What do you think about purses
Do u want to make yourself happy???
Just one kkLick and u are in
LOOOK
[b][url=http://discounted-designer-handbag.50webs.com/]Discounted Designer Handbag[/url][/b]
Don't forget to go here
[b][url=http://coach-handbag-here.blogspot.com/]Coach Handbag[/url][/b]
Enrique, la Democracia es un concepto sencillo (el gobierno del pueblo, por el pueblo y para el pueblo) pero su implementaciÛn pr·ctica se vuelve un poco m·s complicada.
El criterio fundamental es que, en Democracia, las decisiones b·sicas las toma LA MAYORIA de la poblaciÛn AL ELEGIR A SUS GOBERNANTES. Para comprender mejor miremos el caso mexicano. Felipe CalderÛn propone continuar gobernando como lo hizo Vicente Fox, mientras que AndrÈs Manuel LÛpez Obrador propone un giro hacia la izquierda, con mayor intervenciÛn del Estado en la economÌa, posible anulaciÛn de tratados comerciales, etc. Dependiendo de quiÈn gane la elecciÛn veremos a MÈxico ir por un camino o por otro. Pero nadie duda de que, hasta ahora, MÈxico vive una Democracia.
Miremos tambiÈn el caso venezolano. Hugo Ch·vez llegÛ al poder mediante elecciones democr·ticas, pero durante sus 8 aÒos de gobierno ha acumulado m·s y m·s poder y a la vez ha restringido m·s y m·s las libertades y derechos de los ciudadanos, es decir que se ha vuelto un rÈgimen absolutista. Con todo ese poder acumulado, Ch·vez ha impuesto un rÈgimen econÛmico de izquierda, con gran participaciÛn del Estado en toda la economÌa.
øHacia dÛnde ir· Cuba? øTendr· el pueblo cubano la oportunidad de decidir su futuro, o el rÈgimen castrista seguir· imponiendo su visiÛn, a sangre y fuego?
Bernardo —Gracias por sus observaciones, y por la nueva oportunidad para poder aclarar dudas ya que lamento que posiblemente haya un mal entendimiento. Es decir, øpor quÈ usted dice “Una vez en Democracia, el pueblo podr· elegir el sistema econÛmico que desee.”?
Me explico:
1. En el modelo democr·tico que se propone aquÌ se garantizarÌa que los cubanos que asÌ lo deseen puedan formar y vivir en una democracia multi-partidista y una economÌa neo-liberal, pero solo dentro de su comunidad ideolÛgica. Se les asignarÌa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÛn que representan.
2. El modelo tambiÈn garantizarÌa que los que deseen continuar viviendo en una democracia uni-partidista como la que profesan actualmente en Cuba y una economÌa marxista, tambiÈn podrÌan hacerlo. Igualmente se les asignarÌa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÛn que representan.
3. TambiÈn se garantizarÌa el derecho a formar comunidades ideolÛgicas distintas a las 2 anteriores.
Se propone presupone un entendimiento democr·tico entre las partes en conflicto para proceder de esta forma.
Adem·s todas las partes en conflicto, es decir, todas las comunidades ideolÛgicas participarÌan democr·ticamente en la formaciÛn de un gobierno central para manejar sus intereses comunes, i.e. Relaciones internacionales, defensa, etc.
Ninguna, sin embargo, podrÌa imponer su sistema ideolÛgico en la jurisdicciÛn de la otra. øQuiz·s no lo he entendido bien, pero es eso lo que usted aboga?
øEs decir usted aboga que los de la alternativa 1 puedan imponer su sistema ideÛlogico a los que desean la alternativa 2?
Viva la pax cubana! Viva la patria!
copyright Enrique I. Alonso. All Rights Reserved.
The Washington Post, and all others, are only granted non-exclusive right to publish it as is, in any format, without modifying any content. For translation write to eialonso@yahoo.com.
Bernardo —Gracias por sus observaciones, y por la nueva oportunidad para poder aclarar dudas ya que lamento que posiblemente haya un mal entendimiento. Es decir, øpor quÈ usted dice “Una vez en Democracia, el pueblo podr· elegir el sistema econÛmico que desee.”?
Me explico:
1. En el modelo democr·tico que se propone aquÌ se garantizarÌa que los cubanos que asÌ lo deseen puedan formar y vivir en una democracia multi-partidista y una economÌa neo-liberal, pero solo dentro de su comunidad ideolÛgica. Se les asignarÌa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÛn que representan.
2. El modelo tambiÈn garantizarÌa que los que deseen continuar viviendo en una democracia uni-partidista como la que profesan actualmente en Cuba y una economÌa marxista, tambiÈn podrÌan hacerlo. Igualmente se les asignarÌa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÛn que representan.
3. TambiÈn se garantizarÌa el derecho a formar comunidades ideolÛgicas distintas a las 2 anteriores.
Se propone presupone un entendimiento democr·tico entre las partes en conflicto para proceder de esta forma.
Adem·s todas las partes en conflicto, es decir, todas las comunidades ideolÛgicas participarÌan democr·ticamente en la formaciÛn de un gobierno central para manejar sus intereses comunes, i.e. Relaciones internacionales, defensa, etc.
Ninguna, sin embargo, podrÌa imponer su sistema ideolÛgico en la jurisdicciÛn de la otra. øQuiz·s no lo he entendido bien, pero es eso lo que usted aboga?
øEs decir usted aboga que los de la alternativa 1 puedan imponer su sistema ideÛlogico a los que desean la alternativa 2?
Bernardo —Gracias por sus observaciones, y por la nueva oportunidad para poder aclarar dudas ya que lamento que posiblemente haya un mal entendimiento. Es decir, ÔøΩpor quÔøΩ usted dice "Una vez en Democracia, el pueblo podrÔøΩ elegir el sistema econÔøΩmico que desee."?
Me explico:
1. En el modelo democrÔøΩtico que se propone aquÔøΩ se garantizarÔøΩa que los cubanos que asÔøΩ lo deseen puedan formar y vivir en una democracia multi-partidista y una economÔøΩa neo-liberal, pero solo dentro de su comunidad ideolÔøΩgica. Se les asignarÔøΩa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÔøΩn que representan.
2. El modelo tambiÔøΩn garantizarÔøΩa que los que deseen continuar viviendo en una democracia uni-partidista como la que profesan actualmente en Cuba y una economÔøΩa marxista, tambiÔøΩn podrÔøΩan hacerlo. Igualmente se les asignarÔøΩa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÔøΩn que representan.
3. TambiÔøΩn se garantizarÔøΩa el derecho a formar comunidades ideolÔøΩgicas distintas a las 2 anteriores.
Se propone presupone un entendimiento democrÔøΩtico entre las partes en conflicto para proceder de esta forma.
AdemÔøΩs todas las partes en conflicto, es decir, todas las comunidades ideolÔøΩgicas participarÔøΩan democrÔøΩticamente en la formaciÔøΩn de un gobierno central para manejar sus intereses comunes, i.e. Relaciones internacionales, defensa, etc.
Ninguna, sin embargo, podrÔøΩa imponer su sistema ideolÔøΩgico en la jurisdicciÔøΩn de la otra. ÔøΩQuizÔøΩs no lo he entendido bien, pero es eso lo que usted aboga?
ÔøΩEs decir usted aboga que los de la alternativa 1 puedan imponer su sistema ideÔøΩlogico a los que desean la alternativa 2?
Siento que tu principal preocupaciÛn se concentra en este p·rrafo: "... algunos pretenden que los cubanos debemos escoger entre este socialismo marxista-cubano, o la ideologÌa capitalista del vecino del norte..."
Yo te dirÌa: No necesariamente.
Creo que es necesario identificar dos niveles de la discusiÛn: el econÛmico y el polÌtico.
En lo econÛmico, ciertamente existen dos posiciones extremas: el socialismo frente al capitalismo. Pero existen tambiÈn innumerables posiciones intermedias. Por ejemplo, los paÌses de Europa Occidental tienen economÌas capitalistas pero con una fuerte participaciÛn del Estado; igual sucede en Canad·, que es un paÌs capitalista muy rico, pero donde el sistema de salud es totalmente p˙blico. Es decir que la altenativa ECONOMICA que Cuba enfrenta no es necesariamente el capitalismo salvaje, sino que el Estado puede tener diferentes niveles de intervenciÛn.
En cuanto a lo polÌtico existen tambiÈn posiciones extremas: el absolutismo (todo el poder concentrado en una sola persona o grupo) frente a la anarquÌa (el poder diluido entre todos, sin autoridad). Asimismo, existen varias posiciones intermedias. Una de ellas se llama DEMOCRACIA, y es seg˙n un famoso polÌtico, "el peor sistema de gobierno, con excepciÛn de todos los dem·s".
La Democracia implica varias cosas:
1) Los seres humanos tienen derechos fundamentales (libertad de expresiÛn, libertad de religiÛn, libertad de asociaciÛn, libertad de movimiento dentro o fuera del paÌs, presunciÛn de inocencia, etc).
2) El Estado existe para garantizar los derechos de los ciudadanos.
3) Los ciudadanos pueden elegir a sus gobernantes; si se cansan de ellos, los cambian en la siguiente elecciÛn.
4) Tanto los ciudadanos como los gobernantes est·n sometidos a la LEY.
5) Existe una divisiÛn de poderes: legislativo, ejecutivo, judicial; ninguno de los poderes domina sobre el otro.
Por supuesto, a los gobernantes absolutistas no les gusta la Democracia, en particular las elecciones, porque se exponen a perder el poder ganado a la fuerza. En mi paÌs, Ecuador, un legendario gobernante dijo una vez: "No voy a perder con papeletas lo que he ganado con bayonetas".
China es, hoy por hoy, una dictadura que se llama comunista pero que es totalmente capitalista. Hay un r·pido crecimiento econÚmico; hay gran desarrollo tecnolÛgico; hay mucha gente que ha logrado salir de la pobreza. Pero sigue siendo una dictadura, donde las libertades b·sicas de la gente est·n restringidas por un gobierno brutal.
Como ver·s, Cuba est· en los extremos, tanto en lo polÌtico como en lo econÛmico. En lo polÌtico es una dictadura absolutista. En lo econÛmico es un rÈgimen socialista.
øEs eso lo que quieren los Cubanos? øAlguien les ha preguntado? øHan tenido alguna vez la oportunidad de EXPERIMENTAR con algo que sea diferente a una dictadura socialista? øHan tenido la oportunidad de ELEGIR a sus gobernantes, y de reemplazarles en caso de que no gobiernen de acuerdo a las expectativas de la gente?
Mi humilde opiniÛn (y ferviente deseo) es que Cuba deje de ser una dictadura absolutista y se transforme en una Democracia.
Una vez en Democracia, el pueblo podr· elegir el sistema econÛmico que desee.
Gracias por su saludo Bernardo y por esta oportunidad de expresar algunas ideas m·s sobre el futuro de Cuba.
Estoy seguro que el problema crÌtico nuestro no se puede reducir a la falta de papel higiÈnico como su mensaje quiz·s podrÌa interpretarse, ni que usted pretende implicar que los pobres, por ejemplo en Ecuador o en Estados Unidos, viven, en la balanza, mejor que en Cuba.
Sin embargo, el enfoque en este momento no es, ni debe o puede ser si el sistema socialista cubano es mejor o peor para Cuba (o Ecuador) que el neo-liberal, tema sobre el cual quiz·s estarÌamos argumentando y especulando por aÒos. Mientras tanto los cubanos seguirÌamos confrontando problemas graves que urgen resolverse. Problemas como lo son, por ejemplo:
• Las amenazas mas recientes a nuestra soberanÌa.
• El sufrimiento completamente incomprendido y menospreciado de los cubanos en el exilio.
• La continuada violaciÛn, a pesar de protestas, de nuestra integridad territorial en Guant·namo, donde lo ultimo es que el ocupador ha sido acusado de esconder y torturar a seres humanos.
• PersecuciÛn comercial internacional por una de las economÌas m·s poderosas del mundo.
• El sometimiento de los cubanos exilados a la intensificaciÛn sutil pero exponencial de procesos colonialistas, destructivos de la identidad.
• La declaraciÛn de una (nada nueva) ‘guerra de ideas’ donde, dentro de la isla, solo los que estÈn de acuerdo con la ideologÌa del partido comunista pueden expresar sus ideas. Los de ideologÌa contraria reportan persecuciÛn, marginaciÛn, hostigacion, amenazas, asaltos, al parecer con indiferencia, o seg˙n reportan, hasta con el entusiasmo del estado.
• La practica del genocidio cultural contra toda una clase de cubanos, y, quien se asombrara ya, que hay amantes de la justicia que lo aplauden.
A disidentes ideolÛgicos que no poseen secretos de estado se reporta que les piden exilarse con los otros 2 millones de cubanos, es decir, con los casi 1 de cada 5 cubanos que ya vivimos fuera de nuestra patria.
øComo esperar· el estado cubano que sus compatriotas vivan en Cuba bajo estas amenazas? øDonde esperar· entonces que vivan? øFlotando en el aire? øBajo el mar? øEn la luna? øEn alg˙n otro paÌs que supuestamente estÈ obligado a darles refugio? Ning˙n otro paÌs est· obligado a darles nada, y por lo tanto esta posiciÛn es indefendible para el estado cubano. øRealmente estar·n dispuestos a defender el genocidio cultural ante un foro internacional? øRealmente creen que serÌa prudente tal guerrita de ideas?
O sea, si la guerra de ideas no se puede pelear dentro de Cuba, entonces la implicaciÛn es que pretenden que se pelee desde afuera de Cuba, o desde la c·rcel, o a los golpes.
El estado sostiene que el pelee esta guerra de ideas dentro de Cuba esta colaborando con el enemigo. En cierto sentido es cierto, ya que el enemigo de Cuba oportunisticamente esta financiando actividades ideolÛgicas contra el gobierno cubano, y eso no puede ser jam·s aceptable.
Sin embargo, eso no absuelve al estado cubano. Hay que considerar las condiciones extremas y desesperantes que ha creado con su polÌtica. Pues øcomo pretenden que sus contrarios ideolÛgicos, personas nacidas en Cuba, con todo derecho a vivir en Cuba, peleen una guerra de ideas si los fuerzan fÌsicamente a callarse? øSi ni siquiera le dan acceso a los medios de comunicaciÛn? No puede ser. No acepto. Jam·s aceptare eso ni para mÌ ni para mi patria ni como condiciÛn para vivir en mi patria. Ni deberÌan ellos, como patriotas. øNo se dan cuenta que una guerra de ideas en tales tÈrminos es genocida y por tanto anti-patriÛtica?
°Vaya la guerra de ideas que pretenden! øRealmente pretenden defender esta practica contra toda una clase de cubanos en un foro, por ejemplo, como el de la Haya o el de la ComisiÛn de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas? Un foro donde no van a poder prohibir que los cuestionen.
Entonces ahora por otro lado algunos pretenden que los cubanos debemos escoger entre este socialismo marxista-cubano, o la ideologÌa capitalista del vecino del norte, el mismo que es acusado de esconder y torturar a personas en nuestra tierra, la cual ocupa hace mas de 100 aÒos contra nuestra voluntad.
Es decir, estos 2 grupos ideolÛgicos dominantes pretenden imponer su ideologÌa el uno al otro, y adem·s a toda la naciÛn cubana.
Absurda pretensiÛn. Luego de todo lo que hemos visto y vivido øque cubano o persona con alg˙n amor propio y a sus compatriotas podrÌa aceptar estas 2 como sus ˙nicas opciones?
Para una de las facciones ideolÛgicas el capital efectivamente determina quien gobierna la polÌtica (poli = ciudad, sociedad). El que posee el capital se convierte en el nuevo dictador. øComo vamos a permitir eso? Como pretenden que la acumulaciÛn de capital convierte a alguien en una persona m·s Èticamente capaz de gobernar. Como si la virtud se acumulase en proporciÛn directa al capital. Capital que se acumula sin que ni siquiera se tenga que trabajar, e incomparablemente mas para los que hacen a otros trabajar para ellos. Absurdo. La evidencia histÛrica demuestra lo contrario en casi todos los casos. El capital y la Ètica se acumulan en inversas proporciones.
