Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada |
By Salim Lamrani, The Huffington Post, April 4, 2012
President of the
Cuban Parliament since 1992, and member of the Political Bureau of the Cuban
Communist Party, Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada is, after President Raul Castro and
First Vice President Antonio Machado Ventura, third in line in the Cuban
government. Professor of philosophy and a career diplomat, Alarcon spent nearly
12 years in the United States as the Cuban ambassador to the United Nations.
Over time, he has become a spokesperson for the Havana government.
In this long
interview, one that lasted nearly two hours, Alarcon did not seek to evade a
single question. He comments on the role of Fidel Castro after his retirement
from political life and explains the presence of Raul Castro at the center of
power. He also speaks about the reform of the Cuban economic and social model
as well as the challenges facing the Cuban nation. Alarcon then discusses the
question of emigration and Cuban relations with the United States under the
Obama administration. He also takes on the thorny question of human rights and
political prisoners and does not hesitate to talk about Alan Gross, the
American sub-contractor imprisoned in Cuba, as well as the case of the five
Cuban agents detained in the United States. Alarcon then turns to the important
question of oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico and the potential consequences
of their exploitation. The interview concludes with a discussion of the
relationship of Cuba with the Catholic church and the Vatican, the imminent
visit to Cuba of Pope Benedict XVI, Cuban relations with the European Union and
the new Latin America, and finally the future of Cuba after Fidel and Raul
Castro.
Fidel and Raul
Castro
Salim Lamrani: Mr. President, Fidel Castro left power in 2006 for health reasons. How is he doing today and how does he spend his time?
Salim Lamrani: Mr. President, Fidel Castro left power in 2006 for health reasons. How is he doing today and how does he spend his time?
Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada: To my knowledge, he is in excellent
health, certainly if you take into account his advanced age and the surgical
operations that he has had to undergo. He leads a very active life. He spends a
great deal of time reading and he regularly writes thoughtful reflections on a
range of topics. He has also published several books. He is currently focused
on certain specific research topics, which include food and agriculture. He is
analyzing possible forms of agricultural production that would address the
serious food crisis that has struck the world, in particular, its poorest
regions.
Fidel Castro is a man of extremely varied interests. He studies all
kinds of themes and issues, and I must say that for all of these reasons his
schedule is very busy.
SL: How do you explain the presence of Raul Castro at the center of
power. Is the reason the fact that he is related to Fidel Castro? Is this, in
some way, a dynastic secession?
RAQ: The presence of Raul Castro as the head of the Cuban nation is in
absolutely no way linked to his family relationship with Fidel Castro, the
leader of the Cuban revolution. Let me explain. Raul Castro already occupied
the position of First Vice-President while Fidel Castro was in power. He had
been elected to this post. Thus it was constitutionally logical that he replace
the president, should the latter vacate power, in the same way that it would be
constitutionally reasonable for the President of the French Senate to succeed
the President of the French Republic should the latter leave power.
Furthermore, Raul Castro had been elected Second secretary of the Communist
party as early as the First Congress in 1975 and it is for this reason that he
now holds the post of First Secretary.
SL: But does he not hold these positions because he is Fidel Castro's
brother?
RAQ: I believe that the reason is historical rather than familial.
Allow me to clarify my thoughts. Quite aside from the fact that he is Fidel's
brother, Raul played a fundamental role from the first moment in the struggle against
the Fulgencio Batista dictatorship in 1956. In 1958, he was the organizer and
the head of the Rebel Army's second front in the Sierra Maestra mountains. He
has been considered the second leader of the Revolution since the period of
armed struggle against the military regime. This is because of his personal
merits and his exceptional leadership qualities, not because of his family
relationship with Fidel Castro.
Note, moreover, that Raul is the only member of the Castro family to
occupy a political position in Cuba. If it were a question of nepotism, all of
the family members would hold key positions. But this is not the case. Fidel
Castro has several brothers and sisters but, with the exception of Raul, none
of them have played a role in Cuban history. For example, Fidel has an older
brother named Ramon. But understand that neither Ramon nor any other member of
the family has ever occupied a position in the national hierarchy. Ramon works
in agriculture, something that is his primary focus of interest. Fidel Castro's
children are not ministers. I repeat, the presence of Raul Castro as the head
of state owes more to historical logic than to family connections.
