AFTER the G-20 Summit that captured the world’s attention, news continued arriving via the agencies on the feverish activity of the man who was the star in London, Barack Obama, the new president of the United States, who is approaching the 100th day of his administration under the scrutinizing regard of those who closely follow international politics.
With the punctuality of a digital clock, he is moving from one point to another holding meeting with political leaders, receiving honors, visiting cities, giving press conferences, announcing plans, launching messages and making speeches.
The supersonic G-20 Summit barely concluded, he left for Strasbourg, France, on the border with Germany. There, he met on the 3rd with Sarkozy, happy at not having had to walk out of the G-20 session in London. They covered many problems in relation to Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, the Near East and promised to work "hand-in-hand" to construct a new world. "I do believe that the United States and Russia, the Europeans and the United States, all have an interest in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon… In some case we have common interests with Russia, but we also have some core disagreements," he stated.
It was announced that both of them, Obama and Sarkozy, would participate in the NATO summit of 26 countries, scheduled to begin that afternoon in the German town of Baden-Baden and to end the following day in Strasbourg.
Before leaving he stated that "the more capability we see here in Europe, the happier the United States will be, the more effective we will be in coordinating our activities."
"We're not looking to be the patron of Europe. We're looking to be partners with Europe."
He left Strasbourg for Baden-Baden to meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel prior to a dinner for the 26 heads of state and government of NATO, plus those of Croatia and Albania, which have applied for entry. The summit would serve as an opening to the 60th anniversary of that military organization. There they proposed to discuss relations with Russia, which "reached their lowest point last August after the Russian-Georgian war."
Another objective was to discuss a renovation of the Alliance’s strategic action concept, which dates back to 1999, in order to adapt it to new threats.
Afterward, they would discuss the situation of Afghanistan and Kosovo.
In Strasbourg that same day, the 3rd, Obama met with more than 3,000 French and German youth and made a brief speech which will be much talked of in the future on account of its bold content.
"So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership… America is changing, but it cannot be America alone that changes." He then announced the content of the speech that he would give in Prague on nuclear proliferation and affirmed that his goal was: "a world without nuclear weapons."
At another point he added: "Even with the Cold War now over, the spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet."
The world’s growing concern at the vast destructive and exterminating power of those weapons is unquestionable and is linked to the concern of other states, and in particular of U.S. society itself, over the risk of nuclear sabotage. That is what Obama was literally expressing with his phrase: "the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet."
On April 4, speaking at the NATO Summit, he welcomed Croatia and Albania into the fold of that military body, which brings its total membership to 28. The president of the United States noted that 140 Albanian and 296 Croat soldiers have already provided their services in Afghanistan. "I believe they will both be strong contributors to the alliance."
The contradictory ways in which the ideas of the U.S. president are expressed are evident.
"The door to membership will remain open for other countries that meet NATO standards and can make a meaningful contribution to allied security."
The EFE agency explains that "Russia is highly critical of NATO’s expansion toward the east and, in particular, toward the ex-Soviet Republics which it considers its natural area of influence."
"The alliance promised last year during its April Summit in Bucharest a possible way forward for the entry of Ukraine and Georgia, supported by Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush," the cable reports.
Does anybody by any chance doubt the fact that NATO is a bellicose and aggressive organization, which is not only threatening Russia but also other countries in any part of the world? Could the torture centers of Guantánamo have been created and sustained without the cooperation of many of the NATO countries?
Once again the boldness and the contradictions were expressed in the first European Summit of the president of the United States with the European Union in Prague. He promised "to lead efforts for a world without nuclear weapons."
"We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it."
He concretely stated that he would attempt to achieve a rapid end of nuclear testing and confirmed his pretension to seek Senate approval for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
"He likewise advocated a global summit on nuclear security to take place next year," the news agencies report.
It was also announced that "Obama was woken up to be informed of the launch of a North Korean rocket that apparently overflew Japan. He asked the UN Security Council to make a firm response to the provocation in an emergency meeting convened for that same Sunday."
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea announced on March 12 that it was to launch a communications satellite between April 4 and 8 as part of a special program with peaceful ends. That was known when Obama spoke in Strasbourg to French and German youth.
On being informed in Prague, he drew up a statement in which he said: "Rules must be binding," he said. "Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
Launching a rocket to place a means of communication in orbit, test a technology or take a tourist for a ride is not a crime, except when that is done by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which does not belong to the club of the strongest and those with the resources to apply that sophisticated technology. Japan took advantage of the situation to adjust its anti-satellite missiles and improve its defense without anybody questioning that right.
I think it was an exaggeration to wake Obama up in the early hours.
Before leaving Prague he said to a meeting of 30,000 people: "For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable… Human destiny will be what we make of it." This affirmation has in itself great force. However, he added afterward that the missile shield that the United States is planning in European territory is a program in response to Iranian nuclear threats. Such an affirmation, on the other hand, is not congruent with the truth and I do not understand his reiteration.
Russia rejects that missile shield plan and considers that it is expansionist, and thus is demanding its cancellation.
He arrived in Turkey in the evening of Sunday the 5th.
After meeting with Turkish leaders on Monday in Ankara, the capital of that Eurasian nation and giving a speech in Parliament, he announced that he was to travel to Istanbul to attend the 2nd Forum of the Alliance of Civilizations.
In Prague he had promised to support Turkey’s entry into the European Union, which is opposed by France, Germany and others.
He called once again in Ankara for Turkey’s entry into the European Union. He noted, however, that Turkey needed to make efforts to reinforce the state of law.
On arriving in that country, the first thing that he did was to pay tribute to the founder of the Turkish nation, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
"We will be respectful, even when we do not agree," he declared before Parliament. Another phrase in itself of profound content.
"The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam," he stated.Thousands of Turks had taken to the streets to protest against the politics of the United States.
The president of the United States concluded his visit on the 7th at 02:20 hours in Istanbul, Turkey’s principal city, after an exhausting tour of eight days.
His last meeting was with students. He called on the young people to extend bridges between Islam and the West. According to EFE, he urged Muslims to ignore "caricatures" depicting U.S. citizens as ignorant or insensitive and assured them that, "that is not the country that he loves."
The facts narrated reflect the complexity of the tasks that Obama is carrying on his shoulders.
He had declared in all frankness: "Within four or eight years people will be able to say whether I have followed the same policies or whether things have changed."
Although the bearer of the contradictions noted, with a full bill of health, like a work machine with an agile mind, the Black president undertook his first visit abroad with unquestionable political results.
Without any doubt, he does not resemble his predecessor in any way.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 8, 2009
7:11 p.m.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Meeting with Barbara Lee and Other Members of the Black Caucus
THE morning was stormy, humid, cold. A strong wind was blowing and the sky was clouded. It was not a spring day, or warm.
Barbara wanted to visit the ELAM [Latin American School of Medicine], where 114 young people from the United States are studying Medicine.
The official aircraft that brought them to Cuba had advanced the return flight 24 hours; they were leaving at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, rather than Wednesday.
I did not attempt a meeting with all of them because I do not have enough space for the seven of them, plus an interpreter and the minister accompanying them. I asked her to visit me with two other legislators selected by the group. Thus I could meet with her once again.
On this occasion, circumstances had changed a lot. The Congressional Black Caucus represents a sector of significant weight in the United States.
The long struggle for equality and social justice was illuminated by the life and example of Martin Luther King, whose thinking and work today captivate millions of people in the world and was what, in my judgment, explains how – in a time of profound crisis – a Black citizen could attain the presidency of the United States.
Hence, for me, in personal terms, another meeting with the Black Caucus would acquire special importance. I knew about the details of their stay in Cuba via the compañeros who looked after them during their visit, the basic ideas of the congressional organization and the opinions of its members.
Raúl also transmitted to me the magnificent impression that they left on him during his meeting with them, which extended to nearly four hours last night, Monday.
When Barbara Lee arrived at the house accompanied by Bobby Rush, Democratic congressman for Illinois, and Laura Richardson, for California, together with the CITMA [Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment] minister, José Miyar Barrueco, who was secretary of the Council of State for many years, it was 11:35 am; the sky had cleared and a radiant sun was beaming down on the patio. I was really happy to see Barbara again and have the opportunity to personally greet Bobby and Laura, whose names were already familiar, for their words at the meetings with Raúl, Alarcón, Bruno, Miyar and the families of the five heroes.
The meeting with me lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes, according to the clock; in reality, half a minute, if I go by the speed with which it went by and the desire to listen to them.
I briefly related to them my experiences of two years and seven months of hospital confinement and the activities to which I am now dedicating. I explained what I had learned in that time of obligatory reclusion; above all, my great interest in what was happening in the world and particularly in the United States, as I compiled news and concentrated on studying.
I remembered that I had invited them to listen to them and I was beginning to forget what most interested me: to know their opinions. The interest and depth with which they expounded their points of view, the sincerity and quality of their words, simple and profound, was comforting. The three reflected transparency, pride in their work, their organization, their struggle and their country. It is evident that they know Obama and reflect confidence, security in and warmth toward him.
Barbara is proud of presiding over the Black Caucus, of actively participating in the politics of her country with a new spirit and optimism, of her son, who was far from being born when the Revolution triumphed in Cuba, and of her five grandchildren. She had voted alone against Bush’s genocidal war in Iraq. That was insuperable proof of her political bravery. She merits all honors.
She especially recalled Dellums, who brought her to Cuba for the first time, when she was his assistant and they were with me in a cay talking for hours. He is no longer a legislator, she told me, but is the mayor of Oklahoma, attending to a population of 400,000 inhabitants, and she also told me about the ex-congresswoman who visited Cuba with Dellums, who is now 98 and sent effusive greetings.
Laura is a congresswoman in California, for the Long Beach district; she spoke with particular pride of the port of California which, as she explained “is the third in the world.” I really couldn’t resist making a joke and, bearing in mind that she is an active defender of the environment, I said to her: “Laura, if the polar ice cap melts, your third port in the world will be under water.” In the atmosphere created she wasn’t at all upset, and continued saying interesting things.
Then it was the turn of Rush, the oldest and most experienced member of the delegation, a radical fighter in his early years, whose life has been an incessant growth of political and human knowledge. He is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Communications, Technology and Internet Subcommittee. For a period of 15 or 20 minutes I listened to him without any interruption. He explained that, in his youth, he read the works and writings of important modern revolutionary thinkers, which were the starting point for his later political maturity, through observation of and meditation on what was taking place in his country and the world. He mentioned by name Mandela, Che and other exceptional people who sacrificed themselves for others. As is a generalized truth among leaders of the Black Caucus, passages from the Bible are quoted, as Martin Luther King used to do to sustain his points of view; “The word justice is mentioned on 2,000 occasions in the Bible, almost as many times as the word love,” he told me. He spoke about his health, the battles that he waged to preserve it and survive a carcinogenic illness.
He knows Obama personally, given that he has had close dealings with him for years, even as an adversary on occasions, expressing a high and sincere opinion of him; he described him as an honest and good person who wishes to help the U.S. people.
He expressed admiration for the health services available to the population in Cuba and the research centers devoted to fighting disease.
I could have listened to him for hours as an inexhaustible spring of knowledge and maturity.
I asked him a question on the meaning of his affirmation: “Obama can improve relations with Cuba, but Cuba has to help Obama.” We were not the aggressors nor did we threaten the United States. Cuba did not have any alternative that would allow it to take the initiative. We were starting from the certainty that his [Obama’s] words were sincere and we had affirmed that publicly before and after his election. At the same time, we were expressing the belief that the objective realities were, in the United States, more powerful than Obama’s sincere intentions.
Finally, I asked him which were the best works published in English in the United States on Martin Luther King and if they had been translated into Spanish. He spoke of the three in Taylor Brecht’s trilogy as among the most interesting, among them, “Letters from Prison.” They weren’t sure about their translation into Spanish and promised to send me the pertinent material.
It was a magnificent meeting.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 7, 2009
6:31 p.m.
Barbara wanted to visit the ELAM [Latin American School of Medicine], where 114 young people from the United States are studying Medicine.
The official aircraft that brought them to Cuba had advanced the return flight 24 hours; they were leaving at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, rather than Wednesday.
I did not attempt a meeting with all of them because I do not have enough space for the seven of them, plus an interpreter and the minister accompanying them. I asked her to visit me with two other legislators selected by the group. Thus I could meet with her once again.
On this occasion, circumstances had changed a lot. The Congressional Black Caucus represents a sector of significant weight in the United States.
The long struggle for equality and social justice was illuminated by the life and example of Martin Luther King, whose thinking and work today captivate millions of people in the world and was what, in my judgment, explains how – in a time of profound crisis – a Black citizen could attain the presidency of the United States.
Hence, for me, in personal terms, another meeting with the Black Caucus would acquire special importance. I knew about the details of their stay in Cuba via the compañeros who looked after them during their visit, the basic ideas of the congressional organization and the opinions of its members.
Raúl also transmitted to me the magnificent impression that they left on him during his meeting with them, which extended to nearly four hours last night, Monday.
When Barbara Lee arrived at the house accompanied by Bobby Rush, Democratic congressman for Illinois, and Laura Richardson, for California, together with the CITMA [Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment] minister, José Miyar Barrueco, who was secretary of the Council of State for many years, it was 11:35 am; the sky had cleared and a radiant sun was beaming down on the patio. I was really happy to see Barbara again and have the opportunity to personally greet Bobby and Laura, whose names were already familiar, for their words at the meetings with Raúl, Alarcón, Bruno, Miyar and the families of the five heroes.
The meeting with me lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes, according to the clock; in reality, half a minute, if I go by the speed with which it went by and the desire to listen to them.
I briefly related to them my experiences of two years and seven months of hospital confinement and the activities to which I am now dedicating. I explained what I had learned in that time of obligatory reclusion; above all, my great interest in what was happening in the world and particularly in the United States, as I compiled news and concentrated on studying.
I remembered that I had invited them to listen to them and I was beginning to forget what most interested me: to know their opinions. The interest and depth with which they expounded their points of view, the sincerity and quality of their words, simple and profound, was comforting. The three reflected transparency, pride in their work, their organization, their struggle and their country. It is evident that they know Obama and reflect confidence, security in and warmth toward him.
Barbara is proud of presiding over the Black Caucus, of actively participating in the politics of her country with a new spirit and optimism, of her son, who was far from being born when the Revolution triumphed in Cuba, and of her five grandchildren. She had voted alone against Bush’s genocidal war in Iraq. That was insuperable proof of her political bravery. She merits all honors.
She especially recalled Dellums, who brought her to Cuba for the first time, when she was his assistant and they were with me in a cay talking for hours. He is no longer a legislator, she told me, but is the mayor of Oklahoma, attending to a population of 400,000 inhabitants, and she also told me about the ex-congresswoman who visited Cuba with Dellums, who is now 98 and sent effusive greetings.
Laura is a congresswoman in California, for the Long Beach district; she spoke with particular pride of the port of California which, as she explained “is the third in the world.” I really couldn’t resist making a joke and, bearing in mind that she is an active defender of the environment, I said to her: “Laura, if the polar ice cap melts, your third port in the world will be under water.” In the atmosphere created she wasn’t at all upset, and continued saying interesting things.
Then it was the turn of Rush, the oldest and most experienced member of the delegation, a radical fighter in his early years, whose life has been an incessant growth of political and human knowledge. He is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Communications, Technology and Internet Subcommittee. For a period of 15 or 20 minutes I listened to him without any interruption. He explained that, in his youth, he read the works and writings of important modern revolutionary thinkers, which were the starting point for his later political maturity, through observation of and meditation on what was taking place in his country and the world. He mentioned by name Mandela, Che and other exceptional people who sacrificed themselves for others. As is a generalized truth among leaders of the Black Caucus, passages from the Bible are quoted, as Martin Luther King used to do to sustain his points of view; “The word justice is mentioned on 2,000 occasions in the Bible, almost as many times as the word love,” he told me. He spoke about his health, the battles that he waged to preserve it and survive a carcinogenic illness.
He knows Obama personally, given that he has had close dealings with him for years, even as an adversary on occasions, expressing a high and sincere opinion of him; he described him as an honest and good person who wishes to help the U.S. people.
He expressed admiration for the health services available to the population in Cuba and the research centers devoted to fighting disease.
I could have listened to him for hours as an inexhaustible spring of knowledge and maturity.
I asked him a question on the meaning of his affirmation: “Obama can improve relations with Cuba, but Cuba has to help Obama.” We were not the aggressors nor did we threaten the United States. Cuba did not have any alternative that would allow it to take the initiative. We were starting from the certainty that his [Obama’s] words were sincere and we had affirmed that publicly before and after his election. At the same time, we were expressing the belief that the objective realities were, in the United States, more powerful than Obama’s sincere intentions.
Finally, I asked him which were the best works published in English in the United States on Martin Luther King and if they had been translated into Spanish. He spoke of the three in Taylor Brecht’s trilogy as among the most interesting, among them, “Letters from Prison.” They weren’t sure about their translation into Spanish and promised to send me the pertinent material.
It was a magnificent meeting.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 7, 2009
6:31 p.m.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Seven Congress Members Who are Visiting Us
AN important US political delegation is visiting us right now. Its members belong to the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) which, in practice, has functioned as the most progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
The Congressional Black Caucus was founded in January 1969 by the 12 African-American legislators who were members of the U.S. Congress at that moment. During the first 50 years of the 20th century only four African Americans were elected to Congress.
Presently, as a result of the struggles they have waged, the CBC has 42 members. Several of its representatives have maintained very active and constructive positions on Cuba-related topics.
The first Caucus delegation visited us in February 1999 and was headed by Maxine Waters; the second came in January 2000.
Influential members of that Congressional group publicly expressed their positions and carried out other positive actions during the battle for the return of young Elián to his homeland.
In May 2000, another Caucus delegation visited us. It was presided over by the then Caucus President James Clyburn, from North Carolina, and was made up of Bennie Thompson from Mississippi and Gregory Meeks from New York. These congressmen were the first to learn from me of Cuba’s disposition to grant a number of scholarships to low-income youths, to be selected by the Congressional Black Caucus, so that they could come to Cuba and study medicine. We made a similar offer to the "Pastors for Peace" NGO, which is presided over by Reverend Lucius Walker, who sent the first students to the Latin American School of Medicine (ELAM).
When the anti-Cuban pressures and activities of the Bush administration were intensified with respect to travel and the presence in Cuba of persons under U.S. jurisdiction, Black Caucus legislators addressed Secretary of State Colin Powell and managed to secure a license that legally allowed American youths to continue their medical studies – which they had already begun – in Cuba.
Powell, a military chief of great authority and prestige, could possibly have become the first black president of the United States, but he turned down the nomination out of respect for his family who, on account of the assassination of Martin Luther King, strongly opposed his nomination.
The Black Caucus delegation visiting Cuba this time is headed by Barbara Lee, the representative of the state of California. She first traveled to Cuba accompanying the then black Congressman Ronald Dellums. She was his assistant and afterwards occupied his seat when he retired. On that occasion I had the honor of meeting her and admiring her combative spirit and capacity for struggle.
The group she is presiding over right now is made up by seven members of Congress. The other members of the delegation are: Melvin Luther Watt, from North Carolina; Michael Makoto Honda, from California; Laura Richardson, also from California; Bobby Rush, from Illinois; Marcia L. Fudge, from Ohio; and Emanuel Cleaver II, from Missouri.
Patrice Willoughby, executive assistant of the Congressional Black Caucus, plus four military personnel from the Congressional Liaison Office under the orders of Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Wolf, are accompanying the delegation.
I value the gesture of this legislative group. They have been strictly adhering to the program they requested. The aura of Luther King is accompanying them. Our press has given broad coverage of their visit. They are exceptional witnesses to the respect that U.S. citizens visiting our homeland always receive. It is unlikely that they have seen any face displaying a look of hatred, and perhaps they admire the total absence of illiterate people or children shining shoes on the streets. The swarms of children, teenagers and youths attending schools and universities; the day-care centers, senior citizens homes, hospitals and polyclinics run by highly skilled medical staff offering assistance to all citizens will not be lost to a critical eye. In the midst of this international economic crisis there are no citizens queuing in search of jobs. People walking through the streets, active and almost always happy, do not conform to the stereotyped images of Cuba that are often shown abroad.
Our homeland demonstrates that a small Third World country, which has been besieged, attacked and blockaded for decades, can bear its poverty with dignity. Many citizens in the world’s richest nation do not receive the same kind of treatment and a considerable number of them do not even vote. However, that right is exercised by more than 90% of our population, who know how to read and write and who have acquired a significant level of culture and political knowledge.
Within the delegation, there are opinions which are shared by all; others are personal points of view. Generally speaking, its members believe that 68% of the U.S. population favors a change of policy toward Cuba.
One of them expressed the need to take advantage of this historical moment, when the presence of an African-American president in the White House coincides with a current of opinion that favors the normalization of relations.
When Alarcón commented that removing Cuba from the list of terrorist states –on which it is arbitrarily included – was a moral duty, he was reminded that both Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress were labeled as terrorists by the U.S. Congress.
Another member of the delegation thanked the Cuban authorities and the presidency of the Black Caucus for organizing the trip and maintaining this kind of exchange.
Another representative explained Obama’s tremendous significance for the United States and the need for him to be reelected. He said that the president sees himself as a political leader who should govern all social sectors of the country. Nevertheless, he said he was sure that Obama would change Cuba policy, but that Cuba should also help him.
A fourth member of the Caucus said that despite Obama’s electoral victory, U.S. society is still racist. He added that Obama represents the only opportunity that nation has to move forward and leave behind all the wrongdoings accumulated by former governments. He said that the president cannot go beyond lifting travel restrictions and allowing remittances by Cuban-Americans, because announcing an end to the blockade or the full normalization of bilateral relations would mean that he would never be reelected. He also confirmed that the anti-Cuban right wing still has enough power to attack him and prevent his reelection.
Finally, speaking frankly during a visit to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, another legislator stated that the United States should not waste the opportunity of acknowledging that its Cuba policy has been a total failure. He added that his government should apologize to Cuba for all these years of hostility and for the blockade, because only then will we be in a position to move on together towards resolving the bilateral dispute. He affirmed that he would do whatever is possible to eliminate the blockade.
During a visit to the Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Center, one CBC member, expressing the sentiments of the others, described Cuba’s results in the field of biotechnology as "excellent," and said that, at this moment in time, the political atmosphere was favorable for building bridges of understanding and communication between the scientific communities of our respective countries. He recommended that we should be careful to patent everything, in line with international copyright standards, to prevent us being robbed of the efforts that led to such wonderful work.
All of them expressed how greatly impressed they were during the visit to the center, where the minister of science, technology and the environment, together with the directors of several scientific institutions, explained to them the work being undertaken by our country in that field.
The main activity on April 4, the day that marked the 41st anniversary of the death of the human rights martyr, was a visit to the park in the Cuban capital named after Martin Luther King, where there is a black-veined dark green marble monolith bearing the bronze embossed image of the great black combatant who was assassinated by racists. Barbara Lee, Laura Richardson, Emanuel Cleaver II and Bobby Rush spoke at the event. The four of them publicly emphasized the positive impact of the meetings they had had.
Yesterday Sunday, at 13:20, Congresswoman Barbara Lee arrived at the Ebenezer Church of the Martin Luther King Center’s Ebenezer Church, where she was welcomed by Raúl Suárez and other leaders of the Cuban National Council of Churches. Also present were Alarcón and other officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Prior to that, Barbara visited two other churches in Vedado. She addressed the congregations, reiterating certain previous public statements and stating her intention to take certain steps with the administration in order to promote a change in Cuba policy and the reactivation of exchanges between the churches of both countries.
I have summarized the exchanges that have taken place. I have been careful not to disclose the names of those who have made certain statements, because I do not know whether they are interested in making them public.
I simply wished to offer the necessary details so that our population may have as much information as possible on the sensitive subject of relations between Cuba and the United States under Obama’s presidency and the visit of the Black Caucus delegation to Cuba.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 6, 2009
2:03 p.m.
The Congressional Black Caucus was founded in January 1969 by the 12 African-American legislators who were members of the U.S. Congress at that moment. During the first 50 years of the 20th century only four African Americans were elected to Congress.
Presently, as a result of the struggles they have waged, the CBC has 42 members. Several of its representatives have maintained very active and constructive positions on Cuba-related topics.
The first Caucus delegation visited us in February 1999 and was headed by Maxine Waters; the second came in January 2000.
Influential members of that Congressional group publicly expressed their positions and carried out other positive actions during the battle for the return of young Elián to his homeland.
In May 2000, another Caucus delegation visited us. It was presided over by the then Caucus President James Clyburn, from North Carolina, and was made up of Bennie Thompson from Mississippi and Gregory Meeks from New York. These congressmen were the first to learn from me of Cuba’s disposition to grant a number of scholarships to low-income youths, to be selected by the Congressional Black Caucus, so that they could come to Cuba and study medicine. We made a similar offer to the "Pastors for Peace" NGO, which is presided over by Reverend Lucius Walker, who sent the first students to the Latin American School of Medicine (ELAM).
When the anti-Cuban pressures and activities of the Bush administration were intensified with respect to travel and the presence in Cuba of persons under U.S. jurisdiction, Black Caucus legislators addressed Secretary of State Colin Powell and managed to secure a license that legally allowed American youths to continue their medical studies – which they had already begun – in Cuba.
Powell, a military chief of great authority and prestige, could possibly have become the first black president of the United States, but he turned down the nomination out of respect for his family who, on account of the assassination of Martin Luther King, strongly opposed his nomination.
The Black Caucus delegation visiting Cuba this time is headed by Barbara Lee, the representative of the state of California. She first traveled to Cuba accompanying the then black Congressman Ronald Dellums. She was his assistant and afterwards occupied his seat when he retired. On that occasion I had the honor of meeting her and admiring her combative spirit and capacity for struggle.
The group she is presiding over right now is made up by seven members of Congress. The other members of the delegation are: Melvin Luther Watt, from North Carolina; Michael Makoto Honda, from California; Laura Richardson, also from California; Bobby Rush, from Illinois; Marcia L. Fudge, from Ohio; and Emanuel Cleaver II, from Missouri.
Patrice Willoughby, executive assistant of the Congressional Black Caucus, plus four military personnel from the Congressional Liaison Office under the orders of Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Wolf, are accompanying the delegation.
I value the gesture of this legislative group. They have been strictly adhering to the program they requested. The aura of Luther King is accompanying them. Our press has given broad coverage of their visit. They are exceptional witnesses to the respect that U.S. citizens visiting our homeland always receive. It is unlikely that they have seen any face displaying a look of hatred, and perhaps they admire the total absence of illiterate people or children shining shoes on the streets. The swarms of children, teenagers and youths attending schools and universities; the day-care centers, senior citizens homes, hospitals and polyclinics run by highly skilled medical staff offering assistance to all citizens will not be lost to a critical eye. In the midst of this international economic crisis there are no citizens queuing in search of jobs. People walking through the streets, active and almost always happy, do not conform to the stereotyped images of Cuba that are often shown abroad.
Our homeland demonstrates that a small Third World country, which has been besieged, attacked and blockaded for decades, can bear its poverty with dignity. Many citizens in the world’s richest nation do not receive the same kind of treatment and a considerable number of them do not even vote. However, that right is exercised by more than 90% of our population, who know how to read and write and who have acquired a significant level of culture and political knowledge.
Within the delegation, there are opinions which are shared by all; others are personal points of view. Generally speaking, its members believe that 68% of the U.S. population favors a change of policy toward Cuba.
One of them expressed the need to take advantage of this historical moment, when the presence of an African-American president in the White House coincides with a current of opinion that favors the normalization of relations.
When Alarcón commented that removing Cuba from the list of terrorist states –on which it is arbitrarily included – was a moral duty, he was reminded that both Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress were labeled as terrorists by the U.S. Congress.
Another member of the delegation thanked the Cuban authorities and the presidency of the Black Caucus for organizing the trip and maintaining this kind of exchange.
Another representative explained Obama’s tremendous significance for the United States and the need for him to be reelected. He said that the president sees himself as a political leader who should govern all social sectors of the country. Nevertheless, he said he was sure that Obama would change Cuba policy, but that Cuba should also help him.
A fourth member of the Caucus said that despite Obama’s electoral victory, U.S. society is still racist. He added that Obama represents the only opportunity that nation has to move forward and leave behind all the wrongdoings accumulated by former governments. He said that the president cannot go beyond lifting travel restrictions and allowing remittances by Cuban-Americans, because announcing an end to the blockade or the full normalization of bilateral relations would mean that he would never be reelected. He also confirmed that the anti-Cuban right wing still has enough power to attack him and prevent his reelection.
Finally, speaking frankly during a visit to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, another legislator stated that the United States should not waste the opportunity of acknowledging that its Cuba policy has been a total failure. He added that his government should apologize to Cuba for all these years of hostility and for the blockade, because only then will we be in a position to move on together towards resolving the bilateral dispute. He affirmed that he would do whatever is possible to eliminate the blockade.
During a visit to the Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Center, one CBC member, expressing the sentiments of the others, described Cuba’s results in the field of biotechnology as "excellent," and said that, at this moment in time, the political atmosphere was favorable for building bridges of understanding and communication between the scientific communities of our respective countries. He recommended that we should be careful to patent everything, in line with international copyright standards, to prevent us being robbed of the efforts that led to such wonderful work.
All of them expressed how greatly impressed they were during the visit to the center, where the minister of science, technology and the environment, together with the directors of several scientific institutions, explained to them the work being undertaken by our country in that field.
The main activity on April 4, the day that marked the 41st anniversary of the death of the human rights martyr, was a visit to the park in the Cuban capital named after Martin Luther King, where there is a black-veined dark green marble monolith bearing the bronze embossed image of the great black combatant who was assassinated by racists. Barbara Lee, Laura Richardson, Emanuel Cleaver II and Bobby Rush spoke at the event. The four of them publicly emphasized the positive impact of the meetings they had had.
Yesterday Sunday, at 13:20, Congresswoman Barbara Lee arrived at the Ebenezer Church of the Martin Luther King Center’s Ebenezer Church, where she was welcomed by Raúl Suárez and other leaders of the Cuban National Council of Churches. Also present were Alarcón and other officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Prior to that, Barbara visited two other churches in Vedado. She addressed the congregations, reiterating certain previous public statements and stating her intention to take certain steps with the administration in order to promote a change in Cuba policy and the reactivation of exchanges between the churches of both countries.
I have summarized the exchanges that have taken place. I have been careful not to disclose the names of those who have made certain statements, because I do not know whether they are interested in making them public.
I simply wished to offer the necessary details so that our population may have as much information as possible on the sensitive subject of relations between Cuba and the United States under Obama’s presidency and the visit of the Black Caucus delegation to Cuba.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 6, 2009
2:03 p.m.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Feet Firmly on the Ground (Taken from CubaDebate)
WHILE the G-20 Summit was beginning and ending in London, the well-known Washington Post journalist, Karen DeYoung, wrote in that influential newspaper: "Senator Richard G. Lugar called on President Obama to appoint a special envoy to initiate direct talks with the island's communist government…
"The nearly 50-year-old economic embargo against Cuba, Lugar (R-Ind.) said in a March 30 letter to Obama, puts the United States at odds with the views of the rest of Latin America, the European Union and the United Nations, and "undermines our broader security and political interests in the Western Hemisphere."
"The April 17-19 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago would present a "unique opportunity for you to build a more hospitable climate to advance U.S. interests in the region through a change in our position regarding Cuba policy.
"Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee," says Karen DeYoung is at the forefront of a broad movement advocating a new policy that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, a number of state governments and human rights groups. A bipartisan majority of Congress has repeatedly voted to ease restrictions on travel and other contact with Cuba, although the measures died after threatened presidential vetoes during the Bush administration."
"Lugar is a co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate this week that would end all restrictions on travel to Cuba except in cases of war or direct threats to health or safety."
"Lugar said the appointment of an envoy and initiation of direct talks on subjects such as migration and drug interdiction would "serve vital U.S. security interests . . . and could ultimately create the conditions for meaningful discussion of more contentious subjects."
Karen’s article makes it clear that the senator for Indiana has his feet firmly on the ground. His argument is not based on philanthropic positions. He is working, as she states, with "the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, a number of state governments and human rights groups."
I am sure that Richard G. Lugar does not fear the stupidity of those who describe him as soft or pro-socialist.
When President Barack Obama is touring the world affirming, as he has done in his own country, that that it is necessary to invest the whatever sums are necessary in order to emerge from the financial crisis, guarantee the housing in which numerous families are living, guarantee employment for U.S. workers who are losing jobs in their millions, instigating health services and a quality education for all citizens, how can this be reconciled with blockade measures to impose his will on a country like Cuba?
Today, drugs constitute one of the most serious problems of this hemisphere and Europe. In the war on drugs and organized crime, stimulated by the enormous market of the United States, Latin American countries are losing close to 10,000 people every year, more than double those lost by the United States during the war in Iraq. Their number is growing and the problem is very far from being solved.
That phenomenon does not exist in Cuba, a close geographic neighbor of the United States. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Cubans have been cooperating for many years on the thorny subject and in combating illegal emigration. On the other hand, no U.S. citizen has died as a result of acts of terrorism emanating from our country, because such activities would not be tolerated.
The Cuban Revolution, which the blockade and dirty warfare have been unable to destroy, is based on ethical and political principles; that is why it has been capable of resisting.
I will not attempt to exhaust the theme. Far from that, I have omitted in this Reflection the damage the arrogant attitude of the United States against Cuba has inflicted on our country.
Those capable of serenely analyzing events, as is the case of the senator for Indiana, are using an irrefutable argument: the U.S. measures against Cuba, over almost half a century, constitute a total failure.
It is not necessary to emphasize what Cuba has always said: we do not fear a dialogue with the United States. Neither do we need the confrontation in order to exist, as some fools think; we exist precisely because we believe in our ideas and we have never feared dialoguing with the enemy. It is the only way of procuring friendship and peace among the peoples.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 5, 2009
1:04 p.m.
"The nearly 50-year-old economic embargo against Cuba, Lugar (R-Ind.) said in a March 30 letter to Obama, puts the United States at odds with the views of the rest of Latin America, the European Union and the United Nations, and "undermines our broader security and political interests in the Western Hemisphere."
"The April 17-19 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago would present a "unique opportunity for you to build a more hospitable climate to advance U.S. interests in the region through a change in our position regarding Cuba policy.
"Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee," says Karen DeYoung is at the forefront of a broad movement advocating a new policy that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, a number of state governments and human rights groups. A bipartisan majority of Congress has repeatedly voted to ease restrictions on travel and other contact with Cuba, although the measures died after threatened presidential vetoes during the Bush administration."
"Lugar is a co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate this week that would end all restrictions on travel to Cuba except in cases of war or direct threats to health or safety."
"Lugar said the appointment of an envoy and initiation of direct talks on subjects such as migration and drug interdiction would "serve vital U.S. security interests . . . and could ultimately create the conditions for meaningful discussion of more contentious subjects."
Karen’s article makes it clear that the senator for Indiana has his feet firmly on the ground. His argument is not based on philanthropic positions. He is working, as she states, with "the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, a number of state governments and human rights groups."
I am sure that Richard G. Lugar does not fear the stupidity of those who describe him as soft or pro-socialist.
When President Barack Obama is touring the world affirming, as he has done in his own country, that that it is necessary to invest the whatever sums are necessary in order to emerge from the financial crisis, guarantee the housing in which numerous families are living, guarantee employment for U.S. workers who are losing jobs in their millions, instigating health services and a quality education for all citizens, how can this be reconciled with blockade measures to impose his will on a country like Cuba?
Today, drugs constitute one of the most serious problems of this hemisphere and Europe. In the war on drugs and organized crime, stimulated by the enormous market of the United States, Latin American countries are losing close to 10,000 people every year, more than double those lost by the United States during the war in Iraq. Their number is growing and the problem is very far from being solved.
That phenomenon does not exist in Cuba, a close geographic neighbor of the United States. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Cubans have been cooperating for many years on the thorny subject and in combating illegal emigration. On the other hand, no U.S. citizen has died as a result of acts of terrorism emanating from our country, because such activities would not be tolerated.
The Cuban Revolution, which the blockade and dirty warfare have been unable to destroy, is based on ethical and political principles; that is why it has been capable of resisting.
I will not attempt to exhaust the theme. Far from that, I have omitted in this Reflection the damage the arrogant attitude of the United States against Cuba has inflicted on our country.
Those capable of serenely analyzing events, as is the case of the senator for Indiana, are using an irrefutable argument: the U.S. measures against Cuba, over almost half a century, constitute a total failure.
It is not necessary to emphasize what Cuba has always said: we do not fear a dialogue with the United States. Neither do we need the confrontation in order to exist, as some fools think; we exist precisely because we believe in our ideas and we have never feared dialoguing with the enemy. It is the only way of procuring friendship and peace among the peoples.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 5, 2009
1:04 p.m.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Obama’s Song (Taken from CubaDebate)
During a press conference held at 2.30pm (Cuban time) as the G20 Summit concluded, the president of the United States stated that unemployment in his country had reached its highest level in 26 years.
Faced with similar global challenges in the past, the world was slow to act, he said. Today we’ve learned the lessons of history […] some of you in the press[…]confused honest and open debate with irreconcilable differences[…]but we have shown that it is possible to arrive at a consensus.
We have agreed to measures directed to solving the situation and to assure that we do not reach this point again sometime in the future. We are committed to job creation […]The U.S. will clean out the troubled assets[…]in order to activate loans to businesses large and small. (Pymes). Our G-20 partners are pursuing similarly comprehensive programs.
[… ] We also agreed on bold action to support developing countries […] […]giving them access to loans. At the same time, we’ve also rejected the protectionism that could deepen the crisis.
We're extending supervision to all systemically important institutions, and we will reform and expand the IMF and World Bank so they are more efficient, effective and representative.
Some $448 billion will be destined to assist the economies of developing countries. We will also support the United Nations and World Bank […] to prevent humanitarian catastrophe
The American president answered many of the direct questions from the accredited press.
Among other things, he said:
Well, I think we did okay. You know, when I came here, it was with the intention of listening and learning, but also providing American leadership. And I think that the document that has been produced as well as the concrete actions that will follow reflect a range of our priorities.
We've got a global economy, and the initiatives we take must be global for them to be effective. We have had a drastic reduction in U.S. exports …and the contagion from other economies affects other American companies which were looking more solid.
He also said:
[…] this is a collective document. But there's no doubt that each country has its own quirks and own particular issues […] something that is non-negotiable for them. And what we tried to do as much as possible was to accommodate those issues in a way that didn't -- did not hamper the effectiveness of the overall document […]
That does not entirely solve the problem of toxic assets…And how each individual nation acts to deal with that is still going to be vitally important. How well we execute the respective stimulus programs around the world is going to be very important. As well as the recovery plans of each one. What is clear is that the faster we can act, the faster we will all benefit.
I think there has always been a range of opinions about how unfair the free market can be and along with this reputation some suspect globalization and others think that the market is always king, but I believe that if someone has studied history he knows that the market is the most effective mechanism to generate wealth. But there are times when it veers off track and if it is not regulated, if there is no framework to channel the market’s energies, this might lead us to something we don’t want.
In terms of local politics, look, I'm the President of the United States. I'm not the President of China, I'm not the President of Japan, I'm not the President of the other participants here. And so I have a direct responsibility to my constituents to make their lives better […] That accounts for some of the questions here, about how concretely does me being here help them find a job, pay for their home, send their kids to college, live what we call the American Dream.
And[…]international polls seem to indicate that you're seeing people more hopeful about America's leadership.
I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that we had important things to contribute.
We have spoken about Bretton Woods. We are not living in the time of a Roosevelt or a Churchill. That isn’t the world in which we are living today. Europe was rebuilt. China and India are powerhouses. Some other countries are all on the move. And that’s good.
There were occasional comments made about the U.S. role in this crisis. It was mentioned that the United States might have started the crisis on Wall Street and we heard that part of this started on Wall Street.
[…] we had a number of firms that took wild and unjustified risks […]and it has taken an enormous toll on the U.S. economy and has spread to the world economy.
We can see that Obama’s answers to the journalists were basically addressed to his constituents. They express what the U.S. president is thinking. Undoubtedly, he is much better than Bush and McCain, but his thinking is not geared to the real problems of today’s world. The empire is much more powerful than he or his good intentions.
The G-20 Summit announced in its final communiqué that:
They will triple the resources for the International Monetary Fund to the figure of 750 billion dollars; $500 billion in loans to the countries most affected by the crisis and $250 billion for a new Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation.
Another $100 billion will be allocated to reinforce the multilateral development banks.
Meanwhile, they will provide $250 billion to reactivate world trade.
I should point out that these funds will be provided by the European Union, Japan, China and other countries; as well as through the sale of some of the IMF’s gold reserves.
The British prime minister stated that a new international order is emerging, adding that the old Washington consensus is over and that today’s decisions will not immediately solve the crisis.
The French president claimed that he was "truly happy" about the results of the Summit, considering that the measures adopted constitute the most profound reform of the financial system since 1945. He didn’t have to walk out of the room.
The U.S. Labor Department informed that in March the number of people continuing to receive unemployment benefits increased to a new historical high of 5.73 million.
Obama spoke of Bretton Woods. At the end of World War II, the United States possessed 80% of the world’s gold and its booming economy was intact. Bretton Woods granted it the privilege of issuing hard currency while the rest of the countries were bankrupt.
They had both dollars and gold. The price of gold remained stable for more than 25 years until the United States government, bankrupt by the imperialist war in Vietnam, unilaterally suspended dollar conversion and proceeded to manipulate, at its whim, the economies of the rest of the countries in the world.
The crisis is indissolubly linked to the capitalist system of production and distribution. Its main exponent, the U.S., has suffered two great crises throughout its history which dealt harsh blows to its economy during periods of more than 20 years. This is the third one and recovery from it will be very slow. Europe knows that because of its own bitter experience.
The American transnationals used to acquire holdings anywhere in the world by virtue of Bretton Woods. They paid in gold and with paper money; today they buy them with paper money or "junk money" as the Chinese like to call it. Furthermore, its country has the rare privilege of veto power in the International Monetary Fund. Not one word has been uttered in London that would commit the United States to relinquish such a privilege. The next crisis will happen much sooner and it will be much more serious than Obama and several of his main G-7 allies could ever imagine. Crises are not resolved by either administrative or technical measures because they are systemic and affect the economy and globalization of the planet every time.
Not everybody was swept up in the euphoria of London.
An AFP cable reports that on Thursday, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, criticized the G-20 Summit, complaining that the demonstrators and the poorest countries had been excluded.
"As High Commissioner for Human Rights I would say that financial policy should not be limited to the banks, but it should be dedicated to human beings whose concerns ought to be at the centre of the debates. The G-20 Summit should immediately centre its attention on the concerns of the poor workers and peasants."
Numerous demonstrations took place in London to protest against the Summit.
Another cable reports that Jean Ping, president of the African Union Commission, said about the Summit: "We are not asking the countries to dig deep into their pockets to hand out money to us, because they have promised, promised and promised again and they haven’t done a thing. It is a measure that was already adopted last year."
While supposedly lifesaving measures were being adopted in London, the specter of climate change made its appearance on the very day that the final
G-20 agreement was passed, as a tragedy that was more serious than the economic crisis.
An AFP cable informed that:
"According to a new scientific study, around 80% of the Arctic polar ice cap could disappear by a date as near as the year 2040, instead of staying around until 2100 as it had been estimated earlier."
"At that time, the surface of the Arctic ocean covered by ice at the end of the summer might not go over a million square kilometers, as compared to 4.6 million square kilometers today." This report was drawn up with data provided by scientists in a joint study between Washington State University and the U.S. Administration of the Atmosphere and Oceans. According to that study, the Arctic polar ice cap suffered from a spectacular reduction in size at the end of the summers of 2007 and 2008, when the ice surface measured 4.3 and 4.7 million square kilometers, respectively.
The applied models allow for a prediction of a practically iceless Arctic in 32 years. According to the scientists, previous models foresaw that scenario happening by the end of the 21st century. An enormous mass of water is accumulated there in the thick polar ice cap at a great height.
Granma repeated that news in today’s edition.
On April 1st I wrote about both problems; the international financial crisis and climate change. The purpose is not to sow discouragement but to build awareness. There is nothing worse than ignorance. No matter how fantastic the sports classics are, we should not sit back and ignore such pressing issues as the economy, the climate and science. I am fanatical about sports just like anyone else, but man does not live by bread alone.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 3, 2009
3:49 p.m.
Faced with similar global challenges in the past, the world was slow to act, he said. Today we’ve learned the lessons of history […] some of you in the press[…]confused honest and open debate with irreconcilable differences[…]but we have shown that it is possible to arrive at a consensus.
We have agreed to measures directed to solving the situation and to assure that we do not reach this point again sometime in the future. We are committed to job creation […]The U.S. will clean out the troubled assets[…]in order to activate loans to businesses large and small. (Pymes). Our G-20 partners are pursuing similarly comprehensive programs.
[… ] We also agreed on bold action to support developing countries […] […]giving them access to loans. At the same time, we’ve also rejected the protectionism that could deepen the crisis.
We're extending supervision to all systemically important institutions, and we will reform and expand the IMF and World Bank so they are more efficient, effective and representative.
Some $448 billion will be destined to assist the economies of developing countries. We will also support the United Nations and World Bank […] to prevent humanitarian catastrophe
The American president answered many of the direct questions from the accredited press.
Among other things, he said:
Well, I think we did okay. You know, when I came here, it was with the intention of listening and learning, but also providing American leadership. And I think that the document that has been produced as well as the concrete actions that will follow reflect a range of our priorities.
We've got a global economy, and the initiatives we take must be global for them to be effective. We have had a drastic reduction in U.S. exports …and the contagion from other economies affects other American companies which were looking more solid.
He also said:
[…] this is a collective document. But there's no doubt that each country has its own quirks and own particular issues […] something that is non-negotiable for them. And what we tried to do as much as possible was to accommodate those issues in a way that didn't -- did not hamper the effectiveness of the overall document […]
That does not entirely solve the problem of toxic assets…And how each individual nation acts to deal with that is still going to be vitally important. How well we execute the respective stimulus programs around the world is going to be very important. As well as the recovery plans of each one. What is clear is that the faster we can act, the faster we will all benefit.
I think there has always been a range of opinions about how unfair the free market can be and along with this reputation some suspect globalization and others think that the market is always king, but I believe that if someone has studied history he knows that the market is the most effective mechanism to generate wealth. But there are times when it veers off track and if it is not regulated, if there is no framework to channel the market’s energies, this might lead us to something we don’t want.
In terms of local politics, look, I'm the President of the United States. I'm not the President of China, I'm not the President of Japan, I'm not the President of the other participants here. And so I have a direct responsibility to my constituents to make their lives better […] That accounts for some of the questions here, about how concretely does me being here help them find a job, pay for their home, send their kids to college, live what we call the American Dream.
And[…]international polls seem to indicate that you're seeing people more hopeful about America's leadership.
I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that we had important things to contribute.
We have spoken about Bretton Woods. We are not living in the time of a Roosevelt or a Churchill. That isn’t the world in which we are living today. Europe was rebuilt. China and India are powerhouses. Some other countries are all on the move. And that’s good.
There were occasional comments made about the U.S. role in this crisis. It was mentioned that the United States might have started the crisis on Wall Street and we heard that part of this started on Wall Street.
[…] we had a number of firms that took wild and unjustified risks […]and it has taken an enormous toll on the U.S. economy and has spread to the world economy.
We can see that Obama’s answers to the journalists were basically addressed to his constituents. They express what the U.S. president is thinking. Undoubtedly, he is much better than Bush and McCain, but his thinking is not geared to the real problems of today’s world. The empire is much more powerful than he or his good intentions.
The G-20 Summit announced in its final communiqué that:
They will triple the resources for the International Monetary Fund to the figure of 750 billion dollars; $500 billion in loans to the countries most affected by the crisis and $250 billion for a new Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation.
Another $100 billion will be allocated to reinforce the multilateral development banks.
Meanwhile, they will provide $250 billion to reactivate world trade.
I should point out that these funds will be provided by the European Union, Japan, China and other countries; as well as through the sale of some of the IMF’s gold reserves.
The British prime minister stated that a new international order is emerging, adding that the old Washington consensus is over and that today’s decisions will not immediately solve the crisis.
The French president claimed that he was "truly happy" about the results of the Summit, considering that the measures adopted constitute the most profound reform of the financial system since 1945. He didn’t have to walk out of the room.
The U.S. Labor Department informed that in March the number of people continuing to receive unemployment benefits increased to a new historical high of 5.73 million.
Obama spoke of Bretton Woods. At the end of World War II, the United States possessed 80% of the world’s gold and its booming economy was intact. Bretton Woods granted it the privilege of issuing hard currency while the rest of the countries were bankrupt.
They had both dollars and gold. The price of gold remained stable for more than 25 years until the United States government, bankrupt by the imperialist war in Vietnam, unilaterally suspended dollar conversion and proceeded to manipulate, at its whim, the economies of the rest of the countries in the world.
The crisis is indissolubly linked to the capitalist system of production and distribution. Its main exponent, the U.S., has suffered two great crises throughout its history which dealt harsh blows to its economy during periods of more than 20 years. This is the third one and recovery from it will be very slow. Europe knows that because of its own bitter experience.
The American transnationals used to acquire holdings anywhere in the world by virtue of Bretton Woods. They paid in gold and with paper money; today they buy them with paper money or "junk money" as the Chinese like to call it. Furthermore, its country has the rare privilege of veto power in the International Monetary Fund. Not one word has been uttered in London that would commit the United States to relinquish such a privilege. The next crisis will happen much sooner and it will be much more serious than Obama and several of his main G-7 allies could ever imagine. Crises are not resolved by either administrative or technical measures because they are systemic and affect the economy and globalization of the planet every time.
Not everybody was swept up in the euphoria of London.
An AFP cable reports that on Thursday, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, criticized the G-20 Summit, complaining that the demonstrators and the poorest countries had been excluded.
"As High Commissioner for Human Rights I would say that financial policy should not be limited to the banks, but it should be dedicated to human beings whose concerns ought to be at the centre of the debates. The G-20 Summit should immediately centre its attention on the concerns of the poor workers and peasants."
Numerous demonstrations took place in London to protest against the Summit.
Another cable reports that Jean Ping, president of the African Union Commission, said about the Summit: "We are not asking the countries to dig deep into their pockets to hand out money to us, because they have promised, promised and promised again and they haven’t done a thing. It is a measure that was already adopted last year."
While supposedly lifesaving measures were being adopted in London, the specter of climate change made its appearance on the very day that the final
G-20 agreement was passed, as a tragedy that was more serious than the economic crisis.
An AFP cable informed that:
"According to a new scientific study, around 80% of the Arctic polar ice cap could disappear by a date as near as the year 2040, instead of staying around until 2100 as it had been estimated earlier."
"At that time, the surface of the Arctic ocean covered by ice at the end of the summer might not go over a million square kilometers, as compared to 4.6 million square kilometers today." This report was drawn up with data provided by scientists in a joint study between Washington State University and the U.S. Administration of the Atmosphere and Oceans. According to that study, the Arctic polar ice cap suffered from a spectacular reduction in size at the end of the summers of 2007 and 2008, when the ice surface measured 4.3 and 4.7 million square kilometers, respectively.
The applied models allow for a prediction of a practically iceless Arctic in 32 years. According to the scientists, previous models foresaw that scenario happening by the end of the 21st century. An enormous mass of water is accumulated there in the thick polar ice cap at a great height.
Granma repeated that news in today’s edition.
On April 1st I wrote about both problems; the international financial crisis and climate change. The purpose is not to sow discouragement but to build awareness. There is nothing worse than ignorance. No matter how fantastic the sports classics are, we should not sit back and ignore such pressing issues as the economy, the climate and science. I am fanatical about sports just like anyone else, but man does not live by bread alone.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 3, 2009
3:49 p.m.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
The beginning of the Summit
(Taken from CubaDebate)
TODAY the G-20 Summit Meeting began. The experts on economic issues have made a tremendous effort. Some with experience in important international posts; others, as research scholars. The issue is a complex one, the language is new and demands familiarity with terms, economic data, international agencies and the political leaders of most weight in the international sphere. Hence the effort to simplify and explain intelligibly what is taking place in London, as I see it.
It is no surprise to anyone that Obama is the star of the London meeting. He represents the most powerful and richest country in the world. Special circumstances are in his favor. The lying, cynical, warmongering and odious Bush is not there. Neither is the mediocre and ignorant McCain, precisely thanks to the amazing victory of Obama, an African American in the country of racial discrimination, where a majority of white electors voted for McCain, although not enough to compensate for the votes of more than 90% of Black and mixed-race Americans, citizens of Latino origin, the poor and those affected by the crisis. He has just been elected at a point when other G-20 leaders are about to end their terms and Obama will be the probable president of the United States for eight years. Nobody finds it strange that the news from London revolves around him.
What is important for the world is what comes of there, if something does come out. All the attendees have their own national and even personal objectives, as political leaders who will be judged by history.
Obama’s objective, in first place, is to change the image of his country, centrally responsible for the tragedy the world is enduring and which international opinion is rightly blaming for the current devastating economic crisis, for which he has no political responsibility whatsoever. As Joseph Stiglitz, former economic director of the International Monetary Fund and currently a professor at the Massachusetts Technological Institute points out: “He should come out and say that he is not to blame for anything and that he is trying to solve things as quickly as he can.”
His principal European ally, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is the Summit host and is unrestrainedly aspiring to change the current anti-Labour tendency unleashed by the blunders of his predecessor Tony Blair. Obama has been offered the honor of a visit to Buckingham Palace, where he was received with his wife Michelle. The president gave the veteran queen an iPod, fruit of sophisticated U.S. technology, with songs and images of the queen’s state visit to the United States in 2007 and a book of sheet music signed by Richard Rogers. With Her Majesty he didn’t have to exchange a single word on the worldly G-20 meeting.
On the other hand, Brown is staking all on the crisis. He is aspiring to change the rules of the banking system, promote economic growth, increase cooperation and do away with protectionism. He acknowledges that the negotiations will be difficult.
His slogan is “better to look forward rather than back.” Clearly, if the electors looked back he wouldn’t get many votes.
The desire of both allies at the heart of the G-20 is to minimize differences with France and Germany.
Sarkozy is making no attempt to conceal his displeasure with U.S. policy. He is explosive. He recently threatened to walk out of the meeting. Yesterday he informed the Europe 1 broadcasting station that, for now, there is no satisfactory agreement on the Summit, although he has softened his threats of walking out if there are no advances toward greater regulation. “I will not associate myself with a Summit that does not end with greater regulation.” He states that the negotiators have not reached any agreement.
The Summit draft communiqué, already circulating among journalists, refers to measures to reestablish global growth, maintain market openings and stimulate global trade. “We have to obtain results, we have no choice,” Sarkozy insisted yesterday.
Obama announced a few days ago that the United States proposes to introduce changes to its regulation and supervision system, in the hope that this statement would meet with one part of European demands, by snatching one its banners.
Sarkozy riposted that his undertaking to do away with tax havens is being taken seriously.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is very close to Sarkozy’s positions, is demanding that the agreement should not even include a demand for a stimulus package for the advanced countries, neither should there be any debate on the announcement of a new international currency, the emerging countries’ demand to the G-7.
“The word is at a crossroads,” Merkel declared, “We have to do everything possible to avoid the crisis being repeated.”
“We have to go further than what has been said in Washington,” and she added that everything agreed in London must have a guarantee of implementation. “Not one place, not one product, not a single institution, should be left without supervision and transparency.”
Merkel indicated that she is in favor of raising IMF funds and increasing aid to developing countries, which are essentially suffering the impact of the crisis.
An increase in the resources of the International Monetary Fund would now seem be a fact. On his arrival in London, the Mexican president said that he was negotiating a credit line of 26 billion euros with the Fund. Yesterday, John Lipsky, the International Monetary Fund’s No. 2, stated in London that the IMF is to facilitate a credit line of $47 billion to Mexico in order to guarantee the availability of liquidity in case the situation of the markets worsens because of the crisis. That is a larger sum than Mexico asked for.
As the United States holds the majority of IMF shares, such a credit would not be possible without its support, which also points to Obama’s influence at the London Summit.
The news agencies reported that Obama is to meet in London with Dmitry Medvedev and Hu Jintao, the presidents of Russia and China, to discuss the thorny problems that both countries are confronting with the United States.
The bilateral meetings between the superpower and the two major powers will certainly cover economic problems, or perhaps patiently debated agreements, approved via their diplomatic representatives, will be announced.
Today, April 2, I read an extensive and detailed dispatch from the Xinhua news agency, datelined the 1st, noting that “Chinese President Hu Jintao and his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama agreed to work together to build a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship in the 21st century.”
The two leaders decided to establish the mechanism of "China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogues…"
“The new commitment, made by the two heads of state during their meeting in London, will chart course for and give a strong boost to the sustained, sound and steady development of China-U.S. relations.”
“China-U.S. relations remain one of the world's most important bilateral relationships in the 21st century, when mankind faces tremendous opportunities and challenges. In the new era, the two countries shoulder important responsibilities for world peace, stability and development and they also share broad common interests.”
“Both sides should keep pace with the times and always handle bilateral relations from a strategic and long-term perspective.”
“They should respect and take into consideration each other's core interests, and seize the opportunities and work together to meet the challenges in the century.”
“The establishment of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogues mechanism is an important step to further advance their bilateral relations. With that, the previous strategic dialogue between the two countries has been upgraded to a new level.”
“At a time when the international financial crisis continues to spread, it is in the primary common interests of China and the United States that the two countries support each other and work together to ride out the storm.”
“China and the United States should not only enhance exchange and cooperation in such fields as economy, the fight against terrorism, proliferation and transnational crimes, climate change, energy and the environment, but also strengthen communication and coordination on regional and global issues.”
Such an agreement cannot be discussed in a 60-minute meeting. It was already drafted with all the details.
China, whose current allies on the Asian continent invaded and plundered it barely 70 years ago, is now advancing toward a peak position in the global economy.
It is the principal creditor of the United States and is serenely discussing with the president of that powerful country the rules that are to govern relations between the two countries in a world impregnated with risks.
Maybe the Xinhua dispatch is transmitting one of the most important news items in relation to the G-20 Summit.
It began and ended today while I was writing these lines! Amazing!
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 2, 2009
3:07 p.m.
(Taken from CubaDebate)
TODAY the G-20 Summit Meeting began. The experts on economic issues have made a tremendous effort. Some with experience in important international posts; others, as research scholars. The issue is a complex one, the language is new and demands familiarity with terms, economic data, international agencies and the political leaders of most weight in the international sphere. Hence the effort to simplify and explain intelligibly what is taking place in London, as I see it.
It is no surprise to anyone that Obama is the star of the London meeting. He represents the most powerful and richest country in the world. Special circumstances are in his favor. The lying, cynical, warmongering and odious Bush is not there. Neither is the mediocre and ignorant McCain, precisely thanks to the amazing victory of Obama, an African American in the country of racial discrimination, where a majority of white electors voted for McCain, although not enough to compensate for the votes of more than 90% of Black and mixed-race Americans, citizens of Latino origin, the poor and those affected by the crisis. He has just been elected at a point when other G-20 leaders are about to end their terms and Obama will be the probable president of the United States for eight years. Nobody finds it strange that the news from London revolves around him.
What is important for the world is what comes of there, if something does come out. All the attendees have their own national and even personal objectives, as political leaders who will be judged by history.
Obama’s objective, in first place, is to change the image of his country, centrally responsible for the tragedy the world is enduring and which international opinion is rightly blaming for the current devastating economic crisis, for which he has no political responsibility whatsoever. As Joseph Stiglitz, former economic director of the International Monetary Fund and currently a professor at the Massachusetts Technological Institute points out: “He should come out and say that he is not to blame for anything and that he is trying to solve things as quickly as he can.”
His principal European ally, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is the Summit host and is unrestrainedly aspiring to change the current anti-Labour tendency unleashed by the blunders of his predecessor Tony Blair. Obama has been offered the honor of a visit to Buckingham Palace, where he was received with his wife Michelle. The president gave the veteran queen an iPod, fruit of sophisticated U.S. technology, with songs and images of the queen’s state visit to the United States in 2007 and a book of sheet music signed by Richard Rogers. With Her Majesty he didn’t have to exchange a single word on the worldly G-20 meeting.
On the other hand, Brown is staking all on the crisis. He is aspiring to change the rules of the banking system, promote economic growth, increase cooperation and do away with protectionism. He acknowledges that the negotiations will be difficult.
His slogan is “better to look forward rather than back.” Clearly, if the electors looked back he wouldn’t get many votes.
The desire of both allies at the heart of the G-20 is to minimize differences with France and Germany.
Sarkozy is making no attempt to conceal his displeasure with U.S. policy. He is explosive. He recently threatened to walk out of the meeting. Yesterday he informed the Europe 1 broadcasting station that, for now, there is no satisfactory agreement on the Summit, although he has softened his threats of walking out if there are no advances toward greater regulation. “I will not associate myself with a Summit that does not end with greater regulation.” He states that the negotiators have not reached any agreement.
The Summit draft communiqué, already circulating among journalists, refers to measures to reestablish global growth, maintain market openings and stimulate global trade. “We have to obtain results, we have no choice,” Sarkozy insisted yesterday.
Obama announced a few days ago that the United States proposes to introduce changes to its regulation and supervision system, in the hope that this statement would meet with one part of European demands, by snatching one its banners.
Sarkozy riposted that his undertaking to do away with tax havens is being taken seriously.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is very close to Sarkozy’s positions, is demanding that the agreement should not even include a demand for a stimulus package for the advanced countries, neither should there be any debate on the announcement of a new international currency, the emerging countries’ demand to the G-7.
“The word is at a crossroads,” Merkel declared, “We have to do everything possible to avoid the crisis being repeated.”
“We have to go further than what has been said in Washington,” and she added that everything agreed in London must have a guarantee of implementation. “Not one place, not one product, not a single institution, should be left without supervision and transparency.”
Merkel indicated that she is in favor of raising IMF funds and increasing aid to developing countries, which are essentially suffering the impact of the crisis.
An increase in the resources of the International Monetary Fund would now seem be a fact. On his arrival in London, the Mexican president said that he was negotiating a credit line of 26 billion euros with the Fund. Yesterday, John Lipsky, the International Monetary Fund’s No. 2, stated in London that the IMF is to facilitate a credit line of $47 billion to Mexico in order to guarantee the availability of liquidity in case the situation of the markets worsens because of the crisis. That is a larger sum than Mexico asked for.
As the United States holds the majority of IMF shares, such a credit would not be possible without its support, which also points to Obama’s influence at the London Summit.
The news agencies reported that Obama is to meet in London with Dmitry Medvedev and Hu Jintao, the presidents of Russia and China, to discuss the thorny problems that both countries are confronting with the United States.
The bilateral meetings between the superpower and the two major powers will certainly cover economic problems, or perhaps patiently debated agreements, approved via their diplomatic representatives, will be announced.
Today, April 2, I read an extensive and detailed dispatch from the Xinhua news agency, datelined the 1st, noting that “Chinese President Hu Jintao and his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama agreed to work together to build a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship in the 21st century.”
The two leaders decided to establish the mechanism of "China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogues…"
“The new commitment, made by the two heads of state during their meeting in London, will chart course for and give a strong boost to the sustained, sound and steady development of China-U.S. relations.”
“China-U.S. relations remain one of the world's most important bilateral relationships in the 21st century, when mankind faces tremendous opportunities and challenges. In the new era, the two countries shoulder important responsibilities for world peace, stability and development and they also share broad common interests.”
“Both sides should keep pace with the times and always handle bilateral relations from a strategic and long-term perspective.”
“They should respect and take into consideration each other's core interests, and seize the opportunities and work together to meet the challenges in the century.”
“The establishment of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogues mechanism is an important step to further advance their bilateral relations. With that, the previous strategic dialogue between the two countries has been upgraded to a new level.”
“At a time when the international financial crisis continues to spread, it is in the primary common interests of China and the United States that the two countries support each other and work together to ride out the storm.”
“China and the United States should not only enhance exchange and cooperation in such fields as economy, the fight against terrorism, proliferation and transnational crimes, climate change, energy and the environment, but also strengthen communication and coordination on regional and global issues.”
Such an agreement cannot be discussed in a 60-minute meeting. It was already drafted with all the details.
China, whose current allies on the Asian continent invaded and plundered it barely 70 years ago, is now advancing toward a peak position in the global economy.
It is the principal creditor of the United States and is serenely discussing with the president of that powerful country the rules that are to govern relations between the two countries in a world impregnated with risks.
Maybe the Xinhua dispatch is transmitting one of the most important news items in relation to the G-20 Summit.
It began and ended today while I was writing these lines! Amazing!
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 2, 2009
3:07 p.m.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
What Notimex did not say (Taken from CubaDebate)
EARLY on Tuesday, March 31, I read a Notimex dispatch datelined March 30, which stated textually:
"The president of Peru, Alan García, described today as ‘prudent’ the withdrawal from the country of the humanitarian Mission Miracle project sponsored by the governments of Venezuela and Cuba for medical attention to ophthalmological patients.
"Highlighting the functional efficiency of the state Essalud in cataract surgery, the Peruvian leader told journalists that ‘there was no longer any reason for the functioning of the Mission,’ made up of foreign doctors.
"The head of state noted that 1,500 people received operations via Mission Miracle in two years, while Essalud attended to 25,000 patients in one year in Peru.
The dispatch goes on to put other similar arguments into García’s mouth.
In the first place, I don’t know why Notimex involved Venezuela in that Mission, which Cuba initiated in July 2004 in the aftermath of the powerful earthquake that decimated the Pisco region in Peru. Venezuela is a proven friend of Cuba and has demonstrated great solidarity toward our people, but is not in any way related to the actions of our country in Peru, which follow a tradition of solidarity in the field of health services initiated in Algeria in 1960, when its people were fighting for their independence against French colonialism. Chávez was born on July 29, 1954, he was not yet six years old. A similar action in solidarity with Peru was fulfilled in 1970, when another earthquake cost the lives of 70,000 Peruvians and the two countries did not even have diplomatic relations. Our noble people supplied 100,000 blood donations on that occasion.
Accustomed to false information about Cuba and surprised at this strange dispatch I asked for information from the Cuban ambassador in Lima in relation to the situation of our doctors:
"Since 2006, Operation Milagro has restored the sight or improved the vision of 19,496 Peruvians, 16,907 in the Cuban Ophthalmological Center in Bolivia, and 2,589 in the Cuban Ophthalmological Center in Cuzco, which began its labors on December 15, 2008.
"Neither in this nor in other statements did the head of state mention Cuba or our Operation Miracle Clinic in Cuzco.
"In parallel with this statement, Yehude Simón, president of the Council of Ministers, addressing South American health ministers meeting in Lima, had words of praise concerning Cuban cooperation with Peru in the health sector. Simón expressed the gratitude of his government and the Peruvian people and his hopes for an extension of those ties between our countries.
"We also have direct information that García himself has made recent public and private statements demonstrating respect for Cuba and gratitude for the decisive support of our medical personnel in Peru."
I shall not charge a single cent for complementing the dispatch with what Notimex failed to say. The mainstream press in Lima and other public media echoed those affirmations.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 1, 2009
7:23 p.m.
"The president of Peru, Alan García, described today as ‘prudent’ the withdrawal from the country of the humanitarian Mission Miracle project sponsored by the governments of Venezuela and Cuba for medical attention to ophthalmological patients.
"Highlighting the functional efficiency of the state Essalud in cataract surgery, the Peruvian leader told journalists that ‘there was no longer any reason for the functioning of the Mission,’ made up of foreign doctors.
"The head of state noted that 1,500 people received operations via Mission Miracle in two years, while Essalud attended to 25,000 patients in one year in Peru.
The dispatch goes on to put other similar arguments into García’s mouth.
In the first place, I don’t know why Notimex involved Venezuela in that Mission, which Cuba initiated in July 2004 in the aftermath of the powerful earthquake that decimated the Pisco region in Peru. Venezuela is a proven friend of Cuba and has demonstrated great solidarity toward our people, but is not in any way related to the actions of our country in Peru, which follow a tradition of solidarity in the field of health services initiated in Algeria in 1960, when its people were fighting for their independence against French colonialism. Chávez was born on July 29, 1954, he was not yet six years old. A similar action in solidarity with Peru was fulfilled in 1970, when another earthquake cost the lives of 70,000 Peruvians and the two countries did not even have diplomatic relations. Our noble people supplied 100,000 blood donations on that occasion.
Accustomed to false information about Cuba and surprised at this strange dispatch I asked for information from the Cuban ambassador in Lima in relation to the situation of our doctors:
"Since 2006, Operation Milagro has restored the sight or improved the vision of 19,496 Peruvians, 16,907 in the Cuban Ophthalmological Center in Bolivia, and 2,589 in the Cuban Ophthalmological Center in Cuzco, which began its labors on December 15, 2008.
"Neither in this nor in other statements did the head of state mention Cuba or our Operation Miracle Clinic in Cuzco.
"In parallel with this statement, Yehude Simón, president of the Council of Ministers, addressing South American health ministers meeting in Lima, had words of praise concerning Cuban cooperation with Peru in the health sector. Simón expressed the gratitude of his government and the Peruvian people and his hopes for an extension of those ties between our countries.
"We also have direct information that García himself has made recent public and private statements demonstrating respect for Cuba and gratitude for the decisive support of our medical personnel in Peru."
I shall not charge a single cent for complementing the dispatch with what Notimex failed to say. The mainstream press in Lima and other public media echoed those affirmations.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 1, 2009
7:23 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