Los de la otra facciÛn ideolÛgica, un grupo de marxistas-cubanos, se auto-denominan los mas capacitados para gobernar un paÌs, los dueÒos del camino a la verdad absoluta; y ya sabemos lo que se reporta que hacen con los que los cuestionan. øQue pretenden, hacer de nosotros un pueblo de burros obedientes, y adem·s repartirse perpetuamente entre ellos, dueÒos de toda verdad, las riquezas que existen o se producen en el paÌs, y todos los derechos de expresiÛn? øFantasÌa o ideologÌa?
øQue hacer entonces, imponer una tercera ideologÌa sobre estos 2? No lo creo. Imponer casi siempre es violar. Imponer no es democr·tico, aunque lo que se imponga sea alguna versiÛn preferida de democracia. Imponer es lo que hace el vecino del norte, y el sistema cubano actual.
Evidentemente los cubanos no estamos todos guiados por las m·s ‘dignas’ aspiraciones, pues discrepamos con respecto al concepto de los fines para los cuales un ser humano existe o debe de existir; y por tanto sobre el significado del concepto ‘dignidad humana’; y por tanto sobre lo que deberÌa de estar incluido o excluido del concepto ‘derechos humanos’; y por tanto sobre la jerarquÌa de necesidades y derechos; y por tanto sobre cuales deben ser nuestras prioridades jurÌdicas, culturales, econÛmicas, polÌticas; y por tanto sobre el sistema ideolÛgico al cual toda Cuba se debe de suscribir.
Dado que la naciÛn se divide por ideologÌas a largo plazo irreconciliables, la soluciÛn cubana, llamÈmosla si quiere la Pax cubana, requiere la coexistencia y colaboraciÛn patriÛtica y eficaz de m˙ltiples gobiernos ideolÛgicos dentro de la isla.
Es decir, por un lado, es necesario integrar 2 o mas sociedades dentro de nuestra isla naciÛn, cada una gobernada por su propia ideologÌa, gobernantes-representantes, y sistema operativo interno.
Eso procede de (1) que todos los cubanos patriÛticos tienen el derecho innegociable, innegable, insustituible, y defendible de vivir en su patria, dignamente, y de (2) que no estamos de acuerdo en cuanto a la definiciÛn del concepto 'dignidad humana'.
Por otro lado, estos diferentes sistemas cubanos colaborarÌan patriÛtica y eficazmente por lo menos en lo esencial (relaciones internacionales, defensa, justo distribuciÛn de tierra y recursos naturales entre sistemas, conflicto inter-sistÈmico, etc.). Para estas funciones comunes absolutamente necesarias crearÌan un parlamento y este elegirÌa un lÌder, el cual nombrarÌa ministros para manejar relaciones internacionales, distribuciÛn de recursos nacionales, defensa, sinergias industriales, comercio internacional.
Adem·s, el parlamento determinarÌa la estructura necesaria para mejor resolver conflictos Ìnter sistÈmico. Una vez creada dicha estructura funcionaria independientemente del parlamento, asÌ buscando crear los 'checks and balances' de las democracias multi-partidistas, pero con sistemas, no partidos.
Calidad ambiental y migraciÛn, tendrÌan que ser coordinada entre el nivel nacional y los distintos sistemas.
Los derechos de los no nacidos tendrÌan que ser garantizados nacionalmente, y la experimentaciÛn genÈtica tambiÈn tendrÌa que ser considerada jurisdicciÛn del gobierno nacional.
Cada sistema tendrÌa su propio sistema judicial. La seguridad de los ciudadanos a nivel sistema, seria garantizada exclusivamente por cada sistema. A nivel Inter.-sistÈmico e internacional, por el gobierno central. Este no puede intervenir en los asuntos internos de los sistemas, excepto en casos de demostrablemente probable impacto nacional o internacional.
HabrÌa moneda y banca nacional, pero podrÌan haber monedas y dentro de cada sistema.
Comunicaciones internacionales e Ìnter sistÈmicas serian manejadas a nivel nacional. Comunicaciones intra-sistÈmicas dependerÌan de cada cual. Lo mismo con el correo y servicios de inteligencia.
Entonces, hablando en tÈrminos muy generales, lo que concibo es una estructura algo an·loga a un sistema de computaciÛn que contiene a varios sistemas operativos (Ej. Linux, Windows, Apple) separados por particiones, con recursos justos alocados a cada sistema.
Seria algo similar al sistema federal-estatal estadounidense pero con una significante diferencia: En vez de haber estados, habrÌan sistemas ideologicos independientes, y dentro de estos podrian haber estados, y partidos, si asi lo determina un sistema.
En vez de tratar de imponernos sistemas ideologicos los unos a los otros, considero preferible que partamos de la base de que un sistema ideologico no se debe de absolutizar. M·s bien hay que verlo como experimental, como un proceso social donde se van probando hipÛtesis sobre lo que es m·s humano, m·s justo, m·s eficaz, y por tanto razonable.
Entonces no habrÌa guerras entre cubanos suscritos a diferentes ideologÌas, sino aprendizaje de las experiencias de los distintos 'grupos o sistemas' ideologicos operando en la isla. ComenzarÌa un tipo de proceso nuevo de mutuo enriquecimiento, lo opuesto a la mutua destrucciÛn.
Esto es un efectivo antÌdoto a otros peligros a los cuales nuestra naciÛn ha demostrado ser susceptible desde 1898. Creo que esto seria realmente revolucionario para Cuba y para el mundo, pues seria un paÌs no gobernado por un absolutismo ideologico, ni paralizado por un constante intercambio de orientaciones multi-partidistas.
O sea, ni se aniquilarÌa el sistema socialista que se ha desarrollado hasta ahora, ni se impondrÌa uno capitalista, sino que los 2, y otros, podrian co-existir, y colaborar. Podr·n evolucionar dentro de Cuba, y corregir sus errores internos sin riesgo constante a ser aniquilados por otros cubanos de otras convicciones; o por poderes extranjeros aprovechando la divisiÛn interna.
La humanidad podr· observar, para su beneficio, como los cubanos manejan el Multi-ideologismo. Gran valor tendr· esto para la humanidad dado el costo tan enorme en vidas humanas de querer imponer ideologÌas. Consideremos los ˙ltimos 70 aÒos.
Creo que el modelo general de naciÛn aquÌ expuesto nos ponemos al alcance de lo que responder· adecuadamente al profundo y crÛnico conflicto ideologico entre cubanos, y que la isla entonces podr· evolucionar mucho mas r·pidamente sin ser amenazada, o ser considerada como amenaza ideolÛgica por otros. La meta entonces es transformarla en un lugar, aunque lejos de ser perfecta, donde los cubanos podremos seguir buscando un camino humano y sostenible para vivir, en paz, enriqueciÈndonos mutuamente, no a costa el uno del otro, y asi contribuyendo a la edificaciÛn de humanidad en la humanidad.
Claro, habr·n quienes inicialmente preferir·n que sea solo su ideologÌa fuese la que domine absolutamente en Cuba. Pero si su ideologÌa no dominase øque les quedarÌa? 1. Subordinarse a la ideologÌa que no solo no prefieren, sino que odian. 2. Irse de la isla. 3. Aniquilar a, o ser aniquilados, por los que defienden la ideologÌa que odian. øCual de estas otras 3 alternativas es la mas humana, patriÛtica y aceptable si su ideologÌa no fuese la que domina?
Entonces creo que esta claro que en el caso de Cuba las diferencias ideolÛgicas no se resuelven, por lo menos en este momento, con una mera democracia multi-partidista. Esta seria muy vulnerable a manipulaciÛn por capitales extranjeros, a violencia entre cubanos, y a mas golpes de estado militares. Una ideologÌa no puede simplemente ser un dato de protesta dentro otra. Son totalidades irreducibles a otras, como los elementos de la tabla atÛmica. En interacciÛn pacifica, sin embargo, pueden poco a poco, experimentalmente, ir desarrollando maravillas.
Nos toca crear la paz cubana con la fe y esperanza de que le llegar· mas perfeccionada a nuestros hijos y nietos, y que quiz·s, alg˙n dÌa, tambiÈn el mundo la considerara de valor.
Por esta lÌnea de pensamiento creo que estamos obligados a crear un entendimiento entre todos nosotros.
No con golpes militares o imposiciones ideolÛgicas respaldadas por un poder imperial o por un estado uni-partidista.
Esto es lo que puedo manifestarle por ahora Bernardo de Ecuador. Saludos a su querida naciÛn. °Viva la humanidad! °Viva la patria!°Viva la Pax cubana!
SUMMARY TRANSLATION
The basis for an agreement between Cubans must address the profound and not immediately, or perhaps ever reconcilable ideological differences between them. Accordingly, a model is proposed wherein Cubans would integrate their nation somewhat like a computer with multiple operating systems and a central shared processor; or like the US Federal-State system, but with the significant caveat that instead of states there would be an organization of semi independent systems, each driven by its own ideology and government. A central governing body constituted by representatives from these systems would govern international relations, equitably distribute resources among systems, manage inter-system conflicts, defense, and all shared concerns. It would not have jurisdiction in the interior of a system except where there is demonstrably probable national or international impact. Cuban socialism would continue, within a constituent system: capitalism would not be prohibited within a constituent system, nor would other ideologies. This model, it is argued, is the basis for a Pax cubana.
copyright Enrique I. Alonso. All Rights Reserved.
The Washington Post, and all others, are only granted non-exclusive right to publish it as is, in any format, without modifying any content. For translation write to eialonso@yahoo.com.
Una de las cosas lindas que tenemos los hispanos es nuestro idioma, tan bello y sonoro, tan flexible, con el que podemos decir cosas que serÌan imposibles en otros idiomas, especialmente en algo tan frÌo y rÌgido como el InglÈs.
Te saludo desde Ecuador. Te envÌo mis sinceros deseos de que tu paÌs, lleno de gente tan linda, se libere pronto de ese dictador sanguinario que es Fidel Castro. Yo tengo muchos amigos cubanos con quienes comparto el gusto por el son, la salsa, el mambo, el arte, el deporte. QuÈ fant·stico serÌa que ese pueblo maravilloso pueda desarrollar sus talentos en libertad! SerÌa tan lindo que puedan viajar por el mundo sin tener que pedir permiso, y sin tener que arrodillarse ante el Comandante, esperando un acto de misericordia. SerÌa estupendo que puedan comprar calzoncillos y papel higiÈnico sin tener que esperar la raciÛn ofrecida graciosamente por el gobierno.
Roberto (Habana) y Luis (Los Angeles), Fue un gusto leer sus comentarios (aunque hubiera sido mejor aun si supiera quienes son). Gracias.
°Como nos tiran sus peÒones... huecos! No se agradece pero se reconoce que al igual que la misma pregunta a la cual responden tienen valor como un dato antropolÛgico e histÛrico, y adem·s revelan nuevas versiones de viejas t·cticas de hacer imperio cultural y politico.Hay que leer cuidadosamente para ver que exactamente ha cambiado desde 1898.
Hay obviamente cubanos que se han exilado, criado o nacido fuera de Cuba sin culpa alguna y Cuba es de ellos, y ellos responsable por ella, como cualquier otro. No debe asombrarnos cuando no-cubanos del imperio se atreven a negar la cubanidad de los cubanos. El ˙nico cubano excluido de Cuba es el que se auto-excluye intencionalmente, por ejemplo, colaborando con un poder extranjero para recolonizar a Cuba. Somos, y siempre seremos nosotros los autores de nuestra historia, y esto coloca en prueba los valores a los cuales nos comprometemos. Igual que ocurre con cualquier otra naciÛn, para bien o para mal.
.............................................................
Les adelanto algo que he estado pensando.
Creo que el objetivo ahora, con o sin el Comandante, adem·s de defender la patria, es el de lograr ponernos de acuerdo para poder vivir todos bajo un mismo cielo a pesar de las diferencias que nos dividen; a pesar de que estas son posiblemente irreconciliables a˙n a largo plazo. Es decir, nuestra misiÛn histÛrica es crear la paz cubana.
Ni una mera democracia representativa y colectiva, o una dictadura absoluta y colectiva solucionan el problema de profundas diferencias ideolÛgicas. En el primer caso la minorÌa tendrÌa que aceptar todo un sistema que contradice lo que considera mas digno. En el segundo, la victima podrÌa ser una minorÌa o una mayorÌa.
Estas 2 formulas, la vigente y la propuesta, son meramente imposiciones y violaciones, inaceptables, de un grupo de cubanos a otro, pues aquÌ hay por lo menos 2 sistemas envueltos. No se puede reducir un sistema completo a 'datos objetables' dentro de otro.
Hay por lo menos un otro mÈtodo para lograr la integraciÛn y paz de nuestro pueblo sin necesariamente acordar diferencias ideolÛgicas. No existe un camino perfecto ni mucho menos pero creo que seria fructÌfero que los cubanos contempl·ramos las posibilidades reales de integraciÛn, dentro de los par·metros antemencionados.
Es decir, tendrÌa que haber m·s de una sociedad en Cuba, aunque habrÌa cierta complementariedad y coordinaciÛn entre las sociedades. Suena extraÒo, yo se, pero nuestra historia e identidad es excepcionalmente singular y compleja, y una simple sociedad 'pluralista', no es fundamentalmente plural, ya que es solo plural dentro de un contexto ideolÛgico, y por tanto negarÌa a todo una parte de la poblaciÛn, a todo otro mundo cubano.
Modelos plurales tradicionales nos harÌan demasiado vulnerables a t·cticas maquiavÈlicas de poderes colonizadores, pues estarÌamos regal·ndoles todo un catalogo de donde escoger para dividirnos mas, como ha estado ocurriendo hasta el presente.
No queremos hacer mas nada que pudiera imposibilitar la 'paz perpetua' entre cubanos y creo que sin embargo esa es la direcciÛn en la cual hemos estado caminando.
Entonces compatriotas todos, y en todas partes, comparto con ustedes, humilde y muy respetuosamente estos conceptos sencillos y generales de algo que he estado contemplando, para que por favor contemplen y compartan sus reacciones.
PARTIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
Responses published by some non-Cubans to the Washington Post's question are sometimes interesting, and like the question, even of anthropological value for Cubans. Others just echo those of 1898. One wonders how many are aware of that.
I believe that we should distinguish between "left-wing" and "left-wing populist" governments. I have nothing against left-wing governments (or right-wing for that matter), as long as they respect certain principles, such as separation of powers and alternability, coupled with a respect for Human Rights. The second is guaranteed by the first. Obviously, you don't see this in Cuba. You don't see this in Venezuela any more.
I believe that left-wing governments such as the ones in Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, are perfectly acceptable for the countries in Latinamerica. Not only acceptable. In some cases they are just plain desirable. They are akin to the social democracies in Europe. They combine a healthy dose of social programs for the disadvantaged, with enough economic freedom as to provide incentives for development and job creation. There is always a chance to shift directions if results don't meet expectations in the eyes of the citizens. What you cannot have though, is have "one-party" rule and eternal permanence in power. That's an aberration. This is the prescription that we're beginning to see in Venezuela, where Chavez is threatening to hold on to the presidency, till the year 2031. Chavez is touting "bolivarianism" as the solution, not only to LA, but to the developing countries in the World. I should say that Bolivar should be turning on his grave, because his thoughts have nothing to do with Chavez's. If anything, he sternly warned against the likes of Chavez and populism.
Chavez's "Bolivarianism" is just a catch word for "Castroism". He feels that he's Castro's political heir. He simply cannot say it, because that is not acceptable politically. Not yet, at least. I have mentioned Venezuela again, because the way cuban authorities and Chavez see it, the fates of both countries are closely intertwined. Chavez will go to great lengths to assure the means for the survival of the Castro regime in Cuba - even without Castro. Were the tiranny in Cuba to fall, it would be a terrible blow for Chavez's designs in the continent, and probaly in Venezuela itself. I'm not implying with this, that Chavez will be successful, even if the regime in Cuba survives.
The backbone of Chavez popularity in Venezuela are the so-called "missions", by which people in the slums in Venezuela have access to free primary medical care, literacy instruction, etc. I will not discuss the degree of success of these programs or their character. Suffice it to say that they're temporary in nature and that they do not constitute a permanent solution to Venezuela's many social ills, despite the fact that I admit that they're a step in the right direction. These programs are staffed by thousands of cubans who came to Venezuela and earn a very low salary, but which is more than 15 times what they would get in Cuba. They get to take back some home appliances, which are an extravagant luxury in Cuba. Meanwhile, in Venezuela, they're closely watched by the cuban G-2, the intelligence machine, for any sign of dissidence or intent to defect. They're not allowed to socialize with venezuelans, without supervision or meander far from their assigned posts. Reportedly though, a significant number have crossed the border into Colombia and left for the US.
Under these conditions, you wonder how many of them would leave, outright, once it is known that the character of the regime in Cuba is beginning to waver. I believe that there would be an avalanche and that most of them would try to head north, to the US. Once there, I think that they'd try to bring their relatives to join them. Chavez also depends much on the cuban intelligence network, to keep tabs on the venezuelan military and, reportedly, to man his personal protection rings and the presidential palace "situation room". Also, it is said that the G-2 has been responsible for the dirty war against the opposition in Venezuela. How many of these people, on whom the venezuelan regime has supported itself for such delicate programs and activities, would choose to remain in Venezuela, under Chavez?
I believe that, were they to leave (escape is a better word), Chavez would be left dangerously exposed and he would not be able to support some of his showcase social programs. He would also lose a powerful ally, bent on helping perpetuate Chavez in power. After all, the cuban regime sees Chavez as a life line. He has made Cuba a primary beneficiary of his petrodollars. So, to my mind, there is a critical interdependence between both regimes - if not countries.
Also, were there to be a drastic political orientation in Cuba, Chavez prestige in Venezuela -and in the rest of LA- would suffer seriously. He would be at odds to explain why, if Cuba was -in his words- such an "ocean of happiness", things changed so quickly after Fidel's death.
Vienna: The Cuban revolution succeeded in removing a brutal and corrupt dictator -Batista-, only to replace him with a brutal and corrupt SYSTEM led by another brutal and corrupt dictator -Castro.
Millersville: You are right. All the talk about promoting democracy and freedom around the world is just that: talk. Chavez has been helping Cuba with some $2 billion per year. Meanwhile, the U.S. has "plans" to support Cuban dissidents with "up to" $80 million. Guess who is winning the battle for Cuban hearts and minds.
Fidel Castro's death will be confirmed days or weeks after the actual event. News of Fidel Castro's death will not occur in real-time.
The transition from Fidel to Raul Castro will be peaceful and uneventful. Cuban civil society is weak and fragmented having already been infiltrated by the Cuban military and there will be no uprisings or coup attempts.
Raul's rule will be much like Fidel's — Cuba will be ruled from a strong hand at the top.
Raul was hinted that he is more amenable to US influence than Fidel and his engagement with the US will be important and will determine his plans for a post-Fidel Cuba. Raul's rule will not change the status-quo between the US and Cuba.
Also, too, Raul is not a young man. Cubans and Americans should look to Alarcon and other leaders in the Cuban government for overhauled reform after Raul Castro.
I think it's about time some Americans took a long hard look in the mirror before they spout nonsense about other Nations not being 'free'. Cuba isn't free? How do you know? You Government forbids you to go there. You imprison people without trial indefinitely. You kidnap people from around the world and send them to other countries to be tortured. You invade other countries on false pretexts. You support dictators and torturers around the world; from the middle east, through Latin America and on into Asia. Your Nation is the source of more evil, for more people, than any other on the planet. How dare you even discuss another sovereign Nation, Cuba, as if you should have a say in its future? So embedded is your sense of entitlement that such a warped view of the World seems natural to you. Well role on the second half of the twenty first century. I just hope that China and India behave with more maturity during their period of dominance than you did yours. Unfortunately, if they follow America's precedent we're all in for a terrible time.
I'm wondering why GW hasn't sent the same pro-democracy message he sent to the Cubans to the people of Saudi Arabia? The type of government and/or political philosophy seems much less important to us then what that country can do for us. In Cuba's case it's easy to be morally outraged because it simply doesn't matter. (Sorry Fidel, if you were sitting on 500 million barrels of oil we would have made up a long time ago or invaded your country) The truth is Cuba has very little relevance to anything and fewer natural resources so we really don't care what happens 90 miles off our southern border unless someone wants to grow unfriendly nuclear missles or import criminals and people with sanity problems like Carter saw the need to do.
Hopefully the Cubans, those in Cuba that is, will dominate at all times. Ideally without a repetition of the kleptocracy that was the Batista regime, propted by our beloved Mafia.
Much though I sympathize with Cuban-Americans, none has been able to satisfactorily explain to me why the revolution was successful. Revolutions succeed because the PEOPLE are fed up with the existing regime. (Usually, unfortunately, they replace one set of masters for another).
Sorry, the sentence "Of course, this is not to be excluded, but even Solidarnoszcz or Havel weren't followed by left-wing governments." should read "Of course, this is not to be excluded, but even Solidarnoszcz or Havel were followed by left-wing governments."
A recommendation: The US should open its trade to Cuba if it wants to gain influence. In a short while we'll see free elections in Cuba, too (whether it will be the will of some pragmatic communist leaders or a revolution, it doesn't really matter), and it would be all too easy for a pretendedly nationalistic, old-guard candidate to mention the embargo in order to compromise any US-leaning candidate. The US could gain much more goodwill by doing this step now when Fidel's bell is tolling.
And, by the way, if a policy doesn't work for 40 years it would be time to rethink it, anyway.
That applies also for Iraq. Are Rummy et co going to wait also 40 years for the eventual success?
Cuba is definitely a distinct case not to be mixed with the Russian-exported communism in Eastern Europe but the dismantling of communism in these countries shows, at least partly, the way for Cuba, too.
The great dilemma for a political fortune-teller in this case would be to assess which will be the driving force for the society after Castro's disappearance. Supposing that most of the nations having reached a certain maturity would like to live in a democratic rather than dictatorial (albeit paternalistic) system, would they choose the unknown but intuitively strived for democracy, or will they fall prey to the propaganda machine that ruled the country for half a century?
Basically, this can be reformulated like this: is the inherent capitalist inequality to be preferred to the apparent equality (in poverty)?
The answer, based on the East-European experience, is that there's a higher likelihood that a free people living under dictatorship will elect a "social-democratic" party based on the elements closely associated to the old regime than that it will embrace a lone dissident. Of course, this is not to be excluded, but even Solidarnoszcz or Havel weren't followed by left-wing governments.
Moreover, Solidarnoszcz was a broad movement, the Czechs were also organised intelectually in Carta '77.
The unknown factor is the high number of Cubans living abroad. Will they provide a positive influence to the democratisation process or will their return, with the ensuing claims on property, antagonise a mjority of the rest of the (poor) Cubans?
Well, when you read those words... how could anyone disagree?
Despite my deep aversion for Chavez and for all he is doing in Venezuela, I must acknowlege he has this "talent" to precisely characterize Bush. This is the reason he is liked by so many in Latin America, no matter how repressive and corrupt his regimen is, no matter how badly his policies fail, and no matter how much oil he sells to the same U.S. multinationals he daily condemns.
Insulting Bush has proved an effective political strategy. If it works for liberal Democrats in the U.S. as well as for muslim fanatics in the Middle East, why shouldn't it work for leftist demagogues in Latin America?
No American sins justify despicable dictators of right or left wing in any part of the world. Castro Chavez and the like are not the future of Latin American countries and no new men will arise from their rule. Eugene, whoever he may be, speaks the truth about Castro and Chavez and no one and least of all someone who claims to be a leftist has the moral wright of forgetting their story. As for LA Chile, Uruguay and Brazil are true democratic countries being governed by left parties. One should wish that the same happens to Cuba in a near future and have a Cuban people freed from Castro, Chavez or Bush and perhaps a US government ruled by Hillary
A Cuban-American wrote, "Who cares who dominates Cuba after the dinosaur is gone? For all I care the Italian-American mafia can take over, just give all of us freedom again!"
Like most other Cuban-Americans, the Cuban-American who issued the above statement is ignorant.
Cuba will have freedom when the overwhelming majority of Cubans wants freedom, but most Cubans do not want freedom. They support the authoritarian Cuban government. Fidel Castro (or his barbaric brother), all by himself, cannot impose authoritarian rule on the Cubans. Castro has many supporters.
Contrast the failure of Cuba and Cuban culture to the success of Czechoslovakia and rest of Eastern Europe. After the Soviet government stopped imposing its will on Czechoslovakia, more than 800,000 Czechoslovakians assembled in Prague to demand freedom and got it. At the time, 800,000 is 5% of the population of Czechoslovakia.
The story repeated itself in the rest of Eastern Europe. The Eastern Europeans wanted freedom, and they got it.
A very different story happened in Cuba. The authoritarian Cuban government continued and continues to enjoy widespread support in Cuba.
Therein lies the difference between Cuban culture and Eastern European culture. I admire Eastern European culture. I condemn Cuban culture for its utter failure.
Washington should recognize this fact and should stop waiting for the spontaneous appearance of democracy in Cuba. Democracy did not appear during the 15 long years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and democracy will not appear 15 years from today. Cuba is a failed society and a failed people.
Washington should just ignore the moronic Cuban-Americans and should immediately lift the economic embargo against Cuba — in exactly the same way that Washington lifted the economic embargo against Vietnam.
Only selfixh cowards would rationalize such a question. Freedom is not an issue for Cubans or Americans. The issue is your own personal character and compassion for those without freedom vs those who already have its blessings.
You completely missed the tenor of my argument. I was clear in saying that Cuba is far from a racial utopia. Again, what makes Cuba and Castro's regime difficult to get a handle on is that everyone can point to the same issue and argue how their have been benefits to the Castro regime, as well as costs. The issue of race/political/social access is one such conundrum. While you are correct that structural racism is a glaring problem on the island, it is undeniable that many Afro-Cubans were given unprecedented opportunities to become educated. The same goes for healthcare. While the average quality may be low, pretty much everyone has access, unlike the U.S. where the average quality is relatively high, but no where near everyone has access. I wrote my comment in the context of tradeoffs. Cubans (NOT Cuban-Americans like myself) will need to decide the appropriate trade offs on their own.
With regards to your census figures (again, demonstrating the complexity of the Cuban case), there is only ONE source that I know of that supports your claim, and it's NOT the Cuban census. Secondly, the numbers you reported were from the 2002 (not 2001 Census) "census" released in 2005. Third the country is roughly half-mixed and 12% Black. However, if we apply the U.S. based "one-drop rule", which is admittedly debatable, then Cuba is roughly 2/3 Black.
The point is that recent discussions on Cuba have assumed that the Cuban market and political system, led emigres in MIA, should be flung open to replicate the political and economic system of the U.S. Given the political/social history of Cuba, that may not be the best thing. Rather than trade one evil for another evil, Cuban citizens should be supported in their attempts to develop a political and economic interests that suits their lived experience rather than have the ideologies of a wealthy and U.S. backed elite imposed upon them.
Mr. Ornelas in Mexico City, you are truly ignorant re Cuba's population. If anyone should go back to Spain is the Castro family which still has a lot of relatives in Galicia. Their father was a soldier in the Spanish colonial army when he first arrived in Cuba and was there to fight those Cubans who were for independence. Once the war was over, he returned to Cuba. In addition, all of those white Cubans in Miami and elsewhere have relatives in Cuba. Millions in Cuba are related to those you so ignorantly call "white colonials". It just goes to show how little foreigners know about Cuba and yet they are the first ones to know what's good for Cuba.
Another person wrote that now Cuba's population is two third black and mulatto. You should tell that to the Cuban people who, according to the 2001 Census released by Castro in late 2005, 65% classified themselves as "white", 25% as "mulatto" and 10% as "black". I mean, there is a great disparity there, unless the Castro govt. doctored the results!
In addition, racial discrimination is rampant in Cuba. Blacks are almost completely excluded from the tourist sector, even as hotel maids. Not only that, they are even excluded, for the most part, from sales positions in the govt.run hard-currency stores where most Cubans have to buy those items which are essential for living at exorbitant prices. Where does the money to buy those come from? From their Cuban relatives in Miami and other places throghout the world! And yet Mr.Ornelas is talking about "white colonials" who should go back to Spain. How ignorant, how stupid and what an ass you are Mr. Ornelas!
Just look at the pictures of those men who have been named to help Raul run Cuba's govt. Only one is black. He is the token black man.
NO, health care is not good in Cuba either. Hospitals where common Cubans go lack a lot of items, from medications to sheets. Often, if your relative is hospitalized, you pay whatever amount under the table and medicines appear and care really improves. Foreigners and tourists go to modern, well stocked hospitals with good service in exchange for their dollars. Of course, the highest govt. officials go to even better equipped hospitals. So, no, it is not really a socialist anything. In addition, pharmacies are practically empty and many Cubans, prescription in hand, go to the local Catholic churches to fill their prescriptions for free.
I see non-Cubans have a lot to learn about Cuba and Cubans and quite a few of them are full of hatred too.
I am simply trying to understand the pretzel logic (and PR agenda) of Ibsen Martinez's "Hugo Chavez: the Next Castro?"
What ideologically freighted notions of The Left and "Latin American anti-imperialism" does Martinez harbor that, central to the argument of his piece, he announces that a freely and fairly elected and re-elected Latin American President necessarily lacks, of all things, "legitimacy" compared to the Cuban dictator, simply because Venezuela is far richer than Cuba in natural resources?
The paragraph itself is worth careful attention:
"Certainly, Chavez seems to believe so. However, he is missing much more than the charisma of the receding Cuban leader. He lacks the essential ingredient to take Fidel's place: legitimacy. Castro, for all his faults, earned his anti-American and anti-imperialist stripes. Chavez, awash in petrodollars, is too embedded in the very global system he purports to reject."
This is not an argument. This is an old, old caricature of Leftists and Anti-Imperialists as, beneath their atheistic skins, perverse moralists who see nothing but evil in national wealth, regardless on whose behalf it is employed, and wish nothing but grinding poverty upon the peoples they seek to sway and enslave.
Thus, regardless the normal understanding of "legitimacy," which normal people everywhwere would understand Venezuelan democracy to have confered upon Chavez as an elected Latin American leader, Martinez would have it that Chavez must lack legitimacy for such a monstrous, inhuman Left.
I don't think that the problem is as simple as you have expressed it. While it is true that Castro has given health care and education to the people in Cuba, they don't have what is basic to the human condition. That is freedom. The liberty to choose where they live and what they do with their lives. It might very well be that there are some people who, when posed with the age-old question as to whether to choose, exclusively, between liberty and bread, they will go for the latter. I don't think, however that this constitutes the general case. I don't think cubans are an exception.
ÔøΩWhy is it that Castro has always needed an iron fist to govern Cuba?. Everybody knows what happen to dissidents. They get thrown in horrible jails for decades. Every time that there is a protest, even by groups of women, like the "ladies in white", they get harrassed and physically attacked by thugs sent by the regime, while the police just looks on. Nobody can leave the island legally. Why?. What has Castro been afraid of for so long, that he won't let his own people leave out of their own free will?. Well, I would like to know, how many of those americans that defend Castro, would be willing to trade their lives with those of people in Cuba who have wanted to just leave.
