Castro on Obama's Asian odyssey: "a science fiction story"

FIDEL CASTRO
Countercurrents.org

I very much regret to have to criticize Obama knowing that there are in that country other could-be presidents worse than him. I am aware that that position in the United States is today a major headache. The best example of this is the report in yesterday’s edition of Granma that 237 US members of Congress, or 44%, are millionaires. This does not mean that every one of them is an incorrigible reactionary but it is extremely difficult that they feel like the many million Americans who do not have access to medical care, who are unemployed or who need to work very hard to earn their living.
Of course, Obama himself is no beggar; he owns millions of dollars. He excelled as a professional and his command of language, his eloquence and intellect are unquestionable. Also, he was elected president despite his being an African American, a first time occurrence in the history of his country’s racist society, which is enduring a profound international economic crisis of its own making.

This is not about being an anti-American as the system and its huge media intend to label its adversaries. The American people are not the culprits but rather the victims of a system that is not only unsustainable but worse still: it is incompatible with the life of humanity.

The smart and rebellious Obama who suffered humiliation and racism in his childhood and youth understands this, but the Obama educated by the system and committed to it and to the methods that took him to the US presidency cannot resist the temptation to pressure, to threaten and even to deceive others. He is a workaholic. Perhaps no other American president would dare to engage in such an intense program as he intends to carry out in the next eight days.

According to plan, he will take an extensive tour of Alaska where he intends to address the troops stationed there. He will be visiting Japan, Singapore, the People’s Republic of China and South Korea. He will attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) and that of the Association of East Asian Nations (ASEAN). He will hold talks with the Prime Minister of Japan and His Majesty Emperor Akihito in the land of the Rising Sun as well as with the prime ministers of Singapore and South Korea and the presidents of Indonesia Susilo Bambang, of Russia Dimitri Medvedev and of the People’s Republic of China Hu Jintao. He will be making speeches and giving press conferences. He will be carrying with him his nuclear briefcase, which we hope he will have no need to use during his hasty tour.

His Security advisor has said that Obama will discuss with the president of Russia the continuance of the START-1 Treaty set to expire on December 5, 2009. There is no doubt that some reductions of the enormous nuclear arsenal will be agreed upon, albeit this will be of no consequence to world peace and economy.

What is our distinguished friend planning to discuss during his intense journey? The White House has made its solemn announcement: climate change and economic recovery; nuclear disarmament and the Afghan war; and, the risks of war in Iran and in the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea. There is plenty of material to produce a science fiction book.

But, how can Obama unravel the problems of climate change when the position of his representatives during the preparatory meetings of the Copenhagen Summit on the greenhouse effect gas emissions was the worst among those of the industrialized and rich nations, both in Bangkok and Barcelona, because the United States chose not to sign the Kyoto Protocol and the oligarchy of that country is not willing to really cooperate.

How can he contribute to the solution of the grave economic problems afflicting a large part of humanity when at the end of 2008 the total debt of the United States --including that of the federal, state and local administrations, the businesses and families—amounted to 57 trillion dollars, that is, over 400% of its GDP, and that country’s budget deficit reached almost 13% of its GDP in fiscal year 2009, an information that Obama is certainly aware of.

What can he offer Hu Jintao when his openly protectionist policies have been aimed against the Chinese exports and he is demanding at all costs that the Chinese government revaluates the Yuan, an action that would adversely impact on the growing Third World imports from China?

The Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, who is not a disciple of Karl Marx but an honest catholic among others who are not willing to cooperate with the imperialism in Latin America, has recently said that “….we are risking our destruction and the devastation of life’s diversity.”

“[…] almost half of humanity is living today under the poverty line. The wealthiest 20% are consuming 82.49% of all of the riches on Earth while the poorest 20% are living on a tiny 1.6%.” He also quotes the FAO as he warns that “…there will be in the upcoming years from 150 to 200 million climate refugees.” And then he adds that “humanity is consuming today a 30% above the regenerating capacity…the planet is giving unmistakable signs that it can stand it no more.”

What he says is true, but Obama and the US Congress have yet to find out.
What is he leaving to us in the hemisphere? The shameful problem in Honduras and the annexation of Colombia where the United States will set up seven military bases. They also established a military base in Cuba more than one-hundred years ago and remain there by force. It was in that base where they installed the horrible torture center widely known around the world; the same that Obama has been unable to close, yet.

I hold the view that before Obama completes his term there will be from six to eight right-wing governments in Latin America that will be allies of the empire. Likewise, the US extreme right will try to limit his administration to one term. Once again there will be a Nixon, a Bush or the like of a Cheney in the White House. Then, the meaning will be clear of those absolutely unjustifiable bases threatening today the South American peoples with the pretext of fighting drug-trafficking, a problem created by the tens of billions of dollars that organized crime and the production of drugs in Latin America receive from the United States.

Cuba has shown it only takes justice and social development to fight drugs. In our country, the crime rate per 100,000 people is one of the lowest in the world. No other country in the hemisphere can exhibit such low rates of violence. It is known that, despite the blockade, no other country can boast our high education levels.

The Latin American peoples will resist the onslaught of the empire!
Obama’s trip seems a science fiction story.

Castro commends US-China strategic and economic dialogue

Following is a piece written by former Cuban President Fidel Castro in his column “Reflections by Comrade Fidel” on the G-20 summit in London. It is reproduced from the official Cuban website.


Today the G-20 Summit began. The experts in economic matters have made an enormous effort -- some, with experience in important international positions; others, as learned researchers. The subject is a complex one, the language is new and demands that we be familiar with the terms, the economic facts, the international agencies and the political leaders who have the greatest weight on the international scene. Therefore, our desire to simplify and to explain intelligibly what is happening in London, just as I see it.

Nobody was surprised that Obama was the star of the London summit. He represents the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world. He is favored by special circumstances. Bush, lying, cynical, war-mongering and nasty, is not there. Neither is McCain, mediocre and ignorant, thanks precisely to Obama’s amazing victory, a black man in the country of racial discrimination, where a majority of white voters cast their ballots for McCain, but not in enough numbers to compensate for the votes of more than 90% of black and mixed race Americans, citizens of Latino origin, the poor and those affected by the crisis. He has just been elected when other G-20 leaders are at the point of concluding their mandates and Obama will be the probable president of the United States for the next eight years. It isn’t strange that news from London revolve around him.

What the world deems important is what comes out of it there, that is, if anything comes out at all. Each one of the participants has their own national and even personal objectives, as political leaders who shall be judged by history.

Obama’s objective is, in the first place, to change the image of his country, the principal responsible party for the tragedy from which the world is suffering and the party being rightly blamed for the current devastating economic crisis, in which he has absolutely no political responsibility. As Joseph Stiglitz, the former economic head of the International Monetary Fund and now MIT professor, points out: “He ought to come to say that he is guilty of nothing and that he is trying to solve it as quickly as he can.”

His main European ally, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is the Summit host, wildly hoping to alter the current anti-Labor Party tendency unleashed by the nonsense of his predecessor Tony Blair. Buckingham Palace honored Obama and his wife Michelle with a reception. The president gave the elderly Queen a modern digital recorder, product of sophisticated American technology, an Ipod with songs and images of the Queen’s state visit to the U.S. in 2007 and a book with musical scores signed by Richard Rogers. No words were to be exchanged with Her Highness about the mundane G-20 meeting.

Brown, on the other hand, is pulling out all stops with the crisis. He hopes to change the regulation of the banking system, promote economic growth, increase cooperation and put an end to protectionism. He recognizes that the negotiations will be difficult.

His motto: “It is better to look ahead than to look back”. Clearly if the voters were to look back, he would win very few votes.

The desire of both allies in the heart of the G-20 is to minimize the differences between France and Germany.

Sarkozy doesn’t hide his displeasure with United States policy. He is explosive. He recently threatened to walk out of the summit. Yesterday, on Europe 1 Radio, he declared that for now there is no satisfactory agreement about the Summit, but he did soften his threats to leave the table if there is no move towards greater regulation: “I will not be associated with a Summit that doesn’t end with greater regulations.” He assures that the negotiators have not reached any agreement.

The draft of the Summit’s communiqué, already making the rounds among journalists, speaks of measures to reestablish global growth, keep markets open and encourage global trade. “We must get results, there is no choice,” Sarkozy insisted yesterday.

A few days ago Obama announced that the United States proposes to introduce changes in its system of regulation and supervision, in the hope that this declaration would fulfill a part of the European demands, snatching away one of those flags.

Sarkozy rejoined that his endeavor to put an end to tax havens is serious.

Very close to Sarkozy’s positions, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, demands that the agreement not include either the requirement of a tax stimulus plan for the advanced countries, or that debate be opened up about the announcement of a new international currency which is the emerging countries’ demand to the G-7.

“The world is at a crossroads,” Merkel said. “We must do everything possible so that the crisis is not repeated.”

“We have to go further than what was discussed in Washington,” and she added that everything agreed to in London must come with a guarantee that it will be applied. “There must not be one single place, or one single product or one single institution without supervision and transparency.”

Merkel revealed herself to be on the side of increasing International Monetary Fund funding and stepping up aid to developing countries which are essentially suffering from the impact of the crisis.

Increasing IMF resources already appears to be a reality. The president of Mexico said when he arrived in London that he is negotiating a line of credit with the IMF for 26 billion euros. Yesterday in London John Lipsky, the number-two man in the International Monetary Fund, informed that the IMF would provide Mexico with a line of credit for 47 billion dollars in order to guarantee the availability of cash flow in case the market situation worsens because of the crisis. The figure is larger than that requested by Mexico.

As in the IMF, the United States has the majority of shares, without its support such a credit would not be possible and so this underpins Obama’s influence at the London Summit.

The news cables were announcing that Obama would be meeting with Dimitri Medvédev and Hu Jintao, the presidents of Russia and China, to talk about the tricky problems facing both countries with the United States.

In the superpower’s bilateral encounters with the two great powers, economic problems will surely be tackled, or perhaps agreements that have been patiently discussed and approved through their diplomatic representatives will be announced.

Today, April 2nd, I read a long and detailed dispatch from the Xinhua News Agency, dated the 1st, reporting that “President Hu Jintao of China and President Barack Obama of the United States agreed today that their respective countries will work together to build a positive, cooperative and full relationship in the 21st century.”

“Furthermore, the presidents decided to establish the bilateral mechanism of Strategic and Economic Dialogues.”

“The new commitment, assumed by both heads of state during their meeting in London, will outline the direction and provide a major boost to sustained, solid and stable development of relations between the two nations.”

“The relationship between China and the United States continues to be one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world in the 21st century, one in which humankind faces enormous opportunities and challenges. In the new era, the two nations have important responsibilities in regards to world peace, stability and development and they also share wide interests.”

“The two parties ought to maintain the rhythm of the times and always conduct the bilateral ties from a strategic, long-range perspective.”

“They must respect and take into consideration the fundamental interests of the other party and take advantage of opportunities, just as they must work together to face up to the challenges of the century.”

“Establishing the China-USA Strategic and Economic Dialogues Mechanism is an important step to promote the bilateral relationship to an even greater extent. Thus, the earlier strategic dialogue between the two countries has been raised to a new level.”

“At a time when the international financial crisis continues to spread, the two nations must support one another and work together to weather the storm, and this will favor the primary mutual interests of China and the United States”.

“China and the United States should not only improve the exchanges and cooperation in areas such as the economy, the fight against terrorism, proliferation, transnational crime, climate change, energy and the environment, but they must also strengthen communication and coordination in regional and world issues.”

Such an agreement cannot be discussed in a 60-minute meeting. It was already drawn up in all its details.

China, whose allies today on the Asian continent invaded and plundered it a mere seven decades ago, is now moving forward to a top position in the world economy.

It is the United States’ prime creditor and calmly discusses with the president of that powerful country the rules that will govern relations between two nations in a world fraught with risks.

Perhaps the Xinhua dispatch transmits one of the most important news related to the G-20 Summit.

Today it began and concluded as I was writing these lines! Amazing!

'Obama Effect' highlights racism in Cuba

LOUIS E. V. NEVAER
News Analysis
New America Media

Editor's Note: Barack Obama's victory has made Cubans more willing to speak out against the institutional racism that exists half a century after Fidel Castro established a "color blind" egalitarian society.


MERIDA, Mexico – As Cuba prepares to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power, US President–elect Barack Obama’s victory is raising disturbing questions about the institutional racism in the so-called egalitarian society, where racism is said to have disappeared along with capitalism.
“Cuba, I am inclined to believe, is nervous about the impact that a black president in the White House could have upon its own black population,” writes Carlos Moore, a black Cuban of Jamaican ancestry and author of “Pichón: Race and Revolution in Castro's Cuba,” in the Miami Herald.

Since the first days of the revolution, Fidel has been aware of the racism that permeated Cuban society. “In the daily life of defense, loyalty, brotherhood, and shrewdness,” Fidel wrote in January 1959, “there has always been a Negro standing beside every white man.”

Castro envisioned a “color-blind” society, an aspiration that dated back to the 19th century liberator Jose Martí who fought to end the vestiges of slavery as part of severing ties with Spain. But there was paradox in Castro’s declarations: Castro, the son of European immigrants from Galicia, Spain, was a white man who had overthrown the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, a light-skinned mulatto born to parents who were both of mixed race.

In the decades that followed, Castro’s vision of giving Cuban blacks equal opportunities was thwarted by the realities of race outside the island nation: Soviet and East European allies preferred white Cubans, and these were granted scholarships to study for advanced degrees throughout behind the Iron Curtain. The growing disparities between white Cubans and black Cubans remained a lingering problem throughout the 1970s and 1980s.

It was the official policy of the government to deny the existence of racism, arguing that Communist “egalitarianism” made discrimination based on race “an impossibility,” simply because it was incompatible with a socialist state. This was a polite fiction. As Alejandro De La Fuente wrote in his authoritative book, “A Nation for All: Race, Inequality, and Politics in Twentieth-Century Cuba,” (The University of North Carolina Press, 2000) the color of one’s skin determines the life one leads in Communist Cuba.

“(A) strong correlation between race, the regional distribution of the population, and the quality of the housing stock persisted through the 1980s,” De La Fuente wrote. “A traditional geography of race and poverty had not been dismantled, largely because of the government’s failure to provide adequate housing to the entire population. No neighborhood was racially exclusive—this was true, for the most part, in pre-Revolutionary Cuba also—but in the most dilapidated areas of the big cities, the proportion of blacks and mulattos was greater than that of whites.”

This was considered slander against socialism. Castro shot back, and Cuban authorities offered statistical analysis to bolster their view, which revealed the lengths to which Havana was prepared to deceive others even as it deceived itself. Of Cuba’s population of 11.2 million people in 2002, officials declared, 65 percent were white, 10 percent were black, and 25 percent were mulatto. This racial breakdown matched exactly the breakdown of members of Cuba’s parliament: 65 percent white and 35 percent people of color.

The implication was as obvious as it was ridiculous: Cuba had achieved “perfect” racial representation between the people and their representatives. Europeans scoffed at such claims. In fact, most independent census reports of the Cuban nation puts the number of “whites” at anywhere from 20 to 35 percent; everyone else is black or mulatto.

The European Union recently dispatched anthropologists to study racism in Cuba. Their findings were shocking: Not only was racism alive and well in the workers’ paradise, but it was systemic and institutional. Blacks were systematically excluded from positions that involved coming in contact with foreign tourists (where they could earn tips in hard currencies), they were relegated to poor housing, complained of the longest waits for healthcare, were excluded from managerial positions, received the lowest remittances from relatives abroad, and were five times more likely to be imprisoned.

The report, “Race and Inequality in Cuba Today,” by Rodrigo Espina and Pablo Rodriguez Ruiz, published in the anthropological journal TEMAS in 2006, infuriated Cuban officials.

But the findings were irrefutable, and they reflected an acceleration of racism in the 1990s. The collapse of the Soviet Union only exacerbated the problem, particularly as Cuba now competed with Cancun and San Juan for European vacationers. As Democracy Now! reported in 2000, Cuban officials continued to exclude blacks from tourist-related industries.

When Maria Carrion of Democracy Now! interviewed a black Cuban identified only as Victor, he told her that the only jobs black Cubans have access to are in construction and cleaning. Blacks are randomly stopped on the street by police, he said, and are unable to denounce racism in Cuba for fear of going to prison for being anti-Communist.

This is why Cubans are dizzy with excitement at Obama’s victory. “I still feel my heart skip a beat,” Victor Fowler, a black Cuban, told Spain’s El Pais newspaper last month. “I listen to Barack Obama … I look at my skin, I look at my children’s skin, I cry and I smile.”

Obama’s ascendancy has emboldened Cuban blacks in their criticism of the racism in Cuba. “The bottom line is that racism is Cuba's most intractable problem,” Carlos Moore wrote in the Miami Herald. “Only an arrangement implying effective power sharing between the island's two dominant groups can prepare the ground for a reversal of Cuba's socio-racial conundrum. This would call for an entirely new institutional framework that includes the reinvigoration of civil society, the implementation of robust racial affirmative action policies in all spheres, the revival of independent cultural and social institutions, an independent media and free press and the existence of autonomous political movements, associations and parties.”

In other words, when it comes to racial progress, blacks in Cuba complain that their nation resembles the United States circa 1963, the year before the Civil Rights Act was passed.

This was precisely the point that Esteban Morales Dominguez, an economist, political scientist and essayist made last year in his book, “The Challenges of the Racial Problem in Cuba” (Fundación Fernando Ortiz, 2007), which was promptly banned by authorities.

Yet there is rising anger among Cuban blacks who view Obama’s victory as a sharp reminder of the racism that still exists in Cuba. In a country where few dare to post messages in public view that are not in support of the government, signs in windows have begun to appear that are startling: “Si se puede, coño” or “Yes we can,” with a Cuban twist – “Damn it.”