Whose dissidents are they?

Cuba cracks down on foreign interference

by L Jara Diaz

A series of documents, including letters, disbursement reports, and cheque stubs, along with large sums in US cash held in the homes of those investigated, were presented to the court.

The latest sentences issued by Cuban courts, ranging from 15 to 28 years in prison for 75 dissidents, and the execution of three hijackers, after a swift judicial process, raised the stakes on the debate about the Island's human rights situation yet again. This on the eve of UN Commission on Human Rights debating a resolution on Cuba, presented on behalf of the United States by Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru and Uruguay. If approved, the resolution would ask the Cuban government to allow an appointed High Commissioner on Human Rights for Cuba to verify that country's compliance with last year's resolution.

Since it is known that the Cuban government refused to acknowledge the 2002 resolution, such UN actions may eventually open the door for another US lead "regime change", long desired by Cuban-Americans in Miami and their supporters in the White House. The Cuban government argues that so long as the US continues its political interference in the Island and maintains its boycott, Cuba must continue controlling dissident organizations with close ties to NGOs located in Florida. For the UN to ask of Cuba compliance with its resolution, the international community must ignore the impact of the US illegal actions on Cuba.

The latest crack down on dissidents presents the usual characteristics. According to the investigation of the 75 dissidents, the US Aid Agency's program for Cuba, which in 2002 was given the mission of increasing international support for Cuban activists, disbursed $8.2 million to NGOs run by Cuban-Americans, who funneled these funds to hand-picked opposition groups or created others in the Island. This amount does not cover money distributed through other means, such as that coming directly from the US Interests Section in Havana.

A series of documents, including letters, disbursement reports, and cheque stubs, along with large sums in US cash held in the homes of those investigated, were presented to the court. Most of the accused faced charges of abetting a foreign power in actions that threatened the state. Defence lawyers and the dissidents acknowledged having full access to the evidence and to each other during the procedures.

The US Interests Section is neither an embassy nor a consulate, but an office opened in 1977, after negotiations between the Carter and Castro administrations, to facilitate a direct channel of communication between the two governments, especially when dealing with migration issues. Not surprisingly, Republican administrations have turned The Section in Havana into a beachhead from which to promote the anachronistic agenda of Cuban-Americans in Miami, who only wish for the overthrowing of the Cuban government.

This narrow view is reflected in the Varela Project, promoted by the US-backed dissidents sent to jail. The project called for a complete transformation of the Cuban social and economic system. In other words, it was a call to eliminate any traces of the socialist system built during the last 44 years on the Island. The US promoters cannot conceive that an opposition movement in Cuba may only want reforms to its country's system. Thus the powerful, wealthy and ageing exile community in Miami continues to insist on a counter-revolution.

During last year there had been a softening in the Cuban administration towards the opposition. Several important leaders were released from jail; personalities visiting the Island, such as former US President Jimmy Carter, were allowed to meet with their representatives and so on. At the same time and since the UN resolution approval, the US political intervention in Cuba increased thrice-folded, mainly after the appointment of Cold War extremist James Cason to the US Interests Section in Havana.

Since his arrival, Cason participated in opposition meetings either held or promoted by his office, giving incendiary speeches against the Cuban government-- a practice seemingly emblematic of Bush's administration officials when their hosts act as independent countries. Canadians had a taste of such abuses this month with US ambassador Paul Cellucci.

Some of those accused had free access to the US Section, as they held security passes; while two prominent dissidents, Oscar Biscet and Hector Palacios, both sentenced to 25 years, had prerogatives similar to those held by the Section's officials. This runs contrary to security measures affecting all US embassies and consulate since September 2001. Altogether, this further taints the efforts made by any bona fide opposition movement on the Island. Furthermore, Cason's arrival also coincides with a sharp increase in hijackings to Miami. The swift judiciary process and consequent execution of three out of seven hijackers seemed to be an effort for deterrence.

It has been widely documented that over the last 44 years, and in their blind desire to see a wide spread uprising in Cuba, US administrations have justified all sorts of terrorist attacks on Cubans, hijacking being the most benign of these acts. A more tragic example of international terrorism was the killing of 75 Cubans athletes, when a bomb was placed on their airplane, while returning from the PanAm Games held in Venezuela. The Cuban-Americans involved were charged in that country but later released under the auspices of the then ambassador Otto Reich, a Cuban-American and key man on Latin American affairs in the present US administration.

The dominance of Cuban-Americans in the Bush administration is fostering an even blinder Cold War fundamentalism against Cuba and the rest of the Americas, which in turn is leaving in shatters any viable relationship, where coercion is not applied, between these countries and the US. Columbia University professor of economics Jeffrey Sachs, not a friend of the Cuban government, considers the present US administration policies towards Latin America a failure because "the Latin-American section of the State Department is obsessed only with making anti-Castro propaganda in order to win votes for Mr Bush among anti-Castro Cubans in Florida in the 2004 election." The kidnapping of foreign policy by Cuban-Americans was also pointed out by Chilean economist and former president of the InterAmerican Development Bank, Sebastian Edwards. He charged that the US is not "taking the region seriously."

Besides the obvious fact that socialist Cuba is a 44-year old thorn in the side of capitalist USA, this is also a truly independent Latin American country frustrating our neighbour's imperialist beliefs that its "backyard" is there for the taking. Such behaviour must be punished. After all, Cuba was the main target for annexation during the 1898 Spanish-American war, a euphemism that hides the 20-year Cuban struggle against the Spanish Empire.

The Cubans were on the verge of winning their independence when the US intervened and "liberated" the Island in 101 days, without taking any casualties. But, the US government only annexed the Island's prosperous sugar industry with the Platt Amendment, imposed dictators, and later turned the Island into the preferred R&R location for US citizens and the Mafia.

Scholars argue that the US did not annex Cuba's territory because of the ubiquitous anti-racist rhetoric holding its people's independence movement together. They spoke of a land where there would be "not whites, nor blacks, but only Cubans." This tolerance was reflected in their main leaders: General José Martí, a Spanish creole intellectual, and General Macebo, a former slave. Fears of such positive practice of equality spreading in the continent and questioning the supremacy of whites also stopped the US from including Cuba in its Commonwealth, as it did with Puerto Rico.

In the last 50 years, Latin Americans have shown that no dictatorship can hold on for long if the majority of its people opposed it. An iconic case is Chile and the Pinochet dictatorship, considered one of the bloodiest in the sub-continent's history. Chileans could only dream of receiving millions from the US to advance their cause. Actually, it was despite the US-fed terror that Chileans regained democracy. In this light, a question arises: Why is it so difficult for Cubans to create a strong opposition movement, such as the Chilean's, when they have the biggest power of the world behind them and the Soviet Union is long gone? A popular saying comes to mind: "God help me from my friends that I ..."

On the other hand, Cuban dissidents, in their desire to increase in numbers, seem to keep forgetting José Martís advice: "The scorn of our formidable neighbour, who does not know us, is our [Spanish] America's greater danger. . . . Through ignorance it might even come to lay hands on us. . . . Nations should have a pillory for whoever stirs up useless hatred, and another for whomever fails to tell them the truth in time." Let's hope that Cubans stop needing these pillories and a bona fide opposition movement takes hold "to tell the truth in time", instead of helping "our formidable neighbour" to stir useless hatred.