Translating Cuba

In literature, and in Latin America in particular, the themes of ridicule and the absurd, both individual and collective, are addressed by many authors. The same happens in theater and film. It seems that in our case it is a problem of idiosyncrasy.

Worrying about the health of another person is human and shows sensitivity, be it a family member, a friend, a neighbor or a person of note. However, there is a fine line that should not be crossed, otherwise a just and noble feeling is transformed into the ridiculous and absurd.

Overwhelmed for weeks by accords, concerts, poems, statements, masses, and prayers, where you ask someone powerful, situated in the here or the hereafter, for the health of the foreign president receiving medical treatment in Cuba, goes beyond the known. It would seem that everything there is to see has already been seen, but we must recognize that in these excesses there are no limits.

The mass rally organized in Caracas, in crude imitation of a virtual inauguration of an absent president, with official delegations from some friendly countries, constitutes, in addition to the sublimation of ridiculous, something distinctly Kafkaesque: this is only possible in this great Macondo* that is Latin America.

It seems that in 2013 we expect many similar representations, both of comic theater and the theater of the absurd. Let’s see how long they can keep it on the marquee.

*Translator’s note: The fictional town of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude.

January 13 2013

Last night, with a temperature below zero, but with the warmth of our enthusiasm, Tito and I undertook the route from France to Basel, Switzerland, in search of a new Cuban corner.

At Rümenlibachweg Street # 9 4052, in Basel, we found a cozy restaurant on the corner called El Cubanito, a bar-café. This cozy place was opened, after great effort on sacrifice, on December 29, 2012.

Its owner and hostess, a beautiful and friendly Cuban is proud, and rightly so the end result of her sacrifice.

When we arrived, and the place was already full, and musicians ready to begin: Dianelis, the singer, Jorge El Guajiro, on guitar and Coco on percussion, vibrated with Cuban music in the new place.

Already more Cubans were arriving as the night wore on, some young, some not so young, in a good wave that filled the room.

Dianelis, with her wonderful voice was giving us an overview of Cuban rhythms, offering a very special entertainment and her Besamé Mucho. They were soon joined by imitating the sound of the base in his throat, Alcides Toirac. They also incorporated the sounds of other Cubans present, playing keys and maraca.

We spent an amazing night and were among the last to leave when the place closed.

A feeling of nostalgia and longing for our homeland and family, and of joy, was the atmosphere that reigned in the particular room.

January 13 2013

The night warm, beautiful, still with some Christmas lights hanging from the balconies and the sounds of dance music coming from the houses. As 2012 ended along the central avenues of Vedado one could perceive a particular effervescence. Dozens of people were walking in circles carrying suitcases, large or small, old or brand new. A curious festive practice that has been added to the existing traditions for celebrating the New Year in Cuba.

At the exact stroke of twelve on December 31, many enlist their suitcase for a brief walk. For decades the most common custom has been throwing water from the balconies, soaking the streets — along with the sidewalks and the occasional naive passerby — with the precious liquid to wash away all the ills of the previous year. But now we have the growing habit of taking a walk with a suitcase, the larger the better.

According to the enthusiasts of this new practice, this works as a spell to be able to travel outside the country; as a kind of magic act that will help them realize the dream of coming to know other places. In the last five years a growing number of Cubans perform this rite at the exact minute the new year begins. In 2013 it was truly prescient, because tomorrow, January 14, the new Migratory Reform Law goes into effect, promising flexibility around leaving and entering the country.

According to Decree-Law No. 302 announced last October, the procedures to travel will become less cumbersome and will cost less. And so, the dreams of many to visit another country, temporarily or permanently, are growing.

For decades we Cubans have been waiting for the end of the travel and migration absurdities. Most Cuban families have been affected to a greater or lesser degree by the restrictions imposed on the freedom of movement. Parents are separated from their children by thousands of miles and a mountain of legal limitations. Grandparents never meet their grandchildren because the government refuses them authorization to enter the Island. Brothers and sisters never see each other again because one of them can’t fulfill the requirements for the “White Card” as the exit permit is known.

Those who ask for permission to leave must pass political tests. So an individual who was a member of any opposition group, who engaged in independent journalism, or undertook any type of civic activity, found their chances greatly reduced. Only if they agreed to leave “definitively” — forever, and with no hope of return — would the authorities let them go.

The expectations generated by the new law are seen everywhere. Classified ads for houses have increased on the online sites dedicated to buying and selling. Many properties in the country are being turned into the capital needed to start a new life somewhere else. “Sell to leave” seems to be the motto of those who have been waiting for this moment for a very long time.

But there are also those who want to take advantage of the expected travel flexibility to stay only temporarily in another country, under a work contract. The rules that will take effect in just a few hours will foster precisely this type of migration: economic emigration that maintains ties with the Island, for people who will continue to send money home.

Children will also benefit, because for long years children could leave only if their parents were on an official mission to another country, or if they were leaving for good. However the professionals classified as “vital” could start to face major difficulties when it comes time to accept an invitation to travel abroad. High level athletes, for example, will continue to face restrictions. Public health personnel, however, speculate that they will see a lessening of the controls that have forced them to wait five years after initiating a request to leave for their “liberation,” which must be awarded by the minister of whichever branch they work in.

As with every “Raulista reform,” it’s worth the trouble to read the fine print, especially in Decree-Law No. 302. Special interest should be paid to Articles 23 and 25; sections in both warn that individuals will not be able to get a passport nor to leave the country “for reasons of the public interest as determined by the responsible authorities.”

The possible meanings of this are so broad and so confusing that it could encompass almost any consideration. The big question asked by many is whether such a limitation will also be applied in the case of Cuban dissidents. Will those who are on the black list today continue to be so tomorrow? Will opposition activity continue to be one of the obstacles that prevents you from getting this document with the blue cover and the shield of the republic, indispensable for crossing our frontiers?

Everything indicates, at least at this point, that things will remain as they are now. For this reason nowhere in the new law is the act of traveling spoken of as an inherent right of every citizen from the simple fact of being born on Cuban soil. The exit permit has become a permit to have a passport, but it will remain a sinecure, a gift.

With so much uncertainty hanging over our heads, we will need a large dose of luck and some spell of enchantment. So, many of those who plan to see the dawn tomorrow at their local Office of Immigration and Aliens, took a walk with their suitcases on December 31, sharing in this ritual filled with hope.

13 January 2013

By Julio César Gálvez

The battle for power in Venezuela deepens as the date fixed by the Constitution of this country for the swearing-in of the reelection Hugo Chavez takes office nears: January 10.

Chavez has been in Cuba since December 11, when he underwent his fourth operation for a pelvic cancer diagnosed 18 months ago, where he suffered postoperative complications, first with respiratory failure, and now with a severe lung infection, according to official reports, so his presence in Caracas for his swearing-in won’t happen.

This has unleashed an open fight between Nicolas Maduro, Vice President of the nation and the person hand-picked by Chavez as his successor in case of his death, the man whom the Cuban regime fully supports for the presidency of Venezuela, and Diosdado Cabello, former military, a close friend of Chavez, who was at his side in the failed coup attempt against Carlos Andres Perez and who was reelected as president of the National Assembly on Saturday January 5, but who never sat at the table of the Castro brothers in Havana, much less took orders from them.

In an interview on Friday 4 through state broadcaster Telesur by the journalist and current Minister of Communication and Information Ernesto Villegas, Maduro, imitating his boss, holding a booklet of the Constitution in his hands, was unable to answer why the fact that a medical board appointed by the Supreme Court certifying the permanent physical or permanent inability of  Chavez to take power was not the equivalent of a “complete failure.”

He only managed to repeat, again and again, “The Constitution provides that in all cases, as a formality, there must be an oath of office before the National Assembly on January 10, but on January 10 the new constitutional term begins and he continues his their duties and is established (…) the moment at which he can take the oath before the Supreme Court of Justice.”

The Supreme Court, in an informal statement, made a somewhat unusual argument, justifying that the oath is not necessary because Chavez is the President of the Republic, and therefore it is a continuation of his acts.

Meanwhile the opposition said that “The president of our country has been in the hands of the Cuban government for over 18 months. He was practically kidnapped by a foreign government. We have a right to go there and see what is going on. No more mysteries, Venezuela is not a colony of Cuba, “said Antonio Ledezma, mayor of Caracas.

But from Havana the threads that weave the skein in favor of the Cuban totalitarian regime are, supposedly, well woven, according to some media. The presence of an entire Cuban military contingent of more than 5,000 troops in Venezuela, which may have been increased between December and January, in full combat readiness for any emergency, and more than 50,000 aid workers — doctors and health personnel, teachers of primary and secondary teachers and coaches, agricultural and forestry advisers, in addition to military intelligence specialists and counterinsurgency — seems to support this view.

Stationed at Fort Tiuna, the headquarters of the Cuban troops in Venezuela, Barquisimeto, Barinas, Elorza, Puerto Cabello, Agua Viva, Pariaguan, Maracay, the military air base (ramp 2) installed in Maracaibo International Airport, as well as that of Apure region, with about 50 senior officers, all under the command of Major General Leonardo Andollo, accompanied by Brigadier General Herminio Rodriguez Hernandez, as chief of staff, who is in the Miraflores Palace in Caracas.

More than 100,000 barrels of oil daily, the control of customs and all that goes in and out of Venezuelan ports and airports, and delivery of more than six billion dollars a year, according to expert Latin American political analysts and economists, are the perks that Cuban totalitarianism can not afford to lose at this critical time for its economy and its hold on power.

Both Maduro, who has the backing of the pro-Cuban leaders of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, like Cabello, more pragmatic and who has broad support within the armed forces, have lambasted the opposition, making it clear that they will not allow them to take advantage of Chavez’s illness. The latter said that Parliament will remain revolutionary and socialist.

With just a few days to the presidential inauguration in Venezuela, interests of all kind are active. None of the beneficiaries in government or party positions for Chavez wants to lose their privileges. The fight is gut-level, sordid and no one shows his true colors. They play under double standards. Waiting to see how events unfold. But who will be the chosen one? There is no sign of any favorite. Everyone has an opinion and a preference, but for fear of reprisals they do not make them public.

Maybe it’s like in our childhood when we played with the candles, pointing with our index fingers: he did it!

January 8 2013

In late December, the journalist Pablo Mendez asked me for an interview for the digital space Cubanet, which was posted on January 4 this year. I am taking the liberty of reproducing it in this blog for my regular readers, while I record my thanks to both the journalist and the animators of Cubanet for giving me a place in a page read by many Cubans. I have also inserted the photo that accompanied the work of P. Mendez, readers will forgive the convenience.

I would also like to express my appreciation because, as far as possible, we debated the topics raised on the interview which, as you will appreciate, are complex and extensive. Here is the interview.

A hug,

Eva-Miriam

“No revolution has made us truly free.”

Friday, January 4, 2013 | By Pablo Pascual Méndez Piña

HAVANA, Cuba, Jan, http://www.cubanet.org. The history of anti-Castro opposition runs parallel with the history of dictatorial repression. The names of the thousands of accused, shot, tortured, kidnapped, imprisoned, exiled, cleansed, marginalized and persecuted, punctuate to the end the novel of this bloody and prolonged tyranny. But there is a third dimension: that of a people looking with uncertainly toward the old regime — which still strives to bolster its cracked “revolutionary edifice” — and to the peaceful opposition, which, for many, continues to be torn between dispersion and competition to monopolize the limelight.

A single reality — according to Ortega y Gasset — breaks into many divergent realities when viewed from different angles. So through informal consultations, we have formulated seven questions about the opposition, derived from the analysis of an interesting academic to the interesting reasoning of a street sweeper.

In seeking to pave the way toward understanding these different views, we request the valuable assistance of Miriam Celaya González, with a degree in Art History, former researcher at the Department of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of Cuba, independent digital journalist, administrator of the blog Without Evasion, and regular contributor to publications such as Diario de Cuba, Voices Magazine, Coexistence and others.

Miriam cheerfully agreed to respond to these 7 questions for Cubanet:

Cubanet: Do you think that our dissidence remains stuck in the past and politically fragmented?

Miriam Celaya: I don’t like archetypes, so I’ll assume that what you call “our dissidence” is the totality of an extremely varied spectrum consisting of opposition groups and parties of all denominations, independent journalists and bloggers, and many sectors of independent civil society, also multiple and diverse, ranging from independent librarians to artists, writers and animators of many civic projects.

I also consider as dissident all Cubans who are dissatisfied with the official political model — even though they don’t openly express it, nor are they tied to any of the sectors mentioned above — and the tens of thousands of emigrants, regardless of whether they are called “economic emigration” or “political emigration,” because to leave Cuba is the same as rejecting in some way the established socio-political and economic system. The dissidence is not a monolithic and uniform block, so it doesn’t seem appropriate to me to make generalizations.

Now, a part of this dissidence, in fact, seems anchored to the past and displays an exhaustion in its discourse. This is natural because — unlike sectors who base their work on civic projects — the political projects are obliged to promote governance alternatives to overcome the problems of the nation as a whole, they are more pressed for time, and they must show results in reasonable periods.

For example, while the work of independent journalism is to inform, report, analyze, disseminate, or that of the independent libraries and other civic projects is to directly or indirectly promote civic education, which are permanent and inexhaustible issues, political parties have an aspiration and obligation to propose viable alternatives for holding elections and changing the political system of the country. Otherwise they would not be political parties.

When these proposals don’t emerge, don’t catch on in wide sectors or don’t provoke changes, the political parties are exhausted. So far there do not exist — or they aren’t visible — any parties that offer a workable alternative in confronting the dictatorial power, because of the nature of the dictatorship, but also because the political opposition lacks maturity and because a large part of it — like the government it confronts — is weighed down with secular evils, the legacy of our idiosyncrasy and our history, such as caudillismo (warlordism), Messianism, and immediacy, among others.

The political fragmentation I don’t see as a problem. Every democratic society is politically fragmented, and this is healthy, because it allows a variety of proposals, the chance to choose among them, and because it forces politicians to compete among themselves, if they want to succeed.

However, this fragmentation should not mean the disqualification of one or another proposal, nor impede the coordination and consensus capable of developing common platforms for confront governmental autocracy. This consensus, sadly, although currently it seems to be generated among more or less numerous groups, hasn’t been consolidated, nor does it yet constitute a strong alternative to power.

CM: Isn’t the Citizen Demand For Another Cuba a new version of the Varela Project? At what point is it a waste of time to make demands of a regime that is deaf to any proposal to democratize the country?

MC: I do not think the Citizen Demand for Another Cuba is a new version of the Varela Project. Each of these projects has its own function, and distinct objectives.

The Varela Project was best known at that time–largely thanks to the publicity achieved from the visit of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to Cuba, who mentioned it in the Great Hall of the University of Havana–and they managed gather a huge number of signatures, work in which many activists participated, not only of the Christian Liberation Movement, but also from other opposition political parties.

But the Varela Project was backed by the actual Electoral Law of this government, somehow legitimized this Law, regardless of whether they had the power to discern the cracks and try to take advantage of them to the benefit of democracy, which is a great achievement.

However, because it was based on the Cuban government’s own laws, it led to a “counter-project”, calling for ratification of socialism as an eternal model, for which they collected eight million signatures within Cuba. The dictatorship has the option of changing or violating its own laws, or simply ignoring legal demands, so it often takes advantage of any movement that tries to maneuver from within the laws that were created to perpetuate the dictatorial power.

Another aspect that few have considered is whether just changing the electoral process could cause significant changes in Cuba. Personally, I think not. I think the first thing we need is to develop responsible citizens, free and able to take on the challenge of choosing freely. It is a very long-term task, but unavoidable. Ours is a people marked by fear, distrust and civic orphanage, problems heavily accented over more than half a century of totalitarian power. Society lacks democratic referents, nor was there a civic culture rooted in the years leading up to Castro Republic.

I would argue that if free elections were held next week in Cuba, people would not be very clear about who to vote for, even if the current regime is exhausted. A society bereft of civic-mindedness is not exactly the best scenario for elections, if you want to achieve a true and stable democracy.

To magnify the utility of elections as a vehicle at achieve democracy in Cuba, it seems to me was a political naiveté of the Varela Project, and I believe that this opinion has brought me bitter and hostile critics among the opponents themselves, because in the end we Cubans, as happens with the government, tend to lurch between two extremes: if you ask about some dissident project, you are “the enemy,” “you’re destroying the unity” (which never existed), or “you’re working for the government.”

We also tend to want quick fixes and expect quick or magical solutions, without much effort. Clearly it would be less tiring if our many pressing problems would end after an election, but this isn’t realistic. After the Castro regime the holding of democratic elections which will happen one say, a stage of hard struggle will begin if we want to consolidate a democratic Cuba; no serious politician doubts this.

The case of the Citizen Demand for Another Cuba is different, being is based on the existence of international covenants, enshrined in the UN, which were signed by the Cuban government. Dictatorship has no ability to change these Covenants, so in some ways it is politically trapped: either ratify the covenants signed in February 2008, with the consequences that would result from opening up certain freedoms within the Island, or expose the lack of political will of this government to comply with international commitments generally referred to in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which it is a signatory, and the Covenants in particular. This implies a high political cost which, it seems, the regime is willing to pay, but it has consequences in the medium and long-term. The Demand for Another Cuba is also broader, more inclusive than the Varela Project, in covering all the evils that afflict Cuba, because it is not limited only to the issue of elections.

To put it in perspective, the Varela Project was more “practical” and immediate, while the Demand for Another Cuba is more symbolic, but it is also more comprehensive and widespread in areas that could derail the system if these Covenants were actually ratified. Of course, I do not think the government is going to ratify them, hence the symbolic character: an action whose main value is to show the hypocrisy of the Cuban government and civic abandonment of its people.

Both the Varela Project and the Citizen Demand for Another Cuba, with their successes or limitations, are valid in both betting on democracy as proposals based on civic-mindedness and not ideology.

Each of these actions is the daughter of their time, although the Varela Project was more circumstantial, the Citizen Demand for Another Cuba, being based on universal agreements, is permanent. But in essence, neither of these two projects is a magic formula that encloses within it the elixir of democracy, nor do they presuppose that they are only way to pierce the wall of the dictatorship. Both are steps or partial proposals of a much more complex whole.