I also question this repeatedly put forth argument that Castro liberated Cuba from Batista, the mafia and other corrupt american interests in the island, and that, therefore, for such reason, his opprobrious regime is justified. Castro came to power 47 years ago. Once in power, he summarily proceeded to execute many people. He never said that he was a totalitarian marxist and that, he would subject his people to a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Why couldn't he just wait, say, 10 or 15 years and gradually open the political freedoms?. Could it have been that he was afraid that people would turn back his revolution?. If so, what made him certain that what he would do would result in the maximum amount of happiness for the cuban people?. Has Cuba been a positive experiment?. Is it an appropriate model for third world nations?. What would cubans say?. What would Castro have done different, were he to be given the chance to turn back the clock?
Unfortunately, we don't know the answer to any of those questions. Castro, himself was deathly afraid of conducting free referenda to decide critical questions relating to the future of Cuba. Whenever he so fit to consult, he'd do it by asking people to sign his support for one alternative or the other. Well, everybody knew about the consequences of dissidence. So, what gives one person the right to decide for one whole nation in matters of life and death?. Who chose him for this purpose?. In a way, he decided to play the role of God. I don't care if people had free health and education. They lacked the most basic right of all, and that is freedom to choose the kinds of lives they wanted, along with their collective destiny.
If, on top of all that, you consider that he did everything possible to him, to export his revolution to other countries via subversion, why couldn't other countries have done the same to Cuba?. After all, Marxism doesn't recognize borders. It is internationalist in its doctrine. Why could Castro carry his marxist subversion actively to other countries and be immune from direct attacks himself?.
Many in the developed countries, hold a sort of "romantic" fascination with these despotic left-wing populist regimes. They believe that they come as "Robin Hoods" that take away from the rich to give to the poor. Once these regimes are installed, they turn to be even more oppressive and murderous than their predecessors.
Although I agree that there have been profound social injustices in some countries in Latinamerica, I emphatically state that you can't replace a tiranny with another, just because they are of different idelogical signs, or because you abhor the policies of the party that happens to be in government in the US, as this forum seems to reveal. At least, in the US, you do have the chance to change your president every four years. After eight years, he (or she) will surely not be the same. How can anybody defend the permanence of the same regime for almost half a century. Does that imply that whoever runs it believes that that is the only thing that works?. I believe that two full generations have been sacrificed in Cuba, and for what?
In all, these regimes are all fascist and corrupt in nature. They all spout devotion to the leader and build an obnoxious cult of personality, often not only nationally. Castro is no exception. Chavez is not either. People advance, not according to capacity, but to personal loyalty to the precious leader. That's how the regime survives. Ultimately it self destroys because it fails to deliver what was initially promised. Democracy has many flaws, but it still is the system that holds the least flaws among the alternatives.
I surely hope that the cuban people be given the chance to freely decide what it is that they want for the future of their own country. If what they want is for somedbody to tell them what to do with their lives for another half century, so be it. But, at least, they should be given the chance to decide FREELY.
I think that the US should open itself to establish a dialogue -however dicreet- with the leaders that will succeed Castro, particularly the younger ones. The US should be respectful of the dynamics of this transition, while making sure that it goes in the direction of the increasing respect of individual freedoms. For this, it should offer incentives that will perceptively increase the quality of life of the cuban people in a relatively short time. Such leaders would have much to gain. The cuban community in the US should understand that it is in their best interest to support such a policy. Any signs of retaliatory intentions should be drastically condemned. Discretion is the word.
Cuba's fate will be determined by the Cuban people that live there. Not the Cubans in Miami. The people of Cuba were resolved and sufficiently determined to fend off the Bay of Pigs. On the heels of the Elian Gonzalez fiasco that resolve has recently been strengthened. The suggestion that the US will impose Democracy, or that financing a militia of Cuban American National Front Miami Cubans to go war on Cuba, is an infinitely more foolhardy pursuit than anything related to Iraq. It could trigger backing by not just Chavez of Venezuela and several other S. American nations but include Russia. Such a move by the US could create a whole new cadre of terrorists from an entire different segement of the world.
Self-determination, this is the only future for Cuba. In regards to those white ex-colonialists that fled 90 miles north after the revolution and so vehemently think Cuba is yours to dictate, you have nothing left to say. I would suggest heading back to Spain, perhaps you'll finally feel at home there.
What makes this whole Cuba debate interesting is that everyone is right, therefore no one is right. What's difficult about the Castro regime is that there are significant developments that have been certainly laudable (near universal access to high quality education, healthcare, etc.) At the same time, there are developments that are certainly deplorable(blighted infrastructure, political repression, etc.) So, before we can even begin to have a debate on who should be in power, or who should influence a political transition, we must ask ourselves what kind of model/political system the people of Cuba desire and what are the trade-offs to such a political system. For instance, despite the blighted infrastructure and deplorable political repression in Cuba, Castro's regime has been very beneficial to many Afro/mixed-race Cubans who were systematically denied access to quality education and healthcare. It is NO coincidence that as the wealthy/oligarchs fled Cuba, the proportion of Black and mixed-race Cubans on the island skyrocketed. The island is now 2/3 Black and mixed race, while the racial makeup of the Cuban exile community is exactly opposite. Eerily similar to the U.S., the economic and political resources in Cuba were concentrated in the hands of a wealthy white few. These same individuals and their descendants, who continue to harbor and promote racist and elitist ideologies as anachronistic as the automobiles frequently shown in documentaries on Cuba, are gearing up to reclaim their "plantations", "property", and seats of power. These same racist and elitist individuals run CANF, which is a powerful lobbyist group that has had a horrific influence on America's embargo stance towards Cuba. This is not to say that Cuba is currently a political, economic, and racial marvel. Quite the contrary, it is far from it. However, to deny these important changes would amount to willful ignorance.
So, while we all look forward to an abrupt end to political repression, a more open political system, and improvements in human rights conditions, we should also think more clearly about allowing the likes of CANF and other Cuban Americans to flood Cuba and return it to a time of rampant racial and economic inequality. Again, there are tradeoffs and the people IN Cuba will need to decide what they're willing and not willing to live with (unless someone can come up with an alternative political system that blends together a few of the social "improvements" of Castro's regime and the benefits of a more open market system.)
p.s. I ask this question in all sincerity: Why is it necessary to care about what Cuban Americans want for Cuba? I'm sure Italian-Americans have little to no say on the political machinations of Italy.
Rob, surely its even stranger that America's policy is generally determined by the interests of oil companies and the military-industrial complex? Except that its not strange at all: Presidencies and Representatives go to the hisghest bidder, just like everything else in capitalism's HQ.
Is it not strange that American policy towards Israel and Cuba, which have been influenced respectively by the Jewish-American and Cuban-American communities, ended up isolating the US in the Arab world and Latin America s well? It is a terrible mistake to let American foreign policy be determined by interests which are not necessarly American. Having said that, I want to stress that I am not anti-Semitic nor anti-Cuban.
"What has the US ever done to Venezuela, that this country should regret?."
From The Observer:
Venezuela coup linked to Bush team
Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez
Observer Worldview
Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday April 21, 2002
The Observer
The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.
Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.
It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.
One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.
The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.
Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.
The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich.
Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American who, under Reagan, ran the Office for Public Diplomacy. It reported in theory to the State Department, but Reich was shown by congressional investigations to report directly to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White House.
North was convicted and shamed for his role in Iran-Contra, whereby arms bought by busting US sanctions on Iran were sold to the Contra guerrillas and death squads, in revolt against the Marxist government in Nicaragua.
Reich also has close ties to Venezuela, having been made ambassador to Caracas in 1986. His appointment was contested both by Democrats in Washington and political leaders in the Latin American country. The objections were overridden as Venezuela sought access to the US oil market.
Reich is said by OAS sources to have had 'a number of meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup' over several months. The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent.
On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democra tic rule, as he had resigned and was 'responsible for his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona government.
But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international opera tions'. He was a leading theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority on combating Marxism in the Americas.
It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes and death squads that followed it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere. During the Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he worked directly to North.
Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested illegal funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information from the inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior.
A third member of the Latin American triangle in US policy-making is John Negroponte, now ambassador to the United Nations. He was Reagan's ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 when a US-trained death squad, Battalion 3-16, tortured and murdered scores of activists. A diplomatic source said Negroponte had been 'informed that there might be some movement in Venezuela on Chavez' at the beginning of the year.
More than 100 people died in events before and after the coup. In Caracas on Friday a military judge confined five high-ranking officers to indefinite house arrest pending formal charges of rebellion.
Chavez's chief ideologue - Guillermo Garcia Ponce, director of the Revolutionary Political Command - said dissident generals, local media and anti-Chavez groups in the US had plotted the president's removal.
'The most reactionary sectors in the United States were also implicated in the conspiracy,' he said.
—————————————————————————————————-
I think the article also addresses your point about America's shameful past having no bearing on the matter?
I don't know if the apologists for American imperialism fool themselves, but they surely can't believe they fool anyone else anymore.
Alpha 66 has been training for more than 40 years to kill Castro as I read somewhere online.
Itís illegal to assassinate heads of states ala Diem and Kennedy.
Yet for decades they tried to kill Castro. Fidel has done some evil things www.babalublog.com/ and some good things like education, medicine and trying to stop racism.
These thoughts on Cubans opening coffee shops, planting trees and selling cigars is just talk.
For example lets say I left Wyoming for Michigan 47 years ago and decided I was going to take it back from Dick Cheney. And lets say Fidel let me train in Santiago for 10 years to do that. Would it be logical that I could try to invade Wyoming again to do what against 11 million people in Wyoming?
Hell, the USA cannot control Iraq without one million troops stationed there. Cuba is not Wyoming, the bugs are big, the bullets bigger and the people well like those Iraqis they are not stupid.
America needs to choose its own destiny, hell restore democracy in America. Give us health care and cheaper higher education. Comparing dictators I think Cubas at least tries to help its poor people. If Fidel is the devil then what is America?
These thoughts on polices and things is for those who have the comfort to debate them. To quote from a soldier of fortune Jim Morris revolutions proceed in three stages
1. Political organization
While the Cubans have their foundation. I donít see that many training in the swamps.
2. Guerilla warfare.
It didnít work the first time and if any try again lets just say it wouldnít work in Wyoming either.
3. Developing a regular army.
While Hezballah has transformed itself into a fighting force, I donít see the Cubans in Miami coalescing to do the same.
Without these three things according to Mr. Morris all revolutions will fail. He got these principles from Mao and they were instilled to him in Special Forces school.
So that leaves economic force which for more than 47 years doesnít seem to have worked. Cuba has China, China has Russia and then there are Venezuela and Vietnam.
We give our money to Vietnam who in turn gives it to Cuba.
We trade deficits with China, after all they own more USA debt second to Japan, and they give money to Cuba.
Then there is Venezuela who owns a lot of Citgos in the USA, we spend $3.30 a gallon ( soon to be $4 a gallon by Christmas) and they give aid to Cuba.
Now, I say lets get rid of all the third parties, write a check to these corporations and Cuban exiles who lost a few million but with no interest and send a trade delegation to Cuba like yesterday. That would allow us cheaper shipping costs from say China to Los Angeles, and might give us oil prices back to $1.50 per gallon. But, I donít think those guys from Texas and Wyoming would like that.
I am sorry. I meant to say Karl Rove. I don't know anything about the Bush closets of Family History, because I am only a stupid Cuban. I guess you have better water than we do. All of us in Cuba are as you say, stupid.
Yes, I think your President will get around to bombing Cuba, in order to save us. He is only applying the lessons your country learned in Vietnam, about how you have to kill everybody in order to save them. We are all looking for some place to hide.
I think it is a pretty good thing that your President Bush does not subscibe to the International Treaties, or otherwise, he would be a war criminal for what he has already done in Iraq.
I am sorry I was so stupid, Mr. McMullen. What can you expect? I am only a Cuban. Please forgive me.
Perhaps I should add a few more thoughts for your elucidation.
The problem, sir, is not down there in Cuba. It is right here, at home.
What did Jesus say about that. Something about looking for a splinter in someone else's eye. Oops. I forgot. You are an Atheist. You would not be interested in anything that Jesus supposedly said. You would have to refer that matter to a Higher Power. Yourself.
We don't have overt slavery any more, but if you are blue collar, like I am, you know about slavery nevertheless. My God, I grew up in a hovel in Wheeling, West Virgina. Where I still live. Used to have a good job in the steel mills, but now...
When you read that unless the richest of the rich get a break on their "death" tax, the very poorest of the poor get no help, then you begin to understand what economic slavery is. When you hear about little children, 8 years old, in China, forced to work 14 hours a day for $0.33/hour, to make goods to export to the USA, displacing American workers, the lights might go on? Or maybe not. You might be an Overseer? I suspect that you are.
But what you have not realized yet, because 20 years have not gone by, is that, before this reshuffle is over, even the Overseers will be running for the hills, trying to find a tin cup, so that they can join me on the sidewalks, and beg for a dime from the Oligarchs, in their tails, with cigars in their mouths, as they stroll down the lane.
The USA touts Capitalism. Well, sir, put on your seat belt, because China, Communist China, is about to show the people of the USA the consequences of pure Capitalism.
I read a history book one time, and it seemed like even if you went back in time, all cultures were different. It seemed like some people might have learned that lesson, even more than 20 years ago?
One time I read the Bible, and it seemed like, even way back then, that some people thought that other people's cultures were inferior to their own. So the God of their culture told them to go ahead and take over everything that inferior cultures owned and kill all those inferior people. (But we learned a better way, in our modern times. After we take away their hopes, we just make them slaves. And we say that is because they are inferior. Then we seek sympathy, and whine, because of the heavy burden we bare to care for all those inferior people, our own slaves.)
But back to the old days told about in the Bible, when it came to how to deal with inferior cultures, sometimes, God just made it easy. He would come right down from the sky, and burn up all the inferior people, while they were standing at their inferior altars.
When I was a child, my mama told me that all snow flakes were different. And that was much more than 20 years ago. But I didn't believe what my mama said, until the next snow came. I caught a whole bunch of snowflakes on a piece of paper, and I studied them with a magnifying glass. Mama was right! They were all different. Then I noticed, though, that some of the shapes were much better than others. And some of the shapes, unfortunately, were definitely inferior. There was no question about that. If you had been there, you could have looked through the magnifying glass and seen the same thing. But when I told my mama what I had discovered, she told me that I was wrong. She said, who are you, the God of the snowflakes? She said, somebody might look down at me some day, and think that I was just an ugly snowflake.
I agree with you that we should end the Cuban "embargo" immediately. Cuba is not interdicted. They freely trade with every other country on earth. After 50 years of our foolish "embargo", it must occur to someone here that the Cubans actually do not need the USA? Frankly, if we took that dumb Cuba
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (115)
gxneqoyv mvuojbqs jcqfmxvne lvieqwtky fdsrjpgby bqsv khunwft http://www.hduwesti.qzaone.com
November 24, 2007 8:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
zfrvgo icnsy zjqxler chdxbgq suqdvjmxl tfjlosgw ryzefuis
November 24, 2007 8:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
zfrvgo icnsy zjqxler chdxbgq suqdvjmxl tfjlosgw ryzefuis
November 24, 2007 8:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Hi
Best rates!
Bye
July 16, 2007 1:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Well done!
[url=http://jxexxdcc.com/inxe/txxe.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://wtcvafja.com/hvne/njxl.html]Cool site[/url]
September 15, 2006 6:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
What do you think about purses
Do u want to make yourself happy???
Just one kkLick and u are in
LOOOK
[b][url=http://discounted-designer-handbag.50webs.com/]Discounted Designer Handbag[/url][/b]
Don't forget to go here
[b][url=http://coach-handbag-here.blogspot.com/]Coach Handbag[/url][/b]
August 31, 2006 6:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Enrique, la Democracia es un concepto sencillo (el gobierno del pueblo, por el pueblo y para el pueblo) pero su implementaciÛn pr·ctica se vuelve un poco m·s complicada.
El criterio fundamental es que, en Democracia, las decisiones b·sicas las toma LA MAYORIA de la poblaciÛn AL ELEGIR A SUS GOBERNANTES. Para comprender mejor miremos el caso mexicano. Felipe CalderÛn propone continuar gobernando como lo hizo Vicente Fox, mientras que AndrÈs Manuel LÛpez Obrador propone un giro hacia la izquierda, con mayor intervenciÛn del Estado en la economÌa, posible anulaciÛn de tratados comerciales, etc. Dependiendo de quiÈn gane la elecciÛn veremos a MÈxico ir por un camino o por otro. Pero nadie duda de que, hasta ahora, MÈxico vive una Democracia.
Miremos tambiÈn el caso venezolano. Hugo Ch·vez llegÛ al poder mediante elecciones democr·ticas, pero durante sus 8 aÒos de gobierno ha acumulado m·s y m·s poder y a la vez ha restringido m·s y m·s las libertades y derechos de los ciudadanos, es decir que se ha vuelto un rÈgimen absolutista. Con todo ese poder acumulado, Ch·vez ha impuesto un rÈgimen econÛmico de izquierda, con gran participaciÛn del Estado en toda la economÌa.
øHacia dÛnde ir· Cuba? øTendr· el pueblo cubano la oportunidad de decidir su futuro, o el rÈgimen castrista seguir· imponiendo su visiÛn, a sangre y fuego?
August 11, 2006 12:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Bernardo —Gracias por sus observaciones, y por la nueva oportunidad para poder aclarar dudas ya que lamento que posiblemente haya un mal entendimiento. Es decir, øpor quÈ usted dice “Una vez en Democracia, el pueblo podr· elegir el sistema econÛmico que desee.”?
Me explico:
1. En el modelo democr·tico que se propone aquÌ se garantizarÌa que los cubanos que asÌ lo deseen puedan formar y vivir en una democracia multi-partidista y una economÌa neo-liberal, pero solo dentro de su comunidad ideolÛgica. Se les asignarÌa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÛn que representan.
2. El modelo tambiÈn garantizarÌa que los que deseen continuar viviendo en una democracia uni-partidista como la que profesan actualmente en Cuba y una economÌa marxista, tambiÈn podrÌan hacerlo. Igualmente se les asignarÌa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÛn que representan.
3. TambiÈn se garantizarÌa el derecho a formar comunidades ideolÛgicas distintas a las 2 anteriores.
Se propone presupone un entendimiento democr·tico entre las partes en conflicto para proceder de esta forma.
Adem·s todas las partes en conflicto, es decir, todas las comunidades ideolÛgicas participarÌan democr·ticamente en la formaciÛn de un gobierno central para manejar sus intereses comunes, i.e. Relaciones internacionales, defensa, etc.
Ninguna, sin embargo, podrÌa imponer su sistema ideolÛgico en la jurisdicciÛn de la otra. øQuiz·s no lo he entendido bien, pero es eso lo que usted aboga?
øEs decir usted aboga que los de la alternativa 1 puedan imponer su sistema ideÛlogico a los que desean la alternativa 2?
Viva la pax cubana! Viva la patria!
copyright Enrique I. Alonso. All Rights Reserved.
The Washington Post, and all others, are only granted non-exclusive right to publish it as is, in any format, without modifying any content. For translation write to eialonso@yahoo.com.
August 10, 2006 1:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Bernardo —Gracias por sus observaciones, y por la nueva oportunidad para poder aclarar dudas ya que lamento que posiblemente haya un mal entendimiento. Es decir, øpor quÈ usted dice “Una vez en Democracia, el pueblo podr· elegir el sistema econÛmico que desee.”?
Me explico:
1. En el modelo democr·tico que se propone aquÌ se garantizarÌa que los cubanos que asÌ lo deseen puedan formar y vivir en una democracia multi-partidista y una economÌa neo-liberal, pero solo dentro de su comunidad ideolÛgica. Se les asignarÌa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÛn que representan.
2. El modelo tambiÈn garantizarÌa que los que deseen continuar viviendo en una democracia uni-partidista como la que profesan actualmente en Cuba y una economÌa marxista, tambiÈn podrÌan hacerlo. Igualmente se les asignarÌa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÛn que representan.
3. TambiÈn se garantizarÌa el derecho a formar comunidades ideolÛgicas distintas a las 2 anteriores.
Se propone presupone un entendimiento democr·tico entre las partes en conflicto para proceder de esta forma.
Adem·s todas las partes en conflicto, es decir, todas las comunidades ideolÛgicas participarÌan democr·ticamente en la formaciÛn de un gobierno central para manejar sus intereses comunes, i.e. Relaciones internacionales, defensa, etc.
Ninguna, sin embargo, podrÌa imponer su sistema ideolÛgico en la jurisdicciÛn de la otra. øQuiz·s no lo he entendido bien, pero es eso lo que usted aboga?
øEs decir usted aboga que los de la alternativa 1 puedan imponer su sistema ideÛlogico a los que desean la alternativa 2?
Viva la pax cubana! Viva la patria!
August 10, 2006 1:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Bernardo —Gracias por sus observaciones, y por la nueva oportunidad para poder aclarar dudas ya que lamento que posiblemente haya un mal entendimiento. Es decir, ÔøΩpor quÔøΩ usted dice "Una vez en Democracia, el pueblo podrÔøΩ elegir el sistema econÔøΩmico que desee."?
Me explico:
1. En el modelo democrÔøΩtico que se propone aquÔøΩ se garantizarÔøΩa que los cubanos que asÔøΩ lo deseen puedan formar y vivir en una democracia multi-partidista y una economÔøΩa neo-liberal, pero solo dentro de su comunidad ideolÔøΩgica. Se les asignarÔøΩa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÔøΩn que representan.
2. El modelo tambiÔøΩn garantizarÔøΩa que los que deseen continuar viviendo en una democracia uni-partidista como la que profesan actualmente en Cuba y una economÔøΩa marxista, tambiÔøΩn podrÔøΩan hacerlo. Igualmente se les asignarÔøΩa territorio y recursos proporcional a la poblaciÔøΩn que representan.
3. TambiÔøΩn se garantizarÔøΩa el derecho a formar comunidades ideolÔøΩgicas distintas a las 2 anteriores.
Se propone presupone un entendimiento democrÔøΩtico entre las partes en conflicto para proceder de esta forma.
AdemÔøΩs todas las partes en conflicto, es decir, todas las comunidades ideolÔøΩgicas participarÔøΩan democrÔøΩticamente en la formaciÔøΩn de un gobierno central para manejar sus intereses comunes, i.e. Relaciones internacionales, defensa, etc.
Ninguna, sin embargo, podrÔøΩa imponer su sistema ideolÔøΩgico en la jurisdicciÔøΩn de la otra. ÔøΩQuizÔøΩs no lo he entendido bien, pero es eso lo que usted aboga?
ÔøΩEs decir usted aboga que los de la alternativa 1 puedan imponer su sistema ideÔøΩlogico a los que desean la alternativa 2?
Viva la pax cubana! Viva la patria!
August 10, 2006 12:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Enrique,
Siento que tu principal preocupaciÛn se concentra en este p·rrafo: "... algunos pretenden que los cubanos debemos escoger entre este socialismo marxista-cubano, o la ideologÌa capitalista del vecino del norte..."
Yo te dirÌa: No necesariamente.
Creo que es necesario identificar dos niveles de la discusiÛn: el econÛmico y el polÌtico.
En lo econÛmico, ciertamente existen dos posiciones extremas: el socialismo frente al capitalismo. Pero existen tambiÈn innumerables posiciones intermedias. Por ejemplo, los paÌses de Europa Occidental tienen economÌas capitalistas pero con una fuerte participaciÛn del Estado; igual sucede en Canad·, que es un paÌs capitalista muy rico, pero donde el sistema de salud es totalmente p˙blico. Es decir que la altenativa ECONOMICA que Cuba enfrenta no es necesariamente el capitalismo salvaje, sino que el Estado puede tener diferentes niveles de intervenciÛn.
En cuanto a lo polÌtico existen tambiÈn posiciones extremas: el absolutismo (todo el poder concentrado en una sola persona o grupo) frente a la anarquÌa (el poder diluido entre todos, sin autoridad). Asimismo, existen varias posiciones intermedias. Una de ellas se llama DEMOCRACIA, y es seg˙n un famoso polÌtico, "el peor sistema de gobierno, con excepciÛn de todos los dem·s".
La Democracia implica varias cosas:
1) Los seres humanos tienen derechos fundamentales (libertad de expresiÛn, libertad de religiÛn, libertad de asociaciÛn, libertad de movimiento dentro o fuera del paÌs, presunciÛn de inocencia, etc).
2) El Estado existe para garantizar los derechos de los ciudadanos.
3) Los ciudadanos pueden elegir a sus gobernantes; si se cansan de ellos, los cambian en la siguiente elecciÛn.
4) Tanto los ciudadanos como los gobernantes est·n sometidos a la LEY.
5) Existe una divisiÛn de poderes: legislativo, ejecutivo, judicial; ninguno de los poderes domina sobre el otro.
Por supuesto, a los gobernantes absolutistas no les gusta la Democracia, en particular las elecciones, porque se exponen a perder el poder ganado a la fuerza. En mi paÌs, Ecuador, un legendario gobernante dijo una vez: "No voy a perder con papeletas lo que he ganado con bayonetas".
China es, hoy por hoy, una dictadura que se llama comunista pero que es totalmente capitalista. Hay un r·pido crecimiento econÚmico; hay gran desarrollo tecnolÛgico; hay mucha gente que ha logrado salir de la pobreza. Pero sigue siendo una dictadura, donde las libertades b·sicas de la gente est·n restringidas por un gobierno brutal.
Como ver·s, Cuba est· en los extremos, tanto en lo polÌtico como en lo econÛmico. En lo polÌtico es una dictadura absolutista. En lo econÛmico es un rÈgimen socialista.
øEs eso lo que quieren los Cubanos? øAlguien les ha preguntado? øHan tenido alguna vez la oportunidad de EXPERIMENTAR con algo que sea diferente a una dictadura socialista? øHan tenido la oportunidad de ELEGIR a sus gobernantes, y de reemplazarles en caso de que no gobiernen de acuerdo a las expectativas de la gente?
Mi humilde opiniÛn (y ferviente deseo) es que Cuba deje de ser una dictadura absolutista y se transforme en una Democracia.
Una vez en Democracia, el pueblo podr· elegir el sistema econÛmico que desee.
Un abrazo desde Quito.
August 10, 2006 4:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Gracias por su saludo Bernardo y por esta oportunidad de expresar algunas ideas m·s sobre el futuro de Cuba.
Estoy seguro que el problema crÌtico nuestro no se puede reducir a la falta de papel higiÈnico como su mensaje quiz·s podrÌa interpretarse, ni que usted pretende implicar que los pobres, por ejemplo en Ecuador o en Estados Unidos, viven, en la balanza, mejor que en Cuba.
Sin embargo, el enfoque en este momento no es, ni debe o puede ser si el sistema socialista cubano es mejor o peor para Cuba (o Ecuador) que el neo-liberal, tema sobre el cual quiz·s estarÌamos argumentando y especulando por aÒos. Mientras tanto los cubanos seguirÌamos confrontando problemas graves que urgen resolverse. Problemas como lo son, por ejemplo:
• Las amenazas mas recientes a nuestra soberanÌa.
• El sufrimiento completamente incomprendido y menospreciado de los cubanos en el exilio.
• La continuada violaciÛn, a pesar de protestas, de nuestra integridad territorial en Guant·namo, donde lo ultimo es que el ocupador ha sido acusado de esconder y torturar a seres humanos.
• PersecuciÛn comercial internacional por una de las economÌas m·s poderosas del mundo.
• El sometimiento de los cubanos exilados a la intensificaciÛn sutil pero exponencial de procesos colonialistas, destructivos de la identidad.
• La declaraciÛn de una (nada nueva) ‘guerra de ideas’ donde, dentro de la isla, solo los que estÈn de acuerdo con la ideologÌa del partido comunista pueden expresar sus ideas. Los de ideologÌa contraria reportan persecuciÛn, marginaciÛn, hostigacion, amenazas, asaltos, al parecer con indiferencia, o seg˙n reportan, hasta con el entusiasmo del estado.
• La practica del genocidio cultural contra toda una clase de cubanos, y, quien se asombrara ya, que hay amantes de la justicia que lo aplauden.
A disidentes ideolÛgicos que no poseen secretos de estado se reporta que les piden exilarse con los otros 2 millones de cubanos, es decir, con los casi 1 de cada 5 cubanos que ya vivimos fuera de nuestra patria.
øComo esperar· el estado cubano que sus compatriotas vivan en Cuba bajo estas amenazas? øDonde esperar· entonces que vivan? øFlotando en el aire? øBajo el mar? øEn la luna? øEn alg˙n otro paÌs que supuestamente estÈ obligado a darles refugio? Ning˙n otro paÌs est· obligado a darles nada, y por lo tanto esta posiciÛn es indefendible para el estado cubano. øRealmente estar·n dispuestos a defender el genocidio cultural ante un foro internacional? øRealmente creen que serÌa prudente tal guerrita de ideas?
O sea, si la guerra de ideas no se puede pelear dentro de Cuba, entonces la implicaciÛn es que pretenden que se pelee desde afuera de Cuba, o desde la c·rcel, o a los golpes.
El estado sostiene que el pelee esta guerra de ideas dentro de Cuba esta colaborando con el enemigo. En cierto sentido es cierto, ya que el enemigo de Cuba oportunisticamente esta financiando actividades ideolÛgicas contra el gobierno cubano, y eso no puede ser jam·s aceptable.
Sin embargo, eso no absuelve al estado cubano. Hay que considerar las condiciones extremas y desesperantes que ha creado con su polÌtica. Pues øcomo pretenden que sus contrarios ideolÛgicos, personas nacidas en Cuba, con todo derecho a vivir en Cuba, peleen una guerra de ideas si los fuerzan fÌsicamente a callarse? øSi ni siquiera le dan acceso a los medios de comunicaciÛn? No puede ser. No acepto. Jam·s aceptare eso ni para mÌ ni para mi patria ni como condiciÛn para vivir en mi patria. Ni deberÌan ellos, como patriotas. øNo se dan cuenta que una guerra de ideas en tales tÈrminos es genocida y por tanto anti-patriÛtica?
°Vaya la guerra de ideas que pretenden! øRealmente pretenden defender esta practica contra toda una clase de cubanos en un foro, por ejemplo, como el de la Haya o el de la ComisiÛn de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas? Un foro donde no van a poder prohibir que los cuestionen.
Entonces ahora por otro lado algunos pretenden que los cubanos debemos escoger entre este socialismo marxista-cubano, o la ideologÌa capitalista del vecino del norte, el mismo que es acusado de esconder y torturar a personas en nuestra tierra, la cual ocupa hace mas de 100 aÒos contra nuestra voluntad.
Es decir, estos 2 grupos ideolÛgicos dominantes pretenden imponer su ideologÌa el uno al otro, y adem·s a toda la naciÛn cubana.
Absurda pretensiÛn. Luego de todo lo que hemos visto y vivido øque cubano o persona con alg˙n amor propio y a sus compatriotas podrÌa aceptar estas 2 como sus ˙nicas opciones?
Para una de las facciones ideolÛgicas el capital efectivamente determina quien gobierna la polÌtica (poli = ciudad, sociedad). El que posee el capital se convierte en el nuevo dictador. øComo vamos a permitir eso? Como pretenden que la acumulaciÛn de capital convierte a alguien en una persona m·s Èticamente capaz de gobernar. Como si la virtud se acumulase en proporciÛn directa al capital. Capital que se acumula sin que ni siquiera se tenga que trabajar, e incomparablemente mas para los que hacen a otros trabajar para ellos. Absurdo. La evidencia histÛrica demuestra lo contrario en casi todos los casos. El capital y la Ètica se acumulan en inversas proporciones.
Los de la otra facciÛn ideolÛgica, un grupo de marxistas-cubanos, se auto-denominan los mas capacitados para gobernar un paÌs, los dueÒos del camino a la verdad absoluta; y ya sabemos lo que se reporta que hacen con los que los cuestionan. øQue pretenden, hacer de nosotros un pueblo de burros obedientes, y adem·s repartirse perpetuamente entre ellos, dueÒos de toda verdad, las riquezas que existen o se producen en el paÌs, y todos los derechos de expresiÛn? øFantasÌa o ideologÌa?
øQue hacer entonces, imponer una tercera ideologÌa sobre estos 2? No lo creo. Imponer casi siempre es violar. Imponer no es democr·tico, aunque lo que se imponga sea alguna versiÛn preferida de democracia. Imponer es lo que hace el vecino del norte, y el sistema cubano actual.
Evidentemente los cubanos no estamos todos guiados por las m·s ‘dignas’ aspiraciones, pues discrepamos con respecto al concepto de los fines para los cuales un ser humano existe o debe de existir; y por tanto sobre el significado del concepto ‘dignidad humana’; y por tanto sobre lo que deberÌa de estar incluido o excluido del concepto ‘derechos humanos’; y por tanto sobre la jerarquÌa de necesidades y derechos; y por tanto sobre cuales deben ser nuestras prioridades jurÌdicas, culturales, econÛmicas, polÌticas; y por tanto sobre el sistema ideolÛgico al cual toda Cuba se debe de suscribir.
Dado que la naciÛn se divide por ideologÌas a largo plazo irreconciliables, la soluciÛn cubana, llamÈmosla si quiere la Pax cubana, requiere la coexistencia y colaboraciÛn patriÛtica y eficaz de m˙ltiples gobiernos ideolÛgicos dentro de la isla.
Es decir, por un lado, es necesario integrar 2 o mas sociedades dentro de nuestra isla naciÛn, cada una gobernada por su propia ideologÌa, gobernantes-representantes, y sistema operativo interno.
Eso procede de (1) que todos los cubanos patriÛticos tienen el derecho innegociable, innegable, insustituible, y defendible de vivir en su patria, dignamente, y de (2) que no estamos de acuerdo en cuanto a la definiciÛn del concepto 'dignidad humana'.
Por otro lado, estos diferentes sistemas cubanos colaborarÌan patriÛtica y eficazmente por lo menos en lo esencial (relaciones internacionales, defensa, justo distribuciÛn de tierra y recursos naturales entre sistemas, conflicto inter-sistÈmico, etc.). Para estas funciones comunes absolutamente necesarias crearÌan un parlamento y este elegirÌa un lÌder, el cual nombrarÌa ministros para manejar relaciones internacionales, distribuciÛn de recursos nacionales, defensa, sinergias industriales, comercio internacional.
Adem·s, el parlamento determinarÌa la estructura necesaria para mejor resolver conflictos Ìnter sistÈmico. Una vez creada dicha estructura funcionaria independientemente del parlamento, asÌ buscando crear los 'checks and balances' de las democracias multi-partidistas, pero con sistemas, no partidos.
Calidad ambiental y migraciÛn, tendrÌan que ser coordinada entre el nivel nacional y los distintos sistemas.
Los derechos de los no nacidos tendrÌan que ser garantizados nacionalmente, y la experimentaciÛn genÈtica tambiÈn tendrÌa que ser considerada jurisdicciÛn del gobierno nacional.
Cada sistema tendrÌa su propio sistema judicial. La seguridad de los ciudadanos a nivel sistema, seria garantizada exclusivamente por cada sistema. A nivel Inter.-sistÈmico e internacional, por el gobierno central. Este no puede intervenir en los asuntos internos de los sistemas, excepto en casos de demostrablemente probable impacto nacional o internacional.
HabrÌa moneda y banca nacional, pero podrÌan haber monedas y dentro de cada sistema.
Comunicaciones internacionales e Ìnter sistÈmicas serian manejadas a nivel nacional. Comunicaciones intra-sistÈmicas dependerÌan de cada cual. Lo mismo con el correo y servicios de inteligencia.
Entonces, hablando en tÈrminos muy generales, lo que concibo es una estructura algo an·loga a un sistema de computaciÛn que contiene a varios sistemas operativos (Ej. Linux, Windows, Apple) separados por particiones, con recursos justos alocados a cada sistema.
Seria algo similar al sistema federal-estatal estadounidense pero con una significante diferencia: En vez de haber estados, habrÌan sistemas ideologicos independientes, y dentro de estos podrian haber estados, y partidos, si asi lo determina un sistema.
En vez de tratar de imponernos sistemas ideologicos los unos a los otros, considero preferible que partamos de la base de que un sistema ideologico no se debe de absolutizar. M·s bien hay que verlo como experimental, como un proceso social donde se van probando hipÛtesis sobre lo que es m·s humano, m·s justo, m·s eficaz, y por tanto razonable.
Entonces no habrÌa guerras entre cubanos suscritos a diferentes ideologÌas, sino aprendizaje de las experiencias de los distintos 'grupos o sistemas' ideologicos operando en la isla. ComenzarÌa un tipo de proceso nuevo de mutuo enriquecimiento, lo opuesto a la mutua destrucciÛn.
Esto es un efectivo antÌdoto a otros peligros a los cuales nuestra naciÛn ha demostrado ser susceptible desde 1898. Creo que esto seria realmente revolucionario para Cuba y para el mundo, pues seria un paÌs no gobernado por un absolutismo ideologico, ni paralizado por un constante intercambio de orientaciones multi-partidistas.
O sea, ni se aniquilarÌa el sistema socialista que se ha desarrollado hasta ahora, ni se impondrÌa uno capitalista, sino que los 2, y otros, podrian co-existir, y colaborar. Podr·n evolucionar dentro de Cuba, y corregir sus errores internos sin riesgo constante a ser aniquilados por otros cubanos de otras convicciones; o por poderes extranjeros aprovechando la divisiÛn interna.
La humanidad podr· observar, para su beneficio, como los cubanos manejan el Multi-ideologismo. Gran valor tendr· esto para la humanidad dado el costo tan enorme en vidas humanas de querer imponer ideologÌas. Consideremos los ˙ltimos 70 aÒos.
Creo que el modelo general de naciÛn aquÌ expuesto nos ponemos al alcance de lo que responder· adecuadamente al profundo y crÛnico conflicto ideologico entre cubanos, y que la isla entonces podr· evolucionar mucho mas r·pidamente sin ser amenazada, o ser considerada como amenaza ideolÛgica por otros. La meta entonces es transformarla en un lugar, aunque lejos de ser perfecta, donde los cubanos podremos seguir buscando un camino humano y sostenible para vivir, en paz, enriqueciÈndonos mutuamente, no a costa el uno del otro, y asi contribuyendo a la edificaciÛn de humanidad en la humanidad.
Claro, habr·n quienes inicialmente preferir·n que sea solo su ideologÌa fuese la que domine absolutamente en Cuba. Pero si su ideologÌa no dominase øque les quedarÌa? 1. Subordinarse a la ideologÌa que no solo no prefieren, sino que odian. 2. Irse de la isla. 3. Aniquilar a, o ser aniquilados, por los que defienden la ideologÌa que odian. øCual de estas otras 3 alternativas es la mas humana, patriÛtica y aceptable si su ideologÌa no fuese la que domina?
Entonces creo que esta claro que en el caso de Cuba las diferencias ideolÛgicas no se resuelven, por lo menos en este momento, con una mera democracia multi-partidista. Esta seria muy vulnerable a manipulaciÛn por capitales extranjeros, a violencia entre cubanos, y a mas golpes de estado militares. Una ideologÌa no puede simplemente ser un dato de protesta dentro otra. Son totalidades irreducibles a otras, como los elementos de la tabla atÛmica. En interacciÛn pacifica, sin embargo, pueden poco a poco, experimentalmente, ir desarrollando maravillas.
Nos toca crear la paz cubana con la fe y esperanza de que le llegar· mas perfeccionada a nuestros hijos y nietos, y que quiz·s, alg˙n dÌa, tambiÈn el mundo la considerara de valor.
Por esta lÌnea de pensamiento creo que estamos obligados a crear un entendimiento entre todos nosotros.
No con golpes militares o imposiciones ideolÛgicas respaldadas por un poder imperial o por un estado uni-partidista.
Esto es lo que puedo manifestarle por ahora Bernardo de Ecuador. Saludos a su querida naciÛn. °Viva la humanidad! °Viva la patria!°Viva la Pax cubana!
SUMMARY TRANSLATION
The basis for an agreement between Cubans must address the profound and not immediately, or perhaps ever reconcilable ideological differences between them. Accordingly, a model is proposed wherein Cubans would integrate their nation somewhat like a computer with multiple operating systems and a central shared processor; or like the US Federal-State system, but with the significant caveat that instead of states there would be an organization of semi independent systems, each driven by its own ideology and government. A central governing body constituted by representatives from these systems would govern international relations, equitably distribute resources among systems, manage inter-system conflicts, defense, and all shared concerns. It would not have jurisdiction in the interior of a system except where there is demonstrably probable national or international impact. Cuban socialism would continue, within a constituent system: capitalism would not be prohibited within a constituent system, nor would other ideologies. This model, it is argued, is the basis for a Pax cubana.
copyright Enrique I. Alonso. All Rights Reserved.
The Washington Post, and all others, are only granted non-exclusive right to publish it as is, in any format, without modifying any content. For translation write to eialonso@yahoo.com.
August 9, 2006 5:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Enrique,
Una de las cosas lindas que tenemos los hispanos es nuestro idioma, tan bello y sonoro, tan flexible, con el que podemos decir cosas que serÌan imposibles en otros idiomas, especialmente en algo tan frÌo y rÌgido como el InglÈs.
Te saludo desde Ecuador. Te envÌo mis sinceros deseos de que tu paÌs, lleno de gente tan linda, se libere pronto de ese dictador sanguinario que es Fidel Castro. Yo tengo muchos amigos cubanos con quienes comparto el gusto por el son, la salsa, el mambo, el arte, el deporte. QuÈ fant·stico serÌa que ese pueblo maravilloso pueda desarrollar sus talentos en libertad! SerÌa tan lindo que puedan viajar por el mundo sin tener que pedir permiso, y sin tener que arrodillarse ante el Comandante, esperando un acto de misericordia. SerÌa estupendo que puedan comprar calzoncillos y papel higiÈnico sin tener que esperar la raciÛn ofrecida graciosamente por el gobierno.
Un abrazo!
August 7, 2006 10:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Roberto (Habana) y Luis (Los Angeles), Fue un gusto leer sus comentarios (aunque hubiera sido mejor aun si supiera quienes son). Gracias.
°Como nos tiran sus peÒones... huecos! No se agradece pero se reconoce que al igual que la misma pregunta a la cual responden tienen valor como un dato antropolÛgico e histÛrico, y adem·s revelan nuevas versiones de viejas t·cticas de hacer imperio cultural y politico.Hay que leer cuidadosamente para ver que exactamente ha cambiado desde 1898.
Hay obviamente cubanos que se han exilado, criado o nacido fuera de Cuba sin culpa alguna y Cuba es de ellos, y ellos responsable por ella, como cualquier otro. No debe asombrarnos cuando no-cubanos del imperio se atreven a negar la cubanidad de los cubanos. El ˙nico cubano excluido de Cuba es el que se auto-excluye intencionalmente, por ejemplo, colaborando con un poder extranjero para recolonizar a Cuba. Somos, y siempre seremos nosotros los autores de nuestra historia, y esto coloca en prueba los valores a los cuales nos comprometemos. Igual que ocurre con cualquier otra naciÛn, para bien o para mal.
.............................................................
Les adelanto algo que he estado pensando.
Creo que el objetivo ahora, con o sin el Comandante, adem·s de defender la patria, es el de lograr ponernos de acuerdo para poder vivir todos bajo un mismo cielo a pesar de las diferencias que nos dividen; a pesar de que estas son posiblemente irreconciliables a˙n a largo plazo. Es decir, nuestra misiÛn histÛrica es crear la paz cubana.
Ni una mera democracia representativa y colectiva, o una dictadura absoluta y colectiva solucionan el problema de profundas diferencias ideolÛgicas. En el primer caso la minorÌa tendrÌa que aceptar todo un sistema que contradice lo que considera mas digno. En el segundo, la victima podrÌa ser una minorÌa o una mayorÌa.
Estas 2 formulas, la vigente y la propuesta, son meramente imposiciones y violaciones, inaceptables, de un grupo de cubanos a otro, pues aquÌ hay por lo menos 2 sistemas envueltos. No se puede reducir un sistema completo a 'datos objetables' dentro de otro.
Hay por lo menos un otro mÈtodo para lograr la integraciÛn y paz de nuestro pueblo sin necesariamente acordar diferencias ideolÛgicas. No existe un camino perfecto ni mucho menos pero creo que seria fructÌfero que los cubanos contempl·ramos las posibilidades reales de integraciÛn, dentro de los par·metros antemencionados.
Es decir, tendrÌa que haber m·s de una sociedad en Cuba, aunque habrÌa cierta complementariedad y coordinaciÛn entre las sociedades. Suena extraÒo, yo se, pero nuestra historia e identidad es excepcionalmente singular y compleja, y una simple sociedad 'pluralista', no es fundamentalmente plural, ya que es solo plural dentro de un contexto ideolÛgico, y por tanto negarÌa a todo una parte de la poblaciÛn, a todo otro mundo cubano.
Modelos plurales tradicionales nos harÌan demasiado vulnerables a t·cticas maquiavÈlicas de poderes colonizadores, pues estarÌamos regal·ndoles todo un catalogo de donde escoger para dividirnos mas, como ha estado ocurriendo hasta el presente.
No queremos hacer mas nada que pudiera imposibilitar la 'paz perpetua' entre cubanos y creo que sin embargo esa es la direcciÛn en la cual hemos estado caminando.
Entonces compatriotas todos, y en todas partes, comparto con ustedes, humilde y muy respetuosamente estos conceptos sencillos y generales de algo que he estado contemplando, para que por favor contemplen y compartan sus reacciones.
PARTIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
Responses published by some non-Cubans to the Washington Post's question are sometimes interesting, and like the question, even of anthropological value for Cubans. Others just echo those of 1898. One wonders how many are aware of that.
August 7, 2006 4:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I believe that we should distinguish between "left-wing" and "left-wing populist" governments. I have nothing against left-wing governments (or right-wing for that matter), as long as they respect certain principles, such as separation of powers and alternability, coupled with a respect for Human Rights. The second is guaranteed by the first. Obviously, you don't see this in Cuba. You don't see this in Venezuela any more.
I believe that left-wing governments such as the ones in Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, are perfectly acceptable for the countries in Latinamerica. Not only acceptable. In some cases they are just plain desirable. They are akin to the social democracies in Europe. They combine a healthy dose of social programs for the disadvantaged, with enough economic freedom as to provide incentives for development and job creation. There is always a chance to shift directions if results don't meet expectations in the eyes of the citizens. What you cannot have though, is have "one-party" rule and eternal permanence in power. That's an aberration. This is the prescription that we're beginning to see in Venezuela, where Chavez is threatening to hold on to the presidency, till the year 2031. Chavez is touting "bolivarianism" as the solution, not only to LA, but to the developing countries in the World. I should say that Bolivar should be turning on his grave, because his thoughts have nothing to do with Chavez's. If anything, he sternly warned against the likes of Chavez and populism.
Chavez's "Bolivarianism" is just a catch word for "Castroism". He feels that he's Castro's political heir. He simply cannot say it, because that is not acceptable politically. Not yet, at least. I have mentioned Venezuela again, because the way cuban authorities and Chavez see it, the fates of both countries are closely intertwined. Chavez will go to great lengths to assure the means for the survival of the Castro regime in Cuba - even without Castro. Were the tiranny in Cuba to fall, it would be a terrible blow for Chavez's designs in the continent, and probaly in Venezuela itself. I'm not implying with this, that Chavez will be successful, even if the regime in Cuba survives.
