‘I am Fidel’ – the Cuban Response to US Hopes of Destabilising Cuba

Ramona WADI

Three years since Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro died at age 90 of natural causes, the Cuban Revolution has withstood ongoing destabilisation efforts to turn the island once again into an imperialist playground. Indeed, as Latin American countries grapple with the ramifications of historical and current US intervention, Cuba has steadfastly held on to the principles which Fidel imparted to the Cuban people throughout the revolutionary process. The participatory aspect of memory in Cuba has been sustained through Fidel’s emphasis on education as an integral component of the revolution.

The US might have harboured the intention that Fidel’s departure would facilitate the process for a counter-revolutionary period in Cuba and the fall of the ideals that have transformed Cuban politics and society. However, the Cuban Revolution was always bigger than Fidel. It encompassed the link between leadership and the people, built upon the historical foundations which Fidel himself articulated. Defining revolution, for Fidel, was an endorsement and affirmation of Jose Martí as the “intellectual author of the Cuban Revolution”. What Fidel achieved was a continuation which now lies in the hands of generations of Cubans who are well versed in the importance of unifying education with revolution.

This is why, despite the attempts to sabotage the Cuban Revolution, the US blockade on Cuba and its transgressions against the island – a recent USAID conspiracy involved the tarnishing of the Cuban medical contingents – have not succeeded in changing the island’s course. Indeed, as Chile and Bolivia grapple with the ramifications of neoliberalism and a military coup respectively, Cuba remains a standing bastion in the region, just as much as it did when Fidel was alive and deemed the main obstacle to US plans for the island.

The Cuban resolve to remain independent and free of colonialism necessitated a radical change – namely prioritising education within the construction of revolutionary goals. Even prior to the triumph of the revolution, Fidel exhibited awareness of implementing the continuity. As can be gleaned from the Manifesto of the Sierra Maestra (1957), as well as the First and Second Declarations of Havana (1960, 1962), Fidel’s concept of education is inclusive of Cuban independence from imperial motives in Latin America. The Manifesto declared ‘an immediate initiation of an intensive campaign against illiteracy, and civic education emphasising the duties and rights of each citizen to his society and fatherland’. Furthermore, in condemning ‘the exploitation of man by man and the exploitation of underdeveloped countries by imperialistic finance capital,’ an awareness of rights in association with education was asserted – a statement reminiscent of Fidel’s early memories concerning the link between illiteracy and exploitation. Prior to its triumph, the revolution considered education as the vehicle through which Cubans could fight for economic, social and political rights. Therefore, education as a right and duty affirmed the Cuban Revolution’s stand against imperial exploitation of people and natural resources.

Revolutionary education contrasted with the colonial and military functions of the Batista regime. Several speeches of Fidel attest to this fact. Using a metaphor of armies during a 1961 address in Havana which recapitulated the revolution’s achievements in education and a goal to eradicate illiteracy in just one year, Fidel invoked the differences between Cuba’s ‘army of educators’ and the army of ‘exploiters’. Furthermore, Fidel declared: “The resentment of imperialism is so profound, its hatred of our revolution so great, that the imperialists refuse to resign themselves.” Eradicating illiteracy was perceived as a fundamental battle against imperial and counter-revolutionary actions against Cuba, also allowing Cubans to become active participants against imperial intervention. Throughout the revolutionary phases, there is ample evidence that Cuba not only consolidated its anti-imperialist values at a national level, but also, through Fidel, managed to impart internationalism based upon education and revolutionary consciousness.

Education, therefore, has contributed to the empowerment and organisation of Cuban society. This dynamic has contributed to awareness, and termination of, the relationship between subjugation and exploitation, while striving to complete an evolution of humanity within the context of socialist revolution.

The US, which only understands the language of coercion and intervention, will not comprehend the insoluble bond not only between Fidel and the people, but also between the people and the revolution. This unity has enabled Cubans to stand principled in defense of the revolution, while also providing an internationalist example for the rest of the world to emulate.

Ramona WADI

Ramona Wadi is an independent researcher, freelance journalist, book reviewer and blogger. Her writing covers a range of themes in relation to Palestine, Chile and Latin America.

Dictator: Media code for ‘Government we don’t like’

By Alan Macleod 

FAIR - Let’s start with a quiz: Quick! Name some dictators! I’m willing to bet most of you responded with just a few of the same names: Assad, Putin, Castro, Kim Jong-un, Gaddafi, Maduro. This is not because they are the only dictators in the world (far from it), or that all of them even necessarily qualify for the title, but precisely because these are the figures most constantly labeled as such by our media.

