Liberal Statement on Cuba Policy Supports US "Crusade"
Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit
October 3, 2001
The "Cuba Policy Review" Statement is a Pro-War Document
by Jon Hillson
<jonhillson@aol.com>
A
news release entitled "Cuba Policy Should be Reviewed in New International
Context" that was circulated by the Cuban American Education Fund on September
22 has gotten significant media coverage around the country and been posted to
many electronic mail lists. It purports to seek relief for Cuba by attempting to
convince the U.S. government that Havana should be removed from the U.S. State
Department's notorious list of states which "sponsor" terrorism.
The attached response takes up the central themes of this statement, signed by
16 individuals, most from what the New York Times terms the "Cuba policy
community." The include former U.S. government officials, representatives of
various "think tanks," academics, and activists.
In letter and spirit, the news release is an unconditional endorsement of the
escalating U.S. war drive, embraces recent declarations to that effect by
President Bush, offers help in refining the "accuracy" of Washington's
international enemies list, caters to the government's "Cuba spy" witchhunt, and
fully supports "the long, hard struggle" against "terrorism" under whose banners
a bi-partisan regime will launch military action first against the people of
Afghanistan, to be followed by many others, while attempting to shred democratic
and labor rights at home in the name of "national security."
None of this has anything in common with the words and deeds of the Cuban people
and their leaders before, or after, September 11. The statement reflects
capitulation to the war drive and is a blow to solidarity with Cuba, or anyone
else who struggles for justice. The views expressed in the article are entirely
my own, and in presenting them for the discussion and debate the statement has
sparked, I am not representing any organization in any capacity.
This contribution part of the process of political clarification required to
equip those who want to fight effectively against the wars--abroad and at
home--that working people will, in their immense majority, come to recognize as
unjust, and organize to resist and overcome.
In solidarity,
Jon Hillson
First, the original statement, which is followed by a detailed analysis:
For Immediate Release -
September 25, 2001
For information contact
Anya Landau: 202.232.3317
or anya@ciponline.org
http://www.ciponline.org/cuba/newsarticles/pressrelease092501.htm
Cuba Policy Should be Reviewed in New International Context
We, the undersigned, strongly condemn the terrorist attacks on the United States
this past September 11 and express support for international efforts to bring
the perpetrators to justice and, beyond that, to defeat terrorism. This, as the
President says, will be a long, hard struggle.
For the effort to be effective, however, we believe that accuracy is required in
defining the "terrorist nations" the President has said the United States will
punish. Does that mean all those on the State Department's list of terrorist
states? Obviously not, for Afghanistan was not on the list, even though we knew
all along that Osama bin Laden operated from there.
Cuba is another matter. For forty years, U.S. policy toward Cuba has relied
heavily on unilateral sanctions -- and has been the most dramatic example of the
failure of such sanctions to achieve their goals. Some of the sanctions, such as
restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to the island, derive from Cuba
being listed as a terrorist state. As combating international terrorism now
moves to the forefront of the U.S. foreign policy agenda, however, it is
critical to our ability to deal with it effectively that the U.S. have clear and
objective criteria for designating countries as terrorist states and imposing
the sanctions that go with that designation.
And as we move to develop such criteria, surely it is time to raise the question
of whether Cuba belongs on the list at all. Our rationale for keeping it there
has been based on the following:
-
That Cuba harbors Basque terrorists. There are a number of Basque separatists
living in Cuba, but they are there as the result of an agreement between the
Spanish and Cuban governments. Cuba is not "harboring" them.
-
That Cuba has contacts with the Colombian guerrillas and has facilitated
meetings between them and the Colombian government. This may well be the case,
but the United States has also had contacts with those groups and facilitated
similar meetings. Why then are such activities grounds for placing Cuba on the
list of terrorist nations?
-
That there are a number of fugitives from U.S. justice living in Cuba. Yes, but
that is largely because there is no extradition treaty between the U.S. and
Cuba. Would not the negotiation of such a treaty be another reason to move
toward a more normal relationship with Cuba?
Moreover, in off-the-record remarks, State Department officials have
acknowledged that there is no credible evidence that any of these groups - not
the Basques, the U.S. fugitives or any others - are mounting terrorist actions
from Cuba.
It has often been said that while there are no convincing reasons to keep Cuba
on the list of terrorist states, it is best left on since removing it would
offend elements of the Cuban-American community. However, we can no longer
afford to confuse and divert our struggle against real terrorist threats because
of domestic political considerations.
We note press reports on September 22 of the arrest of Ana Belen Montes, an
analyst at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, accused of passing
information to Cuban Intelligence, some of it related to military maneuvers the
Cubans thought might be directed at Cuba. The same reports say Montes is accused
of revealing the identity of American undercover intelligence officers sent to
Cuba. It is no secret that both nations have conducted intelligence operations
against one another. That, unfortunately, has been symptomatic of the kind of
relationship that has existed between them for the past forty years.
Yet the Cuban government immediately condemned the terrorist attacks against the
United States, expressed solidarity with the American people and offered any
medical and humanitarian assistance within its means. The international context
has changed. That is reflected also in Fidel Castro's speech of September 22 in
response to President Bush's address to the Congress two evenings earlier. While
vintage Castro in that he began by describing the Bush administration as made up
of the "most extremist ideologues and the most belligerent hawks," and warned of
the cataclysmic consequences of the war called for by President Bush, Castro
also described terrorism as "a dangerous and ethically indefensible phenomenon,
which must be eradicated..."
He also gave assurances that "the territory of Cuba will never be used for
terrorist actions against the American people and we will do everything within
our power to prevent such actions against that people. Today," he said, "we are
expressing our solidarity while calling for peace and calmness."
Significantly, Castro reiterated Cuba's willingness "to cooperate with all
countries [presumably including the United States] in the total eradication of
terrorism."
That is a possibility that should be explored. In this new world context
dominated by the struggle against terrorism, Cuba clearly will not be an
unquestioning ally, but it need not be an enemy. Indeed, given the challenges we
now face, it is not in the interests of the United States to treat it as an
enemy.
Albert A. Fox, Jr.,
President
Alliance for Responsible Cuba Policy
Washington, DC
Kirby Jones
Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba
New York, NY
Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo
Cambio Cubano
Miami, FL
Wayne Smith
Center for International Policy
Washington, DC
Lissa Weinmann
Cuba Education Project, World Policy Institute
New York, NY
Alejandro Portes
President
Cuban Committee for Democracy
Miami, FL and Washington, DC
Delvis Fernandez Levy
President
Cuban American Alliance Education Fund
Washington, DC
Bob Schwartz
Executive Director
Disarm Education Project
New York, NY
John McAuliff
Executive Director
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
New York, NY
John Cavanagh
Executive Director
Institute for Policy Studies
Washington, DC
Brian Alexander
Giraldilla.com
Washington, DC
Medea Benjamin
Global Exchange
San Francisco, CA
Leon Lederman
Nobel Laureate in Physics 1988
member National Academy of Sciences
Eric V. Reuther
President
Reuther and Associates
Washington, DC
Peter Bourne
Vice Chancellor
St. George's University, Grenada
Lisa Valanti
President
U.S.-Cuba Sister Cities Association
Pittsburgh, PA
*
Analysis:
OPPONENTS OF U.S. AGGRESSION SHOULD REJECT
PRO-WAR "CUBA POLICY REVIEW" STATEMENT
by Jon Hillson
A
news release entitled "Cuba Policy Should be Reviewed in New International
Context," that was first circulated by the Cuban American Education Fund on
September 25, is now being disseminated on many electronic lists. It was the
subject of an article in the Chicago Tribune on September 28. It is signed by 16
individuals, including several from groups that express differences with various
aspects of Washington's hostile policies towards Havana. Others signers are
academic figures and some are political activists.
The release presents itself as an effort to seek removal of Cuba from the U.S.
Department of State's "list" of nations that "sponsor terrorism."
The document "expresses support" to Washington's leadership of "international
efforts to bring the perpetrators [of the September 11 attacks] to justice and,
beyond that, to defeat terrorism." It favorably quotes "the President," whose
definition of this undertaking as "a long hard struggle" they loyally share.
The signers make clear their desire to serve as virtual advisers to the U.S.
government to enable it to "have clear and objective criteria for designating
countries as terrorist states and imposing the sanctions that go with that."
These offending states, "the President has said the United States will punish,"
the signers note with approval.
The wording of the statement identifies the signers wholly and completely with
Washington, the U.S. government, the administration, and defense of "the
interests of the United States." Every pronoun is saturated with fealty to
executive bodies of the empire and its commander in chief.
This is not surprising, since the first name on the release is the president of
the Alliance for Responsible Cuba Policy, one of whose most prominent spokesmen
is former Nixon cabinet member William Rogers. This organization, like several
others on the signers list, favors a "transition to democracy" in Cuba-that is,
the overthrow of its revolutionary government. This milieu, recently described
by the New York Times as the "Cuba policy community," differs in approach from
anti-communist ultra-rightists who believe that any "softening" of the current
sanctions regime detracts from realization of the goal they share-a "democratic"
Cuba, subservient to the United States.
Such groups and individuals reject the fundamental transition the Cuban people
began in 1959 to forge national independence. They wrought this historic
achievement by taking economic and political power from the local ruling rich
and their U.S. big business sponsors. The people of Cuba have defended this
conquest-the first socialist revolution in the Americas-arms in hand, ever
since.
The document, echoing Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Daschle, Gebhardt,
Feinstein, Guiliani, and all the rest, claims that the "new world context [is]
dominated by the struggle against terrorism."
On the contrary, that "new world context"is in fact dominated by the struggle to
oppose the unjust and brutal war Washington is about to unleash under the banner
of "defeating terrorism." Ongoing fights for social and economic justice,
national sovereignty, and human dignity will continue in this framework. By
asserting that support for Washington's effort to "punish" its enemies--those
who are not with the United States--is the number one task in the world, the
statement places the signers on the opposite side of the barricades from the
Cuban people, and hundreds of millions more around the world for to whom they
are a beacon and voice.
The patriotic, pro-government stance of the document brooks no criticisms of the
war being planned by the U.S. government.It is silent on mounting attacks on
civil liberties and democratic rights that the prosecution of this massive set
of interventions demands. This unambiguously places the signers on Washington's
side in the coming military aggression. Their declaration is imbued with the
spirit of national chauvinism-the opposite of internationalism, which is a
cornerstone of the Cuban revolution. It upholds nothing less than the
self-proclaimed imperial prerogatives of Washington to dictate its terms to the
world.
To effectively fight against the war, you have tobe a first a citizen of the
world. The injunction of José Martí a century ago-"homeland is humanity"-is a
universal banner of solidarity that should be raised by anti-war fighters
everywhere as an affirmation that an injury to one is an injury to all, on an
international scale. This is a useful antidote to the frenzy of pro-war U.S.
nationalism mounted by Washington, to which the signers of the statement
completely adapt, while embellishing their embrace of it with the mantle of
aiding Cuba. In fact, this statement is a blow to everything for which the Cuban
revolution has stood and fought. It is an objectively pro-war document and
serves the interests of those who are directing it. It has nothing to do with
"helping" Cuba.
Those who defend Cuba's right to self-determination-its sovereign right to
decide its own form ofgovernment-should decline the slightest endorsement of
this document. It instead merits condemnation by those who defend the
revolution.
Working people in the United States have no interest nor stake in this war, in
sacrificing hard won constitutional rights targeted by the administration and
its Democratic party allies, in being laid off for "security"-related
downsizing, or postponing their strikes, social struggles, and protests in
deference to the "national unity" demanded by Washington to carry out its
bellicose aims. But these life and death questions do not occupy the signers of
the letter. Working class U.S. youth will be among the ones who die in this
unjust crusade, which will take the lives of countless numbers of working people
in the target countries, who will rightly fight invading forces.
The statement in question does not begin with the interests of the working
people, farmers, youth, the oppressed and exploited. It does not start with
struggles for social justice for Blacks, Latinos, women, gays, the elderly;
those on strike,organizing unions, fighting for laborrights, who march against
police brutality and who demand amnesty for undocumented workers. Instead, its
point of departure is the "interests of the UnitedStates," who want Washington's
so-called war against "terrorism" to "be effective," who stand with "the
President" in the "long, hard struggle" ahead and offer him and his camarilla
advice on how to best proceed.
The statement takes for good coin Washington's utter cynicism in maintaining a
"list" of so-called terrorist sponsor nations. But it is state-sponsored
terrorism by the United States that marks the rise and rule of the U.S. empire.
From carpet bombing to coups, from the School of the Americas to the CIA, from
the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the billions lavished on death squad
governments in Central America, to the torture chambers of Chile, which opened
their doors on September 11, 1973 with the U.S.-sponsored coup against the
Allende government and the arming of the mercenary terrorist "contras" against
the Nicaraguan people in the 1980s, Washington is hardly in a position to cast
the first stone. In passing, the supervisor of the contra killers, John
Negroponte, gave his baptismal speech as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations
on October 1, demanding action against "terrorism," having been confirmed
unanimously by the U.S.senate in the wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon
attacks.
>From the tens of billions of damage-and the loss of thousands of lives-as a
result of its four-decade long blockade against Cuba, to the hundreds of
thousands of deaths of Iraqi children under the blows of U.S. sanctions, the
imperialist state is the main organizer of such violence in the world, the
leading international exporter of terrorism, in all its forms.The terrible
blowback of this basic industry of death reached the United Stateson September
11. It was gruesome proof that the price for the imperialist export of
U.S.-organized terror will be paid by working people in the United States.
In response, Washington sheds and spreads crocodile tears while cold-bloodedly
escalating a war drive whose military outlines have been etched in weekly
bombing sorties against Iraq since the U.S. failure to install a compliant
regime there a decade ago, despite the slaughter of 100,000 civilians and
retreating, shell-shocked conscripts. The colossal promotion of collective
mourning now underway seeks to manipulate public shock into patriotic fervor in
support of war while quarantining as callous and indifferent anyone who has the
temerity to question-let alone protest-the mobilization of martial spirit by the
government. This emotional stampede has one function, and it is not to promote
"healing" or expressing "grief."
