miércoles, 23 de noviembre de 2011

Alan Gross’ release is not convenient for some people in U.S.

By M. H. Lagarde

Cuban extreme right, based in U.S., takes advantage of every opportunity to hinder any attempt to improve U.S. relations with the Caribbean island. This group does everything to maintain an environment of bilateral tension and confrontation. Therefore, they benefit in the political and the economic field. It has happened in the last 50 years.
The American Jewish community is now suffering this situation. This community is concerned about giving humanitarian solution to the American contractor Alan Gross, arrested and condemned to 15-year imprisonment for carrying out actions against Cuba’s national security and integrity.
During the first vigil organized by this community before the Cuban diplomatic mission to United Nations to ask for Gross’ release, the presence of Cuban-born individuals became evident. Some of them have a large, known experience and links with violent and terrorist actions against Cuba. Images and reports of the vigil broadcasted by different press outlets showed “hidden” in the crowd people like José A. Gutierrez Solana —secretary of Union of Cuban Former Political Prisoners, North Zone, and closed friend of self-confessed terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, and Senator Bob Menéndez—, boasts about his participation in the bombings of shopping, recreational centers, and other public places in Cuba unrelated to military targets and facilities. Solana, after migrating to U.S., has aided in the organization and financing of violent actions promoted by Posada Carriles and other notorious terrorists who call themselves “fighters for the freedom of Cuba.”
It is significant the presence of these terrorists in a Jewish vigil. The leaders of such community have repeatedly stated the mainly humanitarian purposes of these actions and their positions against any kind of politicization on the subject. It would be foolish to think that these terrorists could be interested in the solution of Alan Gross’ case. Indeed, it would also deprive them of one of the issues used to justify and keeps the status quo in the bilateral relation between Cuba and U.S.
The same happens with Cuban-born legislators like Representative Ileana Ross and Senators Marcos Rubio and Robert Menéndez, who are carrying out threatens and pressures against the State Department and the White House to hinder any possible dialogue and negotiation with Cuba that could lead to a humanitarian solution in Gross’ situation.
In recent days, Sen. Mark Rubio, also known as one of the prodigal sons of ultraconservative Tea Party movement, sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in which he threatened to veto Roberta Jacobson’s confirmation by the Senate as a new U.S. head of diplomacy for Latin America, until Clinton explains whether there have been negotiations with Havana on the contractor’s issue, and that the Administration publicly commits not to negotiate any agreement to secure Alan Gross’ release.
The absurd pressures of these Congressmen and Senators from Florida and New Jersey, and the policy toward Cuba they defend, far from helping to find solutions, strain the environment to find a solution to this problem.

Cubasi Translation Staff

sábado, 13 de agosto de 2011

Harper can't ignore Cuba

By Peter McKenna, Ottawa Citizen

 As Prime Minister Stephen Harper visits powerhouse Brazil and the tiny Central American country of Costa Rica - which shares a bilateral free trade agreement with us - he shies away from the less ideologically acceptable countries of Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua.
But at a time when Harper claims to be pursuing an invigorated policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), he is ignoring Canada's natural advantages in Cuba - one of the region's most important countries. Needless to say, this doesn't make any foreign policy sense.
Significantly, Canadian-Cuban relations during the Harper years have suffered and now appear to be locked in a diplomatic holding pattern. To an outside observer, it looks as if a neo-conservative ideology, supported by lethargy in the Pearson Building in Ottawa, has taken the place of pragmatism and common sense.
Put simply, official Canadian policy toward Cuba is now curiously mimicking the failed U.S. approach of the former George W. Bush presidency - precisely when the Barack Obama administration is initiating a more moderate and more practical Cuba policy.
To begin, the prime minister and the mandarinate seem unaware of Cuba's importance in the region. For example, there are more than 30,000 Cuban health professionals now working throughout the Americas (more than all of the G8 countries combined). Additionally, Cuba is the elected leader of the 118-nation Non-Aligned Movement, was elected to the UN Human Rights Council with the support of 135 nations (five more than Canada), and was elected to be a member of the Rio Group of nations at a Latin American and Caribbean summit (to which Canada and the United States were conspicuously not invited).
As a symbol of its international support, the October 2010 UN General Assembly vote condemning the U.S. trade embargo (187-2) spoke volumes about Cuba's international legitimacy and world standing.
Cuba, in sum, punches far above its international weight class. It has full diplomatic relations with almost every country in the Americas, and has hosted a slew of presidential visits over the last two years. Even Mexico's foreign secretary found time to visit Havana in 2010. Why then has Canada not even sent its foreign affairs minister to visit Cuba in more than a decade?
We should also remember that Canada has an enviable position in Cuba: two-way trade exceeds $1.5 billion, more than 900,000 Canadian tourists visit annually, Toronto-based Sherritt International is the largest single foreign investor in the country, and Ottawa has had a long and storied relationship with the island.
Most Cubans recall fondly that the only countries in the Western hemisphere not to break diplomatic ties with Cuba in the early 1960s were Canada and Mexico. And, no less important, the Cubans respect us enormously - as is symbolized by the two million Cubans who participate annually in the Terry Fox run. Yet the Harper government has consistently ignored that goodwill and neglected the bilateral relationship's huge potential.
Curiously, the Obama White House is moving to tap whatever potential exists. To be sure, U.S. food exports to Cuba have increased to more than $710 million U.S. in 2010, and have already surpassed Canadian exports to the island. Obama himself has also moved to improve the terms of travel for Cuban-Americans, increased the number of U.S. airports offering charter flights to Cuba, and permitted cash remittances to Cuba to increase markedly.
The Canadian government's approach to Cuba, by comparison, is out of sync. The Harper government is spurning our natural advantages, needlessly sharpening its rhetoric, and pursuing a (failed) policy similar to that of the former Bush administration - all at a time when the Obama presidency is looking to change the tenor of U.S.-Cuba relations. Regrettably, Ottawa doesn't seem to be aware of what is happening on the Cuba file. More important, if the Harper government does not revitalize our engagement policy with the Cubans, Canada faces the very real prospect of jeopardizing its long-standing bilateral advantages and ceding those to the United States and others (including the Chinese).
Finally, the key to Canada actually opening the door to the wider hemisphere is clearly not through Costa Rica, but by fostering closer relations with Havana. But if we fail to cultivate closer ties with the Cubans, our vaunted "Americas Strategy" is necessarily doomed to failure.
Peter McKenna is professor of political studies at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown and the co-author of Canada-Cuba Relations: the Other Good Neighbor Policy.

lunes, 8 de agosto de 2011

The Cuban Five and the US Supreme Court

By Arnold August

Talking about Supreme Court, how about a little history. On June 15, 2009 the US Supreme Court announced its decision to reject the request for a revision of the Cuban Five case. This demand for a review was carried out by millions of people from all walks of life around the world, a record number of “Friends of the Court” petitions and thousands of personalities and elected officials from every continent. Many of these pleas also came from within the USA itself.
The US brags about its political systems as being based on the separation of powers between the Executive (President and Vice-President), the Legislature and the Judiciary and a resulting built-in checks and balances system. This is supposedly a superior form of democracy based on checks and balances to avoid abuse of power by one or the other of the three branches forming the US government. In the US Constitution Article II Section 2 states that the US president has “the power to grant reprieves and pardons...” Every indication is that President Obama, far from using his constitutional powers to free the Cuban Five, made it clear to the Supreme Court judges that they should rule against revision.
This has obviously been a political case right from day one. It is even further revealed by the Supreme Court’s decision and the shameless refusal of the judges to publicly explain to the world the basis of their ruling. Of course the judges are not obliged to divulge it according to the American legal system. However, in a case such as this one which the whole world and many governments are watching, a public explanation was necessary. We are perhaps witnessing one of the greatest ironies in the current international political scene. The Cuban Five are cruelly and politically persecuted for their peaceful anti-terrorist motivations and activities. The reason? They are acting on behalf of and supporting the Cuban government. One of the main charges that Washington levies against Cuba is lack of democracy, that it is does not, amongst other characteristics exhibit a political system similar to the American one which would include checks and balances. The Cuban system is in fact one unified revolutionary peoples’ political power, from the top down and from the bottom up including the judiciary, each enjoying its own respective fields of competence. The relationship and inter-action of all the different Cuban state levels between themselves including the judiciary and all of these institutions in turn with the citizens, is a feature of the Cuban type of democracy. There is no need to get into a debate as to whether the Cuban system is more democratic than the American model. However, if one takes into account this latest Supreme Court episode of US democracy in action on the one hand and my direct experience and study of the Cuban political system on the other hand, Cuba has no “democracy” lessons to take at all from the USA.

domingo, 7 de agosto de 2011

Gross: What Happened Between March and August?

by Arnold August

On August fifth it was announced that the fifteen­-year sentence arising out of the March fourth Provincial Court trial against Alan Gross, a US AID contractor, was upheld by the Cuban Supreme Court. The American citizen appealed the decision of the Provincial Court in Cuba's highest level of the judiciary on June 22, the result of which was made public on August fifth.
Regarding this issue, since March fourth to date the international media, especially based in Miami, Washington and Madrid, are concentrating on Havana, the Gross trials and legal challenges.
For those who may be puzzled by the Supreme Court decision, it would be useful to examine briefly what has happened in the United States — not Cuba — between March fourth to date in order to perhaps shed some light onto the Supreme Court's confirmation of the lower court's resolution. In this five-month period, the Obama Administration has on many occasions repeated its policy of interfering in the internal affairs of Cuba under the guise of "democracy promotion".  For example, the Congress has recently ratified once again the decision to spend 20$ million in the next year explicitly dedicated to subversion in Cuba, including the type of activities that Gross had carried out and for which he has been arrested, tried, found guilty and sentenced. On many occasions the Obama Administration in collaboration with their mercenaries on and off the island did not reduce, but rather reinforced, their provocative activities against the sovereignty of Cuba, one of the legal principles violated by Gross as a US agent contractor.
While Obama visited Chile on March 21, 2011, not long after the original trial and sentencing of Gross, the US President spoke about the need to defend "democracy and human rights within our  borders [USA and Chile], let us recommit to defending them across our hemisphere.... And yes, that includes the people of Cuba."
How do readers think that the Cuban government and judiciary had taken this? By adding insult to injury, Obama stated in an interview to a Chilean newspaper as a prelude to his visit to Santiago de Chile that "The Chilean experience, and more particularly its successful transition to democracy and its sustained, growing economy, is a model for the region and the world."
When the news was released on August fifth regarding the Cuban Supreme Court decision, it was the same day that those  of us who follow the news through Telesúr and other alternative media were able to bear witness to how the Chilean police violently attacked the students and professors demanding education, economic and political rights. There were according to official sources 874 arrests and hundreds wounded. Is this the example that Obama meant of Chile being a model of democracy and economic development for Cuba? The scenes of Chilean state brutality resembled more the emblematic steps (Escalinata) of the University of Havana before the January 1, 1959 Triumph of the Revolution, when the US-backed Batista dictatorship unleashed their forces so many times against the youth, professors and workers. Many students were killed in these assaults in Havana, but so far at the time of writing in any case, there has been no deaths in Chile during the course of the current confrontations.
Despite the demands to Obama from around the world declared by Nobel Prize winners, individual parliamentarians, parliaments and personalities for the release of the Cuban Five, what has Obama done between March fourth and today? He has done nothing, and we are heading into a most crucial period for the soon-to-be concluded Habeus Corpus process for Gerardo Hernández Nodelo, with nothing yet positive in sight at this time. The Cuban Five are imprisoned since 1998 because they attempted to curb US-backed terrorist interference in the internal affairs of Cuba.
Given all these provocations and  repeated confirmations from the White House and the US Congress that they have every intention to continue their program of attempting to subvert Cuba's constitutional order, how else can the Cuban government and judicial authorities react? They have no choice but to make it clear that they will continue to defend their sovereignty as it is the right of every country to do so, big or small.
Alan Gross and his family should blame their own government for their predicament. The White House got him into it in the first place. By carrying out the same policies against Cuba since March fourth to date, it has given no reason for the Cuban judiciary to decide otherwise.

lunes, 11 de julio de 2011

U.S.A. manipulates “defection” of Cuban dentists

By M. H. Lagarde

Hundreds of Cuban dentists, invited to defect by the U.S. government from medical missions that bring health to thousands of people worldwide, suffer the same fate of many other “refugee” doctors in that country. After reaching U.S. soil, where they are "welcomed", supposedly because of their professional expertise, they can not pursue their occupation.
According to a libelous article in Miami mafia’s El Nuevo Herald, about 200 dentists who have defected from Cuban internationalist missions can not revalidate their degrees in the U.S. because the Cuban authorities refuse to send the academic records, said Julio Alfonso, CEO of Solidarity without Borders (SSF).
“Solidarity-man” Alfonso says now that the Educational Credential Evaluators (ECE), a Wisconsin organization that provides professional certification, will only accept academic records submitted by Cuba, something recruiters never told dentists.
"These dentists are facing an ironical situation," Alfonso criticized in the SSF office in Hialeah. "They defected from the missions to qualify for the U.S. visa program for medical personnel, but once they enter the United States they face reality as it actually is because they can not revalidate their degrees."
What is the real irony? That of Cuba opposed to the shameless brain drain and defamation of its health system organized by the U.S. intelligence services, or that of the U.S. government closing the doors to emigration to the rest of the world while inciting defection of Cuban doctors and dentists based on an unrecognized professional competence.
Now, Cuban cheated doctors and dentists are struggling to make a living in Miami. Such is the case of Dasha Frías —a dentist graduated from the Higher Dentistry Institute of Medical Sciences in Villa Clara— who after defecting from a mission in the state of Anzoategui, northeastern Venezuela in 2009, came to Miami and is currently working as a cashier at the Miccosukee Casino.

miércoles, 6 de abril de 2011

The PADF against Cuba: Another Link of the Swindle to North American Taxpayers

By: M. H. Lagarde

According with a series of accusations that for several weeks broadcast Cuban television under the title Cuba’s Reasons, besides the Pontis Foundation, other organizations, and NGOs working as covers for the CIA afford to waste the money of North American taxpayers in the fruitless attempt of driving a change in the Island in favor of the interests of Washington’s government.
One of those “institutions” is the Pan-American Development Foundation (PADF), an organization where the CIA, the North American government, and large capitals hold hands when financing the counterrevolution in Cuba, especially through the USAID.
Several investigators assure that the PADF PADF, "created in the United States back in 1962 through a unique cooperation agreement between the Organization of American States (OAS) and the private sector", receives funds from an extensive list of institutions, organizations, and monopolizing companies among which appear the USAID, the World Bank, Chevron Corporation, Citigroup, The Hampshire Foundation, and Phillip Morris International.
According to the website Cuba Money Project the PADF has been benefited more than once by the funds the USAID dedicates to finance the so-called Cuban dissidence.
In year 2007, of a total of 13.3 million dollars distributed by the USAID, the PADF signed a contract for 2.3 million dollars to support the domestic counterrevolution in Cuba; and in the 2009, from an assigned budget of 15 620 000 million dollars, the PADF received 3 million dollars through the signing of two contracts for similar destabilizing purposes in Cuba. One of them, of 2 million dollars and the other of a million dollars.


In the case of Cuba, the organization that in 2009 also participated in the legitimizing of the “elections” of the golpists government imposed by the United States in Honduras, has acted through agents like the Peruvian-North American Marc Wachtenheim.
The former director of the Initiative of Development for Cuba of this foundation, Marc Wachtenheim has had an ample participation in carrying out actions against the Cuban revolution and in several occasions has visited Cuba with the objective of facilitating and assuring the delivery of material and financial support to members of the domestic counterrevolution, as well as to obtain information on different aspects of the Cuban reality.
Violating the very North American laws established by the criminal blockade that for half century the United States imposes to the Island, Wachtenheim visited Cuba five times between 2002 and 2009, and in four of those opportunities he used a tourist visa.
In June 2002, the former PADF employee justified his arrival to Cuba coming from Jamaica as individual tourism. Something similar he did in February 2004 and five years later, in February 2009 and November of that same year, always coming from Mexico.
Among the main goals of this character were facilitating the Cuban counterrevolution state-of-the-art technology like blackberries, laptops, Bgan, and other technological devices, dedicated to be used in subversive actions against the Cuban Revolution.
According with the accusation made by the Cuban writer Raul Capote, recruited by the CIA but, in reality a double agent of the Cuban State Security, in the chapter of Cuba’s Reasons “Creating a Leader”, the equipment introduced in Cuba by Marc Wachtenhein’s emissaries was aimed at carrying out espionage tasks in favor of the U.S. government.


After resigning, due to financial problems, his position at the PADF, Marc Wachtenheim, currently presiding over the Center for Advancement of Freedom and Democracy, organization created by him and that supposedly holds similar objectives to those of PADF: “to promote freedom and democracy in Latin America”, which, as everybody knows, equals to oppose every last existing movement in the region that doesn't respond to the North American interests, as it’s the case of the progressive governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Cuba.
The methods used by the former PADF employee, in his supposed crusade in favor of “freedom and democracy”, leaves no doubts of his relationship with intelligence services like the CIA. Likewise, almost no one doubts anymore that foundations like Pontis from the Czech Republic, the PADF or the very Center for Advancement of Freedom and Democracy wastes at full hands, in the futile attempt of overthrowing the Cuban Revolution, the money of North American taxpayers.
As recently affirmed by the influential chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, John Kerry, on the last 20 million dollars budgeted by the USAID to promote the democracy in Cuba: “There is no evidence that the 'programs of promotion of the democracy' that cost American taxpayers so far more than 150 million dollars, help the Cuban people".

lunes, 21 de marzo de 2011

PONTIS Foundation and the swindling of American taxpayers in Cuba

The PONTIS man in Cuba, the mercenary and cheater Francisco Chaviano Gonzalez (far right) with Lowell Dale Lawton  USIS Second Political-Economic Secretary. (Photo: Aday del Sol)
By M. H. Lagarde

From 1960, when U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered that it was necessary to hide the U.S. "hands" from the attacks against Cuba, until the "Report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba" , also known as the Bush Plan, which states that it must be increased: "direct efforts with governments of third countries willing to develop a strong and pro-active policy to support civil society in Cuba, including the "opposition" and develop a policy framework for assistance to "post-dictatorship" Cuba, eleven U.S.administrations have used NGOs, mainly from European countries, as a cover for the its intelligence work.
The strategy of throwing bombs and hiding the hands, used by the United States against Cuba for half a century, intends mainly, despite of covering U.S. participation, to expand covert channels through which the U.S. may promote opposition groups and so they try to give an image that the condemnation against the revolution is not only a matter of Washington but a claim of the international community.
Much of the NGOs, using American taxpayer money for subversion in the Island, are located in former socialist countries of Eastern Europe, which, in payment for their lackey roles, expect imperial support to fit into the European politico-military framework (EU and NATO).
As recently denounced in the documentary broadcasted by the Cuban television, "Reasons of Cuba: Well Paid Lies", among the NGO resided in third countries that receive money from the USAID, or from organizations masquerading the CIA - like the Freedom House and the NED - to carry out anti-Cuban actions outstand the Slovak PONTIS Foundation which develops subversive projects in countries like Belarus, and Cuba. Since its appearance after the fall of the socialist field, and in the context of the so-called Colors Revolutions, PONTIS has established close relationships with North American institutions to promote actions of "changes of régime in countries with tyrannical governments" in those countries that refuse to be subordinated to the world dictatorship led by the North American government.
In Cuba's specific case, PONTIS has collaborated with other NGO from East Europe like People in Need and People in Peril, also Slovak, as well as with the International Committee for the Democracy in Cuba, an organization created and financed by the Republican International Institute (RII) presides over John McCain.   
Both the RII and the USAID are the main contributors of PONTIS. Only between October 2008 and September 2009, the Slovak foundation received 108 million dollars dedicated to offer help to the internal counterrevolution in Cuba.   

Supposedly the money of the North American taxpayers facilitated by the RII and the USAID will help to overthrow the Cuban Revolution through supporting actions to counterrevolutionary prisoners, to facilitate the secret entrance to the Island of materials to train in Cuba the mercenaries in what they call "periods of transition", to offer them material and technical support to the domestic counterrevolution, especially the "political prisoners" and encourage support actions to the so-called "dissident" in East Europe.
According to some investigators, one of the main interests of the USAID is to use PONTIS Foundation as a promoter in Cuba of the so-called "color revolutions" and counts for that with characters of the moral class of Francisco Chaviano Gonzalez who, according to IRI's program that subventions PONTIS, is the leader of a counterrevolutionary organization called Liberal Unity of the Republic of Cuba that gathers a group of 17 organizations.

The deceit of such an assertion -those organizations only exist in the head of cheater Francisco Chaviano-, gives a clear idea about the real destination
that the IRI and the USAID make of the US taxpayer's money. As Jonathan Farrar, current Chief of Mission of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, wrote in one of the cables recently revealed by Wikileaks:

"That said, we see very little evidence that the mainline dissident organizations have much resonance among ordinary Cubans. Informal polls we have carried out among visa and refugee applicants have shown virtually no awareness of dissident personalities or agendas. Judging from the reactions we have heard from our dissident contacts, the most painful accusation made by the commentators was that the dissidents are old and out of touch. (...)
Many of the leaders of the dissident movement are indeed comparatively old. Long-time dissidents XXXXXXXXXXXX are in their 60s. Others such as Francisco Chaviano and wife Ana Aguililla, Rene Gomez Manzano and Oswaldo Paya are well into their 50s. (...) "When we ask opposition leaders about their programs, we do not see platforms designed to appeal to a broad cross section of Cuban society. Rather, their greatest effort is directed at obtaining enough resources to keep the main organizers and their key supporters living from day to day".