As to whether a Demand to the Cuban government, which is deaf, is a waste of time, I do not think so. What are the alternatives? Uprisings, Violence, armed conflict, terrorism, civil war, the emigration of everyone? No. Violence only generate more violence in a society full of rancor, and badly fractured and biased by the polarization of half a century of dictatorship, bereft of rights, citizenship and independent or at least autonomous institutions.

Violence is not an option: it would be the end of the Cuban nation. There are numerous examples that demonstrate the superiority of civic resistance against violence. Certainly the civic path is longer, but it consolidates peace and democracy and better heals wounds and scars.

We have to escape the temptation of “rapid and radical” solutions because the results are very misleading. The main example is here at home: in July 1953, there was a violent assault on the Moncada barracks of the constitutional army; in December 1956, a brief guerrilla war began; and in January 1959, the Revolution took power by force.

It took less than six years for a clique to seize the country, enthrone itself in power and sustain itself, to this day, by force of repression and violence: we have neither peace nor democracy, and the gap between the powerful and the society as a whole grows ever wider, despite the fact that at its time, the Revolutionary project managed to win over a large majority of the Cuban population.

CN: Do you think that the opposition movement actually offers a political alternative to Cuba, or just wants the regime to introduce democratic changes?

MC: Again I say to you I do not like stereotypes. There is no “opposition movement in Cuba,” but rather many opposition groups who do not subscribe to what might be called a movement. A movement, I think, must have at least as minimum essentials,a common platform, a concerted program or proposal, and a consensus structure and timetables for implementing that program. That does not exist in Cuba.

However, I do believe that some projects of the opposition have interesting proposals. The opposition does not “expect the regime to introduce democratic changes.” No dictatorship voluntarily introduced changes that eventually lead to the loss of its political power, and the opponents know this well. Despite all the limitations, the opposition has been forcing this government to change, to demonstrate that in Cuba proposals and sectors opposed to it do exist, and they have sustained a resistance that has been grown and diversified in recent years.

As to whether the opposition is a political alternative to the government, I don’t think we have that, at least not on the scale we need. However, we are witnessing an interesting process: at present, the government retains full power, the army, the police, the institutions, the media and the declining economy, but it doesn’t offer an alternative to overcome the crisis.

The so-called “Raulista reforms” and the obsolete guidelines resulting from the last congress of the Cuban Communist Party can not even remotely be considered an alternative. Rather it is the rhetoric of the past, the swan song of the old guerrilla power. The government is politically exhausted and unable to renew itself. It may create a political stage favorable to the emergence of alternatives from the opposition.

I have the impression that dissent is renewing and enriching itself while governmental power is only being recycled and regressing within the same caste and with the old recipes, with just a slight touch up for the occasion. It’s possible that in these conditions there could also be a renewal of the alternatives of the dissidence and new leaders and new proposals could emerge, perhaps interesting alliances and political platforms. We must be prepared for this “reborn opposition” (let’s call it that).

CN: According to informal surveys, seven in ten respondents believe that the opposition represents the only hope for democratic change in Cuba. But, isn’t it time for them to offer the people a more robust and coherent political program?

MC: Look, surveys are often fickle, especially in a country where people are used to hiding or masking what they really think. For the rest, informal surveys also only allow only informal approaches to the phenomena in question. Most ordinary people I know refuse to offer an opinion or political commitment, there is a kind of indifference: “I’m not interested in politics,” some say, and with this they feel wise and prudent, or maybe they think this makes them safe in a reality that is actually choking us all.

However, even for those who do not believe that the opposition constitutes even a hope for the democratization of Cuba, what has been demonstrated is that the government exhausted its possibilities and today is a deterrent to hope. Some believe that anything is better than this government–which, at least in my opinion, is also very dangerous–but I think in the opposition there are proposals and valuable figures and this is the sector that has been welcoming and nurturing for many years–with its successes and failures–the germs of future Cuban democracy.

Of course there will be other sectors that will be incorporated. I am encouraged to see many new faces and young people who have a voice and opinions, who don’t ask permission or apologize for expressing their ideas and who do not have any historical compromise with the old ruling classes. Young people who feel capable and free, which is far from the obedient and grateful spirit that they tried (and in many cases succeeded) to instill in previous generations. I think they will bring valuable ideas to contribute to democracy, and they will also be a source of energy and hope for this dying Cuba.

To offer a strong and consistent political program, there must be political individuals, i.e. citizens. You ask if the time has come for the opposition to offer a coherent political program to the people. I, for my part, I think it is time that the people are able to demand rights and proposals from the policymakers, those who are there now those who come after.

In the dissidence we are accustomed to critically judging the politicians, and that’s fine, but there is a collective responsibility for the ills of Cuba. There is a widespread bias that tends to victimize the people, as if it were an amorphous subnormal creature: the poor Cubans suffering from a dictatorship, overwhelmed and terrified people suffering under the boot of tyrants must be released.

But to victimize an entire people is a messianic principle that barely conceals inordinate vanity. It is, above all, to underestimate people, given their inability to make decisions. So I prefer not to take condescending positions, and I put the ball back in their court: when anyone asks me what Cuban dissidents are doing to change things, I ask in my turn, “what are you doing?”

Someone who doesn’t believe in the system but belongs to the CDR (Committee for the Defense of the Revolution), who pays dues to the false union, who marches and attends official acts and votes when elections are called, has no moral authority to demand that others change things for him. That is simply immoral.

That is, I think we have to force people to look in the mirror, it’s a necessary shock therapy, as bad as it could be, because in the back of my consciousness I am convinced that no one person has the necessary qualifications to release an entire captive nation, be it a tyrant or you yourself.

As for the future, the most promising political program could emerge at any time, perhaps sooner than we imagine, but then we have citizens capable of carrying them out. It wouldn’t be any achievement to have a people-flock that ceases to obey an old program, of an archaic obsolete party, just to submit tamely to another program and another party that also would eventually grow old. It’s precisely about eliminating the syndrome of the flock, we must help people to infect each other with the virus of citizenship. Only when free individuals themselves are the sentinels of democracy will political programs have real meaning and value. I’m not sure if that answers your question.

CN: We continue to believe in the maxim that “revolutions are made only by a few”, is it possible that the same setbacks of more than a century ago, such as warlordism and political stubbornness, are the vernacular anchors that impede the foundation of a project of truly modern political opposition?

MC: But it is true that revolutions are made by a few, it always has been, because the ideas that mobilize masses usually arise from elites. Look at the History of Cuba itself: a group of landowners started the Yara Revolution in 1868. Marti and a small group of patriots were the main leaders of the Revolution of 1895. And later, Fidel Castro and a band of revolutionaries took power not only from Batista, but seized the country and established the longest dictatorship in this hemisphere.

See if a group of elites can be powerful, who are still there: worn out antiques in broken health, but fiercely dominating a population in which more than 70% of individuals were born after 1959, that is, they did not participate of revolution nor did they ask anyone to do it for them.

No revolution has made us truly free, nor has one brought us democracy. To be honest I must say that I do not approve of revolutions, I have serious reservations about them both as generally rapid and violent processes, with a highly destructive power, with a high share of death and pain. Often they are more of a setback to progress, and we Cubans have experienced this firsthand. I’d rather support a gradual evolution, concerted and peaceful, than be part of a social revolution.

With regards to warlordism and political stubbornness, we are caught in the vernacular, which hinders the establishment of a political project from the opposition. It is also weighing down the government. And I would say there are other things dragging us down, of which almost nobody wants to talk, but they are there, piercing the foundations of almost everyone and the deeper “I” of many: Messianism (as I mentioned before), egomania, corruption, nepotism, lack of political vision, inability to absorb criticism, civic irresponsibility, immaturity … and perhaps a dozen more ornaments.

One of the biggest limitations we suffer is the ignorance of our own history. For example, would you believe that there are many opponents, including leaders, who do not know how many constitutions have existed in Cuba? And if such ignorance was not enough, they simply spit at you that this is already passé, that what’s important is to found a new and different Cuba. It’s serious, because someone very wise said quite rightly that to ignore history dooms us to repeat past mistakes, but that is our reality.

Some even contemptuously disrespect the founding fathers. Look, it’s not about a cult of personality or magnifying the hero over the man, but every nation is heir to a story, or it’s not a nation. We lack roots, that’s the truth.

CN: With regards to the political influence of Western nations, such as the United States and the European Union, to what extent do you think this could be a positive for a new approach to our sovereignty and democracy in particular?

MC: I think the whole political process can and should assimilate the lessons and positive experiences of other nations. We are in times of globalization, and that is not only inevitable, but it does not have to be negative. Foreign influences do not necessarily mean the renunciation of sovereignty, as evidenced by numerous processes of past and recent history.

In particular the postwar scenarios, after the Second World War, with the new world political map, the end of the Cold War, and, more recently, the democratization processes that have been taking place since 2010 in the Arab world, among others, show that democracy in each case is influenced and assumes various native features, at the same time inserting itself harmoniously into the global panorama. Democracies are not “pure,” nor are sovereignties without foreign influences. In fact, it has never existed.

Now, Cuba is a Western nation, so the influence of Western-style democracies are not only the most similar to our own idiosyncrasies and culture, but also closer to what most Cubans aspire to. Of course the current paradigms are the most developed nations, the U.S. and the European Union, which does not exclude some interesting experiences in our region and elsewhere. I’m thinking, for example, in the progress that has been made in countries like Brazil and the spaces for democracy that have been consolidating in Chile in recent decades, just to offer some examples.

CN: If an abrupt change of regime occurred in Cuba, is the Cuban opposition prepared to deal with the new circumstances? Are they fit to govern the country? Are there opposition presidential candidates?

MC: It’s a difficult question to answer in the present circumstances, and impossible to exhaust in a small space. I think it would better encourage a broad discussion with a variety of opinions, but trying to think out loud, I still know that my answer will be incomplete and insufficient.

In my opinion, at the moment it does not seem that there will be an abrupt change of regime in Cuba (although one can not rule out that possibility). Everything indicates that, in the absence of institutions and proposals capable of taking on all the change, it would be appropriate to establish a dialogue between the government and representatives of the full spectrum of civil society opposition and alternative, but this is, without doubt, an ideal vision.

I’m thinking that the best thing would be something like what happened in Poland, for example, a paradigm of peaceful transition. The Czech case is another happy example, and that of Spain at its time, now somewhat distant in time.

Of course, in these cases there were strong civic structures contained within the culture and tradition of these people, which is not so in our case. The Cuban government does not feel sufficiently pressured by the opposition to recognize it as a partner.

On the other hand, it does not want to cede a single iota of power, or recognize its own limitations, which lengthens the agony of the regime, but also ours. However, while we Cubans certainly do not have a trade union like Solidarity, we can not ignore the presence of a peaceful opposition has been able to sustain itself over many years, nor can we ignore the emergence and exponential growth of many independent civil society groups that are important agents of change and bring their own agendas. The Cuba of today is not equal to that of just five years ago, much less that of the ’90s.

Today we are witnessing a rapidly changing reality in Cuba. Something has started to move and there are situations that can transform all scenarios in a moment. For example, right now the health situation of Venezuelan President could mark a change regarding the oil subsidies of that nation which keep the Cuban dictatorship in power. One element alone does not determine the changes, but combined with other factors, such as the crisis of the system, the absence of a viable government project, the despair and lack of confidence in the formal structures and proposals, coupled with rising sectors of the dissatisfied, could all lead to an unpredictable outcome, something as fragile as this could affect the teetering balance of power in the island.

Of course I do not know all the cards in this complicated deck and forecasts are always vague when it comes to policy, especially in a country where secrecy is the sign of “information” and people have no access to communications and media, beyond the official.

I think that, when the moment comes, the opposition — or at least some sectors of it — will assume their role. There will be a surge of opposition groups and we will see numerous parties of the most diverse denominations emerge, but in the medium to long-term the most prepares and mature will prevail, the most inclusive and those who receive more support.

It will be a very interesting scenario where there will also be a great struggle of interests, it will be difficult and complex, but I expect there will be freedom of expression and of the press, they will play a leading role in the formation and dissemination of public opinion.

Whether the opponents are suitable or not for running the country remains to be seen, but they deserve the opportunity to prove themselves. I think there are many potential leaders that haven’t emerged or that still aren’t visible. In any event, I think the most important will be to form a suitable nation and then we will have suitable politicians.

January 7 2013

This Wednesday, January 9, a new project comes to light from one of the organizations that dare to claim rights and freedoms under the most strict censorship of the state, repression and prison. Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet convicted in case 63 of 1999, in the case 662 of 1999 and finally in case 15, 2003, tried and convicted in Case 16 of 2003 to 25 years in prison, a part of the group of 75 and the fatal and infamous Cuban Black Spring.

President of the Club of Friends of Human Rights, he proposes a legitimate government is based on constitutional grounds and on respect and unconditional exercise of the 30 articles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which Cuba as a State is a signatory.

As most of the projects launched by and for freedom and civil rights are considered constitutionally illegal and the State reserves the right without rights to judge them as punishable offenses. That is why each time they do not cease to monitor and guard by well-armed police well supported in the media and agents prepared for espionage and prepared to use force with impunity as the government desires. This case is no exception.

It’s about 10 in the morning as the sun burns outside as if it were August, the foreign press accredited in Cuba arrives and, as usual after the rise to power of Fidel Castro by force of arms in 1959, foreigners will receive information about the events that occur within the island, which will then echo back through a small part of the people in the society interested in receiving the information, the rest might die ignorant, which is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes to maintain power.

The activist who serves as moderator starts the event, and offers an introduction. Some journalists who have been left behind accidentally or deliberately arrive in those moments, I don’t know them and my camera has stopped working to cover as a journalist authorized by the host to take their pictures.

From the ethics of courtesy I give up my space in the small room but they did not accept it and stayed near the door. Dr. Biscet begins the reading of the document entitled Project Emilia, and as he finished he gives way to the moderator’s questions. After the conference while Twittering the journalist identified with the F agency and her companion called me aside, with the peasant’s innate ingenuity they approached me and I offered my hand, my imagination ran on Christian transparency and fraternity, but what was not a surprise was to find myself questioned about my identity and presence.

An agent of the State Security could not have done a better job with that work. As I have said before anyone asked me my identity, and even written in my blog, I said I do journalism but I have no title, nor belong to any agency, I publish on my blog. The problem is that we’ve taken photos of ourselves and of the journalists and they don’t want to appear is association with the event. I do not let them finish the sentence and first for decency, and then ignoring the ethical rules of journalism, I felt embarrassed and try to give them my camera with great ingenuity to erase the unwanted photos, did not take it and I opened the small visual display to let them make the selection at will.

Lili, my wife who was with me, objected to the humiliating demand with which the reporter flaunted his journalistic profession to teach me. Everything was there, later I realized that these correspondents had also violated my right to freedom, none of the photos had been made with any evil intention that they noted, much less were they alone in them.

With regards to the submissiveness and subservience to the interests of the State of the accredited press corps in Cuba have made several critical assessments. Fear, I think, sometimes, of being expelled and losing the privileges coupled with substantial governmental perks added to the life of kings or princes which the job allows them to enjoy, most shun being present at and covering events where Cubans decide to protest and engage in civil disobedience.

This is one of the reasons for the emergence of more accurate and credible citizen journalism  which reports from when and why things happen. More than a journalism of news it has become a journalism of justice for the people inside and below.

The two previous reasons, fear and ambition could occasion a demand from the journalist representing the F agency whose name I’m not sure was was Andrea Rodriguez and the young man who accompanied her, have demanded that I remove the pictures where they dimly appear.

If we meet at another public event which is very probable I beg them to come wearing a hood or to stay away from my lens so that I won’t have to voluntarily erase one more photo from my camera with which I delineate part of the current history of Cuba, for which I face the risk of repression or prison, a story I don’t think interests them very much since they don’t get paid for it.

As I never grossly manipulated a photo contrary to justice or to treacherously denigrate the honor or dignity of a human being, attributing to the image some motive of mockery or slander, I take advantage of the occasion to recommend that at a public event any citizen who falls under the shutter of my equipment, without regards to the social strata he belongs to or the job he holds within the government, will only through a compassionate act or violent force get me to give up my images.

The audio of the press conference will be posted soon, due to technical problems it could not be posted now.

11 January 2013

Some readers, some annoying, who disagree with what I posted on 1.1.13, raising the issue of the marginalization of the city of Havana. I do not try to please everyone with my opinions, since I reject unanimity and, in addition, welcome the differences and different opinions.

I simply had reflected on a daily reality which, even if it hurts, is a visible and tangible reality, for anyone walking through Central Havana, Cerro, Diez de Octubre, and even most of the streets of Old Havana, leaving aside the tourist streets, to mention only to some municipalities. In addition to the collapse from the architectural point of view, the city also is breaking down because of these evils I have mentioned.

Speaking of ruralization, nobody is trying to be contemptuous of the rural, but simply to note that it has very little to do with the urban. It’s not the same to sell roots and vegetables full of dirt, and meats without refrigeration on a rustic flooring at the entry or exit of a batey or village, as to do so in Galiano, at 12th and 17th or 17th and K, to name just a few visible examples. This is not only rural but also medieval. So it is upsetting.

Havana was not like this, nor were Santiago de Cuba, Holguin, Camaguey, Sancti Spiritus, Cienfuegos, Santa Clara, Matanzas and Pinar del Rio, to name but a few major cities. If you add the destroyed streets turned into trash dumps, the lack of hygiene, the widespread destruction of banks and green areas in parks, and cooking with firewood in the planting strip, the spectacle is downright chaotic.

With all due respect, this was not the general situation, regardless of what that might exist in some other marginal settlement.

Regarding those who migrate to the capital, which is quite a massive number despite prohibitions, mainly due to the difficult economic conditions within the country, no one is suggesting any type of discrimination, but only to respect the customs and social discipline, to have an awareness of identity, along the lines of: when in Rome do as the Romans.

Undoubtedly, Cuba is one nation, and all its citizens, wherever they live, are Cuban. That no one disputes. What happens is that, as in all countries, there are people educated and badly educated, respectful and disrespectful, responsible and irresponsible, decent and indecent, peaceful and violent, etc. and here, unfortunately, the latter are too concentrated and reproduced.

January 10 2013

Three years ago, when I decided to open up a blog, giving my real name and my surname, I began timidly to write. I remember my first post was to describe the year-end party, to which had been invited in Centro Habana. That was something amazing, I could only describe it as a wild west.

Now, on my third anniversary, I thought I would post something happy, cheerful, or at least entertaining, because after many adventures, and years of separation, I finally came back to visit my family in this beautiful Alsatian city called Saint Louis, in France on the border with Switzerland and Germany, where just crossing a bridge, investing about twenty minutes, you can find yourself in either of these two countries, without anyone along the way asking you for your identity card.

But, like the drunk has one idea while the winemaker has another… even though I hadn’t had even a sip of the excellent and famous wine produced in this region. I had a misstep: je me suis trompe, et puis tombe (I put my foot wrong and fell) downstairs.

So I ask my faithful and patient followers, as well as my regular commentators, to forgive me for having neglected my blog a bit, but I just started writing, although with difficulties, with my right hand, whose fingers, no longer inflamed, thank God, were free of the cast that still immobilizes my arm.

From my heart, I hope that you have happily begun this year 2013, in which I have asked, as the most precious gift, after health, of course, the liberation of our beloved captive country captive. A big hug!

January 11 2013

The first time I heard the phrase “we will convert the setback into victory” it was in the speech delivered by the otherwise Invincible-in-Chief after the failure of the Ten Million Ton Harvest* (1970). At that time I was 11, but I remember the the sadness of many adults–who had blindly believed in the success of Castro I’s adventure with sucrose–and the apotheosis of applause that followed. If the Commander said it, it was so: after the setback a new era of victories would begin. The spell of as single sentence of the hypnotizer, everyone forgetting that he had pronounced on the same subject during the previous months, assuring with equal conviction: “there will be ten million…”  And there never were.

The passage of years has shown that, in fact, in “socialist” Cuba every possible victory has been turned into another failure. But this text today is not about that topic, but rather it is about the latest decontextualization of that statement about the metamorphosis of setbacks, now applied to the current reality.

Here we have the Granma newspaper of January 2013 bringing it to us renewed, like a gift, in a huge red headline on the front page that announced: Moncada** taught us to turn setbacks into victories. Under the sentence, almost as old as the legend of Moncada, is an enlarged photograph of the Castro brothers–and only them in a photo that was originally of a group–raising a fist and a rifle respectively.

However, taking into account the antiquity of the statement and the photo–and also that in the recently concluded session of the General Assembly, the General-President delivered a strongly optimistic speech about the progress of Cuba in 2012 and referenced the achievements to be produced in 2013–one would have to ask what setbacks threaten that were reflected in the first proposal of the new year by the official organ of the Cuban Communist Party. January started off confronting a “setback” not shown, but obvious.

Chavez’s death

You don’t even need to be a specialist in deciphering the cryptic language of the Castrocracy: any reader can guess the worsening crisis that will come with the obviously soon-to-come death of the Venezuelan President, when his subsidies to the Cuban dictatorship will be reduced and finally extinguished.

Last Friday the 4th, also on the front page, the same paper was commissioned to begin preparing public opinion for the imminent demise of the constitutional dictator of Venezuela: President Chavez suffering complications from lung infection, read the headline; and inside the official communiqué read by the Executive Vice President, Nicolas Maduro–where he reports on the serious condition of the President–was reproduced in full. In a country where information secrecy rules, such a confession is practically equivalent to a final goodbye.

Personally, I do not feel a particular delight in the suffering of any human being, which does not mean that we can’t understand that some people are more beneficial dead than alive. The death of the caudillo definitely does not depend on our desires or aspirations. But the fact is that Chavez left the game; he simply is not; and what will result from his absence will have a major impact for Cuba and for the immediate future of Cubans.

Sooner or later Chavismo will also be extinguished, after the death of Chavez, because regimes that are based on the charisma and populism of a leader lack a firm foundation and cannot sustain themselves without him or her. Populist governments squander national wealth to support both disproportionate social programs as well as handouts and political commitments to buy the support of the masses and to bribe and involve broad sectors. But, incapable of creating economic wealth, they ruin the economy of their nations. Despite its vast natural resources, Venezuela is now suffering the consequences of the Chavista irrationality and certainly, in times to come, the full weight of the “Bolivarian freebies” will be seen. All populism is inherently unsustainable.

What lies ahead

Nor does there seem to be visible on the horizon a ship to save the decadent Castro regime in Cuba, at least none that could replace the amount of aid it has been given in the form of Venezuelan oil for more than a decade. For my part, I am among the unbelievers about any hidden last card General Castro might play. This time the setback that looms will also strike hard at the Cuban leadership.

Having been proactive, Castro II took strong steps in to try to implement effective measures, particularly those relating to food production as well as others to improve the miserable domestic economy. But we can see that without the recognition of essential political freedoms it is impossible to reverse the general decline.

Contrary to what common sense says, this year the most draconian and unpopular reforms will be implemented: they will raise taxes and impose new burdens on the tiny private sector. At the same time, the nickel plant has closed and food production hasn’t quite taken off, keeping us dependent on imports, grants and subsidies. The government will be left with only three visible sources of direct income: tourism (still insufficient), family remittances from Cubans abroad, and whatever is left to enjoy of the Bolivarian gifts.

So far, the official compass points toward the exploitation of the work of the anemic private sector via the new tax provisions. The coming months will tend to mark a challenge, not only for the government but for society as a whole.

Thus, from the perspective of today, the triumphant phrase of the boastful olive-green guerrilla assumes a gloomy tone. While the Venezuelan leader is dying backstage, we are left with a complicated scenario, both for our own country as well in the palaces of the leaders in Havana. During the past 54 years the Castrocracy has marked only setbacks in national life. It is time that we Cubans choose to define and achieve our own victories.

Translator’s notes:
*Castro turned all the energies of the nation to harvesting ten million tons of sugar cane, exceeding all previous harvests. The effort failed and sugar cane production has declined ever since; in 2012 it was reported to be in the range of 1.5 million tons.
**The failed assault on the Moncada Barracks that is considered the start of the Castro Revolution.

Translated from DiariodeCuba.com

11 January 2013

To enter and leave one’s country, while retaining one’s nationality, are rights that Cubans have not been able to access for decades, because of the prevailing political system and social theory in Cuba. One of the reforms introduced by Raul Castro is the implementation of a new Migratory Law, as of this coming January 14, which does not, however, eliminate government control over the “exit permit.”

Most Cubans discern the solution to the crisis of rights which confronts us within the Island as getting a visa to settle elsewhere. The exodus has not been effective, however, in changing the situation within the Island with regards to the State’s recognition of these rights.

Cubans don’t protest but they leave the country. It is a phenomenon that can be observed with respect, such as the right to remain indifferent to the political present and future of the country of your birth. It is not that Cubans are less ethical by nature. Vaclav Havel, who illustrated the complex situation in which the individual finds herself in these kinds of societies, imputed to the advent of responsibility in one’s conscience the determining step to overthrow this type of dictatorship.

Much has been written about the changes that occur in human nature when it is subjected to the violence, direct or covert, of a totalitarian system. One of the products of that violence is submission. The capacity for intimidation of the totalitarian system that has triumphed for 54 years in Cuba has been revealed more by the submission of the masses than by their complaints and protest. As it’s about surviving at all costs, leaving the country is the only solution that appears to be left to Cubans.

Solving the problem of Cuba only by sea or air is what seems to be available to Cubans at this time. The ballot boxes will remain closed as long as this silence endures. There is no lack of alternatives such as the Citizen Demand for Another Cuba, or the New Country Project, and supporting them is the best investment in the future, which will arrive more or less immediately depending on our participation.

Human beings do not give up freedom willingly. Just as the Communist regime cannot renounce violence. To leave the country should be just a withdrawal that does not put an end to the controversy. As long as we have some shred of perseverance left in our original nature tending toward freedom, we are condemning the regime. But if we change such that we betray ourselves and even forget our conscience, we are giving our main aggressor the gift of perpetual triumph.

January 11 2013

This blog is now celebrating its fifth birthday. In reality, it was the end of December 2007 when the first posts if Sin EVAsion appeared. I remember one of them in particular, “Year-end Yearnings,” in which I mentioned the many friends of my early youth who had emigrated from the country and of whom I kept the fondest memories.

On the date it opened I wasn’t administering my own blog yet, and had only connected to the Internet on a few occasions, so my friend Yoani Sánchez, with her usual cyber-enthusiasm, which — not content with having gotten me all excited and having opened my blog in the blink of an eye which decided me on the adventure — posted the first texts I wrote for this space and urged me to write more.

In January 2008 I started posting, aided and supervised by Yoani, until I was able to fend for myself without causing a disaster. That’s why I mark the true birthday of Sin EVAsion from this moment. Because of this, and also because at some point the cyber-security-agents torpedoed the site , the first posts that came out on this blog were lost and haven’t been recovered.

In any event, due to the haste imposed on me by my scant connection time, there are still many times my fingers slip and I start to experiment with the goblins of the web and things get twisted…

My usual readers know that from time to time the little imps in the keyboard commit technical errors, but so far you have always forgiven me these lapses. Luckily, my good friend and teacher always throws me a lifeline and helps me to clean up the mess. It was also she who clothed the blog in a new image so I could be all dressed up for this new anniversary.

There has been a lot of water under the bridge in the last five years and neither the national scene, nor the Cuban reality nor I are the same. I have seen all around me that conditions have been changing, and quietly but inexorably social forces that were sleeping have begun to move.

This blog is inserted in a wide and varied Cuban phenomenon that one day historians might call “the transition from Castroism to humanism.” I feel privileged and happy to be a part of this. Personally, Sin EVAsion and you have made me a person more apt to debate, more respectful of the opinions of others, more inclusive and — undoubtedly — more useful that I was before.

This is not about a feeling of childish pride for something that doesn’t belong to me because I am no more than a speck in the midst of the yeast. What I really feel from the depths of my heart is gratitude: toward life, that it gave me this opportunity to be in the right place at the right time to discover the magic of expressing myself freely; to my friend Yoani, for initiating me in the rudiments of the fascinating rites of cyber-technology; and to all of you, for having accompanied and sustained me throughout this time, in good times and bad.

Thank you! We will continue together.

January 11 2013

An article in Juventud Rebelde on Sunday, January 6, caught my eye. It felt like a gift from the Three Kings — although a modest one, written for my pleasure by its author, Osviel Castro Medel. With the first of his last names many might suppose that he would have opinions diametrically opposed to the view expressed in his article. The title of his work is “Harmful Chicharrones” and alludes to the sycophants that exist in all societies. These excessive flatterers constitute the well-seasoned sauce on the main course of the boss, Snow White’s magic mirror to slobber over one’s superiors about how competent and “enlightened” they are: as if in regime’s such as Cuba’s the perks attached to some jobs aren’t enough, especially for those in jobs of a political nature.

The most widely-used term to refer to these people was “guatacas” — an agricultural instrument that in other countries is called a hoe — perhaps because in their function of clearing the land for cultivation, the action with which the tool is manipulated made someone think of a gesture meaning “for me.” This definition held sway on this tangle of islands and predominated until a few years ago, when popular slang came up with another synonym.

The guatacas or chicharrones are the armchairs where the sickly egos of many leaders lounge, while making themselves a poison for society and an obstacle to the necessary alternation in office. They are flattering their superiors like dirty pig skin, like an adipose adhering to their low self-esteem and the unshaven practice of their servility.

Of course, the journalist, who works for the official press and possible has passed through all the direct and indirect ideological screens to get there, doesn’t dare to point out or mention the character who in our country institutionalized the term guataca, rewarding the chicharrones with foreign travel, positions with greater respect and pay, as well as other benefits, with the purpose of mass producing this negative behavior.

Anyway, after ripping off a strip of the hide — as if they were dealing with pigs — the people accustomed to undertaking such practices lead the rest of us to conclude that “the chicharonnes are the triglycerides (bad fats) of the whole collective or society.“

January 10 2013

Today, January 9, I can post my first post of the year. It was my first chance on the internet in this country where the connection is a luxury that few can have. Some may wonder how in the world of the global village it is that it is only on the ninth day of the year that I have managed to publish something. Others will say what a privilege! And the vast majority of those who inhabit this archipelago will have no internet access of any kind in all of 2013.

The most important thing is that I take advantage of this little connection for my first post for, despite all the pessimistic forecasts and ill omens I wish everyone who reads my words the best in this new year that has just begun. I do not know when I will to connect again, I will try to schedule a new post for next Wednesday the 16th on which some celebrate the Day of Freedom of Religion. The truth is that my hugs and my prayers are for everyone right now. I wish with all my heart, may God bless you.

January 9 2013