“Dictator” is a very powerful moniker to give someone. There is a hard-to-define but very important distinction between a government with authoritarian tendencies or a poor human rights record, on the one hand, and a full-blown dictatorship. The very name implies that dictatorial governments should, nay, must be resisted and overthrown, while the same action is not appropriate or justifiable for the former.

Democracy is a supposedly sacred ideal for Americans. Politicians and media tell us that the United States “stands for” democracy and opposes dictatorships everywhere, one reason why the US must continue to involve itself diplomatically and militarily around the world.
However, Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World” studies find that 49 countries—over a quarter of the world’s governments—are “not free”, a designation they use interchangeably with “dictatorships” on their website and their reports. Why then, do most politically savvy people not know the names of all these dictators? Why are they not household names, like Assad and co.? Is it because the United States provides military assistance (training, sales and aid) to three-quarters of them, as Rich Whitney’s study (Truthout, 9/23/17) suggests?

How Free is Freedom House?

Defining and quantifying what does and does not constitute a dictatorship is a notoriously tricky business, and Freedom House’s strong conservative political bias makes its list and judgments all the more questionable. For one, the “non-governmental” organization is actually overwhelmingly funded by Washington, who employed Freedom House in 2006 to perform “clandestine activities”—i.e., regime change operations—in Iran.

The man in charge of compiling the freedom list, used by Whitney and many others, admitted his methodology consisted of “hunches and intuition.” And as many scholars have indicated, Freedom House also has a long history of supporting US client state dictatorships and attacking enemy states such as Nicaragua; the ratings have a strong conservative and pro-US ideological bias. Nevertheless, its index is useful, as it is the most commonly cited source on the matter, and one can assume that it is not going out of its way to falsely label US allies as dictators.

When you look at the governments that Freedom House describes as dictatorships, those that are also Official Enemies are frequently described as such in corporate media—for example, Russia (Washington Post, 5/8/18), Cuba (USA Today, 2/26/19), Syria (New York Times, 3/2/19), Belarus (ABC, 3/5/19),  North Korea (USA Today, 3/22/19) and Venezuela (New York Times, 4/10/19). Yet “our dictators”—that is, the “not free” governments that Washington supports—are rarely if ever labeled as dictatorships by the establishment press. In fact, there is very little coverage at all of those countries that are “behaving themselves” as far as the US State Department is concerned.

Let’s look at the press coverage of four of Freedom House’s “dictators” who receive US military aid, all of whom have been in the news recently: Paul Biya of Cameroon, Abdel el-Sisi of Egypt, Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria and Kazakhstan’ s Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Cameroon

The 86-year-old Paul Biya, the longest serving non-royal head of state in the world, has held office in Cameroon since Gerald Ford was president. He recently won a seventh term in office that Foreign Policy (10/22/18) described as a “farce.” Cameroon has been in the news of late, due to the government’s human rights abuses pushing the country to the brink of a civil war. Freedom House considers it to be one of the least free countries in the world.

However, when discussed at all, Biya was presented matter-of-factly by the media, without the need to add call him a “dictator.” The New York Times (10/6/18) presented him euphemistically as “one of the world’s longest-serving presidents.” From the coverage, readers would not know he is a dictator, even by Freedom House’s standards. In fact, going through fully 20 years of coverage in the Times, Biya was never once described as a “dictator,” “despot,” “tyrant” or any other similar designation.

When Biya was rebuked at all, the tone of the coverage was less condemnatory and more muted criticism. Voice of America (2/14/19) noted that Biya’s decision to remove presidential term limits (meaning he could rule for life) led some “critics” to call the move “authoritarian.”

Egypt

Gen. Abdel el-Sisi came to power in 2013 in  a military coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of President Mohamed Morsi. Sisi recently announced his plan to rule until 2034—effectively in perpetuity.

The New York Times’ article (2/14/19) on the subject noted that this would “further entrench his authoritarian rule,” and even noted he had jailed “tens of thousands” of opponents, muzzled the internet and taken over the courts. Nevertheless, it stopped well short of calling him a dictator. Indeed, it noted that he enjoyed strong support from around the world, and was seen as a “bulwark against Islamist militancy” in the region, endorsed by the US and France. Other media outlets followed this tendency. CNN (2/13/19) simply described him as “current President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi,” while NPR (2/14/19) likewise just referred to “Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.”

While accurately noting Sisi’s “unprecedented crackdown on dissent,” which imprisoned “tens of thousands of people,” the BBC’s report (2/15/19) labeled him neutrally as “president,” and only characterized his steps to rule virtually indefinitely as something “opponents of the proposal describe” as “a further step towards authoritarianism.” Thus, its strongest criticism of Egypt is that it’s accused of moving toward “authoritarianism”—a long way from being a full-fledged “dictator.”

 Algeria

After he announced he intended to stand once again for president, massive protests broke out all around Algeria against 82-year-old Abdelaziz Bouteflika. The uprising has been serious enough that he has promised to stand down. Despite coming to power fraudulently and ruling with an iron fist for 20 years, media outlets (e.g., CNN, 3/11/19; Reuters, 4/2/19) have refrained from describing him as a dictator, with the BBC (3/6/19) simply referring to him as a “reclusive president.”

Indeed, reading the Guardian’s coverage  (4/1/19), one would have no idea he was not the epitome of a democrat. The New York Times(3/12/19) also praised Bouteflika for “bringing back stability” to the North African country, and “restoring the honor of the nation’s army.” As with Cameroon’s Biya, Bouteflika has never once been described as a “dictator” in the last 20 years of Times coverage.

 Kazakhstan

Another ruler propped up with US military aid is Nursultan Nazarbayev. The 85-year-old, in power since 1989, recentlyannounced he would step down. It was also revealed that Kazakhstan’s capital, Astana, would berenamed Nursultan in his honor (not a common occurrence in democracies—with Washington, named for the winner of an election that involved approximately 1 percent of the population, arguably not an exception).

Nazarbayev has a long history of cracking down on freedom of speech, the press and  religion, and uses torture against his political opponents. Despite this, he was presented positively in the media, with the New York Times (3/19/19) simply referring to him as the “longtime president of Kazakhstan.” The Associated Press (3/19/19) called him “the only leader that independent Kazakhstan has ever known,” praising him for “maintaining stability.” Reuters (3/19/19) claimed he was a “widely popular” leader, with none of the above using the “dictator” moniker.

The Washington Post editorial board (3/29/19) published a glowing appraisal of his tenure. It presented him as a visionary leader, an ex-steelworker “who led the former Soviet republic out of the empire’s chaotic implosion,” claiming he brought Kazakhstan into a peaceful, prosperous new era, while “building national identity” and stopping any ethnic conflict. While noting that he “ruled as a strongman” and “would have been wiser to view dissent and democracy with more tolerance,” the editorial implied his repression was justified, concluding “he won’t be soon forgotten” by his people.

 Double Standards

The double standard is highlighted by the constant media references to enemy states as dictatorships, whether the label is warranted or not. The Washington Post (1/4/19) describes leftist Bolivian President Evo Morales as “wishing to become a Venezuela-style dictator,” while the Guardian(12/3/18) carries warning of Bolivia becoming an “imminent ‘Venezuelan-Cuban-style’ dictatorship.”

The leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua is constantly called a “dictatorship” as well. The New York Times (8/2/18) published an opinion piece from a Nicaraguan headlined “A Dictatorship Is Rising in My Country Again.” Many other outlets describe him as a “dictator” (Economist, 7/12/18; Time, 3/18/19) carrying out a “terrifying crackdown” (National Review, 3/15/19)—language that is never used for US-backed dictatorships.

And it takes only a cursory glance at the headlines to see how Nicolas Maduro, “the child butcher of Venezuela” (Washington Examiner, 2/21/19), is portrayed:
1    “The Dictator of Venezuela Earns His Title” (New York Times, 2/27/19)
2    “Venezuela’s Dictator Maduro Survived a Tough Week, but His Problems Are About to Get Worse” (Miami Herald, 2/25/19)
3   “Why Are Progressives More Focused on Disagreeing With Trump Than Countering a Dictator [Maduro]?” ( Washington Post, 3/2/19)
4  “Newt Gingrich: Venezuela’s Dictator Maduro Must Go—Even if the Military Has to Intervene” (Fox News, 3/14/19)
5    “Maduro Really Didn’t Like Being Asked if He’s a ‘Dictator’” (New York Post, 2/26/19)
6    “Gen. Jack Keane, Hans Humes on Venezuela’s Socialist Dictator Maduro’s Potential Exit” (Fox Business, 3/7/19)

Is it truly a coincidence that these three countries with elected leftist heads of state are constantly labeled “dictatorships”? Bolivia is not even on Freedom House’s “not free” list—unlike Cameroon, Egypt, Algeria and Kazakhstan. Venezuela and Nicaragua were recently added to it, despite the fact that both countries’ latest elections were endorsed internationally.

While there are some clear shortcomings to Venezuela and Nicaragua’s political systems, the US-dominated Organization of American States observed the 2017 Nicaraguan municipal elections and declared that “the popular will [was] expressed through the vote in the vast majority of Nicaragua’s municipalities.” (With 53 percent turnout, the governing Sandinista party won in 135 out of 152 communities, with the Independent Liberal Party taking 12 of the remainder.)

Meanwhile, Venezuela’s 2018 elections were endorsed by 150 international observers, including foreign ex-heads of state like Spain’s Jose Zapatero and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, with three international election observation teams endorsing the result, despite the fact that US media wrote them off as a sham (FAIR.org, 5/23/18).

The same cannot be said for Kazakhstan, even by Freedom House, that notes that “none of the elections held in Kazakhstan since independence have been considered ‘free and fair’ by credible international observers.” Nursultan was declared to have won 98 percent of the vote in 2015.

Enemy states are covered far more and far more harshly in US corporate media than friendly ones. A search for Paul Biya in the NYTimes.com database elicits 97 results, compared to 1,135 for Maduro, 713 for Morales and 3,517 for Ortega, despite the fact that Biya has been in power as long as the other three combined. (Cameroon’s population is 24 million, three-fourths the size of Venezuela, more than twice as big as Bolivia and four times as populous as Nicaragua.)

In a recent article (FAIR.org, 3/23/19), I suggested that the term “moderate” or “centrist” has a tactical definition when used in the media. It does not refer to any political positions, but is used as a way of conveying legitimacy. Thus anyone the media approve of is, by definition, a moderate. FAIR (8/20/18) has also noted that a “regime,” in US media usage, is simply a government that is at odds with the US empire.

The “dictator” label is also a powerful cue, used by media to prime the reader to see a particular country or leader a certain way. Readers are invited to feel outraged at the misdeeds of Assad, Putin or other anti-US head of states, while authoritarian rulers that toe the US line are ignored or even praised. The choice of whether to use a word like “dictator” frames a country in a way conducive to elite US interests, conveying legitimacy or the lack thereof in a single label.

On 60th Anniversary, Cuba Remains Supreme Symbol of US Defeat

By: Kayhan Int’l 

As we in the Islamic Republic confidently cruise towards February 11 for celebrating the grand 40th anniversary of the triumph of the dynamic revolution
in Iran that changed global equations and rubbed in the dirt the nose of the
Great Satan which continues to bleed profusely, another iron-willed nation that
defeated the might of the US is celebrating the 60th anniversary of its victory
which changed Latin America.

It was New Year’s Day 1959 when the US-supported Cuban dictator Fulgencio
Batista fled by air to the Dominican Republic, after lying glibly the day before
that his army had won the Battle of Santa Clara against Che Guevara’s revolutionary forces when the fact of the matter was that the people in the capital had
lined up to give a warm welcome to the latter. 

On January 8, when revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro, entered Havana to a
hero’s welcome, it was clear to the whole world that all Cuba was with him, in
spite of the frenzied efforts of the western media to try to deceive people all over
the globe.

Batista had fled with almost all the money on which he could lay his hands, and
along with him went the property owners, leaving Cuba with its debt and with
the tentacles of multinational corporations dug deep into the exploited country.
With the US scheming to derail the revolution, Castro’s victorious forces faced
a gargantuan task and they admirably accomplished it in the face of heavy odds
by pivoting from an armed struggle to building a state. 

To the exasperation of Washington, the revolutionary government, with its
desire for equality, made use of whatever social wealth that was available in
order to mobilise the nation and turn into a firm bastion against any American
designs. 

Over the next years and decades, despite the most stringent US sanctions,
as Cuba built a solid base for national development and welfare of the people
whose endeavours inspired a string of revolutions in Latin America, the CIA
tried at least six hundred times from 1960 onwards to assassinate Fidel Castro,
but failed. 

By the time, the long-bearded Fidel died in 2016 at the age of 90, he had outlived many of those who had tried to kill him. It means the Cuban revolution has
outlived its cowardly enemies across the Straits of Florida in the US.

Today Cuba, which withstood several direct assaults by the US and survived
the collapse of the USSR, is confident as ever in defeating the renewed plots
being hatched against its people and government by the quixotic US President
Donald Trump, who similar to his violation of the international nuclear accord
with the Islamic Republic of Iran, has threatened to overthrow the legal government of Cuba in contrast to the historic move for reconciliation and peaceful
co-existence that Barak Obama had initiated during his presidency.

Trump’s National Security Adviser, the bespectacled bozo named John Bolton,
has openly called for regime change on the island, either through further sanctions or war, but in view of the steadfastness of the Cuban people and their
unflinching support for the system of government established by Fidel Castro, it
is obvious the US will not succeed.

This was evident in the speech on the 60th anniversary of revolution given by
Communist Party leader Raul Castro who blasted Trump and his team of thugs
for resorting to the outdated path of confrontation by intervening in the internal
affairs of Latin America.

Raul and his late elder brother Fidel, had led the revolutionaries in 1959 to
overthrow the US-backed dictator and liberate Cuba, triggering social movements almost throughout Latin America,
Raul said in his speech in the city of Santiago de Cuba where Fidel proclaimed
victory six decades ago: "Once again, the North American government is taking
on the path of confrontation with Cuba, but it will fail again.”

Raul Castro, who stepped down as president in April but remains head of the
Communist Party until 2021, said "the Cuban Revolution is on a secure footing
thanks to the transition to a competent younger generation of leaders such as the
58-year old President Miguel Diaz-Canel and his administration of committed
personnel.”

This means, the US may tighten sanctions and flood mercenaries with dollars
to try indulge in sabotage and incite the people against the government, or hope
for a miscalculation on the part of the Cuban administration, but it is obvious
Trump will not be able rock the boat. Even military intervention will not succeed,
except making the life of the people miserable. 

To sum up, the morale of the Cuban people remains as strong as it was in 1959,
and no amount of US pressures will dent their resolve to support the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of the nation which they had defended for the past 60
years through the revolutionary process

In memory of Fidel Castro, a friend of Iran

Iranian Diplomacy|Kaveh L. Afrasiabi: Fidel Castro, the iconic leader of the Cuban revolution and a giant of post-WWII global politics, was a true friend of the Iranian people and an avid admirer of the Islamic Revolution, who like Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini, was credited with chasing a corrupt US-backed dictator out of his country and for over a half century was a constant thorn in the side of US.  Fidel put the resources of his nation in the service of liberation struggles around the world, especially Africa, and was admired by the late Nelson Mandela for his tireless efforts against Apartheid.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, who met the ailing Castro at his residence in Havana recently, aptly described the common ground of Iran and Cuba as symbols of resistance to coercive Western sanctions and hegemony.  Indeed, the list of commonalities between the two countries is a long one: both have led the Non-Aligned Movement, have confronted US interventionism and Washington’s “roll back” strategy and have also dealt with similar tragedies, like the terrorist downing of a Cuban passenger airplane similar to the Iranian plane that was shot down in cold-blood by an American missile. And while Cuba had to deal with the CIA-engineered Bay of Pigs invasion, Iran has had the similar US infiltration that was shut down by the sandstorm in Tabas.   But, above all, the thread of solidarity running between Havana and Tehran is cemented forever by the heroic resistance of both nations against decades of coercive sanctions, which in Cuba’s case meant a total blockade that has only been partially lifted as a result of the recent diplomatic detente between Havana and Washington.

How will history judge a man who in his own trial as a young revolutionary confidently asserted that history will absolve him?  History is, of course, often written by the victorious powers and, therefore, it is hardly surprising that Western historiography on Castro and his revolution is largely negative, focusing on the shortcomings of his rule, the human rights violations, the Cuban dependency on Soviet Union etc.  Alternatively, Cuban history seen through the prism of Third World nations presents a glowing image of Fidel as a brave nationalist who dedicated his whole life to various Third World causes and whose turn to Moscow’s assistance began after the American embargo and refusal to buy Cuban sugar, aiming to cripple the young post-revolutionary political order at its infancy.

We can safely assume that if Washington had not engaged in a thousand shades of conspiracy against the Cuban revolution, such as by plotting to assassinate Castro dozens of times and sponsoring a proxy invasion of Cuba under JFK’s watch in 1961, then chances are the Cuban democracy would not be subjected to the limitations of an state of emergency that gripped the island nation for decades.  Intent on safeguarding the social, political, and economic human rights of Cuban people striving for self-sovereignty and independence, Castro, who nationalized the US-owned companies, earned the volcanic wrath of Uncle Sam that not only failed to dislodge him but also saw the replication of Cuban revolution in a number of Central and Latin American countries such as Nicaragua and Venezuela.  The struggle for the hemisphere’s independence, which began with Jose Marti two centuries ago, is still on-going and experiencing the tumults of changing times.

Like Mandela, Cabral, Lumumba, Che, and other Third World revolutionaries, Fidel will be always remembered as a larger-than-life charismatic leader who empowered his nation and raised their stature in world affairs, irrespective of the various flaws of the Cuban revolution, many of which were imposed from the without — by an intrusive Western superpower.