FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Buying of "Democracy" Agents in Cuba

by NELSON P. VALDÉS

 

“The populace may hiss me, but when I go home and think of my money, I applaud myself. ”

Horace (c. 25 BC)

“Unequal exchange, as practiced by the conquerors with the natives purchasing gold with mirrors, marbles and European trinkets, must  cease.”

Fidel Castro, 1998

In fiscal year 2008-2009 the United States government has budgeted $45,000,000 to finance the opposition against the revolutionary government in Cuba. The money is used to fund rightwing exile organizations, eastern European rightwing politicians involved with Cuba and money oriented “civil society” promoters. Some of the money ends up in Cuba.  The details of such counterrevolutionary program is little known by the world. The Cubans within the island who receive the so-called “assistance” claim to be involved in promoting “civil society” and “democracy.” They maintain that what they are doing is not subversive. The official line from the United States government is that the money it supplies  has a humanitarian intent. The recipients, however, are agents of a foreign power if we follow US law definitions. [1] It is unknown how much money the United States government is really spending to bring an end to the revolutionary government in Havana. [2]

The videos, photos, documents and phone conversation logs transmitted over the Mesa Redonda TV program  in Havana during three consecutive days (May 19, 20, 21) disclosed some of the mechanisms used to provide money payments to dissidents via  Marta Beatriz Roque, a sort of dissident paymaster/accountant in Havana. She describes herself in her emails to rightwing exiles and US officials, as Tia McPato (as in the Disney character – Aunt Scrooge McDuck. )

The money provided to the “dissidents” seem to be mere peanuts, when compared to the total amount of money appropriated by the US Congress. Indeed, it is obvious, that the “dissidents” provide the “cover” for the real entrepreneurs in Florida to enrich themselves. One can very well assume that if the US AID grants a lump sum of, say, $5 million to a Miami “democracy promotion organization” and then the organization puts the money in a bank to get yearly earnings – the earnings might be sufficient to finance the “dissidents”. Miami, of course, will keep the lion’s share of the grant. And the “grant” [our tax dollars at work] will be renewed the following years. Both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress approve of a “foreign aid” that ends up in Coral Gables and the Florida keys.

In a sense, the “dissidents” in the island face all the political and economic costs but receive very little of the financial benefits – when compared to exile “donors.” Granted, a monthly payment of $200-1,500 US dollars is certainly 100 times what the average Cuban earns. Yet, the island “dissidents” thank the exile “donors” abroad when in fact; the exile entrepreneurs should be thanking the “dissidents.” Or, to put it differently, the “dissidents” are the proletarians while the Miami hustlers are the bourgeois employers.

The logic of such political opposition is NOT to be too successful in the REAL recruiting of thousands of political opponents inside Cuba. To do so would be a major logistical and financial conundrum – for that success would imply much more financial accounting. Rather, the best strategy is to CLAIM a lot of political proselytizing in order to obtain as much funding from abroad as possible.

The Miami promoters/handlers need the “dissidents” but do not want them to get too much of a claim over the capital available. This is accomplished by obtaining invoices for all services rendered. In a sense, this whole enterprise moves millions of dollars in Florida and elsewhere, but it comes to “penny capitalism” in Havana.

Marta Beatriz Roque distributes an average of $200 per “dissident”. Thus, if 10 “dissidents”= $200×10=$2000; 100 “dissidents”, $20,000 and so forth. By playing such a role Marta Beatriz Roque is not a political “leader” but rather a financial “accountant.” She knows so and calls herself Tia MacPato. How much money she receives determines how many people she could, potentially recruit. Of course, she could increase the monthly payments of those who are already recruited. On the other hand, that some of the “dissidents” do not seem to get any money payment, perhaps behaving on the basis of “moral incentives” or not realizing that everyone gets a fee for services rendered.

Interestingly, the money is supplied on a monthly basis rather than as a lump sum. Tia McPato would like to get lump sums – that would provide her with discretionary power. But it will reduce the political influence that Miami would have over Havana. The one with the money commands. Thus, payments are done on a monthly basis – although this is a cumbersome logistical mechanism. But it is revealing what the method accomplishes:

1. It reminds the recipient of the funds who is the boss – that is Santiago Alvarez. 2. It makes the recipients financially dependent on a monthly basis, which is a form of control: you don’t deliver political acts, you don’t get paid. This is measured on the basis of the foreign press reporting on the actions. 3. The monthly payments, delivered by Marta Beatriz, is a form of political control. The money payments is a tool of political recruitment and a form of retainer, from month to month. 4. The monthly payments allow the people with the capital in Florida (who received the money from the US government and other undisclosed sources) to set up an account that earns interests. Thus, if AID supplies the “non profit” organization in Miami with the capital, then the money is put in an interest earning account.

The relationship between the Miami promoters/bourgeoisie and the Havana “dissident”/proletarians is a very unique exchange. Miami has US-government supplied financial capital; Havana “dissidents” claim to have political capital. The latter is seemingly correlated with time served in a Cuban prison or openly challenging the Cuban authorities; both generate more political capital in the eyes of the Miami and Washington DC promoters of long-distance “democracy”. Those who have been arrested or answer to the behest of the US Interest Section have a higher exchange value than those who do not. Moreover, those who served some prison time but do not continue their day to day “demonstration politics” then do not get pay as much as those who do. Tia McPato who is the money distributor among the “dissidents” claims the political leadership over the proletarians.

In such a relationship, it becomes imperative for the proletarians to try to extort as much from the employers abroad. This requires that the actions of the “dissidents” be covered by the foreign press. [“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”] In other words, political “show and tell” is the very stuff of such “demonstration politics”. No TV time or press headlines, no pay. It is imperative, then, to cultivate the foreign media stationed in Havana. The foreign media plays the part of the stock analyst who keeps the market ratings on “dissidence” high. Seemingly, the correspondents’ job is to tout the market value of the “dissidents” whose  stock would be worthless if their real value were exposed.

The Cuban government has challenged the US government, the foreign media stationed in Cuba, or the island’s “dissidents” to answer head-on the evidence that has been disclosed and the substantive charges. It is doubtful that any of the players will do so. Meanwhile the commercial enterprise called “democracy promotion” will continue.

Perhaps the promotion of democracy should begin with exporting to Cuba some legislation from the United States.  I propose that our country persuade the government in Havana to adopt from the US Code 18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948] – better known as the Logan Act.

The Act reads in part, “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” [3] All that would be necessary is for the Cuban government to replace the phrase “United States” and include “Republic of Cuba.”

Now, that might be an interesting way of furthering democracy.

NELSON P. VALDÉS is a Professor of Sociology at the University of New Mexico.

This essay was originally published by Cuba-L Analysis.

Notes

[1] See the essay by Salim Lamrani: 05/07/08 – Rebelión (Madrid) – Las contradicciones de Amnistia Internacional.

[2] There is a concurrent effort, also financed by the United States government, to prepare the “transition teams” that will be sent once the Cuban revolutionary regime is overthrown. Just on May 8th, 2008 AID requested proposals to the tune of $30 million from five US corporations who have been involved in such “transitions” elsewhere. Source:  AID email, May 8, 2008 entitled: COMPETITIVE TASK ORDER SOLICITATION IN SUPPORT OF THE CUBA DEMOCRACY AND CONTINGENCY PLANNING PROGRAM (CDCPP).

[3] See: U.S. Code, Title 19, Part I, Chapter 45, § 953

 

 

 

Your Ad Here
 

 

 

 

 

Nelson P. Valdes is Professor Emeritus at the University of New Mexico.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
February 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Pierre M. Sprey - Franklin “Chuck” Spinney
Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Ajamu Baraka
Malcolm X and Human Rights in the Time of Trumpism: Transcending the Master’s Tools
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Exxon’s End Game Theory
John Laforge
Did Obama Pave the Way for More Torture?
Mike Whitney
McMaster Takes Charge: Trump Relinquishes Control of Foreign Policy 
Paul Street
Liberal Hypocrisy, “Late-Shaming,” and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Decline of US and UK Power
Louisa Willcox
The Endangered Species Act: a Critical Safety Net Now Threatened by Congress and Trump
Vijay Prashad
A Foreign Policy of Cruel Populism
John Chuckman
Israel’s Terrible Problem: Two States or One?
Matthew Stevenson
The Parallax View of Donald Trump
Norman Pollack
Drumbeat of Fascism: Find, Arrest, Deport
Stan Cox
Can the Climate Survive Electoral Democracy? Maybe. Can It Survive Capitalism? No.
Ramzy Baroud
The Trump-Netanyahu Circus: Now, No One Can Save Israel from Itself
Edward Hunt
The United States of Permanent War
David Morgan
Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?
Pete Dolack
The Bait and Switch of Public-Private Partnerships
Mike Miller
What Kind of Movement Moment Are We In? 
Elliot Sperber
Why Resistance is Insufficient
Brian Cloughley
What are You Going to Do About Afghanistan, President Trump?
Binoy Kampmark
Warring in the Oncology Ward
Yves Engler
Remembering the Coup in Ghana
Jeremy Brecher
“Climate Kids” v. Trump: Trial of the Century Pits Trump Climate Denialism Against Right to a Climate System Capable of Sustaining Human Life”
Jonathan Taylor
Hate Trump? You Should Have Voted for Ron Paul
Franklin Lamb
Another Small Step for Syrian Refugee Children in Beirut’s “Aleppo Park”
Ron Jacobs
The Realist: Irreverence Was Their Only Sacred Cow
Andre Vltchek
Lock up England in Jail or an Insane Asylum!
Rev. William Alberts
Grandiose Marketing of Spirituality
Paul DeRienzo
Three Years Since the Kitty Litter Disaster at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Eric Sommer
Organize Workers Immigrant Defense Committees!
Steve Cooper
A Progressive Agenda
David Swanson
100 Years of Using War to Try to End All War
Andrew Stewart
The 4CHAN Presidency: A Media Critique of the Alt-Right
Edward Leer
Tripping USA: The Chair
Nyla Ali Khan
One Certain Effect of Instability in Kashmir is the Erosion of Freedom of Expression and Regional Integration
Rob Hager
The Only Fake News That Probably Threw the Election to Trump was not Russian 
Mike Garrity
Why Should We Pay Billionaires to Destroy Our Public Lands? 
Mark Dickman
The Prophet: Deutscher’s Trotsky
Christopher Brauchli
The Politics of the Toilet Police
Randy Shields
Tom Regan: The Life of the Animal Rights Party
Ezra Kronfeld
Joe Manchin: a Senate Republicrat to Dispute and Challenge
Clancy Sigal
The Nazis Called It a “Rafle”
Louis Proyect
Socialism Betrayed? Inside the Ukrainian Holodomor
Charles R. Larson
Review: Timothy B. Tyson’s “The Blood of Emmett Till”
David Yearsley
Founding Father of American Song
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail