Dialogue, yes, but with whom?

By Germán Piniella
ps.german@gmail.com

Although I refuted Rolando Castañeda’s and Lorenzo Cañizares’ first piece (“President Obama, his latent example and inspiration for Cuba”) with arguments on that same week (“An example they want to impose on us”), in their second article (“We have much to do!”), which appeared in this magazine last week, the authors did their best to comment on and label my answers, but not to counter them with evidence.

One thing was even more surprising: in their new piece they claim that I “was annoyed because we called Cubans abroad ‘the diaspora’; he considered that the diaspora, by being citizens of other countries, have nothing to contribute.” I refer readers to my previous article, where they can confirm that the allegations are not true. I was not “annoyed,” but expressed my disagreement with their use of the term “diaspora” to encompass all migrants. Since I suppose that Castañeda and Cañizares are sincere in their wishes for the country, I regret that they have fallen into the trap laid by the Miami extreme right and their parroting media. Both have branded all Cuban immigrants to the U.S. as “exiles,” with the intention of giving all those who want to emigrate — even for economic reasons or for the purpose of family reunification — a political connotation as opponents to the Cuban government. It is the connotation of persecuted victims contained in the term “diaspora” that I oppose. Why not call all by their true name: émigrés?

On the other hand, it is incomprehensible for Castañeda and Cañizares to claim that I opposed what Cuban émigrés can contribute. As I wrote in my previous article, “a dialogue has existed for some time that has borne the fruit of agreements and commitments in an atmosphere of mutual respect despite divergence.” It would seem those dialogues never existed, for Castañeda and Cañizares did not even refer to them as antecedents for their own proposal. I include a brief summary for those who haven’t had access to the information, which by the way, can be easily obtained through the Internet, particularly at the Cuban Foreign Ministry’s site. The search would take only a few minutes.

The dialogues began in 1978, when through visits and other exchanges of a private and official nature, the normalization of relations between the nation and the emigration began. At that time it was said that the process would be irreversible once the U.S. administration ceased to use emigration as a political tool against the Cuban revolution. That has been the greatest obstacle, together with the interested assistance of the Miamian far right. From that moment on, the dialogue expanded, and in 1994 the First “Nation and Emigration” Conference was held. The second conference came the following year.

The debate conducted in both conferences sparked several measures on the part of the Cuban government aimed at making relations with the émigrés more flexible, including the creation of an agency at the Foreign Ministry for that purpose. I will not go into detail about the measures, which can be found in the Ministry’s website. One of the consequences was that in 1995, when the National Assembly of the People’s Power (Cuba’s Parliament) passed the Foreign Investments Act, Cuban residents abroad were given the possibility of investing in Cuba. The only condition was that their investment projects had to meet the same requirements as the ones submitted to by citizens and residents from other countries. This and other issues have been silenced by the “diaspora”. And if Cubans living in the U.S. have not invested in Cuba, we know the reasons why. Not only can’t they do it because of the blockade, but also because violence and threats have attempted to impede family relations. Imagine the extreme right’s reaction to those investments. (Let me make clear that I am not accusing Castañeda and Cañizares of complicity with those actions and attitudes. I mention those attitudes just to place the issue in context.)

The Third Conference was held in May 2004 with the attendance of 521 overseas residents, 242 of them from the United States. For various reasons — one of them being the increase of aggressive policies against Cuba by the Bush administration, including the ban on travel, which would force participants to violate Bush’s regulations — there have been no other meetings. According to sources, there is discussion about another conference at a still to be determined date in the near future.

A brief comment about a paragraph in “We have much to do!” — According to the authors, “For several years now (more than we care to remember) we have posited that the Cuban nation needs a national dialogue and consensus to overcome several problems from the past that are becoming increasingly serious. [The emphasis is mine.]

“Among them are:

• family separation and the historical conflict that the new generations on both sides of the Straits of Florida do not understand, reject, and want to overcome;
• the island’s need to improve its socioeconomic situation in line with the great potential provided by the Cuban people’s good education, initiative and ingenuity;
• the need for Cuba and the U.S. to normalize their trade relations, because small countries like ours can derive great benefit from international trade with large neighboring countries, in accordance with the gravitational theory of international trade; and
• the need to repeal the embargo and normalize bilateral relations without prior conditions.”

I quote extensively to demonstrate that in the first place the authors did not take into account the process of dialogue begun in 1978. On the other hand, if we substitute all geographical references, the paragraph could well be considered as a wish list of several issues that could be related to any country halfway desirous to improve its situation. Although the paragraph is not insignificant, it contributes nothing new. I cannot think of what it hopes to prove, except that it can be used in a particular context, for example, to confront the attitudes of the Miami extreme right.

“Referring to historical themes that we consider to be tangential,” write Castañeda and Cañizares, “we consider that:

(1) “The Batista government was a national disaster (a major mistake and a horror), and we’re not in the slightest interested in rehabilitating it because, in our opinion, that’s impossible.”

I never accused the authors of such an ignominy. What I questioned was the inclusion of Batista’s followers and of those bent on restoring his memory, as well as those who have backed terrorism against Cuba and still clamor for the criminal blockade as a political tool of pressure, in the same negotiating group. With those people there is nothing to talk about. What’s more, they themselves are not interested in any dialogue. An article by Canadian journalist Jean-Guy Allard (“Terrorists in the U.S. Congress,” published in the Spanish website TerceraInformación.es, June 2, 2009) says that “At least a dozen suppliers of funds for the most active lobbying group in Washington dedicated to obstructing the normalization of relations with Cuba, have participated in, or have been linked to, terrorist and paramilitary activities of the Miami Cuban-American mafia.”

Allard states that “An analysis of the lists of donors for the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, well known in Washington for its aggressive lobbying and a heavy contributor of funds for the campaigns of congressmen of both parties, reveals that several of them have collaborated in activities that in any country in the world would be considered as terrorist and would have been severely punished by the courts of law.” (To read the full article in Spanish go to http://www.tercerainformacion.es/spip.php?article8379&var_recherche=Terroristas%20en%20el%20Congreso%20de%20EE.UU.).

(2) “We have never supported the 1901 Constitution. As Christian socialists, we identify with the 1940 Constitution because of its progressive and social character, and because — unlike the 1976 Constitution — it was the result of a great national debate and consensus,” the authors say.

I did not write that they backed the 1901 Cuban Constitution. What I referred to was the announcement that in the Miami Nostalgia Festival that monstrosity would be proudly exhibited, “the same one that carries as a disgrace the Platt Amendment.” As regards their preference for the 1940 Constitution, which they rightfully call “progressive,” many of its principles were never put into practice, because no legislation was enacted or the Constitution was violated. (To see the manner in which a well-known Batista politician and later a leader in Miami and founder of a dynasty of enemies of Cuba served U.S. business interests to mock the 1940 Constitution, read “History and the guest of stone”, by Luis Sexto, in Progreso Weekly, May 14-20, 2009.) As regards the “great national debate and consensus,” the 1976 Constitution was discussed not only by the Cuban Parliament, but also by all the people. Cuban citizens not only overwhelmingly voted for it, but also proposed changes, many of which were later included in the text.

(3) “The government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with a different attitude toward Cuba and Latin America, similar to the one held now by President Obama, repealed the Platt Amendment, except for the return of the Guantánamo Base.”

It was not FDR’s generosity that abolished the Platt Amendment. Since early 1933, U.S. Ambassador to Cuba Henry G. Guggenheim recommended President Roosevelt to repeal it for two main reasons:

“1. Because, due to the increasing situation of extreme violence in the whole country, elements that wished to provoke the intervention of the United States would cause serious damages to U.S. properties on the island.

2. Because the abolition of the Platt Amendment would favor the United States’ new Latin American policy.” (Again, the emphasis is mine.)

The Platt Amendment not only contradicted Roosevelt’s new Good Neighbor Policy, but also in those years the situation was not favorable for military intervention. The U.S. was opposed to Japan’s expansion in Manchuria, Mussolini’s forays in Libya and Ethiopia, and Hitler’s ambitions towards Austria. But the determining factor was a massive popular mobilization against foreign intervention. It was the Cuban people who, with their demands, forced the U.S. to repeal the Platt Amendment, not Roosevelt’s generosity.

Words by Cuban President Raúl Castro about respect for discrepancy are used by Castañeda and Cañizares to support their proposals for a dialogue. But the authors did not do their homework. Dialogues and discrepancies exist in Cuba, both among Cubans and between Cubans and nonresidents. Yet some sectors of the émigré community believe their own fantasies and ignore Cuban reality. There is divergence among Cubans, there is debate and there is tolerance for other ideas, even if there is a bureaucracy that is not partial to discord and longs for unanimous thought. One thing should be made clear about the debate: the social system that the Cuban people have chosen has room for improvement but the system itself is not debatable. Here are some examples:

Temas magazine regularly holds public debates (I stress the word “public”) on issues of social and political interest. The debates are later published — unedited — in the magazine, both in its printed and digital versions. Temas is sold freely in newsstands.

Just a few days ago I received an e-mail from La Gaceta de Cuba, a magazine of the Writers’ and Artists’ Union of Cuba (UNEAC), with the official announcement for the José Juan Arrom Essay Prize for 2009. The convocation says that:

1. All Cuban citizens or those born in Cuba, regardless of their place of residence, may participate, submitting texts written in Spanish. (Emphasis is mine.)

2. Essays must be on Cuban art and literature, wherever they may be expressed.

(Let me make clear that the reference to Cuban art and literature includes all works done abroad.)

Another example is Calibán: Revista Cubana de Pensamiento e Historia (A Cuban Magazine About Thought and History). The third issue of this new academic journal, April-May, 2009, includes in its debating forum a written defense by a reader of none other than dictator Fulgencio Batista. It was published and discussed by other participants.

And on this same edition of Progreso Weekly, readers will find an article previously published by the Cuban newspaper Juventud Rebelde (“Heirs, that is, heretics,” by Jesús Arencibia Lorenzo), on “the need of the younger ones to be less docile, less dependent” on official or bureaucratic thinking.

These dialogues and these discrepancies are possible among Cubans of good will, including those residing aboard, as has been demonstrated for some years, now increasingly so. I am not trying to speak for the Cuban government, but if Castañeda and Cañizares insist in including all émigrés in the “diaspora,” not only those who aspire to improve the nation, but also those who still are our bitter enemies, the exchange of ideas seems to me improbable. Will the authors be able to distance themselves from terrorists, from those who support the blockade, those who receive financing from a foreign power for the overthrow of the Cuban government, those who lobby against the improvement of relations between both countries, those who even are opposed to that same dialogue proposed by Castañeda and Cañizares?

Germán Piniella is a Cuban writer and journalist, and Assistant Editor of Progreso Semanal, the Spanish version of Progreso Weekly.