After long ban, some Cubans sample tourism luxury
Fri Aug 14, 2009 By Esteban Israel
VARADERO, Cuba (Reuters) - Floating, cocktail drink in hand, in the pool of a five-star hotel in Cuba, Alexis basks in a holiday experience that for years was out of reach for him in his own homeland.
The pastel-colored hotel buildings, the well-ordered gardens, the turquoise waters and the perpetually smiling waiters -- all just 84 miles east of his home in Havana. So near, and yet for many years, so far away.
Until last year, Cuba's communist government prevented its citizens from entering hotels reserved for hard currency-paying foreign tourists. It argued that tourism was a strategic revenue sector and that widening access would create inequalities in a socialist society, where most earn inconvertible Cuban pesos.
The tourist hotels, whose services, shops and restaurants are a world away from the hardships and shortages experienced by most Cubans, remained largely out of bounds for ordinary citizens. This prohibition angered most Cubans, who considered it made them second-class citizens in their own homeland.
But when President Raul Castro took over from his ailing older brother Fidel Castro last year, one of his first acts was to end the ban and open all facilities to Cubans. The change was widely popular even though most islanders still can not afford to stay at the tourist hotels.
"Let me tell you, this is great," said Alexis, an employee of a state-run Havana hard currency store who declined to give his full name, as his girlfriend returned from the bar with more "mojito" cocktails -- a tropical mix of lime juice, Cuban rum, and mint leaves.
In the years immediately following the 1959 revolution, Cuban workers were allowed into the island's premier resorts, yet the need to earn much-needed hard currency led to the development again of a more exclusive foreign tourism sector, especially over the last 15 years.
But the global financial crisis has taken a big bite out of Cuba's international tourism, so the Cuban travel industry, seeking to boost occupation in half-empty hotels, has begun offering reduced-price package deals to Cubans.
At $70 a night for an all-inclusive hotel in Varadero, Cuba's premier beach resort, prices are well below what foreigners pay, but still out of reach for most Cubans struggling to make ends meet on state salaries that average less than $20 a month.
According to Tourism Minister Manuel Marrero, Cubans have accounted for 10 percent of occupancy at Cuba's high-end hotels this summer.
THE SWEET LIFE
The opening of a domestic market is giving more visibility to an emerging class of wealthier Cubans who have hard currency in their pockets and are eager to sport the colored wristbands of the fancy all-inclusive hotels.
The new Cuban internal tourists are professionals, technicians working for foreign joint ventures and people receiving dollar remittances from relatives living abroad.
"Before a foreigner would ask us about Varadero and we did not know what to say," recalls Roberto Garcia, a 43-year-old engineer who arrived from Havana with his family of six.
"Now, if you have the money, you can do it."
Without precise official figures on revenue from internal Cuban tourism, it is difficult to gauge just how much of a boost this new access is giving to the cash-strapped economy.
But to the extent that Cuban tourist spending increases the flow of dollars to the island -- by, for example, family members in Miami financing a trip to Varadero for their Cuban relatives -- it is helpful, said Cuba expert Paolo Spadoni.
"Financing from abroad might also play quite an important role," said Spadoni, a post-doctoral fellow at Tulane University's Center for Inter-American Policy and Research.
Some Cubans interviewed on a recent trip to Varadero said expenses were paid by relatives visiting from the United States, a flow which is up 20 percent since U.S. President Barack Obama lifted travel restrictions in April on Cuban-Americans visiting the island.
But Obama has made clear he will keep a 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba in place for the moment to press Cuban leaders to improve human rights and political freedoms. Havana, while agreeing to talks on migration and other issues, has said it will not make "concessions" for improved ties.
With the help of foreign investors, Cuba reluctantly developed its tourism industry in the mid-1990s in response to the deep economic crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, its chief benefactor and ally for decades.
"All the money made here is for the people," proclaims a banner at the entrance to Varadero, a 12-mile-long peninsula of white-sand beaches lined with big hotels.
This slogan reflects the long-used government argument that tourism revenues are employed to benefit all of Cuba's people by helping to pay for free health care and education.
Cuba has some 55,000 hotel rooms managed by the state, many in association with foreign hotel heavyweights such as Sol Melia of Spain, the French firm Accor or Jamaica's Sandals Resorts.
Attracted by its beaches and enduring revolutionary mystique, 2.3 million foreign tourists, mostly from U.S. allies Canada and in Europe, visited Cuba last year, which brought the island $2.5 billion in revenues and made tourism one of Cuba's main sources of hard currency.
President Raul Castro said in a speech earlier this month that the number of international tourists is up, but revenues are down compared to last year.
Both numbers are expected to grow if the U.S. Congress approves a proposed bill that would allow all Americans to freely visit Cuba, currently prohibited by the U.S. embargo against the island 90 miles from Key West, Florida.
But for now, Cuba is looking to Cubans to keep its hotels humming, and people like Alexis are happy to help.
"This is just fantasy. Real life starts again on Monday when we get back to Havana," he said between sips of a last "mojito" as the sun set over Varadero.
(Editing by Jeff Franks and Pascal Fletcher)
http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINTRE57C4QY20090813?sp=true
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Anti-corruption Campaign
Cleaning House in Cuba
Posted By the editor On August 10, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
By Circles Robinson
Unity, Firmness & Victory is once again a battle cry, this time to fight corruption. Photo: Caridad
HAVANA TIMES, August 10 - The Cuban government’s answer to the rampant theft and corruption problem plaguing the socialist economy is a new comptroller’s office, something that exists in many countries.
The lax administrative and accounting controls present in much of the country’s state-run economy are no secret to anyone, much less to the nation’s leaders.
With a major drive taking place to improve work efficiency and productivity and to cut imports at a time of international economic crisis, confronting a problem that has permeated all strata of Cuban society is an urgent but equally difficult task.
President Raul Castro sounded the alarm when he took office in February 2008, when he made it known that tolerance of misuse of state resources was on the out. Since then, little guys scraping to get by, on up to several of the country’s top ministers and political figures in much larger illicit operations, have fallen from grace after being accused of theft or corruption.
The president has made battling such un-revolutionary behavior a priority, while also recognizing that low salaries and a lack of incentives for greater initiative have affected job motivation and efficiency.
Trusting more in the businesses run by the military, Castro has put several former Army administrators in key positions in the civilian state economy.
Nonetheless, neither the military nor the civilian economy are held accountable to the public as neither the workers nor the general population are privy to the economic performance information that would make possible an educated evaluation of efficiency.
Instead, Cubans are accustomed to being told to blindly trust the judgment of their leaders and the administrators they in turn appoint to manage public resources.
The other catch-all factor has been the ever present “enemy to the north” with its blockade and other attempts to strangle the island’s economy, which serve corrupt officials as a shield.
The New Watch Dog
Last weekend the government announced that the Comptroller’s Office - conceived as a watch dog over the use of state funds and resources - would be a place where citizens can file complaints on such abuses and expect to get action. The office is headed by legislator Gladys Maria Brejerano Portela, just appointed a week ago.
Castro has put several former military administrators in key positions in the civilian state economy. Photo: Caridad
Castro has put several former military administrators in key positions in the civilian state economy. Photo: Caridad
Created by the legislature, the office will receive and follow up on complaints filed by citizens on the misuse of public resources and other illegalities and acts of corruption, said Jose Luis Toledo Santander, president of the parliament’s Constitutional and Juridical Affairs Committee.
Virtually every Cuban, foreign resident or visitor is in one way or another regularly taken in by the different income-supplement scams that have grown to become as normal as rice and beans for most people, whether they like it or not.
In everyday life, very few people even bother to complain about being overcharged or getting taken on the weight or quality of a product. Instead, they often show understanding or even sympathy toward whoever is doing the taking to make a sorely needed buck.
At the same time, many people speculate privately that for so much theft to take place so rampantly on the ground level, there have to be accomplices higher up - from supervisors to managers, to executives, on up to ministers.
Will people now take advantage of the opportunity to file a complaint that supposedly could bring some action? Or will they continue to avoid picking a fight with a boss or higher up that in the past has often had the cards stacked in their favor?
Article printed from Havana Times.org: http://www.havanatimes.org
URL to article: http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=12552
Posted By the editor On August 10, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
By Circles Robinson
Unity, Firmness & Victory is once again a battle cry, this time to fight corruption. Photo: Caridad
HAVANA TIMES, August 10 - The Cuban government’s answer to the rampant theft and corruption problem plaguing the socialist economy is a new comptroller’s office, something that exists in many countries.
The lax administrative and accounting controls present in much of the country’s state-run economy are no secret to anyone, much less to the nation’s leaders.
With a major drive taking place to improve work efficiency and productivity and to cut imports at a time of international economic crisis, confronting a problem that has permeated all strata of Cuban society is an urgent but equally difficult task.
President Raul Castro sounded the alarm when he took office in February 2008, when he made it known that tolerance of misuse of state resources was on the out. Since then, little guys scraping to get by, on up to several of the country’s top ministers and political figures in much larger illicit operations, have fallen from grace after being accused of theft or corruption.
The president has made battling such un-revolutionary behavior a priority, while also recognizing that low salaries and a lack of incentives for greater initiative have affected job motivation and efficiency.
Trusting more in the businesses run by the military, Castro has put several former Army administrators in key positions in the civilian state economy.
Nonetheless, neither the military nor the civilian economy are held accountable to the public as neither the workers nor the general population are privy to the economic performance information that would make possible an educated evaluation of efficiency.
Instead, Cubans are accustomed to being told to blindly trust the judgment of their leaders and the administrators they in turn appoint to manage public resources.
The other catch-all factor has been the ever present “enemy to the north” with its blockade and other attempts to strangle the island’s economy, which serve corrupt officials as a shield.
The New Watch Dog
Last weekend the government announced that the Comptroller’s Office - conceived as a watch dog over the use of state funds and resources - would be a place where citizens can file complaints on such abuses and expect to get action. The office is headed by legislator Gladys Maria Brejerano Portela, just appointed a week ago.
Castro has put several former military administrators in key positions in the civilian state economy. Photo: Caridad
Castro has put several former military administrators in key positions in the civilian state economy. Photo: Caridad
Created by the legislature, the office will receive and follow up on complaints filed by citizens on the misuse of public resources and other illegalities and acts of corruption, said Jose Luis Toledo Santander, president of the parliament’s Constitutional and Juridical Affairs Committee.
Virtually every Cuban, foreign resident or visitor is in one way or another regularly taken in by the different income-supplement scams that have grown to become as normal as rice and beans for most people, whether they like it or not.
In everyday life, very few people even bother to complain about being overcharged or getting taken on the weight or quality of a product. Instead, they often show understanding or even sympathy toward whoever is doing the taking to make a sorely needed buck.
At the same time, many people speculate privately that for so much theft to take place so rampantly on the ground level, there have to be accomplices higher up - from supervisors to managers, to executives, on up to ministers.
Will people now take advantage of the opportunity to file a complaint that supposedly could bring some action? Or will they continue to avoid picking a fight with a boss or higher up that in the past has often had the cards stacked in their favor?
Article printed from Havana Times.org: http://www.havanatimes.org
URL to article: http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=12552
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Silvio Rodriguez Reaffirms Support for Cuban Freedom to Travel
REBELION
May 11, 2009
Silvio Rodriguez calls for the right of all Cubans
to be allowed to enter and leave their country at will
http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs2434.html
A CubaNews translation by Mercedes Rosa Diaz.
Edited by Walter Lippmann
The news that Cuban singer-songwriter Silvio Rodriguez was denied a visa to enter the United States to attend a tribute to U.S. musician Pete Seeger prompted a letter that was published in the Dominican press. The letter, which was addressed to Rodriguez, was written by a Cuban residing in the Dominican Republic. Rodriguez quickly responded to the letter; the content of both letters is published below.
An open letter to singer-songwriter Silvio Rodríguez
Published in the newspaper El Nuevo Diario,
Dominican Republic, on Sunday, May 10, 2009
The person writing this is Cuban just like you. First, I support you in your complaint against the U.S. officials who denied your request to legally enter the U.S. to attend the tribute for Pete Seeger. It's a loss to all that you were unable to play your music during the celebration that took place in New York city. Like most Cubans, I too, resent those foreign laws created to threaten the sovereignty of the Cuban people.
Now that we have established that, I want to share with you a another reality that is even sadder than the fact that a country's officials refused a foreigner's request to visit their country.
Over the past 50 years, thousands of Cubans have been unable to enter Cuba, not even to attend the funeral of loved ones as close as a mother or a son. Among these are musicians, artists who have settled abroad for the sake of their careers, and who are prevented from reentering their own country despite the fact that they have praised Cuba at every turn. Celia Cruz is a classic example.
My mother is 80 years old. I'm prevented from entering Cuba to see her, which means that my human rights have been trampled as badly and as unfairly as yours. You are no threat to the United States or its society. Likewise, I'm no threat to Cuban society. Neither of us is a terrorist or a murderer.
You can't cloak justice in political ideology. There is only justice. The first and most important belief is that all human beings are entitled to their respect and their dignity.
Unfortunately, our native land practices a policy called a "permanent exit," and it's an inhuman abomination. It is anti-Cuban and a threat to the legacy of our Mambi ancestors, who fought for Cuba's freedom so that all Cubans could enjoy the fruits of a free society. They were guided by Marti's dream of a country "for all, and for the good of all."
Silvio, my countryman: my freedom ends where yours begins. One must give respect to earn respect; rest assured that I write these words while holding you in the highest respect as a human being and a fellow Cuban. By the same token, I would expect you to do the same for me. It is with this in mind that I now approach you as an artist who is known for having dedicated his life to promoting social justice and progressive ideals during these turbulent historical times in which we live.
I ask that you use your voice and your guitar to intone a song promoting harmony and a respect for diversity between all Cubans. Sing for the unification of divided Cuban families and for the repeal of this harmful "permanent exit" policy that is a shame to the sacrifices made and the blood spilled by our ancestors. I am not asking you to sing a song of protest. I would rather that you make it a love song that should touch the hearts of all Cubans, especially those which most need to hear it.
If you want, invite other artists to sing along with you, anyone who might be sympathetic to the cause of those who cannot be there. Sing for those of us who are absent by necessity, but who hope to one day return to sing at your sides. Invite Fito Páez, Ana Belén, Serrat, Pablo, Chico, Mercedes Sosa, and anyone else who wants to open their hearts to this endeavor. Sing for the freedom and the right for all Cubans to be able to spend time in our native land.
Written by: Adrián Leiva
An open response to Cuban citizen Adrián Leiva.
Havana, May 10, 2009, 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Adrián Leiva:
To begin with, I've made no complaint about being denied entrance to the United States. I just sent an email to my sister in which I told her that since I had not yet received a visa to travel to the United States to attend the tribute to Pete Seeger to which I had been invited, I would simply return to Cuba to continue work. The organizers of the Seeger tribute asked her permission to publish the email, so we gave it to them. That's why this came out. About two days later, during the tribute, I wrote to the Maestro Seeger directly and asked him to forgive my absence even though I had originally pledged that I would be there. I explained to him—as well as I could and to my understanding—why I could not keep my word to him. Somehow the press somewhere got hold of the letter, resulting in all this controversy.
However, I understand; I've spoken out about what I consider to be an error in our migration policies, like the so-called "white letter" and the fact that permission is needed to enter and leave our own country. It's an archaic policy that is obsolete and should be repealed. I am convinced that when that absurd obstacle is removed, our country will be a better place and we will all feel better about it and one another.
I can't promise I'll write a song about it, because, quite frankly, I'm not alone when I do that—I do rely on the Muses as well. But I will promise you this: no matter where I am, I will continue to promote the belief that Cubans should have the right to enter and leave their country at will, providing, of course, that they do it legally.
Silvio Rodríguez Domínguez.
ORIGINAL
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=85129
May 11, 2009
Silvio Rodriguez calls for the right of all Cubans
to be allowed to enter and leave their country at will
http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs2434.html
A CubaNews translation by Mercedes Rosa Diaz.
Edited by Walter Lippmann
The news that Cuban singer-songwriter Silvio Rodriguez was denied a visa to enter the United States to attend a tribute to U.S. musician Pete Seeger prompted a letter that was published in the Dominican press. The letter, which was addressed to Rodriguez, was written by a Cuban residing in the Dominican Republic. Rodriguez quickly responded to the letter; the content of both letters is published below.
An open letter to singer-songwriter Silvio Rodríguez
Published in the newspaper El Nuevo Diario,
Dominican Republic, on Sunday, May 10, 2009
The person writing this is Cuban just like you. First, I support you in your complaint against the U.S. officials who denied your request to legally enter the U.S. to attend the tribute for Pete Seeger. It's a loss to all that you were unable to play your music during the celebration that took place in New York city. Like most Cubans, I too, resent those foreign laws created to threaten the sovereignty of the Cuban people.
Now that we have established that, I want to share with you a another reality that is even sadder than the fact that a country's officials refused a foreigner's request to visit their country.
Over the past 50 years, thousands of Cubans have been unable to enter Cuba, not even to attend the funeral of loved ones as close as a mother or a son. Among these are musicians, artists who have settled abroad for the sake of their careers, and who are prevented from reentering their own country despite the fact that they have praised Cuba at every turn. Celia Cruz is a classic example.
My mother is 80 years old. I'm prevented from entering Cuba to see her, which means that my human rights have been trampled as badly and as unfairly as yours. You are no threat to the United States or its society. Likewise, I'm no threat to Cuban society. Neither of us is a terrorist or a murderer.
You can't cloak justice in political ideology. There is only justice. The first and most important belief is that all human beings are entitled to their respect and their dignity.
Unfortunately, our native land practices a policy called a "permanent exit," and it's an inhuman abomination. It is anti-Cuban and a threat to the legacy of our Mambi ancestors, who fought for Cuba's freedom so that all Cubans could enjoy the fruits of a free society. They were guided by Marti's dream of a country "for all, and for the good of all."
Silvio, my countryman: my freedom ends where yours begins. One must give respect to earn respect; rest assured that I write these words while holding you in the highest respect as a human being and a fellow Cuban. By the same token, I would expect you to do the same for me. It is with this in mind that I now approach you as an artist who is known for having dedicated his life to promoting social justice and progressive ideals during these turbulent historical times in which we live.
I ask that you use your voice and your guitar to intone a song promoting harmony and a respect for diversity between all Cubans. Sing for the unification of divided Cuban families and for the repeal of this harmful "permanent exit" policy that is a shame to the sacrifices made and the blood spilled by our ancestors. I am not asking you to sing a song of protest. I would rather that you make it a love song that should touch the hearts of all Cubans, especially those which most need to hear it.
