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

December 07, 2016
Michael Schwalbe
What We Talk About When We Talk About Class
Karl Grossman
The Next Frontier: Trump and Space Weapons
Kenneth Surin
On Being Caught Speeding in Rural America
Chris Floyd
In Like Flynn: Blowback for Filth-Peddling Fascists
Serge Halimi
Trump, the Know-Nothing Victor
Paul DeRienzo
Flynn Flam: Neocon Ex-General to Be Trump’s National Security Advisor
Binoy Kampmark
Troubled Waters: Trump, Taiwan and Beijing
Tom Clifford
Trump and China: a Note From Beijing
Arnold August
Fidel’s Legacy to the World on Theory and Practice
Dave Lindorff
Is Trump’s Idea To Fix a ‘Rigged System’ by Appointing Crooks Who’ve Played It?
John Kirk
Cuba After Fidel
Jess Guh
Repeal of Affordable Care Act is Politics Playing with the Wellbeing of Americans
Eric Sommer
Team Trump: a Government of Generals and Billionaires
Lawrence Davidson
U.S. Reactions to the Death of Fidel Castro
John Garvey - Noel Ignatiev
Abolitionism: a Study Guide
Clancy Sigal
Caution: Conspiracy Theory Ahead!
December 06, 2016
Anthony DiMaggio
Post-Fact Politics: Reviewing the History of Fake News and Propaganda
Richard Moser
Standing Rock: Challenge to the Establishment, School for the Social Movements
Behrooz Ghamari Tabrizi
Warmongering 99 – Common Sense 0: the Senate’s Unanimous Renewal of Iran Sanctions Act
Norman Solomon
Media Complicity is Key to Blacklisting Websites
Michael J. Sainato
Elizabeth Warren’s Shameful Exploitation of Standing Rock Victory
David Rosen
State Power and Terror: From Wounded Knee to Standing Rock
Kim Ives
Deconstructing Another Right-Wing Victory in Haiti
Nile Bowie
South Korea’s Presidency On A Knife-Edge
Mateo Pimentel
Some Notes and a Song for Standing Rock
CJ Hopkins
Manufacturing Normality
Bill Fletcher Jr – Bob Wing
Fighting Back Against the White Revolt of 2016
Peter Lee
Is America Ready for a War on White Privilege?
Pepe Escobar
The Rules of the (Trump) Game
W. T. Whitney
No Peace Yet in Colombia Despite War’s End
Mark Weisbrot
Castro Was Right About US Policy in Latin America
David Swanson
New Rogue Anti-Russia Committee Created in “Intelligence” Act
George Ochenski
Forests of the Future: Local or National Control?
December 05, 2016
Bill Martin
Stalingrad at Standing Rock?
Mark A. Lause
Recounting a Presidential Election: the Backstory
Mel Goodman
Mad Dog Mattis and Trump’s “Seven Days in May”
Matthew Hannah
Standing Rock and the Ideology of Oppressors: Conversations with a Morton County Commissioner
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
#NoDAPL Scores Major Victory: No Final Permit For Pipeline
Fran Shor
The End of the Indispensable Nation
Michael Yates
Vietnam: the War That Won’t Go Away
Michael Uhl
Notes on a Trip to Cuba
Robert Hunziker
Huge Antarctica Glacier in Serious Trouble
John Steppling
Screen Life
David Macaray
Trump vs. America’s Labor Unions
Yoav Litvin
Break Free and Lead, or Resign: a Letter to Bernie Sanders
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail