So much for the safe choice

Tuesday, August 12th, 2008

Let’s pause for a minute amidst the scatty cacophony to John Edwards’ affair with his flighty “videographer,” who no reasonable person would pay to film paint dry.

No, it’s the fact that the down-home son of a millworker with his lazy Carolinian drawl (and lily-white skin) was supposed to be the safe bet for the Democrats. Jaded liberals squawked that America would never go for the ballsy chick or the black dude, so you’ll vote for Edwards and you’ll like it.

That’s the best we can hope for. America’s just not ready and all that.

Of course, folks in Iowa didn’t listen to the conventional wisdom and the rest is history. But even after Barack Obama secured the nomination, a pundit here or there would sourly mumble that he was floundering because of that black thing, needling that John Edwards would be blowing John McCain out of the water.

Which amounts to a nice theory for political science students to contemplate in between Jager bombs at the bar. Those of us in the real world rejected the Plastic One because we didn’t know who he was (even after being a few thousand votes in Ohio away from the vice presidency in ‘04) and didn’t trust him.

After observing and interviewing Edwards at political events since 2003, I can say that he was heavy on sheen and light on substance. He said all the right things, repeating Democratic talking points in his artful, aw-shucks way. The father of three was great at kissing babies.

But there was no way His Contrivance seemed ready to take that 3 a.m. phone call. (Although I would vote for him to play the president on tee-vee. His coif is killer).

So maybe that’s why few of us were shocked at his revelations that yes, he actually did dally with Rielle Hunter, who still sports ’80s Madonna hair as a nod to her days as a coked-out New York clubhopper.

To think that Elizabeth Edwards (who Rielle sniffed “didn’t give off good energy”) will have to spend her last years shuddering from this humiliation is just vile. Monsieur Edwards claims he told his family, which presumably includes his eldest daughter, Cate, a Harvard law student. Maybe his other two kids, 8 and 10, can find out as a Christmas present later after Mommy’s passed away.

Edwards, who nailed himself in an ABC interview as a narcissist, has cringingly insisted there’s nothing more for anyone to say as “I’ve stripped myself bare.” Well, there are questions of the paternity of Hunter’s daughter and if this was the first time the senator strayed.

But that’s just a measure on the hypocrisy scale. It’s the political implications that I’m interested in.

Just think for a moment if he were the nominee. This would be game-over for the Dems. You can argue that McCain dumping his disfigured wife for an Anheuser heiress 18 years his junior would become an issue. Perhaps. But that was almost 30 years ago and all we see now is silver-maned Cindy, doting mother of seven.

We can have a robust debate whether extramarital affairs should have any place in political discourse. I vote no, but I’m a journalistic curmudgeon, in spite of my Gen X birthday and the fact that I’m paid to blog. But Edwards’ tryst is out there (and how). Given the appalling scenario with his wife’s metastatic cancer, I don’t really feel like doing him any favors by ignoring the political fallout.

The reality is that this kind of salacious scandal is ruinous for politicians, especially when it reinforces the very doubts people had about the candidate in the first place. Edwards knows this, having watched Bill Clinton implode (and castigating him for it).

Which is another crisis likely averted by not picking Hillary as the nominee, besides the fact that she could unite the right in a way McCain never will. Who knows when Bill’s next bimbo eruption would strike, not to mention his less sexy, but far more troubling dealings in Dubai. That’s the real reason Clinton’s not on Obama’s veep short list, not bad blood after a bruising primary.

When it comes to arrogant politicians’ penchant for extracurricular activities, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

And so a skinny black guy with big ears, a funny name (and the magazine-cover perfect family) is not only the voters’ choice, but has turned out to be the Dems’ safest bet for presidency.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

US farm bill to ignore global food crisis

Saturday, May 17th, 2008

The US Congress has passed a $290 billion farm bill, which will increase subsidies to US farmers and cut international aid programs.

George Bush has threatened to veto the bill, however, but there is still a good chance it will be passed into law. Interestingly, the presidential candidates response to the bill were contrasting with John McCain critical, Hilary Clinton supportive and Barack Obama labelling it as “far from perfect”.

“It does not target help for the farmers who really need it, and it increases the size and cost of government while jeopardizing the future of legitimate farm programs by damaging the credibility of farm bills in general,” Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer stated. “At a time of record setting income for farmers, it sends the wrong message to the rest of the country who are not experiencing the boom of the agriculture sector. This bill is loaded with taxpayer funded pet projects at a time when Americans are struggling to buy groceries and afford gas to get to work.”

“Eight months behind schedule, Congress will send a bill to the President that is trade distorting and fails to provide meaningful reform to the adjusted gross income limit, beneficial interest or the international food aid program,” he added.

Raymond Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America, was also strong in his criticism of the bill. “Faced with a mounting food crisis at home and abroad, Congress had the opportunity through the Farm Bill to shift funds from wasteful agricultural subsidies for large scale farms to food aid to meet the needs of the poor,” Mr Offenheiser said. “But instead, Congressional leaders settled on a bill that will continue to be costly to taxpayers, undermine our rural economy, damage our trade relationships, and hurt the world’s poorest farmers.”

The slight decrease in tax credits to ethanol producers (by 5c per gallon) and increased conservation funding were welcomed, although many believe the cuts in tax credits do not go far enough.

With global food prices skyrocketing this year and global fears of a potential food shortage growing, the bill sends a disappointing message from the US to the rest of the world.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Baghdad anniversary clampdown fails to stop violence

Saturday, April 19th, 2008

Up to 70 people have died in Sadr City since Sunday in battles between black-masked militia loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and US and Iraqi troops.
The upsurge in fighting comes as the top US officials in Iraq testified in Washington that they opposed setting a timetable to withdraw troops from the 5-year-old war.
%26quot;The floor of the hospital is covered with the blood of children,%26quot; said Dr Qasim al-Mudalla, manager of the Imam Ali hospital in Sadr City, where he said four children and two women were among 11 dead bodies brought in on Wednesday.
%26quot;What is the world doing? They have seen the blood of our children and are doing nothing.%26quot;
Other parts of Baghdad were quiet, with streets clear of traffic because of a one-day vehicle ban in the capital for the anniversary of the day US troops rolled into the capital, deposing President Saddam Hussein.
Shops, government offices, schools and universities were shut and residents were allowed out only on foot.
Sadr had called a mass demonstration against the United States for the anniversary, but postponed it saying he feared for his followers%26#39; safety.
Many Iraqis spoke of the anniversary with bitterness. Retired army officer Salim Hussein said the past five years had yielded nothing but %26quot;blood, bombs, curfews and in-fighting%26quot;.
%26quot;The government is totally incapable of providing security,%26quot; he said, walking near the square where US forces toppled Saddam%26#39;s statue on April 9, 2003.
President Jalal Talabani, however, hailed the anniversary in a televised address as a day to be celebrated.
%26quot;April 9 will enter history as the day the most arrogant dictatorship Mesopotamia has ever witnessed was deposed, the fall of a political regime that… left behind mass graves that contained hundred thousands of innocents,%26quot; he said.
US President George W Bush, who is due to give a speech on Iraq on Thursday, spoke to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki by telephone. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Bush expressed support for Maliki%26#39;s crackdown on militia.
Maliki launched operations against Sadr%26#39;s militia last month in the southern city of Basra and fighting has spread to Baghdad, where the cleric%26#39;s Mehdi Army has clashed fiercely with both US and Iraqi troops.
US forces announced on Wednesday that two more American soldiers had died, raising the toll to 13 since an upsurge of fighting began on Sunday. Rockets or mortars, which US forces say are mainly fired from Sadr City, hit the Green Zone compound, but caused no injuries, the US embassy said.
The Iraqi parliament%26#39;s Human Rights Committee warned in a statement of a %26quot;tragic situation%26quot; in Sadr City, where food and medicine are running short after a two-week blockade.
Vehicle bans were also imposed in Samarra and Tikrit, Saddam Hussein%26#39;s hometown. In Falluja, where members of Saddam%26#39;s Sunni Arab minority rose up twice against US forces in 2004, several hundred protesters marched calling for American forces to leave.
In Washington, the top two US officials in Iraq testified to members of Congress for a second day on Wednesday.
Military commander General David Petraeus and ambassador Ryan Crocker said Iraq had made progress over the past year, but the improvements were fragile and could be reversed.
Petraeus advised against committing to a timetable for new troop reductions after forces sent last year as part of the so-called surge return home in July.
Petraeus%26#39; testimony suggests more than 100,000 US troops will still be in Iraq when the next US president succeeds Bush in January. Republican candidate John McCain opposes a timetable for further troop cuts, while Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to set a timetable to withdraw.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 4000 US troops have died in the war. Two million Iraqis have fled the country and about as many are displaced within Iraq.
For 10-year-old Ammar Karim, taking advantage of the vehicle ban to play soccer with other boys in the middle of central Baghdad%26#39;s normally traffic-clogged Karrada Street, the anniversary had a simpler meaning: a chance to play.
%26quot;I like this government because we have a lot of curfews. It is the only time we can go out and play football. I wish we could have curfews all the time, because otherwise my family keeps me locked in the house.%26quot;

Tags: , , , ,

Related posts

Rezko trial witness talks about pressure for $750,000 payoff

Thursday, April 3rd, 2008

The Associated Press

CHICAGO — The star witness at political fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s fraud trial told Tuesday how a firm was pressured to pay $750,000 to a businessman who apparently didn’t know why he was getting the money.

Millionaire attorney Stuart P. Levine testified that Rezko had designated businessman Charles Hannon and an offshore company Hannon ran to receive a “finder’s fee” from a money management firm that wanted state business. Hannon was to keep half and send the remainder along to a Levine associate, Levine said.

“Mr. Hannon understood that he was going to receive a fee from someone for something,” Levine said.

Hannon was to have no real role in helping the money management firm, JER Partners, but was to merely collect the fee, which prosecutors say Rezko really intended to be a kickback.

Under the plan, JER Partners was to pay the “finder’s fee” for getting an $80 million allocation of assets from the $40 billion State Teachers Retirement Plan, which pays the pensions of thousands of retired downstate and suburban school teachers.

JER ultimately balked at paying the fee and ended up getting its allocation anyway. But not before getting heavy pressure to pay up, Levine testified.

Rezko, 52, is charged with scheming with Levine to squeeze money management firms for kickbacks in return for allocations from the fund. He also is charged with scheming with Levine to split a $1 million kickback from a contractor in return for permission to build a hospital.

The trial is being watched in political circles because Rezko was a major fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama, neither of whom has been charged with wrongdoing in connection with the case.

Rezko denies he ever was part of any payoff schemes.

But Levine has pleaded guilty and is testifying as the government’s star witness in hopes of getting a lenient 67-month sentence. He was a member of the board that allocated teachers pension money and the board with power to approve or kill hospital expansion plans in Illinois.

Prosecutors maintain Rezko was the real power behind the two boards because of the clout he gained through prolific fundraising for Blagojevich.

Levine testified that he urged Chicago attorney Joseph Cari to arrange for former New York state Comptroller Carl McCall to press JER Partners to pay the $750,000 fee. Cari was the head of former Vice President Al Gore’s national fundraising drive in the 2000 presidential election and later performed a key fundraising role for the Democratic National Committee.

Cari has pleaded guilty to one count of attempted extortion in the case and is awaiting sentencing. Neither McCall nor anyone connected with JER has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with the matter.

Levine said Cari and McCall were principals in another money management firm. Levine said he asked Cari to have McCall approach JER Partners about paying the $750,000 fee, “because I knew Mr. Cari a lot better than I knew Mr. McCall.”

But the firm balked at signing a contract to pay the money.

Tags: ,

Related posts

Obama’s lesson

Saturday, March 29th, 2008

Some of us fear talking about it, get nervous and fluttery and act as if this is a topic polite people should avoid.

Some of us are unequipped to talk about it, too ignorant of the history that undergirds it, too willing to bend that history toward ideological ends, too blithely dismissive of the fact that history matters, that past informs present informs future.

Some of us lack the compassion to talk about it, prefer to use it only as a means of denigrating, diminishing and dismissing the Other.

Some of us are uncomfortable talking about it because it makes us feel what we’d rather not: anger, sorrow, defensiveness, guilt.

And some of us — politicians in particular — talk about race only to use it as a weapon, only as a means of hitting the other candidate.

Barack Obama spoke of race Tuesday in Philadelphia. He did so with calm confidence, with a firm grasp of, and appreciation for, the history that undergirds it, with compassion that did not stop at the color line and yet, without anger, sorrow, defensiveness, or an attempt to impose guilt, without making it a political cudgel.

“Not this time,” he said.

“And so,” intoned Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show,” “at 11 o’clock a.m. on a Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to Americans about race as through they were adults.”

Obama, who has steadfastly refused to be defined or confined by race, has nevertheless seen race consume the last two weeks of his campaign. First, there was Geraldine Ferraro and her asinine contention that Obama is somehow an affirmative action candidate, that the millions of black, white and other voters who support him are somehow bewitched by the color of his skin and never mind that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes have the same color skin, yet never enjoyed more than a fraction of his success.

More substantively, there was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s friend and former pastor. Video clips (from what source, I still can’t tell) flooded the Internet showing the pastor denouncing America in coarse and strident tones. As depicted in those excerpts, Wright, who is also an avowed admirer of the hateful Louis Farrakhan, crossed the line from the incendiary truth-telling of the African-American ministerial tradition into a corrosive, paranoid, ungodly bitterness.

For Obama, the expedient and politically intelligent thing would have been to denounce Wright, cut him loose and move on. Instead, he did what Clinton did not after Ferraro shot off her mouth, what George W. Bush did not after he spoke at Bob Jones University, what John McCain did not after he wimped out about the Confederate flag, what Ronald Reagan did not after he blessed “state’s rights,” what Jimmy Carter did not after he invoked “ethnic purity.”

He showed courage. He seized the teachable moment. Then he taught that moment, not in the stark and simplistic black and white terms so often preferred by blacks and whites but, rather, with a sophisticated grasp of the thorny nuances of race and a compassion vast enough to comprehend not only the anger and frustration of blacks, but also that of whites — and to recognize the righteousness in both.

And Obama reminded us that anger and frustration are not destiny. “America can change,” he said. “That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope, the audacity to hope, for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”

He explained America to itself. He pointed America toward higher ground. It was a brave, magnificent and — mark my words — historic moment. You see, we just lost the last excuse for our inability to talk about race.

Last week in Philadelphia, Barack Obama showed us how.

Tags: , ,

Related posts

Lingering questions

Saturday, March 29th, 2008

“Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which “controversial” remarks?

Wright’s assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented the HIV virus “as a means of genocide against people of color%26quot;? Wright’s claim that America was morally responsible for 9/11 — “chickens coming home to roost” — because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?)

What about the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?

Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: “There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?”

But that is not the question. The question is why didn’t he leave that church? Why didn’t he leave — why doesn’t he leave even today — a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) “God damn America?” Obama’s 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence, and (b) white guilt.

(a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there’s Wright, but at the other “end of the spectrum” there’s Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, “who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.” But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?

“I can no more disown (Wright) than I can my white grandmother.” What exactly was grandma’s offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus’ time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did grandma.

(b) White guilt. Obama’s purpose in the speech was to put Wright’s outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, “We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country,” and then proceeds to do precisely that. And what lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination?

Jeremiah Wright, of course.

Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign.

Then answer this, senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright’s rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

Tags: , ,

Related posts

Seeking a modern vision

Saturday, March 29th, 2008

Jonathan Merritt nailed his equivalent of “95 Theses” to the door of the Southern Baptist Convention. And the door surprisingly opened, at a speed much faster than Martin Luther experienced in Wittenberg 450 years ago.

Mr. Merritt, a 25-year old seminarian, got religion a year or so ago about the perils of a changing climate. More specifically, the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary student began thinking about how his fellow Southern Baptists needed to make a bigger priority out of the environment.

He started pressing the issue and benefiting from the contacts that flowed from the days when his father presided over the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest body of Christian believers in the U.S. next to Roman Catholics.

One thing led to another, and this month the Southern Baptists _ the Southern Baptists! _ adopted one of those formal church statements that signal a sea change. The leaders of the convention, which include high-powered pastors like Dr. Jack Graham of Plano’s Prestonwood Baptist Church, pledged to do better in addressing climate change.

This shift may not be as significant as the Reformation that Martin Luther spawned with his list of grievances against the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, welcome to your new evangelicalism.

