Joanna
>(received from Gilles d'Aymery, editor of Swans)
>
>Campaign for Peace and Democracy Petition
>
>Dear Friends:
>
>I write to tell you why I do not support your statement on Cuba, and why I
>will instead use the Internet to ask others to reject it. I urge you to
>reconsider what you are doing. I note, for what it's worth, that I am a
>Cuban-born citizen of the U.S., with family in Cuba and with considerable
>knowledge of conditions there, as well as of the country's history. At the
>same time, I think that more than Cuba is at issue here.
>
>It took me a few re-readings to digest the Solomonic-perhaps
>schizophrenic-message of your statement. I concluded in the end that it's
>an unusual time to be from the U.S. The neo-con hawks demand
>"democratically elected" governments everywhere-except, of course, where
>the voters are Shi'ites or other deviants, of from strategic partner
>states-regardless of time and circumstance. The left represented in your
>statement, on the other hand, demands "democratically elected" governments
>everywhere regardless of time and circumstance. Bush and Powell demand that
>Castro stop the repression; the left demands that-well, you know.
>Everyone's right, or to the right. One almost expects the same left to
>announce a postmodern end of history and of ideology, with liberal
>democracies ushered in everywhere by a combination of an ultra-right wing
>military machine and the moral guidance of the left represented in your
>statement.
>
>This remarkable coincidence of views on how the world should work appears
>to apply not only to other countries, but to the U.S. itself, for there is
>not a word from the right, nor in your statement, about the growing
>internal repression within the U.S., save for the one, unavoidable,
>reference to capital punishment. Why not start at home, with Ashcroft and
>Poindexter and Ridge, and with the militarization of justice? Why not
>address the Patriot Acts I and II? Why not talk about the control of
>government by big corporations and the super-rich? There's no need to go
>on: you know what I mean. You just did not mention it. Perhaps it is the
>growing fear of being called a traitor, a terrorist, a dangerous element,
>that drives the stampede to correct the Cuban government, as a way of
>establishing safe credentials. Perhaps this movement seeks to emulate
>Saramago's drawing a line in the sand, or Galeano's public revelation of
>hurt, although I am not sure that all of the statement's signers have read
>those two wonderful thinkers and writers, with whom I disagree on this
>point. Perhaps it follows the markedly uninformed manifesto of the folks at
>the Guardian, with their "118 others" in New York. Any way one looks at it,
>there is something in the air, and it is a post-Iraq convergence and
>accommodation of right and left, driven by fear.
>
>But let's address your statement on the face of it. What exactly is your
>group's proposal for Cuba? Surely it is not that Cubans should be "free to
>acquire [computers, copying machines, printers, etc.]" This suggestion from
>the comment that accompanies your statement reveals such a profound
>ignorance of what life is like in the under-developed world, and especially
>in a small island subject to a crippling blockade by the U.S., that it
>cannot be taken seriously.
>
>You are aware, because the statement says so, of the "long, criminal record
>of U.S. intervention in Latin America." Indeed, of all progressive,
>nationalist, or left governments in Latin America, only Cuba's has survived
>for any period of time. Regime change has been an established practice in
>the Good Neighbor's large backyard: Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Chile,
>Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, and so on, and elections and
>constitutions be damned. On the other hand, the Good Neighbor has sponsored
>or lived happily with the Somozas, Trujillo, Batista, the Duvaliers pere et
>fils, the Brazilian junta, the fascist juntas of Argentina and Uruguay, the
>military dictatorships of El Salvador and Honduras, and every repressive
>government that served neo-colonialism. Even recently, the U.S. supported a
>coup in Venezuela, and tried to stop the election of Lula in Brazil until
>the outgoing government made a last-minute agreement with the IMF that tied
>down the new government. You are aware of all this, I take it, but it is
>not clear how that awareness informs what action you think that
>progressives should take today.
>
>What happened in Cuba was not just a matter of intolerance of well-meaning
>dissidents. A recounting of other factors should not be necessary, but here
>is one version:
>
>--The embargo dating back to Eisenhower became a blockade with the
>Torricelli law and later the Helms-Burton law. These made it the legislated
>policy of the U.S. to create chaos in Cuba leading to a civil uprising, to
>be followed by the reinstatement of property relations as they were at the
>time of Batista. That is the current law of the U.S.