It is designed to numb the senses sufficiently to win advance approval for the
terror Washington will launch, the results of which will multiply the brutality
and horror of September 11 many times over, applied to who knows who on its
famous, and expanding "list" of so-called rogue states. Yet the signers of the
statement offer to update the hit list, in the name of "accuracy" for
Washington's "effort to be effective"! After all, they note, Afghanistan "was
not on the list, even though we knew all along that Osama BinLaden operated from
there." To this we should reply, "U.S. Hands of Afghanistan" and any other
country that may shortly occupy the Pentagon's bullseye.
The statement seeks to counter, as a loyal opposition, "Our rationale"-that is,
the official U.S. claims-as to why Cuba is on the list. This is an exercise in
the delusion that "arguments" and "ideas" somehow "influence" Washington. In
reality, the government is nothing more or less than a political expression of
social relations. It is not a mush of good, bad, and ugly "ideas." These
capitalist social relations are at the heart of a worldwide system of economic
domination-imperialism-bolstered by military power that will soon be activated.
Cuba is on the "list" because its social and economic system and the popular
revolutionary government that represents and defends them are anathema to the
U.S. cop of the world.
Cuba's defiance of U.S. hegemony, imperialist pillage-often called
"globalization"-and its staunch solidarity with every struggle of the oppressed
and exploited, has earned it the undying hatred of the ruling rich of the United
States. Declarations and statements from Cuba, including Fidel Castro's
September 22 alert to the people of the world to oppose the coming
U.S.-initiated carnage, affirm the vitality of the Cuban revolution and its
readiness to help lead an international fight againstU.S. aggression. The Cuban
president addressed 50,000 people at an Open Tribune in Santiago de los Baños.
Fidel Castro's condemnation of the September 11 attacks does not cater to U.S.
war-mongering in the slightest. He asked, in his September 22 speech, who had
"profited [from the attack]?" Then the Cuban president answered, "The extreme
right, the most backward and right-wing forces, those in favor of crushing the
growing world rebellion and sweeping away everything progressive that is still
left on the planet. It was an enormous error, a huge injustice and a great crime
whomever they are who organized or are responsible for such action. However, the
tragedy should not be used to recklessly start a war that could actually unleash
an endless carnage of innocent people and all of this on behalf of justice and
under the peculiar and bizarre name of 'Infinite Justice.'"
But to "convince" the Bush administrationthat Cuba does not belong on the "list"
it inherited from President Clinton-who supervised the greatest increment in
U.S. sanctions against Cuba since the embargo was formalized in 1962-the signers
of the letter gut the Cuban president's speech of its explicit revolutionary
anti-imperialist content and lift several sentences, shorn of context, to make
their pitch. These remarks reaffirm Cuba's longstanding, principled rejection of
individual terrorism, its prohibition of the use of its territory for planning
any such strikes, and its willingness to cooperate with other countries to deter
such operations. The document tries to fashion Castro's words as a potential
"turn" towards Washington's war drive through the angle of bilateral
"cooperation" in the "struggle against terrorism." Fidel's militancy is
pompously dismissed as "vintage Castro."
Cuba's opposition to state-sponsored terrorism and its historic political
rejection of individual terrorism withstand all sorts of slanders by enemies who
claim it supports both. That is, the practice of the Cuban revolution and its
real record are its greatest defense. These, in turn, have earned it the
solidarity of the immense majority of humanity. Those who defend Cuba stand on
this record of internationalism, from its anti-racist armed forces defeating the
troops of apartheid in South Africa, to the millions of medical consultations
carried out by tens ofthousands of its doctors serving the most oppressed and
exploited peoples of the world.
Since the political course expressed insuch deeds remains unchanged, the authors
of the statement grudgingly note that "Cuba clearly will not be an unquestioning
[U.S.] ally"-alas!-"but it need not be an enemy."
An enemy of whom? "Cuba will never declare itself an enemy of the American
people," Castro stated on September 22, who are "today subjected to an
unprecedented campaign to sow hatred and a vengeful spirit, so much so that even
the music that sings of peace has been banned. On the contrary, Cuba will make
that music its own, and even our children will sing their peace songs for as
long as the announced bloody war lasts." Cuba's willingness to cooperate with
any country in anti-terrorist efforts is expressed by its opposition to state
terrorism and its efforts to protect the Cuban people from terrorist actions,
overwhelmingly organized from the United States, either directly or with
official complicity, that have killed nearly 4,000 people, wounded even more,
and taken a toll of tens of billions of dollars in material damages.
This stance mirrors its longstanding practice of international cooperation to
prevent Cuba, because of its geographic location, from being a way-station for
the trafficking of narcotics. Cuban society is overwhelmingly drug free, and
Cuban working people and youth are intolerant of its use and recognize the
debilitating effects of this big business on humanity.
The coming aggression will be "a war of unpredictable consequences," Castro
explained, as he unmasked the anti-terrorist demagogy with which the White
House, Congress, and the media have draped what the signers of the news release
laud as a "long, hard struggle" for which they enthusiastically volunteer.
The approaching war has nothing at all to do with "terrorism."
In the face of a deepening world-wide recession-underway in many parts of the
globe well before September 11, including in the UnitedStates-Washington seeks
to resolve the worsening crisis of a world economic order, one that Cuban
leaders have long explained is "unsustainable," through military means.
The current composition of the "anti-terrorist alliance" is subject to sharp,
jarring changes based on the blind economic laws that drive U.S. war policy, and
what happens on the ground-the changing menu of targeted counties and the
resistance Washington's military forces encounter. Today's "ally" is tomorrow's
"enemy." The initial military aggression against Afghanistan is just that: an
opening salvo, anticipated by previous U.S. campaigns against Iraq and
Yugoslavia, both of which Cuba opposed, the former from its position as a
temporary member of the United Nations Security Council, the august body which
authorized the butchery. Havana vigorously put forward its anti-war and
anti-imperialist message despite its obvious political disagreements with the
regimes in Baghdad and Belgrade.
The signers of the statement who believe they are doing something to benefit
Cuba by lending their names to such a document display a naïveté that, in
war-time, is fatal-the inability to tell "us" from "them," the incapacity to
distinguish between real allies and deadly enemies. They should publicly retract
their support for the document, and get off the patriotic bandwagon,
immediately. Cuba cannot be defended by supporting imperialist war. The notion
is base and absurd on its face.
Virtually every sentence in this statementis fatally flawed. These include a
completely unserious, irresponsible acceptance of Washington's latest "Cuba spy
charges" against a U.S.intelligence officer arrested on September 21, who has
yet to enter a plea, and faces the death penalty if convicted in trial.
"Government sources," the Washington Post reported on September 28, "said Cuba
has been known to share information withLibya, Iran, and others that might be
sympathetic to Osama bin laden." Citing the same "sources," the newspaper
reported that the arrest of the Defense Intelligence Agency officer was
"accelerated" by the FBI "because of concerns she would pass along classified
information about the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."
An article on the "Cuba Policy Review" statement appearing the South Florida Sun
Sentinel on September 29 includes references to the spy charges, and notes the
dispatch of a letter to by the ultraright Cuban American National Foundation to
the White House, Pentagon and State Department urging they too conduct a review,
of "all national security aspects of our Cuba policy." The CANF cites as targets
of this witch-hunt direct charter flights from the United States to
Cuba-currently authorized by the U.S.government-along with "unrestricted" travel
by diplomats posted to the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C., and
remittances from Cuba to "fund subversive groups." It is noteworthy that the
CANF, the "Cuba policy community," and the signers of the statement that is the
subject of this article all refer to Washington's stance towards Cuba as "our
Cuba policy."
The statement's signers virtually acknowledge the veracity of the spy charges
against the DIA officer. They casually note that, "It is no secret that both
nations have conducted intelligence operations against one another." The danger
of such a remark is obvious, starting with its discarding of the presumption of
innocence. By so doing, the statement lends credibility to the unfolding
frame-up of Cuba floated by "government sources."
The relentless logic of this reached a new low, if a report in the September 29
Miami Herald, is accurate.
The article, "Suspected Spy for Cuba led a charmed professional life," notes
that while Havana "has made no public pronouncement about Montes' arrest,
[Wayne] Smith said Cuban diplomats in Washington privately justified running
spies like her in the United States." Smith served as a ranking officer the U.S.
Embassy to the Batista dictatorship, helped author language for the U.S.
embargo, and now, while taking his distance from this policy, advocates the
"transition to democracy" in Cuba. He is a "senior fellow" at the Center for
International Policy, and is one of the signers of the statement.
In further remarks to the Herald, Smith is quoted as saying, "One of the Cubans
at the Interest Section was saying the other day, 'You have people you run [as
spies] in Cuba. We have to know what kind of operations you are running against
us.'" Smith's claims bolster the government's Cuba spy hysteria, while fingering
Cuba and "a Cuban" at its U.S.diplomatic entity, which the CANF is demanding the
White House, Pentagon and Department of Defense investigate. How fine is the
line between this pro-government luminary of "Cuba policy community" and its
erstwhile CANF nemesis!
The statement does not contain a word about fight for civil liberties and
democratic. One can only assume that asserting the need to defend constitutional
protections might offend the intended audience, which is mounting an attack
against them.
The statement suggests that a negotiated "extradition treaty" between Washington
and Havana might allow for the return from Cuba of "fugitives from U.S. justice"
living there. Among those who got a taste of that kind of "justice" are Asata
Shakur and Puerto Rican independence fighters, to whom, among many others, Cuba
has offered asylum. This safe harbor of solidarity is part of Cuba's national
patrimony, and like the rest of the island, is not for sale.
Some "friends" of Cuba believe statements like these represent tactical
initiative or a timely use of divisions in ruling circles. But these views do
not comprehend the scope of the war drive, the significance of its bipartisan
leadership, and the logic of events that entrap and render impotent all those
who believe progressive social change can beachieved by gimmicks and maneuvers.
The minor disputes that separate some U.S.rulers and their spokespeople are not
over whether, but how to overthrow the Cuban government. Now, these narrow
differences are shrunk further by the war drive and are subordinate to its
execution. In a July 26 speech two years ago, the Cuban president termed these
divisions as between those who seek to "corrupt" Cuba, and those who prefer to
"suffocate" the revolution-the end result being the same. In the matter of how
Washington punishes the Cuban people, we reject the proponents of "corruption"
and "suffocation," unconditionally. We defend Cuba.
All such ruling class forces-including its direct representatives who signed the
letter-consciously seek to drive wedges into the unity of the Cuban people. The
"Cuba policy community" includes andoverlaps such bourgeois circles. Its
reference point, its political orientation, and the source of its hopes are the
U.S. government. Washington is the sun around which its fundraising efforts,
lobbying, and "research" orbit. The "Cuba policy community" will be used, in one
way or another, to ratchet up the pressure against Havana. The statement now
being circulated reflects just that. For those signers who claim this is not
their intention, that exhausted dodge inexcusably fails to recognize the stakes
in current and coming struggles. Not for nothing is the road to hell paved with
"good intentions."
In no way can declarations of condemnation of the September 11 brutality,
remarks by its United Nations representative their, or the votes he casts for
various resolutions be marshalled to motivate a pro-war statement. Cuba's
positions represent a political package at whose center is a repudiation of
imperialist military and a defense of national sovereignty. "For Cubans, this is
the right time," Fidel Castro stated on September 22, "to proclaim more proud
and resolute than ever: Socialism or death! Homeland or death! We will
overcome." Truncating the total message imparted to the world by Cuba's
revolutionary leaders to buttress the "progressive" character of a document that
explictly backs the bi-partisan war effort led by the Bush administration cannot
conceal the fundamental cowardice of such an approach. It is an attempt to find
a "radical" justification to run for cover.
None of the war-makers grasp the consequences of their actions, nor can they
predict the responses such aggression will spark. Indeed, as Fidel Castro told
the crowd at Santiago de los Baños on September 22, the "very authors [of that
war] have admitted they do not have the least idea of how events will unfold.The
grave economic world crisis was already a real and irrefutable fact affecting
absolutely every one of the big economic power centers. Such crises will
inevitably grow deeper under the new circumstances and when it becomes
unbearable for the overwhelming majority of the peoples, it will bring chaos,
rebellion, and the impossibility to govern."
Preparation for what is coming is served above all by political clarity, not
capitulation-a strong spine, not weak knees, discipline, intelligence, and
confidence in the demonstrated capacity of the people of the world, and the
United States, to rise up and resist. This is the opposite of looking towards
some mythical "progressive" element of the war government to pull a Cuban
chestnut out of the fire, if enough "respectable"figures cozy up to them.
Cuba's example, as well as the rich traditions of antiwar struggle-including and
especially by working people and GIs-in the United States will serve new
generations of young fighters who will step up to big challenges.
Opposing an unjust war abroad goes hand in hand with resisting the war at home
now unfolding against working people, from the Depression-like unemployment now
ravaging airline industry workers-an offensive in the works prior to September
11 by "cost-conscious" bosses, who now have a green light to clean house-to
bipartisan attacks on civil liberties, from immigrant rights to the Bill of
Rights, spearheaded by Democratic party liberals. All these dynamics anticipate
new tests of struggle, as well asposing questions that go to the heart of who
rules this country, and how to end the horror for which they are responsible,
once and for all.
At the beginning is the need to resist, to stand on principle, and to be firm.
"The world will grow aware of this and will raise its voice in the face of the
terrible, threatening drama that it is about to suffer," Castro emphasized on
September 22.
For the prepared, organized, fighting people of Cuba, he said, "it is time for
serenity and courage." This, as opposed to the spirit of panic and surrender
that permeates the "Cuba Policy Should be Reviewed in the New International
Context" statement.
What really should among material to be reviewed-and studied and absorbed-are
the policies, practices, history, and ideas of the Cuban revolution, by all
those serious about affecting the outcome of events in a world that is rapidly
changing, in the only way possible way it can be changed: through massive,
collective, organized resistance.
Whatever difficulties all those who fight may encounter, whatever honest
mistakes they make as they engage in struggle and learn from their errors while
rejecting President Bush's imperial arrogance that "either you are with us or
you are with the terrorists," history will absolve them.
It will not be so generous with those who jump ship at the first sound of
battle.