What’s going on among evangelicals is a both a generational and thematic shift. Mr. Merritt’s advocacy typifies what you see among the new wave of evangelicals, which Southern Baptists are with their emphasis on conversions and the inerrancy of Scripture.

Younger leaders are stepping forward to replace or push aside the Jerry Falwells, James Dobsons, Pat Robertsons and James Kennedys. That first group of evangelical political leaders set the movement’s social agenda from Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election through the 2004 general election. But they have been losing their grip for several years. In fact, change is hitting full speed today.

This is a good thing. Evangelicalism is one of the most powerful movements in American culture and politics. Whether you like or dislike the movement is beside the point. What happens within evangelical churches, schools and organizations affects the rest of our society.

By broadening evangelicalism’s agenda, younger evangelicals like Jonathan Merritt, Rick Warren and Mike Huckabee are doing us a favor. They’re shifting the political discussion to issues like climate change, AIDS in Africa, Darfur or the struggling middle class.

This transition is nicely detailed in David Gushee’s new book, The Future of Faith in American Politics. A younger evangelical himself, the McAfee School of Theology professor chronicles the emergence of an evangelical center.

There are international aid organizations like World Vision, publishing houses like InterVarsity Press and activist groups like the Evangelical Environmental Network. And next month in Pennsylvania, a wide range of evangelicals, including Mike Huckabee, are asking the remaining presidential candidates to participate in a “Compassion Forum,” where issues like global AIDS and the environment will get discussed.

While they’re at it, I’d love to see some of these new evangelicals wade into the faith-and-science debate. Not just the one about climate change, but the broader ones, such as how the human condition survives in a technological world.

Polish philosopher and Catholic priest Michael Heller had a wonderful line last week when he won the Templeton Prize for his work in science and philosophy: “Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence.”

The new evangelicals have done enough, though, to warrant the attention of the Big Thinkers behind John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Whenever a 25-year old can get the attention of the Southern Baptist Convention, you know something’s rumbling.

William McKenzie (wmckenzie@dallasnews.com) is an editorial columnist for The Dallas Morning News.

Tags: , , , ,

Related posts

Cuba: Transitions without End

Saturday, March 29th, 2008

by Dr. Frederic Clairmont

(Global Research)

The victory of the

Revolution is a rampart that ensures that never again will Cuba become

the most sordid brothel our planet has ever known linked to a criminal

gambling and drug infested inferno of the colonial occupiers. Comandante Ernesto Che Guevara, 1 May 1959.

Invariably, after every

speaking engagement on Latin America. the question was raised about

Cuba fate after the exit of the Comandante from the political stage.

The question was not malicious although among my listeners there were

those who believed , or prayed for, that the departure of Fidel

Alejandro Castro Rua, born (1926) in the former province of Oriente on

his father farm (Manacas) ,marks the terminal point of the socialist

revolution. Throughout the ages and by the very nature of our existence

it is part of our normal being to ask that basic question: from whence

have we come and whither are we are going? There are many that have

personalized one of the most momentous historical metamorphoses of all

times.

Fidel Castro and the Revolution

that he incubated and flung into battle with such resounding surprises

and successes for more than a half a century cannot be abstracted from

the role of the masses as the energizing dynamic of change.

The personalization of leaders

as the drive wheel of change is erroneous as it assumes that the makers

of history are exclusively the leaders of social and political

movements. Such a muddled perception is the incarnation of the

Fuhrerprinzip of Nazism that sweeps aside the seminal role of ordinary

peoples that battle to defend the Revolution and build on it. It

deliberately eviscerates the world of labour: workers, farmers,

professionals, the men and women that comprise the armed forces. In

short, it ignores the creators of wealth as the engine of change.

History is about numbers and

very big numbers that dramatically erupt onto the political stage at

certain nodal points in response to the contradictions of our time

stemming from irrepressible convulsions . The revolutionary that is

Fidel Castro is thus inseparable from the masses that catapulted him

into the fires of national struggle from the Moncada Barracks to the

liberation of Havana, in much the same way as Gandhi and Mandela in

their freedom struggles; and no less so Lenin and the October

Revolution.

Thomas Carlyle enriched our understanding of this duality when he wrote in his classic depiction of the French Revolution:

Hunger and nakedness and

nightmare oppression lying heavy on twenty-five million: this, not the

wounded vanities or contradicted philosophies of philosophical

advocates, rich shopkeepers, rural nobles, was the prime mover in the

French Revolution; as the like will be in all such revolutions, in all

countries.

The penetrating insight of Marx

with its sublime message of hope and struggle as humanity faces up to

the exigencies of smashing the inherited mould of capitalism, a system

of class power, privilege, profit and exploitation, illumines the

compulsive sweep of revolutionary change.

History does nothing; it

possesses no immense wealth, fights no battles. It is rather man, real

living man who does everything, who grapples with everything and who

fights.

As a teacher and writer (and

Spanish speaker) I tracked the Revolution trajectory spanning more

than half a century. I was never a member of any political body nor was

I ever enamored by the phony cult of objectivity. In those decades, I

talked to its peoples from all walks of life. I met its leadership. I

participated in its seminars and conferences. It was in those years of

agony and ecstasy that I witnessed the unending twists and turns of its

ascendancy. In those years, I also encountered the hate-filled é–™igré–Ÿ,

who had chosen the path of counter-revolution, dishonor and mendacity,

ensconced in Miami and elsewhere.

To grasp the nature of the

transition ?and that is the crucial word of this lecture - that has

reshaped the nation psyche it is well to recall that the Revolution

was generated as a reaction against the exploitation and sheer cruelty

perpetrated by the US occupation and its domesticated political

Quislings that reigned through the instrumentalities of unadulterated

state terrorism since the consummation of the conquest in 1898. Listen

well to the Comandante words framed on the eve of the freedom upsurge

. Its relevance to the new transition is all too obvious.

Some have insisted that the

only way out for Cuba was to guarantee private investments. That , we

are told, would solve the whole problem. But foreign capitalists had

these guarantees in Cuba for fifty years , and similar guarantees in

practically every other country of the American continent. Did these

guarantees solve the pressing problems confronting its peoples? Did

they solve the problem of mass unemployment, education, public health?

Indeed, what did they solve in all these fifty years? Joblessness

straddling more than one third of the labour force, poverty, hunger and

chronic malnutrition?quot;

I recall on one of our walks on

the Malecon with my friend the late Renato Constantino, a celebrated

Philipino resistance fighter, philosopher and writer pointing his hand

to the waters of the bay in the direction of Florida and saying: Over

there, just a couple of kilometers away. I believe it around 90 kms.

There is the super-colonial Goliath , that has flung everything against

this bastion of a socialist David and what we抳e seen is that the power

of the imperio has been clubbed. Why? You know the answer. What

Voltaire said about God applies no less so to Cuba: If Cuba did not

exist we would have had to invent it. What Renato was saying was that

the White Man world of the imperio cannot coexist with Cuba; and hence, in their view, it must be destroyed. It is toxic and contagious.

Its sheer capacity to survive

and strike back owed nothing to a world of miracles and Shamans. What

Bush, his acolytes and predecessors mean by transition is something

quite different from the meaning emblazoned in the theory and praxis of

the Revolution? It reminds me of the words of Ho Chi Minh formulated

after the breakdown of the Fountainbleau negotiations in 1946. Words

have different meaning for different people. If you spit in the face of

the colonialists they will always call it rain.

We cannot speak of the

multi-faceted transitions in Cuba without studying the grim transition

of imperialism. They are inter-related. American capitalism has leapt

into the big transition, that of recession, galloping fast towards the

Big Depression. The credit seizures and foreclosures are gobbling up

jobs and earnings at an alarming tempo. Panic stricken stock markets

are plummeting with many major financial institutions going bust. The

industrial capacity of US capitalism has withered. What remains of its

colossal industrial heritage, a legacy mainly of the decades 1865-1914,

is being swiftly offshored. Detroit, the once proud citadel of

industrial might is now a wasteland. Its financial structures are

wobbly, shackled with uncontrollable debt: household, corporate and

government that continues to burgeon exponentially. Americans and

foreigners have lost confidence in the greenback that is swiftly

ceasing to be a store of value.

Iran’s president Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad hammered the point when he said: the dollar is nothing but

a worthless piece of paper. A contention that few will contest. Its

claim to be the world reserve currency is a fairy tale. Credit flows

are drying up . Banks are dumping their assets into collapsing markets.

Defaults and bankruptcies are soaring. In sum, US financial capitalism

is in the throes of an implosion. Uncle Sam is an enfeebled mendicant

living off borrowed time and borrowed money. But not for long can this

game continue.

The empire has over 700

military overseas bases in over 130 countries but its effective power

is shrinking day by day. This then is the big contrast with Cuba

transition. Its growth in real terms has steadily topped 6%over the

last six years. The brutalizing years of the Special Period have

largely been vanquished. The economic and spiritual revolutions in Cuba

are nothing short of mind-boggling that bear no comparison with any

Latin American countries. Let there be no illusion. Cuba is a Third

World nation. It still is a poor country. The wages of its labour force

are still abysmally low. The exploitation of man by man has vanished.

Of pivotal importance, however, is that it has now achieved full

employment, a reality once regarded as the unattainable Nirvana.

Illiteracy, malnutrition and mendicancy have ceased to exist. Its life

expectancy is almost on a par with Japan and Sweden, as against 56 in

Batista neo-colony. Its infant mortality rate is on a par with Canada

and has already outstripped that of the United States. These are the

transitions that the media masters of the corporate gulag chose to

eliminate from their specious references on transitions.

I well remember the

Revolution formative years when the white-skinned medical personnel

bolted the country boasting that medicine is dead and the only thing

that will take its place is Voodoo. In their imbecilic gasp of triumph

they had forgotten to say that their political cronies had plundered

the nation Treasury and dispatched its pickings to the land of the

ex-colonial master. Cuba now has around 90,000 students spanning the

entire range of medical care. This nation which, according to its

unbending liquidators, has abolished æ…¼uman rights?has set its goal of

becoming the paramount medical science citadel in the world.

There are now over 12,000 students in ELAM: La Escuela Latinoamericana de Medicina,

one of the world top educational establishments. Over the next decade

it will be graduating with Venezuela more than 100,000 Latin American

and Caribbean doctors within the integration framework of ALBA:

Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. Together with Venezuela,

Operation Miracle was launched designed to restore vision to no fewer

than 6 million in all of Latin America and the Caribbean.

These astounding numbers would

have been inconceivable without a socialist order and the discipline

and sacrifices that moved in tandem with it. Tens of thousands of Cuban

medical and non-medical personnel are working in 27 countries under

difficult physical conditions. In his visit to Cuba in 2007, in which

he decorated the 140 medical personnel, General Pervez Musharaf ( a

fervent ally of the empire) was not indulging in hyperbole when he

noted:

Yours was one of the greatest

acts of solidarity that humanity has ever known. We thank President

Castro and the Cuban people. You came thousands of miles away, in the

depth of one of the most severest winters, to heal and save the lives

of thousands of our people stricken by that appalling natural disaster.

You even brought your own medical equipment and medicines. There is not

a single village in our country that has not heard of your heroic deeds

and sacrifices. These awards are a modest token to express our

gratitude. You gave everything but took nothing in exchange except our

love. The word thanks , you will understand, is too small a tribute to

convey the immensity of our debt and feeling towards you.

The systematic state terrorist

onslaughts against Cuba pre-date 1962 that marked the start of the

official embargo that has endured with no respite for almost half a

century .Attempts to quarantine Cuba have failed. Year after year in

the UN General Assembly just two countries, the United States ( plus

its two Pacific island protectorates) and Israel voted for the

embargo perpetuation. Its cumulative cost according to foreign

minister Roque approaches $100bn. And yet, notwithstanding the

permanent war including several aborted attempts at assassination of

the president, Cuba has lurched forward prodigiously , not only in its

dispensation of education and medical aid to countries on many

continents, but as a fraternal catalyst in the liberation struggle. No

country in the world has given as much to Africa as Cuba has done and

continues to do. A gift sealed with the blood of its peoples.

Nelson Mandela touched on one

of the energizing roles of Cuba when he spelt out in his homage to the

Comandante during his visit to South Africa following the liquidation

of the Apartheid regime.

We and all the peoples of the

Free World are honored to have you here. And by the Free World we refer

to the peoples whose blood has been shed profusely to liquidate

imperialism. Consider South Africa as your land. We shall not forget

the decisive role you played militarily in destroying the South African

army. You came thousands of miles to participate in the freedom

struggle with us. You fought nobly, unstintingly and shed your blood to

ensure our freedom. Without you our freedom would not have been

consummated.

Obviously such views were in

contrast to the architects of Cuba annihilation. These avalanches of

death-dealing hatred had nothing to do with the familiar claptrap that

the island of socialism had repudiated all the vestiges of human rights

and democracy. The heights of vulgarity scaled by the practitioners of

exterminism were exhibited by General Alexander Haig, one of

President Reagan henchmen, when he fulminated in a meeting of the

National Security Council : You just give me the word and I抣l turn

that fucking little island into a parking lot. If this is not an

exhortation to the Holocaust then words have no meaning. The mass

exterminism propounded by Haig was not galvanized because of the

apprehensions of the upshot of another Bay of Pigs.

It was because even at that

time Cuba had made yet another dramatic transition: it had become

militarily invulnerable. This was matched by the decline of the imperio

and its military over-reach that exposed its soft underbelly. To this

was added an event of the greatest importance , the alliance with

Venezuela concretized in the words of Chavez:

An attack against Cuba will be

countered by an immediate cut-off of oil. More important is that it

will lead to a flow of blood including the blood of Bolivarian patriots

since revolutionary Cuba and Venezuela are blended in the war against

imperialism. It will be an horrendous war if the imbeciles that rule

the imperio are so dumb as to unleash it. And I need hardly say that it

will be a devastating counterpunch that overspills the confines of

Cuba. For the first time in the history of the Americas a black man

was calling the shots.

In yet another of his

preachments on Cuba transition, Bush excoriated Barack Obama for

declaring that if he elected he would talk to everyone. In a regime

in which the very mention of dialogue is anathema Bush flatly

pontificated that there can be no dialogue with the Castro tyrant that

has brought nothing but disaster and poverty to his people and

eliminating all traces of human dignity and freedom. This is quite a

mouthful from a man that continues to prattle endlessly about human

dignity when in his own backyard the American prison population stands

at 2.3 million with no signs of tapering off. According to the Pew

Report it now has 750 prisoners per 100,000 as against 79 per 100,000

in Switzerland. One in 15 African Americans are behind bars, as against

I in 75 for Hispanics and 1 in 106 for whites.

Is Bush oblivious to the crimes

against humanity in the war that he has waged against Iraq in which

more than one million Iraqis have been killed and wounded? In addition,

their factories, farms, homes and infrastructure have been smashed. The

cost of that war has moved from billions to trillions of dollars seen

from the American side of the balance sheet. The numbers are misleading

in that they do not include the costs to the people of Iraq. Indeed,

the policies of US exterminism was neatly encapsulated in the pithy

comment of the British dramatist and Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter

You either do as I say or I抣l kick your ass in. Because of its

refusal to have its ass kicked in Cuba has been condemned to the

chopping block. To be sure there are no presidents since 1945 that are

not indictable on war crimes charges.

Bush launched one more of his

transitions when his administration created a Cuba Transition

Coordinator bossed by Cleb McCarry, former ambassador to Afghanistan.

On 10 July 2006, a report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free

Cuba demanded immediate action to ensure the failure of the Castro

regime succession strategy.

There was nothing new in this

verbose report. It was framed as an ultimatum that bluntly stated that

the land and industrial and financial sectors must be denationalized.

The Roman Church and its prerogatives must be fully restored including

its extensive land holdings and the end of the separation of Church and

State.. It was a blueprint for the return of the neo-colonial

occupation from 1898-1959. Noteworthy is that its goals could be

succinctly summarized in an utterance made more than 50 years ago by an

American oilman at the peak of the oil bonanza in Venezuela.

Here in Venezuela you have the

right to do what you like with your capital. This right is dearer to me

than all the political rights in the world.

The Economist, that

militant mouthpiece of Big Capital (it owned by the Pearson Trust)

hollers for US intervention to halt the nationalist and socialist

offensives gathering speed in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

To put it bluntly , Latin America needs more Lula da Silvas [and his

version of neo-liberalism] and fewer Chavez and Morales. This is

where the United States could help. The imperial masters , however,do

not require such morsels of advice because it is central to the applied

logic of state terrorism.

As we have seen, institutional

changes have been a permanent trait of the Revolution and the current

debates and their implementation do not mark a qualitative change in

their direction. It is but yet another phase of the greatest importance

given the immense strides and complexity of the national economy. Cuba

today is a power house of modern science and technology embracing

bio-technology, electronics, engineering, information technology, the

chemical and petrochemical industries, mining, the iron and steel

industry, etc. To that inventory we should simply say that Cuba stands

at the summit of world educational attainment.

The debate on the new

transition In Cuba has reached a frenzied pace and straddles the

problem of optimizing capital and labour resources. No holes are barred

in these debates on the extent of administrative incompetence and

corruption, and the theft of national assets. The current projects call

for a massive overhaul of the bureaucracy whose swollen numbers are a

deterrent to the nation productive advance.

These changes now underway

demand a decentralization of economic decision making slated to boost

productivity. The changes will require an overhaul of wholesale and

retail price structures, wage payments and incentive payments,

subsidies and the prevailing rationing system The latter was never

designed to be a permanent fixture of a socialist order. These changes

call for, as President Raul Castro stated in his 26 July 2007 policy

statement, for the elimination of a host of prohibitions and red tape.

Illustrative is the case of the dairy industry and specifically milk

distribution. There are no overall directives engulfing the entire

economy. Experimentation is proceeding on a piecemeal basis in various

municipalities and then gradually extended. In the case of milk

distribution this has resulted in savings of over $40 million and in

addition huge savings in fuel costs.

This is how Fidel puts it in his Reflections

of 16 January. We do not intend to give anything to those who could be

producing but do not produce, or who produce very little. We shall

reward the merits of those who work with their hands and their minds.

The question is obviously open: to what extent will these transitions,

that cut deeply into the flesh of Cuba socialism, engender enhanced

inequalities in a society whose egalitarianism is legendary.? Our query

will soon be answered by unfolding events.

There are well-intentioned

critics who propagate that Cuba should embrace the free market magic

and its propertied social relations from whence it follows that the

Chinese model is appropriate. One recalls Deng Xiaoping epic

outburst. To be rich is glorious Deng ideas and their

reverberations have been discussed in depth for several years in Cuba.

But let us be realistic. What is Deng rallying cry other than a

resounding clamour for the restoration of capitalism? A visit to

China cities and countryside and the monstrous inequalities between

them and within them is amply confirmatory of the workings of the

system. Its millionaires have become billionaires. China and Cuba

belong to two opposed universes. China level of inequality, measured

by the Gini coefficient, is similar to that of American capitalism.

The capitalist reality of the

islands of Hong Kong and Macao owned and dominated politically by a

cabal of at most a dozen mega capitalist families that are entrenched

through marriage, extended family connections and their daily economic

wheelings and dealings would suggest that the Cuban leadership and its

people will not be following this road. Thus the relevance of the

Chinese capitalist model to Cuba smacks of total irrealism.

Our lectures on transitions

both within imperialism and Cuba are taking place not in an abstract

world but in a world where capitalism - and American capitalism in

particular ?is traversing one of the most cataclysmic

upheavals since the Great Depression of the l930s. The resultant of

this tragedy is beyond the scope of these lectures.

But what I believe will be the

most important conditioner of the future direction of socialism in Cuba

are the ethical foundations on which it reposes. This is enshrined in

what I conceive to be one of the most penetrating manifestos in Cuban

history. It is the definition of the Revolution so masterly articulated

on 1 May 2000 by the Comandante that merits quotation at length.

The

Revolution is the sense of the historic moment; it is to change all

that must changed; it is equality and freedom in their plenitude; it

means that we must be treated, and to treat others, as human beings; it

is to emancipate ourselves by our own powers; it is to challenge the

powerful dominant forces within the nation and abroad; it is to defend

our values at whatever price and sacrifice; it is modesty,

disinterestedness , altruism, solidarity and heroism; it means not

having recourse to lies or thrashing ethical principles; it is the deep

conviction that there is no force in the world capable of crushing the

power of truth and ideas. Revolution is unity; it is independence; it

is to fight for the materialization of our dreams for Cuba and the

world; it is the foundation of our patriotism, our socialism and our

internationalism.Frederic

F. Clairmont is a prominent Canadian academic whofor many years was a

permanent senior economics affairs officer at the United Nations

Economics Commission for Africa and the United Nations Conference for

Trade and Development (UNCTAD). He taught at the University of

Kings College and Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia. His classic work

is The Rise and Fall of Economic Liberalism and his latest book is:

Cuba and Venezuela: The Nemeses of Imperialism published by Citizens

International in Penang, Malaysia. He is a a frequent contributor to

Le Monde Diplomatique and The Economic and Political Weekly.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Guantanamo: The Bigger Picture

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

by Frida Berrigan

(Foreign Policy in Focus)The U.S. base at Guantanamo has been called many things. The ?a href=”http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/26/usa.guantanamo”>gulag of our time?(Amnesty International General Secretary Irene Khan, May 2005). he key strategic intelligence platform in the war on terror?(Charles Stimson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, January 2007). The ?a href=”http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/op_ed/posner_speech_0403.htm”>legal equivalent of outer space?(unnamed Administration official). The right place for ?a href=”http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20020127-1.html”>the worst of a very bad lot?(Vice President Dick Cheney, January 2002) and for the ?a href=”http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-15-gitmo-freed_x.htm”>most dangerous, best trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth?(former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, January 2002).

Guantanamo is now best known as the home of oversized iguanas, banana rats, and the more than 700 揺nemy combatants?who have been detained,

tortured, and interrogated there over the past six years as part of the

Bush administration global war on terrorism. But, the history of the

U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay stretches much further back ?to the

beginning of the last century ?when the United States wrestled this

prime real-estate from Spain to become the colonial power in the hemisphere.

Twenty-first century experiences at Guantanamo have now been exposed in a sheaf of books, including difficult, vivid memoirs from former detainees and powerful poetry, and dramatized in plays and films, such as the best-documentary Oscar winner Taxi to the Dark Side and the critically-acclaimed Road to Guantanamo. The iconic orange jumpsuits are on display at every anti-war protest

and the word 揋uantanamo?is often used as shorthand for the Bush

administration whole system of indefinite detention, rendition,

torture, and abuse of power established since September 2001.

Harold and Kumar Escape Guantanamo

Calls to hut down Guantanamo?from legal and human rights experts, politicians, and the international community

are now strong, irrepressible and growing louder each day. At the same

time, the facility has finally penetrated pop culture. This spring,

movie-goers can enjoy the sequel of the 2004 slacker-stoner Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle.

In the new film, the two friends are arrested after smuggling a bong on

a flight to Amsterdam and end up at Guantanamo. Yep, the movie is titled: Harold and Kumar II: Escape from Guantanamo Bay. Promoted with the tag-line: his Time, They抮e Running from

the Joint,?the film is described as n irreverent and epic journey of

deep thoughts, deeper inhaling and a wild trip around the world that is

as 憉n-PC?as it gets.?/p>

Guantanamo is getting more attention (both outraged and outrageous),

but the question of how the United States came to control a swath of

Cuban territory is worth more discussion. If the Guantanamo prison is

shuttered tomorrow, and the prisoners get their day in court, the U.S.

base will continue to exist as a key colonial outpost in a

post-colonial world. Now that Fidel Castro has turned over power to his

brother Raul and the United States is again poised to emocratize?
socialist Cuba, this question has even greater resonance.

Booty from a 揝plendid Little War?/h3>

Perched on the south-eastern corner of Cuba, the U.S. Naval Base

straddles the deep water harbor of Guantanamo Bay and occupies 45

square miles of Cuban territory.

In 1898, the United States and Spain battled for control of Cuba and

other Spanish colonies in what Washington had come to see as part of

its phere of influence.?The Spanish-American War is known for the

Rough Riders and the 揜emember the Maine?call to arms (which refers to

the now historically suspect attack on the USS Maine battleship sunk in

the Havana Harbor). In a letter to his good friend Teddy Roosevelt, the

U.S. Ambassador to England dubbed it a plendid little war.?Ignoring

the countless (literally)

Cubans, Filipinos and others who were killed, one could see his point.

The United States won a lot in the war: it lasted less than four

months, resulted in the death of fewer than 1,000 U.S. soldiers and put

the United States in charge of Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam ?all former Spanish colonies ?and gave the United States control of Hawaii. The U.S. Navy also discovered the benefits of Guantamo Bay when they sought refuge from summer hurricanes. One hundred and ten years later, they are still there.

While the U.S. Congress promised Cuba independence after the war, the Platt Amendment

forced a peace treaty that granted the United States the right to

tabilize?the island militarily and established a permanent U.S.

naval base in Cuba.

Cuban-American Treaty

The Cuban-American Treaty

was signed in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt and Tomas Estrada

Palma, the President of Cuba ?a U.S. citizen fully backed by

Washington. According to the text of the treaty,

the U.S. military presence will 揺nable the United States to maintain

the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as

for its own defense, the Cuban Government will sell or lease to the

United States the lands necessary for coaling or naval stations.?The

treaty goes onto acknowledge Cuba 搖ltimate sovereignty?over the

territory, but asserts that while the United States occupies it, they

have 揷omplete jurisdiction and control?over the land.

It difficult to call an agreement between a world power and a

conquered colony a treaty, but it has governed operations there ever

since. Only a few restrictions were placed on U.S. freedom of

operation, even when the treaty was updated in 1934. The document

stipulated that the site could only be used for the purposes outlined

and prohibited the U.S. from conducting private enterprise there. The

U.S. granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay

and agreed to pay Havana $2,000 in gold per year. Finally, the two

countries promised to return fugitives from justice who crossed into

the others?territory.

As U.S. Navy Rear Admiral M.E. Murphy, a military historian, put it in his 1953 History of Guantanamo Bay:

the land is bit of American territory, and so it will probably

remain as long as we have a Navy.?He goes on to note e have a lease

in perpetuity to this Naval reservation and it is inconceivable that we

would abandon it.?/p>

And we have not abandoned it.

After the Revolution

When Washington close ally Fulgencio Batista was overthrown by the

Cuban Revolution in 1958, the relationship between the U.S. base and

the nation it occupied changed dramatically. When Batista fled to Spain

(where he lived the rest of his life in luxury), thousands of Cubans

with ties to his regime sought refuge on the base, and the rest of the

island was deemed off limits to U.S. servicemen and civilians in 1959.

Washington cut diplomatic relations in 1961.

In February 1964, two years after the Cuban missile crisis, Cuban

President Fidel Castro cut water and supply lines to the base and since

then, the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay has been self-sufficient.

It is outfitted with a de-salinization plant to produce water, and

windmills and other technology produce all of the base electricity.

In 2002, the first 揺nemy combatants?in the global war on terrorism

landed at the Base. But this was not the first time the U.S. had

confined internationals at the base. In the early 1990s, civil unrest

in Haiti and economic crisis in Cuba drove tens of thousands of people

from both countries to seek refuge in the United States. In little

boats overcrowded with migrants, these people set off from the United

States ?only to end up at Guantanamo Bay.

As many as 45,000 migrants were rocessed?through the base, with many

of the Haitians sent home to deprivation and the majority of the Cubans

granted asylum.

揌onor Bound to Defend Freedom?/h3>

揌onor Bound to Defend Freedom?strong> is the proud sentiment emblazoned above the entrance to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo. The website

for the Commander of Navy Installations Command Guantanamo features a

large picture of an iguana and the greeting: elcome to the website

for the oldest overseas U.S. Naval Station and the only one in a

country with which the U.S. does not maintain diplomatic relations.?/p>

Navy Commander Jeffery D. Gordon explains that the U.S. presence at

Guantanamo serves vital role in Caribbean regional security,

protection from narco-trafficking and terrorism and safeguards against

mass migration attempts in unseaworthy craft.?The Navy Atlantic

fleet is based there and the base is described as being 搊n the front

lines of the battle for regional security.?/p>

Changing the Rationale

The military aggressively makes the case for the base. Eighty years

ago, Guantanamo was crucial to colonial expansion and the smooth

extraction of resources from Latin America; 30 years ago, it would have

been justified as playing a key role in supporting anti-democratic

regimes in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. More recently, the

war on drugs served as rationale.

But, before 2001, the number of military personnel stationed at the base had dwindled to about 300. And many saw Guantanamo greatest value as a carrot to dangle before the Cuban people in Washington long project to unseat Fidel Castro. Part of the 1996 Helms Burton Act

(the chief aim of which was to strengthen and continue to U.S. trade

related embargo on Cuba) ?for example ?offered to open negotiations

with a emocratically elected Cuban government?to return the base at

Guantanamo to Cuba or redefine the lease.

Then, Washington decided that the Guantanamo base would be an ideal

place to try and hide war on terrorism detainees from the law and

public scrutiny. And planeloads of shackled prisoners wearing

blacked-out goggles, noise canceling headphones, and orange jumpsuits

began landing at the U.S. base. Initially, many were housed in

chain-link cages. In June 2005, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

told reporters that the Pentagon had invested $100 million

to construct new prisons and barracks and upgrade other facilities.

Operating the base and the prison cost another $95 million a year. For

U.S. soldiers and Marines stationed there, Guantanamo is a slice of the

American mall culture transported to coastal Cuba ?there is a weekly

newspaper, The Guantanamo Bay Gazette, a movie theater that

offers current films like 揑 Am Legend?and he Spiderwick

Chronicles.?McDonalds and Starbucks are both on base.

With no end in sight to the global war on terrorism, more than 8,000

military personnel are now based at Guantanamo. So, for the time being,

the military has a new way to fend off calls to shut down the U.S.

military base there. In a January 2007 interview on C-SPAN, Charles

Stimson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee

Affairs, justified the U.S. base at Guantanamo, saying 揑t is important during time of war

to have a place where, number one, you can take people off the

battlefield and not allow them to go back to the battlefield, but also,

exploit intelligence that they may possess?Guantanamo today remains

the key strategic intelligence platform in the war on terror.?/p>

o my knowledge, the Cubans have never officially asked for it

back?John Regan, the acting Officer at the State Department Cuba

Desk, is quoted as saying in an April 2007 Los Angeles Times

article. He goes on to say that they have not raised objections to the

presence of war on terrorism prisoners. He must not be listening very

closely.

In June 2002, at the United Nations General Assembly, Cuba demanded that the Guantamo territory be returned to the island. And two years later, Cuba

Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque proposed a resolution before the

United Nations Human Rights Commission that would have condemned the

violation of human rights at Guantanamo. More recently, these calls

have grown louder. In a December 2007 speech in Havana, Roque said: ?/strong>We

demand today, on the World Day of Human Rights, that the President of

the United States and that the U.S. Government close down the torture

center in Guantamo and return to our homeland the territory that they

occupy illegally.?Cuba protests in other ways as well. The U.S.

Treasury continues to pay the 揼old?that Roosevelt promised 105 years

ago. Annual checks for $4,085 are deposited into an account for the

Cuban government, but not a single one has been cashed in 47 years.

Toxic Brand

Cuba doesn like Guantanamo, and many in the administration agree

that the detention facility has become a problem. During Robert Gates?
first week as Secretary of Defense following the resignation of Donald

Rumsfeld, he argued that the detention facility should be closed,

pointing out that the U.S. image abroad is so tainted that any legal

proceedings for detainees at the base will be viewed as illegitimate.

He commented: 揑 think that Guantanamo has become symbolic,

whether we like it or not, for many around the world.?He also cut one

big zero off Rumsfeld plan to spend $100 million on new

infrastructure, resulting in a more modest (but still significant) $10

million expenditure for air-conditioned pods and other amenities for

the military commissions hearings.

President George W. Bush acknowledges Guantanamo as a problem too, saying during a June 2006 press conference:

揑抎 like to close Guantanamo. No question: Guantanamo sends a signal

to some of our friends and provides an excuse ?for example, to say the

United States is not upholding the values that they抮e trying to

encourage other countries to adhere to.?Despite his claims to being

the ecider in chief,?Bush has not taken any executive steps to

change the signal we are sending.

What is at the heart of the administration discomfort with Guantanamo? It is not torture ?President Bush just vetoed a law

that would have prohibited water-boarding. It is certainly not respect

for Cuba sovereignty ?the State Department has a whole office

devoted to meddling in the country affairs. It is the PR problem. In

March of last year, William Taft, a former State Department adviser,

testified before the House of Representatives on Guantanamo. He

acknowledged that the logistical advantages of housing prisoners at

Guantanamo are outweighed by the olitical costs of continuing its

operation. At some point a brand becomes so toxic that no amount of Madison Avenue talent can rehabilitate it.?/p>

One solution is to give the base back to Cuba. But, Julia Sweig,

the Director for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign

Relations, is not sure Havana would want it back, saying 搃t become

such a global symbol of what has gone wrong with America ?not just a

symbol of our colonial impulses, but of the anti-imperialist fight

throughout Latin America ?it is something Cuba uses to greater benefit

than getting the base back.?Rhetorical benefits are of value ?but you

can eat, trade or wield geo-political power with rhetoric.