The backbone of Chavez popularity in Venezuela are the so-called "missions", by which people in the slums in Venezuela have access to free primary medical care, literacy instruction, etc. I will not discuss the degree of success of these programs or their character. Suffice it to say that they're temporary in nature and that they do not constitute a permanent solution to Venezuela's many social ills, despite the fact that I admit that they're a step in the right direction. These programs are staffed by thousands of cubans who came to Venezuela and earn a very low salary, but which is more than 15 times what they would get in Cuba. They get to take back some home appliances, which are an extravagant luxury in Cuba. Meanwhile, in Venezuela, they're closely watched by the cuban G-2, the intelligence machine, for any sign of dissidence or intent to defect. They're not allowed to socialize with venezuelans, without supervision or meander far from their assigned posts. Reportedly though, a significant number have crossed the border into Colombia and left for the US.
Under these conditions, you wonder how many of them would leave, outright, once it is known that the character of the regime in Cuba is beginning to waver. I believe that there would be an avalanche and that most of them would try to head north, to the US. Once there, I think that they'd try to bring their relatives to join them. Chavez also depends much on the cuban intelligence network, to keep tabs on the venezuelan military and, reportedly, to man his personal protection rings and the presidential palace "situation room". Also, it is said that the G-2 has been responsible for the dirty war against the opposition in Venezuela. How many of these people, on whom the venezuelan regime has supported itself for such delicate programs and activities, would choose to remain in Venezuela, under Chavez?
I believe that, were they to leave (escape is a better word), Chavez would be left dangerously exposed and he would not be able to support some of his showcase social programs. He would also lose a powerful ally, bent on helping perpetuate Chavez in power. After all, the cuban regime sees Chavez as a life line. He has made Cuba a primary beneficiary of his petrodollars. So, to my mind, there is a critical interdependence between both regimes - if not countries.
Also, were there to be a drastic political orientation in Cuba, Chavez prestige in Venezuela -and in the rest of LA- would suffer seriously. He would be at odds to explain why, if Cuba was -in his words- such an "ocean of happiness", things changed so quickly after Fidel's death.
Much is at stake for Chavez in Cuba.
August 7, 2006 11:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Vienna: The Cuban revolution succeeded in removing a brutal and corrupt dictator -Batista-, only to replace him with a brutal and corrupt SYSTEM led by another brutal and corrupt dictator -Castro.
Millersville: You are right. All the talk about promoting democracy and freedom around the world is just that: talk. Chavez has been helping Cuba with some $2 billion per year. Meanwhile, the U.S. has "plans" to support Cuban dissidents with "up to" $80 million. Guess who is winning the battle for Cuban hearts and minds.
August 7, 2006 10:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Fidel Castro's death will be confirmed days or weeks after the actual event. News of Fidel Castro's death will not occur in real-time.
The transition from Fidel to Raul Castro will be peaceful and uneventful. Cuban civil society is weak and fragmented having already been infiltrated by the Cuban military and there will be no uprisings or coup attempts.
Raul's rule will be much like Fidel's — Cuba will be ruled from a strong hand at the top.
Raul was hinted that he is more amenable to US influence than Fidel and his engagement with the US will be important and will determine his plans for a post-Fidel Cuba. Raul's rule will not change the status-quo between the US and Cuba.
Also, too, Raul is not a young man. Cubans and Americans should look to Alarcon and other leaders in the Cuban government for overhauled reform after Raul Castro.
August 7, 2006 10:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
I think it's about time some Americans took a long hard look in the mirror before they spout nonsense about other Nations not being 'free'. Cuba isn't free? How do you know? You Government forbids you to go there. You imprison people without trial indefinitely. You kidnap people from around the world and send them to other countries to be tortured. You invade other countries on false pretexts. You support dictators and torturers around the world; from the middle east, through Latin America and on into Asia. Your Nation is the source of more evil, for more people, than any other on the planet. How dare you even discuss another sovereign Nation, Cuba, as if you should have a say in its future? So embedded is your sense of entitlement that such a warped view of the World seems natural to you. Well role on the second half of the twenty first century. I just hope that China and India behave with more maturity during their period of dominance than you did yours. Unfortunately, if they follow America's precedent we're all in for a terrible time.
August 7, 2006 10:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
I'm wondering why GW hasn't sent the same pro-democracy message he sent to the Cubans to the people of Saudi Arabia? The type of government and/or political philosophy seems much less important to us then what that country can do for us. In Cuba's case it's easy to be morally outraged because it simply doesn't matter. (Sorry Fidel, if you were sitting on 500 million barrels of oil we would have made up a long time ago or invaded your country) The truth is Cuba has very little relevance to anything and fewer natural resources so we really don't care what happens 90 miles off our southern border unless someone wants to grow unfriendly nuclear missles or import criminals and people with sanity problems like Carter saw the need to do.
August 7, 2006 8:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Hopefully the Cubans, those in Cuba that is, will dominate at all times. Ideally without a repetition of the kleptocracy that was the Batista regime, propted by our beloved Mafia.
Much though I sympathize with Cuban-Americans, none has been able to satisfactorily explain to me why the revolution was successful. Revolutions succeed because the PEOPLE are fed up with the existing regime. (Usually, unfortunately, they replace one set of masters for another).
August 7, 2006 8:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Sorry, the sentence "Of course, this is not to be excluded, but even Solidarnoszcz or Havel weren't followed by left-wing governments." should read "Of course, this is not to be excluded, but even Solidarnoszcz or Havel were followed by left-wing governments."
A recommendation: The US should open its trade to Cuba if it wants to gain influence. In a short while we'll see free elections in Cuba, too (whether it will be the will of some pragmatic communist leaders or a revolution, it doesn't really matter), and it would be all too easy for a pretendedly nationalistic, old-guard candidate to mention the embargo in order to compromise any US-leaning candidate. The US could gain much more goodwill by doing this step now when Fidel's bell is tolling.
And, by the way, if a policy doesn't work for 40 years it would be time to rethink it, anyway.
That applies also for Iraq. Are Rummy et co going to wait also 40 years for the eventual success?
August 7, 2006 6:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Cuba is definitely a distinct case not to be mixed with the Russian-exported communism in Eastern Europe but the dismantling of communism in these countries shows, at least partly, the way for Cuba, too.
The great dilemma for a political fortune-teller in this case would be to assess which will be the driving force for the society after Castro's disappearance. Supposing that most of the nations having reached a certain maturity would like to live in a democratic rather than dictatorial (albeit paternalistic) system, would they choose the unknown but intuitively strived for democracy, or will they fall prey to the propaganda machine that ruled the country for half a century?
Basically, this can be reformulated like this: is the inherent capitalist inequality to be preferred to the apparent equality (in poverty)?
The answer, based on the East-European experience, is that there's a higher likelihood that a free people living under dictatorship will elect a "social-democratic" party based on the elements closely associated to the old regime than that it will embrace a lone dissident. Of course, this is not to be excluded, but even Solidarnoszcz or Havel weren't followed by left-wing governments.
Moreover, Solidarnoszcz was a broad movement, the Czechs were also organised intelectually in Carta '77.
The unknown factor is the high number of Cubans living abroad. Will they provide a positive influence to the democratisation process or will their return, with the ensuing claims on property, antagonise a mjority of the rest of the (poor) Cubans?
August 7, 2006 4:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Washington Post's Jackson Diehl has an interesting symmary of recent insults by Hugo Chavez against George W Bush:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/06/AR2006080600840.html
Well, when you read those words... how could anyone disagree?
Despite my deep aversion for Chavez and for all he is doing in Venezuela, I must acknowlege he has this "talent" to precisely characterize Bush. This is the reason he is liked by so many in Latin America, no matter how repressive and corrupt his regimen is, no matter how badly his policies fail, and no matter how much oil he sells to the same U.S. multinationals he daily condemns.
Insulting Bush has proved an effective political strategy. If it works for liberal Democrats in the U.S. as well as for muslim fanatics in the Middle East, why shouldn't it work for leftist demagogues in Latin America?
August 7, 2006 1:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
No American sins justify despicable dictators of right or left wing in any part of the world. Castro Chavez and the like are not the future of Latin American countries and no new men will arise from their rule. Eugene, whoever he may be, speaks the truth about Castro and Chavez and no one and least of all someone who claims to be a leftist has the moral wright of forgetting their story. As for LA Chile, Uruguay and Brazil are true democratic countries being governed by left parties. One should wish that the same happens to Cuba in a near future and have a Cuban people freed from Castro, Chavez or Bush and perhaps a US government ruled by Hillary
August 7, 2006 1:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
A Cuban-American wrote, "Who cares who dominates Cuba after the dinosaur is gone? For all I care the Italian-American mafia can take over, just give all of us freedom again!"
Like most other Cuban-Americans, the Cuban-American who issued the above statement is ignorant.
Cuba will have freedom when the overwhelming majority of Cubans wants freedom, but most Cubans do not want freedom. They support the authoritarian Cuban government. Fidel Castro (or his barbaric brother), all by himself, cannot impose authoritarian rule on the Cubans. Castro has many supporters.
Contrast the failure of Cuba and Cuban culture to the success of Czechoslovakia and rest of Eastern Europe. After the Soviet government stopped imposing its will on Czechoslovakia, more than 800,000 Czechoslovakians assembled in Prague to demand freedom and got it. At the time, 800,000 is 5% of the population of Czechoslovakia.
The story repeated itself in the rest of Eastern Europe. The Eastern Europeans wanted freedom, and they got it.
A very different story happened in Cuba. The authoritarian Cuban government continued and continues to enjoy widespread support in Cuba.
Therein lies the difference between Cuban culture and Eastern European culture. I admire Eastern European culture. I condemn Cuban culture for its utter failure.
Washington should recognize this fact and should stop waiting for the spontaneous appearance of democracy in Cuba. Democracy did not appear during the 15 long years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and democracy will not appear 15 years from today. Cuba is a failed society and a failed people.
Washington should just ignore the moronic Cuban-Americans and should immediately lift the economic embargo against Cuba — in exactly the same way that Washington lifted the economic embargo against Vietnam.
August 6, 2006 11:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Who cares who dominates Cuba after the dinosaur is gone?
For all I care the Italian-American mafia can take over, just give all of us freedom again!
August 6, 2006 10:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Only selfixh cowards would rationalize such a question. Freedom is not an issue for Cubans or Americans. The issue is your own personal character and compassion for those without freedom vs those who already have its blessings.
August 6, 2006 6:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Luis,
You completely missed the tenor of my argument. I was clear in saying that Cuba is far from a racial utopia. Again, what makes Cuba and Castro's regime difficult to get a handle on is that everyone can point to the same issue and argue how their have been benefits to the Castro regime, as well as costs. The issue of race/political/social access is one such conundrum. While you are correct that structural racism is a glaring problem on the island, it is undeniable that many Afro-Cubans were given unprecedented opportunities to become educated. The same goes for healthcare. While the average quality may be low, pretty much everyone has access, unlike the U.S. where the average quality is relatively high, but no where near everyone has access. I wrote my comment in the context of tradeoffs. Cubans (NOT Cuban-Americans like myself) will need to decide the appropriate trade offs on their own.
With regards to your census figures (again, demonstrating the complexity of the Cuban case), there is only ONE source that I know of that supports your claim, and it's NOT the Cuban census. Secondly, the numbers you reported were from the 2002 (not 2001 Census) "census" released in 2005. Third the country is roughly half-mixed and 12% Black. However, if we apply the U.S. based "one-drop rule", which is admittedly debatable, then Cuba is roughly 2/3 Black.
The point is that recent discussions on Cuba have assumed that the Cuban market and political system, led emigres in MIA, should be flung open to replicate the political and economic system of the U.S. Given the political/social history of Cuba, that may not be the best thing. Rather than trade one evil for another evil, Cuban citizens should be supported in their attempts to develop a political and economic interests that suits their lived experience rather than have the ideologies of a wealthy and U.S. backed elite imposed upon them.
August 6, 2006 5:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Mr. Ornelas in Mexico City, you are truly ignorant re Cuba's population. If anyone should go back to Spain is the Castro family which still has a lot of relatives in Galicia. Their father was a soldier in the Spanish colonial army when he first arrived in Cuba and was there to fight those Cubans who were for independence. Once the war was over, he returned to Cuba. In addition, all of those white Cubans in Miami and elsewhere have relatives in Cuba. Millions in Cuba are related to those you so ignorantly call "white colonials". It just goes to show how little foreigners know about Cuba and yet they are the first ones to know what's good for Cuba.
Another person wrote that now Cuba's population is two third black and mulatto. You should tell that to the Cuban people who, according to the 2001 Census released by Castro in late 2005, 65% classified themselves as "white", 25% as "mulatto" and 10% as "black". I mean, there is a great disparity there, unless the Castro govt. doctored the results!
In addition, racial discrimination is rampant in Cuba. Blacks are almost completely excluded from the tourist sector, even as hotel maids. Not only that, they are even excluded, for the most part, from sales positions in the govt.run hard-currency stores where most Cubans have to buy those items which are essential for living at exorbitant prices. Where does the money to buy those come from? From their Cuban relatives in Miami and other places throghout the world! And yet Mr.Ornelas is talking about "white colonials" who should go back to Spain. How ignorant, how stupid and what an ass you are Mr. Ornelas!
Just look at the pictures of those men who have been named to help Raul run Cuba's govt. Only one is black. He is the token black man.
NO, health care is not good in Cuba either. Hospitals where common Cubans go lack a lot of items, from medications to sheets. Often, if your relative is hospitalized, you pay whatever amount under the table and medicines appear and care really improves. Foreigners and tourists go to modern, well stocked hospitals with good service in exchange for their dollars. Of course, the highest govt. officials go to even better equipped hospitals. So, no, it is not really a socialist anything. In addition, pharmacies are practically empty and many Cubans, prescription in hand, go to the local Catholic churches to fill their prescriptions for free.
I see non-Cubans have a lot to learn about Cuba and Cubans and quite a few of them are full of hatred too.
August 6, 2006 3:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Chavez less "legitimate" than Castro?
I am simply trying to understand the pretzel logic (and PR agenda) of Ibsen Martinez's "Hugo Chavez: the Next Castro?"
What ideologically freighted notions of The Left and "Latin American anti-imperialism" does Martinez harbor that, central to the argument of his piece, he announces that a freely and fairly elected and re-elected Latin American President necessarily lacks, of all things, "legitimacy" compared to the Cuban dictator, simply because Venezuela is far richer than Cuba in natural resources?
The paragraph itself is worth careful attention:
"Certainly, Chavez seems to believe so. However, he is missing much more than the charisma of the receding Cuban leader. He lacks the essential ingredient to take Fidel's place: legitimacy. Castro, for all his faults, earned his anti-American and anti-imperialist stripes. Chavez, awash in petrodollars, is too embedded in the very global system he purports to reject."
This is not an argument. This is an old, old caricature of Leftists and Anti-Imperialists as, beneath their atheistic skins, perverse moralists who see nothing but evil in national wealth, regardless on whose behalf it is employed, and wish nothing but grinding poverty upon the peoples they seek to sway and enslave.
Thus, regardless the normal understanding of "legitimacy," which normal people everywhwere would understand Venezuelan democracy to have confered upon Chavez as an elected Latin American leader, Martinez would have it that Chavez must lack legitimacy for such a monstrous, inhuman Left.
August 6, 2006 3:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
To D Banks Oak Park USA, and others:
I don't think that the problem is as simple as you have expressed it. While it is true that Castro has given health care and education to the people in Cuba, they don't have what is basic to the human condition. That is freedom. The liberty to choose where they live and what they do with their lives. It might very well be that there are some people who, when posed with the age-old question as to whether to choose, exclusively, between liberty and bread, they will go for the latter. I don't think, however that this constitutes the general case. I don't think cubans are an exception.
ÔøΩWhy is it that Castro has always needed an iron fist to govern Cuba?. Everybody knows what happen to dissidents. They get thrown in horrible jails for decades. Every time that there is a protest, even by groups of women, like the "ladies in white", they get harrassed and physically attacked by thugs sent by the regime, while the police just looks on. Nobody can leave the island legally. Why?. What has Castro been afraid of for so long, that he won't let his own people leave out of their own free will?. Well, I would like to know, how many of those americans that defend Castro, would be willing to trade their lives with those of people in Cuba who have wanted to just leave.
I also question this repeatedly put forth argument that Castro liberated Cuba from Batista, the mafia and other corrupt american interests in the island, and that, therefore, for such reason, his opprobrious regime is justified. Castro came to power 47 years ago. Once in power, he summarily proceeded to execute many people. He never said that he was a totalitarian marxist and that, he would subject his people to a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Why couldn't he just wait, say, 10 or 15 years and gradually open the political freedoms?. Could it have been that he was afraid that people would turn back his revolution?. If so, what made him certain that what he would do would result in the maximum amount of happiness for the cuban people?. Has Cuba been a positive experiment?. Is it an appropriate model for third world nations?. What would cubans say?. What would Castro have done different, were he to be given the chance to turn back the clock?
Unfortunately, we don't know the answer to any of those questions. Castro, himself was deathly afraid of conducting free referenda to decide critical questions relating to the future of Cuba. Whenever he so fit to consult, he'd do it by asking people to sign his support for one alternative or the other. Well, everybody knew about the consequences of dissidence. So, what gives one person the right to decide for one whole nation in matters of life and death?. Who chose him for this purpose?. In a way, he decided to play the role of God. I don't care if people had free health and education. They lacked the most basic right of all, and that is freedom to choose the kinds of lives they wanted, along with their collective destiny.
If, on top of all that, you consider that he did everything possible to him, to export his revolution to other countries via subversion, why couldn't other countries have done the same to Cuba?. After all, Marxism doesn't recognize borders. It is internationalist in its doctrine. Why could Castro carry his marxist subversion actively to other countries and be immune from direct attacks himself?.
Many in the developed countries, hold a sort of "romantic" fascination with these despotic left-wing populist regimes. They believe that they come as "Robin Hoods" that take away from the rich to give to the poor. Once these regimes are installed, they turn to be even more oppressive and murderous than their predecessors.
Although I agree that there have been profound social injustices in some countries in Latinamerica, I emphatically state that you can't replace a tiranny with another, just because they are of different idelogical signs, or because you abhor the policies of the party that happens to be in government in the US, as this forum seems to reveal. At least, in the US, you do have the chance to change your president every four years. After eight years, he (or she) will surely not be the same. How can anybody defend the permanence of the same regime for almost half a century. Does that imply that whoever runs it believes that that is the only thing that works?. I believe that two full generations have been sacrificed in Cuba, and for what?
In all, these regimes are all fascist and corrupt in nature. They all spout devotion to the leader and build an obnoxious cult of personality, often not only nationally. Castro is no exception. Chavez is not either. People advance, not according to capacity, but to personal loyalty to the precious leader. That's how the regime survives. Ultimately it self destroys because it fails to deliver what was initially promised. Democracy has many flaws, but it still is the system that holds the least flaws among the alternatives.
I surely hope that the cuban people be given the chance to freely decide what it is that they want for the future of their own country. If what they want is for somedbody to tell them what to do with their lives for another half century, so be it. But, at least, they should be given the chance to decide FREELY.
I think that the US should open itself to establish a dialogue -however dicreet- with the leaders that will succeed Castro, particularly the younger ones. The US should be respectful of the dynamics of this transition, while making sure that it goes in the direction of the increasing respect of individual freedoms. For this, it should offer incentives that will perceptively increase the quality of life of the cuban people in a relatively short time. Such leaders would have much to gain. The cuban community in the US should understand that it is in their best interest to support such a policy. Any signs of retaliatory intentions should be drastically condemned. Discretion is the word.
August 6, 2006 1:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Cuba's fate will be determined by the Cuban people that live there. Not the Cubans in Miami. The people of Cuba were resolved and sufficiently determined to fend off the Bay of Pigs. On the heels of the Elian Gonzalez fiasco that resolve has recently been strengthened. The suggestion that the US will impose Democracy, or that financing a militia of Cuban American National Front Miami Cubans to go war on Cuba, is an infinitely more foolhardy pursuit than anything related to Iraq. It could trigger backing by not just Chavez of Venezuela and several other S. American nations but include Russia. Such a move by the US could create a whole new cadre of terrorists from an entire different segement of the world.
August 6, 2006 1:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Self-determination, this is the only future for Cuba. In regards to those white ex-colonialists that fled 90 miles north after the revolution and so vehemently think Cuba is yours to dictate, you have nothing left to say. I would suggest heading back to Spain, perhaps you'll finally feel at home there.
August 6, 2006 1:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
What makes this whole Cuba debate interesting is that everyone is right, therefore no one is right. What's difficult about the Castro regime is that there are significant developments that have been certainly laudable (near universal access to high quality education, healthcare, etc.) At the same time, there are developments that are certainly deplorable(blighted infrastructure, political repression, etc.) So, before we can even begin to have a debate on who should be in power, or who should influence a political transition, we must ask ourselves what kind of model/political system the people of Cuba desire and what are the trade-offs to such a political system. For instance, despite the blighted infrastructure and deplorable political repression in Cuba, Castro's regime has been very beneficial to many Afro/mixed-race Cubans who were systematically denied access to quality education and healthcare. It is NO coincidence that as the wealthy/oligarchs fled Cuba, the proportion of Black and mixed-race Cubans on the island skyrocketed. The island is now 2/3 Black and mixed race, while the racial makeup of the Cuban exile community is exactly opposite. Eerily similar to the U.S., the economic and political resources in Cuba were concentrated in the hands of a wealthy white few. These same individuals and their descendants, who continue to harbor and promote racist and elitist ideologies as anachronistic as the automobiles frequently shown in documentaries on Cuba, are gearing up to reclaim their "plantations", "property", and seats of power. These same racist and elitist individuals run CANF, which is a powerful lobbyist group that has had a horrific influence on America's embargo stance towards Cuba. This is not to say that Cuba is currently a political, economic, and racial marvel. Quite the contrary, it is far from it. However, to deny these important changes would amount to willful ignorance.
So, while we all look forward to an abrupt end to political repression, a more open political system, and improvements in human rights conditions, we should also think more clearly about allowing the likes of CANF and other Cuban Americans to flood Cuba and return it to a time of rampant racial and economic inequality. Again, there are tradeoffs and the people IN Cuba will need to decide what they're willing and not willing to live with (unless someone can come up with an alternative political system that blends together a few of the social "improvements" of Castro's regime and the benefits of a more open market system.)
p.s. I ask this question in all sincerity: Why is it necessary to care about what Cuban Americans want for Cuba? I'm sure Italian-Americans have little to no say on the political machinations of Italy.
August 6, 2006 12:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Rob, surely its even stranger that America's policy is generally determined by the interests of oil companies and the military-industrial complex? Except that its not strange at all: Presidencies and Representatives go to the hisghest bidder, just like everything else in capitalism's HQ.
August 6, 2006 11:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Is it not strange that American policy towards Israel and Cuba, which have been influenced respectively by the Jewish-American and Cuban-American communities, ended up isolating the US in the Arab world and Latin America s well? It is a terrible mistake to let American foreign policy be determined by interests which are not necessarly American. Having said that, I want to stress that I am not anti-Semitic nor anti-Cuban.
August 6, 2006 11:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Eugene:
"What has the US ever done to Venezuela, that this country should regret?."
From The Observer:
Venezuela coup linked to Bush team
Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez
Observer Worldview
Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday April 21, 2002
The Observer
The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.
Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.
It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.
One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.
The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.
Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.
The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich.
Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American who, under Reagan, ran the Office for Public Diplomacy. It reported in theory to the State Department, but Reich was shown by congressional investigations to report directly to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White House.
North was convicted and shamed for his role in Iran-Contra, whereby arms bought by busting US sanctions on Iran were sold to the Contra guerrillas and death squads, in revolt against the Marxist government in Nicaragua.
Reich also has close ties to Venezuela, having been made ambassador to Caracas in 1986. His appointment was contested both by Democrats in Washington and political leaders in the Latin American country. The objections were overridden as Venezuela sought access to the US oil market.
Reich is said by OAS sources to have had 'a number of meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup' over several months. The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent.
On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democra tic rule, as he had resigned and was 'responsible for his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona government.
But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international opera tions'. He was a leading theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority on combating Marxism in the Americas.
It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes and death squads that followed it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere. During the Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he worked directly to North.
Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested illegal funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information from the inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior.
A third member of the Latin American triangle in US policy-making is John Negroponte, now ambassador to the United Nations. He was Reagan's ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 when a US-trained death squad, Battalion 3-16, tortured and murdered scores of activists. A diplomatic source said Negroponte had been 'informed that there might be some movement in Venezuela on Chavez' at the beginning of the year.
More than 100 people died in events before and after the coup. In Caracas on Friday a military judge confined five high-ranking officers to indefinite house arrest pending formal charges of rebellion.
Chavez's chief ideologue - Guillermo Garcia Ponce, director of the Revolutionary Political Command - said dissident generals, local media and anti-Chavez groups in the US had plotted the president's removal.
'The most reactionary sectors in the United States were also implicated in the conspiracy,' he said.
—————————————————————————————————-
I think the article also addresses your point about America's shameful past having no bearing on the matter?
I don't know if the apologists for American imperialism fool themselves, but they surely can't believe they fool anyone else anymore.
August 6, 2006 11:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Dear D Banks Oak Park USA,
What a pleasure to read a submission by someone like you. A breath of fresh air. Amen to everything you have said.
August 6, 2006 11:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Lets get serious.
Alpha 66 has been training for more than 40 years to kill Castro as I read somewhere online.
Itís illegal to assassinate heads of states ala Diem and Kennedy.
Yet for decades they tried to kill Castro. Fidel has done some evil things www.babalublog.com/ and some good things like education, medicine and trying to stop racism.
These thoughts on Cubans opening coffee shops, planting trees and selling cigars is just talk.
For example lets say I left Wyoming for Michigan 47 years ago and decided I was going to take it back from Dick Cheney. And lets say Fidel let me train in Santiago for 10 years to do that. Would it be logical that I could try to invade Wyoming again to do what against 11 million people in Wyoming?
Hell, the USA cannot control Iraq without one million troops stationed there. Cuba is not Wyoming, the bugs are big, the bullets bigger and the people well like those Iraqis they are not stupid.
America needs to choose its own destiny, hell restore democracy in America. Give us health care and cheaper higher education. Comparing dictators I think Cubas at least tries to help its poor people. If Fidel is the devil then what is America?
These thoughts on polices and things is for those who have the comfort to debate them. To quote from a soldier of fortune Jim Morris revolutions proceed in three stages
1. Political organization
While the Cubans have their foundation. I donít see that many training in the swamps.
2. Guerilla warfare.
It didnít work the first time and if any try again lets just say it wouldnít work in Wyoming either.
3. Developing a regular army.
While Hezballah has transformed itself into a fighting force, I donít see the Cubans in Miami coalescing to do the same.
Without these three things according to Mr. Morris all revolutions will fail. He got these principles from Mao and they were instilled to him in Special Forces school.
So that leaves economic force which for more than 47 years doesnít seem to have worked. Cuba has China, China has Russia and then there are Venezuela and Vietnam.
We give our money to Vietnam who in turn gives it to Cuba.
We trade deficits with China, after all they own more USA debt second to Japan, and they give money to Cuba.
Then there is Venezuela who owns a lot of Citgos in the USA, we spend $3.30 a gallon ( soon to be $4 a gallon by Christmas) and they give aid to Cuba.
Now, I say lets get rid of all the third parties, write a check to these corporations and Cuban exiles who lost a few million but with no interest and send a trade delegation to Cuba like yesterday. That would allow us cheaper shipping costs from say China to Los Angeles, and might give us oil prices back to $1.50 per gallon. But, I donít think those guys from Texas and Wyoming would like that.
August 6, 2006 10:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Dear Mr. Simon McMullen of Richmond,
I am sorry. I meant to say Karl Rove. I don't know anything about the Bush closets of Family History, because I am only a stupid Cuban. I guess you have better water than we do. All of us in Cuba are as you say, stupid.
Yes, I think your President will get around to bombing Cuba, in order to save us. He is only applying the lessons your country learned in Vietnam, about how you have to kill everybody in order to save them. We are all looking for some place to hide.
I think it is a pretty good thing that your President Bush does not subscibe to the International Treaties, or otherwise, he would be a war criminal for what he has already done in Iraq.
I am sorry I was so stupid, Mr. McMullen. What can you expect? I am only a Cuban. Please forgive me.
August 6, 2006 8:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Hi, Atheist, Boston,
Perhaps I should add a few more thoughts for your elucidation.
The problem, sir, is not down there in Cuba. It is right here, at home.
What did Jesus say about that. Something about looking for a splinter in someone else's eye. Oops. I forgot. You are an Atheist. You would not be interested in anything that Jesus supposedly said. You would have to refer that matter to a Higher Power. Yourself.
We don't have overt slavery any more, but if you are blue collar, like I am, you know about slavery nevertheless. My God, I grew up in a hovel in Wheeling, West Virgina. Where I still live. Used to have a good job in the steel mills, but now...
When you read that unless the richest of the rich get a break on their "death" tax, the very poorest of the poor get no help, then you begin to understand what economic slavery is. When you hear about little children, 8 years old, in China, forced to work 14 hours a day for $0.33/hour, to make goods to export to the USA, displacing American workers, the lights might go on? Or maybe not. You might be an Overseer? I suspect that you are.
But what you have not realized yet, because 20 years have not gone by, is that, before this reshuffle is over, even the Overseers will be running for the hills, trying to find a tin cup, so that they can join me on the sidewalks, and beg for a dime from the Oligarchs, in their tails, with cigars in their mouths, as they stroll down the lane.
The USA touts Capitalism. Well, sir, put on your seat belt, because China, Communist China, is about to show the people of the USA the consequences of pure Capitalism.
August 6, 2006 7:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Hi, Atheist, Boston,
I read a history book one time, and it seemed like even if you went back in time, all cultures were different. It seemed like some people might have learned that lesson, even more than 20 years ago?
One time I read the Bible, and it seemed like, even way back then, that some people thought that other people's cultures were inferior to their own. So the God of their culture told them to go ahead and take over everything that inferior cultures owned and kill all those inferior people. (But we learned a better way, in our modern times. After we take away their hopes, we just make them slaves. And we say that is because they are inferior. Then we seek sympathy, and whine, because of the heavy burden we bare to care for all those inferior people, our own slaves.)
But back to the old days told about in the Bible, when it came to how to deal with inferior cultures, sometimes, God just made it easy. He would come right down from the sky, and burn up all the inferior people, while they were standing at their inferior altars.
When I was a child, my mama told me that all snow flakes were different. And that was much more than 20 years ago. But I didn't believe what my mama said, until the next snow came. I caught a whole bunch of snowflakes on a piece of paper, and I studied them with a magnifying glass. Mama was right! They were all different. Then I noticed, though, that some of the shapes were much better than others. And some of the shapes, unfortunately, were definitely inferior. There was no question about that. If you had been there, you could have looked through the magnifying glass and seen the same thing. But when I told my mama what I had discovered, she told me that I was wrong. She said, who are you, the God of the snowflakes? She said, somebody might look down at me some day, and think that I was just an ugly snowflake.
I agree with you that we should end the Cuban "embargo" immediately. Cuba is not interdicted. They freely trade with every other country on earth. After 50 years of our foolish "embargo", it must occur to someone here that the Cubans actually do not need the USA? Frankly, if we took that dumb Cuba