After too many days of suspense, melodrama, necrophilia, sentimentality and hysteria, all in the style of Latin American magical realism, a time of fresh air was finally reached, with the election of the new Pope.
Jesuit and Latin American, for the first time in the long history of Catholicism, his presence has impacted both believers and non-believers for what it represents as a promise of changes within the Catholic church, which must mold itself more to the passing of the new times, if it wants to amplify and deepen its evangelical mission before the advance of extremism of all kinds in different world regions.
Francis the first, the Argentine pope, faces a very complex task, both within the fold, bringing order and restoring the Church’s ethical and moral principles, and externally, seeking peaceful coexistence among nations and easing tensions between different religions.
Two important events marked his ascent to the throne of St. Peter: the resignation of the previous Pope, in an act of extreme modesty and responsibility, both quite rare in the world today, and that he is a man of humble origin and of a firm honorable career as priest, bishop and cardinal.
His papacy, aside from the many difficulties that he will surely face, will have in its favor the faith of millions of believers and the respect of all people of noble sentiments who aspire to a world of tolerance and peace where the rights of every citizen are respected.
Stefano Vaccara, Italian journalist; Yoani Sanchez; interpreter.Videos of Yoani’s press conference at the United Nations on 21 March 2013, recorded by Alexis Romay on his cell phone from an imperfect vantage point. (There are upload problems with Video 3 of 4, it will be added as soon as it is available.)
Video 1 of 4
Video 2 of 4
Video 3 of 4: Will be added as soon as it is available.
In the newspaper Granma, an article published with the title “About leaders and responsibilities”, by Félix López, makes it clear that a well-known old Cuban proverb “the rope breaks at the weakest point” would be ideal for this article.
How many of us who have always been subordinates have carried the blame for something which we had nothing to do with? And I say subordinate because whenever we have a superior, we are inevitably subordinate.
Say to yourself crime, contravention or indiscipline, they categorise and describe actions in this way because they are gathered up in legal regulations, but what’s for sure is that as a general rule, when regulations go unobserved, and are breached, usually the weight of the law falls on or breaks the weakest point: the “subordinate”.
Is it the workers who designate or choose their bosses? That’s as untrue as the belief that in the Management Board of any Employment Centre, the chief feels he is subject to the same conditions as his employees. Going to any Management Council is like being in the presence of a contract of adhesion “take it or leave it” – and to tell you the truth, we can understand even better than the people who work there that the chief has his entourage, incapable of or prevented from disagreeing with the decision of the supremo, except in rare circumstances, which are always viewed with disapproval and in terms of whingeing, trouble-making or out to make problems.
What can you say when a chief takes disciplinary measures against a subordinate and the latter complains to the Employment Law Authority (OJLB)? It would be a bit awkward if the worker were to leave victorious after the confrontation, because both he and the OJLB are employees and who would think of going against the wishes of the chief they will ask themselves. “Who will guarantee my employment if we let the worker win?” Because although the regulations say that the Authority has to comply with the law when carrying out its functions, when the function of delivering justice gets to the decision, will they continue being employed?
When you get to a work location trying to work and experiencing difficulties, you will find out who is the Chief, Manager, Director, Administator… perhaps you will be lucky enough to see him and hear him from a distance at a meeting, but you also learn that this individual has been shifted out … how is this person supposed to know about the activities he has been asked to run? How are things going to operate? There are lots of unanswered questions, and anybody who is able to answer them does not do so.
The slogan of the Cuban Workers Union (CTC) for their gathering to celebrate May 1 is “United for a Prosperous and Sustainable Socialism.” It seems there are different types of socialism, and the one with which we are familiar is that of the ration book, which is neither prosperous nor sustainable. Furthermore, I believe that all the former socialist countries — most notably the now defunct Soviet Union — have more or less had a similar experience with it too, and in general have rejected it. In spite of the difficulties and problems associated with the transition to capitalism, none of them want a return to the former system.
