After four years of silence induced by grave physical illness, punctuated only by occasional newspaper commentaries, Fidel Castro has regained his voice. To the surprise of many, he is using it to make some startling comments on the escalating conflict between Iran and the western world. Castro has come out since publication of Goldberg’s piece to explain that the reporter missed the crucial irony in his statement that was originally heralded as a shocking admission that the Cuban economic model was failing. Instead, Castro explained that he had meant “exactly the opposite,” that the US capitalist model could no longer be seen as a model for the U.S., much less for Cuba. Fidel has made no such clarification or retraction regarding his words for Ahmadinejad, however. In this case, at least, it seems that Goldberg got Castro’s message right the first time. Fidel’s choice of messenger—American-Israeli reporter Goldberg, who has historically shown affinity for neo-conservative viewpoints, —seems, at first, an odd one, given Castro’s well-documented history as an outspoken critic of both Israel and, of course, the United States. Castro’s decision to entrust Goldberg with this stern warning to Ahmadinejad is merely the first of many enigmas that emerge from this far-reaching interview. Indeed, the shockwaves sent out from Fidel’s statement will be felt not only in Ahmadinejad’s Iran, but also closer to home in Venezuela, where it threatens to strain Castro’s long-standing relationship with President Hugo Chávez. Most important, however, are the potential ramifications of Castro’s statement here in the United States. Fidel’s message represents a golden opportunity for the Obama administration to recognize Cuba’s increasing trend toward liberalization and normalize relations with Havana. Cuba’s apparent willingness to abandon old dogmas and to strive for areas of common interest and shared values with the U.S. could be a first step to remedying the estrangement and polarization between the two countries. Whether or not the United States chooses to catch this most recent wave and ride it, however, is up to the Obama administration, which has heretofore remained regretfully timid with respect to Cuba, despite repeated encouraging signs that Cuban leadership has begun to reconsider the island nation’s long-standing state of political and economic isolation. Castro’s condemnation of anti-Semitism in Iran and his related affirmation of Israel’s right to exist is only the most recent example of Cuba’s attempts to reengage the Western world both politically and economically. As early as the Pope’s 1998 tour of the island—followed by Jimmy Carter’s highly publicized visit in 2002—Cuba began to show signs that, systemic differences aside, it was in fact interested in engaging in dialogue with the West when it came to issues such as ethnic and religious tolerance. On the economic front, since 2008, President Raúl Castro has taken steps toward market expansion, announcing his commitment to open Cuba to increased foreign investment and making previously restricted products such as computers and cellular phones more accessible to the general population. Raúl’s liberalizing reforms in Cuba’s agricultural sector include the limited privatization of land, as well the decentralization of key decision-making structures within the industry. This focus on economic decentralization within the agricultural sector may herald more widespread reforms designed to streamline the Cuban bureaucracy, which Raúl Castro himself has criticized for its staggering inefficiency. Though many experts suggested that Raúl Castro’s commitment to reducing government bureaucracy would not be followed by concrete action, a groundbreaking August 13 statement issued from Havana announced an accelerated timeline for the one million state job cuts initially promised. Over the course of the next six months, Cuban officials will be laying off at least half a million state employees, much earlier than originally expected. In addition to unprecedented job cuts, according to CNN’s Shasta Darlington, Raúl Castro also announced that the state has “agreed to broaden the exercise of self employment and its use as another alternative for the employment of those excess workers,” in a move that sounds suspiciously like privatization. This announcement from Havana represents a monumental shift away from traditional Cuban economic philosophy, and its importance cannot be overstated. In this context of substantive reform and exciting, near-daily developments from Havana, Fidel Castro’s criticism of Ahmadinejad can be considered further evidence that Cuba is indeed taking steps to emerge from isolation, as it moves in the direction of increased political and economic dialogue with longtime adversaries. Rather than find common cause with every rogue state spouting anti-U.S. rhetoric no matter what its ideological source, Fidel’s statement reaches