National Geographic lauds Cuba’s sustainable development environmental award from World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

Is National Geographic (NG) unaware 

that in Cuba possession of their magazine, 

by a Cuban citizen, 

is considered subversive and 

could land the individual in jail? 

Recently National Geographic website posted a video lauding the “achievements” of Cuba as “the only country that meets the criteria for sustainable development from the conservation group WWF.” The purpose of this post is not to analyze the merits of this recognition. That topic will be covered in another post. Instead, the attention of CubaResponde is prompted by the inexplicable or apathetic silence of NG on the topic of Cuban censorship on their magazine, specifically when it is in the possession of natives of the island. (See the story of Lázaro Ricardo Pérez García below).

NG’s apathy can be discerned through the story surrounding the posted video. Julia Langer, who represents WWF-Canada on the WWF delegation to United Nations, is shown investigating the commitment to sustainable development by the largest of the Antilles. The video shows her visiting without difficulties different agricultural locales while freely mingling with “common” people. 

The clear message is that access to any place associated with sustainable development, and by inference, any books, magazines or supporting material with the same goal, is readily available in Cuba. It then follows that NG, by posting this video on their website, without any mention of censorship, agrees with the message of Julia Langer, and that NG magazine enjoys similar access to the public as it would in any country. To most this seems as such an innocuous conclusion that to even consider challenging it appears as hysteria from the Cubans in Miami; but, is there more to the story?

To appreciate the naïveté of expecting that Cuba will behave as any other country, as portrayed in the video and subsumed by NG, it is worth contrasting the message of the video with the real life story of Lázaro Ricardo Pérez García.

In August, 2008 Aleaga Pesant, a Cuban independent journalists, reported Pérez García’s saga with the Cuban authorities. The journalists described an episode when Pérez García was disembarking from a cargo ship with packages that contained books and magazines, including National Geographic. The final destination of this literary load was an independent library on the Isle of Youth.  Members of the National Revolutionary Police noticed the package and confiscated the books and magazines in Pérez García’s possession. Angel, a policeman whose duty is to control democratic opposition in the neighborhood, conducted this police operative. He told Pérez García that National Geographic is “imperialistic literature”, probably obtained at the American Interest Section, and had to be confiscated. Meanwhile Pérez García was detained for three hours.

It is unlikely that NG considers their magazine “imperialistic literature”, which leads to the query: Why does NG show a video lauding a country that censors their magazine as “imperialistic literature”? Many possibilities come to mind but one conclusion is inevitable: NG, as long as they can promote their agenda, is not concerned about censorship, at least not in Cuba.

José A Hernández, MD
CubaResponde
END
----------------------------
Escríbanos con sus opiniones a cubaresponde@cubaresponde.org
Las cartas deberán de incluir el título del articulo, y el nombre completo y ciudad del autor. Algunas de estas serán publicadas como comentarios al final del artículo.

Continue leyendo!

Lula pide retiro unilateral del embargo a Cuba

Durante su reciente visita a Roma el presidente de Brasil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, según un reporte de EFE publicado en ‘Cuba en español”, pidió “al presidente electo de los Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, que retire el embargo unilateral de su país” hacia Cuba.

CubaResponde se pregunta: ¿Por qué el presidente Lula no incluyo en su propuesta a los disidentes cubanos en la isla? Parece obvio que si se trata de propuestas que afectarían el futuro de Cuba, como es el caso con el tema del embargo, los disidentes en la isla deberían ser consultados; sin embargo, el presidente brasileño los menosprecia totalmente manteniendo un silencio abrumador acerca de estos. Viendo este comportamiento del dignatario brasileño, no es nada sorprendente que tampoco le pareció importante hacer referencias sobre las violaciones de los derechos humanos y la falta de libertad que se sufre en la isla, las razones por la cual el gobierno americano mantiene el embargo.

Lo que es sorprendente, dado que Lula considera que “Obama tiene la fuerza y la autoridad política”, es que Lula no haya mostrado más curiosidad y respeto a los pronunciamientos de Obama sobre este tema. Como se ha publicado en CubaResponde, basado en publicaciones de CNN y del New YorkTimes, Obama ha declarado que su guía sobre el caso de Cuba se pude resumir bajo el término “Libertad. ” Obama considera que “el camino hacia la libertad en Cuba tiene que empezar por ofrecer justicia para los presos políticos, el derecho a la libertad de expresión, una prensa libre, el derecho a reunirse libremente y tiene que haber elecciones libres e imparciales.” ¿Y como piensa Obama alcanzar estas metas? “Mantendré el embargo”, explicando que es el único camino posible para poder influenciar a que el gobierno cubano lleve a cabo estos cambios.

Lula no se ha dado por enterado de estas palabras de Obama a pesar que ha subrayado “el significado histórico de la entrada de un político de origen afroamericano en la Casa Blanca” proponiendo “que Obama no puede fallar.” Para Lula esto supone que Obama retiraría el embargo sin relacionar este cambio diplomático con el comportamiento de Cuba. Seria interesante preguntarle al presidente brasileño si el hecho que Obama se ha preocupado por los presos políticos y las violaciones de los derechos humanos y civiles en Cuba antes de hacer ningún cambio en su política hacia Cuba, como Obama se ha expresado, significa que Obama ha fallado.

José A Hernández, MD
Presidente, CubaResponde

Lula vuelve a pedir a Obama que retire el embargo a Cuba

BY EFE
ROMA
El presidente de Brasil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pide al presidente electo de los Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, que retire el embargo unilateral de su país que pesa sobre Cuba para favorecer el cambio del régimen político en la isla caribeña.

"Retirar un bloqueo que no tiene ya sentido es el primer paso para favorecer el inicio de una transición sobre la isla'', afirma Lula da Silva en una entrevista que publica hoy el diario "La Repubblica'' y que el presidente brasileño concedió este miércoles a algunos medios de comunicación italianos en Roma.

"Obama tiene la fuerza y la autoridad política para cambiar las relaciones entre Cuba y los Estados Unidos'', añade el presidente de Brasil, quien este martes pudo hablar con el futuro inquilino de la Casa Blanca en una conversación telefónica.

Lula da Silva, que finaliza hoy su viaje oficial a Italia y al Vaticano, con una audiencia con el Papa, Benedicto XVI, cree que Obama afrontará de un modo nuevo no sólo las relaciones exteriores de Estados Unidos, sino también el conflicto en Oriente Medio.

"Es tal la perspectiva que se ha creado en todo el mundo en torno a estas elecciones estadounidenses, y es tal el significado histórico de la entrada de un político de origen afroamericano en la Casa Blanca, que Obama no puede fallar, y como parece una persona más bien inteligente, creo que no fallará'', comenta el mandatario.

El presidente de Brasil espera que Obama lleve a cabo en EEUU una política económica que favorezca a los más pobres y a las clases medias, y que redistribuya la riqueza económica del país.

----------------------------
Escríbanos con sus opiniones a cubaresponde@cubaresponde.org
Las cartas deberán de incluir el título del articulo, y el nombre completo y ciudad del autor. Algunas de estas serán publicadas como comentarios al final del artículo.

Continue leyendo!

Obama and the Cuban embargo – 11-09-10

Multiple publications throughout the globe view the Nov 4 victory of Obama as a prelude to the lifting of the US embargo towards Cuba. For example, writing from the United Nations, Edith M. Lederer of the Associated Press, reports that Cuba’s foreign minister, Felipe Perez Roque, advised that the next US president should lift the embargo. The article further elaborates on this point emphasizing the recent UN vote that supported repeal of the US economic and commercial embargo by its highest margin ever. The Huffington Post Sarah Stephens, in line with the view of Cuba’s foreign minister, stressed that Obama owes nothing to the “hard-liners in the exile community” and should “fundamentally rethink U.S. policy toward Cuba.” And the Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos, accentuating a similar theme, was reported stating that after talking to Obama’s team he is comfortable that “there will be a different (U.S.) attitude towards the Cuban authorities."

These publications, and many others, give the impression that the new administration should and will lift the embargo (a distinctly different issue from removing the travel and remittances restrictions, a move that CubaResponde has supported).