If you want, invite other artists to sing along with you, anyone who might be sympathetic to the cause of those who cannot be there. Sing for those of us who are absent by necessity, but who hope to one day return to sing at your sides. Invite Fito Páez, Ana Belén, Serrat, Pablo, Chico, Mercedes Sosa, and anyone else who wants to open their hearts to this endeavor. Sing for the freedom and the right for all Cubans to be able to spend time in our native land.
Written by: Adrián Leiva
An open response to Cuban citizen Adrián Leiva.
Havana, May 10, 2009, 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Adrián Leiva:
To begin with, I've made no complaint about being denied entrance to the United States. I just sent an email to my sister in which I told her that since I had not yet received a visa to travel to the United States to attend the tribute to Pete Seeger to which I had been invited, I would simply return to Cuba to continue work. The organizers of the Seeger tribute asked her permission to publish the email, so we gave it to them. That's why this came out. About two days later, during the tribute, I wrote to the Maestro Seeger directly and asked him to forgive my absence even though I had originally pledged that I would be there. I explained to him—as well as I could and to my understanding—why I could not keep my word to him. Somehow the press somewhere got hold of the letter, resulting in all this controversy.
However, I understand; I've spoken out about what I consider to be an error in our migration policies, like the so-called "white letter" and the fact that permission is needed to enter and leave our own country. It's an archaic policy that is obsolete and should be repealed. I am convinced that when that absurd obstacle is removed, our country will be a better place and we will all feel better about it and one another.
I can't promise I'll write a song about it, because, quite frankly, I'm not alone when I do that—I do rely on the Muses as well. But I will promise you this: no matter where I am, I will continue to promote the belief that Cubans should have the right to enter and leave their country at will, providing, of course, that they do it legally.
Silvio Rodríguez Domínguez.
ORIGINAL
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=85129
Monday, May 18, 2009
Leadership Change as Seen By a Scholar in England
Raúl Castro and Cuba: reading the changes
Antoni Kapcia
A high-level reshuffle in Havana reveals much about the political character of the Cuban leadership in a testing new era, says Antoni Kapcia.
22 - 04 - 2009
The influence of Cuba on the political agenda of its neighbours has been much in evidence in April 2009. The easing of restrictions on travel, telecommunications and remittances between the United States and Cuba declared by Barack Obama on 13 April - largely reversing the special measures imposed by his predecessor in 2004 - fall far short of a lifting of the long-term trade embargo, though it is a notable shift of policy by Washington at this early stage of the new presidency. The discussions around the fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad & Tobago on 17-19 April 2009 also showed that even in its absence, Cuba is regarded as integral to the future of the region. Antoni Kapcia is professor and head of the Centre for Research on Cuba, University of Nottingham, England. He is the author of Cuba in Revolution: A History Since the Fifties (Reaktion, 2009)
But events in Cuba in the previous month are a healthy reminder that internal political developments in the country often overturn outsiders' expectations, in ways that require some reflection and analysis. Whatever the effects of a changing regional environment on Cuba, the country's political leadership will be an active player in seeking to mediate and manage them. So much is clear from the startling changes in senior personnel announced in Havana on 2 March 2009.
The long wait
Since Raúl Castro took over from his ailing brother Fidel - temporarily in August 2006 and permanently in February 2008 - two developments had been universally expected: government changes (promised in 2008) or a clearer raulista stamp, with the latter being seen either as retrenchment or as the start of a process of economic (if not political) reform.
As these developments failed to materialise, observers attributed the delay to various factors: Raúl's need to balance factions, Fidel's continuing influence (or Raúl's need to respect Fidel's sensitivities), popular fears and expectations, and (most convincingly) the impact of 2008's three hurricanes and the world recession. Another explanation is more prosaic and "institutional": that, until the much-postponed Communist Party congress (due in late 2009), Raúl has no formal mandate for reform.
But when the two long-awaited developments actually did occur in advance of the landmark congress, their character was as much a shock as their timing: for they included the demotion of two prominent politicians long seen as longer-term successors to the Castro brothers - Carlos Lage (secretary to the council of state, overseer of the post-1992 economic reforms which saved the revolution, and often described as Cuba's de facto prime minister) and Felipe Pérez Roque (the youthful foreign minister, once in Fidel's Grupo de Apoyo (support group) and always seen as "close to Fidel").
The changes also saw the removal of José Luis Rodríguez (the economy minister, and the economist who designed the 1990s reforms) and confirmed the demotion of Otto Rivero (the vice-president, also "close to Fidel", a former leader of the young communists (UJC) and since 2005 responsible for the "battle of ideas" campaign initiated by Fidel in 2000).
These changes - and the simultaneous promotions (many associated with Cuba's Revolutionary Armed Forces [FAR]) - were predictably seen by many foreign observers as having been driven by Raúl's need to impose his authority by removing "Fidel's people". This revealed the automatic operation of a five-decade-old "Fidel-centrist" media tendency: namely, that the revolution has always been determined by Fidel's skills, megalomania, loyalties, and charisma - except that now its controls had been reformatted to produce a newly "Raúl-centric" focus on personalism.
Many others similarly read the reshuffle in terms of familiar, formulaic patterns: Raúl Castro as the revolution's "ideologue", the rising presence of FAR people in government and the removal of known "reformers" presaging the imposition of a hard line, the division of Cuban politics according to "reformist" and "old guard" factions. The last frame was often applied outside Cuba to view Carlos Lage in particular as the would-be Mikhail Gorbachev, whose desire for a social-democratic Cuba was restrained by "old guard" resistance.
A singular and very different reading of the personnel changes was proposed by Jorge Castañeda, Mexico's former foreign minister and now an academic at New York University: that the demotions pre-empted a coup by loyalists (specifically Lage and Pérez Roque) supported by Hugo Chávez, who feared that Raúl's reforms would "betray" the revolution (see Jorge Castañeda, "The Plot Against the Castros", Newsweek, 14 March 2009).
A variation that combines elements of these readings has also occasionally seen Raúl himself as a quasi-reformer - seeking a "Chinese model" of political control and state-backed economic liberalisation, but restrained by Fidel (or by the "old guard") whom he is obliged to retain in government.
The limits of formula
These diverse interpretations evidently are inconsistent with one another in several respects, as well as embodying assumptions that limit their capacity to explain anything. Indeed, a scrutiny of two predominant assumptions is one way to approach the complexity of the Cuban reality and offer some more plausible and consistent explanations.
The flaws in the first assumption, that of personalism, are clear enough. A reading of this kind is logical enough in journalistic shorthand or in the polemics surrounding Cuban politics, but it casts little useful light on Cuban realities or the loyalties within the Cuban system. The internal arguments and tensions of this system are far better understood as the ebb and flow of an essentially collective rather than one-dimensionally personalist leadership.
That is not to deny the historically dominating presence of, and loyalty to, Fidel Castro. But it does entail moving beyond the obvious to the roles played by others: Raúl himself (more decisive than most have imagined and not, as often suggested, simply Fidel's loyal or resentful younger brother), but also other key players of the past (Che Guevara, Carlos Rafael Rodríguez, Raúl Roa, Osvaldo Dorticós, Armando Hart) and the present. It is easy to construct a credible picture of fifty years of debate among a remarkably solid leadership composed of players who, far from being ciphers, have been vociferous decision-makers within their respective fields of competence.
The second assumption, of the decisive influence of factions in the Cuban system, enters here. It arises mostly from older paradigms (of closed regimes whose behind-closed-doors politics led to speculation about internal tensions), but also draws on the known battles inside the Cuba of the 1960s (principally between "old communists" loyal to Moscow, and the unorthodox former guerrillas).
What this perspective misses, however, is that groupings around one issue are rarely replicated with consistency on others. For example, the fact that opposition in Cuba in the late 1980s to Gorbachev's reform programme had several sources (fear of a weakened united front against "imperialism", nationalist resentment, a glimpse of the seeds of later "Yeltsinism") meant that what came later - the campaign of "rectification" - was always more than the conservative opposition to change it was caricatured as. Equally, a "factionalist" reading of the March 2009 reshuffle is undermined by the inability to fit Rodríguez into a fidelista "faction" or Pérez Roque or Rivero into a "reformist" one.
Moreover, factionalist readings never work because they over-simplify the scope and purpose of internal debates inside a system which has almost always encouraged open disagreement "within the revolution" (i.e. behind closed doors or within limited circles or periods), and which has thereafter seldom castigated those who lose the argument. Ramiro Valdés is a case in point; a former guerrilla and interior minister, he was removed from the leadership in the 1980s but remained to be "rehabilitated" after 2005, becoming a minister and most recently vice-president, taking over the "battle of ideas" from Rivero.
True, the precise nature of "within" has differed over the decades - from the open academic debates of the "great debate" of the 1960s (over Cuba's economic future) to the limited leadership debates after the disastrous harvest of 1970. But it has generally been evident before party congresses, in mass organisations during consultations, or in academic "think-tanks". By the same token, the alternative ("against") has always been deemed unacceptable, though also variously defined by the scale of the current problem or external pressures.
The main reason why such traditional interpretations miss their target is that the focus on "reform" assumes the term's homogeneity and thus of those espousing it. Since 1989, "reform" has in the west become synonymous with "transition" (to capitalism); in Cuba, however, it has meant very different things to different actors.
Some might have advocated Gorbachev-style reforms in the 1980s, others might have admired the "Chinese model" - but few Cuban politicians shared either perspective, for the majority was aware that full liberalisation would mean Cuba being swamped by foreign imports and capital, and that a Chinese-style model might mean unacceptable inequality and corruption. In the Cuban context, "reform" in the early 1970s had meant following Soviet models of decentralisation and incentives; in the 1980s, it meant moving towards greater efficiency; after 1990 it meant whatever was necessary to save the revolution (including "dollarisation", self-employment, and tourism).
Much of this is missed by outsiders, whose search for "reformers" is associated with the assumption of a non-existent desire for "transition". The mismatch of perceptions was evident during Raúl's takeover in 2006-08; outsiders still saw him as a "hardliner", whereas most Cubans - based on his record within the FAR and then on his oversight of the 1990s reforms - saw him as (in Cuban terms, the ones that make sense of what is happening) an economic "reformer". In the former case what was consistent was his desire for efficiency; in the latter, the motives were clear and shared by Fidel.
The lessons of revolution
These considerations help to clear the way for a more realistic understanding of the political changes in Cuba. It is clear that any idea that Raúl might be planning a significantly different policy can be discarded: both brothers are cut from the same ideological cloth, and are equally determined to defend and further "the revolution" (see Cuba in Revolution: A History Since the Fifties [Reaktion, 2009]). Where they differ is in tactics and style.
Fidel has, broadly, always preferred to lead Cubans by mobilising through campaigns, rallies and "direct democracy", using his charisma, reputation and the reservoir of personal loyalty. Even when he employed stable structures to channel that support (the Communist Party and the mass organisations), he was generally suspicious of them - though not necessarily because they might constrain his freedom, power or authority.
The reasons were, rather, rooted in experience: the 1960s had taught him that institutionalised structures could be used by groups to try to take over the revolution or to change policy, while a decade of institutionalisation (1975-85) with its mix of consumerism and an enlarged party had created conditions for privilege and corruption. Thus, when, in 2000, the Elián González campaign transmogrified into the "battle of ideas" - promising to reinvigorate demoralised activists and incorporate a new generation of loyalists - mobilisation took precedence over structures, leading to the postponement of the party congress set for 2002.
Raúl, by contrast, has always preferred to govern through those same structures - though not because (as commonly assumed abroad) he is either a Stalinist or a boring bureaucrat.
The reason is, rather, rooted in his awareness that mobilisation, while often necessary to strengthen ideological resolve, contains two dangers: a lack of accountability and a tendency towards inefficiency. For him, structures (properly invigilated and motivated) can be more accountable, more effectively democratic, more efficient and less susceptible to ad hoc corruption.
All this is in the context of what is for Raúl the critical priority: to defend, sustain and enhance the revolution. Fidel might have seen the means to that end being ideological enhancement through mobilisation, but Raúl knows that his options are different: instead of "direct democracy" or campaigns, he has to earn Cubans' active commitment (even if he shares Fidel's historical legitimacy) by delivering tangible economic improvement. Some might argue that this is only possible though a transition towards capitalism, involving the privatisation of the heavily state-run structures and liberalisation of commerce; Raúl's preference is clearly to achieve it through the greater efficiency of the same structures.
What "efficiency" means in practice is a vexed question. For Raúl (as for Che Guevara in the ministry of industry in the early 1960s), inefficiency is inherently anti-revolutionary and produces corrosive corruption. The vexation comes because this "corruption" is not the high-level, headline-grabbing kind that sees ministers sacked or generals executed, but rather the low-level pilfering and diversion of resources of the kind that existed before 1989 and was exacerbated after the 1990s crisis, becoming almost standard means of survival for many and of enrichment for some.
For Raúl, both effects undermine the revolution's legitimacy: if ordinary citizens are obliged to steal public goods to survive, that undermines both their respect for, and active commitment to, revolution, while those who thus enrich themselves are parasites on their fellow citizens. Neither is acceptable.
In this larger context, the political demotions and promotions of March 2009 are part of a wider and longer-term strategy. There is a broad link with the post-2006 campaign against lax labour practices (such as ad hoc absenteeism and inadequate fulfilment of quotas), one that has generated stubborn resistance, trade-union objections and delayed legislation.
The constraint of ambition
There is need for a caveat, however: the need to avoid reading single motivations into unrelated developments. The fact that the demoted politicians shared little with each other makes it more than likely that Raúl also seized the opportunity to make changes for very different reasons.
Thus for example, corruption seemingly played no role in the demotions of Carlos Lage and Felipe Pérez Roque; but it was implicit in the case of Otto Rivero, not (at this stage at least) for any personal involvement but for having failed to prevent corruption at lower levels. If the loose structures and lack of accountability in the "battle of ideas" allowed opportunities for local corruption, this will have confirmed Raúl's suspicions about unstructured mobilisations.
In the cases of Lage and Pérez Roque (the reasons for the removal of José Luis Rodríguez are still unclear) another factor came into play: the system's inherent vigilance towards emerging "politicians". This refers to a consistent suspicion - predating Raúl's mandate - of politicians who, having risen through the ranks, have begun to act in their own right, outside the existing structures.
This happened with "rising stars" in the past, most notably Carlos Aldana in the early 1990s and Roberto Robaina in the late 1990s; both were identified abroad as potential successors to Fidel (and Raúl), and were removed partly because - as if persuaded by the label - they began to act accordingly. The public statements about Lage and Pérez Roque contain more than a hint of these precedents.
The leadership's reaction to such ostensible aspirants thus has a long and consistent history. But there is another factor: Raúl's own preference for "managers" over "politicians": the former are relied upon to deliver required results efficiently, the latter being less reliable and more likely to develop a personal base and approach.
Raúl Castro's "night of the long knives" may best be considered a characteristically raulista step in the defence, shaping and development of his main concern: "the revolution". An awareness of this core strategic and political calculation might be useful when the measures announced by Washington a month later begin to reach Cuba's shores and Cubans' pockets.
Also by Antoni Kapcia in openDemocracy:
"Cuba after Fidel: stability, movement, reform" (22 May 2008)
"Cuba's revolution: survival, loyalty, change" (15 January 2009)
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/raul-castro-and-cuba-reading-the-changes
Antoni Kapcia
A high-level reshuffle in Havana reveals much about the political character of the Cuban leadership in a testing new era, says Antoni Kapcia.
22 - 04 - 2009
The influence of Cuba on the political agenda of its neighbours has been much in evidence in April 2009. The easing of restrictions on travel, telecommunications and remittances between the United States and Cuba declared by Barack Obama on 13 April - largely reversing the special measures imposed by his predecessor in 2004 - fall far short of a lifting of the long-term trade embargo, though it is a notable shift of policy by Washington at this early stage of the new presidency. The discussions around the fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad & Tobago on 17-19 April 2009 also showed that even in its absence, Cuba is regarded as integral to the future of the region. Antoni Kapcia is professor and head of the Centre for Research on Cuba, University of Nottingham, England. He is the author of Cuba in Revolution: A History Since the Fifties (Reaktion, 2009)
But events in Cuba in the previous month are a healthy reminder that internal political developments in the country often overturn outsiders' expectations, in ways that require some reflection and analysis. Whatever the effects of a changing regional environment on Cuba, the country's political leadership will be an active player in seeking to mediate and manage them. So much is clear from the startling changes in senior personnel announced in Havana on 2 March 2009.
The long wait
Since Raúl Castro took over from his ailing brother Fidel - temporarily in August 2006 and permanently in February 2008 - two developments had been universally expected: government changes (promised in 2008) or a clearer raulista stamp, with the latter being seen either as retrenchment or as the start of a process of economic (if not political) reform.
As these developments failed to materialise, observers attributed the delay to various factors: Raúl's need to balance factions, Fidel's continuing influence (or Raúl's need to respect Fidel's sensitivities), popular fears and expectations, and (most convincingly) the impact of 2008's three hurricanes and the world recession. Another explanation is more prosaic and "institutional": that, until the much-postponed Communist Party congress (due in late 2009), Raúl has no formal mandate for reform.
But when the two long-awaited developments actually did occur in advance of the landmark congress, their character was as much a shock as their timing: for they included the demotion of two prominent politicians long seen as longer-term successors to the Castro brothers - Carlos Lage (secretary to the council of state, overseer of the post-1992 economic reforms which saved the revolution, and often described as Cuba's de facto prime minister) and Felipe Pérez Roque (the youthful foreign minister, once in Fidel's Grupo de Apoyo (support group) and always seen as "close to Fidel").
The changes also saw the removal of José Luis Rodríguez (the economy minister, and the economist who designed the 1990s reforms) and confirmed the demotion of Otto Rivero (the vice-president, also "close to Fidel", a former leader of the young communists (UJC) and since 2005 responsible for the "battle of ideas" campaign initiated by Fidel in 2000).
These changes - and the simultaneous promotions (many associated with Cuba's Revolutionary Armed Forces [FAR]) - were predictably seen by many foreign observers as having been driven by Raúl's need to impose his authority by removing "Fidel's people". This revealed the automatic operation of a five-decade-old "Fidel-centrist" media tendency: namely, that the revolution has always been determined by Fidel's skills, megalomania, loyalties, and charisma - except that now its controls had been reformatted to produce a newly "Raúl-centric" focus on personalism.
Many others similarly read the reshuffle in terms of familiar, formulaic patterns: Raúl Castro as the revolution's "ideologue", the rising presence of FAR people in government and the removal of known "reformers" presaging the imposition of a hard line, the division of Cuban politics according to "reformist" and "old guard" factions. The last frame was often applied outside Cuba to view Carlos Lage in particular as the would-be Mikhail Gorbachev, whose desire for a social-democratic Cuba was restrained by "old guard" resistance.
A singular and very different reading of the personnel changes was proposed by Jorge Castañeda, Mexico's former foreign minister and now an academic at New York University: that the demotions pre-empted a coup by loyalists (specifically Lage and Pérez Roque) supported by Hugo Chávez, who feared that Raúl's reforms would "betray" the revolution (see Jorge Castañeda, "The Plot Against the Castros", Newsweek, 14 March 2009).
A variation that combines elements of these readings has also occasionally seen Raúl himself as a quasi-reformer - seeking a "Chinese model" of political control and state-backed economic liberalisation, but restrained by Fidel (or by the "old guard") whom he is obliged to retain in government.
The limits of formula
These diverse interpretations evidently are inconsistent with one another in several respects, as well as embodying assumptions that limit their capacity to explain anything. Indeed, a scrutiny of two predominant assumptions is one way to approach the complexity of the Cuban reality and offer some more plausible and consistent explanations.
The flaws in the first assumption, that of personalism, are clear enough. A reading of this kind is logical enough in journalistic shorthand or in the polemics surrounding Cuban politics, but it casts little useful light on Cuban realities or the loyalties within the Cuban system. The internal arguments and tensions of this system are far better understood as the ebb and flow of an essentially collective rather than one-dimensionally personalist leadership.
That is not to deny the historically dominating presence of, and loyalty to, Fidel Castro. But it does entail moving beyond the obvious to the roles played by others: Raúl himself (more decisive than most have imagined and not, as often suggested, simply Fidel's loyal or resentful younger brother), but also other key players of the past (Che Guevara, Carlos Rafael Rodríguez, Raúl Roa, Osvaldo Dorticós, Armando Hart) and the present. It is easy to construct a credible picture of fifty years of debate among a remarkably solid leadership composed of players who, far from being ciphers, have been vociferous decision-makers within their respective fields of competence.
The second assumption, of the decisive influence of factions in the Cuban system, enters here. It arises mostly from older paradigms (of closed regimes whose behind-closed-doors politics led to speculation about internal tensions), but also draws on the known battles inside the Cuba of the 1960s (principally between "old communists" loyal to Moscow, and the unorthodox former guerrillas).
What this perspective misses, however, is that groupings around one issue are rarely replicated with consistency on others. For example, the fact that opposition in Cuba in the late 1980s to Gorbachev's reform programme had several sources (fear of a weakened united front against "imperialism", nationalist resentment, a glimpse of the seeds of later "Yeltsinism") meant that what came later - the campaign of "rectification" - was always more than the conservative opposition to change it was caricatured as. Equally, a "factionalist" reading of the March 2009 reshuffle is undermined by the inability to fit Rodríguez into a fidelista "faction" or Pérez Roque or Rivero into a "reformist" one.
Moreover, factionalist readings never work because they over-simplify the scope and purpose of internal debates inside a system which has almost always encouraged open disagreement "within the revolution" (i.e. behind closed doors or within limited circles or periods), and which has thereafter seldom castigated those who lose the argument. Ramiro Valdés is a case in point; a former guerrilla and interior minister, he was removed from the leadership in the 1980s but remained to be "rehabilitated" after 2005, becoming a minister and most recently vice-president, taking over the "battle of ideas" from Rivero.
True, the precise nature of "within" has differed over the decades - from the open academic debates of the "great debate" of the 1960s (over Cuba's economic future) to the limited leadership debates after the disastrous harvest of 1970. But it has generally been evident before party congresses, in mass organisations during consultations, or in academic "think-tanks". By the same token, the alternative ("against") has always been deemed unacceptable, though also variously defined by the scale of the current problem or external pressures.
The main reason why such traditional interpretations miss their target is that the focus on "reform" assumes the term's homogeneity and thus of those espousing it. Since 1989, "reform" has in the west become synonymous with "transition" (to capitalism); in Cuba, however, it has meant very different things to different actors.
Some might have advocated Gorbachev-style reforms in the 1980s, others might have admired the "Chinese model" - but few Cuban politicians shared either perspective, for the majority was aware that full liberalisation would mean Cuba being swamped by foreign imports and capital, and that a Chinese-style model might mean unacceptable inequality and corruption. In the Cuban context, "reform" in the early 1970s had meant following Soviet models of decentralisation and incentives; in the 1980s, it meant moving towards greater efficiency; after 1990 it meant whatever was necessary to save the revolution (including "dollarisation", self-employment, and tourism).
Much of this is missed by outsiders, whose search for "reformers" is associated with the assumption of a non-existent desire for "transition". The mismatch of perceptions was evident during Raúl's takeover in 2006-08; outsiders still saw him as a "hardliner", whereas most Cubans - based on his record within the FAR and then on his oversight of the 1990s reforms - saw him as (in Cuban terms, the ones that make sense of what is happening) an economic "reformer". In the former case what was consistent was his desire for efficiency; in the latter, the motives were clear and shared by Fidel.
The lessons of revolution
These considerations help to clear the way for a more realistic understanding of the political changes in Cuba. It is clear that any idea that Raúl might be planning a significantly different policy can be discarded: both brothers are cut from the same ideological cloth, and are equally determined to defend and further "the revolution" (see Cuba in Revolution: A History Since the Fifties [Reaktion, 2009]). Where they differ is in tactics and style.
Fidel has, broadly, always preferred to lead Cubans by mobilising through campaigns, rallies and "direct democracy", using his charisma, reputation and the reservoir of personal loyalty. Even when he employed stable structures to channel that support (the Communist Party and the mass organisations), he was generally suspicious of them - though not necessarily because they might constrain his freedom, power or authority.
The reasons were, rather, rooted in experience: the 1960s had taught him that institutionalised structures could be used by groups to try to take over the revolution or to change policy, while a decade of institutionalisation (1975-85) with its mix of consumerism and an enlarged party had created conditions for privilege and corruption. Thus, when, in 2000, the Elián González campaign transmogrified into the "battle of ideas" - promising to reinvigorate demoralised activists and incorporate a new generation of loyalists - mobilisation took precedence over structures, leading to the postponement of the party congress set for 2002.
Raúl, by contrast, has always preferred to govern through those same structures - though not because (as commonly assumed abroad) he is either a Stalinist or a boring bureaucrat.
The reason is, rather, rooted in his awareness that mobilisation, while often necessary to strengthen ideological resolve, contains two dangers: a lack of accountability and a tendency towards inefficiency. For him, structures (properly invigilated and motivated) can be more accountable, more effectively democratic, more efficient and less susceptible to ad hoc corruption.
All this is in the context of what is for Raúl the critical priority: to defend, sustain and enhance the revolution. Fidel might have seen the means to that end being ideological enhancement through mobilisation, but Raúl knows that his options are different: instead of "direct democracy" or campaigns, he has to earn Cubans' active commitment (even if he shares Fidel's historical legitimacy) by delivering tangible economic improvement. Some might argue that this is only possible though a transition towards capitalism, involving the privatisation of the heavily state-run structures and liberalisation of commerce; Raúl's preference is clearly to achieve it through the greater efficiency of the same structures.
What "efficiency" means in practice is a vexed question. For Raúl (as for Che Guevara in the ministry of industry in the early 1960s), inefficiency is inherently anti-revolutionary and produces corrosive corruption. The vexation comes because this "corruption" is not the high-level, headline-grabbing kind that sees ministers sacked or generals executed, but rather the low-level pilfering and diversion of resources of the kind that existed before 1989 and was exacerbated after the 1990s crisis, becoming almost standard means of survival for many and of enrichment for some.
For Raúl, both effects undermine the revolution's legitimacy: if ordinary citizens are obliged to steal public goods to survive, that undermines both their respect for, and active commitment to, revolution, while those who thus enrich themselves are parasites on their fellow citizens. Neither is acceptable.
In this larger context, the political demotions and promotions of March 2009 are part of a wider and longer-term strategy. There is a broad link with the post-2006 campaign against lax labour practices (such as ad hoc absenteeism and inadequate fulfilment of quotas), one that has generated stubborn resistance, trade-union objections and delayed legislation.
The constraint of ambition
There is need for a caveat, however: the need to avoid reading single motivations into unrelated developments. The fact that the demoted politicians shared little with each other makes it more than likely that Raúl also seized the opportunity to make changes for very different reasons.
Thus for example, corruption seemingly played no role in the demotions of Carlos Lage and Felipe Pérez Roque; but it was implicit in the case of Otto Rivero, not (at this stage at least) for any personal involvement but for having failed to prevent corruption at lower levels. If the loose structures and lack of accountability in the "battle of ideas" allowed opportunities for local corruption, this will have confirmed Raúl's suspicions about unstructured mobilisations.
In the cases of Lage and Pérez Roque (the reasons for the removal of José Luis Rodríguez are still unclear) another factor came into play: the system's inherent vigilance towards emerging "politicians". This refers to a consistent suspicion - predating Raúl's mandate - of politicians who, having risen through the ranks, have begun to act in their own right, outside the existing structures.
This happened with "rising stars" in the past, most notably Carlos Aldana in the early 1990s and Roberto Robaina in the late 1990s; both were identified abroad as potential successors to Fidel (and Raúl), and were removed partly because - as if persuaded by the label - they began to act accordingly. The public statements about Lage and Pérez Roque contain more than a hint of these precedents.
The leadership's reaction to such ostensible aspirants thus has a long and consistent history. But there is another factor: Raúl's own preference for "managers" over "politicians": the former are relied upon to deliver required results efficiently, the latter being less reliable and more likely to develop a personal base and approach.
Raúl Castro's "night of the long knives" may best be considered a characteristically raulista step in the defence, shaping and development of his main concern: "the revolution". An awareness of this core strategic and political calculation might be useful when the measures announced by Washington a month later begin to reach Cuba's shores and Cubans' pockets.
Also by Antoni Kapcia in openDemocracy:
"Cuba after Fidel: stability, movement, reform" (22 May 2008)
"Cuba's revolution: survival, loyalty, change" (15 January 2009)
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/raul-castro-and-cuba-reading-the-changes
Thursday, May 14, 2009
May 20: Anniversary of A Compromised Independence or ?
From 1868 to 1898 Cuba fought three wars for independence, the longest from 1868 to 1878.
The last war began in 1898 and resulted in the American intervention and occupation of Cuba until the 20 of May of 1902.
This last war was organized by José Martí. Its beginning was obstructed and seriously jeopardized when the American authorities seized three ships with weapons in “La Fernandina” in Florida, an expedition prepared by Marti. The Cubans, nevertheless, launched the war. For the first time the Cuban Army was able to invade the western provinces: Matanzas, La Habana and Pinar del Río and the Cienfuegos region in Las Villas. This was the economically critical sugar producing area.
At the beginning of the war the slogan of the Spanish government was “For Cuba to the last man and peseta”, but a new government came to power under the banner “Not one more man or pesetas for Cuba”.
Essentially Spain was defeated, not in a big battle, like Stalingrad or the Ardennes, but by the capacity of the Cubans to have not been defeated, like the Vietnamese years later.
Spain granted “Autonomía” to Cuba, but it was too late and too little.
All of the sudden, after years of “neutrality” and without recognizing the Cuban forces as belligerents, the US declared war and invaded Cuba near Santiago de Cuba. Cuban forces, under the overall command of General Calixto García, protected the landing of the US troops, horses, supplies etc. on Daiquiri Beach.
Very quickly the war ended. The occupying American forces did not allow the Cuban army to march into Santiago or any other town. Calixto Garcia resigned and sent General Shaffer a letter full of honor and pride. However, to the scorn of the Cubans, Spanish local authorities were retained in their posts.
The occupying authorities dissolved the Cuban Liberation Army and created a new force, the future Cuban Army. Essentially, with differences introduced by time, this is the army that was defeated in 1958 by the Revolution. Cuban landowners who had lost their wealth, particularly in the east of the country, had to sell their land for pennies to American interests.
The Platt Amendment was introduced into the Cuban Constitution as a condition for the end of US occupation. In effect, Cuba was a US Protectorate until the Platt Amendment was voided in 1934 as part of the New Deal’s Good Neighbor policy, with the notable exception of continued US control over the Guantanamo Bay base.
The US lowered its flag on the 20 of May 2002 and the Cuban flag was raised over the Morro Castle. America’s imposed conditional independence frustrated the majority of Cubans, but pleased the big land owners in western Cuba and the Spanish who controlled trade in Havana.
Celebrating the 20th of May in Washington as Cuban Independence Day is living in the past, opening old wounds and reminding almost everybody on the island that maybe the US of 2009 is still the US of 1898 and 1902.
(The author is a retired reform minded official of Cuba's governmemt.)
The last war began in 1898 and resulted in the American intervention and occupation of Cuba until the 20 of May of 1902.
This last war was organized by José Martí. Its beginning was obstructed and seriously jeopardized when the American authorities seized three ships with weapons in “La Fernandina” in Florida, an expedition prepared by Marti. The Cubans, nevertheless, launched the war. For the first time the Cuban Army was able to invade the western provinces: Matanzas, La Habana and Pinar del Río and the Cienfuegos region in Las Villas. This was the economically critical sugar producing area.
At the beginning of the war the slogan of the Spanish government was “For Cuba to the last man and peseta”, but a new government came to power under the banner “Not one more man or pesetas for Cuba”.
Essentially Spain was defeated, not in a big battle, like Stalingrad or the Ardennes, but by the capacity of the Cubans to have not been defeated, like the Vietnamese years later.
Spain granted “Autonomía” to Cuba, but it was too late and too little.
All of the sudden, after years of “neutrality” and without recognizing the Cuban forces as belligerents, the US declared war and invaded Cuba near Santiago de Cuba. Cuban forces, under the overall command of General Calixto García, protected the landing of the US troops, horses, supplies etc. on Daiquiri Beach.
Very quickly the war ended. The occupying American forces did not allow the Cuban army to march into Santiago or any other town. Calixto Garcia resigned and sent General Shaffer a letter full of honor and pride. However, to the scorn of the Cubans, Spanish local authorities were retained in their posts.
The occupying authorities dissolved the Cuban Liberation Army and created a new force, the future Cuban Army. Essentially, with differences introduced by time, this is the army that was defeated in 1958 by the Revolution. Cuban landowners who had lost their wealth, particularly in the east of the country, had to sell their land for pennies to American interests.
The Platt Amendment was introduced into the Cuban Constitution as a condition for the end of US occupation. In effect, Cuba was a US Protectorate until the Platt Amendment was voided in 1934 as part of the New Deal’s Good Neighbor policy, with the notable exception of continued US control over the Guantanamo Bay base.
The US lowered its flag on the 20 of May 2002 and the Cuban flag was raised over the Morro Castle. America’s imposed conditional independence frustrated the majority of Cubans, but pleased the big land owners in western Cuba and the Spanish who controlled trade in Havana.
Celebrating the 20th of May in Washington as Cuban Independence Day is living in the past, opening old wounds and reminding almost everybody on the island that maybe the US of 2009 is still the US of 1898 and 1902.
(The author is a retired reform minded official of Cuba's governmemt.)
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Reform in Food Distribution
14:26 30Mar2009 Cuba revamps food distribution in efficiency move
* Cuba overhauls food distribution system
* Castro pushing to boost farmers' output
* Agriculture ministry to focus on food production
By Marc Frank
HAVANA, March 30 (Reuters) - Cuba has begun a major overhaul of its food distribution system as part of an effort to increase production and tackle inefficiency, farmers and cooperative producers said.
The vast state network responsible for purchasing and distributing 90 percent of farm output has been moved from the agriculture ministry to the domestic trade ministry, the sources said.
Their comments confirmed a brief report on state-run television last week saying the transfer was underway and that "agriculture will be left with what has to do with production."
The report said the number of state produce markets in the country would be almost doubled from 156 to 300.
So far, government officials have not spoken publicly of the moves, nor have official decrees been published.
But farmers are praising the steps because they say they will allow agricultural officials to concentrate on getting more food produced while leaving distribution to another ministry.
"It is a good measure linked to others they are taking. Agriculture should not be diverted from producing by other tasks," farmer Alfredo Rodriguez said in a telephone interview from the central province of Camaguey.
President Raul Castro has made increasing food production a priority since taking over for his ailing brother Fidel Castro just over a year ago.
The cash-strapped country imports some 60 percent of the food it consumes, spending nearly $2 billion last year.
Raul Castro has moved to decentralize control of agriculture, once centered in Havana, and to increase farm supplies. He has begun the massive leasing of fallow state lands to those interested in tilling it and has as much as tripled amounts the state pays for most agricultural products.
Local economists have applauded the measures, but say they fall short of the market mechanisms needed to improve output.
GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION
The latest move followed a government reshuffle earlier this month that replaced eight ministers and several top officials and brought armed forces generals, former officers and middle-aged Communist Party officials into the cabinet.
Acopio is the name of the huge state-run purchasing and distribution system that has come under fire for being grossly inefficient.
There have been numerous reports in the local media this year of how part of a bumper tomato harvest rotted in the fields for lack of containers and transport to cart it away.
"Acopio functions as an intermediary between farmers and consumers and has no business being part of the agriculture ministry," farm cooperative member Diego Cosme said in a telephone interview from eastern Holguin province.
Raul Castro has promised to reorganize and downsize the government to make it and the state-run economy more efficient.
Cuba has around 250,000 family farms and 1,100 private cooperatives, which together produce about 70 percent of the country's food on less than one-third of the cultivated land.
The remainder of the land is owned by the state, and half of that lies fallow.
Some 90 percent of the food is purchased by the state and shipped to institutions ranging from hospitals and schools to work place lunchrooms, and also sold at state markets, with the remainder sold by farmers on the open market.
(Editing by Jeff Franks and Kieran Murray)
* Cuba overhauls food distribution system
* Castro pushing to boost farmers' output
* Agriculture ministry to focus on food production
By Marc Frank
HAVANA, March 30 (Reuters) - Cuba has begun a major overhaul of its food distribution system as part of an effort to increase production and tackle inefficiency, farmers and cooperative producers said.
The vast state network responsible for purchasing and distributing 90 percent of farm output has been moved from the agriculture ministry to the domestic trade ministry, the sources said.
Their comments confirmed a brief report on state-run television last week saying the transfer was underway and that "agriculture will be left with what has to do with production."
The report said the number of state produce markets in the country would be almost doubled from 156 to 300.
So far, government officials have not spoken publicly of the moves, nor have official decrees been published.
But farmers are praising the steps because they say they will allow agricultural officials to concentrate on getting more food produced while leaving distribution to another ministry.
"It is a good measure linked to others they are taking. Agriculture should not be diverted from producing by other tasks," farmer Alfredo Rodriguez said in a telephone interview from the central province of Camaguey.
President Raul Castro has made increasing food production a priority since taking over for his ailing brother Fidel Castro just over a year ago.
The cash-strapped country imports some 60 percent of the food it consumes, spending nearly $2 billion last year.
Raul Castro has moved to decentralize control of agriculture, once centered in Havana, and to increase farm supplies. He has begun the massive leasing of fallow state lands to those interested in tilling it and has as much as tripled amounts the state pays for most agricultural products.
Local economists have applauded the measures, but say they fall short of the market mechanisms needed to improve output.
GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION
The latest move followed a government reshuffle earlier this month that replaced eight ministers and several top officials and brought armed forces generals, former officers and middle-aged Communist Party officials into the cabinet.
Acopio is the name of the huge state-run purchasing and distribution system that has come under fire for being grossly inefficient.
There have been numerous reports in the local media this year of how part of a bumper tomato harvest rotted in the fields for lack of containers and transport to cart it away.
"Acopio functions as an intermediary between farmers and consumers and has no business being part of the agriculture ministry," farm cooperative member Diego Cosme said in a telephone interview from eastern Holguin province.
Raul Castro has promised to reorganize and downsize the government to make it and the state-run economy more efficient.
Cuba has around 250,000 family farms and 1,100 private cooperatives, which together produce about 70 percent of the country's food on less than one-third of the cultivated land.
The remainder of the land is owned by the state, and half of that lies fallow.
Some 90 percent of the food is purchased by the state and shipped to institutions ranging from hospitals and schools to work place lunchrooms, and also sold at state markets, with the remainder sold by farmers on the open market.
(Editing by Jeff Franks and Kieran Murray)
Monday, March 30, 2009
Jorge Castañeda vs. Nelson Valdez
The Plot Against The Castros
Two of Cuba's star politicians seem to have been a part of a conspiracy or a coup to overthrow Raúl Castro
Jorge Castañeda
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Mar 23, 2009
For years, two tidbits of conventional wisdom have dominated debates among Cubanologists (a tropical subspecies of former Kremlinologists). First, that Deputy Prime Minister and economic czar Carlos Lage has been in charge of running the island economy since the early '90s, and, despite differences of opinion regarding his performance, was seen as one of the most likely successors to Fidel Castro's brother and successor, Raúl. Second, that Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque was not only in charge of the international relations Fidel Castro took increasingly less interest in, but that he was something of a favorite son. Most observers, including several Latin American ex-presidents close to Castro, saw him as the heir apparent, once the caudillo's brother passed from the scene. So Raúl's decision to dump the two stars a fortnight ago is a major event in Cuba, and unlike previous purges, this one is clearly linked to Fidel Castro's succession, and may tell us a great deal about what lies ahead.
The problem, of course, is that, as in the Soviet Union when Stalin died, or in China after Mao's death, we don't really know what is going on. Yet there are solid reasons to believe that something along the following lines took place: for at least a month or so, Lage, Pérez Roque and others were apparently involved in a conspiracy, betrayal, coup or whatever term one prefers, to overthrow or displace Raúl from his position. In this endeavor, they recruited—or were recruited by—Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, who in turn tried to enlist the support of other Latin American leaders, starting with Leonel Fernández of the Dominican Republic, who refused to get involved.
Their reasons for wishing to unseat Rául were mainly turf and power, but they also feared that the leader was beginning to feel threatened by the reaction of the Cuban people to excessive economic and social deprivation, and after his brother's demise would be unable to control the flow of events. Consequently, he would accept a series of economic and political reforms to normalize relations with the United States, knowing full well that therein lay the only option for immediate improvement in Cubans' lives. They believed this to be a betrayal of the revolution, and the beginning of the end of its survival.
This would represent the latest of many anti-Castro intrigues since 1959. As usual, Castro (Raúl this time; before, both brothers) detected the plot almost before the plotters themselves. Raúl took the evidence collected by military intelligence to his ailing brother, and forced him to choose: stick with him and extend his support to the predetermined succession path, or back Lage and Pérez Roque and forsake Raúl. With evident disappointment in his old allies, the Comandante Máximo backed Raúl. Then Chávez was summoned to Havana to be placed before another devil's alternative: back off, while maintaining economic support for the island, or lose his Cuban security detail and intelligence apparatus, exposing himself to coups and assassination attempts from eventual Venezuelan replacements. He chose to stick with the Castros.
The day after their resignation, the two plotters were expelled from their other posts in disgrace. In a newspaper column Fidel accused them of harboring excessive "ambitions" fed by the "honey of power" and the "absence of sacrifice." He said they had reawakened the illusions of "foreign powers" regarding Cuba's future. More importantly, and enigmatically, he resorted to a baseball metaphor on the occasion of the World Baseball Classic to praise Dominicans for not participating (the team's plans had been unclear) and to claim that Chávez's baseball players, "as good and young" as they might be, were no match for "Cuba's seasoned all-stars."
When the conspirators were stripped of their titles, they published classic Stalinist mea culpa letters, acknowledging their "mistakes" (without saying what they were), and pledging loyalty to Fidel, Raúl and the revolution. Such behavior raises ominous questions. Pérez Roque was popular in Cuba; his youth, his humble origins, his combative nature all brought him closer to the people than most Cuban bureaucrats. Once Fidel is gone, will Raúl be able to "keep him down on the farm," if and when he claims to be Fidel's true heir? Will Raúl be able to pull off a rapprochement with Washington quickly enough to placate the restiveness his opponents could exploit? Or should he act to remove them from the scene, one way or another, before they return shrouded in glory?
Needless to say, none of this can be fully substantiated, and it is quite possible that, indeed, the entire affair might have now come to an end. Or, more probably, there will be a sequel: further persecution of the fallen idols, growing discontent in Cuba and increasing difficulties on the part of Raúl in managing the succession. It is worth remembering that Lenin, Stalin and Mao were all unable to control their successions, and they were neither fools nor choir children. There is scant reason to believe that Fidel, despite all his talent, will prove more successful.
Castañeda is a former foreign minister of Mexico, Global Distinguished Professor at New York University and a fellow at the New America Foundation.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/189261
*****************
Newsweek, Foreign Policy Magazine and Speculation as "Entertainment"
by Nelson P Valdés
Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque)
03/24/09
"I would rather tell seven lies than make one explanation.
- Mark Twain
"Even now you can see how there are attempts to distort what happens in the
world and what is the truth of what is going on in Cuba."
- Fidel Castro, April 4, 1959
On March 14, 2009 Newsweek magazine published an article ["The Plot Against
the Castros"] written by Jorge Castañeda. The article claimed to provide an
interpretation of the reasons for the March 3rd government changes in Cuba.
The author claimed,
"...for at least a month or so, Lage, Pérez Roque and others were apparently
involved in a conspiracy, betrayal, coup or whatever term one prefers, to
overthrow or displace Raúl from his position. In this endeavor, they
recruited-or were recruited by-Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, who in turn tried to
enlist the support of other Latin American leaders, starting with Leonel
Fernández of the Dominican Republic, who refused to get involved."[1]
Castañeda, using his power of creative fiction wrote: "The day after their
resignation, the two plotters were expelled from their other posts in
disgrace. In a newspaper column Fidel accused them of harboring excessive
"ambitions" fed by the "honey of power" and the "absence of sacrifice." He
said they had reawakened the illusions of "foreign powers" regarding Cuba's
future. More importantly,and enigmatically, he resorted to a baseball
metaphor on the occasion of the World Baseball Classic to praise Dominicans
for not participating (the team's plans had been unclear) and to claim that
Chavez's baseball players, "as good and young" as they might be, were no
match for "Cuba's seasoned all-stars."
In his article Castañeda conflated Fidel Castro's comments about the
Baseball Classic with changes in the makeup of the Cuban cabinet. In the
process he even imagined the role of two Latin American presidents.
Within hours it was clear that the Newsweek piece was based on no evidence.
Jorge Castañeda had said as much 72 hours later, CNN fromMexico City quoted
him as saying, ""I have no evidence of it."[2]. Yet, on March 18th in the
digital version of the Spanish newspaper El País he had a new article (La
ambigüedad de la victoria) where he repeated his speculation although
acknowledging he had nothing to back him up. In the new revised speculation
he mentioned Hugo Chavez but not the Dominican Republic president. of
course, the Venezuelan president denied the assertions. [3]
Over 67,000 web pages, blogs and printed media reproduced the claim that
there had been a plot against the government of Raul Castro; yet, only
18,000 web pages reported that the whole thing was not based on evidence.
When it comes to Cuba, anything goes as far as the mass media and numerous
academic institutions are concerned. Castañeda is at present a fellow at the
New America Foundation, which only shows that some "think tanks" are ready
to broadcast fantasy, falsehoods and anything else as long as some
ideological preconceptions are ratified.
The blogger Machetera, on March 17, decided to speculate on what is going on
"Inside Jorge Castañeda's feverish mind." And "just for fun" Machetera
ripped the Newsweek article apart, paragraph by paragraph. [4] Yet, another
"respectable" publication came to the rescue of the creative fiction writer
- Foreign Policy magazine - owned by the same company that produces
Newsweek. Joshua Keating, the editor of FP wrote on the blog the editors of
the magazine have:
"To be fair to Castañeda, "informed speculation" is probably the best we're
going to get in terms of Cuban political analysis at the moment. His theory
seems as good as any of the others (It is a bit strange that Chavez hasn't
publicly commented on any of this yet.) and at least it has the virtue of
being entertaining."[5]
Of course, all these assertions were the result of an overactive imagination
lacking the most basic professional ethics of commitment to truth, integrity
and intellectual honesty.[6]
In the post-modern world truth, accuracy and method are of no consequence,
it seems. Infotainment now passes as foreign policy analysis. When
everything fails to justify political speculation, and hacks passing as
academics are caught in their lies; there is always the entertainment value
of lying. Or so, we are told.
