Human Rights Council deplores violations in Honduras following coup

1 October 2009 – Strongly condemning the coup d’état in Honduras in June, the Human Rights Council today called for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law in the Central American country and an immediate end to all violations of human rights. Council members, meeting in Geneva, adopted a resolution in which they expressed concern about the ongoing situation in Honduras, particularly in the wake of the return of President José Manuel Zelaya to the country on 21 September.

Mr. Zelaya sought shelter in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, after he returned, and since then the authorities who took power in June have curtailed media outlets and restricted the supply of food, water and electricity to the embassy.

The resolution, which was adopted without a vote, calls for “unconditional respect” for all human rights and fundamental freedoms in Honduras and stresses the need for all sides to refrain from violence and to respect the rule of law.

The text also voices support for regional efforts to restore the democratic order in Honduras and asks UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay to present a comprehensive report on the situation since the coup occurred.

The resolution on Honduras was one of 15 adopted by the Council today, along with two decisions, on issues ranging from the elimination of discrimination against people affected by leprosy to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.



UN News

Bahamas Blog Bahamas

News Tracker: past stories on this issue

Recent coup oppresses Honduran people, ousted leader tells General Assembly>>>

CARICOM seeks voice in G20

GEORGETOWN, Guyana -- The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) would like a voice in the Group of 20 (G20). This was one of the issues raised by the Community’s Foreign Ministers during a meeting with United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in New York, USA last Friday 25 September.

Assistant Secretary-General at the CARICOM Secretariat for Foreign and Community Relations Ambassador Colin Granderson said that Secretary Clinton was informed of the concern by CARICOM countries of not having a presence in the Group of 20 (G20) global policy arena where many of the issues on the global economy are discussed and decided. He added that the concern of the Region was ‘taken on board”.

“It is believed that the views of vulnerable states with peculiarities such as ours need to be heard,” Granderson emphasised.

The latest meeting provided yet another opportunity for follow-up discussions arising from the meeting between CARICOM Heads of Government and United States President Barack Obama at the 5th Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago in April 2009 and a previous meeting between the Ministers and Secretary Clinton in Honduras in June during the Organisation of American States General Assembly.

Granderson revealed that discussions were dominated by the continuing global financial crisis and trade. With regards to the global financial crisis, the Region expressed continued concerns about accessing funds that developed countries had made available for developing countries to assist in offsetting some of the fall out from the financial crisis.

The Assistant Secretary-General said that it was stressed that the graduation of some CARICOM Member States to the level of middle income countries had made it quite challenging for them to access these much needed funds.

On the trade front, Granderson said the Region pressed home the point that it is anxious to meet with the US Trade Representative as there are several issues in this arena to be ironed out and on which the Region needed clarity.

The CARICOM Assistant Secretary-General also informed that developments on a planned Caribbean-US Regional Security Framework was also discussed. He informed that a Joint Working Group which was established earlier this year had already met and planned a second meeting in the coming weeks.

The Dominican Republic also participated in last week’s discussions.

October 1, 2009

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

President Obama's words versus his performance on Cuba

By Sophia Weeks, COHA Research Associate:

President Obama has not taken any decisive steps to veer away from Washington’s benighted, near half-century trade embargo against Cuba. By refusing to take advantage of the opportunity to reject a longstanding and morally-bankrupt policy, which has achieved very few successes and which has been based on hypocrisy, double standards, and inconsistencies, President Obama has turned his back on the possibility of a new beginning for US policy towards Latin America based on constructive engagement. At this point, Obama is sadly not the US president bringing “change” to the hemisphere as millions of North and South Americans had hoped. Rather, he has failed to fulfill his own foreign policy objective of reaching out to Washington’s unforgiving foes like the Castro brothers. The courage and political wisdom necessary to call for the termination of the embargo and new beginnings has proven devoid of stamina, replaced by a timorous approach composed of weak probes and minimal actions. It appears that the President does not wear the face of change for those who had reason to hope it would come about.

Remittances and Travel to Cuba

So far Obama has removed restrictions on remittances and travel of Cuban Americans to Cuba, but not for all Americans. In doing so he unfortunately has created two distinct classes of citizens each with different rights, a situation any democratic country would be wise to repudiate. It is disappointing that while Obama has the discretionary right to allow anyone to travel to Cuba, he has chosen not to utilize it. The new administration’s policies on Cuba thus far have merely mirrored the Clinton administration’s centrist approach. In effect, in regards to Cuba, we are witnessing something akin to President Bush’s or Clinton’s third term in office.

Obama has only revoked some of the more parochial aspects of Bush’s policy and has slightly softened Clinton’s draconic hard line on Cuba. Although Obama stated during his presidential campaign, “My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: ‘libertad,’” what new freedoms has he brought? The Cuban and American people are still kept a world apart, without any constructive steps that suggest a meaningful change lies ahead. In other words, Washington’s uninspired and lackluster policies toward Havana may please an anti-Castro militant, but not someone seasoned in the ways of statesmanship.

Cuban Embargo

Today, regarding Cuba, and more generally Latin America, we see unnerving similarities between the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations. Instead of following through on Obama’s promises that “After eight years of the failed policies of the past, we need new leadership for the future,” the same deceptive excuses and cosmetic domestic changes have characterized his policy on Cuba. While Obama already has many controversial issues on his plate and it is clear that his actions reflect a desire to protect and preserve his presidency, this cannot be used to excuse what up to this point is an inept policy. His subsequent decision to continue the embargo confirms his failure to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained and elaborated. COHA Director Larry Birns has referred to Secretary of State Clinton’s recent decisions regarding Cuba as illustrating an inevitable move towards a centrist approach to Caribbean issues, much like those assumed in the Clinton years. In Obama’s campaign, according to Birns, “his progressive and left-leaning rhetoric belied his inability to protect and implement meaningful change. Even if he wanted to be the progenitor of a new generation of a bold new policy aimed at Cuba, he probably lacks the votes to implement what he has promised, without a bruising battle.”

Of course Obama has every right to define and protect his Presidential legacy as he sees fit, but not at the cost of forfeiting the extraordinary opportunity he has to dictate a new direction in hemispheric policy. Americans, as well as Cuban Americans, were promised a review of Latin American foreign policy, and that is what they expected. Since coming to office, it was not only Americans that were let down: average Cubans also are disappointed with the lack of productive policy decisions. Just a few days ago, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez echoed this sentiment: “Obama was elected on a platform of ‘change’ but with respect to the economic blockade against Cuba, there has been no change.”

Cuba: the Terrorist

Obama’s vocabulary of change is symbolically undermined by his lack of action regarding the embargo. It was announced on September 14 that he would extend the economic sanctions against Cuba under the Trading with the Enemy Act for another year. Established in 1917, the measure was utilized by the Kennedy administration to implement the trade embargo on Cuba in 1962. In 1996 the Helms-Burton Act was passed, codifying the various disparate laws affecting the embargo into a single bill. President Clinton saw to it that under Helms-Burton, the embargo could be lifted, but only with the approval of the U.S. Congress, and only once Cuba has begun an authentic transition to democratic political institutions. Thus, even if Obama decided against renewing the extension of Trading with the Enemy Act, the embargo would still hold unless revoked by Congress. However, such an act would have represented a symbolic outreach to Havana and the Cuban people.

There are Terrorists and “Terrorists”

One underlying problem that continues to hinder an effective dialogue with the Cuban government is that Havana remains on the State Department’s annual list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Cuba has been on the blacklist since March 1982, when it was added due to its close relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Castro has long since backed away from his government’s policy of supporting what Washington would classify as terrorist organizations. The fact that Cuba remains on the list speaks to the hypocrisy of such a designation, since so many far more brutal nations are allowed to freely relate with the White House.

The reprehensible actions of the Cuban government over the past few decades pale in comparison to the Washington’s dedication over the past 50 years to violent and often clandestine terrorist operations inside Cuba. North Korea and Libya are examples of countries that continue to align themselves with such threats, but recently, purely on the grounds of expedience on Washington’s behalf, have had their names removed from the list. Yet Cuba remains, alongside countries like Iran and Syria, when Washington has not been able to make anything like a respectable case to justify this.

It is apparent that the removal of the name of North Korea was politically motivated, as there is plenty of evidence pointing to recent terrorist activities occurring in the country. What is absurd is that Cuba is still labeled an “enemy” of the US, despite Obama’s inspirational words of evidence of change taking place in the country. The removal of Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terror, as well as ending the 47-year embargo, would have been consistent with Obama’s vow of goodwill to governments throughout Latin America, and usher in a new era of US-Cuba relations. Then there is the fact that Washington doesn’t have a scintilla of evidence to back up its terrorism charge.

Cuba: By Mail

On September 17, US and Cuban officials began discussing the possibility of restoring direct mail service between Cuba and the United States. For the Obama administration, this is another small but welcome initiative in the right direction. Direct mail between the US and Cuba has been suspended since 1963. Currently, even a simple first-class letter requires routing through a third country, a convoluted process that can take months to complete. Although resuming direct mail is an important step in establishing a positive relationship, it should be understood that restoring service is a mere minor gesture of goodwill, if the far greater effects of the embargo insupportably remain in place. Cuban officials have expressed their belief that the embargo has contributed to the widespread deterioration of postal buildings and a weakening of the infrastructure of the entire postal system, but this should not deter Washington from proceeding with these negotiations. The disparities should be emphasized however, between the steps Obama has indicated he is willing to take within the larger picture of US-Cuban relations, which remain under a buffer of unhelpful special conditions which are a hindrance to any opening up of the political process.

A further outcome of the two-country dialogue on direct mail service is Cuba’s reasonable insistence that the restoration of commercial flights accompany the new mailing system. Although this last request remains a point of contention, Josefina Vidal Ferreiro, director of the Foreign Ministry’s North American Department, said that overall, “We are satisfied with developments in this first meeting,” and called the talks “wide-ranging and useful.” In this respect, President Obama has started in a purposive direction; he now must show that he does indeed have “good intentions” towards Cuba by making these dialogues a reality.

A Look Ahead

On September 28, the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization will once again condemn Washington’s embargo on Cuba. This will be the 18th consecutive year that Cuban officials produce a report requesting relief from the economic restrictions forced upon them by the US. There is little question that once again the UN will vote to denounce it. The 2009 report, attributing $236 billion (using today’s dollar value) in damages over the past five decades to the embargo, outlines damages to Cuba’s education, health, agriculture and transportation, among other sectors.

While Obama certainly has too much on his plate internationally and domestically for any immediate dramatic moves toward Cuba, his decision to extend the Trading With the Enemy Act against Cuba for another year was a profound disappointment. Cuban officials accept the fact that, due to the Helms-Burton Act, Obama cannot repeal the embargo alone, but the baby steps of allowing family travel and the exchange of remittances is not enough of an equivalence when the costly and lethal effect of the embargo and years of covert operations against the Castro regime are taken into account. US policy today does not emphasize “the dismantling of the blockade,” as the public was led to believe it would, but is focused only on providing a wisp of recompense for years of injustice. The result of the UN meeting on September 28 will chastise the US for its embargo on Cuba, but it is up to Obama to put its words into action by aligning with Cuban authorities and together moving towards a future of mutual respect and cooperation. If Obama is to remain a worldwide emblem of hope and change, he will have to undertake the some political risk that is necessary to break with an old paralytic habit, by ushering in a new generation of Cuban-US relations.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being “one of the nation’s most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers.” For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org


caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

Saint Vincent speaks out at UN debate on efforts to clamp down on tax havens

29 September 2009 – The efforts of major and industrialized economies to crack down on so-called tax havens are just an excuse to spread the blame for the global financial crisis on small nations’ legitimate attempts at development, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines told the General Assembly today.

Camillo M. Gonsalves, the Caribbean archipelago’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, told the sixth day of the Assembly’s high-level segment that is country faces “being stigmatized out of our transition into financial services” by the Group of Twenty (G20) major economies, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and what he called “other non-inclusive bodies.”

Speaking at UN Headquarters in New York, Mr. Gonsalves said the crackdown on tax havens were actually “a pathetic effort to cast a wide and indiscriminate net of blame across a swath of legitimate and well-regulated countries’ development efforts.

“We note the irony of these paternalistic prescriptions from the same countries that are unable to stem corruption and mismanagement within their own borders, where corporations recklessly squander trillions of dollars and a single buccaneer investor can make $50 billion disappear into thin air – an amount greater than the combined annual budget expenditures of the entire CARICOM [Caribbean Community] sub-region,” he said.

Mr. Gonsalves took aim at the G20 for describing itself last week, at a summit in the United States city of Pittsburgh, as the premier forum for international economic cooperation.

“Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is not a member of the G20, nor were we consulted on its ascension to the ranks of arbiters of our economic fate… The G20 faces a serious legitimacy problem: aside from being non-inclusive and unofficial, many of the countries at that table represent the champions of the financial and economic orthodoxies that led the world down the rabbit-hole to its current economic malaise.”

The Permanent Representative also cast doubt on recent reports from some observers that the economy is returning to normal.

“The invisible hand of the market is still clasped firmly around the throats of poor people and the developing countries of the world. We see none of the so-called ‘green shoots’ that populate the fantasies of discredited economic cheerleaders.

“Indeed, the seeds sown by this crisis may produce the strange and bitter fruit of increased poverty, suffering and social and political upheaval. The crisis itself, with its disproportionate impact on the poor, will only widen and deepen the yawning gap between developed and developing countries.”

UN News

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

News Tracker: past stories on this issue:

Dominican Republic calls for tax on tax havens to fund UN humanitarian goals

G-20: One step behind

David Roberts:


So the Group of 20 is going to be the body "coordinating" the global economy from now on, the leaders of the world's most powerful developed and developing nations agreed Friday in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The decision to remove that responsibility from the G-8, the world's richest industrialized nations, and encompass Latin America's Brazil, Argentina and Mexico as well as other major emerging economies like China, India, South Africa, Indonesia and South Korea is a positive step forward. The BRIC countries in particular are playing an increasingly important role in the global economy and giving them more say in managing its affairs would be a welcome move indeed.

But is that what's really going to happen by including developing nations on this global "board of directors"? Not likely, because as we've seen time and time again, whether it's the G-20, the G-8, the G-7 or the G-whatever, such loose talking shops will never have the authority - given the different national interests involved - to make hard decisions on specific matters, let alone manage the global economy. And that's exactly what we saw once again in Pittsburgh - lots of fudging, on issues from bankers' bonuses to trade and budget imbalances. Talking shops are important, world leaders need to get together every now and again to discuss big issues, but the idea that, as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown put it, the G-20 is now going to become the "premier economic organization for dealing with economic management around the world," is, eh, pie in the sky.

Even if the leaders of 19 such diverse nations (the 20th member is the EU, which complicates matters even more) could agree on the specifics of managing the globe's finances, they would inevitably be one step behind the curve, as the economy moves faster than regulators, managers, directors, finance ministers, central bank chairpersons or even presidents.

All that's not to say that there are no lessons to be learned from discussing these issues at the highest level, but more questions than answers will likely be the result. How can world leaders prevent another financial meltdown like the one we saw last year? Why didn't the "experts" see it coming, or did they? Looking at Latin America, and comparing the region to say China and India, one lesson to be learned is the need to develop the region's domestic economies and depend less on exports, whether in the form of commodities or, like Mexico, manufactured goods sold largely in the US. The Chinese and the Indians saw their export markets collapse but are emerging from the slump relatively unscathed thanks to their stronger domestic markets.

But at the end of the day, unless individual nations are prepared to cede a degree of sovereignty to international organizations, the "solutions" (read "delayed reactions") will continue to come in at a national or at best regional level, just as we saw during the financial crisis when the US, Europe and others all adopted very different approaches. Economic stimulus packages, nationalizing the banks or bailing them out, stricter capital requirements, slashing interest rates to encourage lending (when loose lending was what started it all off), quantitative easing, protectionism (buy American, buy Brazilian etc), caps on bonuses - you name it, someone's tried it. If the G-8 couldn't agree what to do, what chance does the G-20 have?

bnamericas

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

Cuba minister says Obama has not met policy change promises

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) --

President Barack Obama has not fulfilled his promises to change US foreign policy and may not be fully in control of the government, Cuba's foreign minister told the United Nations on Monday.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly, Bruno Rodriguez said Obama had done little to mend US-Cuba relations and had taken other steps that were at odds with his promises to break with the policies of predecessor George W. Bush.

The most serious and dangerous aspect about this new situation is uncertainty about the real capacity of current authorities in Washington to overcome political and ideological currents that, under the previous administration, threatened the world," he said.

"The neoconservative forces that took George Bush to the presidency ... have very quickly regrouped and still have the reins of power and considerable influence, contrary to the announced change," Rodriguez said.

The Cuban minister pointed to the June 28 military coup in Honduras, saying that while Obama had said ousted President Manuel Zelaya must be returned to office, "the American fascist right, represented by (former Vice President Dick) Cheney, openly supports and sustains the coup."

Zelaya, bundled into exile by soldiers in the summer coup, secretly returned to Honduras a week ago and is currently sheltering in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa.

"The world reacted with profound optimism to the change in government in Washington," Rodriguez said. But he added Obama's words, including promises to make changes in several US policies, do not "coincide with reality".

"The detention and torture center at Guantanamo Naval Base, which usurps part of Cuban territory, has not been shut down. The occupation troops in Iraq have not been withdrawn. The war in Afghanistan is expanding," he said.

Regarding Cuba, Rodriguez said Obama had taken "positive" steps" by allowing Cuban Americans to travel and send money freely to the communist-ruled island.

He added US-initiated talks with Havana on migration and on the possible reinstatement of direct postal service between the long-time foes had been "respectful and fruitful."

But he said many other issues had not been addressed, above all the 47-year-old US trade embargo against Cuba, which the Cuban government blames for most of its economic problems.

Rodriguez said Obama had acted "contrary to what all the American public opinion polls reflect" when he signed two weeks ago a yearly renewal of the act that imposes the embargo.

"The crucial thing is that the economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba remains intact," he said.

The embargo was imposed in 1962 to undermine the Cuban government that turned to communism after the 1959 revolution led by Fidel Castro. Fidel Castro, 83, ceded the Cuban presidency last year to his younger brother Raul Castro, 78, citing health grounds.

Rodriguez said the US embargo would never achieve its goal. "Those who try to put an end to the revolution and bend the will of the Cuban people are suffering from delusions," he said.

September 29, 2009

caribbeannetnews

Pittsburgh and the Margarita Summit

Reflections of Fidel

(Taken from CubaDebate)

THE Leaders’ Statement of the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh on Friday, September 25, would appear to be unreal. Let us look at the principal points of its content:

"We meet in the midst of a critical transition from crisis to recovery to turn the page on an era of irresponsibility and to adopt a set of policies, regulations and reforms to meet the needs of the 21st century global economy."

"We pledge today to sustain our strong policy response until a durable recovery is secured."

"…we pledge to adopt the policies needed to lay the foundation for strong, sustained and balanced growth in the 21st century."

"We want growth without cycles of boom and bust and markets that foster responsibility not recklessness."

"…we act together to generate strong, sustainable and balanced global growth. We need a durable recovery that creates the good jobs our people need."

"We need to establish a pattern of growth across countries that is more sustainable and balanced, and reduce development imbalances."

"We pledge to avoid destabilizing booms and busts in asset and credit prices."

"…we will also make decisive progress on structural reforms that foster private demand and strengthen long-run growth potential."

"Where reckless behavior and a lack of responsibility led to crisis, we will not allow a return to banking as usual."

"We are committed to act together to raise capital standards, to implement strong international compensation standards aimed at ending practices that lead to excessive risk-taking…"

"We designated the G-20 to be the premier forum for our international economic cooperation."

"We are committed to a shift in International Monetary Fund (IMF) quota share to dynamic emerging markets and developing countries of at least 5%."

"Sustained economic development is essential in order to reduce poverty."

The G-20 is made up of the seven most industrialized and richest countries:

United States, Canada, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Japan, plus Russia; the 11 principal emerging countries: China, India, South Korea, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Mexico and the European Union, a number of which have excellent economic and political relations with us. Spain and Holland have participated as guests in the last three Summits.

The idea of capitalist development without crises is the grand illusion that the United States and its allies are trying to sell to the emerging economy countries participating in the G-20.

Almost the totality of the Third World countries that are not allies of the United States are observing how this nation prints paper money which circulates throughout the planet as convertible currency without gold backing, buys shares and companies, natural resources, goods and real estate assets and public debt bonds, protects its products, dispossesses nations of their finest brains and confers an extraterritorial nature on its laws. This is in addition to the overwhelming power of its arms and its monopoly of the fundamental means of information.

Consumer societies are incompatible with the conservation of natural and energy resources that the development and the preservation of our species require.

In a brief historical period and thanks to its Revolution, China ceased being a semicolonial and semifeudal country, grew at the rate of more than 10% over the past 20 years and has become the principal driving force of the world economy. Never has a huge multinational state achieved similar growth. It now possesses the highest reserves of convertible currency and is the largest creditor of the United States.

The difference is abysmal in relation to the most developed capitalist countries of the world: the United States and Japan. The debts of both nations, in their turn, accumulate the sum of $20 trillion.

The United States can no longer constitute a model of economic development.

Starting from the fact that in recent years the planet’s temperature has increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius, on the same day as the Pittsburgh Summit ended, the top U.S. news agency reported that "Earth's temperature is likely to jump nearly 3 degrees Celsius between now and the end of the century, even if every country cuts greenhouse gas emissions as proposed, according to a United Nations update."

"Scientists looked at emission plans from 192 nations and calculated what would happen to global warming. The projections take into account 80 percent pollution cuts from the U.S. and Europe by 2050, which are not sure things."

"Carbon dioxide, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, is the main cause of global warming, trapping the sun's energy in the atmosphere. The world's average temperature has already risen 1.4 degrees (0.8 degrees Celsius)," it reiterates. "Much of projected rise in temperature is because of developing nations, which aren't talking much about cutting their emissions, scientists said at a United Nations press conference Thursday."

"‘We are headed toward very serious changes in our planet,’ said Achim Steiner, head of the U.N.'s environment program."

"Even if the developed world cuts its emissions by 80 percent and the developing world cuts theirs in half by 2050…the world is still facing a 3-degree (1.7 degree Celsius) said Robert Corell, a prominent U.S. climate scientist who helped oversee the update."

"…still translates into a nearly 5 degree (2.7 degree Celsius) increase in world temperature by the end of the century. European leaders and the Obama White House have set a goal to limit warming to just a couple degrees."

What they have not explained is how they are going to reach that objective, nor the GDP contribution to invest in poor countries and compensate for the damage occasioned by the volume of contaminating gases that the most industrialized nations have discharged into the atmosphere. World public opinion must acquire a solid culture on climate change. Even if there isn’t the slightest error of calculation, humanity will be marching to the edge of the abyss.

When Obama was meeting in Pittsburgh with his G-20 guests to talk about the delights of Capua, the Summit of the Heads of State of UNASUR and the Organization of African Unity [African Union] was beginning on the Venezuelan Isla Margarita. More than 60 presidents, prime ministers and high-ranking representatives of South American and Africa met there. Also present were Lula, Cristina Fernández and President Jacob Zuma of South Africa, who had arrived from Pittsburgh to enjoy a warmer and more fraternal summit, during which the problems of the Third World were covered with much frankness. The president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Rafael Chávez, was brilliant and vibrant in that Summit. I had the agreeable possibility of listening to the voices of known and proven friends.

Cuba is grateful for the support and solidarity that emerged from that Summit, where nothing was left in oblivion.

Whatever happens, the peoples will become constantly more aware of their rights and their duties!

What a great battle will be waged in Copenhagen!


Fidel Castro Ruz
September 27, 2009
6.14 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

- Reflections oF Fidel

granma.cu

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International