What Next?

But closing the prison and relinquishing control of the territory are two completely different things. Can Cuba get Guantanamo Bay back?

The Guantanamo prison is not a hot-button campaign issue. Lee

Feinstein, Director of National Security for Senator Hillary Clinton

campaign, says that s President, she would direct the Justice

Department to evaluate the evidence amassed against these prisoners and

make a determination.?Not exactly a rousing and definitive call to

shut down Guantanamo, but at least she has a process. For his part,

Senator Barack Obama does not see the need for military justice

proceedings there, asserting 揑 believe that our civilian courts or our

traditional system of military courts-martial are best able to meet

this challenge and demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law.?On

the Republican side, Senator John McCain has pushed for Guantanamo to

be closed and the prisoners sent to maximum security prison in Ft.

Leavenworth, Kentucky.

On the larger issue of U.S.-Cuba relations, Obama favors engagement

and dialogue without preconditions, while Clinton would predicate

diplomatic overtures on Cuba steps towards democratization. McCain

holds the position that U.S. containment policy has worked, and he

would not talk to Cuba until they held free elections and released

political prisoners and made other reforms.

Returning the occupied territory to Cuba has not been mentioned as

an option by Presidential candidates, and it is not high on the list of

objectives in Cuba policy circles. Close Cuba-watcher Patrick Doherty ?
the Deputy Director of the New America Foundation American Strategy Program

?predicts it would come up only in he later stages of a long-term

process of rapprochement.?That because, in addition to the

geographic value of an American military base at Guantanamo, Doherty

says 搊ne of our most effective areas of quiet cooperation with the

Cuban government is at the mil-mil level in managing our presence and

operations out of Guantanamo?and working on counter narcotics,

counter-crime, and general Caribbean security issues. Without many

other vehicles for official dialogue, Guantanamo, ironically, is acting

like a confidence-building measure.?/p>

Some international law experts assert that the United States is in

violation of the treaty made with Cuba and that could be the basis of a

movement to win the territory back. Dr. Alfredo de Zayas,

a professor of international law at the Geneva School for Diplomacy,

argues that even before looking at specific violations, the treaty can

be nullified because, he lease for the military base in a foreign

country is conditioned on the friendly relations between states.?While

relations between Cuba and the United States were friendly at the time

of the treaty, that is no longer the case. De Zayas also asserts that

the treaty is 搗oidable by virtue of a material breach,?because it

clearly stipulates that the area should be used for naval purposes

(coaling refers to re-fueling naval vessels when they were steam

powered) and 揻or no other purpose?including housing war on terrorism

detainees. Additionally, the treaty bars the United States from

establishing 揷ommercial, industrial or other enterprises?but the base

is home to McDonalds, Starbucks, Subway sandwiches, and other

commercial enterprises, another material breach.

While Washington does not make a habit of abiding by the treaty or

its obligations under it, the 1903 agreement was repeatedly cited as a

reason to keep Guantanamo detainees and their cases out of U.S. courts.

During Supreme Court hearings for Rasul vs. Bush and Al Odah vs. United States,

government lawyers argued that under the 1903 treaty and the 1934

revisions, the United States 搑ecognizes the continuance of the

ultimate sovereignty?of Cuba over Guantanamo and that the base is thus

搉ot part of the sovereign territory of the United States,?and

therefore not under U.S. law, meaning that the prisoners at Guantanamo

should not be allowed access to U.S. courts.

In 2004, the Supreme Court rejected those arguments, but the legal fight continues.

Shut it Down

The decision of what to do with the prisoners at Guantanamo will

most likely be left to the next administration. Washington policy and

attitude towards Cuba will also be shaped by the next person to sit

behind the big desk in the Oval Office. The next steps in the global

war on terrorism; a major change (up or down) in the size, scope and

objective of the U.S. occupation of Iraq; a shift in how (or if)

we communicate and cooperate with the rest of the world; an exploration

of the effectiveness of U.S. military might in resolving problems:

these pressing issues will be seen through new eyes post-November 2008.

The U.S. military occupation and control of territory ?from

Guantanamo to Germany to Okinawa and beyond ?should be included in

this reckoning. Shutting down Guantanamo ?not just the prison where

men are tortured, abused, and held in contravention of U.S. and

international law, but the sprawling colonial-holdover enterprise that

the United States came to control and continues to occupy

illegitimately and illegally ?would be a huge symbolic step towards

the rule of law, respect for other nations and the dawning recognition

that military might is a tool of last resort not first assault. One

hundred and five years later, the time has more than come.

Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate at the Arms and Security Project of the New America Foundation.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Guantanamo: The Bigger Picture

Monday, March 17th, 2008

by Frida Berrigan

(Foreign Policy in Focus)The U.S. base at Guantanamo has been called many things. The ?a href=”http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/26/usa.guantanamo”>gulag of our time?(Amnesty International General Secretary Irene Khan, May 2005). he key strategic intelligence platform in the war on terror?(Charles Stimson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, January 2007). The ?a href=”http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/op_ed/posner_speech_0403.htm”>legal equivalent of outer space?(unnamed Administration official). The right place for ?a href=”http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20020127-1.html”>the worst of a very bad lot?(Vice President Dick Cheney, January 2002) and for the ?a href=”http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-15-gitmo-freed_x.htm”>most dangerous, best trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth?(former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, January 2002).

Guantanamo is now best known as the home of oversized iguanas, banana rats, and the more than 700 揺nemy combatants?who have been detained,

tortured, and interrogated there over the past six years as part of the

Bush administration global war on terrorism. But, the history of the

U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay stretches much further back ?to the

beginning of the last century ?when the United States wrestled this

prime real-estate from Spain to become the colonial power in the hemisphere.

Twenty-first century experiences at Guantanamo have now been exposed in a sheaf of books, including difficult, vivid memoirs from former detainees and powerful poetry, and dramatized in plays and films, such as the best-documentary Oscar winner Taxi to the Dark Side and the critically-acclaimed Road to Guantanamo. The iconic orange jumpsuits are on display at every anti-war protest

and the word 揋uantanamo?is often used as shorthand for the Bush

administration whole system of indefinite detention, rendition,

torture, and abuse of power established since September 2001.

Harold and Kumar Escape Guantanamo

Calls to hut down Guantanamo?from legal and human rights experts, politicians, and the international community

are now strong, irrepressible and growing louder each day. At the same

time, the facility has finally penetrated pop culture. This spring,

movie-goers can enjoy the sequel of the 2004 slacker-stoner Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle.

In the new film, the two friends are arrested after smuggling a bong on

a flight to Amsterdam and end up at Guantanamo. Yep, the movie is titled: Harold and Kumar II: Escape from Guantanamo Bay. Promoted with the tag-line: his Time, They抮e Running from

the Joint,?the film is described as n irreverent and epic journey of

deep thoughts, deeper inhaling and a wild trip around the world that is

as 憉n-PC?as it gets.?/p>

Guantanamo is getting more attention (both outraged and outrageous),

but the question of how the United States came to control a swath of

Cuban territory is worth more discussion. If the Guantanamo prison is

shuttered tomorrow, and the prisoners get their day in court, the U.S.

base will continue to exist as a key colonial outpost in a

post-colonial world. Now that Fidel Castro has turned over power to his

brother Raul and the United States is again poised to emocratize?
socialist Cuba, this question has even greater resonance.

Booty from a 揝plendid Little War?/h3>

Perched on the south-eastern corner of Cuba, the U.S. Naval Base

straddles the deep water harbor of Guantanamo Bay and occupies 45

square miles of Cuban territory.

In 1898, the United States and Spain battled for control of Cuba and

other Spanish colonies in what Washington had come to see as part of

its phere of influence.?The Spanish-American War is known for the

Rough Riders and the 揜emember the Maine?call to arms (which refers to

the now historically suspect attack on the USS Maine battleship sunk in

the Havana Harbor). In a letter to his good friend Teddy Roosevelt, the

U.S. Ambassador to England dubbed it a plendid little war.?Ignoring

the countless (literally)

Cubans, Filipinos and others who were killed, one could see his point.

