Translating Cuba

As if the proverbial mediocrity of the usual television programming weren’t enough, in recent weeks there is a new series, incredibly badly made and edited even worse, that has been presented on the screen. “Cuba’s Reasons,” is the title of this latest garbage, which clearly intends to disinform the national population trying to create a state of negative opinion around the use of new information and communications technologies. To accomplish this they are using old methods that everyone knows don’t work: demonizing the dissidence as “mercenaries in the service of the empire,” presenting “hero” agents infiltrated into the heart of it, and showing “proofs” — which is never presented — of the activities designed to destabilize the revolution and betray the people.

The official demonization of the Internet in a country where people have a miserable level of access would seem an absurdity, which is reinforced if we consider that this campaign takes place in the era of computers and in the midst of a true global revolution in communications technology.

However, if we analyze the current global context and internal conditions in Cuba, the fact is perfectly logical. The Cuban government may be too late, archaic and decadent (as it is), but its attitude is consistent, given that its ultimate goal is to retain power at all costs.

I will try to present an explanation of what appears to be the desperate resort of the island’s government: disinformation as state policy.

New scenes and new actors

The year 2011 debuted with a new scenario. At the international level, the processes of transformations that are occurring in North Africa and that continue to widen their influence over neighboring regions, have demonstrated the functionality of the technology in support of democratic interests. Long-standing autocratic regimes have collapsed or are in the process of extinction faced with the push of innovative ideas that have flowed through social networks and have been able to mobilize crowds. A new world landscape is being drawn, which necessarily influences the emergence of new global and national politics. There are clear signs of the coming of other times, not yet clearly defined, but generally showing a trend: The era of dictatorships, as we know, seems to be coming to an end.

At the national level, the Cuban landscape has been gradually and quietly evolving in recent years. It would be useful to mention the fundamental elements that indicate these small apparent changes, or that have influenced them.

• A growing feeling of popular frustration faced with a permanent socioeconomic crisis that has translated into a general apathy: the regime has lost the power to call on people. Instead of the old voluntary and massive mobilizations, it’s becoming ever more obvious that participation in “revolutionary acts” is being achieved through the setting of “quotas” — for schools and workplaces — to achieve a significant volume of people to attend these public rituals.
• Official recognition of the inability to indefinitely maintain the so-called “subsidies” (social benefits), such as the ration book and others; as well as the announcement of the layoffs of 20% of the working population of the country. The government itself has confessed that “the model is broken.”
• The growing significance of the activism of civic groups since the imprisonment of the 75 independent journalists in 2003 (The Black Spring) in a wave of repression what received wide international condemnation and that led to the rise of the Ladies in White, an example of peaceful resistance, of the ability to act and of the force of ideas, even in a closed society.
• The events of the Havana Psychiatric Hospital that resulted in the death by cold and mistreatment of more than two dozen patients there, which led to a number of criticisms among the population and accented the lack of confidence in these institutions.
• The death after a long hunger strike of the prisoner of conscience Orlando Zapata Tamayo and the following hunger strike of Guillermo Fariñas, events that unleashed an international movement to reject the Cuban government. For the first time in many years, different sectors of the dissidence, without articulating a common program, showed unanimity in support of the release of the political prisoners.
• Growth in the sector of active dissidence, refreshed by the growth in activity by independent journalists and in the rise and rapid development of the independent blogosphere and social networks.
• The sudden and extemporaneous announcement of a Communist Party Congress, which was eight years late and held in secret, admitting only the base of Party militants.
• Forcing the release of the political prisoners of the Black Spring, an undeniable achievement of the forces of independent civil society, particularly of the Ladies in White and Guillermo Fariñas.

Other factors of a diverse nature have influenced the emergence of a scenario in which new social actors are breaking ground with alternative proposals to the national stalemate. An interesting variable in this scenario is, undoubtedly, the fact that a share of the recently released political prisoners have decided to remain in the country, and to continue their activities within the peaceful dissidence. This not only puts to rest the government’s argument that “dissidents are only interested in emigrating,” but shows the power of the widening focus of alternative views of civil society in virtually all regions of Cuba.

The government’s “reasons”

To try to understand the government’s new disinformation strategy, one has to start from the essential premise: it is a strategy of survival. The regime has run out of time in an irreversible way, and is incapable of recreating even its repressive methods. This puts it in an extremely fragile position, to the point that the mere use of technology as an alternative option to create and develop citizen journalism and social networks accelerates the crisis of a system that has been able to rely, until recently, on monolithic control of the media.

The closed nature of dictatorships is, paradoxically, their most vulnerable point, given that anything that alters the monolithic nature of the system can pierce its structure and precipitate its fall. So the Internet is now a crack through which what up to now has been half a century of totalitarian power could begin to drain away, forcing the authorities to implement an urgent campaign against “the free flow of information.”

As if the critical position of the regime was not already sufficiently compromised, the recent arrive of the fiber optic cable in the country — via Venezuela — will allow an exponential multiplying of the capacity to reach the network of networks. Thus, it is urgent for the Cuban government to create a social climate that justifies the maintenance of controls on the use of technologies, establishing a rigorous system of selection to determine who merits (revolutionaries-faithful-reliable) receiving this service and at the same time using this as an excuse not to allow general access.

Arguably, then, the series on Cuban TV — for which four programs have been produced to date — is only the phenomenal external expression of the creative weakness of the government, as well as a scandalous demonstration of its incapacity to renew its methods and discourse, forcing it to remain barricaded behind obsolete formulas proven to be ineffective.

It is obvious that there are objective reasons not only for the authorities to systematically obstruct access to the Internet, but to try to convince the masses of the great harm that flows from freedom of information. It is because of this that the entire information spectrum must pass through the purifying hand of the government and its most loyal servants who will determine the relevance — or not — of each news item before it is consumed by the population. To orchestrate this campaign — a medieval crusade against what has come to be called “cyberwar” — the authorities count on the media, in their absolute control, and the relative technological illiteracy and lack of access of the masses.

The effects of injustice

What the authorities obviously did not count on, is the effect on the population ideological fatigue, caused by the general decay of the system at all levels, which manifests itself for the most part in the total lack of impact of the programs already broadcast and in the result contrary to what they hoped to achieve. The ordinary Cuban tends to reject the informers, hence the antipathy aroused by the real or supposed “agents” who infiltrated the dissidence. On the other hand, the haste and the hatchet job of the makers of the series, flagrantly present a product so badly made that it offends the natural intelligence of ordinary people.

As a result of these questionable shows, some Cubans I know have more questions than answers, among them one finds with great frequency the following:

Who can believe the testimonies of the “agents” of State Security and some paper scrawled with numbers as proof of alleged payments to the “mercenary” dissidents?

How can they support the idea that the dissidents are seeking to benefit from the United States Interest Section if the TV series clearly shows that it was an alleged Cuban government agent with which the officials of the “enemy” county conducted their contacts with citizens of this country?

Is State Security working now to create more national mercenaries, or “counterrevolutionaries”?

Who is “fabricating” new villains, the Empire of the government of the Island?

And another rhetorical question which arises from an overwhelming logic: When an agent of the Cuban government lies on Radio Marti, is it the station that is lying?

The official media manipulation that occurs in “Cuba’s Reasons” is so obvious that people quickly incorporated it into the repertoire of jokes that characterizes the Cuban people. “Did you see the third season of Castro’s espionage soap opera?” asks one friend to another. And there is no shortage of newspaper vendors who use the show to encourage a sale: “Hey! The agent in Granma!” a proclamation that at the same time expresses a covert irony: the real “agent” is the official press.

However, beyond the ill-fated attempt to “stuff” viewers, the price of this staging is expensive in other equally counterproductive ways, because fabricating imaginary enemies from the screen also has promoted the activism of dissidents, which is gaining recognition. In a country where the media is in the hands of the ruling class it could be argued that facts do not exist until they are reported by the media. If we add to this the increasing loss of credibility for that class and the social need of finding new spaces of expression — as developed in the sustained growth of the alternative niches of civil society — it could be argued that disinformation as a new government policy is doomed to defeat.

Now we must wait for the new episodes already being advertised on Cuban television. Surely in some of the chapters to come they will try to keep the promise, so often postponed, of showing us the actual payments of imperial emoluments on the part of the greatly debased home-grown mercenaries, be it a leader of the opposition, an independent journalist or a blogger.

They will need more than the reliable testimony of their own paid agents and, of course, they will have to completely renovate the production team for the series to see if they can give us a more finished product. Still, it won’t do to create too many expectation, the genre of suspense requires, in principle, a range of possible finales that the Cuban government is unable to offer. It turns out that the end of this process — a few chapters more or less — is already known by nearly everyone. In short, the ideological architects of the amendment to the Constitution were right in 2002 when they decided that socialism in Cuba is irreversible: it’s true; precisely in the static nature of its sentence.

April 18 2011

I remembered the flamboyant Chinese military parade last year while it passed by on the TV and very close to my house our warlike old tanks. I do the calculations (I’m terrible with numbers) on the gallons of paint and rust-remover used to improve their appearance, the gallons of gasoline used in the dry-runs, the mobilization and parade, the snacks, the uniforms, in short, I delve into what I shouldn’t because our current president alternates his military uniform with his guayabera, but at the same time I think that peace is more profitable than war.

April 20 2011

Since I was little I’ve heard countless times the use of the word fear associated with, among other things, the Cuban government. Sometimes, it comes from foreign propaganda to stigmatize the historic leaders still at the helm of Cuba, and their resistance to introducing the changes society needs, in the face of modernity and the systemic crisis that shakes all of us in the archipelago.

It seems to me that the manifestation or leaking of terribly fearful things by the Cuban high command is a recurring method they have used for years to justify the excessive levels of control, repression and coercion. Also to explain to their followers why they dismantled Cuba’s existing democratic structures when they came to power, and why Cuba remains a mobilized and militarized society even today. Their own leaders and relatives may have felt the weight of this total control that restricts, paralyzes and submerges us into helplessness. If we talk about fear, it is the only visible and permanent thing planted by the governing class in Cuban society, ever since the beginning of this process on January 1, 1959.

Actually there is a history of aggression and U.S. plans for Cuba — equally as long as the staying power of the old-fashioned Cuban leaders — to defeat the perpetual government. But these have been produced at different times in history since 1959, and it hasn’t stopped its founding, going forward, doing and growing. I want to emphasize that I am not convinced by the ancient and abused idea of “the government’s fear” before the “belligerent attitude” of the American neighbor; rather it seems to me a “manipulative political crutch” to ensure that nothing changes, to maintain the morale of the entire political military structure and to convince the real power of what must be preserved in such practices.

In short, I suspect that this enemy is a convenient excuse that provides pretexts to the Cuban government hardliners who have spent half a century in mutual verbal assault and defense. I feel that behind such stubbornness manipulation hides. The malevolent fairy of the Cuban government always waved her wand so that nothing would change, to freeze the image of a Cuba that never was. She launched the spell of the oppressor well, “to avoid greater evils,” and “to safeguard the homeland,” when in reality all they wanted was to stay in power without regard for the suffering they caused and the sociopolitical and economic disaster they have brought us. Now that they are exhausted by failure and old age, they want us to take the pill of forgetfulness and nod to these wolves as if we were sheep.

It is painful to see how they impose on us this trashy political novel riddled with partiality and pirated revolutionary melodrama, how they have hijacked the country and frozen its dreams. This is something that must be faced with “resigned courage,” while we focus on what needs to be our first and foremost objective: The democratization of Cuba and the reconciliation of the Cuban nation.

April 20 2011

Migdalia and Ramon can’t watch the afternoon sopa opera since the State inspectors confiscated the antenna in the middle of February.

Migdalia Suarez Estevez and Ramon, a couple of retirees, thanks to the efforts of their two children living in the U.S., spend their leisure time watching foreign programs, especially the afternoon soap operas on TV51, Florida.

“Cuban TV is boring and tedious, at least I entertain myself with the cable and I spend less time missing my loved ones,” said the lady of 64, to referring to her children and a sister, living in the northern country.

In mid-February, inspectors from the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC), raided Párraga seeking satellite dishes in a neighborhood of Arroyo Naranjo municipality, on the outskirts of Havana.

In 2000, MIC administratively penalized the possession and installation of satellite dishes, the reception and distribution of foreign television programs. “From broadcasts on illegally distributed television, destabilizing and interventionist messages arrive daily,” said the newspaper Granma, in its issue of January 27.

In the report, “Chain of illegalities,” the newspaper, official organ of the ruling Communist Party, warned that people “will remain vigilant to those who insist on violating the existing legislation.” However, foreign TV programs, are in strong demand on the black market.

Prices for the installation of antennas are between 300 and 400 convertible pesos, for the distribution of the service it costs between 10 and 15 CUC per month. Terminal equipment for receiving signals from satellite television became essential for the illegal business, since the United States converted digital television signals in 2009.

Migdalia was taking a nap at noon, when she heard a noise in the ceiling. Shee got up, startled. When she opened the door, a man already on the property asked, “Where is it?” Without waiting for an answer he entered the house.

He searched the room. In the corners, lying on the floor and looking under the bed. Until, under the TV, covered with a cloth, he found satellite connection equipment. Ms. Estevez was speechless and almost on the verge of a nervous breakdown. When she reacted and he had already imposed a fine of 10 thousand pesos.

“Cuba uses modern technical means to confront any kind of illegality,” Granma said in a note published on March 8, referring to the use of electronics. A day before the national television demonized the use of antennas in their documentary series “The Reasons of Cuba.”

“To mount satellite stations, you need a license,” Mr. Carlos Martinez, Director General of Control and Supervision Agency (ACS) of the MIC, explained to the daily paper. He also reported that it is mandatory to obtain permission issued by the AC, according to certain technical rules.

The ACS works to confiscate illegal stations. The company is responsible for the control of computer networks and systems of national and international media operating in the country.

A part of “face” of technology acquired for the island, they also have a “body of state inspectors,” who “close the loop on the violations,” the newspaper reported. “Cuba is not against the use of technology, to the contrary … but it requires order, control,” said the only national newspaper.

“They took me by surprise, I thought they were robbers and almost died of fright,” Mrs. Estevez tried to explain to husband, referring to inspectors from the MIC, as she held out the fine. For the Suarez Estevez marriage, however, the biggest regret is missing the afternoon soap opera on TV51.

April 20 2011

And now, the end is near
and so I face 
the final curtain...

To say goodbye can be accomplished with just a brief note left on the table, or by a telephone call where we say our final farewells. In the preparations to leave the country, at the end of a relationship, or of life itself, there are people who try to control the smallest details, draw up those limits that oblige the ones they leave behind to follow their path. Some leave slamming the door behind them, and others demand before taking off the great tribute they think they deserve. There are those who equitably distribute all their worldly goods, and also beings with so much power they change the constitution of a country so that no one can undo their work when they’re gone.

The preparations for the Sixth Congress of the Cuban Communist Party and its sessions in the Palace of Conventions have been like a great public requiem for Fidel Castro. The scene of his farewell, the meticulous ceremonial demanded by him and realized — sparing no expense — by his younger brother. In the organizational excesses of the military parade, held on April 16, was seen the intention to “spare no expense” in a final tribute to someone who could not be there on the podium. It was clear that the announcement of the names of who would assume the highest positions in the Cuban Communist Party would not be read by the man who decided the course of this nation for almost fifty years. But he sat at the head table of the event to validate, with his presence, the transfer of power to Raul Castro. Being there was like coming — still alive — to the reading of his own will.

Then came the standing ovation, the tears of this or that delegate to the party conclave, and the phrases of eternal commitment to the old man with the almost white beard. Through the television screen some of us sensed the crackling of dried-up flowers or the sound of shovelfuls of dirt. It remains to be see if the General-cum-President can sustain the heavy legacy he has received, or if under the watchful supervision of his Big Brother he would prefer not to contradict him with fundamental reforms. It’s just left to check the authenticity of Fidel Castro’s departure from public life, and whether his substitute will choose to continue disappointing us, or to reject him.

April 19, 2011

Slogan: Let the enemies of the people tremble when every woman is a soldier for the Fatherland.
FMC = Cuban Women’s Federation

Every time I pass by 21st and Paseo it turns my stomach. A cross the street and I can’t help but read the enormous sign that illustrates this post. Signed by the Cuban Women’s Federation (FMC), it gives the idea that I all the women of the island are some kind of army ready to fire on the enemy. I’m not even a soldier of my own causes, how could I be one for the causes of the FMC?

It bothers me greatly that the multiple mass organizations which supposedly represent groups of Cubans feel like they have the right to speak for everyone, robbing individuals of their voices to make them into the single voice of the apparatus of control. Why are we urged to a militancy that we don’t need? Who said I’m not a die-hard civilian? Since when did we Cuban women form a battalion for the defense of the fatherland?

Razones ciudadanas 3 from Yoani Sanchez on Vimeo.

Since Friday, April 8, the heavens have announced to us the march is coming. Under beautiful blue the war planes rehearse, it’s not clear what or why, and down here on the ground we cover our ears against the roar. My dogs are losing sleep, the male barking desperately at the ceiling and the female cowering under the sofa. I wish I could explain to them that it is nothing more than a deployment of military vanity in a country tired of repeating to the world that it condemns war. I go out into the street and am surprised to see some tanks file past right before my eyes. I cross 26th Avenue and breathe deeply, it’s a fact: this island is governed by madmen. Traffic is diverted and the cars lost in the alleyways are a mess. I spend fifteen minutes trying to cross Paseo.

For ten days I’m living in a countdown: minus seven, minus five, today, finally, minus two. Never have I been so desperate for the coming of a Sunday. From Friday, everything will be paralyzed, schools, businesses, the city. With so much need and such a crisis I wonder how many zeros there are on the price of the mega-march for the fiftieth anniversary of the Bay of Pigs.

We Cubans say we are paranoid, and honestly, if we weren’t we’d be really sick, because there is nothing more chilling than to stand on the balcony and see a squad of soldiers screaming obscenities and stomping the ground, nor more theatrical than an army mobilized in times of peace, nor more irrational than taking men from their jobs to mobilize the reserves several times a year. Nothing as sad as this week, reminding us, mercilessly, that it is not the war of a whole people, but the war against a whole people.

15 April 2011

Recently I received a message from a reader who says his name is Osmel Camino, a Cuban “deserter from a medical mission in Haiti from ten and a half years ago,” in his own words, and who states he currently lives in the Dominican Republic. Osmel’s message refers to an interview Arleen Rodríguez Derivet, a journalist on Cuban television, did with the ex-U.S. president Jimmy Carter, on his visit to Havana March 28-30. In the transcript of it, alluding to the 5 spies imprisoned in the United States, Carter raised as an argument as a reason to pardon these Cuban State Security fighters, “These men have suffered greatly and lost family members without being able to be at their side…”

Osmel, rightly outraged, expressed his indignation at so much cynicism, and asked me to make his reality public, writing this paragraph in his message which I quote: “I want people to know of my case. I have never been able to enter my country since I decided to emigrate for economic reasons in 2000. The government will not let me, despite the fact that I’ve never engaged in any kind of political activity or committed any crimes.

Exactly a year ago my father died in Guantanamo City, and I asked the Cuban consulate to travel to his funeral. The Cuban government once again refused me entry into my own country. The Cuban government violates my rights every day by refusing me permission to travel to Cuba, which I have asked for on three occasions. Tell me what human rights they are talking about!!!”

I don’t think I can calculate how many cases similar to Osmel’s have occurred over half a century of dictatorship. One of the most well known is that of the beloved Celia Cruz, whom the government refused to allow to attend her mother’s funeral in Cuba, and she finally died herself without ever returning to the Island, but surrounded by the love of her fans on both shores, and with the hatred of the Castros unable to prevent millions of Cubans mourning her loss and greatly honoring her burial.

But in reality, there are countless anonymous Cubans who have been victims of such violations on the part of a government that hijacks all the rights of its citizens and applies this type of punishment — selective and unjustified — with impunity, at its whim and discretion. Many natives of this Island have died in exile without ever returning to visit Cuba, or have lost loved ones on the Island without the consolation of taking leave of them.

But I say again to out compatriot Osmel: Regardless of the political sympathies of any person, no government has the moral authority to restrict the free flow of citizens in any way. This is the essential truth of the problem. Neither you, nor anyone else, should have to “behave” to please the regime to have the right to freely enter and leave their own country. That is, what is truly humiliating is not permission or not to enter Cuba; what is degrading is the very existence of the “application or entry permit.” This is the essence of evil. That they deny it is nothing more than the effect.

In your case, as in so many others, it’s obvious that you are being punished for “betrayal” when serving a “humanitarian mission” fabricated by Fidel Castro as a part of his hallucinatory ideological crusades. Other cases are even more inexplicable, like that of a young friend of mine, recent University graduate, who “stayed behind” on a work trip before starting her “social service.” More than seven years have passed since then and she’s been denied entry into Cuba on several occasions. She, who as a successful professional abroad due to her own efforts has traveled to several countries; but she has never been able to return to the country of her birth. Fortunately, she will outlive the system that is punishing her, but the price of her personal independence has been — as for thousands and thousands of Cubans – tremendously painful.

Some day we will have to do the math on how much damage has been done to the national sensibility and to the Cuban family, how much personal pain the arrogance of the ruling caste has caused, how much talent we have lost that could have been put into service for the progress of Cuba, and how much uprooting we owe to this long Antillean satrapy.

For now, Osmel reminds us once again of an aspect almost forgotten in the midst of so much tragedy; a crime that could not speak more to the infinite contempt this regime feels for the Cuban people. We will not forget.

April 14 2011

As my regular readers know, as a rule I don’t participate directly in the comments; my poor access to the Internet doesn’t allow me that interactivity. I prefer to return to the debates posted, after carefully reading every comment off-line, using the method of public rejoinder if it seems to be necessary to clarify certain aspects that shouldn’t be left without a response in order to avoid future misunderstandings.

In past days I allowed myself to comment on an article by an opponent of the regime, Darsi Ferrer, who, as is common when this topic is raised, has awakened in some readers certain considerations that would be useful to air here, in the space in which they were raise.

To do this, as usual, I will put my cards on the table. I have no intention of offending Darsi Ferrer; I use the virtual space rather than personal communications, in the same way he used it to publish his article where, among others, he mentioned my name, which calls even more for me to reply. In my capacity as a citizen journalist I allow myself the right to question any program, posture or opinion, come what may — be it the government’s the opposition’s, a national or foreign journalist or another blogger — with the same honesty with which I shine the public light on my own opinions with the intent to be questioned.

I do not understand how some consider this “an attack,” a “skirmish,” or something similar. That is, how long will we avoid transparency and debate for the sake of a poorly understood and worse interpreted “unity”? If an opponent, whomever it might be, feels it is damaging to have his views questioned, his leadership (if he has any), or his prestige, must be very fragile.

Are we proposing a perpetuation of the secrecy and conspiracies, in the image and likeness of the regime’s methods that so many of us reject so strongly? However, I know that the author of the article referenced has met occasionally with bloggers to whom I never stated such views, and I respect it: it was his choice.

The disagreements of some readers, however, don’t worry me — after all, we’re not a church choir — but some others display conceptual blunders that show how little idea they have about the nature of the Cuban alternative blogger phenomenon, for example, when they say that the mistake of the opponents is “not having been served by the blogosphere.”

I never tire of repeating that as a blogger I resist subordinating myself to anyone, that the essence of the blogger is total independence and I’m not a spokesperson for parties or individuals, making it impossible for them to “be served” by my journalistic activity.

I have no interest in “working in coordination”with any of the opposition groups I know, which has not caused the least offense to some friends who have spent years working within opposition groups.

On more than a few occasions I have submitted my opinions about some of their proposals, and, respectfully, I have expressed my views in private: I do not divulge political programs of any kind, nor do I sit down with anyone to develop a “common platform”; that is not my mission.

Oh! And do not be surprised if the day comes when this famous platform exists, and I also question it, as the free citizen that I am. On the other hand, I insist that nothing prevents opponents from opening their own blogs, as some already have done.

There are those who say that when I respond to what Darsi posed I am “diverting from the main objective” (I don’t know what this objective is; in fact, I am unaware that someone has attributed “objectives” to me that I myself have not enunciated). The same reader believes that if there are no objectives — I assume that he refers to the particular, supreme and sacred objective of “overthrowing the government” — then “I am writing just to write, as if freedom of expression was legitimate only when we criticize the Cuban dictatorship, and public opinion would have to have an orchestra in concert under the interests of the opposition.

I don’t feel myself authorized to speak on behalf of the blogosphere, given that we are not a homogeneous block, but as far as I’m concerned I don’t accept the simplicity encompassed in the hackneyed phrase, “They are fighting for the same thing.” It is a distorted view of reality. While the desire for a democratic Cuba is the shared dream of many Cubans, beyond those in the dissidence active in any denomination, we are not the same, we don’t project ourselves in the same way, we don’t “struggle” exactly “for the same thing.” And now I will say it again: Blessed be diversity!

Another reader rightly says that “everything is political.” I share that view, because each action by man in society in search of solutions is a political exercise. But it is one thing to have political opinions and something else very different to belong to a political organization. Especially in the case of Cuba, plagued by uncertainties and conflicts of every type of those who don’t escape some opposition groups; and where the lack of civic and political culture is a failing endemic to the social level.

In this particular, the blogosphere may, perhaps, be more related to the work of establishing bridges between different opinion groups and among the various sectors of society, than in political exercises itself with its corresponding ideological commitments.

Some bloggers, with our mistakes and successes, seek from the practice of virtual citizenship, to assist at the birth of true citizenship. It is a long-term effort, not an immediate one; it is a civic target, not an ideological one. A political group usually says: “think of me as a solution”; but an opinion blogger prefers to say, simply: “let’s think.”

As I see it, this can be useful to politicians if they are truly honest; because in the end, politics is a profession of SERVICE TO THE CITIZENRY, and thus the politician must be subordinated to it, and no vice versa. In this case, the citizen is me and the opponents are the politicians; where is the sacrilege?

There is no lack of paranoia about the ghost of State Security. The truth is that I care very little about what G-2 thinks about differences of opinion among dissident sectors. What’s more, that we publicly and respectfully disagree is a practice that greatly distances us from the frequent masked intrigues between people and groups of the nomenklatura, who are so accustomed to the State Security agents. What is their weakness can be our strength.

I love that in their “barracks” they are noticing the differences between their methods and ours. On the other hand, the supposed “gulf” between Darsi and I only exists in the minds of some readers with too much imagination. I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to defend Darsi’s rights, like any other dissident or ordinary citizen; and I’m convinced he would do the same for me.

I think it is also important to clarify for the reader who says that virtual space allows those who write to hide their true identity. That’s true, but almost the all of the alternative Cuban bloggers use their own names.

Perhaps it’s surprising to know that some Cubans who have signed complaints about the opposition have refused to put their identity card numbers, much less to legitimize their signatures through a notary, as required by law to validate each document.

I know several of the signers of opposition projects who also signed, in 2002, to the irrevocable character of socialism in the Constitution of the Castros. This is not a criticism, they are both phenomena of countries ruled by dictators. I only mention it to point out that social dissimulation is not a characteristic inherent in virtual space, but in the entire Cuban society as a whole, a fruit of the despotic nature of this regime.

Nor do we write on the web to save ourselves from repression. The censors and their minions know who we are and where we live, ergo, we are as exposed as the opponents.

Finally, some reader referred to a phrase of Marti’s about the exercise of criticism which must happen “face to face,” The grave problem in decontextualizing Marti is that generally we forget that his Titanic political and patriotic labor — of astonishing force in many respects — took place in the 19th century. His principles are commendable and his example magnificent; but I am convinced that if Marti had had access to a tool as useful as the Internet, he would not have hesitated to use it as well to exercise his sharp (and often poignant) critiques.

That is the benefit of the technology is now within our grasp. So, my friends, forgive me if I suffer the mania of opinion; I have a critical eye and prefer to offer my points of view rather than remain silent. I don’t have the opportunity in life to go door-to-door telling each person what I think, so I have a blog. Don’t forget that in this case, neither did anyone knock on my door, nor was I the one who threw the first “stone.” I am in peace, there are no grievances.

April 11 2011

For Harold, in relation to Tony’s post:

I am a lover of history, and history of the Second World War, the Cold War and the disappearance of the socialist countries of Europe, is for me like reading best sellers, especially when we can know what comes to light when archived are opened and manuscripts emerge from drawers. All of it supported with excellent audiovisuals because I am also a cinephile.

As the story has been uncovered I’ve become convinced that Cuba is too much a carbon copy of these structures that are maintained, even twenty years later, which leads me to believe its fate will be the same. And as Tony is not the only one who travels, I will tell a story.

I visited Germany (East and West) in 1979. I was staying at the Stadt Hotel in Berlin, steps from the Brandenburg Gate,  just in front of the television tower. Very comfortable, yes, but I couldn’t get over my amazement at the abundance the Germans enjoyed.

On the hotel’s facade, the whole length of its twenty something floors, there was an enormous number 30, corresponding to the 30th anniversary of the installation of Socialism. After that, I was anxious for Cuba to cover the remaining years to its 30th anniversary of Socialism, to be able to enjoy the same bonanza.

When we’re young we often come to hasty conclusions. Not only did our 30th anniversary not meet these expectations, but shortly afterwards, East Germany didn’t want to hear anything about Socialism.

I remember my impression of that country, knowing that unchecked, knowing that the reunification would be difficult for the economy because the East was considerably behind the West, I took that into account in my idea of development. Later, I began to understand the causes, and began to find the similarities with Cuba.

Everything indicates that material incentives are more persuasive and create more, working for themselves makes the self-employed put in extra effort to move their business forward, if the licenses weren’t so limited (they’re available almost exclusively for services), we would observe an increase in productivity, but the State doesn’t want to open its hand, and so a circular contradiction is created.

P.S. Princess Napoleon’s is real kitsch, the gift clock, another like what Sorolla gave as a wedding present to the Prince of Borbon. Nothing impresses royalty.

April 16 2011

There is a question I’ve formulated on more than on occasion, and that I have recently revived. It goes more or less like this: “If I, who detests with every particle of my being the North Korean dynasty, for example, suddenly gathered my intentions and provoked an attack that killed dozens of North Korean civilians, would this effort be enough to call myself, from now on and proudly, an anti-Kim fighter?”

And if, for example, my firecracker in Pyongyang causes collateral damage and sacrifices a European tourist, then can I call myself anti-dynastic, a fighter against Kim-the-father or Kim-the-son, and be treated like a hero, even though I haven’t touched a single petal on the iron dictatorship, which continues on its course without the least disturbance?

It’s something that’s returned to my mind now that Luis Posada Carriles is in the news again. For some, a hilarious story. For me, bitter news: I do not like his immediate and complete acquittal, I don’t like it at all, and I say this with the verticality of one who is not trained in the art of silencing what I think.

I have two reasons for not celebrating even one iota of this news. The first is: I don’t like this character. I could never sympathize with those who have death in their background, and who brag about it. Whatever its cause might be. And especially: whoever has the death of innocents in his background, poor unfortunates who were in the wrong hotel, or the wrong airplane, the day Luis Posada and friends decided to realize their “anti-Castroism” sui generis.

As a teenager I remember the long Cuban television broadcast dedicated to the bombings of 1997, the trial of Raul Ernesto Cruz Leon, the despondent face of an old Italian whose son, Fabio Di Celmo, was hit by a piece of glass that inevitably cut his jugular in the Copacabana Hotel.

And, since my untainted adolescence, I keep the memory of those days fresh: in the midst of devastating famine, in the midst of dissatisfaction and disgust for a country drowning in nothingness, a silence of anger and pain reigned everywhere.

The bombings of Havana hotels, the death of an innocent tourist, not only failed to topple the regime of Fidel Castro, not only did not precipitate the collapse of the Cuban Revolution, but rather it caused the opposite effect: in those hallucinatory days the Cuban people (even those who opposed the government publicly or privately), closed ranks with the establishment and approved almost anything they did.

The reason is very simple: Cuban society was hurt, its nerves were electrified. And where protection is sought in these cases, as always, is in the State. Let the Americans say otherwise: the country never vibrated with a greater sense of patriotism, never had a greater affinity with an administration, just as with Bush-the-son after losing three thousand and some lives in two New York towers.

But in 1976 I had not yet been born. I could not experience, as in 1997, the national horror. And it wasn’t just any kind of horror: it had to have been much worse than the one I did know. Between an Italian, a young man for whom he mourned, but, at the end of the day, a foreigner, and seventy-three Cubans, some of them teenagers, there is no comparison in pragmatic terms. I’ve seen the painful television accounts, but I have no life experience of it.

And still, I know perfectly well that any people who lose so many innocents, massacred by fanatics, irrational people who in their delirious warmongering are not capable of differentiating between a fighter jet and an airplanes filled with a beardless fencing team; I don’t have to have lived those days to know that Luis Posada and Orlando Bosch, not only are by their own confessions responsible for this crime (enough of tricks and rhetoric: have they confessed or not? Do we or do we not know that it was them?) They are, also, responsible for ensuring that a society in mourning gave more respect and power to a dictator who, in the future, would have more justifications, more scapegoats, to engage in his business of hijacking the national freedom.

But I have a second reason to find this news of Posada’s total acquittal bitter: the ugly scenario it presents to those who believe that the reconstruction of unity, of our history as a country torn apart, must start with a coming together between exiles and the Cubans over there.

How to convince those on the island, as a part of this second, that many of the stories offered on the Roundtable TV show, in the newspaper Granma, about the exiles of Miami, are nothing more that clever manipulations to further widen the breach that separates Cubans from here and from there? How to convince, for example, a Cuban of my generation, who grew up hearing the title os “Mafia terrorist of Miami,” that this demonization, that encompasses millions of exiled people, is only applicable to an ever-shrinking handful?

A single example: whenever I say publicly, here, that one of the strongest fears held by Cubans on the Island today is that, if there is a reconciliation between the two parties, the former owners will come and reclaim their old properties, dislodging people, displacing schools and clinics, many look at me with a smile of incredulity.

The truth is: I don’t know of a single octogenarian who left his home in Cuba, at the triumph of the Revolution, who still wishes to recover it. Not only because after so much time everyone has forgotten these losses — though not their resentment against the perpetrators — but because they know well the conditions in which they would find these old properties would require them to dynamite them and start from scratch.

But let no one doubt: is this one of the arguments most repeated by the regime. And what is its purpose? Well, very simple: to divide. To widen the gap between the two sides. To continue to stimulate the conflict and divert attention from a vital issue: the Cuban exile has nothing against Cuba, against Cubans, against that country that they love as few natives in the world love their countries. Cuban exiles, especially the historic generation, what they have declared war against is the government of the Castros, who know this very well.

But how do I explain this to my friends, as a solution to the strategic error so favored by the establishment, if suddenly a nation of eleven million people discovers that the alleged anti-Castro fighters do not kill tyrants but fencers in short pants?

How does one explain to the millions of Cuban television viewers that this beautiful march in support of the Ladies in White organized by two worthy siblings, true pride of our land, when the Roundtable simply put Luis Posada Carriles in the picture with them, neutralizing with a single image the message of peace and solidarity emanating from that initiative of the Estefans?

What Castro, member of the Castro family, friend of Castro or henchman of Castro, did those recalcitrant fighters kill with their attacks and their planes? I only know of one. One victim who feeds their egos. A solo victim to justify the title of heroes, if such a thing could be justifies, for example, as with those who shot the dictator Trujillo, in an act of death that would save so many lives.

But no. These gentleman who are honored and freed of any guilt, have only damaged one faction of this story: those who determine nothing. Big favor they have done to the cause of freedom.

I accept neither stories no half-measures: When, on April 8, the El Paso jury determined, in just three hours, that Luis Posada Carriles was innocent of everything, the strip of sea between Cubans of both sides grew thicker. And that, for those who have faith in a future where most exiles will not die without being able to visit the house where they were born, and where we will erase from our consciences — as the Germans have done — this shameful past of distance and pain, is a motive for indignation.

And, in my case, reason enough to write.

April 14 2011