-----------------------------
Notes
[1] http://www.newsweek.com/id/189261
[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/17/cuba.overthrow.plot/
[3] http://cuba-l.unm.edu/?nid=66877 and
http://www.clavedigital.com/App_Pages/Noticias/NoticiasInt.aspx?id_Articulo=
23729
[4]
http://machetera.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/inside-jorge-castanedas-feverish-m
ind/
[5] http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/18/cubanologist_smackdown
[6] A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science, Second Edition,
revised 2008. http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/ethicsguideweb.pdf
Two of Cuba's star politicians seem to have been a part of a conspiracy or a coup to overthrow Raúl Castro
Jorge Castañeda
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Mar 23, 2009
For years, two tidbits of conventional wisdom have dominated debates among Cubanologists (a tropical subspecies of former Kremlinologists). First, that Deputy Prime Minister and economic czar Carlos Lage has been in charge of running the island economy since the early '90s, and, despite differences of opinion regarding his performance, was seen as one of the most likely successors to Fidel Castro's brother and successor, Raúl. Second, that Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque was not only in charge of the international relations Fidel Castro took increasingly less interest in, but that he was something of a favorite son. Most observers, including several Latin American ex-presidents close to Castro, saw him as the heir apparent, once the caudillo's brother passed from the scene. So Raúl's decision to dump the two stars a fortnight ago is a major event in Cuba, and unlike previous purges, this one is clearly linked to Fidel Castro's succession, and may tell us a great deal about what lies ahead.
The problem, of course, is that, as in the Soviet Union when Stalin died, or in China after Mao's death, we don't really know what is going on. Yet there are solid reasons to believe that something along the following lines took place: for at least a month or so, Lage, Pérez Roque and others were apparently involved in a conspiracy, betrayal, coup or whatever term one prefers, to overthrow or displace Raúl from his position. In this endeavor, they recruited—or were recruited by—Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, who in turn tried to enlist the support of other Latin American leaders, starting with Leonel Fernández of the Dominican Republic, who refused to get involved.
Their reasons for wishing to unseat Rául were mainly turf and power, but they also feared that the leader was beginning to feel threatened by the reaction of the Cuban people to excessive economic and social deprivation, and after his brother's demise would be unable to control the flow of events. Consequently, he would accept a series of economic and political reforms to normalize relations with the United States, knowing full well that therein lay the only option for immediate improvement in Cubans' lives. They believed this to be a betrayal of the revolution, and the beginning of the end of its survival.
This would represent the latest of many anti-Castro intrigues since 1959. As usual, Castro (Raúl this time; before, both brothers) detected the plot almost before the plotters themselves. Raúl took the evidence collected by military intelligence to his ailing brother, and forced him to choose: stick with him and extend his support to the predetermined succession path, or back Lage and Pérez Roque and forsake Raúl. With evident disappointment in his old allies, the Comandante Máximo backed Raúl. Then Chávez was summoned to Havana to be placed before another devil's alternative: back off, while maintaining economic support for the island, or lose his Cuban security detail and intelligence apparatus, exposing himself to coups and assassination attempts from eventual Venezuelan replacements. He chose to stick with the Castros.
The day after their resignation, the two plotters were expelled from their other posts in disgrace. In a newspaper column Fidel accused them of harboring excessive "ambitions" fed by the "honey of power" and the "absence of sacrifice." He said they had reawakened the illusions of "foreign powers" regarding Cuba's future. More importantly, and enigmatically, he resorted to a baseball metaphor on the occasion of the World Baseball Classic to praise Dominicans for not participating (the team's plans had been unclear) and to claim that Chávez's baseball players, "as good and young" as they might be, were no match for "Cuba's seasoned all-stars."
When the conspirators were stripped of their titles, they published classic Stalinist mea culpa letters, acknowledging their "mistakes" (without saying what they were), and pledging loyalty to Fidel, Raúl and the revolution. Such behavior raises ominous questions. Pérez Roque was popular in Cuba; his youth, his humble origins, his combative nature all brought him closer to the people than most Cuban bureaucrats. Once Fidel is gone, will Raúl be able to "keep him down on the farm," if and when he claims to be Fidel's true heir? Will Raúl be able to pull off a rapprochement with Washington quickly enough to placate the restiveness his opponents could exploit? Or should he act to remove them from the scene, one way or another, before they return shrouded in glory?
Needless to say, none of this can be fully substantiated, and it is quite possible that, indeed, the entire affair might have now come to an end. Or, more probably, there will be a sequel: further persecution of the fallen idols, growing discontent in Cuba and increasing difficulties on the part of Raúl in managing the succession. It is worth remembering that Lenin, Stalin and Mao were all unable to control their successions, and they were neither fools nor choir children. There is scant reason to believe that Fidel, despite all his talent, will prove more successful.
Castañeda is a former foreign minister of Mexico, Global Distinguished Professor at New York University and a fellow at the New America Foundation.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/189261
*****************
Newsweek, Foreign Policy Magazine and Speculation as "Entertainment"
by Nelson P Valdés
Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque)
03/24/09
"I would rather tell seven lies than make one explanation.
- Mark Twain
"Even now you can see how there are attempts to distort what happens in the
world and what is the truth of what is going on in Cuba."
- Fidel Castro, April 4, 1959
On March 14, 2009 Newsweek magazine published an article ["The Plot Against
the Castros"] written by Jorge Castañeda. The article claimed to provide an
interpretation of the reasons for the March 3rd government changes in Cuba.
The author claimed,
"...for at least a month or so, Lage, Pérez Roque and others were apparently
involved in a conspiracy, betrayal, coup or whatever term one prefers, to
overthrow or displace Raúl from his position. In this endeavor, they
recruited-or were recruited by-Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, who in turn tried to
enlist the support of other Latin American leaders, starting with Leonel
Fernández of the Dominican Republic, who refused to get involved."[1]
Castañeda, using his power of creative fiction wrote: "The day after their
resignation, the two plotters were expelled from their other posts in
disgrace. In a newspaper column Fidel accused them of harboring excessive
"ambitions" fed by the "honey of power" and the "absence of sacrifice." He
said they had reawakened the illusions of "foreign powers" regarding Cuba's
future. More importantly,and enigmatically, he resorted to a baseball
metaphor on the occasion of the World Baseball Classic to praise Dominicans
for not participating (the team's plans had been unclear) and to claim that
Chavez's baseball players, "as good and young" as they might be, were no
match for "Cuba's seasoned all-stars."
In his article Castañeda conflated Fidel Castro's comments about the
Baseball Classic with changes in the makeup of the Cuban cabinet. In the
process he even imagined the role of two Latin American presidents.
Within hours it was clear that the Newsweek piece was based on no evidence.
Jorge Castañeda had said as much 72 hours later, CNN fromMexico City quoted
him as saying, ""I have no evidence of it."[2]. Yet, on March 18th in the
digital version of the Spanish newspaper El País he had a new article (La
ambigüedad de la victoria) where he repeated his speculation although
acknowledging he had nothing to back him up. In the new revised speculation
he mentioned Hugo Chavez but not the Dominican Republic president. of
course, the Venezuelan president denied the assertions. [3]
Over 67,000 web pages, blogs and printed media reproduced the claim that
there had been a plot against the government of Raul Castro; yet, only
18,000 web pages reported that the whole thing was not based on evidence.
When it comes to Cuba, anything goes as far as the mass media and numerous
academic institutions are concerned. Castañeda is at present a fellow at the
New America Foundation, which only shows that some "think tanks" are ready
to broadcast fantasy, falsehoods and anything else as long as some
ideological preconceptions are ratified.
The blogger Machetera, on March 17, decided to speculate on what is going on
"Inside Jorge Castañeda's feverish mind." And "just for fun" Machetera
ripped the Newsweek article apart, paragraph by paragraph. [4] Yet, another
"respectable" publication came to the rescue of the creative fiction writer
- Foreign Policy magazine - owned by the same company that produces
Newsweek. Joshua Keating, the editor of FP wrote on the blog the editors of
the magazine have:
"To be fair to Castañeda, "informed speculation" is probably the best we're
going to get in terms of Cuban political analysis at the moment. His theory
seems as good as any of the others (It is a bit strange that Chavez hasn't
publicly commented on any of this yet.) and at least it has the virtue of
being entertaining."[5]
Of course, all these assertions were the result of an overactive imagination
lacking the most basic professional ethics of commitment to truth, integrity
and intellectual honesty.[6]
In the post-modern world truth, accuracy and method are of no consequence,
it seems. Infotainment now passes as foreign policy analysis. When
everything fails to justify political speculation, and hacks passing as
academics are caught in their lies; there is always the entertainment value
of lying. Or so, we are told.
-----------------------------
Notes
[1] http://www.newsweek.com/id/189261
[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/17/cuba.overthrow.plot/
[3] http://cuba-l.unm.edu/?nid=66877 and
http://www.clavedigital.com/App_Pages/Noticias/NoticiasInt.aspx?id_Articulo=
23729
[4]
http://machetera.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/inside-jorge-castanedas-feverish-m
ind/
[5] http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/18/cubanologist_smackdown
[6] A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science, Second Edition,
revised 2008. http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/ethicsguideweb.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)