‘There is no more profound or permanent change than a Revolution’ Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque at the UN
On 4 November the UN General Assembly voted by an overwhelming majority to end the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States. Just three countries opposed the Cuban resolution – the US itself, its Zionist client state Israel, and the tiny Marshall Islands. Two countries abstained – Micronesia and Morocco, although the latter spoke in favour of the anti-blockade resolution. A further seven, including, for obvious reasons, Iraq, were absent. The vote represents a resounding political victory for Cuba on the world stage. JUANJO RIVAS reports.
The debate was opened by the delegate from Mexico, speaking in support of the Cuban resolution. This marks a significant shift in the position of the Mexican government, which in the last two years had aligned itself against Cuba.
In his speech, Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque exposed the US blockade of Cuba as ‘a crime of genocide, a juridical aberration and a flagrant violation of human rights’. He went on to point out and refute the litany of lies delivered by the US representative Sichan Siv, who had blamed the ‘failed economic policies’ of Castro, rather than the blockade, for impoverishing the Cuban people. Roque pointed out that Cuban specialists have prepared assessments of the damage caused by the blockade in every field, from health care, education and housing to agriculture, industry and services. Their research states that this US policy alone has provoked $72 billion in losses, representing an average of $1.6 billion a year since the Revolution’s triumph in 1959. To this must be added aggressions, invasions and over 600 plots to kill the Cuban President. ‘How much further would Cuba have reached in its noble work of equality and social justice if it had not had to face this ironclad and merciless blockade in place for more than 40 years?’ he asked.
Siv had said the blockade was imposed after the Revolution nationalised US companies without compensation, claimed that Cuba doesn’t pay its debts and defended the blockade as a blow for freedom and democracy. He went on talk about ‘brutal repression’ in Cuba, calling Fidel Castro a dictator and describing Cuba as ‘an evil and dictatorial regime’ to which they want to say ‘Hasta la vista, baby!’.
Roque pointed out that the US economic war against Cuba started before any nationalisation – and as a matter of record, it was the US itself which refused to discuss compensation. The blockade, he said, was a matter of international concern as it is a unilateral application that affects trade and punishes third countries.
Roque pointed out that the US has no moral authority to talk about human rights – as the barbarity of the extra-judicial US concentration camp in Guantanamo demonstrates. As for calling a president elected with 95% of the vote a ‘dictator’, Roque argued that in reality it is the United States that wants to impose a world dictatorship.
In calling for an end to the blockade, Roque demanded:
• the repeal of the Helms-Burton and Torricelli Acts, vital rafts of the blockade which severely limit Cuba’s ability to trade. He cited the bans imposed on sales of sugar, nickel, cigars, seafood and fish, vaccines and biotechnological items, computer programmes and other Cuban goods, as well as the bans on the acquisition of food and agricultural goods.
• that US citizens be allowed to travel freely to Cuba. Those doing so currently face heavy penalties – most recently a 74-year-old was fined $8,500 for holidaying in Cuba.
• that the US desist from preventing the free exchange of ideas and the use of dollars in Cuba’s commercial transactions.
• that financial institutions be permitted to grant credits to Cuba.
• that frozen assets should be returned to Cuba to prevent Cuban capital from being stolen ‘by peddlers of influence and ambitious shysters in Miami’.
He also used the international platform of the UN to demand the return of Guantanamo Naval Base, occupied by the US against Cuba’s will, the repeal of the Cuban Adjustment Act (which grants US residence to illegal Cuban migrants) and called for co-operation between the two countries to eliminate the illegal trafficking of immigrants and for the release of the Miami Five:
‘The United States must release the five Cubans unjustly imprisoned and prosecute terrorists who are freely walking the streets of Miami.’
And he warned the US that its attempts to destroy the Revolution were doomed to failure: ‘Far from giving in, we Cubans are more resolute and independent; far from becoming divided, we have united; far from becoming disheartened we have found fresh strength to defend our sovereignty and our right to freedom.’ After ten US administrations trying to defeat, by any means, the Cuban Revolution and its gains, Roque had a message for George Bush from the Cuban people: ‘He should be aware that there is no human or natural force that could make the Cubans renounce their dreams of justice and freedom.’
In a sharp rebuff to Bush’s comment the month before, that Cuba would not change of its own accord, Roque stated ‘Cuba is changing every day; there is no more profound and permanent change than a Revolution’. He received a huge ovation both from the delegates at the UN and from the 5,000 Cubans crammed into the Karl Marx Theatre in Havana who were following the proceedings on a video screen.
US steps up war of attrition
On 10 October, the Bush administration launched a new salvo in its war of attrition against Cuba. Despite the fiasco in Iraq, the doctrine of ‘regime change’ for any country that challenges the imperialist diktat remains alive and well in Washington. In a speech bristling with anti-Cuban rhetoric and disinformation, President Bush announced: ‘Clearly, the Castro regime will not change by its own choice, but Cuba must change. So today I’m announcing several new initiatives intended to hasten the arrival of a new, free, democratic Cuba.’
These measures include:
• Strengthening travel restrictions on US citizens wishing to travel to Cuba. This will include increased inspections of travellers and shipments to and from Cuba and a renewed targeting of those who travel to Cuba via a third country.
• Deliberate attempts to increase the number of Cuban immigrants to the US by ‘informing them of the many routes to safe and legal entry to the US’.
• Increasing the amount and expanding the distribution to Cuba of Internet-based information and radio transmissions, including a new satellite service to expand the US’s reach into Cuba.
• Establishing a commission to channel assistance ‘to a free Cuba to plan for the happy day when Castro’s regime is no more and democracy comes to the island’.
This commission is to be chaired by secretary of state Colin Powell and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez. Martinez, a Miami-based Cuban immigrant, rose to prominence as a vociferous champion of the Miami relatives of Elian Gonzalez who took Elian on a trip to Disneyland. He was also a co-ordinator of Bush’s presidential election campaign in Florida. The commission will investigate further ways of undermining the Cuban state, and will be able to ‘draw on experts within our government to plan for Cuba’s transition from Stalinist rule to a free and open society, to identify ways to hasten the arrival of that day’.
For good measure, Bush threw in disgraceful and unfounded allegations that the Cuban government was promoting an illicit sex industry. Perhaps he was fondly recalling the days before Cuba’s socialist revolution when Havana was indeed little more than an offshore brothel and casino for off-duty US marines. The Cuban government has angrily rebuffed these ‘repugnant accusations’, citing UN acknowledgement for the measures it has taken to actively protect children, young people and women.
However, this smear follows hard on the heels of another tired and unsubstantiated claim, made on 6 October by US Secretary for Latin America Robert Noriega, that Cuba is manufacturing biological weapons. This ridiculous allegation first surfaced last May, in a desperate attempt by the US administration to link Cuba’s name with those of Syria and Libya in its phony ‘War against Terrorism’. The administration was forced to hastily backtrack when former President Carter revealed that officials in the White House and intelligence services had admitted to him they had absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.
These acts of hostility and their accompanying propaganda undoubtedly endear Bush to the virulently anti-Cuban Miami population whose votes will be so crucial in the 2004 presidential election. But their purpose is even more sinister. The Bush administration hopes that through its blatant and illegal acts of subversion, it may provoke the Cuban government into a response that would give the US an excuse for a military attack, under cover of its War on Terrorism. These are dangerous times for the Cuban Revolution. However, throughout 2002-2003 the US tried a similar tack and was spectacularly wrong-footed by the Cubans’ determined response – rounding up US-funded ‘dissidents’ and executing three brutal hijackers. It will fail again, as a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Granma International, 19 October 2003) makes clear:
‘The transition dreamed of by Bush and his Miami mafia acolytes will never occur in Cuba. Our country is in transition, yes, but in a transition towards more Revolution, towards a more just society, towards a society where men and women can attain the full development only offered by socialism.
‘Nobody should be mistaken, neither our enemies abroad nor their discredited mercenaries. As it has done to date, Cuba has the total capacity and disposition to confront and overcome with intelligence, maturity, determination and courage this or any other extravagances and aggressive escalations on any terrain. Mr Bush should know that, as always, any aggression against our country will founder against the dignity, steadfastness and integrity of the people of Cuba.’
Cat Wiener
REVIEW: Comandante, A film by Oliver Stone
In early October 2003 an Oliver Stone documentary film portraying the Cuban leader Fidel Castro was released in Britain. Whilst the film press called it ‘astounding’ and ‘superb’ (Empire and Uncut magazines), the ‘liberal’ press were scathing or just censored it.
Stone filmed throughout three days spent with President Castro, from waking to sleeping. Castro turned down Stone’s offer to stop the cameras at any point. The result, 90 minutes cut from 72 hours of footage, is an intimate portrayal of the Cuban leader.
The style is typical of Stone, heavily laden with rocky camcorder images of Fidel walking through Havana or around his office, head shots of Castro in conversation with Stone, meshed with black and white footage of the Revolution. This is accompanied by an almost continuous sombre soundtrack, the final effect being somewhat overdone.
Stone asks the President historical questions covering his relationship with Khrushchev during the missile crisis; his meeting with Nixon; the alleged fall-out with Che Guevara, and the role of Cubans in Vietnam during the war. Stone also confronts Castro with the questions that critics of Cuba pose: about homophobia and racism in Cuba and the question of democracy and freedom. Having seen the Cuban people’s love for their President, Stone asks why Castro doesn’t call elections to prove his popularity. The President points out that the question was premised with the assumption that there were no elections in Cuba. In reality, he explains, the Cuban electoral process is far more democratic and representative than anywhere in the world, especially the US.
Comandante is another film that will make Stone few friends among the US ruling class, particularly as the Bush administration lines the Revolution up for further attack. Most moving are the scenes showing Castro walking in Havana unannounced and with no security, and turning up at the Latin American School of Medicine where hundreds of excited young people from across Latin America crowd round to thank him for the opportunity to study free in Cuba. The genuine warmth from his people demonstrates more than anything else how much they support him.
Comandante is a warm and human portrayal of a giant whose struggle has brought him both isolation and immense responsibility, and earned him the admiration of the oppressed around the world.
Andrew Alexander
FRFI 176 December 2003 / January 2004
