Remembering Ramsey Clark

Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada

Translated by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
https://walterlippmann.com/remembering-ramsey-clark/

The news of his death did not come as a surprise since it was known that his health was declining and he was also affected by irreparable family losses. But the death of Ramsey Clark is a source of pain and suffering for many in many parts of the world.

His trajectory since the 1960s was one of admirable personal integrity and fidelity to the principles that made him one of the most respected personalities of the American progressive movement.

Attorney General of the United States during the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, he played a key role in the approval and application of the Civil Rights Act, a decisive step in eliminating discrimination against African-Americans in electoral matters. He also accompanied Johnson in his efforts to ensure affordable health care for all. Both issues were flags that “liberals” raised but with increasingly hesitant hands while their elimination has become a priority for Trump and his supporters.

Ramsey for his part became a point of reference for those who did not abandon the ideals of freedom and true democracy.

He opposed the war against the Vietnamese people to the point that the President excluded him from the National Security Council despite the fact that his participation in that body derived from the high office he held.

Outside the government, Ramsey waged a tireless battle to stop this aggression, which generated a growing mobilization not only in his country but throughout the world, and to which he contributed as few others did. Not only with speeches and declarations. Of special significance was his physical, personal presence on Vietnamese soil in open violation of Washington’s official prohibition.

He had an exceptional capacity for work and delivering solidarity was for him a mission to which he gave his all. No cause was alien to him.

We Cubans owe him a great debt. Our cause was also his. His voice was raised time and again to denounce the blockade and the war that the Empire is waging against us in all fields.

His participation in the campaign to free Elián González and in the hard, complex and prolonged struggle for the liberation of our Five Heroes was decisive. Personally, as long as I live I will thank him for his help and from the bottom of my heart I say Thank you for everything dear friend, brother, compañero.

Aaron Sorkin to his Girls

Sorkin Girls,

Well the world changed late last night in a way I couldn’t protect us from. That’s a terrible feeling for a father. I won’t sugarcoat it—this is truly horrible. It’s hardly the first time my candidate didn’t win (in fact it’s the sixth time) but it is the first time that a thoroughly incompetent pig with dangerous ideas, a serious psychiatric disorder, no knowledge of the world and no curiosity to learn has.

And it wasn’t just Donald Trump who won last night—it was his supporters too. The Klan won last night. White nationalists. Sexists, racists and buffoons. Angry young white men who think rap music and Cinco de Mayo are a threat to their way of life (or are the reason for their way of life) have been given cause to celebrate. Men who have no right to call themselves that and who think that women who aspire to more than looking hot are shrill, ugly, and otherwise worthy of our scorn rather than our admiration struck a blow for misogynistic shitheads everywhere. Hate was given hope. Abject dumbness was glamorized as being “the fresh voice of an outsider” who’s going to “shake things up.” (Did anyone bother to ask how? Is he going to re-arrange the chairs in the Roosevelt Room?) For the next four years, the President of the United States, the same office held by Washington and Jefferson, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, F.D.R., J.F.K. and Barack Obama, will be held by a man-boy who’ll spend his hours exacting Twitter vengeance against all who criticize him (and those numbers will be legion). We’ve embarrassed ourselves in front of our children and the world.

And the world took no time to react. The Dow futures dropped 7,000 points overnight. Economists are predicting a deep and prolonged recession. Our NATO allies are in a state of legitimate fear. And speaking of fear, Muslim-Americans, Mexican-Americans and African-Americans are shaking in their shoes. And we’d be right to note that many of Donald Trump’s fans are not fans of Jews. On the other hand, there is a party going on at ISIS headquarters. What wouldn’t we give to trade this small fraction of a man for Richard Nixon right now?

So what do we do?

First of all, we remember that we’re not alone. A hundred million people in America and a billion more around the world feel exactly the same way we do.

Second, we get out of bed. The Trumpsters want to see people like us (Jewish, “coastal elites,” educated, socially progressive, Hollywood…) sobbing and wailing and talking about moving to Canada. I won’t give them that and neither will you. Here’s what we’ll do…

…we’ll fucking fight. (Roxy, there’s a time for this kind of language and it’s now.) We’re not powerless and we’re not voiceless. We don’t have majorities in the House or Senate but we do have representatives there. It’s also good to remember that most members of Trump’s own party feel exactly the same way about him that we do. We make sure that the people we sent to Washington—including Kamala Harris—take our strength with them and never take a day off.

We get involved. We do what we can to fight injustice anywhere we see it—whether it’s writing a check or rolling up our sleeves. Our family is fairly insulated from the effects of a Trump presidency so we fight for the families that aren’t. We fight for a woman to keep her right to choose. We fight for the First Amendment and we fight mostly for equality—not for a guarantee of equal outcomes but for equal opportunities. We stand up.

America didn’t stop being America last night and we didn’t stop being Americans and here’s the thing about Americans: Our darkest days have always—always—been followed by our finest hours.

Roxy, I know my predictions have let you down in the past, but personally, I don’t think this guy can make it a year without committing an impeachable crime. If he does manage to be a douche nozzle without breaking the law for four years, we’ll make it through those four years. And three years from now we’ll fight like hell for our candidate and we’ll win and they’ll lose and this time they’ll lose for good. Honey, it’ll be your first vote.

The battle isn’t over, it’s just begun. Grandpa fought in World War II and when he came home this country handed him an opportunity to make a great life for his family. I will not hand his granddaughter a country shaped by hateful and stupid men. Your tears last night woke me up, and I’ll never go to sleep on you again.

Love,

Dad

Originally posted in Vanity Fair, November 9th, 2016

Un Quijote del Siglo XX

Por Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada

El lunes 12 de septiembre a los 96 años de edad falleció en su hogar de California Stanley K. Sheinbaum. Quiero sumar estas líneas al tributo que seguramente habrá de recibir de muchos en todas partes. Pese a su edad avanzada y los quebrantos de salud sus amigos jamás hallarán consuelo a su partida. Porque Stanley pertenece a la categoría de los que Bertolt Brecht llamó los imprescindibles los que luchan toda la vida.

Desde su infancia neoyorquina bajo la Gran Depresión hasta la era de la dominación global de la plutocracia norteamericana recorrió un largo camino que lo llevó no sólo a atravesar su país sino también a conocer el resto del mundo. Aprendió a interesarse, como pocos compatriotas suyos, por los conflictos y problemas de los demás y a involucrarse y tomar partido, “tratando de crear un poco de paz y justicia en este injusto mundo” como escribió en sus Memorias publicadas hace cinco años (“A 20th Century Knight’s quest for peace, civil liberties and economic justice”)

Descubrió en 1959 que el programa que dirigía en la Universidad Estatal de Michigan era una actividad encubierta de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia y se convirtió en la primera persona que denunció públicamente las acciones ilegales de la CIA dentro de Estados Unidos.

En los años Sesenta articuló la campaña para la liberación de Andreas Papandreu encarcelado por la junta militar en Grecia. Encabezó el movimiento para la recaudación de los fondos necesarios y la defensa de Daniel Elsberg arrestado en 1971 por revelar los llamados Papeles del Pentágono sobre la agresión a Viet Nam, emblemática pelea con la destacada participación de Leonard Boudin y su discípulo el joven Leonard Weinglass, ambos brillantes defensores de los derechos humanos y las libertades civiles. Si no hubiera sido por Stanley, según el propio Elsberg “el juicio hubiera terminado, Nixon permanecería hasta el final de su mandato y la guerra habría continuado”.

Impulsó las labores de la Unión Americana de Derechos Civiles en el sur de California para poner fin a la segregación racial en las escuelas y luchar contra los métodos represivos de la policía de Los Ángeles mientras dirigía los esfuerzos contra el régimen del Apartheid de Sudáfrica.

En 1988 organizó un grupo de dirigentes judíos norteamericanos que el 6 de diciembre se reunió en Estocolmo con Yaser Arafat para iniciar un proceso hacia el entendimiento y la paz en Palestina. El gesto le ganó no pocos enemigos. “Por un tiempo fui el judío más odiado en Norteamérica…por otros judíos” anotó en su Autobiografía.

Asumió un papel valeroso en el enfrentamiento a la brutalidad policial y la golpiza de Rodney King. Lo hizo desde su responsabilidad en la Comisión de la policía de Los Ángeles y en las calles de la ciudad. “Era”, en palabras de la Congresista Afroamericana Maxine Waters, “un ser humano extraordinario”.

También se ocupó de Cuba. Nos visitó aquí y mantuvimos comunicación a la distancia hasta el final. Se opuso al bloqueo, luchó por la normalización de las relaciones y fue decisivo en la batalla por la liberación de nuestros Cinco Héroes antiterroristas cuya situación ayudó a divulgar en Estados Unidos. Lo que fue anunciado el 17 de diciembre de 2014 era también fruto de su empeño solidario que no siempre trascendía a los grandes titulares mediáticos.

Al final de su vida pudo afirmar: “Aun me intereso, aun me involucro, aun creo que el mañana será mejor. Y por eso sigo siendo muy optimista. Si algo he aprendido a lo largo de los años es que no es tan importante si ganamos o no las batallas lo que es realmente importante es que continuamos librando las batallas por la justicia, por la igualdad, por la equidad”.

Stanley sigue cabalgando.

Amiri Baraka

Por  Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada

“Bellas mujeres negras,

aún llueve en esta tierra terrible.

Las necesitamos. Mostramos nuestra fuerza,

clavamos la mirada en nuestro torturador,

las necesitamos. Llueve.

Te necesitamos, reinando, reina negra”.

(Beautiful Black Women)

El pasado 9 de enero falleció Amiri Baraka, en Newark, New Jersey, no lejos del lugar que lo había visto nacer 79 años atrás con el nombre de Everett LeRoi Jones. Quienes estaban cerca afirman que, en la sala de cuidados intensivos del hospital donde pasó su último mes, también la poesía lo acompañó hasta el final.

Lo conocí, allá por los años Sesenta del siglo anterior, cuando era identificado como LeRoi Jones. Pese a su juventud era ya un escritor reconocido, Había publicado “Blues People: Negro Music in White America”, texto imprescindible considerado como “la primera gran historia de la música negra escrita por un afroamericano”, además de varias colecciones de poemas y una pieza teatral, “Dutchman”, laureada con el Premio Obie, que ha sido representada muchas veces y fue llevada al cine. Uno de sus poemas “Black Art” se convirtió en el principal manifiesto poético del Movimiento Literario del Arte Negro.

Era, aun entonces, una de las mentes más lúcidas de la intelectualidad neoyorquina cuya obra trascendía más allá de las fronteras norteamericanas. Iniciaba su larga y fructífera carrera, que habría de incluir la docencia universitaria y se extendería por medio siglo.

Su trayectoria no se limitó a la creación artístico-literaria ni a su intensa actividad intelectual.

Perteneció a aquella generación rebelde que desde las entrañas del monstruo quiso conquistar el cielo. Infatigable luchador social, su vida es inseparable de las batallas contra el racismo y el imperialismo sintetizadas en el movimiento del Black Power, del cual fue guía y uno de los principales inspiradores, y de las que libraban los Young Lords puertorriqueños por la igualdad y la independencia de su Patria. Muy temprano el FBI lo identificó como “la persona que probablemente emergerá como el líder del movimiento panafricano en los Estados Unidos”.

Vino a Cuba en 1960 y escribió “Cuba Libre”, hermoso testimonio de solidaridad con nuestro pueblo y su Revolución, publicado en Evergreen Review y ganador del Premio Longview al mejor ensayo del año. Nos reiteró su amistad con “Declaración de conciencia” y organizando a centenares de intelectuales y jóvenes norteamericanos en el Comité por trato justo para Cuba. Con nosotros estuvo siempre sin claudicar jamás.

Más de una vez lo encarcelaron y sufrió maltratos y vejaciones. En 1967, durante la rebelión popular en Newark, fue golpeado brutalmente y secuestrado por la policía racista. De la muerte lo salvó la protesta airada de los negros en las calles y la ola solidaria que se extendió por el mundo, impulsada por Allen Ginsberg, Jean Paul Sartre y otros intelectuales.

Sobrevivió entonces y continuó una existencia consecuente, siempre aferrado a sus ideales juveniles, convencido, hasta el último día, de que otro mundo, el de la libertad y el socialismo, es posible. Con nosotros seguirá.

Moncada: Fidel and the Power of Faith

 

By Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada

On March 10, 1952, former dictator Fulgencio Batista seized power in Cuba again. This happened eighty days before the elections in which he would have received the least votes.  

With one blow, he overthrew the president, abolished the constitution, dissolved parliament, crushed unions, student and guild organizations, took control of the media, unleashed a brutal repression and set up a regime of corruption and plunder which C. Wright Mills characterized as “capitalism run by gangsters and the Mafia”. Washington gave Batista quick recognition and always supported him, until the tyrant and his henchmen escaped on January 1st, 1959. 

The 1952 coup d’état greatly shocked Cuban society. Beyond its political consequences, it cut deep into the national conscience. The overthrown president sought refuge in the Mexican Embassy, the political forces supporting him were paralysed; the forces in the opposition, including those of Marxist inspiration, were not able to defend legality nor organize resistance; they became entangled in endless debates on strategy and tactics with only one thing in common: inaction.   

Frustration and disbelief grew among the population. Their democratic aspirations were defeated once again.  All the political parties had lost credibility and public trust. Only among the young people and students was there still a spirit of rebellion, seeking their own path outside the failed structures. To steer that rebelliousness they needed and exceptional leader. They found it in Fidel Castro. 

Fidel chose a group of young people who looked to him as an example and prepared them for armed struggle. It was a group without a name or political affiliation. The action on July 26, 1953 was, in military terms, a double failure: the attempts to take by assault two main army garrisons in Eastern Cuba: Moncada in Santiago de Cuba and Carlos Manuel de Céspedes in Bayamo. In both, the assailants were defeated and most of them murdered after the battle.    

The 26th of July Movement (Movimiento 26 de Julio),  was born losing its first battles and under the almost unanimous attack of the political forces, the media and other institutions of Cuban society. But that day was, in true fact, a rebirth. It began a process of moral rescue which allowed the people to recover strength and start the long and difficult march to victory. The starting point was the recovery of trust. That day reached many, and gave impulse to the creation of a movement that would keep growing provided it could preserve faith.      

Compelled by popular pressure, Batista was forced, in 1955, to give amnesty to Fidel and his comrades in prison. Fidel travelled to Mexico and promised to return before the following year was over to conduct the final battle. Once again he was betting on popular trust. 

Meanwhile, the dictatorship launched a campaign to create distrust. This was supported by many sectors in the opposition which were against armed struggle. The pro-Batista media made fun of Fidel’s promise and kept publishing the countdown on their front pages. The arrival of the rebels took place on December 2, and it was another military catastrophe. The failure of the expedition made big headlines in the Cuban press and far beyond.   

The 82 men who arrived in the Granma yacht faced a far superior military force equipped, armed and trained by The United States. The twelve survivors scattered in the forest with no weapons or resources, managed to regroup in the Sierra Maestra. Months of disinformation and anguish followed. In the remote mountains, backed by their followers in the city, the guerilla contingent was formed step-by-step. In the cities, the clandestine fighters who supplied the guerrillas and resisted brutal repression also had to fight the permanent “peacekeeping” manoeuvres of the political opposition.  

Two years later, the movement had spread to the entire country and the dictatorship was defeated. This was five years, five months and five days after the foundational action. 

Those were hard and difficult years. But they brought freedom and happiness to a people emancipated forever. As expressed in the lyrics of a song that we have all been singing for many years now: “The 26 is the happiest day in history”. 

 

http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs3874.html

A CubaNews translation.

Edited by Walter Lippmann. 

Latin America After Chávez

 

By LUIZ INÁCIO LULA da SILVA

 

HISTORY will affirm, justifiably, the role Hugo Chávez played in the integration of Latin America, and the significance of his 14-year presidency to the poor people of Venezuela, where he died on Tuesday after a long struggle with cancer.

However, before history is allowed to dictate our interpretation of the past, we must first have a clear understanding of Mr. Chávez’s significance, in both the domestic and international political contexts. Only then can the leaders and peoples of South America, arguably the world’s most dynamic continent today, clearly define the tasks ahead of us so that we might consolidate the advances toward international unity achieved in the past decade. Those tasks have gained new importance now that we are without the help of Mr. Chávez’s boundless energy; his deep belief in the potential for the integration of the nations of Latin America; and his commitment to the social transformations needed to ameliorate the misery of his people.

Mr. Chávez’s social campaigns, especially in the areas of public health, housing and education, succeeded in improving the standard of living of tens of millions of Venezuelans.

One need not agree with everything Mr. Chávez said or did. There is no denying that he was a controversial, often polarizing, figure, one who never fled from debate and for whom no topic was taboo. I must admit I often felt that it would have been more prudent for Mr. Chávez not to have said all that he did. But this was a personal characteristic of his that should not, even from afar, discredit his qualities.

One might also disagree with Mr. Chávez’s ideology, and a political style that his critics viewed as autocratic. He did not make easy political choices and he never wavered in his decisions.

However, no remotely honest person, not even his fiercest opponent, can deny the level of camaraderie, of trust and even of love that Mr. Chávez felt for the poor of Venezuela and for the cause of Latin American integration. Of the many power brokers and political leaders I have met in my life, few have believed so much in the unity of our continent and its diverse peoples — indigenous Indians, descendants of Europeans and Africans, recent immigrants — as he did.

Mr. Chávez was instrumental in the 2008 treaty that established the Union of South American Nations, a 12-member intergovernmental organization that might someday move the continent toward the model of the European Union. In 2010, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States lept from theory to practice, providing a political forum alongside the Organization of American States. (It does not include the United States and Canada, as the O.A.S. does.) The Bank of the South, a new lending institution, independent of the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, also would not have been possible without Mr. Chávez’s leadership. Finally, he was vitally interested in fostering closer Latin American ties with Africa and the Arab world.

If a public figure dies without leaving ideas, his legacy and his spirit come to an end as well. This was not the case for Mr. Chávez, a strong, dynamic and unforgettable figure whose ideas will be discussed for decades in universities, labor unions, political parties and anyplace where people are concerned with social justice, the alleviation of misery and the fairer distribution of power among the peoples of the world. Perhaps his ideas will come to inspire young people in the future, much as the life of Simón Bolívar, the great liberator of Latin America, inspired Mr. Chávez himself.

Mr. Chávez’s legacy in the realm of ideas will need further work if they are to become a reality in the messy world of politics, where ideas are debated and contested. A world without him will require other leaders to display the effort and force of will he did, so that his dreams will not be remembered only on paper.

To maintain his legacy, Mr. Chávez’s sympathizers in Venezuela have much work ahead of them to construct and strengthen democratic institutions. They will have to help make the political system more organic and transparent; to make political participation more accessible; to enhance dialogue with opposition parties; and to strengthen unions and civil society groups. Venezuelan unity, and the survival of Mr. Chávez’s hard-won achievements, will require this.

It is without a doubt the aspiration of all Venezuelans — whether aligned with or opposed to Mr. Chávez, whether soldier or civilian, Catholic or evangelical, rich or poor — to realize the potential of a nation as promising as theirs. Only peace and democracy can make those aspirations a reality.

The multilateral institutions Mr. Chávez helped create will also help ensure the consecration of South American unity. He will no longer be present at South American summit meetings, but his ideals, and the Venezuelan government, will continue to be represented. Democratic camaraderie among the leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean is the best guarantee of the political, economic, social and cultural unity that our peoples want and need.

In moving toward unity, we are at a point of no return. But however steadfast we are, we must be even more so in negotiating our nations’ participation in international forums like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These institutions, born from the ashes of World War II, have not been sufficiently responsive to the realities of today’s multipolar world.

Charismatic and idiosyncratic, capable of building friendships, communicating to the masses as few other leaders ever have, Mr. Chávez will be missed. I will always cherish the friendship and partnership that, during the eight years in which we worked together as presidents, produced such benefits for Brazil and for Venezuela and our peoples.

 

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the president of Brazil from 2003 through 2010, is the honorary president of the Instituto Lula, which focuses on Brazil’s relations with Africa. This essay was translated by Benjamin Legg and Robert M. Sarwark from the Portuguese.

 

President Hugo Chavez, a Non-MSM Primer

 

By Vivien Lesnik Weisman

 

Originally published in the Huffington Post

In order to understand the media coverage of the situation in Venezuela one must look at the antecedents. It is instructive to revisit this NYTeditorial on the occasion of the 2002 coup.

April 13, 2002 “Hugo Chavez Departs”
With yesterday’s resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.

 

The U.S. quickly recognized the coup leaders as the legitimate government of Venezuela in spite of the fact that their first acts where to dissolve the legislature and judiciary and suspend the Constitution. After all, the perpetrator of the coup was not a charismatic self-proclaimed socialist mestizo but a “respected business leader” who was also not incidentally of European extraction and a member of the ruling oligarchy. The constitution in question had recently been created by a Constitutional Assembly which the people had called for with a 92 percent mandate and ratified by popular referendum with 71.8 percent of the vote; not exactly an undemocratic document.

Leaving aside the substantial evidence that the coup was U.S. hatched with ample evidence hereand here, what crimes did the democratically elected president of Venezuela commit to deserve such a description and the ire of the U.S.?

Well for one, Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, Saudi Arabia has the second and it is the fourth most important U.S. supplier. Yes, largest reserves in the world. And Venezuela is not far away in the Middle East, but in our hemisphere, in what has traditionally been considered our “sphere of influence” (read: with a government and an oligarchy that puts the interests of the United States and the U.S. corporations before that of their people).

Put simply, oil rich Venezuela under Chavez refused to conform to the Latin American model of the client state. No matter how many times President Chavez is elected and re-elected and given mandates by popular referendums, refusing to bow down to U.S. interests is his capital crime and that crime is never forgiven; Cuba being a case in point.

Speaking of capital, what did President Chavez do with all that oil money? Surely he did the traditional thing and divided it up nicely between his friends and cronies and sent the rest to Citibank. Wrong. First he payed back the Venezuelan debt to the IMF and asked them to get out of town, and next he helped pay down his friend’s debt, Argentina. Next he helped Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador pay down their debt. Thanks to Chavez the IMF’s portfolio is down in the region to less than 1 percent from 80 percent in 2005. With no IMF and its partner institution, the World Bank, in the region the sway of policies such as unfettered markets with limited government spending greatly restricting social programs is kept to a minimum. In other words, the policies of the Washington Consensus that has been so detrimental to the economies and the people of developing nations in Latin America and so lucrative for the U.S. and transnational corporations is no more.

He also set up a regional exchange — Banco del Sur or Bank of the South — where partner nations can borrow money for social projects and infrastructure development funded by Venezuela, and the member countries. And of course there is the all important Mercosur, a kind of Latin American European Union to integrate the markets and work together rather than in isolation like in the past, making it easier to be pressured by external forces, i.e. the U.S. Oh, and the discounted oil to Cuba alleviating the sting of the 50-year-old U.S. embargo really rubs us the wrong way. WTF, this guy is really messing with the world order now.

But, the most capital of his offenses is his innovative social experiment, that goes by the name of the Bolivarian Revolution. God we hate that R word. You see this has a transcendence beyond their borders, beyond the region, right smack to our front yard; or should I say Zuccotti Park? A charismatic leader is in many ways the antithesis of the horizontal anarchic structure of the Occupy movement, but still the experiment in collectivization and citizen participation, direct democracy, and worker and neighborhood councils that many in the Occupy movement are working toward and that we find so very difficult to organize in the U.S. is being lived in Venezuela.

A rally of hundreds of thousands is easily mobilized, as was in evidence on January 10th as Vice President Nicolas Maduro and officials from around the world, including several presidents of Latin America, turned out. The people wore the presidential sash and chanted “We are all Chavez now” in solidarity with their absent president. This degree of participation and engagement is not unusual in Venezuela where voting is usually in the 90 percent range. And they don’t vote every four years and go home as is often the case here with our low voter turnout and where many of us feel we are voting for the lesser of two evils. The opposition party, the party of the oligarchy, offers a clear political and economic alternative but there seems to be no turning back this social revolution.

Venezuelan civil society is not only highly politicized but the people feel that they are participants in the decision-making process and in the affairs that concern their lives.

MSM fueled ignorance of this exciting and innovative social justice oriented society that is being created in Venezuela as well as other Latin American countries seems purposeful and targeted at keeping us tethered not only to cruel but failed economic models. The lack of accurate information on alternatives to market capitalism — or whatever this unfair, un-engaging, unfriendly system is called — keeps us in despair, balkanized and directionless, anesthetized by junk culture and television; spectators rather than participants in our own lives.

The Venezuelan example of bringing resources under public control and using the revenue for the betterment of all offers a model that cannot be replicated everywhere. But it is seen as a dangerous model because one of the places it can be replicated is in the United States. We too have vast oil and gas reserves and vast natural resources. We too could have free higher education and health care, not to mention student debt forgiveness. How about a truly democratic form of government where the citizenry decides not just whether to vote for Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee, but whether to go to war or live in peace and go to college; whether to have clean air and water and non-GMO pesticide free foods and sustainable agriculture or Big Agra.

Hmmm… I’m liking this. Develop alternative forms of energy and ban fracking forever? Stimulate the economy by building new roads and cool schools, music centers, hospitals, theatre, animation and computer clubs, relaxation centers, urban gardens, water parks, beach clubs and fun centers rather than stimulating the economy by making war and selling weapons? How about meaningful work and leisurely time rather than wage slavery? I can hear all the detractors screaming idealist, dreamer. I’ll take that. But really, if ordinary Venezuelans can displace the ruling oligarchy and be the architects of their own destiny then why can’t we too overturn the oligarchical structures of the corporate state? Why are we the only significant oil producing country that does not own the oil and gas on our land? Nationalization of natural resources such as oil and natural gas is not only just; it’s practical. If Venezuela can cut poverty in half and offer higher education gratis and healthcare for all, imagine what we can do with all that oil in Texas.

______This post focused on the astonishing expansion of economic rights, citizen participation and the democratization of Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez; his effects on the region and what we can learn from it. Venezuela is a society in the throes of transformation and factors contributing toward centralization rather than evolving into decentralization are said to be undermining the independence of separate branches of government and the media. Here too there is much disinformation and will be the subject of separate posts.

Cuba Meets the Challenges of the 21st Century, Part IV

An interview with Ricardo Alarcon, President of the Cuban Parliament by Salim Lamrani

Originally published in the Huffington Post

President of the Cuban Parliament since 1992, and member of the Political Bureau of the Cuban Communist Party, Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada is, after President Raul Castro and First Vice-President Antonio Machado Ventura, third in line in the Cuban government. Professor of philosophy and a career diplomat, Alarcon spent over a decade in the United States as the Cuban ambassador to the United Nations. Over time, he has become a spokesperson for the Havana government.

In this long interview, one that lasted nearly two hours, Alarcon did not seek to evade a single question. He comments on the role of Fidel Castro after his retirement from political life and explains the presence of Raul Castro at the center of power. He also speaks about the reform of the Cuban economic and social model as well as the challenges facing the Cuban nation. Alarcon then discusses the question of emigration and Cuban relations with the United States under the Obama administration. He also takes on the thorny question of human rights and political prisoners and does not hesitate to talk about Alan Gross, the American sub-contractor imprisoned in Cuba, as well as the case of the five Cuban agents detained in the United States. Alarcon then turns to the important question of oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico and the potential consequences of their exploitation. The interview concludes with a discussion of the relationship of Cuba with the Catholic church and the Vatican, the imminent visit to Cuba of Pope Benedict XVI, Cuban relations with the European Union and the new Latin America and finally the future of Cuba after Fidel and Raul Castro.