To call for this new type of socialism after more than fifty years of failed socialism is not only ridiculous, it is not even serious. Do the CTC and its political and ideological directors really believe that anyone will believe their new narrative? The unhappy experience of poverty, lack of productivity, squandering of resources, poor services, absence of freedom, impositions, restrictions and other tragedies that Cubans have endured have made us deeply incredulous about the prospect of a new luminous future within the next fifty years. The problem is that those who are proposing this are the same ones who proposed it more than fifty years ago, even though some of them have different faces. We are not about to trip over the same stone twice. Once is quite enough. And, besides, we have already paid and continue to pay a very high price for it.
At any rate, with or without the slogan, the parades through the different plazas will be massive, happy and colorful, as befits a well-organized society — one sealed with signed promises and checklists of accomplishments — in which civic inertia, fear, and concerns over employment and education are common. Turnout will be high, though privately most of the participants will care little about the celebration.
In short, the workers — ”with all their material and spiritual needs satisfied” — have only to applaud and give thanks to their government and its leaders “for the goods they have received.”
She came in through the visitors’ entrance after passing the security check. When she pushed through the revolving door into the grand hall, standing there alone, I greeted her with pretended formality: “Welcome to the United Nations.” The hall was packed with Model UN students. A distance back, an unofficial “welcome committee” stood by: Tuyet Nguyen, correspondent for a German news agency, who had come to escort us in on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA), and three guests. Two media crews filmed her entry; no one seemed to notice.
She was delayed from filming a last-minute CNN interview, so I was anxious to rush her through the next steps. Passes were secured at the information desk –she used her Cuban passport as ID and was photographed like any other visitor. We hurried downstairs and through the basement parking lot to the Library building where journalists’ and UNCA offices are located during the main building renovation. As we walked fast and through successive security points, I told her the Cuban government had blocked our plan and we would have to improvise. We agreed it did not matter, she was at the UN and she was going to speak regardless. Just minutes before, I had read on my phone that the tantrum had played out at the highest levels; Cuba’s Ambassador had filed an official protest asking the UN Secretary General to call off the “grave attack.”
Cuba is very influential at the UN, it has one of the largest and most active representations. China, Russia, Iran, and the likes are strong supporters, plus it exerts great influence over many other governments ⎯many host Cuban medical missions opportunely or share “revolutionary” sympathies, others just want to avoid trouble. Cuba’s diplomats are known for expertly working the UN bureaucracy and rules. The room change was the least of my worries. At any moment, I feared, we could be stopped at a security check, escorted out of the building, or attacked by Cuba’s diplomat-thugs. These things have actually happened at the UN in New York and Geneva.
The briefing was planned weeks earlier for the Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium, a large and elegant venue with the necessary audio equipment. But, the day before, the UNCA liaison mentioned “certain problems.” The auditorium would not be available and we would not have equipment for the simultaneous interpretation. I imagined great pressure was at play. Fortunately, with a few UN battles under my wing, I had asked that this be kept from Yoani’s official schedule until the invitation had been sent out. It would be harder to dismantle an event announced to UNCA members, 200 correspondents from all over the world.
Cuba had complained that UNCA was being “manipulated by spurious interests,” but the truth is much less sinister. I represent a tiny human rights’ group with the most meager of resources; most of our work is volunteer. Familiar with UNCA (http://www.unca.com/), I knew it hosts press briefings with newsworthy sources and freely decides who to invite. So, when I asked them if they would like to host Yoani Sánchez, they immediately answered yes ⎯I assumed because she is a world-famous blogger and journalist. After details were agreed on, I contacted the person handling Yoani’s schedule (a mutual friend volunteering his efforts). Once a time was agreed, I sent UNCA her biography and suggested media advisory. Then, I hired an interpreter. It had all been simple and transparent.
The briefing would now be at “UNCA square” within the journalists’ temporary area during the remodeling. To my dismay, when we arrived we found it was just an opening within a hallway surrounded by offices. Immediately next to a large copying machine was a tiny table with three small chairs crammed behind it. To the side, another small table had refreshments. In the middle, there were no more than ten chairs. Most people had to stand in the hallway and adjoining offices. We looked at each other puzzled, so I pointed Yoani and the interpreter to the chairs, leaving the third one for the UNCA host. Though the designated moderator, I stepped aside ⎯there was no room and no need for another person. Having seen her over the previous days in New York and Washington, I knew all we needed was to let Yoani speak.
A few film crews and correspondents from news agencies and several countries were there. Italian journalist Stefano Vaccara explained to me that no biographical commentary was needed, as everyone knew who she was, and proceeded with a heartfelt introduction. She delivered her remarks with no notes, as usual, her voice strong despite no microphone (unfortunately not the interpreter’s). Orlando Luis Pardo, the Cuban blogger/photographer traveling with Yoani, Mary Jo Porter, the Seattle engineer who founded a volunteer translating service to support Cuban bloggers, and I, sat on the floor ⎯there was no space elsewhere.
Yoani began by saying she was proud that her first time at the U.N. was “with my journalist colleagues.” Though clarifying that she came as a citizen and joking about being used to working in small spaces, she pulled out all the works. She called on the United Nations to support human rights in Cuba and declared it was time it “came out of its lethargy and recognized that the Cuban government is a dictatorship.” She asserted: “Cuba is not a government or a political party and much less the fiefdom of one man.” Further, she called for UN support of an international investigation of the suspicious death of Cuban dissident Oswaldo Payá. (See 3:30 min video clip in Spanish here.
During the Q & A, the correspondent for Cuban news agency, Prensa Latina, asked two questions. Unsurprisingly, they were from the “40 questions for Yoani” that Cuban regime supporters have trailed her with wherever she goes. He sounded pretty silly and he must have known it, as his hands were shaking. She dispatched them quickly, ably, and with aplomb. When it was all over, she filmed a quick interview with The New York Times and rushed to the airport for the next leg of her trip. We left the building relieved to find no hecklers or attackers on the street.
It’s remarkable that a 37 year-old petite and unassuming woman blogger took to the United Nations headquarters in defense of fundamental rights bearing no more than her determination and the strength of her word. The poised and eloquent “little person,” as she calls herself, made a mighty military dictatorship of over five decades run scared to stop her from speaking. Forced into a cubicle, she could not be silenced. Word spread quickly throughout the world not only of her message, but of the vicious will to stop it. This story captures the exhaustion of a regime whose tactics become futile before the force of a peaceful rebellion that will not be stopped.
Only five hours after the briefing, a Google search produced four pages of links to news stories from around the world in Spanish alone ⎯all highlighted the Cuban government’s bully tactics. The regime had actually generated the lead to a great story, made themselves look like fools, and allowed Yoani to shine brighter!
Recapping the event with Carmen Rodríguez, UNCA member from Radio Martí, she recalled José Martí’s words: “A just cause coming from the bottom of a cave is more powerful than any army.” At the UN, Yoani had given it a singular twist: “If we were holding this meeting in the bottom of an elevator shaft, we would have more freedom than in Cuba.” From start to finish, her UN foray could not have been more perfect or poetic.
Maria Werlau is Executive Director of Cuba Archive (www.CubaArchive.org), a New Jersey based non-profit organization.
All rights reserved, Free Society Project, Inc.
Reproduction and redistribution of this material
is authorized as long as its source is cited.
I won’t judge the politician or military man, I’ll identify with the man, the son, the father, the grandfather, the Venezuelan leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela and the idol of his supporters: Hugo Chávez died, the 52nd president of Venezuela. On February 2, 1999 he became the elected ruler of his country and this past October 2012 he was reelected one more time for another term. Beginning with his arrival at the throne of government, he tried to goodly prolong his stay in power and to accomplish this he was behind a ’just’ referendum and modified the constitution — a practice repeated in other so-called revolutionary processes — to guarantee the continuity of a small group at the head of the country and to eternalize himself in the job with the “revolutionary” pretext of developing his programs of government.
Fidel Castro took note of him in February 1992 when he headed a “justified and good” coup d’etat against the constitutional president Carlos Andrés Pérez. For that event he spent two years in prison — had he done so in Cuba, they probably would have sentenced him to more than three decades (although it’s speculative there are certain precedents) or condemned to death — and he was invited by the Cuban government to visit our country.
Here they treated him like a head of state and apparently arrived at commitments that marked his journey in politics, which culminated with his arrival at the presidency of Venezuela, his eternal thanks to the Cuban ex-ruler sealed publicly and repeatedly. Nobody has described the genesis of the political marriage between a high-ranking official of the savannah like Chavez with a mountain fighter like Fidel; between a man from humble roots like Chávez and one of bourgeois origin like Castro; between a dictator who killed the liberal structures of Cuba and the commander with the most democratic image recorded in the history of Latin America.
A form of government has to be created in the countries of our America in which the leaders who come to power democratically defend the maintenance of the mechanisms that made it possible for them to get there; no political system that sustains itself on duress, physical or verbal violence, the violation of rights, or on the denial of freedom of expression on the part of the people, and fear can really consider itself free.
Although I never sympathized with the ideas and plans of Chávez’s so-called Boliviarian revolution — so similar to those that have impoverished Cuba for over 54 years — I lament his death and identify with the pain of his family, and with that of the millions of followers who still mourn his physical loss.
A recent tour through Nuevo Vedado revealed shortages at the area’s produce markets. It is worse in the state-run stores, where shelves are completely bare, while those still in use hold little merchandise. The situation is better in the private markets, where the available merchandise is of better quality, the selection is greater and, as you might expect, the prices are higher. In spite of constant harassment by authorities, the so-called carretillero, or street vendors, also offer wide selection and good quality, though also at higher prices. People ask, “What’s going on?”
It seems that, in spite of “the successful accomplishment of established goals and productive achievements” touted by the official media, the reality is quite different. Once a week potatoes — a crop completely controlled by the state — will appear on a few shelves at state-run markets, prompting long lines. Stores have been unable to guarantee a steady supply.
Without steady production there cannot be a stable supply. If the systems for harvesting and distributing a crop are not working properly, the product will not reach the consumer, to whom it is ultimately targeted. Until production, harvesting and distribution of crops is freed up and everything is transferred to private hands, trying to preserve the state’s monopoly against all odds will not produce results. All the efforts over many years at getting the system to work have failed. It has proved inefficient. Now is the time to abandon it and stop playing around with the nation’s food supply.
It’s inconceivable that four years later I had to prove my innocence. It wasn’t enough to say it, if I didn’t present proofs of it, among which is the videos that unmasks all the diabolical revenge against me, with the invention of false witnesses.
If the prosecutor and the accusers present this false testimony, and their plot is discovered, they are forced to dismantle their strategy of 54 years in prison for Angel.
What else do I have to say to prove my innocence? Are the extensive irregularities against me not enough? Where is the evidence against me, except in the manipulated complaint of the Lieutenant Colonel who says my slanted handwriting indicates I’m guilty?
It is not also enough that they have given me an illegal sentence? Why take two years presenting proof and witnesses that I’m innocent? Why don’t they ask the Cuban government to present a shred of evidence that is not the crude joke of my slanted handwriting?
Has it occurred to anyone to think what would have occurred if my friends hadn’t filmed the witness? What would be my condition now with one person saying he saw me at the scene of the events?
It frightens me that it is not enough to dismantle a false witness and that someone still comments that my last statement doesn’t confirm my innocence. It makes me ashamed to say over and over: I am innocent.
Why do they ask me to prove it and in other ways pander to State Security?
Why are all Cubans guilty until proven otherwise?
It’s not enough to have more than proved my innocence.
The Investigators and all of Counterintelligence could not prove my guilt with their lies.
To present my innocence I don’t have just my own words, there is clear evidence:
Three and a half years of waiting and building a file. In Cuba these cases are adjudicated within a few months from the time they open the investigation file.
Perhaps most striking is the video of the false witness. After that, what more do I to present?
There were 5 witnesses who testified to the infamy against me and his declarations about my innocence were unjustly rejected with another absurd lie. It was also published on-line.
I was sentenced to a term that has nothing to do with the accusation.
The entire defense by my attorney is on the internet, publicly available.
I call on all those who are interested in knowing the truth to read these documents and to not keep asking me to write that I am innocent.
I said it, and I did so in court. I proved it and therein lies the injustice against me.
I don’t believe there are honest people who, after reading the documents on both sides and seeing the video of the false witness, can dare to say that I have not affirmed my innocence.
I hope that it’s for lack of time or being too lazy to read, and not a provocation.
I did not want to leave the country when the opportunities presented themselves, I wanted to be here, in this prison, with my proofs, to confront the Government, with its injustices, and those who prepare and carry out its orders, who will go down on history as soldiers of the regime.
– Video of the false witness Alexis Quintana Quindelán, who confessed lying under the direction of Kenia Rodríguez who had promised to pay him with personal benefits.
Arrest in March 2003. Image from america.infobae.com
At present, despite the continued omnipresence of the political police–which hinders the proper performance of our work, systematically violates our rights and freedoms, and harasses us and threatens us with many years of jail–alternative civil society is strengthened numerically and deontologically and labors for certain potential destinations definitely better for our country.
Those brave peaceful fighters of the 2003 Black Spring were already released and some of them remain in the country. They were 75, but there are many more stories of errors and horrors of the government to discourage the opposition movement in Cuba.
However, this movement has grown from 2003 and it is an intellectual and moral power that denounces the arbitrariness of the powerful and proposes politically democratizing alternatives to the systemic immobility modus operandi of the totalitarian regime.
I hope to God that there will not be a repeat of a repressive sequence of arrests like that of 2003, which makes the necessary reconciliation between Cubans more difficult and prevents my country from permanently joining the world’s democratic nations.
It would have pleased me greatly to be able to join my friend Guillermo Gortazar in the presentation of his book, “Cuba: Freedom Road,” which I recommend you read. Sadly, I sent my apologies to all attendees, especially to Esperanza Aguirre, Berta Soler and to Mr. Gortazar. Our interview with Spain’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, whom I thank for having us, was delayed and prevented us from being on time for the launch.
Guillermo is the president of the Cuban Hispanic Foundation, whose goal is the freedom of and the return of their rights to the Cuban people. This is also the commitment of the Christian Liberation Movement and the Path of the People initiative, which is the proposal of almost all of the opposition inside and outside Cuba. This Path is the answer to the Fraud Change intended to maintain the power and privileges of a group of people without the recognition of fundamental freedoms.
Economic reforms that do not give autonomy to the citizens, nor come accompanied by recognition of civil and political rights of the people, do not guarantee or facilitate a democratic transition. We are not talking about the recognition of private enterprise, but at concessions that the government offers to a few privileged people and that they use to show international public opinion an image of openings that is not real. It’s worth mentioning that at the same time we are seeing an increase in repression against pro-democracy activists on the island.
First people must be free, and then decisions can be made about what to do with the economy. On respect for the law and the practice of human rights guarantees that in all sectors of society we will have the opportunity to participate in and construct the real transition that leads to democracy. It is a task for Cubans themselves to discern and define the future of our country and to seek the prosperity of our nation.
My father, the founding sponsor of the Spanish-Cuban Foundation, taught us that neither the state nor the market can be above the decisions of the people and the rights of citizens. For the sovereignty of these decisions and respect for these rights my father and Harold Cepero gave their lives and it is for these objectives that the Cuban democracy movement continues to work.
My name is Rosa Maria Payá, member of the Christian Liberation Movement and daughter of its national coordinator, Oswaldo Payá, opposition leader and Sakharov Prize laureate of the European Parliament.
My father dedicated his life to working for legal and nonviolent change for Cubans to enjoy all basic human rights.
He promoted the Varela Project, a referendum supported by over 25,000 citizens, who have defied repression to demand legal reforms that guarantee freedom of expression, freedom of association, free elections, freedom of nonviolent political prisoners and the right to own private enterprises.
The government has so far refused to allow this plebiscite, and it imprisoned the majority of its leaders.
Yosvani Melchor Rodríguez is 30 years old, and has spent three years in prison as a punishment for his mother being a member of our movement.
Cuban authorities said that my father and Harold Cepero, a youth activist, died in a traffic accident. But after interviewing the survivors, we confirmed that their deaths were not accidental.
[Cuban delegate Juan Quintanilla starts banging on his desk.]
President of the Session (UNHRC Vice President Luis Gallegos Chiriboga, ambassador of Ecuador):
There is a point of order from the delegation of Cuba.
Cuba (Juan Quintanilla):
Thank you, Mr. President. I apologize for the noise in the room but it was necessary to interrupt the statement by the mercenary who has dared to come to this room. We would like to ask, Mr. President, if this debate on Item 4 refers to general questions that may show a pattern of violations of human rights, or whether it is also to be used to address specific issues such as what is being done now by the mercenary, who has been taking the floor at this juncture. We have this concern, Mr. President, and we would be very grateful if you could clarify things for us and if you could show this to the mercenary who is delivering a statement. Thank you.
United States:
Thank you Mr. President. We highlight that the US firmly believes that NGOs must be permitted to speak in the Council. The member states, including the United States, may occasionally disagree with the content of a NGO statement. It is essential that civil society voices be heard here in an atmosphere of open expression. Without addressing the substance of what the speaker was saying, we are of the opinion that what we have heard of the intervention so far is addressed to the subject matter at hand before this Council under item 4. Mr. President, we respectfully ask that you rule that the speaker be allowed to finish her presentation. Thank you.
China: Thank you, Mr. President. The Chinese delegation believes that the concern of the Cuban delegation is valid. I hope, Mr. President, that you will seriously consider the request by the Cuban delegation. Thank you.
Russia: Thank you, Mr. President. Our delegation would like to support what is being said by the delegation of Cuba, objecting to the procedure being used for conducting the meeting. We would like to ask you to appeal to the representative of the NGO which is speaking to adhere to the established rules of procedure for the Council and the agenda as established. Thank you very much.
Pakistan: We support the point of order raised by the Cuban delegation. Thank you.
Nicaragua: My delegation is asking for the floor to support the request put forward by Cuba in its point of order. Thank you very much.
Belarus: Mr. President, the delegation of Belarus joins the well-founded statement on the point of order and procedural issues as raised by the delegation of Cuba. Thank you.
President: I would like to remind the organizations that are speaking that we are on Agenda Item 4, the human rights situations which require attention in the Council, and that they confine to that subject matter in their statements.
[Paya then resumed her statement.]
Thank you, Mr. President.
The driver of the car told the Washington Post that they were intentionally rammed from behind. The text messages from the survivors on the day of the event confirm this.
The Cuban government’s state security calls my family home in Havana, saying: “We’re going to kill you.” These are the same death threats that were made to my father. I want to be clear: The physical integrity of all members of my family is the responsibility of the Cuban government.
Today I wish to present this appeal, signed by 46 political leaders and activists from around the world. We urge the United Nations to launch an independent investigation into the death of my father.
The truth is essential to the process of reconciliation that is necessary for a transition to democracy in Cuba. We do not seek revenge. But we have a right to know:
Who is responsible for the death of my father?
When will the people of Cuba finally enjoy basic democracy and fundamental freedoms?
Thank you, Mr. President.
At the end of the general debate, Cuba took the floor again to exercise a right of reply.
Cuba, exercising right of reply:
An anti-Cuban mercenary addressed the Council today to try to blame the Cuban government for the death of her father, who died last year in a car accident. This mercenary was accredited by United Nations Watch, a reactionary NGO without any credibility. Nobody takes it seriously and it only works for the service of the United States.
Rosa Maria Paya is a created, invented individual — financed and promoted by the US government. She has close relations with the US Interests Office in Havana, which she has visited on many occasions.
As regards to the alleged facts, nobody in their right mind would believe them during the oral and public hearing. And on the basis of abundant proof, including expert proof, it was shown that Angel Carromero was driving at well above 120 kilometers an hour, and it was his lack of attention and care, the fact that he was driving too fast, and a wrong decision to step on the brakes too hard on a slippery surface that caused this tragic accident which cost the life of two individuals. Angel Carromero in fact recognized this.
Both Rosa Maria Paya and Regis Iglesias — speaking on behalf of another phony NGO — are vulgar agents, paid, educated and trained by the US government in order to bring about a regime change in Cuba. They both work for those who are in favor of the blockade and aggression against their own people.
[Note: Original posted in English on Rosa Maria’s blog.]
Since Friday, March 15, the body of the elected president of Venezuela, Rafael Chávez Frías, has rested at the Montaña Barracks in the city of Caracas. His state funeral lasted for ten days during which time his followers, admirers and representatives from all over the planet came to pay their respects and show their solidarity.
The ones not at rest are his successors, who seem concerned about the possible outcome from upcoming presidential elections in April. Without Chávez it is unlikely that chavismo can survive. For the designated candidate, Nicolás Maduro, to win, he will have to overcome the challenge of governing a country plagued by violence and social insecurity, and threatened by a serious economic crisis.
For us Cubans the path the next Venezuelan government takes will undoubtedly have an effect on the period of political transition lying dormant in the heart of the nation. Cuba must not continue to be the anti-democratic exception among the peoples of the Americas. Being named to the presidency of CELAC* should have motivated Cuban authorities to adopt pluralism and to recognize political alternatives in Cuba. We trust that the current rulers of the island have at least taken note of the electoral practices of the late Hugo Chávez. May he rest in peace.
*Translator’s note: Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).
Latin America remains in the news these days. A bishop from Argentina was elected pontiff. The new pope took the name Francis. For the first time in history a Latin American will be St. Peter’s successor at the Vatican.
In Cuba the authorities officially recognized March 29 of this year as Good Friday. The text of Resolution no. 12/2013 from the Ministry of Labor and Social Security stipulates how administrators are to compensate workers who take the day off.
What is interesting about this bit of news is that the official press neither explains nor offers any details as to why the highest branches of government and the state decided to declare this day a holiday. The inertia of state-run journalism is an expression of fear, looking the other way when it suits them. Or could it be a display of due obedience?
With the attempted coup of April 2002, the Venezuelan oligarchy tried to remove from power and/or murder Commander Hugo Chavez, leader of the nascent Bolivarian Revolution. There were moments of intense drama: the uncertainty of the early hours of his ouster and then the tsunami of people, the fiery waves that came down from the hills to restore their elected president to Miraflores Palace, a display of pure courage. That was an impressive and spontaneous reaction; since then the world was certain that something was brewing in Venezuela, something more important than simple ascent of a leader: this was a people with real aspirations, who performed an incredibly brave act of atonement for their true leader.
Parallel events, like the Llaguno Bridge Massacre, widely manipulated by the pro-coup media — “snipers who smashed the skulls of Venezuelans on both sides so as not to arouse suspicions when it came time to accuse the Chavistas,” they reported — and others like the siege of the Cuban embassy, the violent closure ot the official TV channel, and the precipitous recognition by various nations of the “transition government” that lasted no longer than an ice cube in the sun, largely defined Latin American during the following decade and are now Histroy, like it or not by the detractors of Hugo Chavez.
I have never visited Venezuela, so I can not offer an opinion with complete certainty about a reality that I never experienced. Many of my references have come to me from Cuban doctors, nurses or technicians who served there during different stages and I who told me about an excessive social violence, “the painful legacy of past decades,” with youth organized crime, with trigger-happy almost-kids perpetrating crimes in cold blood; they tell me of constant political tensions, the rising scarcities of life, and the opportunistic showing its face on both sides of the conflict.
If there is anything I am aware of, it’s that for the government of Hugo Chávez nothing was exactly easy. But I’m convinced that “I could be wrong about all that,” that in the Venezuelan case the scarcities referred to are greatly speculative, driven by wealthy opponents, because I can’t understand how this could be in such a rich country, with the largest recognized oil reserves in the world.
But one cannot ignore the fact that this oligarchy still retains enough economic power to sabotage, should it decide to do so, precisely because the Government of Hugo Chavez “in addition to its socialist project, but different from the Cuban experience,” respected private property in Venezuela, giving the State control over the most strategic sectors.
Recently we Cubans watched how Maduro delivered his first speech as President, “in which he immediately called elections” under the same roof with known pro-capitalists opponents who listened with respect and were treated with respect, and, through Telesur, the station that could be called the Chavista “official” TV, we watched Capriles deliever his clumsy speech quite naturally before this and other media of the press; a lesson in tolerance we need to learn.
With regards to the elections of this coming April 14, I have few doubts. With hisspeech to the country, Capriles simply dug his own grave. The opposition leader gave a masterclass in political stupidity, in how to incisively attack not only the institutions, but the human sensibility of people still in deep mourning, with a tirade that left a bad taste in the face of elections too close to allow times to make amends.
