Wave of arrests targets Cuban activists

The Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba put out a mid-year report on human rights violations in Cuba, given the recent mobilization by the Castro regime to stop peaceful activists from expressing their opposition to the Cuban government. Below, please find an article from today's Miami Herald front page, discussing the report and the Cuban government's new wave of repression.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/608806.html

Wave of arrests targets Cuban activists
Nationwide crackdowns against Cuban government opponents remain consistent.
BY FRANCES ROBLES
Cuban activist Jorge Luis García Pérez has lost count of how many times he has been arrested since last year, when he finished serving every day of a 17-year prison sentence and then some.
García, better known as ''Antúnez,'' thinks it's 15, which would be an arrest a month.
The last detention came over the Fourth of July weekend, when about 200 other anti-government activists also were picked up on highways and at homes, hotels, airports, bus and train stations around the island and prevented from attending a U.S. Independence Day celebration in Havana.
They were held for a few hours or a few days and sent home in what critics say was the latest and most massive illustration of a nationwide operation to crack down on opponents.
''Raúl Castro's strategy is to create a mirage of change for the international community to mask the fact that acts of repression are increasing,'' Antúnez said in a telephone interview from Placetas, Villa Clara, in central Cuba. 'They arrest you and let you go tomorrow to hide the sense that there is a wave of repression. I'd call it a `wave lite.' It's different, and we don't know what lengths it will reach.
``It's an extremely critical situation.''
Raúl Castro, who formally took over the presidency in February, has been hailed internationally for taking initial steps at reform in the months he's been in power. But activists argue that just as he allowed cellphones and computers for the first time, Castro launched a harassment campaign against members of the opposition through frequent detentions. The crusade appears designed to keep the overall number of political prisoners steady while sending a strong message that Castro has a firm grip on dissent.
HOUSE ARREST
Democracy activists in Cuba say the campaign is akin to the 2003 wave of arrests that landed 75 dissidents in prison for as long as 28 years. In a report made public Thursday, the Cuban Council of Human Rights Monitors documented more than 700 short-term detentions so far this year. The group counted at least 44 people put under house arrest between July 2 and 6, and dozens more deported from Havana or prevented from leaving outer provinces.
The increase in detentions came in late June, immediately after the European Union lifted sanctions it had against Cuba since the 2003 arrests.
Dissidents said the level of strong-arm tactics appears to vary from province to province, with Villa Clara protesters suffering the most.
''It hurt them to see how many people were willing to take risks to go to that event,'' said María Antonia Hidalgo, of Holguín in eastern Cuba, who was stopped from attending a July 4 party at the Havana residence of U.S. Interests Section chief Michael Parmly. ``They are afraid to see the truth before their eyes.''
Saying the driver had been in an accident and they needed witnesses, police stopped Hidalgo in a taxi on the way to the Holguín airport. At the airport, authorities questioned her infant daughter's identity papers and did not let them board the flight to Havana. The next day she tried to go by rail but was taken off the train, so she attempted the bus instead.
Police made Hidalgo get off the empty bus because all the tickets ''had been sold,'' she said. Hidalgo never made it to Havana.
In an extraordinary demonstration of its state security apparatus, Cuban agents stopped people nationwide.
Among the nearly 200 detentions: René Gómez Manzano was arrested at Hotel Inglaterra in Havana; Yoel Espinosa at a bus station in Santa Clara; Lourdes Esquibel off the street in Miramar, and Amado Ruiz Moreno at a train station in Placetas.
'Raúl Castro wants to let people know: `We knew you were mobilizing and stopped you at every point in the country,' '' said Cuban American National Foundation spokeswoman Sandy Acosta Cox. 'They established: `We are watching you. We haven't fallen asleep at the wheel.' ''
In Miami, another human rights group -- the Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba -- released a separate 50-page report Thursday detailing the recent wave of temporary detentions of anti-government dissidents. The agency is the human rights arm of the Cuban American National Foundation.
Omar López Montenegro, the human rights foundation's executive director, told a news conference that the brief arrests appear to be part of a new Cuban government tactic aimed at intimidating an increasingly active dissident movement.
''The regime at this moment is trying to scare, to create a mental state within the opposition that something is coming,'' López Montenegro said, ``though that something has not materialized itself.''
Cuban exile organization Democratic Directorate said Castro's new strategy makes it tougher to rally international support for jailed dissidents.
''If someone gets arrested, we do telephone campaigns, calling leaders, calling the prison, getting the international community involved,'' said executive director Marcibel Loo. ``It's harder to get people mobilized if they are released in one day. Maybe it was one day, but it may be a day after they were beaten, and their families were harassed.''
López Montenegro said more arrests reflects increased opposition activity.
''We have noticed that the opposition is much more active, more defiant and, very important, with more vision and strategy,'' said López Montenegro. ``This is hopeful because in the end, the regime is not going to stop repression. That's its nature.''
As an example of intensified opposition activity, López Montenegro cited last month's restaurant protests by eight members of the dissident Federation of Latin American Rural Women. They were briefly arrested when they tried to pay for meals with regular Cuban pesos. The restaurant where the protest occurred accepted payment only in convertible pesos, a parallel currency tied to foreign money such as dollars or euros.
López Montenegro said dissidents have become more active and creative in their protests, because they are better connected to the outside world through cellphones and computers and have learned tactics from anti-government movements in Poland, Serbia and Ukraine.
For example, there are videos of Antúnez on YouTube, where he criticizes things like substandard housing.
Antúnez served 17 years in prison for denouncing the government publicly and for escaping from prison to attend his mother's funeral. He resumed his protests right after his April 2007 release.
`FAITHFUL DISCIPLE'
Antuñez says Raúl Castro's dissident strategy is as harmful as his brother's.
''I don't think this repression is new; Raúl Castro was in his brother's shadow for 50 years,'' Antúnez said. ``He's a participant in all his crimes. He's been a faithful disciple.''
Raúl Castro officially took office Feb. 24 after serving 47 years as his brother's right-hand man.
''They are trying to create a climate of terror so that people do not attend opposition events,'' said Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva, who heads the Human Rights Council of Human Rights Monitors. ``They don't even have to be violent. It's a subtle and intelligent way to repress.''
Miami Herald staff writer Alfonso Chardy contributed to this report.

What unites Cuban-Americans?

There’s been much talk and discussion lately about what Cuban-Americans think, feel, believe, and aspire to. This discussion is raging not only within our local community - with local politicians regularly making grand pronouncements, but also in national politics, with seemingly every paper trying to decipher who we will support in the Presidential elections. Indeed, most of the discussion is intently focused on “bucketing” the community (e.g., old vs. new, pre and post Mariel, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation, etc.), rooting out our differences, and using these differences to anticipate how we’ll vote. The main conclusion from these analyses is quite simple: our community is diverse and we do not have a standard set of beliefs on US issues. This should be a surprise to no one who has interacted with Cubans – adding one more Cuban to a conversation usually means you’ve added another opinion.

The more disturbing conclusion (at the surface) from these analyses is that we, as a community, are splintering on Cuba, and that we no longer agree. As proof, we get the endless litany of issues with yes/no positions: remittances, travel by Cuban-Americans, travel by Americans in general, limits on spending, talking to Raul, softening the embargo, etc. When you focus on these issues, it is plausible to conclude that our community is indeed splintering on the “Cuba issue”. However, both the analyses and conclusion miss the point.

The vast majority of our community does not waver, even for a second, on the fundamental vision that unites us and for which we have tremendous passion – the hope and dream of a free, democratic, and capitalist Cuba. Everyone shares this vision and we are quite united. What observers detect is not a splintering of the vision, but rather a splintering on the tactics.

This division, these disagreements, are mostly driven by frustration. Frustration that we have a vision and a hearty list of tactics to choose from…but that we’re woefully lacking a strategy linking the two. The “old guard” clings to the vision and believes all it takes is just one more year…the “4th generation” looks at the past, believes nothing has worked, and lunges for change will little thought. Basically, we’re missing a strategy we can discuss and rally around.

Unfortunately, the candidates have failed to offer one, with McCain roughly representing the old guard and Obama the 4th generation. Sadly, neither have our current or aspiring local leaders (who should be expected to have one). A lot of saber-rattling, but alas, no unique or new thinking.

So next time you’re attending a political event, and you hear forceful speech on a tactical issue, raise your hand and ask how it all fits together.

The gauntlet has been thrown. Or has it?

Members of a Senate Appropriations panel, yesterday, approved legislation that sought to roll back some of the travel restrictions that have been in place since 2004 (see here or here). This legislation also included a measure to make it easier for US agricultural exporters to sell their wares to the Cuban regime. But with opposition from several Senators (who can place a legislative hold on these measures) and the White House, whether or not you support this change in travel policy (or House plans to expand the definition of "family" in regards to this travel), don't expect any changes soon. Yet, while you likely won't see much movement or a full vote on this legislation until next year, it will no doubt spark further debate about the merits of this potential policy shift, from DC to Miami and everywhere in between.

There are certain things that should be recognized at the outset. For instance, that this vote took place now without any expectation that it would get passed into law until 2009 or beyond, suggests that Democratic congressional leaders would like to make sure that this issue remains contentious during this election season. Seemingly emboldened by certain poll results suggesting that more Cuban-Americans support a loosening of these travel restrictions than support them (see here), Democratic aspirants to Congress and the White House view this as a classic wedge issue and will undoubtedly exploit it as one. The Republicans seem to be willingly or unwittingly playing into their hands by drawing the proverbial line in the sand on this issue (see here).

Both sides of this debate make strong arguments, and so it seems as though the best approach might lie somewhere in between, in which Cuban-Americans are given some added flexibility to directly help Cuban dissidents and to visit ailing family members, but doing so in a way that effectively limits the undeniable financial benefit that the regime would thus reap. So here's a question: what do you consider the strongest arguments for and against current travel restrictions? And what would you consider a suitable and acceptable compromise between both sides of this debate?

It seems as though unless the Cuban-American community begins to civilly sort through these issues now and arrives at pragmatic consensus, the bitter wedge politics will continue through, and far beyond, this November.

But will it? The alternative view to all of this is that this "wedge" is nothing but a clever political construct that does not deserve all of the attention it is currently receiving. The difference between 1 visit every 3 years, to 1 visit per year, and between a per diem spending limit of $50 and $170, can't be honestly viewed as a wide gulf, especially in light of the different ways these things are circumvented and/or not exercised (e.g. non-direct travel and the relatively small number of people choosing to go back to Cuba that frequently).

I think the real story here is what's not being debated. Thanks largely to the efforts of the exile community, the Cuban regime has been widely seen by Americans for what they are - a vile, human-rights abusing, totalitarian dictatorship. Politicians have seen the futility of economic and diplomatic engagement with Cuba that Europe and the rest of the world have constantly attempted with nothing to show for their efforts (besides, of course, the profiting of companies doing business with the Cuban state and thus exploiting Cuban workers). And how does Cuba reward the EU for lifting its sanctions? By continuing to imprison and harass dissidents, by disregarding international agreements that it has hypocritically signed, and by railing against the very countries that did their bidding.

Meanwhile, we witness a similarly vile regime in North Korea, using diplomatic channels very far short of normalization, begin to give up its nuclear ambitions in exchange for the gradual or potential loosening of some US-imposed sanctions (see here or here), thus apparently giving the US one of its biggest victories in years (although compliance and much else remains to be seen) and illustrating the real diplomatic and bargaining power of strong sanctions.

That we're currently debating the aforementioned (non-?)issue, rather than the embargo itself or normalization of relations, let alone the totalitarian regime's nature or merits, should be reason enough to celebrate our past successes and maintain our unity now and in the uncertain future.

Freedom of the press in Cuba? Not by a long-shot.

A few weeks ago, a poster on this board directed me to an NPR article which in turn, described a series of articles published in the Cuban newspaper Juventud Rebelde, or Rebel Youth. The NPR article described how several intrepid young reporters at Juventud Rebelde broke with a 49-yr tradition and, gasp, actually did a little reporting, i.e., they gathered data and developed an opinion independently of the state. Per NPR, the reporters initially covered the sad state of agriculture in Cuba (plenty of unused farmland and people, but significant food imports), then followed-up with reports on education and a planned report on the economic “reforms” to-date – this last one was shelved after Fidel criticized dissent.

Both the poster and NPR posit that the mere fact that these articles were written is proof that Raul is indeed a reformer and hence, US policy should shift to reflect this. Since I have not read the actual Cuban articles yet, I’ll reserve judgment on their level of independence. Nevertheless, let’s assume that NPR’s assessment is correct. Does this show that Raul is a reformer?

In a word, NO. Publishing a few articles covering areas which 99% percent of the population already knows the answer to (we have limited food and no money) is not reform. You cannot provide a few Sudanese with a bag full of McDonald’s french fries and proclaim that you’ve begun the process to eradicate extreme hunger.

To date, all of Raul’s so-called reforms amount to nothing. The mere fact that we’re calling the ability to buy a cell-phone and a few published, non-propaganda articles “reforms” highlights the incredible repression Cuban’s have experienced.

To demonstrate that he’s a real, potential, reformer, Raul should do one of three things:

Continue the trend with infrequent examinations of aspects of society, BUT, allow for real reporting, where the reporter is free to examine root-causes and draw meaningful conclusions
Continue to limit any critique of the government or its philosophy, but make the reporting style of Juventud Rebelde widespread across Cuba’s newspapers, allowing Cubans to discuss how to improve their society even if within the confines of the regime.
Finally, the easiest but most unlikely option – allow Cubans to read foreign newspapers. What a concept. There are hundreds of organizations who would happily fund a newsstand in La Habana selling the worlds newspapers. And no reverse philosophies either…let Cubans choose whether to buy the New York Times or a North Korean daily.

Then, and only then, will we be talking about reforms.


-------------------

The NPR article follows:

All Things Considered, May 28, 2008 · In Cuba, the daily newspapers are all owned and run by the government or the Communist Party. For years, speeches by Fidel Castro were splashed across Page 1, and barely a critical word was published. But Fidel's brother Raul, who has taken over as president, is now allowing more debate in the Cuban press, and one party-affiliated newspaper is rising to the challenge.
Juventud Rebelde (Rebel Youth) was founded in 1965 as the newspaper of the Communist Youth movement in Cuba. Throughout its existence, the publication mostly has featured whatever dreary "news" party leaders wanted published.
But in recent months, Juventud Rebelde reporters have been encouraged to think like journalists and investigate what's not working in their country.
The newspaper recently ran a critical three-part series on Cuban agriculture. Reporter Dora Perez and a colleague spent weeks talking to farmers and farm workers across the country. They wanted to find out why Cuba, with all its rich farmland, has to import so much food.
"[We heard] nothing but complaints," Perez says. "Our report was very critical. We're bad in agriculture, and we have to say so."
Three months later, Perez followed up with another investigative series, this one on education in Cuba. She found out that many Cuban parents were so unhappy with the quality of their kids' schooling that they were hiring private tutors — something once unthinkable here.
An Unprecedented Approach
For years, Fidel Castro told Cubans that their problems were the result of the U.S. trade embargo, the loss of Soviet aid or globalization: There was always an excuse. But Herminio Camacho, deputy editor of Juventud Rebelde, says it's time for Cuba to acknowledge its own failings.
"These articles aim at raising people's awareness," Camacho says. "People need to know that things don't have to be like this here. We're bringing up problems that can't be blamed on our shortages, or on outside forces, or the embargo, or the world situation."
For a Cuban communist newspaper, this editorial approach is unprecedented. Phil Peters, a Cuba analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area think tank, is impressed by what he has seen in Juventud Rebelde over the past two years — even though the scope is limited and the paper is still under government control.
"You now have Cuban journalists actually going out and documenting facts and contradicting official versions of the facts," Peters says.
In one notable example, Juventud Rebelde reporters determined that Cuban authorities were grossly underreporting the number of unemployed youth, especially in the countryside. In one province, they found it was 18 times higher than what the government claimed.
Habits Hard to Break as Journalists Seek Independence
Such stories are still the exception in Juventud Rebelde, not the norm. More common are the stories that simply quote government functionaries uncritically. Editor Camacho says he and his reporters are still finding their way.
"We've made progress, but we have a ways to go, because our reporters have been conditioned to think in a certain way," he says. "They have inertia in their thinking. This kind of journalism we're trying to do is hard for us. Throughout our whole lives, we've done it in a different way."
In an effort to break old journalistic habits, Camacho and his fellow editors have eliminated the beat structure at Juventud Rebelde. Reporters now are generalists, not specialists.
"Journalists who take charge of one particular issue can lose their broader vision," Camacho explains. "They develop a close relationship with whoever they're covering, because they see them day after day. It makes it harder to be critical. In order to do this kind of journalism, we had to change that structure."
Stopping Short of Challenging Communist Tenets
What's notable is that Camacho is thinking like a newspaper editor in a democratic society and not as a propaganda boss, which is the role editors in communist countries have more typically played.
His paper stops well short of challenging the ideology of Cuban communism. But for a party organ even to raise sensitive questions could have unforeseeable consequences in a tightly controlled totalitarian state. Some of the paper's recent reporting touches on key elements of the socialist system, such as the state-owned companies that now control every aspect of economic life in Cuba.
"Their reporters went out and documented that a lot of the state enterprises just do not work," notes Peters of the Lexington Institute. "[They found] that there's no functioning supply system and that the enterprises actually exploit and cheat Cuban consumers. It was unbelievable."
Peters, who has been reading the Cuban press for years, says such reporting never appeared during the time Fidel Castro ruled Cuba.
"If Fidel Castro talked about these state enterprises, they were paragons of socialist virtue," Peters says. "It was, 'This is what we live for.' He would always contrast [Cuban] state enterprises with the exploitations that occur in capitalist societies."
Fidel Castro Expresses Displeasure
Indeed, Fidel Castro apparently doesn't much like the pro-reform ideas aired recently in Juventud Rebelde and a few other media. In a newspaper column published last month under the title "Do Not Make Concessions to Enemy Ideology," Castro lashed out at critics of Cuban socialism. "People must be very careful with everything they say," he warned.
Castro, whose mental and physical condition remains a mystery, said he was responding to a comment in one of Cuba's media outlets. He didn't say which one, and Juventud Rebelde editor Camacho says he got immediately nervous it was his paper.
"I'll admit it," Camacho says, "the first reaction I had was to worry. This was Fidel pointing his finger at someone. He's not president of the country anymore, but we still see him as the leader of the revolution."
In discussing Castro's commentary, Camacho was noticeably uncomfortable, speaking slowly and stopping several times to choose his words carefully. For nearly 50 years, Fidel Castro has been all-powerful in Cuba, able on his own authority to squash careers or send people to prison for the rest of their lives.
"For us, a criticism from Fidel is …" Camacho begins, but he does not finish the sentence. "It's more than just the fear. Among other things, we feel in some way like we must be violating his wishes."
Following Castro's critical column, Camacho says he and his fellow editors resolved to be more "responsible." A fully reported article on the shortcomings of the economic reform program was not published.
Despite Skeptics, Paper Forges Ahead with New Direction
Some writers who have broken their ties with the government are skeptical that Juventud Rebelde can be much of a force for change. Independent journalist Reinaldo Escobar, who writes an opposition blog in Cuba, says he is impressed by some of the reporters working at the paper. But he does not see them as allies in the fight for democracy and free expression in Cuba.
"Any professionally aware journalist could write something that coincides with what I'm saying, but they wouldn't be doing so intentionally," he explains. Escobar is working deliberately for political change in Cuba. The Juventud Rebelde reporters are just trying to be journalists.
Shortly after Perez wrote her series on education in Cuba, she got a congratulatory e-mail from Adelaida Fernandez, a prominent Cuban writer. Fernandez had delivered a highly critical speech on Cuban education at a convention of Cuban writers and artists, and in her opening words she cited the Juventud Rebelde stories by Perez.
"I was very proud," Perez says. "One of the best things about being a journalist is when you know that what you write actually reaches people and moves them." It was hardly a radical thought, but coming from a reporter at a Communist Party newspaper in Havana, it was noteworthy.

The More Things Stay the Same

Amidst all of the coverage of the handful of recently announced economic reforms, the average consumer of news could be forgiven for temporarily forgetting that Cuba is still ruled by an oppressive authoritarian regime. This regime, however, is troubled by no such identity crisis. And so while it ballyhoos and obfuscates with a well-timed hodgepodge of economic reforms to try to signal to the world (and especially to the then sanctioning EU and the still electorally-conscious US) that Raul represents a new hope, the true nature of the regime is revealed by its lack of movement towards political reform and human rights, and more specifically, by actions such as last week's arrest of more than 30 dissidents (most of whom have since been released), the intimidation of many more, and by the previous week's ugly canceling of a planned LGBT parade.

Besides being partially instructive of the repression Cubans face, these latest episodes provided additional poignancy to this past weekend, as I celebrated my country's Independence and the unalienable rights we enjoy and to which all are endowed, and now, as I type these words that would must assuredly precipitate my own arrest had my country been the one 90 miles off our shores.

Direct support for dissidents in Cuba – a great idea that should be improved and decoupled from remittances

Two recent press-releases (copied below) highlight the value of continued support for dissident groups in Cuba. The first describes how a group of dissidents operating under the broader theme of “con la misma moneda” effectively staged a civil disobedience act by demanding to pay with Cuban Pesos at a restaurant in La Habana (for those unfamiliar with Cuba, Cuban’s cannot use their own currency at most retail outlets). The second, unrelated press release describes how CANF actively supports “Las Damas de Blanco” (a dissident group comprised of wives of political prisoners who frequently stage civil disobedience acts) with monthly financial support.

Clearly, regular civil disobedience across the island, focused on the continued trampling of basic rights, is a powerful tool to expose the regime’s abuses, intellectual dishonesty, and moral bankruptcy. It also clear that these groups need financial support from abroad in order to operate effectively. As one poster previously stated…it is “hard to think of organizing dissent when your belly is empty”. These people have demonstrated the courage and ability to organize such dissent, should be encouraged, and should be provided the means to do so.

Ideally, the US (and the expatriate community) would exclusively focus on funding organizations rather than individuals (a favorite during the Cold War still widely used today) as this would have several benefits as follows:

· would facilitate organizational growth, recruitment, and continuity – i.e., efforts continue even if key members are in prison
· organizations carry more weight and prestige, both inside and outside of Cuba
· the dissident movement would be free from any claims that members were dissidents for personal gain or operatives of a foreign entity/government
· would facilitate practically separating remittances from support for dissidents

Changing the focus to organizations from individuals should be relatively easy. Eliminating/reducing remittances would admittedly be difficult for Cuban-Americans to do. The question remains whether the long term goal is worth short-term sacrifice.

First press release

ACTS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN HAVANA LAUNCH THE
THIRD PHASE OF “WITH THE SAME CURRENCY” CAMPAIGN
Havana, June 25, 2008. Yesterday, activists from different organizations carried out acts of civil
disobedience in the city, to launch the third phase of the “With the Same Currency” campaign. The
actions were carried out at the “Lava Dia” restaurant located on Malecón street between
Campanario and Manrique streets, Centro Habana municipality. Four couples of activists entered
the government-run establishment, ordered food and refused to pay in CUC (Cuban Convertible
Peso), demanding their right to pay with the national currency, the Cuban peso, the currency in
which Cuban workers are paid. The management of the restaurant called the police and Lazaro
Joaquín Alonso Román, Alfredo Montana Ramos, Yoriet Cabrera and Roberto de Jesus Guerra
Pérez were arrested. They were all taken to a nearby police station , where they were threatened
with being held until paying the amount owed to the restaurant in CUC. The activists refused to
comply and were finally set free at 1:00 am on Wednesday, June 25.
As of this writing, the whereabouts of Julio Beltrán Iglesias, another activist that refused to
surrender his video camera to the police after filming images of the civic protest, are unknown. Mr.
Beltrán threw the camera to the sea when the police tried to force him to surrender it. At 2 pm Juan
del Pilar Joerna, a human rights observer who was monitoring the event, was also arrested. He was
taken to the Zanja police station, where he was questioned, searched and detained for four hours.
“With these civil disobedience actions we are launching the third phase of the With the Same
Currency campaign”, stated a communiqué issued in Havana by the Federation of Latin American
Rural Women (FLAMUR in Spanish). “We have decided to claim our true national sovereignty,
which comes from the right of every Cuban to have control of their own lives, without interference
from government. Inspired by Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Lech Walesa and
others who refused to comply with unjust laws to fight for the rights of their own people, we are
saying NO to the economic apartheid that we suffer in our own land as Cubans”
“These activists have not committed any crime. They did not refuse to pay, but rather just
demanded their right to pay with the currency in which salaries are paid. The government is the one
acting illegally, because on November 21, 2007, FLAMUR delivered 10,738 signatures to the
National Assembly in support of the With the Same Currency Campaign, according to the current
regime’s legislation. Today we have demonstrated that we are organized and committed to our
cause”, declared in Miami Magdelivia Hidalgo, FLAMUR’s International Representative.


Press release two

Las Damas de Blanco seguirán aceptando el dinero del exilio
Agence France Presse
LA HABANA
AP
Dolia Leal (izq.) Berta Soler y Laura Pollan en una marcha en La Habana.
Las Damas de Blanco, familiares de presos políticos cubanos, afirmaron el domingo que continuarán aceptando dinero de organizaciones del exilio anticastrista, tras acusar al gobierno de buscar "ahogarlas'' económicamente. "El gobierno no nos va a ahogar. Vamos a seguir recibiendo porque ese dinero de personas de buena voluntad del exilio cubano nos hace falta, no para comprar armas'', sino para cubrir necesidades de los presos y sus familias, dijo Berta Soler, activista de ese grupo creado para exigir la liberación de 75 opositores condenados en el 2003. Tras acudir a la misa dominical en una iglesia del barrio residencial de Miramar, Soler, con otras 50 Damas de Blanco y una docena de niños, marchó el Día de los Padres con gladiolos por la Quinta Avenida en reclamo por la libertad de los presos.
Soler precisó que la Fundación Nacional Cubano Americana (FNCA), del exilio anticastrista de Miami, les envía en promedio unos $50 cada 45 días por preso político --no detalló a cuántos en total--, y la organización "Plantados'' envía otros $50 cada mes. "Quieren asfixiarnos, porque no nos dan trabajo. Nos botan [despiden] y si uno va a solicitarlo no te lo dan'', afirmó Julia Núñez, otra de las activistas, esposa de Adolfo Fernández, que cumple una condena de 15 años. Cuba alega que esas mujeres y al resto de disidentes son "mercenarios'' de Washington y los acusa de recibir, a través de la misión diplomática de Estados Unidos en La Habana, dinero para acciones de "contrarrevolución'' proveniente de Washington como de organizaciones del exilio dirigidas, según La Habana, por "terroristas''.
"Si vamos a hablar de terrorismo, el primer terrorista es el gobierno cubano. No vamos a ponerle oídos a eso, pero hemos acordado que vamos a recibir dinero del que sabemos su procedencia, para no caer en lo que las autoridades quieren involucrarnos'', añadió Soler, cuyo esposo Angel Moya cumple sentencia de 20 años. La dirigente señaló que el gobierno está restringiendo los recursos que les envían las organizaciones del exilio, al "exigir'' que la persona que hace el envío tenga parentesco cercano. Las Damas de Blanco, Premio Sajarov del 2005 y al que el gobierno cubano considera "punta de lanza'' de Washington, niegan que reciban dinero del gobierno de Estados Unidos.

Getting out of Cuba - Fast!

Follow this link for a short, but intriguing article from the Economist on the number of Cubans leaving the island. Apparently, Raul's much ballyhood reforms have done little to increase Cubans' confidence that life has any prospect of getting better.

It is amazing that thousands of Cubans continue to risk life to escape the oppression of the regime. Is this the regime we should sit down with?

http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11546110

European Union Lifts Sanctions on Cuba

Jan Silva of the Associated Press is reporting that the EU has lifted it's diplomatic sanctions against Cuba. NOT good.

Here's a link to the article in the Miami Herald:

Click Here

Did CANF endorse Senator Obama?

Since Senator Obama visited with the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) a bit over three weeks ago, many have asked me whether his visit meant that CANF was endorsing his candidacy. Given the frequency of the question and the interesting discussions that have emerged from it, I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss the topic on this forum.

CANF has not endorsed Senator Obama or Senator McCain. Instead, consistent with its institutional mission, it is CANF's goal to be a good advocate for Cuba with both of these candidates and to inform our community about the positions that both of these candidates have taken on Cuba and how those positions may evolve over time.

As a non-partisan institution, CANF’s mission is to further freedom and democracy in Cuba by developing and advocating policy positions and strategies with members of all political parties, domestically and internationally, that are well-intentioned and can be effective in helping bring about a democratic Cuba. In order to effectively fulfill its mission, CANF has three important responsibilities. The first is to educate leaders throughout the world on how to most effectively support a free and democratic Cuba. Second is to inform our community about the positions that key leaders take on Cuba policy so that our community may cast its votes in an educated fashion. And, third, is to work with all world leaders that are well intentioned in their support of a democratic Cuba to transform good intentions into real action.

In order to live up to these responsibilities CANF, as its founder Jorge Mas Canosa understood, must never subordinate the issue of a free and democratic Cuba to any political party or to any individual politician. Doing so would be the surest way to be taken for granted by politicians and for our community to become ineffective as an advocate for a free Cuba. While this approach requires a higher than average level of political maturity and may at times be emotionally difficult to accept, it has been this which sets CANF apart as an issue-driven institution and it is this that has made it effective, even if not always popular. CANF’s work under Jorge Mas Canosa with Senator Robert Torriceli (Democrat) and with Senators Jesse Helms and Dan Burton (Republicans) are a couple of the many examples that exhibit the organizations ability to work with all that can be a friend of Cuba, regardless of their political party. This approach continues today with CANF’s efforts in the U.S. Congress, at international forums, inside of Cuba and with both U.S. presidential candidates.

Our community must realize that its electoral power and influence comes from its high levels of voter participation, from its being educated on Cuba policy and from being able to swing its vote in favor of candidates that are going to do the most on behalf of the issues that we care about most. Our influence does not come from always monolithically voting for any one party or supporting politicians who, while pandering, are not really willing to take decisive action to help Cuba regain its freedom. It is this perspective that has led CANF, as an institution, to always try to educate our community on the pros and cons of each politician without blindly following as party line, while working to influence all, who are, or can become, decision makers on Cuba policy.

If a politician, regardless of his party affiliation, is off the mark on his Cuba policy, it is CANF’s responsibility to highlight that to our community and work to bridge the gap if at all possible (as Tony’s post below highlights, it appears that some of the gap on the embargo issue has been bridged with Senator Obama). If said gap cannot be bridged, it is CANF’s responsibility to highlight that to voters in order for them to incorporate that information when casting their vote. Likewise, if a politician is willing to take real action to help bring about freedom and democracy in Cuba, it is incumbent upon CANF to applaud those efforts and for our community to take note when making its electoral decisions.

It was in keeping with this tradition that Senator Obama was invited to visit with CANF and our community. His visit was important because it furthered the dialogue between our community and the now presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States. We appreciate Senator Obama’s visit and his willingness to listen to our points of view in the same way that he appreciated the maturity that our community showed in being able to have a constructive exchange with him despite our views not being consistent with all of his. It is this same level of dialogue that CANF has had and will continue to pursue with Senator McCain - although not all of his positions are reflective of our views either.

Our community should continue to stay tuned and pay close attention to the positions both of these candidates take and the level of commitment they are each willing to make to take action to help bring democracy to Cuba. Our community’s vote will once again be a key swing vote in a crucial state. Whatever candidate and party we lend our support to needs to earn it and needs to reciprocate with real action.

With that, I leave you with two questions: What is your take on issue driven advocacy across party lines? And, what candidate / party do you think is more deserving of our community’s vote at this juncture?

Will Obama (if elected) lift the Cuban Embargo?

To be clear I don’t own a crystal ball and my middle name is not Nostradamus. However, in the interest of spurring some discussion I’d like to look at some of Senator Obama’s history as well as some of the recent history of the Democratic Party and discuss how likely it would be for Obama to lift the embargo against Cuba were he to be elected President this November.

An important fact to point out is that Democrats have lost five of the last seven Presidential Elections. The American people are clearly unhappy with the current representation coming from the Republican Party, but for how long will that last once Bush 43 and his neo-cons are no longer in the White House? The country has a strong conservative base and the Republican Campaign Machine is no foe to be taken lightly. Moreover, the country has a lot of holes to dig out from under; Iraq, Islamist extremist, the economy, oil prices, health care, global warming, immigration… there are a dozen major pitfalls that could damage a neophyte administration’s credibility with the people very quickly. Not to mention the pitfalls we cannot predict.

Speaking of unforeseen pitfalls, I recall Bill Clinton’s statements in an interview where he addressed the matter. He affirmed the difficulty a U.S. President has in focusing on his agenda and platform coming into office because he’s simply too tied up by events that are out of his control. A President elect can come into office with all sorts of aspirations and issues to target but world events can easily divert his attention and strain his resources. Let’s take Al Gore for example. Mr. Gore is currently the champion of the Global Warming cause and it undoubtedly would be one of the major focuses of his administration were he to have been elected President. Now the level of threat that Global Warming poses to humanity is debatable, what is not debatable is how Gore has been instrumental in advancing the cause through his efforts. So would President Gore have been able to accomplish as much for the cause? President Gore would have had 9/11 thrust on his plate, would be dealing with Iraq and Hussein (assuming Gore would not have invaded Iraq) , Iran, North Korea, at the time a bursting dotcom bubble, a resurgent Russia, a budding Super Power in China, Katrina, etc… Where would the time and resources to champion Global Warming policy be on his priority list?

Now on to the specific subject of the Cuban Embargo; here is a video of Obama’s take on the embargo in early 2004:



Here are Obama’s statements on the embargo at CANF’s 20 de Mayo Luncheon earlier this year:



So the switch of positions begs the question. Have meetings with distinguished Cuban-Americans like Jorge Mas and Pepe Hernandez opened Obama’s eyes to the need for the Embargo? Subsequently, leading to the shift in position; or, is Obama, playing politics and simply pandering to an influential community of voters in a swing state?

If Obama’s core beliefs and principles are that the embargo should be lifted (and I’m not saying that this is a fact, but it is a possibility based on his stated position of pro-dialog with ALL nations, friend or foe) then it stands to reason that he might move quickly to lift the embargo upon being elected President. Obama would find himself in an office that’s been difficult for Democrats to capture. He would be facing a dozen existing and potentially crippling pitfalls before a country whose patience with Washington and politicians has grown thin. Not to mention the hurdles of yet to exist and unpredictable pitfalls that will arise. Furthermore, he’ll have a democratic majority in the legislative branch to assist in pushing his agenda. I believe under such circumstances Obama would push hard and fast to institute the changes outlined in his platform and ideology.

Hopefully lifting the embargo is not one of them.

I'm curious to hear other's predictions on how this plays out.

Venezuela – is this where the “new” thinking wants to take Cuba?

The St. Petersburg Times recently had an article discussing daily life in Venezuela (see here http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/article612936.ece). It was the usual stuff, describing how mismanagement is destroying the economy and how Chavez’s vaunted programs for the poor are mostly fiction. Aside from feeling sadness for the Venezuelan people, two things immediately come to mind when I read these articles. First, how can someone like Chavez come to power in the 21st century with the same lies used in the 20th century? Second, how can people (especially those calling for unilateral submission to Cuba) fail to see the parallels between Venezuela and Cuba?

Venezuela today enjoys exactly those things that the “new” thinking wants for Cuba: unfettered remittances, free movement of tourists and business people to/from the US, and very large and free economic ties to the “superpower”, to name a few. Interesting then, that rather than promoting democracy and capitalism, Chavez continues to forcefully concentrate power and is gradually eliminating all vestiges of freedom in Venezuela. Why hasn’t access to the US helped Venezuela…and how did Chavez come so close to actually establishing a dictatorship last year?

Venezuela continues its march backwards because Chavez is a wannabee dictator, pure and simple. And US carrots, regardless of the size of the pile, will not change that. Indeed, Chavez considers Castro/Cuba not only his ideological inspiration, but also his tactical mentor…allowing Chavez to leverage 50 years of experience oppressing the Cuban people while ostentatiously fighting the empire. It is little secret that his strategy is crafted in La Habana.

Curious then that the Castro regime has regularly called for a liberalization of US Cuba policy, calling for the same things the “new” thinking currently does. Those with this view assert that liberalization will spur change on the island, especially now that Raul has supposedly demonstrated a willingness to change.

Really? Does this make any sense? Cuba crafts Venezuela’s strategy towards dictatorship but we are expected to believe that a few Big Macs will compel Castro to move towards democracy and capitalism?

The reality is that arguing for unilateral capitulation to Cuba’s demands ignores this link, and magically assumes that Raul is the Cuban messiah.

Feeling for Stones, or Pulling the Wool Over Our Eyes?

Gauging by the tone of several news articles in the past 24 hours (e.g. The End of Communism?; UK Guardian Article; Miami Herald Article), you'd think that communism had been all but abandoned in Cuba. The introduction of a more incentive-based wage system and easing of wage restraints, which was announced in Granma on Wednesday, certainly diverges from standard Marxist economic policy and, in theory, is a welcome move. But if you look a little deeper than the couple of brief paragraphs that the average article describing this latest "reform" announcement contains, you'll just see more of the same cosmetic and overbought reforms that still do not address the large fundamental problems in Cuba, and they might actually cause other unintended problems given that the Cuban Economy is still centrally planned and lacks free markets and a proper price system. And while, at best, it can be viewed as an inching towards a more liberalized economy, it does not give hope that the Cuban state will follow with political reforms or cease its unremitting human rights abuses.

In practice, average bonuses of up to 5% for meeting production quotas and managerial bonuses of up to 30% for increased productivity, besides still being meager given Cuban's suppressed wages, will be difficult to properly award without a price system as these monetary incentives also incentivize managers to lie about production levels. In a centrally planned economy, the amount of information the economic ministries would need to attain in order to properly distribute these bonuses would require a great deal more "surveillance", as Dr. Purcell put it. Even then, without a price system, this increased surveillance will still not capture all economic information, truthfully and efficiently, and it is doomed for failure as it has in countless other communist economies. Changing small aspects within the economy, without addressing other interdependent mechanisms, is either a recipe for failure, or the sign of a tactical public relations move, one that befits its efforts to lift E.U. and U.S. sanctions.

If one were to take a Panglossian view, and believe that this move signals the start of incremental measures towards market liberalization (and I'm sure the Cuban state would vehemently deny this) as Cuba "crosses the river by feeling for stones", it still does not mean that Cuba has adopted the Chinese or Vietnamese models, which would require much more drastic and thorough economic reforms. It also does not mean that the Cuban people are any closer to enjoying the liberty, human rights, and political freedoms that they've long been denied, and which the Chinese and Vietnamese models have not provided for their own citizens.

Unhappy Cubans

On June 5th, the International Republican Institute (www.iri.org) published the results of a month long public opinion survey conducted in Cuba. This is the second such survey (the first was conducted in October, 2007), with hopefully many more to come. Needless to say, getting a glimpse of what Cubans are thinking is fascinating. It is a long survey, with many conclusions, but four overarching themes are clear:

· Cubans are overwhelmingly unhappy with the “status quo”
· The largest source of discontent is the economy/low wages
· There is a desire for political change, or at minimum, a government that can solve Cuba’s pressing needs
· Moods have soured since October, and are likely to get worse

Granted, its difficult to draw detailed conclusions (hence the themes above) from a survey done in secret, where both interviewer and interviewee risk prison if caught. That said, anecdotal evidence tends to support the highlighted themes.

· Cubans continue to leave the island in droves, whether in boats to Miami or as “representatives of the revolution” to Venezuela, etc.
· Every Cuban you speak to who just left (and who’s not going back) can quickly rattle off ten names of other people literally dying to get out
· The dissident opposition in Cuba, while muffled and periodically jailed, has not been wholly silenced – its hard to imagine Fidel tolerating this during better times
· The Castro # 2 regime seems critically aware of Cubans’ discontent, as evidenced by the recent rash of petty economic liberalization

To me, this just screams opportunity. Opportunity for Cuban-Americans, the United-States, and the World to unite, putting pressure on the regime to take the easy steps that will instantly improve the livelihood of its people. The regime needs to be put on the defensive and forced to answer difficult questions in the court of world public opinion. Cubans need to know that the World understands their unnecessary plight and is willing to ask for change.

The proper response to Kinzer

Stephen Kinzer writes in the Guardian Unlimited that "the next American president should offer to lift [the U.S. economic embargo of Cuba] as part of a broader accord that could pave the way for transition to a new era in Cuba..." Mr. Kinzer calls the embargo "a dumb idea, " "unsuccessful" and "counterproductive." He indicates that the embargo has provided Fidel Castro with a scapegoat, "by giving him a powerful enemy on whom to blame the country's problems." My problem with Mr. Kinzer's statements is that, like his claim that pandering to Cuban exiles by politicians during election periods is a "distasteful but familiar vice," his commentary is also distasteful and a very familiar vice. Distasteful in that his tone of reproach of Cuban exiles for espousing the cause of a free and democratic Cuba (and yes---whether Mr. Kinzer or anyone else likes it or not---a free and democratic Cuba where Cuban-Americans can also participate in a peaceful transition and rightfully so) is boring and cliche. Familar in that like most critics of the U.S. embargo against Cuba, Mr. Kinzer calls for dramatic change in long-standing U.S. policy without offering any credible indication of how a reversal of 47 years of policy and direct access to commerce with the United States will result in the new era he speaks of. Mr. Kinzer is certainly aware that Cuba enjoys and has long enjoyed normal diplomatic and economic relations with most other countries in the world and that these relations have done nothing to foster political transition in the country.

Take Mr. Kinzer's "happier" and "nightmare" scenarios, for example. Jubilation erupts in Miami, the next American president demands a regime change and somehow that results in the eruption of violence in Cuba. I agree with Mr. Kinzer that any sort of eruption of violence in Cuba, prompted by U.S. foreign policy or not, would be a nightmare. But, if Mr. Kinzer's argument is that the next American president should lift the embargo because violence in Cuba is certain to erupt if Cuban exiles are allowed to celebrate the death of Castro and the U.S. government, joining the long list of governments across the globe, once again calls for a regume change in Cuba, that is simply a pretty weak argument. With respect to his "happier" scenario where American leaders open talks with Cuba next year, assure them that the U.S. wants to avoid instability in Cuba, and agree to lift the embargo as part of a process of "thawing relations" with Cuba, I ask Mr. Kinzer "happier for whom?" Happier for the Cuban government which would be the major beneficiary of U.S. investments on the island. Happier for the U.S. agribusiness sector and other U.S. interests who will stand to benefit from the opening of commerce. Happier for U.S. tourists who can enjoy Cuba's beautiful beaches and hotels, beaches Cubans have only recently been allowed to enjoy by their own government and hotels the average Cuban earning a monthly salary from the Cuban government will never afford. Certainly not happier for the Cuban people whose standard of living is not likely to improve and who will continue to lack the basic freedoms their government denies them. A "nightmare" scenario is one where U.S. companies are sitting across the table from Raul Castro, entering into joint ventures with the Cuban government, while political prisoners continue to languish in Cuba's jails and the Cuban government continues its repressive tactics against the populace. Mr. Kinzer's statement that the lifting of the embargo "would allow democratic forces within Cuba to emerge and play a role in their country's future" is illusory without further justification. Mr. Kinzer is surely aware that harassment, beatings and imprisonment of dissidents and independent journalists on the island of Cuba continue today and that both Fidel Castro and Raul Castro have repeatedly indicated that they would never negotiate improved diplomatic or economic relations with the United States based on any conditions requiring changes in their policies. Indeed, the true "nightmare" scenario is one where Raul Castro finally has direct access to U.S. capital while continuing to repress the opposition and any political liberalization forces on the island.

I agree with Mr. Kinzer that we may have a unique opportunity in the near future with the passing of Fidel Castro to finally see some change in Cuba. I am also appreciative of the fact that in light of this potential opportunity a forward-looking dialogue with respect to U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba needs to take place. However, if the goal is a free and democratic Cuba, logic dictates that the lifting of the embargo without pre-conditions, which Mr. Kinzer and others support, would produce just the opposite result---solidification of the Castro dictatorship.

Conclusions from daily economic life in Cuba

For those interested in Cuba, the Miami Herald has been publishing excellent reports on daily-life in Cuba from their secret “man in La Habana” (could very well be a woman, but alas, that is not the phrase). The latest installment, in yesterday’s online edition, covers many Cubans’ unwillingness to work given the meager salaries and distasteful job opportunities (see article here http://www.miamiherald.com/581/story/552964.html). As I read the article, four points came to mind:

1. Cuba’s economic hardship is NOT a result of the embargo

“''I am not going to tell you something different. There are jobs here in Cárdenas where I live. Doing what? Cleaning hospitals for 150 pesos [$7] a month,'' said Loraicys, a single mother. ``For 150 pesos, I would rather stay home with my kid. I am willing to work really hard -- but not for nothing in return.''

“''Unfortunately there is not an inconsiderable segment of our society that wants to live without working and considers that through the black market, it will have everything by living off of others,'' Granma editor Lázaro Barredo wrote in a recent editorial.”

All news out of Cuba is consistent on two fronts. First, the Island has more than enough human and natural resources to be a solid middle-income country, regardless of the embargo. Second, Cuba does not achieve this due to the policies of its government. The government simultaneously fails to provide real jobs that would provide sustenance to its people (see other posts on the ability of Cuban’s to afford basic staples) and scorns those Cubans who operate in the black market to feed their families. Is this an implicit policy to starve the Cuban people? What does this have to do with the embargo?

2. Remittances can be a powerful tactical tool, but are also very risky

“Eduardo, 30, a stagehand who got his first job four years ago, said most of his friends worked for the first time when they were in their late 20s -- after emigrating to Florida. ''Why was I going to work? The money they would pay me was not going to meet my needs,'' he said. ``My mother in Orlando sent me $100 a month, and with that I was set.''”

Remittances have received much attention lately, thanks to CANF’s official position and Obama’s proposal to ease restrictions. As the quote above indicates, the prospect of a Cuban society economically independent of the state is tantalizing, and could indeed spur the change we all hope for. However, success via this avenue critically depends on speed and magnitude. How fast can Cubans become independent via remittances and what portion of the population can realistically be expected to achieve it. Move to slowly and the regime will adjust as it has countless times in the past, supporting the regime without making a dent. Achieve only 10-15% penetration and the “wealthy” Cubans will be ostracized, taxed, and harassed as always before. They will lose both their influence within Cuba and their ideological strength internationally.

3. Cuban generated data is worthless – how good is that healthcare system?

“Officially, Cuban government figures show its unemployment rate is just 1.9 percent, the lowest in Latin America. At the same time, government statistics show just 4.8 million of the 6.7 million working-age people are ''economically active.'' And a survey conducted by the state-run Juventud Rebelde newspaper showed that just in Guantánamo province, on the eastern tip of the island, there were 18 times more unemployed people than official figures reflected.”

This is a small example of how the regime manipulates data, especially when it communicates it to “outsiders” (i.e, the UN and those “enlightened” observers such as Michael Moore). The regime will manipulate data however it must to maintain its propaganda. Surprising that the world is so inclined to believe the Cuban healthcare and education miracles.

4. The regime does not care about ideology, just survival

“''For the first time, it is clearly and precisely stated that a salary does not have a limit, that the roof of a salary depends on productivity,'' Terrero said, according to The Associated Press. He added that he did not view this as a violation of socialism, but rather ``from each according to his work to each according to his ability.''”

This twisting of the communist ideal (to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities) demonstrates that the regime cares little about its people. Time and time again, the regime will change its philosophy, policies, and practices to ensure it stays in power. Surprising yet again how so many external observers continue to credit the government with ideological purity and a focus on its people.

Happy to hear other’s view on these or other points.

The Myth of Raul's Ballyhoed Economic Reforms: A Blast from the Past?

It has been well-noted that the recent economic "alterations" (e.g., allowing Cubans access to hotels and beaches, permitting the purchase of cell phones and computers, etc.) instituted by Gen. Raul Castro on the heals of his brother's withdrawal have generated much "ballyhoo" both inside and especially outside of Cuba.

Some observers (and including some posters on this site) have myopically argued that these are strong signals of Raul's and his cadre's willingness to engage in an eventual economic and political "apertura" (or opening). Others have pragmatically argued for a "wait and see" approach noting that we have been down this road before (e.g., the "Special Period", etc. ) and often during the Castro brothers' near 50-year tyrannical rule of Cuba. The latter point to the formula that has been revisited time and time again by the Castro brothers: meager economic adjustments cloaked in the veil of something approaching substantive economic reform, followed by a muddled and dysfunctional economic policy, followed by a reactionary halt to further reforms and of course an increase in repression.

In his article "Back to the Past with Raul" (full excerpt below), Prof. Jaime Suchlicki makes the case for the latter camp and posits compelling evidence that this "tried and true" formula is being revisited by Raul and his cadre today. In it, Suchlicki succintly notes that the "recent rise to the Politburo of the Cuban Communist Party of Ramiro Valdez, the dreaded former Interior Minister, and of General Alvaro Lopez Miera, Chief of Staff of Cuba’s Armed Forces" ensures that "the most anti-reformists, hard line leaders are in the succession line after Raul, signaling an unwillingness of the Cuban regime to open up the economic process further and certainly not to open the political process." So, at least in the case of Cuba, what is old is new and what is new is old.

Where do you fall? If neither, what do you think is most likely alternative scenario in the short term?

----------------

"An Information Service of the Cuba Transition ProjectInstitute for Cuban and Cuban-American StudiesUniversity of Miami

Issue 96
May 27, 2008

Jaime Suchlicki*

BACK TO THE PAST WITH RAUL

The economic adjustments initiated by General R\aul Castro after assuming total power on February 24, 2008, seem to be coming to an end. The rise to the Politburo of the Cuban Communist Party of Ramiro Valdez, the dreaded former Interior Minister, and of General Alvaro Lopez Miera, Chief of Staff of Cuba’s Armed Forces, indicates a hardening of policy. As Cuba stands now, the most anti-reformists, hard line leaders are in the succession line after Raul, signaling an unwillingness of the Cuban regime to open up the economic process further and certainly not to open the political process.Why the change? Or why the unwillingness to continue the process of opening? First, Raul is no Gorbachev and no Deng Xiaoping. He is willing to correct some of the glaring irritants in Cuban society – not allowing Cubans access to hotels and beaches, permitting the purchase of cell phones and computers (without Internet access), borrowing land to produce food, etc. Yet, he is unwilling to move the island much beyond.His emphasis has been on discipline, productivity and efficiency, particularly in the agricultural sector. To this end he is reorganizing and streamlining Cuba’s Communist Party to act as the watchdog over agricultural production. The same way he entrusted the military with running Cuba’s major industries and businesses, General Castro is now turning to the Party to do the same in the agricultural sector.The second reason for halting the adjustments is that the Cuban leadership has seen the reaction of the Cubans and fears possible instability. The recent changes have unleashed the Cubans’ long suppressed expectations and desires. Dissidents have been emboldened and are pushing for reforms, particularly political ones. The population at large is not satisfied with the limited changes and is asking for more. Divisions between the haves and have nots have increased, as well as between the whites and blacks that do not have family abroad and have little access to foreign currency.The most likely scenario, therefore, in the short run, is a muddling through economic policy, a halt to further reforms, and an increase in repression. The death of Fidel Castro will also usher in a period when his legacy will be proclaimed, repeated and studied – a legacy of anti-Americanism, strict Marxist orthodoxy and discipline. This back to the past is a bad omen for the future of the long suffering Cuban people.
_____________________________________

* Jaime Suchlicki is Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami. He is the author of Cuba: From Columbus to Castro and of the recently published Breve Historia de Cuba."

------------------------

A Truly Evil Corporation

Here's a thought experiment, imagine a corporation that:

• holds a complete monopoly, both vertical and horizontal, in all sectors of the economy, and is, in essence, the only legal employer;
• that restricts all aspects of a worker's life, both in and out of the workplace;
• that does not recognize any right of association or freedom of expression, and will fire you and possibly have you incarcerated for such violations;
• that outlaws independent trade unions and jails its leaders, permitting only the "union" controlled by the Corporation;
• that does not permit collective bargaining or any form of demonstration against the Corporation;
• that barely pays a subsistence wage, and nowhere near a "living wage", except for its executives who enjoy the full perks and luxuries of power;
• enables the exploitation of its workers by foreign corporations who can bypass the typical labor and human rights afforded to citizens of their home nations;
• that allows for only limited external investment, and then only by exploitative foreigners who the Corporation never cedes a controlling interest to;
• that does not allow its workers or stakeholders any say in management decisions;
• that is supposed to provides for its workers education, health, and retirement, but funds none of these adequately, does not permit workers to use providers not owned by the Corporation and then permits no complaint about their poor quality;
• that works in an environment where all competition is outlawed and has absolute barriers to entry;

Sounds like a corporation that no one, much less a progressive supporter of worker's rights, let alone human rights, should ever support, right? Although this sounds like an entity taken from the pages of Orwell's 1984, such a corporation does exist in reality, and it's named the Republic of Cuba.

What boggles the mind is how many in this country (from both sides of the political spectrum) and in supposedly more progressive Europe, support the further exploitation of the workers of Cuba by lifting or weakening the embargo and thereby enriching this corporation and its partner corporations, and rewarding and empowering its executives.

While most international labor groups (AFL-CIO, ICFTU, etc.) commendably condemn Cuba for its oppression of workers, why don't many of our political leaders or candidates speak out about these and other human rights abuses in Cuba?

Obama’s Cuba policy – more information needed.

This past Friday, Barak Obama addressed the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami, FL, where he disclosed not only his Cuba policy, but his policy towards all of Latin America. I had the good fortune to attend and hear Obama’s speech first hand. As most of his speeches, it was passionate and rousing…however, I was there for the details. On the details, he said some good things, and some potentially worrying ones. Here’s my take on his proposal (Obama, hope you’re reading this!), starting with the easy points.

· His policy will be based on “libertad”. Check. Love it. Who can argue with a policy based on freedom?
· When crafting the super-details of his Cuba policy, he will consult the Cuban-American community to get our input. Check again. Makes sense to consult the folks who obsess about the topic on a daily basis.
· He will maintain the embargo. Check yet again. Contrary to some current opinion, the embargo is a critical source of influence on the Cuban regime. In fact, since Castro took power, there has been one period of liberalization in Cuba: the beginning of the so-called “special period” after the collapse of the Soviet Union and before the new subsidies from Venezuela came in force. During this time, Cubans were allowed to start businesses for the first time and today’s dissident movement was born. Not surprisingly, this is when the full weight of the embargo was felt in Cuba.
· He will reverse Bush’s restrictions on travel and remittances by Cuban-Americans. This is more complicated. The “old-guard” is opposed to this since it certainly provides support to the regime. The “newer-guard” is in favor since a) many still have family in Cuba and b) conditions in Cuba are tough. For folks who don’t know, here’s what currently happens to a dollar sent to Cuba. First, you can use the US dollar to transact in the black market to buy whatever you can find, e.g., gas for your car, cement to fix your roof, or a haircut. (it is currently legal to hold dollars, though this has changed before) – these are things by the way, the State is supposed to guarantee. If you can’t find what you need, or are in need of basic staples (i.e, food) you need to convert the dollar to a third currency, commonly referred to as “chavito”. The government happily does the exchange, for a ~20% tax. Then you can use your 80 cents to buy products at state stores which charge an abomination for the product. So, you are cheated three times: scrounge for what the state is supposed to provide, if you don’t find it, pay an exorbitant fee, and then succumb to gouging. Nonetheless, the family receiving the dollar gets a little help. Back to Obama – rather than just lifting the policy, why not ask for something in return? Say, stop charging the freaking 20% fee!!
· He will engage with the Island. Ok, this is the biggest potential roadblock. What does that mean? What’s the worst case scenario? Obama meets with Raul to have a chat and tells him that it would be good if Cubans had a few more freedoms. This would be disastrous. What business does a US President have talking to a man who has personally executed God knows how many people, and ordered the execution of God knows how many more? Who, for 49 years, has made it his sole purpose to trample on every freedom that Americans hold dear? This is more so if it’s just a conversation so they can “exchange ideas”. Mr. Obama, you’re not going to learn much. Ok, so what would be good engagement? Send a mid-level State Department official to Cuba to reiterate that Cuba’s oppressive regime is unacceptable, and that change must happen. That’s keeping with the past. However, he should make a few changes:
o Publicly specify that the US has no interest in invading Cuba.
o Acknowledge that the death of Fidel (hopefully soon) is a historic moment, one primed for a transition to normalcy (i.e., democracy and capitalism).
o Confirm that the US is willing to be a partner in this transition, so long as Cuba acts in good faith.
o Present a holistic framework on tit-for-tat exchanges: reforms on the island for improved relations with the US (i.e., partial lifting of the embargo, etc.).
o Mr. Obama, the day Raul moves to free and fair elections, hey, have all the tea you’d like with him.

Ok, we all know that Presidential candidates are busy people, having hundreds of topics in their heads at any one time, and probably crafting their policies “just in time”. So it is a bit unreasonable to have expected Obama to share a super detailed approach. However, three statements would have gone a long way:

· My administration’s engagement will be objective-based, rather than just for the “relationship”.
· I, personally, as President of the United States, will not meet with Raul Castro until significant reforms in the island are underway.
· The embargo should be viewed as neither a failed policy nor an iconoclastic one never to be changed – it is one of the best negotiating tools the US has in its tool-kit.

Please share your thoughts…would love to read other opinions from readers.

Is Speaking to Raul Castro a Necessary Evil?

While attending the Cuban American National Foundation’s Cuban Independence luncheon, I heard Senator Barack Obama’s describe how he would be willing to meet with Raul Castro if such a meeting included a clear agenda that would lead to Cuba attaining democracy without accepting any compromise on Cuba’s freedom. He makes a nuanced distinction between requiring that the Cuban government take specific prior steps to earn such a meeting (preconditions) and setting an agenda narrowly focused on bringing democracy to Cuba.

Whether it is with preconditions or only with a defined agenda, the notion of meeting with Raul Castro is, understandably, emotionally and intellectually difficult for many, particularly us Cuban-Americans, including me, to accept as a fruitful approach to regain Cuba’s freedom. Both Castro brothers have been unwavering and ruthless dictators who betrayed the hopes of a revolution that they hijacked and took down a path that, over nearly fifty years, has brought nothing other than suffering, repression and destruction to our homeland. We all have stories about the damage that these tyrants have brought upon our families and there is a legitimate argument that an encounter with Cuba’s oppressors could potentially legitimize them and / or may demoralize the opposition movement on the island. As a result, it may be preferable for Senator Obama, should he become President, to instead extend repeated and overt invitations for dialogue to any true reformist who, from his current position within Cuba’s power structure, would be willing to organize a group to push Raul and his ailing older brother from power. This scenario could make things difficult for Raul Castro and, if successful, would be far preferable to negotiating with the principal culprits of Cuba’s tragedy. However, this approach requires persistence on the part of the U.S. and it may require it to burn political capital internationally. There is also a material risk that such an approach could ultimately bare no fruit given the strength of Cuba's police state and the vested interest that those in power have to maintain the status quo as a means to secure their well-being. If that is the case, should we just sit around with our arms crossed and keep waiting for a day of change that we do not help to precipitate?

As a Republican, I am frustrated by the fact that during the last two terms of a Republican administration not a lot has been accomplished to bring about democracy in Cuba. It is particularly frustrating when one considers that this particular Republican administration owes a lot to the support it received from the Cuban American community in Florida. As a result, I am quite tired of empty promises that lead to no action while Cuba continues to suffer.

If sitting down with Raul Castro meant his disgraced departure from Cuba and Cuba regaining its freedom, would it be worth to swallow the bitter pill of dealing with a malevolent despot for the sake of our 11+ million brothers and sisters on the island? This is not a pleasant alternative, but nothing would be worse than the Castro dictatorship transitioning from its current state of high dependence on its individual leaders to institutionalized communism that can lasts for many more decades. This is exactly what is currently at risk. The answer is not easy, but what is your take?

Cuban Independence Day Luncheon

The Cuban Independence Day Luncheon lunch has begun and Senator Obama is scheduled to address the attendees at 1:20PM. There is no internet access in the ballroom so I’ll do my best to update the comment section as often as I can with highlights of the event and crowd reaction.