SL: In 2008, after his election, Raul Castro told Parliament that he
would consult with Fidel Castro on all strategic questions. This proposition
was accepted by the deputies. Should we not see in this a covert form of
governance by the historical leader of the Revolution? Who really makes the
decisions in Cuba?
RAQ: In our country, decisions are made collegially. This was the case
even when Fidel Castro was in power. Raul Castro has insisted on this aspect of
governance, on its institutionalization in the revolutionary process. We are,
at the moment, preparing a Party conference that will take place in January
2012. It will include the participation, not only a very large number of
militants, but also of ordinary citizens who are not members of the Party.
The government also functions like a management collective. The
Council of Ministers meets every week. In this same way, the Political Bureau
of the Party Committee, as well as the Executive Committee of the Council of
Ministers meet every week to discuss, debate and take important decisions.
Fidel Castro has very strong moral and political authority. This
authority does not result from his having had a particular charge or
responsibility, or from holding an office that at some point he may have been
elected to, but rather because of the role he has played in history. That is
the reason why, as Raul explained before the Congress, that his opinion is
still welcomed on questions of strategic importance. He doesn't participate in
the meetings that I have mentioned, but when it comes to questions of the first
order, he is systematically consulted.
Remember at the same time that we are talking about a country where
almost everyone is consulted all of the time on all of the issues. Now, if
there is a fact about Cuba that cannot be denied, it is the large number of
meetings where people are able to express their points of view. I can tell you
that the debates are lively because the differences of opinion are real.
Workers, Party militants, neighbors, absolutely everyone participates in them.
Thus, logically, Fidel Castro has his say. Clearly, he doesn't express an
opinion on every issue, but he does weigh in on the fundamental issues.
SL: A kind of moral authority.
RAQ: Fidel does not hold a formal position today, but he nonetheless
remains Fidel Castro, the historic leader of the Revolution, the person who led
us to victory over Batista. He remains the principal architect of the
resistance to the United States for the last half century. Thus, his opinion
is, quite logically, of particular importance on all strategic issues.
The reform of the Cuban economic model
SL: In April of 2011, the Communist Party Congress decided to reform the Cuban economic model. What brought about this change? What is it exactly?
SL: In April of 2011, the Communist Party Congress decided to reform the Cuban economic model. What brought about this change? What is it exactly?
RAQ: As Cubans, we realized that we had to introduce important changes
in the social and economic functioning of our nation in order to save
socialism, to improve it, to make it better. In doing so, we took an objective
look at our society. Cuban socialism had, for a very long time, been closely
linked to that of the Soviet Union. Clearly, it can no longer continue like
this. It was also necessary to take into account certain global factors present
on the international scene. Furthermore, we need to rectify aspects of the
social and economic model that undoubtedly made sense at the time they were
adopted, but can no longer be justified. Certain policies elaborated in the
past can be explained by conditions that existed then, but today they have no
reason for being.
What are we seeking exactly? We are attempting to obtain a higher
level of economic efficiency, a more rational use of our limited natural,
material and financial resources. In so doing, we take into account the primary
external factors that impinge upon Cuba, certainly the economic sanctions that
the United States imposes upon us, sanctions that have been tightened over the
past number of years. But, it is also important to take into account certain
positive changes, for example, those occurring in Latin America and the
Caribbean. After having analyzed the problems faced by the Cuban society, after
reflecting collectively upon them, we arrived at the conclusion that it would
be necessary to introduce certain changes not only in order to cope with the
objective realities we face, but also because we are convinced that there is a
better way to go about constructing a more just society.
SL: That is to say?
RAQ: The state is not giving up its role, and it is not putting our
society's social gains in jeopardy. But, in order to maintain access to free
universal health care, free universal education, and to guarantee everyone the
right to these services, the right to retirement benefits, to social
assistance, it is essential that we reach the highest level of efficiency
possible in their implementation. We have worked hard to provide higher quality
services at a lower cost, not by reducing the salary of the teacher, but rather
by eliminating the unnecessary costs that are inherent in a bureaucracy. This
is the general approach we took for the rest of the economy as well.
SL: One goal therefore is to put an end to bureaucratic obstacles, and
a withdrawal of the state from non-strategic sectors, hairdressing salons, for
example.
RAQ: Raul Castro has often cited the case of hairdressing salons. When
was it that Karl Marx suggested that socialism consisted of collectivizing
hairdressing salons? When was it that he said that this activity, like many
others, ought to be administered and controlled by the state? The idea of
socialism has always been the collectivization of the fundamental means of
production. It is clear that the term "fundamental" may be
interpreted more or less broadly. As far as we are concerned, we are convinced
that it is impossible to renounce certain things. Nevertheless, it is essential
that we reduce the role of the state in certain tasks and activities that
people can so better, both by themselves and cooperatively. This would allow
the state to cut costs enormously and still guarantee what we consider to be
basic human rights. To do this, we need to unleash new productive forces and
enable personal initiatives, in the city as well as in the countryside. In this
way, we will establish a Cuban socialism that, ultimately, does not simply
respond to established dogma, follow another's example, or copy a predetermined
template.
SL: A socialism that would therefore be uniquely Cuban.
RAQ: What characterizes Latin America at the present moment is the
fact that a number of countries, each in its own way, are constructing their
own versions of socialism. For a long while now, one of the fundamental errors
of socialist and revolutionary movements has been the belief that a socialist
model exists. In reality, we should not be talking about socialism, but rather
about socialisms in the plural. There is no socialism that is similar to
another. As Mariategui said, socialism is a "heroic creation." If
socialism is to be created, it must respond to realities, motivations,
cultures, situations, contexts, all of which are objectives that are different
from each other, not identical.
SL: How was the reform of the economic model decided upon?
RAQ: We are in an experimental phase using a methodology that is very
Cuban and, I think, very socialist, that is to say, a process of broad,
continual and authentic public consultation. The Party proposed a plan to
reform the economic system. This plan has been debated throughout the country,
not only among Party militants, but also among all citizens who chose to
participate. Furthermore, the plan has been significantly modified following
these discussions. Certain items have been changed, new items have been
proposed, and yet others have been rejected. Over 70 percent of the original
document was modified following discussions with citizen groups and only then
was it presented to the Communist Party Congress. Several commissions were
created to work and reflect upon the final document and to analyze the
proposals that emerged from this great national debate. In the long run, a new
document that contains 311 proposals for change was presented to and approved
by Parliament. Certain measures have already been implemented, others are in
the process of being implemented and others are still under discussion, not on
their content, that has already been approved, but on how best to implement
them.
I am not sure that there are many governments around the world that
would take the trouble of consulting the public before adopting a policy aimed
at transforming their economic system. Neither am I certain that governments
that have implemented drastic austerity measures, that have reduced their
health and education budgets, that have raised the retirement age, all because
of the systemic neoliberal crisis that now envelops many nations, might have
sought out the advice of their citizens before making profound changes that
promise to affect their daily lives.
Out of all of this experimentation a new socialism will emerge,
different from that we have now, but it will still be socialism and it will be
without a doubt more authentic.
SL: Is this not a return to capitalism?
RAQ: I don't think so, even if it is true that there will be a greater
presence of market mechanisms in Cuban society, mechanisms that characterize
the market economy, or capitalism if you prefer.
SL: Since November 2011, Cubans can buy and sell housing and
automobiles. Why was something that is the norm in the rest of the world banned
or highly regulated in Cuba?
RAQ: Allow me to give you a historical explanation. In the 1960s, when
these measures were taken, the objective was to prevent capitalist restoration
through the accumulation of goods. Take, for example, the Mexican revolution.
It implemented a great agrarian reform, but a short time later the latifundio
reappeared. The Cuban Revolution did not wish to commit the same error. If a
farmer who, through the agrarian reform program, came to possess even a small
piece of land and then decided to sell it to the richest landowner, he would
undermine the very foundation of the agrarian reform, because he was once again
contributing to the accumulation of property and to the resurgence of the latifundio.
As for housing, the urban reform gave all Cubans the right to housing
by limiting the concentration of ownership. Walk around Havana and you will
never find a person living in the street or sleeping under a bridge, something
that is not the case in numerous western capitals. There may be a problem of
overcrowding, with several generations living under the same roof, but no one
is abandoned to his fate. We did not wish to once again find ourselves with owners
of multiple properties and this is the reasons that restrictions -- not a total
ban -- were imposed.
SL: And what about automobiles?
RAQ: In the case of automobiles, the question is more complex because
it concerns an imported product upon which the nation is dependent. Never in
the history of the country has Cuba had an automobile industry. Cuba has
produced some means of collective transportation, but automobiles have never
been produced here. There is also another key element at play, gasoline, the fuel
that has always been the Achilles heel of the Cuban economy. It was necessary,
therefore, to establish controls and certain restrictions.
It is also well to recall that certain of these controls predate the
idea of Cuban socialism. I often refer to an extremely interesting document
dated February 1959, the point at which in Cuba we established control over
foreign exchange and imports. Up until February of 1959, the Cuban bourgeoisie
would go to a bank to buy dollars in order to import cars, perfume or other
luxury goods. With the triumph of the Revolution, a part of the elite that had
been linked to the old regime took the path of exile and, among them, was the
president of the Cuban national bank.
The provisional government, directed by Manuel Urrutia, then named Dr.
Felipe Pazos as head of this bank. Pazos had been the founder and first
president of this national financial institution when it was established in
1950 under the government of Carlos Prio Socarras. He directed the bank from
1950 until March of 1952, the date that marked the coup d'état of Fulgencio
Batista. When he once again took over the bank, he wrote a report that he submitted
to President Urrutia -- Fidel Castro was only chief of the Armed forces at the
time -- in which he described the state of Cuban finances and revealed the
extent of the pillaging of the reserves by the leaders of the old order before
they had fled the country.
It was Pazos, not Che Guevara, Raul Castro or any other radical of the
26th of July Movement, an emblematic representative of the leisured classes and
highly respected by the bourgeoisie of the period, who decided to establish
exchange controls, stop the sale of dollars, and impose strict control over
imports. As president of the National bank, he had informed Urrutia that it was
imperative that measures be taken, given the financial disaster that had
befallen the nation. Cuba' economic situation was dramatic and it was important
to recognize that certain elements of tension that existed in the Cuban economy
had not yet disappeared.
Also, beginning in the 1960s, strong restrictions were placed upon the
importation of products including automobiles and, for economic reasons, this
policy continues today. This decision, I would remind you, was made by a
renowned economist, Felipe Pazos, who was neither a radical nor a communist,
but was in fact a conservative.
Two types of situations existed. First, those who owned an automobile
before the triumph of the Revolution could use it as they wished, sell it, etc.
But, given that the state held a monopoly on imports, imported automobiles were
to be sold only to government workers, or to deserving parties, at subsidized
prices, often at little more than 10 percent of their real value. It was
therefore no longer possible to sell automobiles simply in order to make a
profit.
So clearly, limits were placed upon owning automobiles as personal
property unless they were to serve a social function. Had unregulated sale of
cars been legalized, ownership would not go to those for whom cars served a
social function, or to those who by their own merits had acquired them, but
rather to those with the most money. In any case, that was the justification at
the time. It was important to avoid speculation in automobiles, because it was
evident that the country did not have sufficient resources to massively import
them, nor to furnish the fuel necessary to their functioning. So, there again,
the state imposed certain restrictions.
SL: So what about now?
RAQ: We now see this from a different perspective. If you are a
homeowner -- and some 85 percent of Cubans are -- it is possible to sell. Why?
