Fidel Castro. (photo: unknown)
16 October 14
On October 11, 2014 the New York Times' editorial board published an opinion titled, "Obama Should End the Embargo on Cuba." - Fidel Castro in Cuba's State Sponsored Granma International responds. - MA/RSN
esterday morning, on Sunday October 12, the Sunday internet edition of The New York Times – a newspaper which under certain circumstances follows the political line most convenient to its country’s interests – published an article entitled “Obama should end the embargo on Cuba;” with opinions as to how, in its view, the country should proceed.
There are times when such articles are written by some
prestigious journalist, such as someone I had the privilege of meeting
personally during the first days of our struggle in the Sierra Maestra
with the remainder of a unit which had been almost totally eliminated by
Batista’s air force and army. We were at that time quite inexperienced;
we didn’t even realize that giving the impression of strength to the
press would be something that could merit critique.
That is not what the brave war correspondent, Herbert
Matthews, thought with a story which made his name during the difficult
times of the fight against fascism.
Our supposed fighting ability in February 1957 was a
little less, but still more than sufficient to wear down and overthrow
the regime.
Carlos Rafael Rodríguez, leader of the People’s
Socialist Party, was witness to what, after the Battle of Jigüe in which
an entire unit of select troops were forced to surrender after 10 days
of combat, I expressed regarding my fear that the regime’s forces would
surrender in July 1958, when the elite troops hastily retreated from the
Sierra Maestra, despite being trained and equipped by our northern
neighbors. We had discovered an effective way of defeating them.
I could not help but expand a little on this point as I
wished to explain the spirit with which I read the aforementioned
article of the U.S. newspaper, last Sunday. I will cite the most
important parts in quotations:
“Scanning a map of the world must give President Obama
a sinking feeling as he contemplates the dismal state of troubled
bilateral relationships his administration has sought to turn around. He
would be smart to take a hard look at Cuba, where a major policy shift
could yield a significant foreign policy success.
“For the first time in more than 50 years, shifting
politics in the United States and changing policies in Cuba make it
politically feasible to re-establish formal diplomatic relations and
dismantle the senseless embargo. The Castro regime has long blamed the
embargo for its shortcomings, and has kept ordinary Cubans largely cut
off from the world. Mr. Obama should seize this opportunity to end a
long era of enmity and help a population that has suffered enormously
since Washington ended diplomatic relations in 1961, two years after
Fidel Castro assumed power.
“…a devastated economy has forced Cuba to make reforms
— a process that has gained urgency with the economic crisis in
Venezuela, which gives Cuba heavily subsidized oil. Officials in Havana,
fearing that Venezuela could cut its aid, have taken significant steps
to liberalize and diversify the island’s tightly controlled economy.
“They have begun allowing citizens to take
private-sector jobs and own property. This spring, Cuba’s National
Assembly passed a law to encourage foreign investment in the country.
With Brazilian capital, Cuba is building a seaport, a major project that
will be economically viable only if American sanctions are lifted. And
in April, Cuban diplomats began negotiating a cooperation agreement with
the European Union. They have shown up at the initial meetings
prepared, eager and mindful that the Europeans will insist on greater
reforms and freedoms.
“The authoritarian government still harasses and
detains dissidents. It has yet to explain the suspicious circumstances
surrounding the death of the political activist Oswaldo Payá.”
As you can see a slanderous and cheep accusation.
“Travel restrictions were relaxed last year, enabling
prominent dissidents to travel abroad. There is slightly more tolerance
for criticism of the leadership, though many fear speaking openly and
demanding greater rights.
“The pace of reforms has been slow and there has been
backsliding. Still, these changes show Cuba is positioning itself for a
post-embargo era. The government has said it would welcome renewed
diplomatic relations with the United States and would not set
preconditions.
“As a first step, the Obama administration should
remove Cuba from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor
terrorist organizations, which includes Iran, Sudan and Syria. Cuba was
put on the list in 1982 for backing terrorist groups in Latin America,
which it no longer does. American officials recognize that Havana is
playing a constructive role in the conflict in Colombia by hosting peace
talks between the government and guerrilla leaders.
“Starting in 1961, Washington has imposed sanctions in
an effort to oust the Castro regime. Over the decades, it became clear
to many American policy makers that the embargo was an utter failure.
But any proposal to end the embargo angered Cuban-American voters, a
constituency that has had an outsize role in national elections (…)The
generation that adamantly supports the embargo is dying off. Younger
Cuban-Americans hold starkly different views, having come to see the
sanctions as more damaging than helpful. A recent poll found that a
slight majority of Cuban-Americans in Miami now oppose the embargo. A
significant majority of them favor restoring diplomatic ties, mirroring
the views of other Americans.
“Cuba and the United States already have diplomatic
missions, called interests sections, which operate much like embassies.
However, under the current arrangement, American diplomats have few
opportunities to travel outside the capital to engage with ordinary
Cubans, and their access to the Cuban government is very limited.
“The Obama administration in 2009 took important steps
to ease the embargo, a patchwork of laws and policies, making it easier
for Cubans in the United States to send remittances to relatives in
Cuba and authorizing more Cuban-Americans to travel there. And it has
paved the way for initiatives to expand Internet access and cell phone
coverage on the island.
“For instance, it could lift caps on remittances,
allow Americans to finance private Cuban businesses and expand
opportunities for travel to the island.
“It could also help American companies that are
interested in developing the island’s telecommunications network but
remain wary of the legal and political risks..
“Failing to engage with Cuba now will likely cede this
market to competitors. The presidents of China and Russia traveled to
Cuba in separate visits in July, and both leaders pledged to expand
ties.
“It would better position Washington to press the
Cubans on democratic reforms, and could stem a new wave of migration to
the United States driven by hopelessness.
“Closer ties could also bring a breakthrough on the
case of an American development contractor, Alan Gross, who has been
unjustly imprisoned by Cuba for nearly five years. More broadly, it
would create opportunities to empower ordinary Cubans, gradually eroding
the government’s ability to control their lives.
“…Western Hemisphere heads of state will meet in
Panama City for the seventh Summit of the Americas. Latin American
governments insisted that Cuba, the Caribbean’s most populous island and
one of the most educated societies in the hemisphere, be invited,
breaking with its traditional exclusion at the insistence of Washington.
“Given the many crises around the world, the White
House may want to avoid a major shift in Cuba policy. Yet engaging with
Cuba and starting to unlock the potential of its citizens could end up
being among the administration’s most consequential foreign-policy
legacies.
“Normalizing relations with Havana would improve
Washington’s relationships with governments in Latin America, and
resolve an irritant that has stymied initiatives in the hemisphere..”
“…The Obama administration is leery of Cuba’s presence at the meeting and Mr. Obama has not committed to attending.
“He must — and he should see it as an opportunity to make history.”
One of the most educated societies in the
hemisphere!!!! This is indeed recognition. But why doesn’t it mention
this straight away, that in no way is this society comparable to that
which Harry S. Truman bequeathed to us when his ally and great public
treasury looter Fulgencio Batista took power on March 10, 1952, only 50
days after the general election. This can never be forgotten.
The article is obviously written with great skill,
seeking the greatest benefit for U.S. policy in a complex situation, in
the midst of increasing political, economic, financial and commercial
problems. To these are added the effects of rapid climate change;
commercial competition; the speed, precision and destructive power of
weapons which threaten the survival of mankind. What is written today
has a very different connotation to that which was written just 40 years
ago when our planet was already forced to stockpile and withhold water
and food from the equivalent of half the world’s current population.
This without mentioning the fight against Ebola which is threatening the
health of millions of people.
Add to this that in a few days the global community
will reveal before the United Nations whether it agrees with the
blockade against Cuba or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment