English Translations of Cubans Writing From the Island
Unfortunately we do not have the resources to translate and subtitle all the wonderful videos coming out of Estado de Sats and the Forum for Rights and Freedom, but for our many readers who do understand spoken Spanish, we just wanted to remind you they are there.
This particular video is a discussion of the Americas Summit in Panama.
The Estado de Sats YouTube channel is here.
29 April 2015
14ymedio, 17 April 2105 – This Friday morning, the Forum for Rights and Freedoms convened a group of activists to a meeting under the title After the Summit in Panama, what next? The event took place at the home of Antonio González Rodiles, director of the opposition group Estado de Sats.
About 70 attendees heard testimony from Berta Soler, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez, Gorki Águila, Roberto de Jesús Guerra and other activists who participated in the Civil Society Forum during the recently concluded Seventh Summit of the Americas in Panama.
The discussions addressed issues related to the restoration of relations between Cuba and the United States and on the actions taken by the representatives of civil society sent to Panama by the Cuban government.
Violently arrested at Carlos III and Infanta, a large group of Ladies in White and activists, among them Angel Juan Moya.
12April 2015, 2:40 PM Havana time
Cubanet, Ernesto Perez Chang, Havana, 9 April 2015 – The discussion parallel to the Panama Summit (Summit of the Americas) lacks the presence of Antonio G. Rodiles, because the Cuban government, very “opportunistically,” has retained his passport.
A recognized opposition activist and director of the Estado de Sats (State of Sats) civic project, this talkative, jovial, controversial man who was young athlete, doctor of science and professor at prestigious universities in the United States, one day decided to leave the comfort of academic life to return to Cuba and challenge the regime, building, in his own home, a space for public debate as an alternative to the stagnation that affects Cuban society. continue reading
The announcement of the conversations between the governments of the Cuba and the United States has generated different positions among the Cuban dissidence. The opinions of Antonio G. Rodiles in a certain way deviate from those of the rest of the opponents, calling attention to those things that should be paramount at the dialog table where many do not feel represented.
“From my point of view,” warns Rodiles, “is very illogical to accept a path where there is no clear request to the regime in Havana. We all know that the principal objective of the regime is to maintain itself in power. They cannot maintain it much longer because this elite is going to die of natural causes and clearly they are working for the transfer of power to their family. (…)
“If the international community (…) allows them to make this transition without asking anything in return it is going to be happiness for them, and anguish for us Cubans (…). Our position has been made clear against a political process, we are peaceful fighters and we believe the solution for Cuba has to be a peaceful and a political one but this must be through a clearly defined process, there must be transparency, which was not what happened (…).
“It is clear that in a negotiation process not everything is going to be said, not all points are going to be put on the table, but at least the line and the logic of what you want to accomplish should be, and so far we have not seen that Cubans’ civil and political rights are the end point of this conversation, and this is what overwhelmingly concerns us.”
Although the constant dedication of the Estado de Sats project consumes a great part of his social and family life, Antonio G. Rodiles – who affirms that he grew up “hearing the Voice of America and Radio Marti,” and without hearing “that Fidel and Raul Castro were heroes,” despite being the nephew of one of Raul Castro’s trusted confidants – agreed to meet with us, for hours, to talk about what we wanted to know about his past, his obsessions, his personal perspectives on a democratic future, and even his daily life, shaped by a sense of commitment to his ideas and with respect for dialogue, qualities that have made him a true leader for a good part of the opposition within and outside Cuba.
Video below is in Spanish
Forum for Rights and Freedoms: Declaration
VII Summit of the Americas
April 2015
Violations of fundamental rights in Cuba are enshrined in the current legal system. The full exercise of these fundamental rights is considered directly opposed to the interests “of the Cuban people in building socialism and communism.”
The so-called constitution establishes the ownership and control of the State and the Communist Party over the communication media and mass distribution. The Law of Protection of National Independence and the Economy of Cuba, known as the Gag Law, sets sentences of up to 20 years for those who attempt to violate this provision.
Trade unions, civic, professional and human rights associations that do not profess the official ideology are not recognized. Those who attempt to organize meetings or found independent associations can suffer imprisonment, dismissal, harassment or intimidation. Thousands of Cubans have paid, even with their lives, for trying to exercise their freedoms. continue reading
The Penal Code defines “pre-criminal dangerousness” and applies it according to the standards of a supposed “socialist morality.” Arrests, imprisonments and beatings of human rights activists, political opponents and independent journalists are recurring.
The use of violence on the part of paralegal groups as a form of social control has been one of the most abhorrent practices of the Castro regime. This deplorable experience has been exported to other Latin American nations, as was the case of the Dignity Brigades 25 years ago in Panama, and the so-called Collectives in Venezuela today.
Economic rights are also violated and the entrepreneurial capacity and character of Cubans struggling against a regime obsessed with control. Corruption, taxes that smother micro-businesses, total State control over imports and exports, the absence of property rights, make up a part of our scenario. The economic situation is dire.
The regime has ratified dozens of international treaties on the issue of Human Rights, although it refuses to ratify the Human Rights Covenants of the United Nations. However, the majority of these standards have not been applied to the legal system, becoming a dead letter. The Castro regime continues to hide fugitives from justice for common crimes and terrorism. It violates international norms as in in the case of the recent arms trafficking and maintains a “complicit silence” about the trafficking of Cubans to the United States through third countries.
We do not accept the mutation of a neo-Castro authoritarianism, where the old elite transfers power to its political and family heirs.
The sovereignty of our country does not rest on a despotic and corrupt regime. It rests in the people and, in particular, in those of us who fight for a true democracy: with political pluralism, an independent judiciary, freedom and human rights. Where we Cubans can define our destinies through consultations and free and transparent electoral processes, as set out in important opposition documents such as: The Agreement for Democracy, or the Forum for Rights and Freedoms Roadmap.
No society can be viable if it oppresses the human being. To accept that there are different interpretations of our freedoms constitutes a tactic that validates authoritarianism as an alternate form to democracy on our continent.
We appeal to the solidarity and the just support of the entire regional and international community to initiate the urgent path to the democratization of our nation.
Your speech at the extraordinary ALBA summit reconfirms that you and your group are going to try to hold onto power at all costs. It doesn’t matter if the Cuban people are sunk in misery and desperation, it doesn’t matter if your children continue to escape this disaster, you people intend to remain and to demolish everything.
Your speech said that Cuban “civil society” will unmask the mercenaries and their bosses, I again remind you, your brother and your group are the greatest traitors and anti-Cubans and your spokespeople and repressors are the real mercenaries.
You have imprisoned, executed, expelled, punished, harassed and humiliated great Cubans, you and your brother will go down in history as the worst sons of this land.
If you are so sure of your pathetic spokespeople, why do you block an important group of Cubans who want continue reading
You won’t allow ex-prisoners from the Group of 75 to travel, people like: Ángel Juan Moya, Arnaldo Ramos Lauzarique, Eduardo Díaz Fleitas, Félix Navarro, Héctor Fernando Maseda, Iván Hernández Carrillo, Jorge Olivera, Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello, José Daniel Ferrer, Oscar Elías Bicet. And artists like: Ailer González Mena and Tania Bruguera. And activists like: Egberto Escobedo, Hugo Damián Prieto Blanco and Antonio G. Rodiles, among others.
You fear being face to face with worthy Cubans, you tremble at the mere thought that you will hear sharp and direct truths face-to-face. You and your brother, you are nothing more than dark dictators whom we will manage to throw out so that our people, once and for all, can live in freedom, peace and prosperity.
Antonio G. Rodiles, 17 March 2015
14ymedio, Antonio G. Rodiles, Havana, 6 February 2015 – My article published this Wednesday on the site Diario de Cuba has provoked a criticism from blogger Miriam Celaya that motivates me to touch on various points I consider important. In order to mainly refer to the political themes, I will avoid personal attacks; yet without failing to mention that the blogger has, in other instances, published high flown articles riddled with offenses and ill intent against highly respectable people like ex-political prisoner, journalist, and writer Jorge Olivera, among others. If she intends to really take part in a political debate, she should cast this habit aside and concentrate on the points that are fundamental.
The polarization that exists today within the ranks of country’s opposition regarding the United States’ new policy toward Cuba does not necessarily imply a confrontation but does continue reading
The position to be adopted by the North American government in supporting change in our country will be of vital importance. We should not feel any sense of shame in accepting it. In a global world such as the one in which we live, it would be naïve not to accept that fact, even more so if in that country resides an important portion of the Cuban population. The presence of political exiles, professionals, entrepreneurs, and even Cuban Americans within the ranks of government provides for a unique and maybe even special feature in our country’s transition and its future reconstruction. In that respect, it becomes very difficult to find a similar political, economic, and social setting when speaking of transition in Cuba. Likewise, blocs such as Europe can be key actors in the process of change if they assume their corresponding leadership role within the international scene.
The usual comparisons with other transition processes should be carefully selected. To take the Spanish transition as a reference turns out to be inexact at the extreme due to the enormous distance between Francoism and Castroism, but some elements can be considered. Spain’s economic condition in the 1960s, the makeup of a social fiber that included trade unions and politicians that favored a transformative process for a society that pushed toward modernization and for which the regime was a nuisance. The country possessed all of the ingredients to enter a process of transformation taking Western Europe as a reference.
In the Polish case we should point out that the negotiating table was set up after years of struggle and repression where the international scene also exerted constant and effective pressure. The signing of the Helsinki Accords and support from the West and leaders of such importance as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and the crucial role of Pope John Paul II allowed the independently run Polish trade Union Solidarity to reach 10 million members. When in 1989 the Soviet Union advised General Jaruzelski that it would not intervene under any circumstance, the Polish elite understood that time was slipping away. Only under these conditions could the negotiating table come to pass.
The Chilean case is also very distinct from ours. Stability depended on a middle class formed under a series of liberal economic transformations promoted by Milton Friedman that strayed far from those started by Raúl Castro and his advisory group, spearheaded by Marino Murillo. Once again, there was a great international pressure that obligated the regime, and the dictator especially, to accept the undertaking of a plebiscite and its result, even though it was against his wishes. Despite how bloody the Chilean dictatorship was, its social structure and dynamics were far more complex than ours, preventing political patronage from establishing as a form of government.
Never will Cubans be responsible for their futures if the regime can continue to violate fundamental freedoms with complete impunity.
As I’ve mentioned in various previous articles, the primary promoters of the Espacio Abierto, or “Open Space,” Reinaldo Escobar, Yoani Sánchez, and Dagoberto Valdés, have been fervent defenders of the unconditional lifting of the embargo and also of seeking dialogue with the regime. If those are their visions, why not say so and debate them publicly?
Why deny the existence of polarization, divergences, and even confrontation if it is a reality? We attempt to construct a democracy, and within one those are very natural elements. Open debate will be crucial not only for political actors but also for Cubans to discover what positions they agree with the most and which they are willing to stand by. Current positioning regarding today’s policies does exhibit different political profiles, visions of transition, and forms of building the future of the Island.
This group’s arguments, as well as those of the North American administration, are unstable and should be submitted to greater debate. Of what empowerment do we speak when no Cuban can survive without breaking the law and personal success is based on the capacity to cheat and corrupt? Of what empowerment do we speak when the differences between those who have profitable businesses and those who don’t are based on nepotism and political loyalty to the regime? To start a successful small business with such high taxes and inspectors’ constant harassment is an impossible task.
To use a supposed logic of strengthening society and to generate the false image that any Cuban can grow as an entrepreneur is to play sadly along with the regime and allow it to further postpone a successful transfer of power. Never will Cubans be responsible for their futures if the regime can continue to violate fundamental freedoms with complete impunity. Never will Cubans be able to become empowered if the regime enjoys access to economic resources that will allow it to maintain and develop its repressive apparatus. The reality of 57 years is there to show us what Castroism really is.
To construct hope for change on a foundation of corruption, political patronage, and nepotism is to condemn the future of our nation. It’s not to understand that a nation can only be reborn when it springs from more clean and fresh bases. We will not be the first to transit down those roads of decomposition and arrive at places that will later be extremely difficult to dismantle.
To defend a position and to act in a moment as delicate as this one without stopping to consider other highly probable scenarios is proof of having little political vision, of being unable to adapt or change one’s views or of having only a personal interest.
To say that all of us who oppose the government have no rallying power or that we do not represent the people is to play the regime’s tune.
The “Open Space” promoters have hoped to demonstrate that it is they who hold the greatest consensus within the country’s internal opposition. That Obama’s measures enjoy wide acceptance, and that is false. At first and simple sight, one can observe the number and diversity of signatures supporting one initiative or another. It would also be important to observe the “Open Space” and the “Forum” (el Foro) managers’ ability to rally followers and the true level of their current commitment to the cause of meaningful democratic change.
To say that all of us who oppose the government have no rallying power or that we do not represent the people is to play the regime’s tune. The impact of some opposition groups cannot be measured in all its magnitude because of the high levels of repression before any kind of rally. Many of us who signed the “Forum” have had to face violent acts of repudiation aimed at preventing a larger base of followers.
Those who, from Obama’s administration, have promoted the new measures have not facilitated the building of consensus among Cubans on the Island and in exile. They have, however, sought out a way to demonstrate a greater acceptance of their policies. That was what happened during the recent visit of American legislators to the Island as well as that of Assistant Secretary Roberta Jacobson. That was the reason for which Berta Soler decided to decline breakfast, and why we, the members of the “Forum,” later decided not to attend dinner.
If the Obama administration wishes to brand itself as supportive of the transition process, something we also hope from Europe and some nations in Latin America, it should promote greater consensus.
We’ve repeated innumerable times that it is a mistake to grant the status of a legitimate State to a despotic regime, an action that disregards the pain and moral and physical damage it has inflicted on thousands and thousands of Cubans. This Thursday, Berta Soler, Sara Marta Fonseca, and José Luis Pérez Antúnez gave important testimony regarding these points before the United States Congress.
As peaceful activists, we defend a solution without violence that is also grounded in the realities we have lived. To work in the way that we have until now does not build a solid path and does instead bring forth a scenario that in the medium and long term will work against us. To allow the elite to inherit power will be the worst thing to happen to us as a nation.
These subjects are of great importance and depth. Miriam Celaya has the right to defend her position, but I do believe that these policies’ main promoters on the Island could participate in a debate with those of us who defend the other vision, so as to enrich the political scenario. I propose to Yoani Sánchez, Reinaldo Escobar, and Dagoberto Valdés to sustain a debate and show Cubans how we think of this process and what vision we have for the future. Without a doubt, we will all end up winners.
Translated by Fernando Fornaris
ANTONIO G. RODILES, Havana, 4 February 2015 – Days ago the attorney Rene Gomez Manzano wrote an article about the similarities of the Roadmap formulated by the Forum for Rights and Freedoms and the four points of the Civil Society Open Forum. Upon hearing yesterday of the regime opponent Manuel Cuesta Morua’s remarks at the US Senate hearing on Cuba, it seems appropriate to me to point out as clearly as possible what are the points on which the two predominant positions within the Cuban opposition agree and differ.
The announcement by President Barack Obama last December 17 polarized the opposition into two trends. The essential differences between the two groups are not only about whether or not they support the measures launched by Obama, but the focus on how we conceive the transition and the kind of country we see in the future.
Both positions show our commitment to democracy, human rights and the end of totalitarianism. But are we giving the exact same same connotation to these terms? continue reading
Obama’s policy is applauded by those joined together in the Open Space, which has several visible elements:
Those of us who join together in the Forum believe that the political process must be based on a different logic:
It is time to discuss with total clarity. The serious and direct debate should be in the maturation of the actors and the political scenario. The distinct visions about how to construct a nation are natural and healthy, but we can play our roles effectively only if there is a certain political confidence among the actors. Perhaps we do not form a symphony orchestra, although we could be a jazz ensemble, where everyone plays their parts without strident or abusive sounds.
Diario de Cuba, Antonio G. Rodiles, Havana, 28 January 2015 — The recent visits to Havana by American legislators and by Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson, have reawakened controversy over the transparency in the process of political dialogue between the Obama administration and the Castro regime. So far, the aim of furthering a previously determined plan has been evident, as well as raising the profile of those political actors who support and conform to this policy.
Indispensable voices from the opposition movement have been conspicuously absent from the meetings held. Equally apparent was the reluctance to have a balance of opinions in these contacts.
On multiple occasions, in support of the new policy, the Obama administration has posited the premise that the Cuban people should be the ones who guide the process of change on the Island. This pronouncement implicitly seeks approval for the new measures and opens the door to strong criticisms of those of us who reject the unconditionality — and the notable lack of transparency and consensus — that have characterized the start of this process. continue reading
This premise, presented simplistically and with an added dose of false nationalism, tries to label those of us who demand firm commitments to the advancement of democracy and human rights,as individuals who are incapable of assuming our political responsibilities — stuck in the past or wanting foreign governments to come in and make the needed changes. The administration’s theory is curiously parallel to the old idea of “national sovereignty” employed by the regime for so many years and echoed as a part of the arguments of the self-declared “loyal” opposition.
Do Obama’s measures promote the Cuban people’s empowerment, insofar as their civil and political rights are concerned? Can the opposition generate a broad social compact, given the degrees of control, repression and impunity with which the regime operates? Are there guarantees that the new measures will generate a Cuban entrepreneurial class in the medium term? Can Cuban society move toward a Rule of Law, given the atomization, evasion and corruption in which the vast majority of Cubans live?
If we are realists, the answers are obvious. The current Cuba only functions through corruption and patronage. We lack the legal framework that permits the empowerment of the people in any aspect. There cannot exist any broad and extensive leadership by Cuban democrats and entrepreneurs as long as the regime can maintain these high levels of repression and social control without paying a large political price. And a peaceful transition to full democracy requires such leadership.
Peaceful and sufficiently ordered transitions of despotic regimes to democracies have occurred under intense international pressure coupled with an effective internal push. Political results have emerged when these regimes sense that their permanence in power is impossible and they start to fear that a total social collapse will put them in disadvantageous or dangerous situations.
The continued presence of the political heirs as a part of the new system is one of the flashpoints in any transition. Experience also shows that, in the majority of cases, this continued presence brings with it an inheritance of corruption and a web of influences, and that it ultimately hijacks the genuine interests in building full democracies. To allow a transfer of power to the heirs correlates to perpetuating the poverty of the Cuban people, and sacrificing the future of our nation in the medium and long terms.
The dialogue conducted by the current American administration has not achieved even the release of all political prisoners and the annulment of their sentences. Many of the freed prisoners were released conditionally and not to full liberty. Such is the case of the 12 prisoners from the wave of repression of 2003, released in 2010, who decided to remain in Cuba and who now find themselves on parole and prohibited from traveling outside the country. This dialogue also has not managed to prevent further imprisonments and waves of arrests, such as the ones that occurred at the end of 2014 and start of the new year.
To insist on the idea that Cubans don’t understand fundamental rights and that only basic necessities are their priority demonstrates ignorance of our reality and gives a biased view of our genuine democratic aspirations. Freedoms don’t need to be explained; even when they have not been experienced, the human being can recognize them. We Cubans are not the exception.
A probable failure of this political process would be very harmful for all concerned, but most of all for the Cuban people. The Obama administration should combine effective pressure on the regime with the consensual work of a large group of democratic actors from within the Island and in exile. If the desired ultimate result is truly the democratization of our nation, a change of direction is needed.
Translated by Alicia Barraqué Ellison
14ymedio, Havana, 19 January 2015 — On Sunday afternoon a dozen activists and representatives of Cuban civil society met with the American congressional delegation visiting Cuba. Chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy, the group was able hear diverse opinions in response to the announcement of the reestablishment of relations between the two countries.
A member of the delegation confirmed that the Cuban authorities were aware of the meeting with the activists and had made known to the American side their displeasure with the meeting.
In a relaxed atmosphere, several of those present expressed the conviction that “this opens a new era” and demanded greater transparency in negotiations, according to what they themselves reported after the meeting. Elizardo Sanchez, president of the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, gave lawmakers a list with the names of 24 prisoners who, on humanitarian grounds, should be included in an upcoming release process. continue reading
The leader of the movement Somos + (There are more of us), Eliecer Avila, said on leaving that he told the visitors that “Throughout this time there has been talk about the agenda of the US government or the agenda of the Cuban government, but the most important thing to consider is the agenda of the Cuban people.” According to the activist, “Before December 17 people said ‘no one can fix this,’ now the expression most heard in the street is ‘let’s see what happens’ and the great challenge for the civic forces is to get people asking, ‘What can we do to change things?’”
Manuel Cuesta Morua said that he had shared with Leahy and the rest of the group that, “This is a historical event and it is very difficult to have a perspective on something so close.” Nevertheless, he reaffirmed that “A new era is opening for Cuba.”
Several participants in the meeting noted the expectations that the December 17 announcement had awakened in the Cuban people. José Daniel Ferrer, leader of the Patriotic Union of Cuba, expressed the appreciation of the activists of his movement who had been released from prison as a result of the negotiations between the two governments.
Berta Soler, for her part, reaffirmed the position of the Ladies in White against the negotiations and questioned whether the Cuban people would benefit directly from relations between the two countries. The activist cited the continuation of the repression and police harassment against the women who belong to this human rights movement. Her position was echoed by Antonio Rodiles, director of the opposition group Estado de Sats (State of Sats).
Yoani Sánchez, director of 14ymedio, emphasized that “The Cuban government is not willing to negotiate with its own people and yet has chosen to negotiate with the American government.” Hence, “Given the absence of the people’s voice at the negotiating table, it’s important to pressure the authorities to allow freedom of expression and of the press, as this will be the way we disseminate our demands and programs.”
Others present at the meeting confirmed the positive nature of the new scenario and the need for the Cuban civic movement to exploit the advantages it offers, and to be the people who to determine their own future.
Cubanet, 13 January 2015 – The director of the opposition group Estado de SATS, Antonio G. Rodiles, reported Tuesday that the regime has refused to allow him to leave the country, as stated in his account on the social network Twitter.
The opponent was arrested the day of Tania Bruguera’s performance, with his wife, Ailer Gonzalez, whose passport was also withdrawn. Bruguera, currently in Havana, has also been denied permission to leave the country.
Cubanet spoke with Rodiles by telephone. He told how he had gone to the office of the Ministry of the Interior where passports are processed to renew his passport (the Cuban passport is valid for six years, but must be “renewed” every two to maintain its “validity”) and the official attending him, after searching for his name on the computer, simply informed him that his passport could not be renewed and, consequently, he could not travel abroad “for reasons of public interest.”
Days earlier, during the arrests that Rodiles and his wife, the artist Ailer González, were subjected to during the performance that Bruguera attempted in the Plaza of the Revolution, one agent of the Ministry of Interior had told Gonzalez to hand over both passports, which she did not do.
It is significant is that, so far, Rodiles and Ailer González, who had no direct involvement in organizing Bruguera‘s performance, are the only opponents against whom the government has taken this step.
14ymedio, Havana, 30 december 2014 — Contacted by phone at her home, the director of 14ymedio, Yoani Sanchez, said that Tania Bruguera was under arrest at the Acosta Police Station in the Diez de Octubre municipality in Havana.
Reinaldo Escobar was released from the same station Tuesday night at 10:00 pm. Escobar affirmed that he saw Tania “wearing the gray uniform of a convict,” It is still unknown when Bruguera will be released.
The two police cars surrounding Yoani Sanchez’s building have been removed and the director of this digital daily is no longer under house arrest.
The 14ymedio reporter Victor Ariel Gonzalez is still being detained, in Guanabacoa. Still unknown are the whereabouts of the activists Antonio Rodiles, Ailer Gonzalez and Eliecer Avila, along with the photographer Claudio Fuentes and his partner, Eva Baquero.
Developing news.
UPDATE: Ailer Gonzalez has been released.
December 17 is a watershed in the recent history of our country. It is the break point between those who are betting on neo-Castroism or who are willing to participate in its moves, and those of us who argue that our nation should rebuild itself around the basic premises of freedoms and fundamental rights.
No nation has to assume our burdens and resolve our conflicts, but undoubtedly the measures taken by President Barack Obama will provide great benefits to those who intend to mutate to this new authoritarianism. It has been a grave error to set aside the many voices and stories that have so much to say about Cuba, and to listen only to the Castros and to a handful who pretend to know how to transition to democracy.
In parallel, they have tried to show that those who advocate an unbending position with regards to full respect for fundamental human rights are retrograde and extremist people, obsoletes who revel in pain and lack a vision of the future. What a naïve and dangerous game they propose as an exit strategy from totalitarianism. Can they ignore so much history and fail to understand that in a transition there are actors who cannot be omitted?
The longest dictatorship in the hemisphere has destroyed our country materially and profoundly damaged the Cuban soul. The reconstruction of the nation requires more than investment, cellphones and flash memories. Cuba is not a computer on which new software can be installed to make it become socially functional.
We need a consciousness and memory of what has happened to us, our frustrations and pains, what we do not want to repeat or never again perpetuate. Without this recognition we will continue to be a dispersed and broken nation, without the spirit to be reborn. Cuba needs to be re-founded with a fresh impulse, full of strength and a sense of freedom. Starting from clear demands to return the dignity, the pride, and to allow the design of a future without the burden of the Castro regime.
There is a great deal for us to rethink: projection, messages, strategies and even aesthetics. But the hope of shaking off an elite that has shown the most profound contempt for Cubans is a genuine sentiment that steers us. A political solution is only possible if it is based on full respect for the human being.
The current United States administration has to change course if it wants to be an agent of credible change, and it must pay attention to the demand of thousands of Cuban citizens who from within and outside the Island insist on a solid and firm commitment to human rights. The ratification and above all the implementation of the United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should be a key tool as a precondition to move us forward in the Cuban dilemma. The European Union has already paid attention to this demand, adding the International Labor Organization (ILO) standards. A clear and firm repositioning is the only way to give credibility to a process that began with profound mistakes.
What is needed is a strong push to infect with desires of freedom Cubans who, in the face of survival and evasion, have lost faith. To find a solution to our long conflict, it is a premise that all political actors, from within and outside the island, must participate.
It is no longer about the Castro regime, the Castro regime is dying. The conflict is between accepting a neo-Castro authoritarianism, or moving to a true democracy.
The phrase that is the title of this article is a quote from Reinaldo Arenas.
Cubanet, Ernesto García Díaz, Havana, 18 December 2014 — From the headquarters of the Estado de SATS project in Miramar, on Wednesday afternoon (12/17/14), Cuban opposition leaders held a press conference for national and international media, to make known their positions regarding the new political stance of the United States towards Cuba.
Guillermo Fariñas Hernández, winner of the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for the Freedom of Thought and Coordinator General of the United Antitotalitarian Front (FANTU), referring to the steps taken by the governments of Cuba and the United States, stated the following:
“We can applaud the release of Alan Gross, who really was used by the Island’s government to blackmail the American administration. But Obama has been inconsiderate with the civil society that is challenging Cuba’s tyrannical government In Miami, back in November of 2013, Barack Obama promised Bertha Soler and me that any action he would take with respect to Cuba would be consulted with the civil society and nonviolent opposition. Obviously this did not occur. These actions are now accomplished facts, they are reality, and Cuban democrats were not taken into account. continue reading
This amounts to a betrayal of Cuban democrats. We must now adapt ourselves to the new scenarios, which means that we must ask the American government to keep in mind the demands that these negotiations should require, to avoid colluding with the communist dictatorship of the Island. If the United States government listens to us, I believe that we can hope that this is not one more maneuver of complicity and help towards a regime drawing its last breath.”
The leader and opposition activist Antonio G. Rodiles, coordinator of the Campaign for Another Cuba and of the Estado de SATS project, made the following assertion:
“History has been made when, in 1994, the country [Cuba] was finding itself in a profound crisis and the explosion of 5 August 1994 occurred. The North American government’s response was to accept the exodus and later to sign the migration accords which provide for an annual cap on [US] visas issued annually [to Cuban nationals]. The result has been that during more than 20 years, the country’s human capital has been bleeding out and Cubans have opted to leave Cuba and not provoke change. This truly has been a disaster and the United States government cast a lifeline to the regime so that it may survive.
“The rancid Castro regime, as is common knowledge, in on the point of ending from natural causes. Obviously what they are trying to do is to cement the foundation for a mutation to Neo-Castroism, which is the family and descendents, who are trying to continue to governing, which is a grave danger for Cuba and for the entire region.”
“Today’s measures – without taking into account the opinion of Cuban civil society, of the political actors in the Cuban opposition – is a serious message, it is a bad message, and if the upcoming process of negotiation does not include our participation, the results will not be positive at all. We still have ahead of us the Summit of the Americas [to be held in Panama City in April, 2015], but what happened today does not make us feel optimistic.
Opposition member Ángel Moya Acosta, coordinator of the Democratic Freedom Movement for Cuba, had the following to say:
“We rejoice at the liberation of Alan Gross. But the measures that the United States government has implemented today, of relaxing the embargo and reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, will in no way benefit the people of the Island. The steps that have been taken will reinforce the repression against human rights activists by the government of the Castro regime. The regime will augment the resources and sinecures to its forces so that they will continue to harass and repress civil society activists. An example was the military reinforcements exhibited by the regime in advance of anti-demonstration activities on 10 December, ‘International Human Rights Day.’ ”
Félix Navarro Rodríguez, Coordinator General of the Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU) and president of the Pedro Luis Boitel Party for Democracy, had this to say:
“The conditions that brought about the United States’ embargo against Cuba in 1961 have not changed. It is well known that the government is totalitarian, dynastic, that it does not recognize the rights to free expression, free assembly and freedom of the press. As long as the political opposition, the different strains of political thought and a multi-party system are not recognized and general free elections are not called, we cannot point to anything beneficial for the people.
“We are in total disagreement with what has been produced today, because we consider it a betrayal of those of us who, from inside Cuba, are opposing the regime to obtain a definitive change for the wellbeing of all Cubans.”
Following the opposition leaders’ statements, the floor was opened to questions.
Associated Press (AP): “We walked the streets extensively today, and found the people to be happy, beyond the message. It is notable that all of you hold a position so different from ordinary people. Does this mean that you will alienate yourselves from the will of many people now living in Cuba?”
Antonio Rodiles: “People are disoriented, surprised by what has happened. On the street, in the taxis, people were not excited, others said that the pie was cut, the [Castro] family and the governing elite are strengthening their business positions. It isn’t the people, the person in a small cafeteria who is being watched by inspectors, people don’t know what is going to happen.”
Ángel Moya: “In the midst of the secret negotiations that were going on between the two governments, on 10 December the Havana dictatorship was repressing 75 Ladies in White and 35 human rights activists. In Cuba, laws are in force that are designed to guarantee the impunity with which the repressive forces act. What guarantee is there that the Cuban government will recognize civil society?”
CubaNet: “Has the United States government or any of its officials, following these declarations, contacted the leaders of the opposition, in accordance with the commitments Obama made in 2013?”
Félix Navarro Rodríguez: “We have not been consulted. This has all developed in strict secrecy between the two governments. There has been no encounter with Cuban civil society nor with its leaders. Nor do we know if they are willing to meet with us. As of today, they continue to repress the Ladies in White and twelve of us prisoners from the [2003] Black Spring; we remain on parole, deprived of our rights and liberties.
“The commitment by Obama to Berta Soler and Guillermo Fariñas was not kept. In Cuba everything remains the same. Now, in the midst of this avalanche, we will reorganize and will fight until the end, we will press for the recognition of our civil rights and for democratic freedoms.”
At the end of the press conference, Guillermo Fariñas, by way of concluding remarks, asserted this:
“We need to channel our demands. The government of the United States has a moral obligation to all democracies in the world. It gave to the Cuban government a possibility to start instituting some democratic reforms. Now, it will depend on the actions we Cubans take.”
Attending, among various other officials of accredited diplomatic missions on the Island, were diplomatic representatives of the European Union, and of Sweden. Also present were human rights activists, among them Gorki Águila Carrasco (artist in the group Porno Para Ricardo), Hablemos Press, AP, and others.
ernestogardiaz@gmail.com
Translated by: Alicia Barraqué Ellison
