Tag: Cuba

  • When Lights Go Out in Cuba, Media Blame Communism—Not US Sanctions

    Spread the love

    Original article by Paul Hedreen republished from FAIR under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

    Cuba is in the midst of an ongoing humanitarian crisis, and October’s widespread power outages are only adding to the Cuban people’s troubles. For the last six decades, Cuba has been on the receiving end of myriad sanctions by the United States government. This blockade has proved devastating to human life.

    Reporting on Cuba’s blackouts have either omitted or paid brief lip-service to the effects of US sanctions on the Cuban economy, and how those sanctions have created the conditions for the crisis. Instead, media have focused on the inefficient and authoritarian Communist government as the cause of the island’s troubles.

    Pulping the economy

    The Hill: Cuba’s placement on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list has led to damaging consequences
    Michael Galant (The Hill, 1/5/24): “Businesses and financial institutions, including many from outside the United States, often elect to sever all connections to Cuba rather than risk being sanctioned themselves for association with ‘a sponsor of terror.’”

    One of President Donald Trump’s final acts in office was to re-designate Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, after President Barack Obama had removed them from the list in 2015 as a part of his Cuban thaw. Inclusion on the list subjects a country to restrictions on US foreign aid and financing, but, more importantly, the SSoT list encourages third-party over-compliance with sanctions. “Businesses and financial institutions, including many from outside the United States, often elect to sever all connections to Cuba rather than risk being sanctioned themselves,” The Hill (1/5/24) reported.

    Trump reportedly added Cuba to the list for harboring members of FARC and ELN, two left-wing Colombian armed movements. However, Colombian President Gustavo Petro later “noted that Colombia itself, in cooperation with the Obama administration, had asked Cuba to host the FARC and ELN members as part of peace talks,” the Intercept (12/14/23) wrote. Indeed, if Cuba deported the dissidents, they would have been in violation of the protocols of the peace talks, which they were bound to by international law (The Nation, 2/24/23).

    President Joe Biden has not begun the process of reviewing Cuba’s inclusion on the list, despite his campaign promises to the contrary.

    The terror designation, plus the many other sanctions imposed by Trump and continued by Biden, are no small potatoes. Ed Augustin wrote at Drop Site (10/1/24) that

    the terror designation, together with more than 200 sanctions enacted against the island since Obama left office, has pulped the Cuban economy by cutting revenue to the struggling Cuban state…. The combined annual cost of the Trump/Biden sanctions, [economists] say, amounts to billions of dollars a year.

    Augustin argued that the economic warfare regime is a root cause of the rolling blackouts, water shortages and mass emigration that have plagued Cuba in recent years. Even imports that are ostensibly exempt from sanctions, like medication, are caught in the dragnet as multinational companies scramble to cut ties with the island. Banks are so reluctant to run afoul of US sanctions, Augustin wrote, “that often, even when the state can find the money to buy, and a provider willing to sell, there’s simply no way of making the payment.”

    Cuba’s pariah status as a SSoT has put a stranglehold on its economy, and its government’s ability to administer public services. However, US restrictions on Cuba are almost never mentioned in US coverage, and reporting on the recent blackouts is no exception.

    Cash-strapped Communists

    Reuters: Tougher U.S. sanctions make Cuba ever more difficult for Western firms
    Reuters (10/10/19): “Tougher US sanctions against Cuba have led international banks to avoid transactions involving the island, while prospective overseas investors put plans on hold.”

    Coverage has emphasized the inability of Cuba’s government to pay for necessary fuel imports. The New York Times (10/19/24) reported “the strapped Communist government could barely afford” to pay for fuel. Elsewhere, the Times (10/18/24) claimed “a severe economic crisis and the cash crunch it produced made it harder for Cuba to pay for those fuel imports.”

    The Washington Post (10/18/24) made broadly similar arguments, chalking the blackouts up to “a shortage of imported oil and the cash-strapped government’s insufficient maintenance of the creaky grid.”

    The “cash crunch” referenced by the Times is not just the result of an abstract economic crisis, as is implied. Instead, it is a direct effect of US sanctions on financial institutions. During the Obama administration, European banks, including ING and BNP Paribas, were fined to the tune of over $10 billion for transacting with Cuba (Jacobin, 3/27/22). Even before Cuba was choked further as a result of their SSoT designation, reporting by Reuters (10/10/19) showed the extent to which banks were terminating operations with Cuba and Cuban entities:

    Many Western banks have long refused Cuba-related business for fear of running afoul of US sanctions and facing hefty fines.… Panama’s Multibank shut down numerous Cuba-related accounts this year and European banks are restricting clients associated with Cuba to their own nationals, if that.…

    Businessmen and diplomats said large French banks, including Societe Generale, no longer want anything to do with Cuba, and some are stopping payments to pensioners living on the Caribbean island.… For the first time in years, the island has had problems financing the upcoming sugar harvest. Various joint venture projects, from golf resorts to alternative energy, are finding it nearly impossible to obtain private credit.

    This de-risking by financial institutions manufactures a cash-scarce economy. Cuba’s inability to procure cash for imports is not a function of financial mismanagement, or a lack of credit-worthiness. Instead, it is a deliberate effect of American foreign policy. By omitting the actions of the most powerful government on earth, mainstream coverage allows only that only Cuban failures could be the cause of a shortage of cash.

    ‘Terrorism’ cuts off tourism

    Telegraph: Europeans have abandoned Cuba, and it's all America's fault
    Britain’s ambassador to Cuba told the Telegraph (11/6/23), “Those who come are profoundly shocked at what the SSOT designation is doing to the people here.”

    Cuba has historically used tourism as a way of bringing money into the economy, but lately the Cuban tourism industry has been severely depressed. The explanation employed by corporate media for the decline of this industry is to blame the extended effects of the pandemic recession (New York Times, 10/19/24; Washington Post, 10/18/24).

    This explanation, however, is incomplete. Cuba has indeed had a lackluster rebound in their tourism industry, but the Times and the Post fail to explain why Cuba has faltered while other Caribbean islands have more than re-achieved their pre-pandemic tourist numbers.

    Travelers from Britain, Australia, Japan and 37 other countries do not need to procure a visa for travel to the United States. Instead, they can use ESTA, an electronic visa waiver. This greatly reduces the cost and the annoyance of obtaining permission to visit the US. However, since Cuba’s 2021 listing as a SSoT, any visit to the country by an ESTA passport-holder revokes the visa waiver, for life (Telegraph, 11/6/23). In other words, any Brit (or Kiwi, or Korean, and so on) who visits Cuba must, for the rest of their lives, visit a US embassy and pay $180 before being able to enter the United States. US policy, not a Covid hangover, is hamstringing any possibility of a resurgence in tourism to Cuba.

    Blame game

    During Cuba’s most recent energy crisis, the New York Times published three stories describing the blackouts. Two of these stories mention the US blockade only as something that the Cuban government blames for the crisis.

    NYT: A Nationwide Blackout, Now a Hurricane. How Much Can Cuba Endure?
    The New York Times (10/21/24) presented the idea that the US is punishing Cuba’s economy as a Communist allegation: “The Cuban government blames the power crisis on the US trade embargo, and sanctions that were ramped up by the Trump administration.”

    The headline on the Times website (10/21/24) read: “A Nationwide Blackout, Now a Hurricane. How Much Can Cuba Endure?” The paper was right to report on the humanitarian crisis ongoing in Cuba, but it chose to downplay the most important root cause: the decades-long US blockade on Cuba’s economy and its people.

    That same story described Cuba as “a Communist country long accustomed to shortages of all kinds and spotty electrical service.” Why is the country so used to shortages? Eleven paragraphs later, the Times gave an explanation, or at least, Cuba’s explanation:

    The Cuban government blames the power crisis on the US trade embargo, and sanctions that were ramped up by the Trump administration, which severely restricts the Cuban government’s cash flow. The US Department of the Treasury blocks tankers that have delivered oil to Cuba, which drives up the island’s fuel costs, because Cuba has a limited pool of suppliers available to it.

    Earlier coverage by the Times (10/18/24) similarly couched the effects of the blockade as merely a claim by Cuba. The Washington Post (10/22/24) also situated the blockade as something that “the Cuban government and its allies blame” for the ongoing crisis.

    To report that Cuban officials blame the US sanctions for the energy crisis is a bit like reporting that fishermen blame the moon for the rising tide. It is of course factual that US trade restrictions–which affect not just US businesses, but also multinational businesses based in other countries–are a blunt weapon, with impact against not just a government, but an entire people.

    At the very least, it is incumbent upon journalists to do at least minimal investigation and explanation of the facts concerning the subject of their reporting. None of the coverage in either major paper bothered to investigate whether this was a fair explanation, or even to report generally the effects a 60-year blockade might have on an economy.

    Brief—and buried

    NYT: Cuba Suffers Second Power Outage in 24 Hours, Realizing Years of Warnings
    “Cuban economists and foreign analysts blamed the crisis on several factors,” the New York Times (10/19/24) reported; 18 paragraphs later, the story gets around to mentioning US sanctions.

    On October 19, the Times gave its most complete explanation of the relationship between the US sanctions regime and the Cuban blackouts:

    Cuba’s economy enjoyed a brief honeymoon with the United States during the Obama administration, which sought to normalize relations after decades of hostility, while keeping a longstanding economic embargo in place. President Donald J. Trump reversed course, leading to renewed restrictions on tourism, visas, remittances, investments and commerce.

    This explanation can be found in the 31st paragraph of the 37-paragraph story. Only once the Times has painted a picture of all the ways the Communist government has gone wrong can there be a brief mention of the role of US sanctions. And how brief it is; the Times chose not to detail the extent of blockade against Cuba, nor how Cuba was wrongfully placed on the SSoT list, nor the failure of Biden to reevaluate Cuba’s status as he promised on the campaign trail.

    Describing the US starvation of Cuba’s economy in abstract terms like “economic crisis” provides cover for deliberate policy decisions by the US government. By reporting on the embargo only as something that the Cuban government claims, it is easy for readers to dismiss that explanation as simply a Communist excuse. Instead of asking why the United States is choosing to enforce a crippling sanctions regime on another country, outlets like the New York Times find it easier to repeat the line that Cuba’s government has only itself to blame for its problems.

    FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.

    Original article by Paul Hedreen republished from FAIR under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

    The blockade on Cuba is a failed policy but still has bipartisan support, says Dr. José R. Cabañas

  • ‘Two Genocidaires v. the World’: US, Israel Oppose Lifting Cuba Blockade

    Spread the love

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

    Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez speaks during a press conference on the impact of the U.S. embargo in Havana on September 12, 2024. (Photo: Adalberto Roque/AFP via Getty Images)

    “The world has spoken—it’s time for the U.S. to listen and lift the blockade.”

    The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday once again overwhelmingly urged the U.S. government to end its decadeslong blockade on Cuba, with just the United States and Israel voting against the measure and Moldova abstaining.

    The UNGA’s other 187 members present voted to adopt the nonbinding resolution on “the necessity of ending the economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed by the United States” against the Caribbean island.

    This is the 32nd straight year that the U.N. body has approved a resolution against the embargo that began in 1962.

    “The U.S. and Israel stand isolated as the only two votes against,” Democratic Socialists of America’s International Committee said after the Wednesday vote. “The world has spoken—it’s time for the U.S. to listen and lift the blockade.”

    Though a few other nations have opposed the resolution over the years, Michael Galant of Progressive International and the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that this vote was “two genocidaires v. the world.”

    https://twitter.com/michael_galant/status/1851665771799417344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1851665771799417344%7Ctwgr%5Ea6b6d03bd80b0fd499be7e07fe5af333f055aa10%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fcuba-blockade

    Sorry, this content could not be embedded.

    X

    Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its yearlong assault of the Gaza Strip, which has killed at least 43,163 Palestinians and injured another 101,510, according to local officials in the Hamas-governed enclave. The U.S. Congress and Biden administration have given Israel billions of dollars in weapons and opposed U.N. cease-fire resolutions.

    CodePink’s Medea Benjamin responded to the Wednesday vote with a video shared on social media, saying that Israel “loves blockades, because it’s doing its own blockade of Gaza,” and “is dependent on the United States to carry out its genocide.”

    “Now this is not just some idle vote,” she said of the approved resolution. “This blockade that the U.S. maintains is a form of economic warfare. It’s no exaggeration to say that now, when there is an economic crisis in Cuba, the U.S. blockade, which keeps Cuba from using the financial markets, from having normal trade with countries all over the world, is actually leading to deaths, leading to people going hungry, leading to people lacking food and medicine that are essential for their lives.”

    “And that’s why the United States must be condemned for this ongoing horrific, inhumane, and illegal blockade,” Benjamin added.

    Cuba’s representative delivered similar remarks to the UNGA on Wednesday. As Reutersreported:

    Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez said in a speech before the assembly that what is often referred to as the U.S. trade embargo is a “blockade” because the web of laws and regulations complicate financial transactions and the acquisition of goods and services not just from the United States but internationally.

    “The blockade against Cuba is an economic, financial, and trade war which qualifies as genocide,” said Rodriguez, charging the U.S. policies were deliberately aimed at promoting suffering among the Cuban people to force change in the government.

    Some international observers praised the countries who did condemn the blockade. Middle East expert Assal Rad declared, “This is the real international community.”

    Manolo De Los Santos, a founder of the People’s Forum and a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, said that “this overwhelming consensus is in contrast with the indifference of the United States, which continues to deny any responsibility for sanctions while tightening its stranglehold on Cuba.”

    https://twitter.com/PeoplesForumNYC/status/1851650328376050090?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1851650328376050090%7Ctwgr%5Ea6b6d03bd80b0fd499be7e07fe5af333f055aa10%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fcuba-blockade

    Sorry, this content could not be embedded.

    X

    Earlier this month, the People’s Forum published a letter in The New York Times to U.S. President Joe Biden, warning that he has “exactly 90 days to reverse” former Republican President Donald Trump’s “brutal policy on Cuba.”

    Biden was vice president a decade ago when then-President Barack Obama “opened a hopeful new chapter in U.S.-Cuba relations by taking the first steps toward normalization,” the letter details. “People in both countries were optimistic that Cuba and the United States could become neighbors rather than Cold War enemies. However, Trump dismantled that policy, imposing pain and suffering on the Cuban people.”

    “Removing the state sponsors of terrorism designation would allow Cuba to engage in financial transactions and restore its electrical grid, as well as address shortages of food and medicine to alleviate the immense hardship faced by the Cuban people, who have endured over 62 years of economic strife under the embargo,” the letter adds. “It’s time to act. Let Cuba live!”

    Biden faced similar pressure in August, when hundreds of legal experts and groups called on him “to comply with existing international law by ending the use of broad unilateral coercive measures” particularly in “cases such as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela.”

    https://twitter.com/DropSiteNews/status/1851722235905532114?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1851722235905532114%7Ctwgr%5Ea6b6d03bd80b0fd499be7e07fe5af333f055aa10%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fcuba-blockade

    Sorry, this content could not be embedded.

    X

    The U.N. vote comes as early voting is underway for the November 5 election in which Trump is facing Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris.

    Neither campaign provided details on each candidate’s position when contacted by Reuters earlier this week, though Morgan Finkelstein, national security spokesperson for Harris, said that the Democrat “stands with the people of Cuba as they fight for their rights after decades of repression and economic suffering at the hands of the communist regime” and “will stand up to all authoritarians—including the very leaders that Trump has praised and embraced.”

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

  • The world prepares to vote against the US blockade on Cuba

    Spread the love

    Original article by Pablo Meriguet republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

    In 2023, 187 nations voted in favor of lifting the US blockade against Cuba (Photo: Bruno Rodríguez Padilla via X)

    The US blockade on Cuba has been widely condemned by the majority of the world, yet in recent years, instead of lifting it, successive US administrations have made it worse.

    On October 29, the United Nations General Assembly began a series of debates to discuss the resolution on the long-standing economic blockade applied by the United States against the island of Cuba. Since the 1960s, the United States has systematically punished the Cuban people through a stringent blockade on its economy for having declared and built a political and economic model different from the one advocated and directed by the United States. The vote on the resolution will take place on Wednesday, October 30.

    On more than 30 occasions, the United Nations Assembly has discussed the blockade against Cuba, which costs the island 5 billion dollars annually, according to some estimates. Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.

    This year, several regional platforms including, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), among others, announced their support for Cuba at the United Nations General Assembly in the face of the criminal blockade.

    In this regard, the Russian delegate Vasily Alekseyevich Nebenzya said at the UN Assembly on Tuesday, “We continue to strongly advocate for the immediate lifting of the illegal embargo that has been imposed by the United States against Cuba for more than 62 years.”

    The Mexican representative to the UN, Héctor Vasconcelos, stated in the session that he categorically rejects the blockade against Cuba and that it is in direct violation of international law. “It is time to open a new chapter and allow Cuba to participate fully in the global community without the restrictions imposed by this unjust and inhumane blockade,” Vasconcelos declared.

    Almost all countries, except the United States, Israel, and one or two other governments allied with Washington’s policy, vote against the blockade and request the elimination of the sanctions against the socialist country. This, for many, reflects the anti-democratic attitude of the US government, which claims to represent the highest values of human rights and global cooperation, although, in this type of case, it scandalously ignores the demands of the vast majority of countries in the world.

    For his part, the Cuban Secretary of State, Bruno Rodríguez, expressed his gratitude for the support given on October 29 by more than 30 delegations that expressed their desire for the United States to lift the blockade against Cuba: “We are grateful for the statements made by the 31 delegations that took the floor at the United Nations General Assembly, demanding the end of the US blockade against Cuba. Tomorrow [October 30] we will continue the debate and the vote against this genocidal policy will take place.”

    The blockade tightens

    Despite this enormous show of support for Cuba, the United States insists on the economic measure. It has even gone so far as to radicalize it, as happened during the administration of Donald Trump, who applied 243 new sanctions, including the removal of certain travel categories which allowed individual US citizens to visit the island, and included Cuba in the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which further hindered the development of the Cuban economy.

    Instead of reversing the measures of his predecessor and returning to the opening policy started by Barack Obama, Biden maintained the more stringent measures against Cuba. In 2023, the US Department of Homeland Security added an additional coercive measure, stating that the ESTA visa waiver program, used largely by citizens of Europe, would be denied to anyone from eligible countries if they had traveled to Cuba anytime after July 2021. In essence, a direct punishment to anyone, even beyond US borders, who dares to visit the Caribbean nation.

    A history of systematic political-economic punishment

    The first time the US government applied an economic embargo on Cuba was in 1958, during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Although the Cuban Revolution overthrew that military government, the US government punished the Caribbean Island again in 1960.

    In the beginning, the restrictions did not include food and medicine, but from 1962, during the radicalization of the Cuban Revolution, the embargo became almost absolute. Cuba’s natural and historical trading partner, both because of its large territorial extension and its purchasing power, had been the United States.

    In 1959, 73% of Cuban exports were destined for the United States, which shows the enormous impact that the decision had on the island, aimed at promoting the fall of the government led by Fidel Castro. Nevertheless, the USSR and Cuba reached several economic agreements that allowed the island to somehow withstand (never easily) the portentous US punishment.

    However, after the dissolution of the USSR, the blockade began to acquire increasingly challenging characteristics. This is even more so if one takes into account that since 1992,  through the Cuban Democracy Act, the US government has not only prohibited US companies from trading with Cuba but also sanctioned any third party that does business with Cuba.

    This makes any attempt to overcome the economic crisis induced by outside powers even more difficult. In addition, the US government in 2021 decided, without adequate technical justification, to include Cuba among the countries sponsoring terrorism.

    It is foreseeable that Cuba will again feel the backing of international solidarity in the coming days, although the US government will ignore the request of the international community and continue to punish a small country that did not accept to be dominated and undertook a socialist revolution just a couple hundred miles south of the most powerful capitalist country in history.

    Original article by Pablo Meriguet republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

  • Power is gradually restored in Cuba, Hurricane Oscar downgraded to tropical storm

    Spread the love

    Original article by Pablo Meriguet republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

    Workers in Cuba have worked to gradually restore the power grid. Photo: Minister of Energy and Mines

    After several false starts over the weekend, the efforts to recover Cuba’s electrical system began to make headway on October 21. Meanwhile, authorities have declared that Oscar has become a tropical storm.

    Following a severe collapse of the national power grid on October 18, Cuba continues to make great efforts to restore electrical service to all homes and institutions on the island.

    The Electric Company of the capital, Havana, reported that close to 90% of the clients in the capital have been reconnected and announced that “There will be no rest until the Electric System is fully restored.”

    In this regard, President Miguel Dïaz-Canel said “We were at the National Load Dispatch since very early in the morning. The microsystems in the country are being strengthened and Havana is gradually receiving energy. It is a complex job, but we are taking sure steps. We said that we will not rest until the total reestablishment.”

    In other parts of the country, reconnections continue while attempts are made to repair the damages suffered by the thermoelectric power plants, which, due to the difficulties of access to spare parts and technological elements that help to repower the system (caused fundamentally by the criminal economic blockade suffered by Cuba on the part of the US government), the repair tasks are very complicated.

    Tropical Storm Oscar

    Amid the critical situation with the collapse of the power grid, Hurricane Oscar made landfall on the Caribbean Island late on Sunday. Fortunately for the inhabitants of eastern Cuba, the storm downgraded its intensity and hit the island as a tropical storm, though still unleashing heavy rains and wind in the eastern region. The level of damage that Oscar can produce is still uncertain.

    According to experts, the storm is now headed to the Bahamas, though authorities have called on the population to not lower their guard and to be alert to official communication channels.

    The world stands with Cuba

    Amid Cuba’s blackout, the member states of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America (ALBA-TCP), expressed in a communiqué their support to the Cuban government and offered their help to overcome the difficult times the island is going through: “The complex situation that [Cuba] is experiencing today is a consequence of the economic war, financial persecution and [the refusal to sell] fuel supplies by the US administration, which seeks to asphyxiate Cuba in its commitment to the well-being of the Cuban people”.

    Furthermore, the communiqué adds “The policy of maximum pressure through unilateral coercive measures and the blockade against the nation is cruel and inhuman and has been categorically rejected by the majority of the countries of the world, since […] it only seeks a change of regime, in open violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the norms of International Law.”

    In a press conference on October 21, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, Lin Jian, also expressed support to Cuba as it faces unprecedented challenges, “[The] US blockade on Cuba has been catastrophic for Cuba’s socioeconomic development and people’s lives. China once again calls on the US to fully lift the blockade and sanctions on Cuba at once and remove Cuba from the list of ‘state sponsors of terrorism.’”

    In a statement, the platform of social movements of Latin America and the Caribbean, ALBA Movimientos, categorized the current situation on the island as one of “anguish and tension, a product of the suffering induced by the criminal blockade.” ALBA Movimientos argues that the US-imposed blockade ultimately seeks to “undermine the role of the Cuban State in satisfying the basic needs of the population, while trying to privilege an incipient private sector, incapable by its condition of providing the levels and extent of social justice achieved by the Revolution.”

    In the statement, the movements also warn that this latest episode of blockade-induced hardship on the island could be seized upon by reactionary, counter-revolutionary forces. “At this moment, all the psychological pressure apparatus is being used to induce a social outburst of unforeseeable consequences, using as a basis and pretext the legitimate expressions of social unrest resulting from the current situation, its accumulated and possible solutions,” it warns.

    The only viable solution which would respect the sovereignty of Cuba and guarantee the possibility of dignified life, is the immediate and irreversible lifting of the blockade on Cuba, concludes ALBA.

    Meanwhile, the White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre claimed in a press conference on October 21, that the US is “not to blame for the blackouts on the island or the overall energy situation in Cuba.”

    Original article by Pablo Meriguet republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

  • Fidel Castro: a life of revolution

    Spread the love

    Original article by Pablo Meriguet republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

    Fidel Castro in the Sierra Maestra with Guillermo García, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Universo Sánchez, Raúl Castro, Crescentio Pérez, Jorge Sotus, and Juan Almeida. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

    August 13 marks the anniversary of the birth of Marxist and communist revolutionary Fidel Castro, one of the most influential political leaders of the 20th century. Read our series of articles about the political life of the revolutionary leader.

    Fidel Castro was born in Biran, in the east of the island of Cuba, in 1926, and died in Havana on November 25, 2016. His historical figure however, transcends the time in which he lived. Even when historians study the period in the region before the Cuban Revolution, they always keep in mind that, during the 1950s, on a Caribbean island, social, economic, and political changes would take place that would transform the entire history of the continent.

    In this case, Fidel’s name cannot be detached from a process that shook the foundations of the entire Latin American and Caribbean society. Although the “Comandante” himself disavowed the simplification of revolutionary and historical processes to a few names, it seems that human memory prefers to engrave in its memory certain individuals rather than economic forces, cultural disputes, or political ideas. At least this has been the case with Fidel, whose figure is tied to the destiny of a country, just as Bolívar is tied to Venezuela, Juarez to Mexico, and Martí to Cuba.

    The young student

    Fidel studied at a Jesuit school, and perhaps because of this he always maintained an unyielding intellectual discipline, as well as an almost stoic confidence in the unity of any political group that has clear general objectives. At university, he studied law and social sciences. There he began to read several books on politics while presiding over the Federation of University Students (FEU), a space which he was active in during the struggle against the government of Ramón Grau San Martín, and in which he began to denounce the bloody dictatorship of the infamous Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic.

    As president of the FEU, he traveled to Colombia to attend the Inter-American Student Conference and meet personally with Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, the Colombian politician, whose assassination, a few hours before his meeting with the young Fidel, would set off a historical process in Colombian society that began with the famous “Bogotazo”.

    Once he finished his university studies, he tried to enter national politics by running for the House of Representatives in 1952, but the disastrous coup d’état of Fulgencio Batista overthrew the government of Carlos Prío Socarrás and prohibited future elections. Fidel tried to denounce Batista before the courts for violating the constitution, but the denunciation was denied. Faced with this adversity, the young Fidel understood that elections and legal denunciations were not an adequate way to engage in political struggle at that time in Cuba.

    The beginning of the revolutionary struggle

    That is how several young revolutionaries decided to follow the path of armed struggle. On July 26, 1953, they attacked two military bases (the “Moncada” in Santiago de Cuba and the “Carlos Manuel de Céspedes” in Bayamo) which stored thousands of weapons and were located in areas where the people were mostly opposed to the Batista dictatorship. They had hoped that the attack would provoke sympathy among the population and the young military who doubted the dictatorship. But all plans, including the escape plans, failed. More than 80 young revolutionaries were tortured and killed by the repressive forces.

    Fidel quickly understood that not every military failure necessarily implies a political failure. In the trial against him, he gave a famous and brilliant self-defense in which he defended two fundamental theses. In the first place, he said that the intellectual author of the attack was named José Martí, implying that the Cuban independence hero, who had died more than 50 years ago, inspired the sovereign ideals of the young revolutionaries. This implied that the revolutionary struggle in Cuba had not ended with Independence from Spain, but continued, thus establishing a political thesis to be followed by the various revolutionary movements in Latin America and the Caribbean during the sixties and seventies of the 20th century: the struggle for independence has not ended because there is still imperialist subjugation. Secondly, he concluded that, although they had been defeated and imprisoned, they were right to act in that way, and that historical time would know how to judge better what at that time seemed a risky adventure of a few young people: “History will absolve me,” Castro said before the judge.

    He was imprisoned for almost two years on the Isla de Pinos before being acquitted and banished from Cuba on May 15, 1955. Batista thus hoped to get rid of an uncomfortable political prisoner, although in reality, by doing so, he sentenced himself (in the not-too-distant future) to be defeated militarily and to die in exile in the Spain of fellow dictator Francisco Franco.

    After prison, Fidel Castro traveled to the United States and Mexico. In Mexico, he trained (under an ex-combatant of the Spanish Civil War named Alberto Bayo) and organized an expedition of fighters, among them Ernesto “Che” Guevara. The emerging political-military group was called the “26th of July Movement”, in honor of the attack on the military bases. The purpose was clear: to defeat the Batista dictatorship and create a more equitable country. Several months earlier Fidel said in the Palm Garden Hotel in New York City that “In the year 1956 we will be free or we will be martyrs. This struggle began for us on March 10, has lasted almost four years and will end on the last day of the dictatorship or on our last day.”

    The Cuban Revolution

    Aboard the now revered yacht Granma, a group of 82 expedition members left the coast of Veracruz for Cuba on November 25, 1956. They arrived in Cuba on December 2. Fidel imitated Martí’s military strategy, which consisted of disembarking in the eastern part of the country and approaching the capital from the extreme east of Cuba, passing through the Sierra Maestra, a slight mountain range on the island.

    At first, it seemed that the new revolutionary struggle would fail…again. Batista’s army had discovered Castro’s plans and attacked the revolutionary troops with all its might. In Santiago de Cuba, the dictatorship managed to suppress the urban uprising commanded by Frank País, also a member of the Movement 26 of July, in support of the landing of the Granma (which, however, was several days late in arriving). They also quickly discovered the place of arrival of Castro and the rest of the combatants, attacking the guerrillas by air and sea.

    After several combats, dispersions, persecutions, and regroupings, only 17 of the 82 original expedition members survived. Despite the obvious adversity, Fidel exclaimed upon meeting with the few survivors: “Now we will win the war!”, which shows a position of historical certainty that Che Guevara would explain years later: “Fidel was certain that, if we left Mexico, we would reach Cuba. If we arrived in Cuba, we would disembark. If we disembarked, we would fight. And if we fight, we will win.

    During the coming months, hundreds of new fighters joined Castro’s troops, which were eventually divided into five columns commanded by him, his brother Raul, Camilo Cienfuegos, Che Guevara, and Juan Almeida. However, Batista’s army had more than 70,000 soldiers, so the Movement 26 of July launched a guerrilla war in various parts of the country. Batista launched a military offensive called “Operation Summer”, in which he sent 17 battalions to destroy the Rebel Army, but they were surprised with a series of victories by the revolutionary forces.

    Fidel’s popularity began to increase. The Revolutionary Directory, another anti-Batista armed group, attacked the Presidential Palace in Havana to assassinate Batista but were defeated. Despite this, Batista’s invincible image began to be demystified. In addition, the dictatorship increased extrajudicial assassinations and torture against political opponents (the most famous case is the death of Frank País), which eroded the government’s public image. On September 5, the Cienfuegos naval base revolted along with several members of the Movement 26 of July. The government responded to the uprising with a bombing in which more than 400 people died. The majority of the Cuban people repudiated the cruelty with which Batista’s troops acted. The government’s repression only made the revolutionaries more popular.

    In addition, after several interviews with international media, Fidel and his followers began to gain support outside Cuba, while denouncing the horrendous crimes of the Batista dictatorship.

    During several months of armed struggle, Fidel proved to be the only leader capable of uniting the different factions opposing the dictatorship. The most important political movements recognized that he was the only figure capable of commanding the overthrow of Batista. In addition, Fidel proved to be a very astute military strategist, withdrawing his troops in difficult moments and counter attacking fearlessly when he found the slightest opportunity to gain territory. In this way, he managed to conquer most of the East and Center of the country by the end of 1958. Guevara and his troops managed to take the city of Santa Clara, the last strategic defense of Havana.

    Despite the attempt of several military men to carry out an orderly withdrawal of Batista and his troops, Fidel ordered a final attack against the forces of the dictatorship. In this way, Castro sought to curtail the installation of a puppet government and assure the establishment of a truly revolutionary government. “Revolution yes, military coup no!” was Fidel’s phrase repeated by radio throughout the Caribbean island. Batista managed to flee Cuba with the support of US Ambassador Earl T. Smith.

    Despite the apparent impossibility of the geopolitical situation, the Cuban Revolution triumphed on January 1, 1959 just to the south of the United States.

    Fidel was right: victory was possible in Cuba despite all possible disadvantages. It was a matter of finding the right strategy. The Cuban Revolution inspired dozens of political groups to fight to seize power throughout Latin America and across the Global South, often with Cuban support. Thus began a new era in the history of the Caribbean island, which will never forget the name of Fidel Castro.

    Original article by Pablo Meriguet republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.