>
>--Recent majority-sponsored actions in Congress to begin to undo the
>blockade were twice torpedoed by the House leadership and by the White
>House, which pledged to veto any further effort, and moved instead to
>tighten the squeeze on Cuba.
>
>--The U.S. Interests Section in Havana, calling openly for a new government
>in Cuba, undertook to finance, coordinate, and direct an internal
>opposition to provide cover for its ends. (I suggest that you read up on
>the details, which are freely available. This was not a matter of some
>dissidents "meeting with" U.S. diplomats.)
>
>--The Congress approved an amount of money to foment the opposition that in
>U.S. terms would be equivalent to billions of dollars being spent by a
>foreign power to bring about regime change in the U.S. (What would Bush,
>Ashcroft, and Ridge do in such a case?)
>
>--The U.S., having already listed Cuba as a terrorist country, accused Cuba
>of having biological weapons. At the same time, the U.S. turned a blind eye
>to continuing terrorist acts planned in and executed from Miami. Hijackings
>by sea and by air were essentially welcomed by the U.S. Meanwhile, the U.S.
>failed to comply with the immigration agreements providing for 20,000 visas
>a year to Cubans, and this year so far has issued only a few hundred. Any
>Cubans, alone among all the nationalities of the world, who get to the U.S.
>by whatever means, continue to receive permanent residence under the unique
>Cuban Adjustment Act, a permanent incentive to further hijackings.
>
>--While implementing a campaign of carnage and destruction in Iraq, the
>U.S. warned the world at large that any country could be next if it did not
>behave. (Even the French are now scheduled to be punished.) Clearly, Cuba
>was a candidate for punishment, because not only did it not behave, it was
>drawing a growing flow of elected officials and business people, contrary
>to administration policy. In fact, reports emerged that the White House had
>considered hitting Cuba before taking Iraq. (Fortunately, Cuban oil
>deposits are small and sulphur-laden.)
>
>--In sum, it was made clear that the administration intended to block any
>rapprochement, to tighten the blockade, and to pursue proven policies of
>economic and military threats, combined with the sponsorship of local cover
>for its activities.
>
>Until close to the end of this sequence, the Cubans had become increasingly
>open internally and remained hopeful that a change could take place.
>Apparently, however, given the continuing threats they perceived, they
>decided not to play along, and to send a strong message, not so much to
>internal dissidents but to the U.S., that they would not permit further
>intervention in their affairs.
>
>The sentences handed out were draconian, yes. At least those can be
>commuted. The three executions, said by the Cubans to be a last resort to
>stop the hijackings, are irreversible. The losses are tragic. Even the
>Cuban government has called the executions regrettable, albeit, in their
>view, necessary.
>
>But what do you suggest that the Cubans do? Sponsor "free" elections, free
>of U.S. interference and financing? Pretend that the growing profession of
>"independent journalist" was a purely domestic phenomenon, free from U.S.
>direction and control? Do you call for an end to the blockade, now? Do you
>support dialogue at this time of tense relations? Do you demand that the
>administration discontinue its support for the Miami reactionaries, and
>stop using the issue of Cuba for domestic purposes? The comment attached to
>the statement suggests that progressives protest Cuban repression and at
>the same time "expose Washington's reactionary agenda" for Cuba. Do you
>advance any particular ways to do this, other than to declare your
>preference for a just world?
>
>The Cold War is over, but there is no prohibition on the left's still
>making use of dialectics. I do not know what you stand for, in practice, in
>the context of a particular history, time, and place. I cannot tell what
>you mean by calling, in the end, for "let[ting] the Cuban people speak,
>write, and organize freely." Free from the blockade? Free from
>neo-colonialism? Free from U.S. intervention? I have my own view of what is
>needed from progressives now, based on the history of Cuba and of Latin
>America and the Caribbean, and of their relations with the U.S., a view
>based also on the specifics of time and circumstance. This, clearly, is not
>your view, but your statement fails to convince me to share yours. I will
>not support your statement. I urge others to reject it. I urge you to
>reconsider.
>
>Luis E. Rumbaut
>Washington, D.C.
>April 25, 2003
>
>
>Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org