Showing posts with label Cuba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cuba. Show all posts

01 May 2013

RAG RADIO / Thorne Dreyer : Pedro Gatos and Val Liveoak on Nicaragua, Cuba, and the Global South

From left, Pedro Gatos, Rag Radio's Thorne Dreyer, and Val Liveoak, in the studios of KOOP-FM in Austin, Texas, Friday, April 26, 2013. Photo by Roger Baker / The Rag Blog.
Rag Radio podcast:
Pedro Gatos and Val Liveoak on changes
in Cuba, Nicaragua, and the Global South
We discuss the legacy of Hugo Chavez, the state of the Cuban revolution, the landmark genocide trials in Guatemala, and the growing challenge to U.S. hegemony in the hemisphere.
By Rag Radio / The Rag Blog / May 1, 2013

Peace activists Pedro Gatos and Val Liveoak joined Rag Radio host Thorne Dreyer in a discussion of recent developments in Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and the Global South on Friday, April 26, 2013. Rag Radio is a syndicated radio program produced at the studios of KOOP 91.7-FM in Austin, Texas.

Listen to or download our interview with Pedro Gatos and Val Liveoak here:


Among the topics Gatos and Liveoak discussed on the show were the legacy of Hugo Chavez in Nicaragua and the recent narrow victory of Nicolas Maduro; Cuba in transition and the state of the continuing revolution; the landmark genocide trials in Guatemala of former head of state Efraín Ríos Montt and former military intelligence chief José Mauricio Rodríguez Sanchez; and the region's growing challenge to U.S. hegemony.

Pedro Gatos (aka Pete Katz) is an activist, a specialist in Latin American politics and history, a radio show host, and a licensed chemical dependency counselor. He was employed in the Travis County Justice System in Austin, Texas, for 24 years.

He founded the Pedro Gatos Institute on Addiction, Health and Social Theory. He has facilitated workshops on subjects ranging from addiction and the War on Drugs to U.S. foreign policy and "The Bay of Pigs 50 Years Later."

Gatos has visited Cuba five times since 2000 and has had exclusive interviews with then National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcón and many others. Pedro hosts Bringing Light into Darkness Mondays at 6 p.m. on KOOP-FM in Austin.

Val Liveoak is the volunteer Coordinator of Friends Peace Teams’ Peacebuilding en las Américas program. An activist since 1971, she founded the Friends Peace Teams in 1993, and has been involved with many community organizations and nonviolent struggles.

For 21 years, she has been a facilitator with the Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP), working in Mexico, Canada, Burundi, Rwanda, Kenya, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Cuba, St. Croix, St. Kitts, Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Val lives in San Antonio, but spends most of the year in Suchitoto, El Salvador, and travels throughout the region. She has been named a “Woman of Peace” by Womens’ Peacepower Foundation (2009) and Peacemaker of the Year by the Austin Peace and Justice Center (1986).

Listen to our December 9, 2011, Rag Radio interview with Val Liveoak here.

Rag Radio has aired since September 2009 on KOOP 91.7-FM, an all-volunteer cooperatively-run community radio station in Austin, Texas. Hosted and produced by Rag Blog editor and long-time alternative journalist Thorne Dreyer, a pioneer of the Sixties underground press movement, Rag Radio is broadcast every Friday from 2-3 p.m. (CDT) on KOOP, and is rebroadcast on Sundays at 10 a.m. (EDT) on WFTE, 90.3-FM in Mt. Cobb, PA, and 105.7-FM in Scranton, PA.

The show is streamed live on the web by both stations and, after broadcast, all Rag Radio shows are posted as podcasts at the Internet Archive.

Rag Radio is produced in association with The Rag Blog, a progressive Internet newsmagazine, and the New Journalism Project, a Texas 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Tracey Schulz is the show's engineer and co-producer.

Rag Radio can be contacted at ragradio@koop.org.

Coming up on Rag Radio:
THIS FRIDAY, May 3, 2013:
Free-form radio pioneer Bob Fass of Pacifica Radio's WBAI-FM in New York, with filmmaker Paul Lovelace (Radio Unnameable).
Friday, May 10, 2013: Journalism professor & activist Robert Jensen, author of Arguing for Our Lives: A User's Guide to Constructive Dialog.
Friday, May 17, 2013: Political economist Gar Alperovitz, author of What Then Must We Do?
May 24, 2013 (RESCHEDULED): Amsterdam-based poet John Sinclair, legendary founder of the White Panther Party and former manager of the MC5.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

25 February 2013

Lamar W. Hankins : Questions Ted Cruz Won't Answer

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the inquisitor. Photo by Jim Watson / AFP / Getty Images.
Questions that Rafael Edward
'Ted' Cruz won’t answer
Cruz’s performance has been described by various commentators and reporters as disgraceful, appalling, embarrassing, slanderous, impertinent, uncivil, moralistic, swaggering, belligerent, nasty, disrespectful, and demagoguing.
By Lamar W. Hankins / The Rag Blog / February 25, 2013

As a smart guy who went to Princeton and Harvard, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas must have missed the courses that taught how to do research. Some of the questions he asked former Sen. Chuck Hagel in recent hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, which considered Hagel’s nomination to head up the Pentagon, demonstrated the most embarrassing ignorance, if not mendacity, that has been heard recently in the Senate. For now, I’ll attribute Cruz’s questions and comments to the former.

To demonstrate how questions can be used to cast aspersions on someone’s character, consider the following questions for Sen. Cruz.

Question: Mr. Cruz, do you now or have you ever associated with anyone involved, directly or indirectly, with the Cuban American National Foundation?

Question: Are you aware that the Cuban American National Foundation has been implicated as a terrorist organization because of its alleged support for planning and funding terrorist attacks within Cuba, including a September 1997 bombing that killed an Italian tourist in Havana?

Question: Have you ever been associated with or supported the Cuban-born anti-Castro terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, who claimed in 1998 that he received financial support from the Cuban American National Foundation for a bombing campaign carried out in 1997 in Cuba, and who has also been linked with the 1976 bombing of Cubana Airlines flight 455, which killed 73 passengers (all of whom were civilians)?

Question: Are you aware that several ranking members of the Cuban American National Foundation have been the subject of major drug trafficking prosecutions, including that of Gaspar Jiménez and Rolando Mendoza?

Question: Do you now support the extradition to Venezuela of the Cuban-born exile Luis Posada Carriles based on the terrorist activities he is alleged to have committed there?

These questions have more justification than those Sen. Cruz (R-TX) asked of Chuck Hagel during his confirmation hearings.. The aspersions Cruz cast against Hagel at the hearings were as close to McCarthyism as anything we have heard in recent years, as Cruz suggested that Chuck Hagel had received money from terrorist groups that have opposed Israel. Cruz wanted to know if Hagel had received speaking fees to address a group called “Friends of Hamas.” What led to these allegations is a comedy of right-wing error and dishonesty that would be tragic if the players had credibility with anyone except Cruz’s Tea Party friends.

New York Daily News reporter Dan Friedman explained on February 19 that he was the inadvertent source for the crazy (and false) right-wing notion that Hagel had received money from terrorist groups:
When rumors swirled that Hagel received speaking fees from controversial organizations, I attempted to check them out. On Feb. 6, I called a Republican aide on Capitol Hill with a question: Did Hagel’s Senate critics know of controversial groups that he had addressed? Hagel was in hot water for alleged hostility to Israel. So, I asked my source, had Hagel given a speech to, say, the "Junior League of Hezbollah, in France"? And: What about "Friends of Hamas"?

The names were so over-the-top, so linked to terrorism in the Middle East, that it was clear I was talking hypothetically and hyperbolically. No one could take seriously the idea that organizations with those names existed -- let alone that a former senator would speak to them. Or so I thought.
On February 9, a story at the website Breitbart.com suggested that the White House was ducking providing information about sources of Hagel’s foreign income because one of the sources of money was “Friends of Hamas.” It claimed that the White House refused to deny that information. The author, Ben Shapiro, tweeted about the matter to 40,000 people.

The story was then picked up by RedState.com and the National Review’s The Corner. Fox News host Mike Huckabee commented on the matter while visiting Israel. Lou Dobbs, the gloating host of a business show on Fox, Andrew McCarthy of the National Review, and right-wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt all spread the false and malevolent information.

The allegation, in the form of a question, based on a fictitious name of a nonexistent group went viral. And none other than Sen. Ted Cruz used the completely false story to support his vote in committee against Hagel. The smear of Hagel was complete, for it supported the claim that he was anti-Israel. Republicans used it to justify a filibuster against a vote in the Senate on Hagel’s nomination, though it has been predicted that the nomination will be approved during the last week in February.

Cruz’s smear of Hagel also included an attack on Hagel’s patriotism. Cruz claimed that Hagel is anti-military. But even John McCain could not abide this attack. He upbraided Cruz by vouching for Hagel’s patriotism. After all, Hagel is a war hero who served his country with courage as an infantry squad leader, was wounded twice in Vietnam (for which he received two Purple Hearts), and has fought for the needs of veterans and military families ever since.

Cruz’s performance has been described by various commentators and reporters as disgraceful, appalling, embarrassing, slanderous, impertinent, uncivil, moralistic, swaggering, belligerent, nasty, disrespectful, and demagoguing. In an attempt to praise Cruz, Republican Sen. David Vitter from Louisiana, said that Cruz has a “really sharp sort of disciplined legal mind.” I guess honesty and integrity are not part of a “sort of disciplined” thought process.

Cruz appears to be just the sort of politician Texans still oriented toward the John Birch Society love to vote for, which is why they get elected again and again. But such politicians poison the political system with their mendacity, contributing to the cynicism of many voters. Only 48.9 % of eligible Texans participated in the 2012 election in which Cruz won his Senate seat. Cruz attracted the votes of less than 28% of the eligible voters, which is enough to win in this political culture.

When over 51% of eligible voters are so repelled by both major political parties that they won’t bother to vote, there is something terribly wrong in the land. I’ve often attributed this malaise to inadequate emphasis on the duties of citizenship, but it is difficult to convince disillusioned voters that the candidates of the major parties can make a difference in their lives or in the governance and direction of the country.

Until the major parties, or third parties still developing, talk and act convincingly about the need to change our civic culture, voters who sit on the sidelines will continue to allow the Ted Cruzes of the state to win by default.

A few politicians moved in that direction this past election by promoting the narrative that we are a country built on a social contract that means the government serves the needs of all the people so that commerce can flourish and no one is left behind because of inequality, misadventure, misfortune, or intentional exploitation by the powerful. They understand that those who succeed do so because of the help provided by a government that builds and maintains the infrastructure for us all, and because of the opportunities that some of us have, but not all of us enjoy, due in large part to the accident of birth.

But most Texans will require more to believe that our political, social, and economic systems now rigged in favor of the powerful can change. They have no reason to believe that our laws mean much when the powerful are not prosecuted for their misdeeds and crimes. Contrary to the common shibboleth, we are not a nation based on laws and the enforcement of those laws when the powerful are seldom held to answer for their transgressions, as in the Wall Street debacle of the past decade.

So long as corporations can dominate the country and pollute our earth, water, and skies with impunity, leaving the mess for the rest of us to clean up, or live and die with, there is little reason for non-voters to give up their disillusionment. These corporations make huge profits and slough off their polluting by-products for the rest of us to pay, so their executives and stock-holders can benefit.

All who open their eyes and minds can see that the deck is stacked against those who are not wealthy and powerful. Equality of opportunity and justice are just figments of the imagination, achieved only rarely in reality. People like Ted Cruz will always take advantage of such a system, destroying lives and reputations if necessary to achieve their goals.

And Cruz will never answer the questions posed above because he believes that terrorism against Castro’s Cuba is always justified, as is terrorism committed by the U.S. and Israel. But it is his view that no other country or group should be allowed to take such actions to achieve their interests.

Ted Cruz is a man for all Tea Party seasons, who believes that extremism based on lies is no vice.

[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos, Texas, city attorney, is also a columnist for the San Marcos Mercury. This article © Freethought San Marcos, Lamar W. Hankins. Read more articles by Lamar W. Hankins on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

17 October 2012

Harry Targ : From the Bay of Pigs to the Missile Crisis / 3

Front page of New York Daily News, October 23, 1962. From the Mitchell Archives.

The Cuba story, Part 3:
The Bay of Pigs to the missile crisis
The Cuban missile crisis suggests that the United States would go to any extreme, even nuclear war, to defend the interests of capitalism.
By Harry Targ / The Rag Blog / October 17, 2012
"In the missile crisis the Kennedys played their dangerous game skillfully... But all their skill would have been to no avail if in the end Khrushchev had preferred his prestige, as they preferred theirs, to the danger of a world war. In this respect we are all indebted to Khrushchev." (I.F. Stone,“What If Khrushchev Hadn’t Backed Down?” in In a Time of Torment, Vintage, 1967)
[Part three of three.]

The Kennedy Administration goes to the brink of nuclear war

The period between the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the announcement of the Alliance for Progress economic assistance program, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was one of escalating hostilities. Fidel Castro declared Cuba a Socialist state. The United States pressured members of the Organization of American States (OAS) to expel Cuba.

The CIA began campaigns to assassinate the Cuban leader and President Kennedy initiated the complete economic blockade that exists until today. In addition, Castro warned that the U.S. was continuing to plan for another invasion. The Soviet Union began providing more economic and military support to the Cubans, including anti-aircraft missiles and jet aircraft.

In October 1962, U.S. spy planes sighted the construction of Soviet surface-to-air missile installations and the presence of Soviet medium-range bombers on Cuban soil. These sightings were made after Republican leaders had begun to attack Kennedy for allowing a Soviet military presence on the island. Kennedy had warned the Soviets in September not to install “offensive” military capabilities in Cuba. Photos indicated that the Soviets had also begun to build ground-to-ground missile installations on the island, which Kennedy defined as “offensive” and a threat to national security.

After securing the photographs Kennedy assembled a special team of advisors, known as EXCOM, to discuss various responses the United States might make. He excluded any strategy that prioritized taking the issue to the United Nations for resolution.

After much deliberation EXCOM focused on two policy responses: a strategic air strike against Soviet targets in Cuba or a blockade of incoming Soviet ships coupled with threats of further action if the Soviet missiles were not withdrawn. Both options had a high probability of escalating to nuclear war if the Soviet Union refused to back down.

High drama, much of it televised, followed the initiation of a naval blockade of Soviet ships heading across the Atlantic to Cuba. Fortunately, the leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, sent notes to the President that led to a tacit agreement between the two leaders whereby Soviet missiles would be withdrawn from Cuba and the United States would promise not to invade Cuba to overthrow the Castro government. In addition, the President indicated that obsolete U.S. missiles in Turkey would be disassembled over time.

Most scholars argue that the missile crisis constituted Kennedy’s finest hour as statesman and diplomat. They agree with the administration view that the missiles constituted a threat to U.S. security, despite Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s claim in EXCOM meetings that the missiles did not change the strategic balance between the United States and the Soviet Union. Most of these scholars have agreed that the symbolic value of the installation of Soviet missiles could have had grave consequences for U.S. “credibility.”

Given the importance of the missiles, leading social scientists have written that the Kennedy team carefully considered a multitude of policy responses. EXCOM did not ignore competing analyses, as had been done in the decisional process prior to the Bay of Pigs. The blockade policy that was adopted, experts believe, constituted a rational application of force that it was hoped would lead to de-escalation of tensions. All observers agreed that the United States and the Soviet Union had gone to the brink of nuclear war. Even the President estimated that there was a 50 percent probability of full-scale nuclear war.

In the end the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Analysts said the Soviet Union suffered a propaganda defeat for putting the missiles on Cuban soil in the first place and then withdrawing them after U.S. threats. Khrushchev was criticized by the Chinese government and within a year he was ousted from leadership in the Soviet Union.

In the light of this U.S. “victory,” Kennedy has been defined as courageous and rational. The real meaning of the Cuban Missile Crisis, however, is different, even 50 years after the event. The crisis actually suggests that the United States quest to maintain and enhance its empire would lead it to go to any extreme, even nuclear war, to defend the interests of capitalism. To avoid serious losses, whether symbolic or material, for capitalism, any policy was justified.

Further, in terms of U.S. politics, Kennedy was calculating the effects of the missiles on the chances for his party to retain control of Congress in 1962. A second “defeat” over Cuba (the Bay of Pigs was the first) would have heightened the opposition’s criticisms of his foreign policy.

Finally, in personal terms, Kennedy was driven by the need to establish a public image as courageous and powerful in confronting the Soviets. Khrushchev had spoken harshly to him at a summit meeting in Vienna in 1961 and Castro had been victorious at the Bay of Pigs. The President’s own “credibility” had been damaged and a show of force in October 1962, was necessary for his career.

Because of imperialism, politics, and personal political fortunes, the world almost went to nuclear war 50 years ago. As I.F. Stone suggested shortly after the crisis, nuclear war was avoided because the Soviet Union chose to withdraw from the tense conflict rather than to engage in it further.

National Security Archives files referred to in an earlier blog suggest, "the historical record shows that the decisions leading to the crisis which almost brought nuclear war have been repeated over and over again since the early 1960s." The danger of the unabashed and irresponsible use of force and the legitimation of the idea that diplomacy can be conducted using nuclear weapons and other devastating weapons systems still represents a threat to human survival.

This is the third of three articles that address U.S./Cuban relations that culminated in a crisis over Cuba that almost led to nuclear war. These essays are adapted from my book, Strategy of an Empire in Decline: Cold War II, 1986.

[Harry Targ is a professor of political science at Purdue University who lives in West Lafayette, Indiana. He blogs at Diary of a Heartland Radical -- and that's also the name of his book from Changemaker Press which can be found at Lulu.com. Read more of Harry Targ's articles on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

09 October 2012

Harry Targ : From the Bay of Pigs to the Missile Crisis / 2

John F. Kennedy and Rómulo Betancourt at Alliance for Progress meeting in La Morita, Venezuela, Dec. 16, 1961. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

The Cuba story, Part 2:
The Bay of Pigs to the missile crisis
The Castros of this world, the Kennedy Administration believed (as has every administration since), had to be crushed at all costs.
By Harry Targ / The Rag Blog / October 9, 2012
"I have called on all the people of the hemisphere to join in a new Alliance for Progress -- Alianza para Progreso -- a vast cooperative effort, unparalleled in magnitude and nobility of purpose, to satisfy the basic needs of the American people for homes, work and land, health and schools -- techo, trabajo y tierra, salud y escuela...

"To achieve this goal political freedom must accompany material progress. Our Alliance for Progress is an alliance of free governments-and it must work to eliminate tyranny from a hemisphere in which it has no rightful place. Therefore let us express our special friendship to the people of Cuba and the Dominican Republic-and the hope they will soon rejoin the society of free men, uniting with us in our common effort." (Address by President Kennedy at a White House reception for Latin American diplomats and members of Congress, March 13, 1961)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." (Address by President Kennedy to diplomats one year after his Alliance for Progress speech. March 13, 1962)
[Part two of three.]

The Alliance for Progress as a “non-Communist” path to development 

The Kennedy Administration initiated a policy of foreign assistance in Latin America to complement the United States’ historic use of military force in the region. The President’s economic program was announced in the aftermath of long-standing complaints from Latin American dictators and some elected leaders that the United States had supported European recovery, the celebrated Marshall Plan of the 1940s, but ignored the Western Hemisphere.

Most importantly, the Kennedy Administration and anti-Communist friends in the Hemisphere became increasingly concerned about the enthusiasm the Cuban revolution was generating in the region.

In the midst of what was presented to the public as the “threat of Communism” in Latin America, Kennedy presented his “Alliance for Progress” aid package to diplomats and Congressmen on March 3, 1961 (about one month before JFK authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion).

The Alliance, the President promised, would provide public and private assistance equivalent to $20 billion to Latin American countries over a 10-year period. The plan projected annual growth rates in Latin America of 2.5 percent and would lead to the alleviation of malnutrition, poor housing and health, single-crop economies, and iniquitous landholding patterns (all campaigns underway in revolutionary Cuba).

Loans were contingent upon the recipient governments, and their political and economic elites, carrying out basic land reform, establishing progressive taxation, creating social welfare programs, and expanding citizenship and opportunities for political participation.

However, the effect of the Alliance, even before Kennedy’s death, was negative. Problems of poverty, declining growth rates, inflation, lower prices for export commodities, and the maintenance of autocratic and corrupt governments persisted. The reality of the Alliance and most other aid programs was that they were predicated on stabilizing those corrupt ruling classes that had been the source of underdevelopment in the first place.

The connections between the Alliance program and the interests of United States capital were clear. For example, a section of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1962 authorized the president to cut off aid to any nation that nationalized or placed “excessive” taxes on U.S. corporations or which terminated contacts with U.S. firms.

The act also emphasized monetary stability and the kinds of austerity programs common to U.S. and International Monetary Fund aid, requiring nations receiving aid to reduce public services and to maintain low wage rates to entice foreign investment.

Further, Alliance funds were often to be used to serve the interests of foreign capital; for example building roads, harbors, and transportation facilities to speed up the movement of locally-produced but foreign-owned goods to international markets.

Finally, the symbolism of the Alliance proclamation by President Kennedy was designed to promote the idea that U.S. resources, in collaboration with reformism in Latin America, would create societies that met the needs of the people and encouraged their political participation. The Alliance was presented as a response to Fidel Castro, a “non-Communist manifesto”for development.

The record of poverty and military rule throughout the Hemisphere suggested that there was no correspondence between symbol and reality. Kennedy, in a moment of unusual frankness, was reported to have said that the United States preferred liberal regimes in Latin America, but if they could not be maintained, it would much prefer a right-wing dictatorship to a leftist regime.

After Kennedy’s death, Thomas Mann, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs in the Johnson Administration, told reporters that U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere was not about economic development or democratization, but fighting Communism and protecting U.S. economic interests.

In reality, the frankness about the motivations behind U.S. policy expressed by Kennedy after the Alliance speech and Thomas Mann after Kennedy’s death clearly showed that the bottom line in terms of U.S. policy remained support for international capital.

The Castros of this world, the Kennedy Administration believed (as has every administration since), had to be crushed at all costs. What remained significant over the next 60 years was that the Cuban revolution could not be defeated.

As the next essay in this series suggests, the Kennedy Administration, having failed to overthrow Cuban socialism at the Bay of Pigs, nor diminish its luster in the region through the economic bribery of the Alliance for Progress program, was willing to go to the brink of nuclear war, the Cuban Missile crisis, to combat socialism in the Western Hemisphere.

This essay is the second of three articles that address U.S./Cuban relations that culminated in a crisis over Cuba that almost led to nuclear war. These essays are adapted from my book, Strategy of an Empire in Decline: Cold War II, 1986.

[Harry Targ is a professor of political science at Purdue University who lives in West Lafayette, Indiana. He blogs at Diary of a Heartland Radical -- and that's also the name of his book from Changemaker Press which can be found at Lulu.com. Read more of Harry Targ's articles on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

07 August 2012

Harry Targ : Syrian Policy Looks Familiar to Cubans

Members of UN General Assembly vote on Saudi Arabian-sponsored draft resolution against Syria. Photo by Kathy Willens / AP.

Syrian policy looks familiar to Cubans
Those who sponsored the resolution condemning violence were the same nations that had 'played a major role in the militarization of the situation in Syria, by providing weapons to the terrorist groups.'
By Harry Targ / The Rag Blog / August 7, 2012

The United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution Friday, August 3, 2012, that The New York Times said, “severely criticized the Syrian government, blaming it almost exclusively for the killings and other atrocities that have come to shape the 17-month uprising there.”

The resolution condemning Syria ironically implied that it was that country that refused to carry out the peace plan that was proposed four months earlier by Kofi Annan. No mention was made in the resolution that the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, among others had been feeding supplies to anti-government militias that encouraged them to violence rather than negotiation.

While 133 Western and Arab League allies voted for the resolution, 33 countries abstained, and 12 voted“no.” These were portrayed as Syria’s “slim group of backers, which include Russia, China, and Iran.”

Syria is a dictatorship that in the recent civil war has leveled brutal violence against its own people. But the Syrian Ambassador was correct in asserting that those who sponsored the resolution condemning violence were the same nations that had “played a major role in the militarization of the situation in Syria, by providing weapons to the terrorist groups.”

It is not surprising that The New York Times failed to mention that Cuba has been one of the longstanding critics of U.S. inspired wars on weak countries such as Libya and now Syria. The Cuban Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Pedro Nunez Mosquera, warned that the resolution which was adopted would encourage more violence from the opposition and retaliation by the state. With growing instability, he asserted, foreign intervention would become legitimized the way it was in the Libyan case.

In an article in Prensa Latina, the Cuban diplomat’s position was summarized: “Cuba considers that all acts of violence, massacres and terrorist acts that claim innocent lives in Syria should cease” but this will require that the anti-Syrian coalition “must put an end to arms smuggling and money to insurgent groups and their training.” Nunez also criticized the major Western media’s one-sided reporting on the violence in Syria.

It is clear that Cuba’s criticisms of the wars on Libya and Syria and the Western economic blockade and military threats toward Iran are motivated by self-interest as well as principle. Cuba, as a country that has suffered an economic blockade by the United States for over 50 years and a U.S. policy designed to diplomatically isolate it, sees similarities between its experiences and U.S. policies toward Syria and Libya.

Despite some U.S. liberalization of travel to the island nation, government agencies and counterrevolutionary organizations in Miami continue to funnel funds, technology, and propaganda to create an opposition that, they hope, will lead to an armed resistance against the Cuban government. If the Cuban government responds to terrorist acts, a U.S orchestrated coalition of dependent allies can justify the transfer of arms, propaganda campaigns, and escalating calls for revolution.

What may be called today the "Libyan Model of Destabilization” is not new to Cubans and as a result they see the necessity of continued vigilance.

Alan Gross, hired by the United States Agency for International Development, was caught distributing computer technology to selected communities on the island. A global propaganda campaign was raised about a recent car accident in which two well-known opponents of the regime who were traveling with rightwing Europeans in the countryside were killed. No evidence of foul play was provided concerning the accident although charges by Miami Cubans of government violence have been broadly distributed.

Also a recent Miami scholarly conference was organized with presentations by counterrevolutionaries who argued that the recent economic reforms on the island will never work. And repeatedly U.S. and British media highlight alleged growing disenchantment with the regime.

The Libyan Model of Destabilization, which has its roots in the years of economic blockade of Cuba, terrorist acts and assassination plots, the creation of counter-revolutionary groups in Florida and New Jersey, and even an armed invasion, is not likely to work in the Cuban case. First, the Cuban regime has broad popular support. Second, Cuba’s first priority remains social and economic justice. Third, Cuban health care and education are among the best in the Global South.

And, finally, Cuba remains an inspiration to those countries throughout the Western Hemisphere (such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Argentina, Brazil, and El Salvador) who seek to create political and economic autonomy in the 21st century. As evidenced in positions taken at the recent Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, Latin American countries defended Cuban national sovereignty and are demanding that the latter be included in future meetings of Hemisphere nations.

But as the Libyan model and now the Syria crisis suggest, weak countries everywhere in the world must remain vigilant. Imperialism still survives.

[Harry Targ is a professor of political science at Purdue University who lives in West Lafayette, Indiana. He blogs at Diary of a Heartland Radical -- and that's also the name of his new book which can be found at Lulu.com. Read more of Harry Targ's articles on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

09 April 2012

Harry Targ : Culture and the Cuban Experience

The Cuban band Sierra Maestra was formed at the University of Havana in 1976.

Economics, politics, and culture:
The Cuban experience
Culture can be revolutionary when it expresses pain, implies a better life, and extends the experiences of some to others...
By Harry Targ / The Rag Blog / April 9, 2012

[These remarks were prepared for a presentation before a musical performance at Purdue University by Sierra Maestra, the stirring band formed at the University of Havana in 1976. The band was named after the mountain range in Eastern Cuba that was the site of the formation of the Cuban revolutionary force that overthrew the U.S.-supported dictator in the 1950s. The nine-person band promotes and celebrates the classic Cuba Son music that has its roots in the diversity of class, race, ethnicity, and gender in Cuban history.]

People’s lives begin with the struggle for existence and are supplemented by the pursuit of joy and liberation. Culture, often reflecting the pain of daily existence and the vision of a better life, is intimately embedded in history, economics, and politics.

Cuba’s revolutionary poet Jose Marti describes his place in history, economics, and politics.
I am a truthful man,
From the land of the palm,
Before dying, I want to
Share these poems of my soul.

My poems are light green,
But they are also flaming red
My verses are like a wounded fawn.
Seeking refuge in the mountain.
(Pete Seeger reports learning these two additional Marti verses from a Cuban of African descent in 1983.)
Red, as in the desert,
Rose the sun on the horizon.
It shone on a dead slave
Hanging from a tree of the mountain.

A child saw it, trembled,
With passion for those that wept,
And swore that with his blood
He would wash away that crime.
Latin American social theorists and activists of the era of the Cuban revolutionary process (since the 1950s) defined the economic and political context of countries like Cuba -- less passionately but rigorously -- as a result of dependency. For example, Brazilian social scientist Theotonio Dos Santos wrote about what he called “the structure of dependence.”
Dependence is a situation in which a certain group of countries have their economy conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy, to which the former is subject.
Andre Gunter Frank, looking at the broad sweep of history beginning with the rise of capitalism out of feudalism referred to “the development of underdevelopment.” During the fifteenth century the sectors of the globe now referred to as the “Global North” and “Global South” were roughly equal in economic and military power. But as a result of the globalization of capitalism and militarism, some countries, primarily in Europe and North America, developed at the expense of most of the other countries of the world.

Dependency theorists began to include domestic class structures in their analysis of relations between dominant and dependent nations. In addition to dominant and weak countries bound by exploitation and violence, within both powerful and weak countries class structures existed.

In fact, rulers in poor countries usually were tied by interests and ideology to the interests and ideology of the ruling classes in powerful countries. And, most important, the poor, the exploited, the repressed in both rich and poor countries shared common experiences, often a common outlook, and potentially a common culture.

I have written a book chapter about “Themes in Cuban History” from the point of view of dominance and dependence (from Harry R. Targ, Cuba and the USA: A New World Order? International Publishers, 1992). The chapter addresses:
  • Spanish conquest between 1511 and 1515
  • Cuba as sugar producer
  • Cuba as slave society. By 1827 over 50 percent of Cuban residents were of African descent.
  • Britain’s economic and military penetration of the island beginning in the 18th century
  • Revolutionary ferment, particularly slave revolts, permeating 19th century Cuban society
  • The visions of U.S. leaders, including Thomas Jefferson, that some day Cuba would join the new nation to the North.
  • U.S. investor penetration of the island, challenging the Spanish and British. By the 1880s over 80 percent of sugar exports went to the United States and large plantations on the island were owned by Americans.
  • The Spanish/Cuban/American war of 1898 which lead to a full transfer of colonial and neo-colonial hegemony from the Spanish and British to the United States
  • The United States establishment of economic, political, and cultural domination of the island from 1898 to 1959. Subordinate wealthy and powerful Cubans controlled the political system, benefitting from U.S. hegemony, while “the poor people of this earth” on the island made up the vast majority.
  • 1953 to 1959 armed struggle which overthrew the Batista dictatorship and the elimination of U.S. interests on the island.
  • 1959 to the present Cuba haltingly, with international and domestic opposition, pursuing a new society to “wash away that crime” of long years of empire and dependency.
How is this history relevant to indigenous Cuban music and its connections with U.S. culture?

Culture, it seems to me, grows out of the experience of peoples. That experience is shaped by history, economics, and politics. Music is a common way of communicating and sharing experience, particularly of pain and joy.

The seeds of a common Cuban culture were planted in various fields -- Africa, the sugar plantations of the island, and growing relations between Cubans and people of African descent in the region, including the United States.

Finally, culture can be revolutionary when it expresses pain, implies a better life, and extends the experiences of some to others -- of similar class, racial, ethnic, and gender histories.

So as we listen to Sierra Maestra and reflect on the roots of its music, its contribution to jazz in the U.S., and the commonalities of Cuban Son and U.S jazz and blues, we might remember Marti’s expression from the poet’s point of view:
With the poor people of this earth,
I want to share my lot.
The little streams of the mountains
Please me more than the sea.
(All verses quoted here are from Pete Seeger, Where Have all the Flowers Gone?: A Singer’s Stories, Songs, Seeds, Robberies, A Sing Out Publication,1993).

[Harry Targ is a professor of political science at Purdue University who lives in West Lafayette, Indiana. He blogs at Diary of a Heartland Radical -- and that's also the name of his new book which can be found at Lulu.com. Read more of Harry Targ's articles on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

19 January 2012

Jonah Raskin : Maverick Judge Reichbach Offers Verdict on Cuba

Judge Gustin Reichbach on the bench. Image from AP.

Rag Blog interview:
Maverick U.S. Judge Gustin Reichbach
offers verdict on Cuba today


By Jonah Raskin / The Rag Blog / January 19, 2012

For nearly 14 years, the Honorable Gustin Reichbach has served as a Supreme Court Judge in Brooklyn, New York, where he presides over grim murder trials and sentences defendants found guilty to long prison terms.

He’s one of a kind -- a compassionate judge without peers -- and he presides over a courtroom unlike any other in the nation. Clarence Darrow, Paul Robeson, and Nelson Mandela stare out at defendants, witnesses, and jurors alike. There’s also a poster of Augusto Sandino, the Nicaraguan revolutionary, on the wall, and a photo of an underground coal miner.

You know where Judge Reichbach’s sympathies lie when you walk into his courtroom. I’ve known him since 1967 and have thought of him as a friend ever since. He’s been my lawyer and has represented me in civil matters and he’s been a wise kind of consigliore, too.

Born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, in a blue collar family and educated at the State University of New York at Buffalo, he attended Columbia Law School, where I first met him, and where he took part in the protests of 1968, appearing on the cover of Newsweek that year in a photo that depicted confrontational student radicals.

Not surprisingly, the New York Bar Committee on Character and Fitness refused to approve his application to practice law. But bigwig lawyers went to bat for him and after nearly two years the Committee relented. In the early 1970s, he joined the Law Commune in New York and represented Black Panthers and Yippies, such as Abbie Hoffman.

In an article in The New York Times, reporter Chris Hedges noted that Reichbach was a judge in the spirit of Abbie not Julius Hoffman, the federal judge who tried and failed to squelch the antics of Abbie, Jerry, and their co-conspirators at the Chicago Conspiracy Trial.

From 1976 to 1998, when he was in private practice in Manhattan, Reichbach represented tenants in battles with landlords. In his first go-round as a judge, he urged prostitutes, who had been arrested and were on trial, to use prophylactics to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

The New York Daily News promptly dubbed him “The Condom Judge.” The label has followed him around for years. More recently, the New York tabloids have called him “soft on crime” and “soft on criminals” because he’s old-fashioned enough to abide by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Occasionally, he’s strayed beyond Brooklyn. In the 1970s, he practiced law in California and in 2003-2004 in Kosovo he presided over the UN-sanctioned war crimes tribunal and sentenced defendants to terms that ranged from 10 to 20 years.

He visited Cuba in December 2011 and in January 2012. I caught up with him soon after he returned to Brooklyn.

Former activist Gustin Reichbach reflects on the 1968 student strike at Colombia University with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.


Jonah Raskin: Is travel to Cuba easier these days than it was during the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Gustin Reichbach: Obama opened up travel for Cuban families, but otherwise hasn't eased the blockade at all. I was an invited guest of the Foreign Ministry and the Association of Jurists and flew from New York to Havana, but most Americans fly from Toronto or Cancun. Cubans think that if Obama is reelected he’ll lift the blockade. They show the same sort of optimism about him that many of us did three years ago.

What was the first thing you saw that really hit you?

Havana appears as a charming colonial town until up-close you see that most of the buildings are falling apart.

Did you feel that you went back in time, say, to the 1950s?

While the old cars provoke 1950's nostalgia, that isn’t the dominant leitmotif. Things are loosening up a bit, but you sense the dynamism is in the small private sector with people turning their homes into restaurants and boarding houses. The only people still imbued with revolutionary zeal are the old, old leaders, not the generation in its 20's.

Would you say Cuba is backward economically and politically?

Cuba is a poor country. Their economy hit rock bottom with the collapse of the USSR. This caused them to open up the economy very slightly, especially in the tourist sector for foreign exchange. As one older, disgruntled pensioner put it: “We have free doctors, but no medicine. We have free education but no books. We have free rent, but no money to fix the crumbling buildings.”

How does it compare to Venezuela which you also visited not long ago?

Venezuela has lots of oil and that makes a huge difference, though how well the oil industry and its revenue is being managed I can't say. Caracas is jammed with cars and gridlock and gas is 25 cents a gallon. In Cuba, gas is expensive. Chavez sends it from Venezuela and Cuba sends him doctors.

But the Cubans still have wonderful music, don’t they?

The music is great and everywhere at all hours. We saw the Buena Vista Social Club our last night in Havana and they were terrific.

What can you tell us about Cuban courts and judges?

The new law permits the ownership and sale of family occupied property so a new body of real estate law will have to be developed.

Is there justice in Cuba?

What did you learn about repression and political prisoners?

People seemed to mock the government more than fear it, but no one thinks it’s a democracy. When I asked a driver who would succeed Raul, he said, "Oh, some old general." The Cuban leaders have not groomed young people to take over after they’re gone.

I’ve heard the food is lousy. Is that accurate?

Food is terrible, though much better in private restaurants than in those run by the state. How they manage to make lobster taste like overcooked chicken breast is quite a trick.

When you talk to “Jose” and “Maria” in the street what do they have to say about their own country?

Jose grew up wanting to help the state develop and recognized that it gave him opportunities that he wouldn't otherwise have had. His daughter is in the States because of the freedom she’ll have to do her own thing.

So, it’s a nice place to visit, but you wouldn’t want to live there?

One could easily live in a beach house largely insulated from the daily life of most Cubans.There’s a lot of talk about influence peddling and corruption. Our friends were involved in a car accident and the police seemed to act appropriately, but they talked skeptically about the role connections might play. Law suits as we know them are less necessary, since people have medical coverage for free and they get their salary while disabled.

I’m not disillusioned because I have had few illusions. While a supporter of the Cuban revolution in the 1960s, and a perpetual opponent of the blockade, I start from the premise that no revolution is a success if it needs the same leaders for 50 years. Jesus's picture has been replaced by Che’s. That’s Cuban iconography.

What was the last thing you saw before you left?

The most disappointing thing was to experience how much hustling was going on, from steering to restaurants to selling street cigars. Cubans are curious about the United States. They want to talk with North Americans, but the hustling, which puts many travelers and tourists off-guard, makes it difficult to have genuine contacts with them. Still, despite the barriers, I managed to bridge the gap and to have conversations.

[Jonah Raskin is a frequent contributor to The Rag Blog and the author of The Radical Jack London, Marijuanaland, and For the Hell of It: The Life and Times of Abbie Hoffman. He is a professor at Sonoma State University. Read more articles by Jonah Raskin on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

10 April 2011

BOOKS / Karen Lee Wald : Cuba From the Other Side


Voices From the Other Side:
Keith Bolender's oral history
of terrorism against Cuba


By Karen Lee Wald / The Rag Blog / April 10, 2011

[Voices From the Other Side: An Oral History Of Terrorism Against Cuba by Keith Bolender (Pluto Press, August 15, 2010) Paperback, 224 pp., $21.]

I first learned of Keith Bolender’s book Voices From the Other Side: An Oral History of Terrorism Against Cuba when the author reached out to me after reading an article I’d written on Luis Posada Carriles on The Rag Blog.

The article, “Posada Carriles and the Puppies That Got Away,” was based on an interview with a woman who almost became a victim, along with three children she was caring for, in one of the hotels Posada’s thugs bombed in 1997. The title came from the coded message used by one of Posada’s hired killers in an earlier bombing that destroyed a passenger plane in flight, killing all aboard. The telephone message was “A bus with 73 dogs went over a cliff and all perished.”

Bolender thought I might be interested in his book, an oral history, like mine, taken from many of the survivors of the 50-plus years of terrorism against Cuba waged by the United States and Cuba’s former ruling class.

I was.

I thought it would be helpful if people who are always hearing and reading about the “repression of dissidents” in Cuba and jump to their defense could also hear the other side: what happened to the thousands of people whose lives were affected by the actions of terrorists from inside and outside the country.

I thought it would put a human face on the statistics regarding the material and human damage caused by counterrevolutionaries and mercenaries who are euphemistically called “dissidents” or “anti-Castro militants.”

Voices From the Other Side does this. But it also does a great deal more.

As expected, the first chapter gives an overview of the multiple forms of terrorism carried out against Cuba in what Bolender calls “the unknown war.”

He talks about “the bombs have that destroyed department stores, hotel lobbies, theatres, famous restaurants and bars -- people’s lives.” He talks about the first airline bombing in the history of the Western Hemisphere, and also reminds readers of “the explosion aboard a ship in Havana Harbor, killing and injuring hundreds.”

He tells readers about the 1960s attacks on defenseless rural villages and homes, of “teenagers tortured and murdered for teaching farmers to read and write.” He reminds us of the biological terrorism (the dengue fever epidemic) “that caused the deaths of more than 100 children.” And he adds new elements for those of us used to thinking of terrorism solely as shooting and bombing by referring to the “psychological horror that drove thousands of parents to willingly send their children to an unknown fate in a foreign country” (Operation Peter Pan).

This kind of overview has been done before by authors such as Jane Franklin. What Bolender adds here is the lifelong effect terrorist activities have had on the survivors -- those left with hearing loss, stitched-up wounds and such, but, even worse, lifelong emotional scars. Survivors who tell of being nervous and jumpy 20, 30 or more years after being in a room where a bomb went off.

And the other kinds of “survivors”: mothers and fathers who for decades mourn the needless deaths of their children; siblings and children of those who were cut up, castrated, and lynched by “anti-Castro militants,” or went screaming to their fiery deaths in an airplane that was already in pieces before it crashed into the sea.

I want these stories to be in the hands of those well-meaning people who ask, “Why does the Castro government repress dissidents?” I want these people to understand what terrorists have done that makes Cubans today so unable to give them the free rein they demand to carry out their actions.

Bolender explains in the very beginning:

Since the earliest days of the revolution, Cuba has been fighting its own war on terrorism. The victims have been overwhelmingly innocent civilians. The accused have been primarily Cuban-American counter-revolutionaries -- many allegedly trained, financed and supported by various American government agencies.
And he explains that throughout the island of Cuba “it is hard not to find someone who doesn’t have a story to tell of a relative or friend who has been a victim of terrorism. The personal toll has been calculated at 3,478 dead and 2,099 injured.”

This, of course, is something few on the outside realize, and he talks about why we don’t hear or read about it, about the political/ideological justification for so much cruelty. But he also talks about the real reasons -- acknowledged by numerous U.S. administrations -- for U.S.-backed and -financed terrorist acts against the island, information that is every bit as important as the humanization of the victims.

Preceded by a well-researched and evocative introduction by Noam Chomsky dealing with the history of and reasons for U.S. policy toward this upstart island nation that would dare to remain outside the grasp of U.S. hegemony, Bolender goes on to give readers a better understanding of Washington’s Machiavellian policies toward Cuba.

He starts off simply, with the well-known fact that “[s]ince the earliest days of Fidel’s victory, America has obsessed over this relatively insignificant third-world country, determined to eliminate the radically different social-economic order” that Castro’s revolution brought about. He describes the various excuses Washington has used since the earliest days of the Republic to justify its attempts to maintain dominance over the island nation.

“America at various times has portrayed Cuba as a helpless woman, a defenceless baby, a child in need of direction, an incompetent freedom fighter, an ignorant farmer, an ignoble ingrate, an ill-bred revolutionary, a viral communist” during the two centuries of the Monroe Doctrine. This history in and of itself is useful for those not already familiar with it.

Where the history gets more interesting is when this researcher uses quotes from U.S. leaders to show both why and how Washington attempted to get rid of Fidel’s revolution:

Richard Nixon, who, Bolender notes, “was one of the first to promote the theme of preventing the revolution from infecting others,” commented in 1962 on the need to “eradicate this cancer in our own hemisphere.” Nixon’s comment reminded me of an explanation offered years ago by a Cuban-American friend of mine, Tony Llanso: “The Cuban Revolution is like crab grass growing in your back yard. You have to pick crab grass because it spreads.”

But it was one particular “how” that I found intriguing. Bolender shows the vicious cycle of increasing repressive measures by the U.S. as Cuba increased its reforms on behalf of the poor majority of its citizens. This quickly -- and intentionally -- escalated to terrorism on the part of the United States against its tiny but audacious neighbor. And here Bolender is worth quoting at length:
As the rhetoric increased, terrorist acts were formulated and carried out. In partial response to the terror and other hostilities, the revolution became increasingly radicalized.

From the start, policy makers knew terrorism would put a strain politically and economically on the nascent Cuban government, forcing it to use precious resources to protect itself and its citizens. It was to be part of the overarching strategy of making things so bad that the Cubans might rise up and overthrow their government. Terrorism was the dirty piece of the scheme, along with the economic embargo, international isolation and unrelenting approbation.

American officials estimated millions would be spent to develop internal security systems, and State Department officials expected the Cuban government to increase internal surveillance in an attempt to prevent further acts of terrorism. These systems, which restricted civil rights, became easy targets for critics.|
And as most of us have seen, this has been a very successful tactic. Bolender goes on:
CIA officials admitted early on in the war of terrorism that the goal was not the military defeat of Fidel Castro, but to force the regime into applying increased amount of civil restrictions, with the resultant pressures on the Cuban public. This was outlined in a May 1961 agency report stating the objective was to “plan, implement and sustain a program of covert actions designed to exploit the economic, political and psychological vulnerabilities of the Castro regime. It is neither expected nor argued that the successful execution of this covert program will in itself result in the overthrow of the Castro regime,” only to accelerate the “moral and physical disintegration of the Castro government.”

The CIA acknowledged that in response to the terrorist acts the government would be “stepping up internal security controls and defense capabilities.” It was not projected the acts of terror would directly result in Castro’s downfall, (although that was a policy aim) but only to promote the sense of vulnerability among the [populace] and compel the government into increasingly radical steps in order to ensure national security.
In his book Bolender constantly uses direct U.S. sources for his analysis that the terrorism and other aggressive measures against Cuba were designed, at least in part, to force the Cuban government into a “state of siege mentality” that would simultaneously alienate part of the Cuban population, weaken liberal support abroad and serve as an easy target for most U.S. attempts to demonize the Cuban government.

“Former [CIA] Director Richard Helms,” Bolender tells us, “confirmed American strategy when he testified before the United States Senate in 1978; ‘We had task forces that were striking at Cuba constantly. We were attempting to blow up power plants. We were attempting to ruin sugar mills. We were attempting to do all kinds of things in this period. This was a matter of American government policy.’ ”

Most of us who’ve followed Cuba closely have long known the U.S. government did those things. What is more interesting is the “why.”
American experts were hoping the terrorist war would drive the Cuban government to increasingly restrictive security measures; implicit in this was to prove how incapable the regime leaders were. These terrorist acts would not be publicized, recognized nor acknowledged outside of Cuba, so national security policies were portrayed as paranoia, totalitarian and evidence of the repressiveness of Fidel’s regime. To this day the unknown war remains that way...
Here Bolender delves into the psychological warfare aspect of U.S. policy -- and its effects:
In the early years Cuban officials faced the problem where they couldn’t tell which citizens supported the revolution, and which were inclined to assist the terrorist organizations or to commit terrorist acts. Everyone was treated as a potential threat.

The consequence, besides the enormous amount of economic resources diverted to combat this war [....] is a society that in the majority has accepted certain civil restrictions in order to ensure domestic security. It is the way the Cuban government has tried to identify the terrorists and to keep its citizens protected. It is the way the government has fought its war on terror.
Bolender reiterates that while the focus of his book is on the victims and their stories, he also wants to show
how these acts of terror changed the psyche of the young revolutionary government, struggling to maintain itself in the face of the destructive actions of its former citizens, directed and financed by the most powerful nation in the world. Traumatized by these acts, this small island nation took drastic steps in the face of constant acts of violence.

Those reactions to the terrorists, and the measures taken to protect the Cuban people, continue to influence national government policies to this day, and have greatly shaped how Cuba is perceived to the outside world. It is the price that has been paid by a society under siege for almost 50 years. A siege in part the result of the hundreds of acts of terrorism.
His analysis goes on to explain that
[t]he key element of Cuban policy against terrorism has been the need of unity for the sake of security, manifesting in a demand for social and political conformity. The consequence has been extensive surveillance systems, arrests for political crimes, a low tolerance for organized criticism or public displays of opposition, suppression of dissidents seen to have accepted material or financial aid from the United States, cases of institutionalized pettiness, travel restrictions, a state controlled press and the rejection of a more pluralistic society.
And we’ve all seen the effectiveness of the tactic that forced Cuba into this position -- it’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. The tight control the Cuban government has adopted as a means of survival, Bolender tells us, does in fact destroy much of its liberal support abroad.

The Canadian author still has hope, however. “The termination of American hostility, including the absolute guarantee of the end to any further terrorist attacks from counter-revolutionary exile organizations,” he believes, could “offer the Cuban government the chance to breathe, to manoeuvre without a knife at its throat, as Fidel Castro once remarked, and to attempt to develop Cuban society that was hoped for.”

Put in this context, Bolender’s book achieves far more than the important goal of putting a human face on the victims of terrorist acts and an understanding of why so many of the Cuban people hate the traitors within their midst who work hand in glove with those from Washington, Miami, and New Jersey who fund and carry out these actions. It gives us a new understanding of the psychological warfare the U.S. has been carrying out parallel to its economic and military war.

This is a book that should be in every library and on every progressive bookshelf. I urge people to buy it, read it, pass it on to others.

[Karen Lee Wald, author of Children of Che: Child Care and Education in Cuba (Ramparts Press), has written about Cuba for over four decades, including two from inside Cuba, and continues to regularly visit and report from the island. She circulates a private list, Cuba-Inside-Out, at googlegroups.com. This article was also posted to Truthdig.]

Also see: The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

11 February 2011

Karen Lee Wald : Posada Carriles and the Puppies That Got Away

Caricature of Luis Posada Carriles from Progreso Weekly.

Posada Carriles and Cubana 455:
The puppies that got away


By Karen Lee Wald/ The Rag Blog / February 11, 2011
See "The Posada trial takes a historic turn," by Peter Kornbluh, Below.
Flying through the night on the way back to California from two months of research and interviews in Cuba, I’d dozed off when the voice of the pilot over the intercom woke me up. I almost fell back asleep as he told us our altitude. But when he added that the lights we could see below were the city of El Paso, Texas, I sat bolt upright, a shiver running up my spine.

Somewhere below me was the man who’d escaped from a Venezuelan prison while being tried for masterminding the world’s first mid-flight bombing of a passenger airline -- Cubana 455 -- killing all 73 aboard.

Years later, that same man boasted to a New York Times reporter that he was behind the string of hotel and restaurant bombings that shook Cuba in 1997 -- leaving vast material damage, a number of hotel workers and guests injured or badly shaken, and one Italian hotel guest dead.

But Luis Posada Carriles isn’t facing trial in El Paso for any of those crimes.

He’s been charged only with lying to immigration authorities when he reentered the U.S. secretly in 2005; then he blew his cover by holding a press conference and announcing he wanted political asylum.

All the phases of this Castro-hating, CIA-trained terrorist came rushing back to me as the pilot informed us that we were flying over the city where this man is free to walk the streets until a jury decides whether he should be punished for failing to tell the truth about his exploits. It hit me with special force, because I had just come from interviewing one of his near-victims. This is what she told me:


“Elena, Elena, that man left a bag there!" exclaimed Alex, a 12-year-old boy who was waiting with his two sisters and their tour guide in the lobby of the Triton Hotel in Havana for their father to return from the airlines ticketing office. Moments before, across from them on the lobby couches, an olive-skinned man wearing shorts and a baseball cap had been shuffling through photographs he had removed from his backpack, glancing from time to time at his watch.

Thirty-year old Elena, a divorced mother of a six-year-old girl, loved her work showing visitors from the world the natural beauty of her homeland. Among her recent clients was a Latin American family that had won her heart; three children were left motherless the year before by the ravages of cancer. In the hope that a change of scenery would lift their spirits, their father brought the children to Cuba in September 1997, the first anniversary of their mother’s death.

Elena initially did not respond to Alex’s agitation -- she had seen nothing unusual -- and his sisters, Sandra and Xochi, laughed and teased him, “There’s nothing there; you’ve been watching too many horror movies!”

But Alex refused to be put off and shouted, “Yes, there is. I saw him put it there. He took a bag out of his backpack and put it behind the couch.”

Finally, to appease him, Elena went over to the couch where the man had been sitting, with the two girls scurrying after her. Finding nothing on the couch, they looked behind it. There they spotted a white plastic shopping bag hidden among the planter shrubs. As Sandra reached for it Elena apprehensively pushed her away.

“I don’t know why I did that. I wasn’t thinking of a bomb,” she recalls years later, the first time she has spoken to the press about that fateful day. “If I thought anything, it was that maybe someone had left something gross, like a headless chicken. Some people in Cuba still practice ‘brujeria,' and someone could have left something to bless or curse someone in the hotel."

But when she hurried over to tell the hotel doorman about the bag, he shouted for her to get the children out of there. Just as Elena pushed the children up against a wall and spread her arms to protect them, the bomb exploded.

“There was a tremendous roar, a gust -- like nothing I’d ever experienced. People were running around, shouting and crying,” Elena recalls. “We threw ourselves down on the floor. The children were screaming, calling for their father. Alex kept repeating, ‘I told you! I told you!'"

They only found out later that moments earlier two similar time bombs had detonated in other nearby Havana hotels; one was at the Chateau Miramar, the other at the Copacabana where an Italian, Fabio Di Celmo, was killed by flying glass. Elena and the children were lucky: because of the bomb’s positioning the blast force was directed outward towards the windows instead of inwards; otherwise Elena and the children likely would have been badly maimed or killed.

According to the testimony of several captured terrorists and declassified CIA and FBI files, the mastermind behind these and other attacks was CIA operative, Luis Posada Carriles, who emigrated to Venezuela as a passionate anti-Castro militant, perhaps with his long-time co-conspirator Orlando Bosch, head of the Miami-based counterrevolutionary group “CORU.”

Their most horrendous terror attack done together was the two time bombs that exploded aboard Cubana Flight 455 in October 1976, killing all 73 on board: the pilots and flight attendants; five members of a cultural delegation from the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea; Guyanese teenagers flying to Cuba to begin medical school; and Cuban teens and young adults who had just won gold medals at a fencing competition in Caracas, Venezuela.

After the bomb exploded and the plane crashed into the sea, one of the two men hired by Posada placed a chilling phone call to Posada’s co-conspirator, Orlando Bosch, with the coded message: ”A bus with 73 dogs went off a cliff and all were killed…”

Both had the silent backing of then-president of Venezuela, Carlos Andres Prestes, and the complicity of U.S. government agencies that knew the group was planning to “take out a plane” but said nothing to warn the Cuban government.

CIA documents released in 2005 indicate that the agency "had concrete advance intelligence," as early as June 1976, on plans by Cuban exile terrorist groups to bomb a Cubana airliner.

Two of Posada’s employees in his private "security" agency in Caracas -- Freddy Lugo and Ricardo Hernan -- were arrested in Trinidad-Tobago immediately after the bombing, and implicated Posada and Bosch. They were later convicted and served sentences in Venezuela.

Although Posada and Bosch were arrested and held in prison through several mock “trials," they were never brought to justice. After numerous threats to prosecutors and the attempted murder of one judge which left his son and chauffeur dead, most judges were afraid to convict them. Venezuela’s president at that time, Carlos Andres Prestes, assured the two ringleaders he would intercede on their behalf, and Bosch was eventually released.

Posada -- perhaps because he didn’t believe President Prestes would keep his word in freeing him, or because he tired of waiting in jail -- escaped from prison mid-trial. Accounts differ, but either the CIA or the Cuban American National Foundation [CANF] in Miami financed his flight out of the country, and Posada soon appeared at a U..S military base in El Salvador as “Ramon Medina," where he became part of Oliver North’s “drugs for guns” network supplying the Nicaraguan Contras and Central American death squads.

Having gotten away with history’s first mass murder aboard an airliner, both Posada and Bosch were eager for more actions designed to oust or kill their arch enemy, Fidel Castro. Posada was convicted in 2000 of a plot in Panama to blow up a university auditorium where the Cuban president was scheduled to speak. But in 2005, he and four others convicted in the plot were pardoned and released by outgoing President Mireya Moscoso.

Posada remained in hiding for several years, but eventually rumors that he’d secretly returned to Miami proved to be true. At a press conference he announced he wanted to seek political asylum, despite laws barring emigrating criminals from receiving it.

After his press conference, Bush’s immigration authorities were forced to arrest him for illegal entry. Venezuela, which had an outstanding warrant for Posada, asked the U.S. to honor its decades-old extradition treaty. However, a U.S. immigration judge ruled that while Posada should be deported, he could not be sent to either Cuba or Venezuela because he might be subjected to torture.

In 2007, Congressman Bill Delahunt and Jose Pertierra, an immigration lawyer representing the government of Venezuela, argued the hypocrisy of the U.S. policy of extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists to Syria and Egypt, both of which practice torture.

In an interview with a New York Times reporter in 1998, Posada, boasting that he had planned and financed the bombings of tourist spots in Cuba, qualified his comments by explaining that the bombs were intended only to "break windows and cause minor damage.” When asked about the Italian businessman who’d been killed in the Copacabana, he said that “the poor Italian” had been “in the wrong place at the wrong time." He added, “I don’t lose any sleep over it. I sleep like a baby.”

Not so for the three children and the tour guide who happened to be in the hotel lobby on September 4, 1997

Elena, recounts that after the explosion she and the still screaming children hid under a table in the hotel lobby. “I kept trying to get the kids to be quiet, because I was afraid that the bomber would come back and kill us. Because we’d seen him. We’d seen who put the bomb there.” Terrified, eventually they were urged by security men to come out from under the table,

Later, she and the children were taken to a room for questioning. She gave a general description of the man they’d seen, but says, “Alex did much better. He’d been staring at the young man, and was able to describe him in detail. He even noticed the kind of watch he was wearing and the insignia on the cap.” Elena was driven to the airport to see if she could recognize the terrorist attempting to flee the country, but she didn’t spot him.

Later that night, the terrorist, eventually identified as Raul Ernesto Cruz Leon, placed another bomb at the popular Bodeguita del Medio restaurant. There, as in other places Cruz Leon had left his timed explosives, people were able to describe someone who looked like Cruz Leon among people in the crowd before the bomb went off. But Elena and the children were the only ones to actually see him place a bomb, which is why, Elena explains,
...we’ve kept so quiet about it all these years, and have never given anyone the names of the children. Their father said they would cooperate with the police in any way they could, but he asked for complete discretion so his children wouldn’t be in danger. He said, "In your country (Cuba), the government will protect you, but in our country terrorists have free reign and I don’t want any of them to know my children were involved here. I don’t know how I could protect them."
Elena admits that for a long time she was nervous, afraid other killers would come after her. She had trouble sleeping, waking from fearful nightmares.

Over time the memories faded, and after the trial in which the Salvadorian bombers -- who testified that Posada paid them to place the bombs -- were convicted and sentenced, she felt a sense of relief.

But now a series of events has awakened memories and fears from that fateful day: the appeal of the captured bombers was recently heard by Cuba’s highest court, where their death penalties were commuted to 30-year sentences. And the trial of Luis Posada Carriles in El Paso, Texas, is in the news every day.

While many believe that Luis Posada Carriles should be convicted for murder and terrorism, instead the 82-year-old is currently facing only charges federal perjury, obstruction, and immigration fraud -- not crimes that are likely to put him away for life. And despite abundant evidence about how he really entered the country, Posada has pleaded not guilty, claiming to have slipped into the U.S. across the Mexican border into Texas.

Prosecutors insist that he arrived in Miami using a forged passport on the boat of a “benefactor” -- a Miami tycoon named Santiago Alvarez. The key witness in the trial against Posada was also the FBI informant who forced Alvarez and another of his violent anti-Castro cohorts to take a plea deal for possession of a veritable arsenal of guns and explosives. But that information has been kept from the jury by a judge who bends over backwards to rule out any testimony that might be “prejudicial” to the terrorist standing trial for lying.

In an about-face from his boastful claims to the New York Times, Posada is now also distancing himself from the hotel bombings in Cuba. He knows that his bragging is what is most likely to undermine his claim to the U.S. as a safe haven. He now claims his English is poor and he was “misunderstood” in that interview.

But U.S. prosecutors have filed numerous FBI documents showing Posada hired two men to plant the hotel bombs as part of his strategy to disrupt tourism in communist Cuba. In a major breakthrough, one of his intermediaries, Francisco Chavez Abarca, was recently captured in Venezuela and extradited to Cuba, where he testified against his boss.

In an unusual cooperative effort, the Cuban government is sending two policemen and the forensic experts who performed the autopsy on the murdered Italian to testify at the Texas trial, along with reams of other evidence against Posada. Likely to antagonize Florida’s powerful Cuban-Americans, the trial also highlights the lax treatment Posada has received compared to others coordinating international terrorist acts.

When asked how she feels about the Posada trial and the commuted death sentences of the bombers, Elena said,
If that bomb blast had gone in the other direction, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. You’d have had three dead children and a motherless six-year-old [her daughter]… But I blame Posada more than Cruz Leon. He was a victim, too. He was dirt poor, and he saw it as a way to survive, to get out of poverty. Posada was the mastermind. He says he sleeps like a baby. To me, that means he’s a man with no conscience. It just doesn’t matter to him that we could have all been killed.
"A bus with 73 dogs went off a cliff and all got killed.”

Recalling the phoned-in code for the 73 Cubana Airline passengers and crew killed in 1976, she pauses, then adds, “What would his code have been then? ‘Three puppies and a bitch fell off a balcony’?

“If there is any justice in the world, he should pay for what he’s done.”

[Karen Lee Wald is a writer and researcher who has been reporting on Latin America for many decades.]

Luis Posada Carriles leaves court with his lawyers in El Paso last month. Photo by Gonzalez / Reuters.

The Posada trial takes a historic turn

By Peter Kornbluh / The Nation / February 9, 2011

EL PASO -- In El Paso, Texas, the perjury trial of the infamous violent Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles took a historic turn today. For the first time in a long dramatic history dominated by hostility and aggression, U.S. government prosecutors formally presented evidence of terrorism committed against Cuba in a court of law -- against one of its own former CIA operatives.

Even more extraordinary, the evidence comes in the form of a Cuban Ministry of Interior investigator explaining photographs and police reports to the jury relating to a series of explosions in Havana hotels, including the Hotel Copacabana which killed a young Italian businessman Fabio Di Celmo on September 4, 1997.

“Cuba Cooperating in U.S. case against ex-CIA agent,” reads tomorrow’s news headlines.

The godfather of anti-Castro Cuban violence over the last four decades, Posada is being prosecuted for immigration fraud relating to how he illegally entered the United States in March 2005. But the Obama Justice Department added three counts of perjury relating to a far more important crime: Posada’s role in a series of seven bombings that rocked Havana hotels and other tourist sites between April and September 1997.

“The defendant is alleged to have lied about his involvement in planning the bombings in Havana,” state court filings by the Justice Department’s Counterterrorism Division. “The United States intends to prove that the bombings in Cuba actually occurred.”

This week marks the first time that concrete evidence is being presented to the jury on how those bombings took place and the damage they wrought. The jury has been shown photographs taken by Cuban authorities of the bloodstained floor of the hotel. Portions of a Cuban investigative study, known as the “Volcan report,” which discusses the cause of, and circumstances surrounding, Fabio Di Celmo’s death, are due to be introduced as evidence during the testimony of Major Roberto Hernandez Caballero -- he was Cuba’s lead detective on the hotel bombing investigation -- who took the stand today.

The importance of this moment in US-Cuban relations cannot be overstated. Posada was originally trained in demolitions by the U.S. military and put on the CIA payroll in 1965 to train and supervise other exile groups in sabotage, explosives, and violent operations.

Declassified CIA and FBI intelligence reports, posted on the website of the National Security Archive, identify him as a mastermind of a mid-air bombing of a Cuban jetliner that took the lives of all 73 men, women and children on board in October 1976.

Most recently, Posada was arrested in Panama with a carload of C-4 and dynamite in what he admitted to U.S. officials was a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro at the Ibero-American summit in November 2000. By prosecuting him on charges related to his acts of terrorism, even if they are only perjury charges, the United States is effectively repudiating a dark past that its own Cold War officials and covert operatives set in motion.

For Cuba, where Posada is public enemy number one, having its day in court is also a turning point in a longstanding effort to collaborate with U.S. officials to put Posada behind bars. Cuban authorities have been forced to set aside their understandable suspicion that the trial is all for show, not for justice

(After all, how can the United States, which purports to be the leader in the campaign to fight international terrorism, prosecute one of the world’s most infamous terrorists only on perjury charges?)

Since Posada popped up in Miami some six years ago, Cuban authorities have repeatedly welcomed teams of FBI investigators and Justice Department lawyers to Havana. They turned over almost 1,500 pages of investigative records for use in the trial and made Posada’s accomplices, now in prison in Cuba, available for interrogation.

And they have sent three witnesses to El Paso -- another police investigator and a forensic doctor to present the autopsy of the murdered Italian to the jury -- who have been waiting for over a week to testify.

If this unprecedented level of Cuban judicial support helps convict the 82-year old Posada and he spends the rest of his natural life behind bars, the United States and Cuba will have arrived at a new level of cooperation and collaboration on fighting terrorism.

More importantly, together Washington and Havana will have turned a page on the dark history of US-sponsored violence against the Cuban revolution and Washington can begin what President Obama refers to as “a new chapter” in U.S. relations with Cuba.
The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.