out towards areas of ideological agreement with the Western world. As a leader of that world, the United States can no longer afford to ignore these positive developments in Cuba, especially now that Fidel Castro himself appears willing to risk alienating allies Iran and Venezuela to call for peace in the Middle East. Without doubt, Castro’s remark will have implications for Havana’s relationship with Tehran. Cuba and Iran are both members of the Non-Aligned Movement and, in 2005, Iran opened a €20 million credit line to Cuba. Unlike many other Latin American leftist regimes, however, Cuba has never enjoyed a particularly profound relationship with Iran. Compared to, for example, Bolivia, Ecuador, or Venezuela, Havana-Tehran ties are minimal. As with all of the Latin American left since 1967, Cuba has always been fiercely critical of Israel. Cuba, indeed, has not had diplomatic relations with Israel since Castro cut ties in response to the 1973 Yom Kippur war, in which Cuba also sent 1,500 troops to aid Syrian forces in the Golan Heights. Cuba has also substantially supported numerous Palestinian independence movements, though not religiously inspired ones such as Hamas. On the other hand, Cuba’s relationship with its 1,500-strong Jewish population has been relatively positive. In her 2007 article for The New York Times, “In Cuba, Finding a Tiny Corner of Jewish Life,” author Caren Osten Gerszberg noted that there are three synagogues in Havana (which has a Jewish population of approximately 1,100), one for each of the three major sects. Havana is also home to a Jewish community center (called El patronato) and a branch of Hadassah, the international Jewish women’s organization. The Cuban city of Santa Clara has a Jewish cemetery as well as a Holocaust memorial. Castro himself, Gerzberg writes, has attended Hanukah ceremonies in the city. In their book An Island Called Home: Returning to Jewish Cuba, Ruth Behar and Humberto Mayol write about how Cuba’s Jewish population is frequently better off than the rest of the population, “a constant stream of individuals stop by to inquire if by any chance they might happen to be Jewish. Word has gotten around that being Jewish in Cuba brings benefits – besides the chicken dinners on Friday night and Saturday midday there is access to alternative information, a well-stocked pharmacy, a lively set of social events, and the possibility of leaving Cuba via Israel.” She notes that the Cuban Jews are also unique in receiving rations of kosher beef, which is considered a rare delicacy for most Cubans, who generally eat far less expensive pork. It is important to remember that, while Iran and Cuba share an overlapping ideology insomuch as they are both “anti-imperialist” in posture and thus critical of the United States, they disagree on far more than they agree. Cuba was, until recently, a state in which formal expression of religion was banned, while Iran remains a theocratic state whose rationale is entirely Islamic. They are by no means, natural allies. Crucially, Cuba under Castro has been a communist state. Historically developed in conformity with the Soviet line, many of the most important figures in the formation of communism were Jewish and saw even Soviet orthodoxy as an alternative to the rampant anti-Semitism of Europe at the time. Thus, it is a hearkening back to the historic ideological roots of Marxism, that, forced to choose between Iran and the Jewish population, Cuba would condemn Iranian anti-Semitism. But there are other parties with interests in the Cuba-Iran-US relationship, most notably Venezuela. Venezuela, which since Hugo Chavez’s election in 1998 has been Cuba’s close supporter and bankroller, has deliberately sought out connections with Iran and has abetted Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s anti-US and anti-Semitic rhetoric despite obviously not sharing the religious motivation of the Iranian leader. It is thus likely that the most dramatic implications of Castro’s statement will be its possible effect on Cuban-Venezuelan relations. Ever since his election in 1998, Chávez has shared a close personal and diplomatic relationship with Castro and Cuba. Although the subject of Castro’s attack was obviously Iran, his statements have nonetheless put Chávez on the defensive, not only because of his close diplomatic ties to Iran, but also because of the numerous allegations of anti-Semitism that have been raised against Chávez by Venezuela’s Jewish community. Chávez holds Castro and his Cuban Revolution as a guiding influence and inspiration for Chávez’s own Bolivarian Revolution, which seeks to create a socialist, united Latin America. Cuba and Venezuela formed the Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America (ALBA), a socialist-inspired Latin American regional integration organization, together in 2004. Venezuela also sells Cuba petroleum well below the average market price as a form of aid to the embargoed island. The two leaders have frequently cooperated on numerous political, social, and economic projects. More generally, they, in general, share a mutual socialist ideology and almost always back each other diplomatically. On a more personal level, Chávez has visited Cuba multiple times and greets Fidel on almost every episode of his weekly television program “Aló, Presidente.” Castro’s statement, however, may precipitate the first serious diplomatic rift between the two traditional allies. While aimed at Ahmadinejad, Castro’s remark could have been equally applicable to Chávez. In the days leading up to Castro’s remark, Chávez faced escalating criticism by Venezuelan Jewish leaders for his perceived anti-Semitism, culminating in a September 5th call by Jewish leaders to meet with Chávez. For years, Venezuelan Jewish leaders have complained about verbal attacks against Venezuelan Jews by Chávez and members of his United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). The administration has also been accused of either ignoring or tacitly encouraging various crimes committed against Venezuela’s Jewish community, including the vandalism of a synagogue and a minor attack on a Jewish community center in Caracas in 2009. The most recent tensions between Chávez and the Venezuelan Jewish community have arisen as a result of perceived attacks by the PSUV and media traditionally associated with it. Comments that seemed to suggest that Venezuelan Jews were hurting the state’s economy ultimately led Venezuelan Jewish leaders to request a meeting with Chávez, which was realized September 17th. Domestic issues have not been the only impetus for charges of anti-Semitism against Chávez. His harsh criticism of Israel and strong support for Iran has also greatly concerned Venezuela’s Jewish community, as well as the greater Jewish diaspora. While, like many critics of Israel, Chávez has always tried to distinguish between political Zionism and Judaism, his anti-Israel rhetoric has often blurred the lines between hostility to the Israeli state and a more general anti-Semitism. These incendiary moments have included multiple comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel, and frequent accusations that Israel is committing genocide in Palestine. In contrast to Cuba, Venezuela has actively cooperated with Iran on many political, economic, and social projects. Iran is thought to have been a major contributor to Venezuela’s nuclear energy program. American regional experts assert that Venezuela has hosted members of the Iranian Quds Force. The Quds Force is a paramilitary wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Its very name alludes to the Arab term for Jerusalem, and the Palestinian claim to that city. The Quds Force has likely involved in training the Venezuelan military over the past few years. A 2009 report by the Woodrow Wilson Center went so far as to suggest that Iran has trained Venezuelan forces in how to conduct “intelligence training, crowd control, and counterintelligence” operations. In 2008, three suspected Hezbollah members were arrested in Caracas. Of course, Chávez has often found himself embroiled in controversy as a result of his tendency to speak without fully considering the consequences of his words. While this may be irresponsible and tactless, it is not necessarily or consistently anti-Semitic. Nonetheless, although Fidel’s statement did not directly target Chávez, it is hard not to make a connection between the complaints raised by Jewish leaders in Venezuela and Castro’s remarks mere days later. It is also clear that Chávez was put on the defensive by the statement. The day after Castro’s comments, Chávez released his own statement, saying that “we respect and love the Jewish people” and immediately agreed to meet with Venezuelan Jewish leaders. While it is unlikely that this incident will do serious damage to the Havana-Caracas relationship, Castro’s comments to Goldberg demonstrate just how much he is willing to risk in the pursuit of greater liberalization and an end to Cuba’s half a century of isolation. By condemning Iran, a move that demonstrates Castro’s moral fiber and provides a rare area of agreement between Cuba and the West, Castro has bravely risked straining his relationship with Chávez. If Chávez fails to address the concerns of Venezuela’s Jewish community in an adequate manner, Havana may be perceived as hypocritical for condemning Iranian anti-Semitism while nonetheless maintaining such friendly relations with Venezuela. This, in turn, could put considerable pressure on Venezuelan-Cuban relations. At the very least, Chávez must show discipline and strive for conciliation with the Venezuelan-Jewish community in the short term. In the longer term, Chávez may ultimately have to choose between Cuba and Iran. On one hand, Iran has far more, in terms of tangible goods and services, to offer Venezuela than Cuba. However, Cuba is undoubtedly the ideological forefather of the Latin American left. In fact, strained relations with Cuba could greatly undermine Chávez’s domestic and regional legitimacy. If Cuba continues to denounce Iran, it seems unlikely that Chávez will be able to have his cake and eat it too. For the above reasons, Fidel Castro’s seemingly self-contained criticism of Iranian anti-Semitism in fact has the potential to impact much more than the bilateral relationship between Cuba and Ahmadinejad’s Iran. Indeed, this statement constitutes a tangible political risk for Castro, as it necessarily brings into play Cuba’s relationship with Venezuela, an important ally. It is true that Castro’s unequivocal message affirming Israel’s right to exist and exhorting Ahmadinejad to, in the words of Goldberg, “stop slandering the Jews,” was most likely not directly intended to win the United States’ favor. However, there is no doubt that Castro’s position on the issue brings him much closer in line with the United States and its Western allies—and away from not only Iran, but possibly Venezuela as well. Indeed, if Castro is, as it appears, willing to risk his relationships with fellow international pariahs Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chávez by issuing a statement so congruent with mainstream Western values, the Obama administration needs to sit up and take notice. Castro’s remarks regarding Iran—merely the most recent indication that Cuba has indeed initiated a slow crawl in the direction of increased economic and political moderation—have provided the Obama administration with yet another opportunity to embrace such positive change in Cuba as sufficient cause for a long-overdue rapprochement. Certainly, despite initial expectations for President Obama, the United States has made painfully little progress toward such a rapprochement, missing opportunity after opportunity to take concrete steps to normalize relations with Cuba since Raúl Castro began substantive economic reforms in 2008. The United States’ inaction with respect to Cuba is merely symptomatic of the Obama administration’s uninspiring record in Latin America on the whole, as illustrated by its lackluster response to the 2009 coup against President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras. By taking a backseat role to the Organization of American States (OAS), the United States did attempt, in part, to enact the lessons learned from the 2002 coup attempt against Chávez (during which the United States initially appeared to unilaterally welcome the coup, well before the OAS came out with an official resolution unequivocally condemning its obvious unconstitutionality). However, in the case of Honduras, the Obama administration missed the opportunity to be proactive within the OAS forum; when the OAS began to flounder, the United States failed to muster an adequate, sustained multilateral effort to restore the ousted Zelaya to power. With respect to Cuba, President Obama has yet another chance to be truly proactive and begin to set things right in Latin America. Indeed, the United States currently finds itself in a unique position to do away with an embarrassing vestige of Cold War policy and provide Cuba with a tangible incentive to emerge from isolation and engage with the Western world. In fact, the Obama administration could do this without fully abandoning the United States’ historical objection to Cuba’s ideological position, by instead hailing Castro’s remarks denouncing Iranian anti-Semitism as evidence of Cuba’s willingness to distance itself from rogue states and to relate to the U.S. on an issue-by-issue basis, not just as an a priori adversary. As such, it is imperative that the Obama administration seizes the opportunity presented by Castro’s most recent remarks on Iran and Ahmadinejad to move beyond token measures with concrete steps toward normalization of relations with Cuba. Above all else, the President must increase pressure on Congress to reconsider the embargo. As evidenced by the incongruence between the most recent announcement of a massive economic overhaul and Fidel’s hasty backpedaling from his unexpected and purportedly misinterpreted admission that the Cuban economic model had grown obsolete, Castro is treading a dangerous line between liberalization and the alienation of long-time supporters. Should Obama fail yet again to reach out to Cuba at this critical juncture as it continues to take increasingly bold strides toward political and economic liberalization, the United States could be unwittingly responsible for making future reforms in Cuba even less likely. After 50 years of mutual antagonism, Cuba and its leaders are tentatively opening doors that have long been sealed shut to the United States, allowing for the possibility of change and increased dialogue. Indifference from the United States at this point is tantamount to slamming these doors in Cuba’s face.
Cuba’s Tangled Web: Tehran, Tel-Aviv, and the Havana Synagogue
Chávez, Castro, and Ahmadinejad: Bizarre Love Triangle?
Cuba Continues to Take Risks, Time for the Obama Administration to Take One of its Own
Castro’s Change of Heart: The Implications for Cuba, Venezuela, and The United States
September 17, 2010
September 17, 2010
This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associates Geoff LeGrand and Alexandra ReedPermanent link to this article: http://www.coha.org/castros-change-of-heart-what-his-message-means-for-cuba-venezuela-and-the-united-states/
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to the Washington Report on the Hemisphere
COHA on Facebook
Loading tweets...
19 comments
Macy says:
September 17, 2010 at 7:41 pm (UTC -6 )
great job Alex
Rodrigo Shah says:
September 18, 2010 at 10:17 am (UTC -6 )
The disconnect between the mere mention of Cuba's criticism of israel (yet not bothering to explore the reasons why they criticize the pariah) and the dredging up of seemingly unrelated issues beyond Iranian anti-semitism, such as the 2009 Honduran Coup and the cuban blockade, is laughable.
The US backed a coup against the, like it or not, democratically elected Hamas (COHA hammers any coup attempt by the US in the Hemisphere regardless of when it took place, be it 1953, or 2009, into any article with even a brief mention of a country whos leader was defenestrated). The US backs a blockade against Gaza, and has so for the past three years to devastating effects (Theres an island somewhere in the Caribbean whos had one for longer, but I forget its name now). The US backs a belligerent, highly militarized, international law flaunting, aggressor client state with carte blanche as a regional strong man in the Middle East in the shape of Israel (One need only search COHA's archive to of the past ten years to see what it has written of Colombia, the facsimile of Israel in Latin America. Even COHA hero, Hugo Chavez, has said so himself!)
So my question is: what would COHA's position on a Latin American police state which employs routine war, occupation of autonomous regions, repression of nearly a majority of its beaten population and countless other human rights abuses, like collective torture, indeterminate detention and violent state terror, (ala Israel) done so at the behest of the US be? The incoherent discussion when matters regarding Israel pop up in COHA are painful to read, as the organization's noble stands on Latin America issues are completely lost and flipped. At times COHA nearly mimics the rhetoric of the very monsters COHA attempts to unmask in the Western Hemisphere. A shame, really.
Also, considering that Mr. Goldberg has been beating the war drums long and proudly for a preemptive strike against Iran for quite some time, and did so for the flawless US intervention in Iraq, his interview with Castro should remain suspect at best. His uncritical support of Israel, not unlike COHA's, does not give much impartiality to his piece or this present piece rather, an article existing solely due to the words of a biased war advocate, who has already proven to be a shaky source given his misrepresentation of Castro's other remarks.
Cheers,
Rodrigo
howard cox says:
September 28, 2010 at 9:26 am (UTC -6 )
In the middle east, their is one democracy, and 22 muslim dictatorships. You clearly have no use for democracy. All the anti-American and anti Israel rhetoric in the world does not change these facts. I am quite sure you support 50 yrs. of dictatorship in Cuba also.