I am convinced that this slip will cost Capriles tens or hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of votes. I predict that this election, with the emotional component in his favor, will be won by Maduro by a margin greater than the last one won by Chavez.
To his credit, the commander left a legacy of millions of literate, owners of new homes, through missions like Robinson, Barrio Adentro, Habitat and Great Housing Mission, among others who completed a total of 21 and who sought, above all, to humanize the life of ordinary Venezuelans.
Commander Chavez died after a long battle during which he never lied to his people about his health. With Honorary Doctorates from 10 universities, the “José Martí” International Award of UNESCO, and he earned dozens of international awards, honors and medals, he died convinced of the justness of his struggle, that neoliberal capitalism is guilty of the serious problems in Latin America, of the great hoax and lying to the third world by global institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. He died believing that Bolivar gave us a saving proposal two centuries ago, and therefore embraced that dream until his last breath.
The media of humanity honored him, including the UN General Assembly, the OAS and virtually all regional bodies. Fifty heads of state and government, as well as hundreds of world personalities attended his funeral and left an undeniable mark on the new dynamics of North-South relations. All this convinces me that Hugo Chavez will not belong to us but to history, and maybe not today but tomorrow, History will issue the final verdict.
Now, as the 2013 Art Deco Congress is being held in our country, and invitees and delegates attend its conferences, an average of three residential structures a day collapse in the capital.
The influence of Art Deco, which dates to the 1920s and 1930s, was strongly felt throughout the world in the decorative arts, painting, fashion, sculpture, cinema and graphic design.
The most emblematic architectural example in our country is the Bacardi Building, constructed from 1930 to 1938. The Cuban architects Esteban Rodríguez Castell, Rafael Fenández Ruenes and José Menéndez oversaw its design and execution. It is considered by many to be their masterpiece and fortunately remains in a very good state of preservation.
Examples and remnants of this movement proliferate throughout the city. Among them in the López Serrano Building – a beautiful example of this style, a structure of elegance and a striking design – which has been plundered and abused as a result of neglect and apathy on the part of government officials. It is at risk of being lost if urgent measures are not taken to address these issues. Other examples include the América, Fausto and Arenal cinemas, all in peril as well.
In health care this architectural style finds expression in the América Arias infant and maternity hospital by the architects Govantes and Cabarrocas. A beautiful example of Art Deco, this building has also been abused and it too is in danger of being lost. There is also the Pedro Borras children’s hospital, which has been closed for more than two decades due to structural problems, no doubt caused by nearby explosions during the construction fever of 1980s when tunnels were being built all throughout the city as part of the “War of All the People” campaign. At the time of its construction this facility was the largest example of this architectural style, larger even than similar examples in the city of Chicago.
In terms of military buildings the Moncada Barracks in the city of Santiago de Cuba is in a very good state of preservation indeed.
During a wonderful presentation called “The Havana of Today and Tomorrow” yesterday afternoon in the House of Green Tiles in Miramar, the architect Miguel Coyula employed the term art-kitsch-tecture (one he coined himself) to refer to monstrosities produced by people with resources but without the slightest amount of taste who have managed to build new homes or remodel those they already own. In other words, something horrendous.
One of the issues that most caught the attention of those present was the extremely high proportion, close to 90%, of owners of homes, but not of the buildings, leading to the term “no man’s land.” The building has no owner, therefore mo maintenance or services. Every resident solves their own problems however they can, and this further accelerates the deterioration of the building. In addition, there is the increasingly rampant individualism. “To own does not mean to maintain” the speaker said. The owner of an apartment whose salary is 300 Cuban pesos a month, cannot invest 45% of that to buy a gallon of paint.
Another of the most important reasons for the deterioration of the city, according to Coyula, is the aging of the population. The emigration of young and well-educated people, as well as the migration to the capital of residents of other provinces who, for the most part, are not well-educated and who come mostly for economic reasons and settling wherever they can regardless of the conditions, has significantly increased the number of slum neighborhoods and favelas.
This is the current landscape of a greatly overpopulated city; what will be its future?
After too many days of suspense, melodrama, necrophilia, sentimentality and hysteria, all in the style of Latin American magical realism, a time of fresh air was finally reached, with the election of the new Pope.
