If there's one area in which the Castro regime spares no expense, it's on maintaining absolute control of the streets.
Therefore, it employs a high-tech system of cameras throughout Havana and other major cities, in order to keep a watchful eye on everyone.
Periodically, clips are smuggled out of the island by disenchanted regime bureaucrats.
Here's a recent (repressive) example:
Halleluyah!
Kudos to The Minnesota Daily's Editorial Board.
First, for its thoughtful review of House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson's (D-MN) Cuba bill. Needless to say, we disagree with its final conclusion regarding sanctions, but appreciate its realistic view of the "smoke-screen" agricultural provisions within the legislation.
And foremost, for being the very first publication to highlight the political contributions of the farm bureaus and multinational agri-business giants. This stands in refreshing contrast to a majority of publications, which only like to take irresponsible and biased pot-shots -- including Chairman Peterson himself -- at Cuban-American political activism and contributions -- even though agricultural political contributions stymie those of Cuban-Americans.
It's a must-read:
From Heartland to Havana
A lopsided Cuban trade proposal aimed to help farmers falls short.
Minnesota Democrats Rep. Collin Peterson and Sen. Amy Klobuchar might seem like odd candidates to jump into the muddy waters of U.S.-Cuba relations. Yet together, they've authored a pair of bills that would lift a decades-old travel ban to Cuba and poke holes in the U.S. trade embargo of that island nation.
But Peterson has made clear that this effort isn't about Cuba; it's about American farmers needing new markets. Peterson is the current chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and his 7th district covers a heavily agricultural swath of the state. OpenSecret.org's list of his top campaign contributors also reads like a who's-who of national and international agribusiness interests, with the multinational agricultural corporation, Monsanto, topping the bill.
Steve Suppan, a policy analyst for the Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, said in an e-mail that agribusiness giants like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland have "long sought" exemptions from the Cuban embargo, which would eliminate the need for them to trade through third-country loopholes as they currently do. He argues this exemption, which would primarily move commodities whose production is "highly mechanized," is hardly the pro-farmer job-creation engine its authors suggest.
There are in fact excellent reasons — economic, cultural and otherwise — to open relations with an apparently reforming Cuba, which has been singled out as a communist pariah for too long. It is time to re-evaluate our gratuitous, Cold-War-era posture toward this close neighbor. To that end, lifting the travel ban is of undeniable importance, but this narrow proposal that comes from Minnesota's congress-people reeking of special interests falls short of a productive solution.
First, for its thoughtful review of House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson's (D-MN) Cuba bill. Needless to say, we disagree with its final conclusion regarding sanctions, but appreciate its realistic view of the "smoke-screen" agricultural provisions within the legislation.
And foremost, for being the very first publication to highlight the political contributions of the farm bureaus and multinational agri-business giants. This stands in refreshing contrast to a majority of publications, which only like to take irresponsible and biased pot-shots -- including Chairman Peterson himself -- at Cuban-American political activism and contributions -- even though agricultural political contributions stymie those of Cuban-Americans.
It's a must-read:
From Heartland to Havana
A lopsided Cuban trade proposal aimed to help farmers falls short.
Minnesota Democrats Rep. Collin Peterson and Sen. Amy Klobuchar might seem like odd candidates to jump into the muddy waters of U.S.-Cuba relations. Yet together, they've authored a pair of bills that would lift a decades-old travel ban to Cuba and poke holes in the U.S. trade embargo of that island nation.
But Peterson has made clear that this effort isn't about Cuba; it's about American farmers needing new markets. Peterson is the current chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and his 7th district covers a heavily agricultural swath of the state. OpenSecret.org's list of his top campaign contributors also reads like a who's-who of national and international agribusiness interests, with the multinational agricultural corporation, Monsanto, topping the bill.
Steve Suppan, a policy analyst for the Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, said in an e-mail that agribusiness giants like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland have "long sought" exemptions from the Cuban embargo, which would eliminate the need for them to trade through third-country loopholes as they currently do. He argues this exemption, which would primarily move commodities whose production is "highly mechanized," is hardly the pro-farmer job-creation engine its authors suggest.
There are in fact excellent reasons — economic, cultural and otherwise — to open relations with an apparently reforming Cuba, which has been singled out as a communist pariah for too long. It is time to re-evaluate our gratuitous, Cold-War-era posture toward this close neighbor. To that end, lifting the travel ban is of undeniable importance, but this narrow proposal that comes from Minnesota's congress-people reeking of special interests falls short of a productive solution.
A Worthy Nobel
According to AP:
Mario Vargas Llosa wins Nobel literature prize
Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa, one of the most acclaimed writers in the Spanish-speaking world, a man of letters who also braved the violence and political divisions of his homeland to run for president, won the 2010 Nobel Prize in literature on Thursday.
Vargas Llosa has written more than 30 novels, plays and essays, including "Conversation in the Cathedral" and "The Green House." In 1995, he was awarded the Cervantes Prize, the Spanish-speaking world's most distinguished literary honor.
The Swedish Academy said it honored the 74-year-old author for mapping the "structures of power and (for) his trenchant images of the individual's resistance, revolt and defeat."
Vargas Llosa emerged as a leader among the so-called "Boom" or "New Wave" of Latin American writers, bursting onto the literary scene in 1963 with his groundbreaking debut novel "The Time of the Hero" (La Ciudad de los Perros), which builds on his experiences at the Peruvian military academy Leoncio Prado.
The book won the Spanish Critics Award and the ire of Peru's military. One thousand copies of the novel were later burned by military authorities, with some generals calling the book false and Vargas Llosa a communist.
The military academy "was like discovering hell," Vargas Llosa said later.
At 15, he was a night-owl crime reporter. Still in his teens, he joined a communist cell and eloped with his 33-year-old Bolivian aunt, Julia Urquidi — the sister-in-law of his uncle. He later drew inspiration from their nine-year marriage to write the comic hit novel "Aunt Julia and the Script Writer" (La Tia Julia y el Escribidor).
After they divorced, Vargas Llosa in 1965 married his first cousin, Patricia Llosa, 10 years his junior, and together they had three children.
In the 1970s, he denounced Castro's Cuba and slowly turned his political trajectory toward free market conservatism — sparking a fallout with many of his Latin American literary contemporaries.
In a famous incident in Mexico City in 1976, Vargas Llosa punched out his former friend, Garcia Marquez, whom he would later ridicule as "Castro's courtesan." It was never clear whether the fight was over politics or a personal dispute.
CHC: For Spanish speakers, make sure to read Vargas Llosa's stinging critique of the current Spanish government's stance towards the Cuban dictatorship, "Fidel Castro's Sad Whores."
Mario Vargas Llosa wins Nobel literature prize
Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa, one of the most acclaimed writers in the Spanish-speaking world, a man of letters who also braved the violence and political divisions of his homeland to run for president, won the 2010 Nobel Prize in literature on Thursday.
Vargas Llosa has written more than 30 novels, plays and essays, including "Conversation in the Cathedral" and "The Green House." In 1995, he was awarded the Cervantes Prize, the Spanish-speaking world's most distinguished literary honor.
The Swedish Academy said it honored the 74-year-old author for mapping the "structures of power and (for) his trenchant images of the individual's resistance, revolt and defeat."
Vargas Llosa emerged as a leader among the so-called "Boom" or "New Wave" of Latin American writers, bursting onto the literary scene in 1963 with his groundbreaking debut novel "The Time of the Hero" (La Ciudad de los Perros), which builds on his experiences at the Peruvian military academy Leoncio Prado.
The book won the Spanish Critics Award and the ire of Peru's military. One thousand copies of the novel were later burned by military authorities, with some generals calling the book false and Vargas Llosa a communist.
The military academy "was like discovering hell," Vargas Llosa said later.
At 15, he was a night-owl crime reporter. Still in his teens, he joined a communist cell and eloped with his 33-year-old Bolivian aunt, Julia Urquidi — the sister-in-law of his uncle. He later drew inspiration from their nine-year marriage to write the comic hit novel "Aunt Julia and the Script Writer" (La Tia Julia y el Escribidor).
After they divorced, Vargas Llosa in 1965 married his first cousin, Patricia Llosa, 10 years his junior, and together they had three children.
In the 1970s, he denounced Castro's Cuba and slowly turned his political trajectory toward free market conservatism — sparking a fallout with many of his Latin American literary contemporaries.
In a famous incident in Mexico City in 1976, Vargas Llosa punched out his former friend, Garcia Marquez, whom he would later ridicule as "Castro's courtesan." It was never clear whether the fight was over politics or a personal dispute.
CHC: For Spanish speakers, make sure to read Vargas Llosa's stinging critique of the current Spanish government's stance towards the Cuban dictatorship, "Fidel Castro's Sad Whores."
Clinton's (and Bush's) Rice Mistake
Please read the following from the BBC:
US urged to stop Haiti rice subsidies
Cheap imported rice discourages farmers from growing their own, says Oxfam
A leading aid agency has called on the United States to stop subsidizing American rice exports to Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere, because it says the policy undermines local production of food.
Former US President Bill Clinton, one of the architects of the subsidies to US farmers - and who is now, paradoxically, the co-chair of Haiti's earthquake recovery Commission - is quoted by Oxfam as saying that the policy was "a mistake".
"It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked," said Mr. Clinton, a frequent visitor to Haiti.
"I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did."
In 2001, the Bush Administration adopted a similar policy towards Cuba pursuant to Hurricane Michelle hitting the island, which led to the first authorized U.S. agricultural sales to the Castro regime.
While the Trade Sanctions Reform Act had legalized agricultural sales to Cuba in 2000, the Castro regime's food monopoly had -- thus far -- refused to make any purchases because the law also barred U.S. government or private financing for such sales.
But then, a delegation from USA Rice traveled to Cuba and the Castro regime quickly learned about the farm lobby's power in the U.S. Congress.
At that very moment -- an unlikely alliance was born.
And the rest is history.
US urged to stop Haiti rice subsidies
Cheap imported rice discourages farmers from growing their own, says Oxfam
A leading aid agency has called on the United States to stop subsidizing American rice exports to Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere, because it says the policy undermines local production of food.
Former US President Bill Clinton, one of the architects of the subsidies to US farmers - and who is now, paradoxically, the co-chair of Haiti's earthquake recovery Commission - is quoted by Oxfam as saying that the policy was "a mistake".
"It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked," said Mr. Clinton, a frequent visitor to Haiti.
"I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did."
In 2001, the Bush Administration adopted a similar policy towards Cuba pursuant to Hurricane Michelle hitting the island, which led to the first authorized U.S. agricultural sales to the Castro regime.
While the Trade Sanctions Reform Act had legalized agricultural sales to Cuba in 2000, the Castro regime's food monopoly had -- thus far -- refused to make any purchases because the law also barred U.S. government or private financing for such sales.
But then, a delegation from USA Rice traveled to Cuba and the Castro regime quickly learned about the farm lobby's power in the U.S. Congress.
At that very moment -- an unlikely alliance was born.
And the rest is history.
Even Dodd Agrees
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
That there's no moral equivalency between Cuban spies tried and convicted in the U.S. and an American development worker held without charges since last December by the Castro regime.
According to the AFP:
No talk of US-Cuba prisoner swap: US senator
A top US senator just back from a five-day visit to Cuba to meet with officials there said he did not believe there was any chance of a prisoner swap between the United States and its communist neighbor.
Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd made the trip for talks with officials in Havana on how to improve relations between the former Cold War foes, his office said. The countries do not have full diplomatic ties.
Dodd, who also chairs the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, has been a frequent vocal critic of the US trade embargo on Cuba.
In December, Cuba detained a US government contractor, Alan Gross, whom Havana accused of distributing communications materials to civil groups.
The United States, meanwhile, since 2001 has jailed five Cuban spies for Havana.
Though US media have speculated on the possibility of a swap, Dodd said it was not being discussed before he left for Cuba.
And he stressed that in his view, Gross' case was very different from that of the Cubans, who were spying on US military installations. He also said that he was not able to meet with Gross during the visit.
According to the AFP:
No talk of US-Cuba prisoner swap: US senator
A top US senator just back from a five-day visit to Cuba to meet with officials there said he did not believe there was any chance of a prisoner swap between the United States and its communist neighbor.
Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd made the trip for talks with officials in Havana on how to improve relations between the former Cold War foes, his office said. The countries do not have full diplomatic ties.
Dodd, who also chairs the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, has been a frequent vocal critic of the US trade embargo on Cuba.
In December, Cuba detained a US government contractor, Alan Gross, whom Havana accused of distributing communications materials to civil groups.
The United States, meanwhile, since 2001 has jailed five Cuban spies for Havana.
Though US media have speculated on the possibility of a swap, Dodd said it was not being discussed before he left for Cuba.
And he stressed that in his view, Gross' case was very different from that of the Cubans, who were spying on US military installations. He also said that he was not able to meet with Gross during the visit.
Peterson-Berman Should Come Clean
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) and U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS) are circulating a letter to President Obama -- similar to the one last week by U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) -- asking him to modify regulations on agricultural sales to Cuba, particularly those dealing with the definition of "cash-in-advance" and direct banking for payments.
Both provisions are also (partly) the subject of H.R. 4645, the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act, known as the Peterson-Moran bill.
Basically, Peterson-Moran now want the Obama Administration to change -- through regulation -- the agricultural sales provisions that were tightened -- through regulation also -- by the Bush Administration in 2004.
It's nice to see Chairman Peterson finally coming clean.
So why the year-long push (through H.R. 4645) to legislatively modify these two agricultural provisions, instead of simply pressuring the Administration to do so -- through regulation -- in the first place?
Because it has never been about the agricultural provisions.
It has always been about the non-agricultural provision in H.R. 4645, which the Obama Administration cannot change through regulation -- tourism travel.
Thus, the year-long charade of H.R. 4645, including the strong-arm tactics used to prevent the tourism travel provision from being stripped-out (by amendment) during the Agriculture Committee markup.
This legislation is nothing more than a ploy by Peterson-Moran and the Farm Bureaus to provide billions of tourism dollars to the Castro brothers, in the hopes that they'll turn around and buy more agricultural products from the U.S.
That's quite a leap of faith -- but why not just say so?
Because if you think lobbying for subsidies for American farmers is tough, then imagine lobbying for subsidies funneled through the Castro dictatorship.
Obviously, that argument would be a tough sell. And if instead, the Castro regime used those billions to strengthen its repressive grip, they simply wouldn't care, for it's of no consequence to them or their loved ones.
That's just selfish.
So when will House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) come clean also?
Chairman Berman has been a ideological proponent of tourism travel to Cuba for many years -- and we respect his views. However, he has publicly admitted that he's not focused on the agricultural provisions.
So why not just markup H.R. 874, the Delahunt-Flake bill (two Members of his committee), which would solely address the tourism travel provision?
Why the obsession and intense lobbying against addressing each issue on its own merits? Why the insistence on agricultural diversions (which the Obama Administration can address without Congress)?
The answer is simple.
Because -- thus far -- Peterson-Berman have had trouble moving H.R. 4645 altogether, agricultural provisions and all, so just imagine dealing with each on its own merits.
That's just plain disingenuous.
Both provisions are also (partly) the subject of H.R. 4645, the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act, known as the Peterson-Moran bill.
Basically, Peterson-Moran now want the Obama Administration to change -- through regulation -- the agricultural sales provisions that were tightened -- through regulation also -- by the Bush Administration in 2004.
It's nice to see Chairman Peterson finally coming clean.
So why the year-long push (through H.R. 4645) to legislatively modify these two agricultural provisions, instead of simply pressuring the Administration to do so -- through regulation -- in the first place?
Because it has never been about the agricultural provisions.
It has always been about the non-agricultural provision in H.R. 4645, which the Obama Administration cannot change through regulation -- tourism travel.
Thus, the year-long charade of H.R. 4645, including the strong-arm tactics used to prevent the tourism travel provision from being stripped-out (by amendment) during the Agriculture Committee markup.
This legislation is nothing more than a ploy by Peterson-Moran and the Farm Bureaus to provide billions of tourism dollars to the Castro brothers, in the hopes that they'll turn around and buy more agricultural products from the U.S.
That's quite a leap of faith -- but why not just say so?
Because if you think lobbying for subsidies for American farmers is tough, then imagine lobbying for subsidies funneled through the Castro dictatorship.
Obviously, that argument would be a tough sell. And if instead, the Castro regime used those billions to strengthen its repressive grip, they simply wouldn't care, for it's of no consequence to them or their loved ones.
That's just selfish.
So when will House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) come clean also?
Chairman Berman has been a ideological proponent of tourism travel to Cuba for many years -- and we respect his views. However, he has publicly admitted that he's not focused on the agricultural provisions.
So why not just markup H.R. 874, the Delahunt-Flake bill (two Members of his committee), which would solely address the tourism travel provision?
Why the obsession and intense lobbying against addressing each issue on its own merits? Why the insistence on agricultural diversions (which the Obama Administration can address without Congress)?
The answer is simple.
Because -- thus far -- Peterson-Berman have had trouble moving H.R. 4645 altogether, agricultural provisions and all, so just imagine dealing with each on its own merits.
That's just plain disingenuous.
Fidel's Desperate Ploy
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Former Costa Rican Ambassador to the U.S., Jaime Daremblum, on Fidel Castro's recent "denunciation" of anti-Semitism:
Fidel is desperate -- desperate to bolster his historical legacy, and desperate to secure much-needed financial aid for his cash-strapped government. Now 84 years old and in poor health, Castro knows the Cuban economy is in dire condition, and he knows that Washington could throw his Communist regime a lifeline if it were to eliminate the U.S. travel ban. Those American lawmakers who oppose the ban are always eager to highlight evidence that Cuba is "reforming" and should thus be rewarded with a flood of free-spending U.S. tourists. Congress is currently debating legislation that would scrap travel restrictions and provide Havana with a massive infusion of hard currency.
Castro's denunciation of anti-Semitism must be seen in this context. Indeed, Havana has recently made several calculated gestures in hopes of improving its global image. In July, Cuba agreed to release 52 political prisoners, on the condition that those prisoners accept forced exile in Spain. Spanish foreign minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, who helped broker the agreement, triumphantly declared that it "opens a new era in Cuba."
In reality, it was a familiar PR stunt: The Castro regime has always used conditional prisoner releases to elicit concessions from foreign governments. It treats peaceful dissidents as strategic pawns, turning them into a form of diplomatic currency. With the prisoner release, Havana was aiming to convince European Union members to adopt fully normalized relations with Cuba. As Julio César Gálvez, one of the exiled Cuban prisoners who is now living in Spain, told the Associated Press, "Our departure [from Cuba] should not be seen as a gesture of goodwill but rather as a desperate measure by a regime urgently seeking to gain any kind of credit."
Last month, according to a Reuters report, Havana allowed Judy Gross to visit her husband, Alan, who has been sitting in a Cuban prison since late 2009. Alan Gross is a USAID contractor who was working with Cuban civil-society activists at the time of his arrest. The Castro regime insists, ridiculously, that he was engaged in espionage. The Grosses are both American citizens, and Alan's incarceration has prevented greater progress in U.S.-Cuba relations. Permitting a spousal visit was a small gesture. But the fact that Gross is still being held indicates that Cuba wants to use him as diplomatic leverage.
Many U.S. lawmakers, unfortunately, seem relatively unconcerned that one of their countrymen is being unjustly detained. Indeed, calls to abolish the Cuba travel ban have grown louder since it was reported that Havana would lay off around 500,000 state workers and take small steps toward expanding private enterprise. But has the Communist government really changed? There is no evidence that it will soon implement the type of far-reaching reforms that would deliver real economic and political freedoms to the Cuban people.
"Fundamental changes of U.S. policy toward Cuba should await fundamental reforms by the regime," the Washington Post argued in a recent editorial. "When average Cubans are allowed the right to free speech and free assembly, along with that to cut hair and trim palm trees, it will be time for American tourists and business executives to return to the island." That sounds like the correct strategy to me.
Fidel is desperate -- desperate to bolster his historical legacy, and desperate to secure much-needed financial aid for his cash-strapped government. Now 84 years old and in poor health, Castro knows the Cuban economy is in dire condition, and he knows that Washington could throw his Communist regime a lifeline if it were to eliminate the U.S. travel ban. Those American lawmakers who oppose the ban are always eager to highlight evidence that Cuba is "reforming" and should thus be rewarded with a flood of free-spending U.S. tourists. Congress is currently debating legislation that would scrap travel restrictions and provide Havana with a massive infusion of hard currency.
Castro's denunciation of anti-Semitism must be seen in this context. Indeed, Havana has recently made several calculated gestures in hopes of improving its global image. In July, Cuba agreed to release 52 political prisoners, on the condition that those prisoners accept forced exile in Spain. Spanish foreign minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, who helped broker the agreement, triumphantly declared that it "opens a new era in Cuba."
In reality, it was a familiar PR stunt: The Castro regime has always used conditional prisoner releases to elicit concessions from foreign governments. It treats peaceful dissidents as strategic pawns, turning them into a form of diplomatic currency. With the prisoner release, Havana was aiming to convince European Union members to adopt fully normalized relations with Cuba. As Julio César Gálvez, one of the exiled Cuban prisoners who is now living in Spain, told the Associated Press, "Our departure [from Cuba] should not be seen as a gesture of goodwill but rather as a desperate measure by a regime urgently seeking to gain any kind of credit."
Last month, according to a Reuters report, Havana allowed Judy Gross to visit her husband, Alan, who has been sitting in a Cuban prison since late 2009. Alan Gross is a USAID contractor who was working with Cuban civil-society activists at the time of his arrest. The Castro regime insists, ridiculously, that he was engaged in espionage. The Grosses are both American citizens, and Alan's incarceration has prevented greater progress in U.S.-Cuba relations. Permitting a spousal visit was a small gesture. But the fact that Gross is still being held indicates that Cuba wants to use him as diplomatic leverage.
Many U.S. lawmakers, unfortunately, seem relatively unconcerned that one of their countrymen is being unjustly detained. Indeed, calls to abolish the Cuba travel ban have grown louder since it was reported that Havana would lay off around 500,000 state workers and take small steps toward expanding private enterprise. But has the Communist government really changed? There is no evidence that it will soon implement the type of far-reaching reforms that would deliver real economic and political freedoms to the Cuban people.
"Fundamental changes of U.S. policy toward Cuba should await fundamental reforms by the regime," the Washington Post argued in a recent editorial. "When average Cubans are allowed the right to free speech and free assembly, along with that to cut hair and trim palm trees, it will be time for American tourists and business executives to return to the island." That sounds like the correct strategy to me.
Quote of the Day
"Cuba should release all political prisoners unconditionally."
-- Dan Restrepo, Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere, National Security Council, on the Castro regime's forced exile of 39 political prisoners, EFE, October 5th, 2010.
-- Dan Restrepo, Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere, National Security Council, on the Castro regime's forced exile of 39 political prisoners, EFE, October 5th, 2010.
From Violating One Human Right to Three
This past July, the Castro regime announced it would "release" (more precisely, "forcibly exile") 52 political prisoners.
These 52 innocent men have been unjustly imprisoned since 2003 in violation of Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) -- to which Cuba is a signatory -- and states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Thus far, 39 have been forcibly exiled to Spain, none released in Cuba and 12 refuse to trade prison for banishment.
Therefore, as regards these 52, the Castro regime is now in violation of three fundamental human rights -- Articles 9, 13 and 15 of the UDHR.
Article 9 for those exiled and still imprisoned. Plus Article 13, which states:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
And Article 15:
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Yet, some still have the audacity to hail this as progress on human rights.
These 52 innocent men have been unjustly imprisoned since 2003 in violation of Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) -- to which Cuba is a signatory -- and states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Thus far, 39 have been forcibly exiled to Spain, none released in Cuba and 12 refuse to trade prison for banishment.
Therefore, as regards these 52, the Castro regime is now in violation of three fundamental human rights -- Articles 9, 13 and 15 of the UDHR.
Article 9 for those exiled and still imprisoned. Plus Article 13, which states:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
And Article 15:
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Yet, some still have the audacity to hail this as progress on human rights.
Pretending to Reform
Monday, October 4, 2010
A must-read by Dr. Jose Azel in Foreign Policy:
Here are some excerpts:
Last month, the Cuban government said it planned to fire 500,000 state employees, and perhaps over 1 million, saying "our state cannot and should not continue supporting... state entities with inflated payrolls, losses that damage the economy, are counterproductive, generate bad habits, and deform the workers' conduct."
Some heralded the announcement as a long-awaited sign that Havana under Gen. Raúl Castro is finally moving toward a market economy, others voiced substantial skepticism, and Marxists denounced it as a betrayal of communist orthodoxy. So, where is Cuba headed?
Most likely, nowhere fast. Far from being a hopeful indication that Raúl is serious about economic reform, the abrupt layoffs reveal a government that is simply desperate to make ends meet. And they offer yet more evidence that Cuba, one of the last countries in the world to cling to Joseph Stalin's bankrupt ideology, is not interested in joining -- or, to be charitable, does not know how to join -- the globalized, 21st-century world [...]
In Cuba, a state permit is required even to shine shoes -- along with 178 other private economic activities that include mostly individual service activities from baby-sitting to washing clothes. It is also unclear exactly how those selected for dismissal will be chosen; seniority, patronage, friendship, ideological purity, or some form of capitalist or socialist merit? Will race or gender play a role in these massive firings? Will the dismissals disproportionately target those who receive remittances from abroad? Perhaps more important, how are those fired supposed to find jobs? In an economy with developed private competitive markets, employees dismissed from one firm have a fighting chance of securing employment in another. But in Cuba's economic system, the government controls most economic activity. There is no private sector to absorb the unemployed. Where will they find employment? [...]
The government is projecting a 400 percent increase in tax revenues, presumably to be collected from the fired employees turned entrepreneurs. More likely, Cubans will find ways to avoid paying taxes by relying on the black market for these economic activities. Cuban economist and dissident Oscar Espinosa Chepe writes from Havana of the impact of Cuba's economic situation on civil society: Cuban children, he tells us, grow up witnessing how their parents, obligated by circumstances, live by theft and illegality.
Because Cubans cannot live by the results of their legitimate labors and work has ceased to be the principal source of one's livelihood, a survival ethic has evolved that justifies everything. One lesson to be learned from the transitions in the former Soviet bloc is that the success of reforms hinges on placing individual freedoms and empowerment front and center. In the decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the most successful transitioning countries were those that embraced political rights and civil liberties decisively: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Slovenia, East Germany, and Hungary. This is not where Cuba is headed with its "actualization of socialism."
The main reason is Cuba's Stalinist political order, which remains unchanged by this announcement. In a system that denies basic freedoms, society is debilitated and corrupted by a miasma of fear. For five decades, fear has been an integral part of the everyday Cuban existence. This fear must be conquered if any national project of transition is to stand a chance of success.
The Cuban penal code that is used to suppress dissent defines disobedience, disrespect, illicit association, possession of enemy propaganda and socially dangerous, and more as "crimes against socialist morality." In Cuba, the crime of "social dangerousness" permits the government to imprison people for activities they may commit in the future. Until this totalitarian document is reformed or wiped away, expect little to change [...]
For now, the firings only highlight the dismal state of the Cuban economic model, perhaps best depicted by the old Soviet joke: "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." The regime in Havana is peddling a similar story today: They will pretend to reform, expecting the world will pretend to believe it. Let us hope nobody in Washington is buying.
Here are some excerpts:
Last month, the Cuban government said it planned to fire 500,000 state employees, and perhaps over 1 million, saying "our state cannot and should not continue supporting... state entities with inflated payrolls, losses that damage the economy, are counterproductive, generate bad habits, and deform the workers' conduct."
Some heralded the announcement as a long-awaited sign that Havana under Gen. Raúl Castro is finally moving toward a market economy, others voiced substantial skepticism, and Marxists denounced it as a betrayal of communist orthodoxy. So, where is Cuba headed?
Most likely, nowhere fast. Far from being a hopeful indication that Raúl is serious about economic reform, the abrupt layoffs reveal a government that is simply desperate to make ends meet. And they offer yet more evidence that Cuba, one of the last countries in the world to cling to Joseph Stalin's bankrupt ideology, is not interested in joining -- or, to be charitable, does not know how to join -- the globalized, 21st-century world [...]
In Cuba, a state permit is required even to shine shoes -- along with 178 other private economic activities that include mostly individual service activities from baby-sitting to washing clothes. It is also unclear exactly how those selected for dismissal will be chosen; seniority, patronage, friendship, ideological purity, or some form of capitalist or socialist merit? Will race or gender play a role in these massive firings? Will the dismissals disproportionately target those who receive remittances from abroad? Perhaps more important, how are those fired supposed to find jobs? In an economy with developed private competitive markets, employees dismissed from one firm have a fighting chance of securing employment in another. But in Cuba's economic system, the government controls most economic activity. There is no private sector to absorb the unemployed. Where will they find employment? [...]
The government is projecting a 400 percent increase in tax revenues, presumably to be collected from the fired employees turned entrepreneurs. More likely, Cubans will find ways to avoid paying taxes by relying on the black market for these economic activities. Cuban economist and dissident Oscar Espinosa Chepe writes from Havana of the impact of Cuba's economic situation on civil society: Cuban children, he tells us, grow up witnessing how their parents, obligated by circumstances, live by theft and illegality.
Because Cubans cannot live by the results of their legitimate labors and work has ceased to be the principal source of one's livelihood, a survival ethic has evolved that justifies everything. One lesson to be learned from the transitions in the former Soviet bloc is that the success of reforms hinges on placing individual freedoms and empowerment front and center. In the decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the most successful transitioning countries were those that embraced political rights and civil liberties decisively: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Slovenia, East Germany, and Hungary. This is not where Cuba is headed with its "actualization of socialism."
The main reason is Cuba's Stalinist political order, which remains unchanged by this announcement. In a system that denies basic freedoms, society is debilitated and corrupted by a miasma of fear. For five decades, fear has been an integral part of the everyday Cuban existence. This fear must be conquered if any national project of transition is to stand a chance of success.
The Cuban penal code that is used to suppress dissent defines disobedience, disrespect, illicit association, possession of enemy propaganda and socially dangerous, and more as "crimes against socialist morality." In Cuba, the crime of "social dangerousness" permits the government to imprison people for activities they may commit in the future. Until this totalitarian document is reformed or wiped away, expect little to change [...]
For now, the firings only highlight the dismal state of the Cuban economic model, perhaps best depicted by the old Soviet joke: "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." The regime in Havana is peddling a similar story today: They will pretend to reform, expecting the world will pretend to believe it. Let us hope nobody in Washington is buying.
Things That Make You Go Hmmm
It's interesting how the Castro regime and the Catholic Church are spreading news that nine additional political prisoners, who were not on the original list of 52 agreed to this past July, will be offered banishment abroad.
Meanwhile, there is no news of when -- or even whether -- they will release 12 of the original 52 that refuse to be forcibly exiled.
Sounds like they are buying time and trying to divert attention from the 12.
Meanwhile, there is no news of when -- or even whether -- they will release 12 of the original 52 that refuse to be forcibly exiled.
Sounds like they are buying time and trying to divert attention from the 12.
Terrorists Trained in Venezuela
According to El Universal:
Two alleged members of the Basque separatist group ETA admitted that they have received arms training in Venezuela, according to an indictment.
Judge Ismael Moreno said that Javier Atristain and Juan Carlos Besance, who were arrested on Wednesday in the Basque Country, said they have received arms training in Venezuela between July and August 2008, AP reported.
According to the judge, ETA suspect Arturo Cubillas, who is a longtime resident of Venezuela, provided arms training to both men. Cubillas was charged in March in another case filed by the Spanish National Court of being an intermediary between the Basque separatist group ETA and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), under the protection of the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
For ETA's Cuban ties, click here.
Two alleged members of the Basque separatist group ETA admitted that they have received arms training in Venezuela, according to an indictment.
Judge Ismael Moreno said that Javier Atristain and Juan Carlos Besance, who were arrested on Wednesday in the Basque Country, said they have received arms training in Venezuela between July and August 2008, AP reported.
According to the judge, ETA suspect Arturo Cubillas, who is a longtime resident of Venezuela, provided arms training to both men. Cubillas was charged in March in another case filed by the Spanish National Court of being an intermediary between the Basque separatist group ETA and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), under the protection of the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
For ETA's Cuban ties, click here.
No More Excuses for Repression
For decades, apologists of the Castro regime have willfully overlooked its totalitarian control and repression due to its system of free education and health care.
These have always been poor excuses, for education in Cuba is akin to choice-less indoctrination, while its health care is plagued with poor quality and preferentiality for regime elites and foreigners.
Plus regardless -- that's quite a high price to pay.
But for the sake of argument -- and this post -- let's give these apologists the benefit of the doubt.
Over the weekend, news reports indicate that the Castro regime is looking to restructure its system of free education and health care. Instead, it is considering charging Cubans -- proportionally -- for these services.
So what'll be the new excuse?
Essentially, the Castro regime is nothing more than a fascist military dictatorship.
No more excuses.
These have always been poor excuses, for education in Cuba is akin to choice-less indoctrination, while its health care is plagued with poor quality and preferentiality for regime elites and foreigners.
Plus regardless -- that's quite a high price to pay.
But for the sake of argument -- and this post -- let's give these apologists the benefit of the doubt.
Over the weekend, news reports indicate that the Castro regime is looking to restructure its system of free education and health care. Instead, it is considering charging Cubans -- proportionally -- for these services.
So what'll be the new excuse?
Essentially, the Castro regime is nothing more than a fascist military dictatorship.
No more excuses.
The Destiny of "The Twelve"
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Of the 52 political prisoners announced for "release" this past July by the Castro regime, 39 have been banished to Spain.
None have been released within Cuba.
Of the remaining 13, today's Miami Herald reports that:
Twelve say they will accept freedom only on the basis of their age and health status, but they are unwilling to be forced to move to Spain as a condition of the deal.
So what will be the short-term fate of these 12?
It's unclear, but it's not a coincidence that three months later -- none have been released.
Meanwhile, as regards the destiny of the 39, IndyPosted reminds us:
Cuba is not the first dictatorship to use exile as a safety valve. In 1974, the Soviet government exiled soviet dissident and author Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. In 1976, the communist government in the former East Germany exiled Wolf Biermann, a communist dissident who questioned the authenticity of the regime's Marxist credentials.
Neither the USSR nor East Germany remain communist today. Both Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and Wolf Biermann returned to their respective homelands under democratic regimes. Cuba's communist leadership hopes to beat the odds.
From Lenin in czarist Russia to Jose Marti under Cuba's colonial regime in the 19th century, dictatorships have sent dissidents into exile and fallen in spite of it. Cuba's communist regime is not likely to be any different.
Which leads to the bigger question:
Will the short-term fate of the 12 close a safety valve leading to the destiny of the 39?
Time will tell.
None have been released within Cuba.
Of the remaining 13, today's Miami Herald reports that:
Twelve say they will accept freedom only on the basis of their age and health status, but they are unwilling to be forced to move to Spain as a condition of the deal.
So what will be the short-term fate of these 12?
It's unclear, but it's not a coincidence that three months later -- none have been released.
Meanwhile, as regards the destiny of the 39, IndyPosted reminds us:
Cuba is not the first dictatorship to use exile as a safety valve. In 1974, the Soviet government exiled soviet dissident and author Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. In 1976, the communist government in the former East Germany exiled Wolf Biermann, a communist dissident who questioned the authenticity of the regime's Marxist credentials.
Neither the USSR nor East Germany remain communist today. Both Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and Wolf Biermann returned to their respective homelands under democratic regimes. Cuba's communist leadership hopes to beat the odds.
From Lenin in czarist Russia to Jose Marti under Cuba's colonial regime in the 19th century, dictatorships have sent dissidents into exile and fallen in spite of it. Cuba's communist regime is not likely to be any different.
Which leads to the bigger question:
Will the short-term fate of the 12 close a safety valve leading to the destiny of the 39?
Time will tell.
Dodd's Farewell Tour of Havana
U.S. Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT), who is retiring from Congress at the end of this year, is currently in Cuba.
An outspoken and zealous critic of U.S. policy towards Cuba -- while an under-spoken and passive critic of the Castro regime's dictatorship -- Senator Dodd is no stranger to Havana.
Senator Dodd's office has confirmed the trip, but given no specifics.
Meanwhile, State Department spokeswoman Virginia Staab told Radio Martí that Dodd "is on a fact-finding trip consistent with his role as a senator. As we and others have done, we expect the Senator to urge the Cuban government to immediately release Mr. [Alan] Gross."
Alan Gross is an American development worker, who has been held -- without trial or charges -- by the Castro regime since last December for helping the island's small Jewish community connect to the Internet.
We're eager to learn what "facts" Senator Dodd finds.
An outspoken and zealous critic of U.S. policy towards Cuba -- while an under-spoken and passive critic of the Castro regime's dictatorship -- Senator Dodd is no stranger to Havana.
Senator Dodd's office has confirmed the trip, but given no specifics.
Meanwhile, State Department spokeswoman Virginia Staab told Radio Martí that Dodd "is on a fact-finding trip consistent with his role as a senator. As we and others have done, we expect the Senator to urge the Cuban government to immediately release Mr. [Alan] Gross."
Alan Gross is an American development worker, who has been held -- without trial or charges -- by the Castro regime since last December for helping the island's small Jewish community connect to the Internet.
We're eager to learn what "facts" Senator Dodd finds.
Fact-Check Time
By Mark Milke in The Calgary Herald:
Cuba is no island paradise for its citizens
For some unexplained reason, a coterie of Canadian apologists exist who are ever eager to defend Cuba's 51-year old Marxist dictatorship. In recent weeks, one letter writer to the Herald argued Cuban children benefit from the island autocracy because education is free. She also trumpeted how some foreign kids receive free health care, a variation of the oft-heard notion that Cubans have a great medical system. Another writer disputed the Herald's claim that communism was the 20th century's most murderous ideology.
Fact-check time. Eleven years ago, Harvard University published The Black Book of Communism, a series of essays, mostly from former French Marxists. They estimated those killed by the ideology amounted to about 100 million people in the last century.
That includes Cuba. "During the (Cuban) repressions of the 1960s, between 7,000 and 10,000 people were killed and 30,000 people were imprisoned for political reasons," wrote French journalist Pascal Fontaine. None of that takes away from the gravity of history's other mass murdering ideologies, notably the Nazi Holocaust's 6 million victims.
But the Herald was correct in its assertion.
What about Cuba's oft-praised health care and education systems? In 2003, the American Journal of Public Health found that 33 per cent of all Cuban refugee children had intestinal parasites, 21 per cent had lead poisoning and all had higher than normal levels of disease. In 2006, Fidel Castro flew a doctor in from Spain to look at his insides.
You'd expect refugees to have higher incidences of disease. However, given the Cubans were refugees but for a few days on their way to Florida from Cuba, the study was telling.
None of this should surprise anyone with open eyes. I was in Cuba in 2008, the day Castro resigned. One guidebook estimated 45 per cent of Cubans live in substandard shelter. That was obvious in Havana where I spent five days walking around. There are some nicely restored buildings in Havana's core but sub-standard, crowded tenements for ordinary Cubans are the norm.
Then there is the food rationing. The Varadero resort where I spent two days (and which is not the real Cuba) had trays full of scrambled eggs. But in Havana, one store with eggs for sale noted a limit of just five per person. Also in Havana, I snapped photos of a rundown school, a public hospital in disrepair and half-empty pharmacy shelves.
Even Castro no longer defends his record. In an interview last month with The Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, he made this admission: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore." (His admission was borne out by recent Cuban government reforms, including laying off half a million people from inefficient state enterprises, and loosening up some restrictions on small entrepreneurs). Several days later, Castro tried to claim he meant the opposite. Too late. He inadvertently admitted what economic data have shown: Cuba's 1959 detour into economic tyranny after its revolution produced 50 years of suffering for Cubans.
In 1958, the year before Castro came to power, Cuba's per capita GDP was $2,363, not far off the Latin American average of $3,047 (all figures inflation-adjusted 1990 dollars at purchasing power parity). Back then, Cuba's per capita GDP was higher than some East Asian jurisdictions such as Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea and not far behind Japan and Hong Kong.
By 2008, Cuba's per capita GDP was $3,764. Meanwhile, the East Asian jurisdictions that were below or barely above Cuba's economic status have long eclipsed it. In 2008, per capita income was $19,614 in South Korea, $20,926 in Taiwan, $28,107 in Singapore, and $31,704 in Hong Kong. In real terms, Hong Kong's per capita GDP grew by a factor of 11, Singapore's by 12, and South Korea and Taiwan by 16 -- while Cuba's equivalent didn't even double from its pre-revolutionary state.
Apologists point to the American economic embargo as a prime reason for Cuba's poverty. It's that and communism. However, the defenders never understand how their own argument supports free markets: free-flowing trade between countries lifts a country's economic prospects, as free-flowing internal trade does. Canadian apologists may not get it, but if recent baby steps toward economic reform are any indication, the Castro brothers apparently, finally, do.
Mark Milke is director of the Fraser Institute's Alberta office and of the Alberta Prosperity Project.
Cuba is no island paradise for its citizens
For some unexplained reason, a coterie of Canadian apologists exist who are ever eager to defend Cuba's 51-year old Marxist dictatorship. In recent weeks, one letter writer to the Herald argued Cuban children benefit from the island autocracy because education is free. She also trumpeted how some foreign kids receive free health care, a variation of the oft-heard notion that Cubans have a great medical system. Another writer disputed the Herald's claim that communism was the 20th century's most murderous ideology.
Fact-check time. Eleven years ago, Harvard University published The Black Book of Communism, a series of essays, mostly from former French Marxists. They estimated those killed by the ideology amounted to about 100 million people in the last century.
That includes Cuba. "During the (Cuban) repressions of the 1960s, between 7,000 and 10,000 people were killed and 30,000 people were imprisoned for political reasons," wrote French journalist Pascal Fontaine. None of that takes away from the gravity of history's other mass murdering ideologies, notably the Nazi Holocaust's 6 million victims.
But the Herald was correct in its assertion.
What about Cuba's oft-praised health care and education systems? In 2003, the American Journal of Public Health found that 33 per cent of all Cuban refugee children had intestinal parasites, 21 per cent had lead poisoning and all had higher than normal levels of disease. In 2006, Fidel Castro flew a doctor in from Spain to look at his insides.
You'd expect refugees to have higher incidences of disease. However, given the Cubans were refugees but for a few days on their way to Florida from Cuba, the study was telling.
None of this should surprise anyone with open eyes. I was in Cuba in 2008, the day Castro resigned. One guidebook estimated 45 per cent of Cubans live in substandard shelter. That was obvious in Havana where I spent five days walking around. There are some nicely restored buildings in Havana's core but sub-standard, crowded tenements for ordinary Cubans are the norm.
Then there is the food rationing. The Varadero resort where I spent two days (and which is not the real Cuba) had trays full of scrambled eggs. But in Havana, one store with eggs for sale noted a limit of just five per person. Also in Havana, I snapped photos of a rundown school, a public hospital in disrepair and half-empty pharmacy shelves.
Even Castro no longer defends his record. In an interview last month with The Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, he made this admission: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore." (His admission was borne out by recent Cuban government reforms, including laying off half a million people from inefficient state enterprises, and loosening up some restrictions on small entrepreneurs). Several days later, Castro tried to claim he meant the opposite. Too late. He inadvertently admitted what economic data have shown: Cuba's 1959 detour into economic tyranny after its revolution produced 50 years of suffering for Cubans.
In 1958, the year before Castro came to power, Cuba's per capita GDP was $2,363, not far off the Latin American average of $3,047 (all figures inflation-adjusted 1990 dollars at purchasing power parity). Back then, Cuba's per capita GDP was higher than some East Asian jurisdictions such as Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea and not far behind Japan and Hong Kong.
By 2008, Cuba's per capita GDP was $3,764. Meanwhile, the East Asian jurisdictions that were below or barely above Cuba's economic status have long eclipsed it. In 2008, per capita income was $19,614 in South Korea, $20,926 in Taiwan, $28,107 in Singapore, and $31,704 in Hong Kong. In real terms, Hong Kong's per capita GDP grew by a factor of 11, Singapore's by 12, and South Korea and Taiwan by 16 -- while Cuba's equivalent didn't even double from its pre-revolutionary state.
Apologists point to the American economic embargo as a prime reason for Cuba's poverty. It's that and communism. However, the defenders never understand how their own argument supports free markets: free-flowing trade between countries lifts a country's economic prospects, as free-flowing internal trade does. Canadian apologists may not get it, but if recent baby steps toward economic reform are any indication, the Castro brothers apparently, finally, do.
Mark Milke is director of the Fraser Institute's Alberta office and of the Alberta Prosperity Project.
The Vietnamese Yoani
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Ever heard of Vietnam's Pham Minh Hoang?
Probably not.
Yet, everyone's rightfully heard of Cuba's Yoani Sanchez.
And Iran's Hossein Derakhshan has been all over the news pursuant to his 19-year prison sentence for "propagating against the regime" (in other words, blogging). Note both are from sanctioned countries.
Maybe that's because we're too busy trading, hand-holding and boosting the economy of the Vietnamese regime to take notice of Pham Minh Hoang.
Does that mean conditioning the lifting of sanctions to a regime's treatment of its citizens results in greater scrutiny?
Something for well-intentioned sanctions opponents to ponder.
According to Reporters Without Borders:
Vietnamese blogger charged with trying to topple government
Reporters Without Borders is appalled that the Vietnamese authorities announced at a news conference yesterday that they are charging blogger Pham Minh Hoang with "activities aimed at overthrowing the government" (article 79 of the criminal code) and membership of a "terrorist organization" (the banned opposition party Viet Tan).
A mathematics teacher at the Ho Chi Minh City Polytechnic School, Hoang was arrested on 13 August. He studied in France for many years and has French as well as Vietnamese nationality.
Reporters Without Borders condemns the government's systematic use of conspiracy theory to silence dissidents and calls on France and the European Union to press for Hoang's release, in line with the French government's recent pledge to defend online free expression.
Police cited 30 articles which Hoang posted on his blog under the pseudonym of Phan Kien Quoc and which are available on the Viet Tan website. They also accused him of organising 40 students into a group for training as future Viet Tan members.
His wife, Le Thi Kieu Oanh, is also accused of being a party member but is not being prosecuted because they have a very young child. Oanh denies being a Viet Tan member and insists that the sole reason for her husband's arrests was his opposition to bauxite mining by a Chinese company in the central highlands.
Probably not.
Yet, everyone's rightfully heard of Cuba's Yoani Sanchez.
And Iran's Hossein Derakhshan has been all over the news pursuant to his 19-year prison sentence for "propagating against the regime" (in other words, blogging). Note both are from sanctioned countries.
Maybe that's because we're too busy trading, hand-holding and boosting the economy of the Vietnamese regime to take notice of Pham Minh Hoang.
Does that mean conditioning the lifting of sanctions to a regime's treatment of its citizens results in greater scrutiny?
Something for well-intentioned sanctions opponents to ponder.
According to Reporters Without Borders:
Vietnamese blogger charged with trying to topple government
Reporters Without Borders is appalled that the Vietnamese authorities announced at a news conference yesterday that they are charging blogger Pham Minh Hoang with "activities aimed at overthrowing the government" (article 79 of the criminal code) and membership of a "terrorist organization" (the banned opposition party Viet Tan).
A mathematics teacher at the Ho Chi Minh City Polytechnic School, Hoang was arrested on 13 August. He studied in France for many years and has French as well as Vietnamese nationality.
Reporters Without Borders condemns the government's systematic use of conspiracy theory to silence dissidents and calls on France and the European Union to press for Hoang's release, in line with the French government's recent pledge to defend online free expression.
Police cited 30 articles which Hoang posted on his blog under the pseudonym of Phan Kien Quoc and which are available on the Viet Tan website. They also accused him of organising 40 students into a group for training as future Viet Tan members.
His wife, Le Thi Kieu Oanh, is also accused of being a party member but is not being prosecuted because they have a very young child. Oanh denies being a Viet Tan member and insists that the sole reason for her husband's arrests was his opposition to bauxite mining by a Chinese company in the central highlands.
Richardson (Finally) Tells the Truth
Friday, October 1, 2010
As we previously posted, The New York Times re-ignited the "Castro oil scare" this week.
Apparently, it's a mandatory drill (no pun intended) every two years.
However, it was New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson -- a tireless advocate of normalizing relations with the Castro regime -- that revealed the truth behind this "timely" resurgence.
According to the Times:
New Mexico's governor, Bill Richardson, a Democrat who regularly visits Cuba, said Cuba's offshore drilling plans are a "potential inroad" for loosening the embargo. During a recent humanitarian trip to Cuba, he said, he bumped into a number of American drilling contractors — "all Republicans who could eventually convince the Congress to make the embargo flexible in this area of oil spills."
And there you have it.
Apparently, it's a mandatory drill (no pun intended) every two years.
However, it was New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson -- a tireless advocate of normalizing relations with the Castro regime -- that revealed the truth behind this "timely" resurgence.
According to the Times:
New Mexico's governor, Bill Richardson, a Democrat who regularly visits Cuba, said Cuba's offshore drilling plans are a "potential inroad" for loosening the embargo. During a recent humanitarian trip to Cuba, he said, he bumped into a number of American drilling contractors — "all Republicans who could eventually convince the Congress to make the embargo flexible in this area of oil spills."
And there you have it.
The Boy Who Cried Oil Drilling, Pt. 2
The St. Petersburg Times gets this introduction absolutely right:
The talk has been going around for years. Cuba would soon allow drilling off its shores. Foreign companies would begin sinking offshore rigs there shortly. Florida's Keys would be at risk.
The drilling would start in 2008. No, it would be 2009. No, wait, it would be 2010.
Now, with this year's Deepwater Horizon disaster fading from headlines if not from the Gulf of Mexico, the talk about Cuban drilling is back. Stories in both the New York Times and the Miami Herald this week reported that a Spanish company will begin drilling new exploratory wells in Cuban waters just 50 miles from the Florida Keys in 2011.
This time, Cuba experts say, the talk is serious. The reason: Like everyone else these days, Cuba needs the money.
So Cuba didn't need money in 2008 or in 2004, when we first started hearing about the "Castro oil scare"?
Of course, it did.
Except they really, really, really mean it this time.
No, really.
The talk has been going around for years. Cuba would soon allow drilling off its shores. Foreign companies would begin sinking offshore rigs there shortly. Florida's Keys would be at risk.
The drilling would start in 2008. No, it would be 2009. No, wait, it would be 2010.
Now, with this year's Deepwater Horizon disaster fading from headlines if not from the Gulf of Mexico, the talk about Cuban drilling is back. Stories in both the New York Times and the Miami Herald this week reported that a Spanish company will begin drilling new exploratory wells in Cuban waters just 50 miles from the Florida Keys in 2011.
This time, Cuba experts say, the talk is serious. The reason: Like everyone else these days, Cuba needs the money.
So Cuba didn't need money in 2008 or in 2004, when we first started hearing about the "Castro oil scare"?
Of course, it did.
Except they really, really, really mean it this time.
No, really.
Carrying the Oil Lobby's Water on Cuba
From The Columbia Journalism Review:
The Times Channels the Oil Lobby on Cuba
The top story in The New York Times yesterday carried a bit of water for the oil and gas lobby.
It's about how Cuba is thinking about opening up its waters for oil drilling and how that could affect the U.S. if there were a spill. That's a legit story, although it's an old one.
The Wall Street Journal wrote it three months ago and even then thought it worthy of just A5.
The Journal back then reported that "U.S. companies won't participate because of a longstanding trade embargo against Cuba." But Big Oil smells Havana crude. And that's the twist on the Times's story.
The paper somewhat credulously channels oil interests in reporting why U.S. drillers are worried about Cuban drilling:
The prospect of an accident is emboldening American drilling companies, backed by some critics of the embargo, to seek permission from the United States government to participate in Cuba's nascent industry, even if only to protect against an accident.
"This isn't about ideology. It's about oil spills," said Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, a trade group that is trying to broaden bilateral contacts to promote drilling safety. "Political attitudes have to change in order to protect the gulf."
Sure!
Fortunately, we do get this acknowledgment:
Any opening could provide a convenient wedge for big American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to allow them to bid for oil and natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba. Representatives of Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy attended an energy conference on Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials.
Basically its unclear why global oil corporations already going into Cuba won't have equipment as good as the Americans say they need. The spill angle is a bit of a red herring.
A better angle for this story might have been something like: American oil and gas companies, which currently can't start any new wells in the Gulf, are trying to scare people into letting them start new wells in the Gulf -- for Cuba.
The folly of the whole Cold War-relic embargo itself is another story.
CHC EDITOR: Nedless to say, we disagree with the last sentence, for it's thanks to U.S. sanctions that this entire issue is a red herring. However, we'll leave that for another day also, as the rest of the post is on-point.
The Times Channels the Oil Lobby on Cuba
The top story in The New York Times yesterday carried a bit of water for the oil and gas lobby.
It's about how Cuba is thinking about opening up its waters for oil drilling and how that could affect the U.S. if there were a spill. That's a legit story, although it's an old one.
The Wall Street Journal wrote it three months ago and even then thought it worthy of just A5.
The Journal back then reported that "U.S. companies won't participate because of a longstanding trade embargo against Cuba." But Big Oil smells Havana crude. And that's the twist on the Times's story.
The paper somewhat credulously channels oil interests in reporting why U.S. drillers are worried about Cuban drilling:
The prospect of an accident is emboldening American drilling companies, backed by some critics of the embargo, to seek permission from the United States government to participate in Cuba's nascent industry, even if only to protect against an accident.
"This isn't about ideology. It's about oil spills," said Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, a trade group that is trying to broaden bilateral contacts to promote drilling safety. "Political attitudes have to change in order to protect the gulf."
Sure!
Fortunately, we do get this acknowledgment:
Any opening could provide a convenient wedge for big American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to allow them to bid for oil and natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba. Representatives of Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy attended an energy conference on Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials.
Basically its unclear why global oil corporations already going into Cuba won't have equipment as good as the Americans say they need. The spill angle is a bit of a red herring.
A better angle for this story might have been something like: American oil and gas companies, which currently can't start any new wells in the Gulf, are trying to scare people into letting them start new wells in the Gulf -- for Cuba.
The folly of the whole Cold War-relic embargo itself is another story.
CHC EDITOR: Nedless to say, we disagree with the last sentence, for it's thanks to U.S. sanctions that this entire issue is a red herring. However, we'll leave that for another day also, as the rest of the post is on-point.
Castro Lies About Reforms (Again)
By Professor Javier Corrales of Amherst College:
Cuba's Latest Reforms Won't Work
In early September Fidel Castro, former president of Cuba and now opinion-maker-in-chief, stunned the world twice by declaring, first, that the Cuban model "doesn't work for us" anymore, and second, by arguing a few days later that he didn't really mean what he said. While Fidel Castro seems confused, his brother Raúl, Cuba's official president, seems pretty clear about the issue. With the set of market-oriented reforms that he recently announced, Raúl Castro has essentially confirmed that Fidel's original statement was correct -- Cuba's current model needs overhaul. The key question is whether the announced reforms will save Cuba. The answer is no.
Raúl Castro's reforms are no doubt significant. Ten percent of public sector employees will be let go. Self-employment will be allowed in 178 activities. Private restaurants will be allowed to add more tables. Rental markets will be expanded. And for the first time ever, Cubans will be able to hire non-relatives, and Cubans living overseas will be allowed to take part in these new economic liberties. In total, the government expects to authorize 250,000 new businesses, tripling the size of the current self-employed private sector.
There is no question that Cuba needs reform. Cuba is the one country of the Americas that has had not one, not two, but six lost decades, experiencing a deterioration of living relative to its peers steadily since the mid 1950s. Something must change. However, the current reforms won't do the trick. This is not because the reforms are, economically speaking, too modest (they are), but because the most vital political factor that is required for market reforms to be effective is still missing -- societal trust in the state.
Cubans mistrust the state for a simple reason: every time the state opens the economy, sooner rather later, authorities unilaterally change their mind, decide to take those liberties away, and end up punishing those who tried to take advantage of the small breathing space that had been provided. This promise reversal has taken place four times under in the Revolution's history.
The first occurred two years after the triumph of the Revolution. Initially, Fidel promised to create a favorable climate for private investment. The first major law of the Revolution, the "Fundamental Law of Cuba" of February 7, 1959, even stated that "Confiscation of property is prohibited" (Art. 24) and recognized the "legitimacy of private property" (Art. 87). There was so much trust in the state that Bacardi, one of the largest Cuban-owned multinational ever, paid its 1959 taxes all at once. But in December 1961 Castro declared himself a Marxist-Leninist and launched the most aggressive confiscation drive ever in the Americas, collectivizing almost 70 percent of the total economy by 1962.
The second promise reversal was the Revolutionary Offensive of 1968. Initially, small retailers were exempted from the nationalization drive of 1961-62. This made many Cubans feel that the revolution was supportive of economic rights for the little guys even if it punished the big capitalists. But in 1968, the state changed its mind again and proceeded to nationalize 55,636 small businesses (groceries, butcher shops, laundries, barber shops, boarding houses), essentially eliminating all non-agricultural retail still left in Cuba.
The next broken promise came in 1986 with the "rectification of errors" campaign. That year, a few markets that had been allowed to reopen earlier in the decade were suddenly shut down. This policy reversal was so severe that two scholars described it as "a return to totalitarianism," inexplicably at a time when economic totalitarianism was waning in the big communist powers of China and the USSR.
Finally, and most gravely, the unprecedented market reforms of 1993-94 (dollarization, opening to foreign investment, and legalization of self-employment) were also terminated -- more gradually but also equally decisively -- by the early 2000s. By then, most foreign direct investments failed to materialize due to unfavorable business conditions, possession of dollars was penalized again, and most self-employment activities were reregulated, or altogether banned, legally or extralegally.
Cuba thus has a history, as economist Carmelo Mesa-Lago always points out, of introducing modest economic openings, only to reverse them soon thereafter. The brief reforms allow the state to weather a momentary fiscal crisis. But when the fiscal crisis subsides, the state re-imposes draconian measures. This return to totalitarianism is something that all college-level Cubans have seen once; older Cubans have seen multiple times. It is the way that the Cuban state conducts business, or rather, chooses to interrupt business. The result is that Cubans have learned not to trust the state.
Without this trust, Castro's microeconomic reforms won't amount to much. No doubt, Cubans will try to take full advantage of the new openings--many will open new businesses, retool themselves to work in different trades, and borrow money from relatives abroad. This will bring some economic relief. But these will be baby steps. The much bigger steps that are required for market reforms to deliver transformative effects--firms making large investments in capital and technology, conducting research to develop new markets, borrowing long-term to pursue high returns projects--won't happen in Cuba. All these activities require citizens to think long term, which in turn requires citizens to have state institutions in which they can believe, such as property-defending courts, reliable and balanced legislatures, a legal system that is predictable and committed to protecting contracts, and a state that governs by negotiation rather than decree. These institutional conditions are absent in Cuba, and nobody believes that the current state will ever deliver them or guarantee their survival.
Analysts have begun to debate whether the current round of reforms goes too far or fails to go far enough. But focusing on the reforms alone misses the point. The key problem is that Cubans have a long history of being cheated by their state, and the current reforms do nothing to address this problem. Contrary to press accounts, the current reforms are not new. The Cuban state has made similar promises in the past, only to change its mind arbitrarily, abruptly, punitively, and always in a reactionary direction.
The Cuban state has been trying to bring revolution to Cuba's society since 1959. But what Cuba needs is no more revolutions at the level of society, but a revolution at the level of the state. The conditions that allow the state to act so arbitrarily and imperiously must end. This behavior has been the hallmark of the Cuban state since pre-Revolutionary times--arbitrariness expanded under the Fulgencio Batista regime (1952-1958) and became more pronounced under the Castros. The current reforms do nothing to strip the state of arbitrariness, and until that changes, it is hard to imagine that this round of reform will be more than another failed déjà vu.
Cuba's Latest Reforms Won't Work
In early September Fidel Castro, former president of Cuba and now opinion-maker-in-chief, stunned the world twice by declaring, first, that the Cuban model "doesn't work for us" anymore, and second, by arguing a few days later that he didn't really mean what he said. While Fidel Castro seems confused, his brother Raúl, Cuba's official president, seems pretty clear about the issue. With the set of market-oriented reforms that he recently announced, Raúl Castro has essentially confirmed that Fidel's original statement was correct -- Cuba's current model needs overhaul. The key question is whether the announced reforms will save Cuba. The answer is no.
Raúl Castro's reforms are no doubt significant. Ten percent of public sector employees will be let go. Self-employment will be allowed in 178 activities. Private restaurants will be allowed to add more tables. Rental markets will be expanded. And for the first time ever, Cubans will be able to hire non-relatives, and Cubans living overseas will be allowed to take part in these new economic liberties. In total, the government expects to authorize 250,000 new businesses, tripling the size of the current self-employed private sector.
There is no question that Cuba needs reform. Cuba is the one country of the Americas that has had not one, not two, but six lost decades, experiencing a deterioration of living relative to its peers steadily since the mid 1950s. Something must change. However, the current reforms won't do the trick. This is not because the reforms are, economically speaking, too modest (they are), but because the most vital political factor that is required for market reforms to be effective is still missing -- societal trust in the state.
Cubans mistrust the state for a simple reason: every time the state opens the economy, sooner rather later, authorities unilaterally change their mind, decide to take those liberties away, and end up punishing those who tried to take advantage of the small breathing space that had been provided. This promise reversal has taken place four times under in the Revolution's history.
The first occurred two years after the triumph of the Revolution. Initially, Fidel promised to create a favorable climate for private investment. The first major law of the Revolution, the "Fundamental Law of Cuba" of February 7, 1959, even stated that "Confiscation of property is prohibited" (Art. 24) and recognized the "legitimacy of private property" (Art. 87). There was so much trust in the state that Bacardi, one of the largest Cuban-owned multinational ever, paid its 1959 taxes all at once. But in December 1961 Castro declared himself a Marxist-Leninist and launched the most aggressive confiscation drive ever in the Americas, collectivizing almost 70 percent of the total economy by 1962.
The second promise reversal was the Revolutionary Offensive of 1968. Initially, small retailers were exempted from the nationalization drive of 1961-62. This made many Cubans feel that the revolution was supportive of economic rights for the little guys even if it punished the big capitalists. But in 1968, the state changed its mind again and proceeded to nationalize 55,636 small businesses (groceries, butcher shops, laundries, barber shops, boarding houses), essentially eliminating all non-agricultural retail still left in Cuba.
The next broken promise came in 1986 with the "rectification of errors" campaign. That year, a few markets that had been allowed to reopen earlier in the decade were suddenly shut down. This policy reversal was so severe that two scholars described it as "a return to totalitarianism," inexplicably at a time when economic totalitarianism was waning in the big communist powers of China and the USSR.
Finally, and most gravely, the unprecedented market reforms of 1993-94 (dollarization, opening to foreign investment, and legalization of self-employment) were also terminated -- more gradually but also equally decisively -- by the early 2000s. By then, most foreign direct investments failed to materialize due to unfavorable business conditions, possession of dollars was penalized again, and most self-employment activities were reregulated, or altogether banned, legally or extralegally.
Cuba thus has a history, as economist Carmelo Mesa-Lago always points out, of introducing modest economic openings, only to reverse them soon thereafter. The brief reforms allow the state to weather a momentary fiscal crisis. But when the fiscal crisis subsides, the state re-imposes draconian measures. This return to totalitarianism is something that all college-level Cubans have seen once; older Cubans have seen multiple times. It is the way that the Cuban state conducts business, or rather, chooses to interrupt business. The result is that Cubans have learned not to trust the state.
Without this trust, Castro's microeconomic reforms won't amount to much. No doubt, Cubans will try to take full advantage of the new openings--many will open new businesses, retool themselves to work in different trades, and borrow money from relatives abroad. This will bring some economic relief. But these will be baby steps. The much bigger steps that are required for market reforms to deliver transformative effects--firms making large investments in capital and technology, conducting research to develop new markets, borrowing long-term to pursue high returns projects--won't happen in Cuba. All these activities require citizens to think long term, which in turn requires citizens to have state institutions in which they can believe, such as property-defending courts, reliable and balanced legislatures, a legal system that is predictable and committed to protecting contracts, and a state that governs by negotiation rather than decree. These institutional conditions are absent in Cuba, and nobody believes that the current state will ever deliver them or guarantee their survival.
Analysts have begun to debate whether the current round of reforms goes too far or fails to go far enough. But focusing on the reforms alone misses the point. The key problem is that Cubans have a long history of being cheated by their state, and the current reforms do nothing to address this problem. Contrary to press accounts, the current reforms are not new. The Cuban state has made similar promises in the past, only to change its mind arbitrarily, abruptly, punitively, and always in a reactionary direction.
The Cuban state has been trying to bring revolution to Cuba's society since 1959. But what Cuba needs is no more revolutions at the level of society, but a revolution at the level of the state. The conditions that allow the state to act so arbitrarily and imperiously must end. This behavior has been the hallmark of the Cuban state since pre-Revolutionary times--arbitrariness expanded under the Fulgencio Batista regime (1952-1958) and became more pronounced under the Castros. The current reforms do nothing to strip the state of arbitrariness, and until that changes, it is hard to imagine that this round of reform will be more than another failed déjà vu.
Cuba Backs Ahmadinejad at U.N.
From The New York Sun:
Cuban Minister Hews Hard Line at United Nations, Contradicting Castro and Backing Ahmadinejad
On the eve of hearings in the United States Congress on whether to ease the ban on Americans traveling to Cuba, Havana's foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, has been taking a hard, even strident line here at the United Nations, very much at odds with the way Fidel Castro is trying to portray Cuba in the American press these days.
It has prompted old hands here at the United Nations to quote another, albeit different kind of, Marxist — Groucho, who famously asked: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
The Atlantic Magazine, the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York Times and others report that Cuba and the Castro brothers are mending their ways, decentralizing the economy, distancing themselves from world tyrants, and even finding kind words for Israel and the Jews.
Mr. Parrilla, however, was, in his address at the annual General Assembly debate, as rigid as ever, blaming America's aggression for all the isle's troubles, saying Israel is behind all that's wrong in the Middle East, and expressing solidarity with Venezuela's caudillo, Hugo Chavez.
"The Cuban revolution will unyieldingly and tenaciously continue down the path that has been sovereignly chosen by our people, and shall not cease in its endeavors, befitting the ideas of Marti and Fidel," the Cuban foreign minister told delegates at the opening debate of the U.N. General Assembly Monday.
And no, for Cuba the holocaust-denying Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is not the aggressor. "As Comrade Fidel has pointed out, powerful and influential forces in the United States and Israel are paving the way to launch a military attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mr. Parrilla warned, adding that the General Assembly must stop such a plot to commit a "crime against the Iranian people" and such "an assault against international law" in order to prevent a nuclear war.
Mr. Parrilla's entire speech was an old-style Cuban assault on America and Israel, harking back to the glorious days of the Cold War when the Castros drew as much attention at international fora like the U.N. as is now reserved for Mr. Ahmadinejad or Mr. Chavez.
But wait a minute. Hasn't Fidel Castro mellowed with age? Isn't Cuba's new powerhouse, Raul Castro, turning the country and its sclerotic system around?
Didn't the older Castro tell the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and the Council's Julia Sweig that the Cuban model no longer works (although he later recanted, saying that, though he'd been accurately quoted by Mr. Goldberg, he meant to say that thecapitalist system isn't working)?
Also in that Atlantic interview, Mr. Castro – who has championed Palestinian terrorists since the 1970s, when he also severed his country's relations with Israel – talked about the suffering of the Jewish people and stressed the uniqueness of anti-Semitism. He even berated Mr. Ahmadinejad about his holocaust denial.
President Peres was so impressed that, while in New York late last week, he wrote a thank-you letter to Castro, which was hand delivered to Cuba's ambassador to Turtle Bay. In it Mr. Peres congratulated Mr. Castro for the "intellectual depth" he displayed in Mr. Goldberg's interview.
Meanwhile, the New York Times issued on its front page a dispatch of Elisabeth Malkin detailing the younger Castro's plan to fire "more than half million" public sector employees – a step representing the "clearest sign yet that economic change is gathering pace" in Cuba.
Trouble is, the Times story, filed from Mexico City, showed scant evidence that any of the changes described in it were actually taking place beyond reports in Granma and other state-owned press outlets or official statements from state-sanctioned workers unions.
"These are things that they're constantly announcing that they're going to do," said the former Mexican foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda. But the record in the last four years – since Fidel's ailment forced Raul to take over as president – shows that "none of it ever really happens," said Mr. Castaneda, a long-time Cuba watcher whom I have known for years because he is my cousin and who, in any event, has clashed with the Castro brothers on many occasions.
The elder Mr. Castro's interviews may seem like a repudication of much of his 50 years in power, but, as Mr. Parrilla's speech shows, they – and reports disseminated by the government's own propaganda organs – do not indicate any real change in Havana's ideology or policies.
They're mostly designed to end a situation in which, in Mr. Parrilla's words, "for all American citizens or foreigners residing in that country, traveling to Cuba continues to be illegal." Cuba is starved for an American cash infusion, which it hopes would save its economy from collapse. Mr. Parrilla said here that Washington hasn't revolutionized its policies under President Obama despite Havana's hopes.
Cuban Minister Hews Hard Line at United Nations, Contradicting Castro and Backing Ahmadinejad
On the eve of hearings in the United States Congress on whether to ease the ban on Americans traveling to Cuba, Havana's foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, has been taking a hard, even strident line here at the United Nations, very much at odds with the way Fidel Castro is trying to portray Cuba in the American press these days.
It has prompted old hands here at the United Nations to quote another, albeit different kind of, Marxist — Groucho, who famously asked: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
The Atlantic Magazine, the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York Times and others report that Cuba and the Castro brothers are mending their ways, decentralizing the economy, distancing themselves from world tyrants, and even finding kind words for Israel and the Jews.
Mr. Parrilla, however, was, in his address at the annual General Assembly debate, as rigid as ever, blaming America's aggression for all the isle's troubles, saying Israel is behind all that's wrong in the Middle East, and expressing solidarity with Venezuela's caudillo, Hugo Chavez.
"The Cuban revolution will unyieldingly and tenaciously continue down the path that has been sovereignly chosen by our people, and shall not cease in its endeavors, befitting the ideas of Marti and Fidel," the Cuban foreign minister told delegates at the opening debate of the U.N. General Assembly Monday.
And no, for Cuba the holocaust-denying Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is not the aggressor. "As Comrade Fidel has pointed out, powerful and influential forces in the United States and Israel are paving the way to launch a military attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mr. Parrilla warned, adding that the General Assembly must stop such a plot to commit a "crime against the Iranian people" and such "an assault against international law" in order to prevent a nuclear war.
Mr. Parrilla's entire speech was an old-style Cuban assault on America and Israel, harking back to the glorious days of the Cold War when the Castros drew as much attention at international fora like the U.N. as is now reserved for Mr. Ahmadinejad or Mr. Chavez.
But wait a minute. Hasn't Fidel Castro mellowed with age? Isn't Cuba's new powerhouse, Raul Castro, turning the country and its sclerotic system around?
Didn't the older Castro tell the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and the Council's Julia Sweig that the Cuban model no longer works (although he later recanted, saying that, though he'd been accurately quoted by Mr. Goldberg, he meant to say that thecapitalist system isn't working)?
Also in that Atlantic interview, Mr. Castro – who has championed Palestinian terrorists since the 1970s, when he also severed his country's relations with Israel – talked about the suffering of the Jewish people and stressed the uniqueness of anti-Semitism. He even berated Mr. Ahmadinejad about his holocaust denial.
President Peres was so impressed that, while in New York late last week, he wrote a thank-you letter to Castro, which was hand delivered to Cuba's ambassador to Turtle Bay. In it Mr. Peres congratulated Mr. Castro for the "intellectual depth" he displayed in Mr. Goldberg's interview.
Meanwhile, the New York Times issued on its front page a dispatch of Elisabeth Malkin detailing the younger Castro's plan to fire "more than half million" public sector employees – a step representing the "clearest sign yet that economic change is gathering pace" in Cuba.
Trouble is, the Times story, filed from Mexico City, showed scant evidence that any of the changes described in it were actually taking place beyond reports in Granma and other state-owned press outlets or official statements from state-sanctioned workers unions.
"These are things that they're constantly announcing that they're going to do," said the former Mexican foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda. But the record in the last four years – since Fidel's ailment forced Raul to take over as president – shows that "none of it ever really happens," said Mr. Castaneda, a long-time Cuba watcher whom I have known for years because he is my cousin and who, in any event, has clashed with the Castro brothers on many occasions.
The elder Mr. Castro's interviews may seem like a repudication of much of his 50 years in power, but, as Mr. Parrilla's speech shows, they – and reports disseminated by the government's own propaganda organs – do not indicate any real change in Havana's ideology or policies.
They're mostly designed to end a situation in which, in Mr. Parrilla's words, "for all American citizens or foreigners residing in that country, traveling to Cuba continues to be illegal." Cuba is starved for an American cash infusion, which it hopes would save its economy from collapse. Mr. Parrilla said here that Washington hasn't revolutionized its policies under President Obama despite Havana's hopes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Capitol Hill Cubans TV
Faces of Repression
Campaign for Freedom
Congressional Hall of Shame
Link List
Connect
Blog Archive
-
►
2012
(79)
-
►
01/22 - 01/29
(14)
- Dick Durbin Does Havana (for Caterpillar)
- Cuba's Lackluster Healthcare System
- Cuba Near Bottom in Press Freedom
- Romney White Paper on Cuba & Latin America
- Senate Resolution Honors Wilman Villar
- Bill Delahunt's Selective Spending
- Today on "From Washington al Mundo"
- Shed Light on Castro's Cruelty
- What Wilman's Death Says About Cuba
- Wilman Villar Mendoza Recognized in Presidential D...
- Last Night's Loser
- State Department Adds Insult to Death
- Today on "From Washington al Mundo"
- The "Crime" That Cost Wilman His Life
-
►
01/15 - 01/22
(24)
- Dissident’s Death Highlights Repression
- House Investigates Smithsonian's Cuba Trips
- A Heartbreaking Quote
- Obama on the Death of Wilman Villar
- Romney on the Death of Wilman Villar
- Amnesty: Regime Responsible for Wilman's Death
- Menendez on the Death of Wilman Villar
- Ros-Lehtinen on the Death of Wilman Villar
- Rubio on the Death of Wilman Villar
- Diaz-Balart on the Death of Wilman Villar
- Rivera on the Death of Wilman Villar
- Cuban Hunger Striker Died Last Night
- Romney: Obama Has Failed on Chavez
- Who Cares About Wilman Villar Mendoza?
- Cuba Ranks 177 of 179 in Economic Freedom
- A Fair Assessment of "Reforms"
- Tune In to "From Washington Al Mundo"
- Castro Regime Murders (Another) Gay Cuban
- Are Burma's Reforms Comparable to Castro's?
- The Tragic Case of Wilman Villar
- Urgent: Cuban Hunger Striker Near Death
- Those Crazy Authoritarians
- Guantanamo of the New York Times
- Stop the Appeasement
-
►
01/08 - 01/15
(20)
- Congressional Calls for Ivonne Malleza's Release
- U.S. Senator Assails Mercedes-Benz
- Castro's 'New' Reforms are an Old Scam
- Gingrich Reconsiders His Cuba Policy
- Fidel, Raul and Mahmoud's Communiqué
- Concerning Quote of the Day
- Weakest Candidates on Cuba Policy
- Ahmadinejad Arrives in Cuba
- Things Are Changing in Cuba
- An Important Reminder
- U.S. Senators Call for Release of Ivonne Malleza
- No Creativity Among Dictators
- ► 01/01 - 01/08 (21)
-
►
01/22 - 01/29
(14)
-
►
2011
(1035)
- ► 12/25 - 01/01 (17)
- ► 12/18 - 12/25 (15)
- ► 12/11 - 12/18 (19)
- ► 12/04 - 12/11 (22)
- ► 11/27 - 12/04 (16)
- ► 11/20 - 11/27 (10)
- ► 11/13 - 11/20 (17)
- ► 11/06 - 11/13 (24)
- ► 10/30 - 11/06 (21)
- ► 10/23 - 10/30 (23)
- ► 10/16 - 10/23 (27)
- ► 10/09 - 10/16 (22)
- ► 10/02 - 10/09 (26)
- ► 09/25 - 10/02 (18)
- ► 09/18 - 09/25 (19)
- ► 09/11 - 09/18 (17)
- ► 09/04 - 09/11 (22)
- ► 08/28 - 09/04 (24)
- ► 08/21 - 08/28 (24)
- ► 08/14 - 08/21 (19)
- ► 08/07 - 08/14 (16)
- ► 07/31 - 08/07 (23)
- ► 07/24 - 07/31 (18)
- ► 07/17 - 07/24 (20)
- ► 07/10 - 07/17 (18)
- ► 07/03 - 07/10 (16)
- ► 06/26 - 07/03 (18)
- ► 06/19 - 06/26 (14)
- ► 06/12 - 06/19 (16)
- ► 06/05 - 06/12 (16)
- ► 05/29 - 06/05 (15)
- ► 05/22 - 05/29 (15)
- ► 05/15 - 05/22 (18)
- ► 05/08 - 05/15 (16)
- ► 05/01 - 05/08 (18)
- ► 04/24 - 05/01 (19)
- ► 04/17 - 04/24 (23)
- ► 04/10 - 04/17 (17)
- ► 04/03 - 04/10 (20)
- ► 03/27 - 04/03 (22)
- ► 03/20 - 03/27 (19)
- ► 03/13 - 03/20 (20)
- ► 03/06 - 03/13 (25)
- ► 02/27 - 03/06 (35)
- ► 02/20 - 02/27 (25)
- ► 02/13 - 02/20 (21)
- ► 02/06 - 02/13 (25)
- ► 01/30 - 02/06 (22)
- ► 01/23 - 01/30 (18)
- ► 01/16 - 01/23 (26)
- ► 01/09 - 01/16 (20)
- ► 01/02 - 01/09 (19)
-
►
2009
(933)
- ► 12/27 - 01/03 (17)
- ► 12/20 - 12/27 (13)
- ► 12/13 - 12/20 (19)
- ► 12/06 - 12/13 (15)
- ► 11/29 - 12/06 (15)
- ► 11/22 - 11/29 (13)
- ► 11/15 - 11/22 (21)
- ► 11/08 - 11/15 (20)
- ► 11/01 - 11/08 (17)
- ► 10/25 - 11/01 (14)
- ► 10/18 - 10/25 (20)
- ► 10/11 - 10/18 (20)
- ► 10/04 - 10/11 (21)
- ► 09/27 - 10/04 (22)
- ► 09/20 - 09/27 (21)
- ► 09/13 - 09/20 (19)
- ► 09/06 - 09/13 (20)
- ► 08/30 - 09/06 (20)
- ► 08/23 - 08/30 (17)
- ► 08/16 - 08/23 (22)
- ► 08/09 - 08/16 (18)
- ► 08/02 - 08/09 (26)
- ► 07/26 - 08/02 (25)
- ► 07/19 - 07/26 (21)
- ► 07/12 - 07/19 (21)
- ► 07/05 - 07/12 (22)
- ► 06/28 - 07/05 (26)
- ► 06/21 - 06/28 (27)
- ► 06/14 - 06/21 (28)
- ► 06/07 - 06/14 (32)
- ► 05/31 - 06/07 (46)
- ► 05/24 - 05/31 (39)
- ► 05/17 - 05/24 (47)
- ► 05/10 - 05/17 (29)
- ► 05/03 - 05/10 (26)
- ► 04/26 - 05/03 (30)
- ► 04/19 - 04/26 (34)
- ► 04/12 - 04/19 (48)
- ► 04/05 - 04/12 (16)
- ► 03/29 - 04/05 (2)
- ► 02/15 - 02/22 (1)
- ► 02/08 - 02/15 (1)
- ► 01/25 - 02/01 (1)
- ► 01/04 - 01/11 (1)
-
►
2008
(1)
- ► 05/18 - 05/25 (1)