Not even water is as clear.


viernes, 22 de octubre de 2010

Cuban Blogger brutally repressed in Miami

Although we could not have even clear references to what really happened, the images above, hanged by Miami police in an official site of Miami Dade, illustrate very well the consequences of exercising freedom of speech in Miami.
During a recent trip to Cuba Varela, who edits a blog in Miami where he defends the Cuban Revolution, reported in "Cambios en Cuba" he was receiving threats from right-wing elements of that city.
The Miami mafia blogosphere is already gloating with the images and celebrates the brutal beating of a man who has done nothing but say what he feels and thinks in a city and a country where dissent is really a crime punishable by aberrations such as this. We wonder now what the Miami headlines and other countries’ would say before this abominable action, knowing in advance the answer "silence and manipulation."
On that occasion, in a videotaped interview, Varela made it clear that the mafia was manipulating his family to use as a weapon of pressure against him and that he had received emails which warned him that if he returned to Miami, he would be imprisoned.
Apparently, according to these pictures, worthy of an anthology of porn and violence that show how human rights are respected in the U.S., his enemies have succeeded to silence, at least for a while, the blogger Varela.
We will be aware of Varela’s situation and continue to denounce the torture and threats that he is subjected.

jueves, 15 de julio de 2010

We All are our Commander in Chief

By: M. H. Lagarde

The best repercussion in Fidel's recent appearances in public can be found in the Cuban counterrevolutionary blogs. Hatred, sometimes, for his straight honesty is far more eloquent than the praise or acclamation.
Some, who had predicted like Internet prophets the last and penultimate days, now are pulling their hair, dusting and rewriting the editorials kept for the last day, to somehow justify the ridicule of their predictions.
The issue, and thus has been demonstrated the recent activity deployed by Fidel, doesn't look as actions of penultimate days, but rather, of penultimate years. What’s left to find out is how many. Prophecies don’t seem to work on Fidel Castro. The title of a book written 20 years ago will make people burst into laughter; the title announced Fidel Castro's Final Hour.
Those who since 2006 until today have bet, from Europe or the United States, for the biological solution as relief of their frustrations are wrong. Solutions don't fall from the sky they are built with reason, courage, and effort.
The coward Platt followers who have spent 50 years waiting and encouraging the North American invasion to Cuba, are the same who today await that Fidel's death be the stone throw that finally brings down, once again, into the hands of the empire, the ripe fruit.
One of their big problems is actually that they have never believed in Fidel who more than once has insisted in that men are mortal; however, their ideas can be immortal.
The real problem is not how many years until Fidel dies, which for it has been seen these last days, it seems that he is immortal. The "solution" lies in knowing when his legacy will die and then the problem won't be of years, neither decades, it will be of centuries.

domingo, 4 de julio de 2010

Guillermo Fariñas, a Life Saved by Cuban Medicine

Interview with Dr. Armando Caballero, chief of the Intensive Care Unit at the Arnaldo Milián University Hospital in Santa Clara, on the health condition of patient Guillermo Fariñas

By Deisy Francis Mexidor

Science, humanism, professionalism and the most advanced and costliest treatments have been used to save the life of patient Guillermo Fariñas. Science because sophisticated treatments have been applied in his case; humanism and professionalism because giving back health to human beings is the top aspiration of the prestigious specialists who are caring for him; and the most advanced and costliest treatments because the Cuban government has spared no effort to ensure this person the latest generation medications, the same used in other well-known healthcare centers, many of which must be bought from other countries.
On March 11, Fariñas was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of the Arnaldo Milian University Hospital in the city of Santa Clara. The voluntary fasting he started more than 120 days ago has now become a threat to his life.
To inquire about his health, we traveled to the healthcare center in the central Cuban province and interviewed Dr. Armando Caballero, chief of the Intensive Care Services in the hospital.

First, we wanted to hear from this experienced Second Degree Specialist and founder of that special unit, how is it possible for a person to survive four months of fasting.

“Everybody is asking that,” he said, “because a person can’t live that long without nourishment; but that is not the case of Fariñas.”

Dr. Caballero explains that “this patient refuses to take food orally. He has been in this situation for 125 days, since he says he had spent two weeks in his house without eating before he was admitted to our services, where he has spent 110 days. On admission to the hospital, he showed some physical deterioration. He was conscious and he agreed that we provide him parenteral nourishment, that is, intravenously.

The patient is receiving amino acids that make up the proteins required by the body. He is also provided lipids, vitamins and minerals, “everything necessary in a balanced diet for any human being,” the doctor says. Then he adds that “Fariñas’ weight was 63 kg when he was admitted to our services, and at this moment it moves between 67 and 69 kilograms. He has recovered body weight during his hospital stay and this is due precisely to the parenteral nourishment he is receiving.”

How compromised is the patient’s health at this moment?

Parenteral nourishment requires that certain (osmolar) nutrients of high molecular weight pass through the central ducts of the human body. I mean, you need to catheterize major veins of the upper part of the body such as the subclavians and the internal jugulars, which can be hazardous and lead to complications, particularly when hyperosmolar nutrients, like amino acids and hypertonic dextrose, must pass through these catheters.

The risk of blood infections increases as time passes and the patients continue receiving this kind of nourishment. The tendency is for contamination and infection with bacteria and fungi or they develop other complications like we see in this patient now.

But, are these complications related to medical procedures or the care provided to this patient?

Absolutely not. These complications are a common occurrence in patients receiving this kind of nourishment. For example, in the 110 days that Fariñas has been our patient, we have had to change the catheter ten times. During his 251 days of fasting in 2006 –when he was also treated in our unit— he required 37 catheters. In my 37 years of experience in intensive care services, I never had another patient who required this procedure so many times.

In this case, four timely-detected infections were successfully treated with the corresponding medications for the type of staphylococcus that develops in the blood. In very instance, the germ was immediately isolated and efficiently combated with antibiotics and other specific measures.

But, from last week, the patient has developed another complication, which is not only an infection but something more serious. This time it’s thrombus phlebitis of the jugular-subclavian component in the neck veins. This thrombus or clot is very dangerous because it could detach and move toward the heart and from there to the lungs giving rise to a deadly pulmonary thromboembolism.

Such health condition is a relatively common occurrence in the hospitals and one of the causes of sudden death, when the thrombi are large. But sometimes they do not detach and can be dissolved with antibiotics and anti-clotting medications like we are applying to this patient. This time again, we have isolated the germ that caused the phlebitis of the central veins, which in this case is associated to the presence of the venous thrombus in the jugular-subclavian segment.

From last Sunday until today we have seen a slight improvement although we can’t say for sure that a more serious complication has been averted. No one can say here or anywhere in the world whether or not that thrombus will detach.

We have all the necessary medications. Last Saturday, when the complication was detected and the pathology confirmed with cutting-edge technology, we discuss collectively the diagnosis and treatment.

Is this the limit of what medicine can do in trying to save the life of this patient?

This is an extreme situation, mostly at this point. Since our patient-doctor relations are very good, we have discussed with him at length about abandoning his voluntary fasting and starting to take food orally in order to recover the energy he needs to fight the temperature caused by the infection.

It’s almost impossible to feed him through another catheter because new complications could arise when one is already developing. In his case, taking food is a crucial element in his fight for life.

What could happen if Fariñas insists on this behavior?

We feel that his condition could worsen, particularly the nutritional aspect, although until now we have been able to keep him stable despite his refusal to take nourishment orally.

And, what if he decided to eat?

The patient is perfectly prepared to take food orally. There is no contraindication in this regard. Simply his wish could be a major medical factor in the solution of his health condition.

What is the established medical procedure to deal with a patient who has decided not to ingest food?

As I said before, in my 37 years of experience in intensive care I have seen almost 20,000 patients, but Fariñas is the only one I’ve had here twice for voluntarily refusing to take food orally for a long period of time. This is not common. I’ve seen many patients in this unit; I’ve even treated persons who had tried to commit suicide for a certain reason, but at the end most want to live. That is what the doctors in this ward are asking Fariñas: that he helps us to save his life.

As to your question, there are no rules, but there is medical ethics. And, one of its basic principles is autonomy, that is, not to apply any procedure without the patient’s consent. We abide by that principle.

Fariñas is a patient who is conscious of his situation. He is not disoriented, he is in full command of his mental faculties, therefore, it is his right to accept or not, of his own volition, the application of any medical procedure. In my view, it is the wrong right a person has to kill him or herself. I have said to Fariñas that he is acting against his own physical integrity.

A doctor’s mission is to save lives; however, in a case like this we must respect the patient’s will. We can’t go against his will unless he is unconscious and his close family approves.

Could you offer more details about the care provided to Guillermo Fariñas?

This person, like every other patient here, is privileged. He is accompanied by a relative around the clock. He has a TV set where he is watching the Football World Cup, which he likes. He also has a direct telephone line, the same as every other patient in this ward. Beyond what medicine can do, these amenities are important to the spirituality of the patient.

The intensive care services are expensive worldwide. Thanks to our healthcare system, Fariñas, like every other Cuban who requires these services, is not paying a penny.

I’ve had the opportunity of working in other countries, both in underdeveloped and developed nations. I spent one and a half year in France and I could see how costly it is to keep a patient in an intensive care unit. It’s very expensive.

And, what can you tell me about the medical expertise, the equipment available and the additional tests he has had?

At this moment, the entire team of the intensive care unit is available to him. These are ten specialist doctors, half of them Second Degree Specialists in Intensive and Emergency Medicine. They are all working with Fariñas. Every day we meet and discuss his case, his condition and evolution, what to do and what may be needed in order to get it.

You have just said “what may be needed in order to get it,” and I ask you, to get it where, in this country or in other countries?

Here and in other countries. We have bought medicines for this and other cases because many medicines we need to buy from other countries.

For instance, all of the parenteral nutrients that Fariñas receives –amino acids, lipids, vitamins and trace elements—are coming from Europe. Cuba buys them not only for this patient but for other Cubans who need it. However, Fariñas is the only one that requires them because he refuses to eat.

Do you have an idea of how much the treatment provided to this patient is costing the country?

It’s practically impossible to compare the costs in Cuba with any other place. Cuban medicine is perhaps the cheapest in the world and probably the most efficient because healthcare services are not designed for profit.

What I can tell you for sure is that, in any developed country, one day in an intensive care unit costs no less than $1,300, and this does not include complementary tests and medicines. In this case, we are talking of 110 days in the unit and over 300 lab tests.

For example, we check this patient’s glycemia almost on a daily basis; 96 tests until today.

We have already treated him for four serious bacterial vascular infections which have required such antibiotics as vancomicyn, ciprofloxacin, gentamicyn and rocephyn. We have practiced 66 ionograms to measure electrolytes in blood and correct any imbalance. We calculate his 24-hours urea almost every day to assess the nitrogen used by his body and ensure an adequate balance.

