Kalau negara-negara maju sejak beberapa dekade terakhir ini berpacu dalam riset dan industri bioteknologi, itu tentu bukan barang aneh. Tetapi Kuba ? Bagaimana mungkin negara miskin yang diisolasi dan diembargo oleh Amerika Serikat selama hampir setengah abad ini ternyata juga mampu bersaing dalam menciptakan produk-produk biotek mutakhir ?

Jawabnya tentu bukan hanya sekadar retorika “Bersama Kita Bisa” atau “Kita Pasti Bisa” – tetapi adalah paduan antara visi, kepemimpinan, dan cukup banyaknya pakar yang dedikatif di bidang iptek/biotek, tersedianya dana, dan atmosfer yang kondusif bagi riset dasar dan terapannya. Itulah yang bisa kita temukan di Kuba saat ini.

Awal tahun ini genap 50 tahun Revolusi Kuba yang dipimpin oleh Fidel Castro dan Ernesto “Che” Guevara menumbangkan diktator Fulgencio Batista yang didukung AS. Nasionalisasi aset-aset AS di Kuba berujung pada putusnya hubungan diplomatik kedua negara dan embargo terhadap Kuba yang berlangsung hingga kini. Kaum terdidik, profesional, dan ilmuwan Kuba cukup banyak yang hengkang ke AS. Namun, perlahan tetapi pasti Kuba bisa melakukan konsolidasi, terus mendidik ilmuwan-ilmuwan baru yang mampu melakukan riset dasar ataupun terapan, termasuk di bidang biotek.

Terasa ada kesungguhan Kuba untuk menjadi pemain global di bidang biotek untuk pengobatan kanker ketika mengikuti Lokakarya Internasional I tentang Imunoterapi Klinis Kanker dan Riset Translasional di Havana, 19-21 Nopember lalu. Kesan itu makin kental ketika hadir dalam Pertemuan Ilmiah Global ke-5 tahun 2009 untuk Nimotuzumab yang diadakan Pusat Imunologi Molekuler (CIM) pada 23-25 Nopember, yang diikuti oleh 100-an peserta dari 21 negara. Nimotuzumab adalah antibodi monoklonal untuk terapi tumor otak dan kanker kepala/leher temuan CIM yang paling diunggulkan dan kini sudah dipasarkan dan diuji coba di 21 negara, termasuk Indonesia.

Visi Fidel Castro

“Sebelum Revolusi, di Kuba ada 6.000-an dokter, separuhnya lari ke AS. Sekarang ada 60.000-an dokter. Pendidikan di bidang iptek dan biotek juga amat berkembang di sini. Ini adalah manifestasi visi Fidel Castro sejak awal 1960-an menjadi men of science,” tutur Dr Agustin Lage Davila, Direktur Jenderal CIM dalam wawancara khusus dengan Kompas.

Menurut Dr Lage Davila, adalah visi Casto juga yang membuat riset dasar iptek di Kuba harus bermuara pada produksi produk terapan. Ini berlaku bagi Cim dan lembaga biotek Kuba lainnys seperti Pusat Rekayasa Genetika dan Bioteknologi (CIGB), yang masing-masing mampu menemukan antibodi monoklonal, vaksin-vaksin antikanker, interferon rekombinan (untuk terapi hepatitis C), eritropoetin (untuk penderita anemia pada gagal ginjal), faktor pertumbuhan sebagai terapi pendukung pada kemoterapi kanker, hingga rekombinan promotor pertumbuhan epidermal yang mampu mengobati borok pada penderita diabetes.

Dr Rao S Jada, pakar bioteknologi farmasi dari Indoa yang kini bekerja di Innogene Kalbiotech, sebuah anak perusahaan Kalbe Farma Indonesia yang bermarkas di Singapura, mengatakan, bisa saja molekul-molekul biotek temuan ilmuwan Kuba sebagian karena faktor keberuntungan (luck) selain tentu hasil kerja keras para ilmuwannya dan tekad untuk tak mau ketinggalan di bidang bioteknologi farmasi. Hal ini tak dibantah oleh Dr Lage Davila. “Kami di Kuba memang beruntung menemukan beberapa molekul yang baik. Namun, seperti kata Louis Pasteur, luck itu diperlukan dalam sains, tetapi hanya akan berguna bagi mereka yang siap memanfaatkannya,” ujarnya.

Menurut Dr Lage Davila, Nimotuzumab adalah molekul temuan CIM yang sama sekali baru, bukan sekadar modfikasi antibodi monoklonal yang sudah lebih dahulu ditemukan perusahaan-perusahaan farmasi multinasional. “Keunggulannya bukan hanya pada sifat sitostatik atau efektifitasnya menekan pertumbuhan sel-sel kanker akibat over ekspresi reseptor faktor pertumbuhan epidermal (EGFR), tetapi efek sampingnya yang jauh lebih ringan,” katanya.

Mengapa efek samping Nimotuzumab jauh lebih ringan dibandingkan dengan kompetitornya ? Menurut Dr Rao S Jada, ini karena molekul ini tak menempel ke sel-sel normal. Kini Nimotuzumab sedang menjalani uji klinis untuk khasiatnya mengobati kanker paru, payudara, mulut rahim, hingga usus besar.

Sebagai negara yang diisoloasi dan diembargo AS, Kuba tentu sulit memasarkan produk biotek farmasinya, sehebat apa pun obat itu. Beruntunglah perusahaan YM Kanada menawarkan kerja sama dan membentuk konsorsium untuk uji klinis. Innogene Kalbiotech dipercaya untuk menguji klinis dan memasarkannya di kawasan Asia di luar China dan India serta beberapa negara Afrika.

Tak kurang dari Pertemuan Puncak Onkologi Asia pertama di Singapura, 3-5 April lali, sempat memberikan perhatian besar kepada Nimotuzumab. Perkembangan terapi kanker mulai bergeser dari pengobatan konvensional yang sifatnya sitotoksik (kemoterapi) menuju sitostatik yang lebih tertarget pada jaringan kankernya. Tak adanya ruam kulit pada perawatan menggunakan Nimotuzumab menjadikannya unik di antara kelas terapi monoklonal antibodi anti-EGFR.

Pakar biologi molekuler asal Indonesia yang kini menjadi guru besar di Northwest Mississippi Community College, AS, Augustinus Rinaldy, ketika dihubungi per telepon menyatakan Indonesia sebenarnya juga bisa seperti Kuba. “Keahlian di Indonesia sebenarnya ada. Sayangnya, infrastuktur dan atmosfer riset biotek di Indonesia tidak mendukung. Selain itu, dedikasi ilmuwan Indonesia tak setinggi ilmuwan Kuba yang dibayar amat murah oleh pemerintahnya, cuma sekitar Rp 500.000 sebulan. Jadi, Kuba menemukan molekul sebagus Nimotuzumab bukan hanya karena keberuntungan, tetapi karena iklim kerja yang baik dan dedikasi yang tinggi,” ujarnya.

Lalu ke mana muara “Kita Pasti Bisa” ?  Jawabnya, Indonesia bisanya apa jika cuma jadi konsumen dan “tukang jahit” bagi obat-obatan dan aneka produk lainnya …

Sumber   :

50 Tahun Revolusi Kuba, Castro, dan Bioteknologi, Irwan Julianto
Kompas, 02.12.2009

El dictador Fulgencio Batista gobernó a Cuba con brazo de hierro

Por Susana Alfonso y María Caridad Guindo

Un libro titulado “Fulgencio Batista: De revolucionario a hombre fuerte”, una misa dedicada a su figura y el nombramiento del nieto como Juez de la Corte Suprema de la Florida, son algunos de los hechos para homenajear a un individuo, que según su hijo Rubén “Papo” Batista “se consideraba un hombre (…) con mucha sensibilidad por los más necesitados y por las clases menos favorecidas”.

Cualquiera que desconozca la historia de Cuba, la verdadera personalidad de este dictador y el sinfín de crímenes perpetrados durante su gobierno entre 1952 y 1958, puede imaginarse al leer lo anterior que se trata de un justo homenaje a un hombre humilde, solidario, valiente y luchador hasta el fin por la soberanía e independencia de su pueblo.

Por el contrario, quienes, como el pueblo cubano, no hayan olvidado el río de sangre que dejó su dictadura en la Isla caribeña, no pueden menos que indignarse ante la glorificación de la cual goza el tirano hoy en la ciudad de Miami.

Aunque no es de extrañar que esto suceda en la llamada pequeña Habana, donde reside la mafia anticubana y buena parte de los descendientes de los más fieles lacayos de Batista durante su gobierno, entre ellos los hermanos Mario y Lincoln Díaz-Balart. Ya lo dice un viejo proverbio: “Dios los cría y el Diablo los junta”.

Un documental norteamericano sobre la Mafia y Cuba, producido y transmitido por el canal History Channel califica a Fulgencio Batista como “uno de los dictadores más sangrientos y corruptos de América Latina”.

Si así lo define una televisora estadounidense, ¡qué podrá decir un pueblo que padeció de su represión y sus crueldades durante casi siete años! No es preciso usar calificativos; los hechos hablan por sí solos.

Tomó el poder el 10 de marzo de 1952 a través de un golpe de estado. A partir de ese momento amasó millones a través de los más turbios negocios, ilegalizó todas las formaciones políticas, asesinó a miles de cubanos, arruinó la nación y sembró el caos.

Fue contra la voluntad popular, disolvió el Congreso, irrespetó la Constitución y convirtió al Poder Legislativo y al Poder Judicial en instrumentos dóciles de su gobierno.

Fidel, en discurso pronunciado en homenaje a los mártires del Corinthia en 1959, explicaba que “una de las costumbres que el tirano inculcó en su soldadesca (…) fue la cobardía y el vicio de asesinar a los prisioneros (…). Asesinaban no solo por asesinar, asesinaban hasta por mentir, asesinaban para fingir una victoria. Muy poco respeto experimentaban por la vida humana (…); para obtener grados asesinaron a los expedicionarios del Corinthia, y (…) en una sola tarde asesinaron en El Oro de Guisa a 54 campesinos”.

En entrevista realizada por el periodista Luis Báez en 1989 a José Suárez Núñez, íntimo colaborador de Batista, este alegaba que en todos los negocios que se hacían había que darle una comisión al presidente que oscilaba entre el 30 y 40 por ciento, y que hasta el último momento estuvo el dictador enviando dinero a bancos de Nueva York; su fortuna estaba calculada en cientos de millones de dólares.

La situación de Cuba al triunfar la Revolución refleja “el bien que le hizo (Batista) a su país” parafraseando a la escritora de origen cubano Zoe Valdés.

El 8% de los propietarios poseían más del 70% de las tierras, incluidos los latifundistas yankis; la deuda exterior ascendía a 788 millones de dólares; había 549 000 desocupados de una fuerza de trabajo calculada en dos millones 204 mil; la tasa de mortalidad infantil era superior a 60 niños muertos por cada 1 000 nacidos vivos (ahora con casi el doble de población es de 5,3); la expectativa de vida no pasaba de 55 años (ahora, es de 77 en los hombres y 78 años en las mujeres); un tercio de los habitantes eran analfabetos y semianalfabetos; la población mayor de 15 años tenía un nivel educacional promedio inferior al tercer grado; más de 600 000 niños estaban sin escuelas y el gasto público por concepto de Educación era de 77 millones de pesos (lo que gasta hoy un municipio promedio).

Esto son solo pinceladas dentro del gran lienzo de la ‘honrosa trayectoria’ de Fulgencio Batista, digna, sin dudas, del más grande de los homenajes por parte de la mafia anticubana de Miami.

La dictadura del terror concluyó con el triunfo de la Revolución cubana

Sinopse:

A primeira parte do filme sobre a trajetória do líder revolucionário argentino Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, mais conhecido como Che Guevara (Benicio Del Toro), tem início no ano de 1956, quando Che e exilados cubanos, como Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir), encontram-se no México, articulando resistência militar contra o governo ditador de Fulgencio Batista, em Cuba.

- Gostei! Assistirei a parte 2 em breve e posto aqui.

- Assistido em 10/10/2009

“Roberto Fernández Miranda nació en La Habana el 6 de julio de 1922. Único varón de una prole de cuatro. Sus padres, Ramíro Fernández Ledo y Emelina Miranda Casáis eran inmigrantes españoles llegados a principios de siglo a Cuba.

Su vocación fue siempre el deporte, y en él comenzaba a distinguirse cuando por circunstancias familiares, tanto su formación intelectual como sus andaduras deportivas quedaron interrumpidas pasando, sin transición, a servir bajo banderas.

Al cabo de dos años como soldado raso, aspira a una plaza como cadete en la aviación militar, y para cuyos exámenes de ingreso, según él mismo relata, se preparó minuciosamente. La oposición de la familia, sin embargo, lo frustró en su empeño. Cuando la Segunda Guerra Mundial el presidente Batista establece el Servicio Militar de Emergencia él se presenta, pasa con éxito las pruebas, y es admitido, en 1942, en la Escuela para Oficiales graduándose como 1er Teniente. Trás un período de servicio en la línea para adquirir experiencia en el mando de tropas se le destinó de nuevo, en 1944, a un curso avanzado, junto a otros cien oficiales, en Fort Benning, Georgia. La llegada al poder del Dr. Ramón Grau San Martín motivó su baja de las Fuerzas Armadas. Vuelto a la vida civil, trabajó el ahora ex-capitán Fernández en diversas capacidades hasta que el golpe de estado del 10 de marzo, en el cual jugó un papel protagonista, llevó de nuevo a Batista al poder.

Confiesa Fernández Miranda que él habría querido ocupar, en esta nueva administración, una posición civil. Fue sólo por deseo expreso del presidente que vistió de nuevo el uniforme. Poco después, una crisis interna en la Derección General de Deportes hizo que se le nombrara Director de la misma. Representa a Cuba en las Olimpiadas de México como miembro del Equipo de Tiro de Pistola y realiza una importante actividad en los deportes nacionales e internacionales.

Roberto Fernández Miranda acompañó a Batista al exilio, pasando con posterioridad a representar los intereses del ex-Presidente en los Estados Unidos, hasta su muerte ocurrida en España, en 1973. …” (Palabras de presentación de su libro en contracubierta).

El general Miranda vivía retirado en Miami-Beach, acompañado de su esposa Adela, sus tres hijos, y sus nietos. Practicó deportes hasta el final, especialmente en las canchas de tiro.

Con Roberto Fernández Miranda me entrevisté en varias ocasiones para documentarme sobre momentos de la historia de Cuba que me interesaban enormemente y para escribir una novela, en la que aún estoy, sobre Fulgencio Batista. Nos encontrábamos siempre en la casa de Rubén Batista, su esposa Adelita presente, y el resto de la familia de Rubén, así como Roberto Batista. Llegué a él a través de la Librería Universal y de Salvat, pues al leerme su libro Mis relaciones con el General Batista me urgía entrevistarlo. Junto con Santiago Rey Pernas, a quien también entrevisté y filmé, y toda la familia Batista, el relato de Roberto Fernández Miranda resulta esencial para comprender lo que sucedió momentos antes de la caída de Batista. Este señor fue de una gran amabilidad, y con honestidad me contó detalles muy precisos acerca del 13 de marzo, del asalto al palacio presidencial, y de la noche antes del 10 de marzo de 1952, y muchísimos más detalles que atesoro.

Roberto Fernández Miranda, Roberto Batista Fernández, Adelita, Fulgencio Rubén Batista y Godínez, Carmen, su esposa e hijas, y yo, en julio del 2005.

Considero que la pérdida de estos testigos de nuestra historia es irreparable, con ellos se pierde el testimonio de una versión que nos escamotearon y nos siguen escamoteando.

Mi más sincero pésame a su viuda, Adelita, a sus hijos, nietos, y a sus sobrinos. Conservo con mucho cariño el alto sentido de respeto y de delicadeza que tuvo conmigo. Que descanse en paz.

Kisah Para Diktator, Biografi Politik Para Penguasa Fasis, Komunis, Despots dan Tiran ; karya Jules Archer ini memang termasuk buku lawas – tetapi enak dibaca dan terasa ringan untuk kita mengetahui sekilas kiprah 16 tokoh diktator dari 12 negara ini, termasuk Indonesia. Tentunya, sepanjang kita tak perlu sampai mengerutkan dahi mempertanyakan keabsahan kategorisasi Archer tentang jenis-jenis diktator yang berasal dari kata dictare (Lt.), buku ini dijamin menarik buat dinikmati. Kendati dalam cetakan pertama (April 2004) ini ada beberapa kesalahan serta pencantuman data yang cukup mengganggu. Berikut adalah cuplikan bebas yang menarik dari buku ini untuk kita simak dan renungkan bersama.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (10.04.1870 – 21.01.1924)

Sewaktu diminta mendefinisikan Komunisme, Lenin menjawab : “ Republik Soviet ditambah dengan elektrifikasi “.  Lenin memperkerjakan penasehat-penasehat teknis dari negara kapitalis Jerman dan Prancis. “ Satu orang ahli tehnik (entah dari negara manapun) sama nilainya dengan sepuluh orang komunis, “  katanya pahit kepada Leon Trotsky. Dan ketika ia mendatangkan modal asing ke negerinya, Lenin berkilah dengan alasannya sendiri. “ Mengapa kita harus menutup mata dari hal itu ? Secara sederhana, kita harus berjalan di garis dunia kapitalisme “. Bagi Lenin, tujuan selalu menghalalkan cara.

Josef Vissarionovich Stalin (21.12.1879 – 05.03.1953)

Tahun 1905 menghantam Stalin dengan dua pukulan : pertama, gagalnya revolusi sosial Rusia dan yang kedua, kematian seorang gadis petani yang dinikahinya, Katherine Svanide. Di kuburan istri tercintanya itu, ia menangis, “ Saya kenal ia. Tetapi, ia kini telah tiada. Inilah perasaan hangat saya yang terakhir pada seluruh manusia. “  Stalin pun berubah makin dingin, sarkastis, penuh curiga, dendam dan kejam. Stalin dituduh membunuh ribuan korban karena teror-teror yang dilakukannya. Ketika hal itu dinyatakan suatu kali padanya, Stalin hanya mengangkat bahunya, “ Kau tidak bisa menciptakan revolusi dengan bersikap lemah lembut. “

Nikita Sergeyevich Khruschev (17.04.1894 – 11.09.1971)

Saat Khruschev berkunjung ke Amerika Serikat, ada dua hasil produksi AS yang paling mengesankannya yaitu keripik kentang (potato chip) dan serpih jagung (pop corn). “ Makanan ini lezat dan bergizi, “ katanya kepada pembantu terdekatnya. “ Dan lagi harganya murah. Lihatlah baik-baik, kita punya panen kentang dan jagung yang berlebih ! “  Saat pemerintah AS berupaya mencegahnya berkunjung ke Disneyland. Ketika mengetahui upaya ini, Khruschev kontan meledak marah, “ Apa ! Anda punya tempat peluncuran peluru kendali di sana ? “

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (29.07.1883 – 28.04.1945)

Dalam pertemuan khusus dengan parlemen, Mussolini memperteguh kekuasaannya dengan merangkap jabatan Perdana Menteri, Menteri Dalam Negeri, dan Menteri Luar Negeri. “ Saya dapat memenuhi ruangan ini dengan mayat, “ teriaknya mengancam, “ Saya dapat juga memaku pintu (gedung) parlemen. Kamu semua duduk disini hanyalah karena keinginan baik saya pada persatuan nasional bangsa ini. Tetapi, kemauan baik saya itu tidak boleh dihalangi sedetik pun oleh pidato yang tak berguna ! “

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (12.03.1881 – 10.11.1938)

Demonstrasi dan kerusuhan mulai melanda seluruh negeri itu. Sekelompok penganut agama yang fanatik mulai bekerja sama dengan tentara bertujuan untuk menghancurkan “republik yang ateis”. Dengan gerak cepat Ataturk menggantung tiga puluh pemuka agama dan mengawasi gerakan pemberontak yang lain dengan ketat. “ Saya dapat membuat Turki menjadi negara demokrasi bila saya hidup limabelas tahun lagi, “ katanya penuh mimpi, “ Tetapi jika saya mati sekarang, itu akan memerlukan waktu tiga generasi. “

Chiang Kai-Shek (31.10.1887 – 05.04.1975)

Tahun 1931, mengambil keuntungan dari perang saudara yang memecah belah bangsa itu, Jepang melakukan invasi dan menjajah Manchuria. Ancaman Jepang itu pada daratan Cina sangat jelas, pembantu-pembantu Chiang memohon kepadanya agar mau rujuk dengan Mao ; untuk bergabung dan berjuang melawan Jepang. “ Tidak ! “  jawabnya marah, “ Jepang hanya luka di kulit, sedangkan Komunis adalah penyakit jantung ! “  Beberapa pejabat yang dilaporkan menucurigai Chiang pro Jepang pun dihukum mati.

Mao Ze-dong (26.12.1893 – 09.09.1976)

Mengambil tempat sembunyi di pegunungan, Mao mulai mengembangkan teknik-teknik perang gerilya. “ Rakyat  mirip dengan air, “ demikian nasihatnya. “ Kita harus berenang di dalamnya seperti ikan. Pertama kali kita harus belajar dari massa dan kemudian mengajari mereka. “  Ia menyandarkan perjuangannya pada petani sebagai pendukung baik tempat persembunyian, pasokan makanan maupun sebagai cadangan tentara. “ Peralatan bukan faktor penting dalam perang, “ katanya, “ Yang penting adalah manusianya. “

Raffael Trujillo (24.10.1891 – 30.05.1961)

Sebagai imbalan atas pajak tinggi yang dipungutnya, Trujillo mengijinkan lebih dari 2.000 warga Haiti tinggal di Dominika, sebagai buruh pabrik-pabrik gula milik investasi Amerika. Tetapi, tahun 1937, setelah harga gula meluncur turun, mereka pun dipecat. Sebagian dari mereka demi mempertahankan hidupnya terpaksa mencuri. Trujillo merenungkan masalah itu. “ Warga Domniika mungkin akan lebih senang, “ renungnya, “ Jika kita membasmi warga Haiti. “

Fulgencio Batista y Zalvidar (16.01.1901 – 06.08.1973)

Batista berhasil mengambil alih kekuasaan di Kuba dan dengan cepat menaikkan pangkatnya sendiri menjadi kolonel. Seluruh komando militer kini dipegangnya. Ia mengirim telegram kepada seorang sersan : “ Secepatnya bergerak. Engkau diangkat menjadi Kapten. Perhatikan ! “  Jawaban telegram dari sersan itu kembali dengan isi : “ Telegram Anda terlambat. Saya telah mengangkat diri saya sendiri menjadi Kolonel. “  Namun, kendati terheran-heran dan terpesona, Batista menerima hal itu dengan baik.

Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (13.08.1926 -  … )

Jumlah tentara reguler dikuranginya dengan tajam. Bahkan satu pos militer yang besar diubahnya menjadi sekolah. “ Saya sebenarnya seorang militer tulen, “ sumpahnya, “ Saya tidak punya medali. Saya tidak senang dengan peralatan senjata. Kita semua kini adalah negeri tanpa Jenderal dan Kolonel ! “ ia menolak menaikkan pangkatnya dari pangkat Mayor yang dimilikinya sebagai pemberontak.  Dan Castro bekerja dengan energi yang bagai tak habis-habisnya – sepanjang hari untuk mengubah ekonomi Kuba. Ketika diingatkan bahwa ia kan jatuh sakit jika tidak beristirahat, ia hanya tertawa.  “ Obatku adalah rakyat, “ jawabnya, “ Aku harus bekerja keras ; mengerti dan berbicara dengan rakyat ! “

Francois Duvalier (14.04.1907 – 21.04.1971)

Tahun 1966, selubung keterasingannya terkuak saat ia menerima wartawan Amerika Serikat. Dalam satu kesempatan wawancara, wartawan itu bertanya apa gunanya pistol Colt 45 di meja kerjanya, disamping Alkitab yang selalu terbuka. Papa Doc, demikian julukan diktator Haiti itu, dengan ekspresi dan gaya seperti belum pernah melihat pistol itu sebelumnya, mengangkat dan mengamatinya. “ Ini merupakan kekeliruan, “ katanya sambil memberikan senjata itu ke tangan salah seorang pembantunya. “ Bawa pergi, “ perintahnya.

Antonio de Oliveira Salazar (28.04.1889 – 27.07.1970)

“ Saya seorang tawanan, “ satu kali ia pernah berkata dengan agak bangga, “ Dengan seluruh hidup dan pikiran yang saya persembahkan untuk pemerintah. Saya telah membuang jauh-jauh semua kehidupan pribadi yang seharusnya saya miliki.”  Ia memang hidup spartan, hemat dan sederhana, tidak merokok, tidak minum minuman keras, tidak tergoda dengan uang, tidak menikah dan seorang pendiam. Demi memerangi kesepiannya, ia pun mengangkat anak dua orang gadis. Ketika salah seorang terkena serangan demam panas, Salazar dengan setia menungguinya siang dan malam. “ Ini membuktikan betapa bijaksananya tidak memelihara keluarga sendiri, “ katanya, “ Lain halnya jika saya tidak harus memperdulikan Portugal. “

Adolf Hitler (20.04.1889 – 30.04.1945)

Tahun 1934, Hitler memerintahkan kaum Nazi Austria membunuh Kanselir mereka, Engelbert Dolfuss. Tetapi usaha Nazi untuk merebut kekuasaan terancam, ketika Mussolini yang cemas mengirim tentaranya ke perbatasan Austria. Hitler bergegas pergi ke Venesia menemui tokoh yang menjadi idolanya dulu, tetapi di sana Mussolini mengecam dirinya. “ Sulitnya dengan Jerman adalah bahwa mereka tidak menghargai kebudayaan. “  Hitler pun menyergahnya, “ Kebudayaan ? Jika saya mendengar kata kebudayaan, saya hanya punya satu dorongan – menggambar pistol saya ! “  Mussolini berkomentar pada isterinya, “ Orang ini betul-betul gila ! “

Francisco Franco Bahamonde (04.12.1892 – 20.11.1975)

Pernah terjadi ketika ia sedang menginspeksi pasukannya, seorang tentara legiun tegap yang tidak puas dengan menu makanan yang dihidangkan setiap hari di barak militer itu, melemparkan piring makanan ke muka Franco.  Dengan tenang, jenderal bertubuh kecil itu melap muka dan baju yang tersiram makanan dengan sapu tangan. Dan terus melanjutkan inspeksinya. Setelah selesai inspeksi, ia mengeluarkan tiga perintah. Mutu makanan diperbaiki. Seluruh perlengkapan bagi garnizun itu dibatasi selama 3 bulan. Dan terakhir, serdadu itu ditembak mati.

Soekarno (06.06.1901 – 21.06.1970)

Soekarno berpidato serampangan menyerang program bantuan PBB : “ Apa itu Unicef ?  Hanya susu bubuk. Aku lebih suka makan peuyeum (tape) Bandung. FAO mengirim para ahli yang tidak tahu apa-apa tenang pertanian Indonesia. Aku katakan pada mereka, pergilah ke neraka dengan bantuanmu ! “  Kemarahan pribadinya di arena diplomasi internasional malah memperburuk situasi ekonomi Indonesia dengan makin terisolasinya Indonesia dari dunia internasional.  Ketika para menterinya datang menghadap untuk membahas masalah terbangnya modal asing dari Indonesia, ia menggerutu, “ Masalah-masalah ekonomi membuatku sakit kepala ! “

Gamal Abdul Nasser (15.01.1918 – 08.09.1970)

Seorang diplomat ulung Rusia, Alexander Shelepin dikirim bergegas ke Mesir dengan memanfaatkan kemarahan Nasser pada Amerika Serikat, untuk mengikatnya menjalin pakta kerjasama Moskow – Kairo. Tapi diktator Mesir itu dengan dingin menolak : “ Kami tidak akan menjual kemerdekaan kami dengan tiga puluh, empat puluh atau lima puluh juta poundsterling. “ Tetapi seorang pengamat di Kairo menasihati Shelepin : “ Coba enam puluh … “

Sumber   :

Kisah Para Diktator, Jules Archer – Penerbit Narasi, Yogyakarta – 195 Halaman
Wikipedia.com untuk nama lengkap tokoh, tanggal lahir & tanggal wafat.

1957 – Fulgêncio Batista bombardeia, em Cienfuegos, os guerrilheiros liderados por Fidel Castro.

¿Sabían ustedes que Raúl Castro fue bautizado por Fulgencio Batista? Aquí lo tienen en brazos de su padrino. Gracias a Josevelio.Recibí este texto con las fotos ayer nuevamente por email, en caso de que se encuentre en un blog o página web, por favor que me envíen el link, gracias. Lo publico tal como lo recibí, sin ningún tipo de modificación:

“Hace mucho tiempo yo escuché una historia sobre Raúl Castro (documentada con fotos) que me costaba trabajo creer pero que me aseguraban era verdad. Nunca pude conseguir dichas fotos PERO ahora conseguí (¡AL FIN!) una fotocopia de dichas fotos que la estoy compartiendo con Uds.

 Resumiendo, la historia es la siguiente:

 - Como todos sabemos, la familia Castro es oriunda del pueblo Birán, Oriente, como Fulgencio Batista. Se rumoraba que Raúl Castro no era hijo legítimo del patriarca Castro sino de UN AMIGO DE LA CASA, un tal Mirabal, sargento del ejercito que a su vez era muy amigo de Batista y tomó parte en la famosa ‘Sargentada’ del 4 de Septiembre de 1933 que fué uno de los factores que derrocaran el gobierno de Carlos Manuel de Céspedes sustituído por la Pentarquia. Dicen muchos que Raúl era el retrato idéntico de Mirabal. Con el tiempo Mirabal llegó a ser Segundo  Jefe del SIM en la región Oriental de Cuba. Condenado a muerte después  del triunfo de Fidel Castro en 1959, su pena fué conmutada pues se rumora que la madre de los Castros, Lina Ruz, le suplicó  a Fidel y Raúl que lo perdonaran, y así sucedió. No sé que habrá sido de este personaje despues de esto. Saquen Uds. sus propias conclusiones. (Seria bueno preguntarle a Juanita Castro sobre esto)..

- En una de las fotos pueden ver a Fulgencio Batista, ya Coronel, cargando a su AHIJADO (?!) RAUL CASTRO, el 26 de Julio de 1938 (?!). Esta foto fué publicada por el diario Avance Criollo en Agosto 12, 1960. Como  Uds. verán, Raúl Castro está vestido con un uniforme de una escuela militar creada en aquella época. Batista le puso el mote de el ‘Cabo Pulguita’.. (Pueden ver otras dos fotos de Raúl con el uniforme). O sea, que Batista bautizó a Raúl y era amigo de la familia por mediación del tal Mirabal.

 - Les dejo a Uds. las conclusiones. Para mí, esta información aclara, entre otros factores, el por qué Batista NO EJECUTO a ninguno de los Castros despues del asalto al Moncada (sobre todo a Fidel, el principal culpable). A Raúl no le pasó absolutamente nada. Ahi les dejo parte de la Historia de Cuba, para que vean que con el tiempo “todo se aclara”.”

Times Online, Aug 3, 2009

(AP)

Raul Castro speaking at the Cuban National Assembly

Raúl Castro, the Cuban President, vowed to a standing ovation in parliament yesterday that the country would never give up communism, in what appeared to be a direct response to the Obama Administration’s calls for reform.

Mr Castro, the younger brother of the ailing Fidel Castro, also defended impending austerity measures amid a sharp economic downturn in the country. He announced that Cuba would cut spending on education and healthcare and called state spending “simply unsustainable”.

The Government would reorganise rural schools and scrutinise its free healthcare system in search of ways to save money, he said.

Nevertheless, the political ideology of the regime was not in question, Mr Castro declared.

“I wasn’t elected President to return capitalism to Cuba, or to surrender the revolution,” he said, referring to the armed uprising led by his brother that toppled the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista half a century ago. “I was elected President to defend, build and perfect socialism, not destroy it,” he said.

President Obama has been trying to engineer a thaw in relations between the United States and Cuba. Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State, said recently that Washington wanted to see economic and social reforms in Cuba before the Washington Administration would do more to improve bilateral relations.

Mr Castro reiterated his willingness to improve relations with America and acknowledged “a decline in the aggressiveness and anti-Cuban rhetoric” since Mr Obama took power in January.

The Cuban President made an unusual mention of the mortality of his 82-year-old brother Fidel, something top officials in Cuba almost never do in public.

He scoffed at those who thought that Cuba’s political system would crumble after “the death of Fidel and of all of us”.

He added: “If that’s how they think, they are doomed to failure.”

En este 2009 se cumple el cincuenta aniversario de la Revolución Cubana, movimiento que empezó con la insurgencia que se opuso a la dictadura de Fulgencio Batista,

El dictador Fulgencio Batista

estas fuerzas insurgentes venían en su gran mayoría de un ejército rebelde que era el brazo armado del famoso Movimiento 26 de Julio, comandado por Fidel Castro.

Cuba desde su independencia en 1898 estuvo condicionada por la relación que mantenía con los EEUU. Hasta 1933 en la constitución cubana existía una cláusula, conocida como la ‘Enmienda Platt’, que permitía la intervención norteamericana en la isla, “para proteger la vida, la libertad y los bienes’ de los ciudadanos de ese país, residentes en Cuba. Más tarde en 1952 accede al poder Fulgencio Batista imponiendo a Cuba una dictadura militar con el beneplácito de los EEUU, a esto surgen movimientos insurgentes, el primero de ellos en 1953 con el asalto al cuartel Moncada por un grupo de jóvenes liderados por Fidel Castro, pero fracasó mandando a la cárcel y al exilio en México a Castro y sus seguidores,

Raul Castro, Fidel Castro y Camilo Cienfuegos, heroes de la Revolución

poco después se creó el famoso Movimiento 26 de Julio con el fin de derrocar a Batista y con ideologías anti-imperialistas fundadas en la idea del líder independiente cubano José Martí, en 1956 empieza lo que llamamos Revolución Cubana con la llegada en el yate Granma de 82 guerrilleros del Movimiento 26 de Julio, entre ellos Fidel Castro, su hermano Raúl y el famoso Che Guevara.

La revolución dura hasta el día 1 de Enero de 1959 que es considerada la fecha de triunfo de la revolución, Castro y sus seguidores con el apoyo masivo de la población instaura un régimen comunista en la isla, provocando el enfado de los EEUU y el embargo dictado a la isla, menos mal que la URSS le ayudaban mandándole dinero y petróleo todos los años. Cuba a lo largo de los años ha tenido altibajos en su política como fueron la famosa crisis de los misiles de 1961, la fracasada invasión de la CIA y de la radical inmigración cubana en EEUU de Cuba por Bahía Cochinos, la muerte del Che Guevara

Che Guevara junto a Fidel Castro

en 1967, el colapso de la URSS y la bancarrota de la economía de la isla durante muchos años hasta hace unos años que ha empezado a mejorar levemente.

A día de hoy, Cuba está sumida en una grave crisis económica por la ineficacia de los que están al mando del país que desde mi punto de vista son unos negados para la economía ya que el pueblo cubano está sufriendo mucho y pasando mucha más hambre ahora que en los primeros años de esta dictadura bananera que todavía persiste, y todo esto es gracias a que Fidel Castro con los años ha ido perdiendo lucidez mental que tenía en los primeros años de la revolución, ya que no comprende que el sistema comunista de la economía no funciona hoy en día y él está empeñado en que sí, espero que el nuevo dirigente cubano, su hermano Raul Castro

Fidel y Raul Castro en la actualidad

haga las modificaciones legales y económicas para que en el caso de que siga existiendo la dictadura en el futuro, sea viable económicamente, ya que Raul Castro tiene pensado aplicar en Cuba el mismo modelo económico que hay en China actualmente, ya que si lo hace el pueblo cubano vivirá en mejores condiciones sociales y económicas de las que vive desgraciadamente en la actualidad.

En el caso de que en el futuro esta dictadura comunista acabe cayendo dando paso a una democracia, aquí debo de criticar a muchos de los exiliados cubanos que viven en EEUU, concretamente en la ciudad de Miami, ya que ellos cuando haya democracia querrán convertirse en los amos y señores del país dejando de lado a la gente que apoyo a Castro y a los miles de exiliados que hay por el mundo, estos exiliados de Miami lucharon contra Castro en Cochinos y en gran mayoría son unos auténticos contrabandistas y fanáticos ya que ellos controlan el mercado negro entre Miami y Cuba,

Famoso edificio en honor al Che en la Vieja Habana con su famosa frase

por eso ahora están enfadados con Obama que quiere suavizar el famoso embargo y avanzar en las relaciones comerciales con la isla, menos mal que este colectivo de inmigrantes cubanos  son diría yo en un 60% ya casi ancianos y personas que llevan ya muchas décadas en EEUU, ya que tengo constancia que las nuevas generaciones de americanos de origen cubano no quieren estas cosas hacia la isla y quieren que haya una pacífica transición política en Cuba en que tengan voz y voto todos los actores implicados en este proceso.

En conclusión no creo que en los próximos años haya democracia en Cuba como lo hay en el resto del mundo, en este caso deseo que Raul Castro lleve esas ansiadas reformas que permitan que la economía y la población cubana no tenga hambre, y vivan en una mejor situación en una futuro a ser posible cercano en el tiempo.

This book about Operation Pedro Pan can give context to people seeking to evaluate the 50 years since Fidel Castro took power in Cuba.

Yesterday marked 50 years since Fidel Castro and his band of guerrillas assumed power in Cuba after toppling U.S. backed dictator Fulgencio Batista.

The now ailing Castro stepped down a couple of years ago after outlasting nine U.S. presidents and leaving his country a decidedly mixed legacy for supporters and detractors alike to debate passionately in the upcoming years and decades.

Maria de los Angeles Torres was born in Cuba and was one of more than 10,000 children who left the island in early 60s on Operation Pedro Pan.

Decades later and after a stint in Harold Washington’s administration, Torres returned to her childhood experience with a scholar’s eye.

The Lost Apple: Operation Pedro Pan, Cuban Children in the U.S., and the Promise of a Better Future is the book that resulted from her efforts and lawsuit against the CIA to declassify documents related to the program.

Operation Pedro Pan has generated novels and poetry, and Torres’ work argues that the children in the program were used by the United States government locked in a Cold War struggle with the former Soviet Union. 

The experience of the children, particularly those who did not reunite with their families, was painful and even heartrending.  Singer Candi Sosa, who starred in the propaganda film by the same name as the book title, is just one example of the many children who suffered abuse in the United States.

A fascinating personal connection for me was that Penny Powers, the British woman who administered the Kindertransport program by which my father and uncle left Germany in the late 1930s, ran Operation Pedro Pan, too. 

This is just one of the many informative aspects of this worthwhile book for those looking to learn more about the island that marked a half century yesterday since a bearded leader entered its capital brimming with triumph and possibility.

As a rule, the Roman Empire did not respond too kindly to criticism. They believed they were the most civilised and forward thinking Nation on the planet. Everyone else, they considered to be far inferior to themselves. Any sort of criticism hurled their way resulted in swift attack. The Christians for example bore the brunt of the might of Rome (according to Tacitus) when Emperor Nero managed to gain enough popular support to blame the anti-Roman Christians for the 64AD fire of Rome…. and so the Christians were quite brutally punished. Rome could not handle criticism. Truth had become a threat.

Whilst I was sat, drinking a finely made cup of England’s finest tea, I turned to channel 509 – Fox News.
A man with a mind-numbingly boring voice on Fox News, attacked Obama for not “standing up for America” and that “Obama didn’t stand up for freedom” when he met with Hugo Chavez recently. I listened tentatively, hoping that Fox would enlighten me as to when America ever stood up for freedom?