Jon Hillson, October 3, 2001
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org
=================================================================
nytmid-10.05.01-01:48:19-10780
Liberal Statement on Cuba Policy Supports US "Crusade"
Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit
October 3, 2001
The "Cuba Policy Review" Statement is a Pro-War Document
by Jon Hillson
<jonhillson@aol.com>
A news release entitled "Cuba Policy Should be Reviewed in New
International Context" that was circulated by the Cuban American
Education Fund on September 22 has gotten significant media coverage
around the country and been posted to many electronic mail lists. It
purports to seek relief for Cuba by attempting to convince the U.S.
government that Havana should be removed from the U.S. State
Department's notorious list of states which "sponsor" terrorism.
The attached response takes up the central themes of this statement,
signed by 16 individuals, most from what the New York Times terms the
"Cuba policy community." The include former U.S. government
officials, representatives of various "think tanks," academics, and
activists.
In letter and spirit, the news release is an unconditional
endorsement of the escalating U.S. war drive, embraces recent
declarations to that effect by President Bush, offers help in
refining the "accuracy" of Washington's international enemies list,
caters to the government's "Cuba spy" witchhunt, and fully supports
"the long, hard struggle" against "terrorism" under whose banners a
bi-partisan regime will launch military action first against the
people of Afghanistan, to be followed by many others, while
attempting to shred democratic and labor rights at home in the name
of "national security."
None of this has anything in common with the words and deeds of the
Cuban people and their leaders before, or after, September 11. The
statement reflects capitulation to the war drive and is a blow to
solidarity with Cuba, or anyone else who struggles for justice. The
views expressed in the article are entirely my own, and in presenting
them for the discussion and debate the statement has sparked, I am
not representing any organization in any capacity.
This contribution part of the process of political clarification
required to equip those who want to fight effectively against the
wars--abroad and at home--that working people will, in their immense
majority, come to recognize as unjust, and organize to resist and
overcome.
In solidarity,
Jon Hillson
First, the original statement, which is followed by a
detailed analysis:
For Immediate Release - September 25, 2001
For information contact Anya Landau: 
202.232.3317
or
anya@ciponline.org
http://www.ciponline.org/cuba/newsarticles/pressrelease092501.htm
Cuba Policy Should be Reviewed in New International Context
We, the undersigned, strongly condemn the terrorist attacks on the
United States this past September 11 and express support for
international efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice and,
beyond that, to defeat terrorism. This, as the President says, will
be a long, hard struggle.
For the effort to be effective, however, we believe that accuracy is
required in defining the "terrorist nations" the President has said
the United States will punish. Does that mean all those on the State
Department's list of terrorist states? Obviously not, for Afghanistan
was not on the list, even though we knew all along that Osama bin
Laden operated from there.
Cuba is another matter. For forty years, U.S. policy toward Cuba has
relied heavily on unilateral sanctions -- and has been the most
dramatic example of the failure of such sanctions to achieve their
goals. Some of the sanctions, such as restrictions on the sale of
food and medicine to the island, derive from Cuba being listed as a
terrorist state. As combating international terrorism now moves to
the forefront of the U.S. foreign policy agenda, however, it is
critical to our ability to deal with it effectively that the U.S.
have clear and objective criteria for designating countries as
terrorist states and imposing the sanctions that go with that
designation.
And as we move to develop such criteria, surely it is time to raise
the question of whether Cuba belongs on the list at all. Our
rationale for keeping it there has been based on the following:
- That Cuba harbors Basque terrorists. There are a number of Basque
separatists living in Cuba, but they are there as the result of an
agreement between the Spanish and Cuban governments. Cuba is not
"harboring" them.
- That Cuba has contacts with the Colombian guerrillas and has
facilitated meetings between them and the Colombian government. This
may well be the case, but the United States has also had contacts
with those groups and facilitated similar meetings. Why then are such
activities grounds for placing Cuba on the list of terrorist nations?
- That there are a number of fugitives from U.S. justice living in
Cuba. Yes, but that is largely because there is no extradition treaty
between the U.S. and Cuba. Would not the negotiation of such a treaty
be another reason to move toward a more normal relationship with
Cuba?
Moreover, in off-the-record remarks, State Department officials have
acknowledged that there is no credible evidence that any of these
groups - not the Basques, the U.S. fugitives or any others - are
mounting terrorist actions from Cuba.
It has often been said that while there are no convincing reasons to
keep Cuba on the list of terrorist states, it is best left on since
removing it would offend elements of the Cuban-American community.
However, we can no longer afford to confuse and divert our struggle
against real terrorist threats because of domestic political
considerations.
We note press reports on September 22 of the arrest of Ana Belen
Montes, an analyst at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency,
accused of passing information to Cuban Intelligence, some of it
related to military maneuvers the Cubans thought might be directed at
Cuba. The same reports say Montes is accused of revealing the
identity of American undercover intelligence officers sent to Cuba.
It is no secret that both nations have conducted intelligence
operations against one another. That, unfortunately, has been
symptomatic of the kind of relationship that has existed between them
for the past forty years.
Yet the Cuban government immediately condemned the terrorist attacks
against the United States, expressed solidarity with the American
people and offered any medical and humanitarian assistance within its
means. The international context has changed. That is reflected also
in Fidel Castro's speech of September 22 in response to President
Bush's address to the Congress two evenings earlier. While vintage
Castro in that he began by describing the Bush administration as made
up of the "most extremist ideologues and the most belligerent hawks,"
and warned of the cataclysmic consequences of the war called for by
President Bush, Castro also described terrorism as "a dangerous and
ethically indefensible phenomenon, which must be eradicated..."
He also gave assurances that "the territory of Cuba will never be
used for terrorist actions against the American people and we will do
everything within our power to prevent such actions against that
people. Today," he said, "we are expressing our solidarity while
calling for peace and calmness."
Significantly, Castro reiterated Cuba's willingness "to cooperate
with all countries [presumably including the United States] in the
total eradication of terrorism."
That is a possibility that should be explored. In this new world
context dominated by the struggle against terrorism, Cuba clearly
will not be an unquestioning ally, but it need not be an enemy.
Indeed, given the challenges we now face, it is not in the interests
of the United States to treat it as an enemy.
Albert A. Fox, Jr.,
President
Alliance for Responsible Cuba Policy
Washington, DC
Kirby Jones
Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba
New York, NY
Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo
Cambio Cubano
Miami, FL
Wayne Smith
Center for International Policy
Washington, DC
Lissa Weinmann
Cuba Education Project, World Policy Institute
New York, NY
Alejandro Portes
President
Cuban Committee for Democracy
Miami, FL and Washington, DC
Delvis Fernandez Levy
President
Cuban American Alliance Education Fund
Washington, DC
Bob Schwartz
Executive Director
Disarm Education Project
New York, NY
John McAuliff
Executive Director
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
New York, NY
John Cavanagh
Executive Director
Institute for Policy Studies
Washington, DC
Brian Alexander
Giraldilla.com
Washington, DC
Medea Benjamin
Global Exchange
San Francisco, CA
Leon Lederman
Nobel Laureate in Physics 1988
member National Academy of Sciences
Eric V. Reuther
President
Reuther and Associates
Washington, DC
Peter Bourne
Vice Chancellor
St. George's University, Grenada
Lisa Valanti
President
U.S.-Cuba Sister Cities Association
Pittsburgh, PA
*
Analysis:
OPPONENTS OF U.S. AGGRESSION SHOULD REJECT
PRO-WAR "CUBA POLICY REVIEW" STATEMENT
by Jon Hillson
A news release entitled "Cuba Policy Should be Reviewed in New
International Context," that was first circulated by the Cuban
American Education Fund on September 25, is now being disseminated on
many electronic lists. It was the subject of an article in the
Chicago Tribune on September 28. It is signed by 16 individuals,
including several from groups that express differences with various
aspects of Washington's hostile policies towards Havana. Others
signers are academic figures and some are political activists.
The release presents itself as an effort to seek removal of Cuba from
the U.S. Department of State's "list" of nations that "sponsor
terrorism."
The document "expresses support" to Washington's leadership of
"international efforts to bring the perpetrators [of the September 11
attacks] to justice and, beyond that, to defeat terrorism." It
favorably quotes "the President," whose definition of this
undertaking as "a long hard struggle" they loyally share.
The signers make clear their desire to serve as virtual advisers to
the U.S. government to enable it to "have clear and objective
criteria for designating countries as terrorist states and imposing
the sanctions that go with that." These offending states, "the
President has said the United States will punish," the signers note
with approval.
The wording of the statement identifies the signers wholly and
completely with Washington, the U.S. government, the administration,
and defense of "the interests of the United States." Every pronoun is
saturated with fealty to executive bodies of the empire and its
commander in chief.
This is not surprising, since the first name on the release is the
president of the Alliance for Responsible Cuba Policy, one of whose
most prominent spokesmen is former Nixon cabinet member William
Rogers. This organization, like several others on the signers list,
favors a "transition to democracy" in Cuba-that is, the overthrow of
its revolutionary government. This milieu, recently described by the
New York Times as the "Cuba policy community," differs in approach
from anti-communist ultra-rightists who believe that any "softening"
of the current sanctions regime detracts from realization of the goal
they share-a "democratic" Cuba, subservient to the United States.
Such groups and individuals reject the fundamental transition the
Cuban people began in 1959 to forge national independence. They
wrought this historic achievement by taking economic and political
power from the local ruling rich and their U.S. big business
sponsors. The people of Cuba have defended this conquest-the first
socialist revolution in the Americas-arms in hand, ever since.
The document, echoing Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Daschle,
Gebhardt, Feinstein, Guiliani, and all the rest, claims that the "new
world context [is] dominated by the struggle against terrorism."
On the contrary, that "new world context"is in fact dominated by the
struggle to oppose the unjust and brutal war Washington is about to
unleash under the banner of "defeating terrorism." Ongoing fights for
social and economic justice, national sovereignty, and human dignity
will continue in this framework. By asserting that support for
Washington's effort to "punish" its enemies--those who are not with
the United States--is the number one task in the world, the statement
places the signers on the opposite side of the barricades from the
Cuban people, and hundreds of millions more around the world for to
whom they are a beacon and voice.
The patriotic, pro-government stance of the document brooks no
criticisms of the war being planned by the U.S. government.It is
silent on mounting attacks on civil liberties and democratic rights
that the prosecution of this massive set of interventions demands.
This unambiguously places the signers on Washington's side in the
coming military aggression. Their declaration is imbued with the
spirit of national chauvinism-the opposite of internationalism, which
is a cornerstone of the Cuban revolution. It upholds nothing less
than the self-proclaimed imperial prerogatives of Washington to
dictate its terms to the world.
To effectively fight against the war, you have tobe a first a citizen
of the world. The injunction of José Martí a century ago-"homeland is
humanity"-is a universal banner of solidarity that should be raised
by anti-war fighters everywhere as an affirmation that an injury to
one is an injury to all, on an international scale. This is a useful
antidote to the frenzy of pro-war U.S. nationalism mounted by
Washington, to which the signers of the statement completely adapt,
while embellishing their embrace of it with the mantle of aiding
Cuba. In fact, this statement is a blow to everything for which the
Cuban revolution has stood and fought. It is an objectively pro-war
document and serves the interests of those who are directing it. It
has nothing to do with "helping" Cuba.
Those who defend Cuba's right to self-determination-its sovereign
right to decide its own form ofgovernment-should decline the
slightest endorsement of this document. It instead merits
condemnation by those who defend the revolution.
Working people in the United States have no interest nor stake in
this war, in sacrificing hard won constitutional rights targeted by
the administration and its Democratic party allies, in being laid off
for "security"-related downsizing, or postponing their strikes,
social struggles, and protests in deference to the "national unity"
demanded by Washington to carry out its bellicose aims. But these
life and death questions do not occupy the signers of the letter.
Working class U.S. youth will be among the ones who die in this
unjust crusade, which will take the lives of countless numbers of
working people in the target countries, who will rightly fight
invading forces.
The statement in question does not begin with the interests of the
working people, farmers, youth, the oppressed and exploited. It does
not start with struggles for social justice for Blacks, Latinos,
women, gays, the elderly; those on strike,organizing unions, fighting
for laborrights, who march against police brutality and who demand
amnesty for undocumented workers. Instead, its point of departure is
the "interests of the UnitedStates," who want Washington's so-called
war against "terrorism" to "be effective," who stand with "the
President" in the "long, hard struggle" ahead and offer him and his
camarilla advice on how to best proceed.
The statement takes for good coin Washington's utter cynicism in
maintaining a "list" of so-called terrorist sponsor nations. But it
is state-sponsored terrorism by the United States that marks the rise
and rule of the U.S. empire. From carpet bombing to coups, from the
School of the Americas to the CIA, from the horrors of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and the billions lavished on death squad governments in
Central America, to the torture chambers of Chile, which opened their
doors on September 11, 1973 with the U.S.-sponsored coup against the
Allende government and the arming of the mercenary terrorist
"contras" against the Nicaraguan people in the 1980s, Washington is
hardly in a position to cast the first stone. In passing, the
supervisor of the contra killers, John Negroponte, gave his baptismal
speech as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on October 1,
demanding action against "terrorism," having been confirmed
unanimously by the U.S.senate in the wake of the World Trade Center
and Pentagon attacks.
>From the tens of billions of damage-and the loss of thousands of
lives-as a result of its four-decade long blockade against Cuba, to
the hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqi children under the blows
of U.S. sanctions, the imperialist state is the main organizer of
such violence in the world, the leading international exporter of
terrorism, in all its forms.The terrible blowback of this basic
industry of death reached the United Stateson September 11. It was
gruesome proof that the price for the imperialist export of
U.S.-organized terror will be paid by working people in the United
States.
In response, Washington sheds and spreads crocodile tears while
cold-bloodedly escalating a war drive whose military outlines have
been etched in weekly bombing sorties against Iraq since the U.S.
failure to install a compliant regime there a decade ago, despite the
slaughter of 100,000 civilians and retreating, shell-shocked
conscripts. The colossal promotion of collective mourning now
underway seeks to manipulate public shock into patriotic fervor in
support of war while quarantining as callous and indifferent anyone
who has the temerity to question-let alone protest-the mobilization
of martial spirit by the government. This emotional stampede has one
function, and it is not to promote "healing" or expressing "grief."