We constantly monitor his system to prevent imbalances. This is what has enabled Fariñas to have a rather acceptable nutritional condition after 125 days of fasting, although the danger persists because this is not physiological, eating is.

This patient has had electrocardiograms, X-rays, ultrasounds, and multi-slice tomographies. We have conducted all the necessary studies.

You said before that the doctor-patient relation has been good. How would you describe the doctor-family relation?

I’ve talked to his mother, his wife and an uncle, as well as to some of his friends. There is a good doctor-patient relation that makes practically everything possible but eating. That is our constant request.

In sum, I think Fariñas’ and his family’s relation with the team of doctors and nurses in our services has been good. For as long as he has been here, I have not received any complains about the way he is treated. On the contrary, he always speaks of the professionalism of the doctors and he says he doesn’t want to go anywhere, although he says he has received offers to treat him abroad. However, he says he won’t go because here are the people who have saved his life. He trusts our healthcare services.

How do you describe Guillermo Fariñas’ condition at this moment?

Today, the patient faces a potential danger of dying. It depends on the evolution of that thrombus located in the jugular-subclavian left confluent, for which he is being adequately treated. I wish it dissolved; that would make it one more complication solved by our team of doctors and nurses. We shall continue doing our best to preserve his life.

martes, 8 de junio de 2010

Yoani Sanchez and The Huffington Post: Another One Bites the Dust

As the blogger can not longer cheat anyone in Spanish, now she tries in English

By: Ernesto Perez Castillo

After more than a week raving on the heat in Havana, the foreign TV series broadcast by the national television, the Creole cooking - rice and beans and hot dogs - and her adventures in taking rides though she prefers to say "hitchhiking". Everything that sounds English, sounds better for her -, now Yoani Sanchez has finally found a topic with certain matter, according to her way of seeing things, to comment.
Having such topic in her hands, Yoani doesn't go to her blog, not even she publishes anywhere in Spanish, no way. she goes right -well that's obvious, since she has walked on the right-side for some time now, always on the right- to her new launching platform: The Huffington Post.
The topic at hand, which is it? The black tide that every day, and no solution on sight darkens the Mexican Gulf, and is already reaching the Florida beaches? No way. Obama has spoken a lot about that, although in reality he has nothing to say on the issue.
Then it must be about the massacre the Israeli army has just committed off the coasts of Gaza, on May 31, attacking the humanitarian flotilla Free Gaza, with over a dozen dead, and a figure of wounded which must reliable data is that up to five aircrafts were needed to transfer the wounded to Turkey?
No, Yoani hasn't spoken about that either, though she falls closer to Obama on this regard who neither speaks of the topic, and Yoani could be anything, but a fool.
Is it on the Puerto Rican students who went on strike since April 23, in rejection to the increase of the cost of university registration?
No, not that, she studied for free, and she has never contributed with anything to the effort carried out by the state in her education, and she has not even the smallest clue on what a real strike is.
These are the topics she was supposed to approach, if she wanted to be coherent with her demagogic facade of human rights defender, and nature-lover -let's not forget that not long ago she commented in an interview how much peace she received from the little fish she keeps in captivity in her apartment, unluckily for Greenpeace.
The topic, the great topic today, for Yoani Sanchez, is the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan, in the West Sea. And where does the blogger comment the matter this time? Well she publishes it in English (Cuban Leaders Strangely Silent on North Korea's Sinking of the Cheonan) under the label of "Exclusive to Huffington Post."
Since the very title, Yoani begins to lie, because though her headline, poorly translated by Google, reads "Cuban leaders strangely silent on North Korea's sinking of the Cheonan" - I use Google translation because I don't have those "friends" who translate for Yoani for "free", as she affirms -, the truth is that the Cuban press has covered the event, and even Fidel commented it in his reflection "The Empire and the War", of June 1, four days earlier Yoani affirmed in The Huffington Post that our press remains silent on this respect.
Not happy with defending the indefensible, Yoani dares even further, and in her article she assures: "In a small note in the official newspaper, Granma, let's its readers know that the ship of South Korea, the Cheonan, sank by a torpedo impact "supposedly" of origin of North Korea. In brief lines there are not mention of the 46 crew members who died."
And that is another lie, another vulgar manipulation, to which Yoani has us accustomed, because the truth is that http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2010/05/21/interna/artic06.html can be read, for example: "PYONGYANG, May 20.-The Government of the Democratic Popular Republic of Korea denied all responsibility in the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan, that took place on March, and caused the death of 46 crew members, highlights ANSA."
And also at http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2010/03/28/interna/artic16.html can be read "BEIJING, March 27 (PL).-The number of missing persons raise to 46 for the sinking of a South Korean warship in the West Sea still attributed to an explosion in stern yet unexplained, while 58 members were rescued."
As it can be seen, and I will only quote these two examples, although there are more, Yoani lies blatantly and treacherously when assuring that Granma doesn't mention the 46 dead caused by the incident. In fact, the headline of the second note was, precisely that: "Adding up to 46 persons missing in shipwreck of South Korean warship."
Unbelievably, although both news were published long before Yoani's article (both in May21 and May 28, respectively), in date as late as June 5 in which she publishes her nonsense, this blogger remains unaware of it because she wants to be that way. Granma has reported the number of casualties, and more than once, even highlighting it with headlines.
For worse, two days before the appearance of Yoani Sanchez "in exclusive for The Huffington Post", commander Fidel in the second reflection in which he mentions the sinking of the Cheonan, "The Empire and the Lie", he alerted on "The weird deceive that North Korea had sunk the South Korean corvette Cheonan -designed with top technology, equipped with an ample sonar system and acoustic submarine sensors -, in waters located off the coasts, he accused it of the atrocious event that took the life of 40 South Korean marines and dozens of wounded."
That is, how to explain Yoani's statement now that Cuban leaders remained strangely silent on the sinking of the Cheonan, or the accusation thrown by Granma newspaper that didn't inform of the death of South Korean marines in the incident? What else does Yoani Sanchez want on the topic? Several articles were published on this regard, Fidel mentions it in two of his reflections, and the figure of deceased marines appears all the time.
The problem is that Yoani writes what she wants, and not what it really is. Yoani depicts the reality her masters dictate her, and for that, she necessarily has to lie, to hide the truth, and manipulate the facts. In The Huffington Post must keep this in mind before blindly rushing to publish anything Yoani gives them, because the blogger's data never go through a minimum consultation of sources neither a superficial approval.
Besides this, she fulfills her part of the script, and apparently she never makes a mistake: between two events that happen at sea, and that coincidently speak of the attack to a boat, with casualties - the sinking not yet clarified of the Cheonan, and the Israeli attack on the humanitarian flotilla Free Gaza-, Yoani Sanchez, without hesitating decides to comment the first one, because the massacre in the second case was committed by allies of the North American government, who in the end pays Yoani's bills, and the Blogger knows she can't play around with them.

jueves, 22 de abril de 2010

A Conversation with Cuban Blogger Yoani Sanchez

An interview by Salim Lamrani, published on Rebelion Website.

Yoani Sanchez is the new figure of Cuban opposition. Since she created her blog “Generaion Y” back in 2007, she has been granted several international prizes, including the Ortega y Gasset Journalism Prize in 2008, the Bitacoras.com Prize in 2008, the Bob’s Prize in 2008, the Maria Moors Cabot Prize in 2008, granted by the prestigious US University of Columbia. Similarly, the Cuban blogger was selected among the world’s 100 most influential personalities by Time Magazine in 2008, along with George W. Bush, Hu Jintao and Dalai Lama. Yoani´s blog was included on the list of the 25 best blogs of the world by CNN and Time Magazine in 2008.
In November 30, 2008, Spain’s El Pais newspaper included her on its list of the 100 most influential Hispanic-American personalities of the year (a list where you can’t find Fidel or Raul Castro).
Foreign Policy magazine, on its part, included her among the 10 most important intellectuals of the year, while Mexico’s Gato Pardo magazine did the same in 2008.
This impressing landslide of distinctions, as well as their simultaneous occurrence, has raised numerous questions, so much so that Yoani Sanchez, according to her own confession, is absolutely unknown in her own country. How can a person, who is unknown to her neighbors—according to the blogger—, be on the list of the 100 most influential personalities in the world?
A diplomat from a western country, who is close to this atypical opponent of the Cuban government, had read a series of articles I wrote about Yoani Sanchez and that were somewhat critical. He showed the blogger my articles and she wanted to meet me to clear out some points I had referred to.
The meeting with the young dissident, of controversial fame, did not take place in any dark apartment with closed windows or in a remote site that could avoid the indiscrete ears of “the political police.” On the contrary, the meeting took place in the lobby of the Hotel Plaza, in the heart of the Old Section of Havana, and in a sunny afternoon. The place was packed with people, many foreign tourists wandering around the huge hall of the majestic building that opened its doors in the early 20th century.
Yoani Sanchez has close ties with western embassies. In fact, a simple call by my contact at midday allowed us to set the date just three hours later. And at 3 pm, the blogger showed up smiling, dressed in a long skirt and a blue jersey. She also wore a sports jacket to keep herself warm in the relatively fresh temperature of the Havana winter.
Our conversation lasted nearly two hours as we sat at a table in the bar and in the presence of her husband Reinaldo Escobar, who accompanied her for some 20 minutes before they left the place as they headed for another meeting. Yoani Sanchez appeared very cordial and friendly; she proved her great peace. Her voice was firm and she never showed being uncomfortable. Already used to meeting with the western media, she really masters the arts of communication.
This blogger, a person who looks weak, intelligent and astute is aware that, although hard for her to admit her western media relation is not by mere chance, but because it advocates the setting up of “sui generis” capitalism in Cuba.

The Incident on November 6, 2009

Salim Lamrani: Let´s start with the incident that occurred on November 6, 2009 in Havana. You explained on your blog that you were arrested along another three friends of yours by “three unknown hefty men” during “an afternoon stormed with beating, cries and insults.” You denounced the Cuban police for having committed violence against you. Do you maintain your version of the events?

Yoani Sánchez: Yes indeed, I confirm I was submitted to violence. They held me for 25 minutes. I was beaten. I managed to take a piece of paper that one of the men had in his pocket and I hid it in my mouth. One of them pressed his knee over my chest and the other, from the front seat would beat me in the kidney area and my head so that I opened my mouth and get the piece of paper. For a moment, I thought I would never get out of that car.

SL: the story on your blog is really terrifying. I quote: you spoke of “beats and pushes,” of “beating knuckles,” of “stream of beats,” “Knees on your chest,” beating your “kidneys and […] your head, “pulling you by your hair,” of your face “going red due to pressure and painful body, of “ beats that went on” and “ all those bruises.” However, when you met with the international press on November 9 all those marks had faded it out of your body. How can you explain that?

YS: They are beating professionals.

SL: Ok, but why didn’t you show the pictures of the marks?

YS: I got the pictures. I got the proving images.

SL: So you got the proofs?

YS: I got the proofs in the pictures.

SL: But, why haven’t you published them to reject all rumors saying you might have fabricated this attack so that the press told about your case?

YS: I rather keep them for the time being and not publish them. I want to present them to a court some day so that these three men are judged. I can perfectly recall their faces and I got the pictures of two of them at least. As to the third man, he is still to be identified but since he was the chief, he will be easy to spot. I also have the piece of paper I took from one of them, which has my saliva because I kept it in my mouth. The name of a woman was written in that paper.

SL: Fine. You publish many photos on your blog. It is not difficult to understand why you prefer not to release the pictures this time.

YS: As I told you, I rather keep them for justice.

SL: You are aware that your attitude gives credit to those who think that you fabricated the attack against you, aren’t you?

YS: It is my choice.

SL: However, even the western media, which quite favor you, took some unusual precautious measures when telling your story. BBC correspondent in Havana Fernando Ravberg wrote, for instance, that you “had no bruises, marks or scars.” France Presse news agency told the story by clarifying carefully enough that it is your own version and it gave it the title: “Cuba: Blooger Yoani Sanchez Says to have been Beaten and Briefly Arrested.” On the other hand, the reporter affirmed that you “were not hurt.”

YS: I wouldn’t like to evaluate their work. I am not who is supposed to judge them. They are professionals who face very complicated situations that I can not evaluate. The fact is that the existence or not of physical marks is not evidence of the event.

SL: But the presence of those marks would reveal that violence took place. That is why publishing the photos would be so important.

YS: You should understand that they are professionals in intimidation. The fact that three unknown men took me to a car without presenting any documents gives me the right to complaint as if they had broken all my bones. The photos are not that important because the illegal act has been committed. Now being so accurate as to say “if it hurts here or there” is just my internal pain.

SL: Ok, but the problem is that you presented it all as a very violent attack. You talked about “kidnapping you in the worst Sicilian Camorra style.”

YS: Yes, that is true, but it is my word against theirs. The fact of getting into these details, if I have bruises or not takes us far off the real subject, which is that they kidnapped me during 25 minutes illegally.

SL: Excuse my insistence, but I think this is important. There is some difference between an identity control, which lasts 25 minutes, and police violence. My question is very simple. You said and I quote: “I had a cheekbone and an eyebrow swollen all during the weekend.” Since you got the pictures, you can now show the marks.

YS: I just told you I rather keep them for court.

SL: You are aware that some people will find it hard to believe your version, if you do not publish the photos, aren’t you?

YS: I think that by getting into these details we miss the subject. The fact is that three bloggers accompanied by a friend of theirs were on their way to a place in the city, right on the corner of 23 and G streets. We had heard that a group of youngsters had called a march against violence there. They are alternative kind of people, hip hop and rap singers, artists. I would be there as a blogger to make pictures and post them on my blog and make some interviews. On the way to that site we were stopped by a “Geely” car.

SL: Was it an action to prevent you from taking part of the event?

YS: That was the reason, evidently. They never told us that formally, but that was their objective. They told me to get in the car. I asked them who they were. One of them took me by my wrist and I held back. That happened in a Havana zone which is centrally located, right at a bus stop.

SL: So there were people at the place then. I mean there were witnesses.

YS: Yes, there were witnesses but they do not want to talk. They are scared.

SL: Not even in an anonymous way? Why hasn’t the western media interviewed them anonymously as they usually do when they publish critical articles about Cuba?

YS: I can’t explain about the reaction of the press. I can tell them what happened. One of them, a man about fifty years old, with a strong body as if he had ever practiced free wrestling—I tell you this because my father practiced that sports and he has the same body shape-. I have quite weak wrists and I managed to get out of his grasp and I asked him who he was. There were three men plus the driver.

SL: So then, there were four men instead of three.

YS: Yes, but I couldn’t reach to see the driver’s face. “Yoani, get in the car, you know who we are.” I replied: “I don’t know who you are.” The smallest one said: “Listen, you know who I am, you know me well.” I answered him: “No, I don’t know who you are. Who are you? Let me see your papers or just any document.” The other one told me: “Get in the car, do not make things difficult.” Then I started to shout. “Help! Kidnappers!”

SL: Did you know that they were policemen wearing civilian clothes?

YS: I figured it out, but they never showed me any document.

SL: Then, what was your objective?

YS: I wanted things to be done legally; that is, that they showed me their documents and then they could take me although I suspected they really represented the authority. You can not force a citizen to get in a private car without presenting any documents, or else it is illegal and thus kidnapping.

SL: How did the people at the bus stop react?

YS: The people were astonished because “kidnapping” is not a common word in Cuba; such a phenomenon does not exist here. Then they wondered what was going on. We did not look like criminals. Some tried to approach us but one of the policemen shouted at them: “Do not get into this, these ones are counterrevolutionaries!” And this confirmed that they were part of the political police although I figured it out when I saw the Geely car, a new Chinese make, which has not been sold anywhere in Cuba. These cars only belong to people with the Armed Forces and the Interior Ministries.

.SL: Do you mean that since the beginning you knew that they were policemen wearing civilian clothes because you identified the car they were driving?

YS: I sensed that. On the other hand I confirmed it when one of them called a uniformed policeman. A patrol made up of a woman and a man came and took two of us away. They left us in the hands of these unknown men.

SL: But at that point you did not have any doubt about who they were, did you?

YS: No, but they did not show us any documents. The policemen did not say that they represented Cuban authority. They said no word.

SL: It is hard to understand any interest of Cuban authorities in attacking at the risk of unleashing an international scandal. You are famous. Why would they do that?

YS: They wanted to make me radical so that I wrote violent articles against them, but they won’t get away with it.

SL: We can not say that you are soft about the Cuban government.

YS: I never use verbal violence or personal attacks. I never use hard adjectives like “bloody repression”, for instance. Their objective was that of having me radicalized.

SL: However you are very tough about the Cuban government. You can read in your blog that: “the ship taking in water is about to be shipwrecked.” You speak about “the shouts of the despot,” of “people in the shadows who, like vampires, feed from our human joy, inoculate us with fear through beating, threats and blackmail,” “the shipwreck of the process, the system, the expectations, the illusions. [It is] [total] shipwreck,” these are really strong words.

YS: Perhaps they are, though their objective was burning the Yoani Sanchez phenomenon by demonizing me. For that reason my blog was blocked for a long time.

SL: However, it seems surprising that Cuban authorities decided to physically attack you.

YS: It was clumsy. I can’t understand why they prevented me from attending the march since my thinking is quite different from those who use repression. I can’t explain. Perhaps they did not want me to meet with the youths. The police thought I would start a scandal or make an incendiary discourse.
Back to my arrest; the police took my friends away in an energetic and firm manner, but without any violence. When I realized they would leave us alone with Orlando, and with these three guys I held on tightly to a tree at the place and Claudia grasped my waist in an effort to prevent being separated from me just before she was taken away.

SL: What’s the use of resisting the police in uniform and run the risk of being accused for that and commit crime? In France, if you resist the police, you run the risk of being imposed sanctions.

YS: They took them away, anyhow. The police woman took Claudia. The other three persons took us to the car and I started to shout again: “Help! This is a Kidnap!

SL: Why? Did you know they were police men not wearing their uniforms?

YS: They did not show any documents. Then, they started to beat me and they pushed me inside the car. Claudia witnessed it and she told about it.

SL: But, You have just told me that the police patrol had taken Claudia away, haven’t you?

YS: She saw the scene from a distance while the police car drove away. I defended myself and launched beats like an animal that feels that its last hour has come. They drove around Vedado as they tried to take the piece of paper out of my mouth. I took one of them by his testicles and he increased his violence. They took us to a poor neighborhood, La Timba, which is near the Revolution Square. The man stepped down, opened the door of the car and asked us to get out. I did not want to get off. They took us out by force including Orlando and then they left.
A woman approached us and we told her we had been kidnapped. She took us for insane people and left. The car returned but did not stop. They threw out my purse in which I had my cell phone and my camera.

SL: Did they return your cell and your camera?

YS: Yes

SL: Doesn’t it sound funny to you that they bothered to return? They could have confiscated your cell and your camera, which are your work tools.

YS: Well, I don’t know. It all lasted 25 minutes.

SL: You are aware however, that as long as you do not publish the photos your version will be submitted to doubt and that will cast a shadow on the credibility of all that you say.

YS: I do not care about it.


SL: In 2002 you decided to migrate to Switzerland. Two years later you returned to Cuba. It appears difficult to understand why you left the “European paradise” to return to the country which you describe as hell. My question is simple: Why?

YS: It is a good question. Firstly, I like to go against the current. I like to organize my life in my own way. What is absurd is not the fact of leaving and returning but the Cuban migration laws, which stipulate that any person who spends eleven months abroad loses his or her permanent resident status. Under different conditions, I could spend two years abroad and with the money earned I could return to Cuba to repair my home and do some other things. Then it is not the fact of deciding to return to Cuba that is amazing, but the Cuban migration laws.

SL: Surprising enough is particularly the fact that having the chance to live in one of the richest countries in the world, you had decided to return to your country, which you describe in quite an apocalyptic manner, nearly two years later you left.

YS: There are several reasons for that. First, I was not able to leave with my family. We are a small family but very united with my sister and with my parents. My father was sick during my stay in Switzerland and I was afraid that he could die and that I was not able to see him anymore. I also felt guilty for being living a better life than theirs. Every time I bought a pair of shoes, or that I logged on the Internet, I thought of them. I felt guilty.

SL: OK, but you could help them from Switzerland by sending them money.

YS: That is true, but there is still another reason. I thought that with all I learned in Switzerland I could change things when I returned to Cuba. You also feel this nostalgia for the people, your friends. It was not a well thought decision, but I do not regret it. I wanted to return and so I did. Actually, it’s something that could seem uncommon, but I Iike doing unusual things. I opened a blog and the people asked me why I was doing that, while the blog satisfies me professionally.

SL: That is alright, but despite all these reasons, it is still difficult to understand why you returned to Cuba while people in the West think that all Cubans want to leave their country. It is something even more surprising in your case because you present your country, I repeat, in an apocalyptic way.

YS: As a philologist I would consider that word, since “apocalyptic” is a grandiloquent term. There is something that characterizes my blog: verbal moderation.

SL: That is not always the case. For instance, you describe Cuba as “a huge prison, with ideological walls.” The terms are quite strong.

YS: I have never written that.

SL: Those were the words you used during an interview with France 24 TV Channel on October 22, 2009.

YS: Did you read that in French or in Spanish?

SL: In French.

YS: Do not trust translations because I never said that. Quite often I come across words I have not said. For instance, Spain’s ABC newspaper attributed words to me that I had never pronounced and I protested that. The article was withdrawn from the Internet site.

SL: Which were those words?

YS: “In Cuban hospitals, more people die from hunger than from diseases.” It was a total lie. I never said that.

SL: Then, did the western media manipulate what you had said?

YS: I wouldn’t say that.

SL: If they attributed words to you that you did not say; then it is manipulation.

YS: Granma newspaper manipulates reality further more than the western press when it say that I am the product of the Prisa media group.

SL: Exactly, Don’t you think that the western media uses you because you advocate “sui-generis” capitalism in Cuba?

YS: I am not responsible for what the media does. My blog is personal therapy, a kind of exorcism. I have a feeling that I am being more manipulated in my own country than in any other part. You know about this law in Cuba, Law 88 called the “Gag” law, which imprisons the people who do what we are doing.

SL: You mean?

YS: I mean that our conversation may be considered a crime and that you may be punished up to 15 years in jail.

SL: Sorry but, the fact that I interview you may take you to jail?

YS: Of course!

SL: I do not have the feeling that this worries you that much, since you are giving me this interview, in full day light, in the lobby of a hotel in the heart of Old Havana.

YS: I am not worried. This law states that any person that denounces the violations of human rights in Cuba cooperates with the economic sanctions, since Washington justifies the imposition of the sanctions against Cuba because of the violation of human rights.

SL: If I’m not wrong, Law 88 was passed in 1996 as a response to the Helms-Burton Law and particularly punishes those people who collaborate with the implementation of the American law in Cuba, for instance, by providing Washington information about foreign investors in Cuba so that they be taken to American courts. As far as I know, nobody has been condemned for that so far. Let’s talk about freedom of expression. You have certain freedom to speak through your blog. You are being interviewed this afternoon in a hotel. Don´t you notice any contradiction between your affirming that there is no freedom of expression in Cuba and the reality about your writings and activities, which show the opposite?

YS: Yes, but you can not see my blog in Cuba since it has been blocked.

SL: I can assure you that I visited it this morning before we had this interview, from this very hotel.

YS: It is possible, but most of the time it is blocked. Any way, at present, I can’t have the smallest space in the Cuban press, while I am a moderate person, no space in radio or television.

SL: However, you can publish whatever you want on your blog, can’t you?

YS: But I can not publish a single word on the Cuban press.

SL: In France, which is a democratic country, wide sectors of the population have no access to the media because most media outlets belong to private economic or financial groups.

YS: Yes, but it is different.

SL: Were you threatened because of your activities? Have you ever been threatened with prison for what you write about?

YS: No direct prison threats, but they do not allow me to travel abroad. I am currently invited to a Congress on the Spanish Language, in Chile; I did all proceedings, but they do not allow me to go.

SL: Have you received any explanation?

YS: None, but I´d like to put something straight. US sanctions against Cuba are atrocious. It is a failed policy. I have said this many times, but they do not publish it because it bothers them that I have this opinion, which is contrary to the archetype of any opposition member.


SL: So you oppose the economic sanctions.

YS: Absolutely, and I say this in every interview. Some weeks ago, I sent a letter to the US Senate requesting that the American citizens be allowed to travel to Cuba. It is atrocious to see how they do not allow American citizens to visit Cuba, just like the Cuban government prohibits me to travel out of my country.

SL: What’s your opinion on the hopes sparked by the election of Obama, who promised a policy change towards Cuba, but has disappointed so many people?

YS: He came to power without the support of the Miami-based fundamentalist lobby, which backed the other candidate. On my part, I have already given my statement against the sanctions.

SL: This fundamentalist lobby opposes the lifting of the sanctions.

YS: You can discuss with them and expose my criteria, but I would not say they are enemies of the homeland. I don’t think so.

SL: A group of them participated in the invasion against their own country in 1961, at the orders of the CIA. Several of them are involved in terrorist actions against Cuba.

YS: The Cuban exiles have the right to think and take decisions. I favor their right to vote. Here, the Cuban exile has been very much stigmatized.

SL: Do you mean the “historic” exile or the ones that have emigrated for economic reasons?

YS: Actually, I oppose all extremes. But these persons who are in favor of the economic sanctions are not anti-Cuba people. Just think that they are defending Cuba according to their own criteria.

SL: Perhaps, but the economic sanctions affect the most vulnerable sectors of the Cuban population and not the leaders. Then, it is difficult to favor the sanctions and intend to defend the wellbeing of the Cuban people at the same time.

YS: That is their opinion. That’s it.

SL: The are not naive. They know that the Cuban people are suffering because of the sanctions.

YS: They are simply different. They think they will be able to change the regime by imposing sanctions. In any case, I think that the blockade has been the perfect argument for the Cuban government to keep its intolerance, control and internal repression.

SL: Economic sanctions have an impact. Or do you think that the sanctions are a mere excuse for Havana?

YS: They are an excuse leading to repression.

SL: Do they affect the country from the economic point of view, according to you? Or is it only a secondary issue?

YS: The real problem lies on the lack of productivity in Cuba. If they lift the sanctions tomorrow, I doubt that the result will show.

SL: In this case, why doesn’t the United States lift the sanctions and eliminate the excuse for the Cuban government? That way, it would reveal that economic difficulties are the result of domestic policy. If Washington insists that much on the sanctions, despite their anachronistic character, despite the opposition staged by the large majority of the international community, 187 countries in 2009, despite the rejection by a majority of US public opinion, despite the rejection by the world of business, there must be a reason, don’t you think?

YS: Simply because Obama is not the dictator in the United States and he can not eliminate the sanctions.

SL: He can not eliminate them totally because an agreement by the Congress is necessary; however, he can soften them considerably, what he has not done so far, since except for the elimination of the restrictions imposed by Bush in 2004, almost nothing has changed.

YS: No, that is not true, because he has also allowed US telecommunication companies to do business with Cuba.


SL: You have to admit that this is all very little when we know that Obama promised a new approach of Cuba. Let’s go back to your personal case. How can you explain this landslide of prizes, as well as your international success?

YS: I can’t say much except expressing my gratitude. Any prize implies a dose of subjectivity on the part of the jury. Any prize can be questioned. For instance, many Latin American writers deserved the Nobel Literature Prize better than Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

SL: Do you say that because you think he is not as talented or due to his position favoring the Cuban Revolution? You do not deny his talent as a writer, or do you?

YS: It is my opinion, but I will not say that he took the prize and then accuse him of being an agent of the Swedish government.

SL: He obtained the prize for his literary work, while you have been rewarded for your political position against the government. That is the impression we have.

YS: Let’s talk about the Ortega and Gasset Prize granted by El Pais newspaper, which sparks more controversy. I won it in the “Internet” category. Some say that other journalists have not yet won the prize, but I am a blogger and a pioneer in this field. I consider myself a figure in the Internet. The Ortega y Gasset jury is made up of highly prestigious personalities and I would not say they took part of any conspiracy against Cuba.

SL: But you can’t deny that the El Pais newspaper maintains a very hostile editorial line towards Cuba. And some people think that the prize, which includes 15,000 Euros, was a way to reward your writings against the government.

YS: People think what they want to think. I think my work was rewarded. My blog has 10 million visits monthly. It is a cyclone.
However, that is not what an internationally recognized site measuring traffic says; a site like Alexa.com, of Amazon, which at the same time can not be taken as suspicious in terms of partiality in favor of alternative media sites from Cuba, Venezuela and Spain. A simple comparison of Yoani´s blog (blue line) to other media outlets confirms that Generacion Y has much less traffic than the other websites to which it is compared, which have made their traffic public, below 10 million accesses monthly. Does Generacion Y alter its stats? I would seem it does. Another example, the Website with the largest traffic in the United States and one with the largest traffic in the world is The New York Times, which reports 17 million accesses every month.

SL: How do manage to pay the cost of the management of such a large proportion?

YS: A friend of mine in Germany would deal with that, because the site was hosted in Germany. It has been hosted in Spain for over a year now and I got and 18-month free management thanks to The Bob´s Prize.

SL: And how about the 18-language translation?

YS: They are friends and admirers who do it voluntarily and for free.

SL: Many people find it hard to believe that, because no other Web site in the world, even those of the most important international institutions -for example, the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the European Union- has so many linguistic versions. Not even the Web sites of the US State Department or the CIA have such variety.

YS: I’m telling you the truth.

SL: Even President Obama responded to your interview. How do you explain that?

YS: First, I want to say they were not complacent questions.

SL: We can’t say either that you were critical, since you didn’t ask him to lift the economic sanctions that you say “are used as justification for the production disaster and to repress those who think differently.” That’s exactly what Washington says in that regard. The most daring question was when you asked him if he was thinking about invading Cuba. ¿How do you explain the fact that President Obama spent part of his time to answer you in spite of his extremely tight schedule, an unprecedented economic crisis, the reform of the health system, Iraq, Afghanistan, the military bases in Colombia, the coup d'état in Honduras, and hundreds of requests for interviews from the most important media in the world waiting for him?

YS: I’m a fortunate person. I’d like to tell you that I’ve also sent questions to President Raúl Castro and he has not responded yet. I don’t give up hope. Besides, he now has the advantage of having Obama’s answers.

SL: How did you reach Obama?

YS: I passed on the questions to several people who were coming to see me and could possibly contact him.

SL: Do you think that Obama answered you because you’re a Cuban blogger or because you’re opposed to the government?

YS: I don’t think so. Obama replied because he speaks with citizens.

SL: He receives thousands of requests everyday. Why to answer you, if you’re just a blogger?

YS: Obama is close to my generation, to my way of thinking.

SL: But why you? There are millions of bloggers around the world. Don’t you think you have been capitalized on in Washington’s media war against Havana?

YS: In my opinion, perhaps he wanted to address some aspects, like the invasion of Cuba.
Perhaps I gave him the opportunity to express himself about a topic he wanted to deal with a long time ago. Political propaganda constantly talks about a possible invasion of Cuba.

SL: But there was one, wasn’t it?

YS: When?

SL: In 1961. And in 2003, Roger Noriega, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, said that any Cuban migratory wave to the United States would be considered a threat to national security and would require a military response.

YS: That’s another issue. Going back to the interview, I believe it made it possible to clarify certain aspects. I was under the impression that none of the sides wanted a normalization of relations, reaching an understanding. I asked him when we were going to find a solution.

SL: In your opinion, who is responsible for this conflict between the two countries?

YS: It’s difficult to find somebody to blame.

SL: In this specific case, the United States is the one imposing unilateral sanctions on Cuba, and not the other way around.

YS: Yes, but Cuba confiscated properties from the United States.

SL: I get the impression that you’re acting as Washington’s advocate.

YS: Confiscations occured.

SL: It’s true, but they were made in accordance with international law. Cuba also confiscated properties from France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, and the United Kingdom, and indemnified those nations. The only country that rejected that compensation was the United States.

YS: Cuba also allowed the installation of military bases on its territory and of missiles from a far-off empire…

SL: …Just like the United States installed nuclear bases against the USSR in Italy and Turkey.

YS: Nuclear missiles could reach the United States.

SL: Just like the US nuclear missiles could reach Cuba or the USSR.

YS: It’s true, but I think there was an escalation of confrontation on the part of the two countries.

The five Cuban political prisoners and dissidence

SL: Let’s tackle another subject. A lot is said about the five Cuban political prisoners in the United Stated, sentenced to life imprisonment for infiltrating extreme right factions in Florida, involved in terrorism against Cuba.

YS: It’s not an issue the population is interested in. It’s political propaganda.

SL: But what is your point of view in this regard?

YS: I’ll try to be as neutral as possible. They’re agents from the Ministry of the Interior who infiltrated the United States to collect information. The Cuban government says they were not carrying out activities of espionage but that they had infiltrated Cuban groups to prevent terrorist acts. But the Cuban government has always said those groups were linked to Washington.

SL: Then the radical groups of exiles have bonds with the US government.

YS: That’s what the political propaganda says.

SL: Then it’s not true.

YS: If it’s true it means that the five were carrying out activities of espionage.

SL: Then, in this case, the United States has to admit that violent groups are part of the government.

YS: It’s true.

SL: Do you think the Five should be released or that they deserve their sentences?

YS: I think it would be worth re-examining their cases, but in a political context of greater calm. I don’t think that the political use of this case could be good for them. The Cuban government gives this issue too high a media profile.

SL: Perhaps because it’s a matter totally censured by the western press.

YS: I think that the situation of those persons could be salvaged, they’re human beings, with families and children, but there are also victims on the other side.

SL: But the Five have not committed crimes.

YS: No, but they provided information that resulted in the death of several people.

SL: If you refer to the events of February 24, 1996, when the two airplanes of the radical organization Brothers to the Rescue were downed after they violated Cuban airspace several times and dropped fliers inciting rebellion.

YS: Yes.

SL: However, the district attorney admitted that it was impossible to prove Gerardo Hernández’s guilt in this case.

YS: It’s true. I think that’s what we get when politics interferes in matters of justice.

SL: Do you think this is about a political case?

YS: For the Cuban government, it’s a political case.

SL: And for the United States?

YS: I understand that there’s a division of powers there, but the political atmosphere could have influenced the judges and the jury, but I don’t think we’re talking about a political case led by Washington. It’s difficult to have a clear image of this case, since we have never been able to have full information in this regard. But the release of the political prisoners it’s a priority for Cubans.

The US financing of Cuban dissidents

SL: Wayne S. Smith, the last ambassador of the United States in Cuba, declared that “sending money to Cuban dissidents was illegal and unwise.” He added that “no one should give money to dissidents and much less with the objective of overthrowing the Cuban government.” And explains: “When the United States declares that its objective is to overthrow the Cuban government and then affirms that one of the means to achieve that objective is to provide Cuban dissidents with funds, then they are, in fact, in a position of agents paid by a foreign power to overthrow their own government.”

YS: I think that the financing of the opposition on the part of the United States has been presented as a reality, which is not the case. I know several members of the group of the 75 dissidents arrested in 2003 and I very much doubt that version. I have no evidence that the 75 were arrested for that reason. I don’t believe in the evidence presented before the Cuban court.

SL: I don’t think it’s possible to ignore this reality.

YS: Why?

SL: The US government itself affirms that it finances the internal opposition since 1959. Suffice is to consult, besides the declassified archives, Section 1705 of the Torricelli Law of 1992, Section 109 of the Helms-Burton Law of 1996, and the two reports of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba of May, 2004, and July, 2006. All these documents reveal that the President of the United States finances internal opposition in Cuba with the purpose of overthrowing the government of Havana.

YS: I don’t know, but…

SL: If you allow me to, I will quote the laws in question. Thus, Section 1705 of the Torricelli Law stipulates that “the United States will provide assistance to non-governmental organizations suitable for support to individuals and organizations which promote democratic and non-violent change in Cuba.”
Section 109 of the Helms-Burton Law is also very clear: “The President [of the United States] is authorized to offer assistance and to offer all kinds of support to individuals and non-governmental independent organizations to organize forces with a view towards constructing a democracy in Cuba.”
The first report of the Commission for Assistance for a Free Cuba sets forth the establishment of “a solid program of support which favors Cuban civil society.” Among the measures announced were 36 million dollars in financing to “support the democratic opposition and the strengthening of the emerging civil society.”
The second report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba sets forth a 31 million dollar budget to finance, even more, internal opposition. In addition, the financing of at least 20 million dollars a year for the following years, with the same objective, “until the dictatorship ceases to exist,” is also planned.

YS: Who told you that that money reached the dissidents?

SL: The US Interest Section affirmed it in a communiqué: “The US policy, for a long time now, is that of providing humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people, particularly the families of political prisoners. We also allow private organizations to do the same.”

YS: Well…

SL: Even Amnesty International, which recalls the existence of 58 political prisoners in Cuba, recognizes that they’re in prison “for having received funds or materials from the US government to carry out activities considered by the authorities as subversive and damaging for Cuba.

YS: I don’t know if…

SL: On the other hand, dissidents themselves admit they receive money from the United States. Laura Pollán, one of the so-called Ladies in White, declared: “We accept aid, support, from the ultra-right to the left, unconditionally.” Opponent Vladimiro Roca also confessed that Cuban dissidence is subsidized by Washington, claiming that the financial aid received was “totally and completely legal.” For dissident René Gómez, the economic support on the part of the United States “is not something that needs to be concealed or that we have to be ashamed of.”
Even the western press recognizes it. France Press agency reports that “dissidents, for their part, defended and accepted that economic aid.” The Spanish agency EFE refers to the «opponents paid by the United States.” And the British Reuters news agency points out: “the US government openly provides federal financial aid for the dissidents’ activities, which is considered by Cuba as an illegal act.” And I could give many more examples.

YS: All that is the Cuban government’s fault, which prevents the economic prosperity of its citizens, which imposes rationing on the population. People have to queue to obtain products. It’s necessary to judge the Cuban government first, which has led thousands of people to accept foreign aid.

SL: The problem is that dissidents commit a crime that Cuban law and all penal codes in the world severely punish. Being financed by a foreign power is a serious crime in France and in the rest of the world.

YS: We can admit that the fact of financing an opposition is proof of interference, but…

SL: But in this case the people you describe as political prisoners are not political prisoners, since they committed a crime when they accepted money from the United States, and Cuban law condemned them on that basis.

YS: I think that this government interfered many times in the internal affairs of other countries, financing rebel movements and the guerrilla. It intervened in Angola and…

SL: Yes, but it was a matter of helping pro-independence movements against Portuguese colonialism and South Africa’s segregationist regime. When South Africa invaded Namibia, Cuba intervened to defend that country’s independence. Nelson Mandela publicly thanked Cuba for that and was the reason for which he made his first trip to Havana and not to Washington or Paris.

YS: But many Cubans died for that, far from their land.

SL: Yes, but it was for a noble cause, whether in Angola, the Congo or Namibia. The battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 1988 made it possible to put an end to Apartheid in South Africa. That’s what Mandela says! Aren’t you proud of that?

YS: OK, but at the end of the day it’s my country’s interference abroad what bothers me more than anything else. It’s necessary to decriminalize prosperity.

SL: Even the fact of receiving money from a foreign power?

YS: People have to be economically autonomous.

SL: If I understand correctly, you advocate the privatization of certain sectors of the economy.

YS: Privatize? No, I don’t like that term, because it has pejorative connotation, but put them in the hands of private people, yes.

Social achievements in Cuba?

SL: It’s a question of semantics then. In your opinion, what are the social achievements of this country?

YS: Every achievement has had an enormous cost. All things that could look positive have had a cost in terms of freedom. My son receives a very indoctrinatory education and he’s taught a History of Cuba that does not correspond to reality at all. I would rather have a less ideological education for my son. On the other hand, nobody wants to be a teacher in this country because salaries are very low.

SL: OK, but that doesn’t prevent Cuba from being the country with the highest number pf professors per inhabitant in the world, with a maximum of 20 students per classroom, which is not the case in France, for example.

YS: Yes, but there was a cost for that, and that’s why education and health are not real achievements to me.

SL: We can’t deny something acknowledged by all international institutions. With regard to education, the illiteracy rate in Latin America is 11.7% and 0.2% in Cuba. The primary education rate is 92% in Latin America and 100% in Cuba, and as for secondary education level is 52% and 99.7%, respectively. These are figures from UNESCO’s Department of Education.

YS: I agree, but in 1959, although conditions were difficult in Cuba, the situation was not that bad. There was a flourishing intellectual life, a political thinking that was alive. Actually, most of the current supposed achievements presented as results of the system were inherent in our idiosyncrasy. Those achievements existed before.

SL: It’s not true; I’m going to quote a source free of any suspicion: a report from the World Bank. It’s a long quote, but it’s worthy to recall.
“Cuba has become internationally recognized for its achievements in the areas of education and health, with social service delivery outcomes that surpass most countries in the developing world and in some areas match first-world standards. Since the Cuban Revolution in 1959, and the subsequent establishment of a communist one-.party government, the country has created a social service system that guarantees universal access to education and health care provided by the State. This model has enabled Cuba to achieve near universal literacy, the eradication of certain diseases, widespread access to potable water and basic sanitation, and among the lowest infant mortality rates and longest life expectancies in the region. A review of Cuba’s social indicators reveals a pattern of almost continuous improvement from the 1960’s through the 1980’s. Several major indices, such as life expectancy and infant mortality, continued to improve during the country’s economic crisis of the 1990’s… Today, Cuba’s social performance is among the best in the developing world, as documented by numerous international sources including the World Health Organization, the United Nations Development Programme and other UN agencies , and the World Bank. According to 2002 World Development Indicators, Cuba far outranks both Latin America and the Caribbean and other lower-middle income countries in major indices of education, health and sanitation.”
Moreover, figures show this. In 1959, infant mortality rate was 60 per every one thousand live births. In 2009, it was 4.8. We’re talking about the lowest rate in the American continent, of the Third World; even lower than that of the United States.

YS: Well, but…

SL: Life expectancy was 58 years before the Revolution. Now, it’s almost 80 years, and it’s similar to that of many developed nations. At present, Cuba has 67,000 doctors, as compared to 6,000 in 1959. According to the English newspaper The Guardian, Cuba has twice the amount of doctors as compared to England, for a population that is four times smaller.

YS: OK, but in terms of freedom of expression there was a reduction with respect to Batista’s government. The regime was a dictatorship but there was a plural and open freedom of the press, radio programs of all political tendencies.

SL: It’s not true. Censorship also existed. Between December, 1956, and January, 1959, during the war against the Batista regime, censorship was imposed for 630 days, out of 759. And opponents were doomed as a rule.

YS: It’s true that there was censorship, intimidation and dead people in the end.

SL: Then you can’t say that the situation was better with Batista, since opponents were assassinated. That’s no longer the case today. Do you think that January 1st s a tragic date in Cuban history?

YS: No, no, not at all. It was a process that aroused a lot of hope, but that betrayed most Cubans. For many people, it was a bright moment, but they put an end to a dictatorship and established another. I’m not as negative as some.

Luis Posada Carriles, the Cuban Adjustment Act and migration

SL: What do you think about Luis Posada Carriles, a former CIA agent and responsible for a large amount of crimes in Cuba and whom the United States refuses to trial?

YS: It’s a political issue people are not interested in. It’s a smokescreen.

SL: At least it interests the relatives of the victims. What’s your point of view in this regard?

YS: I don’t like violent actions.

SL: Do you condemn his terrorist acts?

YS: I condemn all terrorist acts, event those committed today in Iraq by a alleged Iraqi resistance that kills Iraqis.

SL: Who kills most Iraqis, the attacks of the resistance or the US bombings?

YS: I don’t know.

SL: A word about the Cuban Adjustment Act that stipulates that Cubans legally or illegally migrating to the United States automatically get the status of permanent resident.

YS: It’s an advantage the rest of the countries don’t enjoy. But the fact that Cubans seek to migrate to the United States is due to the fact that here the situation is difficult.

SL: And also the United States is the richest country in the world. There are also many Europeans immigrants there. You admit that the Cuban Adjustment Act is a wonderful tool of incitement to legal and illegal emigration.

YS: It is, indeed, a factor of incitement.

SL: Don’t you see it as a tool to destabilize society and the government?

YS: In this case we can also say that the fact of giving the Spanish citizenship to descendants of Spaniards born in Cuba is a destabilizing factor.

SL: That’s beside the point, since there are historic reasons for that and besides Spain applies this law to all Latin American countries and not only to Cuba, while the Cuban Adjustment Act is unique in the world.

YS: Yes, but there are strong relations. Baseball is played both in Cuba and in the United States.

SL: And also in the Dominican Republic and there’s no Dominican Adjustment Act.

YS: There is, however, a tradition of rapprochement.

SL: Then, why wasn’t this law approved before the Revolution?

YS: Because Cubans didn’t want to leave their country. At that time, Cuba was a country of immigration and not of emigration.

SL: It’s absolutely false, because in the 1950’s Cuba already ranked second among Latin American countries in terms of the number of migrants to the United States, only after Mexico. Cuba sent more emigrants to the United States than all of Central America and South America together, while today Cuba only occupies the 10th position, in spite of the Cuban Adjustment Act and the economic sanctions.

YS: Maybe, but that obsession of leaving the country did no exist.

SL: Figures show the opposite. Nowadays, I repeat, Cuba only occupies the 10th position in the American continent in terms of migratory emission to the United States. Then, the obsession you’re talking about is stronger in at least nine countries of the continent.

YS: Yes, but at that time Cubans left and returned.

SL: It’s the same things today, since every year Cubans abroad return to spend their vacation here. In addition, before 2004 and before the restrictions imposed by President Bush that limited the trips of Cubans from the US to 14 days every three years, Cubans constituted the minority in the United States that travelled more often to their country of origin, much more than Mexicans, for example, which shows that the vast majority of Cubans in the United States are economic émigrés and not political exiles, since they return to their country for visiting, something a political exile wouldn’t do.

YS: Yes, but ask them if they want to stay to live here again.

SL: But that’s what you did, right? Besides, in July, 2007, you wrote in your blog that your case was not an isolated one. And I quote: “Three years ago [...] in Zurich [...], I decided to return to my country to stay. My friends thought I was joking; my mother refused to accept that her daughter no longer lived in the Switzerland of milk and chocolate.” On August 12, 2004, you showed up before immigration authorities in Havana to explain your case. You wrote: I was surprised when they told me to mark in line, in the queue of ‘those who return’ [...]. So I found, all of a sudden, other ‘crazy people’ like I, each of them with his or her gruesome story of return.” Then, this phenomenon of returning to the country exists.

YS: Yes, but these are people who return for personal reasons. There are some who had debts abroad, others who couldn’t stand living abroad. Well, dozens of reasons.

SL: Then, in spite of difficulties and daily vicissitudes, life is not that terrible here, since some return. Do you think that Cubans have too much of an idyllic vision of life abroad?

YS: That’s due to the propaganda of the regime, which presents life abroad too negatively and that has caused the opposite effect on the people, who have overly idealized the western way of life. The problem is that, in Cuba, emigration for more than eleven months is definitive, when one could live two years abroad and return for a while and then leave again, etc.

SL: Then, if I understand correctly, the problem in Cuba is rather of an economic nature, since people want to leave the country to improve their standard of living.

YS: Many would like to travel and then be able to return but migratory laws don’t allow them. I’m sure that if that were possible many people would emigrate for two years, and then they would return to leave again and return, etc.

SL: There were interesting comments about it in your blog. Several émigrés spoke about their disappointments with respect to the western way of living.

YS: That’s very human. You fall in love with a woman and three months later you lose your enthusiasm. You buy a pair of shoes and two days later you don’t like them any more. Disappointments are part of human nature. The worst thing is that people can’t return.

SL: But people return.

YS: Yes, but only on vacation.

SL: But they have the right to stay all the time they want, even several years, although they lose some advantages related to their status of permanent resident, like the ration card, priority for housing, etc.

YS: Yes, but people can’t stay for several months here, they have their lives abroad, their jobs, etc.

SL: That’s something else, and it’s the same for all émigrés the world over. In any case, they can perfectly return to Cuba whenever they like and stay there all the time they want. The only thing is that if they stay for more than eleven months outside the country they lose some advantages. On the other hand, I find it hard to understand, if reality is so terrible here, if someone has the opportunity to live abroad, in a developed country, why would he or she like to return to live in Cuba again?

YS: For numerous reasons, their family bonds, etc.

SL: Then reality is not that dramatic.

YS: I wouldn’t say that, but some people have better living conditions than others.

SL: What are in your opinion the objectives of the US government with respect to Cuba?

YS: The United States wants a change of government in Cuba, but that’s also what I want.

SL: Then you share a common objective with the United States

YS: Like many Cubans.

SL: I’m not convinced of that, but, why? Why is it a dictatorship? What does Washington want from Cuba?

YS: I believe it’s a geopolitical issue. There’s also the will of the Cuban exile, which is taken into account, and that wants a new Cuba, the well-being of Cubans.

SL: With the imposition of economic sanctions?

YS: It all depends on whom you’re referring to. As for the United States, I think they want to prevent the migratory bomb from exploding.

SL: Is that so? With the Cuban Adjustment Act that incites Cubans to leave their country? That’s not serious. Why don’t they repeal that law then?

YS: I think that the real objective of the United States is to finish with the Cuban government in order to have a more stable space. A lot has been said about David against Goliath to talk about the conflict. But to me the only Goliath is the Cuban government, which imposes control, illegality, low wages, repression, limitations.

SL: You don’t think that US hostility has also contributed?

YS: I not only think it has contributed to it but also that it has become the main argument to say that we live in a besieged fortress and that all dissidence is treason. Actually, I think that the Cuban government fears the disappearance of this confrontation. The Cuban government wants the maintenance of economic sanctions.

SL: Really? Because that’s exactly what Washington says in a somewhat contradictory way, because if that were the case, it should lift the sanctions, thus leaving the Cuban government to stand up to its responsibilities. The excuse of the sanctions to justify problems in Cuba wouldn’t exist.

YS: Every time the United States has tried to improve the situation, the Cuban government has had a counterproductive attitude.

SL: When has the United States tried to improve the situation? Sanctions have been strengthened since 1960, with the exception of the Carter period. It’s difficult then to maintain this discourse. In 1992, the United States voted the Torricelli Law with an extraterritorial reach; in 1996, the Helms-Burton Law, extraterritorial and retroactive; in 2004, Bush adopted new sanctions and increased them in 2006. We can’t say that the United States has tried to improve the situation. Facts show the opposite. Besides, if sanctions are favorable to the Cuban government and it’s only a matter of an excuse, why not eliminate them? Leaders are not the ones who suffer as a consequence of sanctions, but the people.

YS: Obama took a step in that regard, insufficient perhaps, but interesting.

SL: He only eliminated the restrictions Bush imposed on Cubans, which prevented them from travelling to their country for more than 14 days every three years, at the very best, and provided that they had a direct member of their family in Cuba. He even redefined the concept of family. Thus, a Cuban in Florida who only had an uncle in Cuba couldn’t travel to his country because he was not considered to be a “direct” family member. Obama didn’t eliminate all the sanctions imposed by Bush and we didn’t even return to the status that existed under Clinton.

YS: I think the two parties should lower their tone about everything, and Obama has done that. Obama can’t eliminate sanctions, since it takes congressional approval.

SL: But he can alleviate them significantly, by signing simple executive orders, which he refuses to do for the time being.

YS: He’s busy on other issues, like unemployment and the heath reform.

SL: However he took time to respond to your interview.

YS: I’m a fortunate person.

SL: The position of the Cuban government is the following: we don’t have to take steps before the United States since we don’t impose sanctions on the United States.

YS: Yes and the government also says that the United States should not ask for domestic changes, because that’s interference.

SL: That’s the case, right?

YS: Then if I ask for a change it’s also interference?

SL: No, because you’re Cuban and for that reason you have the right to decide the future of your country.

YS: The problem is not who is asking for those changes but the changes in question.

SL: I’m not sure, because as a French citizen I wouldn’t like the Belgian or the German government to interfere with France’s internal affairs. As a Cuban, do you accept that the US government tells you how to govern your country?

YS: If the objective is an aggression to the country, it’s obviously unacceptable.

SL: Do you consider economic sanctions an aggression?

YS: Yes, I consider them an aggression that hasn’t had results and that it’s a mummy of the cold war, that it makes no sense, that it affects the people and that has made the government stronger. But I repeat that the Cuban government is responsible for 80% of the current economic crisis and the remaining 20% is due to the economic sanctions.

SL: One more, I repeat, it’s exactly the position of the US government and figures show the opposite. If that were the case I don’t think that 187 countries in the world would bother to vote a resolution against the sanctions. This is the 18th consecutive time that the vast majority of the UN member nations declares itself to be against this economic punishment. If it were marginal issue, I don’t think these nations would bother to vote.

YS: But I’m not a specialist in economics; it’s my personal feeling

SL: What do you advocate then for Cuba?

YS: I think the economy needs to be liberalized. That can’t be done overnight, because it would cause a fracture and social differences that would affect the most vulnerable people. But it has to be done gradually and the Cuban government has the possibility of doing it.

SL: A “sui generis” capitalism, like you say.

YS: Cuba is a sui generis island. We can create a sui generis capitalism.

SL: Yoani Sánchez, thank you for your time and your availability.

YS: Thank you.

Salim Lamrani is a professor in charge of courses at the Paris-Sorbonne -Paris IV University and at the Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée University. He’s a French journalist and a specialist on relations between Cuba and the USA. He has just published Cuba: Ce que les médias ne vous diront jamais (Paris: Estrella Editions, 2009). Contact: lamranisalim@yahoo.fr