Farinas' Story
I was perusing the schedule of next week's 2006 Personal Democracy Forum that my pal and blogfather Micah Sifry is helping to put together next week in New York when I stumbled upon this piece by Nancy Scola on the PDF site.
It's a couple of weeks old but the problem it describes has been brewing for a long time. Scola tells the story of Guillermo Farinas-Hernandez who, last time anyone looked, was hospitalized in Santa Clara, Cuba after the 56th day of a hunger strike.
Farinas' cause? He wanted to keep his email account. His was shut down by the Cuban government after he appeared as a subject in a Miami Herald story about rising violence against dissidents. The Herald said Farinas had fallen to his knees and had been beaten around his neck, head and arms, by a gaggle of pro-Castro thugs.
We all know the gut-twisting anguish we web-addicts experience when our DSL goes down, when the wi-fi fails, when Earthlink pulls the plug because someone forgot to pay the monthly bill or when our technical support call to Lahore is hung up after we've been on hold for 27 minutes. We fly into a rage. At least I do.
I think you can safely say we are spoiled. That we take a lot for granted. Just look at some of the bobble-headed apologies we've seen this week for the chilling statement by Hugo Chavez that he's thinking of ways he can remain Venezuela's president for, um, say, another 25 years. We've got all sorts of folks enjoying the privileges of American and Canadian democracy "clarifying" that Chavez wasn't really preening to be a dictator, you see. Oh no, they explained. Hugo just wanted a nice, legal, democratic way to keep being re-elected into 30 year-long rule! Right.
Amazing it is to me how the fat and comfortable and the privileged are so quick to trade away the freedom of others for their own political obsessions and fantasies. We think it's an outrage to be put on hold by Tech Support, but we're willing to countenance some blowhard engineering a supposedly democratic system that allows him to rule for a generation-and-a-half?
Which brings us back to Chavez' political father figure and the little island paradise he's run as a one-man dictatorship for the last 47 years. Among a population of 11 million Cubans only about 120,000 have government permission to go online. Says Scola:
In Cuba, connectivity, the ability to reach out to the rest of the world via the Internet, is rationed out in tiers. Access to the full Internet (or more accurately, the websites that make up the World Wide Web) is a heavily restricted commodity in Cuba. Professionals, including doctors, professors, and some journalists are widely permitted access; in Old Havana, the El Aleph center is open only to members of the state-run Unión de Escritores y Artistas de Cuba. At the Capitalito cybercafé in Havana, getting online requires that you flash a foreign passport. Those Cubans who want to get online from home petition Havana for permission, and those denied are shunted onto the Cuban National Intranet, a collection of about a thousand government-approved sites on the .cu top-level domain.
Cubans unable to access the full Internet can register for email-only accounts. Such accounts cost a good percentage of the average Cuban salary and, as Guillermo Fariñas found out, are at the mercy of the whims of the Cuban government, but are as a matter of course widely available.
No surprise here. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows why an absolutist government like Castro's fears the free flow of information. Ditto in China, Saudi Arabia and an unfortunately long list of other countries. There's nothing new I can say on the subject of a "people's government" so fearful of its own people.
I find the Cuban situation particularly pathetic. Anyone who has been to Cuba -- as I have many, many times -- knows that finding "something to do" can be quite the existential problem. Few families have any spending cash and those who do find a rather anemic offer of entertainment and distraction, especially from the overbearing presence of Senor You-Know-Who. I remember starkly the nights I have been in Havana when, all of a sudden, the streets went empty as a ghost town as the 10:00 o'clock hour rolled around. The entire nation would sit transfixed before their TV screens, squeezing what free pleasure they could out of a trash Brazilian soap-opera. Forty years of "socialism" and the mass culture it fosters is the Spanish-sub titled equivalent of Dynasty?
What a simple but wondrous form of diversion the Internet could be in a country like Cuba so isolated and cut-off from the rest of the world, so bereft of entertainment choices. But no go, companero.
So next time your connection goes dead and you're ready to scream, think of Guillermo Farinas who was willing to face death just to keep his connection in the first place. Kind of mind-boggling.
Though, I must admit I'm looking forward to reading the inevitable justifications that will now come forth, patiently and calmly explaining why the Cuban government "must" restrict web access to its own people. I can hardly wait.
May 10th, 2006 at 1:44 am
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz…
May 10th, 2006 at 2:31 am
Well said Marc. Why is it that so many on the left refuse to take the idea of such appalling cultural deprivation seriously?
I don’t care how many doctors per capita you have if poets, librarians, homosexuals and, now, e-mail users are being beaten and imprisoned your society is well and truly f**ked.
May 10th, 2006 at 2:32 am
We just have to be patient, as there is good news in store for Mr. Farinas-Hernandez! Someone in the know and someone whom I like and respect offers this hope:
http://marccooper.com/hoax/#comment-36510
History is full of examples of a population able to reach very different conclusions from those fostered by a completely controlled media. You need look no further than Russia… once in 1917 when a population revolted in spite of a Tsarist controlled press.. and again in 1991 when Communism was dismantled in spite of a completely communist-controlled press.. The list goes on and on ….
So, as it has been with freedoms and news sources of formerly oppressed people, so will it be with the internet. Let’s just hope that Mr. Farinas-Hernandez and his generation lives long enough.
The process would speed up if former presidents didn’t go down to Cuba and hug its dictator and if a former president had stood up to him rather than sending storm troopers into the home of a Miami family for this dictator’s propaganda needs.
But, in defense of Castro, I bet that a lot of the people on the left will tell me that his health care system is superior to ours, which would completely justify his corruption and totalitarian rule.
May 10th, 2006 at 6:36 am
well put, though if you are also including my clarification of the associated press’s mistake in your critique, it was not done as a veiled swipe at you but rather wanted to make sure you and everyone else were operating with the true facts of the matter. nothing more, nothing less.
i was not and am not offering chavez a campaign endorsement. as i have stated before on your blog, i do think he has done some undeniable good things, like improving the lot of the venezuelan poor through his social programs, and helping to defeat the free trade area of the americas. i also do not think he is the dire threat to national security that some in the u.s. make him out to be, which i fear could soon escalate into really stupid and unnecessary forms of u.s. interventionism there. on the other hand, i agree that some democratic institutions in venezuela appear to have been in effect castrated, which has led to authoritarianism in venezuela, and that from what i have read on the topic (i have never been to venezuela, so am relying on you and others for information) so far it appears that the country’s continuing oil-centered economy is not yet dealing with some key, core economic development needs such as diversifying the economy and creating decent jobs (peter beaumont’s article in the observer seemed to identify that nicely). but in the end, like you, i don’t think, like fareed zakaria would say in the reverse with his ringing endorsement of autocratic regimes such as the pinochet government for its neoliberal economic policies, that the ends justify the means and it is not at all clear yet if all the desirable ends are being met anyway in venezuela.
as for castro, you got it right there. now, at some point, hope to get yours and others views about the so-called three amigo theory increasingly being pushed by jorge castenada and others involving evo morales and bolivia. would be interested in your thoughts on my previous posts about that.
May 10th, 2006 at 7:05 am
No defense on Castro, but didn’t your pal Mitterand rule France for 15. Trudeau ruled Canada for nearly 20. If FDR didn’t die, some said he’d go another few terms - If the people vote for it, then there’s no problem. Delacour’s piece is compelling, if partisan, but completely factual.
May 10th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Isn’t Chavez really just doing exactly what Allende was trying to do? Wouldn’t Chile be Cuba if Allende had lived?
May 10th, 2006 at 8:03 am
Among a population of 11 million Cubans only about 120,000 have government permission to go online.
Which was why I was so damn surprised when Claudia Marquez, one of the founders of the Damas en Blanco sent me an e-mail a couple of years ago saying that she enjoyed reading my blog.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Oh no, I’m late — Real (whoever he is) said it first.
Chavez seems to be doing what Allende wanted to do, but with more oil dollars (so mistakes don’t make the system suffer as much).
I’m wondering when Chafez & Lula in Brazil will just end enforcement of “intellectual Exploitation rights” to digital information, and allow the masses to share whatever they have with each other, legally.
Get gov’t out of the business of protecting “intellectual property,” which is morally far different than real property. When commies took cars or cash or farms from rich or mere owners — the owners don’t have it. Copying info allows the owners to have it AND others — it is an increase in wealth, cheaply.
Yeah, less incentive to innovate. Gov’ts can use more prizes.
Countries don’t create jobs — entrepreneurs offer jobs when they think they can make more money by producing & selling more than they have to pay the new worker.
Entrepreneurs create the jobs. Anybody who is serious about wanting more jobs should be serious about increasing the incentives for more people to become entrepreneurs.
Their usual incentive is to get rich.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:18 am
I still recall the image of Hemingway stalking the finca with a double-barrell shotgun in the night during the raids.
If current president’s would end the embargo the place would decompress over night. You can’t teach old dogs new tricks on either side of the gulf stream it seems so, stay the course! If it doesn’t work then by gum stick with it until it does.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:52 am
Is there any sort of email (or other) campaign directed at the Castro government demanding justice for Fariñas? Could we spam Tio Fidel so heavily that he couldn’t surf the porn sites?
Scola raises a scary point in regards to our own U.S. internet experience, which I’m surprised you didn’t directly comment on in light of your self-confessed rage whenever thwarted in regards to accessing the internet (I feel you, bro).
Scola writes:
“Here in the United States, it’s not as much a matter of Washington governing the Internet as it is of AT&T, Verizon, and other big business asserting control over what happens on their networks. There’s a debate simmering before Congress about whether network owners should be able to shape – and thus make buckets of money from – the content that ships through their pipes. Those fighting to preserve ‘net neutrality,’ as the concept is known, wonder whether difference between an AT&T-shaped Internet and a Castro-controlled Internet is one of kind or of degree.”
If I understand correctly, the monopolistic gatekeepers want to charge different companies different prices for carrying their content, and carrying it at varying speeds (would this mean that well-financed right-wing blogs might buy enough bandwidth that mom-and-pop leftie blogs would poke along in the narrow slow lane of the info highway?) You can bet such proposed charges will ultimately get passed on to the consumer, so that while you might be able to surf to a site, more and more of them will require your credit card and a fee. Thus, our country’s wide open internet, this amazing free exchange of ideas and access to services, could conceivably get priced out of reach of millions of current web surfers.
p.s. Knowing that you’re a Spanish speaker, Marc, I’m surprised you didn’t spell Fariñas’ name with a tilde, as Scola does. As much as you deal with Latin American issues, you might even think about getting a Spanish accomodating keyboard (pretty sure they make those) so that you don’t have to deal with special key combos to get the tilde, accent marks and ¿ when you write questions in Spanish.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Since the Bay of Pigs I’ve received no emails from Cuba.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:58 am
What does it mean that my comment is “Awaiting Moderation?” Also, I reitterate my questioning to Comrade Cooper:
1) I know you were with the socialists, not communists, but why is it that as a youth you had no problem associating with a country that had fraternal links to the GDR and Cuba?
2) Why is that you have no problem with Trudeau, Roosevelt or Mitterand serving long terms democratically, but not Chavez?
3) Re Cuba - I see no opposition that won’t be neoliberal and perhaps as authoritarian….is there a left opposition in Cuba? I mean an opposition that doesn’t allow itself to be manipulated by the Yanquis?
May 10th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Nice to be up on the stand.. I will put my hand on the bible and testify:
1) Your first question hardly merits a response. But ur damn right I was with the Socialists and NOT with the Communists. Allende’s Chile was excruciatingly democratic.. “fraternal” links is a bit of canard. In a cold war context of the time I have no idea what the behind the scenes relations were or were not between Chile and GDR/CUBA… But to suggest that somehow Allende was a sock puppet of these guys puts you in a category that u love to put others in. Im not gonna do that.. other than to say the basis of the discussion is absurd.,
2) Your second question hardly merits an answer. You are going to compare the political systems — the democratic checks and balances of Canada, the US and France– with Venezuela? I believe the latter is a place where the current President, for example, has turned the governorship over to his aged father! Come one, you cant be serious. You think 12 years of Roosevelt’s rule offered the same perspectives of dictatorship that would be rolled into 30 yrs of Chavez? What are u smoking?
3) Who the hell are you to decide what sort of opposition Cubans can have? They have to be approved by you? I thought that was Fidel’s job. He’s gonna be pissed. When the regime calls itself socialist or communist, controls all aspects of life, and quashes all opposition as well as private initiative what sort of opposition are u expecting anyway? Trotskyists? That said, there is a social democratic opposition in Cuba. It’s led by Elizardo Sanchez (when he’s not in jail) and by Vladimiro Roca/// a former Air Force General, son of the founder of the Cuban Communist Party and veteran leader of the Cuban trade unions. He also spends a lot of time sitting around in Cuban prisons… http://pscuba.org/
May 10th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
I in no way suggested that Chile was a sock puppet of Cuba or the GDR, though it is a fact that many Chilean exiles went to the GDR. The fraternal relationship was less between governments and more between East Germans who saw Allende’s Chile as preferable to either Stalinism or alignment with NATO. You yourself wrote of the excitement that Castro caused among Cubans.
2) Roosevelt, whom I admire, did much of the same thing as Chavez in terms of stacking the courts and government departments with people - like Monthly Review founder Paul Sweezy - who shared his views. If Chavez keeps getting elected, no matter what your thoughts are, why is it up to YOU what kind of government Venezuela has?
I realize it appears that I and others seem uncritically Pro-Chavez…I’m not. Greg Wilpert’s balanced account, as opposed to the standard hero-worship tracts is where I get my perspective. I really dislike the personality cult. At the asme time, I am also not for lending a voice to an organized government campaign of disinformation.
3) Its not up to me. Thanks for the link.
May 10th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
That should be the excitement Castro caused among Chileans.
May 10th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Please Roosevelt and Chavez? What a false analogy.
May 10th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Roosevelt was actually in many ways to the left of Chavez.
May 10th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Marc Cooper states that he believes that Venezuela “is a place where the current President, for example, has turned the governorship over to his aged father! ” This is not true, because governors are elected not appointed in Venezuela, and Chavez senior was first elected as governor of Barinas state in 1998, the same year that his son was elected President. He was reelected in 2004.
On can detest Chavez without spinning tall tales about him. The Venezuelan opposition media already control that market.
May 10th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Stephen Blackburn: “Is there any sort of email (or other) campaign directed at the Castro government demanding justice for Fariñas? Could we spam Tio Fidel so heavily that he couldn’t surf the porn sites?”
Actually, this is the sort of thing that makes Cuba so wary. After the Miami Herald (Cooper’s favorite newspaper) published a long article on a Cuba-Canada email connection through a network called TinoRed, several exile groups began to mail-bomb anti-Castro messages to all e-mail accounts on TinoRed. I guess that’s the gusano’s idea of how to change people’s minds. Either by real bombs that bring down civilian airplanes or through cyber-bombs.
For people who are interested in the real problems that Cuba is dealing with in going online, read:
http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/asce/cuba9/valdes.pdf
It is a real contrast to the typical liberal claptrap you get from Nancy Scola.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
“In a cold war context of the time I have no idea what the behind the scenes relations were or were not between Chile and GDR/CUBA… But to suggest that somehow Allende was a sock puppet of these guys puts you in a category that u love to put others in. Im not gonna do that.. other than to say the basis of the discussion is absurd.,”
Wow, did Cooper just accuse Cumings of saying something that there is no evidence that he said? Gosh, Marc just makes stuff up when he wants to discredit those who disagree with him?
May 10th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
“Roosevelt was actually in many ways to the left of Chavez.”
J - Pleeeeze. Don’t make me spank you.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Marc writes: “I’m looking forward to reading the inevitable justifications that will now come forth, patiently and calmly explaining why the Cuban government “must” restrict web access to its own people.”
Still waiting, I guess. When you gonna tire, Marc, of strawmanning everything…
May 10th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
“Roosevelt was actually in many ways to the left of Chavez.”
Yawn….okay, I will be the first to bite: in what “ways”?
May 10th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
It is instructive that we are having a discussion about the lack of internet rights in Cuba as caused by Fidel Castro’s regime, and not talking about the mass poverty and hardship of the Cuban people as a result of harsh, inhumane economic sanctions set up by the north.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
David… man are u living in LALA land. With all due respect, your comment is so packed with ignorance about how the Cuban economy has developed and how it functions that you really do need to read a couple of books before you wade deeper into that thesis.
The economic sanctions are harsh.And have caused suffering. But Castro’s (totally Un-Marxist by the way) economic policies are the principal cause of ruination. Im gonna hold it to a minimum because Im not getting paid to tutor you on Cuban history…. suffice it to say you have no idea what you’re saying. Do you know anything about Marxist economic theory and the absurdity (from that point of view) of trying to “build socialism” in one, small, dependent underdevloped country? Would you like to show us where, in the body of Marxist economic literature, there is some support for Catsro having expropriated not only “the commanding heights” of the Cuban economy, but in fact nationalizing EVERYTHING in 1965 including ALL retail commerce, all restaurants and cafes, all services, and even individual service providers like plumbers, tailors, repairmen and even shoe shine boys? Could you explain to us the economic development plan behind that measure?
Do you know that Cuban currently maintains open trade relations with the entirety of the developed world in spite of the US embargo? That Spanish and Dutch companies own its luxury hotels? The Canadians own the mining? That Mexican interests run Cubana airlines and the Cuban phone company? That Castro parted out citrus production to one of Pinochet’s favored arms-dealer capiltalists? Do you know that the Cuban government essentially “rents out” its essentially non-union workforce to these same capitalists for a profit — like some sort of octupus labor broker? Do you know that Spanish-owned hotels, for example, pay the Cuban GOVERNMENT about $300 a month in hard currency for each Cuban worker it employs. And that the Cuban government then pays the same worker about the equivalent of $25 a month in non-convertible pesos? That college-educated professionals abandon their white collar jobs and fight to become maids and waiters in these same hotels because they ahve a chance of pocketing a few bucks a day in tips in hard currency? You think that is the fault of US imperialism? Or might it be Casto collaborating with Spanish, Dutch and Canadian imperialism? Hang it up, David. You dont know what ur talking about.
To bunkerbuster: one of the most tiring aspects of this site are actually your comments, kiddo. As I have noted endlessly, you seem incapable of forming and presenting ideas. If swatting at me gets ur yayas off, well then, cool. But once in a while see if you can come up with a least one idea.
May 11th, 2006 at 12:37 am
the best thing that will be happening for cuba soon–castro will be dying.
i’m always intrigued that the extreme left has fits when it discusses pinochet ruthlessly killing 3000-4000 socialist/communists but puts on knee pads making excuses for the two dirtbag motherf’kers (castro/che) who killed by the tens of thousands and condemned millions into human bondage.
che got his in bolivia while today ‘useful idiots’ wear his image. castro lives to continue his rape and pillage. that’s right, that’s right there’s free medical. yeah–there’s free medical at san quentin also. as for pinochet at least he installed south america’s most successful economy these last 25 years.
mark my words, within ten years venezuela, bolivia et al will be circling the drain again begging for the world to bail them out as usual.
chavez is a moron. he knows it and you know it.
just think, with a little luck the sandinista pedophile might become president of nicaragua making it a trifecta! oh happy days……..
May 11th, 2006 at 4:33 am
Here’s an idea, Marc. Don’t be such a hypocrit. Lay off the ad hominem and pathetic attempts to belittle me.
Better yet, drop this whole idiotic campaign against the chimerical fringe left.
Really, the liberal smear stuff is tiresome enough on the Fox News Channel. When you insist on attempting to rationalize your views by repeating ad nauseum that you’ll be opposed by the tiny minority of nuts on the fringe left, I’m doing you a big favor by calling you on it.
May 11th, 2006 at 4:47 am
Interesting blog. Seems to be there are valid arguments on both sides of the Chavez is or isn’t a ruinous dictator debate.
While it is true Chavez increased the size of, then stacked the court with his allies, its also true that the court prior to that was stacked against him with corrupt, right-wingers who refused to prosecute the people responsible for trying to overthrow him from power. So, Chavez had legitimate reason to be concerned and to take action of some kind. Furthermore, whether we like it, stacking courts with allies is the common practice round the world.
As for the demise of the Venezuelan legislative branch, that was undone by the opposition itself who refused to participate in elections. One can’t blame Chavez for that. And the election process was deemed fair by the OAS despite what the well-financed opposition claims to the contrary.
Still, I agree there have been excesses by the Chavez govt., and I agree 25 years plus in power is too long for any one leader, no matter how great the leader may have been for their country, but before Americans rush to criticize they ought to also shine a light on their own flawed government and democracy (which seems often chained to the highest bidder in the race for campaign funds).
And Marc Cooper, for someone who surely is well-aware of the de-stablization efforts of the Salvador Allende regime instigated by Nixon, the CIA and the Chilean right-wing you must be able to draw some parallel to the present dillemma faced by Chavez. Allende was a democratic man, and he was, but ultimately he also brought generals in to his government for a reason. Chavez is up against much of the same smear and de-stablization tactics, and some of his excesses must be seen in that context, too.
Altogether, it seems to me that while there are legitimate concerns about Chavez, mainly about the weakening of democracy under his rule, his government is far from being a carbon copy of Castro, where the range of freedoms are much more minimal and absent, where the president never stands for election, and where what opposition survives on the island is completely suppresse and outside the process. Yes, Chavez and Castro are close allies, with similar views about the world, but the realities in their countries are not the same.
i
May 11th, 2006 at 6:46 am
Roosevelt did far more to control and plan commerce and expanded the public sector than Chavez so far. In fact, despite the fact that he was “saving capitalism from itself,” Roosevelt today would be knocked out of power by the NED and colored revolutions. So many people that the US knocked, including Chavez, Arbenz, Mossadegh were not as left as Roosevelt.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:16 am
FDR didn’t propose 25-year terms or hand the baton to his sons. What a stupid comparison.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:08 am
JC: I don’t thikn one can make the argument that Roosevelt was a “leftist.” He certainly had some basic liberal commitments, and some of the elements of the New Deal certainly pointed in a leftward direction, but he was incredibly pragmatic and non-ideological, and most of more more left-leaning aspects of the New Deal were forced on him by the social movements of the time, especially the unions, and by his more liberal associates, like his wife Eleanor. The thought that a contemporary Third World equivalent of FDR would be overthrown by the NED is a bit far-fetched if you ask me.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Hmmm. What Roosevelt (who was not a leftist, but appointed lots of them) did - yes pushed by movements - was something that is forbidden in our neoliberal reality. Cite an example of Roosevelt style reforms that wasn’t either overthrown or attempted to be overthrown by the US or capitalism itself. Roosevelt did not propose 25 year term limits, and neither did Chavez - he was talking hypotheticals. Roosevelt was so popular, though, that he probably would have been elected for 25 years.
Chavez didn’t had any baton to his on. His father, who was politically involved before Hugi Chavez was elected as a regional governor the same year Hugo won the presidency. Roosevelt’s sons, on the other hand, were given a real push up the ladder at OSS and CIA.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Liberal doesn’t literally translate into leftist except in nut circles apparently of any stripe.
May 11th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Cite an example of Roosevelt style reforms that wasn’t either overthrown or attempted to be overthrown by the US or capitalism itself.
Social Security. Bush made a half-assed attempt to change it and it went down in flames.
May 11th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
No - I meant in other countries….If any country were to attempt Roosevelt st yle reforms, the capitalist world would do everyhting in their power to stop it. And Jake Elmore, I agree that left and liberal are different beasts. You don’t have to be rude about it.
May 11th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Right. This is a pretty sorry blog debate. You’d think the many readers here would have more to say.
I guess its true what they say about the clueless Americans when it comes to international issues.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
“You think that is the fault of US imperialism?”–Marc Cooper, after his latest eruption.
No, man. Apparently, you cannot read too well, or something. I said it was because of:
“harsh, inhumane economic sanctions set up by the north.”
Perhaps you agree, Marc, with the U.S. government (who were joined by Israel, Palua, and the mighty Marshall Islands in 2004 in opposing a near unanimous U.N. assembly resolution calling for an end to the U.S. embargo on Cuba).
The last statistics I saw, U.S. non-food exports to Cuba totalled a few million dollars (the bulk of that being donated medicine and old medical equipment). You mention European investors, and that is an interesting story in itself: the U.S. government has for decades discouraged Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to Cuba, but particularly so in recent years, as some European banks have had to restrain their commitment under the pressure of the U.S. which let them know that indemnities will be required if the credits are maintained. As Noam Chomsky has made clear, some moderate successes in Cuba (successes recognized, incidently, by such exotic organizations as the WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, the Vatican, the National Council of Churches, etc.) have been unquestionably the target and underlying motivation for the U.S. embargo.
Have you ever even been to Cuba, Marc Cooper, in the last few years? Thanks to the embargo, Cubans suffer medical afflictions that were made treatable decades ago. But medical researchers abroad cannot come in because of travel restriction, software licenses are left ungranted, people go without medicine and care available to those in wealthier circumstances, and so on and so forth.
To the extent that imperialists have run roughshod over Cuba, it is because the U.S. embargo have left the Cubans in an untenable position. Your attempts to make a boogeyman out of Castro only serves to cheapen the suffering of the Cuban people, because you deny any of our partial (but key) role in what made and makes Cuba the country that it is today.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:29 am
To use Chomsky as an example, he’s signed anti-repression petitions and strongly criticized Cuba, as well as travelled there and got the ear of Fidel. As a libertarian socialist, Chomsky is very critical of the “democratic centralist” top-down mode of governance. I think that one can easily recognize that you and Marc are both right. It is horribly repressive and no honest leftist should deny that. At thte same time, no honest critic of Cuba, esp. one who claims to tbe on the left, like Marc, shold not take into account the factors you mentioned.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:26 am
good comments about cuba. i agree, while castro and his suppression of fredoms and genuine democracy is deplorable - i don’t think the embargo is helping the situation either way. i think the u.s. ought to admit it has not worked, and in fact has hurt the cuban people more than helped them. a better approach would be constructive engagement, allow for a sort of detente so to speak. perhaps if relations with the u.s. then improved, cuba might relax some of the oppressive elements of its regime.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Nah Canada has had Roosevelt style reforms for years. Look closer.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
I live here (Canada) and while there were social reforms - due to a strong socialist opposittion in parliament and a somewhat progressive Liberal Party in power - that moved far beyond Roosevelt in the 60s, and especially the early 70s and our temporary nationalization of oil and transport, they have been all but completely deregulated and privatized. As we speak, our social daycare is being cut off at the seams, our Kyoto funding is going down and private health care is - against our constitution - entering the market without any enforcement.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Marc, great post and great comments. Farinas has now been on hunger strike 102 days (since Jan 31) and has been largely ignored by the MSM outlets (surprise, surprise)
Someone asked how dissidents, like from the Ladies in White, could have internet access. The US Interests section in Havana grants them internet access as well as to some of the independent journalists so they can get their newstories out.
As far as the embargo goes, please give me a break. Fidel and his cronies have amassed a fortune in all 47 years he’s been in power. Whoever wants to deal with cuba does, and things are available in Cuba - just not for Cubans. Everything is for the tourists or of course for the party members. The embargo is but a dot in the Cuban economy, and a wonderful rhetoric for apologists and of course for Fidel.
As for Chavez and Roosevelt the answer is simple, Rooselvelt got RE-ELECTED every four years. Chavez is calling for NO ELECTION for 25 years. There is just no comparison there. I’d like to see what people would think if Dub-ya said the same thing as Chavez did. All hell would break loose.
May 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Roosevelt threw Japanese-Americans into concentration camps for no other reason except that they were perceived as a threat to the US national security. Meanwhile, the USA uses its influence to get an admitted gusano terrorist bomber, who killed everybody on a civilian airplane, out of jail. And it labels Cuba as part of the “axis of evil”, a term set aside for countries that Washington feels it has the right to invade. Not that this is inconsistent with past policy. The US supported one invasion already and gave material and logistical support to counter-revolutionaries after the Bay of Pigs that cost billions of dollars. It has never repudiated the right to meddle in Cuba’s internal affairs. What it can’t accomplish with bombs and guns, it tries to accomplish with television broadcasts from Miami in clear violation of Cuban sovereignty. It also sponsors an internal opposition through the NED and other US-funded and sponsored agencies, open and clandestine. When Cuba cracks down, people like Marc Cooper yelps at the top of his lungs along with the Miami mafia. His behavior would make Jay Lovestone blush.
May 12th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
la ventanita,
chavez is not calling for no election for 25 years. read through this section again.
you have every right to be angry at the castro regime, he deserves to be denounced for his abuses and dictatorial ways, but the fact is all the tactics the rightwing cubans in florida have tried during these 47 years (which have included terrorism backed by the cuban american national foundation) to kick him from power have not worked. the cubans living in the u.s. in the opposition would be well to consider whether continuing to pressure american politicians to embargo cuba remains a useful activity for you, cubans in general and americans. the results are pretty clear.
other than giving you a way to punish castro (a dubious way considering hardly any other country embargoes castro), you may have just forced castro more and more into his dictator corner.
July 21st, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Geben mir bitte eine poker Brotchenbjm
August 1st, 2006 at 8:57 am
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:14 pm
sports picks sports picks
sports picks free sports picks free
September 12th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
football predictions sqs football predictions sqs http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.comsqs
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 am
FDi…
…