The United States won a lot in the war: it lasted less than four

months, resulted in the death of fewer than 1,000 U.S. soldiers and put

the United States in charge of Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam ?all former Spanish colonies ?and gave the United States control of Hawaii. The U.S. Navy also discovered the benefits of Guantamo Bay when they sought refuge from summer hurricanes. One hundred and ten years later, they are still there.

While the U.S. Congress promised Cuba independence after the war, the Platt Amendment

forced a peace treaty that granted the United States the right to

tabilize?the island militarily and established a permanent U.S.

naval base in Cuba.

Cuban-American Treaty

The Cuban-American Treaty

was signed in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt and Tomas Estrada

Palma, the President of Cuba ?a U.S. citizen fully backed by

Washington. According to the text of the treaty,

the U.S. military presence will 揺nable the United States to maintain

the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as

for its own defense, the Cuban Government will sell or lease to the

United States the lands necessary for coaling or naval stations.?The

treaty goes onto acknowledge Cuba 搖ltimate sovereignty?over the

territory, but asserts that while the United States occupies it, they

have 揷omplete jurisdiction and control?over the land.

It difficult to call an agreement between a world power and a

conquered colony a treaty, but it has governed operations there ever

since. Only a few restrictions were placed on U.S. freedom of

operation, even when the treaty was updated in 1934. The document

stipulated that the site could only be used for the purposes outlined

and prohibited the U.S. from conducting private enterprise there. The

U.S. granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay

and agreed to pay Havana $2,000 in gold per year. Finally, the two

countries promised to return fugitives from justice who crossed into

the others?territory.

As U.S. Navy Rear Admiral M.E. Murphy, a military historian, put it in his 1953 History of Guantanamo Bay:

the land is bit of American territory, and so it will probably

remain as long as we have a Navy.?He goes on to note e have a lease

in perpetuity to this Naval reservation and it is inconceivable that we

would abandon it.?/p>

And we have not abandoned it.

After the Revolution

When Washington close ally Fulgencio Batista was overthrown by the

Cuban Revolution in 1958, the relationship between the U.S. base and

the nation it occupied changed dramatically. When Batista fled to Spain

(where he lived the rest of his life in luxury), thousands of Cubans

with ties to his regime sought refuge on the base, and the rest of the

island was deemed off limits to U.S. servicemen and civilians in 1959.

Washington cut diplomatic relations in 1961.

In February 1964, two years after the Cuban missile crisis, Cuban

President Fidel Castro cut water and supply lines to the base and since

then, the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay has been self-sufficient.

It is outfitted with a de-salinization plant to produce water, and

windmills and other technology produce all of the base electricity.

In 2002, the first 揺nemy combatants?in the global war on terrorism

landed at the Base. But this was not the first time the U.S. had

confined internationals at the base. In the early 1990s, civil unrest

in Haiti and economic crisis in Cuba drove tens of thousands of people

from both countries to seek refuge in the United States. In little

boats overcrowded with migrants, these people set off from the United

States ?only to end up at Guantanamo Bay.

As many as 45,000 migrants were rocessed?through the base, with many

of the Haitians sent home to deprivation and the majority of the Cubans

granted asylum.

揌onor Bound to Defend Freedom?/h3>

揌onor Bound to Defend Freedom?strong> is the proud sentiment emblazoned above the entrance to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo. The website

for the Commander of Navy Installations Command Guantanamo features a

large picture of an iguana and the greeting: elcome to the website

for the oldest overseas U.S. Naval Station and the only one in a

country with which the U.S. does not maintain diplomatic relations.?/p>

Navy Commander Jeffery D. Gordon explains that the U.S. presence at

Guantanamo serves vital role in Caribbean regional security,

protection from narco-trafficking and terrorism and safeguards against

mass migration attempts in unseaworthy craft.?The Navy Atlantic

fleet is based there and the base is described as being 搊n the front

lines of the battle for regional security.?/p>

Changing the Rationale

The military aggressively makes the case for the base. Eighty years

ago, Guantanamo was crucial to colonial expansion and the smooth

extraction of resources from Latin America; 30 years ago, it would have

been justified as playing a key role in supporting anti-democratic

regimes in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. More recently, the

war on drugs served as rationale.

But, before 2001, the number of military personnel stationed at the base had dwindled to about 300. And many saw Guantanamo greatest value as a carrot to dangle before the Cuban people in Washington long project to unseat Fidel Castro. Part of the 1996 Helms Burton Act

(the chief aim of which was to strengthen and continue to U.S. trade

related embargo on Cuba) ?for example ?offered to open negotiations

with a emocratically elected Cuban government?to return the base at

Guantanamo to Cuba or redefine the lease.

Then, Washington decided that the Guantanamo base would be an ideal

place to try and hide war on terrorism detainees from the law and

public scrutiny. And planeloads of shackled prisoners wearing

blacked-out goggles, noise canceling headphones, and orange jumpsuits

began landing at the U.S. base. Initially, many were housed in

chain-link cages. In June 2005, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

told reporters that the Pentagon had invested $100 million

to construct new prisons and barracks and upgrade other facilities.

Operating the base and the prison cost another $95 million a year. For

U.S. soldiers and Marines stationed there, Guantanamo is a slice of the

American mall culture transported to coastal Cuba ?there is a weekly

newspaper, The Guantanamo Bay Gazette, a movie theater that

offers current films like 揑 Am Legend?and he Spiderwick

Chronicles.?McDonalds and Starbucks are both on base.

With no end in sight to the global war on terrorism, more than 8,000

military personnel are now based at Guantanamo. So, for the time being,

the military has a new way to fend off calls to shut down the U.S.

military base there. In a January 2007 interview on C-SPAN, Charles

Stimson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee

Affairs, justified the U.S. base at Guantanamo, saying 揑t is important during time of war

to have a place where, number one, you can take people off the

battlefield and not allow them to go back to the battlefield, but also,

exploit intelligence that they may possess?Guantanamo today remains

the key strategic intelligence platform in the war on terror.?/p>

o my knowledge, the Cubans have never officially asked for it

back?John Regan, the acting Officer at the State Department Cuba

Desk, is quoted as saying in an April 2007 Los Angeles Times

article. He goes on to say that they have not raised objections to the

presence of war on terrorism prisoners. He must not be listening very

closely.

In June 2002, at the United Nations General Assembly, Cuba demanded that the Guantamo territory be returned to the island. And two years later, Cuba

Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque proposed a resolution before the

United Nations Human Rights Commission that would have condemned the

violation of human rights at Guantanamo. More recently, these calls

have grown louder. In a December 2007 speech in Havana, Roque said: ?/strong>We

demand today, on the World Day of Human Rights, that the President of

the United States and that the U.S. Government close down the torture

center in Guantamo and return to our homeland the territory that they

occupy illegally.?Cuba protests in other ways as well. The U.S.

Treasury continues to pay the 揼old?that Roosevelt promised 105 years

ago. Annual checks for $4,085 are deposited into an account for the

Cuban government, but not a single one has been cashed in 47 years.

Toxic Brand

Cuba doesn like Guantanamo, and many in the administration agree

that the detention facility has become a problem. During Robert Gates?
first week as Secretary of Defense following the resignation of Donald

Rumsfeld, he argued that the detention facility should be closed,

pointing out that the U.S. image abroad is so tainted that any legal

proceedings for detainees at the base will be viewed as illegitimate.

He commented: 揑 think that Guantanamo has become symbolic,

whether we like it or not, for many around the world.?He also cut one

big zero off Rumsfeld plan to spend $100 million on new

infrastructure, resulting in a more modest (but still significant) $10

million expenditure for air-conditioned pods and other amenities for

the military commissions hearings.

President George W. Bush acknowledges Guantanamo as a problem too, saying during a June 2006 press conference:

揑抎 like to close Guantanamo. No question: Guantanamo sends a signal

to some of our friends and provides an excuse ?for example, to say the

United States is not upholding the values that they抮e trying to

encourage other countries to adhere to.?Despite his claims to being

the ecider in chief,?Bush has not taken any executive steps to

change the signal we are sending.

What is at the heart of the administration discomfort with Guantanamo? It is not torture ?President Bush just vetoed a law

that would have prohibited water-boarding. It is c