Obama, Cuba, and the Confederacy of Dunces / Ernesto Morales Licea

According to Jonathan Swift, when a true genius appears in the world we can recognize him by a sign: All fools conspire against him.

I believe we could easily adapt this maxim – taken from the stupendous novel “A Confederacy of Dunces” by John Kennedy Toole – to another context: When a sensible president appears in one of the world’s great nations, it is not long before fools join against him.

I think of this each time I hear Barack Obama uphold his policies in that singular case which has come to be called Cuba. I think it each time I hear his thoughts consonant with the primary needs of Cubans in these times.

For my part, knowing that President Obama distanced himself from previous positions — unsustainable as they were within the current context of the Caribbean nation — as soon as he arrived at the White House, seemed to me a breath of fresh air. A good omen that came to me in my remote provincial city in Cuba.

I was not alone. I remember the endless debates among young people who in different ways, both more publicly and more surreptitiously, disapproved of the monolithic system under which we grew up, of the harmful policy promulgated by George W. Bush during the eight endless years of his government.

I risk a generalization: the vast majority, by far, of Cubans on the Island, the generations who undoubtedly will build a better country for their children and grandchildren; the huge majority of dissidents both notorious and unknown, Cubans detached from the indoctrination, tired of lies and bland politics, wholeheartedly approve the measures taken vis-a-vis Cuba by the current U.S. administration.

While not a few idiots conjure the accusation that Barack Obama has allied himself with the tropical regime in Havana, allowing Cuban-Americans to travel at will to the country of their birth, and ignoring how much money a waiter in Hialeah sends to his mother in Santa Clara.

Another tiny and poorly mounted campaign offers as evidence of this insensitivity of the Obama administration toward Cuba the cutting of funds to promote Democracy in Cuba to organizations such as the “Cuban Democratic Directorate,” or “Advocates for a Free Cuba,” intentionally ignoring the reallocation of these funds to other institutions more in sync with the current administration, such as the Human Rights Division of the Cuban American National Foundation.

Suspiciously, this class of anti-Castro fighters who call themselves “intransigents” and fiercely defend the asphyxiation of Cubans as a route to regime change, do not inhabit the country. I didn’t meet them in the Cuba I left behind nine months ago. They are outside of it, well-sheltered from the prevailing misery, and the asphyxiation of the official disinformation. In the overwhelming majority of cases, their families are. As a mountain song very popular in the Cuban sierras would say, “Yep, it’s easy, pal!”

The rationale for this is simple: restricting remittances from Miami to Cuba would have its effect in the stomachs of the Cubans, who would inevitably end up toppling the dictator. What none of these thinkers and architects of Cuban freedom has ever explained to me is what they themselves are doing outside Cuba. What are their families doing outside Cuba? Why should my mother, my grandmother, be the ones who rise up against the tyrant as a result of their policies while they are sitting safely by with a shot of Bacardi in hand.

What has been the policy focus of Barack Obama? Towards truth like a temple: the natural scenario, the preferred habitat of every dictator is isolation. It is at a distance, separated, in the prohibitions, where all the authoritarian regimes in History have found the best conditions to perpetuate themselves. This is their sauce, cooked there with skill.

When I hear Obama defend his positions on Cuba, defend the need for Cubans to demarcate themselves from the State and take advantage of new forms of communication with the exterior, I come to see only two possibilities with regards to his detractors:

1. Either their disconnect with that country is so insurmountable — even when they don’t sense it — that they do not understand the damage that has been done to the monolithic regime in Havana from the entry into its lands of inhabitants from the free world, the contacts between human beings and slaves.

2. Or blind Republicanism of the type, “do whatever you have to do to confront him” clouds their reason and distorts their attempted good intentions toward the Island.

There is no other way I can understand, for example, how these champions of the Cuban cause can praise George W. Bush as the most consistent, hard and admirable president of the last decades.

Setting aside the shame that surrounds the most unpopular president in American history, the most uneducated and the most notoriously incompetent, I believe that a single question collapses the myth: What did the “admirable” Bush policy achieve in Cuba, with his fiery little speeches and his limits on remittances and travel between both shores?

Did it, in fact, achieve anything? Yes, a lot: under his administration the regime of Fidel Castro dictated the most astronomical possible sentences against independent journalists; mobilized interminable forced marches in the country; suppressed with great effectiveness popular protests; sustains an absolute monopoly on information; and enjoyed silently the estrangement of families, this time imposed not by its own directives, but by the country that for many is the paradigm of a modern democracy.

In short: I would be willing to believe in the effectiveness of the Republican prohibitions if they showed me one, just one, of the accomplishments of these policies in the lives of Cubans on the Island.

All this discounts a fundamental factor: the Texan Bush was not only the most unpopular president among Americans. He was also so among Cubans on the Island: as if it’s not enough to have the iron fist of the family dictatorship shoved down the throats of 11 million people, now the president of a nation that should ally itself with the victims did exactly the opposite — it prevented our families from visiting us, from alleviating our hunger and longings. And meanwhile, Bush won applause in Miami’s Little Cuba for “doing what was really necessary.”

Making Cubans independent of the State; breaking the monopoly on information so often mentioned by Yoani Sanchez and directly promoted by Barack Obama; allowing contact between Cubans on both shores — not only as a political strategy but as a sacred right that belongs to them — seems to me not only defensible for those of us who know the tropical monster from within, but for all those who have a genuine interest in prosperity and democracy for Cuba, beyond the demagoguery disguised as patriotism.

The rest goes a long way to please the stiff ears of certain sectors that don’t live in Cuba and seem not to notice it. It serves to disguise the lack of serious and effective policy proposals, with the mantle of exhausted rhetoric. But at least to Cubans now, those on and off the Island, it definitely does not deceive us. Not by coming together will the voices of certain dunces be heard any louder.

October 10 2011

A Beautiful Lady Comes to Less / Rebeca Monzo

Patchwork, Rebeca

Because of the 492nd Anniversary of the Villa of Saint Christopher of Havana, between the many television programs dedicated to this celebration, Hurón Azul, of the UNEAC (Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba), presented some interviews with renowned architects and artists, where they poured out their opinions about the the deteriorating image of the city, the beautiful lady coming to less.

Some of the views expressed that, effectively, at present, due to a uncontrolled profusion of little ground-floor businesses, the cast majority of them improvised, depressing small shops (a derogatory term to describe them), are not due only to the bad taste and scanty resources of the owners, but more to the total absence of control and lack of demand that they at least present a small project plan to the managers in charge of granting the licenses or permits.

Undoubtedly, this could also be caused, by the urgency of the government in offering an escape route for the population, before the massive layoffs and their growing disapproval and the hopelessness, accentuating the impossibility of the State’s ability to offer them other work alternatives.

The urgent need of the citizens to cover the basic necessities has made these stalls proliferate in an uncontrolled manner, using doorways, stair landings, gardens and even sidewalks (mostly common-use areas), in those that unfortunately abound in bad taste and precariousness, consequently contributing to making things more ugly in the already abandoned city that formerly was considered one of the most beautiful in the world, and that survives miraculously, going through half a century of indolence and abandonment, without the Cuban authorities having done the least thing to preserve this beautiful heritage inherited by the district and the republic, that is the city of Havana.

Its decadence started very early, back in the 1970s, when they closed up and plunged into total abandonment premises that belonged to local shops, bookstores, stores, and department stores, whose owners went into exile, or else those of the people who stayed were confiscated, while some were subsequently handed over by the State for housing without the necessities nor demands that the future owners undertake a minimum of effort to make them habitable. Thus they urgently tried to solve a problem that years later led to a larger one.

Now, in this new anniversary of the city, they have sounded the warning once again, before the growing fear that they are continuing to lose the architectural value that made Havana so famous.

Translated by: BW

November 22 2011

Bad Handwriting in La Joven Cuba (14) / Regina Coyula

Translator’s note: This series of posts are comments from Regina to authors or commentators on the blog La Joven Cuba.This one is addressed to someone using the nickname “Edu.”

I don’t know if there is, among us, some historian, but if you take [the 1920’s student leader and proponent of revolutionary socialism] Antonio Guitaras as a symbol, the least is to know him by heart, the natural curiosity that would have led them from beginning to end; not that I or anyone else come with knowledge of this era, and they would consider them at least superficial. You must go beyond the nationalized Guiteras, the one that appears in the textbooks, and know the total Guiteras. You refer to two anecdotes where you have heard bells. He gave Summer Welles ten minutes to abandon Cuba, where they met, and not in his office. Wells kept on protesting and Guiteras recorded that he had lost three of the ten minutes.

The anecdote about the National Hotel you also do not have clearly. Officers of the Army of the Republic had taken shelter there, some of them very committed to Machado, who did not accept the 4th of September Movement. Guiteras, as minister of government and Batista has head of the army led the attack on the National Hotel, they were with everyone, because the officers had been holed up there for nearly a month, about which Guiteras said: We can’t permit a State within a State. It’s a mockery.

Joven Cuba — Young Cuba — was a clandestine organization whose objective was armed conflict. The Batista-Guiteras dispute was political, but also very personal. The members of Joven Cuba undertook fund-raising activities to create a “suitable climate,” consisting of bombs, Tony’s methods prior to JC. Although you can dive into the biography of Guiteras by Jose A. Taberes del Real, or into the books of Lionel Soto and Newton Briones published by the non-suspect Political Publishers, I offer you a family anecdote. My uncle Fernando Perez-Puelles, then an engineering student, belonged to the Young Cuba board, and previously had belonged to the University Students Directorate (DEU). Fernando armed explosive devices, and on one opportunity my mother, four years younger, helped him transport one of these devices wrapped as a present. I have known this story since I was a girl. Edu, this also part of not fragmenting the history that so concerns you.

I can explain your annoyance with the Miriam Celaya’s commentary (which was not a diatribe). She doesn’t need defenders because she is a born debater, but beware, don’t disqualify her so quickly. You can like her or not, but Miriam is cultured and educated. I ask you to reflect and reread your comment, where there are a few blemishes and an excess of testosterone. You allege it is against Miriam, but the immediacy betrays you and you fall into the plural again are mistaken. A little restraint would not hurt. The country I would like is one in which you are exactly as you describe, Miriam doesn’t like Guiteras, and the group of the University Students Federation (FEU) is not useful to triumph, this time in a literal sense, to a peace-loving citizen.

Edu, I don’t know if you consider that I adopt a pose of wisdom, I confess to you that to comment to you often forces me to revisit the history books, which I love and which reinforce my Cubanness and what it means to be Cuban. (The italics are quotes from you.) My greetings.

August 19 2011

Bad Handwriting in La Joven Cuba (16) / Regina Coyula

Translator’s note: This series of posts are comments from Regina to authors or commentors on the blog La Joven Cuba.

For Osmani, for your post on the “Five.”

The “Wasp Network” is, I believe, the only Cuban intelligence network discovered by the American government over more than fifty years of dispute. You must have noticed, given that you undertook a preliminary investigation, that there is a gap of years between the date on which the arrests were carried out and the date when the national press published the existence of those five names, ignoring that the rest of the network had pleaded guilty and accepted a plea bargain with the prosecutor, under which they incriminated the five who chose to declare themselves innocent. That is how American law works, with its Anglo Saxon roots, different from our Hispanic antecedents.

Personally I believe the trial was polarized; personally I believe that the sentences were excessive, especially in the case of Gerardo. The agents informed the Central Intelligence Agency and they didn’t know that plans that such information generated because of compartmentalization; so I believe that Gerardo was not responsible for the shooting down of the planes and the deaths of the Brothers to the Rescue crews. I have spoken with combat pilots who have assured me that they are capable of forcing any civil aircraft to land. So why the decision to shoot them down? I think the Cuban government wanted to give a warning, and also wanted to stop President Clinton from lifting the Embargo.

My respect for the decision of these five Cuban agents to accept responsibility for their intelligence work, my respect as well for remaining steadfast in their beliefs, in this time when ideologies have undergone drastic changes. But they are not innocents, they knew in accepting the mission the risks involved, the greatest of these being to be detected and arrested.

The Cuban government spares no expense when it comes to them: they have lawyers, solidarity groups, media campaigns, the presence of their relatives across wide geographical points to defend their cause. And it makes sense. The Cuban government was giving clues to the FBI to follow the thread that ended with the capture of the network, and if I’m not mistaken, also led to the arrest of Ana Belen Montes, a Cuban intelligence agent who infiltrated the Department of Defense, about whom Cuba has not said one word.

Our government would do well to publish a tabloid with all the relevant information, but all, not only what suits them. This would be transparency, something very scarce in the information we receive.

September 17 2011