America is not on the side of World freedom. It’s a very odd claim to make. It appears only the American right wing still hold that assumption close to their rose tinted hearts. America is on the side of whatever works for America. America decides what is best for your Nation, based entirely on how you benefit America economically. If you don’t, you’ll be labelled evil.
The ridiculously narrow minded and diseased statements from Fox, attacking President Obama increased in spectacular fashion for the next few minutes:

“The American position is to help Cuba and the Americas rid their people of communist dictatorships that forced themselves on the country fifty years ago…… Obama didn’t say that, does this man’s narcassicism know no bounds?”

Let’s not forget that America supported the pre-Castro regime of Fulgencio Batista after he and his military associates took control of Cuba in ‘52. Batista called off all elections and suspended the Cuban constitution, creating a dictatorship. Now, usually the USA would have something to say about that, but no, it was a Right Winged dictatorship and it benefitted American trade, so Eisenhower and Truman both recognised Batista’s authority. Freedom is only freedom when it suits America.
The reason America didn’t appear to have a problem with Batista’s dictatorship, is the regime in 1952 gave out contracts to several U.S Corporations for train lines, a power network, highways and an airport. The Cuban people did not concern America, their freedom, did not concern America. The only thing that concerned America, was and still is…. money. Outside of Havana, the poor were under the worst conditions ever known in Cuba, the literacy rate was appalling and health care extended to the rich only. But that’s okay, because America was benefiting economically. America owned a quarter of bank deposits in Cuba by 1958. 90% of Electric Services and the Telephone Services were American. So of course it didn’t matter that Batista was killing off political rivals, calling off all elections, torturing, being pictured with mafia associates and acting like a Right Winged version of Stalin…. because it benefited America economically.

Not only that, but America supplied the Batista regime with arms and napalm to kill off the Castro faction a few years later. After the USA forced Cuba to go to the polls, in 1954, Batista won. Vice President Nixon went over to congratulate Batista on his victory….. choosing to ignore that Batista was the only candidate.

So I fear Fox are once again being a little bit hypocritical when they seem to profess just how wonderful the U.S has been with Cuba. Castro didn’t “force himself” on the Country. If Obama were to abandon the US Constitution and call off all future elections, I figure Fox would go out of their way to provide support to a rebel army.

It suited America to support the Taliban once. Freedom and human rights, didn’t appear to matter. It suited America to support General Pinochet in Chile once (for all the complaining John McCain does about sitting down without preconditions with dictators, he has no problem visiting General Pinochet in 1985, for what he later described as “warm and friendly”) Freedom and human rights didn’t apppear to matter. It suited America to support Saddam once. Freedom and human rights didn’t appear to matter. In fact, at the height of Saddam’s tyranny and murderous rampage, it was America who were supplying the weapons and the funding to make such tyranny possible. Saddam wasn’t given a fair trial, because if he had been given that freedom, he would have had a field day describing the help and the encouragement given by the Reagan and Bush administrations. Both of which, should have gone on trial too. In fact, half the Presidents ever to occupy the White House, by their own logic, should go on trial for crimes against humanity. But of course America got their own back by destroying half of that Country…. because it suited American interests. When it suits America economically in the 1980s, they’ll help you. When it suits America economically in the 00s, they’ll utterly destroy you. That’ll teach you to stop trading oil in US Dollars. But hey, that’s the price we all pay for this odd brand of “Freedom” America seems to be trying to sell us all.

Fox do not appear to accept any criticism hurled at America, unless it’s hurled at the Left wing. For example, today they spent at least twenty wasteful minutes on the fact that Chavez presented Obama with a book by Eduardo Galeano, entitled “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent” which has “anti-American sentiment” written deep into it’s core. It’s like a dad who beats his child complaining when his child writes a book about the abuse he suffered. I realise Fox want to rewrite history in which America is the freedom loving, peaceful angels of the World, but that simply wouldn’t be true. However, the moment French President Nicolas Sarkozy decided to verbally attack President Obama, Fox suddenly fell in love with the French.

President Obama seems humble. He appears to recognise that America has been a bit of a shit over the past century, and that when Fox and Republicans refuse to acknowledge just how disgraceful America has acted, it strikes me as ignorant and cowardly. The World, for a very long time has recognised that the USA is not the beacon for hope and freedom that it’s right wing claims to be. It’s a selfish Nation whose economic interests far outweigh the interests of freedom and human rights. Death tolls have never bothered America if it means advancement in business ties. The sanctions placed on Cuba have nothing to do with trying to help the people of Cuba resist Communism. The sanctions on Cuba have nothing to do with anything other than the economic growth of American business. Obama is doing the right thing. America is still horribly blinded by it’s obsession with it’s own unique, perverted form of “Freedom”. The freedom that is equivilant to me punching a man in his face, taking his money, and then spending it on my family.

It’s wonderful to see such deep hypocrisy and ignorance alive and well in the American Right Wing. Right now Fox came back from it’s commercial break, to the sentence “Is this the end of freedom of speech?” (this, two hours after telling us all what Obama SHOULD be saying, how ironic), discussing why Obama is trying to control the internet, wants to kill off the first amendment and might want to run for three terms. It’s the single most ridiculous channel ever made. And i’m including “GODtv” in that.

Hugo Chavez described America in 2005, as the “most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world.”
Hard to argue with that.

Amidst all the buzz around new U.S.-Cuba relations, Chris Matthews found a way to sound the old Cold War alarm.  Avoiding the messy details of real history, Mr. Matthews criticized President Obama’s call for a new U.S.-Cuba relationship:

Well, I just am not a Castro fan. You know, he [Castro] bought the wrong ticket. He bet on communism. He bet on the Soviet Union. If that side had won, he would be marching through Fifth Avenue, overseeing the executions in Central Park….So, I don’t really want to help Castro.

Summoning ghosts from the 80’s flick Red Dawn, Matthews revealed a history of Cuba that never existed.  There was never such a “bet” to be made.  In the period of time before Fidel Castro’s ascent to power, Cubans didn’t get a choice between U.S.-style democracy and Soviet communism.  Their choice was to either stick with the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista, or side with future dictator Castro.  In the final days, the U.S. did attempt to promote a third possibility, but by then it was too late.

It is true that Castro could have pushed for a pro-democracy revolution during his climb to power.  But had that been his ideological path, it is worth noting that he would have been pushing for democracy against a U.S.-backed dictator.

It matters less what we say the alternative to communism should be.  What matters more is what the U.S. government actually supported when it had a chance — a corrupt dictatorship.

Representatives of the United States and the political leader of Cuba and former President Fidel Castro met on Friday last on the island of Cuba, the largest gathering in the last 50 years that has happened.

After more than four decades, there is greater proximity between representatives of the United States and Cuba.
The Congress on Monday, April 6 this year met with Raul Castro, who was willing to dialogue with the United States and their authorities, causing an unprecedented event that happened since the Cuban Revolution in 1959 with the overthrow of Fulgencio Batista and the rise to power of leader Fidel Castro.

From that moment that Cuba was inclined toward Marxist communism, relations with the United States were strained and zero in recent years. The maximum point of rupture of relations between both countries is the case with the embargo dictated by Washington, which canceled nearly all bilateral relations, some of which are being more flexible by President Barack Obama, that Americans can travel to Cuba without any restrictions.
The visit lasted 5 days and the reunion with Fidel Castro for an hour and 45 minutes.

“I appreciate the gesture of the legislative group,” said Fidel in an article he wrot and added: “They meet the strict program sought. The aura of widespread accompanies Luther King.”

The group of congressmen who traveled to Cuba was composed of representatives Democrats Barbara Lee, Luther Melvin Watt, Laura Richardson (all from California), Bobby Rush (Illinois), Marcia Fudge (Ohio) and Emanuel Cleaver II (Missouri), and by Patrice Willoghby.

Also how important this meeting is that all Americans that Congress saw the Cuban leader, who is referred in good health, it looks very well and good humor.
Leaving aside the general doubts and internationally that have occurred because of the health of Fidel Castro.

Apparently a new era in relations between both countries are starting to generate which is now thinking is if the embargo is removed, say that Cuban exiles in the United States, those who came away leaving behind familiare, belongings, to their homeland, those who lived El Mariel in 1980, producing one of the greatest crises that occurred between the two countries.

Serve the United States to open, can give, so that democracy comes to Cuba, to serve all Cubans are citizens first and can freely choose their leaders without fear of reprisal, will be able to say that I do not AGREEMENT loudly in the middle of a street without being arrested.

Hopefully this is a new beginning in relations, but above all for the people of Cuba, a Cuban people suffered, betrayed, deceived by various dictatorships but above all a beautiful town full of culture, dignity, even in difficult times.

ENCUENTRO ENTRE CUBA Y LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS

Representantes de los Estados Unidos y el lider politico de Cuba y ex presidente Fidel Castro se reunieron el viernes ultimo en la isla cubana, en el mayor encuentro en los ultimos 50 años que se ha sucedido.

Despues de mas de cuatro decadas, se produce el mayor acercamiento entre representantes de los Estados Unidos y de Cuba.
Los congresistas el lunes 6 de abril del corriente año se reunieron con Raul Castro, quien se mostro dispuesto a dialogar con los Estados Unidos y sus autoridades, produciendose un encuentro inedito desde que se sucedio la Revolucion Cubana en 1959, con el derrocamiento de Fulgencio Batista y la subida al poder del lider Fidel Castro.

Desde ese momento en que Cuba se inclino hacia el comunismo marxista, las relaciones con los Estados Unidos fueron tirantes y nulas en los ultimos años. El punto maximo de rotura de las relaciones entre ambos paises se sucedio con el embargo dictado por Washington, el cual cancela casi todas las relaciones bilaterales, algunas de las cuales estan siendo mas flexibilizadas por el presidente Barack Obama, como que los norteamericanos puedan viajar a Cuba sin restricciones algunas.
La visita duro 5 dias y la reunion con Fidel Castro una hora y 45 minutos.

“Valoro el gesto del grupo legislativo”, manifestó Fidel en un artículo que escribio y agregó: “Cumplen rigurosamente el programa que solicitaron. La aureola alcanzada por Luther King los acompaña”.

El grupo de los congresistas que viajaron hacia Cuba estuvo compuesto por: representantes demócratas Barbara Lee, Melvin Luther Watt, Laura Richardson (todos de California), Bobby Rush (Illinois), Marcia Fudge (Ohio) y Emanuel Cleaver II (Missouri), y por Patrice Willoghby.

Tambien lo importante de este encuentro esta en que todos los congresistas americanos que vieron al lider cubano, refieren que se encuentra en buen estado de salud, que se le ve muy bien y esta de buen humor.
Dejando de lado las dudas generales y a nivel internacional que se han dado en razon a la salud de Fidel Castro.

Al parecer una nueva era en las relaciones de ambos paises se estan empezando a generar, lo que queda ahora por pensar es si el embargo se quitara, que diran los cubanos exiliados en estados unidos, aquellos que llegaron escapando dejando atras familiare, pertenencias, a su patria, aquellos que se vivieron El Mariel en el año 1980, produciendo una de las mayores crisis que se dio entre ambos paises.

Servira la apertura que Estados Unidos, pueda dar, para que la democracia llegue a Cuba, servira para que todos los cubanos sean ciudadanos de primera y puedan libremente elegir a sus gobernantes sin miedo a la represalia, servira para que puedan decir YO NO ESTOY DE ACUERDO a viva voz en medio de una calle sin ser detenidos.

Ojala esto sea un nuevo comienzo en las relaciones pero por sobre todo para el pueblo cubano, un pueblo cubano sufrido, traicionado, engañado por diferentes dictaduras pero por sobre todo un hermoso pueblo lleno de cultura, de dignidad aun en los momentos mas dificiles.

If you are interest in knowing more about el Mariel and real histories of this moment look this pages:
http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?chid=3&schid=0&secid=181&cid=591626
http://www.elveraz.com/articulo543.htm

The Long March of the Cuban Revolution
Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada

The Cuban revolutionary victory of January 1, 1959, was a news event of epochal proportion even for those who knew little about that country. For many, it was like discovering a new world. And as in the age of the great navigators, encountering it was clouded both by ignorance and the prejudices that usually accompany such revelations.

Curiosity, fascination, and surprise were provoked by the revolution’s unique character. The dictator Fulgencio Batista was overthrown by coordinated rural guerrilla warfare and urban revolt. Moreover, the sustained rising was indigenous, waged by forces that were unknown in the wider world and had no connection to the international socialist movement or any other supranational agency. In addition, the struggle was carried on in head-on confrontation with U.S. imperialism. Finally, (and despite claims to the contrary) the revolutionaries had no hesitation about identifying with socialism. The shock of these events focused the minds of researchers and analysts on the Cuban experience, albeit from a perspective blinkered by a Eurocentric viewpoint.

In the international “Cold War” climate of the time Cuba needed and got support and solidarity from the Soviet Union. The rapprochement between the two countries led the vast majority of specialists to interpret the events surrounding Cuba in terms of the East-West confrontation. The commonplace Western explanation of the Cuban Revolution—including its causes and origins—has been to see it as arising from that antagonism, as if Cuban national life had started in 1959, as if Cuba had no history and was merely a product of events beyond its shores. Half a century later and nearly twenty years after the end of the Cold War, that is still the deciding factor in the mindset on Cuba of a large part of the West’s “liberal” academia. For them, Cuba remains terra incognita.

Cuban Rarities

In the post-Cold War climate, U.S. politicians and many Western academics and journalists persistently portray Cuba as an anomaly, a rarity that strays from the presumed universal norm. Obviously, such false universalism is intended ideologically to impose on everyone, as an unquestionable dogma, the capitalist system—today in its extreme neoliberal form, and accompanied as its political expression by the Western version of “representative democracy.” The fallacy of attempting to impose such a dogma merits another article. Here, however, I want to concentrate on Cuban “exceptionalism.” Only those who know little or nothing about our country would be surprised to learn of the success of an autochthonous program that strays from what others consider the rule. In truth, the search for a different, independent path, inspired by an original idea and way of thinking, deriving from that search and not copied from abroad, is at the very root of Cuba’s national identity and has always accompanied it.

Cuba, like Puerto Rico, was not part of the independence movement that put an end to Spanish colonial domination of the rest of Latin America during the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Although prominent Cubans subscribed to the concept of independence, and there were even some isolated attempts to achieve it, Cuba’s national liberation movement would appear a half-century later than in the rest of Spanish America.

That delay is explained by the characteristics of the colonial society on the island and the international context of the time. Each contributed to setting the country apart from the other Spanish colonies, and not only in the delayed appearance of our national movement, but also, and most significantly, in shaping its unique nature.

On the American continent, the Creole oligarchy was the driving force in the struggle to break the bonds of subordination to Madrid; the campaign received a crucial boost from the Napoleonic invasion and the resulting crisis in the monarchy. Having won independence, the oligarchy would act as heir to the Crown and establish regimes that would preserve the basic structure of the old colonial societies.

The great exception in that period was the Haitian revolution in 1791. On this neighbor island the separatist movement was the largest slave revolt ever known; it shook and destroyed the old order and established, in the middle of the harassment and hostility of the rest of the world, a republic radically different from the shameful regime out of which it arose.

In Cuba the oligarchy never attempted to create a nation, never even had a national sentiment. At the time when that sentiment began to emerge in the Americas, here in Cuba there was an increase in the importation of slaves, who would make up the majority of the population. The Creole oligarchy was the chief beneficiary of the traffic and exploitation of slaves. As a consequence, Cuba became the world’s sugar bowl. To maintain that status it needed a constant inflow of slaves.

Being the most stable colony—“the ever loyal” the Spaniards called it—and the most increasingly prosperous, Cuba also attracted a high level of European immigration, primarily from Spain, making Cuba the most Spanish country in the empire, with the largest Spanish population. This mass, our pieds noirs (as, a century later, the French in North Africa were called), coexisted with the colonial administration and armed forces, many having arrived with their families to what they regarded as a permanent extension of their homeland.

Along with the growing flood of African slaves, men of lighter-colored skin were also impelled by other factors to migrate to Cuba. These factors can be summed up with a single name: Haiti.

The oligarchy, whose opulence derived from the toil of the Negro slaves and which depended on them totally, feared that their way of life was threatened by the ever growing population of slaves with customs, values, and rituals that were alien to Spanish and Spanish-Creole culture. Thus the same oligarchy that uprooted hundreds of thousands of poor wretches from Africa to enslave them on plantations raised the cry to “whiten the island” and sought to attract more Spaniards and other Europeans. Fears engendered by the events in Haiti exacerbated those feelings among the major white landowners.

The issue of slavery—and its after-effect, racism—would be the predominant issue during the first two-thirds of the nineteenth century in Cuba, present in the academic debates, writings, and consciousness of the country’s thinkers and literati.

Along with large-scale slave rebellions that shook colonial society, slaves also attempted a political revolt in 1812—the first to seek independence, led by José Antonio Aponte, a free Negro from Havana. But these were isolated events in a social milieu lacking integration and marked by deep divisions between classes, ethnic groups, and territories.

Other trends were, however, in progress—some obscured, others more visible—from which a new reality was growing.

First of all, the official colonial policy on race did not prevent intimate contact between whites and blacks. They had sexual relations, and even started families creating a mulatto population with the most diverse gradations of mixtures. This diversity, so perceptible in the faces of many of the colony’s inhabitants, was reflected also in the music, literature, and other manifestations of culture that gradually merged, transcending racial barriers.

The Creole oligarchy watched these events with apprehension. Its sole motive was the wealth obtained from exploiting slave labor. It needed docile manpower, but was worried by miscegenation and alarmed by the news of continuing slave rebellions among the sugar plantations. The great Haitian rebellion terrified it. In addition, it had its own differences with Spain, which applied numerous controls and regulations to protect the interests of the Crown while curbing the oligarchy’s expansion.

Cuba was also coveted by other powers. It had been so since early times, when it was ravaged by pirates and corsairs. In 1762 the English crown held Havana for several months during the Seven Years’ War in North America. This was but one instance of repeated efforts by European powers to wrest Cuba from Spain. Cuba was in the center of what Juan Bosch (who in the mid-sixties was president of the Dominican Republic until overthrown by the Johnson administration for his clear anti-imperialist stance) called “the imperial frontier.”
The Creole oligarchy, under siege, generated two tendencies that differed greatly but were united by the same desire to preserve its class interests and, above all, to keep the population of African origin in a state of subjugation.

The first of these was reformism, which produced some notable thinkers who studied colonial society in depth, perceived its evils, and advocated changes aimed at improving education and public health and promoting economic, scientific, and cultural development. They repeatedly petitioned the Spanish government but achieved nothing. Their reform proposals went so far and no further: they too regarded slavery as a necessity, and believed that Cuba should remain Spanish.

The second trend was annexationism, which aimed to make Cuba a part of the United States. It was the dominant attitude among the major sugarcane plantation owners in Western Cuba and enjoyed the support of influential academics, intellectuals, and professionals. It was also favored by Washington, which from the turn of the century actively promoted it. This faction was responsible for the first plots and large-scale military actions to overthrow Spanish suzerainty, including an expeditionary force dispatched from U.S. soil of which the vast majority were foreigners.

At a deeper level, another process took place among the academic minds and was reflected in certain publications that circulated among the educated minority. Their philosophy was based on a severe critique of scholasticism developed in the late 1830s by two priests, José Agustín Caballero and Félix Varela, and by their follower, José de la Luz y Caballero. Luz was at the center of a philosophical controversy that has been described as the most original event in the history of the Latin American challenge to Eurocentrism in the Americas. It reflected a persistent search for a uniquely Cuban approach and way of thinking, as he put it, “a Cuban sophia [wisdom] that is just as much a sophia, and just as distinctively Cuban, as the Greek was to the Greeks.”

Varela was the first thinker of the national independence movement. He passionately preached in support of independence in El Habanero, Cuba’s first newspaper, which he published in exile in the United States to be circulated clandestinely on the island. His thinking—to the core pro-independence and antislavery—anticipated the notion of a Cuba that should be “as much an island politically as it is geographically.”

Luz, shortly before his death in 1862, defined the ethic that the nation yet to be born should embrace: “I’d prefer the collapse of the institutions of men, kings and emperors, and to see the stars fall from the firmament than to see a human being lose their sense of justice, that sun of the moral world.”

The struggles of the slaves for emancipation and of the intelligentsia for cultural independence would have to merge into a single movement to create a nation and liberate it. This movement was born on October 10, 1868. Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, one of the main revolutionary leaders in eastern Cuba, had repeatedly suffered imprisonment, exile, and other forms of persecution and had plotted in Jacobin freemasonry lodges that had sworn “War to the death on exploitation and discrimination of Man by Man.” On that day he proclaimed both Cuba’s independence and the freeing of the slaves—whom he referred to as “citizens,” and to whom he extended an open invitation to join the war to achieve both those aims.

After liberating Bayamo, one of Cuba’s principal cities, Céspedes installed a revolutionary government there—a triumvirate that included a Negro and a manual worker—which exercised authority over the Valle del Cauto for three months, laying out a singular blueprint for revolutionary democracy, involving direct participation by the people in the government. In the public square of Bayamo, and in other towns and villages in liberated territory, the leaders and the people debated questions of common interest—including the progress of the war and of the emancipation of the slaves. This, our first experience of people’s power, ended when, faced with the imminent prospect of attack by the enemy’s heaviest forces, the population made its last and most momentous decision: to raze its beautiful city to the ground and go—men, women and children—to the forest to continue the struggle.

Bayamo’s revolutionary experience is totally ignored by bourgeois historians and the Cubanologists. In its time, however, it did not pass unnoticed. One of the main spokesmen of annexationism wrote of it: “Cuba has never been closer to a true social and socialist revolution.”

The revolution set about expanding to the west of the island. A burning torch—symbol of the destruction of the colony’s economic foundation and of emancipation of the slaves—was adopted as a symbol by the most radical factions led by President Carlos Manuel Céspedes, considered by Cuban’s “the father of the nation.” Invasion of western Cuba was attempted several times, without success. The theater of military operations was reduced to the regions of Camagüey and Oriente—the least developed part of Cuba—where Cubans fought a colonial army larger than the combined forces that had defended the Spanish continental empire. During the ten-year conflict, sugar production—and with it, slavery—continued to grow.

The revolution suffered near total isolation. It had the lukewarm moral support of a few Latin American countries. Patriotic émigrés, exiled mainly in the United States, were persecuted and suppressed by U.S. authorities. Washington supported the colonial regime and armed and maintained a powerful fleet capable of blockading Cuba’s coasts and stopping both aid from abroad and the revolutionary forces’ advance on Havana. Denouncing Washington in 1870, Céspedes wrote, “The secret aim of its policy is to seize Cuba.” The longest and bloodiest war that the American continent had ever seen ended in a disastrous total defeat for the newly emergent Cuban nation.

As a result, after ten years of war, Cuba lost over a third of its population, with massive emigration to the United States and other neighboring countries—by far the largest exodus in our history.

The patriotic former landowners suffered expropriation without compensation and many died in poverty. The slavery regime was restored throughout the country. The regions at the root of the conflict were devastated and their inhabitants consigned to pauperism.

The forces that had launched the rebellion were deeply divided and frustrated. The various attempts to renew the armed struggle—including la Guerra Chiquita (the Little War) led by Calixto Garcia in 1879—all failed, serving only to fuel internal disagreements and defeatism.

Born in 1853, José Martí was an adolescent when the Ten Years War of 1868 started. At sixteen he became a political prisoner and endured several years of inhumane treatment. He lived for just forty-two years, nearly all in exile, including fourteen in the United States. He was our principal poet, a prolific writer, journalist, and public speaker; he left written works of surprising breadth and lucidity, enough to fill any library. His inimitable style revolutionized the Spanish language. But above all, Martí was Latin America’s most brilliant politician, the first to call U.S. imperialism by that name, to warn of its threat to our peoples, and to call for continental resistance and unity to confront it.

He was also a patient, systematic organizer, an astute strategist, and a visionary who studied the experience of the Ten Years War in depth, including the causes and influences that led to that terrible defeat. Uniting the patriots was a true apostolic passion for him: healing wounds, overcoming grudges and rivalries, and cementing relations between the veterans and the younger elements. Before he had ever taken up arms, he won the respect of seasoned fighting men. He proved able to unite them and, step by step, acquired their recognition of his moral and political authority as a new revolutionary guide.

The essence of his strategy was to form a party composed of all the revolutionaries, a unique political instrument that would free our people of the dire consequences of internal divisions. A party whose main support, whose majority base, was the Cuban-born manual workers in Tampa, Key West, New York, and other U.S. cities as well as throughout the Cuban Diaspora in Mexico, Venezuela, Central America, and various Caribbean countries.

It was José Martí who introduced the idea of imperialism—especially U.S. imperialism—to Cuban political culture, together with that of a single party as an essential tool of revolution. These concepts were used by Cubans, without knowing who Lenin was and long before the Bolshevik uprising. These ideas have persisted in our revolutionary tradition for several generations.

Martí rescued the founding ideology of the 1868 revolution. For him also, winning national independence was not the sole aim: it was inseparable from that of a radical social revolution. Céspedes’s goal of establishing “perfect equality” between the citizens of the Republic was identical to that announced by Martí: “We will achieve total justice.”

Washington’s military intervention took place in 1898, with the whole of Cuba at war, the colonial army reeling and the rebel forces operating close to Havana. Céspedes’s prophesy was fulfilled, imperialism carried out the plan that Martí had denounced and had given his life trying to prevent. Thirty years of heroic, unequal struggle ended, once again, in catastrophe.

The intervention was marked by the imperialists’ arrogance and their contempt for the Cubans. The Army of Liberation and the Cuban Revolutionary Party were disbanded; the republican authorities and institutions—the government, the Assembly of Representatives, the constitution (the last of the four adopted by the Cubans during their struggles for independence)—were completely ignored. The country was placed under a military regime of occupation, which set about looting the economy, reintroducing racism and racial discrimination, while perpetuating and expanding the corruption and other vices of the colony.
Cuba and Puerto Rico were the last countries in Latin America to wage war for national independence. Although they fought the longest, both islands were also the only Latin American nations that suffered defeat. Without a single day of freedom, they changed from Spanish colonies to colonies of the United States.

Then came the fictitious republic, which suffered military intervention and occupation by the United States several times. Cuba became a vassal state in a condition even more deplorable than that under Spanish colonialism. The contemporary Cuban poet Cintio Vitier described it thus: “The colony was an injustice, but not a fraud. The Yankee neo-colony was both. By turning what had been the ideal of several generations and martyrs into a sham and a farce, they struck with impunity at the very heart of the homeland.”

Nonetheless, this neocolonial period was also marked by major worker, student, and farmer struggles, which kept alive the legacy of our independent revolutionary tradition. Julio Antonio Mella, founder and leader of the University Students’ Federation and the Communist Party, who was assassinated in 1929 in the middle of his youth, was in his time the tradition’s best example. In an article written as a tribute to the recently deceased Lenin, Mella said, “We don’t intend to implant here servile copies of revolutions made by other men….We don’t want all to be from this or that doctrine, that is not important at this time where, as always, the important factors are Men, human beings who act following their own thoughts and by their own understanding, not by the reasoning of foreign thoughts.”

The generation that expressed itself in these terms was, once again, about to conquer heaven. In 1933, it succeeded in overthrowing the tyranny of Gerardo Machado, Mella’s murderer, and installed a revolutionary government that lasted a hundred days—until another U.S. intervention imposed the first of the two bloody Batista dictatorships.

Finally, on January 1, 1959, the revolutionary movement, now led by Fidel Castro, swept aside tyranny and the neocolonial regime.

Reading the Enemy

From that time onwards, the Cuban people have had to face multiple, constant, and systematic aggression, including the longest economic blockade in history, military attacks—including the failed Bay of Pigs invasion—a vicious and interminable series of acts of terrorism and sabotage, diplomatic pressures, and hostile, slanderous propaganda campaigns.

In the pages of Monthly Review, Leo Huberman and Paul Sweezy, models of authentic intellectuals, were the first to analyze with scientific objectivity the uniquely difficult task facing the Cubans, to which they dedicated Cuba: Anatomy of a Revolution (1960) among other memorable works.

They were joined by C. Wright Mills, who sought to stir the conscience of his fellow countrymen—Listen Yankee: The Revolution in Cuba (1960)—and right up to his death in 1962 he worked for friendship between the two countries.

In the 1990s, many official U.S. documents till then kept secret were declassified. In 1991, the State Department published a thick volume entitled Foreign Relations of the United States 1958–1960, Volume VI, Cuba, which contains hundreds of documents, reports, internal department analyses, minutes of the National Security Council and other government agency meetings, messages exchanged with the U.S. embassy in Havana and other diplomatic missions and allied countries, and other materials. These cover the last years of the Batista regime and the first two years of Cuba-U.S. conflict, up to the breaking of diplomatic relations. The volume contains irrefutable proof of Washington’s close alliance with the bloody dictatorship which scourged the island. Nineteen fifty-eight was a crucial year which holds the key to understanding what was to happen later. Collaboration between the two governments existed in the most diverse spheres, even the nuclear energy sector. Military aid was unlimited, extending beyond the supply of weapons, munitions, equipment, and assistance at all levels. All officers in Cuba’s air force, nearly all army, navy, and police officials, and complete units of the troops that fought against the rebels in the Sierra Maestra were trained in U.S. military schools. Batista also found support in domestic U.S. agencies. The FBI and Department of Justice kept a tight rein on exiles and anti-Batista émigrés and worked to thwart all their efforts to aid those who struggled for freedom at home. The two governments exchanged information and coordinated their actions to that end.

As the Batista regime’s deterioration became more and more evident, concealing the aid which it continued to receive became a priority for the Eisenhower administration, as did the obstinate and fruitless efforts aimed at preventing the people’s victory. “We must prevent a Castro victory” was the conclusion often repeated at White House meetings.

The declassified documents reveal more than the political, military, and economic commitment between the two governments, which at times appear to merge into a single body. We come across anxious and perplexed characters, actors in a drama they are unable to understand. In the course of 1958, more and more meetings see Eisenhower, Nixon, Dulles, and their generals draw up desperate plans looking for a magic formula to save the old regime and prevent its complete collapse.

As in soap operas there is intrigue and melodrama, like the scene in which the president, in a grave and solemn tone, asks everyone present to promise they will deny, without exception, having heard what was discussed there. Or his precise and unquestionable instruction, that “the hand of the United States remain hidden.” And, as if this were not enough, as though suspicious of his closest advisors, there was his personal instruction to the CIA director—to stop discussing plans against Cuba at National Security Council meetings.

On that last New Year’s Eve of the old regime, they were forced to interrupt or postpone dinners and revelries. As midnight approached, from his office, Secretary of State Christian Herter sent Havana a last message of 1958. It was a bitter and sorrowful letter which summarized everything Washington had done to support the despot until the last moment.

Before dawn broke that first morning of 1959, Washington was already receiving reports from its ambassador in Havana, Earl Smith. The gentleman had not slept a wink; he had been busy trying to prop up the military junta which was scrambling to organize itself and coordinating the departure from the country of those leaders and collaborators who had not already fled with Batista.

Already in those first early hours, Cuba was to receive one of the toughest blows of the U.S. economic war against the island. The fugitives had literally plundered the Treasury of the Republic, creating what the Department of State itself described as a situation no administration could bear. Not one cent was returned. Therein lies the origin of the many fortunes that arose, later to be swelled by privileges, tax exemptions, and other benefits no one else has ever enjoyed in the history of the United States, fortunes which the official propaganda extols as the supposed success stories of a community of enterprising émigrés.

Batista and his cohorts were allowed to pocket hundreds of millions of dollars—more than four hundred million, according to calculations by experts from the National Bank of Cuba and New York Times journalists. Later, incalculable sums would be taken from U.S. taxpayers as tax exemptions for the supposed loss of properties left behind in Cuba, and other, equally exorbitant sums, through diverse anti-Castro programs that have been generously financed with money from the federal budget for half a century.

As the recently declassified documents tell us, 1959 and 1960 were years in which the powerful hand which sought to remain invisible wrestled with a small country which sought to ward it off. New acts of economic aggression soon followed the brutal sacking of the public treasury. Given Cuba’s then almost complete dependence on U.S. financing and markets, Washington strategists were confident that a few economic blows to the country would suffice to make Cuba collapse and come again under U.S. domination.

With the passing of time, they coined phrases which proved useful in concealing the meaning of their actions. The learned refer to these actions as “sanctions” which are part of an “embargo.” Now, it is possible for us to read that, as early as 1959, one of the first measures, the suppression of the sugar quota, was described by Secretary Herter as “economic warfare.”

We know, also, that, in those early days, U.S. authorities had a very precise idea of what they were doing, of the moral implications of their actions and the political ends they were pursuing. Few times were they as sincere as when they wrote: “The majority of Cubans support Castro…the only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship…every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba…a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”*

* Office of the Historian, Bureau Of Public Affairs, United States Department Of State; John P. Glennon, et al., eds., Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume VI, Cuba (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991), 885.

In 1997, the CIA declassified another document it had zealously kept secret for over thirty years, with the pertinent omissions and finishing touches. It is the report of General Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, CIA inspector general for the actions undertaken in 1959, which, in essence, describes the policy the United States has continued to apply to this day.

The program consisted of:

1. Formation of a Cuban exile organization to attract Cuban loyalties, to direct opposition activities, and to provide cover for Agency operations.
2. A propaganda offensive in the name of the opposition.
3. Creation inside Cuba of a clandestine intelligence collection and action apparatus to be responsive to the direction of the exile organization.
4. Development outside Cuba of a small paramilitary force to be introduced into Cuba to organize, train and lead resistance groups.†

† Inspector General’s Survey of the Cuban operation and associated documents, CIA historical review program release as sanitized 1997, 3–4.

The hidden hand was generous indeed. It handed out no less than $35,000 a week for the publication of Bohemia Libre magazine, whose circulation reached 126,000; the reprinting in exile of the daily newspaper Avance, formerly financed by Batista; Radio Swan broadcasts; television programs; other publications including comic strips; not to mention the travel expenses of lecturers, deployed to divulge propaganda across Latin America. At the time, the CIA paid Cuban leaders in exile $131,000 in salaries each month.

The Bay of Pigs fiasco did not put an end to these activities; rather, these became broader and more intense. Clandestine radio broadcasts, which have not ceased, were later expanded and became special Voice of America programs, today’s Radio and TV Martí. Since then, the CIA has financed newspapers, journals, and other publications and continues to have lecturers, academics, and journalists on its payroll.

It is clear that Washington’s opposition to the Cuban Revolution began before January 1, 1959. From that day on it has only intensified its efforts and devised means of aggression, from the Torricelli Act (1992) and Helms-Burton Act (1996), to the unlimited imperialist arrogance of George W. Bush and his detailed plans to intervene in Cuban affairs to the point of total domination.
In addition to economic warfare and the terrorist violence that has caused damage to property and incalculable human suffering, imperialist strategy has always included a colossal campaign of lies and cover-ups.

To pursue this strategy over the last half-century Washington has spent more than its total “development assistance” to Latin America for the same period, or its spending on education and medical services for its own poor citizens. In that way, it has come to deceive millions, and made them think that Cuba is something different from what it really has been and is.

The Washington plutocracy also uses the “culture industry” and information monopolies—in both cases under its thumb—to distort reality, confuse people, and make them mindless. It does this all over the world, but its main and most vulnerable victim is the American people. (Monthly Review has been a brilliant exception—giving its readers accurate information and in-depth analyses—that has contributed significantly to educating about and promoting the struggle for a better world for sixty years.)

The U.S. government has concealed from many the fact that it has been sponsoring terrorism against Cuba, with taxpayers’ money, for the last five decades, and continues to do so. This explains why self-confessed terrorists—such as Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, both implicated in the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 in which seventy-three people were killed, and many others in the United States—have no need to hide: they are there for all to see, walking around the streets, on television, and at public meetings (where they hug Democratic and Republican politicians).

Many Americans are also unaware that Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González, and René González are held in maximum-security prisons under abominable conditions. They have been punished because, unarmed and without force, they penetrated terrorist groups operating freely in Miami to gather information about violent plans, which they sent back to Cuba, helping to save lives. Highly sensitive information collected by them was passed on to the White House personally by Gabriel García Márquez, as was revealed in writing by the Nobel laureate himself. As a result of García Márquez’s efforts, President Clinton in July 1998 sent senior FBI officials to Havana. These were given a large amount of detailed information on these criminal designs, including the exact location of the terrorists. Despite assurances from both Clinton and the FBI that they would act swiftly, they did nothing: no action was ever taken against the terrorists, nor did they bother to reply to Cuba. They did move fast, however, on September 12, 1998, to arrest the five heroes mentioned above, who at the risk of their lives had supplied the evidence that the U.S. authorities needed to do their duty.

These facts are known to millions all over the world; the terrible injustice perpetrated against the five Cubans, and Bush’s shameless protection of Posada Carriles and his cronies, have been condemned by governments, parliaments, intellectuals, unions, political parties, and celebrities worldwide, but have hardly been mentioned in the United States.

In 1960, C. Wright Mills warned Americans that the revolution in Cuba was the start of a wider process that would spread to Latin America and the third world. On the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary, practically anyone can see that our continent has begun a new era. Campaigns by old and new social movements are underway everywhere, progressive governments are consolidating their positions, neoliberal dogma is degenerating into bankruptcy, and the peoples of Latin America are becoming increasingly united. None of this would exist if Fidel Castro and his comrades had not triumphed on January 1, 1959. History has finally done them justice.

    The Cuban Ambassador to London hosted a reception at the Melia White House Hotel near Regent’s Park last night, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. The place was so packed one could hardly move, as the Havana Club rum flowed and guests were served miniature portions of iced gazpacho. The Cuban government can feel a degree of justified self-satisfaction at having survived half a century, despite US economic sanctions, an attempted invasion (the Bay of Pigs) and the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union. But that should not lull them into complacency.

I went to Cuba frequently during the 1990s, from the very worst period of belt-tightening follownig the end of Russian subsidies, when even most of the buses stopped running, to the festive celebrations in 1999 of the 40th anniversary of the Revolution. On the last trip, I made a half-hour radio documentary for the BBC World Service during which I interviewed Vilma Espin, the (now deceased) wife of Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother (and now President himself). It was a strange occasion. She was extremely gracious, but talked non-stop for over three hours. By the end, my producer (who was in charge of the tapes) wasn’t even recording. It was all so typical of the leadership in Havana (and these days of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, incidentally): a conviction that they are totally right and that a grateful population should just listen to them for hours and feel reassured.

The Cuban Revolution did achieve some wonderful things, not least free health and education for all. The previous regime of  Fulgencio Batista was hideously corrupt and the gap btween rich and poor was enormous. However, a joke I often heard as I travelled round the island was that the Revolution did indeed get rid of that gap: ‘Now everyone is poor!’ In fact, two classes of people have developed in Cuba over the past 20 years: those who have access to hard currency (through relatives abroad or from tourists) and the majority who have to subsist on tiny salaries and meagre state rations.  Despite a huge surge in tourism, the economy as a whole is effectively stagnant, paralysed not just by the US embargo, but at least as much by the failure to open it up to market forces and to encourage entrepreneurship. At the same time, hundreds of political dissidents languish in prison and people are spied on by a network of informers.

Raul Castro has made a few tentative steps in the right direction economically. But he needs to be encouraged to do much more. When Barack Obama enters the White House next week, he should end the US embargo and work with Mexico and the European Union in not only helping to modernise the Cban economy but also to promote democracy and human rights constructively. Fifty years is a good time for celebrations, but it should also be a moment to close one chapter and open another.

(photo: Jonathan Fryer and Vilma Espin in Havana)