It is designed to numb the senses sufficiently to win advance
approval for the terror Washington will launch, the results of which
will multiply the brutality and horror of September 11 many times
over, applied to who knows who on its famous, and expanding "list" of
so-called rogue states. Yet the signers of the statement offer to
update the hit list, in the name of "accuracy" for Washington's
"effort to be effective"! After all, they note, Afghanistan "was not
on the list, even though we knew all along that Osama BinLaden
operated from there." To this we should reply, "U.S. Hands of
Afghanistan" and any other country that may shortly occupy the
Pentagon's bullseye.
The statement seeks to counter, as a loyal opposition, "Our
rationale"-that is, the official U.S. claims-as to why Cuba is on
the list. This is an exercise in the delusion that "arguments" and
"ideas" somehow "influence" Washington. In reality, the government is
nothing more or less than a political expression of social relations.
It is not a mush of good, bad, and ugly "ideas." These capitalist
social relations are at the heart of a worldwide system of economic
domination-imperialism-bolstered by military power that will soon be
activated.
Cuba is on the "list" because its social and economic system and the
popular revolutionary government that represents and defends them are
anathema to the U.S. cop of the world.
Cuba's defiance of U.S. hegemony, imperialist pillage-often called
"globalization"-and its staunch solidarity with every struggle of the
oppressed and exploited, has earned it the undying hatred of the
ruling rich of the United States. Declarations and statements from
Cuba, including Fidel Castro's September 22 alert to the people of
the world to oppose the coming U.S.-initiated carnage, affirm the
vitality of the Cuban revolution and its readiness to help lead an
international fight againstU.S. aggression. The Cuban president
addressed 50,000 people at an Open Tribune in Santiago de los Baños.
Fidel Castro's condemnation of the September 11 attacks does not
cater to U.S. war-mongering in the slightest. He asked, in his
September 22 speech, who had "profited [from the attack]?" Then the
Cuban president answered, "The extreme right, the most backward and
right-wing forces, those in favor of crushing the growing world
rebellion and sweeping away everything progressive that is still left
on the planet. It was an enormous error, a huge injustice and a great
crime whomever they are who organized or are responsible for such
action. However, the tragedy should not be used to recklessly start a
war that could actually unleash an endless carnage of innocent people
and all of this on behalf of justice and under the peculiar and
bizarre name of 'Infinite Justice.'"
But to "convince" the Bush administrationthat Cuba does not belong on
the "list" it inherited from President Clinton-who supervised the
greatest increment in U.S. sanctions against Cuba since the embargo
was formalized in 1962-the signers of the letter gut the Cuban
president's speech of its explicit revolutionary anti-imperialist
content and lift several sentences, shorn of context, to make their
pitch. These remarks reaffirm Cuba's longstanding, principled
rejection of individual terrorism, its prohibition of the use of its
territory for planning any such strikes, and its willingness to
cooperate with other countries to deter such operations. The document
tries to fashion Castro's words as a potential "turn" towards
Washington's war drive through the angle of bilateral "cooperation"
in the "struggle against terrorism." Fidel's militancy is pompously
dismissed as "vintage Castro."
Cuba's opposition to state-sponsored terrorism and its historic
political rejection of individual terrorism withstand all sorts of
slanders by enemies who claim it supports both. That is, the practice
of the Cuban revolution and its real record are its greatest defense.
These, in turn, have earned it the solidarity of the immense majority
of humanity. Those who defend Cuba stand on this record of
internationalism, from its anti-racist armed forces defeating the
troops of apartheid in South Africa, to the millions of medical
consultations carried out by tens ofthousands of its doctors serving
the most oppressed and exploited peoples of the world.
Since the political course expressed insuch deeds remains unchanged,
the authors of the statement grudgingly note that "Cuba clearly will
not be an unquestioning [U.S.] ally"-alas!-"but it need not be an
enemy."
An enemy of whom? "Cuba will never declare itself an enemy of the
American people," Castro stated on September 22, who are "today
subjected to an unprecedented campaign to sow hatred and a vengeful
spirit, so much so that even the music that sings of peace has been
banned. On the contrary, Cuba will make that music its own, and even
our children will sing their peace songs for as long as the announced
bloody war lasts." Cuba's willingness to cooperate with any country
in anti-terrorist efforts is expressed by its opposition to state
terrorism and its efforts to protect the Cuban people from terrorist
actions, overwhelmingly organized from the United States, either
directly or with official complicity, that have killed nearly 4,000
people, wounded even more, and taken a toll of tens of billions of
dollars in material damages.
This stance mirrors its longstanding practice of international
cooperation to prevent Cuba, because of its geographic location, from
being a way-station for the trafficking of narcotics. Cuban society
is overwhelmingly drug free, and Cuban working people and youth are
intolerant of its use and recognize the debilitating effects of this
big business on humanity.
The coming aggression will be "a war of unpredictable consequences,"
Castro explained, as he unmasked the anti-terrorist demagogy with
which the White House, Congress, and the media have draped what the
signers of the news release laud as a "long, hard struggle" for which
they enthusiastically volunteer.
The approaching war has nothing at all to do with "terrorism."
In the face of a deepening world-wide recession-underway in many
parts of the globe well before September 11, including in the
UnitedStates-Washington seeks to resolve the worsening crisis of a
world economic order, one that Cuban leaders have long explained is
"unsustainable," through military means.
The current composition of the "anti-terrorist alliance" is subject
to sharp, jarring changes based on the blind economic laws that drive
U.S. war policy, and what happens on the ground-the changing menu of
targeted counties and the resistance Washington's military forces
encounter. Today's "ally" is tomorrow's "enemy." The initial military
aggression against Afghanistan is just that: an opening salvo,
anticipated by previous U.S. campaigns against Iraq and Yugoslavia,
both of which Cuba opposed, the former from its position as a
temporary member of the United Nations Security Council, the august
body which authorized the butchery. Havana vigorously put forward its
anti-war and anti-imperialist message despite its obvious political
disagreements with the regimes in Baghdad and Belgrade.
The signers of the statement who believe they are doing something to
benefit Cuba by lending their names to such a document display a
naïveté that, in war-time, is fatal-the inability to tell "us" from
"them," the incapacity to distinguish between real allies and deadly
enemies. They should publicly retract their support for the document,
and get off the patriotic bandwagon, immediately. Cuba cannot be
defended by supporting imperialist war. The notion is base and absurd
on its face.
Virtually every sentence in this statementis fatally flawed. These
include a completely unserious, irresponsible acceptance of
Washington's latest "Cuba spy charges" against a U.S.intelligence
officer arrested on September 21, who has yet to enter a plea, and
faces the death penalty if convicted in trial.
"Government sources," the Washington Post reported on September 28,
"said Cuba has been known to share information withLibya, Iran, and
others that might be sympathetic to Osama bin laden." Citing the same
"sources," the newspaper reported that the arrest of the Defense
Intelligence Agency officer was "accelerated" by the FBI "because of
concerns she would pass along classified information about the U.S.
response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."
An article on the "Cuba Policy Review" statement appearing the South
Florida Sun Sentinel on September 29 includes references to the spy
charges, and notes the dispatch of a letter to by the ultraright
Cuban American National Foundation to the White House, Pentagon and
State Department urging they too conduct a review, of "all national
security aspects of our Cuba policy." The CANF cites as targets of
this witch-hunt direct charter flights from the United States to
Cuba-currently authorized by the U.S.government-along with
"unrestricted" travel by diplomats posted to the Cuban Interests
Section in Washington, D.C., and remittances from Cuba to "fund
subversive groups." It is noteworthy that the CANF, the "Cuba policy
community," and the signers of the statement that is the subject of
this article all refer to Washington's stance towards Cuba as "our
Cuba policy."
The statement's signers virtually acknowledge the veracity of the spy
charges against the DIA officer. They casually note that, "It is no
secret that both nations have conducted intelligence operations
against one another." The danger of such a remark is obvious,
starting with its discarding of the presumption of innocence. By so
doing, the statement lends credibility to the unfolding frame-up of
Cuba floated by "government sources."
The relentless logic of this reached a new low, if a report in the
September 29 Miami Herald, is accurate.
The article, "Suspected Spy for Cuba led a charmed professional
life," notes that while Havana "has made no public pronouncement
about Montes' arrest, [Wayne] Smith said Cuban diplomats in
Washington privately justified running spies like her in the United
States." Smith served as a ranking officer the U.S. Embassy to the
Batista dictatorship, helped author language for the U.S. embargo,
and now, while taking his distance from this policy, advocates the
"transition to democracy" in Cuba. He is a "senior fellow" at the
Center for International Policy, and is one of the signers of the
statement.
In further remarks to the Herald, Smith is quoted as saying, "One of
the Cubans at the Interest Section was saying the other day, 'You
have people you run [as spies] in Cuba. We have to know what kind of
operations you are running against us.'" Smith's claims bolster the
government's Cuba spy hysteria, while fingering Cuba and "a Cuban" at
its U.S.diplomatic entity, which the CANF is demanding the White
House, Pentagon and Department of Defense investigate. How fine is
the line between this pro-government luminary of "Cuba policy
community" and its erstwhile CANF nemesis!
The statement does not contain a word about fight for civil liberties
and democratic. One can only assume that asserting the need to defend
constitutional protections might offend the intended audience, which
is mounting an attack against them.
The statement suggests that a negotiated "extradition treaty" between
Washington and Havana might allow for the return from Cuba of
"fugitives from U.S. justice" living there. Among those who got a
taste of that kind of "justice" are Asata Shakur and Puerto Rican
independence fighters, to whom, among many others, Cuba has offered
asylum. This safe harbor of solidarity is part of Cuba's national
patrimony, and like the rest of the island, is not for sale.
Some "friends" of Cuba believe statements like these represent
tactical initiative or a timely use of divisions in ruling circles.
But these views do not comprehend the scope of the war drive, the
significance of its bipartisan leadership, and the logic of events
that entrap and render impotent all those who believe progressive
social change can beachieved by gimmicks and maneuvers.
The minor disputes that separate some U.S.rulers and their
spokespeople are not over whether, but how to overthrow the Cuban
government. Now, these narrow differences are shrunk further by the
war drive and are subordinate to its execution. In a July 26 speech
two years ago, the Cuban president termed these divisions as between
those who seek to "corrupt" Cuba, and those who prefer to "suffocate"
the revolution-the end result being the same. In the matter of how
Washington punishes the Cuban people, we reject the proponents of
"corruption" and "suffocation," unconditionally. We defend Cuba.
All such ruling class forces-including its direct representatives who
signed the letter-consciously seek to drive wedges into the unity of
the Cuban people. The "Cuba policy community" includes andoverlaps
such bourgeois circles. Its reference point, its political
orientation, and the source of its hopes are the U.S. government.
Washington is the sun around which its fundraising efforts, lobbying,
and "research" orbit. The "Cuba policy community" will be used, in
one way or another, to ratchet up the pressure against Havana. The
statement now being circulated reflects just that. For those signers
who claim this is not their intention, that exhausted dodge
inexcusably fails to recognize the stakes in current and coming
struggles. Not for nothing is the road to hell paved with "good
intentions."
In no way can declarations of condemnation of the September 11
brutality, remarks by its United Nations representative their, or the
votes he casts for various resolutions be marshalled to motivate a
pro-war statement. Cuba's positions represent a political package at
whose center is a repudiation of imperialist military and a defense
of national sovereignty. "For Cubans, this is the right time," Fidel
Castro stated on September 22, "to proclaim more proud and resolute
than ever: Socialism or death! Homeland or death! We will overcome."
Truncating the total message imparted to the world by Cuba's
revolutionary leaders to buttress the "progressive" character of a
document that explictly backs the bi-partisan war effort led by the
Bush administration cannot conceal the fundamental cowardice of such
an approach. It is an attempt to find a "radical" justification to
run for cover.
None of the war-makers grasp the consequences of their actions, nor
can they predict the responses such aggression will spark. Indeed, as
Fidel Castro told the crowd at Santiago de los Baños on September 22,
the "very authors [of that war] have admitted they do not have the
least idea of how events will unfold.The grave economic world crisis
was already a real and irrefutable fact affecting absolutely every
one of the big economic power centers. Such crises will inevitably
grow deeper under the new circumstances and when it becomes
unbearable for the overwhelming majority of the peoples, it will
bring chaos, rebellion, and the impossibility to govern."
Preparation for what is coming is served above all by political
clarity, not capitulation-a strong spine, not weak knees, discipline,
intelligence, and confidence in the demonstrated capacity of the
people of the world, and the United States, to rise up and resist.
This is the opposite of looking towards some mythical "progressive"
element of the war government to pull a Cuban chestnut out of the
fire, if enough "respectable"figures cozy up to them.
Cuba's example, as well as the rich traditions of antiwar
struggle-including and especially by working people and GIs-in the
United States will serve new generations of young fighters who will
step up to big challenges.
Opposing an unjust war abroad goes hand in hand with resisting the
war at home now unfolding against working people, from the
Depression-like unemployment now ravaging airline industry workers-an
offensive in the works prior to September 11 by "cost-conscious"
bosses, who now have a green light to clean house-to bipartisan
attacks on civil liberties, from immigrant rights to the Bill of
Rights, spearheaded by Democratic party liberals. All these dynamics
anticipate new tests of struggle, as well asposing questions that go
to the heart of who rules this country, and how to end the horror for
which they are responsible, once and for all.
At the beginning is the need to resist, to stand on principle, and to
be firm. "The world will grow aware of this and will raise its voice
in the face of the terrible, threatening drama that it is about to
suffer," Castro emphasized on September 22.
For the prepared, organized, fighting people of Cuba, he said, "it is
time for serenity and courage." This, as opposed to the spirit of
panic and surrender that permeates the "Cuba Policy Should be
Reviewed in the New International Context" statement.
What really should among material to be reviewed-and studied and
absorbed-are the policies, practices, history, and ideas of the Cuban
revolution, by all those serious about affecting the outcome of
events in a world that is rapidly changing, in the only way possible
way it can be changed: through massive, collective, organized
resistance.
Whatever difficulties all those who fight may encounter, whatever
honest mistakes they make as they engage in struggle and learn from
their errors while rejecting President Bush's imperial arrogance that
"either you are with us or you are with the terrorists," history will
absolve them.
It will not be so generous with those who jump ship at the first
sound of battle.
Jon Hillson, October 3, 2001
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org
=================================================================
nytmid-10.05.01-01:48:19-10780
http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001mid/Liberal_Statement_on_Cuba_Policy_Supports_US__Crusade_