It is interesting that none of these articles report on what Barack Obama has said about the embargo. In the only pronouncement he offered on this subject as reported by CNN during his campaign, Mr Obama said, "My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: 'libertad,' " using the Spanish word for liberty; and continued "The road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the right of free speech, a free press, freedom of assembly, and it must lead to elections that are free and fair," Obama then cemented these promises by claiming: "That is my commitment."

And how does Obama plan to achieve these goals? The newly elected president, as reported by The New York Times, stated: “Don’t be confused about this. I will maintain the embargo,” Mr. Obama said. He continued, “It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: If you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations.”

Clearly the public statements of Obama seem to contradict the views that we see reported. One could very well wonder if Mr Moratino received promises from Obama's advisors that the American electorate was not privy to.  Similarly, does Sarah Stephens, also the director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, have the influence inside of Obama’s inner circle to feel confident, in spite of the candidate’s promise to the Cuba community, that the embargo will be lifted without any conditions? The assertion of Felipe Perez Roque, Cuba’s foreign minister, about the embargo probably reflects his desire to divert attention from the horrible Human Rights record and the economic debacle in Cuba. This economic disaster, long preceding the devastating hurricanes, continues unabated. The fact that the US is the fifth largest trader with Cuba takes the steam out of the constant jeremiad of the Cuban government about the US embargo.

As part of a wonderful tradition, US citizens pledge to support whichever candidate is elected. In spite of personally not having supported candidate Obama, I pledge my support for president-elect Obama. I hope that president Obama also upholds the pledge he made to the Cuban community during his campaign.


Jose A Hernandez, MD
President, CubaNet
END
----------------------------
Escríbanos con sus opiniones a cubaresponde@cubaresponde.org
Las cartas deberán de incluir el título del articulo, y el nombre completo y ciudad del autor. Algunas de estas serán publicadas como comentarios al final del artículo.

Continue leyendo!

Obama is the choice of the dissidents in Cuba? - Nov 1, 2008

Apparently Mr Obama is the choice if we are to believe Mr Jorge Mas Santo, president of the Cuban American National Foundation, but …

A recent piece in the Washignton Post (included below) by Jorge Mas Santo, president of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), alludes to the possibility that candidate Obama is the choice of the dissidents in the island. This insinuation is obvious in the last sentence consisting of a somewhat rhetorical question, which reads:"If dissidents in Cuba had a vote in our election, for whom would they vote?”

By itself the question seems perfectly innocuous but, given that this question follows a series of pronouncements attacking the Bush administration on policy positions towards Cuba, the answer Mr Mas Santo intends is obvious: the choice would be Obama.

Among the policy issues that Mr Mas Santo brandishes to support his view are the remittances and travel limitations imposed by the Bush administration that CANF would like to see lifted. I basically support the policies that Mr Mas Santos presents, and so have written on this blog (see "Cuba thwarts humanitarian efforts" - 09/28/08), but I can’t quite reach the conclusion that the democratic opposition in the island would support Mr. Obama. (In fairness, I must stress that Mr Mas Santos did not say that they supported the Democratic candidate but he certainly implied it.)

Although it is true that no one knows the answer to the query presented in the Washington Post article, it is telling what the Republican party under President Bush has done to bolster the opposition in Cuba. Intending to raise the status of the dissidents in the islands, the president has held videoconference with democratic activists in Cuba. In this blog we have exhorted Mr. Obama to hold similar conferences but the advice has fallen on deaf ears. To be fair, the exhortation was addressed to both candidates and neither has effectuated such action. This inaction by both candidates could be viewed as an equivalent lack of concern toward the democratic forces in Cuba. But there are some very telling differences. Mr. Obama says he would meet with the Castro regime unconditionally without mention of the despicable human rights record in the island, while Mr. McCain always cites the miserable human rights record as an obstacle.

This apathetic view or ignorance of Mr. Obama towards the human rights violations in the island is telling and probably would have an effect on which candidate the dissidents would support. In my opinion, to allude, as does Mr Mas Santos, that the dissidents would support Obama, taken in consideration this apathy, is inappropriate and misleading.

Jose A Hernandez, MD
President, CubaResponde

Additional comment: It has been brought to my attention that neither candidate should have been involved in foreign policy issues, a field that only the President should manage. This means that my original advice to contact the dissidents, aimed to both Obama and McCain, was inappropriate, in addition it was insignificant since neither responded; but the distinction between the two candidates presented, as it relates to their concerns about Cuba, remains valid.

To read the complet article by Jorge Mas Santo titled "How to Win the Cuban American Vote", please press "Continue leyendo" below.

How to Win the Cuban American Vote
By Jorge Mas Santos
Saturday, October 25, 2008; A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/24/AR2008102402716_pf.html


U.S. policy toward Cuba is at best static and at worst counterproductive, a source of increasing frustration to many Cuban Americans. This sad status quo contributes to the challenge that Cuban Americans will face on Election Day as, once again, particularly in Florida, our vote will probably help determine the next occupant of the White House.

The overwhelming majority of Cuban Americans expect the next president to abandon today's failed "wait and hope" policy and adopt a policy of support and engagement directed toward opening new avenues of freedom for the Cuban people as well as enhancing stability in the United States.

The Cuban American National Foundation, the nation's largest Cuban exile organization, has a predominantly Republican membership. Yet our fundamental interest is not partisan politics but helping to restore freedom to our brothers and sisters on the island.

We entered the new millennium expecting U.S. policy toward Cuba to follow the effective model of the West's support for Poland's Solidarity movement and civil society across Eastern Europe. It was our hope that by seeking to empower Cuba's independent civil society through unlimited support for the brave men and women on the island opposing the Castro regime, the energy and resources of the Cuban American community would be unleashed. To this end, we have been sorely disappointed.

As a direct result of President Bush's strategic blunder in 2004 restricting contact with the island, Cuban dissidents have experienced a significant reduction in material and humanitarian assistance. They are also subject to a ban on receiving cash remittances that help them and their families survive. The isolation of these and other Cubans has increased while Fidel Castro's departure from office caught the Bush administration off guard. Together, these developments have helped Raúl Castro consolidate control over the Cuban people.

These failures in U.S. policy undermine important American interests. Just as a democratic Israel is a key U.S. friend in a critical region, a democratic Cuba would be a crucial ally in furthering democracy in Latin America. Cuba is important, also, because the dissatisfaction of its people under the Castro regime is bound to have a significant effect on Floridians and Cuban Americans nationwide. It has in the past.

The next president must put a stop to America's spectator approach. To this end, we have presented the campaigns of Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama with simple recommendations based on two basic premises: (a) the status quo is unacceptable; and (b) change needs to come from within Cuba. Our specific recommendations are:

· Change the rules that make it impossible to send cash aid and allow direct, substantial and unfettered aid to Cuba's dissidents.

· Lift the 2004 restrictions on travel and remittances by Cuban Americans. Removing the handcuffs that have prevented us from becoming active participants in the development of Cuban civil society will make us agents of change.

· Maintain sanctions that diminish the Castro regime's access to hard currency, which it uses to help fund its apparatus of repression.

· Engage democratic and reformist forces in Cuba, including those in the military and in the civilian government. They need to know that they can count on the friendship and support of the United States.

· Rebuild our intelligence capabilities in Cuba; they have been dismantled over the past decade, creating a vulnerability in this nation's security.

Both presidential candidates have made clear that they want to help the Cuban people achieve freedom. But Barack Obama's forward-looking and proactive approach toward empowering the Cuban people is more in line with these proposals than John McCain's vow to continue the Bush administration's policy.

More of the same will not bring about freedom in Cuba, and more must be done to directly assist Cuba's opposition movement. Cuban Americans are wary of empty promises. But on Nov. 4, before casting ballots, we will ask ourselves two important questions: Who will adopt a proactive policy toward Cuba, and if dissidents in Cuba had a vote in our election, for whom would they vote?

The writer is chairman of the Cuban American National Foundation.

----------------------------
Escríbanos con sus opiniones a cubaresponde@cubaresponde.org
Las cartas deberán de incluir el título del articulo, y el nombre completo y ciudad del autor. Algunas de estas serán publicadas como comentarios al final del artículo.

Continue leyendo!