Josie Michel-Brüning says:
September 18, 2010 at 10:38 am (UTC -6 )
Yes, I agree with Macy! However, I want to remind at the interferences, the "Cold War" interventions by the USA preventing the progress in Cuba, and additionally, the hidden war against Cuba by terrorist attacks masterminded by exile Cubans based in Miami. Most notorious masterminds: the self confessed terrorists Orlando Bosch Ávila and Luis Posada Carriles. You can google about the most famous victim in 1997 in Copacabana Hotel in Havana: the Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo, for instance.
These by Raúl Castro announced projects of change were already prepared at the end of the '90s. I remember respective conversations my husband and I had in 1998 with professor Arnie Corro, then member of staff of Radio Havana.
Despite of the "embargo"( = blockade) and terrorist acts Cuba had reached its standard of prosperity having had in 1989 in 2002 again. But then, in the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 there were the hijacking of its merchant ships and planes, leaving the hijackers in impunity …
Additionally, the progress in Cuba is so slowly, because of their different priorities: First of all is: giving a home to everybody, healthcare and education and then hopefully more prosperity for everybody…
On occasion of the 12th anniversary of the imprisonment of the Cuban 5 a press conference was broadcast live and is now available to re-view or you can listen to or download the audio-only mp3 file http://www.freethefive.org/
Rather at the end of the 45 minutes you can hear Col. Lawrence Wilkerson telling why Congress members don't dare to vote for free travelling to Cuba and free trading with agricultural products there. They said to him (he called name, I didn't understand) and Eleana Ros-Lethinen and the Diaz-Balart brothers won't like it.
One said: I lost my primary because of voting according to that.
Thanks to your article, I hope for all readers it is to be seen that it was ridiculous, that jewish people in Cuba are needing special support by USAID contractor Alan P. Gross.
He certainly was there for other reasons than the officially announced ones.
Last but not least, I want to remind at the elections campaign of president Obama when he had said he wanted a dialogue in mutual respect with Cuba, Hillary Rodham Clinton said he would have to fear to be assassinated for that.
RICARDO DE FARIA says:
September 18, 2010 at 2:36 pm (UTC -6 )
"needing special support by USAID contractor Alan P. Gross.
He certainly was there for other reasons than the officially announced ones.
Last but not least, I want to remind at the elections campaign of president Obama when he had said he wanted a dialogue in mutual respect with Cuba, Hillary Rodham Clinton said he would have to fear to be assassinated for that.".
Reading your post and this "Castro’s Change of Heart: The Implications for Cuba, Venezuela, and The United States" it comes to mind the old maxim: Who is profiting with the "status quo" all these years?
A hint: Watch the remarks of Gen. Wesley K. Clark, former supreme allied commander of NATO and a current fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, Kal Raustiala, directory of the Burkle Center, and Amy Zegart, associate professor of public policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs, discuss U.S. relations with China as part of a foreign affairs panel at UCLA Day on May 9, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAiJOOaGPFw
[+/- at minute 3 onwards]
O' Leary says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:07 pm (UTC -6 )
Castro risks precisely nothing by proffering empty words backed by hollow ideals and a morality that holds no water. It is not his and Chavez's "criticism" of Israel and supposed support of Palestinians that rankles thoughtful observers the world over. To say that they criticize assumes they have good intentions and ideas that merit a hearing. In their moral state of bankruptcy that have nothing to contribute to a dialogue regarding whether Israel and indeed, the US live up to their own ideals and standards, when in fact their only basis for criticism is that these nations do not accept their ideas, their ways, their Fidelismo and Chavismo. These are totally self-serving individuals who live high off the hog while the masses suffer, who pander to the angry and confused. Case closed.
Neil Burron says:
September 18, 2010 at 5:54 pm (UTC -6 )
This article is another indication of the poor quality of analysis now on offer by COHA. Among other things, the article conflates Cuba's "isolation" (as if it is self imposed) from the United States with an alleged isolation from the "west." In fact, nearly all western countries, including Canada and the countries of Europe, have positive economic and diplomatic relations with Cuba. Most countries in Latin America also have positive relations with the island. Cuba's "isolation" is not the reflection of an inward-looking ideology; its the result of ostracization from its most natural trading partner. Also, while Raul's reforms may have positive dimensions, the firing of half a million public employees when there is no private sector to absorb them is not progress – it is an unmitigated disaster reminiscent of the catastrophic transitions to capitalism that the former soviet bloc countries underwent.
Please, COHA, hire some real researchers capable of objective albeit normatively progressive analysis.
Josie Michel-Brüning says:
September 19, 2010 at 9:13 am (UTC -6 )
Dear Neil Burron,
I have two objections:
1. The so-called US embargo involves European countries also. For instance, if European merchant ships have brought their products to Cuba they are not allowed to enter an US haven for half a year following. Europeans are forbidden to buy products which contain Cuban sugar or Cuban nickel. Europeans are not allowed to sell products to Cuba which contain any US products.
Moreover, US propaganda against Cuba in Europe is rather successfull.
I pernally know, some of the German politicians, for instance, meet occasionally with those related to the mafia in Miami. The last press conference with Sylvia Iriondo (related to "Brothers to the Rescue and José Basulto) and 2 of our conservative members of parliament was on last September 7.
Our corporated medias and the US corporated medias are working hand in hand.
2. You need not to worry that those (half a million people) will have no job any more. This process will be observed by the center of trade union (CTC) searching other employments for them. Such change is not going on for the first time in Cuba: in the 90s when the sugar price was down, they tranferred 300.000 employees having worked in the sugar industrie into other employments, cooperatives etc., and the state authorities began to rent land for low prices and lifetime to people wanting to do their own agriculture and to allow them to have their own catering or other business regarding their respective competence.
Also, many of them could began a new education for another profession.
What many people sympathizing with Cuba all over the really fear is the next intervention by US policy with the goal to destabilize Cuban processes and preventing their success..
Josie Michel-Brüning says:
September 19, 2010 at 9:20 am (UTC -6 )
Yet another comment: "In May, Roger Noriega, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs (2003-
2005), acknowledged he conspired with James Cason, chief of the United States Interest Section in Cuba (2002-2005), to violate a declared U.S. government policy of promoting in Cuba “ a peaceful transition to a democratic system based on respect for rule of law, individual human rights and open economic and communication systems.” Noriega and Cason sought to promote chaos in the island.
Noriega did not refer to the chaos plan as coming from a secret decision of President Bush. Rather, Noriega and his cabal undertook their own initiative to foster instability. The effort led to the imprisonment of 75 Cuban citizens who followed the chaos-promotion instructions. …"
Please, see: CounterPunch, September 17 – 19, 2010
Muscular Diplomacy or Law Breaking?
The Confessions of Roger Noriega
By SAUL LANDAU and NELSON P. VALDÉS http://www.counterpunch.org/
howard cox says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:59 am (UTC -6 )
Fifty years of Castro"s failure in Cuba is the fault of the U.S? The average Cuban earns 20$ a month, lives in a police state, and suffers from scaricities virtually unheard of in other parts of Latin America.
Cuba is a beggar nation that for years lived on handouts from the Soviet Union and now survives-barely- on handouts from Hugo Chavez. And this is all the fault of "the Empire?.
I have never heard of a raft being built in Florida to float to Cuba. Pretty much says it all,huh?
Rebecca says:
September 20, 2010 at 8:03 am (UTC -6 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis
There have been numerous cases of individuals defecting from the US to Cuba…
howard cox says:
September 28, 2010 at 9:28 am (UTC -6 )
Name them.
J Albers says:
September 24, 2010 at 2:52 pm (UTC -6 )
Either Mr. Cox is woefully ignorant of the economic reality in Central America and Caribbean nations, or he consciously distorts the advances Cuba has made since the revolution. I suspect the latter.
Low wages, yes, but free housing, health care and education are significant contributions to Cuban incomes, while inequality is lowest in both regions. And while we take free education for granted in the US, it is not available in all of CA or Caribbean countries.
Does Cox compare Cuban wages – and the value of free housing & health care – with those in the US or other countries that resembled the economic situation in Cuba in 1959? I suspect he hasn't given much thought to his question.
But what should we expect from a CIA apparatchik like Howard Cox. Cox, a senior partner at Greylock Venture Capital and former chairman of the NVCA, is a board member of CIA founded and financed In-Q-Tel.
And what is this organization? According to their web site (yes), In-Q-Tel was "(l)aunched by the CIA in 1999 as an independent, not-for-profit organization, IQT was created to bridge the gap between the technology needs of the Intelligence Community (IC) and new advances in commercial technology."
An interesting side story is that Cox's Greylock Venture Capital group was a major investor in Facebook ($27.5 m).
howard cox says:
September 28, 2010 at 9:42 am (UTC -6 )
I have no idea who Greylock Venture Capitol is, and have never worked for the C.I.A. This is all pure fantasy on MR. Albers part. I retired 20 years ago, and moved to Central America. I wonder if he has ever been to Central America? Or Cuba. Since his approval of Castro"s 50 yr. dictatorship shows his utter disdain for democracy, and his "facts" about my background are complete fiction, I would encourage Mr. Albers to get back on his meds.
Anonymous says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:53 am (UTC -6 )
It's US consumers who are the real victims of the embargo, as they have no access to what Cuba produces.
Josie Michel-Brüning says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:07 am (UTC -6 )
Human perception and awareness is normally limited to what we have experienced so far, to which we had been educated for and to which we are used to.
It is only human feeling uncomfortable when having to change our minds. Unfortunately, most of the time, not only proven arguments or surprizes are needed, but a shock or a blow of fate is needed for learning about truth and those consequences which would make a different in our believes, attitudes and finally respective acting.
If we do want to survive as humanity, that our children and grandchildren will survive, we have to learn to walk in shoes of people in other societies with different histories and to have dialogues in mutual respect with them.
b. McElhone says:
September 22, 2010 at 3:37 pm (UTC -6 )
It is a measure of the debased quality of lefist discourse that Castro's denunciation of Iranian anti-Semitism is considered morally courageous. Surely, anti-Semitism, whether Hitler's, Stalin's or Ahmedinijad's, is morally repugnant. Just as racism is, and the hatred of people because of their religious affilliations. How is it that, in noticing the morally obvious, Castro is thought to have struck a courageous stance?
The unspoken fact that earns Castro praise in this instance is that, in speaking as he did, he risked his county's relationship with Venezuela, which pays the bills. Cuba used to be the Soviet Union's kept woman. When that sugar daddy went broke, Castro allowed Cuba become a sex tourism venue. After an embarrassingly long while, that venture was terminated.
Now, the country has become Chavez' traveling companion. Castro's act of courage is that he used his mouth in a way that Cuba's new daddy might not approve.
Oh! revolutionary ideals, how cheap your make-up looks in the morning light.
Anonymous says:
September 23, 2010 at 9:20 am (UTC -6 )
Ahmadinejad doesn't really run the country, but is more a spokesman/salesman for the Islamic regime while the religious leaders hold real power. Furthermore, there have been claims from his opponents that his family changed their name in his youth- to conceal, you know…
RICARDO Gomes de Paiva DE FARIA says:
September 24, 2010 at 11:37 pm (UTC -6 )
Would it be possible to implement – in U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay – under the auspices of someone of the stature of Gen. Wesley K. Clark, former supreme allied commander of NATO and a current fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations – A Free Enterprise showcase for the III Millennium under the concept of E Pluribus Unum and pursuant to Gen. Wesley’s own words in UCLA Foreign Policy Panel on US-China Relations?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAiJOOaGPFw&fe…