The Case of the Cuban Five

SL: Now let’s talk about the Cuban Five. Four of them are still held and the fifth is out on probation. They have been imprisoned since 1998 for “conspiracy to commit espionage” and were sentenced to heavy prison terms, from 15 years to life. What are their future prospects?

RAQ: In the case of René Gonzalez, who is out on parole, his lawyer will try to persuade the judge to let him purge the remaining three years of his sentence in Cuba. In the same way, we are also trying to obtain authorization for a family visit. His wife has not seen him for more than a decade because Washington has systematically denied all requests for visas.

Everyone, I believe, can appreciate the difference in treatment between Cuba and the United States in terms of family visits for prisoners. Cuba has systematically accepted all visa requests from Gross’ wife. Washington has systematically refused all requests for visas from Olga Salanueva, the wife of René Gonzalez, and from Adriana Pérez, the wife of Gerardo Hernandez.

René Gonzalez may also make a request to visit Cuba to see his family, because conditional release allows for this possibility. It also permits him to serve his sentence outside of United States territory.

For the other four, the habeas corpus process is still ongoing. Three administrative procedures, a motion by the defense, one by the prosecution, and the response of the defense, are almost complete for Antonio Guerrero and Gerardo Hernandez. As for Ramon Labanino and Fernando Gonzalez, we are awaiting the response of the prosecutor, that is to say, the government of the United States, in early 2012. Then, the defense will in turn address the government’s response. These decisions came down at two different times and that is why the cases are being considered separately.

SL: For what reason are the cases being considered separately?

RAQ: In fact, this extraordinary habeas corpus procedure is possible only once a trial has ended, which in the case of Gerardo Hernandez and René Gonzalez became possible when the Supreme
Court declined to review their cases. As for Antonio, Ramon and Fernando, the trial ended when the court imposed new sentences while their cases were under appeal. These decisions were taken at two different times and that, once again, is why these cases are being considered separately.

SL: The outcome of these cases, however, seems more political than legal.

RAQ: This is certainly true and it underscores the need to convince President Obama to free them. In my opinion, he has a moral obligation to do so, and it is something that he can do with a simple executive order, something that the United States constitution allows him. This is a decision that can be made at any time, regardless of the evolution of the trial.

SL: What are the reasons that Obama ought to make such a decision?

RAQ: Simply because these men are innocent. I would remind you that they were in the United States to prevent terrorist attacks against Cuba. They were not there to infiltrate government agencies, something that would have justified the charge of espionage, but rather to infiltrate small violent right-wing groups of Cuban exiles that were implicated in acts of terrorism against Cuba.

Their mission was necessary because these groups have always been allowed to operate with total impunity. Remember that Luis Posada Carriles, a former CIA operative and the brains behind more than one hundred murders — it’s not me saying it, it’s what he himself is quoted as having said in an interview published in the New York Times of July 12, 1998. It is also something that CIA and FBI reports, declassified in 2004 and 2005, affirm. And he is still a free man in Miami, someone who has never been judged for his crimes.

Let me remind you that in 1998 we invited two important FBI directors to Cuba and presented them with a voluminous report, prepared by our own agents, on the activities of terrorist groups in Miami. They promised to neutralize these groups, but on their return, rather than doing what they promised, they proceeded to arrest the Cuban Five.

The reality of terrorism against Cuba became quite clear upon the release of René Gonzalez from prison.

SL: Please explain.

RAQ: The public prosecutor categorically refused René Gonzalez the right to serve out his parole in Cuba. The judge in the case accepted the prosecutor’s request and ruled that, for the moment at least, he should serve his parole in the United States. In her written declaration, the judge, at three different points, cites the “additional special condition” that had been imposed upon him when he was convicted in 2001, something by which he is bound to abide.

SL: What did this “additional special condition” consist of?

RAQ: This peculiar additional special condition to his parole prohibits him from “associating with or visiting specific places where individuals or groups such as terrorists, members of organizations advocating violence, or organized crime figures are known to be or frequent…” This is a textually accurate citation that can be found in the transcript of the Sentencing Hearing before the honorable Joan A. Lenard, dated December 12, 2001, pages 45-46.

This constitutes an explicit recognition that United States authorities have identified groups or individuals they consider to be terrorists, organized criminals or individuals promoting violence. They know who they are and where they can be found, but do nothing that would put these groups in harm’s way. At the same time, they prohibit an American citizen — René Gonzalez was born in the United States — to go there and work against these groups.

SL: All of this is quite surprising and the statement is troubling.

RAQ: You can find this declaration in the transcript of the trial and in the recent declaration of the prosecutor and the judge, when René Gonzalez requested permission to serve out his sentence in Cuba. It is obvious that the reason this condition has been imposed is to protect these three categories of despicable individuals. If you have a better explanation, I would be interested in hearing it.

This presumes that René Gonzalez must be monitored constantly by the United States authorities, authorities who know exactly where to find these individuals, in order to ensure that he does not violate his parole. If unfortunately René Gonzalez should attempt to return to where these groups are located with the intention of thwarting their plans, he would be sent back to prison immediately.

SL: All of this seems a little surreal.

RAQ: Still it’s the truth, even if it is unusual. You will find, I’ll say again, this statement used throughout the trial. The prosecutor always insisted on this fact. The judge dictated the sentences, the sentences in the memorandum, but it was the government that proposed the penalties and, needless to say, the government proposed the maximum penalty for each count. The prosecution made serious mistakes that led to the Court of Appeals imposing new sentences on Antonio Guerrero, Fernando Gonzalez and Ramon Labanino.

This same prosecutor, in the same sentencing memorandum and also orally in front of the court, stressed that from the perspective of the United States government, it was important to hand down maximum penalties, penalties that would ensure that the accused would be unable to undertake once again the activities for which he had been condemned — that is to say, infiltrating terrorist groups in a peaceful manner, unarmed and nonviolently, in order to inform Cuba of their activities — hence the importance of imposing this “additional special condition.” And indeed it was imposed upon all five, including Gerardo Hernandez who had already received two life sentences plus 15 years. All of them, when they have served out their sentences — for Gerardo, this would be in his third lifetime — must stay well away from these terrorist groups and it will be the government’s job to assure that this condition is enforced, to ensure that they will not resume the same activities that led them to prison in the first place.

For Gerardo, Ramon and Fernando, the prosecution underscored that this will be the case because it is intended that they be expelled from American territory — all of this is written in black and white in the sentencing memorandum. For René and Antonio, both American citizens, they cannot be expelled and it is for that reason that this “additional special condition” was imposed on them. René must conform to it, even after he has finished his parole, and Antonio as well, should he be granted parole.

In other words, the United States authorities recognize that terrorists groups, violent and mafia-linked, exist in the city of Miami. They know who they are and where they are, but nonetheless grant them total immunity. In this way, they are also preventing any free American citizen from doing anything to neutralize them.

SL: What do you think this demonstrates?

RAQ: This demonstrates clearly the innocence of the Five, because what they did in the United States is not a crime. Stopping an act of terrorism is not a crime. Struggling against violence, against crime and terrorism, is not a crime anywhere. Unhappily, this affair has continued because of media dictatorship. If this affair had been covered by the media as it should have been, it would have caused such outrage amongst the American public that the government’s position would have been untenable. What would American public opinion say if it became clear that the government was protecting terrorists and incarcerating those who struggle against terrorism?

Imagine that if tomorrow the government decided to arrest René Gonzalez because he had been approached by a terrorist group? How can the American government get away with behaving in this manner? Quite simply because public opinion has not been informed of media complicity in this affair. Had this been known, the Five would have been back in Cuba a long time ago.

Be aware, René was released from prison in October 2011. This requirement was imposed, not in order to protect him, but rather to protect terrorist groups. Is this not unbelievable?

I would like to repeat that it is the clear duty of President Obama to liberate the Five. Their liberation is also in the best interests of the United States. This case clearly underscores the profoundly hypocritical character of the United States’ antiterrorist policy. This is a country that on the one hand pretends to lead a global struggle against this scourge and on the other hand protects criminals on their own soil by incarcerating those who try to foil their plans. The federal government is at this very moment spending public funds in order to monitor René Gonzalez. In so doing they are only protecting the terrorists. René has purged a thirteen year prison sentence for trying to prevent terrorist acts against Cuba. It is the same for the other four. Here we have the first case in the history of “espionage” in the United States in which not a single secret document has been violated. It is for this reason that the Court of Appeals in Atlanta recognized that this case has nothing to do with espionage.

NLG confers honorary membership on Roberto González/ GNA Le otorga membrecía honoraria a Roberto González Sehwerert – 03/12/2012

National Lawyers Guild honors ailing Cuban lawyer, urges Obama administration to permit Cuban Five brother visit

Contact:

Nathan Tempey,

Communications Coordinator

communications@nlg.org

(212) 679-5100, ext. 15

New York

The National Lawyers Guild made Cuban lawyer Roberto González an honorary member today in recognition of his contributions as an human rights defender and, in particular, his efforts in the case of the Cuban Five.

“Roberto’s career and his steadfast support of his brother are emblematic of the Guild’s basic principle that human rights are more sacred than property interests. We are proud to count him in our numbers,” said NLG Executive Director Heidi Boghosian.

Roberto González is a member of the legal team representing the Cuban Five, a group of political prisoners which includes his brother, René González, who was released five months ago after over 13 years in prison. Since his release, René González has been forced to serve time on probation in the United States rather than being allowed to return home to Cuba, despite the fact that  Roberto, his only sibling, is gravely ill with cancer in a Havana hospital.

René González recently petitioned the court to allow him to return to Cuba for two weeks to visit his brother. The NLG calls on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to show the compassion that has been so lacking from U.S. relations with Cuba by allowing his immediate return for at least those two weeks.

Over the course of the trial and imprisonment of the Cuban Five, the Guild filed three amicus briefs in support of efforts to have their convictions reversed. The most recent, filed in 2009, was one of a record number of 12 amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to review the convictions. The Guild’s brief focused on the prosecution’s biased method of eliminating prospective jurors, in violation of the seminal ruling in the case of Batson v. Kentucky. This violation of due process was exacerbated by the overwhelming hostility to the Cuban government in Miami and the charged political atmosphere surrounding the case, which made finding an impartial jury locally virtually impossible.

For more information on the case of the Cuban Five visit http://www.freethefive.org/.

The National Lawyers Guild was founded in 1937 and is the oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the United States. Its headquarters are in New York and it has chapters in every state.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

El Gremio Nacional de Abogados de los Estados Unidos de Norte América honra a abogado cubano, insta a la administración del presidente Obama a que permita que el hermano lo visite.

Nueva York

El Gremio Nacional de Abogados le confirió al abogado cubano Roberto González Sehwerert el titulo de miembro honorario en reconocimiento a sus contribuciones como defensor de los derechos humanos y, en particular, por los esfuerzos realizados por este en el caso de los Cinco Cubanos.

“La trayectoria de Roberto y el compromiso inconmovible a su hermano son emblemáticos de los principios básicos del Gremio donde estipula que los derechos humanos son más sagrados que intereses materiales. Nos sentimos orgullosos de contar con él como uno de nuestros miembros,” dijo la directora ejecutiva del Gremio Nacional de Abogados  Heidi Boghosian.

Roberto González Sehwerert es miembro del equipo legal que representa a los Cinco Cubanos, un grupo de presos políticos que incluye a su hermano René González Sehwerert, quien fuera puesto en libertad supervisada hace cinco meses luego de haber cumplido 13 años de prisión. Desde su puesta en libertad, a René González Sehwerert se ha visto obligado a cumplir el tiempo de probatoria legal en los Estados Unidos en vez de habérsele permitido regresar a Cuba, a pesar del hecho de que Roberto, su único hermano, se encuentra gravemente enfermo de cáncer en un hospital de la Habana.

René González Sehwerert recientemente le presentó una solicitud a la corte para que le permitiera visitar a su hermano. El GNS le hace un llamado a la Secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton a que muestre compasión algo que tanto ha faltado en las relaciones entre Cuba y los Estados Unidos y le permita regresar inmediatamente a Cuba para permanecer ahí por lo menos durante dos semanas.

Durante el curso del juicio y el encarcelamiento de los Cinco Cubanos, el Gremio ha presentado tres documentos de apoyo (amicus) en apoyo a los esfuerzos realizados tal de revertir las condenas. El más reciente, presentado en el 2009, formó parte de un número record de 12 amicus instando a la Corte Suprema a que revisara las condenas. El documento presentado por el Gremio se centra el método parcializado empleado por la fiscalía de selección del jurado, en violación medular del dictamen en el caso de Batson v. Kentucky. Esta violación de producirse un juicio imparcial fue exacerbada por la desmedida hostilidad hacia el gobierno cubano en Miami y la atmosfera políticamente cargada alrededor del caso, hecho que hiciera hallar un jurado imparcial virtualmente imposible.

Para más información sobre el caso de los Cinco Cubanos visite: http://www.freethefive.org/.

El Gremio Nacional de Abogados se fundó en 1937 y es la organización legal más grande y antigua en los Estados Unidos. Su sede principal se encuentra en Nueva York y cuenta con representaciones en cada uno de los estados de la nación.

“El que esté libre de pecado que tire la primera piedra” (Juan 8:2-11 KJV)

Margarita Alarcón Perea

Podríamos decir que son palabras famosas. Son también palabras que aunque a menudo pronunciadas fuera de contexto, después de todo no siempre estamos hablando de una mujer adultera, tienen la ventaja añadida de poder ser aplicadas a prácticamente cualquier contexto.

No soy una persona religiosa pero si confieso que me subscribo a mucho de lo que aparece registrado en la biblia. También estoy de acuerdo con casi todo lo dicho o supuestamente dicho, – no quiero entrar en esa diatriba con mis amigos ateos acérrimos – por Jesús Cristo. Después de todo, El fue el primer revolucionario verdadero de la historia moderna.

Escuché la frase una vez más el otro día durante una entrevista realizada por el profesor Salim Lamrani al Dr Eusebio Leal Spengler, historiador de la Ciudad de la Habana y director de su proyecto de restauración y conservación. El profesor Lamrani le preguntaba a Leal sobre el historial de Cuba en materia de derechos humanos. Leal, un católico de fe y actitud ante la vida, comenzó su respuesta con la frase. Continuó su respuesta usando otra frase no contenida en la biblia pero que se ha vuelto parte medular del discurso de la UNICEF cuando de Cuba se trata, “De los cientos de miles de niños en el mundo que viven en las calles en el mundo, ninguno de ellos es cubano.” La frase la emplea constantemente el representante de la UNICEF en Cuba a modo de explicar que los niños cubanos a pesar de los pesares cuentan desde el momento de su gestación con la seguridad de alimento, atención medica, techo, educación y libertades no ofrecidas en otros confines del planeta. Esto lo dice un hombre que consagra su vida a la labor por la educación de la infancia esté hablando de los derechos humanos o no.

Todos los países violan los derechos humanos contenidos en la carta magna sobre el tema de una forma u otra. Cada persona sobre la faz de la tierra lo ha hecho de una manera u otra alguna vez en la vida, ya sea a un colega de trabajo, un empleado, un jefe, un amigo, un padre o un hijo. Después de todo, ¿Acaso no es una violación de los derechos humanos obligar a un hijo a comerse hasta el último pedazo de verduras quiera o no?

La ínclita y nunca bien ponderada Unión Europea ha castigado al gobierno de Cuba por estar violando los derechos humanos de sus ciudadanos debido a la falta de “libertad de prensa.” Supongo que eso tiene sentido cuando miras el historial de Rupert Murdoch. El gobierno de los Estados Unidos repite incesantemente que el gobierno de Cuba viola los derechos humanos porque en la isla no se cumplen a la usanza de cómo lo hace ese coloso del norte. También considero que tiene sentido y lógica este planteamiento, sobre todo cuando tenemos en cuenta que la isla tiene educación y asistencia de salud universales y un índice per cápita de la población penal  inferior al de otras naciones en el hemisferio y no ha tenido que llevar a cabo una labor de “acción afirmativa” para balancear el nivel de negros, mestizos y mujeres en las universidades y los centros laborales.

¿Estoy siendo demasiado irónica? Pues a ver quien tira la primera piedra…