|
Speech made by Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz,
President of the Republic of Cuba, at the ceremony
for the 51st anniversary of the attack on the
Moncada and Carlos Manuel de Cespedes fortresses.
Ernesto Che Guevara Square, Santa Clara, July 26,
2004.
Dear fellow Cubans;
Distinguished guests:
On this 51st anniversary of the attack on the
Moncada fortress on July 26, 1953 I shall address a
sinister character that keeps threatening, insulting
and slandering us. This is not a whim or an
agreeable option; it is a necessity and a duty.
On June 21, at the Anti-imperialist Forum I read
Epistle Number Two to the president of the United
States, responding to an infamous State Department
report on trafficking in human beings, one of those
reports the government of that country usually
issues, as if it were the supreme moral judge of the
world. In that document Cuba is accused of being one
of the countries that promotes sexual tourism and
child pornography.
Hardly two weeks went by, and instead of keeping a
decent silence about the irrefutable truth contained
in the Epistle, the wire services brought news of an
election speech by Bush in Tampa, Florida containing
new, more perfidious accusations and insults, the
clearly aimed at slandering Cuba and justifying the
threats of aggression and the brutal measures that
they had just taken against our people.
The French press agency AFP reported the following
from Tampa on July 16:
"President George
Bush launched a harsh attack on Cuba when he defined
it as ‘a major destination for sex tourism’ and said
that the United States has a special duty to lead a
world struggle against human trafficking for forced
labour or sexual purposes."
"Cuba is one of
the 10 countries cited by the State Department in a
report issued in June in which it lists the
governments which tolerate human trafficking or fail
to fight this crime."
"The regime of
Fidel Castro has turned Cuba into a major
destination for sex tourism replacing Southeast Asia
as a destination for pedophiles and sex tourists
from the United Sates and Canada," Bush claimed.
"At a conference
in Tampa, Florida, the president pointed to Cuba as
one of the worst offenders in this area."
"Sex
tourism is a vital source of hard currency to keep
his corrupt government afloat," he claimed.
"Bush said that
putting an end to human trafficking will be an
essential part of his foreign policy."
"The traffic in
human beings brings shame and suffering to our
country and we shall lead the fight against it," he
promised.
"You are in a
fight against evil, and the American people are
grateful for your dedication and service," he told
those at the conference.
"Human life is
the gift of our Creator and it should never be for
sale."
A dispatch from
the Spanish press agency EFE indicated:
"We
also face a problem only 90 miles off our shores,
Bush said in Florida."
"He quoted a
study which found that Cuba has "replaced Southeast
Asia as a destination for pedophiles and sex
tourists."
"As restrictions
on travel to Cuba were eased during the 1990s, the
study found an influx of American and Canadian
tourists contributed to a sharp increase in child
prostitution in Cuba."
"My
administration is working toward a comprehensive
solution of this problem: The rapid, peaceful
transition to democracy in Cuba."
"We have put a
strategy in place to hasten the day when no Cuban
child is exploited to finance a failed revolution
and every Cuban citizen will live in freedom."
"Bush said that
‘Human life is the gift of our Creator and it should
never be for sale."
"It takes a
special kind of depravity to exploit and hurt the
most vulnerable members of society. Human
traffickers rob children of their innocence; they
expose them to the worst of life before they have
seen much of life. Traffickers tear families apart.
They treat their victims as nothing more than goods
and commodities for sale to the highest bidder."
And to top off this odd news, the same press
dispatch added some words spoken by John Ashcroft in
his speech introducing Bush to the National Training
Conference on Human Trafficking:
"In the 19th
Century President Abraham Lincoln held firm to a
vision of freedom for all and was rightly called the
great emancipator."
"In the 21st
Century we have a great leader who has made us see
that liberty is not a gift from the United States to
the world but a gift to humanity from the Almighty."
Another wire report from the English news agency
Reuters read:
"Friday, the US
president accused the Cuban president of having
turned his Caribbean island into a sex tourism
destination and of contributing to the world problem
of human trafficking".
The Italian press agency ANSA reported:
"The regime in
Havana is adding to its crimes: it welcomes sex
tourism", said Bush who even repeated a supposed
quote by Castro, ‘Cuba has the cleanest and most
educated prostitutes in the world.’"
Later, wire services have reported that the
quotation of something I supposedly said on this
subject, which the US President used in the Tampa
speech I just mentioned to back up his serious
accusations, was taken from a paper on Cuba written
by Charles Turnbull a law student from Vanderbilt
University in the United States who has emphatically
stated that Bush’s speech misconstrued the real
meaning of a sentence included in his work, and
clarified this and other matters in the following
way:
"Prostitution
boomed in the Caribbean nation after the collapse of
the Soviet Union…"
"Castro, who had
outlawed prostitution when he took power in 1959,
initially had few resources to combat it. But
beginning in 1996, Cuban authorities began to crack
down on the practice."
"Although it
still exists, it is far less visible and it would be
inaccurate to say the government promotes it".
On Monday, July 19, Bush administration officials
admitted they had no other source for the quote
except the paper written by the aforementioned
student.
Given the fact that it was shown that the US
President had launched an extremely grave accusation
based on a sentence found in a paper written by an
American student, who himself refuted the deliberate
way Bush misconstrued it, it’s hard to imagine a
more bizarre response than that given by a
Whitehouse spokesperson when told about this
refutation.
According to the news agency report, the
spokesperson simply, "…defended the inclusion [of
the sentence] arguing that it expressed an essential
truth about Cuba", in other words, for the White
House "the essential truth about Cuba" is
anything that the president conjures up in his mind
whether it has anything to do with reality or not.
This is exactly the kind of fundamentalist approach
that the President constantly resorts to when there
are more than enough data, arguments, truth, reasons,
and facts on a particular subject but the only
determining factor is the idea he has in his mind or
the idea that suits him: anything becomes the
absolute and irrefutable truth simply because Mr.
Bush imagines it to be so.
Many people in the world who know very little about
the Cuban Revolution might fall victim to the lies
and tricks the US government spreads through the
huge media available to it.
But there are many others, especially in poor
countries who are aware of what the Cuban revolution
is about, of its marked dedication, from the very
beginning, to provide education and healthcare
services to all its children and the whole
population; its spirit of solidarity that has led it
to cooperate selflessly with dozens of Third World
countries; its strict adherence to the highest moral
values, its ethical principles, its lofty concept of
the dignity and honour of its homeland and its
people for which Cuban revolutionaries have always
been willing to give up their lives. There is no
doubt that these many friends, all over the world,
will be wondering how it is possible that such
unspeakable, foul slander is hurled against Cuba.
This obliges me to give a most serious and honest
explanation of the causes, which in my view, give
rise to these inconceivable, irresponsible
statements by the President of the most powerful
nation on the planet, the same who is threatening to
wipe the Cuban revolution from the face of the Earth.
I
shall do this as objectively as possible, making no
arbitrary statements or shamelessly misconstruing
other people’s words, sentences and concepts. I
shall avoid any petty sentiment of vengeance or
personal dislike.
A
theme that has been widely documented in several
books by outstanding American scientific authors and
other personalities is the current US President’s
alcoholism which lasted two decades when he was
between 20 and 40 years old. This feature has been
rigorously and impressively dealt with, from a
psychiatric point of view and using scientific
criteria, by Dr. Justin A. Frank in a now famous
book called "Bush on the Couch".
Dr. Frank begins by saying that it is important to
scientifically define whether Bush was an alcoholic,
or if he still is one. He has literally said:
"… the more
pressing question involves the influence his years
of heavy drinking and subsequent abstinence still
have on him and those around him". (p.39)
He goes on to explain and I quote verbatim:
"Alcoholism is a
potentially fatal, lifelong disease that is
notoriously difficult to arrest permanently" (p. 40)
Later, referring to the man who is now President of
the United States, he says:
"Bush has said
publicly that he quit drinking without the help of
AA (an organization dedicated to helping alcoholics)
or any substance abuse programme, claiming that he
stopped forever with the assistance of such
spiritual tools as bible study and conversations
with the evangelist Billy Graham".
On page 40 of the
book he recounts that, according to ex-presidential
speech writer David Frum, when Bush took over the
Oval office he summoned a group of religious leaders,
asked for their prayers and told them:
"There is only
one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not a
bar… I found faith, I found God. I am here because
of the power of prayer".
Dr. Frank thinks that this statement might be true
and goes on to say the following:
"…surely all
Americans would like to believe that the president
no longer drinks, even if we have no way of knowing
for certain. If so, he fits the profile of a former
drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not
treated".
He then adds:
" Former drinkers
who abstain without the benefit of the AA program
are often referred to as "dry drunks", a label that
has been bandied about on the Internet and elsewhere
in reference to Bush. "Dry drunk" isn’t a medical
term, and not one I use in a clinical setting. But
even without labelling Bush as such, it’s hard to
ignore the many troubling elements of his character
among the traits that the recovery literature
associates with the condition, including grandiosity,
judgmentalism, intolerance, detachment, denial of
responsibility, a tendency toward over-reaction and
an aversion to introspection." (p. 41)
Dr. Frank insists that he personally has treated
alcoholics who held their addiction in check without
proper treatment but that they are generally not
very successful in learning to control the anxiety
that they once tried to suppress by drinking and he
explains that:
"Their rigid
attempts to manage anxiety make any psychological
insight hard-won. Some can’t even face the anxiety
of admitting their alcoholism.
Dr. Frank then goes on to say:
"Without that
admission, I have found, even former drinkers cannot
truly change, or learn from their own experience".
And then referring to Bush specifically he argues
the following:
"The pattern of
blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics work
so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the
alcoholic personality; it’s rarely limited to his or
her drinking. The habit of placing blame and denying
responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush’s
personal history that it is apparently triggered by
even the mildest threat"
"… The rigidity
of Bush’s behaviour is perhaps most readily apparent
in his well-documented reliance on his daily
routines —the famously short meetings, sacrosanct
exercise schedule, daily Bible readings, and limited
office hours. A healthy person is able to alter his
routine; a rigid one cannot". (p.43)
"Of course" —the
eminent US doctor goes on, and I quote— "we all
need rest and relaxation, time to regroup, but Bush
appears to need it more than most. And this is
hardly a surprise —among other reasons, because the
anxiety of being president might pose a real risk of
leading him back to drinking." (p. 43)
"Along with rigid
routines go rigid thought processes —another
hallmark of the Bush presidency. We see it in the
stubborn, almost obsessive way in which he holds on
to ideas and plans after they have been discredited,
from his image of himself as a "uniter, not a
divider" to his conviction that Iraq held weapons of
mass destruction (or, in absence of such weapons,
that somehow "America did the right thing in Iraq"
nevertheless). Such rigidity of thought is not
motivated by simple stubbornness; the untreated
alcoholic, consumed with the task of managing the
anxieties that might make him reach for a drink,
simply can’t tolerate any threat to his status quo".
And Dr. Frank adds that such intolerance generally
leads to responses that are out of proportion to the
magnitude of the actual threat.
"This may help to
explain the dramatic contrast between George W’s
response to Saddam Hussein and that of his father,
who carefully built a coalition, took action only
after Kuwait had been invaded, and then proceeded
with prudence and caution once the fighting was
underway — the behaviour of a seasoned leader who
knew he was responsible for countless others’ lives,
not an alcoholic accustomed to taking dramatic
measures to protect his own."
Continuing his analysis, Dr. Frank indicates:
"Two questions
that the press seems particularly determined to
ignore have hung silently in the air since before
Bush took office: Is he still drinking? And if not,
is he impaired by all the years he did spend
drinking? Both questions need to be addressed in any
serious assessment of his psychological state".
(p.48)
With regard to the first question, he points out the
possibility that Bush is managing his anxiety with
medication to keep him off alcohol and he makes
special reference to his strange behaviour at press
conferences. On this point he says:
"In writing about
Bush’s halting appearance in a press conference just
before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post
media critic Tom Shales speculated that "the
president may have been ever so slightly medicated".
"More troubling
though, are the appearances that arouse suspicion
not because of how he talks but what he says. He has
repeatedly engaged in confabulation, filling in gaps
in his memory with what he believes are facts —most
notably on July 14, 2003, when he stood next to Kofi
Annan and made up the idea that America had given
Saddam "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he
wouldn’t let them in". (As the Washington Post noted,
"Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and
Bush had opposed extending their work because he did
not believe them effective". Confabulation is a
common phenomenon among drinkers, as is
perseveration, which is evident in Bush’s tendency
to repeat key words and phrases, as if the
repetition helps him remain calm and stay on track."
(p. 49)
And Dr. Frank concludes his analysis of these two
questions with the following words:
"Even if we
assume, moreover, that George W. Bush’s drinking
days are behind him, the question remains how much
lasting damage may have been done before he stopped
—beyond the considerable impact on his personality
that we can trace to his untreated abstinence. Any
comprehensive psychological or psychoanalytical
study of President Bush would have to explore how
much the brain and its functions are changed by more
than twenty years of heavy drinking. In a recent
study out of the University of California/San
Francisco Medical Centre, researchers found that
heavy drinkers who do not call themselves alcoholics
reveal that "their level of drinking constitutes a
problem that warrants treatment". The study found
that the heavy drinkers in its sample were "significantly
impaired" on measures of working memory, processing
speed, attention, executive function and balance.
Serious research about long-term recovery from
alcohol abuse is still underway. Science has
established that alcohol itself is toxic to the
brain, both to its anatomy (as the brain gets
smaller and fissures between and around the
hemisphere get larger) and to its neurophysiology.
But recovery does occur with continued sobriety,
extending over a five-year period for many
alcoholics. Bush claims to have been sober for more
that fifteen years, and very well may have improved
to pre-alcohol levels. However, even chronic
alcoholics who recover their compromised mental
functions often suffer lingering damage to their
ability to process new information. Important
neuropsychological functions are impaired: The new
information is essentially put into a file that is
lost in the brain.
"Former heavy
drinkers often have trouble distinguishing between
relevant and inconsequential information. They also
may lose some of their ability to maintain
concentration. All one has to do to observe Bush’s
inattention is watch him listening to a speech given
by someone else, watch his behaviour at times on the
campaign trail, or consider the obviously desperate
effort he makes to retain focus in every speech he
gives." (p.50)
Finally, Dr. Frank points out that Bush would reduce
the fear of many Americans by submitting himself to
psychological tests that could scientifically
measure the effects of alcoholism on his brain
function and warns:
"Otherwise, we
are left to suspect —with reason— that our president
may be impaired in his ability to make sense of
complex ideas and briefings" (p. 51)
And he ends up by saying:
"We all may be a
little afraid to find out: after all, he has already
held office for three years and has led our nation
into war. But if we fail to do so, the consequences
may indict every one of us". (p. 51)
Another aspect discussed in depth and in detail by
Dr. Justin A. Frank in this book, "Bush on the Couch",
is that of President Bush’s religious fundamentalism.
Dr. Frank explains how, in trying to find relief
from the internal chaos that drink sometimes
appeased but eventually intensified, Bush may have
found in religion a source of peace, not totally
different from that given by alcohol, as well as a
set of rules which help him to manage both the
external world and his inner spiritual world.
He suggests that an analysis of the role of
fundamentalism in Bush’s life would show that one of
the many ways that Bush employs religion as a
defence mechanism is by using it as a substitute for
illegal substances and says that Bush uses religion
to simplify and even replace thought so that, to a
certain extent, he does not even need to think. He
adds that Bush, by putting himself on the side of
good —on God’s side— places himself above mundane
discussion and debate. Religion serves as a shield
to protect him from challenges, including those that
he himself would otherwise create.
Dr. Frank wonders how Bush reached this point and
then explains that, the Bush family tradition has
long been fuelled by faith, by the belief in a God
linked closely to moral rectitude but he makes this
distinction:
"Yet President
Bush’s religious orientation represents an important
departure from his family. Though certain aspects of
the family tradition have been maintained —notably
the formality of religious participation— his mid-life
conversion to a more fundamentalist approach stands
in dramatic contrast to the spiritual life of his
father…" (p.56)
"And a review of
the events leading up to Bush’s conscious embrace of
fundamentalism shows that it clearly occurred at a
moment when he was reaching for solutions, in a time
of almost desperate need."
Dr Frank goes on to explain that fundamentalist
religions narrow the universe of opportunities and
divide the world into good and bad, in absolute
terms that leave no space for questioning and on
this point he argues:
"The view of the
self is similarly simplified. Just as fundamentalist
creationist teachings deny history, the
fundamentalist notion of conversion or rebirth
encourages the believer to see himself as
disconnected from history. George W. Bush’s evasive,
self-serving defence of his life before he was born
again displays just this tendency. "It doesn’t do
any good to inventory the mistakes I made when I was
young", he has insisted. "I think the way … to
answer questions about specific behaviour is to
remind people that when I was young and
irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible. I
changed…" To the believer, the power of spiritual
absolution not only erases the sins of the past, but
divorces the current self from the historical sinner".
(p.60)
Dr. Frank makes it clear that there is nothing
inherently unnatural in the fact that Bush seeks
protection from his faith and that, even when this
makes him stronger, the rigidity of his thought and
speech patterns and of his agenda point to a
considerable fragility. He explains that Bush’s fear
of everything —from disagreement to terrorist
attacks— are sometimes painfully visible, even (or
especially) through his denials and that he is a man
desperately seeking protection. Dr. Frank wonders:
"But what is George W. Bush so eager to protect
himself against?" and he answers the question
with the following analysis:
"His tightly held
belief system shields him from challenges to his
ideas —from critics and opponents, but, more
important, from himself. Just beneath the surface,
it’s hard not to believe that he suffers from an
innate fear of falling apart, a fear too terrifying
for him to confront." (p.64)
"For someone so
desperate not to lose his way, clinging to a belief
(or even a few key phrases), and sticking to them,
is yet another way to protect against falling apart.
President Bush’s press conferences have offered
disturbing evidence of this ongoing anxiety —evidence
so unmistakable that it’s little wonder that the
White House has proven so hesitant to schedule such
events at all. After one particularly disastrous
performance in July 2003, the Slate political
columnist Timothy Noah noted that: "Bush seemed
jangled"; in a damning editorial the following day,
the New York Times noted that the president’s
answers were "vague and sometimes nearly incoherent"
—suggesting, perceptively, that Bush was "bedazzled
by his administration’s own mythmaking"
He gives some examples of phrases Bush used
repeatedly during that press conference:
"And so we’re
making progress. It’s slowly but surely
making progress of bringing the —those who
terrorize their fellow citizens to justice, and
making progress about convincing the Iraqi
people that freedom is real. And as they become more
convinced that freedom is real, they’ll begin to
assume more responsibilities that are required in a
free society…
"And the
threat is a real threat. It’s a threat
that where —we obviously don’t have specific data,
we don’t know when, where, what. But we do know a
couple of things…obviously, we’re talking to foreign
governments and foreign airlines to indicate to them
the reality of the threat…
"I don’t know how
close we are to getting Saddam Hussein. You
know —it’s closer that we were yesterday, I
guess. All I know is we’re on the hunt. It’s like if
you had asked me right before we got his sons how
close we were to get his sons, I’d say, I don’t
know, but we’re on the hunt.
"Well first of
all, the war on terror goes on, as I continually
remind people… The threat that you asked
about, Steve, reminds us that we need to be on
the hunt, because the war on terror goes on…
"I just described
to you that there is a threat to the United
States. There is no doubt in my mind, Campbell, that
Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United
States’ security, and a threat to peace in
the region…
"Saddam Hussein
was a threat. The United Nations viewed him
as a threat. That’s why they passed twelve
resolutions. Predecessors of mine viewed him as a
threat. We gathered a lot of intelligence. That
intelligence was good, sound intelligence on which I
made a decision… (pp. 65-66)
And Dr. Frank goes on to say:
"So powerful are
his fears that he can’t even face them. His infamous
early advice to Americans less than two weeks after
9/11 —when he told Americans to continue to shop and
travel as before, in apparent denial of the radical
measures he was at the same time taking in response
to the nation’s newfound vulnerability— suggests
just how simplistically he viewed the situation,
closing himself off to worry and anxiety. Compare
his response to that of New York’s mayor, Rudolph
Giuliani, who faced his fears, rolled up his sleeves
and got to work —making people feel far safer than
Bush’s stilted denial ever did.
"Bush has
continued to cite divine instruction to explain his
actions since assuming office. As reported in
Israel’s Haaretz News, Bush said, "God told me to
strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he
instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did".
Finally, Dr. Frank offers these thoughts:
"The Biblical
struggle of good and evil has resonated throughout
his discourse since 9/11, from his repeated use of
the term "crusade" to his characterisation of the
terrorists as "evildoers" and grouping of Iraq, Iran
and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil". At the same
time, he presents the United States as nothing more
that a nation of wholly innocent victims.
"In externalizing
evil in this way, while absolving America of
responsibility, Bush has transformed his
unintegrated infantile worldview into a starkly
combative (and primitive) foreign policy.
"Bush’s rhetoric"
—Dr.
Frank concludes— "highlights how he identifies
the concepts of himself as president with both God
and America: for him these three appear to have
become somewhat interchangeable. Unable to mourn the
dead of 9/11 enough to allow for a full
investigation of how it happened —and what
responsibility we might have had— he blindly attacks
the "enemy" he perceives to be everywhere, a
terrorist suddenly hiding under rock".
In his book "Stupid White Men", Michael Moore points
out that Bush exhibits obvious symptoms of not being
able to read at an adult level and writes the
following as part of an open letter to Bush:
"1. George, are
you able to read and write on an adult level?
"It appears to me
and many others that, sadly, you may be a functional
illiterate. This is nothing to be ashamed of…
Millions of Americans cannot read and write above a
fourth grade level.
"But let me ask
you this: if you have trouble comprehending the
complex position papers you are handed as the Leader
of the Mostly-Free World, how can we entrust
something like our nuclear secrets to you?
"All the signs of
illiteracy area there —and apparently no one has
challenged you about them. The first clue was what
you named as your favourite childhood book, "The
Very Hungry Caterpillar", you said.
"Unfortunately,
that book wasn’t even published until a year after
you graduated from college."
"One thing is
clear to everyone —you can’t speak the English
language in sentences we can comprehend.
"If you are going
to be Commander-in-Chief, you have to be able to
communicate your orders. What if these little slip-ups
keep happening? Do you know how easy it would be to
turn a little faux pas into a national-security
nightmare?
"Your aides say
that you don’t (can’t?) read the briefing papers
they give you, and that you ask them to read them
for you or to you."
"Please , don’t
take any of this personally. Perhaps it’s a learning
disability. Some sixty million Americans have
learning disabilities".
In his book "Against All Enemies", Richard Clarke
writes that when Bush got to the White House, "Early
on we were told that the president is not a big
reader".
Bob Woodward’s book "Bush at War" tells that, in a
National Security Council meeting during the
Afghanistan war, Bush said: "I don’t read the
editorial pages. I don’t --the hyperventilation that
tends to take place around those cables, every
expert and every former colonel and all that, is
just background noise".
Thus far I have given a very brief summary of what
has been said on some points by outstanding
Americans, things which help to explain the strange
behaviour and aggressiveness of the US President.
I
do not want to elaborate now on more sensitive
issues like those whose exposure cost his life to
J.H. Hatfield, author of the book "Fortunate Son",
and others of great interest analyzed by truly
brilliant, brave, eminent authors.
Mr. Bush’s lies and slanders and those of his
closest advisors were fabricated in a hurry to
justify the atrocious measures taken against Cuban-born
people living in the United States who have close
family ties in Cuba.
This outrage, as we warned on June 21, might have
adverse political consequences in Florida which
could play a decisive role in this year’s elections.
The idea of a punishment vote is gaining ground
among thousands of Cuban-Americans, many of whom
would normally have voted for Bush.
Hatred and blindness have lead this administration
to take a stupid, immoral action under pressure from
the terrorist mob which gave Bush a fraudulent
victory when he had a million votes less than his
rival nationwide, and a narrow majority of 537 votes
in Florida where thousands of black Americans were
prevented from exercising their right to vote
whereas many dead people ‘exercised’ theirs. Fifteen
or twenty thousand voters could sink his hopes of
re-election. These brutal measures have also been
criticized all over the country.
The overwhelming majority of those who are members
of or run that terrorist mob —which decided no less
a thing than the election of the President of the
United States— are former Batista supporters and
their descendents; or they are groups who for years
have been involved in the terrorist actions, pirate
attacks, assassination plots against Cuban
revolutionary leaders and all kinds of armed
aggressions against our country; or they were big
landowners and relatives of the upper middle classes
who were affected by revolutionary laws and who
previously had all kinds of privileges and many of
whom have amassed huge fortunes and have gained
influence in important power circles in the US
governments.
Over 90 percent of those who have emigrated from
Cuba since the triumph of the revolution have done
so through normal channels and for economic reasons,
their leaving authorized by the Revolution that
placed no obstacles. But Cuban immigrants were
forced to go under the Caudine Forks of that
powerful mafia whose influence they could not easily
ignore.
Unlike many millions of Latin Americans, including
Haitians and other Caribbeans, that emigrate legally
and illegally to the United States and are called
immigrants, Cubans, with no exception whatsoever,
are called exiles.
On the other hand, the absurd Cuban Adjustment Act
has caused the loss of countless Cuban lives by
rewarding and encouraging illegal emigration and
giving Cubans extraordinary privileges that are not
granted to citizens of any other country in the
world.
Nevertheless, years ago, even before the collapse of
the Soviet Union and the special period that ensued,
and despite the risk of espionage and terrorist
plans originating in the United States which the
measures entailed, Cuba gave permits to émigrés so
they could visit their relatives and their country
of origin, whereas the Bush administration is
abruptly closing the doors because of its fanatical
obsession of bringing Cuba to its knees through
economic suffocation.
And, to that same end of depriving our country of
any income whatsoever, he labels the tourist
industry in Cuba sex tourism and calls those who
visit our country coming from the United States "paedophiles"
and "pleasure seekers".
Mr Bush does not hesitate either in tarring Canadian
tourists with the same brush when everybody knows
that the overwhelming majority of them are
pensioners and senior citizens who, in the company
of their relatives, come to enjoy the exceptional
safety and calm, the politeness, culture and
hospitality that they find in our country.
What would Mr. Bush call the tens of millions of
tourists who visit the United States every year
where casinos, gambling dens, areas of male and
female prostitution and many other activities
related to pornography and sex abound, none
of which exist in Cuba and all of which are alien to
the revolutionary culture of our people?
What would he call the tens of millions of Europeans
who visit Spain every year where many pages in the
papers are used to advertising the names, addresses,
the physical, cultural and intellectual
characteristics and the specialities and individual
gifts to suit all tastes of those who exercise the
age-old profession of prostitution? Would he call
the US and Spanish tourist industries sex tourism?
None of the aforementioned activities take place in
Cuba. However, in the fevered and fundamentalist
mind of the all-powerful gentleman in the White
House and in those of his most intimate advisors,
Cuba must now be "saved" not only from "tyranny",
Cuban children must now be "saved from sexual
exploitation and trafficking in persons" "the world
must be freed from this dreadful problem which takes
place 90 miles away from the United States".
Has no one told him that in Cuba before the triumph
of the revolution in 1959 about 100,000 women were
directly or indirectly involved in prostitution for
reasons of poverty, discrimination and lack of work
and that the Revolution educated these women and
found them jobs, and outlawed the so-called "tolerance
zones" which existed in the pseudo-republic and the
neo-colony installed by the United States?
Has no one told him that the Cuban children, whose
physical, mental and moral health is the number one
priority of the Revolution, are protected by more
severe laws than those of the United States and that
they all attend school, including more than 50,000
who suffer from mental or physical disabilities and
that, without exceptions, receive specialized care
in special education centres?
Has no one told him that infant mortality is lower
in Cuba than it is in the United States and that it
continues to decrease?
Has no one dared to whisper in his ear that Cuba
occupies an outstanding and internationally
recognized place in education; that health and
education services are free and extend to the whole
population; that today programs are underway in
education, health and culture that will place Cuba
far above all the other countries in the world?
The historic session of the National Assembly of
People’s Power held on July 1 and 2, exposed them
and showed how ridiculous is the grotesque over 400-page-long-report
which gives an ample account and full details of the
neo-colonial and annexationist programs the fascist
group which begot this disgusting project propose to
implement to the detriment of the Cuban people and
their sovereignty. This report has done nothing if
not unite our people even more and give a boost to
their fighting spirit.
They must be absolutely mad to talk of such things
as implementing literacy and vaccination programs in
Cuba where illiteracy was eradicated a long time
ago, where minimum school attendance is up to grade
nine and where children are vaccinated against 13
diseases. Actually, such programs should be applied
to tens of millions of Americans who are left out,
who do not enjoy the benefits of social security and
who have not been to school or are completely
illiterate or functionally illiterate.
The US administration has not even dared to say a
single word about the generous offer that our
country made of saving, in a short 5 year period, a
life for every life lost in the Twin Towers, by
providing free health care to 3000 US citizens who
have no access to healthcare services that are
indispensable for preserving life. Neither have they
replied to the question of whether or not those who
may decide to come to Cuba to take advantage of this
opportunity would be punished.
It is really revealing that on the very same day
that Mr. Bush spouted such outrageous slanders and
threats, a prestigious American scientific
institution from California signed an agreement with
the Cuban Molecular Immunology Centre for
transferring technology developed in our country for
the clinical trials and later manufacture of three
promising vaccines in the battle against cancer,
which, as you know, kills more than half a million
Americans every year.
It is only fair to acknowledge that in this case the
US authorities did not set any obstacle.
This fact shows how the fruits of everything I have
talked about before are beginning to sprout all over
our country, despite 45 years of a harsh blockade
and of aggressions by US governments.
And these are not biological weapons, nor chemical
weapons, nor nuclear weapons; these are scientific
discoveries which could help all humanity.
Let’s hope that, in Cuba’s case, God does not
‘instruct’ Mr. Bush to attack our country but that
he rather inspires him to avoid this colossal
mistake! He had better check on any divine
belligerent order by consulting the Pope and other
prestigious dignitaries and theologians from the
Christian churches, asking them for their opinion
Excuse me, Mr. President of the United States of
America, for not writing a third epistle to you this
time but it would have been difficult to analyze
this subject in that way. It might have been taken
for a personal insult and I rather adhere to common
courtesy.
Hail, Caesar! I say, but this time I add: Those who
are willing to die have no fear of your enormous
power, of your unbridled rage, nor of your dangerous
and cowardly threats against Cuba!
Long live the truth!
Long live human dignity!
July 26, 2004
|
