FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Raúl Castro Puts the Ball in the U.S. Court

by

Journalists normally come to governmental summits with pen and scissors in hand, because summarizing the extended remarks of Heads of State is a pretty difficult and tedious job. Leaders sometimes repeat things they’ve said before, or make remarks that don’t particularly bear reporting, or concentrate on specific problems that are not generally all that interesting.

The latest CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) Summit ought to have been different though. Everyone was waiting for Cuba’s delegation, led by its president, Raúl Castro, in anticipation of his first public remarks since he and President Obama announced a prisoner exchange and the beginnings of negotiations to re-establish relations between Cuba and the United States.

Ever since that bombshell, a flood of stories have emerged on both sides of the Straits, filled with speculation about events both real and imagined, and as one would expect, sketching the parameters for public opinion about what might come next.

The media banquet has included tireless observations about how and when Cuba ought to do this, that, or the other, and has included musings about every possible scenario, even including a blatant provocation by a pseudo-artist whose aim was to humiliate the Cuban government by accusing it of intolerance.

Miami rapidly rushed in, with those who either opposed the opening, or else those who didn’t want to miss the boat, and after more than half a century of doing everything possible to destabilize Cuba’s society and government, suddenly its residents began to promote themselves as supervisors over the “changes” in Cuba, in accordance with the White House script.

The first public speech by the Cuban leader would define whether Cuba and its government would falter, or whether it had some magic formula for managing the subversive plan created by the White House.

If we read the reports filed by most journalists, Castro only said that changes to Cuba’s internal affairs would not be permitted. But he said much more than that, even delineating the principles that would govern the talks over bilateral relations.

Yet it’s almost as though the reporters couldn’t be bothered.

And suddenly, we are seeing a torrent of Miami “consultants” trying to capitalize on the process by issuing imaginative statements about what they think will happen next.

The hallmark of these economic and societal “gurus” is that they are completely unable to disconnect from their ideological bias and resentment and therefore they behave as though they were actually in charge all this time in Cuba, rather than the constitutional government that has evidently successfully led the country for more than 50 years.

It’s clear that these new “experts” in the Cuban economy and its mechanisms have no ability to read the guidelines established by Cuba’s leaders, and act as though Cuba were some kind of chaos that they are uniquely suited to resolve.

This in turn is bad news for U.S. business executives with a fundamentally erroneous view of Cuba. Buttressed by inept “advisers” who are unable to view the situation pragmatically, these firms will never understand how business is done in Cuba, nor will they able to function there, until they remove the charlatans from the game.

But at the end of the day, what did the Cuban president want to communicate, especially to Americans? Let’s take a look:

“ …governments with profound differences can find a solution to their problems, through respectful dialogue and exchanges on the basis of sovereign equality and reciprocity, for the benefit of their respective nations.”

Rule Number One: No to subversion, yes to trade and bilateral relations.

“…Cuba and the United States must learn the art of civilized co-existence, based on respect for the differences which exist between both governments and cooperation on issues of common interest, which contribute to solving the challenges we are facing in the hemisphere and the world.”

“However, it must not be supposed that, in order to achieve this, Cuba would renounce its ideals of independence and social justice, or abandon a single one of our principles, nor cede a millimeter in the defense of our national sovereignty.”

Rule Number Two: Differences will remain, and even so, it is possible to get along.

“…We will not invite, or accept any attempt to advise or exert pressure regarding our internal affairs. We have earned this sovereign right through great sacrifices and at the price of great risks.”

Cuba’s position could hardly be clearer. If Miami’s experts could have been bothered to read Castro’s remarks, they would give up trying to invent the kinds of procedures and changes in Cuba that they themselves cannot produce, much less propose.

“Could diplomatic relations be restored without resuming the financial services of the Cuban Interests Section and its Consular Office in Washington, denied as a consequence of the financial blockade? How can diplomatic relations be restored without removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of international terrorism? What will be the future conduct of U.S. diplomats in Havana, in regards to observing the diplomatic and consular norms established by International Conventions?”

“The economic, commercial and financial blockade, which causes great human and economic damage and violates international law, must end.”

Evidently, Castro is explaining that in order for bilateral relations to function, the United States needs to lower the gun from the head of the Cubans. Viewing the proposed changes as a simple matter of buying a ticket to Havana and selling U.S. products directly to barbers, restaurant owners and mechanics is such a childish scenario that it really begs the question as to how U.S. business executives can fall for these made-in-Miami tales.

Castro says as much:

“Now, everything seems to indicate that the objective is to create an artificial political opposition though economic, political and communications means.”

So, Rule Number Three: Cubans weren’t born yesterday, nor have they resisted the most vicious blockade that any country has ever had to confront, for more than 50 years, through divine intervention. This is one of the most important myths that U.S. business owners need to move beyond. The U.S. sat down to negotiate with Vietnam in equal conditions, leaving behind the 55,000 American deaths in a war it lost. Using Miami as a guide is not going to facilitate business; rather, it will block it.

“The reestablishment of diplomatic relations is the beginning of a process which can progress toward normalization of bilateral relations, but this will not be possible as long as the blockade exists, or as long as the territory illegally occupied by the Guantánamo Naval Base is not returned (Applause), or radio and television broadcasts which violate international norms continue, or just compensation is not provided our people for the human and economic damage they have suffered.”

“It would not be ethical, just, or acceptable that something were requested of Cuba in return. If these problems are not resolved, this diplomatic rapprochement between Cuba and the United States makes no sense.”

Rule Number Four: The re-establishment of diplomatic relations is one thing. Bilateral relations are another. Trade evidently falls under bilateral relations and Castro is clearly signaling what must happen for this to occur.

“Progress was made in these recent negotiations because we treated each other respectfully, as equals.”

Clean accounts preserve friendships.

And finally:

“…The measures announced are very limited. Prohibitions on credit and the use of the dollar in international financial transactions remain in place; individual travel by U.S. citizens is hampered under the system of licenses for so-called people-to-people exchanges; these are conditioned by subversive goals; and maritime travel is not allowed. Prohibitions remain on the acquisition in other markets of equipment and technology with more than 10% U.S. components, and on imports by the United States of goods containing Cuban raw materials, among many, many others. “

“President Barack Obama … could permit, in other sectors of the economy, all that he has authorized in the arena of telecommunications, with evident objectives of political influence in Cuba.”

Evidently, Cuba is sending its own plan to President Obama.

It should be clear that eventually this will be understood: the Cubans are indicating that they have won the right to negotiate on an equal basis and without intermediaries. Using Miami or any other country as a fifth column is not going to work and apparently this is the single greatest obstacle currently threatening improved relations between Cuba and the U.S.

It’s not only Cuba that needs to change; the American mentality will have to change as well.

David Urra is a graduate of the Caspian S.M. Kirov Naval Academy in Baku. His email address is david(at)icarusecuador.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

David Urra is a graduate of the Caspian S.M. Kirov Superior Naval Academy in Baku. He can be reached at davidurra@yahoo.com.

Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail