"The world of the future has to be shared by everyone"

Interview with Fidel Castro (Part 2)

(Taken from the Mexican La Jornada newspaper)
• Fidel answers questions from the editor, Carmen Lira Saade

HAVANA.—Although there is nothing to indicate any unease on his part, I think that Fidel is not going to like what I’m going to say to him:

"Comandante, the whole charm of the Cuban Revolution, the recognition, the solidarity from a large part of the world’s intelligentsia, the people’s tremendous achievements in the face of the blockade; in short, everything, everything went down the tubes as a result of the persecution of homosexuals in Cuba.

Fidel did not shy away from the subject. He neither denied nor rejected the statement. He only asked for time to recall, he said, how and when that prejudice broke out among the revolutionary ranks.

Five decades ago, and as a result of homophobia, homosexuals were marginalized in Cuba and many of them were sent to military-agricultural work camps, accused of being "counterrevolutionaries."

"Yes," he recalled, "those were times of tremendous injustice, tremendous injustice!" he repeated emphatically, "whoever was responsible for it. If we did it ourselves, ourselves… I’m trying to delimit my responsibility in all of that because, of course, on a personal level, I do not have that kind of prejudice."

It is known that some of his best and oldest friends are homosexuals.

"But then, how did that hatred of the "different" come about? "

Fidel believes that it was all generated as a spontaneous reaction within the revolutionary ranks, which stemmed from old customs. In pre-revolutionary Cuba, there was not only discrimination against blacks, but also against women and, of course, homosexuals.

"Yes, yes. But not in the Cuba of the ‘new’ morality, of which revolutionaries both within and outside the country were so proud…"

"And so, who was responsible, either directly or indirectly, for not putting a stop to what was happening in Cuban society? The Party? Because this occurred during a time when the statutes of the Communist Party of Cuba did not explicitly state the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation."

"No," said Fidel. "If anyone was responsible, then it was me.

"It is true that, at that time, I did not concern myself with that issue… I was mainly immersed in the October (Missile) Crisis, in the war, in political matters…"

"But that became a serious and grave political problem, Comandante."

"I understand, I understand… We didn’t know how to assess it… systematic acts of sabotage, armed attacks, were happening all the time; we had so many terrible problems, problems of life or death, you know, that we didn’t pay sufficient attention to it."

"After all of that, it became very difficult to defend the Revolution outside the country… Its image had been irretrievably damaged among certain sectors, particularly in Europe."

"I understand, I understand," he repeated. "That was fair…"

"The persecution of homosexuals could have been taking place with greater or lesser protest in any part of the world. But not in revolutionary Cuba," I said to him.

"I understand: it’s like when the saint sins, right? It’s not the same as the sinner sinning, eh?"

Fidel gave a hint of a smile but then became serious again:

"Look, think about how our days were during those first months of the Revolution: the war with the yankis, the missile situation and, almost simultaneously, the assassination attempts against my person…"

Fidel revealed the tremendous influence on him of the assassination threats and the actual attempts of which he was victim, and which changed his life:

"I couldn’t be anywhere; I didn’t even have anywhere to live..." Betrayal was the order of the day and he was forced to move around in a haphazard way…

"Eluding the CIA, which was buying so many traitors, including one’s own people, was no simple matter; but, in short, in any case, if someone has to assume responsibility, then I will. I am not going to place the blame on other people..." affirmed the revolutionary leader.

He only regrets not having corrected the situation at the time.

Nowadays, however, the problem is being confronted. Under the slogan "Homosexuality is not a danger; but homophobia is," many cities throughout the country recently celebrated the 3rd Cuban Event for the International Day against Homophobia. Gerardo Arreola, La Jornada correspondent in Cuba, wrote a detailed report on the debate and the struggle underway on the island for respect for the rights of sexual minorities.

Arreola comments that it is Mariela Castro – a 47-year-old sociologist and daughter of Cuban President Raúl Castro – who directs the National Center for Sexual Education (CENESEX), an institution that, she says, has succeeded in improving Cuba’s image following the marginalization of the 1960s.

"Here we stand, Cuban women and men, in order to continue fighting for inclusion, so that this is the fight of all women and men, for the good of all women and men," stated Mariela Castro at the inauguration event, surrounded by transsexuals holding the Cuban flag and another rainbow one representing the gay pride movement.

Today in Cuba, efforts for homosexuals include initiatives such as the identity change for transsexuals and civil unions between same-sex couples.

Homosexuality on the island was decriminalized in the 1990s, although it did not immediately result in the end of police harassment. And since 2008, sex change operations have been offered free of charge.

THE BLOCKADE

In 1962, the United States decreed the blockade of Cuba. That was "a ferocious attempt at genocide," as Gabriel García Márquez, the writer who has best chronicled the period, described it.

"A period that has lasted up until today," Fidel informed me.

"The blockade is more than ever in force today, and with the aggravating factor at the present time, that it is constitutional law in the United States for the very fact that the president voted for it, the Senate did and the House of Representatives…"

The number of votes and its implementation could – or not – considerably alleviate the situation. But there it is…

"Yes, there is the interfering and pro-annexationist Helms-Burton Act… and the Torricelli Act, duly passed by the Congress of the United States.

"I very well remember Senator Helms on that day in 1996 when his initiative was passed. He was elated and repeated the aim of his plan to journalists:

"Castro has to leave Cuba. I don’t care how Castro leaves the country: whether he leaves in a vertical or horizontal position is up to them… but Castro has to leave Cuba."

THE SIEGE BEGINS

"In 1962, when the United States decreed the blockade, Cuba soon found itself with the proof that it had nothing more than six million determined Cuban people on a luminous and undefended island…

Nobody, no country, could trade with Cuba; there couldn’t be any buying or selling; heaven help that country or company which did not submit to the commercial harassment decreed by the United States. What always struck me was that CIA boat patrolling territorial waters until just a few years ago, there to intercept boats carrying merchandise to the island.

The greatest problem, however, was always been that of medicines and food, which continues up until today. Even today, no food company is allowed to trade with Cuba, not even taking into account the importance of the volumes that the island would acquire or because Cuba is always obliged to pay cash in advance.

Condemned to death by starvation, the Cubans had to "invent life all over again from the beginning," as García Márquez said.

They developed a "technology of need" and an "economy of scarcity", he related: a whole "culture of solitude."

There is no sign of regret, far less of bitterness, when Fidel Castro admits that a large part of the world simply abandoned the island. On the contrary…

"The struggle, the battle that we had to fight led us to make greater efforts that perhaps we would have done without the blockade," said Fidel.

He recalled with a touch of pride, for example, the immense mass operation undertaken by five million young people, grouped together in the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs). In just one eight-hour day, they achieved a mass vaccination program throughout the country, eradicating illnesses such as polio and malaria.

Or when more than 250,000 literacy teachers – 100,000 of whom were children – took on the responsibility of teaching the majority of the adult population, who were unable to read and write.

But the "great leap" forward is, without any doubt, in medicine and biotechnology:

"They say that Fidel himself sent a team of scientists and doctors for training in Finland, who would subsequently be responsible for the production of medicines."

"The enemy used the bacteriological warfare against us. It brought the Dengue Virus 2 here. In pre-revolutionary Cuba, not even the Dengue Virus 1 was known here. The Virus 2 appeared here; it is much more dangerous because it produces a hemorrhagic dengue that attacks children above all.

"It came in via Boyeros. The counterrevolutionaries brought it, those same individuals who went around with Posada Carriles, the same ones who were pardoned by Bush, the same ones who planned the sabotage of the [Cubana] aircraft over Barbados… Those same people were given the task of introducing the virus," Fidel denounced.

"They blamed Cuba because they said that there were lots of mosquitoes on the island," I told him.

"And how were we not going to have them if the only way to get rid of them was with Abate (Temefos, an insecticide) and we couldn’t get Abate? Only the United States produced it," he revealed.

The Comandante’s face saddened:

"Our children began to die," he recalled. "We didn’t have anything with which to attack the disease. Nobody wanted to sell us medicines or the equipment to eradicate the virus. One hundred and fifty people died from that disease. Almost all of them were children…"

"We had to resort to buying contraband goods, even though they were very expensive. Everywhere they prohibited them from even being brought in. Once, on compassionate grounds, they were allowed a little to be brought in."

On "compassionate grounds," said the strong man of the Revolution. I confessed that I was confused…

Not exactly on compassionate grounds, rather in solidarity, some friends of Cuba resorted to doing precisely that. Fidel mentioned Mexico, the Echeverría family, Luis and María Esther who – although not in government at that time – were able to secure some equipment that allowed Cuba to alleviate the epidemic to a certain degree.

"We will never forget them," he said, visibly moved.

"You see," I told him, "Not all your relationships with figures from Mexico’s power elite have been negative or difficult…"

"Of course not," he said, before we drew the interview-conversation to a close and went to have lunch with his wife, Dalia Soto del Valle.

From that terraced area where he sits to reflect and analyze the world and life itself, Fidel raised a toast to "a world of the future with just one homeland."

"What does it mean that some of us are Spanish, others English, others African? And that some have more than others?

"The world of the future has to be a shared one, and the rights of human beings have to be above individual rights…And it is going to be a rich world, where rights are going to be exactly equal for everybody…"

"How is that going to be to achieved, Comandante?"

"By educating… educating and creating love and trust."

Translated by Granma International

granma.cu

Havana. September 3, 2010

Bahamas Blog International

- “Obama has to be persuaded to avoid nuclear war” (Part 1)

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