Cuban foreign minister, Felipe Pérez Roque, was not amused and departed from his prepared script to deal with the matter. “The vulgar and disrespectful tone used in this hall just minutes ago by the representative of the United States obliges me to depart from my prepared text. First of all, the representative of the United States has said that the blockade against Cuba is justified on the basis of what he called ‘Cuba’s regrettable human rights record.’ Lies! The United States has no moral authority or right to judge the human rights situation in Cuba; it should attend to its own human rights situation; it should deal with the horrendous human rights violations that take place in its own territory, and the ones it provokes outside its borders. “Second, he has said that the blockade against Cuba is a bilateral affair. Lies! The blockade obstructs business with and investment in Cuba around the entire planet, through the application of the Torricelli and Helms-Burton Acts, as I will discuss later in my speech. “Third, he has said that the blockade was established after the expropriations. Lies! The measures of the economic blockade and other forms of economic war against Cuba date back to before the nationalisations that were justly undertaken by the Cuban Revolution. “Fourth, he has said that Cuba did not offer compensation. Lies! The Cuban nationalisation laws established compensation, and in fact this compensation was accepted by all foreign owners in Cuba, including Europeans, Canadians, and Latin Americans—everyone except for citizens of the United States, whose government prohibited them from accepting compensation. “Fifth, he has said that the blockade is aimed at bringing freedom and democracy to Cuba. Lies! The blockade is aimed at turning Cuba back into a colony of the United States. “He has also said that last year 175,000 US citizens travelled legally to Cuba. Lies! A large number of them had to violate the laws of the United States itself to come here. Moreover, if the US government is not afraid of them coming here, then why doesn’t it allow them to travel? Why are there more than two thousand US citizens currently facing legal proceedings for this very reason? “He has said that ‘brutal repression’ was imposed in Cuba. Lies! Punishment was handed down, in accordance with Cuban laws, to mercenaries who received money from the United States and worked to provide a justification for the blockade and promote subversion in Cuba.” Having dealt with a number of other issues raised by the United States, Pérez ended his impromptu response: “Finally, he has referred to the Cuban government as an ‘evil and dictatorial regime,’ to which they would like to say, ‘Hasta la vista, baby!’ Never have such disrespectful words been heard in this Assembly.” Continuing his prepared response to the US presentation, Pérez issued a challenge: “If the government of the United States is so certain that the Cuban government and authorities, the historic leadership of the Cuban Revolution, do not have the support of the people, then why don’t they lift the blockade? If they say that we are using it as a pretext, then why don’t they take this pretext away? Why don’t they lift the blockade? Why don’t they allow US citizens to visit Cuba? “In brief, the United States must cease its aggression against Cuba. It must recognise Cuba’s right to its self-determination. It must allow the Cubans to live in peace. It must recognise that since 1 January 1959—forty-five years soon—Cuba is a free and independent country.”
In the last fourteen months the United States has expelled nineteen Cuban diplomats from the Cuban Interests Section in Washington and the Cuban Mission to the United Nations. In the latest incident, Roberto Socorro García, accredited at the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, was expelled from the United States in December for—as described by an unidentified State Department official, quoted in the Washington Post—his “association with criminal individuals,” later upgraded to “activities related to drug trafficking.” The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs totally rejected these charges. Indeed no US official has formally notified either the Cuban Interests Section or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of any alleged criminal activities or links with drug-trafficking on the part of Socorro. Furthermore, State Department officials have assured the Cuban Interests Section in Washington that they have no information corroborating the article published by the Washington Post, but that they will not take the initiative of denying the report. Apart from pleasing their Miami Cuban-American friends, it is clear that the State Department is using diplomatic expulsions as just another weapon in its unrelenting was against Cuba.
On 5 January this year the United States announced that another round of talks on migration with Cuba was out of the question, until the Cuban authorities show “a genuine interest in seriously approaching aspects of . . . migratory flow between the two countries.” Regular discussions take place between the United States and Cuba on these issues, but now the United States has decided to include migration in its list of offensive actions against Cuba. The problem facing the United States in continuing talks is how to account for the dramatic reduction in visas for Cuban citizens wishing to visit relatives in the United States, for the non-return to Cuba of some of the illegal emigrants intercepted at sea, for the incitement to illegal emigration and the committing of acts of violence broadcast from radio stations based in the United States, and for the absence of decisive action against the traffickers in illegal emigrants, among others issues.
Officers of the US Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Foreign Assets Control have been intensely monitoring Americans suspected of attempting to holiday in Cuba. All passengers who travel to Cuba on daily charter flights from Miami, New York and San Francisco are being interrogated—both on the way out and on return. The results of the enhanced enforcement so far, as reported by the Department of Homeland Security:
Private corporations have penetrated western warfare so deeply that they are now the second-biggest contributor to the so-called coalition forces in Iraq, after the Pentagon. The proportion of contracted security personnel in the firing line is ten times greater than during the first Gulf War. In 1991, for every private contractor there were about 100 servicemen and women; now there are 10. The US army estimates that of the $87 billion (£50.2 billion) earmarked this year for the broader Iraqi campaign, including central Asia and Afghanistan, a third of that—nearly $30 billion—will be spent on contracts to private companies. The Pentagon will “pursue additional opportunities to outsource and privatise,” the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, insisted last year, and military analysts expect him to try to cut a further 200,000 jobs in the armed forces. It is this kind of “downsizing” that has fed the growth of the military private sector. Since the end of the Cold War it is reckoned that six million servicemen have been thrown onto the employment market, with little to peddle but their fighting and military skills. The US military is 60 per cent the size of a decade ago; the Soviet collapse wrecked the Red Army; the East German military melted away; the end of apartheid destroyed the white officer class in South Africa; the British armed forces are at their smallest since the Napoleonic wars. The booming private sector has soaked up much of this manpower and expertise. It enables the Americans, in particular, to wage wars by proxy and without the kind of congressional and media supervision to which conventional deployments are subject. There are other formidable problems surfacing in what is uncharted territory: issues of loyalty, accountability, ideology, national interest, and the emergence of more private armies. By definition, a private military company is in Iraq or Bosnia not to pursue US, UN or EU policy but to make money.
The former president of Nicaragua Arnoldo Alemán has been jailed (in a sense) for twenty years and fined $10 million (£5.8 million) on corruption charges: diverting $100 million in government funds to his party’s election campaigns, fraud, misappropriation of public funds, embezzlement, criminal association, and electoral violations endangering the state. Jailed and exiled under the Sandinistas, Alemán became mayor of Managua before serving as president from 1997 to January 2002. He was a champion of the United States and very hostile to Cuba. Just when he thought things couldn’t get any worse—they didn’t. Alemán is to serve his sentence at his ranch.
Joni Scott flew to Cuba to hand out Bibles more than four years ago. Now the US government wants her to pay a fine of up to $10,000 for her unlicensed trip to Cuba. In Cuba the group spent time in Havana and Holguin. On the streets they would pass out Bibles printed in Cuba and leaflets announcing a church meeting later in the day. If the penalty letter Scott received on 9 October 2003 is another indication of the Bush administration’s harder line on unsanctioned travel to Cuba it is also a sign of the madness of US policy towards Cuba. Let us pray for an end to all this nonsense.
When the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is not busy channelling money to groups to try to cause havoc in Cuba it certainly likes to keep its own house in order. No squandering resources with this lot; its website boasts that “the principal beneficiary of America’s foreign assistance programs has always been the United States. Close to 80% of the US Agency for International Development’s contracts and grants go directly to American firms.” Still working on the principle that the Unites States does not have friends - it only has interests.
Towels, linen and other objects for your comfort are set in the rooms and they are checked in our inventory, but any missing piece of these will be charged to the maid responsible for the floor. Please help us on this matter for not harming the economy of the workers, who deserve all our support.
THE MANAGEMENT
This notice is displayed in the Hotel la Noria in San Cristóbal de las Casas in Chiapas, Mexico. When this matter was raised with the owners they stated that this is widespread practice in Mexico, and that in fact having the notice displayed is an improvement on not having it displayed. It’s a strange way of “not harming the economy of the workers, who deserve all our support.”
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela recently distributed more than 2 million hectares of land to farmers as part of a government effort to replace food imports. The handing over of the land and the machinery to work it took place during the weekly “Alo Presidente” television and radio programme, broadcast from the state of Bolívar. Chávez noted that since the beginning of Plan Zamora on 6 February 2003, 2.262 million hectares of idle land has been distributed, accompanied by $45.625 million in financing to farmers.
On the occasion of the forthcoming tenth anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement, critics in the United States, Mexico and Canada are giving a negative appraisal of the deal. According to the consumer rights group Public Citizen in Washington, despite the economic growth of the 1990s real wages in the United States are still below 1972 levels, while income inequality has skyrocketed, because of the shift from manufacturing jobs to employment in services, where wages are far lower. American workers were promised 170,000 additional jobs in each of NAFTA’s first ten years; but instead the United States now has an average $37 billion annual deficit with Mexico, and has lost close to three million manufacturing jobs. According to the Institute of Policy Studies, Washington, NAFTA has also had a detrimental impact on the ability of American workers to fight for better wages and working conditions. American employers now often threaten to move to Mexico and other low-wage countries in order to fight unions and restrain wages. As for Mexico, NAFTA has displaced 1.75 million Mexican farmers from their land, forcing them to migrate to the cities or to emigrate to the United States. Mexican farm prices—especially for maize—have plummeted during the agreement’s lifetime in the face of heftily subsidised imports from the United States. Incomes in Mexico have also nose-dived: in ten years income per person has grown by only 9 per cent, about a fifth of the growth in the 1960s and 70s. Instead of success, Mexican workers got low wages, environmental destruction, and birth defects. In January this year the Mexican government announced the sacking of 50,000 workers, adding to the 150,000 who had already been dismissed last year. Workers and government services in Canada, the third NAFTA member, did not fare any better. Many critics say that business has actually exploited the agreement to push for cuts in social schemes, arguing that they were necessary to compete with the lower costs faced by American businesses, operating in a country with generally lower levels of worker protection. Now the United States wants to extend a new scam, called the Free Trade Area of the Americas, to the entire North American, South American and Caribbean region. Cuba is excluded. (Lucky Cuba!)
Donald Rumsfeld , US Defense Secretary was awarded “Foot in Mouth” prize by Britain’s Plain English Campaign for the most baffling comment by a public figure. Trying to explain why there were no signs of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq he came up with the following logical position: “Reports that say something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don’t know we don’t know”. John Lister, spokesman for the campaign which strives to have public information delivered in clear, straightforward English, said: “We think we know what he means. But we don’t know if we really know”.
Reporters Sans Frontières, the French organisation that has been feverishly attacking Cuba in recent years in Europe and other parts of the world, has been linked directly to Publicis, the global advertising giant of which Saatchi and Saatchi is a major partner. Among its most important clients, Publicis has contracts with the US army and Bacardi. The general secretary of Reporters Sans Frontières, Robert Ménard—a CIA operative who devoted himself in the 1960s to infiltrating left-wing groups—has acknowledged on several occasions that Saatchi and Saatchi, the famous New York advertising agency, is behind his attacks on Cuba, confirming that the huge commercial propaganda firm provides its services “free of charge” to him. The concealed links between Bacardi, the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) in Miami and Bush, and the links with the Spanish politician José María Aznar and the European extreme right, have also contributed to the present confrontation with the European Union.
As the most formidable military power, the United States spends more on the military in general than the rest of the G7 countries combined. The US military budget:
The US military budget is:
The United States and its close allies (the NATO countries together with Australia, Japan, and South Korea) spend more than the rest of the world combined, accounting for almost two-thirds of all military spending. Together they spend approximately 57 times more than the seven “rogue” states. The seven “potential enemies” together with Russia and China together spend $123 billion—31 per cent of the US military budget. Global military spending has declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $809 billion in 1998. During that time the US share of total military spending rose from 31 to 36 per cent in the fiscal year 1999. During his election campaign George Bush had promised an additional $45 billion over nine years to the military budget. Yet that increase was seen in the fiscal year 2003 request alone. This large increase is attributed to the “war on terror.” US military spending is a war of terror.