Take the case of a growing family that needs to acquire a larger place, and the
case of a household that is shrinking and needs a smaller place because the
children have grown up and married. From here on out, it will be possible to
exchange or to sell. It is now also possible to leave property to someone, loan
it, rent it, etc. Before, only the exchange of property and the renting of
rooms was authorized. Now, this type of transaction is facilitated by the
elimination of these bureaucratic obstacles.
SL: What were the obstacles?
RAQ: In the past, in order to buy, sell, or exchange properties, it
was necessary to obtain an administrative decision from the National Housing
Institute. To get them to make a decision, an agreement from the Municipal
Department of Housing was required. One then needed to obtain authorization at
both the provincial and national levels. There was an enormous bureaucracy
involved and given that administrative decisions were required, it was the
source of corruption and bribes.
Now, since the first of December 2011, two parties who wish to
exchange their homes have only to present the titles to their properties to a
public notary. All of the bureaucratic hurtles have been eliminated. Of course,
public notaries have always been involved, but one saw them only after both the
buyer and seller had received all of the necessary administrative
authorizations.
SL: What happens if there is a dispute?
RAQ: In the case of litigation, if one party claims certain rights
after a transaction has been completed either through sale or exchange, the
courts will decide the case and have the last word. The bureaucracies will no
longer have a voice in the matter. You can see, therefore, that in this one
area alone, we have managed to reduce drastically administrative and
bureaucratic involvement by eliminating unnecessary steps. These reforms have
resolved a number of problems linked to housing by simplifying sales and
exchanges.
As far as automobiles are concerned, this has been even easier because
vehicle registration has existed for a long time. We are working to eliminate
bureaucracy in our society. The biggest remaining limitation resides in the
fact that individuals cannot import vehicles and, at the risk of repeating
myself, this was a decision taken fifty years ago, not by Fidel Castro but rather
by Felipe Pazos, long before the United States imposed a commercial embargo on
our nation, long before the Torricelli Act of 1992, the Helms-Burton Act of
1996 and the two reports of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba of
2004 and 2006, which strengthened these economic sanctions. As you can imagine,
these sanctions have exacerbated our national economic problems and led to the
imposition of strict controls on personal imports.
In the same way, a candidate for emigration will now be able to sell
his home before leaving the country or leave it to his family up through the
fourth degree of consanguinity. Before, the state took possession of abandoned
housing and gave it to other families. This will no longer be the case.
Migration issues
SL: Let's talk
about the question of emigration. Why are there still restrictions on
emigration? Why is it that a Cuban who leaves the country for more than 11
months is considered an emigrant and loses most of the rights reserved to
permanent residents?
RAQ: One of the
questions that we are currently discussing at the highest level of the
government is the question of emigration. We are working towards a profound
radical reform of emigration that in the months to come will eliminate these
kinds of restrictions. As an introduction to this topic, we should recall that
emigration has been one of the themes most manipulated by the United States.
Since 1959, it has been used as a weapon of destabilization against Cuba and as
a means of distorting Cuban reality. I would remind you that the Cuban
Adjustment Act of 1966 is still in force. It stipulates that any Cuban that
leaves the country, either legally or illegally, peacefully or violently will
be, after one year in the United States, automatically eligible for permanent
residency status. You must admit that the Cuban Adjustment Act is a great
motivating factor that incites legal, but especially illegal, emigration. At
the same time, the United States imposes a limit of 30,000 on the number of
Cubans who are allowed to emigrate each year. Logic would suggest that the
United States diplomatic representation in Havana, because of the Cuban Adjustment
Act, would grant a visa to each applicant who applies. But this is not the
case.
SL: For what
purpose would you think?
RAQ: In order to
encourage illegal immigration and then to exploit this phenomenon by mounting
media campaigns featuring poor Cubans trying to leave their country at all
costs. The only country in the world that benefits from a law of adjustment on
the part of the United States is Cuba. It is the reason why there is not a
single Cuban in an illegal situation on American soil because they have all
been regularized. On the one hand, the United States criminalizes immigrants
from every country in the world, but on the other, they welcome Cubans with
open arms.
SL: What are the
other reasons that might explain migratory control?
RAQ: Things have
actually changed a great deal. Now, the Cuban community abroad constitutes the
second largest group of people who travel to Cuba each year. Nearly a
half-million Cubans living overseas visit us annually. The immense majority of
Cubans living abroad maintain a normal relationship with their country of
origin.
Fifty years ago
this was not the case. Then the majority was comprised of exiles and among them
were those who had looted the public treasury, those who had participated in
the Bay of Pigs invasion and those who had entered the country clandestinely in
order to plant bombs and assassinate young teachers during the Literacy
Campaign. As you can imagine things were quite different then.
Since then, other
Cubans have emigrated to the United States, emigrants who do not share the same
profile as the earlier exiles. It is now an economic migration and the
fundamental interest of those who migrate is to maintain a peaceful
relationship with their country of origin. They have family, friends and above all
they want stability.
This new reality
has brought us to consider a substantial reform of our migratory policy.
Certain regulations are to be changed and others are to be eliminated entirely.
There is yet
another explanation for these restrictions: the need to protect our human
capital. The training of doctors, technicians, teachers, etc. is extremely
costly for Cuba and the United States is doing its best to deprive us of these
human resources. In 1959, 50 percent of all Cuban doctors, 3,000 in total, became
exiles in the United States where they were offered better living conditions.
Since 2006, a policy adopted by the Bush administration entitled The Cuban
Medical Program, is designed to deprive the Cuban nation of its doctors by
inciting them to move to the United States. This program is still in place,
even now under the Obama administration. We have the right to protect our human
capital.
Relations with the
United States
SL: Let's turn to
relations with the United States. From the Cuban perspective, what are the
differences between the Obama administration and the previous Bush
administration?
RAQ: The most
notable difference is that of style, of language. Obama is a more sophisticated
man, more cultivated than Bush. Of course, this is not particularly flattering
on my part since one could say the same of almost anyone. It is not especially
difficult to be more intelligent than George W. Bush. But if we were to concede
a certain formal change from the previous administration, it would not be one
of substance. I always think of this famous song, "Killing me softly with
your words". Because their objective remains the same: to destroy the
Cuban revolution, subvert the established order, dominate Cuba as they did in
the past, all remains the same, but with somewhat less aggressive rhetoric,
with a gentler approach.
SL: Apart from
style, have there not been a few changes?
RAQ: The Obama
administration has fundamentally distinguished itself from its predecessor on
one issue that relates to the Cuban-American community. During the electoral
campaign Obama travelled to Miami and promised to eliminate the drastic
restrictions on travel by Cubans living in the United States that had been
imposed by the Bush administration. Between 2004 and 2009, Cubans from the United
States, under the best of conditions, could travel to the island for no more
than 14 days every three years. To qualify even for this, it was necessary to
have a member of the family to whom you are related by the first degree of
consanguinity, that is to say, grandparents, parents, brother or sister, spouse
and children. The Cuban who had only an aunt on the island, for example, was
not authorized to travel, even once every three years. The transfer of money
was also limited to 1200 dollars a year. Obama kept his promise and rescinded
these restrictions. This was something important for overseas Cubans as well as
for Cubans on the island, because it preserved family relationships.
SL: So on this
point Obama has distinguished himself from his predecessor.
RAQ: Indeed. Up
until this point, the custom for all presidential candidates, when they visited
Miami, was to promise ever stronger, ever more robust, sanctions against the
"Castro regime" in order to satisfy the demands of the great
potentates who control the anti-Castro industry. Obama, on the other hand, went
there to obtain the support of the Cuban emigrants, and he had the good sense
to talk about what it was that interested the great majority of Cubans in
Florida: the possibility of traveling freely to Cuba. Obama was right, of
course, and he won the Democratic nomination, received a majority of the votes
in Miami and Florida and emerged as the winner of the presidential election.
SL: Does not
Obama's victory in Florida, the traditional bastion of the Republican right,
mean that there has been a notable change in the composition of the Cuban
community?
RAQ: This is the
case, of course, because the new Cuban community, composed of the vast majority
of all Cubans in Florida, has a different attitude than that of the older
generation that was nostalgic for the old order, for the extremist exile, as it
is commonly called. This extremist fringe, for the most part, holds American
citizenship and participates in political life by voting, while the new generation
of immigrants, or at least a large part of it, are not American citizens and in
no way play an active role in the political life of the nation. But in spite of
this, Obama's position was the majority position among Cubans who have the
right to vote. Nonetheless, Cubans who cannot vote have influence. They can
exert pressure. In brief, they too must be taken into account. Obama, once
elected, put an end to the restrictions.
SL: What is your
assessment of Obama's first term vis-à-vis Cuba?
RAQ: I think it is
an assessment that is shared by a majority of American citizens. The most
accurate term for describing this generally shared feeling is
"frustration", because he has not satisfied the expectations that
were raised by his rhetoric of change. But we are willing to concede that, and
I repeat, he has a more stylish approach, more elegant.
On the other hand,
I am compelled to tell you that the Obama administration has been considerably
more consistent in the imposition of fines and sanctions against foreign
companies who violate the framework of sanctions against Cuba, that engage in
business transactions with us.
SL: Thus, the
sanctions the United States imposes on Cuba apply equally to foreign
enterprises.
RAQ: We should not
forget that these economic sanctions have an extraterritorial impact, that is
to say they apply equally to other countries in clear violation of
international law which prohibits any kind of extraterritorial application of
laws. For example, French law does not apply in Spain, because French law
respects international law. However, the United States law that imposes
economic sanctions on Cuba applies everywhere in the world.
A number of banks
have been fined several millions of dollars, more than 100 million in one case,
for conducting dollar-based business transactions and for having opened dollars
accounts with Cuban companies.
SL: Thus, on the
one hand, certain restrictions have been relaxed while on the other, sanctions
against those who contravene the rules of the embargo are applied more
systematically.
RAQ: Exactly. It's
worth noting that the bilateral relations under Obama have not risen to the
level that existed during the Carter administration. Rather, they are similar
to what existed under Clinton.
SL: What were they
like under Carter?
RAQ: Carter put an
end the existing regulations and began a process of normalizing relations.
Diplomatic representation was established and sections of interest were opened
in Havana and Washington. Then it was not only Cubans who could travel without
restriction, but Americans as well. This was, in fact, the only period since
1959 when American tourists could travel to Cuba without restriction. Today
they can travel anywhere in the world, China, Vietnam, North Korea, but not to
Cuba.
Obama did not
restore the Carter level of relations even though numerous sectors in the
United States, the business world, public opinion and more than 100 members of
Congress were insisting upon it, however their efforts were in vain.
SL: Is Cuba willing
to normalize relations with the United States?
RAQ: Certainly. But
the real question is what do we mean by normalizing relations. If we're talking
about abiding by international law, Cuba is quite willing to normalize
relations, but with the stipulation that the United States must recognize us
and treat us as an equal from a legal standpoint, as is the case with all other
countries of the world. I would remind you that sovereign equality has been the
norm since the Congress of Westphalia in 1648. The question is therefore one of
respect for sovereignty and independence. Under these conditions, Cuba of
course aspires to the normalization of relations with the United States. In
fact, this is one of the historic goals of the Cuban nation.
But in order for
this to come about, the United States must accept this concrete reality: Cuba
is a sovereign entity, independent and free, and does not belong to them. I
would point out that on the entire American continent, the United States is the
only country that does not maintain relations with us.
SL: According to
the Obama administration, relations with Cuba are not possible because of its
lack of democracy and its human rights abuses.
RAQ: This is actually
part of the hypocritical rhetoric that comes from the government of the United
States. If the United States applied these same criteria across the board, they
would not maintain relations with quite a number of other countries.
They also suffer
from a serious psychological problem. Were they to apply to themselves the same
standards they apply to Cuba, they would find it impossible to maintain good
relations internally. They would, for example, need to break off relations with
New York City where the police brutally represses peaceful demonstrations. They
would need to put an end to their relations with the California authorities
guilty of unprecedented violence against protestors from the "occupy
movement", as it is called.
It is as though
Cuba had decided to break off relations with all countries that do not offer
free and universal access to health care, education, culture, sports, or
leisure activities. At the same time, we are not asking the United States to
change its system as a precondition to normalizing relations. Obviously, we
would like it very much if all American citizens had access to free universal
health care, free universal education and for minorities not be victims of
racial or social segregation. In any case, we would hardly impose this as a
precondition to the normalization of bilateral relations because we respect the
principle of sovereignty. The United States does not belong to Cuba, therefore
we do not express our opinion or impose our point of view on their form of
government.
Thus, all of
Obama's rhetoric and that of his predecessors is a reflection of a historic
tendency dating back to the beginning of the 19th century and even back to
Thomas Jefferson, someone who considered Cuba to be a natural addition to the
American union. Clearly, the United States feels as though it is invested with
a divine mission that permits it to dictate its law to other nations. But you
understand that we do not accept this principle nor will we ever accept it.
The Case of Alan
Gross
SL: Now let's turn
to the Alan Gross affair, something that constitutes an obstacle, according to
the United States, to opening a dialogue with Cuba. How do you justify the
sentencing of Alan Gross to 15 years in prison when he was, according to
Washington, in Cuba merely to help the Jewish community gain access to the
Internet ?
RAQ: This is
patently incorrect. The Cuban Jewish community, for which we have great
respect, has already spoken on this subject and has firmly rejected any
connection to Gross' activities. The Jewish community did not need Gross'
services because they have no problem accessing new technologies. What is more,
relations between the Jewish community and the Cuban government are excellent
and, because of this, the community would never associate themselves with the
subversive maneuvering of the United States. The Cuban Jewish community also
has close links to Jewish communities throughout the world and, in particular,
to those in the United States. These communities furnish them with what they
need and members travel frequently to Cuba. All of this occurs with the full
cooperation of the Cuban government. Consequently, Washington's assertions are
clearly without foundation.
SL: What has he
been accused of?
RAQ: Gross himself
has complained of being a victim of the policies of the United States. He came
to Cuba to implement a program of internal subversion developed by the United
States that involved the distribution of highly sophisticated equipment,
satellite telephones for example, to groups linked with the government of the
United States, of which the ultimate goal, a goal publicly proclaimed by
Washington, is regime change. His presence in Cuba had an ultimately subversive
goal, This is not only a serious crime in Cuba, but in the United States and
France as well.
SL: Ultimately, he
was judged on this basis?
RAQ: He was brought
to trial during which he benefited from all possible legal guarantees. He
himself has acknowledged that the process was equitable and that the trial was
fair. His American lawyer also acknowledged that the trial was conducted in a
fair manner. Further, the conditions under which he is held allow him to have
contact with American diplomats in Cuba every time he so wishes. Also, every time
his wife has applied for a visa to visit him, it has been granted. Gross has
also met regularly with prominent Americans visiting Cuba, including religious
leaders. The last was David Shneyer, the rabbi of Gross' community, who has
described the conditions of his visit. They did not meet in a high security
prison as the United States press reported, but rather in the military hospital
where Gross lives because of his health problems. He is treated humanely, with
full respect for his integrity, as Cuban law provides.
Dr. Salim Lamrani
is a lecturer at Paris Sorbonne Paris IV University and Paris-Est
Marne-la-Vallée University and French journalist, specialist on relations
between Cuba and the US . He has just published Cuba: Ce que les
médias ne vous diront jamais [ Cuba : What the media will never tell
you], ( Paris : Editions Estrella, 2009). Contact: lamranisalim@yahoo.fr ,
Salim.Lamrani@univ-mlv.fr
No comments:
Post a Comment